本研究旨在瞭解針對中文初學者的圖文聯想漢字學習方法對CSL的漢字學習成效，並探討創造力對於圖文聯想漢字學習方法之學習效果的影響，亦分析CSL學習者採用自行聯想方式進行漢字學習時，其聯想內容與母語者編製的聯想圖像內容之異同。本研究對象為25名於臺北市招募母語非中文之外籍自願研究參與者。研究所使用的材料係由熊襄瑜、張雨霖、陳學志、邱思潔、王儷君、謝佩珊（2012）所編製的90個直覺式對應式漢字聯想圖像當中，挑選36個目標字做為學習材料。測量工具為研究者採用實驗目標字編製的字形-字義辨識作業，針對研究參與者進行實驗前測、實驗結束之立即後測與一週的延宕後測。另採用陳長益（2006）修訂之陶倫斯創造力測驗成人適用精簡版測量參與者的創造力流暢、原創、變通、精進等指標。研究設計為3x2之二因子混合設計，受試者內因子為漢字學習方法（拼音翻譯、圖文聯想、自行聯想），受試者間因子為受試者的創造力指標高、低分組。研究結果為：
一、漢字學習方法對於CSL學習者漢字學習之立即效果沒有差異，然而在延宕效果則有差異，圖文聯想學習法優於拼音翻譯及學習者自行聯想。此外學習者對於圖文聯想學習法較為喜愛。
二、CSL學習者創造力流暢、原創、變通、精進等指標的高、低，對於漢字學習方法之學習效果無交互作用，亦即漢字學習方法之學習效果不受學習者創造力影響。
三、CSL學習者自行聯想內容與研究者提供的漢字聯想圖像有部分文化上的差異，同時亦有部分具有創意的聯想內容可供後續編製圖像聯想教材參考。
最終研究者根據研究結果，針對CSL的漢字學習的教學方法提出建議。

The aim of this thesis is to explore the learning effects of Character-Graphic Association Strategy to CSL learners and discusses the effects of creativity to the Character-Graphic Association Strategy and learning results. It also compares the difference between the contents associated by CSL learners and developed by native Chinese speakers. Participants were 25 volunteers of non-native Chinese speakers in Taipei city, 14 males and 11 females. Their Chinese abilities were identified by Chinese character recognition task before the experiment. The materials are 36 target Chinese characters, selected out of 90 characters of intuition corresponding formula for Chinese character association pictures (Hsiung, 2012). The measuring tool is the Chinese character graphemics-semantics recognition task. The pretest, immediate and one-week-later delayed posttests were conducted. The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults revised by Chen (2006) was also applied to measure the creativity, including the indices of fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration. The design is 3x2 two-way mixed design, the within-subjects factor is Chinese character learning strategies (Pinyin Translation Strategy, Character-Graphic Association Strategy, and Self-Generated Association Strategy), and the between-subjects factor is the level of creativity (high and low). The main findings are as follows:
1.By the result of immediate posttest, the effects of Chinese character learning strategies are not different to the learning result. However, by the result of delayed posttest, the effect of Character-Graphic Association Strategy is significantly better than Self-Generated Association Strategy. Also, learning by Character-Graphic Association Strategy is favored by most participants.
2.There is no interaction from the level of creativity to Chinese character learning strategies and results. The results of Chinese character learning strategies are not affected by the creativity of participants as well.
3.Some culture differences are found between the contents associated by CSL learners and developed by native Chinese speakers. Some of the self-generated association contents are innovative for further reference of editing Character-Graphic associated materials.
Suggestion of Chinese character learning for CSLs is provided according to the results.

一、中文部分

白樂桑（1996）。漢語教材中的文、語領土之爭: 是合併，還是自主，抑或分離。第五屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選。北京：北京大學出版社。
林季苗（2010）。漢語教學四大原則與法國經驗。華語文教學研究，8（2），65-79。
林姿君（2010）。運用心智圖法之漢字聯想研究：以英語母語漢語學習者為研究對象（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
江新（2000）。漢語作為第二語言學習策略初探。語言教學與研究，1。
江新、趙果（2001）。初級階段外國留學生漢字學習策略的調查研究。語言教學與研究，4，10-17。
吳秀娟、潘裕豐（2007）。主題統整教學對國小學童創造力、問題解決能力及學業成就的影響之研究。資優教育研究，7（2），71-104。
吳慧聆（2007）。字族文識字策略對國小學習障礙學童識字學習成效之研究。特殊教育學報，25，1-30。
周碧香（2009）。圖解識字教學原理探討。臺中教育大學學報：人文藝術類，23（1），55-68。
周碧香（2011）。從學習遷移談漢字教學的改進策略。臺北市立教育大學學報，42（2），1-22。
洪儷瑜、黃冠穎（2006）：兩種取向的部件識字教學對國小低年級語文低成就學生之成效比較。特殊教育研究學刊，31，43-71。
陳秀芬（1999）。中文一般字彙知識教學法在增進國小識字困難學生識字學習成效之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，17，225-251。
陳長益（修）（2006）。陶倫斯創造力測驗：成人適用精簡版 (Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults, ATTA)（原作者：Goff, Torrance）。臺北：心理。（原著出版年：2002）
陳龍安（2006）。創造思考教學的理論與實際。臺北：心理。
陳學志、張瓅勻、邱郁秀、宋曜廷、張國恩（2011）。中文部件組字與形構資料庫之建立及其在識字教學的應用。教育心理學報，43，269-290。
陳學志、陳仙舟、張道行（2012）。漢語組字規則資料庫暨漢字偏誤資料庫之建
置、擴充及運用。國立臺灣師範大學邁向頂尖大學研究計畫成果報告，未出版。
秦麗花、許家吉（2000）：形生字教學對國小二年級一般學生和學障學生識字教學效果之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，18，191-206。
胡永崇（2001）。不同識字教學策略對國小三年級閱讀障礙學童教學成效之比較研究。屏東師院學報，14，179-218。
胡永崇（2003）。國小四年級閱讀困難學生識字相關因素及不同識字教學策略之教學成效比較研究。屏東師院學報，19，177-216。
張明虎、彭杰、劉志英（2009）。淺論漢語作為第二语言教学中的漢字教學。红河學院學報，7（1），112-115。
黃秀霜（1999）。不同教學方式對學習困難兒童之實驗教學助益分析。課程與教學季刊，2(1)，69-82。
靳洪剛（2005）。多媒體漢字呈現與漢字習得研究：三個跨語言組的漢字測試分
析。第四屆全球華文網路教育研討會論文集，頁500-514。台北：中華民國僑務委員會。
裴斐斐（2007）。關於字本位和詞本位爭議的思考。徐州教育學院學報，22（2），94-95。
廖隆傑、何英奇（2006）。集中識字教學法對國小四年級學生增進一般字彙知識表現的效果之研究。中臺學報，18（1），133-166。
熊襄瑜、張雨霖、陳學志、邱思潔、王儷君、謝佩珊（2012年10月）。以中文為外語之學習者與以中文為母語者對漢字聯想圖像評定差異之研究。亞洲大學。台灣
心理年會，臺中。
歐素惠、王瓊珠（2004）。三種詞彙教學法對閱讀障礙兒童的詞彙學習與閱讀理解之成效研究。特殊教育研究學刊，26，271-292。
蔡雅薰、李麗美、吳安璿 （2011）。「擴增實境」技術運用於華語數位教材之研
究—以「中文妙方」為例。國立臺灣科技大學、東吳大學。第七屆台灣數位學習發展研討會（TWELF 2011），臺北。
賴惠鈴、黃秀霜（1999）。不同識字教學模式對國小學生國字學習成效研究。初等教育學報，12，1-26。
賴惠德、黃榮村(2005)。「漢字件屬性資料庫之建立」。第五屆華人心理學家學術研討會宣讀論文。大陸江蘇：蘇州大學。
戴汝潛（1999）。漢字教與學。濟南：山東教育出版社。

二、西文部分

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Anning, A. (1994). Play and legislated curriculum - back to basics: An alternative view. In J. R. Moyles (Ed.), The excellence of play (pp. 67-65). Buckingham, UK : Open University Press.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1989). Human memory and cognition. NY: HarperCollins.
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821-828.
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. UK: Psychology.
Chen, S. (2010). Research on the emergent writing development of Chinese young children (Unpublished master’s thesis ). East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Clark, J. M. , & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
Clark, R. C. , & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). The use of verbal and imagery mnemonics in second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 43-62.
Cronbach, L. (1967). How can instruction be adapted to individual differences. In R. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and individual differences , 2-39. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
Cropley, A. J. (1972). A five-year longitudinal study of the validity of creativity tests. Developmental Psychology,
6, 119-124.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
De Saussure, F. (1915). Cours de linguislique générale[Course in general linguistics] (pp. 48). Paris, France : Payot.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: D.C. Heath.
Diffily, D. (2001). From scribbles to stories: Supporting writing development. Texas Child Care, Summer, 1-7.
Flower, L. S. , & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans, juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. J. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Goff, K. , & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated Torrance test for adults manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Gowan, J.C. (1972). Development of the creative individual. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3-14.
Guilford, J. P. (1971). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Howieson, N. (1981). A longitudinal study of creativity: 1965-1975. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 117-134.
Kogan, N. , & Pakove, E. (1974). Long-term predictive validity of divergent - thinking tests: Some negative evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 802-810.
Kuo, M. , & Hooper, S. (2004). The effects of visual and verbal coding mnemonics on learning Chinese characters in
computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 23-38.
McGinnis, S. (1999). Student goals and approaches. In M. Chu(Ed.), Mapping the Course of the Chinese language field (pp. 151-188). Kalamazoo, Michigan: The Chinese Language Teachers Association.
Mayer, R. E. , & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dualcoding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
Mednick, S. A. (1962).The associative bases of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L.(1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive progresses in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 117-131.
Shagoury-Hubbard, R. (1996). Workshop of the possible: Nurturing children's creative development. York, Maine: Stenhouse.
Sterling , C. M. & Robson, C. (1992). Psychology, spelling and education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1-31.
Sternberg,R. J.,&Lubart,T.I.(1999).The concept of creativity:Prospects and paradigms.In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York,NY:Cambridge University Press.
Strickland, D. S. , & Morrow, L. M. (1988). Emergent literacy: Young children learn to read and write. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Teale,W.H.,&Sulzby,E.(1986).Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how young children become writers and readers.In Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. New Jersey: Ablex.
Torrance,E.P.(1962).Guiding creative talent.Englewood
Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall.
Torrance,E. P.(1964).Education and creativity. In Taylor,C. W.(Ed.),Creativity: progress and potential. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.
Torrance,E.P.(1966).The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton,NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance,E.P.(1974).The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B- Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Poole, M. (1980). Creative across the curriculum. London, England: George Allen and Unwin.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310 .
Hocevar, D. , & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. , Perfetti, C. , & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: cross-language and writing system
transfer. Cognition, 97, 67-88.
Whitaker, P. (1997). Primary schools and the future: Celebration, challenges and choices. Buckingham,UK: Open
University Press.
Wiles,J.(1985).The mind of invention: Activities to stimulate creative thinking.New York,NY: Freeman Press.
Wu,L.Y.(2009).Children’s graphical representations and emergent writing:Evidence from children’s drawings.Early Child Development and Care, 179(1), 69-79.
Zhou,J.(2009).Change over time in research on emergent literacy education in kindergarten. Early Childhood Education, 12, 14-19.