研究生: |
許竣理 Hsu, Chun-Li |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
「ATDE創造思考教學數位設計」課程對國小資優生之創造力與創作表現之研究 A Study on Effectiveness of“ATDE Creative Training in Digital Design”Course to Promote Creativity and Creative Expression on elementary school gifted students. |
指導教授: |
潘裕豐
Pan, Yu-Fong |
口試委員: |
陳偉仁
Chen, Wei-Ren 陳龍安 Chen, Long-An 潘裕豐 Pan, Yu-Fong |
口試日期: | 2023/07/01 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
特殊教育學系碩士在職專班 Department of Special Education_Continuing Education Master's Program of Special Education |
論文出版年: | 2023 |
畢業學年度: | 112 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 137 |
中文關鍵詞: | ATDE創造思考教學模式 、資優生 、數位教學 、創造力表現 、作品設計 |
英文關鍵詞: | Creativity, ATDE (Asking, Teaching, Doing, Evaluation)., Gifted students, Digital teaching, Creativity expression, Work design |
研究方法: | 行動研究法 |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202301518 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:118 下載:37 |
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 |
數位設計課程能激發學生的想像力,進而引導學生多元的創造力與創意發想。本研究希望透過教學改變,藉由數位設計與分享資源,啟發學生創新思考的能力。
本研究主要在探討「 ATDE 創造思考教學數位設計」課程對資優生創造力表現之影響。研究者服務於金門,相對於大都市的孩子,他們的資源是較為缺少的,利用科技縮短城鄉差距,這是身為離島資優教師的責任以及教學重點。由於適合國小的創造思考教學數位設計課程目前尚無前例可參考,因此研究者設計了一學期32周五個階段的數位設計課程教學,以了解資優生的學習情況及改變歷程。由於研究對象有限,只有12個學生,所以希望藉由以質性研究為主,量化研究為輔兩種資料,能夠更全面地看待研究的問題。
量化資料主要依據陶倫斯創造思考測驗圖形版前、後測、創意繪圖作品前、後測與實驗教學完畢3D作品,資料以專家共識評量、各組互評的方式呈現,量化資料分析後經過平均數的比較、t 考驗與描述性統計分析,以作為學習歷程的分析參考,也是質性資料的客觀依據。質性資料蒐集主要包括:各階段學生作品、各階段學習評量、學生訪談、助理教師觀察記錄與教師省思日誌六大類,蒐集到的資料經過三角校正以提高信度與效度。
本研究結論有三:
一、實施ATDE創造思考教學模式數位教學後,學童在創造力表現有明顯不同,提升了學童流暢力、獨創力、精密力等各項創造力。
二、融入ATDE創造思考教學模式數位教學策略,學童於課堂的表現是正向且有所進步的,在教學活動時有著高度學習動機,學習態度亦趨向正向積極,懂得發揮團結合作的精神,學會尊重與自我不同的見解,並欣賞別人的想法。
三、接受「ATDE創造思考教學模式數位設計」課程之資優班學生進行作品設計,能激發更多學習回饋,且能刺激學生作品的獨創性。
從研究結論來看,本課程設計教學有助於資優生創作力的具體表現。希望本研究能作為未來數位設計與創作力課程教學的研究參考。
Digital design courses can stimulate students' imagination, and then guide students' diverse creativity and creative thinking. This study hopes to inspire students' ability to think innovatively through the teaching changes of digital design and sharing resources.
The purpose of this study is to make a“ATDE Creative Training in Digital Design” Course for promoting gifted students' Creative Expression. Since the authors of this study Serving in Kinmen, this study take Kinmen elementary school gifted students as the research target. Compared with children in big cities, their resources are relatively inadequate. Using technology to shorten the gap between urban and rural areas is the responsibility and teaching focus of a rural school gifted teacher. Unfortunately there are currently no related creative thinking teaching digital design courses available and suitable for elementary school. Therefore, the researchers designed a one-semester digital design course, which can be divided into five stages, 32-week to understand the learning situation and change process of gifted students. Due to the limited number of suitable research objects, only 12 students participated in this study. Consequently, in order to comprehensively examine the research question, this study is mainly qualitative research, supplemented by quantitative research.
Quantitative data are mainly based on the pre-test, post-test of Torrance Creative Thinking Test and creative drawing works. In addition, the 3D works after the experimental teaching was quantified through consensual assessment peer evaluation. Analyzed by descriptive statistics and paired sample t-test, this research obtains the reference data of learning process as the objective basis of qualitative data. Qualitative data collection mainly includes six categories: student works at each stage, learning assessment at each stage, student interviews, assistant teacher observation records, and teacher reflection diary. The collected qualitative data were corrected by triangulation to improve the reliability and validity.
This main findings of the study are as the followings:
1. After implementing the digital teaching of ATDE creative thinking teaching mode, schoolchildren show significant improvement in creative expression, which includes students' fluency, originality, precision and other creativity.
2. ATDE creative thinking teaching mode incorporate digital teaching strategies can positively improve the performance of students in the classroom. It can improve students' learning motivation in teaching activities, encourage students to have a positive learning attitude, know how to play unity and cooperation, and learn to respect different opinions and appreciate the ideas of others.
3. The work of students who have taken“ATDE Creative Training in Digital Design” Course have more learning feedback and can stimulate the originality of student works.
According to research, the design teaching course is helpful for gifted students to express their creativity. This study hopes to be used as a research reference for the teaching of digital design and creativity courses in the future.
參考文獻
一、中文部分
毛連塭(1994)。創造力的涵意及其概念的闡析。國小特殊教育,17,1-7。
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(2000)。創造力研究,2-54。心理。
王琡棻(2009)。資優生情意特質的一體兩面。國小特殊教育,48,100-110。
朱蕙君、蔡佩僅、黃國禎、楊基裕、林富能、許雅惠、林家卉、謝欣茹(2003)。網路社群應用於電腦輔助音樂教學推廣模式之建立〔專題演講〕。第九屆資訊管理研究暨實務研討會,彰化縣,台灣。.
吳可久,蘇于倫,曹筱玥(2013)。由激發想像力思維探索設計課程教學方式。建築學報,83,19-35。
呂燕卿(1999)。談藝術與人文學習領域的統整性課程設計之觀念。教師天地,100,40-51。
李佳蓉(2013)。視覺思考策略對美術資優教育之啟示。129,31-39。
李錫津(1987)。創造思考教學對高職學生創造力發展之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林幸台、王木榮(1994)。威廉斯創造力測驗。臺北:心理。
林生傳(1998)。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學季刊,1(3),1-14。
林青雅(2010)。運用創意教學提升國中英語學習動機與成就之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文) 。國立彰化師範大學。
林碧芳、邱皓政 (2008)。創意教學自我效能感量表之編製與相關研究。教育研究與發展期刊,4(1),141-169。
施威銘(1998)。正確學會Photoshop CS6的16堂課。旗標。
施威銘 (2012)。Microsoft SQL Server 2012 設計實務。施威銘研究室。
施惠靜(2006)。國小資優班統整課程實施現況研究。臺中教育大學。
洪懿妍(2001)。世界向美走。天下雜誌2001年教育特刊「美的學習」。
胡元媛(2012)。國小資優生與普通生家長創造力信念及知覺與教養態度之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
胡宗光(2001)。國小原住民學生創造力特質及影響其創造力發展環境因素之研究─以阿美族為例。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
吳俊明(2010)。資訊科技融入創造性問題解決教學對國小學童科學創造力(未出版碩士論文)。國立東華大學。
吳嘉明、邱家偉(2012)。國小資優資源班創新教學方案探究。國立嘉義大學。
引自http://www.ncyu.edu.tw›files›site_content›cset。
呂燕卿(1999)。國民教育階段九年一貫「藝術與人文」之學習領域能力指標之特質。國立台灣師範大學藝術學院研討會。
呂金燮(2021)。國小資優課程素養導向設計指引。臺北市大同國小資優教師專業社群,台北市,台灣。
張世彗(2003)。創造力:理論、技術/技法與培育。心理。
張玉成(1990)。思考技巧與教學。心理。
張玉成(1990)。開發腦中金礦的教策略。心理。
張玉成(1999)。教師發問技巧之外:論鼓勵學生發問暨教師回答技巧之重要性。國民教育,39(3),11 頁。
張玉山 (2003)。虛擬團隊之創造力研究-以師院勞作課程為例。國立臺灣師範大學。
教育部(2003)。創造力教育白皮書。教育部。
郭靜姿(2006)。如何實施資優學生的區分性教學。資優教育季刊。
陳朝平、黃壬來(1995)。國小美勞科教材教法。台中市:五南。
陳英豪、吳裕益、李昆崇(1990)。教師態度量表之修訂報告。測驗年刊,37,25-34。
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。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳偉仁(2016)。語文資優教育課程講義。國立嘉義大學。
陳偉仁、黃楷茹、陳美芳(2017)。臺灣國民中小學資優資源班課程與教學實施狀況與展望。資優教育季刊,143,1-11。
陳惠邦(1998)。教育行動研究。師大書苑。
陳儀芬(2007)。國小高年級以創造思考活動為中心的視覺藝術教學之行動研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學。
陳慧芬(1997)。國民小學組織文化之研究-一所台中市國民小學的個案分析(未出版博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳龍安(1989)。點石成金─談創造思考教學要領。創造思考教育,1,29-33。
陳龍安(1989)。「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碩士論文。
陳龍安、朱湘吉(2005)。創造與生活。五南。
陳龍安(2006)。創造思考教學的理論與實際(第六版)。心理。
陳龍安(2012)。創意思考講座講義及資料。
取自https://m.xuite.net/blog/aa371010a/twblog/140625996
曾望超(2003)。國小教師創意教學與學生後設認知能力、創造力、問題解決能力之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學。
黃壬來(2002)。全球情勢與台灣藝術教育的改革。藝術與人文教育,桂冠。
黃淑雲(2001)。電腦媒材與設計創造力之認知研究。交大應用藝術研究所。
黃瑞琴(1996)。質的教育研究方法。心理。
董家莒(2000)。「問題解決」為基礎之電腦輔助教學成效〔未出版碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學。
詹宏志:(1996)。創意人:創造思考的自我訓練。台北市:城邦文化事業股份有限公司,(二版九刷)。
詹秀美(1988)。資優生的親職教育。資優教育季刊,28,6-9。
詹秀美(2005)。國小資優班創造思考教學實施現況研究。臺中師院學報,19(1),47-72。
劉豐榮(1996)。質的個案研究方法學在藝術教育之意義與應用。〔海峽兩岸小學教育學術研討會論文集〕,93-109。國立嘉義師範學院。
潘裕豐(2004)。資優生獨立研究課程設計的理念與應用探討。資優教育季刊,92,12-21。
鄭福海(2003)。國民小學創造思考教學及推動策略之研究〔未出版碩士論文〕。國立臺南大學國民教育研究所。
簡瑞榮(2007)。學院數位藝術教學之研究:以國立嘉義大學與吳鳯技術學院MAYA 3D動畫教學為例。師大書苑。
羅文基(2001)。建構我國國民教育發展指標之研究。復文。
蘇月霞(2007)。繪畫創意教學方案對幼兒創造力影響之研究〔未出版碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學。
Explore the teaching models for design studio by the Thinking Stimulation of Imagination
Mark A. Runco Boughton(2008)。創造力-當代理論與議題(邱皓政、丁興祥譯)。心理。
二、 西文部分
Akin, Ö. (1978). ‘How do architects design?’ in Unknown Latombe (ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in Computer Aided Design, North Holland Publishing Company, IFIP.
Chen, S. C. (2001). The Role of Design Creativity in Computer Media, the 19th eCAADe conference, Helsinki, Finland.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and Accessing Creativity An Integrative Review of Theory, Research, and Development.
Eddia Solas & Frances Sutton (2019). Incorporating Digital Technology in the General Education Classroom. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 3(1), 1-15.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Treffinger, D.J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Tx: Kendall/Hunt.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Gifted education in the 21st century. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 100-110.
Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 64, 183-196.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching, Creativity Research Journal,. 123-143.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture, Design Studies, 15(2), 158-174.
Gross, M. D. (1996). The electronic Cocktail napkin-a computational environment for working with design diagrams, Design Studies 17 (1), 53-69.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 233.
Guilford, J.P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin. 52,267-297.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Great Neck, NY Creative Synergistic Associates.
Hansen, J. B.,Feldhusen, J. T.(1994).Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted student.Gifted Child Quarterly,38(3),115-121.
Hsin-Ping Chen;Wu-Haw Jue;Gavin Thomson(2011). The Art of Digital Multi-media Calligraphy,國際數位媒體設計學刊;3卷1期 (2011 / 06 / 01),P4 - 11
Kitchen, S., Finch, S., & Sinclair, R. O. (2008). Harnessing technology schools survey 2007. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Harnessing-Technology-Schools-Survey-2007-Kitchen-Finch/3225dafeeeb84c843db140c104747c6d58657207
Madrazo, L. (1999). Types and instances: A paradigm for teaching design with computers, Design Studies, 20, 177-193.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching model in education of the gifted.Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2005). The DISCOVER curriculum model. In C. J Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Teaching models in education of the gifted (3rd ed.) (pp. 165-194). Austin, TX: PRO. ED
Marx, J.(2000). A proposal for alternative methods for teaching digital design, Automation in Construction, 9, 19-35.
Mitchell, W, J. (1993). A computational view of design creativity, In Gero, J. S. and Maher, M. L. (eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design, 25-42, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Purcell, A. T. and Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology, Design Studies 19(4), 389-430.
Renzulli,J.S. (1977).The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28,163-171.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning.
Schenk, P. (1991). The role of drawing in the graphic design process, Design Studies, 12(3), 168-181
Schön, D. A. (1987). The Reflective Practitioner, Temple Smith, London.
Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis, Design Studies, 18(4), 385-403.
Thorn, A., & Gough, H. (1991). Portraits of type.Palo Alto. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tie Li ,Xi Zhang(2022).Research on Modeling Language of Digital Video Installation Art. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research;5卷6期(2022 / 06 / 01),P331 - 333
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 15-19.
Treffinger, D. J. et al. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.) Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ASCD
Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet (CAP): Manual. D.O.K. Publishers Inc.