创造力培养:生成学习理论及其与生成式人工智能的潜在合作
Cultivating Creativity: Generative and Enactive Learning Perspectives and Their Potential Collaboration with Generative Artificial Intelligence
摘要: 学习作为影响创造力的重要因素之一,不仅为创造性思维提供必要的材料和实践机会,培养学习者的认知技能,还通过营造有利于探索与表达的环境,激发学习者的创造潜能。生成性学习与生成取向学习视角为理解这一过程提供了全面的理论框架:生成性学习强调学习者通过主动选择、组织和整合信息来构建有意义的知识,而生成取向学习则强调身体行动与情境嵌入互动在学习中的不可分割作用。两者共同将学习概念化为一种主动性、建构性和具身性的过程。基于此框架,动作化学习和自我生成教学作为两种重要的实践形式,通过强调学习者的主动参与和知识生成,为理解生成学习如何支持创造力提供了依据。本文通过梳理生成学习理论的最新进展,并结合时代前沿成果——生成式人工智能技术,旨在为创造力的培养提供新的视角与启发。
Abstract: Learning serves as one of the critical factors influencing creativity. It not only provides learners with the necessary materials and opportunities for creative thinking and cultivates cognitive skills, but also fosters an environment that supports exploration and expression, thereby stimulating creative potential. Generative and Enactive Learning perspectives provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding this process. The Generative Learning emphasizes learners’ active selection, organization, and integration of information to construct meaningful knowledge, while the Enactive Learning highlights the inseparable role of bodily action and context-embedded interaction in learning. Together, these perspectives conceptualize learning as an active, constructive, and embodied process. Derived from this theoretical frame, learning by enacting and learning by non-interactive teaching represent two prominent practical approaches, providing a basis for understanding how Generative and Enactive Learning support creativity by emphasizing learners’ active engagement and knowledge construction. By reviewing the latest advancements in Generative and Enactive Learning and integrating them with Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI)—a hallmark of contemporary technological progress—this paper aims to offer novel perspectives and insights for the systematic cultivation of creativity.
文章引用:施宇 (2026). 创造力培养:生成学习理论及其与生成式人工智能的潜在合作. 心理学进展, 16(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.163129

参考文献

[1] 成美霞, 匡子翌, 冷晓雪, 张洋, 王福兴(2023). 以教促学: 学习者自我生成教学对学习的影响. 心理科学进展, 31(5), 769-782.
[2] 匡子翌, 祝婉玲, 成美霞, 王福兴, 胡祥恩(2023). 动作化学习的有效性及其影响机制. 心理科学进展, 31(10), 1924-1936.
[3] 叶浩生(2022). 身体的意义: 生成论与学习观的重建. 教育研究, 43(3), 58-66.
[4] Acar, O. A., & van den Ende, J. (2016). Knowledge Distance, Cognitive-Search Processes, and Creativity: The Making of Winning Solutions in Science Contests. Psychological Science, 27, 692-699.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, D. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in the Creative Industries: A Review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55, 589-656.[CrossRef
[6] Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action (p. 2). Prentice Hall.
[7] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman.
[8] OpenAI (2023). ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue.
https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
[9] Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a Generative Activity. Cambridge University Press.[CrossRef
[11] Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive Development. In J. M. Scandura, & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/Process Theories of Complex Human Behavior (pp. 213-245). Springer.
[12] Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing Scientific Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT to Original Abstracts Using an Artificial Intelligence Output Detector, Plagiarism Detector, and Blinded Human Reviewers. BioRxiv.
[13] Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from Explaining: Learning Improves from Explaining to Fictitious Others on Video, Not from Writing to Them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 95-106.[CrossRef
[14] Hoogerheide, V., Renkl, A., Fiorella, L., Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2019a). Enhancing Example-Based Learning: Teaching on Video Increases Arousal and Improves Problem-Solving Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 45-56.[CrossRef
[15] Hoogerheide, V., Visee, J., Lachner, A., & van Gog, T. (2019b). Generating an Instructional Video as Homework Activity Is Both Effective and Enjoyable. Learning and Instruction, 64, Article ID: 101226.[CrossRef
[16] Hubert, K. F., Awa, K. N., & Zabelina, D. L. (2024). The Current State of Artificial Intelligence Generative Language Models Is More Creative than Humans on Divergent Thinking Tasks. Scientific Reports, 14, Article No. 3440.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Learning by Explaining Orally or in Written Form? Text Complexity Matters. Learning and Instruction, 68, Article ID: 101344.[CrossRef
[18] Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022). A Systematic Meta-Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Subjective Cognitive Load Questionnaires in Experimental Multimedia Learning Research. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2485-2541.[CrossRef
[19] Kumar, Y., Koul, A., Singla, R., & Ijaz, M. F. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Disease Diagnosis: A Systematic Literature Review, Synthesizing Framework and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 8459-8486.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2020). Timing Matters! Explaining between Study Phases Enhances Students’ Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 841-853.[CrossRef
[21] Lachner, A., Ly, K., & Nückles, M. (2018). Providing Written or Oral Explanations? Differential Effects of the Modality of Explaining on Students’ Conceptual Learning and Transfer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 344-361.[CrossRef
[22] Lee, Y., & Lin, T. (2023). The Feasibility Study of AI Image Generator as Shape Convergent Thinking Tool. In H. Degen, & S. Ntoa (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in HCI (pp. 575-589). Springer.[CrossRef
[23] Liu, H., Ning, R., Teng, Z., Liu, J., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Ability of ChatGPT and GPT-4. arXiv: 2304.03439.
[24] Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia Learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85-139.[CrossRef
[25] Mierdel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2021). Investigations of Modellers and Model Viewers in an Out-of-School Gene Technology Laboratory. Research in Science Education, 51, 801-822.[CrossRef
[26] Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, K., Chen, Y., Yang, J. et al. (2021). Learning by Explaining to Oneself and a Peer Enhances Learners’ Theta and Alpha Oscillations While Watching Video Lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 659-679.[CrossRef
[27] Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96.[CrossRef
[28] Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-Monitoring and Knowledge-Building in Learning by Teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327-351.[CrossRef
[29] Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor Learning: The Role of Explaining and Responding to Questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321-350.[CrossRef
[30] Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66-75.[CrossRef
[31] Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.[CrossRef
[32] Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. Research on Teaching Monograph Series. ERIC.
[33] Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. Free Press.
[34] Stilwell, P., & Harman, K. (2021). Phenomenological Research Needs to Be Renewed: Time to Integrate Enactivism as a Flexible Resource. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1-15.[CrossRef
[35] Stull, A. T., Gainer, M. J., & Hegarty, M. (2018). Learning by Enacting: The Role of Embodiment in Chemistry Education. Learning and Instruction, 55, 80-92.[CrossRef
[36] Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer Interaction and Learning in Cooperative Small Groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655.[CrossRef
[37] Wilson, K. E., Martinez, M., Mills, C., D’Mello, S., Smilek, D., & Risko, E. F. (2018). Instructor Presence Effect: Liking Does Not Always Lead to Learning. Computers & Education, 122, 205-220.[CrossRef
[38] Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a Generative Process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.[CrossRef
[39] Yin, Z., Reuben, F., Stepney, S., & Collins, T. (2023). Deep Learning’s Shallow Gains: A Comparative Evaluation of Algorithms for Automatic Music Generation. Machine Learning, 112, 1785-1822.[CrossRef
[40] Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-On” Plus “Inquiry”? Effects of Withholding Answers Coupled with Physical Manipulations on Students’ Learning of Energy-Related Science Concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199-205.[CrossRef
[41] Zhang, L., & Van Reet, J. (2022). How Is “Knowledge” Constructed during Science Activities? Detaching Instructional Effects of “Playing” and “Telling” to Optimize Integration of Scientific Investigations. Research in Science Education, 52, 1435-1449.[CrossRef