以非教育領域的父母來說，績優與資優其實是難以分辨的，本研究原為探究受歡迎資優教師教學歷程，藉由視域融合的方式導正視域的偏向。研究過後，考量研究對象的特質及教學廣度後，與口試委員及受訪者研議，將目的變更為探究典範資優教師教學理念與實踐，來了解資優教育實際執行的情形。研究採個案研究方式，使用非參與觀察法、非結構式訪談、輔以研究者之檢核表做資料比對。本研究參與者為一位教學資歷三十年，任教於國小資源班之女性資優教師，進行一學期的資料收集。
觀課、訪談及檢核表的分析結果顯示：
一、典範資優教師特質裡，為自我專業養成之師傅教師等級，屬於典範教師。
二、在教學上以思考層面、發展重點層面做自我反思，進而立即修正自身的教學模式，營造出回應性的課室，是資優生學習過程中的促進者，也是資優教育中之實踐課室行動研究者。
三、教學以建構取向做設計，過程論的教學歷程，使用檔案評量與實作評量。教學行為目標偏向程序與後設方面的知識、形塑學生成就感及思維脈絡。是採創造力思考概念模式來設計課程，啟發學生創意思考，屬於一種創造力教學。
本研究發現研究對象能掌握區分性教學的精神，善於整合教學策略，熟悉資優生特質，能將學習需求和教學目標做連結，營造出回應性的課室，屬於一位資優的實踐課室行動研究者。最後提出對於資優教育相關單位及未來研究的參考建議。

For the parents not involved in education, it is difficult to distinguish between a meritorious teacher and an intellectual teacher. This study originally focused on what a desirable intellectual teacher went through when she taught her students as well as how the teacher corrected the deviation of horizons using fusion of horizons. Upon completion of research, however, the author found the importance of research subjects’ personal traits as well as the breadth of her lectures. Thus, the author discussed with the reviewers and the respondent, and with the approval granted by both reviewers and respondent, the author changed the paper’s title to “A Study of Intellectual Teachers’ Educative Philosophy and How They Put Their Philosophy into Practice”, concentrating on how the talented education program was carried out. In this study, case study method was employed and data was compared using non-participant observations, unstructured interviews as well as the checklists prepared by the author. A female intellectual teacher with 30 years of teaching experience in elementary school’s resource class was invited to participate in the research project throughout a semester, allowing the author to acquire the data needed for this study.

The results acquired from classroom observations, interviews and checklists were analyzed. Findings are listed as follows:

1. The intellectual teacher had unique personal traits featuring her mastership in instructions based on her professionalism, and with her mastership, the teacher is regarded as a model.
2. The intellectual teacher introspected about her performance based on her thoughts and her development priorities, and with her introspection, she immediately modified her instructive methods and thus created a responsive class. The intellectual teacher acted as a facilitator in the talented students’ learning process as well as an action researcher in the talented education program.
3. The intellectual teacher designed her instructions using a constructive approach, stressing the instructional process’ conformity to process theory, using portfolio assessment and performance evaluation in her instructional process. She designed her behavioral objective with emphasis on process and meta-related knowledge, helping students to shape their sense of accomplishment and to develop their thinking context. Moreover, the teacher designed the curriculum based on her creative thinking concept, inspiring students to think creatively with her creative instructions.

The teacher was thoroughly familiar with differentiated instructions, capable of integrating her instructional strategies and familiar with the talented students’ personal traits. She combined students’ needs and her instructional goals effectively, thus creating a responsive class. There is no doubt that she is an intellectual practitioner of classroom action research. Last but not least, recommendations on the talented education program are presented to the authority and future researchers for their reference.

一、 中文
吳武典(2013a)。臺灣資優教育四十年（一）：回首前塵。資優教育季刊，126，1-11。DOI： 10.6218/GEQ.2013.126.01-11
吳武典(2013b)。資優教育中的爭議與平議:全球視野，在地行動。資優教育論壇，11，1-15。
吳武典(2013c)。臺灣資優教育四十年（三）：惑與解惑。資優教育季刊，128，7-14。 DOI： 10.6218/GEQ.2013.128.07-14
吳武典、張芝萱(2009)。資優教育師資專業標準之建構。資優教育研究，9(2)，103-143。
李建承、邱惠姿、陳品儒(2008)。紐西蘭資優教育。特教論壇，8，56-65。
李隆盛(1999)。國中工藝教師採行適性教學的概況。生活科技教育，32(3)，2-4。
林秀珍(2016)。適性教學與輔導的教育哲學基礎：從教育的世俗性與神聖性談起。中等教育，67(1)，3-17。 DOI: 10.6249/SE.2016.67.1.02
胡心慈、林淑莉(2011)。特殊教育實習輔導教師與實習教師教學後的互動與反思。特殊教育研究學刊，36(3)，27 - 55。
胡夢蕾、李怡君(2004)。人格特質、學習型態與學習表現關係之研究-以臺灣餐旅教育學生為例。觀光研究學報，10(3)，1-22。 DOI：10.6267/JTLS.2004.10(3)1
徐玉浩(2007)。桃園縣國民小學教師多元文化教學信念與多元文化教學效能感之研究。教育行政與評鑑研究所(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統(系統編號：096TMTC5778001)
張雨霖(2016)。從「教創意適性學」到「適性教學創意」。中等教育，67(1)，36-55。
張雨霖、陳學志、徐芝君(2010)。教師創造力信念、創造力教學自我效能對創造力教學行為之影響。復興崗學報，99，151-172。
張春興(2013)。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐重修二版。臺北：東華。
張祿純(2009)。國中體育教師教學反思及教學創新關係之研究。國立臺灣體育大學論叢，20(1)，85 - 98。
教育部(2014a)。103年特殊教育統計年報。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2014b)。103年中華民國教育統計。臺北：教育部。
莊慶棋(2011)。大專學生木球學習表現之內在動機與成就動機之研究。休閒運動保健學報，1，91 - 101。 DOI： 10.6204/JRSHP.2011.01.09
郭為藩(1986)。教育的理念。臺北：文景。
郭靜姿(2013a)。人才培育，向下紮根－「適性揚才」理念如何落實？。臺灣教育，680，2-9。
郭靜姿(2013b)。如何實施資優學生的區分性教學。資優教育季刊，127，1-11。 DOI：10.6218/GEQ.2013.127.01-11
陳長益、張昇鵬、黃家杰、陳美芳、蔡桂芳、吳君珍、郭宗明、李乙明、呂金燮、張哲智(2009)。校本資優教育適才服務方案之行動研究。資優教育研究，9(2)，35-63。
陳若男、陳昭儀、潘裕豐(2008)。臺北市國民小學資優教育區分性教學之探究。資優教育研究，8(2)，1-22。
陳家雯(2016)。國小一般智能資優教育教師人格特質與教學效能之相關研究。特殊教育研究所(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統(系統編號：104NTNU5284040)
陳龍安(2008)。創造思考教學的理論與實際(簡明版)。臺北：心理。
陳瓊茶、謝鎮偉、王金蓮(2003)。運動成就動機與目標取向對運動學習表現及內在動機之影響。大專體育學術專刊，92，361 - 370。
鈕文英(2014)。質性研究方法與論文寫作修訂版。臺北：雙葉。
黃世鈺(2006)。早期介入一讓資優幼兒健全發展。高應科大人文社會科學學報，3，187-206。 ISBN:957-01-8270-9
黃政傑、張嘉育(2010)。讓學生成功學習：適性課程與教學之理念與策略。課程與教學季刊，13(3)，1-22。
黃雅琪(2009)。桃園縣國中教師人格特質、社會支持與幸福感之相關研究。教育研究所(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統(系統編號：098MCU05331014)
黃瑞琴(2010)。質的教與研究方法。臺北：心理。
黃慕周(2004)。受臺北市國小六年級學生歡迎之教師教學特質調查研究。課程與教學研究所(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統(系統編號：092NTPTC611041)
黃澤洋(2013)。資優教師專業角色與資優課程設計。資優教育季刊，128，1-6。 DOI： 10.6218/GEQ.2013.128.01-06
過修齊(2009)。臺灣資優教育政策之探究。學校行政雙月刊，63，154-175。
蔡美華(2015)。雲林縣學校轉型優質計畫對提升教師效能影響之研究－以兩所國小為例。教學專業發展數位學習研究所(碩士論文)。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統系統編號：104CCU01395023
蔡淑麗(2007)。人的自由意志行為教學計畫之理論與實踐。全人教育學報，1，頁39 - 72。
蔡碩穎(2013)。DISCOVER的內涵與應用。國小特殊教育，55，87-102。

二、 英文
Bloom, B. S. (1978). New views of the learners: Implications for instruction and curriculum. Educational Leadership, 35, 563-576.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children , 28(3) , 1-16.
Dick, W. Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005).The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Dikici, A., & Soh, K. (2015).Indexing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behaviour: Replication and Modification.Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures, 9(3) , 1-10. DOI：10.3968/7486
Gardner, H. (2006). On failing to grasp the core of MI theory: A response to Visser et al. Intelligence, 34(5), 503–505, 2006.DOI：10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.002.
Renzulli, J. S. (2004). The Multiple Menu Model for developing differentiated curriculum. The Korean journal of thinking & problem solving, 14(1), 75-85.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S.M. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Focus on Student Strengths and Interests.Gifted Education International, 26, 140-157.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED389141)