創造階段特定技巧模式的發展與效果研究
作者:輔仁大學企業管理學系林耀南、國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系張雨霖、中國文化大學心理輔導學系邱發忠、國立臺北科技大學技專校院招生策略委員會研發處賴志明
卷期:67卷第1期
日期:2022年3月
頁碼:33-61
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0002
摘要:
過去創造課程教學模式上,大多側重創造歷程或創造技巧,並未對創造歷程與技巧進行統整。本研究在綜合過去創造歷程與創造技巧模式後,建構出「創造階段特定技巧模式」(Model of Creative Stage-specific Technique, MCST),依此模式設計課程並檢驗課程的效果。本研究以前、後測準實驗設計的方式,將65位大學生區分為MCST組與控制組。本研究的實驗程序如下:一、兩組均接受新編創造思考測驗、科技想像傾向量表及創意觀點量表之前測;二、MCST組的參與者接受30小時的MCST課程;控制組的參與者則未接受創造思考的相關課程;三、最後兩組參與者皆施測新編創造思考測驗、科技想像傾向量表及創意觀點量表之後測。結果顯示(相對於控制組):一、MCST組的參與者在新編創造思考測驗的流暢力與變通力指標上皆有顯著的提升,在獨創力指標上則未見提升;二、MCST組的參與者在科技想像傾向量表的創新改造、感質表徵、實用評估、正向喜好、功能價值指標上皆有顯著的提升效果;在超越現實指標上則未見提升效果;三、在創意觀點量表上,MCST組顯示提升了創意成長觀,而且降低了創意固定觀。綜合上述可知,本研究發展之創造階段特定技巧模式是有效的,未來可應用於提升創造思考課程的實務中。
關鍵詞:科技想像、創造階段特定技巧模式、想像力、擴散性思考
《詳全文》
參考文獻:
- 吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺(1999)。新編創造思考測驗。教育部。 【Wu, J.-J., Chen, F.-Y., Kuo, C.-C., Lin, W.-W., Lau, S.-H., & Chen, Y.-H. (1999). New test of creative thinking. Ministry of Education.】
- 宋玉英、高振耀(2019)。探索五位理工科女性世界中的創造力:她們對創造力的詮釋以及理工背景對其創造力的影響。教育科學研究期刊,64(3),55-84。https://doi.org/10.6209/ JORIES.201909_64(3).0003 【Sung, Y.-Y., & Kao, C.-Y. (2019). Exploring creativity in the world of five women majoring in science and engineering: How they interpret creativity and how their educational backgrounds affect their creativity. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 55-84. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0003】
- 林銘慧(2019)。科技想像傾向量表之發展及其與恆毅力、網路成癮之關聯研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。 【Lin, M.-H. (2019). Developing the scale of technology imagination disposition and its correlation with grit and with internet addiction [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.】
- 邱發忠(2010)。幽默理解的多重語義激發、好笑反應對創造力的影響:以右腦激發為中介變項。中華心理衛生學刊,23(2),183-217。https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.201006_23(2).0002 【Chiu, F.-C. (2010). The effect of multiple semantic thinking and funniness on creative performance: Possible mediation by the activation of the right hemisphere. Formosa Journal of Mental Health, 23(2), 183-217. https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.201006_23(2).0002】
- 邱發忠、姚妃宴(2010)。調整焦點、目標時間距離對創造力表現的影響。教育心理學報,41(3),497-520。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20090106 【Chiu, F.-C., & Yau, F.-Y. (2010). The effects of regulatory focus and temporal distance to the goal on creativity. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 41(3), 497-520. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20090106】
» 展開更多
- 吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺(1999)。新編創造思考測驗。教育部。 【Wu, J.-J., Chen, F.-Y., Kuo, C.-C., Lin, W.-W., Lau, S.-H., & Chen, Y.-H. (1999). New test of creative thinking. Ministry of Education.】
- 宋玉英、高振耀(2019)。探索五位理工科女性世界中的創造力:她們對創造力的詮釋以及理工背景對其創造力的影響。教育科學研究期刊,64(3),55-84。https://doi.org/10.6209/ JORIES.201909_64(3).0003 【Sung, Y.-Y., & Kao, C.-Y. (2019). Exploring creativity in the world of five women majoring in science and engineering: How they interpret creativity and how their educational backgrounds affect their creativity. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 55-84. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0003】
- 林銘慧(2019)。科技想像傾向量表之發展及其與恆毅力、網路成癮之關聯研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。 【Lin, M.-H. (2019). Developing the scale of technology imagination disposition and its correlation with grit and with internet addiction [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.】
- 邱發忠(2010)。幽默理解的多重語義激發、好笑反應對創造力的影響:以右腦激發為中介變項。中華心理衛生學刊,23(2),183-217。https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.201006_23(2).0002 【Chiu, F.-C. (2010). The effect of multiple semantic thinking and funniness on creative performance: Possible mediation by the activation of the right hemisphere. Formosa Journal of Mental Health, 23(2), 183-217. https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.201006_23(2).0002】
- 邱發忠、姚妃宴(2010)。調整焦點、目標時間距離對創造力表現的影響。教育心理學報,41(3),497-520。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20090106 【Chiu, F.-C., & Yau, F.-Y. (2010). The effects of regulatory focus and temporal distance to the goal on creativity. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 41(3), 497-520. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20090106】
- 邱發忠、陳學志、徐芝君、吳相儀、卓淑玲(2008)。內隱與外顯因素對創造作業表現的影響。中華心理學刊,50(2),125-145。https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.2008.5002.02 【Chiu, F.-C., Chen, H.-C., Hsu, C.-C., Wu, H.-Y., & Cho, S.-L. (2008). The impact of implicit and explicit factors on the performance of creativity tasks. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.2008.5002.02】
- 張旭中、邱發忠、陳學志、徐芝君(2011)。調整焦點動機、成功預期對創造力與批判性思考的影響。教育心理學報,43(2),499-520。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20100908 【Chang, H.-C., Chiu, F.-C., Chen, H.-C., & Hsu, C.-C. (2011). The effects of regulatory focus and expectancy to success on creativity and critical thinking. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 43(2), 499-520. https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20100908】
- 陳秀玲、陳宥蓉(2019)。創意問題解決模式對大學生創造力之影響與團隊凝聚力之關聯性。教育科學研究期刊,64(3),169-201。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0007 【Chen, H.-L., & Chen, Y.-J. (2019). Influence of a creative problem-solving approach on college students’ creativity and its relation with team cohesion. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 169-201. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0007】
- 陳學志、徐芝君(2006)。幽默創意課程對教師幽默感及創造力的影響。師大學報:教育類,51(2),71-93。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2006105103004 【Chen, H.-C., & Hsu, C.-C. (2006). Evaluating the impact of the humor training curriculum on teachers’ sense of humor and creativity. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Education, 51(2), 71-93. https://doi.org/ 10.3966/2073753X2006105103004】
- 陳龍安(1998)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。心理。 【Chen, L.-A. (1998). Theory and practice of creative thinking teaching. Psychological.】
- Antonietti, A. (2000). Enhancing creative analogies in primary school children. North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 75-84.
- Arreola, N. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 287-295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040389
- Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 183-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00767.x
- Basadur, M., Gelade, G., & Basadur, T. (2014). Creative problem-solving process styles, cognitive work demands, and organizational adaptability. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(1), 80-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313508433
- Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01203.x
- Beghetto, R. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447-464). Cambridge University Press.
- Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Burro, R., Capitani, E., & Savardi, U. (2019). Overtly prompting people to “think in opposites” supports insight problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 26, 31-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1553738
- Bink, M. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2000). Cognitive regularities in creative activity. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.1.59
- Botella, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2018). What are the stages of the creative process? What visual art students are saying. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.02266
- Buzan, T. (1983). Use both sides of your brain. E. P. Dutton.
- Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: Effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002
- Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499-506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
- Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2012). Creative mood swings: Divergent and convergent thinking affect mood in opposite ways. Psychological Research, 76(5), 634-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0358-z
- Chiu, F.-C. (2012). Fit between future thinking and future orientation on creative imagination. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.002
- Chiu, F.-C. (2014). The effects of exercising self-control on creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.003
- Chiu, F.-C., Hsu, C.-C., Lin, Y.-N., Liu, C.-H., Chen, H.-C., & Lin, C.-H. (2019). Effects of creative thinking and its personality determinants on negative emotion regulation. Psychological Reports, 122(3), 916-943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118775973
- Chulvi, V., González-Cruz, M. C., Mulet, E., & Aguilar-Zambrano, J. (2013). Influence of the type of idea-generation method on the creativity of solutions. Research in Engineering Design, 24(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0134-0
- Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1001_4
- Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
- Crawford, R. P. (1954). The techniques of creative thinking: How to use your ideas to achieve success. Hawthorn Books.
- Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10400419.2012.649234
- Davis, G. A. (1969a). Laboratory studies of creative thinking techniques: The checklist and morphological synthesis methods (ED036957). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED036957. pdf
- Davis, G. A. (1969b). Training creativity in adolescence: A discussion of strategy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 3(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1969.tb00050.x
- Davis, G. A., & Houtman, S. E. (1968). Thinking creatively: A guide to training imagination (ED138938). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED138938.pdf
- de Buisonje, D. R., Ritter, S. M., de Bruin, S., ter Horst, J. M.-L., & Meeldijk, A. (2017). Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation, promotion focus and positive affect. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017. 1303308
- de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990-2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752235
- DeCaro, M. S., & Van Stockum, C. A., Jr. (2018). Ego depletion improves insight. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(3), 315-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1396253
- Dorfman, J., Shames, V. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Intuition, incubation, and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solving. In G. D. M. Underwood (Ed.), Implicit cognition (pp. 257-296). Oxford University Press.
- Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.009
- Dumas, D., Schmidt, L. C., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Predicting creative problem solving in engineering design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 50-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.002
- Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
- Eberle, R. (1971). Scamper: Games for imagination development. D. O. K.
- Fatemipour, H., & Kordnaeej, M. (2014). The effect of synectics and journal creative writing techniques on EFL students’ creativity. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 412-424.
- Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press.
- Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177
- Gilhooly, K. J., Georgiou, G., & Devery, U. (2013). Incubation and creativity: Do something different. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.749812
- Glover, J. A. (1980). A creativity-training workshop: Short-term, long-term, and transfer effects. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1980.10534091
- Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. Harper & Brothers.
- Gray, C. M., McKilligan, S., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). Using creative exhaustion to foster idea generation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 177-195.
- Gu, X., Dijksterhuis, A., & Ritter, S. M. (2019). Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 32, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc. 2019.05.002
- Harrington, D. M. (2018). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity: A commentary. Creativity Research Journal, 30(1), 118-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411432
- Harms, M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Derrick, D. C. (2020). The role of information search in creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(3), 367-380. https://doi. org/10.1037/aca0000212
- Herman, A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). The effect of regulatory focus on idea generation and idea evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 13-20.
- Huang, P.-S., Liu, C.-H., & Chen, H.-C. (2019). Examining the applicability of representational change theory for remote associates problem-solving with eye movement evidence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.12.001
- Isaksen, S. G. (1989). Creative problem solving: A process for creativity. Unpublished training manual. The Creative Problem Solving Group-Buffalo.
- Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving. The basic course. Bearly Limited.
- Isaksen, S. G., Puccio, G. J., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb00704.x
- Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898
- Kershaw, T. C., & Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.3
- Kharkhurin, A. V. (2014). Creativity. 4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 338-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.929424
- Lin, W.-L., Shih, Y.-L., Wang, S.-W., & Tang, Y.-W. (2018). Improving junior high students’ thinking and creative abilities with an executive function training program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.007
- Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Yale University.
- Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
- Ma, H. H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 435-446. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15326934crj1804_3
- Makel, M. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 38-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014919
- Moriarty, S. E., & Vandenbergh, B. G. (1984). Advertising creatives look at creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(3), 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00380.x
- Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6
- Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.003
- Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02635140802658842
- O’Connor, A. J., Nemeth, C. J., & Akutsu, S. (2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783739
- Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. Advances in the Psychology of Thinking, 1, 1-44.
- Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299100900104
- Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656
- Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
- Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (rev. ed.). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
- Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS. 2016116348
- Parnes, S. J. (1966). Programing creative behavior. State University of New York.
- Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047223
- Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110-136). Oxford University Press.
- Perry, A., & Karpova, E. (2017). Efficacy of teaching creative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple creativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 118-126. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.017
- Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8
- Rahimi, M., Sabahi, P., & Bigdeli, I. (2019). The effect of induced positive and negative mood on creativity. International Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.24200/ijpb.2018.115424
- Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41465-016-0002-3
- Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R. B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961-964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009
- Rose, L. H., & Lin, H.-T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00985.x
- Runco, M. A. (2019). Creativity as a dynamic, personal, parsimonious process. In R. A. Beghetto & G. E. Corazza (Eds.), Dynamic perspectives on creativity (pp. 181-188). Springer Nature.
- Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3
- Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
- Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.x
- Sak, U., & Oz, O. (2010). The effectiveness of the Creative Reversal Act (CREACT) on students’ creative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.09.004
- Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6
- Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creative training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
- Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(3), 149-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01238.x
- Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
- Simonton, D. K. (2016). Creativity, automaticity, irrationality, fortuity, fantasy, and other contingencies: An eightfold response typology. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000075
- Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.137
- Sun, J., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Li, H., Wei, D., Yang, W., & Qiu, J. (2016). Training your brain to be more creative: Brain functional and structural changes induced by divergent thinking training. Human Brain Mapping, 37(10), 3375-3387. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23246
- Svensson, R. B., & Taghavianfar, M. (2015). Selecting creativity techniques for creative requirements: An evaluation of four techniques using creativity workshops. In A. De Lucia (Ed.), 2015 IEEE 23rd international requirements engineering conference (pp. 66-75). IEEE.
- Treffinger, D. J. (1979). 50,000 ways to create a gifted program. Gifted Child Today, 2(1), 18-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621757900200110
- Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C., & Isaksen, S. G. (2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.007
- Tsai, K. C. (2013). A review of the effectiveness of creative training on adult learners. Journal of Social Science Studies, 1(1), 17-30. http://doi.org/10.5296/jsss.v1i1.4329
- Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Watts & Co.
- Wang, C.-W., & Horng, R.-Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00237
- Ward, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 157-178). The MIT Press.
- Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_1
- Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Expertise and reason in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies and the laboratory. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 7-42). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606915.003
- Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320
- Wilson, T. D., & Stone, J. I. (1985). Limitations of self-knowledge: More on telling more than we can know. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 167-183.
- Yagolkovskiy, S. R., & Medvedev, B. P. (2020). Enhancement of creativity: Semantic priming through naming objects loosens functional fixedness within idea generation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 1013-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.422
- Yang, K., & Pronin, E. (2018). Consequences of thought speed. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 167-222). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10. 1016/bs.aesp.2017.10.003
Development and Evaluation of Model of Creative Stage-Specific Techniques
Author: Yao-Nan Lin (Department of Business Administration, Fu Jen Catholic University), Yu-Lin Chang (Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University), Fa-Chung Chiu (Department of Counseling Psychology, Chinese Culture University), Chih-Ming Lai (Committee of Recruitment Policy for Technological College and Universities, National Taipei University of Technology)
Vol.&No.:Vol. 67, No. 1
Date:March 2022
Pages:33-61
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0002
Abstract:
Creativity helps people lead a happier and more meaningful life. It fosters progress in art, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, commercial product design, advertising, and marketing. Moreover, creativity and innovation form the basis of competitive advantage. Therefore, creativity is a key skill, and a greater focus on its application in various fields is required.
Creativity training can be conducted through two methods. The first method involves teaching a single creative thinking technique, focusing on promoting an individual’s ability to generate ideas. For example, Glover (1980) taught students to engage in divergent thinking (of unusual ways to use objects) and then discovered that this training could enhance the participants’ fluency, flexibility, and originality. The second method emphasizes the process of creation, which divides creative thinking into different stages, enhancing students’ ability to think creatively.
Previous studies have focused on creative techniques or strategy training. Although these both enhance creativity, studies have no attempted to integrate all the skills and processes required for the effective application of creativity. The present study proposes a new method, the model of creative stage-specific techniques (MCST), in which each stage of creativity training focuses on developing specific creativity skills; those skills are then applied at each stage to enhance their effectiveness.
By integrating the creative processes and specific skills within a creative thinking enhancement course, we can move beyond teaching models that narrowly focus on individual creative skills or creative processes. In this study, a new creative teaching course was designed on the basis of the proposed MCST, and teaching experiments that were conducted to empirically examine the effectiveness of the model. This 30-hour course covered the following units:
1. Introduction to the concepts of creativity: All basic behavior should have a goal (Schunk, 1990). Therefore, participants must understand that the goal of this course was to improve their creativity. According to the MCST, when learning how to think creatively, participants must first understand the definition of creativity and discern the characteristics of creative ideas or products. This unit helped define creativity by providing audiovisual examples of creative products and explained the factors that can impede or facilitate creative thinking as well as the real-life benefits of creativity.
2. Introduction to the MCST: To ensure that the participants fully comprehended the concept of creative thinking, they must gain a comprehensive understanding of the MCST. To achieve this, the participants were informed of the stage descriptions, and they developed an understanding of the processes required to generate a creative product and how creative techniques facilitate each stage of the creative thinking process. An understanding of the MCST ensures a systematic understanding of this process. The participants learned the techniques corresponding to each creative thinking stage in the following units.
3. Identifying problems: Most inventions stem from an impasse or problems encountered in daily life. This unit taught methods of identifying such problems, such as interviewing users or experts or gathering information from online searches, personal experience, or observation.
4. Problem construction: Once problems had been identified, the participants chose those in which they were the most interested. Subsequently, they were taught to construct problems from diverse perspectives. Participants were taught to reconstruct problems in this stage from the information gleaned from the preceding stage by using abstract thinking and representational change methods. In this unit, the concepts and methods of abstract thinking and representational change were discussed, and the same creative techniques were subsequently used to reconstruct problems.
5. Idea generation: This stage followed the problem construction stage (construction of multiple problems) and taught participants to use techniques such as forced associations, attribute listing, and morphological analysis to generate ideas.
6. Idea selection: After numerous ideas had been generated, the participants identified and examined the strengths and weaknesses through the listing method. Finally, the ideas with the most strengths and fewest weaknesses were selected for implementation.
7. Implementation: The selected ideas were implemented, and prototypes were produced.
8. Optimization: The prototypes from the previous stage must be improved. Once a prototype had been tested, its strengths and weaknesses were considered using the listing method employed in stage 6. Product weaknesses were identified for future improvement, and product strengths were augmented.
In this study, a total of 65 college students were assigned to an MCST or control group to participate in a pretest, the training course, and a posttest. The procedures of were as follows: 1. For the pretest, both the MCST and control groups were assessed with the New Creative Thinking Test, Technological Imagination Disposition Scale, and Creative Mindsets Scale. 2. The MCST group then received the 30-hour MCST course, and the control group received a 30-hour course unrelated to creativity. 3. In the posttest, both groups were reassessed with the same creativity tests.
The results were as follows: 1. The MCST group demonstrated a greater level of improvement than the control group in terms of fluency and flexibility on the New Creative Thinking Test; however, the two groups did not differ in originality. 2. The MCST group demonstrated a greater level of improvement than the control group in creative imagination, qualia representation, practical evaluation, positive emotion, and efficacy on the Technological Imagination Disposition Scale; however, the two groups did not differ in their ability to think beyond reality. 3. The MCST group exhibited greater improvement in the creative growth mindset and less of a fixed mindset than the control group did on the Creative Mindsets Scale. These results demonstrated that the creative thinking course based on the MCST was effective.
In conclusion, the major contribution of this study is the development of the MCST. This new teaching model integrates creative processes and techniques and can substantially enhance individual creativity. In particular, the MCST is an overall creative thinking enhancement course that can be applied in different fields to promote creative thinking skills.
Keywords:technology imagination, model of creative stage-specific techniques, creative thinking, divergent thinking