本研究旨在對於第三十五屆國際化學奧林匹亞競賽做相關的研究。研究目的有三：一、研究不同背景來源和不同錄取管道學生的創造力與選訓營學習成就是否達顯著差異。二、分析第三十五屆理論試題在各個不同領域、理論試題綱要、命題層級的配分以及四位選手的解題成就分析。三、利用解題網路脈絡來研究四位代表隊選手的解題與相關化學概念類型、概念密度和程序性知識之間的關係。
研究結果發現:一、1.背景來源是資優班的學生在多項選訓營成績明顯優於普通班背景學生，達到顯著的差異。2.背景來源是資優班的學生在創造力獨創力部分顯著高於普通班。3.錄取管道為化學競賽優勝的學生在多項選訓營成績的表現高於甄選、筆試錄取的學生，並且達到顯著差異。4.錄取管道為筆試錄取的學生在創造力中流暢性的表現高於化學競賽優勝的學生，並且達到顯著差異。二、第三十五屆國際化學奧林匹亞競賽試題的特點是：增加單獨的普化考題。按領域劃分，比例最多的是物化，佔34.4%。四位選手在普化試題的得分率都相當高，平均為96.7%，顯示影響理論試題總成績的關鍵並不在普化題目；得分率最好的三題平均得分率均為量子化學、冷劑、NMR光譜題，平均得分率最低的題目是由動量變化量計算乙醇分子的運動速率、胜的合成，這兩題的知識領域對四位選手而言是較陌生的，因此影響了解題成就。三、四位選手的解題成就與相關化學概念類型無關，只與選手對於該概念熟悉的程度有關；此外除了其中一位選手的解題成就與直接概念密度呈顯著負相關外，其餘三位選手的解題成就均與概念密度無關；本研究歸納得化學解題程序性知識共27項，不同領域的化學題目所需的解題程序性知識類型和屬性不同；研究發現四位選手造成未成功解題最多次數的程序性知識為『定義概念』；造成最多未得分數的程序性知識也是『定義概念』，可見化學概念對於化學解題成就的重要性。

This research is about the 35th IChO competition. There are three purposes, first, to investigate the significant difference of three different channels and two different background of 35th IChO Taiwan’s study and selection camp .Secondly, we analyze the relative percentage of 35th IchO in four fields and theoretical tasks syllabus as well as the results of four competitors. Finally, the problem-solving activities of four competitors are explored based on declarative knowledge, chemical concepts and procedural knowledge . We conclude as below:
I. Willian’s Creativity Assessment Packet was used to study the significant difference of three different channels of 35th IChO Taiwan’s study and selection camp. It revealed that (1) The originality and chemistry achievement of student candidates from gifted classes are notable better than those from normal classes. (2)The chemistry achievement of the student candidates enrolled by Taiwan senior high school chemistry competition winners is notably better than the other groups. (3). The fluency of the group enrolled by primary selection two-hours written test is notable better than that of the group from Taiwan senior high school chemistry competition winners.
II. Secondly, the results are as follows (1).The characteristic of 35th IChO theoretical tasks is to contain the separate general chemistry test questions. Besides, the field of the most weighted percentage is physical chemistry, 34.4%. The four competitors all got high scores in general chemistry field and the average is 96.7%. Obviously, this section is not the key point to winning or losing in this competition. Three of these tasks about quantum chemistry、refrigerant and NMR spectrum are well done by the four .They gain full marks. The lowest score four competitors gained is the two tasks concerning momentum、peptide synthesis ,which could be interpreted that they are not familiar with the concepts of this field.
III. Finally, it can be concluded as: (1) The achievement of solving problem of the four competitors is related to whether they master the concepts or not .The results they gained have nothing to do with the types of relevant chemical concepts. Besides, the result of only one competitor is related to concept density and the other three are not. (2) This research concludes 27 types of procedural knowledge in chemistry problem-solving. (3) The major procedural knowledge of the failure in problem solving is “to define concepts”, which suggests chemical concepts is everything.

中文部分
王文科(民92) 教育研究法，五南圖書出版公司
王春展(民86) 專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊，5(2)，80-92頁。
王磊、胡久華(民89) 中學化學實驗問題解決心理機制的初步研究，中國化學教育。
林重新(民90) 心理與教育測驗，揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
方泰山(民88) 第一屆至第三十屆(民國57~87年)國際化學奧林匹
競賽試題(中文版)，國立台灣師範大學化學系，化學研究所主編。
吳德邦、吳順治(民78) 解題導向的數學教學策略，五南圖書出版公司。
陳昭錦(民82) 高三資優學生「水溶液中的化學平衡」解題的個案研究。
陳龍安(民83) 創造思考教學，台北市立師範學院台北市: 師大書苑。
陳玉玲(民92) 國際化學奧林匹亞競賽力屆實作試題的三大層級的界定義與詮釋之研究，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。
郭靜姿(民85) 資賦優異學生的鑑定與教育安置，教育資料集刊，21輯，1-18頁。
廖焜熙(民88) 有機立體化學成就影響因素及解題模式的研究，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士輪文。
鄭麗玉(民89) 認知與教學，五南圖書出版公司。
趙潤隆(民91) 國際化學奧林匹亞競賽歷屆理論競賽試題及歷屆我國選手表現的分析比較研究。
葉重新(民88) 教育研究法，心理出版社。
楊文貴(民89) 無機配位化合物和立體化學解題成就影響因素及解題之個案研究，國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明(民85) 認知心理學，台北:桂冠圖書公司。
鄭銘泉(民86) 從解題網路脈絡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。
劉貞宜(民89) 數學資優生的解題歷程分析，台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
戴仁欽(民87) 建立模型教學法對學生概念學習與計算解題的影響，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
魏明通(民88) 科學教育，五南圖書出版公司。
英文部分
Anderson(1990) congnition psychology and it’s implications 4th. N.Y.:W.H. Freeman and company.
Atwater, M.M., & Alick, B. (1990). Cognitive development and problem-solving of Afro-American students in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 157 ± 172
Camach,M.,&Good.R.(1989).Problem solving and chemistry equilibrium:successful performance.Journal of Rearch in Science Teaching,26(3),251~272.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Clague-Tweet,Claudia.( 1981) Implementation of Creativity Training in the Elementary School Curriculum Through Two Varied Techniques. .
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever.；Kendall/Hunt Publishing
campany.
Feldhusen, J. F. & Jarwan, F. A. (1993). Identification gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller; F. J. Monks & A. S. Passow(Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. 233-251, Oxford: Pergamon.
Feldhusen and Treffinger(1997) Teaching Creative Thinking and Problem Solving. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company
Gabel, D.L. and Sherwood,R.D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843-851
Gagne, F. (1983). Giftedness and talent; Rexxamining a reemamnation of and talent; Rexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frame of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence . NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1992). The unschooled mind. NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligence . NY: Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1965). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479.
Hany, E. A. (1987). Models and strategies in the identification of gifted students. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Munich.
Hany, E. A. (1993). Methodolgical problems and issues concerning identification. In K. A. Heller; F. J. Monks & A. S. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. 209-232. Oxford; Pergamon
Joanne McCall (2003) Problem solving with pathways Journal of Chemical Education Vol.80 No1 Jan2003
Mayer(1987) Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little,Brown and company
Mayer, R.E(1992).Thinking, problem Solving,Cognition.2ndEd. New York:W.H.Freeman
Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in Science Education . ; Science Education 65, 221-227.
Mason,D. F. Shell, and F. E. Crawley, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 905 (1997) Differences in Problem Solving of Nonscience Majors in Introductory Chemistry on Paired Algorithmic-Conceptual Problems," D. S..
M.B. (1993).Are Our Student Conceptual Thinkers of Algorithmic Problem Solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.
Nakhleh,M. B.; Mitchell,R. C. J. Chem. Ed. 1993 , 70, 190 Concept Learning versus Problem Solving Chemical Education, 70 (3), 1993, 190-192
Niaz, M.(1995).Progressive Transitions from Algorithmic to conceptual Understanding in Student Ability to Solve Chemistry Problem:A Lakatosian Interpretation. Science Education.79(1)~36
Nurrenbern,S.c.,&Pickering,M(1987).Concept concerning Versus Problem Solving: Is there a Different? Journal of Chemical Education
Pickering,M.(1990).Further Studies on Concept Learning Versus Problem Solving.Journal Chemial Education
Sawrey, B.A. (1990) Concept learning versus problem solving: revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 67, pp. 253-254
Schoenfeld,A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. New York: Academic Press
Simon,H.A.(1980). Problem solving and education:Issues in teaching and research.Hillside,NT:Erlbaum.
Simon,H.A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Siegler’R(1991)Childen's Thinking U.S.A. : Prentice Hall
Sternberg, R. J (1985). Beyond IQ, a triarchic theory of human intelligence. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambrideg: Cambridge University Press.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Genetic studies of genius (Vol.1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking. Lexington, MA：Ginn.
Webside of 35th Intrenational Chemistry Olympiad
ATHENS, GREECE 5 - 14 JULY 2003 http://www.35icho.uoa.gr/