本研究為「從當代藝術教育統整課程教學探討學童創造力表現研究」，研究對象為臺北市某國小之二、四、六年級學童，主要的研究目的有三：
一、了解學童在當代藝術教育統整課程教學實施過程之反應與回饋。
二、探討不同年級與性別之學童，在當代藝術教育課程教學前、後的創造力表現變化。
三、了解不同年級與性別之學童在當代藝術教育課程教學前、後的創作想法與作品特徵之差異。

研究者透過為期十三週之當代藝術教育統整課程教學之實施，並透過實驗法與內容分析法的研究方法策略，以了解學童在課程實施前、後的發展性表現與變化，在研究實施之後得到主要的三點結論：
一、學童在當代藝術教育統整課程教學的實施過程中，想像與創作的「可能性」概念連結，從一開始的微弱，到之後的豐富多元，顯示出當代藝術教育統整課程教學，對於學童在創造思維與表現力有明顯之影響。

二、透過量化分析可以發現，當代藝術教育統整課程教學實施之後，三個年級學童的創造力表現皆有所進步，且大部分的創造能力，六年級優於四年級與二年級；四年級也優於二年級。這顯示出三個年級的學童同樣受到當代藝術教育統整課程教學之影響，而表現出優於前測的創造力表現，且六年級受到的影響最大；後測結果，女生學童與男生學童大部分之創造表現能力皆相似，唯「分析批判能力」與「整體表現能力」，女生學童顯著得優於男生學童，從這裡也可以看出當代藝術教育統整課程教學，對不同性別學童的創造力表現影響差異。

三、從不同年級與性別學童對「一個美好家園」之創作想法與作品構成安排的內容分析可發現，在不同三個年級之低、高分組學童的想法概念表現，後測時已有明顯的拉近。低分組學童在前測時的想法表現，思考較為實際與簡單，想像性與創意性的想法較少出現，但在後測時，其思考表現並不會遜色於高分組學童之想像內容，甚至其創意超過高分組學童之想法，內容上也延伸更多的觸角與概念，不像先前的單一思考面向；在作品的構成安排分析方面發現，除了二年級低分組外，二年級高分組與四、六年級高、低分組之前、後測作品構成安排的特徵大多由「以家園整體環境為中心，家園中的房子是其中的一部分」轉向「以和非現實世界之事物（精靈、天使、糖果屋等）的互動安排為主。在性別分析方面，男、女生學童的創作想法後測，雙方出現最多的思考依舊以「符合個人期望的特殊功能或狀態」的美好家園思考為主，但與女生相較之下，「類似想像中的童話或夢幻國度」的想法反應，女生較多於男生，而男生還是有許多的思考是比較偏重於「可以在家園裡玩樂」的反應；在作品的構成安排分析方面發現，男、女生學童皆由「以家園整體環境為中心，家園中的房子是其中的一部分」轉向「以和非現實世界之事物（精靈、天使、糖果屋等）的互動安排為主，而房子不一定會出現」之特徵。

此外，研究者亦針對本研究之研究發現與結果，提出幾項建議與心得，以供日後涉及此相關議題研究之學者與教師參考之用。

“A study on elementary school students’ creativity through integrated curriculum in contemporary art education” is a study which aims at school children in the second, fourth and sixth grades from an elementary school in Taipei and has three major purposes respectively as followed:

Firstly, understand the response and feedback from the school children during the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education; secondly, discuss the difference of school children’s creativity performance among different age groups and gender groups after the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education; thirdly, understand the differentiation among creative ideas and the characteristic of artwork of the school children among different age groups and gender groups after the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education.

The researcher has preceded the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education for thirteen weeks and adopted the experimental research and the content analysis to understand school children’s development and difference before the curriculums and after the curriculums. After the research, three points are concluded:

I. During the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education, school children showed weak connection between the “possibility” of imagination and creative artwork at the beginning, while they displayed diverse linkage later, which explains that the integrated curriculums in contemporary art education do place great influence on school children’s creative thinking and performance.

II. With quantitative analysis, it is found that children in the three grades have big improvement in creativity after being taught integrated curriculum in contemporary art education. Sixth-grade children do perform better than fourth and second ones in most abilities of creativity. This result shows that children in the three grades are influenced by the integrated curriculum in contemporary art education and then have a better creativity performance than they did in the former test, especially the sixth-grade children. Among the gender group analysis, girls group generally have similar creativity performance in the post test as boys group except two categories: analytical ability and integral performance. In these two categories, girls group shows better performance than boys group. Thus, children are influenced by integrated curriculum in contemporary art education and show the difference between the gender groups.

III. From the content analysis of creative ideas and the construction of artwork toward the topic “perfect home”, it is found that the gap between the higher- scored group and the lower-scored group has been clearly reduced in the post test. In the pre-test, school children in lower-scored group showed practical and simple ideas and lacked imagination and creative ideas. However, in the post-test, those children expanded their content to wider dimension and showed greater ideas than children in the higher-scored group. In the analysis of construction of artwork, most works (except the lower-scored group of the second grader) in the pre-test present the feature “home and the community are centered in the layout and the house is part of home”, while in the post test, the feature becomes “the interaction between unreal items (such as fairies, angels and candy house)”. In the analysis of the gender group, both boys and girls reveal the idea “perfect home is to fulfill individual expectation”. Boys still tend to the idea “home is for fun”, which is a contrast to girls’ idea “home is a fairyland”. In the analysis of construction of artwork, both boys and girls show the feature “home and the community are centered in the layout and the house is part of home” first and then switch to “the interaction between unreal items (such as fairies, angels and candy house) without the house”.
Besides, the researcher has raised several suggestions for relevant scholars and teachers to go on further researches in the future.

一、中文部分
王佳煌等 譯（2002）。當代社會研究法：質化與量化途徑。臺北市：學富文化。Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
王瑞蓉（2003）。低結構性素材應用於國小藝術統整課程之研究－以國小低年級為例。國立新竹教育大學美勞教育學系碩士論文。
毛連塭等合著（2000）。創造力研究。台北：心理。
朱柔若 譯（2000）。社會研究方法— 質化與量化取向。臺北市：揚智。Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
李雅婷（2002）。課程美學探究取向的理論與實踐之研究－以國小藝術統整課程之教育批評為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
李錫津（1987）。創造思考教學研究。台北：台灣書店。
吳靜吉、葉玉珠、鄭英耀（2000）。影響創意發展的個人因素、家庭及學校因素量表之發展。國科會整合型計畫部分結果報告(NSC88-2519-S-004-001-C)。台北市：國立政治大學。
宋阡（2008）。知識對設計過程與創造力表現之影響。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
呂宗杰（2009）。創造力表現於國中設計課程之應用。國立臺灣藝術大學視覺傳達設計研究所碩士論文。
卓淑惠（2005）。國小六年級藝術統整課程之行動研究－以音樂與視覺藝術共通的藝術形式為主軸。國立臺南大學教育經營與管理研究所碩士論文。
林月娥（2005）。視覺藝術統整課程之實驗研究－以國小環境議題統整課程實施為例。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
林生傳（2003）。教育研究法：全方位的統整與分析。臺北市：心理。
林秀珊（2008）。視覺藝術創造思考教學活動對國中美術班學生創造力表現之影響。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系所碩士論文。
林宥榕（2009）。圖畫書教學對國小教師創造力教學及學童創造力表現之影響。國立臺灣師範大學創造力發展碩士在職專班碩士論文。
林清山（1978）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：東華。
胡幼慧 編（1996）。質性研究—理論方法及本土女性研究實例。台北：巨流。
教育部（2003）。創造力教育白皮書。台北：教育部。
郭靜緻（2006）。創造性藝術教學對幼兒創造力表現之影響。國立屏東科技大學幼兒保育系碩士班碩士論文。
郭禎祥（1999）。描繪新世紀藝術教育藍圖，美育，110，1-9。
郭禎祥（2001）。新世紀藝術教育的變動。2001國際藝術教育學會亞洲地區學術研討會－第三屆海峽兩岸美術教育交流研討會論文集，頁427-438。南投：中華民國藝術教育研究發展學會。
郭禎祥（2007）。藝術、創意與終生學習。文化與創意－在地性與全球化之藝術教育。花蓮：2007亞太藝術教育國際研討會。
郭有遹（2001）。創造心理學。台北市：正中書局。
徐朝英（2005）。高雄市國民中學「藝術與人文」領域之視覺藝術統整課程實施現況調查研究。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
徐湘評（2011）。畫家故事與繪本啟發國小低年級學童繪畫創造力表現之行動研究。國立臺中教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
教育部(2000)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程試辦工作輔導手冊。台北：教育局。
黃壬來（2003）。當前情勢與台灣藝術教育改革的取向。美育雙月刊，133，39-42。
黃壬來（2006）。國際視覺藝術教育趨勢。2006年全國藝術教育展研討會手冊，頁9-38。花蓮教育大學。
黃湫瑛（2003）。創造性思考學習活動對高中生網頁設計創造力表現及問題解決學習成效之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
黃瓈瑱（2009）。國中生圖形創造力表現及其相關影響因素之研究--以臺北縣某兩所國中為例。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文。
黃譯瑩（1999）。九年一貫課程中課程統整相關問題探究。教育研究資訊，7(5），60-81。
張春興（1996）。張氏心理學辭典。台北市：東華出版社。
陳龍安（2006）。創造思考教學的理論與實際(6版)。台北：心理出版社。
陳瓊花(2001)。從美術教育的觀點探討課程統整設計之模式與案例。視覺藝術教育，5，4-22。
陳瓊花 (2005)。視覺文化藝術教育之特質與「藝術與人文課程」內涵之建構，教育研究月刊，130，111-118。
陳瓊花(2007)。 髮禁解除 = 藝術 + 教育 + 未來。在黃乃熒主編，後現代思潮與教育發展，頁163-176。台北：心理出版社。
陳藝心（2006）。社區取向藝術統整課程教學之行動研究—以天母社區為例。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修碩士論文。
趙惠玲（2001）。視覺文化統整課程初探－從惠玲檳榔與荷莉的例子談起。新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會論文集，頁411-433。台北：國立台灣師範大學美術學系。
趙惠玲（2005）。視覺文化與藝術教育（二版）。台北：師大書苑。
楊淨涵（2010）。無字圖畫書教學對幼兒創造力表現之影響。國立屏東教育大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文。
楊馥如（2005）。當代「藝術統整課程」理論與實踐之研究。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所博士論文。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性理論與應用。台北：心理。
鍾政岳（2003）。高中視覺藝術統整課程教學研究∼以國立苑裡高中為例。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
羅美慧（2005）。圖畫書創意教學策略對兒童藝術創造力表現之影響。國立新竹教育大學美勞教育學系碩士班碩士論文。

二、英文部分
Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Arnold, A. (2008, June). Creativity in a Global World: Welcoming Another View. In Ann C. S. Kuo(Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Baert, P. (1998) Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press.
Barkan, M. (1962). Transition in art education: Changing conceptions of curriculum and theory. Art Education 15 (7), 12 -18.
Barrett, T. (2004). Investigating art criticism ineducation. In E. W. Eisner& M.D.D. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (725-749).
Boughton, D. (2008, June). Promoting Creativity in the Art Class through Assessment. In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Clark, E. (1986). Optimizing learning: The integrative education model to the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merril publishing company.
Clark, G. A., Day, M. D., & Greer, W. D. (1987). Discipline-base art education: Becoming student of art. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-193.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp.325-339). Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, M. (2008, June). Creativity and Contemporary Visual Art. In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Day, M. (2009). Contemporary Art and Student Learning. The International Journal of Arts Education, 7(1), 141-152.
Drake (1992). A story model: an integrated curriculum project. Ontario: Catharines.
Duncum, Paul (2000). Deconstructing media images of postmodern childhood. In Fehr, D. E. & Fehr, K. & Keifer-boyd, K. (Eds. ) Real-world readings in art education (pp.29-34). New York: NY: Falmer Press.
Edwards（2000）. The new drawing on the right side of the brain. US: Penguin Putnam Inc.
Efland, A., Freedman, K., & Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern Art Education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education.
Efland, A. (2002). Emerging visions of art education. In NAEA Conference, Miami： Florida, March 2002.
Efland (2010). From Creative Self Expression to the Rise of the Creative Class: A Speculative Inquiry in the History of Art Education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 8(2), 1-17.
Eysenk, H. J. (1994). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147-178.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/ Hunt.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). Talent identification and development in Education (TIDE). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
Feldman, D. H. (1982). Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. . In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity, 69-186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Journal of Roper Review, 22(3), 148-153.
Freedman, K. (2000). Context as a part of visual culture. Journal of Multicultural and cross-cultural, 18, 41-44.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49, pp. 61-65.
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fukumoto, K. (2008, June). Educational Imagination Mediating Art Appreciation Learning in Art Education. In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Gardner, H. (1993). Greating minds. New Yok: Basic.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Mulitple intelligences for the 21st.century. New York: Basic Books.
Geahigan, G. (1998). Critical inquiry: Understanding the concept and applying it in the classroom. Art Education, 51(5), 10-16.
Gove, P. B.（1973）. Webster’s Third New international Dictionary. (台北：新月圖書公司，1973)
Grierson, E. (2008, June). Footprints of Creativity and Innovation: Designing Our Futures. In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008
World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems apporoach to creative work. In D. B. Wallance & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work: Twelve cognitive case studies (pp.3-24). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamblen, K. A. (1997). Second Generation DBAE. Visual Arts Research, 23(2), 98-106.
Hoff, E.V., & Carlsson, I. (2002). Shining lights or lone wolves? Creativity and self-image in primary school children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(1), 17-39.
Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1991). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Hurwitz, A. & Day, M. (2007). Children and their art, 8th ed. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Isaksen, S. G., Kenneth, J. L., Ekvall, G. & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171-184.
Jacobs, H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kay, S. (1994). A method for investigating the creative thought process. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, solving, and creativity (pp. 116-129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Keat, R. & Urry, J. (1975). Social theory as science. London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.
Kindler, A. (2008, June). Art, Creativity, Art Education and Civil Society. In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3rd ed.). NYC: Macmillan.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Mayer, E. R. (1999). Fifty Years of Creativity Research. In Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). Handbook of Creativity. NY: Cambridge. 449-460.
Miller, J.（1990）. What are schools for? Antario: Holistic Education Press.
Miller, J. (1992). Towards a spiritual curriculum. Holistic Education Review, 5(1), pp. 43-49.
Mirzoeff, N. (2001). Introduction part II. In N. Mirzoeff (ED.), The Visual Culture Reader. (p.126-129). New York: Routledge.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, solving, and creativity (pp. 3-39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mumford, M. D. & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.
Palmer, J. M. (1991). Planning wheels turn curriculum around. Education Leadership, 49, pp. 57-60.
Parsons, M. J. (2003). The movement toward an integrated curriculum: some background influences in art education in the USA. Unpublished manuscript, Columbus, OH.
Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In E. W. Eisner& M. D.D. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (775-794).
Parsons, M. (2010). Boxes and Corrals: Creativity and Art Education Revisited. The International Journal of Arts Education, 8(2), 31-41.
Perkins D. N. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roukes, N. (1988). Design Synectics. Massachusetts: Davis Publications.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 386-427). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spiro, R. J. , Feltovich, P. J. , Jacobson, M. J. & Coulson, R.L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext : Ramdom accessinstruct ion for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 5, 24-33.
Starko, A. J. (2001). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (2nd. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985).Beyond IO: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-32.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd.: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Steers, J. (2008, June). Creativity and Motivation: To inspire or to goad? In Ann C. S. Kuo (Chair), “Creativity．Culture．Arts Education”. 2008 World Creativity Summit, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985).Beyond IO: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, M. G., & Walker, S. R. (2005). Rethinking curriculum in art. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Stewart, M. G. & Katter, E. (2009). A personal journey, MA: Davis Publications.
Stewart, M. G. & Katter, E. (2009). A global pursuit. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Sullivan, G. (2004). Studio art as research practice. In E. W. Eisner& M. D.D. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (795-814).
Tavin, K. (2003). Wrestling with Angles, Searching for Ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197-213.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 153-156.
Walker, S. R. (2001). Teaching Meaning in Artmaking. Worcester, Mass. : Davis Publications.
Walker, S.R. (2003). Designing art curriculum with big ideas. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 136. National Taiwan Normal University.
Wiesberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.
Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education, 6the ed. Masacrusettes: Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, P.E. (1980). Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP): Manual. Buffalo: D.O.K. Publishers, Inc.
Winner E ., & Martino G. (1993). Giftedness in the visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, E. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, 253-281. New York: Pergamon.
Woodman, R. W. & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J. A. Gloner, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp.77-92). New York: Plenum.
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151-167.