中文寫作教學策略對創造力成效之統合分析

A Meta-analysis of the Impacts of Chinese Writing Teaching Strategies on Writing Creativity Outcomes

郭隆興(Lung-Hsing KUO)；張紹勳(Shao-Shiun CHANG)；蔡佩樺(Pei-Hua TSAI)；郭純岑(Bianca CHANG)

研究整合 ； 創造力 ； 寫作教學策略 ； creativity ； research synthesis ； writing teaching strategies

華語文教學研究

16卷2期（2019 / 06 / 01）

103 - 137

繁體中文

本研究旨在利用統合分析軟體對教學實徵研究效果值之計算，探討中文寫作教學策略對寫作創造力教學成效的影響並提出適合不同條件的學生條件、需求及目的之有效預測。為達研究目的，研究者利用「中文」、「寫作教學」、「創造力」等關鍵字檢索國內主要文獻資料庫，就回傳資料逐篇比對納入與排除準則後的實證研究，經整合，有以下五點發現：一、本研究中的寫作教學策略，如心智圖法、創思教學法及合作學習等，是值得推廣的創造力教學策略。二、從不同的寫作教學策略介入的成效，合作學習法的效果最佳。三、以不同年段的受試對象來看，合作學習策略對寫作創造力成效最佳的年段是國小中、高年級生；而創思教學法對國中一、二年級生的寫作創造力成效最佳。四、從不同教學時間來看，可以心智圖法和創思教學法的教學實驗時間是每週2節且持續10週的創造力成效最佳；而合作學習法則是每週1節且持續7週的成效最佳。五、中文寫作教學策略對不同創造力類別成效的整合結果是一致的，皆顯示合作學習教學策略對於寫作創造力的成效最佳，其次是心智圖法，最後為創思教學法。

The purpose of this study is to the impact of writing strategies on creativity and to propose effective alternatives for students with different conditions, needs and goals through the effect size calculated by meta-analysis software on empirical studies examined from the perspectives of best-evidence synthesis. After a few keywords were used to search Taiwanese bibliographic database, 13 articles were coded and synthesized on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were as follows: First, the study shows that nearly all of the comprehension strategies were effective, including those teaching strategies using mind-maps, creative-thinking instruction and cooperative learning. Second, the strategy of cooperative learning was best able to support and enhance creativity in writing. Third, 3^(rd), 4^(th), 5^(th) and 6^(th) grade elementary students best exemplified the strategy of cooperative learning to enhance their abilities in fluency, flexibility and originality, while 7^(th) and 8^(th) grade (junior high) students best exemplified the strategy of creative thinking in general. Fourth, it turned out that two sessions per week for 10 weeks led to the best outcomes for the use of mind-maps to enhance their ability to writing creativity, while having one session per week for 7 weeks seemed to lead to the best outcomes for the use and further development of cooperative learning, mind-map strategies and creative thinking. Finally, then, the best outcome was seen when all three ＂moderators＂ of creativity- fluency, flexibility and originality-were affected by the teaching strategy of cooperative learning, followed by mind-maps and creative-thinking instruction.

1. 王開府, Kai-fuu(2008)。心智圖與概念模組在語文閱讀與寫作思考教學之運用。國文學報，43，263-296。
   連結：
2. 錢昭君, Zhao-jun(2010)。臺北=Taipei，臺北市立教育大學=University of Taipei。
   連結：
3. 謝進昌, Jin-chang(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略：國內最佳教學實徵研究整合。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，33-77。
   連結：
4. Beck, Cheryl T.(1999).Facilitating the work of a meta-analyst.Research in Nursing & Health,22(6),523-530.
5. Borenstein, Michael,Hedges, Larry V.,Higgins, Julian P. T.,Rothstein, Hannah R.(2009).Introduction to Meta-analysis.Chichester, UK:John Wiley and Sons.
6. Cohen, Jacob(1992).Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer.Psychological Bulletin,112(1),155-159.
7. Conn, Vicki S.,Armer, Jane M.(1994).A public health nurse's guide to reading meta-analysis research reports.Public Health Nursing,11(3),163-167.
8. Conn, Vicki S.,Armer, Jane M.(1996).Meta-analysis and public policy: Opportunity for nursing impact.Nursing Outlook,44(3),267-271.
9. Cooper, Harris M.(1989).Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Review.CA:SAGE Publications, Inc..
10. Glass, Gene V.,McGaw, Barry,Smith, Mary L.(1981).Meta-analysis in Social Research.CA:SAGE Publications, Inc..
11. Green, Bert F.,Hall, Judith A.(1984).Quantitative methods for literature reviews.Annual Review of Psychology,35,37-54.
12. Hedges, Larry V.(1981).Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators.Journal of Educational Statistics,6(2),107-128.
13. Hedges, Larry V.,Olkin, Ingram(1985).Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis.CA:Academic Press.
14. Higgins, Julian P. T.,Thompson, Simon G.(2002).Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.Stat Med,21,1539-1558.
15. Hunter, John E.,Schmidt, Frank L.(2004).Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.CA:SAGE Publications, Inc..
16. Lipsey, Mark W.,Wilson, David B.(2001).Introduction: Practical Meta-analysis.CA:SAGE Publications, Inc..
17. Long, Donna R.(1989).Second language listening comprehension: A schema-theoretic perspective.The Modern Language Journal,73(1)
18. Montague, Marjorie,Graves, Anne(1993).Improving students’ story writing.Teaching Exceptional Children,25(4),36-37.
19. Onyskiw, Judee E.(1996).The meta-analytic approach to research integration.Canadian Journal of Nursing Research,28(3),69-85.
20. Rosenthal, Robert(1979).The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin,86,638-641.
21. Rosenthal, Robert(1991).Meta-analysis Procedures for Social Research (revised edition).CA:SAGE Publications.
22. Sánchez-Meca, Julio,Rosa-Alcázar, Ana I.,Marín-Martínez, Fulgencio,Gómez-Conesa, Antonia(2010).Psycholgoical treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: A meta-analysis.Clin Psychol Rev,30(1),37-50.
23. Shadish, William R.,Cook, Thomas D.,Campbell, Donald T.(2002).Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Casual Inference.Belmont, MD:Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
24. Singleton, David(2005).The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,43,269-285.
25. Slavin, Robert E.(1986).Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews.Educational Researcher,15(9),5-11.
26. Slavin, Robert E.(2008).Perspectives on evidence-based research in education: What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations.Educational Researcher,37(1),5-14.
27. Slavin, Robert E.,Cheung, Alan,Groff, Cynthia,Lake, Cynthia(2008).Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis.Reading Research Quarterly,43(3),290-322.
28. Theis, Saundra. L.,Johnson, Joyce H.(1995).Strategies for teaching patients: A meta-analysis.Clinical Nurse Specialist,9(2),100-105.
29. What Works Clearinghouse. 2011. What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 2.1). Accessed online, January 23, 2019. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
30. What Works Clearinghouse. 2014. What Works Clearinghouse Website. Accessed online, January 23, 2019. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default.aspx
31. Williams, Edward F.(1970).Classroom Idea for Encouraging Thinking and Feeling.New York:D.O.K. publishers Inc..
32. 于富雲, Fu-yun(2001)。從理論基礎探究合作學習的教學效益。教育資料與研究，38，22-28。
33. 毛綺芬, Chi-fen(2007)。臺南=Tainan，國立臺南大學=National University of Tainan。
34. 王文科, Wen-ke(1982)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
35. 王玳雅, Tai-ya(2013)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺北教育大學=University of Taipei。
36. 朱作仁（編）, Zuo-ren. (ed.)(1993).小學寫作教學心理學.福州=Fu-zhou:福建教育=Fu-jian Education.
37. 江之中, Chih-chung(2003)。屏東=Pingtong，國立屏東師範學院=National Pingtong Teachers College。
38. 江惜美, Hsi-mei(1998).國語文教學論集.臺北=Taipei:萬卷樓=Wan-Juan Press.
39. 江惜美, Hsi-mei(2015)。翻轉教室應用在國語文教學的模式。臺北教育大學語文集刊，28，1-21。
40. 何三本, San-ben(2001).九年一貫語文教育理論與實務.臺北=Taipei:五南=Wu-Nan Press.
41. 何玉棻, Yu-fen(2009)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄師範大學=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
42. 吳水萍, Shui-ping(2015)。桃園=Taoyuan，開南大學=Kainan University。
43. 吳佳珈, Chia-chia(2013)。臺南=Tainan，國立臺南大學=National University of Tainan。
44. 吳俊憲, Jun-xian,黃政傑, Zheng-jie(2006).合作學習—發展與實踐.臺北=Taipei:五南=Wu-nan Press.
45. 吳雪麗, Xue-li(2011)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
46. 呂婉榕, Wan-jung(2011)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立中山大學=National Sun Yat-sen University。
47. 李玉貴, Yu-gui(2006)。解構現行課文教學的呼籲與實踐—從讀寫結合取向的寫作鷹架談起。國文寫作教學的理論與實務，臺北=Taipei:
48. 李崇健, Chong-jian(2006).移動的學校.臺北=Taipei:寶瓶文化=Bao-ping Press.
49. 林幸臺, Xing-tai,王木榮, Mu-rong(1999).威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊.臺北=Taipei:心理=Xin-Li Press.
50. 林建平, Jian-ping(1989).創意的寫作教室.臺北=Taipei:心理=Xin-Li Press.
51. 林勝甫, Shane-fu(2000)。臺南=Tainan，國立臺南大學=National University of Tainan。
52. 林嘉琪, Chia-chi(2009)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
53. 邱各容, Ge-rong(2003)。兒童文學在語文教學上的應用。全國新書資訊月刊，8-16。
54. 邱慧怡, hui-yi(2008)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
55. 姜淑玲, Shu-ling(1996)。花蓮=Hualian，國立花蓮師範學院=National Hualian Teacher College。
56. 施乃華, Nai-hua(2002)。彰化=Changhua，國立彰化師範大學=National Changhua University of Education。
57. 洪靖雅, Jing-ya(2011)。臺南=Tainan，國立臺南大學=National University of Tainan。
58. 紀淑琴, Shu-chin(1998)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
59. 范聖佳, Sheng-chia(2002)。彰化=Changhua，國立彰化師範大學=National Changhua University of Education。
60. 馬信行, Hsen-hsing(2007)。後設分析之方法論問題之探討。量化研究學刊，1(1)，175-187。
61. 涂亞鳳, Ya-feng(2006)。花蓮=Hualian，慈濟大學=Tzu Chi University。
62. 常雅珍, Ya-zhen(2003).初學作文新妙方—觀察學習＋心智繪圖.高雄=Kaohsiung:復文=Fu-wen Press.
63. 張紹勳, Shao-shiun(2014).Meta 分析實作：使用 Excel 與 CMA 程式.臺北=Taipei:五南=Wu-nan Press.
64. 張菀庭, Yuan-ting(2013)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄師範大學=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
65. 張新仁, Xin-ren(1992).寫作教學研究：認知心理學取向.高雄=Kaohsiung:復文=Fu-Wen Press.
66. 莊其穆, Qi-mu(2011)。臨床醫師如何閱讀統合分析。臺灣醫界，54(2)，18-26。
67. 郭祖珮, Zu-pei(2002)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
68. 郭碧雲, Bi-yun(2015)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄師範大學=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
69. 陳智康, Zhi-kang(2008)。新竹=Hsinchu，國立新竹教育大學=Natinal Hsinchu University of Education。
70. 陳瑋婷, Wei-ting,蕭金土, Chin-tu(2012)。寫作教學介入實驗效果之後設分析。教育研究學報，46(1)，21-41。
71. 陳諭蓁=Chen Yu-chen(2005)。臺北=Taipei，臺北市立教育大學=University of Taipei。
72. 黃寶園, Bao-yuan,林世華, Sieh-hwa(2002)。合作學習對學習效果之影響：統合分析。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理學報，34(1)，21-42。
73. 廖昭永, Zhao-yong(2003)。嘉義=Chiayi，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
74. 廖遠光, Yuen-Kuang,許宛琪, Wan-qui(2010)。以創造思考教學提升學生學習成效之後設分析。教育研究月刊，199，23-31。
75. 劉又榛, Yui-chen(2013)。新竹=Hsinchu，玄奘大學=Hsuan Chuang University。
76. 劉冠妏, Kuan-wen(2007)。嘉義=Chiayi，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
77. 劉冠妏, Kuan-wen,謝建全, Jian-chyuan(2009)。心智繪圖教學對國小五年級學童語文創造力學習成效影響之研究。南臺人文社會學報，5，75-106。
78. 蔡雅泰, Ya-tai(2006)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄師範大學=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
79. 謝進昌, Jin-chang(2014)。合作學習相關閱讀教學模式成效統合：後設分析結果間一致性探討。教育與心理研究，37(4)，85-113。
80. 嚴貴馨, Kuei-hsin(2014)。嘉義=Chiayi，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
81. 鐘玄惠, Hsuen-huei(2002)。嘉義=Chiayi，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。

1. 賴素珍,陳殷哲(2022)。建構師資培育生教學成熟度模式之研究。當代教育研究季刊，30(2)，1-47。
2. (2024).An Analytical Study on Establishing Norms for Creativity among Pre-service TCSOL Teacher Education Students in Taiwan.教育研究與發展期刊,20(2),61-132.