(3.235.139.152) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/08 18:36
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:姚佩吟
研究生(外文):Pei-Yin Yao
論文名稱:Web2.0下的腦力激盪─探討不同社群型態與回饋類型對個人創造力表現之影響
論文名稱(外文):The brainstorming based on web2.0─The influences of different community types and feedback types on individual’s performance of creativity
指導教授:高宜敏高宜敏引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yi-Ming Kao
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:元智大學
系所名稱:資訊傳播學系
學門:傳播學門
學類:一般大眾傳播學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:105
中文關鍵詞:web2.0創造力社群回饋思考風格腦力激盪同儕互評
外文關鍵詞:web2.0creativitycommunity feedbackthinking stylebrainstormingpeer assessment
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:286
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
2002年教育部公布《創造力教育白皮書》,顯示出創造力研究已逐漸受到重視,如何提昇個人創意表現並促進創意思考(creative thinking)已成為一個重要的議題。此外,隨著web2.0社群發展,大眾已能便利地參與討論,給予他人一些回饋建議,如yahoo知識+、3C討論群組mobile 01。這些不同的社群回饋可能會影響他人的行為或思想,尤其每個人具有不同的思考風格,在集體腦力激盪(brainstorming)下產生的集體群眾智慧(collective wisdom),對他人的影響力不可小覷。
因此,本研究旨在探討社群回饋建議是否有助於個人創造力表現的提升,並進一步以「思考風格」(thinking style)為變異,探討不同「社群型態」(community type)下的回饋,對個人的創意表現是否有不同的效應;以及不同「回饋類型」(feedback type)對個人創意表現又有什麼影響;最後,驗證不同評量者間評分的相關性。本研究應用高宜敏老師國科會計畫(NSC98-2511-S-155-004-MY2,執行期間:98/8/1-100/7/31)中開發的社群輔助發想網站(Community Assisted Thinking Website , CAT),透過該平台進行社群討論與回饋,輔助學習者進行flash數位履歷的「創意腳本寫作」,並對其影響進行量化分析與質化的觀察。
研究結果發現,社群回饋確實能提升學生在黏力方面的表現,而不同社群型態給予的回饋對於個人創意表現上則並無顯著地差異。本研究中回饋多以增強性回饋為主,且與個人各方面表現都具有顯著相關,尤其是在黏力表現上;建議性回饋則可能因數量太少而與個人表現無顯著相關。此外,在評量者方面,研究顯示同儕互評與專家評分在評分上一致度很高。質化部分則進一步發現,相似風格的人的建議似乎更傾向補充他人的概念,使其更完整;互補風格的人則較傾向給予其他不同方向上的建議。而創作者對於回饋多採正向態度回應,未採納情況多因時間、技術的考量和概念衝突。此外,回饋具體與否品質不一、線下同儕討論未被記錄,和非完全匿名性的同儕間顧慮等問題也是影響回饋效應的關鍵性因素。


The announcement of “White Paper on Creativity Education” made by Ministry of Education in2002 shows that creativity research has received more attention. Therefore, how to improve an individual’s performance of creativity and promote creative thinking is important. In addition, as the development of web2.0 community, the public can participate in all kinds of discussions and give some feedbacks or suggestions to others, such as Yahoo!Answers and 3C discussion community website Mobile01. These various community feedbacks may have an effect on others’ behavior or thinking, especially, everyone may have his/her own preference and “thinking style”. In other words, the result of brainstorming with community masses involving the “collective wisdom” may have a great effect on individuals.
Therefore, in this study we try to investigate whether the community feedbacks can promote individuals’ creativity performance. Besides, we take a distinguishing human factor (thinking style) into account to examine the effects of different community types on individuals’ creativity performance. Moreover, we also investigate the effects of various feedback types on individuals. Finally, we try to understand the correlation between the scores made by different assessors. In this study, we use Community Assisted Thinking Website (CAT) established by Kao (NSC98-2511-S-155-004-MY2, 98/8/1-100/7/31)as our community platform. The learner will write some creative scripts for “flash resume” and get some feedbacks from the discussion in CAT. In the end, we will analyze the quantitative data and make some qualitative observations.
The result in this study shows that community feedbacks can promote the students’ performances and make the scripts “sticky” obviously. However, the effects of accepting feedbacks from various community types on individuals’ creativity performances have no noticeable differences. In this study, the result shows that students mainly prefer to give reinforcing feedbacks and give less suggestive feedbacks. And the reinforcing feedbacks correlate closely with the individuals’ performance; while suggestive feedbacks are not distinctly relevant to helping individuals perform better on writing scripts. In addition, the study shows that the result of peer assessment is highly correlated with the result of expert assessment.
Moreover, some qualitative observations in this study implicate that people who have similar thinking styles to the individual seem to give suggestions that complete the concepts of the individual. Relatively, people who have complementary thinking styles with the individual prefer to give suggestions in various aspects. However, most of the individuals’ reactions to feedbacks are positive. Sometimes, people do not adopt the suggestions due to time and technical considerations or the conflicts of concepts. Besides, there are some factors that may have effects on community feedbacks. For example, the qualities of feedbacks in our community are inconsistent and some off-line discussions are not recorded in this study. Furthermore, the apprehensions among peers in discussions that are not one-hundred percent anonymous may possibly have some negative effects on the development of creativity in community.


摘 要 i
ABSTRACT iii
誌 謝 vi
目 錄 viii
表 目 錄 xi
圖 目 錄 xii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究問題 3
第四節 名詞解釋 4
一、 web2.0社群 (web2.0 community) 4
二、 思考風格功能 (thinking style functions) 5
三、 同儕互評 (peer assessment) 5
四、 回饋型態(feedback type) 5
五、 社群型態 (community type) 6
六、 表現評量指標 (performance assessment) 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 創造力理論 7
一、 創造力定義 7
二、 創造力系統論 10
第二節 社群與web2.0集體創新的力量 12
第三節 思考風格 16
第四節 同儕互評與專家教師評量 18
第五節 個人表現與創意評量 20
第三章 研究方法 24
第一節 研究對象 24
第二節 研究設計 24
一、 研究架構與假設 25
二、 活動前準備工作 29
三、 活動設計流程與步驟 30
第三節 研究工具 33
一、 CAT社群輔助發想網站 33
二、 思考風格問卷 35
三、 專家/同儕評分問卷 36
第四節 資料分析 38
第五節 事前資料處理 41
一、 專家背景與評分者間信度 41
二、 回饋型態分析 42
三、 社群型態分析 44
第四章 研究結果與討論 47
一、 量化部分: 47
描述性統計: 47
(一) 同儕回饋活動與學生前後的表現成績 51
(二) 接受不同「社群型態」的同儕回饋在個人表現上的差異 53
(三) 收到之「總回饋」數量與個人表現的相關性 54
(四) 收到之「增強性回饋」數量與個人表現的相關性 55
(五) 收到之「建議性回饋」數量與個人表現的相關性 56
(六) 收到之總回饋數量,高、中、低三組學生在個人表現上的差異 56
(七) 專家評量與同儕互評的相關性 58
二、 質化部分: 59
第五章 結論 77
第六章 研究限制與建議 84
參考文獻 87
附 錄 一:思考風格問卷 93
附 錄 二:腳本專家評分問卷 95
附 錄 三:腳本學生互評問卷 101



高宜敏(2010)。社群輔助發想網站-創意思考網路環境之建置與評估。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(編號:NSC98-2511-S-155-004-MY2)。
蕭如君(2010)。探討華人「面子」文化與網路沉默螺旋現象-以PeoPo公民新聞平台為例。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文。
教育部創造力教育計畫。2010年10月8日。取自網站:
http://hss.edu.tw/plan_detail.php?class_plan=170
周佳儀(2008)。網路論壇的沉默螺旋現象—以台大PTT討論版為例。世新大學新聞學研究所碩士論文。許智傑(2007)。材料作文教學與寫作同儕評量對培養國中學生寫作能力之成效。國立台灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文。
吳雅樂、萬年生、陳政佑(2007月7月)。意見枷鎖:解(不)開的沉默螺旋。中華傳播學會2007年年會論文。
奇普.希思、丹.希思(2007)。創意黏力學(姚大鈞譯)。台北:大塊。
(原文: Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, author: Chip Heath & Dan Heath) 唐.泰普史考特、安東尼.威廉斯(2007)。維基經濟學(王怡文譯)。台北:商周文化。(原文: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Change Everything , author: Dan Tapscott, Anthony Williams)
張俊盛(2005)。從大英百科全書到維基百科。取自科學人網站:
http://sa.ylib.com/previous/previous.asp?YearMonth=200503
邱皓政(2005)。創造力的測量與共識衡鑑。教育集刊,30,50-73。
董明財(2004)。思考風格與網路同儕互評系統對於電腦動畫學習成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育教學碩士班碩士論文。
曾聖超(2004)。以網路同儕互評系統輔助高中電腦課程教學:學習成效及同儕回饋之分析。國立交通大學網路學習碩士在職專班碩士論文。
黃芳蘭(2003)。網路同儕評量於高中應用之探討。國立中央大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
邱皓政(2003)。個人開放性、人際關係型態對於創意表現之影響。論文發表於於中國心理學會第四十二屆年會,輔仁大學,台北市。
于富雲、鄭守杰、杜明璋、陳德懷(2003)。網路同儕互評與評量標準來源對批判思考能力之影響 。南師學報教育類,37(2)。
教育部(2002)。創造力教育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
吳靜吉(2002)。華人學生創造力的發掘與培育,應用心理研究,15,17-42。
詹志禹(2002)。「創造力」的定義與創造力的發展。教育研究,100,117-124。
楊永妙 蕭維文(2002年8月)。創意產業時代來臨。遠見雜誌,194。
林英文(2002)。線上同儕評量對國中生簡報製作技能學習成效之研究。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
徐雍智(2001)。數學創意類比與同儕評量及其網路案例設計之研究。國立交通大學應用數學系。
羅勃.史坦柏格(1999)。活用你的思考風格(薛絢譯)。台北:天下文化。
(原文: Thinking Styles, author: Robert J. Sternberg)
劉旨峰(1999)。網路互評系統的學生群組分析。國立交通大學資訊科學研究所碩士論文。
張玉成(1998)。思考風格與教學效能。國民教育,38,37-41。
Amabile, T.M.(1982a). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,997-1013.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-131.
Barab, S. A. (2003). An introduction to the special issue: Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. The Information Society, 19, 197-201.
Besemer, S. P. & O''Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296.
Boden, M. A. (1999). Computer models of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 351–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bouzidi, L. & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted?. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 257–268.
Chen, Y. F. (2008). Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1977-1992.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–328). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press
Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S33-S49.
Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 8-26.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hickey, M. (2001). An Application of Amabile''s Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children''s Musical Compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234-244.
Kao, G. Y. M., Lin, S. S. J., & Sun, C. T. (2008). Beyond sharing: Engaging students in cooperative and competitive active learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 82-96.
Kao, G. Y. M. & Yao, P. Y., (2010, July). Community Assisted Thinking Website- Establishment and Evaluation of Creative Thinking Environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of IADIS e-Learning 2010 conference, Freiburg, Germany.
Lubert, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 339-350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lumsden, C. J. (1999). Evolving creative minds: Stories and mechanisms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp.153-168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noell-Neuman, E. (1993). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion-Our Social Skin, 2nd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Charles Scribner''s Sons. Prentice-Hall.
Plaks, J.E. & Higgins, E.T. (2000). Pragmatic use of stereotyping in teamwork: Social loafing and social compensation as a function of inferred partner-situation fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 962-974.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ruscio, A. M. & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Effects of Instructional Style on Problem-Solving Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 251-266.
Ruscio, J. , Whitney, D. M. & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking Inside the Fishbowl of Creativity: Verbal and Behavioral Predictors of Creative Performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 243-263.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity : Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 125-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36-37.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 365-369.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52 (4), 700-721.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–32.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. Handbook of Creativity (pp. 03–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suthers, D. D., Harada, V. H., Doane, W. E. J., Yukawa, J., & Harris, B. (2004).” Technology-Supported Systemic Reform: An Initial Evaluation and Reassessment.” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Santa Monica, CA-June 22-26, 2004, pp.537-544.
Tsai, C.-C. & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: the role of scientific epistemological views. Instr Sci, 37:293–310.
Tseng, S.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161–1174.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, N. J.: Personnel Press, Inc.
Williams, F. E. (1971). Assessing pupil-teacher behaviors related to a cognitive-affective teaching model. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 4, 14-22.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Jonathan Cape, 79-96.


電子全文 電子全文(本篇電子全文限研究生所屬學校校內系統及IP範圍內開放)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔