STS活動中共同創造以促進創造力之設計：水果電池

A Design To Promote Creativity Through Cooperative Creation In STS Activities: Fruit Battery

10.6173/CJSE.198806_6(2).0004

王澄霞(Cheng-Hsia Wang)；謝昭賢(Chao-Hsien Hsieh)

共同創造 ； 創造性思考技法 ； 鷹架策略 ； STS探究實驗 ； Cooperative creation ； creative thinking skills ； scaffolding strategies ； STS exploratory experiment

科學教育學刊

6卷2期（1988 / 06 / 01）

169 - 189

繁體中文;英文

此研究之目的為促進創造力而其設計由三個要素所構成：（1）在小組學習及班級共享中，使用鷹架策略、創造性思考技法及以發問激發思考；（2）設計STS探究實驗；（3）以對話、討論、探究及實作為中心的STS活動，共同創造。著者根據五層面二十二過程之創造力表現，評鑑學生之學習成就，並以行動研究找出：（a）創造力表現之證據，並（b）評鑑此研究設計之有效性。著者規劃酸雨媒體情境和矛盾、挑戰性問題，用以小組及班級合作學習。學生使用認知圖聯結孤立、零星的知識、技能及觀點，找出彼此之相互關聯，建構意義。擴散性思考技法（如腦力激盪）促使學生開放性、多層面思考。收斂性思考技法（如因果法）篩選、分析及精緻化所提出之意見，發展為可行的構想。各小組確認STS探究題目、設計創造性探究實驗，並向全班提出報告、接受全班的挑戰和批判；個案小組答覆、辯論及修改設計。之後各小組執行所設計之探究實驗。各小組將其成果以壁報展示並由全班同學評鑑。整個過程由直接觀察、錄影記錄、小組學習歷程檔案與同儕評量收集資料。本文以阿正及個案小組為中心，分析詮釋其創造性思考過程，發現著者之研究設計能增進學生的創造力。個案小組之水果電池探究實驗設計由（a）獨創力，（b）具體性，（c）科學想法，（d）實驗知能，（e）吸引性，及（f）接受度等評鑑。同儕評定水果電池設計符合（a）～（e）之評鑑基準，但水果產地認定不易，水果電池實際應用之可能性不高，故接受度較差。個案小組接受大家的看法並反省，表示希望進一步探究。

This research design is to promote creativity and consists of three components: (1) scaffolding strategies, thought provoking questions, and creative thinking skills in small group learning and class sharing; (2) designing STS exploratory experiments; and (3) cooperative creation with dialogue, discussion, and exploration using hands-on, inquiry-based STS activities. Five-phases with 22 processes associated with creativity were used as dynamic guidelines for evaluating learning outcomes. Action research was used to: (1) find evidence of creativity performances; and (2) evaluate effectiveness of the design for promoting creativity. Video-based acid rain context with paradoxical and challenging questions were designed and used for small group and class cooperative learning. Cognitive maps were used to facilitate students' construction of meaning, connections drawn among isolated bits of knowledge, skills, values, and views to help them see the interconnections among them. Divergent thinking skills (e.g., brain storming) were used to promote open-ended, multiple dimensional thinking. Convergent thinking skills (e.g., cause-effect method) were used to screen, analyze, and refine suggested opinions to develop successful ideas. Each small student group identified and designed a creative exploratory experiment and presented it to the class for challenge and criticism. The lead group defended, debated, and revised its design. Then each group performed the designed activities. The results were displayed as posters and evaluated by the class. The whole process was videotaped. Data from direct observation, video-taped records, portfolios, and peer assessments were collected and analyzed. In this study, creative thinking processes of Achen and his small group were interpreted and the author's design was found to significantly improve students' creativity. The case group's design "Fruit Battery" was evaluated for (a) originality, (b) tangibility, (c) scientific thinking, (d) scientific skills, (e) dramatic value, and (f) acceptability. The class ruled that the design meets criteria (a) through (e), but origin of the fruit is difficult to be identified so fruit battery is unlikely to be of practical use, therefore, it is less acceptable. The case group accepted evaluation with reflection and expressed that further investigation will be made.

1. Barbe, W. B.(1985).Growing Up Learning : The Keys to Your Child's Potential.Washington, D. C.:Acropo lis Books, Ltd.
2. Brandt, R. S.(1986).On creativity and thinking skills : A conversation with David Perkins.Educational Leadership,43,12-18.
3. Cronin, L. L.(1989).Creativity in the science classroom.The Science Teacher,56(2),34-36.
4. Dailey, A.,Martindale, C.,Borkum, J.(1997).Creativity, Synesthesia, and Physiognomic Perception.Creativity Research Journal,10(1),1-8.
5. Driver, R.,Asoko, H.,Leach, J.,Mortimer, E.,Scoti, P.(1994).Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom.Educational Researcher,23(7),5-12.
6. Feldhusen, J. F.,Goh, B. E.(1995).Assessing and accessing creativity.Creativity Research Journal,8(3),231-247.
7. Getzels, J. W.,Csikszentmihalyi, M.(1975).From problem solving to problem finding.Perspectives in creativity,Chicago, IL:
8. Guild, P. B.,Garger, S.(1985).Marching to Different Drummers.Alexandria, Va.:Association for Surpervision and Curriculum Development.
9. Harms, N. C.(1977).Harms, N. C.(1977). Project synthesis : An interpretative consolidation of research identifying needs in natural science education.(A proposal prepared of the National Science Foundation). Boulder, Co.: University of Colorado..
10. Kitto, J.,Lok, D.,Rudowicz, E.(1994).Measuring creative thinking: An activity-based approach.Creativity Research Journal,7(1),59-69.
11. Mackworth, N. H.(1965).Originality.The American Psychologist,20,51-66.
12. McComas, W. F.(1989).Sparking creative thinking with S/T/S education : The results of the 1987-88 Chautauqua workshops.Chautauqua Notes,4(8),1-2.
13. Ogawa, M.,Kuehn-Ebert, C.,Devito, A.(1991).Differences in Creative Thinking between Japanese and American Fifth Grade Children.Bull. Fac. Educ., Ibaraki Univ.(Edu. Sci.),40,53-59.
14. Penick, J. E.(1982).Developing Creativity as a Result of Science Instruction. What Research Says to the Science Teacher.Washington DC:National Science Teachers Association.
15. Penick, J. E.,Yager, R. E.(1993).Student growth in creative skills in middle school science.Science Educator,2(1),21-27.
16. Reiter-Palmon, R.,Mumford, M. D.,O'Connor Boes, J.,Runco, M. A.(1997).Problem Construction and Creativity : The Role of Ability, Cue Consistency, and Active Processing.Creativity Research Journal,10(1),9-23.
17. Risi, M.(1982).,Ottawa:Science Council of Canada.
18. Smilansky, J.,Naftali, H.(1986).Inventors versus problem solvers : An empirical investigation.J. of Creative Behavior,20(3),183-201.
19. Sternberg, R. J.(1995).Investing in Creativity : Many Happy Returns.Educational Leadership,53(4),80-84.
20. Torrance, E. P.(1963).Toward the more humane education of gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly,7,135-145.
21. Wakefield, J. F.(1992).Creative thinking Problem solving skills and the arts orientation.Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing Co..
22. Wang, C. H.(1997).Cultivating the of Teachers in Developing Capabilities Student Creativity : Designing an STS Exploratory Experiment.Proceedings of National Science Council, Part D,7(4),1-10.
23. Witkin, H. A.,Moore, C. A.,Goodenough, D. R.,Cox, P. W.(1977).Field-Dependent and Field-Indepen dent Cognitive Styles and Their Educa tional Implications.Review of Educational Research,47(1),1-64.
24. Yager, R. E.(1992).The constructivist learning model : A must for STS classrooms.ICASE
25. Yager, R. E.(Ed.),Blunck, S. M.(Ed.),Ajam, M.(Ed.)(1991).Yager, R. E., Blunck, S. M. & Ajam, M.(Eds)(1991). The Iowa Assessment Package for Eva; iatopmom Five Domains of Science Education: The University of Iowa. Science Education Center Iowa City, IA..
26. 比賀,佑典(1996)。以教師的指導訓練促進創造性發展。中日技術人力創意發展研習會，台北市:
27. 王澄霞(1995)。STS 活動中之「學」與「教」。科學教育學刊，3(1)，115-137。
28. 王澄霞,謝昭賢(1997)。以教與學歷程檔案評量 STS 教師的專業能力及其成長。科學教育學刊，5(2)，137-165。
29. 王澄霞,謝昭賢(1997)。以認知圖評量 “ 酸雨 ” STS 教學的學習成就。師大學報(科學教育類)，42(革新版)，13-29。
30. 洪志明,鄭淑玲(1997)。開發植物色素 STS 實驗活動單元。中華民國 STS 科學教育研討會，台北市:
31. 連啓瑞,盧玉玲(1997)。國小高年級學童對物質類感興趣問題的分析與運用。科教學刊，5(2)，191-218。
32. 陳文典(1997)。STS 教學教師所嚮之專業準備。科學教育學刊，5(2)，167-189。
33. 黃萬居(1997)。國小教師開發「辨認粉末」單元活動之研究。中華民國第一屆化學教育學術研討會，台北市:
34. 楊坤原,鄭湧涇(1996)。高一學生認知風格、認知策略與遺傳學學習成就的關係。科敎學刊，4(2)，135-159。
35. 楊榮祥(1995)。建構論 STS 和實際教學——西澳的實驗學校一例。師大科教月刊，176，4-17。
36. 董奇(1995).兒童創造力發展心理.台北市:五南圖書出版公司.
37. 蘇育任(1997)。運用模組開發活動培育 STS 教師之可行性研究。科學教育學刊，5(2)，245-266。