摘 要 本研究旨在探討以阿美族為對象的國小原住民學生之創造潛能及創造性環境。首先進行調查研究法，以城市248位、山地鄉249位國小原住民為研究對象，「威廉創造性傾向量表」、「影響創造力環境因素問卷」為研究工具，並進一步以較具明顯創造力特質的城市、山地鄉國小原住民及城市一般學生各40位配對進行「威廉斯創造性思考活動」。最後再與城市及山地鄉中具優異創造潛能國小原住民學生、及其家長與教師各四組進行訪談。量表及問卷資料以變異數分析及事後比較等方式進行統計考驗，訪談結果則進行內容分析處理。本研究主要結果如下：一、國小原住民學生創造力特質分析與比較方面 1.兩個地區挑戰心與好奇心皆較明顯，想像力皆較弱。 2.兩個地區有許多相似優勢特質與弱勢特質。 3.整體創造力特質為中、低程度的山地鄉國小原住民男生 普遍好奇心較強；高程度的國小原住民女生普遍挑戰 性較男生強。 4. 兩個地區優異創造潛能原住民個案可以發現「樂天」、「易自得其樂」、「純真」、「率性」、「較不在乎他人想法與感覺」、「多才多藝與趣廣泛」與「獨立」等共同特質。二、國小原住民學生創造性環境分析與比較方面 (一)家庭方面 1.城市地區國小原住民學生知覺「資源提供」優於山地鄉。 2.兩個地區皆以「民主」變項較支持，「資源提供」較不 支持創造力發展。 (二)學校方面 1.山地鄉國小原住民學生知覺「教師風格」優於城市地區。 2.皆以「教師風格」較為支持，「開放」最不能支持創造 力發展。 (三) 兩地國小原住民學生對於家庭及學校環境皆知覺許多相似的有利條件與不利條件。 (四) 國小原住民女生比男生知覺較多學校「開放」、「同儕關係」與「整體學校」的支持。 (五) 除學校的「開放」之外，創造力特質較明顯的國小原住民學生獲得其他環境變項的支持皆較多。 (六) 現有環境對於具優異創造潛能個案的影響相當深遠，學校教育多半較有正面影響。三、創造思考能力的分析與比較 城市、山地鄉國小原住民與城市一般學生僅於開放性有差異，(城市一般學生高於山地鄉原住民)，其餘向度未見差異。四、優異創造潛能個案之分析 1. 所有個案因環境而獨立自主，在校參與許多活動並得 到認同。 2. 城市個案多較擅長表演藝術、山地鄉個案多較擅長視覺藝術，且其才能與與趣的發展是多元的。 3. 所有個案創造動機多屬「內在動機」，他人與個案本身對於創意產品多有正面評價。 4. 城市與山地鄉地區文化保存皆不足，個案創意作品甚少見到原住民文化之融入。 5. 大部份個案多能對原住民文化認同，大多喜歡參加原住民文化活動，唯城市個案4除外。 6. 城鄉個案多能依本身興趣持續發揮創意，並願從原住民文化中發揮創意，教師及家長多半支持或尊重。根據上述結果，本研究對未來原住民創造力評量教學與研究提出建議。 Abstract The purposes of this study were to explore the creativie potential and creative environment of the elementary students of Amis Tribe. First,the investigation research was conducted on 248 aborigine students in urban schools and 249 aborigine students in mountain region schools through “CAP/Test of Divergent Feeling”and“Eenvironmental influential factors on creativity questionnaire”. Furthermore, the assessment on aborigine students from cities and mountain regions and ordinary students from cities with more evident creative characteristics were selected and grouped into 40 pairs through “CAP/ Test of Divergent Thinking ”.Finally, researcher conducted interviews with both four urban and four suburb groups, each group includes creative aborigine student, his(her) parents and teacher. Data of the scales and questionnaires were analyzed by ANOVA and posteriori comparisions, and the qualitative data were analyzed by ‘‘analytic induction’’. The main findings were as follows: A. Analysis and comparison on creative characteristics of the aborigine students in elementary schools. 1. Aborigine students from both areas had more apparent spirit of adventure and curiosity, but were weak in imagination. 2. Aborigine students in both areas had many similar strengths and weaknesses on creative characteristics. 3. Aborigine boys with middle to low total creative characteristics from mountain regions elementary schools usually had intense curiosity; while Aborigine girls with high total creative characteristics generally had higher spirit of challenge than their male counterparts. 4. Aborigine students with extraordinary creative potentials from both areas were found to possess the following similarities: “optimistic”, “capable of finding own entertainment”, “innocent”, “bohemian”, “pay less attention to the opinion or feelings of others”, “multitalented and varied interests”, and “independent”. B. Analysis and comparison on creative environment of the aborigine students in elementary schools. (A) Home environment 1. Aborigine students in cities felt that “resource availability” was better than in the mountain region. 2. Aborigine students from both areas were more supportive of “democratic” and less supportive of “resource availability”. (B) School environment 1. Aborigine students in mountain regions felt that “teaching style” was better than in the cities. 2. Aborigine students from both areas were more supportive of “teaching style” and “openness” is most unconducive for their development of creativity. (C) Aborigine students from both areas sensed similar advantages and disadvantages in terms of home and school environment. (D) Aborigine girls were more supportive of the “openness”, “peer relationship” and “the whole school” variables than aborigine boys. (E) Aside from the school’s variable “liberalization”, aborigine students with higher total creative characteristics were more supportive of the other variables in the home and school environment categories. (F) Existing environmental conditions had a highly far-reaching influence on the extraordinary creative potential cases; while school education manifested a positive majority influence. C. Analysis and comparative study on creative thinking A Difference was noted between the “openness” of aborigine students in mountain regions and that of the ordinary students in cities. (Ordinary students in cities had higher scores than aborigine students in mountain regions.) No differences were noted in the other variables. D. Analysis of extraordinary creative potential cases 1. All cases are independent and self-supporting due to their environment .They participated in numerous activities in their schools and gain acceptance. 2. The cases in cities were quite proficient in performance arts; while cases mountain region in visual arts, moreover the development of talents and interests of these csaes are diverse. 3. Most of the creative motivation of all cases is of “internal motivations”, the cases and other people mostly express positive evaluation for the creative products. 4. The preservation for their culture in urban and mountain regions is insufficient. The spirit of ethnic aboriginal culture rarely appear in cases’ creative works . 5. Most of the cases recognized their aborigine culture. Most of them like to attend aborigine cultural activities, exception for cases 4 in the city. 6. The cases in urban and suburb regions mostly are able to continuously develop their creativity based on their own interests and are willing to develop creativity from the ideas of aborigine culture. Most of their teachers and parents expressed support or respect. Implications for instruction,assessment and further research of aborigine students’creativity are recommended on basis of the results of this study.

The purposes of this study were to explore the creativie potential and
creative environment of the elementary students of Amis Tribe. First,the
investigation research was conducted on 248 aborigine students in urban
schools and 249 aborigine students in mountain region schools through “CAP/
Test of Divergent Feeling”and“Eenvironmental influential factors on
creativity questionnaire”. Furthermore, the assessment on aborigine students
from cities and mountain regions and ordinary students from cities with more
evident creative characteristics were selected and grouped into 40 pairs
through “CAP/ Test of Divergent Thinking ”.Finally, researcher conducted
interviews with both four urban and four suburb groups, each group includes
creative aborigine student, his(her) parents and teacher. Data of the scales
and questionnaires were analyzed by ANOVA and posteriori comparisions, and the
qualitative data were analyzed by ‘‘analytic induction’’. The main
findings were as follows:
A.　Analysis and comparison on creative characteristics of the aborigine
students in elementary schools.
1. Aborigine students from both areas had more apparent spirit of adventure
and curiosity, but were weak in imagination.
2. Aborigine students in both areas had many similar strengths and weaknesses
on creative characteristics.
3. Aborigine boys with middle to low total creative characteristics from
mountain regions elementary schools usually had intense curiosity; while
Aborigine girls with high total creative characteristics generally had higher
spirit of challenge than their male counterparts.
4. Aborigine students with extraordinary creative potentials from both areas
were found to possess the following similarities: “optimistic”, “capable of
finding own entertainment”, “innocent”, “bohemian”, “pay less attention
to the opinion or feelings of others”, “multitalented and varied interests
”, and “independent”.
B. Analysis and comparison on creative environment of the aborigine students
in elementary schools.
(A) Home environment
1. Aborigine students in cities felt that “resource availability” was better
than in the mountain region.
2. Aborigine students from both areas were more supportive of “democratic”
and less supportive of “resource availability”.
(B) School environment
1. Aborigine students in mountain regions felt that “teaching style” was
better than in the cities.
2. Aborigine students from both areas were more supportive of “teaching style
” and “openness” is most unconducive for their development of creativity.
(C) Aborigine students from both areas sensed similar advantages and
disadvantages in terms of home and school environment.
(D) Aborigine girls were more supportive of the “openness”, “peer
relationship” and “the whole school” variables than aborigine boys.
(E) Aside from the school’s variable “liberalization”, aborigine students
with higher total creative characteristics were more supportive of the　other
variables in the home and school environment categories.
(F) Existing environmental conditions had a highly far-reaching influence on
the extraordinary creative potential cases; while school education manifested
a positive majority influence.
C. Analysis and comparative study on creative thinking
A Difference was noted between the “openness” of aborigine students in
mountain regions and that of the ordinary students in cities. (Ordinary
students in cities had higher scores than aborigine students in mountain
regions.) No differences were noted in the other variables.
D.　Analysis of extraordinary creative potential cases
1. All cases are independent and self-supporting due to their　environment .
They participated in numerous activities in their schools and gain acceptance.
2.　The cases in cities were quite proficient in performance arts; while cases
mountain region in visual arts, moreover the development of talents and
interests of these csaes are diverse.
3.　Most of the creative motivation of all cases is of “internal motivations
”,　the cases and other people mostly express positive evaluation for the
creative products.
4.　The preservation for their culture in urban and mountain regions is
insufficient. The spirit of ethnic aboriginal culture rarely appear in cases’
creative works .
5. Most of the cases recognized their aborigine culture. Most of them like to
attend aborigine cultural activities, exception for cases 4 in the city.
6. The cases in urban and suburb regions mostly are able to continuously
develop their creativity based on their own interests　 and are willing to
develop creativity from the ideas of aborigine culture. Most of their teachers
and parents expressed support or respect.
Implications for instruction,assessment and further research of aborigine
students’creativity are recommended on basis of the results of this study.

一、中文部份
王木榮(民74)：威廉斯創造力測驗修訂研究。台灣省教育學院輔導研究所碩士論文，未出
版。
王振德(民86)：創造力三面模式。資優教育季刊，64，1-5。
毛連塭（民86）：創造學的孕育與發展。資優教育季刊，63，8-12。
毛連塭(民89)：創造力研究緒論。載於載於毛連塭、郭有遹、林幸台、陳龍安編：創造力
研究(頁1-54)。台北：心理出版社。
毛連塭(民89a)：創造力研究的發展。載於毛連塭、郭有遹、林幸台
、陳龍安編：創造力研究(頁55-124)。台北：心理出版社。
方吉雄(民90)：原住民國中學生的文字符號概念與代數文字題的解題研究。國立高雄師範
大學數學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
朱進財(民80)：高屏地區山地與平地國中學生學習與思考方式、創造性、認知與自我統整
發展之研究。載於高敬文編：高屏地區山地與平地國中實施九年國教成效差異評估研究。
屏東：國立屏東師範學院。
朱慧清(民89)：從原住民兒童的學校成就談家庭文化的衝擊。原住民教育季刊，19，41-49
。
石興華(民90)：淺談都市原住民教育之發展─北市原民教育現況。原住民教育季刊，22
，32-38。
牟中原、陳伯璋（民85）：原住民教育改革報告書。行政院教育改革諮議委員會委託研究
報告。
任秀媚(民75)：山地單語與山地雙語兒童語文能力與智力之比較研究。新竹師專學報，13
，193-208。
行政院原住民委員會(民88)：中華民國八十八年台灣原住民就業狀況調查結果。台北：行
政院原住民委員會。
吳天泰（民83）：山胞國民中小學訪視工作報告。台北：教育部教育研究委員會。
吳豪哲(民77)：阿美族山胞城鄉與生活調適之研究，以原住地東部富田社區及移住地台北
近鄰山光社區為例。國立台灣師範大學地理系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
李乙明(民88)：創造力的評量。載於王亦榮等編：特殊兒童鑑定與評量(頁243-262)。台北
：師大書苑。
李景崇(民87)：阿美族歷史。台北：師大書苑。
李慧賢（民85）：原住民學生創造力發展及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所
碩士論文，未出版。
李穎純(民88)：花蓮縣國小學童思考風格及其影響因素之研究。國立花蓮師院國教所碩士
論文，未出版。
林幸台（民70）：鑑衡創造力的新指標。資優教育季刊，4，24-28。
林幸台、王木榮(民83)：威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊。台北：心理出版社。
林幸台（民88）：創造能力優異學生鑑定原則鑑定基準說明。載於身心障礙及資賦優異學
生鑑定原則鑑定基準說明手冊(頁183-188)。台北：國立台灣師範大學特教系。
林榮泰、唐硯漁(民90)：原住民學生思考風格之相關研究。原住民教育季刊，21，39-53
林嘉婷、蔡素芳(民71):創造面面觀。資優教育季刊，6，7-12。
林寶貴、邱紹春、蘇芳柳(民87)：台灣地區特殊教育暨殘障福利機構簡介。台北：台灣師
範大學特教中心。
林麗惠(民89)：原住民與非原住民學童之認知風格、推理表現與問題解決表現之相關研究
─以桃園縣平地國小學童為例。國立新竹師院國教所碩士論文，未出版。
周雯娟(民86)：都市原住民與非原住民兒童批判思考能力之比較研究。台北市立師範學院
國教所碩士論文，未出版。
邱怡薇(民87)：都市原住民青少年之社會支持與學習適應---以台北縣市阿美族為例。國立
台灣大學社會學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
柳秀蘭（民83）：資優學生、普通學生、山地學生創造力與問題解決能力之比較研究。國
立彰化師大特教研究所碩士論文，未出版。
洪久賢、郭筱雯(民90)：都市原住民家庭教育實驗方案──以汐止山光社區為例。原住民
教育季刊，22，4-31。
徐右任(民90)：和原住民學童玩數學：一個數學遊戲與數學態度的質性研究。國立台東師
院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
連玉龍(民79)：阿美族漁村人口遷移及其影響─以台東縣成功鎮芝田和基隆八尺門為例。
國立台灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
秦秀蘭（民83）：台北市國小高年級聽覺障礙學生創造力及其相關因素之探討。國立台灣
師大特教研究所碩士論文，未出版。
郭玉婷(民90)：泰雅族青少年學習式態之質的研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論
文，未出版。
郭有遹(民72)：創造心理學。台北：正中書局。
郭有遹(民81)：發明心理學。台北：遠流書局。
郭靜姿、張蘭畹、王曼娜（民89）：資優教育中的弱勢族群原住民學生的學習特質與潛能
研究。載於中華資優教育學會編：資優教育的全方位發展(頁309-332)。台北：心理。
陳文雄(民63)：創造力與創造性人格之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未
出版。
陳世輝(民84)：原住民學生生物概念及生物分類之研究。國立花蓮師範學院數理教育學系
，國科會委託專案研究報告。NSC84-2511-S-026-002N。
陳枝烈(民84)：排灣族文化之田野研究及其對國小社會科課程設計之啟示。國立高雄師範
大學教育系研究所博士論文，未出版。
陳枝烈(民86)：台灣原住民教育。台北：師大書苑。
陳昭儀(民79)：我國傑出發明家之人格特質、創造程及生涯發展之研究。國立台灣師範大
學特殊教育學系研究所碩士論文。
陳昭儀(民81)：創造力的定義及研究。資優教育季刊，44，12-17。
陳龍安（民77）：創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北市：心理出版社。
陳麗華、王鳳敏、鍾才元與賴秀智(民86)：國小教師對原住民的認知印象及對都市原住民
學童的接納態度之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，28，159-186。
陳麗華(民87)：族群意象與族群距離：都市小學班級裡的原漢族群關係探討。初等教育學
刊，6，81-110。
陳麗華(民88 )：台北市阿美族學童族群認同發展之研究。國科會研究彙刊Ｃ:人文及社會
科學，9(3)，423-447。
黃茂夫、高淑芳、胡悅倫、溫寶珠（民84）：原住民學生在山地或平地就讀之學習成效差
異研究。台灣省政府教育廳委託：台灣區域發展研究院。
黃志賢(民88)：就讀都市技職學校原住民新生「生活規範適應」之研究─以明志技術學院
為例。國科會委託專案研究報告。NSC88-2418-H-131-001-F19。
黃志賢(民90)：原住民學生利用代數方法解題之研究。原住民教育季刊，21，17-34。
黃惠慈(民89)：原住民社區家庭教育推廣的工作模式。原住民教育季刊，19，20-39。
張玉成（民82）：思考技巧與教學。台北：心理出版社。
張春興(民78)：心理學概要。台北：東華書局。
張春興（民80）：現代心理學。台北：東華書局。。
張春興（民83）：教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
張英鵬(民90)：原住民特殊教育概況。台北：教育部特教小組。
張建成、黃鴻文（民82）：光復以來台灣山胞之教育成就及其家庭相關因素的探討。行政
院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
張振成(民89)：創造思考教學與創造力的培養。創造思考教育季刊，10，5-8。
張琇喬(民89)：台灣布農族學生族群認同之相關研究─以南投信義為例。靜宜大學青少年
兒童福利學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
許木柱、鄭泰安(民80)：社會文化因素與輕型精神瘲狀─泰雅族與阿美族的比較研宄。中
央研究院民族學研究所期刊，71，133-160。
許木柱(民82)：阿美族的社會文化變遷與青少年適應。台北：中央研究院民族學研究所。
許添明、黃木蘭(民88)：教師獎勵措施與原住民國小師資結構─以花蓮縣為例。載於國立
花蓮師院編：原住民教育之願景與革新論文集(頁1-32) 。花蓮：花蓮師範學院。
許誌庭(民89)：課程內容篩選的階級權力及其影響。原住民教育季刊，17，16-33。
教育部(民84)：「發展與改進原住民教育五年計劃」八十二年七月至八十四年十二月執行
報告。台北：教育部。
教育部(民85):原住民教育簡介。台北：教育部。
教育部(民86)：中華民國原住民教育報告書。台北：教育部。
教育部(民87)：阿美族教學活動手冊。台北：教育部社教司。
教育部（民88）：九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
教改會（民83）：教改會第一期諮議報告摘要。教改通訊，7，4-7。
國立新竹師範學院原住民研究中心(民89)：八十八學年度原住民教育調查統計報告。行政
院原住民委員會委託專案研究。新竹：新竹師範學院。
葉玉珠（民88）：創造力：學校／教師在科技創造力上所扮演的角色。載於中華資優教育
學會、國立台灣師範大學特教系編：1999年資優教育研究學術研討會論文集(頁168)。
傅仰止(民76)：都市山胞的社經地位與心理處境。中國社會學刊，11(12)，55-79。
楊宏飛、柯孔標、沈禾玲、沈美華譯(Gallagher,J.J.)（民81）：天才兒童的發現與教育
。台北：商鼎出版社。
楊簣芬（民76）：刺激尋求動機與創造力、偏差行為之關係研究。國立政治大學教育系研
究所碩士論文，未出版。
楊肅棟(民88)：原漢族別與學業成績關聯性之追蹤調查研究—以台東地區國小學童為例。
國立台東師院國教所碩士論文，未出版。
賈馥茗（民60）：數學（解題）創造能力發展之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學研究所集刊
，13，1-78。
詹秀美（民77）：國小學生創造力與問題解決能力的相關變項研究。國立台灣師範大學特
殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
潘宏明(民84)：原住民國小學童數學解題後設認知行為之研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果
報告。NSC 84-2511-S-026-006。
劉春榮、吳清山與陳明終(民84)：都會原住民兒童生活適應與學習適應及其關聯研究。台
北市立師院初等教育學刊，4，147-180。
蔡中涵、林天生(民81)：山胞教育研究叢書之六─山胞教育師資之培育研究。台北：教育
部教研會。
蔡俊傑(民82)：山地平地國中生場地獨立性、內外控信念與生活適應關係之研究。國立政
治大學教育系碩士論文，未出版。
蔡典謨（民83）：高成就青年學生家庭影響之質的研究，載於國立台灣師範大學特殊教育
系主編：開創資優教育之新世紀。台北：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育系。
蔡典謨（民85）：資優生親職教育─透過家庭影響提高孩子的成就。教育資料集刊，21
，283-317。
廖永(民84):淺談Torrance創造思考測驗。資優教育季刊，57，8-11，30。
蒲忠成(民85)：原住民社區文化與原住民教育改革關係研究。台北：行政院教育改革審議
委員會。
鄭美珍(民75)：國小教師的創造力、教學態度、與學生創造力之相關研究。中國文化大學
兒童福利學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭淵全(民88)：教育機會均等與原住民地區國小教師專業成長。載於國立花蓮師院編：原
住民教育之願景與革新論文集(頁33-46) 。花蓮：花蓮師範學院。
盧台華（民85）：特定族群資優教育。資優教育季刊，60，8-17 。
盧　強（民75）：山地國中學生的自我概念，生活適應與學業成就之調查研究。國立台灣
師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
盧雪梅（民79）：創造性的人格特質。創造思考教育，2，33-39。
賴玉粉(民84)：花蓮縣原住民、非原住民國小學童學習適應與自我概念之比較研究。國立
花蓮師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
賴秀智（民86）：台北縣市阿美族學童的族群態度、族群文化常識與自我概念之相關研究
。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
謝佩均(民90)：原住民國小高低學業成就生學習適應之比較
。國立屏東師院國教所碩士論文，未出版。
謝高橋（民80）：台灣山胞遷移都市後適應問題之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會。
簡茂發、蔡玉瑟、張鎮城（民81）：國小資優兒童父母教養方式與生活適應、學習行為、
成就動機之相關研究，國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學刊，225-247。
簡茂發、李建興（民81）：縮短山地學校與平地學校教學效果差距之改進方案研究。台北
：教育部研究會。
薛惠萱（民82）：都市山胞家長之社會支持網絡與其社會適應之研究─以台北市、台北縣
、基隆市為例。中國文化大學兒童福利學系研究所碩士論文，未出版。
羅淑貞(民85)：原住民國小班級學習環境及其相關因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育系
研究所碩士論文，未出版。
二、英文部份：
Abell,D.J.,&Lennex,L.(1999).Gifted Education: Don't Overlook the Disadvantaged.
(ED436918).
Abigail,T.(2000).Testing and Its Enemies.National Review,52,38-41.
Aicciardelli,L.A.(1992).Creativity and Bilingualism.
Journal of Creative Behavior,26(4),242-254.
Amabile,T.M.(1982).Social psychology of creativity:A consensual assessment
technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(5),997-1013.
Amabile,T.M.(1983).The social psychology of creativity.New York:Springer-
Verlag.
Arieti,S.(1976).Creativity:The magic synthesis..NY:Basis Books.
Artiles,A.J.,&Trent,S.C.(1994).Overrepresentation of minority students in
special education :A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education,27 (4),
410-437.
Badolato,L.A.(1998).Recognizing and meeting the special needs of gifted female.
Gifted Child Today Magazine,21(6),32-37.
Baloche,L.,Diane,M.,Kay,S.B.,& Salyer,B.K.(1992). "Faculty Perceptions of
College Creativity Courses.".Journal of Creative Behavior, 26 (4), 222-234.
Barron,F.,&Harrington,D.M.(1981).Creativity,intelligence,
and personality.Annual Review of Psychology,32,439-476.
Bloom,B.S.(1985).Developing talent in young people
.NY:Ballantive Books.
Busse,T.V. & Mansfield,R.S.(1980).Theories of the creative process:A review
and a perspective.Journal of Creative Behavior,14,91-103,132.
Callahan,C.M.(1978).Developing creativity in the gifted and talented .Virginia:
The Council for Exceptional Children.
Chambers,J.A.(1973).Collete teachers: The effects on creat
-ivity of students. Journal of Creative Behavior,26(4),242-254.
Clasen,D.R.,Middleton,J.A.,& Connell,T.J.(1994).Assessing Artistic and Problem-
Solving Performace in Minority and Nonminority Students Using a Nontraditional
Multidimensional Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly,38(1),27-32.
Cole,D.G.(1999).Supportive Classroom Environments for Creativity in Higher
Education. Journal of Creative Behavior,33(4),277-293.
Csikszentmihalyi,M.,& Getzel,J.W.(1970).Concern for Discovery:An attitudinal
component of Creative production.Journal of Personality,38,91-105.
Csiksentmihalyi,M. (1988).Society,Culture,and person: a systems of creativity.
Systems view of creativity. In R.J.Sternberg(Ed.), The Nature of creativity(pp.
325-339).New York:Cambridge　University Press.
Csiksentmihalyi,M.(1996).Creativity:Flow And the psychology
　　 of discovery and invention.New York:Harper Collins Publishers.
Dacey,J.S.(1989).Peak periods of creative Growth across the lifespan. Journal
of Creative Behavior,23(4),224-247.
Davis,G.A.(1997).Identifying creative students and measuring creativity.In N.
Colangelo.,& G.A. Davis(Eds.),Handbook of gifted education(2nd ed,pp.253-281).
Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Diane,M.,& Kay,B.,(1993).Characteristics of Creative person.American
Behavioral Scientist,37(1),68-78.
Diket,R.M.,& Abel,T.(1994). Atypical Gifted Learners and Their Characteristics.
(ED386903).
Domino,G.(1979).Creativity and the Home Environment.
Gifted Child Quarterly,23(4), 818-828.
Dowd,E.T.(1989).The Self and Creativity.In A.Glover,R
.R.Ronning & .R.Reynolds(Eds.),Handbook of creativity.NY:Plenum Press.
Dudek,S.Z., Strobel, M.G., & Runco, M. A.(1993). Cumulative and proximal
influences on the social environment and children's creative potential. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154 (4), 487-499.
Esquivel, G.B(1995).Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational
Psychology Review, 7 (2), 185-202.
Feldhusen,J.F.,& Goh,B.E.(1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An
integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research
Journal, 8 (3), 231-247.
Fishkin,A.S.,&Johnson,A.S.(1998).Who is Creative?Identifying Children’s
Creative Abilities.Roeper Review,21(1),40-46.
Fleith,D.S(2000).Teacher and Student Perceptions of Creativity in the
Classroom Environment. Roeper Review,22(3),148-153.
Flannery,K.A.,&Watson.M.W.(1995).Sex Differences and Gender Role Difference in
Children’s Drawings.Studies in Art Education,32(2),114-122.
Frasier,M.M.,& Passow,A.H.(1994). Towards a New Paradigm for Identifying
Talent Potential. (ED388020).
Gardner,H.(1988).Creative lives and creative works:a synthetic scientific
approach.In R.J.Sternberg(Ed.),The Nature of creativity(pp.298-324).New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gay,J.E.(1978).A proposed plan for identifying black gifted children .Gifted
Child Quarterly,22,353-359.
Goff,K.,& Torrance,E.P.(1999). Discovering & Developing Giftedness through
Mentoring. Gifted Child　Today Magazine,22(3),14-15.
Gough,H.G.(1979).A creative personality scale for the adjective Check List.
Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology,37,1398-1405.
Hiatt,E.(1991).An update on the Javits Project:Identifying and serving
disadvantaged gifted youth. Update on Gifted Education,1(3),21-26.
Hiatt,E., & Covington,J.(1991).Identifying and serving diverse populations:
questions and answers.Update on Gifted Education.1(3),27-30.
Hilliard,A.G.(1976).Alternative to IQ testing:An approach to the identification
of the gifed minority　children.(ED147009).
Helson,R.(1990).Creativity in women:outer and inner views over time.In M.A.
Runco&R.S.Albert (Eds.),Thories of creativity
(pp46-58).Newbury Park,CA:Sage Publications.
Hocevar,H.&Bachelor,P.(1989).A taxonomy and Critique of measurements used in
the study of creativity.In A.Glover,R.R.Ronning,&C.R.Reynold(Eds.),Handbook of
creativity(pp53-75).NY:Plenum Press.
Houtz,J.C.(1990).Environments that support creative thinking.In C.Hedley, J.
Houtz,and .Baratta(Eds.),Congnition, Curriculum and litercay (pp61-76).NJ:
Ablex,Norwood.
Isaksen,S.G.(1987).Introduction:An orirntation to the frontiers of creativity
research.In S.G. Isaksen(Ed.),Frontiers of creativity research :Beyond the
basics(pp.1-26).Buffalo,NY:Bearly Limited.
Khaleefa,O.H.,Erdos,G.,& Ashria,I.H.(1996).Gender and creativity in an Afro-
arab Islamic culture:the case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior,30(1),52-
60.
Kirschenbaum,R.J.(1988).Methods for identifying the gifted and talented
American Indian Student.Journal for the Education of the gifted, 14(3),53-63.
Kolesinski,M.T.(1991).The bilingual gifted :viable strstegies for effective
programing. Update on Gifted Education,1(3),16-20.
Kumar,A.(1981).Interest patterns of high and low creatives. Journal of
Creative Behavior,15,270.
Lutzer,V.D.(1991).Gender Differences in Preschool’s Ablity to Interpret
Commom Metaphor.Journal of Creative behavior,25(1),69-74.
Maker,C.J.,&Scniever,S.W.(1989).Critical　issues in gifted education
:Defensible programs forCultural and ethnic minorities
.Austin,TX:Pro-Ed.
Mansfield,R.S., & Busse,T.V.(1981).The psychology of creativity and discovery.
Chicago:Nelson Hall.
McCrae,R.R.(1987).Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6)，1258-1265.
Meador,K.(1999).Creativity around the Globe. Childhood Education,75(6),324-325.
Miller,B.C.,&Gerard,D.(1979).Family influences on the development of
creativity in children:an intergrative review.Family Coordinator
,28,259-312.
Montuori,A.; Purser,R.E.(1995).Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a
contextual view of creativity.Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35 (3),69-112.
Ochse,R.(1991).Why There Were Relatively Few Eminent Women Creators. Journal
of Creative Behavior,25(4),334-343.
Olszewski-Kubilius,P.(2000).The Transition from Childhood Giftedness to Adult
Creative Productiveness:Psychological.
Roeper Review,23(2),65-71.
Piirto,J.(1992).Understanding those who create .Ohio :Ohio Psychlolgy Press.
Pohlman,L.(1996).Creativity,Gender and the family:A Study of Creative Writers.
Journal of Creative Behavior,30(1),1-24.
Poole,M.(1980).Creativity across the curriculum.Boston: George Allen & Unwin.
Powell,G.M.(2000).Fostering the Development of Artistic and Creative Identity.
Camping Magazine,73(3), 10-11.
Raw,J.S., & Marjoribanks,K.(1991).Family and school correlates of adolescents'
creativity, morality and self concept.Educational Studies,17(2),183-190.
Rejskind,F.,Rapagna,S.,&Gold,D.(1992). Gender differences in Children’s
divergent thinking.Creativity Research Journal,5,165-174.
Richert,E.S.(1987).Rampant problem and promising practicesin the identification
of　disadvantaged gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,31(4),149-154.
Runco,M.A.(1991).The Evluative,Valuative ,and Divergent Thinking　of Children.
Journal of Creative Behavior,25(4),311-319.
Runco,M.A.,& McCarthy,K.A.(1994).Judgments of the creativity of artwork from
students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary &
Applied,128(1),23-31.
Runco,M.A.(1997).Is Every Child Gifted? Roeper Review
,19(4),220-224.
Serbin,L.A.,O’leary,K.D.,Ken.R.N.&Tonick,I.J.(1973).A comparison of teacher
responses to preacademic and problem behavior Of boys and girls.Child
Development,44,796-804.
Shutiva,C.L.(1991).Creativity defferences between reservation and urban
American Indians.Journal of American Indian Educaiton ,31(1),33-52.
Simomton,D.K.(1984).Artistic creativity and Interpersonal relationships across
and within generations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46,1273-
1286.
Simonton,D.K.(1990).History,chemistry,psychology,and genius:an intellectual
autobiography of historiometry.In M.A.Runco & R.S. Albert(Eds.),Theories of
creativity(pp92-115).CA:SAGE.
Sliverman,L.K.(1986).What happens to gifted girls?In C. J.Maker(Ed.),
Defensible programs for the gifted.
Rockville.MD:Aspen.
Sloane,K.D.(1985).Home Influences on Talent Development
.In B.S.Bloom (Ed.),Dvevlopment talent in young people.NY:Ballantine Books.
Spicker,H.H.(1992).Identifying and enriching rural gifted children.Education
Horizon,70,60-65.
Spicker,H.H.(1993). Rural Gifted Education in a Multicultural Society.(
ED359005).
Stein,M.(1999).A Scocio-Psychological Study of　Factors Associated with the
Creativity of Rrsearchers in Industry.
載於一九九九年資優教育研究學術研討會論文集 。
Sternberg,R.J.＆ Lubart,T.I.（1995）.Defying the Crowd.
Cambridge: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity.NY:The Free Press.
Sternberg,R.J（1998）.In search of human mind . Orlando
:Harcourt Brace & Company.
Swenson,J.E.(1978).Teacher-assessment of creative Behavior in Disadvantaged
Children.Gifted Child Quarterly,22,338-343.
Tardif,T.Z.,&Sternberg,R.J.(1988).What do we know Creativity? In R.J.Sternberg(
Ed.),The Nature of creativity (pp.429-440).New York :Cambridge University
Press.
Thorn,A.,& Gough,H.(1991).Portraits of type.Palo Alto
.CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.
Torrance,E.P.(1962).Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs
.N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Torrance,E.P.(1970).Creative positives of Disadvantaged children and youth.
Gifted Child Quarterly,8(2),71-81.
Vaughn,V.L.,Feldhusen,J.F.,&Asher,J.W.(1991).Meta-analyses and review of
research on pull-out program in gifted education
.Gifted Child Quarterly,35,92-98.
Voss,J.F. & Means,M.L.(1989).Toward a Model of Creativity Based upon Problem
Sloving in the Social Sciences.In A.Glover,R.R.Ronning &　C.R.Reynolds(Eds.),
Handbook of creativity. NY:Plenum Press.
Wechsler,S.(2000).Talent Development in Brazil :As View by Adult Writers and
Poets.Roeper Review,22(2),86-88.
Wheatley,M.J.(1998).A Simpler Way: Playing with Life's Boundless Creativity.
Momentum,29(4),26-28.
Woods,S.B.,&Achey,V.H.(1990).Successful Identification of Gifted Racial/Ethnic
Group Students Without Changing Classification Requirements.Roeper Review,13(
1),21-26.