研究生: |
吳婉舒 |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
影響國小學童於教室情境中繪畫模仿因素之研究 A Study on Factors in Influencing Elementary School Students’ Drawing Toward Imitation |
指導教授: |
陳瓊花
Chen, Chiung-Hua 王國川 Wang, Kuo-Chang |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
美術學系 Department of Fine Arts |
論文出版年: | 2002 |
畢業學年度: | 90 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 161 |
中文關鍵詞: | 模仿 、模仿行為 、繪畫能力 、模仿態度 、教師示範 |
英文關鍵詞: | imitation, instructor’s demonstration, painting capabilities, imitational behavior, attitude toward imitating |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:267 下載:31 |
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 |
本研究主旨是為了瞭解在教室情境之下,國小三年級學生的繪畫模仿態度與行為,分別在『教師提供示範並鼓勵模仿』、『提供示範但不鼓勵模仿』及『不提供教師示範』的三種情況之下,學生的繪畫模仿態度與行為的改變,本研究以桃園市中山國小三年級的學生為研究對象,以班級為單位,在每次施測時進行資料蒐集與觀察,然後再做內容的分析,比較各種施測狀況之下學生的模仿態度與行為的差異。
本研究所得結論如下:
一、 當教師提供示範,並鼓勵模仿時,學生會順應教師的鼓勵,以教師示範為主要模仿對象,並對於模仿態度傾向肯定;反之,當教師不鼓勵模仿時,學生仍以教師示範為模仿對象的人數降低,對於模仿態度趨向否定,顯然教師對於學生的期望會左右學生的模仿態度與行為。
二、 學生在教室情境之下,不論教師是否提供示範或是鼓勵模仿,最主要的繪畫參考對象並非他人,而是學生自己腦中的構想,自己的想像是繪畫歷程中最主要的繪畫參考依據,因此繪畫可說是一項自主性很高的活動。
三、 學生的模仿態度與模仿行為之間有會落差,當學生的認知態度傾向符合教師期望時,繪畫表現行為不盡然會與其認知態度相符。
四、 學生模仿行為並沒有因為學生的繪畫能力高或低,而有很明顯
的差異,但是對於教師所散發訊息的接收能力,及能迅速做出反應的敏感度上,繪畫能力較低的學生,比起繪畫能力高的學生,顯得反應較為不靈敏。
根據上述的研究結果,提出幾項關於美術教育實務工作的建議:
(1)適當地運用模仿為學習方法,(2)提供多元參考資源的學習環境,(3)教師釐清自我的模仿態度,(4)以模仿為基礎發揮創意。
The purpose of this study is to understand third graders’ attitudes and behavior toward imitating in classroom drawing. This research assess the differences in the subjects’ attitudes and behavior toward imitating under three conditions: that the instructor gave demonstrations and encouraged imitating, that the instructor gave demonstrations but did not encourage imitating, and that the instructor did not give demonstrations. The subjects of this research were third graders from hung-shan Elementary School in Taoyuan City. Data were collected and observations were made during each testing session. The data were then analyzed to compare the differences in the subjects’ attitudes toward imitating and in their imitational behavior in various testing circumstances. The results of this study are as follows:
1. If the instructor offered demonstrations and encouraged imitating, the demonstrations would become the students’ major objects of imitation and the students tended to have a positive attitude toward imitating. By contrast, when the instructor did not encourage imitating, the number of students imitating the instructor’s demonstrations decreased and the students tend to have a negative attitude toward imitating.
2. In classroom settings, whether or not the instructor gave demonstrations or encouraged imitating, the students’ major objects of imitation were their own ideas rather than others’. Imagination was the most important reference during the painting process. Therefore, painting could be seen as an activity with high level of independence.
3. There may be gap between the students’ attitudes toward imitating and their imitational behavior. When the students tried to meet the instructor’s expectations, their painting behavior might not correspond to their attitudes toward imitating.
4. Capabilities in painting seemed to have no obvious impact on the students’ imitational behavior. However, students who are less gifted in painting were less responsive to the instructor’s messages and slower in making reactions than students gifted in painting.
According to the findings mentioned above, several suggestions regarding practical work of art education are made: (1) properly employ imitation as a method of learning, (2) offer a learning environment with multiple sources for imitating, (3) clarify the instructor’s own attitudes toward imitating, and (4) use imitation as a basis for creativity.
中文部分
王德育 譯(1975)。 創造與心智成長:兒童美術發展心理學。台北:啟源。Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W.L.(1987). Creative and Mental Growth 。
吳福元(1987)。 兒童心理學。台北。唐山。
杜聲鋒(1988)。 皮亞傑及其思想。台北。遠流。
呂燕卿(1996)。 兒童繪畫發展之認識與實際。美育,第69期,11-26頁。
李長俊 譯(1964)。藝術與視覺心理學。台北。雄師。Arnheim,R(1954). Art and vision perception: a psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California。
沙依仁(1998)。 人類行為與社會環境。台北。五南。
林玉山(1988)。 皮亞傑認知發展理論與兒童藝術的成長初探。國教天地,第77期,66-71頁。
林玉山(1993)。葛德納兒童繪畫發展研究與認知發展之探討。國教月刊,第78期,60-68頁。
高輝陽(1983)。藝術模仿論在古希臘的演變。文藝復興,第139期,12-20頁。
周曉虹 譯(1995)。 社會學習理論。台北。桂冠。Bandura, A.(1977). Social learning theory。
郭生玉(1999)。 心裡與教育研究法。中和。精華。
郭榮瑞(1993)。 採用人物題材群課程與教學對於國小四年級兒童繪畫能力之影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
郭禎祥(1988)。以艾斯納(E.W. Eisner)『學術本位的美術教育』(DBAE)為理論基礎探討現今我國國民美術教育。師大學報,第33期,575-593頁。
郭禎祥 譯(1991)。藝術視覺的教育。台北。文景出版社。Eisner E.W. (1972). Educating artistic vision 。
陳正乾(1995)。從維高斯基(Vygotsky)的理論來討論其對幼兒教育的應用。教育資料與研究,第4期,14-19頁。
陳正乾(1998)。發展與學習之間的關係—皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話。幼教天地,第15期,185-203頁。
陳育淳(2000)。大眾文化對兒童繪畫發展的影響。國立彰化師範大學美術研究所碩士論文,未出版,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。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
陳淑敏(1994)。 Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。國立屏東師範學院屏東師院學報,第7期,119-144頁。
陳淑敏(1998)。從社會互動看皮亞傑與維高斯基的理論及其對幼教之啟示。幼教天地,第15期,167-183頁。
陳麗卒(1998)。以質化方式探索兒童繪畫內容與社會環境間的關係。論文發表於一九九七藝術教育學術研討會。
黃光雄與簡茂發(1991)。 教育研究法。台北。師大書苑。
廖慈倫(1997)。 西方美術教育研究者看臨摹教學法在美術教育中的角色與功能。環球商業專科學校學報,第五期,43-54頁。
劉文潭(1993)。現代美學。台北。台灣商務印書館。
劉豐榮(1997)。 艾斯納藝術教育思想研究。台北。水牛。
顏慶祥與湯維玲(1994)。教育百科辭典。台北。五南。
西文部分
Bandura,A. & Walters,R.H.(1969).Social learning and personality and development. New York :Holt,Rinehart and Winston,Inc.
Bandura, A.(1969). Principles of behavior modifica-
tion. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bandura, A.(1973).Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A.(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentic-Hall, Inc.
Cox, M.V.(1992). Children’s drawing. London: Penguin Books.
David, J.(1997). “U” and the wheel of “C”: Development and devaluation of graphic symbolization and the cognitive approach at Harvard project zero. M. Kindler (Ed.) Child development in art (pp.45-58). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Eisner, E.W.(1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macillan Publishing co, Inc.
Freedman, H. (1997). Artistic development and curriculum: Sociocultural learning consideration. M. Kindler (Ed.) Child development in art(pp.95-106). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Gardner, H.(1982). Art, mind and brain. Now York: Bacsic Book, Inc.
Kindler,A. M. & Darras,B. (1997). Map of artist development. In A.M. Kindler(ED.) Child development in art (pp.17-44). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Leed, J. A. (1984). Copying and invention as source of form
in art. Art Education.
Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain, W.L.(1987). Creative and Mental Growth. New York: Macmillan.
Piaget, J. & Inbelder, B.(1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Book, Inc.
Piaget, J.(1973). The child and reality. Wisconsin: Penguin Books.
Rosner, B. (1995). Fundamentals of biostatistics. (4 th ed.) New York : Duxbury Press.
Silverman, D.(2000). Doing qualitative research –a practical hand-book. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
Vygotsky, L.S.(1978). Mind in a society. Cambridge:
Harvard University of Chicago Press.
Wilson,B. & Wilson, M.(1977). An iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the drawings of young people. Art Education,30(1).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,15.19-32
Wilson, B.(1997). Child art, multiple interpretations, and conflicts of interest. Kindler (Ed.) Child development in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education Assocation.