隨著科技快速發展與社會變遷，學校教育著重培養學生能夠運用科技，動手實作，創新設計，與具備團隊合作。資優教育因此從強調獨立學習及個人特殊表現的主軸，轉變為注重人際互動與團隊合作能力，然而國內少有探究合作學習情境對國小資優生科技創造力學習影響的研究。
本研究目的在探討資優生於合作學習情境中的科技創造力學習成效、小組合作互動情形、以及合作學習的感受。根據研究目的，研究問題在於探討資優生於小組創作數位科學玩具時，合作互動歷程與個人科技創造力表現、分組方式、小組合作互動情形、與小組科技創造力學習成果之關係。
本研究以苗栗縣某國小資優班三到六年級資優生為研究對象，共計十二位。研究首先進行數位科學玩具自造課程之個人創作教學，接著依據學生年級與個人科技創造力表現進行能力與混齡分組，實施為期九週的合作學習情境小組創作活動。研究蒐集質性與量化資料，包括教師觀察記錄表、個人創意作品評量表、小組創意作品評量表、合作省思單、合作歷程自評與互評問卷、合作感受度問卷、合作歷程教師評量表、以及活動錄音錄影檔。研究隨後根據學習活動資料進行資料分析。
研究發現：（一）資優生小組創作作品比個人創作作品在科技創造力歷程與創意面向提升（二）資優生的個人特性會影響小組合作互動表現，其中以開放式溝通向度分數最低（三）資優生小組在理想的溝通模式下，小組合作歷程分數較刻板的溝通模式高（四）資優生能展現出有效的團隊合作，其中高年級資優生多為領導者，中年級為被領導者、追隨者、小幫手或支持者（五）小組合作歷程因素對小組創意作品影響最大，個人科技創造力對小組創意作品有正面影響（六）資優生在合作學習情境中，大多表示正面的合作感受與學習收穫。
研究結論如下：（一）合作學習情境對國小資優生科技創造力學習有正面影響（二）小組合作互動為影響資優生科技創造力學習表現之重要因素（三）合作學習情境提供國小資優生扮演領導與被領導角色的機會，有助於培養學生的團隊合作能力。
研究建議未來研究方向可探討不同的合作學習策略運用、數位工具融入資優課程進行教學研究，以及引導低合作傾向資優生的有效教學策略。

With the rapidly development of science and technology in our society, the goal of public education emphasizes students’ inspire personality, the cultivation of talents with the creativity of applying scientific and technological theory to practical work, to innovate in design, and to have the capability of interpersonal interaction and teamwork. Gifted education also shifted from focusing on unique independent learning and individual special performance to interpersonal interaction and teamwork. However, little research has been conducted on the learning of scientific and technological creativity of gifted students in primary schools under the cooperative learning circumstance.
The purpose of this study was to explore the scientific and technological creativity learning and cooperation interaction of gifted students in cooperation learning, as well as the performance of individual scientific creativity of gifted students, the way of grouping, the situation of group cooperation and interaction, the relationship with the learning results of group scientific creativity, and the experience of cooperative learning after group creation of digital scientific toys.
Twelve students from grade third to sixth in Miaoli County were selected as research sample. The research procedures included, the personal creation teaching of the self-made curriculum of digital science toys was carried out; Then, the students were divided into three groups of ability and mixed age according to the studentsundefined grade and individual scientific and technological creativity performance; a nine-week cooperative learning group creation curriculum project was implemented. The qualitative and quantitative data including teacher observation record form, personal creative work rating scale, group creative work rating scale, cooperative thinking sheet, cooperation process self-assessment and mutual assessment questionnaire, cooperative receptivity questionnaire, etc. The teacher rating scale of the cooperation course and the recording and video file data were analyzed.
The findings of the study are as follows: (1) The gifted students’ creation is more innovative than the individual creation in the process of scientific and technological creativity and creative works. (2) The group with open communication orientation has the lowest score. The personal characteristics of the group members affected the performance of the group. (3) The score of the group with the ideal communication cooperation process is higher then the group with stilted communication pattern. (4) leaders in those three groups of were all senior gifted students, and the middle grade was the follower, helper or supporter. (5) "Personal scientific and technological creativity" and "group cooperation process" have a positive impact on the creative work of the group. Among them, the "group cooperation process" factor has the greatest influence on the group creative works. (6) Most of the gifted students get positive learning gains and cooperative experience feedback.
The conclusions are as follows: (1) The cooperative learning situation has a positive effect on the learning of the scientific and technological creativity of the gifted students in primary schools. (2) The group cooperation and interaction are important factors influencing the scientific and technological creativity learning performance of gifted students. (3) The cooperative learning situation provides primary school students with the opportunity to use leadership and accept leadership from others, and help develop the ability of students to work in teams.
Recommendation for further study was made that different cooperative learning strategies can be applied, and digital learning tools can be integrated into gifted courses for teaching research in the future, and effective teaching strategies to guide low-cooperative gifted students can also be explored in depth. It is expected that the results of this research will help the teachers to design and implement the collaborative learning curriculum for gifted students in the future.

一、中文文獻
于曉平（譯）（2014）。第17章合作學習和資優生。資賦優異學生教材教法（下）。臺北：華騰文化。
天下雜誌video(2007)。現代管理學之父彼得杜拉克Peter F. Drucker (1994)。2017/08/01取自https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaexIksSj44。
毛連塭（2008）。資優教育—課程與教學(第六版)。臺北：五南。
王保堤（2005）。設計導向課程對國中學生科技創造力影響之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
王保堤、游光昭、王鼎銘（2006）。設計導向課程對學生科技創造力影響之研究。新竹教育大學學報，22，77-103。
朱益賢（2006）。從科技素養到科技創造力。科技教育學報，1（1），66-100。
李乙明（譯）（2006）。人格特質對於藝術與科學創造力的影響。創造力Ⅱ應用。臺北：五南。
李函霙（2015）。5E探究式教學對國小五年級資優生批判思考能力與科技創造力之探索（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
李堅萍（2006）。培養科技創造力應重視實作技能的教學與自我效能的激發。生活科技月刊，39（8），21-28。
周家卉（2007）。D&T課程提升國中學生科技創造力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
林生傳（1992）。新教學理論與策略。臺北:五南。
林坤誼（2014），STEM 科際整合教育培養整合理論與實務的科技人才。科技與人力教育季刊，1（1），1。
林傳能（2005）。問題本位學習課程對國小資優生問題解決歷程與表現之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
柯建樺（2004）。小組合作進行創造性問題解決歷程之研究。國立臺中師範學院，臺中市。
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。
洪榮昭、林展立（2006）。問題導向學習課程發展理論與實務，臺北：師大書苑。
張玉山（2017）。以STEAM創客教育培養21世紀能力。新北市教育季刊，22，13-15。
張玉山、李大偉（2000）。科技創造力的意涵與教學（上）。生活科技教育，33（9），12。
張玉山、李大偉、蕭佩如（2009）。網路同步平台在科技創造力學習的環境特性分析。生活科技教育月刊，42（5），P6-20。
張玉山、許雅婷（2008）。以問題解決為基礎的科技教學活動設計–以創意機器人研習為例。課程與教學，25（3），64。
張政義（2009）。科技創造力教學模式及其實徵研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學，花蓮縣。
章淑貞（2014）。基於賽局理論之電腦輔助合作學習對國小高年級學生國語課程學習態度之探究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
許信德（2007）。異質分組之合作學習對高職學生技術創造力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學，臺北市。
郭有遹（1989）。創造的定義及其所衍生的問題。創造思考教育，1，10-12。
陳沅（2002）。國小數學專題學習活動發展與應用之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南師範學院，臺南市。.
陳冠吟（2016）。範例展示時機對高中生科技創造力與生活科技學習成就之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
陳昭儀（2006）。創造力教育。資優教育課程進階研習。2017/08/23取自http://sencir.spc.ntnu.edu.tw/site/c_file/a_download/t_key/-2390。
陳雯玲（2017）。運用合作學習提升國中三年級學生地理科學習成效之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
陳誼娉（2008）。專題導向學習運用在國中生活科技創造力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
陳龍安（2007）。創造思考教學的理論與實際（第六版）。台北：心理。
彭紫羚（2012）。不同小組學習任務之通識課程中學生的學角色及變化（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
黃政傑（1996）。創思與合作的教學法。台北：師大書苑。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北：五南。
黃粲絜（2017）。應用三維列印在生活科技課程對科技創造力的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
溫立翔（2011）。心智繪圖教學對國中生科技創造力影響之研究-以校園綠建築設計單元為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
葉玉珠（2000）。創造力發展的生態系統模式及其應用於科技資訊領之內涵分析。教育心理學報，32（1），95-122。
葉蓉樺 (2000）。國小高年級自然科學習小組之結構及其互動模式研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
劉志宏（2011）。樂高FLL自然與生活科技課程對提高國小資優生科技創造力之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
劉錦駿（2008）。凝聚力對國小五年級學生小組科學創造力的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學。高雄市。
蔡錫濤（2001）。九年一貫中的生活科技課程的實踐。生活科技教育，34（10），1。
蔡錫濤（2002）。九年一貫「生活科技」課程教學活動設計-以「設計與製作」為例（上）。生活科技教育，35（1），19-27。
鄭芳宜、葉玉珠（2004）。解釋型態與科技創造力。初等教育學刊，17，133。
鄭國明、王仁俊（2017）。國中小學自造教育發展與現況。中等教育，68（2），116-126。
魏炎順（2001）。設計與製作創造思考問題解決教學模式探討。生活科技教育，34（6），8-18。
羅希哲、蔡慧音、曾國鴻（2011）。高中女生STEM網路專題之合作學習之研究。高雄師大學報，30，41-61。
二、英文文獻
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of ere ativity. New York: Springer- Verlag.
Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271.
Brown, A. L., Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Csikzentimihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing-Company.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason:Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461-493). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Dunbar, K. (1999). Science. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity vol.2 (pp. 525-531). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Golann, S. E. (1963). Psychological study of creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 6548-565.
Goldman, R. J. (1967). The Minnesota tests of creative thinking. In Exportation in creativity, Mooney & Razik, 267-280.
Greenlee, B. J., & Karanxha, Z. (2010). A study of group dynamics in educational leadership cohort and non-cohort groups. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(11), 357–382.
International Technology Education Association. (ITEA). (1996). Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in classrooms. New York: State University of New York.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (1991). Joining together:Group theory and group skills. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1994).Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (3rd. ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., and R.T Johnson. (1996). The role of Cooperative Learning in Assessing and Communicating Student Learning. Yearbook of ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development): 25-46.
Kneller, G. F. (1965). The art and science of creativity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 175-184.
Lewis, T. (1999). Research in Technology Education: Some areas of need.Journal of Technology Education, 10 (2), 41-56.
Milson, F. (1973). A introduction to group work skill. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76-87.
Phyllis, C. B., Ronald, W. M., Elliot, S., & Joseph, K. (1996). Learning with Peers:
From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative. Educational Researcher, 25 (8), 37-40.
Richmond, G., Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 839-858.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science:Knowing and learning in open-inquiry labo-ratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roychoudhury, A., Roth, W. M. (1996).Interactions in an open-inquiry physics laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (4), 423-445.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). A practical guide to cooperative learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talor, C. W. & Borron, F. (1963). Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, J W Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based Learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.
Torrance (1984). Pupil experience. London: Croon Helm.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms-Aechnical Manual, Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1992). Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction. Sarasota: center for creative learning.
Wallas,G. (1962). The art of thought. New York: Harcour Brace and World.
Williams, F. E. (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling(2nd ed.). New York: D.O.K. Publishers Inc.
Wills, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning shows staying power. ASCD Update, 34(2), 1-2.