creativity and barriers to its expression in online education courses

Transcription

1 Gifted Education International 2006 Vol 20, pp A B Academic Publishers Claudia R. G. Valenzuela Vianna* Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar Catholic University of Brasilia, Brazil creativity and barriers to its expression in online education courses Abstract The purpose of the study was to investigate the extent to which creativity is fostered in online education courses and the inhibiting elements to the promotion of suitable conditions to thee-students' creative development and expression. Fifty-two online education tutors completed a questionnaire with an open question and a checklist of barriers to the development and expression of student's creativity. Results indicated that, for the majority of respondents, creativity has being contemplated in online education courses in which they were involved. The most frequently reported barriers were focused in students' participation and behavior, such as lack of interest in course contents and difficulties in participating in online education courses. Lack of autonomy to conduct online tutorial practices, of enthusiasm towards online tutorial activity, poor quality of the instructional material and asynchronous communication were the least frequently pointed barriers. Within a society of knowledge, the main characteristics of successful institutions and individuals are their capacity to learn, to reinvent themselves and to be prepared for competitiveness. Distance education, as an education modality, reflects the modern vision of the education purpose, which is to promote curious, creative and learning people (Camara, 2003; Coli, 1996; Freire, 1996; Moraes, 2003; Santos, 2003). It is fundamental to reinforce the tutor's role as a key element to the learning process as well as to the development of the potential of online education students. In Brazil, Moran (2003), Perosa and Santos (2003) and Soveral (2001) present the tutor in a new perspective: as the motivator of students. It is also suggested the need of pedagogical practices that can promote online student creativity, as well as the identification of obstacles to the promotion of creativity in the online teaching-learning process. Alencar (1995a, 2000, Alencar & Fleith (2003a, 2003b), Amabile (1983, 1996), Cropley (1997), Fleith (2001), Martinez (2002), Nickerson (1999), Wechsler (1993), have emphasized the increasing interest in 54, Gifted Education International * claudia.valenzuela@undp.org.br

2 the study of creativity within school environments, as well as the need to promote conditions for the development of independent and creative thinking students. This is specially necessary due to the instability, complexity, change and unpredictability that characterize present society, requiring from the individuals the continuous solution of new problems and the development of knowledge construction and re-construction abilities. Notably, teacher-student interaction has been pointed out as essential to the overall learning process and has been stressed as vital in online education. The student becomes the center of the teaching-learning process by interacting with other students and the tutor, creating learning strategies and relating educational contents to real life. The tutor, according to Dizard (1998), Belloni (2001), Niskier (1999) and Silva (2003), must be a moderator and enthusiastic to motivate students' behavior. It is suggested that in an online environment, the implemented pedagogical strategies should aim at the promotion of autonomy, participation, expressiveness, construction of novelties, exchange of experiences and student's creativity, mainly through the establishment of learning communities. In spite of the relevance of promoting creativity in different levels and education modalities, studies held in Brazil by Alencar (1995b, 1997, 2002) pointed out that, according to university students, their teachers did not foster suitable conditions for the expression of student's creativity. In one of these studies, in which 428 students participated, Alencar (1997) observed that the students, in general, evaluated their teachers as promoting low incentives to the expression of individual creativity. Similar results were previously obtained in a study with high school students (Alencar, 1993), which indicates the lack of emphasis that teachers give to creativity, as well as their preference for the role of contenttransmission agent. When comparing students' perceptions of the level of creativity of their teachers, their peers and of themselves, Alencar (1996, 2002) verified that university students evaluated their teachers as significantly less creative than themselves and their peers. More recently, in a study about factors that most favor the expression of the capacity to create and those aspects that are obstacles for the individual to produce and implement new ideas, in a sample of engineer students, Alencar and Fleith (2003c) observed that, for these students, one of the elements considered the most inhibiting to creativity is the way teaching is being conducted at the university. Referring specifically to the engineering course, students pointed out the lack of opportunity and recognition of the creative production in the offered subjects. With respect to studies on the promotion of creativity in online education courses, it was verified that this is a theme poorly explored by distance education area researchers. This fact, allied to the relevance of the theme, drew us to the development of the present study, which aims to investigate: a) The perception of tutors on the extent to which the course they were involved with promoted students' creative potential; b) obstacles to the promotion of suitable conditions to the development and expression of students' creativity in online environments. Method Participants Fifty-two Brazilian tutors working with online education courses participated in this Volume 21 No 1, 2006, 55

3 research, 3 (5.77 %) of whom were from public educational institutions, 19 (36.54%) from private educational institutions, 13 (25.00%) representing governmental institutions and 17 (32.69%) mainly from other institutions (NGOs, private I public entities, among others). From the total sample, 28 (53.85%) were females and 24 (46.15%) males, averaging 40 years of age, ranging from 20 to 62 years old. Thirty-four (65.38%) completed post-graduated courses and the others completed undergraduate studies. The average of their experience in education was 9.06 years, while the average of the experience in online education modality was 2.09 years. Instrument A questionnaire with an open question on the extension that the course in which the tutor acts I acted promotes I promoted the development of students' creative potential, and a checklist of obstacles to the promotion of suitable conditions to the expression of students' creativity was filled out by the participants. The checklist was adapted from a previous one developed by Alencar and Fleith (2002) to be completed by elementary school teachers. The checklist included 20 barriers and the respondent should point out the ones that, under his/her perception, constitute inhibiting elements to the promotion of favorable conditions to the creative expression of students in an online teaching-learning environment. Procedure A virtual instrument was developed to be accessed online and directly by the respondents through the Internet at the address / questionario. After the data collection, a data conversion program was developed to extract all data electronically from the site and integrate it directly to Microsoft Excel Office software, which was used to statistically analyze the data obtained with the checklist. Results Data analysis indicated that for 73.08% of tutors, the online education course that he I she was involved with promoted the development and the expression of students' creative potential. Yet, 5.77% of tutors responded that there was no nurturance of students' creative expression in their courses, while 21.15% manifested that not always the course in which he I she was involved presented this characteristic. An analysis of the responses from the first group, which agreed that the courses in which they were involved promoted the development of students' creative potential, indicated that several aspects were highlighted to justify their responses, such as the good quality of tutor-student interaction, the nurturing by tutor of a creative and collaborative virtual work and the implementation of a plurality of pedagogical practices that favor students' creative expression in virtual environments, as illustrated in the following responses: I believe that the success of any initiative that nurtures creativity of the students will depend on how the tutor relates with his/her students. A good work can raise self-confidence, maturity, and audacity in students' behavior. All instruments we use at this environment are suited to this. There are games in the IT systems that allow a free thought and creativity. As we propose case studies in the community (environment for collaborative discussion), I promote not only the analysis of these cases, but also request the 56, Gifted Education International

4 student thinking new proposals and alternatives: And if it happened to you? How would you solve the case? Name possible new alternatives. What are your feelings? I think that following this strategy, I am stimulating my students' creative potential. With respect to the ones that responded that not always the course in which they were involved promoted the expression of students' creativity, aspects related to course objectives and traditional pedagogical practices in use in distance education were pointed out, as illustrated in the following responses: Not always the course promotes students' creativity. Online education has been reproducing many of the mistakes that characterize our classroom teaching paradigm like the standardization of contents and types of evaluation. Not completely as it should be (promote the expression of students' creativity). I notice that proposed activities and communication tools which are used in student-student and tutor-student interaction are good ways to reach the expression of students' creativity, but I observe that there are many elements to be improved in order to stimulate, at most, the critical sense and students' creativity beyond the proposed and standardized objectives of the course. Regarding the respondents that affirmed that the course did not promote students' creative expression, it was verified that they addressed several elements related to technological and pedagogical resources problems, as well as to virtual student behavior: In my opmwn, I think that what is confusing distance education is technology since, in many occasions, students do not have access to good quality equipment or connection. And universities do not attain to that. Moreover, there is a lack of interaction between people that work with instructional-pedagogical contents and the ones that work with technology. Although technological instruments are relatively efficient, we know that there is too much repetition coming from the student instead of their real potential development. Very few new ideas are proposed by students. Discussions are predominately motivated by contents that were previously and exaggeratedly worked within course planning. One thing is what you intend; the other is what you get. When you plan a course, you intend to enhance the students' creative potential development, but, as we all know, online education is not for everybody. In this environment, the student needs self-discipline and organization - characteristics that were not fostered by our traditional classroom education, therefore, is not inherent to the student. Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage of the barriers pointed out by tutors to the promotion of suitable conditions to the development/ expression of students' creativity. As can be observed in this table, the barriers most frequently pointed were: Students' difficulties in participating in an online education course (N=32; 61.5%); lack of students' interest in course contents (N=27; 51.92% ); students presenting learning difficulties in online environment (N=20; 38.46%); little participation of students (N=20; 38.46%); Volume 21 No 1, 2006, 57

5 high number of students in the course (N=l6; 28.85%). On the other hand, the barriers less referred by tutors were: Asynchronous communication (N=2; 3.85%); lack of enthusiasm towards online tutorial activity (N=3; 5.77%); quality in instructional-pedagogical material (N=3; 5.77% ); lack of autonomy to conduct online tutorial practices (N=3; 5.77%); and lack of institutional support to the implementation of innovative projects (N=4; 7.69%). Six tutors pointed out additional barriers that they considered as obstacles to the promotion of suitable conditions to the expression of students' creativity. These were: Inefficient time administration between online tutorial activities and nonvirtual activities; lack of human resources, notably in information technology area; the need of fast and constant improvement in working processes; student immaturity in online courses initiatives; insufficient students' commitment; lack of regular access to the educational environment; need of better selection of students; and need to expand the number of criteria for students' admission to the course. Discussion The data obtained in this study pointed out that for most teachers, creativity has been Table 1: Frequency and Percentage of Barriers to the Promotion of Suitable Conditions to the Development and Expression of Student's Creativity Pointed by Tutors Barriers Total -N=52 f % Students' difficulties in participating in the online distance education course Lack of students' interest in course contents Students presenting learning difficulties in online environment Little participation of students High number of students in the course Lack of knowledge on pedagogical practices that could be used to promote the development of student's creativity Lack of information of technology instruments to impjement other practices Presence of either undisciplined or silent students that disturb tutorial work Low incentive to innovate the tutorial practices Few opportunities to discuss and exchange experiences with colleagues on teaching strategies Low recognition of tutor's work Insecurity to try new pedagogical practices in online environments Lack of knowledge in online education modality to innovate the tutor's practices Lack of orientation from course's pedagogical coordination in respect to fostering student's creativity development Lack of information on literature with respect to the implementation of creativity in online environments Lack of institutional support to the implementation of innovative projects Lack of autonomy to conduct online tutorial practices Lack of enthusiasm towards online tutorial activity Quality of the instructional material Asynchronous communication , Gifted Education International

6 fostered in the courses in which they participated. The good quality of the interaction among them and their students, the reinforcement of personality traits which help individuals to express creative ideas, and the use of games and other educational strategies that favor creative expression were highlighted by the tutors to justify their positive responses. These results differ from others obtained by Alencar (1995b, 1997), and Silva and Alencar (2003) in studies with university students. They also differed from what has been discussed by Rosas (1988) and Castanho (2000) about creativity in Brazilian universities. In the previous studies, the university students agreed in respect to low incentive to creativity on the part of their teachers. According to them, teachers do not ask challenging questions in class, do not stimulate students' initiative, and do not provide an environment of respect for students' new ideas, besides using tests and exam questions that required almost only the reproduction of the content given in class or presented in the textbooks. Also Rosas and Castanho have criticized higher education in Brazil for not fostering creativity, similarly to what has been discussed by MacKinnon {1978), Tolliver (1985), Paulovich (1993). These scholars described different teachers' behaviors that undermine creativity, like the encouragement of behaviors such as obedience and conformity, exaggerated emphasis on reproduction and memorization of great volumes of facts, reinforcement of the fear of making errors, and low expectations about the students' creative potential. On the other hand, studies (Alencar & Fleith, 2004; Souza & Alencar, 2005) addressing a comparison between teachers and students' perception of the extent to which favorable conditions for fostering creativity exist in university courses, indicated a difference between teachers and students in this perception. University teachers, compared with their students, rated their behaviors as providing significantly more favorable conditions for the nurturing of creativity. The agreement on the part of the majority of tutors that the courses in which they are involved promote creativity might be explained by the common trait of giving socially valued responses, in a an effort to transmit a positive impression of themselves and the courses under their responsibility. For this reason, it is suggested that studies be conducted with sample of distance courses students to compare their responses to those of their teachers, which might help to validate the results reported here. The barriers to the promotion of suitable conditions to the development and expression of students' creativity more frequently pointed by tutors were in relation to the students, such as their difficulties in participating in online courses, and lack of interest in course content. Only a small number of tutors agreed that lack of information with respect to how to implement creativity in online environments was a barrier encountered by them to foster creativity in their courses. This result intrigued us specially because these teachers did not have creativity in their pedagogical training, as a topic of study and discussion. Other barriers less referred by tutors were mainly associated to the virtual environment and focused on planning and implementation of the course: Asynchronous communication, lack of enthusiasm towards online tutorial activity, quality of instructional-pedagogical material, lack of autonomy to conduct online tutorial practices, and lack of institutional support to the implementation of innovative projects. This result may suggest that they have the necessary support to conduct their work, Volume 21 No 1, 2006, 59

7 besides having autonomy and enthusiasm which are pointed out by Peters (2003), Litwin (2001) and Santos (2003), as of foremost importance for the successful conduction of the teaching-learning process in virtual environments. In our view, it would be pertinent that the study of creativity and its application to the educational scenario were part of online tutor training. This would contribute to eliminate inhibiting pedagogical practices to students' creative expression from the virtual context since the moment of planning the course. Besides, counting on all available instruments in cyberspace, it would be most relevant that tutors could discuss online education deficiencies and good practices, taking as one of the central themes the discussion of tutors' and students' creative performance. Demo (2003) highlights that we need to contribute with online education discussions by researching all potentialities of cyberspace and the richness of opportunities that are opened and undiscovered under this modality. We are endeavoring to discover new possibilities and limits of online education; therefore it is fundamental to consider creativity-driven research into planning, interaction, tutor's performance and students' behavior in online environments. References Alencar, E.M.L.S. (1993). Efeitos de urn programa de treinamento de criatividade nas habilidades de pensamento criativo de estudantes do ensino media [Effects of a creativity training program on creative thought abilities of secondary education students]. Resumos de Comunica~oes Cientificas [Scientific Communications Abstracts]. I Congresso Ibero-Americano de Psicologia [I lbero-american Psychology Congress] (p. 143). Madrid, Espanha. Alencar, E.M.L.S. (1995a). Criatividade [Creativity]. Brasilia: Editora da Universidade de Brasilia. Alencar, E.M.L.S. (1995b). Developing creative abilities at the university level. European Journal for High Ability, 6, Alencar, E.M.L.S. (1996). University students' evaluation of their own level of creativity and their teachers' and colleagues' level of creativity. Gifted Education International, 11, Alencar, E.M.L.S. (1997). 0 estimulo a criatividade no contexto universitario [Nurturing creativity in the university context]. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional [Journal of School and Education Psychology], 1, Alencar, E.M.L.S. (2000). 0 perfil do professor facilitador e do professor inibidor da criatividade segundo estudantes de p6s-graduac;:ao [Creativity facilitating and inhibiting teachers' profile according to graduate students]. Boletim da Academia Paulista de Psicologia [Paulista Psychology Academy Bulletin], 20, Alencar, E.M.L.S. (2002). 0 estfmulo a criatividade em programas de p6s-graduac;:ao segundo seus estudantes [Creativity in graduate programs according to students' evaluation]. Psicologia: Reflexiio e Crrtica [Psychology: Reflection and Review], 15, Alencar, E.M.L.S. & Fleith, D.S. (2002). Praticas pedag6gicas que promovem a criatividade segundo professores de ensino fundamental [Pedagogical practices that promote creativity according to elementary level teachers]. Projeto de pesquisa [Research project]. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnol6gico- CNPq. Alencar, E.M.L.S. & Fleith, D.S. (2003a). Contribuic;:oes te6ricas recentes ao estudo da criatividade [Recent theoretical contributions to the study of creativity]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa [Psychology: Theory and Research], 19, , Gifted Education International

8 Alencar, E.M.L.S. & Fleith, D.S. (2003b). Criatividade: multiplas perspectivas [Creativity: Multiple perspectives]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Alencar, E.M.L.S. & Fleith, D.S. (2003c). Fatores facilitadores e inibidores a expressao da capacidade de criar segundo estudantes de engenharia e engenheiros [Facilitating and inhibiting factors to the expression of creation ability according to engineering students and engineers]. Boletim da Academia Paulista de Psicologia [Paulista Psychology Academy Bulletin], 24, Alencar, E.M.L.S. & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Creativity in university courses: Perceptions of professors and students. Gifted and Talented International, 19, Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: West-view Press. Belloni, M.L. Educa9iio a distancia [Distance education]. Campinas: Editora Autores Associados, Camara, J.S. (2003). A dinamica social e a busca de novas rumos para a educa9iio [Social dynamics and the search for new directions for education]. Apresenta<;ao realizada no VI Encontro de Pesquisa em Educa<;ao da Regiao Centro-Oeste - EPECO [Presentation held at the VI Research in Education Conference of Central West Brazilian Region- EPECO]. Campo Grande, MS. Castanho, M.E.L. (2000). A criatividade na sala de aula universitaria [Creativity in the university classroom]. Em M.E.LM. Castanho & I.P.A. Veiga. (Eds.), Pedagogia universitdria: a aula em foco [University pedagogy. Focus on the lesson] (pp ). Campinas, SP: Papirus. Coli, C. (1996). Psicologia e curr(culo [Psychology and curriculum]. Sao Paulo: Atica. Cropley, A.J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. Em M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp ). New Jersey: Hampton Press. Demo, P. (2003). Instrucionismo e a nova mfdia [Instructionism and the new media]. Em M. Silva (Ed.), Educa9iio online [Online education] (pp.75-89). Sao Paulo: Loyola. Dizard, W.J. (1998). A nova mfdia [The new media]. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editora. Fleith, D. (2001). Criatividade: novos conceitos e ideias, aplicabilidade a educa<;ao [Creativity: New concepts and ideas, applicability to education]. Cadernos de Educap'io Especial [Special Education Journal], 17, Freire, P (1996). Pedagogia da autonomia [Pedagogy of autonomy]. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Litwin, E. (2001). Das tradi<;6es a virtualidade [From traditions to virtuality]. Em Litwin, E. (Ed.), Educa9iio a distancia- temas para o debate de uma nova agenda educativa [Distance education - themes for the debate of a new educational agenda] (pp ). Porto Alegre: Artmed. MacKinnon, D.W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Education Foundation. Martinez, A.M. (2002). Criatividade, personalidade e educa9iio [Creativity, personality and education]. Campinas: Papirus. Moran, J.M. (2003). Contribui<;6es para uma pedagogia da educa<;ao online [Contributions for an online education pedagogy]. Em M. Silva (Ed.), Educa9iio online [Online education] (pp.39-51). Sao Paulo: Loyola. Moraes, M.C. (2003). Educar na biologia do amor e da solidariedade [Educate in the biology of love and solidarity]. Petr6polis, RJ: Vozes. Nickerson, R.S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. Em R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp ). New York: Cambridge University Press. Volume 21 No 1, 2006, 61

9 Niskier, A. (1999). Educapio a distiincia, a tecnologia da esperan~a [Distance education, the technology of hope]. Sao Paulo: Loyola. Paulovich, A. (1993). Creativity and graduate education. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4, Perosa, G.T.L. & Santos, M.S. (2003). Interatividade e aprendizagem colaborativa em urn grupo de estudo online [Interactivity and collaborative learning within an online study group]. Em M. Silva (Ed.), Educa~iio online [Online education] (pp ). Sao Paulo: Loyola. Peters, 0. (2001) Didatica do ensino a distiincia [Didactic of distance education]. Sao Leopolda, RS: Unisinos. Rosas, A. (1988). Universidade e criatividade [University and creativity]. Proceedings of the Seventh Brazilian Conference on Giftedness, 7, Santos, E. (2003). Articula<;ao de saberes na EaD online: por uma rede interdisciplinar e interativa de conhecimentos em ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem [Knowledge articulation in online distance education. For a interdisciplinary and interactive knowledge network in virtual leaning environments]. Em M. Silva (Ed.), Educa~iio online [Online education] (17-231). Sao Paulo: Loyola. Silva, M.S. (2003). Criar e professorar urn curso online: relato de experiencia [Create and teach in an online course. An experience appraisal]. Em M. Silva (Ed.), Educa~iio online [Online education] (pp.51-74). Sao Paulo: Loyola. Silva, 0. & Alencar, E.M.L.S. (2003). Criatividade no ensino de enfermagem - enfoque triadico: professor, aluno, curricula [Creativity in nursing education - a triadic approach: Teacher, student, curriculum]. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem [Brazilian Nursing Journal], 56, Souza, M.E.G. & Alencar, E.M.L.S. (2005). 0 curso de pedagogia e as condi~oes para o desenvolvimento da criatividade [Pedagogy course and the conditions to the development of creativity]. Paper presented at the VII National Congress of School and Educational Psychology. Curitiba, Brasil. Soveral, E.S.A. (2001) Pedagogia para a era tecnol6gica [Pedagogy to the technology era]. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS. Tolliver, J. M. (1985). Creativity at university. Gifted Education International, 3, Wechsler, S. M. (1993). Criatividade. Descobrindo e encorajando [Creativity. Discovering and fostering]. Campinas: Editorial PSY. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first author at SCN Quadra 02 Bloco A, Ed. Corporate Center, 7o. andar, Zip Code , Brasilia, Brasil. claudia. valenzuela@undp.org.br. 62, Gifted Education International