知识基础对大学生创新思维的影响

楼连娣; 庞维国

知识基础对大学生创新思维的影响

华东师范大学心理与认知科学学院，上海 200062

基金项目:

教育部新世纪优秀人才支持计划项目 NCET-12-0187

计量
- 文章访问数: 310
- HTML全文浏览量: 159
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2014-12-30

Research on the Role of Knowledge Base in University Students' Creative Thinking

School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062

摘要

摘要: 本研究通过两个实验分别探讨领域一般知识和领域特殊知识对大学生创新思维的影响。实验一以英语词汇量作为一般领域的知识基础，以看图英文作文作为创新任务。研究结果显示：英文词汇量对大学生英文作文的创新水平有显著影响; 词汇量越多的学生，写作的创新水平越高，这种趋势在创新的新颖性和适宜性两个维度均有反映。实验二以心理学专业大学生和研究生的心理学知识、心理学学习年限(年级)作为具体领域的知识基础，以心理学研究方案的设计为创新任务。研究结果显示：以心理学测验分数为指标的知识基础，对创新思维的新颖性和适宜性均无显著影响; 以心理学修业年限为指标的知识基础，与创新思维显著关联; 随着心理学修业年限的增加，被试设计研究方案的新颖性和适宜性水平都会提高，这在较高难度任务上的反映更加充分。
- 知识基础 /
- 创新思维 /
- 新颖性 /
- 适宜性
Abstract: Based on two experiments, this research investigates the role of knowledge base in University students' creative thinking. Experiment 1 uses the amount of English vocabulary to represent the general knowledge base and English writing as the creative task. Research findings show that the amount of English vocabulary has significant impact on the creativity in English writing. The larger English vocabulary the students have, the more creative their writings are. The amount of English vocabulary contributes to both novelty and appropriateness in English writings. Experiment 2 employs the test scores of some psychology subjects as well as the years of studying psychology to represent the domain-specific knowledge base, and the psychological research design as the creative tasks. The findings indicate that when the test scores of psychology subject is used as the indicator of knowledge base, it is not significantly correlated with the creativity in research design. However, as the indicator of knowledge base, the years of studying psychology has significant positive effects on both the novelty and appropriateness of the task performance. And these effects are found bigger in the more difficult design tasks.
- knowledge base /
- creative thinking /
- novelty /
- appropriateness

HTML全文

图 1 英语看图作文图片

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 各组新颖性和适宜性的均值比较

性别	词汇量组	人数	新颖性		适宜性
			平均数	标准差	平均数	标准差
			男生	低	15	2.66	0.67	2.42	0.56
	中	16	3.13	0.61	2.97	0.56
	高	8	3.75	0.72	3.55	0.40
	总	39	3.08	0.76	2.88	0.67

女生	低	17	2.89	0.67	2.6	0.71
	中	23	3.32	0.71	3.22	0.50
	高	21	3.43	0.46	3.41	0.32
	总	61	3.24	0.65	3.12	0.60

总体	低	32	2.78	0.67	2.53	0.64
	中	39	3.25	0.67	3.12	0.53
	高	29	3.52	0.55	3.45	0.34
	总	100	3.18	0.69	3.03	0.64

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同任务难度下被试的创新设计得分的均值比较

年级	知识基础	人数	低难度任务				高难度任务
			新颖性		适宜性		新颖性		适宜性
			平均数	标准差	平均数	标准差	平均数	标准差	平均数	标准差
本科二年级	低	12	2.51	0.51	2.56	0.48	2.09	0.64	2.12	0.40
	中	11	2.98	0.68	2.97	0.50	2.61	0.57	2.70	0.39
	总	23	2.73	0.63	2.76	0.52	2.34	0.65	2.40	0.49
本科四年级	低	2	3.13	0.88	3.08	0.04	3.50	0.35	3.13	0.85
	中	5	3.40	0.45	3.13	0.60	3.50	0.68	3.18	0.29
	高	9	3.35	0.66	3.40	0.60	3.36	0.60	3.06	0.51
	总	16	3.36	0.59	3.27	0.55	3.42	0.58	3.11	0.46
硕士二年级	低	2	4.00	0.00	3.50	0.81	2.69	0.44	2.86	0.02
	中	4	3.25	0.42	3.24	0.36	3.69	0.46	3.10	0.34
	高	5	3.68	0.58	3.66	0.48	3.68	0.85	3.41	0.77
	总	11	3.58	0.52	3.48	0.48	3.50	0.73	3.20	0.57
总体	低	16	2.77	0.72	2.74	0.57	2.34	0.75	2.34	0.57
	中	20	3.14	0.59	3.06	0.49	3.05	0.74	2.90	0.41
	高	14	3.46	0.63	3.49	0.55	3.47	0.68	3.19	0.61
	总	50	3.11	0.69	3.08	0.60	2.94	0.85	2.80	0.61

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(22)

[1]	Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
[2]	Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10185433
[3]	Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality aspredictors of divergent thinking: the role of general, fluid and crystallized intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60-69. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.01.002
[4]	Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity?The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254-263. doi: 10.1080/00131720508984694
[5]	Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds). (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[6]	Benton, S.L.(1997). Psychological foundations of elementary writing Instruction. In G. D. Phye (ed.), Handbook of Academic learning (pp. 235-263). Academic Press.
[7]	Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper. http://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=79508
[8]	Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 31-83). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.
[9]	Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 3, 220-232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10185433
[10]	Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity:From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[11]	Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and quality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933-946. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014
[12]	Sarkar, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity.Design Studies, 32, 348-383. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
[13]	Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativitydomain-specific? Latent models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 139-148. doi: 10.1037/a0014940
[14]	Sternberg, R. J. & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 9-17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X024006009
[15]	Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I.(1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologists, 51, 677-688. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677
[16]	Sternberg, R.J. (2005). WICS: A model of positive educational leadership comprising wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Educational Psychology Review, 17(3), 191-262. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-5617-2
[17]	Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1): 87-98. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
[18]	Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006).Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 343-352. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
[19]	Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.
[20]	Ward, T. B. (2008). The role of domain knowledge in creative generation. Learning and Individual differences, 18, 363-366. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.002
[21]	Weisberg, R.W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories.In R.J. Sternberg (Ed), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 226-50). New York: University Press.
[22]	Wynder, M. (2007). The interaction between domain-relevant knowledge and control system design on creativity.Australian Journal of Management, 32, 135-152. doi: 10.1177/031289620703200108