10 SES 17 B, Research on Programmes and Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education
The aim of the paper is to reveal the aspects of Students Creativity Development employing the Model of Students Creativity Development
The research question: how can the Model of Students Creativity Development improve the Students Creativity Development?
Major objectives of the research:
• To provide an overview of possibilities of Students Creativity Development in Higher Education
• To examine how the Model of Students Creativity Development can improve the Students Creativity Development
Theoretical framework used in the research:
Due to everlasting changes in technologies and subsequent knowledge expansion, creative education becomes extremely important. Since learners constantly and inevitably face new phenomena and challenges related to them, there is an ever-growing need to be able to learn to think creatively. Creativity as the ability to generate new ideas, to think independently, evaluate problematic situations and make fast and reasonable decisions while projecting future tendencies, becomes a top priority for a citizen in the 21st century.
Due to everlasting changes in technologies and subsequent knowledge expansion, creativity development becomes extremely important. Since learners constantly and inevitably face new phenomena and challenges related to them, there is an ever-growing need to be able to learn to think creatively. Creativity as the ability to generate new ideas, to think independently, evaluate problematic situations and make fast and reasonable decisions while projecting future tendencies, becomes a top priority for a citizen in the 21st century.
The literature review within the field showed that the concept and manifestations of creativity, as well as the processes of its development, have been widely researched and discussed. The scientists of different spheres analyse creativity and its educational aspects, they demonstrate different approaches to this phenomenon. Because of this, different research approaches to creativity appeared. These trends of research can be classified according to factors emphasized in 6P (Factors influencing creativity are intellect, knowledge, style of thinking, personal qualities, motivation, and environment) (Kozbelt, Beghetto, Runco, 2010).The representatives of systemic creativity research (Amabile, 1998; Csiksentmihalyi, 2006; Sternberg, 2006) present models of creativity and analyse creativity as a complex phenomenon. Thus, the literature overview reveals that the Higher Education teacher has to develop students’ creativity and highlight its preconditions, including favorable environment, specifically chosen teaching and learning methodology among them.
The Model of Students Creativity Development aimed at developing students’ creativity in Higher Education, on the basis of the Creative Platform methodology. Christian Byrge and Søren Hansen (2008) developed the Creative Platform methodology. The Creative Platform methodology integrates a number of prior studies into creativity education (Amabile, 1998; Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Stenberg, 2006 and others), and nowadays it is applied as a didactic model in Higher Education in a number of countries across the globe. In didactic terms, the Creative Platform methodology is based on the assumption that it is only through the activities of confluent inclusion that we can get rid of the dominant patterns of thinking, the patterns that rely on following the discipline, social structures, and cultural traditions. When designing the Model of Students Creativity Development, it was oriented the very process of Students Creativity Development, as it allows developing students’ ability to concentrate attention, to apply creative thinking, to develop confidence and to encourage motivation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Modern education paradigm is oriented towards the learner who is an active participant of the learning process. Therefore, it will be based on contructivist philosophycal paradigm, when perception is considered as the basis demonstrating how reality construction is going on. Interpretative phenological analysis done that in the process of interpretation of interview data constructed meanings and their interpretations done by the participants be supported by their experience and available knowledge. Following constructivism, the world is perceived as reality constructing consciousness-streaming interaction of intellectual individs (Guba, Linkoln, 1994). Therefore, the ideas of social constructivism become suitable to emphasize objective and subjective contexts of the participants of the learning process, constructing ones knowledge and reflecting on it (Berger, Luckmann, 1999). That reflects ontological research framework when subjects construct reality and cognition. The following methods were applied in the research: 1. Literature analysis. 2. Interviewing. 3. Content analysis. The qualitative part of the empirical research was conducted by applying the method of in-depth interviewing in order to examine how can the Model of Students Creativity Development improve the Students Creativity Development. The method was chosen and questions were developed following Cohen, Manion, and Morrison’s (2007) suggestion the interviewer should be “sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject matter that she or he can conduct the interview in an informed manner and interviewee does not feel threatened by lack of knowledge” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The Interview were have been conducted at a college. The Model of Students Creativity Development is integrated in to 3 study programs: Early Childhood Pedagogy, Pedagogy of Primary Education, Social Pedagogy. The sampling strategy was chosen according to the requirements for a qualitative sample (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). Thus 26 informants were chosen using probability sampling: 8 college teachers and 16 students from the all 3 study programs.
The college students and teachers answered the Interviewing questions. The results of the empirical part of research leads us to the conclusion that the integration of the Model of Students Creativity Development improves Students Creativity Development, because of: a) College teachers and students said that is getting better increased students’ activity and involvement, because students‘ self-esteem and motivation is increased; b) Productive learning appeared/has been established, as tasks are presented in chunks for the Students and in different forms, also Teaching methods are carefully selected. c) Students Creativity Development improved, because favorable atmosphere was created between teachers and students, students‘ previous experiences are taken into consideration. Resting on the research data analyses, recommendations for the teachers, how using the developed creativity model in their teaching/ learning process, will be suggested to improve the Students Creativity Development of this process. On the second hand, the results have revealed that both teachers and students encountered certain difficulties, when employing the Model of Students Creativity Development. It was determined that the major problem was time constraints. Students said that the participation of all students was vital, as the model could only be implemented in groups. College teachers think that employing preparation for lectures took a long time, when they are using the for the Model of Students Creativity Development. We believe that this Problems will be solved will and also hope to be able to present findings of this problem solving.
1.Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review. 176 (5), 76‒78. 2.Berger, P. L., Luckmann, Th. (1999). The Social Construction of Reality. Vilnius: Pradai. 3.Bertašienė, I. (2019). CREATIVE PLATFORM METHODOLOGY: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STUDENT CREATIVITY DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDIES. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Vol 1(2019) (54-66). Retrieved from: http://journals.rta.lv/index.php/SIE/article/view/3848 4.Byrge., C., & Hansen, S. (2014). Enhancing Creativity for Individuals, Groups and Organizations: Creativity as the Unlimited Application of Knowledge. Place of publishing: Frydenlung. 5.Byrge., C., & Hansen, S. (2015). The Creative Platform. A Handbook in Creative Processes for Education and Worklife. Place of publishing: Frydenlung. 6.Byrge., C., & Hansen, S. (2009). The Creative Platform: A new Paradigm for Teaching Creativity. Problems of education in the 21 st century, 18 (33–50). Retrieved from: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol18/33-50.Byrge_Vol.18.pdf 7.Csiksentmihalyi, M. (2006). A Systems Perspective on Creativity. Retrieved from: http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11443_01_Henry_Ch01.pdf 8.Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London, NewYork: Routledge, Taylor and Francies Group. Retrieved from: https://islmblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rme-edu-helpline-blogspot-com.pdf 9.Grakauskaitė – Karkockienė, D. (2006). Changes in Pedagogical University Students' Creativity While Being Taught According to a Special Program. ACTA PAEDAGOGICA VILNENSIA, 17, 66–77. 10.Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. P. 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from: https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Guba%20&%20Lincoln%201994.pdf 11.Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of Creativity. Kaufman, J. C.; Sternberg, R. J. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20‒47. 12.Rimkutė – Jankuvienė, S. (2016). Theoretical Discourse of Creativity. Creative Teacher – Creative Students. Klaipėda, 5–14. 13.Sternberg, J., R. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 18 (1), 87–98. 14.Sternberg, R., J., Williams, W. M. (1996). How to Develop Student Creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 15.Urban, K., K. (2014). From creativity to Responsible Createlligence. Gifted Education International, 30 (3). 237-247.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.