研究生: |
傅昱森 Fu, yu-sen |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
美術資優兒童與一般兒童繪畫表現之比較研究: 以兒童喜好物為例 A Comparative Study of Artistically Talented Children and Reg-ular Children’s Drawing Performance: Taking Their Favorite Objects as an Example. |
指導教授: |
林仁傑
Lin, Jen-Chieh |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
美術學系 Department of Fine Arts |
論文出版年: | 2013 |
畢業學年度: | 101 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 159 |
中文關鍵詞: | 美術資優兒童 、視覺文化喜好物 、繪畫表現 |
英文關鍵詞: | artistically prodigious children, adored objects in a visual cultural context, painting performance |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:360 下載:72 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
資優是人類對於某人擁有超乎一般才能的尊稱,在美術領域中有許多才能特殊者被稱為資優兒童。在這些兒童的自傳與作品中,發現美術資優兒童的傑出表現並非全然與生俱來,個體的生活環境是一個當前資優教育所關切的重要因素。研究者體認到個體能否處在視覺文化環境刺激並長期關注視覺圖像亦是影響一位兒童繪畫能力表現好壞的主因。因此,研究美術班與普通班兒童繪畫表現與視覺環境刺激的彼此關聯,且比較兩群體的繪畫表現與視覺環境刺激的差異。以臺灣本島地區公立小學三年級與五年級兒童為研究對象,採隨機抽樣方式進行調查。探討不同年齡與性別的美術班與普通班兒童在喜好物視覺來源的選擇差異及視覺來源與繪畫表現之間的關係。研究結果顯示:
一、美術班兒童在喜好物繪畫表現優於普通班兒童。
二、不同年齡、性別、班級型態兒童在視覺刺激來源類型著迷度差異:(一)不同班級型態兒童在電視來源著迷度有顯著差異。(二)不同班級型態、性別、年齡兒童在圖畫書來源著迷度有顯著差異。(三)不同班級型態、性別、年齡兒童在玩具來源著迷度有顯著差異。(四)不同班級型態、性別兒童在電腦遊戲來源著迷度有顯著差異。
三、不同性別、班級型態兒童在繪畫學習行為有顯著差異。
四、不同性別、班級型態兒童在社會性支持度有顯著差異。
五、視覺環境因素對喜好物繪畫表現的預測情形:(一)繪畫學習行為高者,兒童喜好物繪畫表現愈好。(二)電腦遊戲來源著迷度低者,兒童喜好物繪畫表現愈好。
六、繪畫學習行為在視覺環境因素與喜好物繪畫表現關係之中介情形:(一)兒童對圖畫書著迷度高且繪畫學習行為高,則兒童喜好物繪畫表現好。(二)兒童對玩具著迷度高且繪畫學習行為高,則兒童喜好物繪畫表現好。(三)兒童的社會性支持度高且繪畫學習行為高,則兒童喜好物繪畫表現好。
A prodigy refers to a person who possesses superior natural abilities compared to average people. Numerous children are perceived to be prodigious because of their special gifts in fine art. The autobiographies and works of these children have revealed that these outstanding artistic gifts are not entirely natural. Instead, an individual’s environment is crucial for the current education of gifted children. Researchers have recognized that whether an individual is exposed to a visually stimulating environment with long-term immersion in visual imagery may constitute a major factor that influences children’s performances in painting. Therefore, this study investigates the differences of performance in painting between children from an art class and those from a regular class, and how painting performances are related to envi-ronmental visual stimuli. The participants in this study are third-grade and fifth-grade stu-dents enlisted from public primary schools in Taiwan, and a random sampling survey tech-nique is used. Differences in visual sources, based on which children developed their choice of adored objects, between the children from the art class and those from the regular class are examined, with varying genders and ages being considered. In addition, the relationship be-tween visual source and painting performances is explored. The results indicate that:
1. Children from the art class outperformed their counterparts from the regular class in painting their adored objects.
2. There were differences of fascination with various sources of visual stimuli between chil-dren of various ages, genders, and class types:
(a) significant differences related to class were identified for the degree of fascination with TV-based visual sources. (b) Significant differences were identified between chil-dren of different class types, genders, and ages in the degree of fascination with picture book-based sources. (c) Significant differences were identified between children of dif-ferent class types, genders, and ages in the degree of fascination with toy-based sources. (d) Significant differences were identified between children of different class types and genders in the degree of fascination with digital game-based sources.
3. Significant differences were identified between children of different genders and class types in painting-related learning behaviors.
4. Significant differences were identified between children of different genders and class types regarding level of social support.
5. Predicted effects of environmental visual factors on performance of painting adored ob-jects: (a) Children with higher painting-related learning behaviors performed better. (b) Children with lower fascination on computer game-based sources performed better.
6. Mediating effects of painting-related learning behaviors in the relationship between envi-ronmental visual factors and performances of painting adored objects: (a) children dis-playing a higher degree of fascination with picture books and higher painting-related learning behaviors exhibited better performances painting adored objects. (B) Children displaying a higher degree of fascination with toys and higher painting-related learning behaviors exhibited performances painting adored objects. (C) Children with a higher de-gree of social support and higher painting-related learning behaviors exhibited better per-formances painting adored objects.
中文文獻
中文大辭典(1989)。 北京:中國文化出版部。
木村久一 (2001)。 早期教育與天才。 台北市:高富國際出版社。
王德育 譯(1986)。創造與心智的成長。 台北: 三有圖書公司。(Lowenfeld, V. 著)
王逸棻 (1995)。 兒童繪畫測驗之編製及其相關研究。碩士論文,高雄師範大學,高雄。
王鳳美(2003)。 屏東縣國民小學學童參與休閒活動之研究 。碩士論文,屏東師範學院,屏東。
田學紅、劉徽、鄭碧波(2004)。 馬斯洛高峰經驗學說及其對教學的啓示。 浙江師範大學學報,132, 86-88。
朱則剛、吳翠珍(1995)。 我國國小學生電視識讀能力研究 。 行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告,pp. 240-243。
朱光潛 譯(1979)。萊辛 著。 拉奧孔。 北京: 人民文學出版社。
朱光潛 譯(1982)。Aristotle 著。 詩學。 北京: 人民文學出版社。
朱光潛 譯(1963)。Plato 著。 文藝對話集。 北京: 人民文學出版社。
花敬凱 譯(2007)。 Clark, B. 著。啓迪資優-如何開發孩子的潛能。 台北市: 心理出版社。
吳慧亞(2005)。 國小中年級的兒童繪畫中受電視卡通影響之藝術表現模式個案研究。碩士論文,國立嘉義大學,嘉義。
吳翠珍(1995)。有線電視系統在隔空教育上的應用--介紹美國、加拿大與英國之概況。教學科技與媒體,23,9-17。
吳翠珍(1997)。 兒童與電視節目。廣電人,28,2-30。
李靜芳 (1992)。 兒童繪畫的探討。 現代美術,45,60-63。
李世文(2002)。台中市國民小學六年級學童休閒活動之調查研究。碩士論文,臺中師範學院,台中。
李三煌(2003)。臺北市內湖區國小高年級學童休閒活動之研究。碩士輪文,臺北市立師範學院,台北。
李棉絲(2011)。運用圖畫書導賞引導幼兒繪畫表現的教學研究。碩士論文,華梵大學,新北市。
杜明城(譯)(2005)。 創造力。 臺北: 時報文化出版。(Csiksentmihalyi, M. ,1996)
周文敏(2004)。 「創造性圖畫書教學」對國小學童創造力與繪畫表現之研究。碩士論文,國立中山大學,高雄。
周時奮(2004)。 天才的交鋒:達文西、米開朗基羅、拉斐爾三傑畫傳。 台北市: 先覺。
林仁傑 (2004)。亞妮的猴子與育立的汽車-論視覺文化環境對美術資優學生的影響。 美育,140, 56-71。
林仁傑 譯(2011)。Gilbert Clrak & Enid Zimmerman著。美術資優教育原則與實務。台北:心理。
林玉山(1990)。皮亞傑認知發展理論與兒童繪畫發展之探討。 碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,台北。
林震岩(2007)。多變量分析:SPSS的操作與應用。台北:智勝文化。
林熒 譯(2001)。Howe, M. J. A. 著。 天才的奧祕:揭開天才為什麼是天才的真正原因 。 台北: 貓頭鷹出版。
林錦鳳 (2006)。圖畫書導賞教學對國小低年級學童繪畫表現之影響研究。碩士論文,大葉大學,彰化。
朗吉努斯、亞里士多德、賀拉斯 (2009)。 美學三論︰論崇高 論詩學 論詩藝。 蘭州: 光明日報出版社。
馬清福 (1984)。 西方文藝理論基礎。 北京: 遼寧大學出版社。
徐嘉玟(2011)。 國小資優生遊戲選擇偏好與遊戲習慣之研究。碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學,彰化。
國立台灣藝術教育館 (2011)。我國美術班設置年表。取自國立台灣藝術教育館網址http://ed.arte.gov.tw/uploadfile/Book/2167_09。附錄一,pp. 219-242。
張序(2000)。 天才之道:西方思想史上的天才觀。 成都: 四川人民出版社。
張耿彬(2006)。 從幼兒繪畫內容探討幼兒認知、環境因素與幼兒繪畫的關係。碩士論文,國立台東大學,台東市。
教育部(2009)。 特殊教育法。取自教育部網址http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0080027
教育部(2011)。一百學年度特殊教育統計年報。特殊教育小組(主編)。教育部, 臺北。
梁政道(2007)。影像教學媒體引導對兒童繪畫人物表現中之覺能力影響之研究-以桃園縣南門國小為例。碩士論文,國立台北教育大學,臺北。
陳芸芸 譯(2004)。Mirzoeff, N. 著。視覺文化導論 。 台北: 韋伯文化。
陳育淳(1999)。大眾文化對兒童繪畫發展的影響。 碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學,彰化。
陳美秀(2001)。兒童繪畫表現與大眾文化關係之探討:國小高年級學童自發性漫畫創作之多重個案研究。碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,台北。
陳彪(2007)。高峰體驗與人格完善-論馬斯洛的宗教心理學。普陽學刊,2,70-73。
陳瓊花(2002)。 心理學與藝術教育。載於黃壬來 (主編), 藝術與人文教育 ( pp. 155-191)。 臺北:桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
陳麗如(1996)。國小低年級兒童繪畫表現模式及其影響因素之多重個案研究。碩士論文,國立嘉義師範學院,嘉義。
郭為藩(1970)。自我理論在教育上的應用。台灣師範大學教育研究所集刊,12,85-129。
黃壬來(1983)。國小美術教育實驗班與普通班學生繪畫創作能力之比較研究。碩士論文,國立高雄師範大學,高雄。
福島 章 (2000)。通往「天才」之路:探索天才所創造的魅力。 台北市: 國際村。
趙惠玲(2005)。視覺文化與藝術教育。 台北市:師大書苑。
趙惠玲(2011)。美術鑑賞。 台北:三民書局。
榮泰生(2009)。SPSS與研究方法。台北:五南。
劉豐榮(1991)。艾斯納藝術教育思想研究。 台北市:水牛出版社。
賴志峰(2002)。 美國中小學教育改革新趨式之評析及啓示:2001年No Child Left Behind Act。國民教育學報,9,273-297。
賴金英(2005)。台灣地區國民小學美術班實施現況之研究。 碩士論文,新竹教育大學,新竹。
蕭春金(1999)。兒童造形表現之比較研究。碩士論文,國立台灣科技大學,台北。
嚴巧怡(2008)。高中資優生與普通生認知—情意交織特質、正向支持環境及志願服務傾向之研究。碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,台北。
蘇佑芳 (2012)。國小藝術才能班與普通班學童父母教養方式、學習壓力與幸福感之比較研究。碩士論文,高雄師範大學,高雄。
羅明訓(1999)。桃園縣國小六年級學生休閒活動之調查研究。碩士論文,臺中師範學院,台中。
嚴增虹(2002)。國小學童網際網路使用者背景、行為與心理特質關係之研究。碩士論文,國立臺南大學,臺南。
西文文獻
Beverly, B. (1957). In Defense of Children. New York: John Day Co. Press.
Bruner, J. (1968). Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: Norton.
Clark, G. A. (1995). Clarks Drawing Abilities Test. Bloomington, IN: Art Publishing co.
Davis, J. (1997). The "U" and the wheel of "C": development and devaluation of graphic symboli
-zation and the cognitive approach at Harvard Project Zero. In A. M. Kindler (Ed.), Child
development in art. Reston: NAEA.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Co.
Duncum, P. (1984). How 35 children born between 1724 and 1900 learned to draw. Studies in art
education, 26(2), pp.93-102.
Feldman, D. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Gagné, F., Neveu, F., Simard, L., & St. Pere, F. (1996). How a search for multitalented individuals
challenged the concept itself. Gifted and Talented international, 11, 5-11.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents : brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Gifted, 152, 5-9.
Gallo, F., Golomb, C.,& Barroso, A. (2002). Compositional strategies in drawing: The effects of
two and three-dimensional media. Visual arts research, 28, pp.2-23.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Golomb, C. (1992). Reflections on culture variables the child's creation of a pictorial world: Uni
-versity of California.
Golomb, C. (1995). Eitan: The Artistic Development of a Child Prodigy. In C. Golomb (Ed.), The
Development of Artistically Gifted Children (pp. 171-196). New Jersey: Lawrence Erl-baum Associayes.
Harris, D. (1963). The concept of development.Children's as measures of intellectual maturity.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Press.
Hier, D. B. & Growly, W. F. (1982). Spatial ability in androgen-deficit men. New England Journal
of Medicine, 20, 1202-1205.
Howe, M. J. A. (1999). Genius Explained. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Kindler, A. M. & Darras, B. (1997). Map of artistic development. In A. M. Kindler (Ed.), Child
development in art. Reston: NAEA.
Lloyd L. & Sensat, J. (1916). Education through art and historic preservation. In S. S. Madeja
(Ed.), Gifted and talented in art education: NAEA.
Lowenfeld, V. (1987). Creative and mental Growth (8 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mcfee, J. K. (1961). Preparation for art. San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Milbrath, C. (1995). Germinal Motifs in the Work of a Gifted Child Artist. In C. Golomb (Ed.),
The development of artistically gifted children (pp. 101-133). New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Mirzoeff, N. (1999). Diana's death: gender, photograph and the inauguration of global visual cul
ture. London: Routledge.
Mirzoeff, N. (2002). Ghostwriting: working out visual culture. Journal of visual culture, 1(2), 239-
254.
Murray, G. (1991). Toulouse - Lautre:The formative years,1878-1891. New York: Oxford Univer
sity.
Paine, S. (1987). The nightlift of Paris: The art of Toulouse-Lautrec(1864-1901). Journal of art
and design education, 6, pp.297-312.
Pariser, D. (1991). Normal and unusual aspects of juvenile artistic development in Klee, Lautrec,
and Picasso. Creativity Reserach Journal, 4(1), 51-65.
Pariser, D. (1995). Lautrec-Gifted Child Artist and Artistic Monument: Connections Between Ju
venile and Mature Work. In C. Golomb (Ed.), The development of artistically gifted chil
dren (pp. pp.31-70). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Plomin, R. (1997). Genetics and intelligence. In N. C. a. G. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of Gifted Edu
cation (Vol. 2nd). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes Giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, pp.180-184.
Rogers, C. (1963). The actualizing tendency in realtion to"Motives"; and to consciousness. Paper
presented at the Nebraska Symposium on motivation.
Rostan, S. M. (2010). Studio Learning: Motivation, competence, and the development of young art
students' talent and creativity. Creativity Reserach, 22(3), pp.261-271.
Skeels, H. and Dye, H. (1959). A study of the effects of differential stimulation on mentally re-
tarded children. Proceeding of American Association of Mental Deficiency, 44, pp.114-
136.
Slavkin, H. (1987). Science in the 21st century. Paper presented at the The 25th Annual Confer-
ence of the California Association for the Gifted, Los Angeles.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York:
Macmillan.
Taylor, R. (1987). Educating for art. London: England: Longman.
Terman, L. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children Genetic studies of ge-
nius (Vol. Ⅰ). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Wilson, B. (1997). Child art, multiple interpretations, and conflicts of interest. In A. M. Kindle
(Ed.), Child developmnet in art ( pp. 81-94). Restan: NAEA.
Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1977). An iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the drawing of
young people. Art Education, 30(1), pp. 5-11.
Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1982). The case of the disappearing two-eyed profile: or how children
influence the drawing of little children. Review of Research in Visual Art Education, 15,
pp. 19-32.
Winner, E. & Martino, G. (1993). Giftedness in the visual arts and music. In F. M. K. Heller, & A.
H. Passow (Ed.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and
talent. (pp. 253-281). Elnsford, New York: Pergamon.
Zimmerman, E. (1995). It was an incredible experience: The impact of educational opportunities
on a talent student's art development. In C. Golomb (Ed.), The development of artistical-
ly gifted children (pp. 135-170). New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Gilbert Clark & Enid Zimmerman (1984). Teaching Talented Art Students. New York: NAEA.
Gilbert Clark & Enid Zimmerman (2004). Teaching Talented Art Students. New York: Teachers
College of Columbia University.