Intel K-12圖像式思考輔助工具融入教學方案對國小資優生推理能力及創造力之研究

Effect of Intel K-12 Educator' Thinking Tools Integrated into Teaching Program on Reasoning Ability and Creativity by Gifted Students in the Elementary School

10.6502/SEF.2013.14.1-19

曾柏維(Bo-Wei Zeng)；張世彗(Shih-Hui Chang)

K-12圖像式思考工具融入教學方案 ； 國小資優生 ； 推理能力 ； 創造力 ； Intel K-12 Educator' Thinking Tools Integrated into Teaching Program ； Gifted students in the Elementary School ； Reasoning ability ； Creativity

特教論壇

14期（2013 / 06 / 01）

1 - 19

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討Intel K-12圖像式思考工具融入教學方案對國小資優班學生推理能力及創造力的影響。研究採用「前後測準實驗設計，選取新北市某國小高年級資優班學生為對象，實驗組與控制組各15名，進行15週的實驗教學，工具為「瑞文式矩陣推理測驗」、「陶倫斯創造思考測驗圖形版」及「圖像式思考輔助工具教學方案回饋表」。所得資料以獨立樣本共變數分析及資性分析進行處理。根據研究結果，獲得下列主要發現：：1.Intel K-12圖像式思考工具融入教學方案可提升國小資優班學生的推理能力。2.Intel K-12圖像式思考工具融入教學方案可提升國小資優班學生創造力之標題、精密及開放等向度，而未能提升其流暢和獨創向度。3.Intel K-12圖像式思考工具融入教學方案獲得多數學生的正向態度肯定，認為透過該課程可提高其推理能力及創造力。

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of Intel K-12 Educator' thinking Tools integrated into Teaching Program on reasoning ability and creativity by gifted students in the elementary school. The research adopted ”pre-and-post-test quasi-experimental design”, and selected a high-grade gifted class in the elementary school in New Taipei City as the subjects. There were 15 members in the experimental group and the control group, respectively to conduct the experimental teaching for 15 weeks. The tools included ”Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices”, ”Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking”, and Graphic Organizers Aiding Tool Teaching Program Feedback Questionnaire”. The obtained data were processed and analyzed by ANOVA and qualitative data analysis.According to the research results, we found the following results:1. Intel K-12 Educator' thinking Tools integrated into Teaching Program can improve reasoning ability of gifted students in the experimental group.2. Intel K-12 Educator' thinking Tools integrated into Teaching Program can improvethe creativity on title, accuracy and open dimensions by gifted students in the experimental group.3. .ntel K-12 Educator' thinking Tools integrated into Teaching Program was approved by most students with their positive attitude. They thought the program could raise their reasoning ability and creativity.

1. 英特爾（Intel）創新教育計畫（2009）。Intel教育計畫與K-12 教學工具。資料來源：http://www.intel.com/
2. Anderson-Inman, L.,Horney, M.(1997).Computer-Based Concept Mapping: Enhancing Literacy With Tools for Visual Thinking.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,40(4)
3. Bloom, B.S.(1956).Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain.New York:Longmans, Green.
4. Collier, K.,Guenther, T.,Veerman, C.(2002).Developing Critical Thinking Skill through a Variety of Instructional Strategies.
5. Kommers, M.(ed.),Jonassen, D.(ed.),Mayes, J.(ed.)(1991).Computers and System Sciences.Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
6. Kuhn, D.(1992).Thinking as argument.Harvard Educational Review,62(2),155-177.
7. Lajoie, S.(ed.),Derry, S.(ed.)(1993).Computers as Cognitive Tools.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
8. Lizotte, D.J.,McNeill, K.L.,Krajcik, J.(2004).Teacher practices that support students' construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms.Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences,Mahwah, NJ:
9. Passmore, C.,Stewart, J.(2002).A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(3),185-204.
10. Polman, J.,Pea, R.(1997).Scaffolding Science Inquiry Through Transformative Communication.1997 NARST Annual Meeting,IL:
11. Sins, P. H. M.,Savelsbergh, E. R.,Joolingen, W. R.(2005).The difficult process of scientific modeling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modeling.International Journal of Science Education,27(14),1695-1721.
12. 吳佳珍(2011)。臺中市，國立台中教育大學。
13. 吳冠誼(2010)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
14. 李乙明(2006)。陶倫斯創造思考測驗圖形版指導手冊。臺北市:五南。
15. 林慈薇(2007)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學。
16. 林嘉慧(2011)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
17. 唐鈺雁(2007)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學。
18. 張世彗(2011)。創造力教學、學習與評量之探究。教育資料與研究雙月刊，100，1-21。
19. 張玉成(1998)。開發腦中金礦的教學策略。臺北市:心理。
20. 張政亮(2009)。專題導向的理論與應用─以Intel 創新思考教育計畫為例。國教新知，56(1)，11-26。
21. 張春興(2006)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華。
22. 教育部(2002)。創造力教育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
23. 莊惠慈(2011)。臺南市，國立臺南大學。
24. 連文誌(2010)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
25. 陳奐宇(2000)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
26. 陳榮華、陳心怡(2006)。瑞文氏標準矩陣推理測驗平行本指導手冊。臺北市:中國行為科學社。
27. 陳曉鴻(2011)。高雄市，樹德科技大學。
28. 彭康益(2010)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
29. 曾子瑛(2008)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
30. 曾志朗(1999)。不同凡想，專文推薦─培養創造力：21 世紀最重要的人力資源。臺北市:遠流。
31. 黃少彥(2010)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
32. 黃永和、莊淑琴(2004)。圖形組織─視覺化教學工具的探討與應用。深根與創新：九年一貫課程研討會論文集（上）
33. 賴翠媛(2000)。資優兒童教材教法。臺中市:五南。

1. 蔡仕廷,黃馨儀,張登文(2022)。The Effect of Motion Infographics on the Learning of Third and Fourth Grade Resource Classes and Regular Classes in Elementary School。圖書資訊學刊，20(1)，31-48。