摘要：此研究之目的為促進創造力而其設計由三個要素所構成：(1)在小組學習及班級共享中，使用鷹架策略、創造性思考技法及以發問激發思考；(2)設計STS探究實驗；(3)以對話、討論，探究及實作為中心的STS活動，共同創造。著者根據五層面二十二過程之創造力表現，評鑑學生之學習成就，並以行動研究找出：(a)創造力表現之證據，並(b)評鑑此研究設計之有效性。 著者規劃酸雨媒體情境和矛盾、挑戰性問題，用以小組及班級合作學習。學生使用認知圖聯結孤立、零星的知識、技能及觀點，找出彼此之相互關聯，建構意義。擴散性思考技法 (如腦力激盪) 促使學生開放性，多層面思考。收斂性思考技法 (如因果法) 篩選、分析及精緻化所提出之意見，發展為可行的構想。各小組確認STS探究題目，設計創造性探究實驗，並向全班提出報告、接受全班的挑戰和批判；個案小組答覆、辯論及修改設計。之後各小組執行所設計之探究實驗。各小組將其成果以壁報展示並由全班同學評鑑。整個過程由直接觀察、錄影記錄、小組學習歷程檔案與同儕評量收集資料。 本文以阿正及個案小組為中心，分析詮釋其創造性思考過程，發現著者之研究設計能增進學生的創造力。個案小組之水果電池探究實驗設計由(a)獨創力，(b)具體性，(c)科學想法，(d)實驗知能，(e)吸引性，及(f)接受度等評鑑。同儕評定水果電池設計符合(a)~(e)之評鑑基準，但水果產地認定不易，水果電池寅際應用之可能性不高，故接受度較差。個案小組接受大家的看法並反省，表示希望進一步探究。

　　　　　This research design is to promote creativity and consists of three components: (1) scaffolding strategies, thought provoking questions, and creative thinking skills in small group learning and class sharing; (2) designing STS exploratory experiments; and (3) cooperative creation with dialogue, discussion, and exploration using hands-on, inquiry-based STS activities. Five-phases with 22 processes associated with creativity were used as dynamic guidelines for evaluating learning outcomes. Action research was used to: (1) find evidence of creativity performances; and (2) evaluate effectiveness of the design for promoting creativity. Video-based acid rain context with paradoxical and challenging questions were designed and used for small group and class cooperative learning. Cognitive maps were used to facilitate students' construction of meaning, connections drawn among isolated bits of knowledge, skills, values, and views to help them see the interconnections among them. Divergent thinking skills (e.g., brain storming) were used to promote open-ended, multiple dimensional thinking. Convergent thinking skills (e.g., cause-effect method) were used to screen, analyze, and refine suggested opinions to develop successful ideas. Each small student group identified and designed a creative exploratory experiment and presented it to the class for challenge and criticism. The lead group defended, debated, and revised its design. Then each group performed the designed activities. The results were displayed as posters and evaluated by the class. The whole process was videotaped. Data from direct observation, video-taped records, portfolios, and peer assessments were collected and analyzed. In this study, creative thinking processes of Achen and his small group were interpreted and the author's design was found to significantly improve students' creativity. The case group's design "Fruit Battery" was evaluated for (a) originality, (b) tangibility, (c) scientific thinking, (d) scientific skills, (e) dramatic value, and (f) acceptability. The class ruled that the design meets criteria (a) through (e), but origin of the fruit is difficult to be identified so fruit battery is unlikely to be of practical use, therefore, it is less accept-able. The case group accepted evaluation with reflection and expressed that further investigation will be made.