摘要(英) |
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to develop the model of creative learning process. From literature review, researcher found that the “circulation” is the main common characteristic in models of creative process. Based on this characteristic, the study discussed the change of creative process.
Research method was explanatory multiple-case studies. Participant observation, questionnaire, interview, and portfolio of web-based forum were used to collect data.
It was used to make triangulation from three aspects, including “the factors of creative background”, “change of the creative process”, and “the change of creativity”. The objects of this study were 28 college students of "Introduction and Application of Instructional Media". The creative task was to make “creative multimedia video web site ” in the semester.
The results of this study were as follows:
1.In the aspect of factors of creative background, it is found that these students who recognized themselves as non-creativity people all mentioned the constrained experiences of family and education. So that researcher focused on the students’ notion about creativity to investigate deeply.
2.After analyzing the students’ notion about creativity, it was found that there had two main categories, which were “inner hiding evaluation process” and “external revealable evaluation process”. Former was divided into two concepts, which were “introspective innovation” and “evaluation of realizing creative ideas”. Latter were also divided into two concepts, which were “relative originality” and “molding of external feedback and observation”. These four concepts would gather two opposite categories which were “freely creative localization” and “creative fetter consciousness”. The analysis of students’ notion about creativity provides the deeper understanding that students evaluate whether they are creative people.
3.In the aspect of the change in creative processes, the result was presented that some change had produced. From begin to middle of the semester, there has significant difference in “task value”(t=-2.708,p<.05, effect=.54) and “self efficacy for learning and performance ”(t=-2.176,p<.05, effect=.43); From middle to final of semester, there has no significant difference, but the mean is promotional; From whole semester, there has significant difference in “task value” (t=-2.660,p<.05, effect=.71) and “self efficacy for learning and performance ” (t=-2.929,p<.01, effect=.69). Besides, there has significant difference in “meta-cognitive self- regulation” of creative strategies (t=-2.072, p<.05, effect=.50).This result also revealed that the students’ creative strategies developed for high level meta- cognitive strategies gradually.
4.In the aspect of change in creativity, it was revealed significant progress in graphical fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Students also thought that they had frontal change in creativity and creative notion.
The result of this study constructs “the model of creative changeful learning processes” to understand the change of creative “circulation” processes. Finally, researcher finds some factors of promoting frontal change in the creative process to be the reference of course design in the future. |
參考文獻 |
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王詔賢(民91)。研發團隊創意過程與思考技法之關連研究。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
王文科(民92)。教育研究法。台北:五南
王佳玲(民92)。大學生情緒智力信念、創造力信念與情緒智力、創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台 合著(民 89)。創造力研究。台北:心理。
吳蓉燕(民90)。文學創造力的條件與創作的歷程。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文。
吳芝儀、廖梅花(民90)。Strauss & Corbin 著。紮根理論研究方法。嘉義:濤石
吳靜吉(民91)。創造力的研究取向之回顧與展望。中央大學:創造思考教學策略與實務研討會。
吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺(民87)。新編創造思考測驗研究。台北:教育部。
李錫津(民76)。創造思考教學研究。台北:台灣書店。
李宗倫(民92)。個人創造力歷程之研究:動機理論之整合觀點。國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文。
林心怡(民88)。科學創造過程模式之探討--師院生與小學生的個案詮釋。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林展立(民89)。傑出科技創作學童創造特質之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
林佩璇(民89)。質的研究方法:個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。麗文文化。
林珊如、劉旨峰、袁賢銘 (民90)。大學生學習策略與學習動機預測其網路同儕互評之學習成就。教學科技與媒體。57,頁2-11。
林連鍠(民92)。數位攝影技術融入臺灣地區國民中學環境教育教材創作歷程及其教學策略之研究。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。
林建妤(民92)。創意自我效能與預期評量對內在動機、創造力之影響的實驗研究。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林偉文(民91)。國民中小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教學之關係。政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
林本炫(民94)。質性研究方法與資料分析。嘉義:南華教社所
邱皓政(民91)。量化研究與統計分析。台北:五南
尚榮安(1994)。Robert K.Yin 著。個案研究。台北市:弘智文化。
洪蘭 譯(民88)。Robert J. Sternberg & Todd I. Lubart 著。不同凡想。台北:遠流
洪素蘋(民92)。重要他人回饋、創意自我效能、內、外在動機對創意行為的影響:社會認知理論為基礎的結構方程模式檢驗。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文。
侯旭峰(民91)。傑出科技創作學童點子發想之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部(民91)。創造力教育白皮書:打造創造力國度。台北:教育部。
胡幼慧(民85)。質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。高雄:巨流
胡夢鯨、魏惠娟、陳姚真(民94)。大學生在創造歷程中的學習經驗:以數位化創意學習線上課程設計為例的探索。政治大學:學習與創造、教育與創新國際學術研討會。
張春興(民83)。教育心理學--三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華書局。
張玉山(民91)。虛擬團隊之創造力研究:以師院勞作課程為例。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所博士論文。
張秀惠(民93)。臺北市中學校園空間創意設計之研究。國立政治大學學校行政碩士班碩士論文。
陳昭儀(民78)。我國傑出發明家之人格特質、創造歷程及生涯發展之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
陳龍安(民87)。創造思考教學的理論與實務。台北市:心理出版社。
陳聖智(民89)。專家與生手設計者使用電腦媒材的認知差異: 一般性思考到創造性思考的歷程。碩士論文,國立交通大學應用藝術所。
葉玉珠、吳靜吉、鄭英耀(民89)。影響科技與資訊產業人員創意發展的因素之量表編製。師大學報:科學教育類。45(2),p.39--63
游詩蒂(民90)。兒童創造性問題解決歷程及影響因素之研究-以科學創意競賽活動為例。碩士論文,臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系。
廖啟男(民90)。不同學習型態學童在STS模式教學中的創造表現。臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
潘淑滿(民92)。質性研究:理論與應用。台北市:心理出版社。
劉思量(民81)。藝術心理學—藝術與創造。台北:藝術家出版社。
劉旨峰 (民 92)。網路討論學習系統與學習方法之調查研究。中正大學:第十四屆國際資訊管理學術研討會 (ICIM 2003)。
劉旨峰、董怡松、簡佩芯 (民92)。推廣網路同儕評量於國民中學電腦課程之研究。政治大學:2003年台灣區學術網路研討會暨網路學習 (TANet 2003)
蔡麗玲(民93)。國小學童科學學習及科學創造力之個案研究:以創造性問題解決融入自然科教學為例。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭廉鐙(民90)。傑出科技創作學童創新歷程之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭文章(民91)。培育兒童科學創造力教學模組實作評量發展歷程之研究。臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士班碩士論文。
謝幸玲、劉旨峰、林珊如 ( 民 93) 。 設計創意電子產品於國中網路化學習與評量活動 。政治大學:第二屆 創新與創造力 學術研討會。
謝幸玲(民93)。網路同儕評量回饋功能及自我調制歷程之研究。國立中央大學學習與教學所碩士論文(未出版)。
簡佩芯、劉旨峰(民93)。教師資訊科技融入教學個案研究。中華民國數位學習學會電子期刊-第二期「行動學習」http://www.ael.org.tw電子期刊
簡佩芯、劉旨峰(民93)。網路小說創作策略相關因素之初探研究。台東大學:2004年台灣網際網路研討會(TANET2004)
簡佩芯、劉旨峰(民94)。整合非同步討論區於教學互動改善之研究。夏威夷:全球華人計算機教育應用大會(GCCCE2005)
簡佩芯、劉旨峰(民94)。大學生創造歷程變化研究:以多媒體創作課程為例。政治大學:「學習與創造‧教育與創新」國際學術研討會。
二、英文部分
Amabile, T. M.(1988).A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.In b.M.Staw& L.L.Cummings(Eds).Research in organizational behavior,10,123-167
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P.,& Brackfield, S. C.(1990).Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, p.6-21
Amabile ,T. M.(1996).Creativity in the context. NY:Springer-Verlag
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Handbook of Creativity (p.297-312). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
Cole , Sugioka ,& Lynch (1999) . Supportive Classroom Environments for Creativity in Higher Education. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(4), 277-293.
Cuban L.(2001).Oversold and Underused:Computers in Classroom.Harvard University Press.
Choi , J. N.(2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity research Journal, 16 (2&3),187-199
Drazin, R. ,Glynn, M.A., &Kazanjian, R. K.(1999).Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations:A sensemakingm perspective. Academy of management,24,286 -307
Driver, M.(2002).Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. Internet and higher Education, 5,35-45
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5,.p.444-454..
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence, New York: McGraw
Gilson ,L. ,& Shally ,E(2004). A little creativity goes a long way :an examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of management, 30(4), 453-470
Judith, B. ,Pena-Shaff, & Craig Nicholls.(2003).Analyzing Student Interactions and Meaning Construction in Computer Bulletin Board Discussions. Computers & Education, 42 (2004), 243-265
James, V., Lederman Gerard, R., & Vagt-Traore, B., (2004). Enhancing creativity in the classroom. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Available Website: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/creativity.htm.
Koberg, D.,& Bagnall, J.(1976).The universal traveler:A soft-system guide to creativity,problem solving,and the process of reaching goals. Los Altos, CA: kaufmsnn.
Kurtzberg,T.R.,& Amabile T.M.(2001).From Guilford to creativity synergy:opening the black box of team-level creativity.Creativity research journal,13(3&4), 285 -294
Lubart, L.I.(2001).Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future.Creativity research journal,13(3&4),295-308
Mayer, R . E.(2001). Multimedia Learning. NY: Cambridge
McCoy, J.M.,&Evants,G .W.(2002).The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity.Creativity research journal,14(3&4)409-426
Necka, E.(2003).Creative interaction:a conceptual schema for the process of producing ideas and judging he outcomes.Critical creative processes. New Jersey: Hampton press(p.115-127)
Pintrich, P. R., Smith.D, Garcia.T, & Mckeachie, W.T.(1991) The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire(MSLQ).Ann Arbor, MI:NCRIPTAL,The university of Michigan
Plesk, P. E(1997). Working Paper: Models for the Creative Process. Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.mountaineagleweb.com/Creative/Creative.htm
Penny, A. R. ,& Coe, R. (2004).Effectiveness of Consultation on Student Ratinngs Feedback: A Meta-Analysis .Review of Educational Research , 74 (2004), 215-253
Rogers, E.M.(1995).Diffusion of innovations(4th ed).New Work:The Free Press.
Runco, M.A.(1997). Creative potential and performance. In M. A. Runco(ed), The Creativity Research Handbook, Volume 1(p.115-152 ).
Runco, M. A.(2003).Critical creative processes. New Jersey: Hampton press.
Roblyer, M.D.(2003).Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching(3rd Edition). Columbus,Oh.:Merrill Perentice Hall.
Sternberg, R. J.(1999.). Handbook of creativity. NY: Cambridge
Sternberg, R. J. ,& Lubart, T. I(1999).The concepts of creativity: prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity (p.3-12). NY: Cambridge
Sternberg, R. J. & O’hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg. (Ed.), The Handbook of Creativity (pp.254-257). NY: Cambridge University Press
Swann,W.B., Kwan S.Y., Polzer,J.T, & Milton,L.P.(2003).Fosering group identification and creativity in diverse groups:the role of individuation and self-verification. Personality and social psychology,29(11),1396-1406
Stokes P. D.,& Balsam, P. D(2003).Effects of early strategic hints on sustained variability levels. Creativity research journal,15(4),331-341
Torrance, E. P& Mayers, R.E.(1970).Creative learning and teaching.New York, NY:dodd, mead.
Torrance, E. P.(1974).Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexin -gton ,MA:Ginn.
Taylor,S.J.,& Bogdan,R.(1998).Participant observation :in the field. Induction to qualitative research methods.(p.87-116)
Wallas,G..(1926).The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Woodman, R. W.& L.F.Schoenfeldt(1990).An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of creative behavior,24,279-290. |