| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立屏東教育大學 === 數理教育研究所 === 99 === a. There was a significant difference in the legislative and judicial thinking style with different class type, the gifted students were better than the regular students.
b. There was a significant interaction in the legislative thinking style with different class type and grade, there was no significant interaction in the executive and judicial thinking style with different class type and grade.
c. There was no significant difference in the legislative thinking style with different grade of the gifted students with general intelligent ability; there
was a significant difference in the legislative thinking style with different grade of regular elementary students.
d. There was a significant difference in the executive and judicial thinking style with different grade of the elementary students.There was no significant interaction in the thinking style with different class type and gender, there was no significant difference in the thinking style with different gender of elementary students.
f. There was a significant difference in the word association, bag design and technological creativity with different class type, the gifted students were better than the regular students.
g. There was no significant interaction in the word association, bag design and technological creativity with different class type and grade.
h. There was a significant difference in the bag design and technological creativity with different grade of the elementary students.
i. There was no significant interaction in the technological creativity with different class type and gender, there was no significant difference in the technological creativity with different grader of elementary students.
j. There was no significant relationship between the thinking style and the technological creativity for the gifted students with general intelligent ability; there was a significant relationship between the thinking style and the technological creativity for the regular elementary students.
|
|---|
