寫作在認知上是具有挑戰性的，因為寫作者必須同時產出想法和注意用字。雖然台灣的高中生已經接受許多寫作訓練，但是寫作訓練往往注重處理文法的問題，而不是在寫作之前介紹創意發想技巧來激發學生的點子，因此，台灣的高中生在寫作時要產出想法似乎有困難。為了解決這個問題，本研究試圖調查，以Eberle (1971)的奔馳法(SACMPER)為創意發想技巧來進行故事文本的創意寫作活動，是否對台灣高中生創意層面和寫作表現層面有影響，以及探索台灣高中生對於此教學活動的觀感。本研究採用準實驗設計，參與學生來自兩個十二年級的班級，一個班為實驗組，另外一班為控制組。實驗組的教學法是採用故事文本的創意寫作並且學習奔馳法，而控制組的教學法則是採用傳統的段落寫作教學。兩週課程前後都有對實驗組和控制組進行故事寫作的測驗，並收集學生對於課程觀感問卷調查的結果。收集的資料會用成對、獨立樣本t檢定和文本進行分析。
根據量化和質性的研究結果顯示，實驗組的學生在整體創意和整體寫作表現上皆有顯著的差異，然而控制組的學生只有整體寫作表現上有顯著差異。此外，大部分的實驗組的學生對於故事文本創意寫作的活動之觀感大多持正面看法，認為此創意寫作活動有效增進他們的創意、寫作表現以及寫作的信心。結果呈現如下：
第一，奔馳法和故事改編的寫作活動使實驗組明顯增進創意四個面向的表現，即Torrance (1988)所定義的獨創性 (Originality)、變通性 (Flexibility)、流暢性 (Fluency)以及細節性 (Elaboration)。在四個面向中，實驗組在獨創性 (Originality)上有最高的平均分數差異。相反地，沒有使用奔馳法的情況下，控制組沒有顯著改善獨創性、變通性、流暢性，只有改善細節性。第二，故事分析和故事改編寫作活動使實驗組顯著改善寫作表現的四個面向：字彙、文法、句型和組織。然而，透過傳統寫作教學法，控制組顯著改善字彙、句型和組織，但不包含文法。第三，實驗組善用許多不同的人稱觀點來敘述故事，在劇情上新增了許多新點子，進而使用對話及精確地描述來合理地連接劇情發展。因此，實驗組的故事較能展現獨創性的創意。根據結果可以推測出創意的四個面向都有彼此正增強的關係，而且獨創性似乎可以透過其他三個面向來增進。
本研究發現故事文本的創意寫作活動在英文寫作上有可行性，可藉以增進台灣高中生在寫作上的創意發想和寫作表現，期許能提供未來英文寫作教學之參考。

Writing is cognitively demanding because writers need to generate ideas and pay attention to language use at the same time. Even though senior high school students in Taiwan have received considerable writing training, the writing training tends to focus on dealing with grammatical problems, rather than introducing creative thinking techniques to trigger ideas. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of a story-based creative writing activity informed by the creative thinking technique SCAMPER (Eberle, 1971) on Taiwanese senior high school students’ creativity (Torrance,1988) and writing performance, as well as the students’ perceptions towards the intervention. A quasi-experimental design was adopted. Participants were twelfth graders from two intact classes, and two classes were assigned to the experimental group and control group respectively. The experimental group students were taught the story-based creative writing activity informed by SCAMPER, while the control group received the conventional paragraph writing instruction. Data included pre- and post-intervention writings and pre- and post-task evaluation survey. Paired sample and independent sample t-tests were employed to analyze the scores of the pre-and post-intervention writings. Content analysis was applied to analyze the salient ways of students’ creative examples. Responses to the task evaluation surveys were measured by percentage.
According to the results of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the experimental group showed significant differences in both creativity and writing performance, and the control group had a significant improvement in writing performance. In addition, the experimental group generally perceived that the story-based creative writing activity was effective for enhancing their creativity, writing performance, and confidence in English writing. The findings were indicated as follows.
First, with the help of story analysis and creative thinking technique SCAMPER, the experimental group significantly improved overall creativity in the aspects of originality, flexibility, fluency, and elaboration (Torrance, 1988). Among the four constructs of creativity, originality had the largest mean difference. On the contrary, without using SCAMPER, the control group did not improve overall creativity. A significant difference was found only on the construct of elaboration. Second, with the assistance of story analysis and story adaptation exercises, the experimental group significantly improved overall writing performance in the aspects of vocabulary, grammar, sentence complexity, and organization. On the other hand, under the conventional writing instruction, the control group significantly enhanced vocabulary, sentence complexity, and organization, except grammar. Third, the experimental group was able to adopt multiple viewpoints to narrate a story, created more new ideas in the plots, and added details such as dialogues and specific descriptions to reasonably connect the plots together. The experimental group was likely to create a more original climax to exhibit creativity. The finding implied that the four constructs of creativity seemed to be positively correlated, and that originality seemed to be enhanced by the other three constructs.
On the whole, the present study suggests that the story-based creative writing instruction is feasible to be leveraged in English writing classes at EFL senior high schools to enhance students’ creativity and writing performance.

Arshavskaya, E. (2015). Creative Writing Assignments in a Second Language Course: A Way to Engage Less Motivated Students. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10, 68-78.
Avramenko, A. P., Davydova, M. A., & Burikova, S. A. (2018). Developing creative writing skills in a high school ESL classroom. Training, Language and Culture, 2(4), 55-69.
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task‐specific divergent‐thinking training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 183-187.
Barbot, B., Tan, M., Randi, J., Santa-Donato, G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Essential skills for creative writing: Integrating multiple domain-specific perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 209-223.
Chang, S. Y., & Ying, H. H. (2020). Writing English in this way is OK. Taipei: Sanmin Publishing.
Crossley, S. A., Muldner, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication, 33(3), 328-354.
Dai, F. (2010). English‐language creative writing in mainland China. World Englishes, 29(4), 546-556
Dai, F. (2015). Teaching creative writing in English in the Chinese context. World Englishes, 34(2), 247-259.
Eberle, R. F. (1971). Scamper Games for Imagination Development: Illus. de June Kern Weber. DOK.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex, UK: Longman.
Harper, G. (2015). Creative writing and education: An introduction. In G. Harper (Ed.), Creative writing and education (pp. 1-16). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 352-358.
Huh, K., & Lee, J. (2020). Fostering creativity and language skills of foreign language learners through SMART learning environments: Evidence from fifth‐grade Korean EFL learners. TESOL Journal, 11(2), e489.
Idek, M. (2016). Measuring the application of SCAMPER technique in facilitating creative and critical thinking in composing short stories and poems. Malaysian Journal of Higher Order Thinking Skills in Education, 2, 30-53.
KIRKGÖZ, Y. (2012). Incorporating short stories in English language classes. Novitas-Royal, 6(2), 110-125.
Le, P. (2018). Using six-word stories to trigger EFL learners’ creative writing skills. Indonesian JELT: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13(2), 175-188.
Lee, S. M. (2019). Her Story or their own stories? Digital game-based learning, student creativity, and creative writing. ReCALL, 31(3), 238-254.
Liao, Y. H., Chen, Y. L., Chen, H. C., & Chang, Y. L. (2018). Infusing creative pedagogy into an English as a foreign language classroom: Learning performance, creativity, and motivation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 213-223.
Majid, D. A., Tan, A. G., & Soh, K. C. (2003). Enhancing children's creativity: An exploratory study on using the Internet and SCAMPER as creative writing tools. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 13(2), 67-82.
Maley, A. (2012). Creative writing for students and teachers. Humanising Language Teaching, 14(3), Jun 2012. Retrieved from http://www.hltmag. co.uk/jun12/mart01.htm
Manara, C. (2015). Experimenting with language through creative writing tasks. Indonesian JELT, 10(2), 69-83.
Muthusamy, C., Mohamad, F., Ghazali, S. N., & Subrayan, A. (2010). Enhancing ESL writing creativity via a literature based language instruction. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(2), 36-47.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity.
Osborn, A. F. (1952). Wake up your mind: 101 ways to develop creativeness. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, A. (1993). Applied imagination. creative education foundation. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). The nature of creativity. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University
Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted young scientists, 4(1), 31-40.
Randolph, P. T. (2011). Using creative writing as a bridge to enhance academic writing. In English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference, October 7-8, 2011 (Vol. 1, p. 69).
Schaefer, R. T. (2016) Sociology: A brief introduction (12th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill
Senel, E. (2018). The integration of creative writing into academic writing skills in EFL Classes. Online Submission, 6(2), 115-120.
Shen, M. Y. (2004). Using simplified texts in literature to encourage EFL learners’ creative writing. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 1(2), 81-107.
Sitorus, J. & Masrayatinia. (2016). Students’ creative thinking process stages: Implementation of realistic mathematics education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22(2016): 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007
Torrance, E. P. (1988) The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–75
Wang, A. Y. (2012). Exploring the relationship of creative thinking to reading and writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 38-47.
Wang, H. C. (2019). Fostering learner creativity in the English L2 classroom: Application of the creative problem-solving model. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 58-69.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. Handbook of creativity, 189, 212.
Yeh, C. C. (2017). Creative Writing in an EFL Writing Class: Student Perspectives. English Teaching & Learning, 41(3), 1-29.