本研究探討思考技巧教學對批判性思考和創造力傾向之影響，並探究批判性思考和創造力傾向之關係。批判性思考在本文指的是論證、假設、演繹、推論、詮釋之思考，創造力傾向意即一個人如何使用創造力來解決問題，其分為適應和創新兩種方式。而創新是解決現今問題的主要方式。此研究對象為台灣南部一所大學的學生，共 87 人。研究對象分兩組，一組實驗組共 31 人，另一組為比較組共 56 人，兩組學生皆涵蓋一至四年級之商學與資訊學院和文化與創意學院學生。實驗組接受思考技巧實驗教學，而比較組則無。此思考技巧教學涵蓋批判性思考技巧、六層思考技巧、六頂思考帽及詰問句型，共持續 16 週。批判性思考能力評量使用Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal 的評量表，而創造力傾向則採用The Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory 之適應—創新量表來評估。研究資料於前後測收集，並使用 SPSS 統計分析系統之共變異數分析和獨立樣本 t 檢定。研究結果顯示思考技巧教學使實驗組學生之批判性思考有顯著性進步，有趣的是此教學介入更有利於提升實驗組 KAI 低分組學生的創新力。再者，批判性思考和創造力傾向兩者並無直接相關性。本研究提供學校、教師和學者對學生之批判性思考和創造力傾向有更深一層的理解並提供教學建議。

This study investigates the impact of thinking skills instruction on students’ critical thinking and creative styles and the relationship between critical thinking and creative styles. One main goal of education is to equip students with the thinking capacity to think critically. Educators and researchers (e.g., McGuinness, 1999) have advocated the significance of teaching thinking. Halx and Reybold (2006) have emphasized that developing students’ higher-order thinking skills as one of the priority objectives in higher education. There are different thinking models, such as Watson and Glaser’s (2008) critical thinking, Bloom’s taxonomy, and de Bono’s six thinking hats. Though these thinking models consist of various thinking skills, many of the thinking skills taught in these models (e.g., analysis, evaluation, creativity) are the same. Critical thinking does not automatically develop through higher education (Arum & Roksa, 2011). Empirical research has shown that developing students’ high cognitive thinking skills requires the teacher to teach thinking (Abrami et al., 2015; Heijltjes et al., 2014). Critical thinking skills and higher-order thinking skills are applied while creating a solution. Kirton (1976) described two creative styles: adaptation and innovation. The literature has shown that adaptation and innovation have links to certain personality traits (Kirton, 1999). However, little research has reported the relationship between creative styles and cognitive thinking. The present study aims to investigate thinking skills instruction and examine the impact it has on students’ critical thinking and creative styles. In addition, the study explores the relationship between critical thinking and creative styles. The research questions investigated in this study are as follows: 

Main question (1): How does thinking skill instruction affect students’ critical thinking? 

Main question (2): How does thinking skills instruction affect students’ creative styles?

Main question (3): What is the relationship between critical thinking and creative styles?

Sub-question (1): Do students with high/low critical thinking have different creative styles? 

Sub-question (2): Do students with adaptation and innovation differ in critical thinking? 

Sub-question (3): Is there a relationship between critical thinking and creative styles? 

Data collected for this study were drawn from two groups: one experimental group and one comparison group. The experimental group received 16 weeks of experimental thinking instruction, while the comparison group did not. Participants (N = 87) were recruited from a medium-sized university in southern Taiwan. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) was adapted for this study to evaluate students’ critical thinking, and the Kirton Adaptation- Innovation Inventory (KAI) was also applied in this study to assess students’ creative styles. Data were collected from both groups using pre-test and post-test questinnaires. The descriptive results of the quantitative data were computed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and the Johnson-Neyman (JN) procedure to examine the impact of thinking skills instruction on students’ critical thinking and creative styles. In addition, the independent samples t-test was conducted to investigate the relationship between critical thinking and creative styles. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to examine whether there was a relationship between critical thinking and creative styles. 

Results showed that thinking skills instruction exerts statistically significant positive effects on students’ critical thinking (F = 27.733, p < .001). Post-test adjusted means (experimental group = 26.88, comparison group = 23.87) further showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the comparison group. Interestingly, the results also revealed that thinking skills instruction significantly impacted students in the experimental group with adaptive preferences, transitioning from adaptation to innovation. In addition, the study showed that students with high and low critical thinking do not differ in creative styles (t = 1.44, p > .05), meaning that students with high and low critical thinking contain both adaptors and innovators. There was no significant difference in critical thinking between adaptors and innovators (t = 1.16, p > .05). Also, no significant relationship between critical thinking and creative styles (r = -.187, p > .05) was found. 

The present study’s findings confirm Kirton’s (1976) affirmation that adaptors and innovators possess the same level of creativity, yet the ways they expressed their creativity were disparate. These findings further support Dunbar’s (1997) study that scientists apply various means to achieve creative insights, but the cognitive processes do not vary. The teaching instruction highlights the significant positive impact on students’ critical thinking. This finding is in agreement with Chen’s (2015, 2020) findings, which showed that teaching thinking improves students’ higher-order cognitive thinking. In addition, enhancing critical thinking transforms students with adaptation into innovation, implying that, despite the personality traits, critical thinking plays an important role in determining the use of creative styles. 

Participants recruited in the present study were from the College of Culture and Creativity and the College of Business and Information. The present study did not include a great diversity of college majors. Caution must be applied when interpreting the theoretical generalizability of thinking skills instruction in the university setting. Kotsemir and Abroskin (2013) advocate the significance of innovation for solving problems occurring in the 21st century. For future research, it is suggested that researchers explore the types of personality traits that encourage innovation to deal with the problems occurring in the new era of technology. For thinking tasks/activities to be effective, teachers are encouraged to view teaching as a process of developing and enhancing students’ learning ability. The teacher’s role is to serve as a facilitator for learning. Finally, the researcher suggests the value of thinking skills instruction in improving students’ critical thinking.

批判性思考; 思考技巧; 創造力傾向; KAI; WGCTA

critical thinking; thinking skills; creative styles; KAI; WGCTA