:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:創造思考教學模組對體育師資生創造力的影響
書刊名:大專體育學刊
作者:王睿千林靜萍 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Jui-chienLin, Ching-ping
出版日期:2009
卷期:11:3
頁次:頁39-51
主題關鍵詞:創造思考能力創造性傾向體育師資培育Creative thinking abilitiesCreative tendencyPhysical education teacher education
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(4) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:199
  • 點閱點閱:36
本研究目的旨在探討創造思考教學模組應用於體育師資培育課程,對研究參與者在「創造思考能力」及「創造性傾向」的影響。研究方法採實驗組/控制組前測-後測準實驗設計,以某大學94位體育師資生為研究參與者,進行為期8週的教學實驗,以「新編創造思考測驗」及「威廉斯創造性傾向量表」蒐集資料,採獨立樣本及相依樣本t考驗等統計方法進行資料分析,顯著水準訂在α=.05。研究結果主要發現如下:一、實驗組學生於圖形流暢力、圖形變通力、圖形獨創力、語文流暢力及語文獨創力等創造思考能力的表現,顯著優於控制組學生,圖形精進力和語文變通力則無顯著差異。二、實驗組學生於冒險性、好奇性、挑戰性及創造性傾向整體表現,顯著優於控制組學生,想像力則無顯著差異。研究結論顯示創造思考教學模組能有效提升體育師資生創造思考能力及創造思考傾向。本研究結果可做為體育師資培育、創造思考教學以及未來研究上之參考。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of creative thinking instruction module on creative thinking abilities and creative tendency of novel physical education teachers. A quasi pre-post experiment and control group design was used in this study. 94-students from department of physical education of a university were participated in this study. Forty- nine participants from one class were selected as the experiment group, while 45-students from another class were considered as control group. Eight weeks creative thinking instruction module was implemented. "Test of Divergent Thinking" and "Test of Divergent Feeling" were used to collect data. The independent t-test and paired-sapling t-test were used to analysis the data. The main results of this study were as follows: 1). The performances of the experiment group were significantly better than those of the control group in figural fluency, figural flexibility, figural originality, verbal fluency and verbal originality. There was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group on figural elaboration and verbal flexibility. 2). The performances of the experiment group was significant better than those of the control group in risk-taking, curiosity, challenge and whole performance. However, no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group on imagination. These findings indicated that creative thinking instruction module could improve novel physical education teachers' creative thinking abilities and creative tendency. The conclusion of this study could be used as the reference for physical education teacher education, creative thinking teaching and future research.
期刊論文
1.Sternberg, R. J.、Lubart, T. I.(1996)。Investing in creativity。American Psychologist,51(7),677-688。  new window
2.吳靜吉(2002)。華人創造力的發掘與培育。應用心理研究,15期,17-42 頁。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Clapham, M. M.(1997)。Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training program。Creativity Research Journal,10(1),33-44。  new window
4.Davids, G. A.,、Bull, K. S.(1978)。Strengthening affective components of creativity in a college course。Journal of Educational Psychology,70(5),833-836。  new window
5.Domino, G.,、Wechter, V. T.(1976)。Joint teaching of undergraduate courses in creativity。Teaching of Psychology,3(3),123-127。  new window
6.Glover, J. A.(1980)。A creativity-training workshop: Short-term, long-term, and transfer effects。The Journal of Genetic Psychology,136(1),3-16。  new window
7.Parnes, S. J.,、Noller, R. B.(1972)。Applied creativity: The creative studies project. Part-ⅡResults of the two-year program.。Journal of Creative Behavior,6,164-186。  new window
研究報告
1.吳武典、陳昭儀(2001)。「創造力教育政策白皮書」子計畫:我國中等教育階段創造力教育政策規劃白皮書。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
2.吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺(1998)。新編創造思考測驗研究第二年期末報告。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.吳美慧(2002)。威廉斯創造思考教學模式教材設計對國小學童創造力認知、情意及自然科學業之影響(碩士論文)。國立臺北師範學院,台北市。  延伸查詢new window
2.徐錦木(2001)。創造性問題解決策略對高職學生學習微控器成效之研究(碩士論文)。國立台北科技大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.詹瓊華(2004)。高中家政課程實施創造思考教學之成效(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳慧青(2005)。幽默式創意數學教學對國中生數學學習成效與創造力之影響(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
5.郭奕龍(2006)。教師的創造力發展課程實施成效之研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
6.魏炎順(2004)。解決問題取向創意思考教學對師院勞作課學生創造力之影響研究(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
7.李雪禎(2006)。運用「兒童音樂短劇」及「創造性戲劇」於國小學童音樂創作學習成效之行動研究--以國小五年級為例(碩士論文)。國立臺南大學,臺南市。  延伸查詢new window
8.魏秀恬(2001)。國中科技教育實施創造性問題解決教學之研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北。  延伸查詢new window
9.鄭雅文(2002)。創造性問題解決教學法應用於高職經濟學教學研究(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
10.陳奐宇(2000)。創造思考教學對圖形創造力影響之研究—以國小四年級與六年級普通班為比較,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
11.陳美岑(2000)。高職實用技能班美髮技術科創造思考教學方案之實施成效,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
12.曾雄豪(2004)。創造性思考教學對國小五年級學童動作技能與創造力之影響,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
13.謝麗雯(2005)。創造思考教學影響低年級兒童創造力之研究,台南市。  延伸查詢new window
14.Chen, G..(1990)。A comparative study of creative thin king abilities of physical education teacher education students in American and Chinese universities,Arkansas。  new window
15.Maloney, J. E.(1992)。Teacher training in creativity: A phenomenological inquiry with teachers who have participated in creativity coursework [Abstract],Massachusetts。  new window
圖書
1.毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(20000000)。創造力研究。臺北:心理。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Sternberg, Robert J.、Lubart, Todd I.(1995)。Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity。Free Press。  new window
3.Williams, F. E.、林幸台、王木榮(1994)。威廉斯創造力測驗:指導手冊。臺北:心理。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳龍安(1998)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。臺北:心理。  延伸查詢new window
5.陳美玉(1999)。教師專業學習與發展。臺北市:師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Csikszentmihalyi, M.、Wolfe, R.(2000)。New conceptions and research approach tocreativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education。International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent。New York:Elsevier。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE