成功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：	蓋傑富 Hugh, Gamble Jeffrey
論文名稱：	在多個學習領域以學生設計實體和數位遊戲之差異化教學培養學生21世紀關鍵能力與學習動機 Differentiated Instruction Using Student-designed Physical and Digital Games for Fostering 21st Century Skills and Learning Motivation in Multiple Domains
指導教授：	楊雅婷 Yang, Ya-Ting
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	社會科學院 - 教育研究所 Institute of Education
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	269
中文關鍵詞：	21世紀關鍵能力、學習動機、學生設計遊戲、差異化教學、多元智能、美術學科、英文學科、體育學科
外文關鍵詞：	21st century learning skills, learning motivation, student-designed games, differentiated instruction, multiple intelligence, art, English, physical education
相關次數：	點閱：171 下載：5
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

本研究主要在探討小學生設計之實體和數位遊戲對培養其21世紀關鍵能力(創造思考、批判思考、問題解決、溝通以及團隊合作)及提升學習動機之影響。本研究進行為期30週的前、中、後測準實驗教學設計，研究對象為六個班級共168位國小五年級之學生，並隨機將其分派至實驗組、對照組與控制組，其中包含三組實驗組、兩組對照組以及一組控制組。自變項為六個層次學生設計之遊戲：學生設計美術遊戲 (實驗組一；28人)、學生設計英文遊戲(實驗組二；28人)、學生設計體育遊戲(實驗組三；28人)、數位遊戲式學習融入美術、英文和體育學科教學(對照組一；28人)、短期數位遊戲式學習融入美術、英文和體育學科教學(對照組二；28人)和未結合任何遊戲之建構式學習(控制組；28人)。使用統計方法為單因子多變量共變數分析、單因子共變數分析以及二因子變異數分析。此外教師與學生之回饋及課室觀察資料則用來適當解釋量化數據之研究發現；學生的省思報告則用內容分析法特定詞彙之出現頻率來協助量化分析所得之結果。
主要研究結果為學生所設計之實體和數位遊戲融入課程有助提升學習成效，具體結果如下：
1. 除了實驗組二以外，實驗組一和三在語文與圖形創造、動覺創意、溝通能力均顯著優於其他組別。
2. 除了實驗組三以外，實驗組一和二在批判思考和複雜問題解決能力均顯著優於其他組別。
3. 三個實驗組在團隊合作表現中均顯著優於其他組別。
4. 兩個對照組與控制組在學習成績部分均有所提升。
5. 兩個對照組在一開始呈現之學習動機並沒有在中測及後測實驗結果中所維持。
在整體實驗過程中，對培養學生21世紀關鍵能力有正面影響之關鍵元素為學生設計遊戲之社會建構因素、實驗組之差異化教學以及遊戲設計的獨特要求。持續使用建構式教學策略，例如社會情境式學習、真實適性成果的建構、教師及學生間協同合作之鷹架理論教學模式等，能夠確實提升實驗組之學習成效，特別是學生之高層次思考技巧。同樣地，差異化教學模式提供學生自我學習之學習環境，並讓他們有機會能自成小組一同成長。其他和遊戲設計相關之元素，例如遊戲規則之建立、敘述旁白之使用以及遊戲者角度之考量皆為促進高層次思考及溝通合作關鍵能力提供了適當的挑戰。最後，本研究亦在文末提供未來研究方向之建議與本研究限制之探討。

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of student-designed games on elementary students’ 21st century skills (5Cs): creative thinking, critical thinking, complex problem solving, communication, and collaboration, as well as learning motivation. In order to evaluate the instructional intervention, a quasi-experimental design was adopted over the course of 30 weeks, including six weeks of testing at three measurement occasions (pretest, midtest and posttest). The independent variable was student-designed games with six levels: student-designed art games (XP_Art), student-designed English games (XP_Eng), student-designed physical education games (XP_PE), digital game based learning integrating Art, English, and physical education (DGBL), short term (three weeks per semester) digital game based learning combined with non-game-based constructivist learning activities (CG), and constructivist learning with no exposure to digital game play or design (CONT). The quasi-experiment took place over the course of two semesters and involved 168 fifth-grade students. Six classes were randomly assigned to the three treatments, two comparison groups or a control group. Quantitative data were analyzed using an overall MANCOVA, followed by one-way MANCOVAs for dependent variables with subscales, or one-way ANCOVAs for those without subscales. Furthermore, for dependent variables with midtest scores, two-way ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate within-group effects and between-group effects, in regards to occasion. Qualitative data, including student and teacher feedback, and class observations, were used to interpret and provide explanations for the quantitative findings, where appropriate. As well, student reflection essays were evaluated using content analysis in order to assist in the interpretation of the quantitative results, in terms of the frequency of terms relevant to the dependent outcomes of this study.
The hypothesized advantage for student design of games over the control and comparison conditions was found for the majority of learning outcomes. The experimental groups outperformed the other conditions in terms of figural and verbal creativity, kinesthetic creativity (with the exception of XP_Eng), critical thinking and complex problem solving (with the exception of XP_PE), communication (with the exception of XP_Eng), and collaboration. This significant advantage for the experimental groups was found despite the fact that the control and comparison groups also made improvements between the pretest and posttest due to a high quality, collaborative and constructivist approach to instruction, rather than lecture-style approaches which are oftentimes adopted for control conditions. Mixed results were found for learning motivation, with initial improvements for groups which engaged in digital game play (DGBL and CG). However these improvements were not sustained between the midtest and posttest.
Key elements of the experimental procedures which were deemed to have a positive effect on the 5C dependent variables relate to social constructivist elements of student-designed games, the differentiation of instruction for the experimental groups, and the unique requirements of game design. Sustained use of constructivist strategies, such as the social context for learning, the construction of an authentic and desirable product, and the provision of scaffolding through instructor support, tools, and collaborative learning, contributed substantially to the success of the experimental groups, particularly in terms of higher order thinking skills. Likewise, the differentiation of learning allowed learners diversity in materials and methods, a self-paced learning environment, and opportunities to form their own groups. Other elements of game design, such as the construction of rules, use of narrative, and taking the player’s perspective, provided the challenge required to promote higher order thinking, communication, and collaboration. Finally, recommendations for practitioners and limitations and suggestions for future studies are also provided.

中文摘要	I
ABSTRACT	III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS	IX
LIST OF TABLES	XIII
LIST OF FIGURES	XVIII
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION	1
1.1 Motivation and Objectives	1
1.1.1 Emphasis on 21st Century Skills	1
1.1.2 Childrens’ Interest in Digital Games and Apps	3
1.1.3 Learner Characteristics and Differentiated Instruction	5
1.1.4 Multiple Intelligences for Differentiating Course Design and Asssesment	7
1.1.5 The Potential of Student-Designed Games	10
1.1.6 Application of Student-Designed Games in Multiple Settings	13
1.2 Purpose of the Study	15
1.3 Research Questions	16
1.4 Definition of Key Terms	17
1.4.1 Casual Gaming and Mobile Applications (Apps)	18
1.4.2 Collaboration	18
1.4.3 Communication	19
1.4.4 Complex Problem Solving	19
1.4.5 Creative Thinking	19
1.4.6 Critical Thinking	20
1.4.7 Differentiated Instruction	20
1.4.8 Learning Motivation	21
1.4.9 Multiple Intelligences	21
1.4.10 Student-Designed Games	22
1.5 Organization of the Study	22
CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW	24
2.1 21st Century Skills for Learning and Innovation (5Cs)	24
2.1.1 Creative Thinking	24
2.1.2 Critical Thinking	38
2.1.3 Complex Problem Solving	40
2.1.4 Communication	43
2.1.5 Collaboration	45
2.1.6 Learning Motivation	46
2.2. Differentiated Instructional Context for Learning	49
2.2.1 Principles and Purposes of Differentiated Instruction	49
2.2.2 A Multiple Intelligences Approach to Differentiated Instruction	50
2.2.3 Social Constructivist Principles	57
2.3 Student-Designed Games	62
2.3.1 Digital Game-Based Learning	62
2.3.2 Extension of Game Play to Game Design	64
2.3.3 Instructional Principles for Student-Designed Games	67
2.3.4 Student-Designed Games for Promoting Learning and Innovation	72
2.3.5 Student-Designed Games for Learning Motivation	75
2.3.6 Student Design of Digital Games	77
CHAPTER THREE  METHODS	83
3.1 Research Hypotheses	83
3.2 Research Variables	84
3.2.1 Independent Variable	84
3.2.2 Dependent Variables	85
3.3 Research Procedures	85
3.3.1 Research Design	89
3.3.2 Participants	90
3.3.3 Course Content and Procedures	90
3.4 Data Collection Instruments	104
3.4.1 Creative Thinking Measures	104
3.4.2 Critical Thinking Measures	106
3.4.3 Complex Problem Solving Measures	107
3.4.4 Collaboration Measures	109
3.4.5 Communication Measures	109
3.4.6 Learning Motivation Measures	110
3.4.7 Student and Teacher Feedback	112
3.4.8 Analysis of Student Artifacts	113
3.4.9 Scorer training and establishment of inter-rater reliability (IRR)	114
3.5 Data Analysis	115
3.5.1 Quantitative	115
3.5.2 Qualitative	116
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS	117
4.1 Quantitative Data Analysis	117
4.2 Preliminary Data Analysis	120
4.2.1 Data Screening	120
4.2.2 Testing of Assumptions	120
4.3 Evaluation of the Reseach Model	124
4.3.1 Correlations among All Variables	124
4.3.2 Analysis of the 5C Model	125
4.4 Evaluation of Research Questions	131
4.4.1 Creative Thinking	131
4.4.2 Critical Thinking	157
4.4.3 Complex Problem Solving	164
4.4.4 Communication	171
4.4.5 Collaboration	173
4.4.6 Learning Motivation	178
4.5 Qualitative Data Analysis	183
CHAPTER FIVE  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS	187
5.1 Summary of Findings	187
5.2 Discussion	189
5.2.1 Creative Thinking	189
5.2.2 Critical Thinking	206
5.2.3 Complex Problem Solving	214
5.2.4 Communication	223
5.2.5 Collaboration	227
5.2.6 Learning Motivation	232
5.3 Conclusions	233
5.3.1 Implications for practitioners	234
5.3.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research	237
REFERENCES	239
APPENDICES	264


 
List of Tables
TABLE 1. 1. SEVEN MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES (GARDNER & HATCH, 1989)	7
TABLE 2. 1. SUGGESTIONS FOR FOSTERING CREATIVITY IN THE KINESTHETIC DOMAIN	29
TABLE 2. 2. IMPLICATIONS FROM MAJOR THEORIES OF CREATIVITY FOR INSTRUCTION	36
TABLE 2. 3. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW OF STUDENT-DESIGNED GAMES	81
TABLE 3. 1. RESEARCH PROCEDURES FOR THE THREE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS (SEMESTER ONE)	86
TABLE 3. 2. RESEARCH PROCEDURES FOR THE THREE HXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS (SEMESTER TWO)	87
TABLE 3. 3. RESEARCH PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPARISON AND CONTROL GROUPS (SEMESTER ONE)	87
TABLE 3. 4. RESEARCH PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPARISON GROUPS (SEMESTER TWO)	88
TABLE 3. 5. RESEARCH PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL GROUP (SEMESTER TWO)	88
TABLE 3. 6. A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN WITH THREE TREATMENTS, TWO COMPARISON GROUPS, AND A CONTROL GROUP	89
TABLE 3. 7. ILLUSTRATION OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP PROCEDURES FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER.	91
TABLE 3. 8. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP PROCEDURES FOR THE SECOND SEMESTER IN COMPUTER CLASS.	96
TABLE 3. 9. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR THE SECOND SEMESTER IN THE RESEARCHER’S CLASS.	101
TABLE 3. 10. CURRICULAR LINKS TO COLLABORATIVE, STUDENT-CENTERED CONTROL GROUP ACTIVITIES	104
TABLE 3. 11. SUBSCALES AND CATEGORIES OF NTPS	108
TABLE 3. 12 PEER LEARNING AND HELP-SEEKING SUBSCALES OF THE MSLQ	111
TABLE 3. 13. LEARNING MOTIVATION AND METACOGNTIVE SELF-REGULATION SUBSCALES OF THE MSLQ	112
TABLE 4. 1. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS BY RESEARCH QUESTION	119
TABLE 4. 2. BIVARIATE CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE 5C DEPENDENT VARIABLES	125
TABLE 4. 3. SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY MANCOVA FOR THE 5C MODEL	126
TABLE 4. 4. ABBREVIATIONS FOR RESEARCH GROUPS	126
TABLE 4. 5. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR FIGURAL CREATIVITY	127
TABLE 4. 6. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR VERBAL CREATIVITY	128
TABLE 4. 7. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR TCAM CREATIVITY	128
TABLE 4. 8. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR CRITICAL THINKING	129
TABLE 4. 9. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	129
TABLE 4. 10. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR COMMUNICATION	130
TABLE 4. 11. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FROM 5C MANCOVA FOR COLLABORATION – TEACHER-OBSERVED	130
TABLE 4.12. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR OVERALL FIGURAL CREATIVITY	132
TABLE 4. 13. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR OVERALL VERBAL CREATIVITY	132
TABLE 4. 14. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR OVERALL TCAM CREATIVITY	132
TABLE 4. 15. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FLUENCY SUBSCALE OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	133
TABLE 4. 16. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	133
TABLE 4. 17. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE ELABORATION SUBSCALE OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	134
TABLE 4. 18. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE RESISTANCE TO PREMATURE CLOSURE SUBSCALE OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	134
TABLE 4. 19. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE ABSTRACTNESS OF TITLE SUBSCALE OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	134
TABLE 4. 20. SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY MANCOVA FOR THE FIGURAL CREATIVITY SUBSCALES	135
TABLE 4. 21. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE	136
TABLE 4. 22. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE ELABORATION SUBSCALE	136
TABLE 4. 23. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE RESISTANCE TO PREMATURE CLOSURE	137
TABLE 4. 24. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE ABSTRACTNESS OF TITLE	137
TABLE 4. 25. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR THE CREATIVITY INDEX OF FIGURAL CREATIVITY	138
TABLE 4. 26. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR FIGURAL CREATIVITY MIDTEST SCORES	139
TABLE 4. 27. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR FIGURAL CREATIVITY POSTTEST SCORES	139

TABLE 4. 28. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR FIGURAL CREATIVITY BY OCCASION	140
TABLE 4. 29. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FLUENCY SUBSCALE OF VERBAL CREATIVITY	141
TABLE 4. 30. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE OF VERBAL CREATIVITY	142
TABLE 4. 31. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FLEXIBILITY SUBSCALE OF VERBAL CREATIVITY	142
TABLE 4. 32. SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY MANCOVA FOR THE VERBAL CREATIVITY SUBSCALES	142
TABLE 4. 33. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE FLUENCY SUBSCALE	144
TABLE 4. 34. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE	144
TABLE 4. 35. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE FLEXIBILITY SUBSCALE	145
TABLE 4. 36. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR THE OVERALL SCORE OF VERBAL CREATIVITY	146
TABLE 4. 37. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR VERBAL CREATIVITY MIDTEST SCORES	146
TABLE 4. 38. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR VERBAL CREATIVITY POSTTEST SCORES	147
TABLE 4. 39. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR VERBAL CREATIVITY BY OCCASION	148
TABLE 4. 40. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FLUENCY SUBSCALE OF TCAM	150
TABLE 4. 41. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE OF TCAM	150
TABLE 4. 42. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE IMAGINATION SUBSCALE OF TCAM	150
TABLE 4. 43. SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY MANCOVA FOR THE VERBAL CREATIVITY SUBSCALES	151
TABLE 4. 44. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE FLUENCY SUBSCALE	152
TABLE 4. 45. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE ORIGINALITY SUBSCALE	152
TABLE 4. 46. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POST HOC RESULTS FOR THE IMAGINATION SUBSCALE	153
TABLE 4. 47. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR THE OVERALL SCORE OF TCAM CREATIVITY	154
TABLE 4. 48. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR TCAM CREATIVITY MIDTEST SCORES	155
TABLE 4. 49. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR TCAM CREATIVITY POSTTEST SCORES	155
TABLE 4. 50. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR TCAM CREATIVITY BY OCCASION	156
TABLE 4. 51. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR OVERALL CRITICAL THINKING SCORES	157
TABLE 4. 52. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF ASSUMPTIONS SUBSCALE FOR CRITICAL THINKING	158
TABLE 4. 53. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE INDUCTION SUBSCALE FOR CRITICAL THINKING	158
TABLE 4. 54. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE DEDUCTION SUBSCALE FOR CRITICAL THINKING	159
TABLE 4. 55. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE EXPLANATION SUBSCALE FOR CRITICAL THINKING	159
TABLE 4. 56. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE EVALUATION SUBSCALE FOR CRITICAL THINKING	159
TABLE 4. 57. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR THE OVERALL SCORE OF CRITICAL THINKING	162
TABLE 4. 58. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR CRITICAL THINKING BY OCCASION	163
TABLE 4. 59. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR OVERALL COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING	164
TABLE 4. 60. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FINDING CAUSES SUBSCALE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	165
TABLE 4. 61. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FINDING SOLUTIONS SUBSCALE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	165
TABLE 4. 62. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE AVOIDING PROBLEMS SUBSCALE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	165
TABLE 4. 63. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE FLEXIBILITY SUBSCALE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	166
TABLE 4. 64. DESCRIPTIVES FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS SUBSCALE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING	166
TABLE 4. 65. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR OVERALL COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING SCORE	167
TABLE 4. 66. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR NTPS PRETEST SCORES	168
TABLE 4. 67. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR NTPS PRETEST SCORES	169
TABLE 4. 68. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING BY OCCASION	171
TABLE 4. 69. SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY ANCOVA FOR COMMUNICATION	172
TABLE 4. 70. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COMMUNICATION POSTTEST SCORES	172
TABLE 4. 71. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR COLLABORATION	173
TABLE 4. 72. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR COLLABORATION	174
TABLE 4. 73. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COLLABORATION PRETEST SCORES	175
TABLE 4. 74. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COLLABORATION MIDTEST SCORES	175
TABLE 4. 75. BETWEEN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COLLABORATION POSTTEST SCORES	176
TABLE 4. 76. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR COLLABORATION BY OCCASION	177
TABLE 4. 77. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR INTRINSIC GOAL ORIENTATION	179
TABLE 4. 78. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR EXTRINSIC GOAL ORIENTATION	179
TABLE 4. 79. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR TASK VALUE	180
TABLE 4. 80. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR CONTROL OF LEARNING BELIEFS	180
TABLE 4. 81. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR SELF-EFFICACY FOR LEARNING	180
TABLE 4. 82. MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR EXPECTANCY FOR SUCCESS	181
TABLE 4. 83. SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY MIXED ANOVA FOR OVERALL LEARNING MOTIVATION	181
TABLE 4. 84. WITHIN-GROUPS POST HOC RESULTS FOR LEARNING MOTIVATION BY OCCASION	182
TABLE 4. 85. Χ^2 ANALYSIS OF THE OCCURRENCES OF EACH KEY WORD FROM STUDENTS’ FEEDBACK	185
TABLE 4. 86. Χ^2 ANALYSIS OF THE OCCURRENCES OF EACH KEY WORD FROM STUDENTS’ FEEDBACK	186
TABLE 5. 1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS BY RESEARCH QUESTION, NOT INCLUDING SUBSCALE RESULTS.	188

	
 

List of Figures
FIGURE 1. 1. 21ST CENTURY STUDENT OUTCOMES AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS (PARTNERSHIP FOR 21ST CENTURY SKILLS, 2009).	2
FIGURE 2. 1. A COMPONENTIAL MODEL OF CREATIVITY.	33
FIGURE 2. 2. STERNBERG’S MODEL OF CREATIVE RESOURCES	34
FIGURE 2. 3. CHEUNG (2006) PENTAGON MODEL FOR PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVE PRODUCTION.	41
FIGURE 2. 4. THE PROCESS OF GUIDED SUCCESS FROM PARTNER TO INDIVIDUAL AND COLLABORATIVE PLAY (SQUIRE, GIOVANETTO, DEVANE, & DURGA, 2005).	72
FIGURE 3. 1. ILLUSTRATION OF A GAME PROGRAMMING TASK FOR THE COMPARISON GROUPS.	100
FIGURE 3. 2. LLUSTRATION OF THE SCRATCH SOFTWARE FOR GAME CREATION.	103
FIGURE 3. 3. APP GAME PLAYING FLOW EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK FORM.	114
FIGURE 4. 1. ADJUSTED SUBSCALE SCORES FOR FIGURAL CREATIVITY BY GROUP.	135
FIGURE 4. 2. TRENDS IN FIGURAL CREATIVITY INDEX BY GROUP.	140
FIGURE 4. 3. SUBSCALE SCORES FOR VERBAL CREATIVITY BY GROUP..	143
FIGURE 4. 4. TRENDS IN VERBAL CREATIVITY SCORE BY GROUP..	148
FIGURE 4. 5. SUBSCALE SCORES FOR TCAM CREATIVITY BY GROUP...	151
FIGURE 4. 6. TRENDS IN TCAM OVERALL CREATIVITY SCORE BY GROUP...	156
FIGURE 4. 7. ILLUSTRATION OF TRENDS IN CRITICAL THINKING SUBSCALES BY GRADE...	160
FIGURE 4. 8. TRENDS IN CRITICAL THINKING OVERALL CREATIVITY SCORE BY GROUP...	163
FIGURE 4. 9. ADJUSTED MEANS FOR CRITICAL THINKING SUBSCALE OF FINDING CAUSES...	167
FIGURE 4. 10. TRENDS IN COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING OVERALL SCORE BY GROUP...	170
FIGURE 4. 11. ADJUSTED MEANS FOR COMMUNICATION POSTTEST.	173
FIGURE 4. 12. TRENDS IN COLLABORATION SCORE BY GROUP...	177
FIGURE 4. 13. ILLUSTRATION OF GROUPS AVERAGES BY POSTTEST SUBSCALE SCORES...	179
FIGURE 4. 14. TRENDS IN COLLABORATION SCORE BY GROUP..	183

                                    

Abdi, A., & Rostami, M. (2012). The effect Multiple intelligences- based instruction on Students’ creative thinking ability at 5th grade in primary school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 105-108.
Adams, T.L. (2000). Helping children learn mathematics through Multiple Intelligences and standards for school mathematics, Childhood Education, 77(2), 86-94.
Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations. System, 36,141–155
Almeida, L.S., Prieto, M.D., Ferreira, A.I, Bermejo, M.R, Ferrando, M, & Ferrándiz, C. (2010). Intelligence assessment: Gardner multiple intelligence theory as an alternative. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 225–230.
Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.
Amabile, T.M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. (Working Paper No. 12-096). Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/PublicationFiles
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 5, 1154-1184.
Amiryousefi, M., & Dastjerdi, H.V. (2011). The relation between MI and motivation and students’ likes and dislikes of course books: A comparison between Interchange and Top Notch elementary books. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1709 – 1713.
Angeloska-Galevska, N. (1996). Children’s creativity in the preschool institutions in Macedonia. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ED403054)
Annetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 229-239.
Anning, A, Cullen, J., & Fleer, M. (2004). Early childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage.
Ashton, D. (2010). Player, student, designer: Games design students and changing relationships with games. Games and Culture, 5(3), 256-277.
Baer, J., & McKool, S.S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the Consensual Assessment Technique. In C.S. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 65-77). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-667-9.ch004
Bailin, S. (1990). Creativity, discovery and science education: Kuhn and Feyerabend revisited. Interchange, 21(3), 34-44.
Barbeau, E. (1984). Creativity in mathematics. Interchange, 16(1), 62-69.
Barrett, M.S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The ‘genesis’ of creativity and thought in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201-220.
Baytak, A., & Land, S.M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 765–782.
Beliavsky, N. (2006). Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: Realizing human potential. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40(2), 1-11.
Berger, E.H., & Pollman, M.J. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Enabling diverse learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 23(4), 249-253.
Berrenberg, J.L. (1991). The Create-A-Game exam: A method to facilitate student interest and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 18(3), 167-169.
Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation, Roeper Review, 26(4), 190-191.
Bixler, B. (2006, June). Motivation and its relationship to the design of educational games. Paper presented at the 2006 NMC Summer Conference, Cleveland, Ohio.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.
Bloom, J. W. (2006). Creating a classroom community of young scientists (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bomba, A.K., & Moran, J.D. (1987). The relationship of selected temperament characteristics to creative potential in preschool children. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED281645).
Bonwell, C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing the traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 31-44.
Brophy, J.E., & Choquette, J.J. (1973). Divergent production in Montessori children. Retrived from ERIC Database. (ED080212).
Butler, J. (1997). How would Socrates teach games? A constructivist approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(9), 42-47.
Butler, J. (2013). Stages for children inventing games. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(4),48-53.
Camfield, D. (2005). Neurobiology of creativity. In C. Stough (Ed.), Neurobiology of exceptionality (pp. 53-72). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Cardinale, R.L., & Anderson, F.E. (1979). Art games and learning problems: Or, what does a tall courageous, prickly ear look like? Art Education, 32(1), 17-19.
Casbergue, R.M., & Kieff, J. (1998). Marbles, anyone?: Traditional games in the classroom. Childhood Education, 74(3), 143-147.
Casey, A., & Hastie, P.A. (2011). Students and teacher responses to aunit of student-designed games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(3), 295-312.
Casey, A., Hastie, P.A., & Rovegno, I. (2011). Student learning during a unit of student-designed games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(4), 331-350.
Castle, K. (1998). Children's rule knowledge in invented games. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12(2), 197-209.
Cazan, A.M. (2011). Psychometric properties of cognitive self regulation MSLQ scales. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(1), 49-56.
Chen, I.-H., & Yang, Y.-T. C. (2010). A study of developing digital game flow scale. International Conference of Web 2.0 and Education (ICWE 2010). Taoyuan, Taiwan, November 20.
Chen, W.-Y., Rovegno,I., Cone, S.L., & Cone, T.P. (2012). An accomplished teacher's use of scaffolding during a second-grade unit on designing games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 221-234.
Cheng, V.M.Y. (2011). Infusing creativity into Eastern classrooms: Evaluations from student perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6,67–87.
Cheung, K.C. (2006). Educating pre-primary teachers to teach for multiple intelligences. New Horizons in Education, 53, 103-113.
Chmiel, M. (2012). Learning about the game: Designing science games for a generation of gamers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 807–812
Chou, M.H. (2012). Assessing English vocabulary and enhancing young English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ motivation through games, songs, and stories. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40(1), 1-14.
Chuang, T.-Y., & Chen, W.-F. (2009). Effect of Computer-Based Video Games on Children: An Experimental Study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1-10.
Chumbley, J., & Griffiths, M. (2006). Affect and the computer game player: The effect of gender, personality, and game reinforcement structure on affective responses to computer game-play. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), 308-316.
Chung, T.-S. (2013). Table-top role playing game and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 56– 71.
Clarke, A., & Cripps, P. (2012). Fostering creativity: A Multiple Intelligences approach to designing learning in undergraduate fine art. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(2), 113-126.
Cluck, M., & Hess, D. (2003). Improving student motivation through the use of Multiple Intelligences. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-based Master’s Program.
Cohen, D. (1972). The development of a creativity test. Research in Science Education, 2(1), 82-95.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum: framing and developing practice. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2003a). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113-127.
Craft, A. (2003b): Creative thinking in the early years of education. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 23(2), 143-154.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 55(4), 613-659.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
D’Agnosti, F. (1984). Chomsky on creativity. Synthese, 58(1), 85-117.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier. C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8 ,80- 91.
Denig, S.J., (2004). Multiple Intelligences and learning styles: Two complementary dimensions. Teachers College Record Volume, 106(1), 96–111.
DeVries, D.L., & Edwards, K.J. (1973). Learning games and student teams: Their effects on classroom process. American Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 307-318.
de Vries, P. (2005). Lessons from home: Scaffolding vocal improvisation and song acquisition with a 2-year-old. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 307-312.
De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649-666.
Diaz-Lefebvre, R. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Learning for understanding, and creative assessment: Some pieces to the puzzle of learning. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 49-57.
Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67-83.
Dillon, P. (2006). Creativity, integrativism and a pedagogy of connection. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 69–83.
Domino, G. (1980). Chinese tangrams as a technique to assess creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14(3), 204-213.
Dondlinger, M.J., & Wilson, D.A. (2012). Creating an alternate reality: Critical, creative, and empathic thinking generated in the ‘Global Village Playground’ capstone experience. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 153– 164.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Understanding L2 motivation: On with the challenge! The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 515-523.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
Dunn, L., & Herwig, J.E. (1992). Play behaviors and convergent and divergent thinking of young children attending full-day preschool. Child Study Journal, 22(1), 23-38.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873-890.
Eckhoff, A. (2010). Using games to explore visual art with young children. Young Children, 65(1), 18-22.
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood: Sociocultural concepts of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 179-185.
Edwards, C.P., & Springate, K.W. (1995). Encouraging creativity in early childhood classrooms. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED389474).
Eow, Y.L., Wan Zah, W.A., Rosnaini, M., & Roselan, B. (2011). Computer games development and appreciative learning approach in enhancing students’ creative perception. Computers and Education, 54, 146-161.
Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85-100.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F L., Flavell, E. R., & Grossman, J. B. (1997). The development of children's knowledge about inner speech. Child Development, 68, 39-47.
Fukushima, T. (2006). A student-designed grammar quiz on the web: A constructive mode of grammar instruction. Educational Media International, 43(1), 75-85.
Gallegos, I., & Flores, A. (2010). Using student-made games to learn mathematics, PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 20(5), 405-417.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 4-9.
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences theory: A Response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227-232.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J.E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Simulation & Gaming, 30(3), 283-291.
Gershenfeld, A. (2011). Leveling up: From player to design: Engaging and empowering youth through making video games. Knowledge Quest, 40(1), 55-59.
Gilb, T. (1993). Practical purposeful creativity constructs. AI & Society, 7(1), 90-100.
Glaveanu, V.P. (2011). Children and creativity: A most (un)likely pair? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 122– 131.
Godwin, L.J., & Moran, J.D. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of an instrument for measuring creative potential in preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 204-210.
Goodnough, K. (2001). Multiple intelligences theory. School Science & Mathematics, 101(4),180-193.
Graham, G. (1977). Helping students design their own games. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation, 48(7), 35.
Gray, K.C., & Waggoner, J.E. (2002). Multiple intelligences meet Bloom's taxonomy. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(4), 184-187.
Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationship to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 571-582). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Groves, M.M., Sawyers, J.K., & Moran, J.D. (1986). Reward and ideational fluency in preschool children. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED275458).
Gruber, J. J. (1986) Physical activity and self-esteem development in children: A metanalysis. In G. A. Eckert & M. Eckert (Eds.), Effects of physical activity on children (pp. 30-48). Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics.
Haley, M.H. (2001). Understanding learner-centered instruction from the perspective of multiple intelligences. Foreign Language Annals, 34(4), 355-367.
Hämäläinen, R. (2011). Using a game environment to foster collaborative learning: A design-based study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 61-78.
Han, K.S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109.
Hastie, P.A. (2010). Student designed-games: Strategies for promoting creativity, cooperation, and skill development. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hastie, P.A., & André, M.H. (2012). Game appreciation through student designed games and game equipment. International Journal of Play, 1(2), 165-183.
Hastie, P., & Casey, A. (2010). Using the jigsaw classroom to facilitate student-designed games. Physical Education Matters, 5(1),15-18.
Hastie, P.A., Casey, A., & Tarter, A.M. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-designed games in physical education. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 19(1),79-91.
Hatch, T. (1997). Getting specific about multiple intelligences. How Children Learn, 54(6), 26-29.
Hattie, J. (1980). Should creativity tests be administered under test-like conditions? An empirical study of three alternative conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 87-98.
Haylock, D.W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59-74.
Heath, S.B., & Wolf, S. (2005). Focus in creative learning: drawing on art for language development. Literacy, 39, 38-45.
Heeter, C., Egidio, R., Mishra, P., Winn, B., & and Winn, J. (2009). Alien games: Do girls prefer games designed by girls? Games and Culture, 4(1), 74-100.
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
Hess, T., & Gunter, G. (2013). Serious game-based and nongame-based online courses: Learning experiences and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 362-385.
Hewitt, P. (1997). Games in instruction leading to environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(3), 35-37.
Hirshfeld, S.F., & Hirshfeld, S.L. (1977). The use of games in developing analytical and combinatorial reasoning. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(2), 101–104.
Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hoaglin, D.C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J.W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of American Statistical Association, 81, 991-999.
Hogle, J. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective "Edutainment". Educational Resource Information Center, ED, 425(737), 1-28.
Honig, A.S. (2000). Promoting creativity in young children. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442548).
Houtz, J.C., & Krug, D. (1995). Assessment of creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 269-300.
Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games: 'It's fun and we learn things.” Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 626-644.
Huang, C.-C., Yeh, T.-K., Li, T.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2010). The idea storming Cube: Evaluating the Effects of Using Game and Computer Agent to support divergent thinking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 180-191.
Huntley, M.A., & Flores, A. (2011). Student-made games to learn the history of mathematics. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 21(6), 567-576.
Isik, D, & Tarim, K. (2009). The effects of the cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on Turkish elementary students’ mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 10(4), 465–474.
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87.
Johnson, L.G., & Hatch, J.A. (1987). A descriptive study of the creative and social behavior of four highly original young children. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Kafai, Y.B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games & Culture, 1, 36-40.
Kafai, Y.B., Franke, M.L., Ching, C.C., & Shih, J.C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3,149–184.
Kafai, Y.B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kam, M., Kumar, A., Jain, S., Mathur, A., & Canny, J. (2009).Improving literacy in rural India: Cellphone games in an after-school program. Paper presented at ICTD'09 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 1–15.
Katter, E. (1988). An approach to art games: Playing and planning. Art Education, 41(3),46-54.
Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (2003). Learning and teaching: research-based methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaufman, J.C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.
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.
Kaufmann, K., & Ellis, B. (2007). Preparing pre-service generalist teachers to use creative movement in K-6. Journal of Dance Education, 7(1), 7-13.
Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5/6), 539-556.
Ke, F., & Abras, T. (2013). Games for engaged learning of middle school children with special learning needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2),225–242.
Kearney, P.R. (2005). Playing in the sandbox: Developing games for children with disabilities. Paper presented at DiGRA 2005: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, 2005 International Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427-443.
Kemple, K.M., David, G.M., & Wang, Y. (1996). Preschooler’s creativity, shyness, and self-esteem. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 317-326.
Kemple, K.M., & Nissenberg, S.A. (2000). Nurturing creativity in early childhood education: Families are part of it. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(1), 67-71.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13-24.
Klein, A.R. (1990). Organizational barriers to creativity...and how to know them down. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(1), 65 – 66.
Klein, P.D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: Alternatives to 'learning styles' and 'multiple intelligences'. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 45-81.
Klein, P.S. (1975). Effects of open vs. structured teacher-student interaction on creativity of children with different levels of anxiety. Psychology in Schools, 12(3), 286-288.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R.J. (2005). The new division of labor: How computers Are creating the next job market. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lockars, A.J. (2010). Analysis of variance: Between-groups designs. In G.R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (Eds.) The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge.
Kuittinen, J., Kultima, A., Niemelä, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2007). Casual games discussion. Paper presented at the 2007 Conference on Future Play, New York, USA.
Kurkovsky, S. (2009). Engaging students through mobile game development. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41(1), 44-48
Kuo, C.-C., Maker, J., Su, F.-L., & Hu, C. (2010). Identifying young gifted children and cultivating problem solving abilities and multiple intelligences. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 365–379.
Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: Learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research, 52(4), 427-443.
Li, Z.-Z., Cheng, Y.-B., & Liu, C.-C. (2012). A constructionism framework for designing game-like learning systems: Its effect on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 208-224.
Liess, E., & Ritchie, G.V. (1995). Using multiple intelligence theory to transform a first-grade health curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 23(2), 71-79.
Lim, C.P. (2008). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996–1003.
Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Sjödén, B. (2011). Matching and mismatching between the pedagogical design principles of a math game and the actual practices of play. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 90–102.
Looi, C.-K., Chen, W.L. Ng, F.-K. (2010). Collaborative activities enabled by GroupScribbles (GS): An exploratory study of learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 54(1), 14–26.
Lord, T. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197-216.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3, 223-253.
Marković, F., Petrovic, O., Kittl, C., & Edegger, B. (2007). Pervasive learning games: A comparative study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2), 93-116.
Martin, F. (1972). The effects of a creative problem-solving workshop upon the cognitive operations of verbal classroom interaction in the primary school grades. Psychology in the Schools, 9(2), 126-130.
McCoog, I.J. (2007). Integrated instruction: Multiple intelligences and technology. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 25-28.
McKinney, J.D., & Forman, S.G. (1977). Factor structure of the Wallach-Kogan tests of creativity and measures of intelligence and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 14(1), 41-44.
Mellou, E. (1996). Can creativity be nurtured in young children? Early Child Development and Care, 119, 119–30.
Mertler , C.A. , & Vannatta, R.A . (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles : Pyrczak.
Mettetal, G., Jordan, C., & Harper, S. (1997). Attitudes toward a multiple intelligences curriculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115-122.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G.C., & Guarino, A.J. (2013). Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, M., & Kernodle, M. (2004): Using multiple intelligences to teach tennis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(8), 27-32.
Montola, M. (2012). Social constructionism and ludology: Implications for the study of games. Simulation & Gaming 43(3), 300-320.
Moran, J.D., Milgram, R.M., Sawyers, J.K., & Fu, V.R. (1983). Original thinking in preschool children. Child Development, 54, 921-926.
Morgan, K., & Brooks, D.W. (2012). Investigating a method of scaffolding student-designed experiments. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 21(4), 513–522.
Myers, J.L., & Well, A.D. (2010). Research design and statistical analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Myers, R.E., & Torrance, E.P. (1961). Can teachers encourage creative thinking? Educational Leadership, 19(3), 156-159.
Niu, W.H., & Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114.
National Education Association. (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “4 Cs.” Retrieved from www.nea.org/assets/docs/
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193–211.
Norman, G.R. & Streiner, D.L. (2008). Multivariate ANOVA. In G.R. Norman & D.L. Streiner (Eds.) Biostatistics: The bare essentials. Toronto: B.C. Decker.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(8), 1-18.
Owston, R., Wideman, H., Sinitskaya Ronda, N., & Brown, C. (2009).Computer game development as a literacy activity. Computers & Education, 53(3), 977–989.
Özdilek, Z. (2010). To what extent do different multiple intelligences affect sixth grade students’ achievement level on the particle model of matter? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4858–4862.
Pahl, K. (1998). Creativity in events and practices: a lens for understanding children’s multimodal texts. Literacy, 41(2), 86-92.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Patton, R.M. (2011). Games as artistic medium: Interfacing complexity theory in game-based art pedagogy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI 3483732).
Pearce, C., Fullerton, T., Fron, J., & and Ford Morie, J. (2007). Sustainable play: Toward a new games movement for the digital age. Games and Culture, 2(3), 261-278.
Pehkonen, E. (1997).The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. ZDM, 29(3), 63-67.
Pepler, D.J., & Ross, H.S. (1981). The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child Development, 52(4), 1202-1210.
Pinciotti, P. (1993). Creative drama and young children: The dramatic learning connection. Arts Education Policy Review,94(6), 24-28.
Pintrich, P. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801.
Pivec, M., Dziabenko, O., & Schinnerl, I. (2003). Aspects of game-based learning. Paper presented at I-KNOW 2003, Graz, Austria.
Pivec, M., Koubek, A., & Dondi, C. (Eds.). (2004). Guidelines for game-based learning. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6),1004–1019.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J.L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D., & Whitehill, B.V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261.
Razmjoo, S.A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and langauge proficiency. The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174.
Reid, C., Udall, A., Romanoff, B., & Algozzine, B. (1999). Comparison of traditional and problem solving assessment criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 252-264.
Rettig, M. (2005).Using the multiple intelligences to enhance instruction for young children and young children with disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4), 255-259.
Reynolds, R. & Harel Caperton, I. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research & Devolopment, 59(2), 267–289.
Richmond, K. (2003). Academic service learning in an English methods class: A practical approach. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 19(1), 8-12.
Rieber, L.P., Barbour, M., Thomas, G., & Rauscher, D. (2008). Learning by designing homemade powerpoint games. In C.T. Miller (Ed.), Games: Purpose and potential in education (pp. 23-42). New York: Springer.
Rieber, L.P., Davis, J.M., Matzko, M.J., & Grant, M.M. (2009). Children as critics of educational computer games designed by other children. In R.E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1234-1256). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Rieber, L.P., Luke, N., & Smith, J. (1998). Project KID DESIGNER: Contructivism at work through play. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 1(1), 1-19.
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York: Taylor & Fracis.
Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385–398
Robertson, J., & Good, J. (2005). Children’s narrative development through computer game authoring. TechTrends, 49(5), 43-59.
Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559-578.
Robinson, C.C. (1987). Measuring divergent thinking ability of preschool children using demonstrative as well as verbalized responses. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED286637).
Rogan, J.C., & Keselman, H.J. (1977). Is the ANOVA F-test robust to variance heterogeneity when sample sizes are equal? An investigation via a coefficient of variance. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 493-498.
Rosenthal, A., DeMers, S.T., Stillwell, W., Graybeal, S., & Zins, J. (1983). Comparison of interrater reliability on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking for gifted and nongifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 20(1), 35-40.
Rovai, A.P., Baker, J.D., & Ponton, M.K. (2014). Social science research design and statistics: A practitioners guide to research methods and IBM SPSS analysis. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press.
Rovenco, I., & Bandhauer, D. (1994). Child-designed games: Experience changes teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(6), 60-63.
Rule, A.C., Lord, E., Hurley, L. (Eds.). (2003). Activities for differentiated instruction addressing all levels of Bloom's taxonomy and eight multiple intelligences. Oswego, NY: State University of New York at Oswego.
Runco, M.A. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 243-267.
Runco, M.A. (1990). The divergent thinking of young children: implications of the research, Gifted Child Today, 13(4), 37–39.
Runco, M.A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
Russoniello, C.V., O’Brien, K., & Parks, J.M. (2009). The effectiveness of casual video games in improving mood and decreasing stress. Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 2(1), 53-66.
Rutherford, A. (2001). Introducing ANOVA and ANCOVA: A GLM approach. London: SAGE Publications.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360
Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (1998). Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Saracho, O.N. (2002). Young children’s creativity and pretend play. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 431-438.
Saracho, O.N. (Ed.). (2012). Contemporary perspectives on research in early childhood education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Sarouphim, K.M. (1999). Discovering multiple intelligences through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 151-161.
Scigliano, D., & Hipsky, S. (2010). 3 ring circus of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(2), 82-86.
Sharp, C. (2001). Developing young children’s creativity through the arts: what does research have to offer? London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Shaughnessy, M.F. (1998). An interview with E. Paul Torrance: About creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 10(4), 441-452.
Shin, N., Sutherland, L.M., Norris, C.A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540-560.
Silseth, K. (2012).The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 63-84.
Silver, E.A. (1997).Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75-80.
Simina, V. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 217-228.
Sirinterlikci, A., Zane, L., & Sirinterlikci, A.L. (2009). Active learning through toy design and development. Journal of Technology Studies, 35(2), 14-22.
Smith, M.K. (1996). Fostering creativity in the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(2), 77-82.
Smith, E. (1999). Social constructivism, individual constructivism and the role of computers in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 411-425.
Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends, 49(5), 34-42.
Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34.
Stanciu, D., Orban, I., Bocos, M.S. (2011). Applying the multiple intelligences theory into pedagogical practice: Lessons from the Romanian primary education system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 92–96.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999). Successful intelligence: Finding a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 436-442.
Sternberg, R.J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56(4), 360-362.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.
Sternberg, R.J. (2008). Assessing what matters. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 20-26.
Sternberg, R.J., & Zhang, L.-F. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 245-253.
Stork, S., & Sanders, S. (1999). A developmentally appropriate approach to early childhood physical activities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, New Orleans, LA.
Suddendorf, T., & Fletcher-Flinn, C.M. (1999). Children’s divergent thinking improves when they understand false belief. Creativity Research Journal, 12(5), 115-128.
Syzmanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011).Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial and verbal intelligence: Four meta analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 493-504.
Taylor, R.T. (2012). Review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) using reliability generalization techniques to assess scale reliability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Tegano, T.W., Moran, J.D., & Sawyers, J.K. (1991). Creativity in early childhood classrooms. Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association.
Thomas, S. (2006).Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 41-55.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Reston VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H.,. Callahan, C.M., Moon, T.R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A Review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119-145.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2009). Playing to learn: A review of physical games in second language acquisition. Simulation Gaming, 40(5), 645-668
Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80) and the teacher who “made a difference.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62.
Torrance, E.P. (1981b). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services, Inc.
Torrance, E.P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 313-322.
Torrance, E.P. (2003). The millennium: A time for looking forward and looking back. Journal of Advanced Academics, 15(1), 6-12.
Torrance, E.P., Ball, O.E., & Safter, H.T. (1992). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking with Pictures. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Trevlas, E., Matsouka, O., & Zachopoulou, E. (2003). Relationship between playfulness and motor creativity in preschool children. Early Childhood Development and Care, 173(5), 535-543.
Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsoukalas, I.A. (2011). Designing educational software with students through collaborative design games: The We!Design&Play framework. Computers & Education, 56(1), 227–242.
Trostle, S.L., & Yawkey, T.D. (1981). Creative thinking and the education of young children: The fourth basic skill. Retrieved from ERIC Database (ED 204015).
Tsai, K.C. (2012). Play, imagination, and creativity: A brief literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 15-20.
van der Meij, H., Albers, E., & Leemkuil, H. (2011). Learning from games: Does collaboration help? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 655–664.
van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2),16-30.
Vilmi, R., & Malmi, L. (1996). Learning English by creating, writing, and playing WWW adventure games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 109-118.
Vos, N., Henny, v. d. M., & Eddie, D. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127-137.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wersch (Ed. and Trans.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wang, L.-C., & Chen, M.-P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical Review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207-225.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wiggens, D.G. (2007). Pre-K music and the emergent reader: Promoting literacy in a music-enhanced environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 55-64.
Winchester, I. (1985).Creation and creativity in art and science. Interchange, 16(1), 70-76.
Winsler, A., & Naglieri, J. (2003). Overt and covert verbal problem-solving strategies: Developmental trends in use, awareness, and relations with task performance in children aged 5 - 17. Child Development, 74(3), 659-678.
Wright, J., & Forrest, G. (2007): A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12(3), 273-287.
Yeh, Y.C. (2003). Critical thinking test-level I (CTT-I). Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publishing.
Young, M.F., Slota, S., Cutter, A.B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.
Zachopoulou, E., & Makri, A. (2005). A developmental perspective of divergent movement ability in early young children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(1), 85-95.
Zachopoulou, E., Trevlas, E., Konstandinidou, & Archimedes Project Research Group. (2006). The design and implementation of a physical education program to promote children’s creativity in the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 279-294.
Zaichkowsky, L. D., Zaichkowsky, L. B., & Martinek, T. J. (1980). The child and physical activity. St Louis, MO: Mosby-Davies.
Zelazo, P.D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 1-151.
吳靜吉、程炳林 (1992)。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，39，59-78。
詹秀美、吳武典（2007）。新編問題解決測驗。台北市：心理出版

校內：2017-08-29公開
校外：不公開電子論文尚未授權公開，紙本請查館藏目錄

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文