Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92357
標題: 以概念結合理論建構的圖形想像力測驗
The Figure Imagination Test constructed on the Concept Combination Theory
作者: Yun-Fen Huang
黃韻芬
關鍵字: Concept combination;Imagination;Dual coding theory;Scale measurement;概念結合;想像力;雙碼理論;量表編製
引用: 一、 中文部分 王木榮、林幸台(1986)。威廉斯創造力測驗修訂研究,特殊教育研究學刊,2,231–250。 吳靜吉、高泉豐、王敬仁、丁興祥(1981)。拓弄思語文創造思考測驗(乙式)指導及研究手冊,台北:遠流。 巫宜錚(2012)。未來想像傾向量表的發表。國立台灣師範大學教育學院,創造力發展碩士在職專班未出版碩士論文。 林幸台、王木榮(1994)。威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊,台北:心理出版社。 林偉文、朱采翎、王毓苓、朱嘉琪、劉家瑜(2011)。科學教育、科技與設計之研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,未出版。 林麗娟(1996)。多媒體電腦圖像設計與視覺記憶的關係,教學科技與媒體,28,3–12。 邱發忠、陳學志、林耀南、涂莉苹(2012)。想像力構念之初探,教育心理學報,44(2),389–410。 洪瑞雲(2006)。創新的認知歷程之探討:概念結合時新屬性產生的歷程,行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告,未出版。 洪瑞雲、王精文、拾已寰、李泊諺、王愉敏。(2013)。以概念結合理論為基礎的想像力測驗之編製,測驗學刊,60(4),681–713。 洪瑞雲、王精文(1994)。Torrance創造思考測驗,未發表。 洪懿妍(2001)。世界向美走,天下雜誌特刊,台北:天下。 徐易稜(2001)。多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效之影響研究,國立中央大學資訊管理研究所未出版碩士論文。 張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典,台北:東華。 曹筱玥、林小慧(2012)。想像力量表之編製,教育科學研究期刊,57(4),1–37。 梁朝雲、許育齡(2011)。轉化虛無─試論想像力評測指標,資訊傳播研究,2(1),99–111。 許芳彬(2011)。想像思考測驗的發展,國立台灣師範大學教育學院,創造力發展碩士在職專班未出版碩士論文,。 郭有遹(1973)。創造心理學,台北:正中。 陳坤淼、沈思岑(2011)。設計想像力之探討-以個案創意設計分析為例,文化創意產業研究學報,1(1),1–12。 陳龍安(1995)。創造思考教學的理論與實際,台北:心理。 游伯龍(2002)。你被壓力壓扁了嗎?習慣領域助你排憂解難,台北:時報文化出版企業股份有限公司。 黃博聖、陳學志、黃鴻程、劉政宏(2009)。「詞彙聯想策略擴散性思考測驗」之編製,測驗學刊,56(2),153–177。 黃琬婷(2013)。抽象概念結合對想像力的影響,國立中興大學企業管理學所未出版碩士論文。 鄭昭明(1997)。什麼是創造力?台大校訊,台北:台灣大學。 二、 英文部份 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder. CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M. & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Technical Report Number 30. Technical Report Number 30. NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The Magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books. Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Streamlined Scoring Workbook, Figural A. Scholastic Testing Service. IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative Person and Creative Process. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Beaney, M. (2005). Imagination and Creativity. UK: Open University. Birdi, K. S. (2005). No Idea? Evaluating the Effectiveness of Creativity Training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(2), 102–111. Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. Carlson, R. (1964). Environmental constraints and organizational consequences: The public school and its clients, in D. E. Griffiths (Ed.). In Behavioral science and educational administration: Sixty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 262–276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Childers, T. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Neurobiological perspectives on the nature of visual and verbal processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 264 – 269. Costello, F. J. and Keane, M. T. (1997). Polysemy in Conceptual Combination: Testing the Constraint Theory of Combination. NJ: Erlbaum. Costello, F. J. and Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299–349. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity Inschools: Tensions and Dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge. Davis, D. (1986). Technological Innovation and Organizational Change, Management Technological Innovation. CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. NY: Balch & Company. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. Drucker, P. (1999). Innovation or Die. The Economist. Estes, Z., and Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 149–156. Everett, D., & Lippert, J. (1994). The new work: How to thrive in the changing economy. New York: The Detroit Free Press. Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. MA: MIT Press. Florida, R. (2004). America's looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 122–124, 126, 128. Gagne, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 71–87. Gagne, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 637–646. Gentner, D. (2011). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical reasoning processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38, 33–41. Greene, M. (1995). Art and imagination: Reclaiming the sense of possibility. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 378–382. Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the imagination. CA: Jossey-Bass. Heid. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. (1996). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MA: MIT Press. Karwowski, M. (2008). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI). Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative potential. The New Educational Review, 1, 44–54. Khatena, J. (1971). Something about myself: A brief screening device for identifying creatively gifted children and adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(4), 262–292. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(3), 622–629. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Multimedia Learning: Are We Asking The Right Questions? Educational Psychologist, 3(3), 147–165. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. Mellou, E. (1995). Review of the relationship between dramatic play and creativity in young children. Early Child Development and Care, 112, 85–107. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529–562. Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The Influence of Leadership on Innovation Processes and Activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38(1), 64–72. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(9), 607–634. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving (3rded.). New York: Charles Scribner's Son. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Paivio, A. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 176–206. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental A Dual Coding Approach. England: Oxford University Press. Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of 'brainstorming' instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychologist, 50, 171–176. Pass, F. & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 51–71. Perdue, K. (2003). Imagination. The Chicago school of media theory. Retrieved from http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/imagination/ Perkins, D. (2000). Archimedes'Bathtub: The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Poincare, H. J. (1913). The Foundations of Science(trans. Halsted. G. B.) (p. 36). London: Science Press. Reichling, M. J. (1990). Image of imagination. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(4), 282–293. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sapping, A. R. and Farrnar, W. E. (1982). Brainstorming versus Critical Judgment in the Generation of Solutions Which Conform to Certain Reality Constraints. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 68–73. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227–245. Sternberg, R. J. and L. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in A Culture of Comformity. New York: The Free Press. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W, C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–297. Thagard, P. and Steward, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35, 1–33. Thomas, N. J. T. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 207–245. Thomas, N. J. T. (2003). lmagining minds. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(11), 79–84. Thomas, N. J. T. (2010). The multidimensional spectrum of imagination, Retrieved October 17, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.imagery-imagination.com/spectrum.htm Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory mode and information load examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 183–198. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guilding Creative Talent. New York: Prentice-Hall. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. & Khatena, J. (1970). What kind of person are you? Gifted Child Quarterly, 14(2), 71–75. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. Wallas, G. (1926). The Arts of Thought. New York: Harcour Brace and World. 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, 29(3), 247–254. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 355–387. Williams, F. E. (1980). The Creativity Assessment Packet. MO: Psychologists and Educators Inc. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434–453. Wisniewski, E. J. and Middleton, E. L. (2002). Of buckets bowls and coffee cup bowls: Spatial alignment in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory & Language, 46(1), 1–23. Wisniewski, E. J., & Gentner, D. (1991). On the Combinatorial Semantics of Noun Pairs: Minor and Major Adjustments to Meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.). Understanding Word and Sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: North Holland. Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2005). Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: A reanalysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 169–174.
摘要: 
Imagination becomes more important recent years, lots of people discuss about how to develop tests to measure it, however we know barely about the imagination mechanism. There is no figure stimulus imagination test besides self-report and word stimulus test so far. According to dual coding theory involves the activity of two distinct subsystems-verbal and imagery system in human's brain and imagery system has better handling capability than the other one.
Based on the Imagination Test of Concept Combination (ITCC), this study develops a scale measurement called 'The Figure Imagination Test constructed on the Concept Combination Theory'. Stimuli are based on the ITCC concept that combines two unrelated concepts to figure combination. After that the respondent is required to think up a word to connect these two concepts such as 'police', and then explain the association process and reasons. Stage 1 is choosing figure, 117 undergraduates turn the elected 18 paired nouns into figures. We choose the representative figure through frequency distribution statistics, such as 'cell phone-justice'. In stage 2, the data is collected from 978 fourth to sixth graders, 240 seventh to twelfth graders, and 430 undergraduates. We ask the respondent to write down figure cognition below the figure. In stage 3, we examine the figure cognition of these three groups which find out there is no obvious difference between groups. By using the standard of 50% to test individual and 60% to test overall, the scale measurement is made up of 12 paired figures. In stage 4, we choose the answer of sample from correct figure cognition and establish norm. Based on statistical data, if more than 5% respondents give the same answer, it gains 0 point; if between 2%-4.99%, it gains 1 point; and 2 points for under 2%. We establish the handbook of this test according to this method.
The statistical result shows that the test-retest reliability is (Cronbach's α=.745) represents the stability of the scale measurement; the rater reliability is between .901-.941. In terms of validity, as compared to Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking linear and circle tests, this indicates that fluency and flexibility are not significantly correlated; as compared to 'Something About Myself' and 'What Kind of Person Are You' of the creative perception scale measurement, it is not significantly correlated, either. This indicates that the figure imagination test developed in this study is distinguished from creation tests. Then , we utilizes undergraduates' designing score (r=.239) which are significantly low correlated, and ITCC (r=.654) to analyze the criterion-related validity. Furthermore, this study also adapts the originality scoring method of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, due to both belong to the same measurement construct, hence the result shows that they are significantly low correlated. In summary, the scale measurement test of this study has fairly good reliability and validity.
Keywords: Concept combination, Imagination, Dual coding theory, Scale measurement

隨著近年來各界對於想像力的日益重視,如何發展出測量想像力之工具的問題也不斷被提出來討論,然而,過去對於想像力機制的研究卻較為稀少。目前想像力測驗的發展僅有自陳式量表及概念結合想像力測驗,並無用圖形衡量的想像力測驗,然而根據雙重編碼理論,人類對文字與圖形有著不同的處理系統且圖像比語文系統有更好的處理能力,因此,本研究依據洪瑞雲等人(2013)以概念結合理論為基礎的想像力測驗之編製(Imagination Test of Concept Combination, ITCC),將其作為基礎發展圖形想像力測驗。測驗題目是依據ITCC使用兩個完全不相關的概念組合轉化為圖形而成,要求受測者依據圖形組合想出之間的關聯詞句,並說明其聯想過程及理由。第一階段為圖形選擇,依據18題文字概念組合進行圖形化,資料回收後進行次數頻率統計,最後選擇頻率最高的圖形作為該文字轉化之代表圖形。第二階段中,以台灣全省978位四到六年級國小生、247位國高中生及430位大學生為研究對象並要求受測者於圖形下方寫出對該圖的認知。第三階段,針對回收資料,分別對三個年級群組進行圖形認知檢驗,基準為個別(各圖形+各群組)達50%,整體(各圖形+三群組)達60%,由於圖形認知差異性不大,在剔除基準之下的題目後,共12題作為正式圖形想像力測驗。第四階段中,選取正確圖形認知所產生答案的樣本建立常模,施測所得資料進行統計,每題超過5%受試者有相同反應的給予0分;介於2%至4.99%之間者給予1分;低於2%者則給予2分,並以此基準建立本測驗之評分手冊。
研究結果,信度方面,重測信度為.745,表示本量表具有良好的穩定性;三名評分者間信度為.901-.941。而在效度方面,與托倫斯創造思考之直線及圓圈測驗,測得之流暢力與應變力呈現無顯著相關;與創造性知覺量表之我自己及你是哪一種人,亦呈現無顯著相關,表示本研究發展之想像力測驗與創造力之間具有區別能力;效標關聯效度部分,與設計成績測得為.239,呈現低度顯著關係;與概念結合想像力測驗(ITCC)測得為.654。另本測驗採托倫斯創造思考測驗之獨創力計分方式,由於兩者屬於相同的衡量構面,因此結果顯示與圓圈測驗的獨創力呈現低度顯著相關。綜合上述研究結果顯示本測驗具有良好的信度與效度。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/92357
Rights: 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,2017-06-28起公開。
Appears in Collections:企業管理學系所

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-103-7101023012-1.pdf1.85 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network    Request a copy
Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.