學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 創意風格與工作塑造之研究-以幼兒園園長與教師為例
A study of Creativity Style and Job Crafting作者 林玉涵
Lin, Yu Han貢獻者 徐聯恩
林玉涵
Lin, Yu Han關鍵詞 創意風格
工作塑造
幼兒園
creativity style
KAI
job crafting
kindergarten日期 2012 上傳時間 23-七月-2013 14:00:38 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討工作塑造與精進型、突破型兩種創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其工作塑造樣貌、從事工作塑造面臨的挑戰與調適的差異，並探討不同創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其創造性人格量表分數是否具有差異。本研究以台北市、新北市曾於91-95年度榮獲績優或優等幼兒園之園長與教師為研究對象，25位園長(園主任)與25位教師進行個別訪談與填寫問卷，每位研究對象之訪談時間約為90分鐘。(一)分析結果發現，創意風格與工作塑造樣貌層面：(1)二種創意風格，其工作塑造的改變幅度上有差異，突破型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師較精進型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師，在職責、關係工作塑造層面上，有較多從事跨越疆界，處理疆界外部的表現。(2)認同工作塑造層面上，突破型較精進型善於發現契機，主動改變。(二)創意風格與工作塑造挑戰及調適層面：(1)挑戰頻率：突破型具有較多人際溝通衝突之工作塑造挑戰；精進型則具有較多在意他人對自我看法之工作塑造挑戰。(2)調適方式：面臨非人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型與突破型創意風格者皆會以授權賦能，培育組織成員能力之方式解決困境，進行自我調適；面臨人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型創意風格者偏好以自我說服、善用自我優勢、人際溝通策略與技巧的方式進行調適；而突破型創意風格者較偏好以積極主動改變他人看法、調整自我心態的方式進行自我調適。(3)調適程度：精進型創意風格者較能順利調適自我內心的掙扎；突破型創意風格者則需要花費較長時間調適自我，但若調適發生困難時，則會選擇離開或是等待外力改變。(三)創意風格與創造性人格層面，精進型與突破型二種創意風格，在創造性人格量表分數上具有顯著差異。本研究亦發現：(一) 精進型與突破型皆會想要有所創新與改變。(二) 面對人際溝通的衝突時，偏好的處理方式不同。精進型傾向先接納他人意見，不正面衝突，偏好以人際溝通策略技巧避免衝突發生；突破型傾向先嘗試說服改變他人，再視情況決定是否改變自己的做法，而學習人際溝通策略技巧改善衝突。(三) 不同創意風格，其引發從事工作塑造的動機不同。精進型多為由外而內，受外在事件影響而引發改變的動機；突破型從多為由內而外，察覺與滿足自身需求而引發改變的動機。(四) 精進型與突破型創意風格皆會有工作塑造學習歷程之表現。(五) 職位高低對工作塑造之影響。高職位有較多工作塑造機會與行為表現、工作塑造的面向較廣且改變幅度較大，且多透過自我消化、授權賦能、幫助他人的方式進行調適；低職位常藉由尋求他人協助、參加研習的方式進行調適。最後研究者根據上述結論，針對幼兒園教師、幼兒園主管人員、教育行政機關以及後續研究提出建議。
The main purpose of this study is to discuss creativity style and job crafting, including “adaptors” and “innovators”. This study utilizes Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to distinguish adaptors from innovators, as well as to study the job crafting of these two styles. Researcher select 12 principals and 12 teachers from twelve public kindergartens, and 13 principals and 13 teachers from thirteen privacy kindergartens from Taipei City and New Taipei City, totally fifty samples, forty-seven available samples, as well as interviewed time is about ninety minutes for each interviewee.Following are the results of this study：First, it is in terms of creativity style and job crafting that (A) Innovators’ breadth of change is wider than adaptors. Moreover, innovators have more boundary-crossing and boundary-outside performances than adaptors in the task and relationship scope of job crafting. (B) In the cognition scope of job crafting, innovators master to perceive opportunities and change actively. Second, it is in terms of creativity style and challenges and adaptive moves in job crafting that (A) Frequency of challenge：Innovators have more challenge of interpersonally communicational conflict than adaptors. Besides, adaptors have more challenge about identity from other people. (B) Adaptive moves：On the part of impersonal challenge, adaptors and innovators solve problems as well as adapt inner struggles with empowering and fostering abilities of organizational members. On the part of interpersonal challenge, adaptors prefer to utilize self-persuasion and master on taking interpersonal intelligence to adapt inner struggles；Innovators prefer to change opinions of other people to adapt inner struggles. (C) Degree of adaptation：adaptors are better able to adapt successfully inner struggles than innovators；Innovators need more time to adapt inner struggles than adaptors. If innovators cannot adapt successfully, they shall choose to leave or wait for being changed by external force. Third, it is in terms of creativity style and The Creative Personality Scale (CPS) that had significantly different between adaptors and innovators in CPS. Additionally, this study also found：(A) Not only adaptors but also innovators eager to innovate and change. (B) Adaptors and innovators who prefer to take different ways to solve problems when they are faced with interpersonal conflict. (C) Adaptors and innovators who have different motives of job crafting. (D) Both adaptors and innovators doing job crafting through a period of learning. (E) Higher rank and lower rank job crafters have different performances of job crafting. On the basis of the results, this study proposes some suggestions for teachers, kindergarten principals, administrations, and researchers.參考文獻 一、中文部分王文中、鄭英耀（2000）。創造力發展量表之編製與試題反應分析。測驗年刊， 47（1），153-173。王精文、徐碧慧、李珍玫(2007)。創造力人格、領導型態與績效關係之探討。台 大管理論叢第17卷第2期, 159-182頁。李瑛姿(2011)。不同認知風格體育教師的創意教學自我效能之研究。國立體育大 學體育研究所碩士論文。桃園。任國炙(2005)。護理人員創造力人格、情緒智力、問題解決與工作績效之關係。 國立中興大學企業管理學研究所碩士論文，台中。李建道(2001)。創造力人格、工作環境認知與研發績效關聯性研究。國立中興大 學企業管理學研究所碩士論文。吳昭怡(2009)。從工作塑造看工作創新－以台灣大車隊為例。國立政治大學商管 專業學院碩士論文，台北市。吳武雄(2007)。資優生的思考風格。資訊教育簡訊，取自http://ck.tp.edu.tw/publish_message.aspx吳毓雯（2010）。教師創造力素養與創意教學行為影響因素之研究。國立政治 大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。吳靜吉、陳嘉成、林偉文(1998)。創造力量表簡介。發表於「技術與創造力研討 活動(二)：研究方法探討」之論文。高雄：國立中山大學。徐聯恩、田文彬（2002）。認知風格與創新。研習論壇理論與實務月刊，vol.23， 33-40。麥孟生(2000)。個人心裡類型、自我效能及態度對電腦學習成效之影響。國立中 央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。教育部(2002)。創造力教育政策白皮書。台北：教育部。楊坤原(1996)。高一學生認知風格、認知策略、遺傳學知識與遺傳學解題之研究。未出版之博士論文，台北市，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。葉怡伶（2008）。幼稚園教師組織文化知覺、創意人格與創意教學及之研究。國 立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。練友梅（2010）。創意心法6+1。台北：商周。劉宗明(2007)。國中教師人格特質、教學風格與教學效能之研究。國立彰化師範 大學教育研究所學校行政碩士班。彰化。劉怡萱(2012)。幼兒園園長與教師工作塑造之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究 所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。蔡雅婷(2009)。組織學習類型、教師問題解決風格與創意教學行為之關係。國立 台北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，台北市。藍堂愿(2005)。創造力人格特質與研發績效之關係。國立中興大學高階經理人碩 士在職專班，台中。羅巧玲(2011)。中部地區幼兒教師創造力人格特質與教學效能之相關研究。國立 台中教育大學幼兒教育學研究所碩士論文。台中。鄭英耀、王文中（2002）。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展－以國小自然科為例。 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫，台北市。鄭森皓(2005)。研發計畫主持人創造性人格特質、認知類型與計畫類型適配對研 發績效的相關研究。國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班管理科學組碩士論 文，新竹。黃冠瑋(2008)。知覺注意廣度之初探：認知風格、創造力與洞察案例。輔仁大學 心理學研究所碩士論文，新北市。二、英文部分Amabile, T.M. Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal,39(5)：1154-1184.Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski：Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. 2006. Contracting: A new form of professional practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 45-66.Brenda Elena Ghitulescu. 2006. Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E. & Wrzesniewski, A. 2008. What is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? The center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. Michigan Ross School of Business.Carol Evans(2004). Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Style and Teaching Educational Psychology, 24：4, 509-530.Carol Evans, Mary Jane Harkins & Jeffery D. Young(2008). Exploring Teaching Styles and Cognitive Styles：Evidence from School Teachers in Canada. North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 567-582. Carne, J.C., & Kirton, M.J.(1982). Styles of creativity：Test score correlations between the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.Psychological Reports,50,31-36.Cummings, A., Oldham, G.R.(1997).Enhancing Creativity：Managing Work Contexts for the High Potential Employee. California Management Review,40(1), 22-38. Dutta, D.K. & Thornhill, S.(2008). The evolution of growth intentions: toward a cognition-based model. Journal of Business Venturing,23, pp.307-332. Ettlie, J.E., & O’Keefe, R.D.(1982). Innovative attitudes, values and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,19,163-182.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1986a).The Kirton Adaption-Innovation inventory, faking and social desirability. A replication and extension. Psycjological Reports,58,269-270.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1987a). Adaption-Innovation and creativity. A replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology,26,79-82.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1987b). Adaption-Innovation and self-seteem. A replication and extension. Journal of Social Psychology,127,351-352.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A., & Wheatley, W.J.(1986).Yeasaying and the Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement,46,433-436.Justin M. Berg, Amy Wrzesniewski & Jane E. Dutton(2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks：When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Bahavior. Vol. 31, 158-186.Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,61:622-629Kirton, M. J. (1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity?. Psychological Reports,12:695-698Kirton, M. J. & McCarthy, R.M. (1985). Psychological Reports,57,pp. 1067-1070.Kirton, M. J. (1989). A theory of cognitive. In M. J.Kirton(Eds.)Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving:1-33,56-78.London:Routlede.Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-Innovation : In the Context of Diversity and Change.New York : Routledge.Miller, A.L. (2007).Creativity and cognitive style: the relationship between field dependence- independence,expected evaluation, and creative performance. Psychological of Aesthetics,and the arts,1,pp 243-246.Munoz-Doyague, M.F., Gonzalez-Alvarez,N. and Nieto, M.(2008). An examination of individual factors and employees’ creativity: the case of Spain.Creativity Besearch of Journal , 20,pp. 21-33.Olson, P.D.(1985).Entrepreneurship Theory and Pracrice,10,pp. 25-32.Puccio, G.J. Treffinger, D.J. & Talbot, R.J.(1995).Exploratory examination of relationships between creativity styles and creative process.Creativity Research Journal,8,pp. 157-172.Riding,R.J.(1997). On the nature of cognitive style.Education Psychology,17,pp. 29-49.Steven J. Armstrong, Eva Cools & Eugene Sadler-Smith(2012). Role of Cognitive Styles in Business and Management：Reviewing 40 Years of Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14, 238-262.Torrance, E.P., & Horng, R.Y.(1980). Creativity,style of learning and thinking characteristics of adators and innovators. The Creative Child Adult Quarterly, V,80-85.Witkin, H.A.(1949).Perception of body position and of the position of the visual field.Paychological Monographs,63, pp.443-451.Witkin, H.A.(1950). Perception of the upright when the directionof the force acting on the body is changed. Journal of Exprimental,40 ,pp. 93-106.Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W.(1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research,47,pp. 1-64.Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J.M., & Dutton, J.E.(2010). Managing Yourself: Turn the job you have into the job you want. Harvard Business Review, 26, 114-117. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
幼兒教育所
98157019
101資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098157019 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 徐聯恩 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 林玉涵 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Yu Han en_US dc.creator (作者) 林玉涵 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Yu Han en_US dc.date (日期) 2012 en_US dc.date.accessioned 23-七月-2013 14:00:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 23-七月-2013 14:00:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 23-七月-2013 14:00:38 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0098157019 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59010 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 幼兒教育所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98157019 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討工作塑造與精進型、突破型兩種創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其工作塑造樣貌、從事工作塑造面臨的挑戰與調適的差異，並探討不同創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其創造性人格量表分數是否具有差異。本研究以台北市、新北市曾於91-95年度榮獲績優或優等幼兒園之園長與教師為研究對象，25位園長(園主任)與25位教師進行個別訪談與填寫問卷，每位研究對象之訪談時間約為90分鐘。(一)分析結果發現，創意風格與工作塑造樣貌層面：(1)二種創意風格，其工作塑造的改變幅度上有差異，突破型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師較精進型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師，在職責、關係工作塑造層面上，有較多從事跨越疆界，處理疆界外部的表現。(2)認同工作塑造層面上，突破型較精進型善於發現契機，主動改變。(二)創意風格與工作塑造挑戰及調適層面：(1)挑戰頻率：突破型具有較多人際溝通衝突之工作塑造挑戰；精進型則具有較多在意他人對自我看法之工作塑造挑戰。(2)調適方式：面臨非人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型與突破型創意風格者皆會以授權賦能，培育組織成員能力之方式解決困境，進行自我調適；面臨人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型創意風格者偏好以自我說服、善用自我優勢、人際溝通策略與技巧的方式進行調適；而突破型創意風格者較偏好以積極主動改變他人看法、調整自我心態的方式進行自我調適。(3)調適程度：精進型創意風格者較能順利調適自我內心的掙扎；突破型創意風格者則需要花費較長時間調適自我，但若調適發生困難時，則會選擇離開或是等待外力改變。(三)創意風格與創造性人格層面，精進型與突破型二種創意風格，在創造性人格量表分數上具有顯著差異。本研究亦發現：(一) 精進型與突破型皆會想要有所創新與改變。(二) 面對人際溝通的衝突時，偏好的處理方式不同。精進型傾向先接納他人意見，不正面衝突，偏好以人際溝通策略技巧避免衝突發生；突破型傾向先嘗試說服改變他人，再視情況決定是否改變自己的做法，而學習人際溝通策略技巧改善衝突。(三) 不同創意風格，其引發從事工作塑造的動機不同。精進型多為由外而內，受外在事件影響而引發改變的動機；突破型從多為由內而外，察覺與滿足自身需求而引發改變的動機。(四) 精進型與突破型創意風格皆會有工作塑造學習歷程之表現。(五) 職位高低對工作塑造之影響。高職位有較多工作塑造機會與行為表現、工作塑造的面向較廣且改變幅度較大，且多透過自我消化、授權賦能、幫助他人的方式進行調適；低職位常藉由尋求他人協助、參加研習的方式進行調適。最後研究者根據上述結論，針對幼兒園教師、幼兒園主管人員、教育行政機關以及後續研究提出建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The main purpose of this study is to discuss creativity style and job crafting, including “adaptors” and “innovators”. This study utilizes Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to distinguish adaptors from innovators, as well as to study the job crafting of these two styles. Researcher select 12 principals and 12 teachers from twelve public kindergartens, and 13 principals and 13 teachers from thirteen privacy kindergartens from Taipei City and New Taipei City, totally fifty samples, forty-seven available samples, as well as interviewed time is about ninety minutes for each interviewee.Following are the results of this study：First, it is in terms of creativity style and job crafting that (A) Innovators’ breadth of change is wider than adaptors. Moreover, innovators have more boundary-crossing and boundary-outside performances than adaptors in the task and relationship scope of job crafting. (B) In the cognition scope of job crafting, innovators master to perceive opportunities and change actively. Second, it is in terms of creativity style and challenges and adaptive moves in job crafting that (A) Frequency of challenge：Innovators have more challenge of interpersonally communicational conflict than adaptors. Besides, adaptors have more challenge about identity from other people. (B) Adaptive moves：On the part of impersonal challenge, adaptors and innovators solve problems as well as adapt inner struggles with empowering and fostering abilities of organizational members. On the part of interpersonal challenge, adaptors prefer to utilize self-persuasion and master on taking interpersonal intelligence to adapt inner struggles；Innovators prefer to change opinions of other people to adapt inner struggles. (C) Degree of adaptation：adaptors are better able to adapt successfully inner struggles than innovators；Innovators need more time to adapt inner struggles than adaptors. If innovators cannot adapt successfully, they shall choose to leave or wait for being changed by external force. Third, it is in terms of creativity style and The Creative Personality Scale (CPS) that had significantly different between adaptors and innovators in CPS. Additionally, this study also found：(A) Not only adaptors but also innovators eager to innovate and change. (B) Adaptors and innovators who prefer to take different ways to solve problems when they are faced with interpersonal conflict. (C) Adaptors and innovators who have different motives of job crafting. (D) Both adaptors and innovators doing job crafting through a period of learning. (E) Higher rank and lower rank job crafters have different performances of job crafting. On the basis of the results, this study proposes some suggestions for teachers, kindergarten principals, administrations, and researchers. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機 1第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3第三節 名詞釋義 4第四節 研究範圍與限制 5第二章 文獻探討 7第一節 創意風格 7第二節 工作塑造 20第三節 幼兒園園長與教師創意風格與工作塑造之想像 44第三章 研究設計與實施 50第一節 研究架構 50第二節 研究對象 51第三節 研究方法 52第四節 研究工具 53第五節 研究程序 56第四章 分析結果與討論 58第一節 二種創意風格類型之幼兒園園長與教師，其工作塑造之樣貌 58第二節 創意風格類型幼兒園園長與教師，其工作塑造之挑戰與調適 116第三節 創意風格與創造性人格 138第四節 綜合分析與討論 143第五章 結論與建議 155第一節 結論 155第二節 建議 160參考文獻 163中文部分 163西文部份 164附錄 169附錄一 創意風格問卷 167附錄二 工作塑造訪談大綱 170 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3388511 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098157019 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創意風格 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 工作塑造 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 幼兒園 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) creativity style en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) KAI en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) job crafting en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) kindergarten en_US dc.title (題名) 創意風格與工作塑造之研究-以幼兒園園長與教師為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A study of Creativity Style and Job Crafting en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分王文中、鄭英耀（2000）。創造力發展量表之編製與試題反應分析。測驗年刊， 47（1），153-173。王精文、徐碧慧、李珍玫(2007)。創造力人格、領導型態與績效關係之探討。台 大管理論叢第17卷第2期, 159-182頁。李瑛姿(2011)。不同認知風格體育教師的創意教學自我效能之研究。國立體育大 學體育研究所碩士論文。桃園。任國炙(2005)。護理人員創造力人格、情緒智力、問題解決與工作績效之關係。 國立中興大學企業管理學研究所碩士論文，台中。李建道(2001)。創造力人格、工作環境認知與研發績效關聯性研究。國立中興大 學企業管理學研究所碩士論文。吳昭怡(2009)。從工作塑造看工作創新－以台灣大車隊為例。國立政治大學商管 專業學院碩士論文，台北市。吳武雄(2007)。資優生的思考風格。資訊教育簡訊，取自http://ck.tp.edu.tw/publish_message.aspx吳毓雯（2010）。教師創造力素養與創意教學行為影響因素之研究。國立政治 大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。吳靜吉、陳嘉成、林偉文(1998)。創造力量表簡介。發表於「技術與創造力研討 活動(二)：研究方法探討」之論文。高雄：國立中山大學。徐聯恩、田文彬（2002）。認知風格與創新。研習論壇理論與實務月刊，vol.23， 33-40。麥孟生(2000)。個人心裡類型、自我效能及態度對電腦學習成效之影響。國立中 央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。教育部(2002)。創造力教育政策白皮書。台北：教育部。楊坤原(1996)。高一學生認知風格、認知策略、遺傳學知識與遺傳學解題之研究。未出版之博士論文，台北市，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。葉怡伶（2008）。幼稚園教師組織文化知覺、創意人格與創意教學及之研究。國 立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。練友梅（2010）。創意心法6+1。台北：商周。劉宗明(2007)。國中教師人格特質、教學風格與教學效能之研究。國立彰化師範 大學教育研究所學校行政碩士班。彰化。劉怡萱(2012)。幼兒園園長與教師工作塑造之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究 所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。蔡雅婷(2009)。組織學習類型、教師問題解決風格與創意教學行為之關係。國立 台北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，台北市。藍堂愿(2005)。創造力人格特質與研發績效之關係。國立中興大學高階經理人碩 士在職專班，台中。羅巧玲(2011)。中部地區幼兒教師創造力人格特質與教學效能之相關研究。國立 台中教育大學幼兒教育學研究所碩士論文。台中。鄭英耀、王文中（2002）。科學創意教學實驗與教材發展－以國小自然科為例。 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫，台北市。鄭森皓(2005)。研發計畫主持人創造性人格特質、認知類型與計畫類型適配對研 發績效的相關研究。國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班管理科學組碩士論 文，新竹。黃冠瑋(2008)。知覺注意廣度之初探：認知風格、創造力與洞察案例。輔仁大學 心理學研究所碩士論文，新北市。二、英文部分Amabile, T.M. Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal,39(5)：1154-1184.Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski：Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. 2006. Contracting: A new form of professional practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 45-66.Brenda Elena Ghitulescu. 2006. Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E. & Wrzesniewski, A. 2008. What is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? The center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. Michigan Ross School of Business.Carol Evans(2004). Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Style and Teaching Educational Psychology, 24：4, 509-530.Carol Evans, Mary Jane Harkins & Jeffery D. Young(2008). Exploring Teaching Styles and Cognitive Styles：Evidence from School Teachers in Canada. North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 567-582. Carne, J.C., & Kirton, M.J.(1982). Styles of creativity：Test score correlations between the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.Psychological Reports,50,31-36.Cummings, A., Oldham, G.R.(1997).Enhancing Creativity：Managing Work Contexts for the High Potential Employee. California Management Review,40(1), 22-38. Dutta, D.K. & Thornhill, S.(2008). The evolution of growth intentions: toward a cognition-based model. Journal of Business Venturing,23, pp.307-332. Ettlie, J.E., & O’Keefe, R.D.(1982). Innovative attitudes, values and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,19,163-182.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1986a).The Kirton Adaption-Innovation inventory, faking and social desirability. A replication and extension. Psycjological Reports,58,269-270.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1987a). Adaption-Innovation and creativity. A replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology,26,79-82.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A.(1987b). Adaption-Innovation and self-seteem. A replication and extension. Journal of Social Psychology,127,351-352.Goldsmith, R.E. & Matherly, T.A., & Wheatley, W.J.(1986).Yeasaying and the Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement,46,433-436.Justin M. Berg, Amy Wrzesniewski & Jane E. Dutton(2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks：When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Bahavior. Vol. 31, 158-186.Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,61:622-629Kirton, M. J. (1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity?. Psychological Reports,12:695-698Kirton, M. J. & McCarthy, R.M. (1985). Psychological Reports,57,pp. 1067-1070.Kirton, M. J. (1989). A theory of cognitive. In M. J.Kirton(Eds.)Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving:1-33,56-78.London:Routlede.Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-Innovation : In the Context of Diversity and Change.New York : Routledge.Miller, A.L. (2007).Creativity and cognitive style: the relationship between field dependence- independence,expected evaluation, and creative performance. Psychological of Aesthetics,and the arts,1,pp 243-246.Munoz-Doyague, M.F., Gonzalez-Alvarez,N. and Nieto, M.(2008). An examination of individual factors and employees’ creativity: the case of Spain.Creativity Besearch of Journal , 20,pp. 21-33.Olson, P.D.(1985).Entrepreneurship Theory and Pracrice,10,pp. 25-32.Puccio, G.J. Treffinger, D.J. & Talbot, R.J.(1995).Exploratory examination of relationships between creativity styles and creative process.Creativity Research Journal,8,pp. 157-172.Riding,R.J.(1997). On the nature of cognitive style.Education Psychology,17,pp. 29-49.Steven J. Armstrong, Eva Cools & Eugene Sadler-Smith(2012). Role of Cognitive Styles in Business and Management：Reviewing 40 Years of Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14, 238-262.Torrance, E.P., & Horng, R.Y.(1980). Creativity,style of learning and thinking characteristics of adators and innovators. The Creative Child Adult Quarterly, V,80-85.Witkin, H.A.(1949).Perception of body position and of the position of the visual field.Paychological Monographs,63, pp.443-451.Witkin, H.A.(1950). Perception of the upright when the directionof the force acting on the body is changed. Journal of Exprimental,40 ,pp. 93-106.Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W.(1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research,47,pp. 1-64.Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J.M., & Dutton, J.E.(2010). Managing Yourself: Turn the job you have into the job you want. Harvard Business Review, 26, 114-117. zh_TW
