在21世紀的現今，創造力最大的成功關鍵即是擁有好的教育，當學生面臨競爭時，可以使他們更有動力去創造與學習。特別是當學生為了要解決創作過程中所產生的問題，需要發揮他們對於知識的求知欲時，認知好奇心為關鍵的因素。本研究希冀藉由發明自我效能與認知好奇心對持續參與IEYI臺灣選拔賽意圖的研究，瞭解發明自我效能影響認知好奇心的作用，反映到持續參與意圖（IEYI臺灣選拔賽），並透過認知好奇心介入學生的發明自我效能與持續參與意圖來確定該途徑的有效性。本研究選擇臺灣參與IEYI臺灣選拔賽之學生為對象，採便利抽樣法進行問卷調查，回收有效問卷745份。所得資料經AMOS 20結構方程模式進行驗證性因素分析，結果顯示發明自我效能對I型認知好奇心（I type Epistemic Curiosity, IEC）與D型認知好奇心（D type Epistemic Curiosity, DEC）有極顯著正相關，IEC與DEC對持續參與均有顯著正相關。研究顯示，透過兩種認知型好奇心可以促進或抑制參與者的持續參與意圖，增加了我們對認知型好奇心的認識，學生的認知好奇心可以在參與競爭的過程中，產生更高的持續參與意圖。

» 展開更多

1. 洪榮昭、陳美蓮、葉建宏、陳柏熹（2020）。青少年創意自我效能、競賽投入與參加競賽的價值之關係─以IEYI世界青少年創客發明展選拔賽為例。教育心理學報，51（3），457-481。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.202003_51(3).0006【Hong, J.-C., Chen, M.-L., Ye, J.-H., & Chen, P.-H. (2020). The relationship between adolescents’ creative self-efficacy, competition engagements and the value of participating in competition-aking the IEYI International Exhibition for Young Inventors as an example. Bulletin of Education Psychology, 51(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.202003_51(3).0006】
2. 洪榮昭、詹瓊華（2018）。共變推理遊戲：遊戲自我效能與後設認知影響遊戲中的焦慮、興趣及表現之研究。教育科學研究期刊，63（3），131-162。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201809_63(3).0005【Hong, J.-C., & Chan, C.-H. (2018). Game performance in covariation reasoning: The correlates between gameplay self-efficacy, and metacognition reflected gameplay anxiety and gameplay interest. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(3), 131-162. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201809_63(3).0005】
3. 張聖淵、詹勳從（2019）。高中生持續參與遊戲意圖之研究：以3D摩托車數位遊戲為例。教育科學研究期刊，64（3），31-53。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0002【Chang, S.-Y., & Jan, S.-T. (2019). High school students’ continual participation in game intentions: A case study of 3D motorcycle digital gaming learning. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0002】
4. 陳盈位、黃瑞榮（2009）。深度休閒之參與動機、持續參與因素之探討─以南部地區獨木舟協會的成員為例。崇仁學報，3，21-34。https://doi.org/10.6485/JCJJCNHSM.200912.0021【Chen, Y.-W., & Huang, R.-R. (2009). The exploration of serious recreational participating motive, lasting factor-Taking the Southern Area Canoe Association members as the example. Journal of ChungJen Junior College of Nursing: Health Sciences and Management, 3, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.6485/JCJJCNHSM.200912.0021】
5. 陳禹辰、尚榮安、陳東龍、鄭靜婷（2012）。遊戲動機與線上遊戲持續參與意圖之研究：不同玩家族群之比較。資訊管理學報，19（2），349-387。https://doi.org/10.6382/JIM.201204.0138【Chen, Y.-C., Shang, R.-A., Chen, D.-L., & Chen, C.-T. (2012). Game motivation and the intention to continuously play online game: A comparison of different types of players. Journal of Information Management, 19(2), 349-387. https://doi.org/10.6382/JIM.201204.0138】
6. 陳儒賢、謝百琪（2018）。樂團參與者認真性休閒與心流體驗關係之探討：兼論情境涉入之中介效果。環境與管理研究，19（2），1-16。https://doi.org/10.6725/JEM.201812_19(2).0001【Chen, L.-H., & Hsieh, P.-C. (2018). Research on the relationship among serious leisure and flow experience of orchestra players: A discussion on the moderating effect of situational involvement. Journal of Environment and Management, 19(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.6725/JEM.201812_19(2).0001】
7. 曾沈連魁（2014）。單車騎士運動參與動機、阻礙因素及持續涉入之研究。國立臺灣體育運動大學學報，3（2），47-63。https://doi.org/10.3966/2226535X2014060302004【Tseng Sheng, L.-K. (2014). Participation motivation, barrier factors, and enduring involvement in bicyclists. Journal of National Taiwan University of Sport, 3(2), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.3966/2226535X2014060302004】
8. Amoroso, D., & Lim, R. (2017). The mediating effects of habit on continuance intention. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 693-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.05.003
9. Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advanced in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4
10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice- Hall.
11. Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
12. Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x
13. Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153(3731), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.153.3731.25
14. Berlyne, D. E. (1950). Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behaviour. British Journal of Psychology, 41(1-2), 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1950.tb00262.x
15. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00111-7
16. Chang, Y.-Y., & Shih, H.-Y. (2018). Work curiosity: A new lens for understanding employee creativity. Human Resource Management Review, 29(4), 100672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.005
17. Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 421-437. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910705X53155
18. Chow, W. S., & Shi, S. (2014). Investigating students’ satisfaction and continuance intention toward E-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1145-1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.193
19. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Oxford University Press.
20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey Bass.
21. Dağhan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2016). Modeling the continuance usage intention of online learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.066
22. Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_2
23. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Alastair, H. (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Multilingual Matters.
24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
25. Fowler, H. (1965). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. The Macmillan Company.
26. Hagtvedt, L. P., Dossinger, K., Harrison, S. H., & Huang, L. (2019). Curiosity made the cat more creative: Specific curiosity as a driver of creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.10.007
27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
28. Hardy, J. H., Ness, A. M., & Mecca, J. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004
29. Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Szeto, E., Tai, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-R. (2016). Positive affect relevant to epistemic curiosity to reflect continuance intention to join a hands-on making contest. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(9), 2267-2279. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1276a
30. Hong, J.-C., Ye, J.-H., & Fan, J.-Y. (2019). STEM in fashion design: The roles of creative self-efficacy and epistemic curiosity in creative performance. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(9), em1742. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108455
31. Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, 184(187), 262-270.
32. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
33. Jin, N., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1968
34. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Shin, E. K. (2017). Students’ expectation, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use digital textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.025
35. Kaplanidou, K., & Gibson, H. J. (2010). Predicting behavioral intentions of active event sport tourists: The case of a small-scale recurring sports event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(2), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2010.498261
36. Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2008). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 367-375). Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0034
37. Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
38. Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011
39. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
40. Kim, Y.-B., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). Mobile gamer’s epistemic curiosity affecting continuous play intention. Focused on players’ switching costs and epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.023
41. Ko, H., Cho, C.-H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191
42. Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., Santis, R. D., Crowson, H. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 202-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017
43. Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101
44. Litman, J. A. (2007). Curiosity as a feeling of interest and feeling of deprivation: The I/D model of curiosity. In P. R. Zelick (Ed.), Issues in the psychology of motivation (pp. 149-156). Nova Science.
45. Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585-1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
46. Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I-and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 397-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005
47. Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3
48. Litman, J. A., & Mussel, P. (2013). Validity of the interest-and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity model in Germany. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000100
49. Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
50. Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K.(2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 531-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.021
51. Litman, J., Hutchins, T., & Russon, R. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000427
52. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
53. Luo, M. M., & Remus, W. (2014). Uses and gratifications and acceptance of web-based information services: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.042
54. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-369. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2
55. McCullough, D. (2016). The wright brothers. Simon & Schuster.
56. McIntyre, N. (1989). The personal meaning of participation: Enduring involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(2), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1989.11969797
57. Moch, M. (1987). Asking questions: An expression of epistemological curiosity in children. In D. Görlitz & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination and play (pp. 198-211). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
59. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
60. Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Prentice Hall.
61. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
62. Schneider, A., von Krogh, G., & Jäger, P. (2013). “What’s coming next?” Epistemic curiosity and lurking behavior in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.008
63. Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
64. Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (2013). Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 984-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.007
65. Subasi, A. (2016). An ambient semantic intelligence model for scientific research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
66. Subasi, A. (2019, March 17). Psychological account of epistemic curiosity. 7th International Conference on New Trends in English Language Teaching and Testing, Dubai.
67. Subasi, A. (2018). A dynamic systems theory of epistemic curiosity. New Ideas in Psychology, 54, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.12.003
68. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429
69. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advance in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2
70. Von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204
71. Wicker, P., Hallmann, K., & Zhang, J. J. (2012). What is influencing consumer expenditure and intention to revisit? An investigation of marathon events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 17(3), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2012.734058
72. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407

中文APA引文格式	宋修德、林意珊（2021）。發明的自我效能與認知好奇心對持續參與IEYI臺灣選拔賽意圖之研究。教育科學研究期刊，66（1），83-105。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202103_66(1).0003
APA Format	Sung, H.-T., & Lin, Y.-S. (2021). Relationship between self-efficacy of invention, epistemic curiosity, and 　students’ intentions to consistently participate in the IEYI. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(1), 83-105. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202103_66(1).0003

In the 21st century, creativity is the key to success and a vital component of quality education. Introducing an element of competition into education can motivate students to be more creative. Moreover, students should be encouraged to solve problems through creative processes and stimulate their pursuit of knowledge. Learning to be curious is a crucial factor in the creative process. This study investigated the relationship between self-efficacy of invention, epistemic curiosity, and students’ intentions to consistently participate in the IEYI and understand the role of epistemic curiosity increasing self-efficacy and reflecting the intentions for consistent participation in the IEYI Taiwan trial. Through the intervention of epistemic curiosity, determine the effectiveness of this approach. This study selected Taiwan to participate in the IEYI Taiwan trial. A convenient sampling method was used to conduct a questionnaire survey for students, and 745 valid questionnaire responses were collected. The data obtained were analyzed using AMOS (version 20) structural equations for confirmatory factors. The results showed that the self-efficacy of invention had a significant positive correlation with I-type Epistemic Curiosity (IEC) and D-type Epistemic Curiosity (DEC). IEC and DEC continued to participate in the study. There is a significant positive correlation. This study demonstrated that the participants’ intentions to consistently participate can be promoted or inhibited by either IEC or DEC, and our relationship with epistemic curiosity is increased. Students’ epistemic curiosity can be enhanced through competition; hence, participants can arouse there consistent participation intention.