許多文獻指出「想像」能促進學習成效與想像力，進而產生創造力，因此，本研究旨在建構一個想像力教學模式，以引導學習者透過「想像」進行學習與創造。根據文獻探討，研究者建構出「想像力的教與學模式」(Model of Imaginative Teaching and Learning, MITL)，其中包含了學習者層次與教學層次，前者含有「學習」、「想像」與「創造」三個元素，而後者則有「運用想像引入概念」、「想像激發策略」與「想像的實作」三個操作元素。
為驗證MITL，本研究分別進行預備性研究與兩個正式研究。在預備性研究當中，旨在建構「想像性學習材料」與發展測量工具－「科學想像力任務」。首先，根據「有意義的概念或知識」、「幽默」、「挑戰」、「鮮明影像」與「意想不到的結局」等原則，並以國小自然學習領域中「熱的傳播」單元為學科知識內容，發展三篇想像性學習材料，分別為「亞力的冒險」（傳導）、「阿皮的旅行」（對流）與「豬媽媽探親記」（輻射）。其次，「科學想像力任務」（Scientific Imagination Tasks）包含三個活動：(1)活動一：10題「熱的傳播知識題」；(2)活動二：即參考擴散思考測驗型態所編製而成，係包含「熱的傳播」概念的的語文任務；(3)活動三：延續活動二的圖形活動。在評分指標部分，語文活動包含「流暢力」、「變通力」（共有17個類別）、「有獨創力×有知識運用」（A分數）與「有獨創力＋無知識運用」（B分數），以及「想像力豐富性與色彩性」；在圖形部分，評分指標有「圖形獨創力」、「科學功能」與「其它功能」。再以「想像力測驗」作為效標進行考驗，發現相對應之指標皆有不錯之效度。
研究一探究「學習材料」對於「學習成效」與「想像力」的影響，並檢驗教學模式中「運用想像引入概念」與「想像的實作」。共有160位4年級與5年級學生參與研究，參與者皆未在國小自然課當中學過「熱的傳播」概念，並且採隨機的方式分配至實驗組與控制組。在研究程序部分，第一週所有學生完成「想像力測驗」（以前測做為共變項），在第二週，所有受試者被要求在12分鐘內完成三篇故事（實驗組）或三篇文章（控制組）的閱讀，並於其後完成「科學想像力任務」。主要研究結果發現：(1)控制組在「熱的傳播知識題總分」顯著高於「實驗組」；（2）實驗組在「有獨創力×有知識運用」（A分數）與「想像力豐富性與色彩性」的得分顯著高於控制組。整合研究一之結果發現，想像性學習材料較能幫助學習者運用新概念解決問題，而且易產生獨創答案，也有豐富與色彩鮮明的影像。
研究二主要探究「想像力教學」是否能促進「想像力」，以及其促進效果，並進一步考驗「學習材料」與「教學方法」之間是否存有交互作用。在此研究主要檢驗教學模式中「運用想像引入概念」、「想像激發策略」與「想像的實作」。共有187位4或5年級的學生參與研究，受試學生從未在國小自然課當中學習「熱的傳播」單元。在進行教學實驗前，研究者根據年級與學區進行教學方法之配對，故實驗組與控制組各有4個班。研究程序部分，第一週完成「想像力測驗」（以前測做為共變項），在第二週，研究者隨機發放學習材料，並進行12分鐘的閱讀，之後進行想像力教學與練習，最後請學生完成「想像力科學任務」。主要研究結果顯示：(1)接受「想像力教學」的學生在「流暢力」、「變通力」、「有獨創力＋無知識運用」（B分數）、「想像力豐富性與色彩性」與「圖形獨創力」的得分顯著高於接受「批判思考教學」的學生；（2）「教學方法」與「年級」的二因子共變數分析出現單純主要效果，5年級學生接受「想像力教學」後在「有獨創力×有知識運用」（A分數）的得分顯著高於接受「批判思考教學」，以及接受「想像力教學後」，5年級在「有獨創力×有知識運用」（A分數）的表現會顯著優於4年級。
整合研究一與研究二之結果與證據，初步驗證MITL。最後，本研究針對相關問題進行探討，並且對於未來研究與實務應用提出建議。

Literature indicates that imagining or imaginative elements benefit both learning effect and imagination, however, seldom studies investigate them at the same time. Thus, this study aims to construct the model of imaginative teaching and learning(MITL), in which learning effect and creative imagination are supposed to be facilitated.There are two levels in MITL: (1)learner level: it contains three elements-learning, imagining and creating; (2)instructor level: it also contains three elements-introducing concepts with imagination, stimulating imagination by teaching strategies, and practicing based on imagination.
In order to validate the MITL, the pilot study and two formal studies were conducted. In the pilot study, materials for the treatment and the measuring tools for the study 1 and study 2 were developed and validated. It was found that the principles for constructing imaginative material included meaningful concepts (knowledge), humor, challenge, vivid images, and surprising ending. Three stories based on the five principles for the experimental group and three articles referring textbooks for the control group were constructed. Besides, “Scientific Imagination Tasks” which contains “Scientific Knowledge Test” that included 10 items, “Scientific Imagination Tasks (verbal version)” referring to divergent thinking tests, and “Scientific Imagination Tasks (graphic version) “were also established and validated. The results showed that in the verbal task, the four indices -fluency, flexibility (17 categories), originality based on knowledge (score A), originality without knowledge(score B), and vivid imagery- were appropriate for judging, and then validated by the criterion test (Imagination Tests); in the graphic task, the three indices-originality, scientific functions, and other functions were also chosen and validated.
Th study 1 aims to validate “introducing concepts with imagination” and “practicing based on imagination” in the MITL. Thus, the research question was that whether imaginative learning material facilitate learning effect and creative imagination. Thus, All participants (N=160) who were 4 or 5 graders in the elementary school and haven’t learn the concept of thermal conduction, were randomly assigned into the control and the experimental groups. In the first week, they finished Imagination test. In the second week, all participants were required to read three scientific articles (the control group) or stories (the experimental group) within 12 minutes, and then they finished “Scientific Imagination Tasks”. Results revealed that (1) the experimental group were significantly superior to the control group on originality based on knowledge and vivid imagery. (2) the control group significantly outperformed the experimental group on the scientific knowledge test. In conclusion, imaginative learning materials help pupils apply new concepts to solve the ambiguous problem, to have more original ideas, and to produce abundant and colorful mental images. Besides, the two instructor elements in MITL were validated.
The aim of study 2 is to validate the three elements of the instructor level in MITL. Two research questions were explored: (1) Whether the imaginative teaching improve pupils’ creative imagination; (2) Whether “learning material” and “teaching method” has interaction on learning effect or creative imagination. The participants were 187 fourth and fifth graders who haven’t learn thermal conduction in the science study. Before the experiment, participants were paired according to their grades and school districts. There were four classes for the experimental group(imaginative teaching) and another four classes for the control group(critical thinking teaching). All participants finished Imagination Tests before receiving two kinds of teaching and completed Scientific Imagination Tasks after the treatment. The results indicated that (1) the participants who receiving imaginative teaching showed better performance on fluency, flexibility, originality without knowledge, vivid images in the verbal task, and originality in the graphic task; (2) the participants receiving non-imaginative learning material were significantly superior to those who receiving imaginative learning material; (3) there was the simple main effect existed between the grade and the teaching method, in which the fifth graders who receiving imaginative teaching showed greater performance on originality based on knowledge than receiving critical thinking teaching; and imaginative teaching benefits greatly fifth graders on originality based on knowledge than fourth graders. The three instructor elements in MITL were also validated.
Based on the evidences derived from study 1 and study 2, “Model of Imaginative Teaching and Learning” was primarily confirmed. In the end, some discrepancies were discussed, and suggestions for the educational implement and the future study were proposed.

中文部分
朱容樂、賴美辰、林偉文（2013）。「20年後的澳底」未來想像教學方案發展之行動研究。發表於「未來想像教育學術與實務研討會」，高雄市。
林偉文 、朱采翎 、陳玉樺 、陳彥如 、林妙茹 、謝筱岑 、彭淑玲 、黃玟旗（2013）。未來想像的內涵規準與評量模式之建構。發表於「臺灣心理學會第五十二屆年會暨學術研討會」，臺北市。
林偉文（2011）。科學教師、科學競賽團隊之想像力與培育。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（報告編號：NSC 98-2511-S-152-020-MY2）。臺北市：國立台北教育大學教育系。
林偉文（2014）。科學教育、科技與設計之想像力與創造-科學教學之想像力與培育（II）（總計畫）。中華民國科技部專題研究計畫成果報告（報告編號：NSC 100-2511-S-152-010-MY2）。臺北市：國立臺北教育大學教育系。
林偉文、朱采翎、王毓苓（2012）。想像力測驗指導手冊。臺北：國立臺北教育大學教育系。(ISBN 978-957-41-9500-8)
林偉文、朱采翎、王毓苓、劉家瑜（2010）。想像力的運作機制：以創意科學教師教學設計為例。本文發表於「台灣教育研究學會2010學術研討會」，高雄市。
林偉文、朱采翎、江欣珀（2013）。未來想像評量任務。載於「未來想像教育評量工作坊手冊」，臺北。
邱發忠、陳學志、林耀南、涂莉苹（2012）。想像力構念之初探。教育心理學報，44（2），389-410。
張春興（2006）。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市：臺灣東華。
陳宏淑、王素蓮、黃筱茵（譯）。甘特寓言（原作者：Gunter Pauli）。臺北：信誼基金出版社。（原著出版年：2006）
陳龍安（2006）。創造思考教學的理論與實際（第六版）。臺北：心理。
葉玉珠（2003）。批判思考測驗第一級與指導手冊。台北：心理出版社。
詹志禹、陳玉樺（2011）。發揮想像力共創臺灣未來-教育系統能扮演的角色。教育資料與研究雙月刊，100，23-52。

英文部分
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. CO: Westview Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective teachers’ belief about imaginative thinking in K-12 school. Thinking Skill and Creativity, 3(2008), 134-142.
Berger, C. R., & Jordan, J. M. (1992). Planning sources, planning difficulty, and verbal fluency. Communication Monographs, 59, 130-148.
Brill, F. (2004). Thinking outside the box: Imagination and empathy beyond story writing. Literacy, 38, 83-89.
Caroff, X. & Besancon, M. (2008). Variability of Creativity Judgments. Learning and Individual Difference, 18, 367-371.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration. Random House.
Chiang, M. H., & Lin, W. W. (2011).An Action Research on Developing the instructional Program for Future Imagination About the Hometown Ludi. Presented at TERA International Conference on Education (TICE) held in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 15-18 Dec., 2011.
Chu, T. L. (2014). Open Imagination Box: The Development of Teaching Program for Enriching Pupil’s Imagination. Paper presented at The 7th European conference on positive psychology held in Amsterdam, Holland, 1-4, July, 204.
Chu, T. L., & Lin, W. W. (2013). Uniqueness, Integration or Separation Exploring the Nature of Creativity through Creative Writing by Elementary School Students in Taiwan. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(5), 582-595. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.821459.
Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by Imaging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68-82.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does Mental Practice Enhance Performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-492.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In. R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-396). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eckhoff, A. & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood: sociocultural conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood Education, 36, 179-185. DOI 20.2007/s10643-008-0261-4.
Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape Our Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (2005). An imaginative approach to teaching. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Egan, K. (2008). The Future of Education: Reimagining Our Schools from the Ground Up. San Francisco：Yale University Press.
Erlbaum. Ainsworth-Land, V. (1982). Imaging and creativity: An integrating perspective. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 16(1), 5-8.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Firth, L., Alderson-Day, B., Woods, N., C & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Imaginary Companions in Childhood: Relations to Imagination Skills and Autographical Memory in Adults. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 308-313.
Ford, D. (2004). Scaffolding preservice teachers' evaluation of children's science literature: Attention to science-focused genres and use. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 133-153.
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligence thinking: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence(Vol. 5, pp. 157-188). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Frisch, J. K. (2010). The Stories They'd Tell: Pre-Service Elementary Teachers Writing Stories to Demonstrate Physical Science Concepts. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(6), 703-722.
Frisch, J. K., & Saunders, G. (2008). Using Stories in An Introductory College Biology Course. Journal of Biological Education, 42, 164-169.
Ginns, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 229-251.
Glenberg, A., Gutierrez, T., & Levin, J. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424-436.
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2000). Brief demonstrator form of the Torrance test of creative thinking: Training/teaching manual for adults with technical data. Bensenville, IL: Scolastic Testing Service.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Ho, H. C., Wang, C. C., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2013). Analysis of the Scientific Imagination Process. Thinking Skill and Creativity, 10, 68-78.
Hoff, E. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2 & 3), 167-180.
http://ierg.net/about/briefguide.html#foundations(IERG網站)
Hu, W. ＆ Adey, P. (2002). A Scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
Huang, Y., & Lin, W. W. (2011). An Action Research on Developing the Instructional Program for Future Imagination about Future Learning Center. Presented at TERA International Conference on Education (TICE) held in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 15-18 Dec., 2011.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary Teachers' Changing Attitudes and Cognition During a Two-Year Science Inservice Programme and Their Effect on Pupils. Intrnational Journal of Science Education, 26, 1787-1811.
Karwowski, M., & Soszynski, M.(2008). How to develop creative imagination?: Assumptions, aims and effectiveness of Role Play Training in Creativity (RPTC). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 163-171.
Karwowski, M., & Soszynski. (2008). How to develop creative imagination? Assumptions, aims and effectiveness of Role Play Training in Creativity (RPTC). Thinking Skill and Creativity, 3, 163-171.
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisi- tion by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 71–85.
Kieff, J. E., & Casbergue, R. M. (2000). Playful learning and teaching: Integrating play into preschool and primary programs. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Kostelnik, M., Whiren, A., & Stein, L. (1986). Living with He-Man: Managing superhero fantasy play. Young Children, 41(4), 3-9.
Kraft, K., & Berk, L. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Significance of open-ended activities and make-believe play for verbal self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 637-658.
Lai, M. C., & .Lin, W. W. (2011). An Action Research on Developing the Instructional Program for Future Imagination about the " Myself in 2030 ". Presented at TERA International Conference on Education (TICE) held in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 15-18 Dec., 2011.
Leahy, W. & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive Load and imagination effect. Applied cognitive psychology, 18, 857-875
Leahy, W., & Swellwer, J. (2008). The imagination effect increase with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273-283.
Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. Houghton Mifflin.
Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An Imagination Effect in Learning from Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47-63.
Levy, A. K., Wolfgang, C. H., & Koorland, M. A. (1992). Sociodramatic play as a method for enhancing the language performance of kindergarten age students. Early Childhood Quarterly, 7, 245-262.
Lewin, I.(1986). A three dimensional model for the classification of cognitive process. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 6(1), 43-54.
Lin, W. W., & Chu, T. L. (2014). Where are creative instructional stories from: Explore the effect of imaginative stimulus through creation process of scientific story for instruction. Paper presented at The 7th European conference on positive psychology held in Amsterdam, Holland, 1-4, July, 204.
Lin, W. W., Chu, T. L., Wang, Y, L., & Chu, C., C. (2011). Construction and Validation of Imagination Tests. Presented at TERA International Conference on Education (TICE) held in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 15-18 Dec., 2011.
Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of behavior. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of Creativity Research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449-460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). DOI:10.1017/ CBO9780511811678
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster mean- ingful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–41. doi:10.1007/BF02300480
Mellou, E. (1995). Creativity: The imagination condition. Early Child Development and Care, 114, 97-106.
Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual Classroom Studies and Community Analysis: Some Recent Trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24.
Mouchiroud, C. & Lubart, T. (2001). Children's original thinking: an empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(4), 382-401.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills. Part I: Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 63-76.
Mumford, M. D., Blair, C., & Marcy, R. T. (2006). "Alternative knowledge structures in creative thought: Schema, associations, and cases". In J. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and Reason in Development (pp. 117-136). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think. Experimental findings and cases. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411-432.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Plamon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domain. In M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3-39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Nicol, C. & Crespo, S. (2005). Exploring Mathematics in Imaginative Places: Re-thinking What Counts as a Meaningful Context for Learning Mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 105(5), 240-251.
Noice, H. (1991). The role of explanation and plan recognition in the learning of theatrical scripts. Cognition Science, 15, 425-460.
Norris, S. P. & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. CA: Midwest Publications.
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 145-153
Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children’s learning and motivation: making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625-633.
Patalano, A. L., & Seifert, C. M. (1997). Opportunistic planning: Being reminded of pending goals. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 1-36.
Reichling, M. J. (1990). Images of imagination. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(4), 282-293.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: the role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187-197.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., Boes, J. O., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: the role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9-23.
Research Journal, 17(2 & 3), 167-180.
Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 143-166.
Rosenberg, H. S. (1987). Creative drama and imagination. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Oxford, UK: Elservier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1994). Problem Finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In M. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.
Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16, 235-241.
Runco, M., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. (1998). Personal explicit theories of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(1), 1-17.
Russ, S.(2003).Play and creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 291-303.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Saracho, O. (2002). Young children’s creativity and pretend play. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 431-438.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge University Press.
Singer, D., & Singer, J. (1990). The house of make-believe. Children’s play and the developing imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Singer, J. L (1999). Imagination. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity(pp. 12). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Smith, M. & Mathur, R. (2009). Children's Imagination and Fantasy: Implication for Development, Education, and Classroom Activities. Research in the Schools, 16(1), 52-63.
Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What Can They Do for Our Students? Studies in Science Education, 37, 85-106.
Sriraman, B. (2004). Mathematics and literature (the sequel): Imagination as the pathway to advanced mathematical ideas and philosophy. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 60(1), 17-23.
Starko, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom-schools of curious delight. New York: Routlegde.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. L. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity(pp. 3-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374-384.
Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79, 555-581.
Tindall-Ford, S. & Sweller, J. (2006). Altering the modality of instructions to facilitate imagination: Interactions between the modality and imagination technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 34, 343-365.
Torrance, E. P. (1966a). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual (research edition). 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.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms: Technical Manual Figural (Streamline) Forms A & B. Bensenville. IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1996b). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Figural. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of conceptual structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1-40.
Warnock, M. (1978). Imagination. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity(pp. 226-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, E., & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Woodward, C. Y. (1984). Guidelines for facilitating sociodramatic play. Childhood Education, 60, 172-177.
Woolley, J. D. (1995). The fictional mind: Young children's understanding of pretense, imagination and dreams. Developmental Review, 15, 172-211.
Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D. (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa Project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 169-194.
Ziv, A. (1976). Facilitating effects of humor on creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 318.
Ziv, A. (1989). Chapter 4: Using Humor to Develop Creative Thinking. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(1-2), 99-116.