科技創新是促進人類文明的原動力，而創新科技人才的培育成為知識經濟時代的重要教育指標。本研究之目的旨在結合台灣長期指導學生參加科展競賽績優之教師開發國小自然科創意教材，並實施教學實驗以考驗新教材創意教學對國小學生創造力、問題解決能力及學科成就之影響。研究工具包括吳靜吉等人（1998）編製之創造思考測驗（語文-竹筷子，圖形-人）、問題解決測驗以及自然科學業成就測驗三份量表。研究分三階段，首先，由七位平均教學年資20年的國小自然科教師，其中有五位教師曾榮獲五次以上之高雄市國中小科展第一名，組成「創意教材開發團隊」，透過十七週每週一次定期的小組討論與專業分享，建構適用於國小自然科的創意思考教學模式（Creative Thinking Instruction Model, CTIM），再依據所建構之創意思考教學模式開發教材；其次，進行開發教材之教學效果實驗，實驗組三位教師先接受「創意教材開發團隊」教師為期三天工作坊的教學分享，對照組三位教師則無，隨後以不等組前後測之準實驗設計方式，選取高雄市三所學校206位國小五年級學生為教學對象，進行為期10週的創意教學實驗；第三，進行實驗後6個月的教學效果追踪。測驗結果以單因子多變量共變數分析與獨立樣本t考驗，檢驗新教材的創新教學對國小學生之學習效益。
結果發現：
1.「創意教材開發團隊」經過十七次討論與建立共識，依據創造性問題解決模式(Creative Problem Solving Model)，結合探究式(Inquiry)教學以及STS(Science/Technology/Society)教學的精神，將創意思考教學模式劃分為「教師的創意」與「學生的創意」兩大部分，包括設計情境、發現問題、提出假設、設計驗證、解釋結果及推廣應用等六個歷程的教學循環圈。
2.科學創意教材開發的過程有助於科展績優教師將創意內隱知識外顯化。
3.創意教學工作坊有助於種子教師習得科展績優教師的創意教學巧思。
4.科展績優教師所開發的科學創意教材有助於提升學生的創造力，且具有持續性的教學效果。
5.科展績優教師所開發的科學創意教材有助於提升學生的問題解決能力，且具有持續性的教學效果。
6.科展績優教師所開發的科學創意教材有助於提升學生的思考性學科學習成就。

Innovation of science and technology is the impetus for the promotion of human civilization, and the fostering of innovators of science and technology has become an important educational goal in the era of knowledge economy. The purpose of the present study is to mobile the teachers, who have long supervised students in science exhibition competition, to develop innovative science teaching material, and to conduct an instruction experiment to examine the effect of such a material on elementary pupils’ creativity, problem solving, and science subject performance.
The instruments of the present study include 1) Creativity Test (Verbal-bamboo chopsticks, figure-人) developed by Wu, et al. (1998), 2 )Creative Problem Solving Test, and Subject Knowledge and Concept Test developed by researchers (2002).
The study consists of three stages. Firstly, a team of “Innovative Science Teaching Material” is organized by 7 elementary school science teachers with average 20 years of working experience, five of which have been awarded as the first rank more than five times in science exhibition competitions held for elementary schools in Kaohsiung. An appropriate Creative Thinking Instruction Model (CTIM) is constructed through panel discussion and shared teaching expertise on weekly basis in a 17-week period, and teaching material is developed on the basis of the constructed CTIM.
Secondly, an experiment is conducted to test the effect of the developed teaching material. The three teachers in the treatment group will receive a 3-day instruction demonstration and reflection from the workshop by the team of “Innovative Science Teaching Material,” while the three teachers in the contrasted group do not. Then, a total of 206 fifth grade pupils in three Kaoshiung elementary schools are selected, on a quasi-experiment design, with pre-, and post tests on unequal number subjects, for the treatment group in a 10-week-session innovative instruction . Third, a follow up test is done 6 months after the experiment. The data are analyzed through One-Way MANCOVA to test the effect of the innovative science teaching material on pupils’ learning.
The results indicate that：1) a general consensus is reached by the team of “Innovative Science Teaching Material,” through 17 panel discussions, and the essentials of Inquiry approach and STS(Science/Technology/Society) approach are combined on the basis of CTIM, which then be classified into “Creativity of teachers,” and “Creativity of the pupils, ” which were further differentiated into six steps: setting design, problem finding, hypothesis formation, testing design, results interpretation, and application promotion, which form an instruction loop; 2) On instruction effect, students in the experimental group perform better on verbal creativity, figure creativity, problem solving competence, and global science subject knowledge than those in the contrasted group; 3) On the follow up test (6 months after the experiment), students in the experimental group perform better on verbal fluency and verbal originality creativity than those in the contrasted group, which indicates a lasting effect of the instruction, but there is no significant difference between subjects.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與目的 …………………………………1
第二節 研究問題 …………………………………………6
第三節 研究限制 …………………………………………7
第四節 名詞釋義 …………………………………………8

第二章 文獻探討
第一節 創造思考教學………………………………………11
第二節 創造性問題解決教學模式的內涵…………………26
第三節 創造性問題解決教學的相關研究…………………40
第四節 專家教師的知識分享與轉移………………………49
第五節 研究假設 …………………………………………59

第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構 …………………………………………61
第二節 研究對象 …………………………………………64
第三節 研究工具 …………………………………………66
第四節 研究程序 …………………………………………68
第五節 資料處理 …………………………………………70

第四章 研究結果
第一節 創意教材開發與種子教師培訓 …………………73
第二節 兩組學生創造力之差異比較………………………83
第三節 兩組學生問題解決能力之差異比較………………92
第四節 兩組學生自然科學業成就之差異比較……………96
第五節 教師實務教學行為之分析…………………………98


第五章 討論、結論與建議
第一節 討論…………………………………………………103
第二節 結論…………………………………………………108
第三節 建議…………………………………………………111

參考書目 ………………………………………………………113
附錄1 「太陽的運行」教案……………………………………125
附錄2 「追星一族」教案………………………………………135
附錄3 「植物的繁殖」教案……………………………………143
附錄4 「太陽的運行」試題……………………………………149
附錄5 「植物的繁殖」試題……………………………………151
附錄6 教師創意思考教學檢核表………………………………154

行政院國家科學委員會（2004）。近年來我國中、小學生數理科表現升？或降？-國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查結果。檢索於2004年12月22日，行政院國家科學委員會網站：http://www.nsc.gov.tw/_newfiles/head_print.asp?add_year=2004&tid=38。
吳靜吉、林偉文、林士郁、陳秋秀、曾敬梅、王涵儀等（2002）。教育部創造力教育政策白皮書子計畫(六)國際創造力教育發展趨勢專案。台北：教育部。
吳靜吉、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺等（1998）。新編創造思考測驗研究。教育部輔導工作六年計畫研究報告。
呂素雯（2002）。自然科創造性問題解決教學對國小六年級學童問題解決能力、態度及學習成就之影響研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
李光烈（1999）。國小自然科教師應用創造性問題解決的教學策略之行動研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李育嘉（2003）。國小自然科師生互動行為與學童科學知識、創造力、問題解決能力之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
官美君（2002）。啟動國小學生創造性問題解決機制之研究-以『彩色光影魔術師』教學為例。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林幸台(1974)。創造思考教學對才賦優異者創造力發展的影響。國立台灣師大教育研究所集刊，16，321-380。
施乃華（2002）。創造思考教學成效之後設分析。彰化師範大學商業教育學系碩士論文。
柯建樺（2003）。小組合作進行創造性問題解決歷程之研究。國立臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
洪文東（2001）。國小自然科學創造思考教學模組設計與評估。九十學年度師範學院教育學術論文集，961-991。
夏侯欣鵬（2000）。信任與權力對組織內知識分享意願影響之研究。國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
孫仲山（1996）。師生互動的教學理論。高市文教，57，38-41。
孫志麟(1992)。生手如何才能成為專家呢？－教師專業表現之探討。師友，297，21-25。
徐蓓蓓（1983）。教師個人特質、師生口語互動與學生對教師行為知覺、學生學業成就之關係研究。教育心理學報，16，99-114。
張信宏（2004.01.02）。將口罩和體溫計結合一體。民生報，CR2版。
張春興(1997)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張振松（2002）。自然科創造性問題解決教學對國小學童創造力及問題解決能力之研究。台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張嘉芬（1997）。國小高年級學生依附風格、創意教養環境與創造行為之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部（2000）。國民教育九年一貫課程暫行綱要―「自然與生活科技學習領域」課程綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。台北：教育部。
教育部（2004）。2005-2008教育施政主軸。台北：教育部。
許順欽（2002）。科學玩具融入國小自然科教學以促進學童創造性問題解決能力之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳龍安(1990)。「問想做評」創造思考教學模式的建立與驗證。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
陳龍安(1998)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北：心理出版社。
陳龍安(2000)。創造思考教學。輯於毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台等著，創造力研究，頁211-262，台北：心理出版社。
游淑燕(1993)。專家與生手教學表現之比較研究及其對師範教育課程與教學的啟示。嘉義師院學報，7，207-242。
游詩蒂（2001）。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。國立臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
黃光雄(1996)。課程與教學。台北：師大書苑。
黃良傑（2004.09.23）。科展發明-國中生站上世界舞台。自由時報，第13頁。
葉安琦（1999）。促進國小學童創造性問題解決能力的個案研究--發展問題表徵。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
廖仁年（2003）。創造性問題解決教學模式融入國小自然科教學之行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉誌文（1993）。國民小學自然科創造性問題解決教學效果之研究。國立台南師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文。
鄭秀玲（2004）。中小企業對我國研發競爭力的貢獻和限制：台灣與七大工業國家(G7)的專利品質比較。檢索於2004年12月22日，行政院國家科學委員會網站：http://www.nsc.gov.tw/head.asp?add_year=2004&tid=9。
鄭英耀、王文中（2002）。影響科學競賽績優教師創意行為之因素。應用心理研究，15，163-189。
鄭英耀、王文中（2003）。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展—以國小自然科為例（II）。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC-91-2522-S-110-003。
鄭英耀、王文中、周宛俞（2002）。創造性問題解決測驗之編製。未出版。
鄭英耀、李育嘉（2003）。國小自然科教學行為之差異分析：科展績優教師與一般教師之比較。發表於2003創造力實踐歷程研討會，885-906，政治大學商學院國際會議廳，台北，Mar.21-22.
鄭英耀、張川木、王文中（2002）。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展—以國小自然科為例（I）。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC90-2511-S-110-005。
盧咨樺（2002）。實施創造性問題解決教學之合作行動研究－以「神奇的力」模組為例。國立臺中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
蘇育任（2001）。運用STS理念設計九年一貫自然與生活科技統整課程之研究。九十學年度師範學院教育學術論文集，931-960。

Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. P. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2,231-253.
Anderson, D. R. (2002). Creative teachers: Risk, responsibility, and love. Journal of Education, 183(1), 33-48.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. D. (1998). Measurung climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235-258.
Barell, J. (1991). Reflective teaching for thoughtfulness. In A. L. Costa（Ed.）. Developing minds: A resourse book for teaching thinking. (Rev. ed. Vol. 1, pp. 207-210). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barell, J. (2003). Developing more curious minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes, and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77-100.
Baughman, W. A., Munford, M. D. (1995). Process-analysis models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination-and-reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37-62.
Beman, S.(2001).Thinking in context：Teaching for open-mindedness and critical.In L.C.Arthur(Ed.),Developing Minds：A resource book for teaching thinking (pp.11-17).Alexandria, VA：Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brooking, A. (1999). Corporate memory: strategies for knowledge management. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college levels: A synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 83-90.
Christie, K., & Kaminski, K. (2002). Creative problem solving at the United Way. Communique, 13, 8-11.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, p. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed. pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Clarridge, P. B. (1990). Multiple perspectives on the classroom performance of certified and uncertified teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 15-25.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 297-312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Costa, A. L. (Ed.) (1991). Development minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. (Rev. ed Vol.1). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cramond, B. etc. (1988). An investigation of the application of training in creative problem solving to content area problem. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, April 5-9.
Cramond, B. etc. (1990). Genernalizability of creative problem solving procedures to real-life problems. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 13(2), 141-155.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton .
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever. Iowa：kendall/ Hunt Publishing company.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewords, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121-130.
Ekvall, G., & Ryhammer, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a Swedish university. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 303-310.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, W. (1994). Expert performance: Its structuring and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725-747.
Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action of an expert practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 87-101.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The Development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 169-188). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freeman, T., Wolfe, P., Littlejohn, B., Mayfield, N. (2001). Measuring success: Survey shows CPS impacts Indiana. Communique, 12, 1-6.
Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1998). Educational psychology(6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gagn’e, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1998). 教學心理學－學習的認知基礎(岳修平譯)。台北：遠流。（原作1993年出版）
Galton, M. (2002). Continuity and progression in science teaching at key stages 2 and 3. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 249-265.
Getzals, S. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Guilford, J.P. (1968). Intelligence, Creativity and their educational implications. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp.
Guilford, J.P. (1977). Way beyond the I. Q. Buffalo, NY : Creative education Foundation and Bearly Limited.
Harkow, R. M. (1996). Increasing creative thinking skills in second and third grade gigted students using imagery, computers, and creative problem solving. Master’s Final Report, Nova Southeastern University.
Harris, D. G., & Blank, S. S. (1983). A comparative study: Two approaches to enhance creative problem-solving in grade five students. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 7(2), 129-152.
Hendricks, C. C. (2001). Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: What are results from situated learning? The Journal of educational Research, 94(5), 302-311.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Hoover, S. M. (1994). Scientific problem finding in gifted fifth-grade students. Roeper Review, 16(3),156-159.
House, J. D. (2000). Relationship between instructional activities and science achievement of adolescent students in Hong Kong: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), 275-288.
Houtz, J. C. (1990). Environments that support creative thinking. In C. Hedley, J. Houtz, and A. Baratta(Eds.), Cognition, Curriculum and Literacy(pp. 61-76). NJ: Ablex, Norwood.
Howe, R. (1996). Instruction and Experience for abilities related to creative processes and products. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 156-178.
Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Changing views of CPS: Over 40 years of continuous improvement. International Creativity Network, 3, 1-5.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Creative approaches to problem solving. (2nd Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving: The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1987). Creative problem solving: Three components and six specific stages. Instructional handout. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1991). Creative learning and problem solving. In A. L. Costa（Ed.）. Developing minds: A resourse book for teaching thinking. (Rev. ed. Vol. 2, pp. 89-93). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004).Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75-101.
James, P. T. F. (2000). Fostering creativity education. Education, 120(1), 744-757.
Johnson, D. (2002). Everyday practice in problem-solving. Library Talk, 15(1), 64.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp.81-100). New York: Wiley.
Kobe, L. M. (2001). Computer-based creativity training: Training the creative process. Doctor’s Final Report, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Koulopoulos, T. M., & Frappaolo, C. (2001)。知識管理(陳琇玲譯)。台北：遠流。(原著1999年出版)
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285-294.
Leach, D. J., & Conto, H. (1999). The additional effects of process and outcome feedback following brief in-service teacher training. Educational Psychology, 19(4), 441-462.
Leonard, D. & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company’s whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug., 111-121.
Livingston, C. & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42. 36-42.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockvill, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
Manross, D. & Templeton, C.L. (1997). Expertise in teaching physical education. Journal of Physical, Recreation & Dance, 68(3), 29-35.
Maor, D. (1999). Teachers-as-learners: The role of a multimedia professional development program in changing classroom practice. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(3), 45-50.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mayer, R.E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (1999). Handbook of Creativity. NY: Cambridge. Pp.449-460.
Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29.
Mevarech, Z. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195-205.
Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching and instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development , 46(2), 37-64.
Montouri, A. (1992). Two books on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 199-203.
Nichols, T. M. (1993). Effects of problem solving strategies on different ability levels. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, November 10-12.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392-430). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). 創新求勝－智價企業論。台北：遠流（楊子江、王美音譯）。（原著1995年出版）
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 145-153.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guildebook. New York: Charles Scribner`s Sons.
Parnes, S. J. (1991). Creative problem solving. In A. L. Costa（Ed.）. Developing minds: A resourse book for teaching thinking. (Rev. ed. Vol. 2, pp. 54-56). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Peterson, R. E. (2002). Establishing the creative environment in technology education. Technology Teacher, 61(4), 7-10.
Porter, M. E., Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X., & Lopez-Claros, A. (Eds.)(2004). Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005. England：Palgrave Macmillan.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Reese, H. W., & Parnes, S. J. (1970). Programming creative behavior. Child Development, 41(2), 413-423.
Reiman, A. J., & Peace, S. D. (2002). Promoting teachers’ moral reasoning and collaborative inquire performance: a developmental role-taking and guided inquiry study. Journal of Moral Education, 31(1), 51-66.
Richetti, C., & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping student ask the right questions. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 58-62.
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11-22.
Rostan, S. M. (1994).Problem finding, problem solving, and cognitive controls: An empirical investigation of investigation of critically acclaimed productivity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 97-110.
Runco, M. A., & Chard, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schack, G. D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 32-38.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b).Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(3), 149-179.
Sheyla, B. P. (2002). Effects of a teacher training workshop on creativity, cognition, and school achievement in gifted and non-gifted second-grade students in Lima, Peru. High Ability Studies, 13(1),47-58.
Silberstein, M., & Tamir, P. (1991). The expert case study model: an alternative approach to the development of teacher education modules. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(2), 165-179.
Simpliciom, J. S. C.(2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680.
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 107-134.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Identifying and developing creativity giftedness. Roper Review, 23(2), 60-64.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of educational Research, 47(3), 325-338.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. L. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Swanson, H. L., O’Connor J. E., & Conney J. B. (1990). An information processing analysis of expert and novice teachers’ problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 533-556.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Ten ways of helping young children gifted in creative writing and speech, Gifted child Quarterly, 6.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creativity? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114-143.
Torrance, E. P. (1986). Teaching creative and gifted learners. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed. pp. 630-647). New York: Macmillan.
Torrance, E. P. (2003). The millennium: A time for looking forward and looking back. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(1), 6-12.
Webb, J. M., Diana, E. M., Luft, P., Brooks, E. W., & Brennan, E.L. (1997). Influence of pedagogical expertise and feedback on assessing student comprehension from nonverbal behavior. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 89-101
Weisnurg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 226-251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 292-305.
Williams,F.E. (1970). Classroom ideas for encoruaging thinking and feeling. (2nd ed.). New York: D.O.K. Publishers, Inc.
Williams,F.E. (1982). Developing children’s creativity at home and in school. Gifted Child Today. Sep./Oct., 2-5.
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: State University of New York, U.S.A.
Zuckerman, H. (1974). The scientific elite: Nobel laureats’ mutual influence. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and Eminence (pp. 171-186). New York: Pergammon Press.