Documents

Strategi Pengajaran Kreatif dan Inovatif

Description
Dari Perspektif Pelajar
Categories
Published
of 16
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  20th National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference   Creativity and Innovative Instructional Strategies: Their R  elationships to Students‟ Approaches   Dr. Amy WP HAN (EdD) Institute of Technical Education Author for correspondence: Amy WP HAN Work Phone (International): +65 6411 1408 Home Phone (International): +65 9383 7588 Email: Amy_Han@ite.edu.sg Running header: VTE, Learning approaches, Learning orientations, Authentic Learning, Self-directed learning.  2 20th National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference Creativity and Innovative Instructional Strategies: Their R  elationships to Students‟ Approaches Abstract The Vocational and Technical Education (VTE) students in this study were presented with two questionnaires, the Biggs Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) which differentiates between deep and surface approach to learning, and the Learning Orientation scale which elicits whether students adopt a short-term, course-focus or long-term learning orientation. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were carried out on the two scales respectively to check for validity and reliability. The results showed that VTE students were largely using the deep learning approaches in the classrooms. The study also showed deep approach to learning to correlate to course-focus and long-term learning orientations and surface learning approach to correlate to short-term learning orientation. Results from the study could provide VTE lecturers/teachers a better understanding of their students‟ learning approaches and learning orientations in relation their instructional strategies. Implications for the implementation of authentic learning and self-directed learning are also discussed.  3 20th National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference INTRODUCTION In the recent years, creativity and innovation have been pushed to the forefront to address a plethora of economic, social and political problems brought about by globalization. Innovative thinking was cited as the key source of economic growth in the face of intensive global competitions. To prepare youths for the challenges ahead, creative and innovative pedagogical methods were introduced in education and training. There are also widespread studies into creative and innovative pedagogical methods and these can be seen in reputable research journals and on websites of national bodies responsible for leading teaching and learning. The current study was conducted in a context where teacher  s facilitate their students‟ learning through self  -directed plan-explore-practice- perform learning strategies and extensive creative and innovative infrastructures were implemented to promote authentic learning.   Creative and Innovative Teaching strategies In general term, innovation is defined as adding something new to an existing product or  process (Badran, 2007). Creativity on the other hand, is expressed as the ability to make something new, whether a thought or idea, an object, a product or a process, a work of art or performance, or an interpretation (Morrison & Johnston, 2006). The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Badran, 2007). Within the education contexts, innovation and creativity are demonstrated in various forms. Innovation from the engineering perspective means that more engineers are now expected to Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate (CDIO) complex value-added engineering systems in a modern team-based environment, the CDIO Initiative was mooted to train engineering students to perform successfully his  /  her essential functions (Bankal, Berggren, Blom, Crawley, Wiklud, & Ostlud, 2003). In the classroom contexts, the Problem Based Learning (PBL) which was first pioneered in the health sciences, was later deployed as a creative and innovative teaching method to engage students to solve problems in teams. PBL, a pedagogical innovation, enhanced the use of metacognition and self-regulation by using unstructured problems as a starting point to anchor the learning process (Tan, 2004). Innovative teaching methods are further fuelled by advancement in information and communication technologies and one example is the pervasive use of elearning to support face-to-face campus learning. The underlying assumption is that students are responsible for their own learning process, and that students are considered to be knowledge- and information-intensive workers rather than passive consumers of information, and need to be facilitated as such (Sjoer, Herder, Bogman, Els, Wouter, Sofia, Kruit, Peppen, Venn, & Verkroost,2003). To foster creativity in learning, education institutions have also explored the use of creative learning spaces to motivate their students to explore, experience and discover (i.e. to be creative) (Jankowska & Atlay, 2008). Gibson (2010) argued that an environment that support creative potential are likely to have adequate time for creative thinking; rewarding creative ideas, thoughts and products; encouraging risk-taking; allowing mistakes; imagining form various perspective; questioning assumptions (Sternberg & Williams, 1996). However, Jankowska and Atlay, (2008) cautioned that while the environment can serve as an excellent factor in alerting students, „keeping them on-  board‟, and motivating them, it is the teaching styles, facilitation techniques and use of various tasks to suit different learning styles that would develop the independent critical thinking capacities in students. The issue is complex as instructional strategies using  4 20th National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference Student context: * abilities * prior knowledge, pre-entry  biases * preferred ways of learning * values, expectations, motivation Teaching context: * course structure * curriculum * teaching methods * assessment methods Desirable learning outcomes: * deep learning * independent learning * critical thinking * lifelong learning attributes Task Processing  Approaches to learning - deep - surface restricted choices, conforming pressures, evaluation, frequent failures and rote learning were found to easily destroy creativity in any educational setting (Gibson, 2010). Students‟ Learning Approaches Research on teaching and process outcomes came into focus when Duncan and Biddle (1974) proposed the Presage-Process-Product classroom teaching model. The model was later elaborated and generalized in the teaching and learning system developed by Biggs (1993). Earlier, Biggs (1976) posed that educational theory has to be generated bottom-up, focusing on contextual differences rather than within-child factors. Following this, Biggs (1993) created his „3P‟ model to represent the system of teaching and learning  (see Figure 1). In the „ 3P ‟  model,  Presage  factors are those that are in place before the learning takes  place.  Process  factors are those in play as the learning takes place.  Product   factors are  present at the completion of a learning cycle. Presage is further divided into two kinds of factors. The first relates to students‟ personal characteristics, termed „hard‟ factors. These are relatively difficult to change, especially when compared to „soft factors‟ such as students‟ orientations to lea rning. The second kind of factor relates to teaching variables such as teachers‟ characteristics, the curriculum, the assessments, and the schools. The „hard‟ factors interact with the „soft‟ factors within contexts to determine students‟ approaches to lea rning. Figure 1. The Biggs 3P Model of Learning Source : Adapted from (Biggs, Kember, & Leung. 2001, p.136) Biggs posited that the ways in which students approach learning tasks will impact significantly the learning outcomes they achieve (Biggs, 1987, 1992). Further, Biggs, Kember, & Leung (2001) added that both teachers and students are jointly responsible for the learning outcomes. The former is responsible for structuring the enabling conditions and the latter for enabling them. Biggs et al. (2001) developed the R-SPQ-2F, for teachers to evaluate the outcomes of the learning/teaching environment. The instrument can elicit three approaches: deep, surface and achieving, with achieving motive and strategy subscales that can align on both surface and deep factors.
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x