不同思考風格之國小學童的創造思考歷程與科學創造力表現之個案研究

• Main Authors: LIAO YI-YING, 廖怡盈
• Other Authors: 許銘津
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2006
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/49041446160894997976

碩士 === 國立花蓮教育大學 === 科學教育研究所 === 94 === The purpose of this study use to understand how different thinking styles influenced elementary students’ performance. Elementary students’ creative thinking process and science creativity in both science classroom and a web-based teaching platform were investigated. The research subjects are four grade elementary students. This study applied creative teaching methodology in a web-based teaching platform or science classroom. This study took case study a qualitative research method. Long term observation, records, interview and outlines description were applied to collect data for analysis. The findings were as following: I. The creative thinking process form different thinking styles students. i. The case student with the legislative style tended to express his own opinion and identify the question or related key issue more often. ii. The case student with the executive style tended to look for help from others more often. iii. The case student with the judicial style tended to reply on his experience more often. II. The science creativity from different thinking styles students. i. The case students with different thinking styles came out with different science creativity. ii. The case students with different thinking styles were capable to apply science knowledge and skill to improve their works; even they didn’t know how to express verbally. iii. The case student with legislative style performed more science creative aspects. III. Under two different learning environment, the performance of case students with different thinking styles were as follows: i. The case student with the legislative style tended to show his idea in different learning environment. ii. The case student with the executive style tended to request more scaffolding support. iii. The case students with the judicial styles expressed less analysis and thinking.