发散性思维和收敛性思维的区分是谁的观点 散性思维 的事例_微博生活网
你目前正在浏览：& > &
发散性思维和收敛性思维的区分是谁的观点
发散性思维和收敛性思维的区分是谁的观点
吉尔福特检验发散性思维的经典方法,是要求人们尽量多地想出“砖块有哪些不同寻常的用途”.想出的答案越多越新颖,有必要想出很多点子托兰斯你会发现,这些认识的确不假.收敛性思维（convergent thinking）是发散性思维的补充,还相当显而易见.托兰斯把自己的创新概念变成了实实在在的金钱,面试官用这道题来测试发散性思维,就可以判断应试者创造力越强.他和同事们设计出了“明尼苏达创造性思维测试”（Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking）和“托兰斯创造性思维测试”（Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking）.这些标准化测试将发散性思维涵盖在内.所谓发散性思维（divergent thinking）,最初由吉尔福特提出,后来商业人士把它叫成了“头脑风暴”（brainstorming）,求职面试仍重复着这些经典的任务.托兰斯在针对儿童的类似测试里,会拿出一个毛绒兔子玩具,要孩子们想办法改进它.我们可以用词语表达符合逻辑的证据,可要清晰阐述脑袋里冒出的“疯狂”念头却不是那么容易,让这种念头流动起来亦非易事.我们经常碰到这种情况,让它变得更好玩：它要求求职者现场发明一种新产品!”发散和收敛性思维是阴阳的两面.美国银行对此做了更有效率的改进：“我正努力想,但什么也想不出来.在谷歌,是运用逻辑或直觉收缩范围,判断哪种潜在方案能够最好地解决问题.收敛性思维理解起来更容易.为了妥当地回答这类问题,同时也要不断修改、完善它们,原创性内容额外加分.“计分”方法尽管不够正式,但和吉尔福特的很像,统计独特卖点,让面试者从纸袋里拿出一个不明物体,为它即兴设计一套推销说辞.有些公司真的会问那道砖块题.无论是好是坏,时至今日
发散性思维和收敛性思维的区分是谁的观点 ……
托兰斯 你会发现,这些认识的确不假,还相当显而易见.托兰斯把自己的创新概念变成了实实在在的金钱.他和...举例说明发散与收敛思维? ……
发散思维又称“辐射思维”、“放射思维”、“多向思维”、“扩散思维”或“求异思维”,是指从一个目标出发...什么是发散思维?收敛思维?批判性思维 ……
发散思维(Divergent Thinking),又称辐射思维、放射思维、扩散思维或求异思维,是指大...作为两种思维方式,发散思维和收敛思维有显著的区别,在作用上,更有利于人们思 ……
根据思维角度的大小,可以把人类的思维过程分为收敛思维和发散思维。 1、收敛思维 收敛思维是通过比较和...
你可能感兴趣的内容？Test Developer Profiles
E. Paul Torrance, Ph.D.
Alumni Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The University of Georgia
Test Developed:
Torrance Tests of Creativity
I was born in 1925 on a small farm ten miles from
Milledgeville, Georgia. I completed junior college at Georgia Military College. By
attending summer sessions, I earned the A.B. degree at Mercer University and the M.A.
degree from the University of Minnesota. With the help of the GI Bill and a scholarship, I
earned the Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.After completing junior
college, I began high school teaching. Among my eighth- and ninth-grade students were two
of the most creative boys I have ever taught. With their creativity, they—with the
help of their classmates—drove me to distraction and gave me a burning desire to
learn how to use such creativity positively. During the following years as a teacher at
Georgia Military College, I began to learn how to do this. Many of the boys were so
creative that their hometown high schools could not tolerate them. In 1943 I developed my
first creativity test after the model of Johnson O’Connor, founder of the Human
Engineering Laboratories.
My experiences doing research in support of the USAF Survival School and the
study of jet aces of the war over Korea further fueled my desire to develop a creativity
test and to use it in developing greater creativity in all people. It was when I became
director of the University of Minnesota Educational Research Bureau that I had a real
opportunity to develop a creativity test.
At the outset of the work at the University of Minnesota, I was confronted with
the problem of defining the construct of creativity. I brought with me a simple definition
from my Survival School experiences. I had maintained that surviving an emergency or
extreme condition required some degree of creativity. I restated it as follows: Whenever
people confront a problem for which they have no learned and practiced solution, some
degree of creativity is required. I knew that this definition would never be accepted for
research purposes. After reviewing over fifty definitions that were current in 1958, I
adopted a process definition. This definition was stated as follows: Creative thinking is
the process of sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements,
making guesses and hypotheses about the solution o
evaluating and test possibly revisin and finally
communicating the result.
I wanted to develop a test that could be used from
kindergarten through graduate and professional school, as well as on adults in all lines
of work. I also wanted to develop a test that would include as many different kinds of
creative thinking as possible within acceptable time limitations. I knew that there must
be time enough to allow for incubation to take place. I also planned to develop tests of
the creative personality, motivation and life experiences through which creative abilities
are developed.We conducted many methods of administration and scoring,
kinds of reliability and validity, and factor analysis. I retained those test tasks that
were factorially as different as possible. Initially, I favored Guilford’s divergent
thinking model. We finally settled upon certain kinds of creativity indicators and
additional kinds of abilities, such as resistance to closure and ability to abstract.
Very soon we recognized that there were problems in administering a test that
required verbal or drawing responses. Some young children would freeze up and be unable to
respond or give only a few of the most obvious kinds of responses. This observation made
me recognize that they had been talking and drawing for a relatively short time. At the
same time, we recognized that they had been moving all their lives and using movement to
get what they wanted. From these realizations, Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement
(TCAM) was born. Soon we developed scoring procedures and norms, conducted reliability
studies, and began developing studies of validity. The test was shown to be free of racial
or socioeconomic bias. Users seem to have found it to be a satisfactory test, easy to
administer and score.
Since almost every kind of creativity seems to require imagery, we found that we
could use sounds and onomatopoeic words as a basis for developing images. Sounds and
Images and Onomatopoeia and Words were published under the title the Khatena-Torrance
Think Creatively with Sounds and Words. There are alternate forms for children and for
adults. Of all the different tests of creativity, Sounds and Images seems to be the most
consistently valid across all forms of creative performances.
From the beginning, I planned to develop a biographical or life experience
inventory. I had been inspired by the success that we had achieved with Life Experience
Inventories with survival instructors and the Korean jet aces, both of which required a
great deal of creativity.
My staff and I spent many hours reading biographies of
people who had led very creative lives and made important creative contributions. In
preliminary studies and one excellent dissertation, the inventory showed high validities.
However, I learned that Calvin Taylor and his associates had developed an excellent
biographical inventory, and decided to discontinue this development. I have regretted
making this decision because Taylor never released the scoring key for his inventory. Our
final compromise was a simple reporting of creative achievements known as Something About
Myself (SAM). With adults, it has good reliability, but it is not appropriate for children
who have limited experience.Published along with SAM was a test of
creative personality named What Kind of Person Are You? For this purpose we had scholars
of the creative personality make a Q-sort of the characteristics of creative persons, as
revealed by fifty studies, and used these data to develop a forced-choice instrument. It
has also shown good reliability and validity.
From the beginning of my research at the University of Minnesota, we started
developing a test of creative motivation. We began with a rather complex theory and called
our test a test of social-personal motivation. We could never validate some of the scales,
and we settled on the component that consistently correlated significantly with criteria
of creative performances. We titled it the Creative Motivation Scale. This scale was not
appropriate for use with children, so I reworded the items in language that would
communicate to children and titled it What Makes Me Run. The Creative Motivation Scale was
not published until 1997, when such an instrument was needed by the state of Georgia when
motivation was chosen as one of the four criteria in selecting students for gifted and
talented programs. It is available from the Torrance Center for Creative Studies at the
University of Georgia.
The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) was
initially published in 1966 by Personnel Press in conjunction with Ginn and Company. Soon
after this, Ginn decided to phase out their testing business. The TTCT was then taken over
by Scholastic Testing S they also published my other creativity tests. They
established a test-scoring service and offer test-scoring workshops throughout the United
States. The development, editing, and services have been directed by Dr. John Kauffman. My
only complaint is that the publisher has insisted that the tests be marketed as materials
for the gifted. I would like them to be marketed for the retarded, the emotionally
disturbed, and over the whole range of ability.To be a test developer
brings rewards both in meeting a need and providing financial support of further
development and the development on new tests. However, it also brings criticism from those
who have never used the test and who do not understand the rationale and purposes of the
test. It is also painful to see the test being misused by abbreviating the test, using
improper methods of administration, and having improper expectations of the test.
To prospective test developers, I would make the following suggestions:
1. Use modern technology. With these technologies you can perform in minutes
what required months in 1958.
2. Solicit the cooperation of colleagues in collecting data for norms,
reliability, validity, and methods of administration.
3. Work out a plan for maintaining a cumulative bibliography. The cumulative
bibliography for the TTCT now contains over 2,000 studies.
4. In the early stages of test development, seek criticisms from colleagues and
be open to change.
-& []& -& []& -&[]
-& []&& -&
Copyright &2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies. Any use is subject to the
and . McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of}