期刊目錄列表 - 64卷(2019) - 【教育科學研究期刊】64(3)九月刊

調適性與創新性創造力之評量 作者:國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系暨學習科學跨國頂尖研究中心洪榮昭、國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系暨學習科學跨國頂尖研究中心戴凱欣、國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系暨學習科學跨國頂尖研究中心陳柏熹、國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系暨學習科學跨國頂尖研究中心蘇少祖

卷期:64卷第3期
日期:2019年9月
頁碼:143-168
DOI:10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0006

摘要:
創意的量測一直是近代實證研究的主題,最突出的是托倫斯的創造性思維測驗(TTCT),這些創造力評量工具大多強調擴散性思考的評量,對聚斂性思考較少著墨。本研究開發一個可同時應用擴散性與聚斂性思考的圖像量測工具──「圖繪展開創意評量」,以圖片取代傳統反應量表,並可用來測量調適性創造力及創新性創造力。本研究的研究對象為332位參與創造力發展課程的教師,其中有效樣本為324筆,並以此進行研究假設驗證。研究結果顯示,這兩種類型呈現負相關。創新性創造力中除了原創性思維外,另外三個創新性思維類型:多向性思維、異類思維及逆向思維皆呈正相關。調適性創造力中的同類性思維與豐富化思維兩者呈正相關。研究結果顯示,女性在創新性創造力方面的表現優於男性,較年輕的受試者表現優於比較年長的受試者,但在調適性創造力方面,只有30歲以下的受試者表現優於40歲以上的受試者。本研究建議「圖繪展開創意評量」可用於評量個體的創新性創造力與調適性創造力,是一種能同時評量擴散性思考與聚斂性思考的評量工具。

關鍵詞:調適性創造力、聚斂性思考、創造力評量、擴散性思考、創新性創造力

《詳全文》 檔名

參考文獻:
  1. Abdulla, A. M., & Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it is measured. Roeper Review, 39(1), 9-23. doi:10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398
  2. Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 329-337. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11
  3. Albert, R. S. (1996). Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past puberty into the real world. New Directions in Child Development, 72, 43-56. doi:10.1002/cd.23219967205
  4. Althuizen, N., Wierenga, B., & Rossiter, J. (2010). The validity of two brief measures of creative ability. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 53-61. doi:10.1080/10400410903579577
  5. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood- creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779-806. doi:10.1037/a0012815
» 展開更多
中文APA引文格式洪榮昭、戴凱欣、陳柏熹、蘇少祖(2019)。調適性與創新性創造力之評量。教育科學研究期刊,64(3),143-168。doi:10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0006
APA FormatHong, J.-C., Tai, K.-H., Chen, P.-H., & Su, S.-Z.(2019). Revolutionary Drawing: Measuring Adaptive and Innovative Creativity. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 143-168. doi:10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0006

Journal directory listing - Volume 64(2019) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【64(3)】September

Revolutionary Drawing: Measuring Adaptive and Innovative Creativity Author: Jon-Chao Hong (Department of Industrial Education/ Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University), Kai-Hsin Tai (Department of Industrial Education/ Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University), Po-Hsi Chen (Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling/ Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University), Shao-Zu Su (Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling/ Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University)

Vol.&No.:Vol. 64, No.3
Date: September 2019
Pages:143-168
DOI:10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0006

Abstract:
Creativity measurement has been the subject of empirical research for decades, with the most prominent notions about the creative process being Torrance’s Tests on Creative Thinking (TTCT). However, those studies focused on divergent thinking measurement. To integrate divergent and convergent thinking measurements, the present study developed a novel image-based creativity measure, named “revolutionary drawing,” in which images replace the conventional response scale, to examine the interrelatedness of creative thinking types: adaptive creativity or innovative creativity. The target sample of this study was 332 teachers who had joined the creative development program, from whom 324 valid data were collected for analysis to test the hypotheses. Our evidence indicated that the two types of creativity were negatively correlated. Moreover, three of the four sub-abilities of innovative creativity, cross-category, multiple-direction, and reverse thinking, were positively inter-correlated. Only originality thinking, the fourth sub-ability of innovative creativity, was not correlated to the other three sub-abilities of innovative creativity. The two sub-abilities of adaptive creativity, diffusive thinking and enriched thinking, were positively correlated. The results of this study revealed that females performed better than males with respect to age differences in innovative creativity. The younger participants performed better than the older participants, but on adaptive creativity, only participants aged under 30 performed better than participants aged 40 and over. The findings of this study suggest that revolutionary drawing could be used for testing innovative creativity and adaptive creativity as cognitive processes for divergent and convergent thinking.

Keywords:adaptive creativity, convergent thinking, creativity assessment, divergent thinking, innovative creativity