學習動機及問題解決創造力與花藝素材造形能力關聯性之研究－以台南科技大學生活科學系女生為例

Relationships among Learning Motivation, Problem Solving Creativity and Floriculture Material Styling Ability-an Example of the Female Students of the Tainan University of Technology

10.30105/JDS.200612.0003

朱惠英(Hui-Ying Chu)

花藝素材造形能力 ； 學習動機 ； 問題解決創造力 ； floriculture material styling ability ； learning motivation ； problem solving creativity

設計學研究

9卷2期（2006 / 12 / 01）

35 - 56

繁體中文

This study uses 45 girls studying at the department of living science of Tainan University of Technology as the sample to investigate the factors influencing ”floriculture material styling ability” and analyze the correlation of social traits, psychological traits and floriculture material styling ability. The study results show that the floriculture material styling ability of the respondents falls on the average level slightly prone to positive (7.18±1.34). In terms of the factors influencing the overall ability, rather than respondent's social traits (e.g. age, social and financial position) as the major factors to influence the performance of styling ability, the respondent's psychological traits show significant influence on styling ability. Those who are on the average in academic performance with higher external and internal motivation or with higher internal motivation and better problem solving creativity have better performance of floriculture material styling ability. Also, according to the analysis of the related factors of floriculture material styling ability, the top three variables having the closest relationship with styling ability are ”internal motivation” (r=0.700), ”problem solving creativity” (r=0.508), and ”graphic creativity” (r=0.453). Their correlations all show significant level (P＜0.01). Finally, the multiple stepwise regression analysis shows that, as for the predictability of predicting variables on floriculture material styling ability, ”internal motivation” shows the best (Adjusted R^2=0.478) predictability, second by ”problem solving creativity” (Adjusted R^2=0.067) and ”academic performance” (Adjusted R^2=0.032). Based on the results, we submit our recommendations for floriculture educators and the trade to use as the reference and also give the following standardized regression equation that can predict floriculture material styling ability:Floriculture material styling ability=internal motivation×0.552+problem solving creativity×0.279+academic performance×-0.206

This study uses 45 girls studying at the department of living science of Tainan University of Technology as the sample to investigate the factors influencing ”floriculture material styling ability” and analyze the correlation of social traits, psychological traits and floriculture material styling ability. The study results show that the floriculture material styling ability of the respondents falls on the average level slightly prone to positive (7.18±1.34). In terms of the factors influencing the overall ability, rather than respondent's social traits (e.g. age, social and financial position) as the major factors to influence the performance of styling ability, the respondent's psychological traits show significant influence on styling ability. Those who are on the average in academic performance with higher external and internal motivation or with higher internal motivation and better problem solving creativity have better performance of floriculture material styling ability. Also, according to the analysis of the related factors of floriculture material styling ability, the top three variables having the closest relationship with styling ability are ”internal motivation” (r=0.700), ”problem solving creativity” (r=0.508), and ”graphic creativity” (r=0.453). Their correlations all show significant level (P＜0.01). Finally, the multiple stepwise regression analysis shows that, as for the predictability of predicting variables on floriculture material styling ability, ”internal motivation” shows the best (Adjusted R^2=0.478) predictability, second by ”problem solving creativity” (Adjusted R^2=0.067) and ”academic performance” (Adjusted R^2=0.032). Based on the results, we submit our recommendations for floriculture educators and the trade to use as the reference and also give the following standardized regression equation that can predict floriculture material styling ability:Floriculture material styling ability=internal motivation×0.552+problem solving creativity×0.279+academic performance×-0.206

1. 林德福、劉朝吟(2004)。越界產銷網絡中農業區域的新挑戰－以台灣花卉產業發展爲例。台大城鄉學報，11
   連結：
2. Adams, P. C. E.(1998).Creativity and Successful Aging.New York:Springer.
3. Amabile, T. M.(1983).The Social Psychology of Creativity.New York:Springer-Verlag.
4. Amabile, T. M.,B. M. Staw,L. L. Cummings (Eds.)(1988).A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior,10,123-167.
5. Amabile, T. M.,K. G. Hill,B. A. Hennessey,E. M. Tighe(1994).The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66(5)
6. CFD中華花藝設計協會(2004)。花藝基礎教學－教科書2。台北:台北花苑出版部。
7. Guilford, J. P.(1968).Intelligence, Creativity and their Educational Implication.CA:Rocert R. Knopp.
8. Guilford, J. P.(1967).The Nature of Human Intelligence.New York:McGraw-Hill.
9. Hollingshead, A. B.(1957).Two Fctor Index of Social Position.New Haven:
10. Lepper, M. R.,D. Greene(1975).Turning Play into Work: Effects of Adult Surveillance and Extrinsic Rewards on Children`s Intrinsic Motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,31
11. Ormrod, J. E.(2003).Educational Ppsychology: Developing Learners(4th ed.).Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Pearson Education.
12. Sasser, C. J. R.(1993).Qualitative Changes in Creativity in Second Half of Life.Journal of Creative Behavior,27(1)
13. Slavin, R. E.(1997).Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice.New York, Macmillan:Allyn & Bacon.
14. Wiles, J.,J. Bondi(1981).Skills Clusters for Creative Thinking Activity Book.Wiles, Bondi and Associates.
15. 毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(1998)。創造力研究。台北:心理出版社。
16. 王妙雯(2001)。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所。
17. 王瑞蓉(2003)。新竹師範學院美勞教育研究所。
18. 丘永福(1989)。造形原理。台北:藝風堂。
19. 朱錦鳳(2005)。問題解決創造力測驗指導手冊。台北:心理出版社。
20. 吳怡瑄(2002)。國立中山大學教育研究所。
21. 吳靜吉、高泉豊、丁興祥(1992)。教育部輔導工作六年計劃研究報告。台北:
22. 吳靜吉、高泉豊、陳甫彥(1993)。教育部輔導工作六年計劃研究報告。台北:
23. 呂清夫(1991)。造型原理。台北:雄獅圖書。
24. 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)
25. 李宗倫(2003)。國立中山大學企業管理研究所。
26. 李皇照(1996)。家計單位切花消費行爲之研究。台灣經濟，232
27. 李錫津(1987)。創造思考教學研究。台北:台灣書店。
28. 沈淑蓉(1999)。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所。
29. 周敬煌(1983)。工業設計。台北:大陸書店。
30. 林生傳(1993)。教育社會學。高雄:復文圖書公司。
31. 林幸台、王木榮(1994)。威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊。台北:心理出版社。
32. 林品章(1999)。造形原理：藝術·設計的基礎。台北:全華圖書公司。
33. 林崇宏(1998)。造形設計原理。台北:視傳文化事業有限公司。
34. 林崇宏(1999)。造形·設計·藝術。台北:田園城市文化事業有限公司。
35. 林崇宏(1997)。基本設計課程研究。東海學報，38
36. 洪冬桂(1973)。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所。
37. 洪素蘋(2003)。國立交通大學教育研究所。
38. 康光輝(2003)。新竹師範學院美勞教學研究所。
39. 張世彗(2003)。動機和創造力。創造思考教育期刊，13
40. 張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華書局。
41. 張春興(1996)。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華書局。
42. 許淑婷(2005)。高雄師範大學科學教育研究所。
43. 陳文雄(1975)。創造力與創造性人格之研究。師大教育研究所集刊，17
44. 陳李綢、郭妙雪(1998)。教育心理學。台北:五南書局。
45. 陳東陞(1986)。思考與創造性教學策略中實施教學評量的方法。國教月刊，33
46. 陳龍安、朱湘吉(1999)。創造教學的理論與實際。台北:心理出版社。
47. 黃文彬(1998)。屏東師院國民教育所。
48. 塗文忠(2003)。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系。
49. 楊清田(1997)。構成（一）。台北:三民書局。
50. 廖怡佳(2004)。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所。
51. 劉振源(1998)。超現實畫派。台北:藝術圖書。
52. 劉靜宜(2003)。國立彰化師範大學教育研究所。
53. 橋本重治(1984)。教育評價概論。台北:台灣書店。
54. 賴英娟(2006)。國立台灣科技大學技職教育研究所。