摘 要
回顧第24~34屆國際化學奧林匹亞(IChO)理論試題、第24~34屆IChOs 43位台灣選手的解題表現以此數據統計、分析、比較，找出影響理論題分數高低的關鍵；以作為未來國手選拔訓練流程改進的參考之一，並提供2005年我國主辦第37屆IChO命題之參考。
在五大領域75題理論題裏各領域理論題所佔的比重：物化15題佔21%，無機18題佔24%，有機20題佔26.7%，分析19題佔25.3%，生化3題佔4%，有9題在新的IChO比賽大綱裏找不到。有20題(佔26.7%)只使用到層級1的項目，有2題只使用到層級2的項目，有6題只使用到層級3的項目。
台灣已經參加IChO 11年一直都有很好的表現，43位選手獲得的獎牌數總計13金23銀7銅。我國訓練選手的課程通常是四大領域各分配四分之一的時間，生化課程包含在有機課程裏。在過去11屆IChOs無機和有機的理論題解題成就較高達85%的得分率，物化80%，分析77%，生化最低72%。如果在物化、分析、生化的授課時間分配適度地增加，對這三個領域理論題得分的提升可能會有幫助。
我國學生在理論題只有出現層級一和層級三項目的問題時，分別有78.41%和72.24%的得分率低於平均值。層級一的理論題是屬於概念的使用較深入，有較複雜計算但內容範圍較窄的題目，層級三的理論題則相反，廣度較大，詳細情形還需要進一步探討。以40位理學院大一學生為對象進行兩個測驗。其中，測驗一為30屆的無機化學VSEPR問題，測驗二為28屆分析化學弱酸離子水溶液問題。測驗一的結果：我國30屆的4位選手有93.75%的答對率超過大一學生42.25%的答對率很多。測驗二的結果：我國28屆的4位選手有58.5%的答對率與大一學生31.73%的答對率之間的差距較小。由以上結果指出可以用理論題的測驗來預測金牌學生。

Abstract
The survey of 60% total credits of theoretical competition tasks of 23rd to 33th International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO) and the performance of 43 Taiwan competitors in 24-34 IChOs were carried out to find out the key aspects that could be used as the reference in cultivation of the future contestants and the organization of the upcoming 37th 2005 IChO.
The relative percentage weight among the 75 tasks in five fields is 21.0% in Physical Chemistry(15), 24.0% in Inorganic Chemistry(18), 26.7% in Organic Chemistry(20), 25.3% in Analytical Chemistry(19) and 4% in Biochemistry. There are 9 tasks could not be found in the items of the newly established competition syllabus. 20 tasks (26.7%) are belong to basic level 1 only, but 2 tasks and 6 tasks are level 2 and level 3 only, respectively.
Taiwan has joined IChO for eleven years and has had good performance. All 43 competitors won metals with 13 golds, 23 silvers and 7 bronzes. Our program in training competitors is used to give each of the four fields equal time, taking biochemistry as part of organic chemistry. The achievement percentage of both Inorganic Chemistry and Organic Chemistry is 85%, then Physical Chemistry 80%, and then Analytical Chemistry 77%, Biochemistry is the worse one, only 72% achievement in the right answer in past eleven IChOs. If we increase teaching time of Physical Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry and Biochemistry, the score of the competitors in these three fields may rise.
Our students' correctly answering percentage is 78.41% and 72.24% below the average in the theoretical tasks of level one and three, respectively. The theoretical tasks of level one are in great depth in concept with hard mathematical calculation but very shallow in content. On the contrary, the theoretical tasks of level three are just in opposite. As to the great detail need to be discussed.
These two kinds of extreme tasks were tested by employing a class of 40 freshmen in college of science. One is the VSEPR task of 30th IChO and the other one is the poly-protic weak acid task of 28th IChO. The result for test one, the average score of the 4 30th IChO
competitors(93.75%) much higher than that of the freshmen students
(58.5%), but that of the 2nd test, 28th competitors (58.5%) only a little higher that of freshman students (31.773%). This indicates how to get
preposition of the competition task to screen out the gold student.

參考文獻
中文部份
王文中等(民88)：教育測驗與評量。台北市，五南出版社。
方泰山(民81~91)：中華民國參加第二十四屆~第三十四屆國際化學奧林匹亞競賽總報告，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所主編。
方泰山(民88)：第一屆~第三十屆國際化學奧林匹亞競賽試題(中文版)，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所主編。
方泰山(民90)：第二十三屆~第三十三屆中華民國參與國際化學奧林匹亞競賽試題(中文版)，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所主編。
方泰山(民90)：第二十三屆~第三十三屆中華民國參與國際化學奧林匹亞競賽試題參考題解(中文版)，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所主編。
毛連塭(民84)：資優教育—課程與教學。台北市：五南出版社。
施良方(民85)：學習理論。高雄市：麗文文化。
郭靜姿(民86)：資優學生之鑑定與輔導追蹤研究。台北市：師大書苑。
張春興(民83)：教育心理學。台北市，東華書局。
黃慧真(民83)譯：認知過程的原理。台北市，心理出版社。
楊坤原(民85)：認知風格與科學學習成就的關係(二)，科學教育月刊，195，p16~23。
鄭銘泉(民86)：從解題脈絡網路探究命題層次與解題能力的關係，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。
劉哲淵(民89)：國際化學奧林匹亞競賽(IChO)原命題建構與我國學生實作風格之研究，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。
蕭次融、方泰山，化學資賦優異教育，國立台灣師範大學科學教育中心編印，中華民國七十六年七月。
英文部份
Christie, T. (1970). Environment factors in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 4, 13~31.
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever.；Kendall/Hunt
Publishing campany.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind：The theory of multiple intelligence. New York：Basic Books.
Glover, J. A., & Burning, R. H. (1987). Educational psychology：Priciples and applications (2nd ed.). Boston：Little, Brown.
Glover, J. A. (1980). Englewood Cliffs, Becoming a more creative person. NJ：Prentice-Hall.
Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler’s measurement and appraisalof adult intelligence(5th ed.). Baltimore：Williams & Wilkins.
Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in Science Education.;Science Education 65, 221-227.
Sternberg, R. J.(1985). Beyond IQ :A triarchic theory of intelligence. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J.(1994). Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence;New York, Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking. Lexington, MA：Ginn.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenogh, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive style and their educational implication. Review of Educational Research, 47,1~64.