Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32917
|
| Title: | 閱讀環境、玩興、父母創意教養與國小中、高年級學童科技創造力之關係
The Relationships among Reading Environment, Playfulness, Creative Parenting and Technological Creativity of the Third and Fifth Graders |
| Authors: | 王昕馨
Hsin Hsin,Wang |
| Contributors: | 葉玉珠
Yu-Chu,Yeh
王昕馨
Hsin Hsin,Wang |
| Keywords: | 國小、中高年級學童
科技創造力
閱讀環境
玩興
父母創意教養
elementary school
the third and fifth graders
technological creativity
reading environment
playfulness
creative parenting |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 14:50:42 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在探討閱讀環境、玩興、父母創意教養與國小中、高年級學童科技創造力之關係。研究參與者來自台北市的國小中、高年級，有效樣本計374人。本研究所採用的研究工具包括「科技創造力測驗」、「家庭閱讀環境量表」、「班級閱讀環境量表」、「兒童玩興量表」及「父母創意教養量表」。資料分析所用之統計方法包括描述統計、單因子多變量變異數分析及線性結構模式分析。
本研究主要發現如下：
1.不同性別的三、五年級學童對家庭閱讀環境、班級閱讀環境、玩興的知覺皆無差異，但在父母創意教養的知覺上和科技創造力的表現上卻有差異。三、五年級女童對於父母創意教養的感知程度皆些微地優於男童；而三、五年級男童在整體創造力測驗上皆優於女童，且五年級男童比女童有更好的「視覺造型」表現。
2.不同年級的三、五年級學童在家庭閱讀環境、班級閱讀環境、玩興、父母創意教養的知覺程度上和科技創造力的表現上有顯著差異。五年級學童除了在科技創造力的表現上有高於三年級學童的傾向外，在閱讀環境、玩興、父母創意教養的知覺程度上皆有低於三年級學童的傾向。
3.三、五年級學童的家庭閱讀環境對其整體科技創造力表現分別有些微和明顯的正效果，而五年級學童在「精進力」指標的表現尤其顯著。
4.三年級學童的班級閱讀環境對其整體科技創造力表現有正效果，反之，五年級則無。而三年級學童在「視覺造型」指標的表現尤其顯著。
5.三、五年級學童的玩興對其整體科技創造力表現皆有正效果。三年級學童在「精進力」、「視覺造型」指標的表現較顯著，五年級則在「流暢力」、「精進力」上較顯著。
6.五年級學童的父母創意教養對其整體科技創造力表現有正效果，但三年級學童只對「視覺造型」指標之表現有正效果。而五年級學童在「精進力」指標之表現尤其顯著。
7.家庭閱讀環境、班級閱讀環境、玩興、父母創意教養似乎對三年級學童的「視覺造型」指標較有預測效果，而對五年級學童則是在「精進力」指標較有效果。
8.三、五年級學童皆透過閱讀環境、父母創意教養，先對玩興產生直接或間接效果，然後才對學童科技創造力產生間接的影響效果。
最後，本研究依據上述的研究結果進行討論，並提出相關建議，以供教育、心輔等相關人員在課程、教學與輔導上之參考。
The main purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among reading environment, playfulness, creative parenting, and technological creativity of the third and fifth graders. The participants included 374 pupils from the elementary schools in Taipei City. The employed instruments in this study were the Test of Technological Creativity, the Inventory of Reading Environment in Family, the Inventory of Reading Environment in the Classroom, the Inventory of Playfulness, the Inventory of Creative Parenting. The employed analysis methods included Descriptives, One-Way Multiple Analysis of Variance, and Structural Equation Modeling.
The main findings of this study were as follows:
1.While the girls of the third and fifth graders perceived higher degree of creative parenting than did the boys, the boys outperformed the girls in technological creativity, especially in the “visual design”. No gender differences in reading environment and playfulness were found, however.
2.There were significant grade differences in reading environment, playfulness, creative parenting, and technological creativity. More specifically, the fifth graders outperformed the third graders in technological creativity, but perceived lower degree of reading environment, playfulness, and creative parenting than did the third graders.
3.The third graders’ reading environment in family had a little positive effect on their performance of technological creativity. One the contrary, the fifth graders’ reading environment in family had a great positive effect on their performance of technological creativity, especially on that of “elaboration”.
4.The reading environment in the classroom had a positive effect on the third graders’ performance of technological creativity, especially on that of “visual design”. Such an effect, however, was not found among the fifth graders.
5.Playfulness had significant effects on both the third and fifth graders’ performance of technological creativity. More specifically, playfulness had positive effects on the scores of “elaboration” and “visual design” among the third graders and had positive effects on those of “fluency” and “elaboration” among the fifth graders.
6.Creative parenting had a positive effect on the fifth graders’ overall performance of technological creativity as well as on the score of “elaboration”. However, the positive effect of creative parenting was only found on score of “visual design” in the third grade.
7.While reading environment, playfulness, and creative parenting were effective predictors of the third graders’ performance in “visual design”, they were effective predictors of the fifth graders’ performance in “elaboration”.
8.The findings in this study suggest that the third and fifth graders’ personal trait of playfulness directly influence their development of technological creativity; meanwhile, their reading environment and creative parenting may influence their development of technological creativity directly or indirectly via playfulness.
Finally, the researcher proposed some suggestions for educational instructions and future studies. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
大前言一（2001/2006）。OFF學:會玩，才會成功（陳柏誠譯）。臺北:天下雜誌。
大前言一（2001/2006）。創新者的思考（謝育容譯）。臺北:商周。
毛連塭（2000）。第一章：緒論。載於毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台合著：創造力研究，（1-53頁）。台北：心理出版社。
王有福（2002）。創作性戲劇教學對國小四年級兒童創造力影響之研究。國立台北師院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
王珮玲（1992）。兒童氣質、父母教養方式與兒童行為能力關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。未出版。
王淑娟（2003）。兒童圖畫書創造思考教學提升學童創造力之行動研究。國立台南大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
行政院國家科學委員會（2006）。科普知識。民95年12月18日，取自：http://www.nsc.gov.tw/_newfiles/popular_science_top.asp
何文君（2006）。親子共讀對幼兒閱讀能力影響之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
余嬪、吳靜吉、林偉文、楊潔欣（2003）。成人玩興量表與組織玩興氣氛量表之發展。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，50（1），73-110。
吳巧瑜（2005）。教師對幼兒創造力知覺之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
李大偉、張玉山（2000）。科技創造力的意涵與教學（上）。生活科技教育，33（9），7-14。
李河錫（2006）。歲末年終多關懷憂鬱症傾向的親友系列專題:上篇。新浪新聞中心。民95年12月18日，取自：http://news.sina.com.tw/politics/bcc/tw/2006-12-18/085012252022.shtml
李雅怡（2003）。年級、城鄉別、出生序、建設性思考、情緒能力與國小高年級學童科技創造力之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
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。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林士郁（2002）。父母創意教養方式、父母閱讀教養方式、閱讀動機與閱讀行為、創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
邱皓政（2004）。結構方程模式：LISREL的理論、技術與應用。台北，雙葉書廊。
柯華葳（1994）。從心理學觀點談兒童閱讀能力的培養。華文世界，74，63-67。
洪文東（1997）。創造性思考與科學創造力的培養。國教天地，123，10-14。
張一蕃、黃登宬（1997）。日本創造力暨科技大學考察報告。科學發展月刊，26（8），948-952。
張玉山、魏秀燕（1999）。從我國專利發明實例分析科技創造力內涵之研究。國際科技教育整合思考研討會論文發表論文集（頁166-181）。台東：國立台東師院。
張怡婷（2003）。個人認知風格、班級閱讀環境與國小高年級學童閱讀行為之相關研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
張珮甄（2003）。國小五年級學童性別、出生序、家庭結構、情緒、創意個人特質與其科技創造力之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
張嘉芬（1997）。國小高年級學生依附風格、創意教養環境與創造行為之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
教育部（2006a）。台灣創造力教育實施現況。創造力教育入口網。民95年12月18日，取自：http://www.creativity.edu.tw/creativity_edu_taiwan/ch1.php
教育部（2006b）。九年一貫課程：自然與生活科技。國教專業社群網。民96年1月19日，取自：http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC/fields/2003/natureScience-source.php
郭有遹（2001）。文藝創造心理學。台南：復文。
陳海泓（2001）。如何利用圖畫故事書發展兒童的創造力。語文教育通訊，23，64-78。
陳龍安（1998）。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北：心理。
曾敬梅（2002）研究生玩興、幽默、創意態度、所知覺系所創造氛圍與創造力之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃敏秀（2002）。學前一般兒童與發展遲緩兒童閱讀行為及其家庭閱讀環境研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
黃惠君（2006）。國中教師人口變項、玩興、教學動機、快樂感受與創意教學之關係。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
楊國樞（1986）。家庭因素與子女行為：台灣研究的評析。中華心理學刊，28（1），7-28。
葉玉珠（2000）。創造力發展的生態系統模式及其應用於科技與資訊領域之內涵分析。教育心理學報，32（1），95-121。
葉玉珠（2004）。「科技創造力測驗」的發展與常模的建立。中國測驗學會測驗學刊，51（2），127-162。
葉玉珠（2005a）。影響國小學童科技創意發展的因素之量表發展。師大學報：科學教育類，50（2），29-54。
葉玉珠（2005b）。科技創造力指導手冊。台北：心理。
葉玉珠（2006）。「情境式科技創造力測驗」常模之建立。國科會專案（NSC94-2511-S-004-001）。
詩加（1997）。談童書的教育功能 － 訪張湘君教授。成長幼教季刊，32，18-19。
劉秀娟（1995）。兒童玩性與社會性遊戲之研究。私立文化大學兒童福利研究所碩士論文，未出版。
謝美寶（2003）。國小學生閱讀態度、家庭閱讀環境與閱讀理解能力關係之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鍾佩諭（2006）。母親教養方式與發展遲緩幼兒學習行為及人際互動之相關研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
藍蕾（2001）。呈現語言的全貌－故事教學在幼兒英語教學的運用。載於幼兒發展第二語言的理論與實施研討會論文集（頁142-149）。台北：國際兒童教育協會中華民國分會。
羅一萍（1996）。父母的傳統性、現代性、管教方式與兒童的創造力相關之研究。國立屏東師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
二、西文部分
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Anderson, R. C. (2005). Long term benefits to extensive reading.黃迺毓（主持人），「創意閱讀教學」高階培訓研討會，臺北市立圖書館總館10樓國際會議廳。
Brich, B. M. (2002). The expert decision maker. English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown R. T. (1989). Creativity: what are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity(pp.3-32). NY: Plenum Press.
Bundy, A. C., Nelson, L., Metzger,K. & Bingaman K. (2001).Validity and realiability of a test of playfulness. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 21(4), 276-292.
Burns, M. S. (1999/2001). Starting out right : a guide to promoting children`s reading success. 柯華威與游雅婷（譯）。踏出閱讀的第一步，臺北市:信誼基金。
Chambers, A. (1991/2001). The reading environment: How adults help children enjoy books. 許慧貞（譯）。打造兒童閱讀環境。臺北市:天衛文化
Crim, C. (2006). Raising the creative child. Parenting for High Potential, 26-29. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow : the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996/1999). Creativity. NY: HarperCollins.杜明城（譯）。創造力。台北：時報。
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.313-338). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approach to creativity. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent(pp.81-94).NY: Elsevier.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006).Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of discovery and invention. 吳靜吉（主持人），創造力大師－米哈里教授演講，國立政治大學商學院1F國際會議廳。
Dasgupta, S. (1996). Technology and creativity. NY: Oxford University Press.
Feist, G. J.(1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.273-296). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.169-186). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fouché, R. (2006) .Say it loud, I`m black and I`m proud: African Americans, American Artifactual Culture, and Black Vernacular Technological Creativity. American Quarterly, 58(3), 639-664.
Gardern, H. (1993/1997). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi .林佩芝（譯）。創造心靈：七位大師的創造力剖析。台北：牛頓。
Glynn, M. A. & Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment. Psychological Reports, 71, 83-103.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative telents: Their nature, uses and development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Gullinan, B. E. (1989). Literature for young children. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write(pp.35-51). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.
Gunning, T. G. (2004). Creating literacy instruction for all children in grades pre-K to 4. Boston, Mass.:A and B.
Hall, S. (2000). Using picture storybooks to teach character education. Westport, Conn.: Oryx Press.
Ivcevic, Z. & Mayer, J. D. (2006-2007). Creative types and personality. Imagination cogination and personality, 26(1-2), 65-86. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Liberman, J. N. (1965).Playfulness and divergent thinking: Investigation of their relationship at the kindergarten level. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107, 219-224.
Lubart, T. I. & Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor, and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 258-301.
Maccoby, E. E. & Martin,J. A. (1983). Socialization in the content of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of child Psychology (vol.4) (pp.1-101), New York: John Weily & Sons.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.449-460). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mellou, E.(1996).The two-conditions view of creativity. Journal of Creativity Behavior,30(2),126-149.
Michael W. B. & Wright C. R.(1989). Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of Creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity(pp.33-52). NY: Plenum Press.
Morrow, L. M. & Gambrell, L. B. (2002). Literature-based instruction in the early years. In Neuman,S.B. & Dickinson,D.K.(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.348-360). New York: Guilford.
Mumford, M. D. & Gustafson, S. B. (1988).Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103,27-43.
Pressley, M. (2002). Whole language. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (pp.15-47). New York: The Guilford Press.
Runco, M. A. & Walberg, H. J. (1998). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental Issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3-30.
Scott, T. E. (1999). Knowledge. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity(pp. 119-130). San Diego, Calif. : Academic Press.
Sénéchal M. (1997). The differential effects of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24, 123-138.
Smith, D. (1995). How play influences children`s development at home and school. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,66(8), 19. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document ID No. 7720426).
Smith, S. (1993). Dilemmas in adult play with children. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play: Descriptions and implication. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Staempfli, M. B. (2005). Adolescent playfulness, leisure and well-being. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ:L. Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.3-15). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The Nature of Creativity.(p. 125-147). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995/1999).Defying the crowd.洪蘭（譯）。不同凡想。台北：遠流。
Taylor, S. I. & Rogers, C. S.(2001). The relationship between playfulness and creativity of Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 43-49.
Teale, W. H. & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The Natural of Creativity as Manifest in its texting. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The Nature of Creativity(pp.43-75). NY. : Cambridge University Press.
Ward, T. B., Smith, R. A. & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp.189-211). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wasik,B.A. & Bond M,A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243-250.
Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A. & Hindman, A. (2002). Creating opportunities for discourse: Language and literacy development in economically disadvantaged children. In O.N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in literacy in early childhood education(Vol.2)(pp.53-76). America: Information Age Publishing.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmoth, NH: Heinemann.
Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J.(1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.
Yeh, Y. C. (2004). The interactive influences of three ecological systems on R & D employees’ technological creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 11-25.
|
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
幼兒教育所
92157014
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0921570141 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [幼兒教育研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
