本研究的主要目的在於探討科技融入主題探索學習對於學生之創造思考能力、學習動機與學科成就之影響，並根據訪談資料探討影響科技融入主題探索學習的相關因素與對學習的幫助。
本研究為前後測之準實驗設計，以高雄市前鎮國中二年級兩個班（對照組28人與實驗組24人）為研究對象。自變項為教學策略，對照組實施傳統教學，實驗組實施科技融入主題探索學習，並探討在不同的學習策略中對學生之創造思考能力、學習動機與學科成就之影響。依變項為創造思考能力、學習動機和學科成就。根據研究目的，研究工具為陶倫斯創造思考測驗圖形版、MSLQ量表與教師自編成就測驗。資料分析方法會採用one-way ANCOVA、MACOVA以及MANOVA分析進行假設的考驗。
主要研究結果如下：
一、在創造思考能力方面，科技融入主題探索學習組顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的創造思考能力有影響。
(1) 科技融入主題探索學習組在獨創力、標題力、精密力、創造優異潛能上顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的獨創力、標題力、精密力及創造優異潛能有影響。
(2) 科技融入主題探索學習組在流暢力和開放力上顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的流暢力和開放力沒有影響。
二、在學習動機方面，科技融入主題探索學習組顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的學習動機有影響。
(1) 科技融入主題探索學習組在工作價值上沒有顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的自我效能沒有影響。
(2) 科技融入主題探索學習組在自我效能上顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的自我效能有影響。
三、在學科成就方面，科技融入主題探索學習組在學科成就上沒有顯著高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的學科成就沒有影響。
四、影響科技融入主題探索學習的因素及幫助方面有課程步驟與主題單元合適性、增加多元化任務與網路互動功能等；對學生幫助方面，分別為課程學習內容、學習動機、思考能力、團隊合作技巧、資訊溝通與科技技巧、網路搜尋技巧等。
本研究將依據研究結果提出建議，以提供未來學生使用科技融入主題探索學習及研究上之參考。

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of different levels of instructional strategy (traditional instruction and technology integrated inquiry-based learning) on junior high school students’ creative thinking, learning motivation, and academic achievement. A pretest and posttest quasi-experimental design was used for this study. The participants were 52 eighth grade students in two classes. The independent variable was instructional strategy with two levels—traditional instruction and technology intergrated inquiry-based learning (TIIBL). The dependent variables were students’ creative thinking, learning motivation, and academic achievement. One-way ANCOVA, MANCOVA and MANOVA, with pretest scores for the dependent variables as the covariates, was employed to examine whether there is a difference between the two research groups on the dependent variables. A variety of measurement instruments with established reliability and validity was used in this study. The results of this study are summarized as follows:
1. Students who received TIIBL had significantly higher creative thinking than students who received traditional instruction. This indicates that the manipulation have an effect on creative thinking.
(1) Students who received TIIBL had significantly higher level of originality, elaboration, abstractness of titles, creative strengths subscales than students who received traditional instruction.
(2) Students who received TIIBL did not have significantly higher level of fluency and resistance to premature closure than students who received traditional instruction.
2. Students who received TIIBL had significantly higher learning motivation than students who received traditional instruction. This indicates that manipulation have an effect on learning motivation.
(1) Students who received TIIBL had not significantly higher level of task-value than students who received traditional instruction.
(2) Students who received TIIBL had significantly higher level of self-efficacy than students who received traditional instruction.
3. Students who received TIIBL had not significantly higher academic achievement than students who received traditional instruction. This indicates that manipulation did not have an effect on academic achievement.
4. The factors affecting TIIBL included the applicable steps of TIIBL and the mathematical topic, diversity of the tasks, and interactive web; the benefits of TIIBL are course content, learning motivation, thinking skills, collaborative learning skill, ICT skills, and searching skills.
Finally, suggestions for teaching and further research were provided based on the research findings of the study.

中文部分

方吉正（2003）。情境認知學習理論與教學應用。載於張新仁（主編），學習與教學新趨勢（頁361-366）。台北：心理出版社。
王保進（2006）。英文視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。台北：心理出版社。
朱榮富（2006）。WebQuest學習管理系統設計及對國小學生問題解決能力與學習態度之影響。臺北市立教育大學碩士論文，全國博碩士論文摘要，095TMTC5147003。
行政院教育改革審議委員會（1994）。教育改革總諮議報告書。2009年7月14日，取自http://www.sinica.edu.tw/info/edu-reform/farea2/
吳文龍、黃萬居（2007）。自然科創意與批判思考教學對國小學生學習動機、批判思考及科學創造力之研究。科學教育月刊，304，12-28。
吳慧珠、李長燦（2003）。Vygotsky社會認知發展理論與教學應用。載於張新仁（主編），學習與教學新趨勢（頁105-129）。台北：心理出版社。
吳靜吉（2002）。華人學生的創造力發展與培育。應用心理研究。15，17-42。
李乙明修訂（2006)。陶倫斯創造思考測驗圖形版。台北：心理出版社。
李杏芳（2007）。WebQuest教學策略對國小學生問題解決、英語學習成就及學習動機之影響。國立成功大學碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，096NCKU5331006。
沈翠蓮（2005）。創意原理與設計。台北：五南書局。
馬玲（2009）。基於建構主義的WebQuest 網路教學模式研究。中國電力教育，133，35-37。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向理論與實踐。台北，東華書局。
張偉杰、余鑑、林弘昌（2006）。利用WebQuest 教學活動提升創造思考能力。生活科技教育月刊，39（5），65-75。
張揚政（2006）。文化不利地區學生實施網路探索教學之研究。雲林科技大學碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，095YUNT5396020。
張新仁（主編）（2003）。學習與教學新趨勢。台北：心理出版社。
張慶勳、陳正昌（2007）。量化研究與統計分析。台北：新學林出版社。
教育部（2003）。創造力教育白皮書。民國98年7月14日，取自http://www.creativity.edu.tw/info/info_1c.php
陳龍安（2002）。創造力的開發理念與實踐。論文發表於國立嘉義大學人文藝術學院主辦之「創意開發」學術研討會，嘉義。
黃淑敏（2001）。電腦網路學習對學生學習成效之後設分析。國立新竹師範學院碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，089NHCTC576004。
廖宜瑤（2000）。國小四年級學生運用電腦網路科技進行主題式學習之行動研究。臺中師範學院碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，088NTCTC576019。
廖珮辰（2009）。WebQuest引導寫作運材之行動研究。淡江大學碩士論文，全國博碩士論文摘要，097TKU05620005。
鄭政富（2004）。高級中學主題式探究學習於網際網路實施之設計與應用。國立中央大學碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，093NCU05392005。
蕭錫錡、張仁家、黃金益（2000）。合作學習對大學生專題製作創造力影響之研究。科學教育學刊，8（4）， 395-410。
蘇美菁（2005）。WebQuest教學策略對國小高年級學童高層次思考與學習動機之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。全國博碩士論文摘要，094NCKU5331014。
饒見維（2005）。創造思考訓練：創思的心理策略與技巧。台北，五南書局。
 

英文部分

Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1998). Collaborative inquiry in science, math, and technology. London: The Heinemann Press.
Alberta Learning (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher's guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. Edmonton: Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Allan, J., & Street, M. (2007). The quest for deeper learning: an investigation into the impact of a knowledge-pooling WebQuest in primary initial teacher training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1102-1112.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational. New York: Longman.
Apedoe, X. S., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Inquiry-based learning and digital libraries in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5), 321-330.
National Curriculum Board（2009）. Shape of the Australian curriculum. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.ncb.org.au/default.asp
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 3-18.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.
Bruce, B. C., & Bishop, A. P. (2002). Using the web to support inquiry-based literacy development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Coleman, C., King, J., Ruth, M. H., & Stary, E. (2001). Developing higher-order thinking skills through the use of technology. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/90/11.pdf
Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html
Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10.
Donovan, O. M. (2005). The carbohydrate quandary: Achieving health literacy through an interdisciplinary WebQuest. Journal of School Health, 75(9), 359-362.
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391-450.
Feletti, G. (1993). Inquiry based and problem-based learning: How similar are these approaches to nursing and medical education? Higher Education Research & Development, 12(2), 143-156.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gaskill, M., McNulty, A., & Brooks, D. W. (2006). Learning from WebQuests. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 133-136.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.
Guilford, J. P., & Paul, J. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Ikpeze, C. H., & Boyd, F. B. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. Reading Teacher, 60(7), 644.
Jang, S. J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students' creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum. Computers & Education, 52(1), 247-255.
Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., et al. (2002). A grammar for inquiry: Linking goals and methods in a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.mcmaster.ca/cll/inquiry/inquiry.research/Grammar.pdf
Kelly, R. (2000). Working with WebQuests: Making the web accessible to students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32 (6), 4-13.
Kim, K. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Kong, S. C., & So, W. M. W. (2008). A study of building a resource-based learning environment with the inquiry learning approach: Knowledge of family trees. Computers & Education, 50(1), 37-60.
Krajcik, J. (2002). The value and challenges of using learning technologies to support students in learning science. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 411-414.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom?s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Lacina, J. (2007). Inquiry-based learning and technology: Designing and exploring WebQuests. Childhood Education, 83(4).
Lim, B. R. (2004). Challenges and issues in designing inquiry on the web. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 627.
Little, S. (2008). Inquiry-based learning and technology—Supporting institutional TEL within one pedagogical context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 422.
MacGregor, S. K., & Lou, Y. (2005). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and web site design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 161.
Meuler, D. (2008). Using a guided inquiry approach in the traditional vertebrate anatomy laboratory. American Biology Teacher, 70(1), 35.
O'Steen, B. (2008). Are Dewey's ideas alive and well in New Zealand undergraduate education? Kiwi case studies of inquiry-based learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(3), 299-303.
Oliver (2007). Exploring an inquiry-based learning approach with first-year students in a large undergraduate class. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 3-15.
Oliver (2008). Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 55(3), 285-301.
Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? inquiry-based learning and technology integration. Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/framework_flyer_updated_april_2009.pdf
Peirce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities claimed for man. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2, 140-157.
Pintrich, P.R, & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students' strategy use in inquiry-based computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 39-52.
Santavenere, A. (2003). The effects of educational technology upon the critical thinking and analytical skills of below grade-Level and or non-college bound high school students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED476469)
Sendag, S., & Ferhan Odabasi, H. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education.
Sternberg, R.J. & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on student’s academic achievement and learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 149-156.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Personnel Press.
Tuan, H., Chin, C., Tsai, C., & Cheng, S. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541-566.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, 79-91.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234-246.
Wang, S., & Reeves, T. (2007). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth science course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 169-192.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental review, 12(3), 265-310.
Workman, M. (2004). Performance and perceived effectiveness in computer-based and computer-aided education: do cognitive styles make a difference? Computer in Human Behavior, 20(4), 517-534.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders' inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquirybased learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
Zimmerman, B., & Tsikalas, K. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267-271.