課程設計與學生創造力－以投資學為例之行動研究

Course Design and Student Creativity-An Action Research in "Investments"

10.6388/JES.200306.0027

林哲鵬(Che-peng Lin)；陳世佳(Shr-jya Chen)

創造力 ； 教學創新 ； 知識經濟 ； 學習評量 ； 網際網路 ； 電子學習 ； Creativity ； Teaching innovation ； Knowledge economics ； Assessment ； Internet ； E-learning

教育科學期刊

3卷1期（2003 / 06 / 01）

27 - 56

繁體中文

本研究嘗試藉由投資學課程的重新設計，鼓勵學生發揮自我創意思考，並在團隊中激盪組織創造力。課程設計基本上依循兩個理念，首先，減少由教師單向傳輸知識的講述，讓學生有發揮自主學習的機會，並強調發揮創意的重要；其次，由於成績評量方式會引導學生努力的方向，課程中改變過去由教師出題考試為主的評量方式，加重平時成績的比例、增加同儕互評，希望藉此評量之設計，提昇組內(intra-group)及組間(inter-group)的動態互動，形成良性競爭，達到以學生為中心的學習(student-centered learning)。為使上述理念得以具體實現，課程藉由資訊科技的輔助，結合網際網路、教學平台及電子學習，除提供教材內容、參考資料等線上資源供學生課前預習及課後參考外，學生的作業成果、同儕意見、以及針對不同主題的討論評議等，皆可在平台上交流，達到資源共享、創意激盪的目標。 傳統以考試為主的課程，只能看見學生學習的結果，卻忽略學生在學習過程中的思考，此一課程改變傳統評量方式，並結合電子學習(e-learning)，使學習者能夠自由地表達想法，與教師、同組同學或他組同儕進行腦力激盪及充分的溝通。教學平台則詳細紀錄了學生的思考過程與創意，豐富了學習的歷程與結果。討論區的使用率亦十分激勵教學者，由學期初的數十次逐月大幅成長到上千次，學生的積極投入和熱烈發表顯示了他們對此一課程設計的認同。此外，根據學習者的回饋調查問卷，學生對於此一教學設計在提升啟發創造力上充滿了肯定，由此顯示，創造力雖然無法直接被教導，但應可藉由適當的課程設計及教學媒體的運用使其得到增強。如何避免不經意地傷及學習者的創造力，並提供學習者在具啟發創意的環境下學習，是吾等從事教學工作者應該持續努力的重要課題。

This study attempted to create an encouraging learning environment in the course of Investments for the development of individual and group/organization creativity. The changes are made on two foundational beliefs of the instructors: First, the course should provide opportunities and flexibility for the sprouts of creativity. The one-way imposition of knowledge from instructor to student could be reduced and student-initiated learning be increased. Second, the weight of mid-term and final examinations in the assessment portfolio should be partially shifted from teacher-centered to student-centered criteria. With the dynamic process of intra-group and inter-group interactions, positive competition promotes the growth of creativity. These beliefs were embodied in the Investments course by the assistance of computer technology. With web network, e-learning and a web station designed for this course, the instructor was able to provide all the assigned reading materials and related references posted and greatly enriched the width and depth of the subject contents. The students' creative ideas, discussions, the outcomes of teamwork, peer evaluations are shared on this web station. The results of this innovation in Investment course are exciting. The implement of e-learning overcame the limitations of conventional classroom instruction. Students may learn anytime in any place at their own paces. The learners has unlimited chances to express their ideas, to fully discuss and communicate with each other, and to do brainstorming with their peers. Not like the mid-term and final exams that only show the outcomes of learning, the web station recorded students' thinking and leaning process. The usage rate of discussion area grew from less than one hundred times in the beginning of the semester to more than one thousand times around the end of the semester. Students' great enthusiasm and deep involvement proved this innovation satisfied learners' zest. Furthermore, the results of ”Curriculum Feedback Questionnaire” answered by the participating students indicate: students fully agree that this innovation could raise and inspire their creativity. This Investments course is an experimental attempt to nurture creativity. It is believed that no teacher can 'teach' creativity; instead, we should reflect on our own teaching not to 'hurt' creativity. How to provide a rich learning environment for creativity is an everlasting goal for every educator to achieve.

1. 教育部創造力中程發展計畫推動辦公室
2. 逢甲大學電子學習計畫
3. 創造力網站
4. 教育部顧問室資訊網
5. McGraw-Hill之Digital Solution教學平台
6. 育碁數位科技
7. Amabile, T. M(1988).Research in organizational behavior.Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
8. Amabile, T. M(1997).Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do.California Management Review,40(1),39-58.
9. Berglund, A.,Daniels, M.,Tengstrand, A.,Hedenborg, M(1998).Assessment to increase students' creativity: two case studies.European Journal of Engineering Education,23(1),45-54.
10. Bruner, J. S(1961).The Process of Education Harvard University Press.N.Y:W. W. Norton.
11. Ebert, E. S(1994).The cognitive spiral: creative thinking and cognitive processing.he Journal of Creative Behavior,28(4),275-290.
12. Frederiksen, N(1984).Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving.Review of Educational Research,54,363-407.
13. Guilford, J. P(1965).The structure of intellect.Psychological Bulletin,53(4),267-293.
14. Henderson, A.,Minner, S(1991).Computing for creativity.Intervention in School and Clinic,27(1),43-46.
15. Kemp, J. E.,Smellie, D. C(1989).Planning, Producting and Using Instructional Media.New York:Harper and Row.
16. Lee, H. L.(1997).Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Columbus Ohio:Ohio State University.
17. Mevarech, Z. R.,Light, P. H.(1992).Cooperative learning with computers.Learning and Instruction,2(3),155-285.
18. Moore, M. G.,David Seware,Desmond Keegan,Borje Holmberg (Eds.)(1993).Distance Education: international perspective.London:Croom Helm.
19. Nunamaker, J. F.,Dennis, A. R.,Valacich, J. S,Vogel, D. R.,George, J. F.(1991).Electronic meeting systems to support group work.Communications of the ACM,34(7),40-61.
20. Rhodes, M.(1961).An analysis of creativity.Phi Delta Kappan
21. Simonton, D. K(1975).Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,32,1119-1133.
22. Sprinthall, N.,Sprinthall, R.(1990).Educational psychology: a developmental approach.Singapore:McGrow-Hill.
23. Stemberg, R. J,Lubart, T. I.(1995).Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity.New York:The Free Press.
24. Susman, Ellen B(1998).Cooperative Learning: A review of factors that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. J.Educational Computing Research,18(4),303-322.
25. Thompson, P.,Randall, B.(2001).Can e-Learning spur creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship?.Education Media International,38(4),289-292.
26. Wheeler, S,Waite, S.J,Bromfield, C(2002).Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18(3),367-379.
27. 行政院經濟建設委員會(2000)。APEC經濟委員會（EC）。「推動知識型經濟之先決條件，政策極可能之合作」研討會會議報告。
28. 李忠謀、林美娟、吳正己(1998)。資訊教育軟體與教材資源中心之建置。資訊與教育，68，21-28。
29. 李遠哲(1996)。挑戰與回應－新世紀的教育方向。教改通訊，24，2。
30. 彼得杜拉克、傅振焜譯(1994)。後資本主義社會
31. 林奇賢(1998)。網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育雜誌，67，34-50。
32. 林建仲、鄭宗文(2001)。合作式學習與問題解決－培養以問題解決為中心的網路合作學習。資訊與教育雜誌，55-110。
33. 洪明洲(1999)。網路教學
34. 高強華譯、Maslow, A. H．著(1991)。論自我實現者的創造性。現代教育，3，103-114。
35. 教育部(2001)。創造力教育白皮書。台北:教育部。
36. 教育部顧問室、吳欽杉(2002)。創造力與創意設計教育師資培訓計畫－教材編撰－商學類－財務會計組成果報告書。高雄:國立中山大學。
37. 連啟瑞、盧玉玲(2001)。創造思考教學在自然與生活科技領域之應用。創造思考教學在九年一貫課程中之運用學術研討會，台北:
38. 陳年興(1995)。WWW加速Internet成為第四大媒體。網路通訊雜誌，46，36-39。
39. 陳杭生(1993)。視聽媒體與教學正常化。視聽教育，34，1-10。
40. 陳家賢(2001)。美國企業線上學習市場發展現況與趨勢。資訊與電腦，92-96。
41. 黃楓台(2001)。知識經濟下台灣科技人力資源策略。科技發展政策報導
42. 蔡振昆(2001)。國立中山大學資訊管理研究所。
43. 賴慶三(2002)。師院地球科學課程與教學中的創造力與批判思考能力之探討。國立台北師範學院學報，15，337-374。
44. 顏如妙(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。政治大學企業管理研究所。
45. 羅文基(2001)。知識經濟時代的教育省思。翰林文教雜誌，18，4-5。

1. 闞敏真(2016)。具風險考量之距離基礎多階段多準則決策模型之研究 ─ 全球基金績效評比之應用。淡江大學管理科學學系碩士班學位論文。2016。1-126。