分組方式對問題創意思解課程實作成效之影響

Effect of Grouping Type on Learning Achievement of Practice on Creative Thinking for Problem Solving

問題創意思解課程發展主要目的是因應產業快速變化，以及問題導向的學習方式。本研究透過兩種分組方式(4個跨域與4個同質分組，每組4人學業平均名次20-24名)，以33題認知問卷和過程(投入性與互動性)與成果(創意性與可行性)評量，探討對6周設計思考主題「大學生健康促進」創意成果的影響。結果顯示，強制分組方式改變原先的經驗並降低對組員的預期；跨域組的組長角色(4 : 94 : 4.25, t = 2.39, p < 0.01)與多元組員(4.69 : 2.87, t = 6.51, p <0.001)分數顯著較高；同質組則對於組員溝通(5.19 : 4.44, t = 2.12, p < 0.05)與分組成果(4.81 : 4.19, t = 2.06, p < 0.05)較為滿意。實施過程中，4位隨課評分人員對跨域組的投入性與互動性平均分數分別為85.3與82.3分，低於同質組的88.9與85.3分；而4位專家(管理與設計專長各2位)對跨域組成果的創意性與可行性評分為81.2和81.8，同質組則為82.2和84.3，同質組4項評分分數均高於跨域組(差異為1.06‐8.00分)，其中兩組的互動性分數達顯著差異(t = 2.09, p < 0.05)。本結果與預期有所落差，可能原因是同學對主題熟悉，在運作過程中，跨域組成員對各自的創意構想常因專業背景不同而難以收斂，而構想確定後會因不熟悉而降低討論參與度；同質組則因專業背景一致，容易溝通達成共識，較能深入討論。本研究建議採取跨域分組時，應考量主題是否符合跨領域團隊運作特質，以有效提高學習成效。

Creative Thinking for Problem Solving is mainly based on responding to rapid technological changes and problem-based learning trend. This project employed two grouping methods (4 interdisciplinary (ID) and 4 homogeneous (HG) groups, 4 students in each group which average rankings ranged from 20 to 24 among the groups), cognitive questionnaire, and process and outcome assessment to examine the effect of the creative results of a 6-week design thinking implementation with the topic“Health Promotion for University Students.”Results showed that the grouping method changed the original experience and reduced the level of expectation for team members. The HG groups were more satisfied with the team communication (5.19 : 4.44, t = 2.12, p < 0.05) and the final outcome (4.81 : 4.19, t = 2.06, p < 0.05) than the ID groups. During the process, the scores of participation and interactive discussion assessed by 4 in-class raters for the ID groups were 85.3 and 82.3, respectively, which were lower than the 88.9 and 85.3 of the HG groups. The scores of creativity and feasibility of the final outcomes of the ID groups were 81.2 and 81.8, respectively, while the HG groups scored 82.2 and 84.3. All scores of the HG groups were higher than those of the ID groups, with differences ranging from 1.06 to 8.00. The difference in interactive discussion scores between the two groups was significant (t = 2.09, p < 0.05). However, the results obtained from the study were not as expected. A possible reason for this was that the students were familiar with the topic, which made it difficult for the ID group team members to converge their individual creative ideas due to their different backgrounds. This study suggests that when the ID grouping method is adopted in the course, it should be considered whether the topic matches the characteristics of the ID group to effectively improve learning achievement.