You are here:

Do Creative Learners Prefer Inquiry-based Learning Instructions in Digital Education Programs?

, , , , FernUniversitaet in Hagen, Germany

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 17, Number 1, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study compares preferences for the amount of instructional guidance between creative and non-creative learners. Instructional guidance is implemented as a two-level factor represented as two variants of a visual design task, only differing in the amount of verbal guidance they gave. Dependent preference outcomes were measured using an adapted version of the Web-based Learning Environmental Preference (WLEP) questionnaire by Yang and Tsai. A total of N = 41 students participated: 17 pupils (mean age: 17.6, SD = 3.1) currently enrolled in a creative educational program and 24 pupils (mean age: 21.5, SD = 1.89) from programs unrelated to art. ?2-Tests of dichotomized preference values showed significant less approval of the high-guidance instruction by the creative group (d=0.701; RR = 0.461; OR = 0.234). Results suggest a relation between learning in a creative domain and low-guidance forms of instruction that should be taken in account when designing online instruction for this domain.

Citation

Rosar, M., Lipka, A., Weidlich, J. & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Do Creative Learners Prefer Inquiry-based Learning Instructions in Digital Education Programs?. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(1), 5-16. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 14, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change-Tracking Online Education in the United States. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
  2. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task specific approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
  3. Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(9), S. 381–389.
  4. Catterall, J.S. (2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art The effects of education in the visual and performing arts on the achievements and values of young adults. Los Angeles/London: Imagination Group/I-Group Books. DIPF Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, Autorengruppe
  5. Bildungsberichterstattung. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012: Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zur kulturellen Bildung im Lebenslauf 4, S. 343. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
  6. Folkwang Universität der Künste. (2015). Tradition– Zurück in die Zukunft. Retreived March 29, 2015, from http://www.folkwang-uni.de/home/gestaltung/tradition/
  7. Freinet, C. (1996). Die Arbeitsschule. In R. Kock (Hrsg. & Übers.), Befreiende Volksbildung: frühe Texte von Célestin Freinet und Elise Freinet. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
  8. Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(14), S. 205–208.
  9. Hart, C. (2012). Factors Associated with Student Persistence in an Online Program of Study: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), S. 19–42.
  10. Itten, J. (1963). Mein Vorkurs am Bauhaus, Gestaltungs-und Formenlehre. Ravensburg: Maier.
  11. Katz, D. (1969). Die Gestaltgesetze. In Gestaltpsychologie, S. 33–39. Basel, Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co.
  12. Kröhnert, S., Morgenstern, A., & Klingholz, R. (2007). Talente, Technologie und Toleranz: wo Deutschland Zukunft hat (Studie). Berlin: Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung.
  13. Lerner, F. (2005). Foundations for design education: Continuing the Bauhaus Vorkurs vision. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 211–226.
  14. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2014). Schulentwicklung NRW-Kernlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe II Do Creative Learners Prefer Inquiry-based Learning Instructions 30, 2015, from http://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/upload/klp_SII/ku/KLP_GOSt_Kunst.pdf
  15. QUA-LIS NRW. (2014). Kernlehrpläne-Schulinterner Lehrplan GOSt Kunst. Retrieved June 30, 2015, from http://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/lehrplannavigator-s-ii/gymnasiale-oberstufe/kunst/hinweise-und DASHDASH
  16. Rozencwajg, P., & Corroyer, D. (2005). Cognitive processes in the reflectiveimpulsive cognitive style. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(4), S. 451–466.
  17. Runco, M.A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. In Theories of creativity (S. 234–252). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  18. Steiner, R. (1980). Rudolf Steiner: Die pädagogische Grundlage der Waldorfschule (1919). Forum für Anthroposophie, Waldorfpädagogik und Goetheanistische Naturwissenschaft. Forum. Retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/bib_steiner_waldorfschule.htm
  19. Sursock, A. (2015). Trends in European Higher Education. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.eua.be/policy-representation/higher-education-policies/trends-in-european-higher-education.aspx
  20. Yang, F.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Investigating university student preferences and beliefs about learning in the web-based context. Computers& Education, 50, S. 1284–1303.
  21. Zelniker, T., & Jeffrey, W.E. (1976). Reflective and impulsive children: Strategies of information processing underlying differences in problem solving. (F.D. Horowitz, Hrsg.) 41(5). Chicago: Universitiy of Chicago Press. Acknowledgements

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.