國中小創意教師教學策略之研究—四位創意教學特優教師的個案分析

A Case Study of Teaching Strategies for Four Award Winning Creative Teachers at Elementary and Junior High Schools

10.6251/BEP.20040217

洪榮昭(Jon-Chao Hong)；林雅玲(Ya-Ling Lin)；林展立(Chan-Li Lin)

創意教學 ； 教學策略 ； 教學成效 ； creative teaching ； teaching strategy ； teaching effectiveness

教育心理學報

35卷4期（2004 / 06 / 01）

375 - 392

繁體中文

本研究目的在探討國中小创意教師實施创意教學活動所採取的教學策略，以及該教學策略所欲逹成之學习成效；研究對象以立意取樣選取獲得「GreaTeach 2002创意教學奖」特優奖的四名教師進行個案分析；研究方法採深度訪談法，讓创意教師自我陳述其具體的教學策略，以及實際應用的状況；研究發现：(1)綜合、英語、數學個案使用討論方法以提升學生尊重心；藝文個案鼓勵學生珍惜資源以增進尊重心(2)藝文、數學個案以討論增進其情意開放性；綜合個案營造環境氣氛培餋學生開放性；英語個案以遊戲導向增加情意開放性(3)綜合個案以討論導向、英語個案用遊戲導向、藝文個案用教學導向、數學個案提供具體操作的教材，讓學生由具體思考到抽象思考来增進學生衍生性思考能力(4)綜合、英語、藝文、數學個案所採用的遊戲導向對於少年、兒童都有效(5)綜合、英語、藝文、數學個案皆使用教學導向以提升學生的辨知力(6)綜合、英語、藝文、數學個案皆透過討論導向来增進學生的發問力(7)綜合、英語個案利用教學導向来增強學生自信力；藝文個案則利用環境佈置，讓學生把作品呈现以增加學生自信力；數學個案採用討論導向並給予學生正增強以增加自信力(8)綜合、英語、藝文個案運用情境教學来增進學生的理解力；數學個案透過實驗教學，讓學生自行觀察、驗證来增進理解力(9)綜合、英語個案藉由遊戲導向增強學生間的合作力；藝文、數學個案提供分組以增強學生的合作力。

This study aimed to investigate the teaching strategies applied by creative teachers at elementary and junior high school and their teaching effectiveness after the implementation of creative teaching activities. Through purposive sampling, four recipients of Creative Teaching Award at GreaTeach 2002 were studied. The four award winners came from various fields, including Art & Humanities, English, Synthetic Activities, and Mathematics. The in-depth interview research method was used in order for the selected creative teachers to self-describe their strategies and results after implementation. The research findings of this study include: 1) To help students develop respect for each other, the Synthetic Activities, English, and Math teachers all used in-class discussion; 2) The Art & Humanities and Math case subjects used in-class discussion to promote openness in students' emotional expressions, while the Synthetic Activities teacher created and environment conducive to openness, and the English case subject used game oriented activities to increase students' openness; 3) The Synthetic Activities, English, Art & Humanities, and Math case subjects applied activities with a discussion orientation, a game orientation, a teaching orientation, and hands-on teaching materialsrespectively; 4) Game oriented activities adopted by the four instructors were found to be effective for teenagers and children; 5) All four teachers used teaching orientated activities to increase students' cognition; 6) To boost students' question raising ability, all four instructors used discussion-oriented activities; 7) To increase the students' self-confidence, the Synthetic Activities and English teachers adopted lecturing-orientated activities, while the Art & Humanities teacher used students' artwork and projects to decorate the school environment, and the Math teacher adopted in-class discussion. To enhance students' comprehension, the Synthetic Activities, English, and Art & Humanities teachers utilized contextualized teaching methods, while the Math teacher arranged experiments for self-observation and teaching; and 9) To increase student collaboration, the Synthetic Activities and English Teachers applied games, while the Art & Humanities and Math teachers divided students into smaller groups.

1. Anderson, N.(1976).Hillsdale.
2. Anderson, S.,Brown, C.(1997).Self-efficacy as a determinant of career maturity in urban and rural high school seniors.Journal of Career Assessment,5(3)
3. Banks, F.(1994).Teaching technology.
4. Barrows, H. S.(1986).A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods.Medical Education,20
5. Bartholomew, K.,Horowitz, L. M.(1991).Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61
6. Bruner, J. S.(1960).The process of education.
7. Disney(2002).Burbank.
8. Ford, N.(1999).Information retrieval and creativity: Towards support for the original thinker.Journal of Documentation,55(5)
9. Forehand, R.,McCombs, A.(1989).The nature of interparental conflict of married and divorced parents:Implications for young adolescents.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,17
10. Guilford, J. P.(1950).Creativity.American psychologist,5
11. Killion, J.(1999).Islands of Hope in the sea of dreams: A research report on the eight schools that received the National Award for model professional Development.
12. Killion, J.(2000).Teachers who learn kids who achieve.
13. Konno, N.,Nonaka, I.(1995).Intellectualizing capability.
14. Maslow, A. H.(1968).A climate for creativity: Reports of the seventh national research conference on creativity.
15. Mastekaasa, A.(1992).Marriage and psychological well-being: Some evidence on selection into marriage.Journal of Marriage and the Family,54
16. Mastekaasa, A.(1994).Psychological well-being and marital dissolution: Selection effect.Journal of Family Issues,15
17. Spearman, C.(1923).The nature of intelligence and the pricaiples of cognition.
18. Sternberg, R. J.(1994).Diversifying instruction and assessment.The Educational Forum,59(1)
19. Swartz, R.(2003).Critical thinking and reasoning. Cresskill.
20. Sweeney, T.J.(1998).Adlerian counseling: a practitioner's approach (4th ed.).
21. Wallach, M.,Kogan, N.(1969).Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction.
22. Waller, W.(1932).The sociology of teaching.
23. Wood, J. M.(1999).Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of the Graduate School of Education of the Havard University.
24. 教育部(2001)。創造力教育白皮書。
25. 教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程綱要。

1. 蔡秀鸞、劉桂芬、張靜芬、李梅琛、吳淑芳(2010)。「案例分析創意教學」應用於內外科護理學之滿意度調查。醫護科技期刊，12(2)，120-136。
2. 陳淑美、張如莉(2011)。創意教師的教學信念之個案研究─以國小教師為例。學校行政，75，83-103。
3. 陳玉樹、姜雅玲(2015)。初任教師創意教學角色認定檢證之縱貫研究：認定控制理論的觀點。課程與教學，18(1)，147-180。
4. 黃美瑤(2017)。專題導向學習促進體育師資培育學生的創意教學行為與創造力。大專體育學刊，19(3)，212-228。
5. 黃瑞榮(2022)。體育教師創意教學行為對大學生學習投入與學習滿意影響之跨層次研究。運動休閒管理學報，19(1)，20-37。
6. 聶子敬、李藹慈(2010)。創意生涯規劃課程對大學生生涯決策自我效能之影響。課程與教學，13(1)，141-171。
7. 蕭佳純(2018)。教師創意教學信念量表之發展。科學教育學刊，26(1)，29-50。
8. 蕭佳純、涂志賢(2012)。教師創意教學衡量中共同方法變異問題之探討。測驗學刊，59(4)，609-639。