发达国家职业技术教育理念的启示

职业技术教育在发达国家很受重视。从发达国家职业技术教育理念中我们得到的启示是:将人文素质教育贯穿职业技术教育的始终,使受教育者增强社会交往和与他人沟通、合作的能力,注重创新能力的培养,注重培养学生的实践能力和个性特长;以就业为导向;受教育者的需求被作为职业技术教育的主导内容。应借鉴国外先进经验,积极发展我国职业技术教育,尽快使我国职业技术教育纳入国际化轨道。     

Gender and support for creativity at work

Although innovation is vital for the success of organizations, many may not be capitalizing on the creativity of all workers. Gender bias in attributions of creativity may lead to an imbalance in the extent to which organizations support the creativity of men and women. Because organizational support for creativity is positively associated with creative outcomes, this may undermine the creativity of women in the workplace. To determine if gender influences creative workplace behavior through support for creativity, conditional process models were used to analyze the survey responses and external employment data of workers (N = 14,590) across industries in the US. Our analyses demonstrate that men report greater support for creativity in the workplace than women, and greater support for workplace creativity leads to more frequent creative workplace behaviors. The proportion of women employed in an industry influences this relationship, such that differences between men and women become smaller as the proportion of women in an industry increases. However, the level of creativity required in an occupation does not influence the relationship between gender and creativity. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.     

在限定中成长--中关村软件园GREAT ROAD研发中心

介绍了中关村软件园GREAT ROAD研发中心项目的设计过程，并从在限定的规划条件中寻突破、在限定的外形条件中求个性、在限定的建设条件中找平衡三个方面对建筑设计过程中的限定条件进行了初步探讨。希望能在将来逐渐建立起一个相对合理的设计环境，以促进建筑设计质量的提高和建筑师个人价值的实现。     

谈如何培养学生创造性思维能力

在未来的社会里创造性劳动将异常重要，而当前学校教育的现状与这种形势很不适应，本就培养学生创造性思维能力的一些方法进行探讨，从联想、想象、发散思维、逆向思维来训练、培养学生的创造性思维能力，从而逐步达到培养创造型人才的目的。     

创意产业中创意源的衍生模式研究

"创意源"是创意产业的核心,创意源的设计是整个创意产业体系中最为关键的环节,需要提前根据创意源的3个主要特点和人们的需求性、市场的迎合度来进行设计,使其形成一个可衍生的模式,从而用相似的题材通过相同的模式来取得最大的创意源附加值,在低消耗中实现创意产业的最大经济效益。     

Commentary: The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking already overcome many of the perceived weaknesses that Silvia et al.'s (2008) methods are intended to correct.

Commentary on an article by P. J. Silvia et al. (see record 2008-05954-001) which discusses the topic of divergent thinking. Silvia et al.'s (2008) primary motivations for exploring and proposing their subjective scoring method are their perceived deficiencies of current divergent thinking tests. First, scores on divergent thinking tests frequently correlate highly with general intelligence. Second, the scoring of divergent thinking tests has changed little since the 1960s. Third, the necessity of instructing people to be creative prior to taking divergent thinking tests is integral to obtaining useful responses and needs to be reaffirmed. Fourth, and finally, the problems posed by uniqueness scoring--confounding with fluency, ambiguity of rarity, and the seeming "penalty" imposed on large samples--need to be addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure.

Promotion-focused states generally boost creativity because they associate with enhanced activation and cognitive flexibility. With regard to prevention-focused states, research evidence is less consistent, with some findings suggesting prevention-focused states promote creativity and other findings pointing to no or even negative effects. We proposed and tested the hypothesis that whether prevention-focused states boost creativity depends on regulatory closure (whether a goal is fulfilled or not). We predicted that prevention-focused states that activate the individual (unfulfilled prevention goals, fear) would lead to similar levels of creativity as promotion-focused states but that prevention-focused states that deactivate (closed prevention goals, relief) would lead to lower levels of creativity. Moreover, we predicted that this effect would be mediated by feelings of activation. Predictions were tested in 3 studies on creative insights and 1 on original ideation. Results supported predictions. Implications for self-regulation, motivation, mood, and creativity are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity.

Commentary on an article by P. J. Silvia et al. (see record 2008-05954-001) which discusses the topic of divergent thinking. On several occasions I have suggested that a modified scientific method be used in studies of creativity (Runco, 1994a, 1999, 2006). This is a fairly contrarian suggestion because it implies a less-than-maximally objective perspective. Yet creativity will never be fully understood using the traditional scientific approach. This is in part because creativity requires originality, and the novelty that signifies originality is typically unpredictable, or at least not predictable with much precision. Perhaps more important for a modified scientific approach is the fact that creativity depends on affect, intuition, and other processes which cannot be accurately described using only objective terms. Yet at the same time, we should be as objective as possible. And although I am intrigued by generalizability theory, as described by Silvia, Winterstein, Willse, Barona, Cram, Hess, Martinez, and Richard (2008), I am concerned about their decision to use subjective scoring of divergent thinking tests. Their rationale is weak, to be blunt about it, and they have overlooked some critical research on the topic. In this commentary, I could describe the attraction of generalizability theory, but Silvia et al. do a more than adequate job of that. So instead, I will try to fill some gaps in their review of the research on divergent thinking. I also have a few questions with several of their claims and methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)