Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0802107-232949 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0802107-232949
論文名稱
Title
國小六年級自然科創意教材的開發歷程及其教學效果之研究
The Study of the Development Process on Innovative Science Teaching Material and Its Instruction Effect in the Sixth Grade
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
168
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2007-06-16
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2007-08-02
關鍵字
Keywords
實驗教學、T. M. Amabile、自然科創意思考教材、科技創造力
T. M. Amabile, technology creativity, instruction experiment, science teaching material
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5757 次,被下載 2280
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5757 times, has been downloaded 2280 times.
中文摘要
  本研究旨在開發創意思考教材並探討創意思考教材對學生科技創造力、問題解決能力以及自然科學科測驗的影響。因此,研究主要分為教材的開發與實驗教學二部分。首先,在開發教材方面,由七位平均教學年資24年的國小自然科教師組成「創意教材開發團隊」,透過定期的小組討論與專業分享,依據鄭英耀、王文中、張川木(2003)所建構的創意思考教學模式(Creative Thinking Instruction Model, CTIM),設計出國小六年級自然與生活科技領域的創意教材,包括天氣的變化、簡單機械、燃燒等三單元。此外,進一步訪談撰寫創意思考教材的科展績優教師,以Amabile(1997)的個人創造力成份模式(componential model of creativity)為架構,分析其從撰寫創意教材前的計畫思考階段到教材完整呈現間之創作歷程因素。

  第二部分的實驗教學旨在檢證創意思考教材實際執行之成效。實驗組教師先接受「創意教材開發團隊」教師為期三天的工作坊教學分享,對照組教師則無,隨後以不等組前後測之準實驗設計方式,選取高雄市一所學校110位國小六年級學生為教學對象,進行為期八週(每週三節課)的創意教學實驗。評量工具包括「科技創造力測驗」、「問題解決測驗乙式」、自編之自然科成就測驗,所得資料以描述統計、單因子共變數分析、單因子多變量共變數分析以及單參數Rasch模式進行資料分析,以檢驗所開發的創意思考教材對國小學生之教學效果。

 研究之主要發現為:一、Amabile創造力成分理論在科展績優教師的創意產出上獲得支持;二、「創意教學工作坊」似乎有助種子教師習得科展績優教師的教學理念與模式;三、科展績優教師開發之創意思考教材對於國小六年級學生之科技創造力的提升有顯著的效果;四、科展績優教師開發之創意教思考教材對於國小六年級學生之問題解決能力的提升未獲得證實;五、科展績優教師開發之創意思考教材對於國小六年級學生之自然科學習成就的提升僅獲得部分證實。最後依據研究的主要發現提出相關建議,並提供教師教學與未來研究作為參考之用。
Abstract
  The purpose of this study was to devise the innovative science teaching material and to investigate the instruction effect of innovative science teaching material. Thus, there were two major parts in this study, including the development process of teaching material and the instruction experiment. Firstly, seven award-winning science teachers with average 24 years seniority were gathered and organized as “an innovative science teaching material development team.” Through regular team discussion and sharing, the team devised three teaching units— “the weather variety,” “simple machine,” and ”burning” based on Creative Thinking Instruction Model(CTIM). Besides, we used case study as the method and through in-depth interviews, we realized the factors that contribute to an award-winning science teacher' creative teaching material based on Amabile's(1997)componential model of creativity.

  Secondly, the purpose of the instruction experiment was to investigate how the teaching material executed. The experienment group teacher received a 3-day instruction demonstration and reflection from the workshop by the team, while the contrasted group teacher didn’t. We selected 110 sixth graders in one Kaoshiung primary school and proceeded 8-week different instructions. We took a quasi-experiment design and used ”Technology Creativity Test”, “Creative Problem Solving Test”, and self-developed science achievement tests as assessment tools. The applied analysis methods were descriptive statistics, One-Way ANCOVA, One-Way MACOVA, and Rasch-analysis.

  The main findings were as follows: (a) the creative product of the award-winning science teacher conformed to Amabile's theory; (b) it seemed that the creative instruction workshop facilitated teachers to learn from award-winning science teacher; (c) the innovative science teaching material had significant effects on enhancing sixth graders’ technological creativity; (d) students in different groups did not perform differently on problem solving abilities; (e) the innovative science teaching material had partial significant effects on enhancing sixth graders’ science academic performance. Finally, some suggestions were proposed for educational instruction and future studies.
目次 Table of Contents
中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
目 次 III
圖 次 V
表 次 VI
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 6
第三節 名詞釋義 7
第四節 研究範圍與限制 9

第二章 文獻探討11
第一節 從創造力定義談創意思考教材的創作歷程因素11
第二節 創意思考教學的理論基礎18
第三節 創意思考教學及其相關研究 27
第四節 創意思考教學模式(CTIM) 41
第五節 研究假設45

第三章 研究方法47
第一節 研究架構47
第二節 研究對象 51
第三節 研究工具54
第四節 實施程序65
第五節 資料處理與分析67

第四章 研究結果與討論 71
第一節 開發創意思考教材 71
第二節 創意思考教材之教學成效 92
第三節 綜合討論103

第五章 結論與建議113
第一節 結論113
第二節 建議 117
參考文獻121

附錄129
附錄1 「天氣的變化」教案 129
附錄2 「簡單機械」教案134
附錄3 「燃燒」教案149
附錄4 創意思考教學檢核表155
附錄5 科技創造力測驗同意書157
附錄6 問題解決測驗乙式同意書158
附錄7 國內創意思考教學(2002-2007)之相關研究159
參考文獻 References
一、中文部分
2006-2007年全球競爭力報告(2006)。2007年2月24日,取自於: http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm
王瑞(2002)。創造思考教學策略對學生創造力之影響。台灣教育月刊,614, 24-28。
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(2000)。創造力研究。台北:心理出版社。
李大偉、張玉山(2000a)。科技創造力的意涵與教學(上)。生活科技教育,33(9),7-14。
李大偉、張玉山(2000b)。科技創造力的意涵與教學(下)。生活科技教育,33(10),9-16。
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,未出版,高雄市。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北:五南出版社。
吳思華、陳靜瑤(2005)。競爭力背後的創造力﹕以教育部顧問室「創造力教育中程發展計畫」為例談創造力教育。教育研究月刊,133,4-18。
吳祥輝(2005)。芬蘭驚豔。台北市﹕遠流出版社。
吳清山(2002)。創意教學的重要理念與實施策略。台灣教育月刊,614, 2-8。
吳靜吉、林偉文、林士郁、王涵儀、陳秋秀、曾敬梅、徐悅淇(2003)。國際創造力教育趨勢及其對我國創造力教育的啟示。學生輔導,79,32-47。
沈翠蓮(2005)。創意原理與設計。台北:五南出版社。
林建仲、鄭宗文(2001)。合作式學習與問題解決---培養以問題解決為中心的網路合作學習。資訊與教育雜誌,85,55-62。
林秀吟(2004)。探討情境式STS理念教學對國小學童科學創造力之影響。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,已出版,台北市。
林偉文(2006)。學校創意守門人對創意教學及創造力培育態度與教師創意教學之關係。教育學刊,27,69-92。
林碧芳、邱皓政(2004)。中小學教師創造人格特質、創意教學自我效能感與創意教學之關係-結構方程模式的路徑分析。教育研究中心主辦之「第二屆創新與創造力研討會」,台北市。
洪文東(1997)。創造性思考與科學創造力之培養。國教天地,123,10-14。
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。
洪明(2003)。內隱知識理論及其促進教師專業化成長的意義。中國教育學刊,2003(2),57-59。
教育部(2002)。創造力教育白皮書。台北﹕教育部。
施乃華(2002)。創造思考教學成效之後設分析。國立彰化師範大學商業教育研究所碩士論文,已出版,彰化市。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北﹕五南。
陳龍安(2002)。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。
陳龍安(2006)。創造思考教學的理論與實際(第六版),台北:心理出版社。
國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要(2003)。2005年10月30日,取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/fields/2003/natureScience-source.php
黃富順(1989)。成人心理與學習。台北:師大書苑。
黃譯瑩(2003)。學術社群說出「創造力」的語言及其反映的思維﹕一般創造力與兒童創造力研究文本對照中的啟示。師大學報﹕科學教育類,48(2),255-276。
張玉成(2002)。思考技巧與教學。台北市﹕心理出版社。
葉玉珠(2000)。創造力發展的生態系統模式及其應用於科技與資訊領域之內涵分析。教育心理學報,32(1),95-121。
葉玉珠(2004)。“科技創造力測驗”的發展與常模的建立。測驗學刊,51(2),127-162。
葉玉珠(2005)。影響國小學童科技創意發展的因素之量表發展。師大學報,50(2),29-54。
葉玉珠(2006)。創造力教學-過去、現在與未來。台北市﹕心理出版社。
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、王文中、張川木(2003)。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展—以國小自然科為例(期末報告).國科會第二年期末報告(NSC-91-2522-S-110-003)。
鄭英耀、李育嘉(2003)。國小學童創造力、問題解決能力之差異分析:以不同科展競賽經驗教師之學生為例。發表於中國心理學會第42屆年會,輔仁大學聖言樓一樓,台北,Oct.3-5.
鄭英耀、莊雪華、顏嘉玲(revised)。揭開創意教材的神秘面紗,師大學報。
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。
鄭英耀、劉昆夏(2005)。創造性問題解決教學效果之研究─以國小自然科為例。「培養新世紀的國民」學術研討會,國立彰化師範大學明德館一樓, 彰化,Aug.12.
鄭英耀、劉昆夏(2007)。科展績優教師創意思考教學模式之建構—以國小自然科「太陽的運行」為例。教育學刊,28,137-168(TSSCI)。
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,未出版,台南市。
謝秀月、郭重吉(2002)。國小自然教師科學教學實踐知識與科學教學表徵之個案研究。科學教育,12,147-163。
韓婉君(2001)。教師開放教育實施程度與國小高年級學童批判思考、創造思考能力之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蘇懿生(2003)。融入概念發展的創造性問題解決教學模式對高中生物科的教學成效研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄市。

二、西文部分
Albert, R. S. (1990). Identity, experience, and career choice among the exceptionally gifted and eminent. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert(Eds.), Theory of creativity (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile,T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer- Verlag.
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. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Oxford: Westview Press.
Amabile,T.M.(1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
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.
Casey, B. M., & Tucker, E.C. (1994). Problem-centered classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (2), 139-143.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (1), 37-50.
ChanLin, L.J., Hong, J.C., Horng, J. S., Chang, S.H., Chu, H. C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 57-68.
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.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow﹕The psychology of optional experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
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.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco. (Ed.) Creativity research handbook, 1, 83-114, Cresskill, N. J. : Hampton Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning : A guide for teachers and
educators. London : Kogan Page ; Sterling, VA : Stylus.
Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A Social Approach. Roeper Review, 28(3), 125-130.
Davis, D.(1986). Technological innovation and organizational change management technological innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Jesus, H. P., De Souza, F. N., Teixeira-Dias, J. C. & Watts, M. (2005). Organizing the chemistry of question-based learning: A case study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 179-193.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Creativity and personality: World association, origence, and psychoticism. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 209-216.
Falkenberg, K. L. (2002). An exploration of elementary science teachers' expertise, creativity skills, and motivation in relation to the use of an innovation and the delivery of high-quality science instruction. Ph.D., Emory University, United States – Georgia.
Garaigordobil, M.(2006). Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years﹕Impact of a play program on verbal and graphic-figural creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), 329-345.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. NY: Basic Books.
Howe, R. (1996). Instruction and experience for abilities related to creative processes and products. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 156-178.
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.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Isaksen, S. G., & Parnes, S. J.(1985). Curriculum planning for creative thinking and problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(1), 1-29.
Johnson, D. (2002). Everyday practice in problem-solving. Library Talk, 15(1), 64.
Kim, H. K. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Konno, N. & Nonaka, I. (1995). Intellectualizing capability. Tokyo: Japan Economic News.
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. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51-65.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., &Berkeley, S. L. (2007). Peers Helping Peers. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 54-58.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). The role of the school in the assimilation of immigrant children. In qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and practice(pp. 178-200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1986). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Scribiner’s Sons.
Osburn, H. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Creativity and planning: Training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 173-190.
Peterson, R. E.(2002). Establishing the creative environment in technology education. Technology Teacher, 61(4), 7-10.
Pertrowski, M. J. (2000). Creativity research: Implications for teaching, learning, and thinking. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 304-312.
Resnick, L. B. (1999). Standards-based education: What it looks like and how to improve it (I). 發表於「科學學習評量與教師專業成長﹕邁向二十一世紀的科學教育研討會」之論文。台北﹕台灣師大。
Rhodes, M.(1961). An analysis of creativity. In S.G. Isaksen(Ed), Frontiers of Creativity Research(pp.216-222).New York: Bearly Limited.
Richetti, C., & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping student ask the right questions.Educational Leadership, 57(3), 58-62.
Robert, D. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .U.S. Virginia.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand﹕Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151-158.
Sternberg,R.J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36-37.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Identifying and developing creative giftedness. Roeper 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. (2005). Handbook of creativity. 創造力I.理論(李乙明,李淑貞譯)。台北﹕五南。(原著1999年出版)
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I.(1999). Deflying the Crowd. 不同凡想(洪蘭譯)。台北﹕遠流。(原著1995年出版)
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I.(1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (ED.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M.(2003). How to develop student creativity. 如何培育學生的創造力(郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯)。台北:心理。(原著1996出版)
Swartz, R. (2003). Infusing critical and creative thinking into instruction in high school classmates: In Daniel Fasko. Jr. (ed.). Critical thinking and resoning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton press, 207-252.
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.(1988). The natural of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), The nature of creativity(pp. 43-75). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, F. E. (1972). Encouraging creative potential. NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Williams, F. E. (1982). Developing children’s creativity at home and in school. Gifted Child Today. Sep. /Oct., 2-5.
Wu, C. H., Cheng, Y., Ip, H. M. & Chang, C. M.(2005). Age Differences in Creativity: Task Structure and Knowledge Base. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (4), 321-326.
Yeh, Y. C. & Wu, J. J. (2006). The Cognitive Processes of Pupils’ Technology Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (2), 213-227.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內立即公開,校外一年後公開 off campus withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code