研究生: |
黃瓈瑱 Huang, Li-Chen |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
國中生圖形創造力表現及其相關影響因素之研究--以臺北縣某兩所國中為例 A Study on Junior High School Students’ Graph Creativity and Related Influential Factors in Two Junior High Schools in Taipei County |
指導教授: | 林仁傑 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
美術學系 Department of Fine Arts |
論文出版年: | 2009 |
畢業學年度: | 97 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 127 |
中文關鍵詞: | 創造力 、圖形創造力 、國中生 、繪圖能力 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:148 下載:9 |
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 |
在網路全球化的影響下,視覺圖像被媒體廣泛地運用,傳播的速度與品質也大幅提升,是否也影響了正處於青少年期的國中生圖形創造表現能力?本研究針對居住地區不同、性別不同、人格特質認同程度不同、參與視覺活動意願高低不同等因素,探討其對於圖形創造力的發展與表現之影響,並深入探討其中影響差異的因素。
本研究的取樣對象是國中生,以大台北地區的臺北縣兩所不同行政區的國中生圖形創造力及其相關影響因素為研究主軸。藉由「陶倫斯創造思考測驗--圖形版(甲式)」、「克拉克繪圖能力測驗」及「影響國中生創造力相關因素問卷」等研究工具進行探究。有效問卷各60份,經由統計分析後,所得結果歸納如下:
一、在國中生的圖形創造力發展上,影響最顯著的因素為「居住地區」;「性別」、「人格特質認同程度」兩因素則無顯著影響。
二、在國中生的圖形創造力發展上,「視覺媒體」因素的影響方面,經分析結果為:「喜歡參與線上遊戲程度」、「喜歡塗鴉或畫畫的程度」、「喜歡參觀畫展的程度」有顯著的影響;而「一天花不同時間在網路上」、「喜歡看漫畫的程度」、「喜歡看電影或電視的程度」則無顯著影響。
三、國中生的圖形創造力發展上,社會環境因素的影響方面,經分析結果為:「常去美術館、博物館、科技館或圖書館……等社教場所的程度」、「美術館、博物館、科技館或圖書館……等社教場所離住家遠近程度」、「居住地區有博物館或美術館等大型展示中心的程度」有顯著的影響;而「因居住地區常會舉辦藝文相關活動或比賽的程度」則無顯著影響。
四、國中生繪圖能力優劣,與其圖形創造力高低,無顯著相關性。
Under the influence that the network globalizes now, the vision image is extensive and is used by the media, the speed of spreading and improvement by a wide margin of quality, which maybe influence drawing creativity of junior school student. Factors as level of accepting the degree, participating in the vision activity, teenager in different areas and sex, we study which will influence the development of drawing creativity and find out the deep factor influencing difference among them.
This research object is to take junior school student of the large area of Taipei as the core, will do a deep studying with the figure creativity of the junior school student in two different administrative areas in the north county, study tool for ' Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Streamlined Scoring Guide, Figural A. It test ', ' Clarks Drawing Abilities Test ' and ' not last junior school student creativity factor questionnaire not relevant ', counting each has 60 to retrieve the questionnaire effectively, after statistical analysis, this research obtains the result and sums up as follows:
1.In drawing creativity of junior school student, the most apparent of influence is 'residence'.' Sex ' and ' admit personality specialty by degree with ' are less apparent to influence.
2.The analysis result of media's factor of the vision is in studying: ' like not participating in being on-line game the different in degree ', ' like not scribbling or degree not paint the different ', ' like by degree of visiting exhibition of paintings with ' apparent influence difference; ' different without being taken for time in network in on the one day ', ' like degree of watching caricature not to be the different ', ' like by degree of watching movie & TV with ' more apparent to influence.
3.The analysis result of the social environmental factor is in studying: ' often go to the art museum, museum, science and technology museum or library etc. The degree of waiting for the socialist education movement place is different ', ' art museum, museum, science and technology museum or library etc. Wait for Socialist education movement to be place distance degree different from household ', ' residence have museum or art museum large-scale degree of exhibition centre with ' have apparent influence differences; ' because last activity or the degrees of competition not relevant residence the regular meeting with ' more apparent to influence.
4.Junior high school student's drawing ability degree is less related to their figure creativity.
參考文獻
中文部份:
1.王其敏(1997)。《視覺創意思考與方法》。台北:正中。
2.王佳煌、潘中道、郭俊賢、黃瑋瑩 譯(2002),W. Lawrence Neuman著。《當代社會研究法》。台北:學富。
3.王德育譯(1990)。《創造與心智的成長--透過藝術談兒童教育》。台北:三友圖書公司。
4.毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(2000)。《創造力研究》。台北:心理。
5.朱湘吉(2006)。《創造與生活》。台北:空大。
6.呂勝瑛、翁淑緣 譯(1983),Dr. R.W. Olson著。《創造與人生》。台北:遠流。
7.李德高(1990)。《創造心理學》。台北:五南。
8.李素卿 譯(2003),Michael W. Eysenck/Mark T. Keane 著。《認知心裡學》。台北:五南。
9.杜明城 譯(1999),米哈里˙契克森米哈賴(Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi) 著。《創造力》。台北:時報。
10.林仁傑(1991)。《國中美術資優班學生美術科學習成效之評量研究》。台北:國立台灣師範大學中等教育輔導委員會。
11.吳靜吉、高泉豐、王敬仁、丁興祥等修訂(1981)。《拓弄思圖形創造思考測
驗(甲式)指導及手冊研究》。台北:遠流。
12.周卓明(2005)。《創意思考訓練》。台北:全華。
13.陳龍安、朱湘吉(1998)。《創造與生活》。台北:五南。
14.陳木子(1997)。《藝術的創造鑑賞批評》。台北:寰宇出版社。
15.陳奐宇(2002)。〈創造力在美術教學上的運用〉。《美育》145期,頁66~79。
16.黃湘武等(1985):《國中生質量守恆、重量守恆、外體積觀念與比例推理能力的抽樣調查研究》。中等教育第36期,頁44~65。
17.郭俊賢、陳淑惠 譯(1999),Linda Campbell, Bruce Campbell, Dee Dickinson著。《多元智慧的教與學》。台北:遠流。
18.郭靜晃(1997)。《青少年?青少年!》。台北:台北市家庭教育服務中心。
19.郭有遹(2001)。《創造心理學》。台北:正中。
20.郭禎祥(1992)。《中美兩國藝術教育—藝術教育的鑑賞領域實施現況研究。》台北:文景。
21.張世慧(2007)。《創造力--理論、技法與教學》。台北:五南。
22.曾惠青(2006)。《新式多元智能藝術教學法》。台北:藝術家。
23.傅世俠、夏佩玉 譯(1995),托馬斯˙R˙布萊克斯利 著。《右腦與創作》。新竹:凡異。
24.董奇(1995)。《兒童創造力發展心理》。台北:五南。
25.詹棟樑(2006)。《青少年發展與輔導》。台北:師大書苑。
26.劉世南、郭誌光(2001)。〈創造力的概念與定義〉。《資優教育季刊》。第81期,頁1~7。
27.劉豐榮(1991)。《艾斯納藝術教育思想研究》。台北:水牛。
28.劉美玲 譯(2003),愛得蒙 . 惠特曼(Edmund Burke Feldman)原著。《藝術教育的本質》。台北:五觀藝術管理。
研究論文部分:
1.王睿千(1995)。《創造思考教學模組對體育師資生創造力之影響》。國立臺灣師範大學體育學系碩士班論文。
2.李式群(1996)。《擴散圖形創造思考教學方案對智力低下學生圖形創造力實施成效之研究》。國立臺灣師範大學創造力發展碩士在職專班碩士論文。
3.吳玉雯(2005)。《幾何圖形教學對學童造型創造力之影響研究》。國立屏東師範學院視覺藝術教育系碩士論文。
4.陳美秀(2000)。《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》。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系碩士論文。
5.詹鎔瑄(2002)。《學生創造力及其相關因素研究—以中原大學室內設計系為例》。私立中原大學室內設計學系碩士論文。
6.潘惠雯(2004)。《國民中小學學生美感素養與其影響因素之研究-以視覺藝術為例》。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系碩士班論文。
西文部份:
1.Amabie, T.M. (1983). Social Psychology of Creativity: a Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45(2),357-377.
2.Arnheim, R. (1978). Expressions (A response to "icono-clastic view"). Art Education, 31(3), 37-38.
3.Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking-A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.Davis, G. A., & Rim, S. (1982). Group inventory for finding interests(GIFFI)Ⅰand Ⅱ:Instruments for identifying creativity potential in the junior and senior high school. Journal of Creative Behavior.26 (1), 50-57.
5.Feldman, D.H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., &Gardner, H. (1994). A framework for the study of creativity. In D, H. Feldman: M. Csikszentmihalyi & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity (1-45). London: Praeger.
6.Feldman, D. (1983). Developmental psychology and art education. Art Education, 36(2), 19- 22.
7.Gilbert A. Clark (1995). Clark’s Drawing Abilities Test. ARTS Publishing Co. Inc.
8.Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
9.Haensly, P. A., & Torrance, E.P. (1993). Assessment of creativity in children and adolescents. In T. H. Ollendick, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of Child and Adolescent Assessment (pp. 697-722). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10.Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T.M. (1988). The role of the environment in creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (pp.11-38). NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1987). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds(Eds), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 53-75). NY: Plenum Press.
12.Houtz, J. C., & Krug, D. (1995). Assessment of Creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational of Psychology Review, 7(3), 269-300.
13.Jaben, T. H. (1986). Impact of creativity instruction on learning disabled students’ divergent thinking. Journal of learning disabilities, 19(6), 342-343.
14.Ludwing, A. M. (1992). The creative achievement scale. Creativity Research Journal, 5(2), 109-124.
15.Martin, B.B. (1985). The implementation of strategies to improve the creative behavior of prospective preschool teacher. (Contract No. ED 091248). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
16.Meier, N. C. (1936). An instrument for the study of creative artistic intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 48, 164-172.
17.Michael & Wright(1987). Psychometric issues in the assessment creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds(Eds.). Handbooks of Creativity (pp.33-52). NY: Plenum Press.
18.O’Quin, K. & Besemer, SP. (1989). The development, reliability, and of the revised Creative Product Semantic Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 267-278.
19.Puccio, Treffinger & Talbot (1995). Exploratory examination of relationships between creativity styles and creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 157-172.
20.Reis, S. M. & Renzull, J. S.(1991). The assessment of creative products in program for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 128-134.
21.Slabbert (1994). Creativity in education revisited: Reflection in aid of progression. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 28(1), 60-69.
22.Sternberg, R.J.(1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity (125-147). NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Children Quarterly, 37, 7-15.
24.Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Directions manual and sorting guide (figural test, form A) (revision) Princeton. N.J.: Personnel Press, Inc.