傑出科技創作學童點子發想之研究

A STUDY OF IDEA GENERATING APPROACHES AMONG OUTSTANDING PUPILS IN POWER TECH CONTEST

侯旭峰(Hsu-Feng Hou)

指導教授 ： 洪榮昭 ； 許良明

國立臺灣師範大學/科技學院/工業教育學系/碩士(2002年)

摘要

本研究主要在探討傑出科技創作學童在參與「Power Tech：2002全國少年科技創作競賽」之點子發想，針對表現傑出隊伍於問題解決模式之點子擷取方法及點子發想成效進行分析。為達成此目的，本研究以立意選取表現傑出隊伍進行深度訪談，訪談內容則採用半結構式訪談大綱，並蒐集作品創新歷程記錄進行文件分析。透過文件分析、訪談表現傑出隊伍、指導老師及家長三方面資料做為本研究三角分析校正之用。根據本研究所得到的結論如下：
一、 科技創造力成長背景與發展
本研究就家庭環境與學校學習經驗兩點做摘要說明：
（一）家庭環境：傑出科技創作學童參加Power Tech，皆獲家長高度支持，家長不只在時間及材料購買方面支持，在空間上，以家庭兼工廠的概念來支持學童從事科技創作，加上學童本身的興趣使他們具備高度信心參賽。
（二）學校學習經驗：假設傑出科技創作學童對於與Power Tech較高度相關的自然科目有高度的興趣，但根據研究結果，不支持假設，究其原因，他們表示任課教師過度注重講述，忽略了動手經驗（no hands-on experience）有關。
二、 個人與團隊點子發想之方法與成效
本研究就個人點子發想特色、團隊運作方式與團隊點子發想特色三點做摘要說明：
（一）個人點子發想特色
個人點子發想特色分為下列四點：1.點子發想方法：傑出科技創作學童最常用的為與人討論及探勘他物兩種方法。2.點子發想的情境：多為在共同製作場地中一同討論時所發想出來。3.篩選原始點子的方法：多半為自行選出較可行的點子。點子不是太誇張及不實際即可試驗。4.篩選認為可行點子的方法：多半選擇提出由團隊一起討論抉擇。
（二）團隊運作方式
兩隊在材料加工部分的團隊運作方式採保齡球隊，即各自分工完成各人負責部分；在部品組合部分採籃球隊，即相互提出自己的知識與技術，並由隊長調度分配，依據當時比賽狀況做隨機應變。
（三）團隊點子發想特色
團隊點子發想特色分為下列四點：1.點子發想方法：團隊皆採用一般討論法來共同發想。2.點子發想的情境：多在共同製作討論的時候發想出來。3.篩選原始點子的方法：先篩選個人提出可行的點子，然後再依無法解決的問題討論或是取較平衡的點子來運用在作品上。4.篩選認為可行點子的方法：甲隊篩選認為可行的方法分別為製作完成後再行針對出現的問題狀況加以解決或把行不通的點子去除，討論新的點子；乙隊則分成兩小隊實際比賽，依比賽結果修正。
最後，根據研究結果提出八點建議以供培養科技人才及相關活動單位之參考。

關鍵字

科技創造力 ； 點子發想 ； Power Tech ； 團隊運作方式

並列摘要

This study aims to investigate the idea generating process of outstanding pupils in the Power Tech 2002 Taiwan Youth Technological Innovation Contest. To do that, an in-depth analysis of the idea generating methods applied for problem solving as well as the idea generating results of the winning teams will be provided. The study selects the outstanding teams in the contest through purposive sampling for an in-depth interview, of which a semi-structured content outline is used, and collects the records of the project creation process for document analysis. The three data sets obtained from the document analysis and the interviews on the outstanding teams, the teacher advisors, and the parents are then used for triangulation. The major findings of this study are summarized below:
1. Personal background with the development of technological creativity
For personal background, this study mainly discusses family environment and school learning experience:
(1) Family environment: All of the outstanding pupils at the Power Tech contest had strong support from their parents. The parents not only allow their children to spend time on the project but provide financial support with material purchase. Space-wise, the parents even use the “home factory” concept to encourage their children to engage in technological innovation. All this, together with the children’s own interest, have given the children a high level of confidence in competition.
(2) School learning experience: The hypothesis is that the outstanding pupils are highly interested in the Science subject at school because it is closely related to the Power Tech contest. The research findings however do not support the hypothesis. The reason, according to the outstanding pupils is that their teachers at school tend to over-emphasize the importance of lecture and have largely ignored hands-on experience.
2. Idea generating methods and results of individual members and of the team as a whole
For idea generating methods and results, this study mainly discusses individual member’s idea generation characteristics, team operation method, and team idea generation characteristics:
(1) Individual members’ idea generation characteristics
The idea generation characteristics of individual members can be discussed under the following four categories: 1. Idea generating method—discussion and object exploration are the two major approaches most frequently applied by the outstanding pupils in Power Tech. 2. Idea generating context—most of the ideas are generated during discussion at the general joint production site. 3. Original idea screening method—most of the pupils pick out feasible ideas by themselves. All ideas are tested except those too farfetched or impractical ones. 4. Feasible idea screening method—most pupils leave it to the team for discussion and final decision.
(2) Team operation method
Both outstanding teams adopt a bowling-team type of operation in material processing, i.e. each member completes his own part of work, whereas in component assembly, the basketball team operation model is adopted, i.e. each member provides his own knowledge and skills and the team manager or leader is responsible for resource allocation and decision making according to the change of the situation at the contest.
(3) Team idea generation characteristics
The team idea generation characteristics too can be discussed under the following four categories: 1. Idea generating method—both teams adopt the discussion approach to brainstorm for ideas. 2. Idea generating context—most of the ideas are developed during discussion and joint production. 3. Original idea screening method—team members first raise the ideas that they believe to be feasible and then the team discusses the unsolved problems or selects relatively balanced ideas for use in the final product. 4. Feasible idea screening method: Team A first selects feasible ideas and applies them in production. After the project is completed, the team then fixes the problems or drops the unworkable ideas to discuss new possibilities. Team B on the other hand divides themselves up into two sub-groups to compete for ideas and then revises the ideas according to the result of competition.
Based on the research findings, this study makes eight recommendations as reference for institutions in charge of preparing future technological talents and for organizers of similar technological contest activities.

並列關鍵字

Technological creativity ； idea generating ； Power Tech ； team operation method