在全球化的浪潮中，軟體產品之創新，是提升軟體工業國際競爭力關鍵因素之一，提升資訊軟體人才的創新能力已是刻不容緩的課題。而程式設計在資訊軟體人才的培育中乃為重要的基礎工作，不僅是大專院校資訊科系學生，同時也是工程相關科系學生不可或缺的基礎技術能力。因此，如何培育學生的創造力和程式設計能力便成了重要的議題。本研究主要目的是針對大專院校工程相關科系學生建立以程式設計教學為主融入創造思考技法且結合專題導向策略的學習課程。在創意思考訓練方面，本研究在課程中使用Mind map 工具來加強學生發散性思考能力，而在專題製作方面，本研究提供Arduino四旋翼及各項感測器模組零件讓學生進行小組專題製作，以加強學生程式設計能力及收斂性思考能力。為探討本創意思考融入專題導向程式設計課程對創造力及學生程式設計學習成效之影響，本研究採「單組前後測設計」實驗法融合質性及量化方法進行研究，實驗對象為台灣南部某國立大學工程相關科系一年級之學生共38名，實驗工具使用自編程式設計能力測驗、陶倫斯創造力測驗ATTA並搭配專家觀察、課程回饋問卷及學生訪談進行研究探討。研究結果顯示創意思考融入專題導向學習對於程式設計之學習成效有顯著的正面影響。專家觀察及學生訪談方面也觀察到學生透過實際動手操作和製作專題題目時展現強烈的學習興趣及企圖心。創意思考方面，雖然有觀察到學生在設計和製作專題時運用創造思考技法產生的正面表現。但整體而言陶倫斯創造力測驗前後的分數沒有顯著的差異。本研究最後歸納研究結論，提出教學及相關研究之建議，做為未來教學與後續研究之參考。

In the wave of globalization, innovative software product is one of the key powers to enhance international competitiveness of the software industry. It is an urgent issue to enhance creativity of software personnel. On the other hand, programming is an important basic skill for software industry personnel. It is an indispensable ability not only for information engineering, but also for engineering and sciences students today. Therefore, how to improve both students' creativity and programming ability becomes a vital concern in colleges. The purpose of this research is to integrate creative thinking strategies and skills into a project-based programming course for undergraduate students from information engineering and engineering and sciences departments. For creativity training, this study uses Mind map tool in the course to reinforce students’ divergent thinking ability and, for the projects, this study provides Arduino quadcopters for students’ programming and in panel discussion to increase programming learning effectiveness and convergent thinking ability. The course is taught to a group of 38 freshmen from an engineering and science department in a university in southern Taiwan. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods, including programming scholastic achievement test, Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults(ATTA), after-course surveys, and expert’s participant observations, are used in this research for evaluating the course performance in a one-group pretest-posttest design. The results in students’ programming scholastic achievement tests indicate that the programming ability of students is positively and significantly improved by the project-based course. From the after-course surveys and the expert’s participant observations, this study finds students, after hand-on projects, show strong learning interest and motivation. From the ATTA tests, this study can confirm the positive enhancement in students’ creativity after they participate in the creative project-based programming course, but there is no significant difference in the overall creativity performance between the ATTA pre- and post-tests. Suggestions are provided in this study to further strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of future instruction and investigation in relevant courses.

孔繁禹（2017）。Code Studio輔助程式設計教學對高中學生學習動機和學習成就之影響。國立臺北科技大學，台北市.
王湄雁（2015）。樂高機器人融入專題式導向學習於大學生程式設計課程之學習成效 態度與問題解決能力之研究。
林可捷（2016）。 融合六三五腦力激盪法與 C-Sketch 法對於工業設計創造力之影響。 成功大學，台南市。
林家豪、林琇瑾（2008）。 國中資源班學生實施專題導向學習之個案研究-以家用門鈴裝配歷程為例。工業科技教育學刊(1)，19-28。
林寶山（1996）。討論教學的技巧。載於台灣省政府教育廳國民教育巡迴輔導團編印： 八十一學年度教材教法研習資料—社會科，58-64。
孫易新（2007）。心智圖法創造思考訓練方案對激發企業人士創造力成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。實踐大學，臺北市。
張柏欽（2015）。六三五腦力激盪法對於程式設計創造力之影響。成功大學，台南市。
教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。台北：教育部。
教育部（2011）。中小學國際教育白皮書。臺北：教育部。
許素（2004）。展出你的創意：曼陀羅與心智繪圖的運用與教學（Vol. 19）：心理出版。
陳杉吉（2002）。國小學童在網際網路專題導向式學習環境中行為歷程之研究。
楊喬涵（2008）。專題導向學習策略應用在商業概論課程教學之行動研究。中等教育， 59(1)，110-128。
葉榮椿、林建仲、任永潔＆鐘盼兮（2010）。應用專題導向學習法於企管系大三實務專題學生之行動研究：以美和技術學院為例。工業科技教育學刊(3)，113-121。
黎翔益（2017）。專題導向式學習對問題解決能力與學習態度影響之初探-以具影像傳輸之無線遙控車製作為例。國立臺北教育大學。
鮑志軒（2013）。程式設計對初學者問題解決能力之影響－以機器車程式設計為例。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
謝依婷、周建智、黃美瑤（2009）。專題導向學習對大學生創造力之研究。北體學報(17)，84-95。
羅希哲、蔡慧音、曾國鴻（2011）。高中女生 STEM 網路專題式合作學習之研究。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類(30)，41-61。
Alʹtshuller, G. S., Shulyak, L., & Rodman, S. (1999). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving: Technical Innovation Center, Incorporated.
Bravo, C., Marcelino, M. J., Gomes, A. J., Esteves, M., & Mendes, A. J. (2005). Integrating Educational Tools for Collaborative Computer Programming Learning. J. UCS, 11(9), 1505-1517.
Buzan, T. (1971). Speed memory: Sphere Books.
Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., & Tseng, J. C. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618-1627.
Deek, F. P. (1999). A framework for an automated problem solving and program development environment. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 3(3), 1-13.
Eberle, B. (1996). Scamper on: Games for imagination development: Prufrock Press Inc.
Gardner, H., & Gardner, E. (2008). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity: Basic Books.
Gubacs, K. (2004). Project-based learning: A student-centered approach to integrating technology into physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(7), 33-37.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.
Hwang, G.-J., Yang, L.-H., & Wang, S.-Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121-130.
Isaksen, S. G., Puccio, G. J., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-170.
Keefe, K., Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2006). Adopting XP practices for teaching object oriented programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52.
Kim, M. (2002). Alternative instructional methods and strategies for effective computer programming education. J. Korea Assoc. Comput. Educ., 5(3), 1-9.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach: McGraw-Hill College.
Labuske, K., & Streb, J. (2008). Technological creativity and cheap labour? Explaining the growing international competitiveness of German mechanical engineering before World War I. German Economic Review, 9(1), 65-86.
Lewis, T. (1999). Research in Technology Education--Some Areas of Need. Journal of technology education, 10(2), 41-56.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination, principles and procedures of creative thinking.
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1963). Development of individual creative talent. Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development, 311-320.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
Reese, H. W., & Parnes, S. J. (1970). Programming creative behavior. Child Development, 413-423.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative: John Wiley & Sons.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of educational computing research, 3(2), 149-169.
Seidman, R. (1988). New directions in educational computing research. Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.