创造力是21世纪人才必备的核心素养，对于个体更好地适应社会变化、应对复杂的挑战 、保持心理健康具有重要意义，也是经济和社会发展的驱动力之一。因此，提升个体创造力对于个人和社会发展至关重要。以往的创造力训练往往是围绕学生群体开展活动，而忽视了学生的个体差异，也导致训练效果并非总是理想。本研究借助数字时代背景，以5-I创造力训练模型为理论基础，围绕青少年学生群体，开发设计基于个体认知风格差异的个性化创造力在线训练程序，并通过两个研究系统地探索了认知风格与在线训练策略的交互作用对学生创造力的促进效果。

研究一采用2（认知风格：场独立型、场依存型）×2（参与策略：主动参与、被动参与）实验设计，检验了认知风格与在线参与策略的交互作用对青少年创造力训练效果的影响。研究一招募123名四、五年级学生参与训练，并利用镶嵌图形测验将学生被试划分为场依存和场独立型认知风格。随后，将被试分到主动参与或者被动参与组接受10次创造力训练。结果发现，对于侧重创造性认知技能的任务，场依存型和场独立型被试在被动参与策略下的任务表现均比在主动参与策略下显著提升；对于侧重创造性想象和开放性的任务，场依存型被试在主动参与策略下的任务表现显著提升，而场独立型被试在被动参与策略下的任务表现有显著提升。在此基础上，研究二采用2（认知风格：场独立型、场依存型）×2（参与策略：主动参与、被动参与）×2（控制策略：学习者控制、系统控制）实验设计，进一步探索了认知风格、参与策略与控制策略的交互作用对青少年创造力训练效果的影响。研究二招募230名六、七年级学生参与创造力在线训练，流程同研究一相似。结果发现，对于侧重创造性认知技能的任务，场依存型被试在被动参与和学习者控制组合的策略下的任务表现显著提升，而场独立型被试在主动参与和学习者控制策略下的任务表现显著提升；对于侧重创造性想象和开放性的任务，场依存型被试未表现出明确的优势训练策略，而场独立型被试偏好既允许探索又有一定约束的策略，如主动参与和系统控制组合策略。

综上，两个训练研究结果表明，不同认知风格的个体偏好的训练策略存在差异，训练策略对于不同认知风格学生创造力训练效果还受到训练情境和目标的影响。本研究发现证实了基于个体认知风格的个性化创造力训练的有效性，丰富了关于创造力发展与提升的心理机制的认识，也为教育者实施差异化教学，实现创造力培养的“因材施教”提供了实践启示。

Creativity is a key competency in the 21st century, allowing individuals to better adapt to social changes, deal with complex challenges, and maintain mental well-being; it is also a strong impetus for economic and social progress. Therefore, enhancing individual creativity is crucial for personal and societal development. However, traditional group-based creativity training often overlooked individual differences and yielded less successful training outcomes. Drawing on the development of digital technology, this dissertation, rooted in the 5-I creativity training framework, aimed to develop a personalized online creativity training based on cognitive styles, and to investigate the interaction effects of cognitive style and online training strategies on nurturing adolescent students’ creativity.

Study 1 employed a 2(cognitive style: field independent, field dependent) * 2 (involvement strategy: active strategy, passive strategy) experimental design to examine the interaction effects between cognitive style and involvement strategy on adolescent creativity. A total of 123 fourth and fifth-grade primary students participated, and were classified as field dependent and field independent learners based on the Embedded Figures Test. Subsequently, they were assigned to an active strategy group or a passive strategy group, each undergoing 10 sessions of creativity training. The results showed that in tasks emphasizing cognitive-based creative thinking skills, both field-dependent and field-independent participants exhibited significant improvements in creative performance under the passive training compared to the active strategy. However, for tasks emphasizing creative imagination and openness, field-dependent participants showed significant improvements in creative performance under the active strategy, while field-independent participants improved under the passive strategy. Study 2 employed 2(cognitive style: field-independent, field-dependent) * 2 (involvement strategy: active strategy, passive strategy) * 2 (controlling strategy: learner control, system control) experimental design to further explore the interaction effects of cognitive style, involvement strategy and controlling strategy on adolescent creativity. A total of 230 sixth and seventh-grade students were recruited, and the experimental procedure was similar to that of Study 1. The results revealed that for tasks emphasizing cognitive-based creative thinking skills, field-dependent participants showed significant improvements in creative performance under the combination of passive strategy and learner control, while field-independent participants demonstrated significant improvements under the combination of active strategy and learner control. However, for tasks emphasizing creative imagination and openness, field-dependent participants did not exhibit a preference for any specific training strategy, while field-independent participants preferred strategies that allowed both exploration and certain constraints, such as the combination of active strategy and system control.

Overall, the findings from both training studies underscore the importance of tailoring training strategies to individuals' cognitive styles, while also highlighting the impact of training contexts and objectives on effectiveness. Moreover, this research validates the efficacy of personalized creativity training grounded in individual characteristics, thereby advancing our comprehension of the psychological mechanisms involved in fostering creativity. Importantly, it offers practical insights for educators seeking to adopt differentiated and personalized approaches in nurturing students' creativity.