本研究根據專題導向科學學習（Project-Based Science，PBS）之理念以及Krajcik, Czerniak, and Berger (1999)之PBS教學模式設計「彩虹」之科學教學活動以應用在國中學生科學學習上，目的在結合學生日常生活經驗與跨學科之科學概念，並以檔案評量方式融入教學活動，這種活動設計研究者認為符合國內即將實施之九年一貫課程設計的理念。
本研究之研究結果擇要如下：
1.學生能將教學活動中所學得的概念，依據自己的引導問題統整出成果報告。根據學生有條理性、系統化地解釋自己所提出的引導問題，可知學生學到的科學知識是具有完整架構而非片段的概念。
2.在本研究PBS教學中，學生習得「彩虹」產生原理之光學機制、現象描述與區別霓與虹的科學概念。
3.參與本研究之師生皆予正面之評價，亦希望往後能以PBS的方式學習科學。但由於學生第一次接觸PBS教學，遇到與以往不同學習經驗的困難（如思考引導問題、查詢資料、整理與統整資料等困難），在短期內並無法達到增進學生學習動機與後設認知能力的目的。
根據研究結果對PBS做下列的建議：
1.思考引導問題時教師可依「PBS引導問題」的特色引導學生學習，教師可以小組討論的方式引導學生發展引導問題，以符合PBS引導問題的原則。
2.教師應事先針對主題進行資料的蒐集，以提供學生資料的來源或是一些相關的資料。
3.教師應引導學生閱讀資料並將重點紀錄在資料記錄單中，以幫助學生學習整理資料。
4.教師應根據學生的引導問題、蒐集的資料、學生的特質引導學生統整資料完成成果報告。
此外，本研究使用的檔案評量內容分為科學的研究、概念的瞭解、科學的思考、科學的工具和技巧與我的表達能力(National Center on Education and the Economy of University of Pittsburgh, 1997)、進行中的工作與我的資料庫六大類，可使教師和家長能有系統地並完整地了解學生的學習狀況及學生個別化的需求，若教師能利用多元智慧的評量方式將有助於學生發揮自己獨有的潛能。

The main purpose of this study is to design a Project-Based Science (PBS) learning activity for students to develop their literacy in science, based on Krajcik, Czerniak and Berger (1999) teaching model design. The PBS educational model in this study was ‘Rainbow’, which was designed for junior high school students to study science subjects. The design of this study was also planned to match the objectives of newly developed curriculum standards for the first to ninth grade students.
The major findings of this research were as follows:
1. Student could use what they learned from the PBS activity; summarized questions, problems, students posed and went about in helping them to understand. Students’ sequential and systematic reasoning to their queries, showed that full understanding of the ‘Rainbow’ concept.
2. The PBS teaching method led the students to understand the fundamental concept of ‘Rainbow’.
3. Teachers and Students who participated in this survey could give their positive views and also emphasized the willingness to use PBS. But, due to the first experience of PBS, students could hardly encounter different learning experience. For example queries arising from their thoughts and research for materials and summarizing the information etc. this did not help the student’s motivation and nor achieved their ability to understand the subject.
There are several implications and suggestions from this study:
1. With Students’ queries, teachers can utilize PBS specialty function in promoting their learning in science. Also, the teacher can make use of small group discussions to help students generate problems for PBS activity.
2. Teachers can guide students to complete a research report based upon their posing questions, research data, and their learning characteristics.
3. Teachers can encourage pupils on reading and taking notes of main topics on a notebook, which will help students in organizing of information in future.
Also students’ portfolio can be split into scientific, conceptual understanding, scientific thoughts, scientific tools, technique and self-report ability (National Center of University of Pittsburgh, 1997), in which teachers and parents can systematically understand each student’s learning process and his/her needs of learning. Finally teachers can utilize multiple intelligences to promote pupil’s abilities and potential in learning science.

李平（1997）：經營多元智慧：開展以學生為中心的教學（Thomas Armstrong著，李平譯）。台北市：遠流。
林清山（1990）：教育心理學：認知取向（Richard E. Mayer著，林清山譯）。台北市：遠流。
吳宗立（1994）：成就動機理論及其相關研究分析。國教園地，44，67-73。
施志宜（1998）：高低後設認知能力國三學生閱讀地球科學說明文之差異。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
教育部（1999）：國民教育九年一貫課程綱要：自然與科技學習領域（草案）。台北市：教育部。
許書務（1998）：問題導向學習之教學策略研究：以專科微電腦應用系統設計專題製作為例。台北市：國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
陳啟明(1999)：另類的教學評量-卷宗評量。教育實習輔導季刊，5(1)，78-84。
郭生玉與張景媛(1997)：青少年的價值觀、後設認知與學習動機對情緒適應影響之研究。行政院國家科學委員會。NSC86-2413-H003-008-G10。
張春興與林清山（1981）：教育心理學。台北市：東華。
張昇鵬（1995）：資賦優異學生後設認知能力與創造思考能力關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
郭生玉（1988）：心理教育與測驗。台北市：精華。
郭靜姿（1992）：閱讀理解訓練方案對於增進高中學生閱讀策略運用與後設認知能力之成效研究。國立台灣師範大學博士論文（未出版）。
薛眴（1999）：活用你的思考風格（Robert J. Sternberg著，薛眴譯）。台北市：天下遠見。
魏明通（1996）：科學教育。台北市：五南。
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Atkinson, J. W. & Feather, N. T. (1966). A Theory of Achievement Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to Design a Problem-based Curriculum for the Preclinical Years. New York: Springer.
Berieter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves: An inquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
Berenfeld, B. (1993). A Moment of Glory in San Antonio: A Global Lab Story. Hands on! 6(2), 1, 19-21.
Black, S. (1993) Portfolio Assessment. In J. Noblitt (Ed.). Student Portfolios: A Collection of Articles (27-47). Arlington Height, Illinois: IRI/ Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
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.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C. & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to Learn: On Training Students to Learn from Texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.
Checkley, K. (1997). The First Seven and The Eighth: A Conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8-13.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Flavell, J. H. (1970). Development Studies of Mediated Memory. In Reese, H. W. & Lipsitt(Eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior, vol.5, New York: Academic Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 909-911.
Gaffney, K. (1995). Multiple Intelligence Theory and the Arts. http://www. njcommunity.org/ artsgenesis/chrysali.html.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Gardner, H. (1987). Beyond IQ: Education and Human Development. Harvard Educational Review, 57(2), 187-193.
Goodwin, D. & Adkins, J.C. (1997). Problem-solving Environment Science on the Chesapeake Bay. School Science Review, 78(284) 49-55.
Jones, B.F., Rasmussen, C.M. & Moffitt, M.C. (1997). Real-Life Problem Solving: A Collaborative Approach to Interdisciplinary Learning. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: W. W. Norton.
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching Children Science: A Project-Based Approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.
Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting Project-based Science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.
Mayer, R. E., (1987).Educational Psychology : A Cognitive Approach. Boston : Little.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. W. & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Center on Education and the Economy of University of Pittsburgh （1997）. New Standards: Performance Standards: Volume 2 Middle School. National Center on Education and the Economy and University of Pittsburgh
National Science Teachers Association. (1991). An National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: Elementary school science. Washington, D.C.: NSTA.
Rutherford, J., and A. Ahlgren. (1989). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1994). What Do We Know about Mathematics Curricula? Journal-of-Mathematical-Behavior; 13(1) 55-80.
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Solomon, J., (1993).The Social Construction of Children’s Scientific Knowledge. In Black, P. J. & Lucas, A. M. (Ed.), Children’s Informal Ideas in Science(pp.85-101), London: Routledge.
Stage, E. K. (1997).Measuring What We Value: Equity and the New Assessments. In Kreinberg, N. & Wahl, E. (Ed.), Thoughts and Deeds(pp.141-146), Washington,DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking Style. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D.R. (1985). What About Problem-Based Learning? Journal of College Science Teaching, 73(265) 47-55.
Williams, S., & Hmelo, C. (1998). Guest Editors’ Introduction. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 7(3?),265-270.
Vygotsky, L.(1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.