- 學位論文
Web2.0下的腦力激盪─探討不同社群型態與回饋類型對個人創造力表現之影響
The brainstorming based on web2.0─The influences of different community types and feedback types on individual’s performance of creativity
摘要
2002年教育部公布《創造力教育白皮書》，顯示出創造力研究已逐漸受到重視，如何提昇個人創意表現並促進創意思考(creative thinking)已成為一個重要的議題。此外，隨著web2.0社群發展，大眾已能便利地參與討論，給予他人一些回饋建議，如yahoo知識+、3C討論群組mobile 01。這些不同的社群回饋可能會影響他人的行為或思想，尤其每個人具有不同的思考風格，在集體腦力激盪（brainstorming）下產生的集體群眾智慧(collective wisdom)，對他人的影響力不可小覷。 因此，本研究旨在探討社群回饋建議是否有助於個人創造力表現的提升，並進一步以「思考風格」（thinking style）為變異，探討不同「社群型態」(community type)下的回饋，對個人的創意表現是否有不同的效應；以及不同「回饋類型」(feedback type)對個人創意表現又有什麼影響；最後，驗證不同評量者間評分的相關性。本研究應用高宜敏老師國科會計畫(NSC98-2511-S-155-004-MY2，執行期間：98/8/1-100/7/31）中開發的社群輔助發想網站(Community Assisted Thinking Website , CAT)，透過該平台進行社群討論與回饋，輔助學習者進行flash數位履歷的「創意腳本寫作」，並對其影響進行量化分析與質化的觀察。 研究結果發現，社群回饋確實能提升學生在黏力方面的表現，而不同社群型態給予的回饋對於個人創意表現上則並無顯著地差異。本研究中回饋多以增強性回饋為主，且與個人各方面表現都具有顯著相關，尤其是在黏力表現上；建議性回饋則可能因數量太少而與個人表現無顯著相關。此外，在評量者方面，研究顯示同儕互評與專家評分在評分上一致度很高。質化部分則進一步發現，相似風格的人的建議似乎更傾向補充他人的概念，使其更完整；互補風格的人則較傾向給予其他不同方向上的建議。而創作者對於回饋多採正向態度回應，未採納情況多因時間、技術的考量和概念衝突。此外，回饋具體與否品質不一、線下同儕討論未被記錄，和非完全匿名性的同儕間顧慮等問題也是影響回饋效應的關鍵性因素。
並列摘要
The announcement of “White Paper on Creativity Education” made by Ministry of Education in2002 shows that creativity research has received more attention. Therefore, how to improve an individual’s performance of creativity and promote creative thinking is important. In addition, as the development of web2.0 community, the public can participate in all kinds of discussions and give some feedbacks or suggestions to others, such as Yahoo!Answers and 3C discussion community website Mobile01. These various community feedbacks may have an effect on others’ behavior or thinking, especially, everyone may have his/her own preference and “thinking style”. In other words, the result of brainstorming with community masses involving the “collective wisdom” may have a great effect on individuals. Therefore, in this study we try to investigate whether the community feedbacks can promote individuals’ creativity performance. Besides, we take a distinguishing human factor (thinking style) into account to examine the effects of different community types on individuals’ creativity performance. Moreover, we also investigate the effects of various feedback types on individuals. Finally, we try to understand the correlation between the scores made by different assessors. In this study, we use Community Assisted Thinking Website (CAT) established by Kao (NSC98-2511-S-155-004-MY2, 98/8/1-100/7/31）as our community platform. The learner will write some creative scripts for “flash resume” and get some feedbacks from the discussion in CAT. In the end, we will analyze the quantitative data and make some qualitative observations. The result in this study shows that community feedbacks can promote the students’ performances and make the scripts “sticky” obviously. However, the effects of accepting feedbacks from various community types on individuals’ creativity performances have no noticeable differences. In this study, the result shows that students mainly prefer to give reinforcing feedbacks and give less suggestive feedbacks. And the reinforcing feedbacks correlate closely with the individuals’ performance; while suggestive feedbacks are not distinctly relevant to helping individuals perform better on writing scripts. In addition, the study shows that the result of peer assessment is highly correlated with the result of expert assessment. Moreover, some qualitative observations in this study implicate that people who have similar thinking styles to the individual seem to give suggestions that complete the concepts of the individual. Relatively, people who have complementary thinking styles with the individual prefer to give suggestions in various aspects. However, most of the individuals’ reactions to feedbacks are positive. Sometimes, people do not adopt the suggestions due to time and technical considerations or the conflicts of concepts. Besides, there are some factors that may have effects on community feedbacks. For example, the qualities of feedbacks in our community are inconsistent and some off-line discussions are not recorded in this study. Furthermore, the apprehensions among peers in discussions that are not one-hundred percent anonymous may possibly have some negative effects on the development of creativity in community.