臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略對技職校院學生在電腦網路課程問題解決成效提升之研究
作者：梁瑛心
校院名稱：國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱：工業教育與技術學系
指導教授：蕭錫錡
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2005
主題關鍵詞：創造思考技法；問題導向教學；問題解決能力
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:33
本研究旨在探討結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略，對技職校院學生在電腦網路課程問題解決的成效。並分析比較不同教學分組對學生創意思考在教學前後專業思維能力的影響。為有效達成研究目的，本研究採不等組準實驗設計，以南開技術學院電子系電腦網路課程兩班學生為實驗教學對象，合計實際有效樣本 72 人，分為實驗組 43 人，結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略；控制組 29 人，採問題導向教學策略，並進行十六週的實驗教學。所得之前、後測資料以t考驗、單因子共變數分析，二因子多變量共變數分析、典型相關分析等統計方法考驗各項研究假設。
具體而言，本研究的研究結果為：
一、實驗組（結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略）與控制組（問題導向教學策略）的學生在電腦網路特定功能思考能力的前、後測中，電腦網路專業思考模式與非專業思考模式有顯著的差異。
二、電腦網路的問題解決能力前、後測的表現上，兩組學生在結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力上，皆達顯著。然而；結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力上，僅實驗組（結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略）的學生在前、後測有顯著差異。
三、結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略與問題導向教學策略兩種教學分組，在實驗教學後，兩組學生在電腦網路特定功能思考能力中的電腦網路專業思考模式能力達顯著。換言之；教學策略能提昇學生電腦網路專業思考模式的能力。
四、教學策略（結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略與問題導向教學策略）與電腦網路思考能力（專業思考模式與非專業思考模式），在電腦網路的學習成效與電腦網路問題解決能力反應上，兩者具有交互作用。大體上而言：
(一) 就電腦網路思考能力在結合創造思考技法的問題導向教學策略而言，學生的學習成效（網路學期成績與本學期學業成績總平均）以及電腦網路問題解決能力（結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力與結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力），兩者無顯著差異。
(二) 就電腦網路思考能力在問題導向教學策略而言，學生的學習成效（網路學期成績與本學期學業成績總平均）達顯著差異。而電腦網路問題解決能力（結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力與結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力），僅結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力達顯著差異。
(三) 就教學策略在電腦網路思考能力的專業思考模式而言，學生的學習成效（網路學期成績與本學期學業成績總平均）無顯著差異。而電腦網路問題解決能力（結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力與結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力），僅結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力達顯著差異。
(四) 就教學策略在電腦網路思考能力的非專業思考模式而言，學生的學習成效（網路學期成績與本學期學業成績總平均）無顯著差異。而電腦網路問題解決能力（結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力與結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力），達顯著差異。
五、學生的學習成效（網路學期成績與本學期學業成績總平均）與電腦網路問題解決能力（結構明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力與結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力）具有相關性，其中以結構不明確導向的電腦網路問題解決能力對本學期學業成績總平均的影響最大。
Because of facing 21st century challenging, knowledge property is requested for a person, whose abilities are diversifications, not only a school acadmaic achievement. In other words, it will be important indicators to test a person, who as creative thinking abilities and problem solving abilities. Furthermore, the science education reform has suggested that constructivist principles in teaching would lead to improve in students’ achievements. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of problem-based teaching and problem-based teaching embedded by creative-thinking techniques within the computer network course for college engineering students, and to determine if professional thinking responds, learning performance, and problem solving abilities would enhance. Secondly, this study was also to investigate how teaching strategies and professional thinking responds affected learning performances and problem solving abilities. Finally, this study examined the relationship between professional problem solving abilities and learning performances of computer network course.
To achieve these purposes, a nonequivalent quasi experimental research method was used. In this study, there were seventy-two students whose major were electronic engineering department of Nan Kai Institute of Technology in Nantou. They were divided into two groups, one was taught by problem-based teaching (n=29) and the other was taught by problem-based teaching embedded by creative-thinking techniques (n=43). After one semester treatment, data was collected with the computer network score, academic achievement, two-orthogonal open-ended network problems, and function-specific divergent thinking test as learning performance. This study used paired-t, ANCOVA, MANCOVA, and canonical correlation to measure the effects of these two teaching strategies on students’ learning performances. The results of these analyses were described briefly as follows:
1. The students with problem-based teaching embedded by creative-thinking techniques obtained higher abilities in well-structured problem, ill-structured problem, and thinking responds abilities than students with problem-based teaching.
2. All students in the study obtained higher responds on convergent thinking of function-specific divergent thinking test in computer network course than students’ responds on divergent thinking of function-specific divergent thinking test in computer network course.
3. These two teaching strategies (problem-based teaching and problem-based teaching embedded by creative-thinking techniques) and students’ thinking respond (professional thinking ability and npn-professional thinking ability of function-specific divergent thinking test) affected the learning performances and problem solving abilities. This result strongly indicated that not only teaching strategies would affect students’ performance but also students’ personal thinking traits would affect on computer network learning performances.
4. Both well-structured problem and ill-structured problem solving abilities had higher relationships in academic achievement than in computer network score.
These findings indicated that both teaching strategies and professional thinking responds would affect learning performance and problem solving processes of computer network course. These two teaching strategies were also effected students’ professional convergent thinking responds. Additionally, the problem solving abilities of two orthogonal problems had positively related to academic achievement. And these two orthogonal problem types affected the problem solving responds in terms of fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. Interestingly, an interaction was found between two teaching strategies and professional thinking responds of computer network course.
However, it would not find a positive effect of two teaching strategies and professional thinking responds on learning performances and problem solving abilities in computer network course. For the problem-solving process was revolved around problem solvers’ thinking abilities and knowledge based, it was complex to assess problem-solving performance. Qualitative studies would be recommended to examine interaction of cognitive for further studies.
一、中文部分
毛連塭(1989)。實施創造思考教育的參考架構。創造思考教育，1，2-9。
吳明雄(1988)。「創造思考與發明」實驗課程對高工學生創造發明能力之影響。國科會計畫NSC77-0111-S003-24。
吳靜吉(1989)。適當的創造動機。創造思考教育，1，13-14。
李慧賢(1996)。原住民學生創造力發展及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
林幸台(1974) 創造性教學對才賦優異者創造性力發展的影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。new window
林幸台(1981)。衡鑑創造力的新指標。資優教育季刊，4，6-12。
林幸台(1989)。創造力的評量與研究。創造思考教育，1，15-19。new window
林幸台(1995)。威廉斯創造力測驗修訂報告。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育系所。特殊教育中心之特殊教育研究學刊，11，133-149。new window
洪榮昭、蕭錫錡、吳明雄(1997)：日本創造力培育。教育研究資訊，5(4)，144-152。new window
張本杰（1997）。區域網路與高速區域網路原理與應用。台北：松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
郭有遹(1989)。創造的定義及其所衍生的問題。創造思考教育，1，10-12。
郭有遹(1994)。創造性的問題解決方法。台北：心理出版社。new window
陳昭儀(1990)。創造歷程的研究。創造思考教育，2，29-32。
陳昭儀（1981）。我國傑出發明家之人格特質、創造歷程及生涯發展之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，7，211-229。new window
陳昭儀(1991)。創造歷程階段論。創造思考教育，3，46-49。
陳昭儀(1992)。創造力的定義及研究。資優教育季刊，44，12-17。
陳昭儀、陳琦、張素華譯(Jane Piirto著)(1995)。瞭解創意人。台北：心理出版社。
陳龍安(1997)。創造思考教學的理論與實際(五版)。台北：心理出版社。new window
黃金益（1998）。合作學習對大學專題製作創造力影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。new window
劉毓玲(2001)。21世紀的管理挑戰。台北：天下遠見。
盧雪梅(民79)。創造性的人格特質。創造思考教育，2，33-39。


二、西文部分

Amabile, T.M. (1987). The motivation to be creativity. In S. C. Isaksen (Eds.).Frontiers of creativity research (pp.223-254). New York: Bearly Limited.
Atman, C. J. & Turns, J. (1999). Integrating knowledge across the engineering curriculum. 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 13b7-20-25.
Ayres, F. (2002). Problem-based learning. Training Journal. February, 20-22.
Baillie, C. & Walker, P. (1998). Fostering creative thinking in student engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education. Abingdon, 23(1), 35-44.
Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science and Education Journal. 185-192.
Barrows,H.S.&Tamblyn,R.M.(1980). Problem-based learning, an approach to medical education. NY: Sringer.
Bauer, D., Hetherly, D.& Keller-Mathers, S.(2003). From learners to leaders: Using creative problem solving in environmental projects. Green Teacher, Fall 2003, 72, 6-12.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Atman, C. J.& Shuman, L. J. (1998). Engineering student attitudes assessment. Journal of Engineering Education. Washington, 87(2), 133-141.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Atman, C. J., & Shuman, L. J. (1998). Engineering student attitudes assessment. Journal of Engineering Education. Washington, 87(2), 133-141.
Bruner, J. S.(1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Prentice Hall.
Bush, D. H.(1997). Creativity in real-world engineering concept design. University of Minnesota: Doctoral Dissertation.
Chang, C.(2000). Creative Problem Solving at Work. http://hkila.org.hk/laq/summer, 2000/probsolv.htm.
Chao, C-Y & Hsiao, H-C. (2000). The evaluation and improvement for a creative thinking oriented course of mechanical product design and manufacturing. International Conference of Engineering and Computer Education. Sao Paulo, Brazil, August 27-30.
Cicognani A. (2000). Concept mapping as a collaborative tool for enhanceed online learning. Educational Technology & Society. 3(3).
Coopey, J. (1987). The case for creativity in comples organizations. Personnel Management. March, p30-33.
Court, A.W. (1998). Improving creativity in engineering design education. European Journal of Engineering Education. Abingdon, 23(2), 141-154.
Cramond, B.(1994). We can trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 52(2),70-71.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (3rd ed.). The Nature of Creativity. (pp.325-339), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis,G. A.(1986).Creativity is forever. Iowa：kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Davis, G. A. &. Tomas, M. A. (1989). Effective schools and effective teachers. Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
De. Bono, E. (1970).Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step.New York: Harper and Row.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1903). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dogan, H. & Alkan, C. (1993). Problem faced in developing technology education ( A Turish Case), Advance Educational Technology in Technology Education. NATO Publication Coordination Office (pp.119–128).
Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online education. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & stae University.
Downing, J. P. (1997). Creative teaching: ideas to boot student interest.
Evans, T. D. (1996). Encouragement: the theory to reforming classroom. Educational Leadership. 54(1), 81-85.
Fishkin, A.S. & Johnson, A. S. (1998). Who is creative? Identifying children’s creative abilities. Roeper Review. Bloomfield Hill, 21(1), 40-47.
Gagn’e, R. M.(1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston:Little, Brown & Co..
Garder, H. (1993). Multiple intelligence: the theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gatlin, L. S. (1998). The effect of pedagogy informed by constructivism: a comparsion of student achievement across constructiviat and traditional classroom environments. University of New Orleans: Doctoral Dissertation.
Greening, T.(1998). Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning. Med Education Online. 3(4).
Greenwald, N. L. (2000). Learning from Problems. The Science Teacher. 67(4), 28-32.
Grennon, J., Brooks, M., & Brooks, G. (2001). In search of understanding, the case for constructivist classrooms. Merrill Education/ Prentice Hall, Inc., (pp.3-9 & p97).
Guilford, J. P.(1956). The structure of intellect.Psychological Bulletin, 52, 267-293.
Guilford, J. P.(1967).The nature of human intelligence. NJ: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1975) Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In Taylor, I. A. & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37-59). Chicago: Aldine.
Hammond, J. L. & O’Reilly, P. J. P. (1988). Performance analysis of local computer networks. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc..
Hausman, C.R. (1987).Philosophical perspectives on the study of creativity. In S. C. Isaksen (3rd ed.). Frontiers of Creativity Research, (pp.380-389). New York: Bearly Limited.
Hocevar, D.& Bachelor P.(1989).A taxonomy and critique of measurement used in the study of creativity. In J. Glover, R. Ronning & C. Reynolds (Eds.).Handbook of creativity.New York:Pleum,53-76.
Hong, J. C. (1997). The power of technological creativity. Taipei, Taiwan: The International Conference on creativity Development in Technical Education and training.
Hsiao, H-C & Chang, J-C (2003). A quasi-experimental study researching how a problem-solving teaching strategy impacts on learning outcomes for engineering students. World Transactions on Engineering and Teahnology Education. 2(3), 391-394.
Hsiao, H-C & Liang, Y-H (2002). A new programme to improve instructional materials of communication. 5th UICEE Annual Conference Engineering Education. Chennai, India, 115-118.
Hsiao, H-C & Liang, Y-H (2003). An action learning to identify students’ creative Aailities. 1st North-East Asia International Conference on Engineering and Technology Education. Changhua, Taiwan, 77-81.
Hsiao, H-C & Liang, Y-H (2003). Divergent thinking: a function-specific approach. World Transactions on Engineering and Teahnology Education. 2(3), 403-406.
Hsiao, H-C, Liang, Y-H, & Lin,T-Y(2003). Integrating creativoty into computer networks course teaching. 7th Baltic Region Seminar on Engineering Education. St Petersburg, Russia, 125-128.
Hunghes, G. D. (2003). Add creativity to your decision processes. The Journal for Quality and Participation. Summer 2003, 26(2), 4-13.
Innamorato, G. (1998). Creativity in the development of scientific Giftedness: educational implications. Roeper Review, Bloomfield Hills, 21(1), 54-59.
Isaksen, G. S. & Parnes, S.(1985). Curriculumn planning for creative thinking and problem solving. Journal of creativity Thinking, 19, 1-29.
Jonassen, D. H. & Hernandez-Serrano, J.(2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 50(2), 1042-1629, (p11).
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1998). The creativity classification system: An assessment theory. Roeper Review. Bloomfield Hills, 21(1), 20-28.
Kobe, L. M. (2001). Computer-based creativity training: training the creative process. University of Nebrasks: Doctoral Dissertation.
LeJeune, N. F. (2002). Problem-based learning instruction versus traditional instruction on self-directed learning, motivation, and grades of undergraduate computer science students. University of Colorado at Denver: Doctoral Dissertation.
Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching. (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., (p31, p40, & p235).
Ma, J. (1996). Group decision support system for assessment of problem-based learning. IEEE Transactions on Education. 39(3), 388-393.
Mahendran, M.(1995). Project-based civil engineering course. The journal of Engineering Education, 84(1), 75-79.
Magnusson, J-L (1997). High education research and psychological inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education. 68(20), 191-211.
Marcus, M. (2003). Team problem-solving strategies: introducing students to industry practices – a peer-reviewed article. Tech Directions. 62(7), 23-26.
Marlowe, B. A. & Page, M. L. (1998). Creative and sustainning the constructivist classroom. Corwin Press Inc., SAGE Publications Company, (pp.14-16).
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Human nonadversary problem solving human and machine problem solving. A division of Plenum Publishing Corporation. (pp.39 – 54).
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem-solving, Cognition. (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg （3rd ed.）. Handbook of creativity(pp.449-460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCormick, R. (1993). Integration of advanced education technology into technology education. Advance educational technology in technology education. NATO Publication Coordination Office (pp.5-26).
Necka, E. (1986). On the nature of creative talent. In Cropley, (A ed.). Giftedness: a continuing worldwide challenge. New York: Trillium Press.
Oborne, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal. 39(3), 607-634.
Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (1998). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (pp.115-118).
Ornstein,A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (1998). Curriculum – foundations ,principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon (pp.327-331).
Parnes, S. J.(1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets construction: a state of the art assessment. New York:Educational Technology. 31(5), 18-23.
Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P.A.J., & Smits, J.G.M.M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education. 5(3), 345-358.
Reeve, E. (2002). Translating standards for technological literacy into curriculum. The Technology Teacher: Resto. 62(2), 33-36.
Sandrasegran, K. & Appiah, R. K. (1996). Engineering education: how can computers help? IEEE. p366-370.
Schneck, D. J. (2001). Integrated learning: paradigm for a unified approach. Journal of Engineering Education. 90(2), 213-17.

Sewell, A.M., Fuller, S., Murphy, R.C.,& Funnell, B.H.(2002). Creative problem solving: a means to authentic and purposeful social studies. The Social Studies. 93(4), 176-179.
Shaunghnessy, M. F. (1995). On the theory and measurement of creativity. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ed. 381576).
Simonton, D. K. (1988) Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (ed). The nature of creativity . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three – facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.). The Nature of Creativity (pp.125-147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Toffleo, A.(1981). Third wave.Toronto:Bantam Books.
Tony, H. (1998).Moving towards problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education. 3(2), 219-230.
Torp, L. & Sage, S. (2002). Problem-based learning for K-16 education (2nd ed.). ASCD Product, 46-67.
Torp, L. & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: problem-based Llearning for K-16 education. Alexandria, VA: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking, norm-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Turns, J., Atman, C. J. & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: a cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education. 43(2), 164-173.
Wallas, G. (1926). The arts of thought. Jonathan Cape. 79-96.
Wood, D. F. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine, problem based learning. Clinical Rreview. 326(8), 328-330.
Wood, K. L., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J.& Notto, K. (2001). Reverse engineering and redesign: courses to incrementally and systematically teach design. Journal of Engineering Education. 90(3), 363-375.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：894（臺灣：888，外國：6） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1827278 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67639916
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上