6
1 WCIT 2010 The impact of constructivist and cognitive distance instructional design on the learner’s creativity Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda a *,Farideh Hamidi b , Farhad Ghorbandordinejad c a M.A in Instructional Technology, ,Department of Education b Assistant Professor of Psychology ,Department of Education c Assistant Professor of English Language, Department of language.P.O. Box 167855-163- Tehran-Iran ShahidRajaee Teacher Training University P.O. Box 167855-163, Tehran, Iran Abstract Creativity is at the heart of the 21 st century educational work. Learner’ creativity or learner’s creative thinking skills are among the most important skills they need to be prepared for the knowledge society. The rapid development of technology in the modern era sheds light on the place and importance of creativity in education. Technology also has brought change in the way the students learn (collaboration strategy) and recently the computer-based instruction associated with electrical technologies has been a popular way of instruction that learning is no longer confined to classrooms (distance learning). Also in the case of the students if they want to take effective advantage of technology, they have to use the constructivist and cognitive skills (psychological learning theory). Recently education experts have tried to show how a distance instructional can be designed. The main question of this paper is what effects the distance instructional design based on the views of constructivism and cognitivism have on the learners’ creativity .The definition of distance education (e-learning), the instruction design based on constructivist view and its function in education and distance learning (e-learning), the instruction design based on cognitive view and its function in education and distance learning (e-learning), the factors affecting the creativity development and accommodation (comparison) the characteristics of the instructural context, and the impact of the appropriate learning on the creativity development according to these settings are among the other main points of this review. Keywords: Instructional Design, Distance Education, E-learning, Creativity, Cognitivism, Constructivism 1. Introduction The field of creativity as it exists today emerged largely as a result of the pioneering efforts of J. P. Guilford[1] and E. Paul Torrance[2]. It is wholly fitting to dedicate a special issue of the Creativity Research Journal to Torrance because of his seminal contributions to thinking about creativity. To this day, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking[2] remain the most widely used assessments of creative. Although creativity - creative thinking - is considered as a key competency for the 21 st century, it is not confined to the modern time. It is said that in the ancient world, Plato discussed society’s need for creative people in his Ion, and suggested ways of fostering their development[3]. Nowadays creativity has been viewed as the ultimate economic resource[4] and as essential for addressing complex individual and societal issues[5][6] . * Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda. Tel & fax: +98-21-22970035 E-mail address: [email protected] c 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Guest Editor. Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia 1877-0509 c 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.044

The impact of constructivist and cognitive distance instructional design on the learner’s creativity

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Procedia Computer Science 00 (2009) 000–000

Procedia Computer Science

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

1

WCIT 2010

The impact of constructivist and cognitive distance instructional design on the learner’s creativity

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda a *,Farideh Hamidi b, Farhad Ghorbandordinejadc

aM.A in Instructional Technology, ,Department of EducationbAssistant Professor of Psychology ,Department of Education

cAssistant Professor of English Language, Department of language.P.O. Box 167855-163- Tehran-Iran ShahidRajaee Teacher Training University P.O. Box 167855-163, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Creativity is at the heart of the 21st century educational work. Learner’ creativity or learner’s creative thinking skills are among the most important skills they need to be prepared for the knowledge society. The rapid development of technology in the modern era sheds light on the place and importance of creativity in education. Technology also has brought change in the way the students learn (collaboration strategy) and recently the computer-based instruction associated with electrical technologies has been a popular way of instruction that learning is no longer confined to classrooms (distance learning). Also in the case of the students if they want to take effective advantage of technology, they have to use the constructivist and cognitive skills (psychological learning theory). Recently education experts have tried to show how a distance instructional can be designed. The main question of this paper is what effects the distance instructional design based on the views of constructivism and cognitivism have on the learners’ creativity .The definition of distance education (e-learning), the instruction design based on constructivist view and its function in education and distance learning (e-learning), the instruction design based on cognitive view and its function in education and distance learning (e-learning), the factors affecting the creativity development and accommodation (comparison) the characteristics of the instructural context, and the impact of the appropriate learning on the creativity development according to these settings are among the other main points of this review.

Keywords: Instructional Design, Distance Education, E-learning, Creativity, Cognitivism, Constructivism

1. Introduction

The field of creativity as it exists today emerged largely as a result of the pioneering efforts of J. P. Guilford[1] and E. Paul Torrance[2]. It is wholly fitting to dedicate a special issue of the Creativity Research Journal to Torrance because of his seminal contributions to thinking about creativity. To this day, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking[2] remain the most widely used assessments of creative.

Although creativity - creative thinking - is considered as a key competency for the 21st century, it is not confined to the modern time. It is said that in the ancient world, Plato discussed society’s need for creative people in his Ion, and suggested ways of fostering their development[3]. Nowadays creativity has been viewed as the ultimate economic resource[4] and as essential for addressing complex individual and societal issues[5][6].

* Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda. Tel & fax: +98-21-22970035 E-mail address: [email protected]

c⃝ 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Guest Editor.

Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

1877-0509 c⃝ 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.044

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

2. Creativity

Generally, creativity is defined as the ability to offer new perspectives, generate novel and meaningful ideas, raise new questions, and come up with solutions to ill-defined problems[7][8][9]. Also Guilford[10] defined creativity as divergent thinking. Divergent thinking involves production of ideas from given information, with an emphasis on variety and quantity of output, divergent thinking encompasses several forms of creative thought, including the generation of ideas, the divergence from typical answers, the improvements to ideas. In fact, creativity is a mental activity performed in situations where there is no prior correct solution or answer[11].

3. Creativity components

Sternberg and Lubart[12] argued that there are six main elements that converge to form creativity: intelligence,knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and the environment. According to the theory, three aspects of intelligence are key for creativity: synthetic, analytical, and practical abilities. Eleni Sefertzi[13] believes creativity is not an innate quality of only a few selected people. Creativity is present in everyone. It can be learned, practised and developed by the use of proven techniques which, enhancing and stimulating the creative abilities, ideas and creative results.

In another attempt Sternberg[14][15] and Sternberg and Lubart[9] showed that creative work consists of the application and melding of three types of thinking, all of which they contend can be learned or enhanced. They feel that creativity is a balance between these three forms of thinking: synthetic ability includes divergent thinking as it is the ability to think of or generate new, novel, and interesting ideas. But it is also the ability to spontaneously make connections between ideas, or groups of things. Analytical ability includes the ability to think convergently in that it requires critical thinking and appraisal as one analyzes and evaluates thoughts, ideas, and possible solutions. This type of thinking is key in the domain of creative work because not all ideas are good ones, some need to be culled. Creative people use this type of thinking to consider implications and project possible responses, problems, and outcomes. Commonly we think of this ability as "critical thinking" at its best. Practical ability includes the ability to use practical thinking. This is the ability translate abstractions and theories into realistic applications. It is the skill to sell or communicate one's ideas to others, to make others believe that ideas, works, or products are valuable, different, useful, innovative, unusual, or worthy of consideration. The following creative activities help the students to explore all aspects of their intelligence.

analytical ability creative ability practical ability to analyze to create to apply to critique to invent to use to judge to discover to put into practice

to compare/ contrast to imagine if … to implement to evaluate to suppose that … to employ to assess to predict to render

Figure No 1 . Creative Abilities The above creative activities and skills are necessary for the learners to explore all aspects of their intelligence. So an appropriate instructional design in advance education needs addressing these activities and skills. Instructional design

When planning an instructional design, the following procedures[16] can improve creativity: building creativity objectives into your subject-specific objectives; looking for opportunities to promote creativity in your existing schemes of work and lesson plans, and devising activities that are personally and culturally authentic based on the pupils’ interests and experiences.

Plan for a range of teaching and learning styles so that as many pupils as possible have the opportunity to show their creativity. Role play can increase pupils’ imaginative engagement and give them freedom to explore ideas. Hands-on experimentation, problem solving, discussion and collaborative work all provide excellent opportunities for creative thinking and behaviour. 4. Distance education

Distance education researchers, especially in America[17][18][19][20][21], have claimed that distance education requires specific instructional design strategies, interactions, and skills, which can fit the particular characteristics of distance learning programs and courses. In addition to these strategies and skills, some researchers claim that a theoretical instructional design base is essential. For instance, McIsaac and Koymen[22] stated that, "there is a need

M.F. Aqda et al. / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265 261

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

for a theoretical base for teaching effectively in distance education to help the educational developer and instructional designer" (p. 247). In the same sense Moore and Thompson stated that it must be understood that distance education is much more than simply adding a new communications technology to an existing educational organization. Major pedagogical, instructional, and philosophical implications result from the learner or learners being more or less permanently separated from the teacher[23]. Instructional design in the field of distance education provides a process and framework for systematically planning, developing, and adapting instruction based on identifiable learner needs and content requirements. This process is essential in distance education, where the instructor and students may share limited common background and typically have minimal face-to-face contact[24]. The diverse instructional design models used in distance education are built around the main components and variables of the instructional process itself, such as (a) instructional analysis; (b) identification of learning objectives and goals; (c) analysis of instructional content; (d) selection and implementation of instructional strategies and delivery; (e) selection of learning materials; (f) instructional management; and (g) evaluation and assessment[25]. Although different instructional design models used these components in varying ways, all of these models match the basic set of constituents of instructional design, which are conditions, methods, and outcomes[26].

Besides these central instructional design constituents some authors[27][17] observed that instructional design in distance education deals also with other important key elements, such as instructor interactions, communication skills, and learning principles for the design of distance learning programs and courses.

There is a third dimension is the instructor's paradigmatic approach (e.g., Behaviorist, Constructivist, or Critical Theory), which also affect how interaction and design influence instruction at a distance. These paradigmatic approaches have major consequences for instructional design and learner outcomes, and they "serve as conceptual and communication tools for analyzing, designing, creating, and evaluating, ranging from broad educational environments to narrow training applications"[28]. Therefore, in distance education, the different instructional design models are influenced by diverse factors (e.g., instructional design components, instructors' strategies, and educational paradigmatic approaches) which determine the amount and quality of interaction and instruction between instructors and their distant learners.

Distance learning provides a unique context in which to infuse constructivist principles where learners are expected to function as self-motivated, self-directed, interactive, collaborative participants in their learning experiences by virtue of their physical location.

5. Constructivism and Instructional Design

Bednar et al[29]. (1992) suggests that instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has developed reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design. And Lebow[30] (1993) talks about the shift in values when one takes a constructive perspective. He notes that “Traditional educational technology values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control[31] contrast sharply with the seven primary constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generatively, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism.”

According to the constructivist views of learning, as individuals bring different background knowledge, experience, and interests to the learning situation, they make unique connections in building their knowledge. Students and teachers both play a role in facilitating and generating knowledge. Students are encouraged to question each other’s understanding and explain their own perspectives. These opportunities help hand over responsibility for knowledge generation to the learners[32] . Further, constructivism encourages active, rather than passive learning and the use of group-based cooperative learning activities, which can be best mediated through telecommunication technologies.

Such constructivist views of learning correlate nicely with the philosophy of open and distance learning. If learning truly depends on the unique base of experience and knowledge brought to the learning environment by the learner, the learner then certainly should play a role in determining the learning goals, strategies, and methods for building on his or her base of knowledge and understanding. The autonomy called for by open and distance learning advocates is reflected in the constructivist views to encourage active, collaborative and responsible learners.

Second, distance education should exploit further the potentials and capabilities of information technologies to foster two-way, interactive communication and collaboration between the instructor and learners and among the learners themselves. Jonassen et al[33]. believe that a constructivist approach to knowledge construction and learning can be well supported in distance education settings through a variety of technologies. Technology-supported environments - computer-mediated communication, computer-supported collaborative work, case-based

262 M.F. Aqda et al. / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

learning environments, and computer-based cognitive tools, for example - can offer the field of distance education alternative approaches to facilitating learning. These constructivist environments and tools can replace the deterministic teacher-controlled model of distance instruction with contextualized work environments, thinking tools, and conversation media that support the knowledge constructions process in different settings.

Duffy and Jonassen[34] (1992) began defining characteristics of constructivistic instructional design by clarifying the contrasting instructional paradigm assumptions of paradigms between traditional learning and constructivist learning environments. Using the tenants of symbolic reasoning and situated learning, they compared six mental processes: 1) knowledge acquisition; 2) learning process; 3) memory configuration; 4) knowledge representation; 5) instruction processes; and 6) the computational model. After studying student responses to initial distance education offerings in two courses, Driscoll[35] (1994) also defined five constructivist characteristics that should form the pedagogical foundation for designing learning.

1. Provide complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. 2. Provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. 3. Juxtapose instructional content and include multiple modes of representation 4. Nurture reflexivity (reflect on learning) 5. Emphasize student-centered instruction Jonassen[36] suggests that in order for technology (distance education) to accommodate constructivistic

assumptions, changes in instructional design practices would have to occur. Some of these changes would include: Instructional goals and objectives would be negotiated, not imposed Task and content analysis would focus less on identifying and prescribing a single, best sequence for

learning. The goal of the systems design process would be less concerned with prescribing specific instructional

strategies necessary to lead learners to specific learning behaviors. Evaluation of learning would become less criterion-referenced.

Conclusion

In this study we review the performed research projects in the field of the effectiveness of educational design in distance education based on the views of cognitivism and constructivism on the learners’ creativity. we can say that creativity involves the generation of new ideas or the recombination of known elements into something new, providing valuable solutions to a problem. Cognitivism support the practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into manageable chunks, establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. Constructivism, on the other hand, promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may not be the same for each learner.

The learning environment should provide the learner with opportunities to test and try out his new conceptual understanding in various applied circumstances like problem solving[37][38]i. The guiding principle of constructivist learning theories is the learner’s own active initiative and control in learning, and personal knowledge construction, i.e. the self-regulation of learning. The student does not passively take in knowledge, but actively constructs it on the basis of his/her prior knowledge and experiences (30). Constructivism might be broad learning theory because it is synthesized with multiple theories into a single form. Thus it is evident that the method of instruction using technology can be applied with various approaches

References

1. Guilford, J.P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454 (1950). 2.Torrance, E. P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking - Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition - Verbal

Tests, Forms A and B - Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton NJ: Personnel Press (1974). 3. Arthur J. Cropley, De nitions of Creativity, Encyclopedia Creativity, Volum 1 A, Copyright O 1999 by

Academic press 4. R. Florida, The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life,

Basic Books, New York (2004). 5. Plucker et al, J.A. Plucker, R.A. Beghetto and G.T. Dow, Why isn’t creativity more important to educational

psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research, Educational Psychologist 39 (2004), pp. 83–96.

M.F. Aqda et al. / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265 263

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

6.Runco, M.A, Creativity, Annual Review of Psychology 55, pp. 657–687(2004). 7.Amabile, T.M. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity,Westview, Boulder, CO (1996). 8. G.J. Feist, A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity, Personality and Social Psychology

Review 2 (1998), pp. 290–309. 9. R.J. Sternberg and T.I. Lubart, The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In: R.J. Sternberg, Editor,

Handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, New York (1999), pp. 3–15. 10. B. William. Michael, Guilford’s View, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Volum 1 A, Copyright O 1999 by Academic

press 11. Encyclopedia of Creativity, vol. 2, “Teaching Creativity” 12. Robert J. Sternberg, Intelligence. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Volum 1 A, Copyright O 1999 by Academic press 13. EleniSefertzi,INNOREGIO:dissemination of innovation and knowledge management techniques,JANUARY

2000.14. Sternberg, R. J. The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking. Image courtesy of

Robert J. Sternberg, taken by Michael Marsland, Yale University, Office of Public Affairs(1988). 15.Sternberg, R. J. Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University

Press(1985). 16. http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/learning-across-the-

curriculum/creativity/howcanteacherspromotecreativity/index.aspx 17. Moore, M.G. & G. Kearsley Distance Education: a Systems View. Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth Publishing

Company(1996) . 18.Willis, B. (Ed.). Distance education strategies and tools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications(1994). 19.Cyrs, T. E. Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What

it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 15-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass(1997a). 20.McIsaac, M.S. & Gunawardena, C.N. Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for

educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan(1996).

21.Murphy, K. L., Harvell, T. J., & O’Donnell, T. (1998, May). Interaction on the Web. Paper presented at the NAU/Web 98 Conference, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. Available online: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~nauweb98/papers/murphy.html

22.McIsaac, M. S., & Koymen, U. Distance education opportunities for women in Turkey. International Council for Distance Education Bulletin, 17 (May 1988).), 22-27.

23. Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. Effects of distance learning: A summary of literature. University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education(1990). .

24. Willis B. Effective distance education planning: lessons learned educational technology 38 (1) 57-59(1998). 25.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. Kodali, S. Instructional strategies used to design and

deliver courses online (1998). 26. Reigeluth, C. M., &Merrill, M. D. Classes of instructional variables. Educational Technology19(3), 5-24(1979). 27.Cyrs, T. E., & Conway, E. Teaching a distance with merging technologies: An instructional systems approach.

Las Cruces, MN: Center for Educational Development, New Mexico State University(1997) . 28.Gustafson, Kent L, and Branch, Robert Maribe. (1997). Survey of instructional design models. (3rd ed.).

Syracuse, NY: ERIC Information Resources Publications. 29. Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M. & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T.

M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 17-35.

30. Lebow, D. Constructivist values for systems design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16(1993) .

31.Heinrich. Ernst Heinrich. Die Paläste im Alten Mesopotamien. Denkmäler Antiker Architektur 15. Berlin (1984). 32. Maxwell, L. Integrating Open Learning and Distance Education. Educational Technology November-December,

43-48(1995). 33. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J. and Haag, B. B. Constructivism and computer-mediated

communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 17-25(1995). 34. Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. Eds. Constructivism and Instructional Design. Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence rlbaum(1992) .

264 M.F. Aqda et al. / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265

Mahnaz Fatemi Aqda / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 000–000

35. Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Available online at http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/WWW/Essays.html

35. Jonassen, D. H. Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33(1991). . 37. David Chan ,The Role of ICT in a Constructivist Approach To the Teaching of Thinking Skills,Director,

School of Information & Communications Technology, Ngee Ann Polytechnic. 38.When Teaching Meets Learning: DesignPrinciples andStrategies forWeb-based Learning Environments that

Support Knowledge Construction, Ron Oliver,School of Communications and Multimedia Edith Cowan University, AUSTRALIA [email protected]

M.F. Aqda et al. / Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011) 260–265 265