本研究的目的在於探討國小實施主題研究課程的歷程，包含教師在實施過程中所
面臨的挑戰及因應的方式，並進一步分析實施主題研究課程對於學生學習成效的影響，
包括：問題解決能力以及多元智能發展。本研究採個案研究法，選擇一所已實施主題
研究課程多年的實驗小學以及三年級授課教師和學生作為研究對象，透過半結構式訪
談及課室觀察，輔以資料蒐集、文件分析、以及問卷施測等方式，探討主題研究課實
施的歷程並統整分析相關學習成效。
研究者根據個案研究及分析，得到以下研究結論：
一、個案國小主題研究課程實施歷程為四階段課程循環。
二、個案國小主題研究課程呈現學生素養養成的歷程。
三、個案國小教師妥善運用相關資源來因應主題研究課程的挑戰。
四、個案國小實施主題研究課程對於學生的學習成效有兩項主要影響：
（一）課程的實施有助提升學生的問題解決能力；
（二）學生有多元的機會展現多元智能統整的學習成效。
本研究根據上述結果，對未來課程實施以及研究方向提出下列相關建議。
一、規劃及實施長期完整的主題式或專題式課程。
二、部分教學活動融入小組合作學習的策略。
三、運用適當的教學活動以實踐「以學生為中心」的理念。
四、增加家長問卷的量化研究以及家長回饋單的質性分析。
五、蒐羅分析主題研究課程對於畢業學生之影響。
六、分析實施主題式或專題式課程對於學生多元智能發展之影響。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the implementation of the project curriculum in an elementary school as well as teachers’ challenges and solutions when implementing the curriculum. Moreover, this study analyzes the impacts of the curriculum on students’ problem-solving skills and multiple intelligences. A case study was conducted with third-grade students and teachers in an experimental elementary school where the project curriculum has been implemented for many years. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, document analysis and questionnaires to investigate the implementation of the project curriculum and assess the effectiveness of students’ learning.
Based on the results of this case study, the following can be concluded.
I. The implementation of the project curriculum consists of four phases in a circular
manner.
II. The implementation of the project curriculum reveals the development process of students’ competence.
III. The teachers overcome the challenges of implementing the project curriculum by properly controlling available resources.
IV. The implementation of the project curriculum has two positive impacts on students’ learning effectiveness.
i. Students’ problem-solving skills are enhanced.
ii. Students are provided with various opportunities to demonstrate their learning effectiveness through the interdisciplinary curriculum integration of multiple intelligences.
In addition to the aforementioned conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed for future curriculum implementation and research.
I. Project curricula should be planned and implemented on a long-term and comprehensive basis.
II. Collaborative strategies should be integrated into some teaching activities of project curricula.
III. Effective teaching activities should be adopted to meet student-centered learning needs.
IV. Quantitative questionnaires and qualitative analysis on feedback forms should be used to gain detailed insights of students’ parents.
V. The impacts of the project curriculum on alumni should be further analyzed.
VI. The influences of project curricula on students’ multiple intelligences should be assessed.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第四節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 11
第一節 主題研究課程之內涵與實施 11
第二節 主題研究課程之基礎 17
第三節 主題研究課程實施之相關研究 39
第三章 研究設計與實施 45
第一節 研究參與者 45
第二節 研究方法與流程 49
第三節 研究工具 52
第四節 資料蒐集與分析 53
第五節 研究信實度 63
第六節 研究倫理 64
第四章 研究結果與討論 65
第一節 實施主題研究課程歷程之分析 65
第二節 實施主題研究課程之挑戰及因應策略之分析 96
第三節 實施主題研究課程對學生學習成效影響之分析 112
第四節 綜合討論 132
第五章 結論與建議 139
第一節 結論 139
第二節 建議 142
第三節 研究省思 146
參考文獻 149
中文部分 149
英文部分 152
附錄 159
附錄一 研究參與同意書 159
附錄二 訪談同意書 160
附錄三 家長同意書 162
附錄四 訪談大綱 163
附錄五 課室觀察紀錄表 164
附錄六 加加國小研究課「問題解決能力」問卷 166
附錄七 個人省思日誌 169
附錄八 校長同意書 170

中文文獻
大坪教育基金會（2013）。8號夢想教室。麥浩斯。
王金國（2018）。以專題式學習法培養國民核心素養。臺灣教育評論月刊，7（2），107-111。
王為國（2001）。多元智能教學的課程設計。課程與教學季刊，5（1），1-20。
孫志遠、魯成祥、史忠植、馬剛（2016）。深度學習研究與進展。計算機科學，43（2），1-8。
何玲、黎加厚（2005）。促進學生深度學習。季算機教與學，5，29-30。
何慧群（2015）。活化教學，活潑教學？合作學習？教育標準化！。臺灣教育評論月刊，4（10），59-70。
吳璧純、詹志禹（2018）。從能力本位到素養導向教育的演進、發展及反思。教育研究與發展期刊，14（2），35-64。
李蓓琦（2021）。專題探究取向國中國文教學之實踐歷程（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
周淑卿、王郁雯（2019）。 從課程統整到跨領域課程: 台灣二十年的論述與問題。教育學報，47（2），41-59。
林秀珍（2001）。 [教育即生活] 抑 [生活即教育]？-杜威觀點的詮釋。教育研究集刊，47，1-16。
林佩璇（2020）。教學活化導向深度學習。課程研究，15（2），1-19。
洪萱芳、林英杰、顏瓊芬（2019）。偏鄉學生面臨科學探究式專題導向教學法之學習挑戰。科學教育學刊，27（2），121-145。
胡郁珮（2014）。開啟多元智能的統整性視覺藝術教學方案之研究。教育研究學報，48（2），71-99。
國家教育研究院（2000）。探究教學法Inquiry Method。教育部大辭書。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1309716/
國家教育研究院（2000）。科學探究Scientific Inquiry。教育部大辭書。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307665/
國家教育研究院（2012）。專題式學習Project-based Learning。教育部大辭書。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678794/
國家教育研究院（2000）。有意義的學習Meaningful Learning。教育部大辭書。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304978/
張華、石偉平、馬慶發（2000）。課程流派研究。山東教育出版社。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要重點。https://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3-1.php
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校—語文領域-英語文。https://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3.php
教育部（2021）。學生問卷專區。教育部中小學數位學習深耕推動計畫。https://dlearning.ncku.edu.tw/questionnaire?type_id=3
教育部（2019）。觀察焦點與觀察工具的選擇。教育部教師專業發展實踐方案。http://tepd.fdt.hc.edu.tw/jiao-shi-zhuan-ye-fa-zhan-shi-jian-fang-an
教育部國民及學前教育署（2020）。臺灣參加國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查（TIMSS 2019）成果發表。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/News/K12eaNewsDetail?filter=9F92BBB7-0251-4CB7-BF06-82385FD996A0&id=65befb59-246b-4445-ba8e-215307f5077d
郭元祥（2017）。論深度教學：源起、基礎與理念。教育研究與實驗，3，8-11。
郭添財、黃秀良（2015）。多元智能融入國小音樂課程教學成效之研究。教育學術彙刊，7，30-70。
鈕文英（2020）。質性研究方法與論文寫作（三版）。雙葉書廊。
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。東華書局。
黃政傑（1999）。課程決定的理論分析。課程改革。漢文書店。
黃茂在、陳文典（2016）。從自然科學課程發展脈絡看新課程的挑戰。科學研習月刊，55（11），20-27。
劉妙佳（2016）。以專題學習實施於戶外教育課程對提升國小學童問題解決能力之行動研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺南大學。
楊琳萱（2011）。利用學校周邊自然地區以「專題導向學習法」進行自然探索學習（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學。
簡楚瑛（1994）。方案課程之理論與實務：兼談義大利瑞吉歐學前教育系統。文景書局。
甄曉蘭（2000）。新世紀課程改革的挑戰與課程實踐理論的重建。教育研究集刊，44，61-90。
蔡清田（2011）。素養：課程改革的DNA。高等教育。
 
外文文獻
Alan, B., & Stoller, F. L. (2005). Maximizing the Benefits of Project work in Foreign Language Classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 10-21.
Aldabbus, S. (2018). Project-based learning: Implementation & challenges. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 6(3), 71-79.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. ASCD.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365-386.
Battelle for Kids (2019). Framework for 21stCentury Learning Definitions. http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf
Baumgartner, E., & Zabin, C. J. (2008). A case study of project‐based instruction in the ninth grade: A semester‐long study of intertidal biodiversity. Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 97-114.
Benő, C., & Joachim, F. (Eds.) (2017). Educational Research and Innovation The Nature of Problem Solving Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning. OECD Publishing.
Bloom, B. S. (1956）. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain. David McKay.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
Bruce, B. C., & Casey, L. (2012). The practice of inquiry: A pedagogical ‘sweet spot’ for digital literacy?. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 191-206.
Buck Institute for Education (BIE) (2021). Gold Standard PBL: Project Based Teaching Practices. https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl/gold-standard-teaching-practices
Buck Institute for Education (BIE) (2021). What is PBL?. https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl
ÇAKICI, Y., & Türkmen, N. (2013). An investigation of the effect of project-based learning approach on children's achievement and attitude in science. The Online Journal of Science and Technology, 3(2), 9-17.
Chen, J. Q. (2004). Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory? Teachers College Record, 106(1), 17-23.
Chişiu, C. M. (2013). Extracurricular activities, an alternative for interdisciplinary learning. Postmodern Openings, 4(4), 67-79.
Ciesla, K. (2010). Building a self-supporting web of knowledge-What is interdisciplinary education?. ESSAI, 7(1), 16.
Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Conley, D. T. (2013). Getting ready for college, careers, and the common core: What every educator needs to know. John Wiley & Sons.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Holt and Co.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and Education. In the Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128.
Drake, S. M. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ASCD.
Eisner, E. (1994). Commentary: Putting multiple intelligences in context: Some questions and Oobservations. Teachers College Record, 95（4), 555-560.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. （2017). Deep learning: Shaking the foundations. New Pedagogies for Deep Learning: A Global Partnership, 3, 1-39.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/New-Pedagogies-for-Deep-Learning-An-Invitation-to-Partner-2013-6-201.pdf
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books
Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple intelligences as a partner in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-21.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational Implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, 13-26. Jossey-Bass.
Gómez, A. M., & García, P. V. (2020). Developing multiple intelligences using films in primary education. Journal of Education and Practice. 11(3), 9-18.
Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School. ASCD.
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten. River Academic Journal, 7(2), 1-13.
Hugerat, M. (2016). How teaching science using project-based learning strategies affects the classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 19(3), 383-395.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (2019). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. https://timss2019.org/reports/download-center/
Jalinus, N., Nabawi, R. A., & Mardin, A. (2017, January). The seven steps of project based learning model to enhance productive competences of vocational students. In International Conference on Technology and Vocational Teachers (ICTVT 2017). Atlantis Press.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based learning approach. Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512-559.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.
Leshkovska, E. A., & Spaseva, S. M. (2016). John Dewey’s educational theory and educational implications of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(2), 57-66.
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2010). The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 299-321.
Martin, M. R., Bishop, J., Ciotto, C., & Gagnon, A. (2014). Teaching the whole child: Using the multiple intelligence theory and interdisciplinary teaching in physical education. Chronicle of Kinesiology & Physical Education in Higher Education, 25, 25-30.
Marton F., Saljo R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple Intelligences and Instructional Technology. ISTE.
Mineo, L. (2018, May 9). An interview with Howard Gardner. The Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/05/harvard-scholar-howard-gardner-reflects-on-his-life-and-work/
Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. Inquiring into Inquiry: Learning and Teaching in Science, 471-496. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences in the workplace. In H. Gardner (Ed.), Multiple intelligences: New Horizons, 213-232. Basic Books.
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/2017/Jun/c3-framework-for-social-studies-rev0617.pdf
National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
National Reseach Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
National Research Council et al. (2013). DCI arrangements of the next generation science standards. Achieve, Inc. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf
New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL) (2019). Homepage. https://deep-learning.global/
New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL) (2019). Deep Learning Competencies. https://deep-learning.global/making-it-happen/
New South Walesm (NSW) Government (2020). Introducing project-based learning. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/school-learning-environments-and-change/future-focused-learning-and-teaching/project-based-learning-resource-guide/introducing-project-based-learning
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). Conceptual learning framework. OECD Learning Compass 2030. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf
Panasan, M., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 252-255.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., ... & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
Ping, F., Ng, D., & Yeung, W. S. (2010). Interdisciplinary Chinese language courses in Hong Kong. International Journal of Learning, 17(7), 277-296.
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1-2), 1-12.
Rahbarnia, F., Hamedian, S., & Radmehr, F. (2014). A study on the relationship between multiple Intelligences and mathematical problem solving based on revised Bloom Taxonomy. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 17(2), 109-134.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe, Brussels: European Commission. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/rapportrocardfinal.pdf
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences （2nd ed.), 1–18.
Shearer, R. L., Gregg, A., & Joo, K. P. (2015). Deep learning in distance education: Are we achieving the goal?. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 126-134.
Spady, W. G. (1981). Outcome-based Instructional Management: A Sociological Perspective. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Split Attention Effect (2020, December 13). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_attention_effect
Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(2), 80-85.
Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99（4), 808.
Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Nilsen, T. （2018). More isn't always better: The curvilinear relationship between inquiry-based teaching and student achievement in science. Learning and Instruction, 56, 20-29.
Thomas, J. W. （2000, March). A review of research on project-based learning. http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf
Tobias, E. S., Campbell, M. R., & Greco, P. (2015). Bringing curriculum to life: Enacting project-based learning in music programs. Music Educators Journal, 102(2), 39-47.
Tsaparlis, G., Hartzavalos, S., Vlacha, V., Malamou, C., Neila, I., & Pantoula, C. (2020). Affective and cognitive outcomes of project-based team work in a model lower secondary school: The case of nuclear energy. Science Education International, 31(1), 52-64.
Vesikivi, P., Lakkala, M., Holvikivi, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2020). The impact of project-based learning curriculum on first-year retention, study experiences, and knowledge work competence. Research Papers in Education, 35(1), 64-81.
Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 4(1), 44-56.
Wiggins, R. A. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Music educator concerns. Music Educators Journal, 87(5), 40-44.
Wilson, L. O. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised: Understanding the New Version of Bloom's Taxonomy. The Second Principle, 1-8. https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/EF4BB85F-CE60-13B2-48C316794B210EBA/anderson_and_krathwohl_blooms_revised_taxonomy_1_1.docx
Wrigley, H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning. Focus on Basics, 2(D), 13-17.
Yarker, M. B., & Park, S. (2012). Analysis of teaching resources for implementing an interdisciplinary approach in the K–12 classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(4), 223–232.
Yeung, S. S., Lam, J. T., Leung, A. W., & Lo, Y. C. (2012). Curriculum Change and Innovation. Hong Kong University Press.