本研究旨在依據N. A. Flanders之師生互動分析系統（Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System，FIAC），探討科展績優教師與一般教師師生互動行為（pupil-teacher interaction behavior）的差異，及其教學行為對學生科學知識、創造力與問題解決能力的影響。本研究主要目的為：（1）比較不同科展競賽經驗之教師在自然科教學時，師生互動行為的差異情形。（2）比較學生對不同科展競賽經驗教師教師行為的知覺差異情形。（3）比較不同科展競賽經驗教師之學生在科學知識表現的差異情形。（4）比較不同科展競賽經驗教師之學生在創造力的差異情形。（5）比較不同科展競賽經驗教師之學生在問題解決能力的差異情形。
本研究之樣本，教師部分，遴選六位高雄市市區、郊區國小五年級自然科專任教師，其中三位教師曾於1996 ~ 2001年間（即36 ~ 41屆）參加全國中小科學展覽競賽，獲獎三次以上，為績優教師組；另三位未曾參加科展競賽之教師，為一般教師組。學生部份，則為參與本研究教師之教學班級的學生，各一班，共205人。研究工具，教師部分，以Flanders之師生互動分析系統進行教室觀察、晤談，另藉著學生知覺教師行為量表，進行三角驗證；學生部份則施以、「創造力測驗」、「問解決測驗」，並蒐集學生之自然科學期成績。資料之分析採用，t考驗、單因子變異數分析、單因子多變量分析等統計方法。研究結果如下：
一、科展績優教師之師生互動品質顯著優於一般教師。科展績優教師在鼓勵、問問題、學生主動反應、間接影響行為方面顯著優於一般教師。
二、科展績優教師之教學風格優於一般教師。科展績優教師在發問策略、班級經營、合作學習、多元化刺激、開放經驗、接受挑戰、科學驗證精神等教學行為品質優於一般教師。
三、科展績優教師之學生普遍覺得績優教師表現較良好的教學行為。科展績優教師之學生在獨立學習、合作學習、基本知能、延後判斷、彈性思考、學生自評、學生問題、學習機會、經歷挫折等方面顯著優於一般教師之學生。
四、科展績優教師之學生的創造力表現優於一般教師之學生。科展績優教師組學生語文創造力之流暢力、變通力、獨創力與圖形創造力之流暢力、獨創力等表現皆優於一般教師組學生。
五、科展績優教師組學生之觀察問題、界定問題、分析問題、解決問題的能力皆顯著優於一般教師組學生。

The purpose of this research is to probe into the differences of pupil-teacher interaction behaviors between award teachers and general teachers, and to examine the effect of the teaching behavior towards the student’s science knowledge, creativity and problem solving abilities. The objectives of this research are 1) To compare the differences between pupil-teacher interactions in teachers with experiences in different science exhibition competitions, 2) To compare students with various levels of awareness towards the behavior of teachers who have experiences in different science exhibition competitions, 3) To compare the levels of science knowledge in students taught by teachers who have experiences in different science exhibition competitions, 4) To compare the differences of students’ creativity taught by teachers who have experiences in different science exhibition competitions, and 5) To compare the difference in students’ problem solving.
The samples selected in this research included 6 teachers chosen from Grade 5 Level in schools in the suburbs of Kaohsiung City. Three of these teachers, referred to as Award teachers, had participated in the National Science Competition in Taiwan on multiple occasions and won at least 3 times each. The remaining 3 teachers, referred to as General teachers, had never participated in this competition. Subjects in this research were a total of 205 students of the selected teachers. The tools used in this research, with regard to the teachers, were the processes of class observation and interview using the Flanders pupil-teacher interaction analysis system and process triangulation using the Student Inspection Creativity Fostering Teacher Index. For analysis of the students, we collected the students’ results and tested them using a Creativity Thinking Test and Creative Problem Solving-Form B, and analyzed the data by using a t-test, a one-way ANOVA and a one-way MANOVA.

The results indicated that:
1.The award teachers are better than the general teachers in regard to the quality of pupil-teacher interactions. The award teachers encouraged the asking of questions and students’ active participation more than general teachers did.
2.The teaching style of the award teachers is generally better than that of the general teacher. Award teachers tend to excel in their question strategy, class management and cooperative learning skills. They challenge their students and offer diverse stimulation, while harnessing the students’ spirit towards science.
3.The students from the award teachers’ class generally agree that the award teachers’ performance is better than that of the general teachers. The students in the award teachers’ class tend to achieve more than those under general teachers in independent learning, cooperative learning, basic knowledge, delay judgment, flexible thinking, students’ self evaluation, students’ questions, learning opportunity and setback experience.
4.The level of creativity of students in the award teachers’ class is generally higher than that of the students in general teachers’ class. The students in the award teachers’ class generally have higher levels of fluency, flexibility and originality of verbal and figurative creativity than those in general teachers’ class.
5.The students in the award teacher’s class are better than those in the general teachers’ class in the abilities of problem observation, problem analysis and problem solving.

目次
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機………………………………………..…………….1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………..…………...5
第三節 名詞解釋……………………………………………..……….6
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 創造力相關理論基礎…………………………………...…..9
第二節 問題解決相關理論基礎…………………………………....15
第三節 創造力、問題解決能力與科學知識間的關係…..……...….19
第四節 教師教學行為…………………………………………….….21
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構………………………………………………….….27
第二節 研究假設………………………………………….……….…29
第三節 研究樣本………………………………………………….….31
第四節 研究設計………………………………………………….….33
第五節 研究工具………………………………………………….….35
第六節 研究步驟………………………………………………….….40
第七節 資料分析………………………………………………….….42

第四章 研究結果（一）
第一節 績優組與一般組師生互動行為差異分析……………...….44
第二節 績優組與一般組學生教師行為知覺之差異比較…………..53
第三節 績優組與一般組教師師生互動風格之比較、詮釋…….….56
第四節 績優組與一般組教師之訪談檔案分析比較…………….….74
第四章 研究結果（二）
第一節 績優組與一般組學生科學知識之差異比較…………….….79
第二節 績優組與一般組學生創造力之差異比較……………….….80
第三節 績優組與一般組學生問題解決能力之差異比較……….….86
第五章 研究結果之討論
第一節 教師行為……………………………………………………..89
第二節 學生表現………………………………………………….….99
第六章 結論與建議
第一節 主要發現…………………………………………………....102
第二節 結論………………………………………………………....104
第三節 建議………………………………………………………....105
參考書目………………………………………………………………….…..107
附錄
附錄一 學生知覺教師行為量表之修訂………………………………..….118
附錄二 問題解決測驗乙式………………………………………………….121
附錄三 學生知覺教師行為量表…………………..………………..…….133

中文部分：
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台（2001）。創造力研究。台北：心理出版社。
王千倖（1999）。「合作學習」和「問題導向學習」---培養教師及學生的科學創造力。教育資料與研究，28，31-39。
王文中、鄭英耀(2000)。創造力發展量表之編製與試題反應分析。測驗年刊，47（1），153-173。
王金國（2000）。表現有效教學行為，發揮小班教學精神。國教輔導，40(2)，20-24。
王振德（1997）。創造力三面模式評介---兼論創造力的本質與研究取向。資優教育季刊，64，1-5。
朱匯森（1983）。我國資賦優異教育的發展。明日世界，106，27。
行政院經濟建設委員會（2000）。專題研究特刊第3號。台北：經建會綜合計畫處。
吳明隆（1998）。新時代中有效能的教師行為之探究。教育實習輔導季刊，4 (1)，73-79。
吳培安（1995）。「問題解決」式的科技教育教學模式。教師之友，36(2)，12-19。
吳靜吉（1981）。拓弄思語文創造思考測驗乙式的簡介，台灣教育，367，17-21。
吳靜吉、高泉豐、王敬仁、丁興祥（1981）。拓弄思圖形創造思考測驗（甲式）指導與研究手冊。台北：遠流出版社。
吳靜吉、高泉豐、王敬仁、丁興祥（1981）。拓弄思語文創造思考測驗（乙式）指導與研究手冊。台北：遠流出版社。
吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺（1999）。新編創造思考測驗研究。學生輔導，62，132-146。
呂木琳（1991）。幾種教室觀察系統的介紹和比較。在高雄師範大學教育學院編，國際性「學校有效教學與管理」學術研習會中文論文集（頁1-13）。高雄市：編者。
李大偉、張玉山(2000a)。科技創造力的意涵與教學(上)。生活科技教育，9，9-16。
李大偉、張玉山(2000b)。科技創造力的意涵與教學(下)。生活科技教育，10，7-14。
李基常、王繼正（1998）。創造性問題解決的專題製作教學。技職雙月刊，45，39-44。
李隆盛（1995）。國中工藝/生活科技學策略之研究。行政院國家科學委員會。
汪榮才（1977）。教師行為與兒童學習之關係。花蓮師專學報，9，1-21。
汪榮才（1979）。教師行為、學生制握信念與學業成就。台南師專學報，12，111-131。
林建仲、鄭宗文（2001）。合作式學習與問題解決---培養以問題解決為中心的網路合作學習。資訊與教育雜誌，85，55-62。
林清山（1978）。教學情境的社會互動分析。教育學研究（頁519-534），台北：偉文。
林進材（1998）。教師效能的研究及其在教學上的應用。教育資料文摘，41（1），134-147。
洪文東（1997）。創造性思考與科學創造力的培養。國教天地，123，10-14。
洪文東（2000）。從問題解決的過程培養學生的科學創造力。屏師科學教育，11，52-62。
洪文東（2002）。創造型兒童之思考特性與科學創造力的關聯性。屏東師院學報，16，355-394。
洪榮昭、曾愛晶(1999)。培養創造性問題解決能力之教學策略探討。台灣教育，47-56。
唐偉成、江新合（1998）。以問題解決為導向的教學理念與模式。屏師科學教育，8，12-28。
孫仲山（1996）。師生互動的教學理論。高市文教，57，38-41。
孫敏芝（1989）。教師期望與師生交互作用：一個國小教室的觀察。高雄市：復文。
徐蓓蓓（1983）。教師個人特質、師生口語互動與學生對教師行為知覺、學生學業成就之關係研究。教育心理學報，16，99-114。
張玉成（1993）。思考技巧與教學。台北：心理。
張俊彥、翁玉華（2000）。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊，8（1），35-55。
張德銳（1994）。國小教師教室管理評鑑系統之研究。初等教育學刊，3，29-57。
教育部（2001）。國民中小學課程綱要：自然與生活科技學習領域。教育部網站（國民中小學九年一貫課程與教學網站）資料。
郭生玉（1970）。教師期望與教師行為及學生學習行為關係之分析。教育心理學報，13，133-152。
郭明堂（1989）。佛蘭德斯。高市文教，37，34-36。
陳玉蘭（1999）。國中師生度有效教學行為之意見調查研究。教育學刊，15，171-225。
陳龍安（1995）。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北：心理。
湯偉君、邱美虹（1999）。創造性問題解決（CPS）模式的沿革與應用。科學教育月刊，223，2-20。
黃明月（1988）。教師期望、教師行為與學生學業成就關係。師友月刊，34-36。
黃惇勝（2000）。創新思考工程與探索行問題解決策略。泰山職訓學報，3，1-28。
楊坤原（1999）。問題解決在科學學習成就評量上的應用。科學教育月刊，216，3-16。
詹秀美（1989）。問題解決能力的訓練與評量。資優教育，32，13-16。
詹秀美（1990）。影響創造力的環境因素。資優教育季刊，34，15-20。
詹秀美、吳典武（1991）。問題解決測驗指導手冊。台北：心理。
詹焜能（2001）。兒童創造性問題解決歷程之個案研究--「永動機」的製作。科學教育研究與發展，25，17-28。
劉威德（1999）。教師教學信念系統之分析及其教學行為關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。（未出版）。
劉曜源（1999）。國小學生問題解決能力之探討。國教天地，136，24-29。
鄭英耀、王文中(2002)。影響科學競賽績優教師創意行為之因素。應用心理研究，15，163-189。
鄭英耀、王文中、周宛俞(2002)。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展—以國小自然科為例（國科會專題研究計畫期中成果報告，NSC90-2511-S-110-005-。（未出版）
鄭英耀、張川木、王文中(2002)。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展—以國小自然科為例（國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC90-2511-S-110-005-。（未出版）
簡紅珠（1992）。有效教學的質素之一：良好的教學溝通技巧。國教世紀，27（4），38-41。
羅素貞（1996）。問題表徵與問題解決。屏東師院學報，9，149-176。
蘇懿生（2003）。融入概念發展的創造性問題解決教學模式對高中生物科的教學成效研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。（未出版）。

西文部份：
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press
Abdallah, A. (1996). Fostering creativity in student teachers. Community Review, 14,52-58.
Ackers, J. & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary school. Compare, 31(2), 245-261.
Ackers, J. & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary school. Compare, 31(2), 245-261.
Anderson, D. R. (2002). Creative teachers: Risk, responsibility, and love. Journal of Education, 183(1), 33-48.
Casey, B. M., & Tucker, E.C. (1994). Problem-centered classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2), 139-143.
Chang C. Y. (2002). Dose computer-assisted instruction＋problem solving＝improved science outcomes？ A pioneer study. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 143-150.
Chang, C. Y., & Weng, Y. H. (2002). An exploratory study on students'' problem-solving ability in earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (5), 441-451.
Cheng, S. K. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118-134.
Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. (2002). Student-generated questions: a meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.
Combs, A. W. (1981). What the future demands of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(5), 369-372.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco. (Ed.) Creativity research handbook, 1, 83-114, Cresskill, N. J. : Hampton Press.
Cropley, A. J. (1999). Creativity and cognition: Producing effective novelty. Roeper Review, 21(4), 253-260.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning : a guide for teachers and educators. London : Kogan Page ; Sterling, VA : Stylus. p.50
de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153.
Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Galton, M. (2002). Continuity and progression in science teaching at key stages 2 and 3. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 249-265.
Gentry, M. & Springer, P. M. (2002). Secondary student perceptions of their class activities regarding meaningful, challenge, choice, and appeal: An initial validation study. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(4), 192-204.
Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L. & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.
Gow, G. (2000). Understanding and teaching creativity. Tech. Direction, 59(6), 32-34.
Grossman, S. R., & Wiseman, E. E. (1993). Seven operating principles for enhanced creative problem solving training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 1-17.
Guildford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 4, 185.
Guildford, J. P. (1977). Way begond the IQ. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education oundation.p.161.
Guildford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses and development. New York: Bearly.
Harty, H., Kloosterman, P. & Matkin, J. (1991). Science problem solving approaches in elementary school classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 10-14.
Hoff, E.V., & Carlsson, I. (2002). Shining lights or lone wolves? Creativity and self-image in primary school children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(1), 17-39.
Hoover, S. M. (1994). Scientific problem finding in gifted fifth-grade students. Roeper Review, 16(3),156-159.
House, J. D. (2000). Relationship between instructional activities and science achievement of adolescent students in Hong Kong: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), 275-288.
Hu, W. P., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 389-403.
Irene, A., & Elpida, K. (1999).Student teachers’ about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225-243.
Isaksen ,S. G., & Parnes, S. J.(1985). Curriculum planning for creative thinking and problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(1), 1-29.
Isaksen, S. G., Kenneth, J. L., Ekvall, G. & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171-184.
Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L. & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environment in Korea. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 239-249.
Kline, C. E. & Sorge, D. H. (1974).How Effective Is Interaction Analysis Feedback on the Verbal Behavior of Teachers? Research Reports, 32(1), 55-62.
Lee, K. W., Tan, L. L., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Chin, C. (2000). Science teachers and problem solving in elementary schools in Singapore. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 113-126.
Lin, H. S., Hung, J. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students'' problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453-464.
Marlow (2002). Assessing teacher attitudes in teaching science. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(1), 25-28.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.
Mayer, R.E. (2001).Cognitive, metacognitive ,and motivational sspects of problem solving. Motivation In Learning And Instruction. New York , NY, U.S.A.
Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 26(1), 25-29.
Merritt, M. & Humphrey, F. (1979). Teacher, talk, and task: communicative demands during individualized instruction time. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 298-303.
Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107-114.
Mumford, M. D., Decker, B. P., Connelly, M. S., Osburn, H. K. & Scott, G. (2002). Beliefs and creative performance: Relationship across three tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 153-181.
Nind, M., Kellet, M. & Hopkins, V. (2001). Teacher’s talk styles: communicating with learners with severe and complex learning difficulties. Child Language Teaching Therapy, 17(2), 143-159.
Orsolini, M. & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children’s talk in classroom discussions. Cogntion And Instruction, 9(2),113-136.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guildebook. New York: Charles Scribner`s Sons.
Peterson, R. E. (2002). Establishing the creative environment in technology education. Technology Teacher, 61(4), 7-10.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Robert, D. (1997). How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .U.S. Virginia.
Rose, J. & Medway, F. J. (1981). Teacher locus of control, teacher behavior, and student behavior as determinants of student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 74(6),375-381.
Sewell, A. M., Fuller, S., Murphy, R. C., Funnell, B.H.(2002). Creative problem solving: A means to authentic and purposeful social studies. Social Studies, 93(4), 176-179.
Shahrin, M., Toh , K. A., Ho, B. T., & Wong , J. (2002). Performance assessment :Is creative thinking necessary? Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(2), 77-87.
Simpliciom, J. S. C. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680.
Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003). Using computerized observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction. Educational Studies, 29(1), 39-47.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Identifying and developing creative giftedness. Roeper Review, 23(2), 60-64.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stuhlman, M. W. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ narratives about children: associations with behavior in classroom. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 148-163.
Tan, A. G. (2001). Singaporean teachers’ perception of activities useful for fostering creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,35(2), 131-148.
Torrance, E. P. & Mayers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. NYC: Dodd, Mead. p.22.
Van der Sijde, P. C. & Tomic, W. (1992).The influence of a teacher training program on student perception of classroom climate. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(3), 287-295.
Victor, R., Jenaro, G., Carlos, F., & Amparo, V. (2002). Spanish teachers'' views of the goals of science education in secondary education. Research in Science & Technological Education. 20(1), 39-52.
Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 127-138.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanvich.
Williams, W. C. (1980). Pupil role and verbal ”following behaviors”. Education, 100(4), 326-335.
Xiang, P., Lowy, S., & McBride, R. (2002). The impact of a field-base elementary physical education method course on preservice classroom teachers’ belief. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 145-161.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/ Technology/ Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: Sate University of New York, U. S. A.
Yager, R. E. et al. (1992). Science/ Technology/ Society as reform of science in the elementary school. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 1-13.
Yau, C.（1991）.An essential interrelationship: Healthy self-esteem and productive creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 154-161.
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G . R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151-167.