探討線上概念構圖策略對學生合作創作的影響｜國立臺灣科技大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	謝雅慧 Ya-Hui Hsieh
論文名稱：	探討線上概念構圖策略對學生合作創作的影響 Exploring the effects of online concept mapping strategy on students’ online collaborative creation
指導教授：	蔡今中 Chin-Chung Tsai
口試委員:	蔡孟蓉 Meng-Jung Tsai 李旻憲 Min-Hsien Lee 侯惠澤 Huei-Tse Hou 鄭琨鴻 Kun-Hung Cheng 許衷源 Chung-Yuan Hsu
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	應用科技學院 - 應用科技研究所 Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	135
中文關鍵詞：	概念構圖、創意自我效能、創意看法、故事敘說、合作創作
外文關鍵詞：	concept mapping strategy, creative self-efficacy, conceptions of creativity, storytelling, collaborative creation
相關次數：	點閱：437 下載：2
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討概念構圖策略對學生線上合作創作的影響。為此，本研究採用準實驗研究設計，進行為期八週，每週二小時的電影創作課程。此課程活動搭配數學課程進行，課程中，學生透過分組合作學習的方式共同創作隱含數學概念的電影腳本，並在腳本創作完成後將其拍成微電影。實驗組有69為學生，使用概念構圖策略共同創作故事腳本。控制組有54位學生，使用分鏡腳本共同創作故事腳本。腳本創作活動前，每位學生填答一份創意自我效能問卷與創意看法問卷，在創作腳本活動結束後，所有學生填答四份問卷，分別為創意自我效能問卷、創意認知投入問卷、心流問卷、數學學習自我效能問卷。此外，小組成員們便根據所創作的腳本著手微電影拍攝。最後，拍攝完成的作品將在課堂上進行分享與討論。課程結束後，針對26位來自實驗組與控制組的升學進行訪談，期望藉由訪談的方式來瞭解影響學生創意自我效能的原因。
為了驗證概念構圖策略學生線上合作創作的影響，本研究從個人與團體兩個取向來討論。首先，在個人取向上，經由一連串量化分析後，本研究發現概念構圖策略可以有效提昇學生的創意自我效能、創意認知投入以及心流經驗。而在團體取向方面，除了發現概念構圖策略能夠幫助學生創作較具創意的作品外，在微電影作品得分較高的組別中，可以發現其傾向採用多種不同的投入策略，或在這類組別中，某種投入策略是經常被使用的。這樣的現象，更容易顯現在以概念構圖作為學習策略的組別。此外，在後續研究部份，雖然發現創意自我效能與創意的看法並無顯著相關存在，但本研究發現創意自我效能與創意認知投入、心流經驗都有正向相關。亦即，在此活動中，創意自我效能越高者，其更願意投入創作過程，並且能感受到較多的心流經驗。最後，本研究根據26位學生的訪談結果，定義出五個主要影響學生創意自我效能的因素，分別為過去的成就經驗、替代經驗、口語說服、生理和情緒狀態與個人內在的認同。透過這些研究發現，本研究將根據研究結果進行討論，並對教師教學與後續研究提出建議。

The aim of this study was to confirm the effects of the concept mapping strategy on students’ online collaborative creation. A quasi-experimental design was conducted in a vocational senior high school in Northern Taiwan, including 123 students who were asked to collaboratively create story scripts and make micro-movies with embedded mathematics concepts. The students were divided into two conditions: 69 students in the experimental condition collaboratively created story scripts with the concept mapping strategy, while 54 students in the control condition collaboratively created story scripts with the script breakdown sheet strategy. Before the class, all students were asked to complete a pre-test questionnaire about creative self-efficacy and an open-ended questionnaire about their conceptions of creativity. After finishing the story scripts, all students were asked to complete four questionnaires: creative process engagement, flow experience, self-efficacy for learning mathematics, and creative self-efficacy. Then, each group filmed their micro-movies based on the script they had previously made. In addition, groups’ engagement behaviors in the collaborative creation process were collected and analyzed. The micro-movie of each group was presented at the end of the course, and scores were given by two researchers. After the course finished, a follow-up analysis involving 26 students from both conditions (21from experimental condition and 5 from control condition) was conducted to understand in more depth the sources of creative self-efficacy through interviews.
To confirm the effect of the concept mapping strategy on collaborative creation, quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed in terms of individual and group aspects. First, the findings of this study provide evidence that concept mapping is an effective learning strategy for collaborative creation. That is, in the individual aspect, this study found that the concept mapping strategy can improve students’ creative process engagement, flow experience and creative self-efficacy. In the group aspect, the experimental condition students’ scores for the creative aspect criteria were significantly higher than those of the students in the control condition. Besides, the groups which gained high scores for their micro-movies were observed to exhibit multiple engagement behaviors or a certain kind of frequently-appearing engagement behavior in the online collaborative creation process. This phenomenon was more apparent in the experimental condition than in the control condition.
In the follow-up analysis, except for mathematics self-efficacy and conceptions of creativity, this study found interrelations among creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, and flow experience in both conditions. This result may suggest that, the stronger creative self-efficacy students have, the more kinds of engagement behaviors and higher degree of flow experience that will occur. Finally, there are five sources of creative self-efficacy found in this study, namely: (1) mastery experience, (2) vicarious experience, (3) social persuasion, (4) psychological and affective state, and (5) personal identity. The sources of creative self-efficacy identified in this study may provide insights into students’ creative self-efficacy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION……………………………………... 1
I.1. Background of this study...………………………………………………...….. 1
I.2. Need for the study…………………………………………………………….. 3
I.2.1.Creativity cycle for lesson plans….………………………...…. ………. 3
I.2.2. Facilitating students’ creative thinking with the concept mapping strategy………...…………………………………………………………...….4
I.2.3. The benefits of the concept mapping strategy in creative learning……...6
I.2.4 Follow up analysis to explore the sources of students’ creative self-efficacy……………………………………………………………………8
I.3. Outline of this study………………………………………………………….... 9
I.4. Research questions………………………………………………………….....10
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………13
Ⅱ.1 Storytelling………………………………………………………………...13
Ⅱ.1.1 The characteristics of storytelling …………………………………13
Ⅱ.1.2 Educational applications of storytelling …………………………...14
Ⅱ.2 Concept mapping ………………………………………………………….18
Ⅱ.2.1 The characteristics of concept mapping …………………………...18
Ⅱ.2.2 Educational applications of concept mapping ……………………..19
Ⅱ.2.3 Embedded Concept mapping approach in storytelling to facilitate creative learning …………………………………………………………..21
Ⅱ.3 Determinants of conducting online collaborative creation in a storytelling course...........................................................................................................24
Ⅱ.3.1 Engagement in creative learning process ………………………….24
Ⅱ.3.2 The relation between storytelling embedded concept mapping and cognitive engagement…………………….………………………………..25
Ⅱ.3.3 Creative self-efficacy………………………………………………28
Ⅱ.4 Conceptions of Creativity …………………………………………………30
Ⅱ.4.1 Creativity in educational framework……………………………….30
Ⅱ.4.2 Related research on students’ conceptions of creativity……………32
Ⅱ.5 Summary ………………………………………………………………….35
CHPATER III: METHDOLOGY…………………………………… 38
III.1. Participants.………………………………………………………………… 38
III.2 The usage of strategy to facilitate students’ online collaborative creation in a storytelling course………….. ……………………….. ……………………..39
III.2.1 the usage of concept mapping strategy in experimental condition…...39
III.2.2 the usage of script breakdown sheet strategy in control condition…... 40
III.3 The platform “Facebook” for asynchronous classroom management………..41
III.4 Creately.com ……………………….. ……………………….. ……………..41
III.5 Research procedure……………………….. ……………………….. ………42
III.6 Data collection ……………………….. ……………………………………..45
III.6.1 Questionnaires……………………….. ……………………….. ………….45
III.6.1.1 Students' creative self-efficacy ……………………….. …………...45
III.6.1.2 Creative process engagement……………………….. ……………..46
III.6.1.3 Self-efficacy in learning mathematics………………………………47
III.6.2 open-ended questionnaire ……………………….. ………………………..48
III.6.3 Performance/products ……………………….. ……………………………48
III.6.4 Cognitive engagement of creative process…………………………………49
III.6.5 Interview ….…………….. ……………………….. ………………………50
III.7 Data Analyses ……………………….. ……………………….. ……………52
III.7.1 General analyses ……………………….. …………………………………52
III.7.1.1 Statistical analysis ……………………….. ………………………..52
III.7.1.2 The correlation analysis for the quantitative data ………………….52
III.7.2 Content analysis ……………………….. …………………………………53
III.7.2.1 Content analysis of interview data about students' creative self-efficacy ……………………….. ……………………….. …………...53
III.7.2.2 Content analysis of open-ended questionnaire ……………………..54
III.7.2.3 Content analysis of creative engagement behaviors ………………..54
CHPATER IV: RESULT…………………………………………….. 57
	IV.1 Confirm the effects of concept mapping strategy from individual aspect..57
IV.1.1 Students’ responses to the four questionnaires……………………….57
IV.1.2 Period effect in creative self-efficacy…………………………………59
IV.1.3 The effects of concept mapping strategy ……………………………. 59
IV.1.3.1 Analysis the differences in creative self-efficacy between the two conditions……………………………………………………………………59
IV.1.3.2 Analysis the differences in creative process engagement, flow experience, and self-efficacy in learning mathematics between the two conditions. …………………………………………………………………..60
IV.1.3.3 A follow up interview for understanding the experimental condition students’ experience of using concept mapping strategy……………………61
IV.2 Confirm the effects of concept mapping strategy from group aspect……..62
IV.2.1 Analysis the differences in the outcomes of micro movies between the two conditions…………………………………………………………………...62
IV.2.2 The distributions of the engagement behaviors demonstrated by students.. …………………………………………………………………63
IV.3 A follow up analysis for deep understand creative self-efficacy…………..66
IV.3.1 The relationships between the creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, flow experiences, and self-efficacy in learning mathematics…….66
IV.3.2 Students’ Conceptions of creativity……………………………………...69
IV.3.2.1 Dimensions of creativity in the conceptions held by students……....70
IV.3.2.2 The associations between creative self-efficacy and conceptions of creativity……………………………………………………………………...73
IV.4 The sources of creative self-efficacy………………………………………76
IV.4.1 Interpretations of mastery experiences…………………………………..77
IV.4.1.1 Prior experience……………………………………………………..77
IV.4.1.2 Successful creative work experience in the storytelling task of this study.. ………………………………………………………………………...78
IV.4.1.3 Practical experience of online collaborative creation process………80
IV.4.2 Interpretations of vicarious experience…………………………………..82
IV.4.2.1 Vicarious experience from peers……………………………………82
IV.4.2.2 Vicarious experience from performance accomplishment …………83
IV.4.3 Interpretations of social persuasions …………………………………….84
IV.4.3.1 Social persuasions from peers/friends ……………………………...84
IV.4.3.2 Social persuasions from teachers’ feedback………………………...86
IV.4.4 Psychological and affective state………………………………………...87
IV.4.5 Innate Identity……………………………………………………………88
IV.4.6 Brief summary of sources of creative self-efficacy……………………...89
IV.5 Summary of research findings in this study……………………………….90
IV.5.1 Confirm the effects of concept mapping strategy ………………………91
IV.5.2 Follow up analysis of the role of creative self-efficacy………………….92
CHPATER V: DISSCUSION………………………………………….95
V.1 The educational role of concept mapping strategy in online collaborative creation. …………………………………………………………………...95
V.1.1 Series quantitative examining individual’s self-reported data…………....95
V.1.2 A quantitative examining of groups’ creative performance………………98
V.1.3 A qualitative examining of groups’ engagement behaviors of online collaborative creation…………………………………………………………...99
V.2 The role of creative self-efficacy in online collaborative creation……..…101
V.3 Conceptions of creativity and the relationship with creative self efficacy..102
V.4 Sources of creative self-efficacy…………………………………………..103
CHPATER VI: CONCLUSIONS……………………………………106
VI.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….106
VI.2 Future study………………………………………………………………107
REFERENCE……………...……………………………………….. 110
APPENDICES……………………………………………………….. 121
	Appendix A: Creative self-efficacy……………………………………………121
	Appendix B: Creative process engagement……………………………………122
Appendix C: Flow experience……………...………………………………….123
Appendix D: Self-efficacy in learning mathematics….……………………….124
 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Primary benefits related to the use of storytelling…………………………17
Table 2.2 Conceptions of creativity in different educational contexts……………….34
Table 3.1 Coding schema of Students’ cognitive engagement in creative process…..56
Table4.1 The descriptive statistics of the students’ responses to the four questionnaires……………………………………………………………………….. 58
Table 4.2 Comparisons of creative self-efficacy between pre-test and post-test…… 59
Table 4.3 Comparisons of creative self-efficacy between experimental and control conditions…………………………………………………………………………… 60
Table 4.4 Comparisons of creative process engagement, flow experiences, and self-efficacy in learning mathematics between experimental and control conditions..61
Table 4.5 Comparisons of the micro movies scores between two conditions………..63
Table 4.6 The frequency of engagement behaviors and scores of micro movie in Experimental condition………………………………………………………………64
Table 4.7 The frequency of engagement behaviors and scores of micro movie in control condition……………………………………………………………………..65
Table 4.8 Correlation analyses for the students’ responses to the four questionnaires in experimental condition…………………………………………………………….68
Table 4.9 Correlation analyses for the students’ responses to the four questionnaires in control condition…………………………………………………………..69
Table 4.10 Students’ conceptions of creativity ………………………………………73
Table 4.11 The associations among students’ creative self-efficacy and conceptions of creativity……………………………………………………………………...75
Table 4.12 Descriptions of the 26 interviewed students ……………………….…….76
Table 4.13 Overview of sources of creative self-efficacy……………………………90 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Creativity cycle……………………………………………………………4
Figure 1.2 Overview of presented results………………………………………….....11
Figure 2.1 Research hypotheses for comparing two conditions …………………….37
Figure 3.1 example of creately.com………………………………………………….42
Figure 3.2 Research procedure in this study…………………………………………44

                                

Amiable, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amiable, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ananny, M. (2002). Supporting children’s collaborative authoring: practicing written literacy while composing oral texts. In Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning, Boulder, Colorado, USA, January 7–11, 2001 (pp. 595–596). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, USA: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology, a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2006). The international handbook of creativity. In J. C.K. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity research in English-speaking countries (pp. 10–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Baughman, W.A., & Mumford, M.D. (1995). Process-analytic models of creative capacities: Operations influencing the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 37–62.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447–457.
Birisci, S., & Metin, M. (2010). Pre-service elementary teachers’ views on concept cartoons: A sample from Turkey. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 5(2), 91-97.
Cheung, R. H. P., & Mok, M. M. C. (2013). A study of early childhood teachers’ conceptions of creativity in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(1), 119-133.
Chien, C.Y., & Hui, A.A. (2010). Creativity in early childhood education: Teachers’ perceptions in three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(2), 40–98.
Chiu, C. H., Huang, C. C., & Chang, W. T. (2000). The evaluation and influence of interaction in network supported collaborative concept mapping. Computers & Education, 34, 17-25.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological process. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187-199.
Chong, E. & Ma, X., (2010). The Influence of Individual Factors, Supervision and Work Environment on Creative Self-Efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management,19(3), 233-247.
Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263.
Chung, S. K. (2006). Digital Storytelling in Integrated Arts Education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 4(1), 33-50.
Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the design/creativity loops model. Education Technology Development, 60, 111-130.
Cooke, M., & Moyle, K. (2002). Students' evaluation of problem-based learning. Nurse Education Today, 22, 330-339.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (2001). Creativity in education. London: Continuum.
Craig, S., Hull, K., Haggart, A. G., & Crowder, E. (2001). Storytelling: addressing the literacy needs of diverse learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 46–51.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207–219.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1st ed.). HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47-52.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sswyer, K. (1993). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. Paper presented at the Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa, IA.
De Bono, E. (1987). Six thinking hats. London: Penguin.
Desilets, A., & Paquet, S. (2005). Wiki as a tool for web-based collaborative story telling in primary school: A case study. Proceedings of EdMedia World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada.
Dewett, T. & Melissa, L., & Gruys, . (2007). Advancing the case for creativity through graduate business education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 85–95.
Di Blas, N., & Paolini, P. (2013). Beyond the school’s boundaries: PliCultura, a large-scale digital storytelling initiative. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 15-27.
Di Blas, N., & Paolini, P. (2014). Multi-User Virtual Environments Fostering Collaboration in Formal Education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 54–69.
Di Liello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity: Identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creative Potential and Practised Creativity, 17(1), 37-46.
Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviours that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 185-201.
Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An American retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 319-336.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 482–512.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.
Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26(4), 705-732.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109.
Fryer, M., & Collings, J.A. (1991). Teachers’ views about creativity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(2), 207–219.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2010).Technology component: a modified systems approach to creative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 219–227.
Gerde, V. W., & Foster, R. S. (2007). X-Men Ethics: Using Comic Books to Teach Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 245-258.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-471.
Hall, M., Hall, L., Hodgson, J., Hume, C., & Humphries, L. (2012). Scaffolding the story creation process. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Computer Supported Education. Oporto, Portugal.
Hamalainen, R., & Vahasantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 169-184.
Hardy, S., Jackson, C., Webster, J., & Manley, K. (2013). Educating advanced level practice within complex health care workplace environments through transformational practice development. Nurse Education Today, 33, 1099-1103.
Haugwitz, M., Nesbit, J. C., & Sandmann, A. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536-543.
Haugwitz, M., Nesbit, J. C., & Sandmann, A. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536-543.
Herrmann, N. (1991). The creative brain. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 275–295.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36, 53−73.
Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (2006). Investigating cooperation and collaboration in near synchronous computer mediated conferences. Computers & Education, 46(3), 322-335.
Hong, M., & Kang, N. (2010). South Korean and the US secondary school science teachers’ conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 821–843.
Hourcade, J. P. (2008). Interaction design and children. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(4), 277–392.
Hsu, C. M., & Chang, I. H. (2011). The relationship between computer-based concept mapping and creative performance. Asian Journal of Art and Sciences, 2(1), 16-36.
Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technology use and creativity: findings from the children and technology project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 370-376.
James, V., Lederman, G. R., & Vagt-Traore, B. (2004). Enhancing creativity in the classroom. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. URL http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/creativity.htm.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G.., Kanselaar, G.., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49, 1037-1065.
Jindal-Snape, D., Davies, D., Collier, C., Howe, A., Digby, R., & Hay, P. (2013). The impact of creative learning environments on learners: A systematic literature review. Improving Schools, 16(1), 21–31.
Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (2000). ‘Preface’. In D.H. Jonassen, S.M. Land (Eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (iii-ix). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbau.
Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44, 395-408.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of facebook use, participation in facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: an online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kezar, A. J., & Kinzie, J. L. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: the role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149-172.
Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology, 2(2), 187-201.
Kirschner, P.A., & Karpinski, A.C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245.
Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209-217.
Klunklin, A., Subpaiboongid, P., Keitlertnapha, P., Viseskul, N., & Turale, S. (2011). Thai nursing students' adaption to problem-based learning: a qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 11(6), 370-374.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: the art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22–33.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176-192.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about students engagement from NSSE, Change, 35(2), 24-32.
Lakoff, G. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lassig, C. J. (2013). Approaches to creativity: How adolescents engage in the creative process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 3-12.
Liu, C. C., Chen, S. L., Shih, J. L., Huang, G. T., & Liu, B. J. (2011). An enhanced concept map approach to improving children’s storytelling ability. Computers & Education, 56, 873-884.
Liu, C. C., Liu, K. P., Wang, P. H., Chen, G. D., & Su, M. C. (2012). Applying tangible story avatars to enhance children's collaborative storytelling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 39-51.
Liu, C. C., Wu, L. Y., Chen, Z M., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, H. M. (in press). The effect of story grammars on creative self-efficacy and digital storytelling, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54, 436-445.
Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Identifying senior high school students’ misconceptions about statistical correlation, and their possible causes: an exploratory study using concept mapping with interviews. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 791-820.
Malmivuori, M. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics., 63(2), 149–164.
Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: An intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 21–29.
McCorkle, D., Payan, J., Reardon, J., & King, N. (2007). Perceptions and reality: Creativity in the marketing classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 254–261
McVicker, C.J. (2007). Comic Strips as a Text Structure for Learning to Read. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 85-88.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 118-125.
Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. (1992). Process analytic models of creativity capacities: Evidence for the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 5,125-155.
Mukama, E. (2010). Strategizing computer-supported collaborative larning toward knowledge building. International Journal of Education Research, 49, 1-9.
Mumford M. D., Mobley M. I., Uhlman C. E., Reiter-Palmon R., & Doares L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative thought. Creative Research Journal, 4, 91–122.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resources Management Review, 10, 313–351.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, A. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413−448.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–950.
Novak, J. D. (2003). The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell Biology Education, 2, 122-132.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nuutinen, J., Sutinen, E., Botha, A., & Kommers, P. (2010). From mindtools to social mindtools: Collaborative writing with woven stories. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 753-775.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–635.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures for creative thinking. New York: Schribner.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perry-Smith, J. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85–101
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.
Petocz, P., Reid, A., & Taylor, P. (2009). Thinking outside the square: Business students' conceptions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 409-416.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.
Pisarik, C. T. (2009). Motivational orientation and burnout among undergraduate college students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1238-1252.
Plesk, P. E. (1997). Creativity, Innovation, and Quality. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Handbook of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity (pp. 35–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2008). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 55-63.
Printrich, P. R., & V. De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and Self regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Putwain, D. W., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W. (2012). Do creativity self-beliefs predict literacy achievement and motivation? Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 370-374.
Quinn, H. J., Mintzes, J. L., & Laws, R. A. (2004). Successive concept mapping. Journal of college Science Teaching, 33(3), 12-16.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.
Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning and Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22
Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D., Dees, S., Skaggs, L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Scripted cooperation and knowledge map supplements: Effects on the recall of biological and statistical information. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 93–107.
Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interaction with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282-1290.
Robin. B. (2008). Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47, 220-228.
Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41-45.
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503-534.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
Runco, M. (2003). Commentary on personal and potentially ambiguous creativity: You can’t understand the butterfly unless you (also) understand the caterpillar. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 37–141
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: a meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487-506.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.
Schunk, D.H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The Development of Academic Self-efficacy, in A. Wigfield and J.S. Eccles (Eds). Development of Achievement Motivation (pp.15–31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schuster, P. M. (2000). Concept mapping: Reducing clinical care plan paperwork and increasing learning. Nurse Educator, 25(2), 76-81.
Scott, G.., Leritz, L., & Mumford, M. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.
Shin, B. J., & Park, H. S. (2008). The effect of digital storytelling type on the learner’s fun and comprehension in virtual reality. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 12(4), 417-425.
Simonton, D. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention. Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry 10(4), 309-328.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.
Stanton, D., Bayon, V., Neale, H., Ghali, A., Benford, S., Cobb, S., Ingram, R., O’Malley, C., Wilson, J., & Pridmore, T. (2001). Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. CHI, 3(1),482-489.
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). What is the purpose of schooling? D. Ambrose, R.J. Sternberg (Eds., pp. 207–219), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher level thinking. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I.. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minnea-polis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
Torrance, P. E. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Interpretive manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Hsu, P. S. (2013). Using creative problem solving to promote students’ performance of concept mapping. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 1093-1109.
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematic: A qualitative investigation. American Educational Research journal, 46(1), 275-314.
Usher, E.L. & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751-796.
Williams, M. (2004). Concept-mapping - a strategy for assessment. Nursing Standard 10, 33-38.
Williamson, P. K. (2011). The creative problem solving skills of arts and science students—The two cultures debate revisited. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 6(1), 31–43.
Wince-Smith, D. L. (2006). The creativity imperative: A national perspective. Peer Review, 8(2), 12–14.
Xu, Y., Parl, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 181-191.
Yeh, Y. C. (2004). Seventh graders' academic achievement, creativity, and their ability to construct a cross-domain concept map-a brain function perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 125–144.
Yu, C. (2013). The relationship between undergraduate students’ creative self-efficacy, creative ability and career self-management. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2(2), 181-193.
Zhang, L. F. (2013). Conceptions of creativity among Hong Kong university students. Educational Psychology, 33(5), 521-539.
Zhang, X., & Bartole, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity research. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 347–368). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zhu, C., & Zhang, L. F. (2011). Thinking styles and conceptions of creativity among university students. Educational Psychology, 31(3), 361-375.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–17.

全文公開日期 2019/08/04 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文