跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.236.192.4) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/17 18:09
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:劉聰穎
研究生(外文):Liou Tsong-Yiing
論文名稱:從二元編碼理論與創造力聯想理論探討國小學童的科學創造力表現
論文名稱(外文):A Theoretical Model Based on the Combination of the Dual Coding Theory and the Theory of Associative Creativity to Explore the Effect for Scientific Creativity
指導教授:莊嘉坤莊嘉坤引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東師範學院
系所名稱:數理教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:143
中文關鍵詞:科學創造力國小學童刺激物模式關聯距離
外文關鍵詞:Scientific CreativityPrimary School StudentsStimuli ModesAssociative Distances
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:32
  • 點閱點閱:1351
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:194
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
有關提升學生科學創造力的研究中,國外學者依據Paivio(1971)的二元編碼理論與Mednick(1962)的創造力聯想理論的理念,引入刺激物來激發創造力表現,且被證實可行。其中,Paivio的二元編碼理論指出,記憶與認知的運行,仰賴文字系統與圖像系統,此二系統可以互相聯結,亦可以獨自運作。而Mednick(1962)的創造力聯想理論提及,聯結的數目越多,產生的想法數越多;聯結物之間的距離越遠,則出現具有創意的反應的機率越高。研究者構想若將二元編碼理論引入聯結的方式,將有助於新想法的產生,並由此設計出刺激物模式與關聯距離兩個變項,以驗證兩個理論合併後其論點是否仍成立;並探討何種模式與關聯距離對科學創造力表現最有助益。
本研究採用問卷調查法,資料分析著重「量」的探討,並以研究者自編的「國小學童科學創造聯想」量表作為研究的工具。該工具針對刺激物模式與關聯距離兩變項,設計出七種版本的紙筆測驗工具,以便蒐集相關資料進行分析。研究樣本為高雄市某國小四年級學生,總受測人數為364人。
本研究的主要發現如下:
1.圖文共存的模式下,對四年級國小學童的科學創造力各向度的表現助益最佳;圖形刺激物模式下的表現次之;文字刺激物模式下的表現又次之;無刺激物模式則表現最差。
2.刺激物關聯距離較近,對四年級學童的科學創造力中的「流暢力」之表現助益最大;刺激物關聯距離較遠則對學童的科學創造力中的「變通力」與「獨創力」之表現助益最大;而無刺激物組在所有向度的表現都最差。
最後根據研究結果與發現,從研究工具、教學設計與後續研究方向三方面,提出一些建議。
Among the researches of scientific creativity, some foreign scholars accepted the viewpoints of the dual coding theory and the associative theory of creativity. They used stimulus to increase the scientific creativity achievements of the learners, and the way was effective. Paivo (1971) assumes that memory and cognition are served by verbal systems and image system. The two systems are presumed to be interconnected but capable of functioning independently. Mednick (1962) indicated that the greater the number of associations that an individual has to the requisite elements of problem, the greater the probability of his reaching a creative solution. He also speculated that the greater the “distance” between associative elements, the greater the possibility of a creative response. The associative connections suggested by the dual coding theory may help the generation of new ideas. Two varieties in this study were stimulus modes and associative distance, which were used to prove that the combination of this two theory is effective and explored what kind of stimuli modes and associative distance are better for increasing scientific creativity.
This study was questionnaires survey designed to compare the effect of different stimuli modes and associative distance. The instruments were used to collect data that were analyzed in this study. The subjects of this study were all the forth-grade students of a primary school in Kaohsiung. 364 students were tested in this study.
The major findings were:
1. The use of both word and picture stimuli in this test resulted in the highest level scores of fluency, flexibility and originality of scientific creativity. The use of picture stimuli in this test resulted in second level scores of fluency, flexibility and originality of scientific creativity. The use of word stimuli in this test resulted in third level scores of fluency, flexibility and originality of scientific creativity. The use of non-stimuli in this test resulted in the lowest level scores of fluency, flexibility and originality of scientific creativity.
2. The use of stimuli with closed associative distances in this test resulted in the highest level scores of fluency of scientific creativity. The use of stimuli with remote associative distances in this test resulted in second level scores of fluency of scientific creativity. The use of noun stimuli in this test resulted in the lowest level scores of fluency of scientific creativity.
3. The use of stimuli with remote associative distances in this test resulted in the highest level scores of flexibility and originality of scientific creativity. The use of closed stimuli with associative distances in this test resulted in second level scores of flexibility and originality of scientific creativity. The use of noun stimuli in this test resulted in the lowest level scores of flexibility and originality of scientific creativity.
中文摘要……………………………………………………………I
英文摘要…………………………………………………………..III
目次………………………………………………………………..V
圖次………………………………………………………………VII
表次………………………………………………………………VII
第壹章 緒論………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………4
第三節 研究假設………………………………………………5
第四節 名詞釋意………………………………………………7
第五節 研究限制………………………………………………9
第貳章 文獻探討………………………………………………..10
第一節 創造力的理論基礎…………………………………..10
第二節 科學學習、教學與創造力…………………………..22
第三節 問題解決與創造思考………………………………..32
第四節 圖形刺激物在創造思考中的角色…………………..42
第五節 二元編碼理論………………………………………..44
第六節 創造力聯想理論……………………………………..47
第七節 科學創造力的評量…………………………………..49
第八節 綜合討論…………………………………………….51
第參章 研究設計與方法……………………………………….54
第一節 研究設計的理念…………………………………….54
第二節 研究流程…………………………………………….57
第三節 研究工具之編製…………………………………….60
第四節 研究對象…………………………………………….66
第五節 資料處理…………………………………………….67
第六節 研究的信度與效度………………………………….68
第肆章 研究結果與討論……………………………………….70
第一節 國小學童在科學創造聯想活動後的流暢力表現分析與探討……………………………………………….70
第二節 國小學童在科學創造聯想活動後的變通力表現分析與探討……………………………………………….75
第三節 國小學童在科學創造聯想活動後的獨創力表現分析與探討……………………………………………….79
第四節 綜合討論…………………………………………….83
第伍章 結論與建議…………………………………………….84
第一節 結論………………………………………………….84
第二節 建議………………………………………………….86
參考文獻………………………………………………………….89
一、中文部分………………………………………………….89
二、英文部分………………………………………..………. .93
附錄………………………………………………………………100
附錄一 國小學生科學創造聯想1……………………………100
附錄二 國小學生科學創造聯想2a………………………….106
附錄三 國小學生科學創造聯想2b………………………….112
附錄四 國小學生科學創造聯想3a………………………….118
附錄五 國小學生科學創造聯想3b………………………….124
附錄六 國小學生科學創造聯想4a………………………….130
附錄七 國小學生科學創造聯想4b………………………….137
附錄八 獨創力評分表……………………………….……….142
一、中文部份:
毛連塭 (1987):資優教育教學模式。台北市,心理出版社。
毛連塭(1994):創造力的涵義及其概念的闡析。國小特殊教育, 17, 1-7。
王精文(1983):創造性解決問題訓練對創造思考、抗拒改革的影響。國立交通大學管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
古智雄(1992):凸透鏡成像迷思概念的詮釋系統研究。國立台灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
何偉雲(1999):國小學童科學創造力特性及開發之研究。子計畫三:創意產生的演化和突現研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
吳靜吉(1976):分歧式和聯鎖式的聯想訓練對創造思考的影響。國立政治大學學報,33, 45-71。
吳靜吉、陳嘉成和林偉文(1998):研究方法探討--- 創造力量表簡介。「技術創造力」研討活動(二)。
林心怡(2000):科學創造過程模式之探討─師院生與小學生的個案詮釋。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林顯輝和王龍錫(2000):國小學童科學創造力特性及開發之研究(2/2)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
洪文東(1997):創造性思考與科學創造力的培養。國教天地, 123, 10-14。
洪文東(1999):國小學童科學創造力特性及開發之研究。子計畫一:創造型兒童之思考特性研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
洪文東(2000):從問題解決的過程培養學生的科學創造力。屏師科學教育, 11, 52-62。
洪振方(1994):從孔恩異例的認知與輿論探討科學知識的重建。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
洪振方(1998):科學創造力之探討。高雄師大學報, 9, 289-302。
柳秀蘭(1995):資優學生、普通學生、山地學生創造力與問解決能力之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
唐偉成(1998):開發科學創造力之教學策略研究---應用於國小自然科。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
翁秀玉、段曉林(1997):科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育, 201, 2-15。
教育部(2000):國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。教育部編印。
張玉成(1983):教師發問技巧及其對學生創造思考能力影響之研究。台北市:教育部教育計劃小組編印。
張世彗(1988):創造性問題解決方案教學對國小資優班與普通班學生創造性問題解決能力,創造力和問題解決能力之影響。師大特教研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
連韻文(2000):從心理學角度看人類思考。科學月刊, 31(10), 842-849。
郭有遹(1985):創造心理學。台北市:正中書局。
陳文雄(1975):創造力與創造性人格之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教研所期刊, 17, 87-107。
陳龍安 (1984):創造思考教學對國小資優班與普通學生創造思考能力之影響。師大輔導研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
陳龍安(1987):七十五學年度特殊教育測驗工具檢討會參考資料(三),創造力的評量。國立高雄師範學院特殊教育中心。
陳龍安(1988):創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北市:心理出版社。
許良榮(1996):圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊, 4(4), 121-131。
梁家祺(1999):創造力在科學教育上的意涵。科教人, 3, 1-13。
黃文彬(1999):具科學創造力之國小學童人格特質之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
黃素秋(1998):國小自然科教學班級氣氛與創造表現之評量研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
賈複茗 (1979):英才教育。台北:開明書店,民68 ,三版。
詹秀美(1989):國小學生創造力與問題解決能力的相關變項之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
趙芝瑩(1992):國小輕度不足學生日常生活問題解決能力之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
簡惠燕(2000):國小學童在科學問題解決過程中創造力與後設認知之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
韓承靜(1998):創造思考的心智表徵之研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
簡真真(1981):國小資優實驗班學生創造力及問題解決能力發展之研究。國立高雄師範學院教育研究所教育碩士論文(未出版)。
饒見維(1994):知識場論:認知、思考與教育的統合理論。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
二、英文部份:
Ackerman, N. I. & Levin, H. (1958). Effects of training in alternative solutions on subsequent problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(5), 239-244.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: An update to The Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Angehrn, A. & Jelassi, T. (1994). DSS research and practice in perspective, Decision Support System , 12, 267-275.
Boden, Margaret. (1990). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Basic Book, New York.
Bouchard, T. J. (1969). Personality, problem-solving procedure and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 53(1).
Bouchard, T.J. & Hare, M. (1969). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 51-55.
Colson, G. & Mareschal, B. (1994). JUDGES: a descriptive group decision support system for the ranking of items. Decision Support System, 12, 391-404.
Davis , G. A. (1973). Psychology of problem solving. New York:Basic Books, Inc.
de Bono, E. (1994). de Bono’s Thinking Course , New York.
Dennis, A. & Valacich, J. (1993). Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one. Journal of Psychology, 78, 531-537.
DeSanctis, G. & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
Diehl, M & Strobe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming group: toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Diehl, M & Strobe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down blocking effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(270).
D’Zurilla, T. N. & Goldfried, M. A. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 107-126.
Elam, J.J, & Mead, M. (1987). Designing for creativity: considerations for DSS development. Information and Management, 13(5), 215-222.
Feldhusen, J. F. & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Iowa: HendallHunt publishing company.
Fliegler, L. A. (1959). Levels of creativity. Educational Theory, 9, 115.
Forbach, G. & Evans, R. (1981). The remote associates test as a predictor of productivity in brainstorming groups. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 333-339.
Gallupe, R. et. al. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 137-142.
Gallupe, R. et. al. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350-369.
Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301-318.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: an anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.
Getzels, J. W. (1964). Creative thinking, problem solving, and instruction .In E.R. Hilgard (ED.).
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Eplorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.
Ghiselin, B. (1955). The Creative Proccess. N.Y.: The New American Library.
Gilhooly, K. J. (1982). Thinking Directed, Undirected, and Creative. Academic Press, New York.
Goor, A. (1974). Problem Solving of Creative and Non-Creative students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 941-9.
Goor, A. & Sommerfeld, R.E. (1975). A comparison of problem solving process of creative students and noncreative student, 67(4), 495-505.
Gordon, W. (1961). Synetics: The Development of creative capacity. Harper & Row, New York.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1971). The Metaphorical Way of Learning and Knowing. Porpoise Book, Cambridge.
Gove , P. B. (1973). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. in Anderson, H.H.(Ed.). Creativity and Its Cultivation, N.J.: Harner & Raw, 91-95.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Guilford, J .P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness :Their measurement and development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(2), 107-121.
Guilford, J.P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo. NY:Creative Education Foundation, Inc.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The Creative Process, New American Library, New York.
Howley, A. & Howley, C. B. & Pendavis, E. D.(1986). Teaching Gifted Children. Little, Brown & company (Canada) Limited.
Isaksen, S. G.& Parnes, S. J. (1985). Curriculum Planning for Creative Thinking and Problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(1), 1-29.
Jessup, L. M. et. al. (1990). The effect of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 4(3), 313-321.
Kaufmann, G. (1985). A Theory of symbolic representation in problem solving. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 51-70.
Kershner, J. R & Ldger, G. (1985). Effect of sex, Intelligence, and style of thinking on creativity:A comparison of gifted and average IQ children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1033-1040.
Krulick, S. & Rudnick, J. A. (1980). Problem solving: A Handbook for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. Arkana, London.
Kosslyn, S. (1983). Ghost’s in the Mind’s Machine: Creating and Using Images in the Brain. W.W. Norton, New York.
Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and Brain. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Logie, R. H. & Denis, M. (1991). Mental Images in Human Cognition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
MacCrimmon, K. & Wagner, C. (1991). Supporting problem formulation and alternative generation in managerial decision making, Proceedings Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Science HICSS-24, 432-441.
MacCrimmon, K. & Wagner, C. (1994). Stimulating ideas through creativity software. Management science , 40(11), 1514-1532.
Maker, J. C. (1982). Teaching Moldels in Education of the Gifted. Maryland:Aspen Systems Corporation.
Massetti,B. (1996). An empirical examination of the value of creativity support systems in idea generation. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 83-97.
Meadow, M., Parnes, S., Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 413-416.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
Merrifield, P. R. et. al. (1962). The role of intellectual factors in problem solving. Psychology Monograph, 76(10), 1-21.
Milgram, R. M. & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255-259.
Miller, A. (1984). Imagery in scientific Thought. MIT press, Cambridge , MA.
Miller, A. (1996). Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Osborn, A. (1954). Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Parnes, S. J. (1977). CPSI: The General Syste. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 10(2), 126-129.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A. & Beggs, I. (1981). Psychology of Language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Paivio, A. & Lambert, W. (1981). Dual coding and bilingual memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 532-539.
Paivio, A. (1983). Empirical case for dual coding. in: J. Yuille(ed.), Imagery, Memory, and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Penick, J. E. (1976). Creativity in fifth-grade science students: The Effects of Two Patterns of Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13(4), 314.
Petrovic, O. & Krickl, O. (1994). Traditionally-moderated versus computer supported brainstorming: a comparative study. Information and Management, 27(4), 233-243.
Proctor, T. (1988). Generating insights with a computer. Creativity and Innovation Yearbook, 87-100.
Rothenberg, A. & Hausman, C. R. (1976). The creativity question. Durham, N.C.: Duke University press.
Ruth, J. & Birren, J. E. (1985). Creativity in adulthood and old age: Relations to intelligence, sex, and mode of testing International, Journal of Behavioral Development, 8,99-109.
Shepard, R. N. (1978). Externalization of metal images and the act of creation, in: Coffman, B. S. Randhawa, W. E.(Eds.), Visual Learning, Thinking, and Communication, Academic Press, New York, 133-189
Stafford, R. L. (1967). The effects of creativity and intelligence on information seeking strategies used in problem solving task by sixth grad boys. Dissertation Abstracts, 27, 1669A.
Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T. (1999). The concepts of creativity: prospects and paradigms, sternberg, R. (Ed.): Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge ,UK, 3-15.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University press.
Taylor, I. A. (1975). A retrospective view of creativity investigation, in: A. Irving, J.W. Getzels Taylor (Eds.). perspectives in creativity, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, 1-36.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Minnesota studies of creative thinking in the early school years. Univ.of Minnesota Research Memorandum (No.59-4). Minneapolis, Minn: Univ. of Minnesota Bureau of Educational Research.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. In Kagan, J. (Ed.): Creativity and learning, Houghton-Mifflin.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach child to think creatively. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6,114-143.
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on Creativity. Gifted child Qrarterly , 30(1), 15-19.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt.
Williams, F. E. (1970). Classroom Ideas for Encouraging Thinking and felling. N.Y: D.O.K Publishers, Inc.
Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP):Manual. Buffalo, N.Y.:D.O.K. Pub.
Yuille, J. (1983). Imagery,Memory,and Cognition: Essays in Honor of Allan Paivi. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top