幼保系學生幼兒創造思考教學活動設計之探究與實踐

明新科技大學 校內專題研究計畫成果報告

幼保系學生幼兒創造思考教學活動設計之探究與實踐

Pre-service Teacher’s Exploration & Implementation of

the Curriculum Design in Teaching for Creativity of Young Children

Pre-service Teacher’s Exploration & Implementation of the

Curriculum Design in Teaching for Creativity

of Young Children

Pei-Yu Chang

Abstract

In the swift changing world, being creative has been regarded as an essential trait. A creative person can make best uses of surrounding resources and reorganize the

resources to make a unique one. Quite a lot of big companies set creativity as the most important criteria when recruiting employee. The phenomenon affects the goal of education in every country around the world. Cultivating creative people has become one of the most important educational goals all around the world because creative generation is the power of a country. The researcher in this study intends to foster pre-service teacher’s understanding of creativity and curriculum design skills in fostering young children’s creativity through the course of Curriculum Design for Young Children at the Department of Child Development & Education. Participants were sophomores from a University of Science & Technology in the north of Taiwan. Data collection includes class notes, videotapes of teaching processes, pictures of class activities, student’s teaching plan, responding comments, reflections on teaching plan, and so forth. The results showed that student’s understandings of creativity were limited and deeply rooted in their minds. The activities provided through the course did help students clarify their understandings about creativity and about the ways of teaching for creativity. The training program also strengthened student’s abilities in designing curriculum for cultivating young children’s creativity. Stories were found to be useful in helping student how to arrange activities that were meaningful and

integrated. The results also provide a curriculum arrangement example for institutions that cultivate pre-service teachers of young children.

(三) 透過課堂安排之活動及作業，幼保系學生在創造思考教學活動設計的技巧是 否增長? (四) 研究結果對培育未來幼保人員創造思考教學活動設計之建議為何？ 三、名詞釋義 (一) 創造力 創造力是個體在具支持的環境下，透過思考，對事物產生歧見及問題解決之 表現，以呈現新的且讓多數人都能接受的意義。不論是過程或是成果，均能展現 其敏覺、變通、獨創、精進與流暢之特質(陳龍安，1995)。

(二) 創造思考教學(Teaching for creativity)

貳、 文獻探討

茲將創造力定義、重要性與發展趨勢、影響創造力發展因素與創造力教學策 略等相關文獻作分析整理。 一、創造力之定義 創造即是首創、賦予存在之意思(王其敏，2005)，Sanderlin(1971)亦有類似的 看法，認為創造即是無中生有(引自毛連塭等，民 89)；Guilford(1986)則指出創造 是融合現有的概念或產品，以新的型式呈現。 中外學者對創造力有不同的詮釋，毛連塭等(2000)依辭海等大辭典之解釋，將 創造力定義為發明或產生創新事物的能力，認為創造力蘊含著賦予新事物存在的 能力。Smith (1966)亦有類似的觀點，他認為創造力是「重新整理過去舊經驗，並 將這些經過選擇的經驗重新組織成為新的型態、新的想法或新的產品。」(p.43) 因 此，學者 Mednick (1962)認為創造力就是聯結可結合的要素成為心理的組合關係(引 自毛連塭等，民 89)。

(一)敏覺力:對事物或問題之敏感度，敏於覺察事物，能發現缺漏、不尋常處及未 完成部份之能力。 (二)流暢力:指一個人點子很多，能想出許多可能性或答案之能力。 (三)變通力:指能改變思考方式、擴大思考類別及突破限制之能力。 (四)獨創力:能想出不尋常的答案或新穎的想法之能力。 (五)精進力:在原有之構想或基本觀念上加上新的觀念或增加有趣的新細節，以組 成相關概念群之能力。

四、學校環境與教師角色 個體的發展是先天遺傳基因與後天環境因素促成產生的，創造力的發展亦不 例外。如前所述，創造力是可以透過他人的影響而獲得啟發，學校環境就被發現 是影響創造力發展的主要因素(葉玉珠，2000；Gardner, 1993)。吳靜吉(2002)指出， 讓參與者在學習的過程中實際體驗創意、實踐創意的歷程是讓創造力充分發展的 關鍵因素。因此，要啟發參與者的創意，在學習過程中老師就必須安排活動讓參 與者親自體驗創意的歷程。除此之外，老師的態度亦是重要關鍵。啟發創意的老 師，必須具有創造力之專業知識，還能扮演支持的角色，除了提供發揮創意的機 會外，還須創造激發創意的學習空間、提供相關資源、鼓勵參與者探索與勇於接 受挑戰，並能提供與生活相關之經驗及以問題刺激參與者的好奇心。 五、創造思考教學 (一)創造思考教學之定義

毛連塭等(2000)指出，創造思考教學(Teaching for creativity)不同於創造性教學

(三)創造思考教學原則

參考文獻

中文部份: 王其敏(2005)。視覺思維與創意教學研究。台北市:揚智。 毛連塭等(1984)。台北市國民小學推展創造性體育課程實驗報告。台北市教師研習 中心編:創造性教學資料彙編，1-12 頁。 毛連塭等(2000)。創造力研究。台北市:心理。 李錫津(1987)。創造思考教學研究。台北市：台灣書店。 吳靜吉(2002)。華人參與者創造力的發掘與培育。應用心理研究，15, 17-42 頁。 林乃馨譯(2006)。鼓勵幼兒發揮創造力。鄭舒丹等譯:幼教適性課程與發展 (14-1~14-40 頁)。台北市:華騰。 陳龍安(1995)。創造思考的理論與實務。台北市:心理。 陳龍安(1998)。啟發孩子的創造力。台北市:師大書苑。 張玉成(1983)。教學發問技巧及其對學生創造思考能力影響之研究。台北:教育部 教育計畫小組編印。 張玉成(2006)。思考技巧與教學。台北:心理。

郭俊賢、陳淑惠(譯)(2003)。 R. J. Sternberg & W. M. Williams 著。 如何培育學生 的創造力(How to develop student creativity)。台北市:心理。

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),1-28 頁。

葉玉珠 2006）。創造力教學:過去、現在與未來。台北市:心理。 英文部份:

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2001). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Needlham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cropley,A.J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (V.1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Dacey, J. S., & Lennon, K.H.(1998). Understanding creativity. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass publishers.

Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing company. Dewey, (1991). How we think. London: D.C. Health & Co.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in

gifted education. Texas: Kendall/Hunt.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.

Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses, and development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Koestner et al., (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity.

Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. O’Tuel, F. S., & Bullard, R. K. (1993). Developing higher order thinking in the

content areas K-12. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.

Rogers, C. R. (1962). Toward a theory of creativity. In S. J. Parnes &H. F. Harding

(Eds.), A source book for creative thinking (pp.63-72). New York: Scribner.

Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General semantics, 11, 249-260.

Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative

process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, J. H. (1966). Setting conditions for creative teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Soh, K. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 118-134.

Sternberg&Lubart,(1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of

conformity. New York: Free Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory