Developing a Method for Measuring Science and Technology Oriented Creativity (STOC)

Abstract

The article contains the results of a research within the STIMEY (Science, Technology, Innovation, Mathematics, Engineering for the Young) project funded by the European Union’s Horizon-2020 research and innovation program (2016-2021). In the project, a hybrid learning environment (LE) was developed for both on-site and online learning suitable for the learning conditions in the COVID-19 era and beyond. The purpose of the research segment presented in this paper was to develop an instrument for assessment of the learner’s progress in creativity as one of the key targets of STIMEY. COVID-19 has shown that creativity is also needed to allow education systems the flexibility for unexpected changes and circumstantial challenges. The article presents a definition of Science and Technology Oriented Creativity (STOC) based on the existing theories in the field, a short outline of the STOC measurement method developed, procedures, evaluation algorithms and an overview of the experimental STOC testing results. The relevance of the method developed to its purpose and suggested tentative positive influences of the STIMEY LE on learners’ creativity are discussed. Argumentations of strengths, limitations, applications of STOC testing outside the STIMEY project and the key directions of further improvements of the method developed are provided.

Trends of the Implementation of Hybrid Teaching and Learning in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Figure 2 shows the context of the year of publication, 18 articles were published in 2021 (Aristika, A et al, 2021;Ashraf et al, 2021;Batra et al, 2021, Bouck & Long, 2021Cao et al, 2021;Church et al, 2021;Fujita et al, 2021;Goulart et al, 2021;Le Pichon et al, 2021;Nair & Nair, 2021;Pavlysh et al, 2021;Pócsová et al, 2021;Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Rasheed et al, 2021;Shaw & Tranter, 2021;Wang, KQ 2021;K. Wang, 2021;Wu et al, 2021), followed by 12 articles published in 2022 (Brunetto et al, 2022;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Durandt et al, 2022;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Rocha et al, 2022;Segerby, 2022;P.…”

“…In general, research approaches can be divided into two, namely quantitative and qualitative. Based on Figure 3 shows the research approach that can be analyzed from 41 articles in this study where the highest is using a qualitative research approach of 19 articles (Ashraf et al, 2021;Bakar et al, 2020;Batra et al, 2021;Bouck & Long, 2021;Brunetto et al, 2022;Church et al, 2021;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Golding & Bretscher, 2018;Goulart et al, 2021;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Lambert & Alony, 2018;Muirhead et al, 2018;Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020;Trenholm et al, 2019;Nuland et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020), 16 articles use a quantitative research approach (Aristika et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;Chen & Huang, 2018;Durandt et al, 2022;Fujita et al, 2021;Giberti et al, 2022;Jeong et al, 2020;Musabirov et al, 2019;Nair & Nair, 2021;Panisoara et al, 2020;Pavlysh et al, 2021;Pócsová et al, 2021;Rasheed et al, 2021;P. Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021) and 6 articles using a mixed method research approach (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;…”

“…Furthermore, six studies have been published on hybrid teaching and learning in China which is known to be a country that has been very affected by the Covid-19 pandemic (Ashraf et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Wang, 2021;Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021), three studies focused on Canada (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Le Pichon et al, 2021;Muirhead et al, 2018), Malaysia (Bakar et al, 2020;Rasheed et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2020), two studies focused on South Africa (Durandt et al, 2022;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020), India (Batra et al al., 2021;Nair & Nair, 2021), Italy (Brunetto et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022), Australia (Lambert & Alony, 2018;Trenholm et al, 2019). Meanwhile, one study focused on Belarus (Pavlysh et al, 2021), Brazil (Goulart et al, 2021), Indonesia (Aristika et al, 2021), Ireland (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022, Japan (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022), England (Golding & Bretscher, 2018), Romania (Panisoara et al, 2020), Russia (Musabirov et al, 2019), Spain (Jeong et al, 2020), Slovakia (Pócsová et al, 2021, Sweden (Segerby, 2022) and United Kingdom (Shaw & Tranter, 2021). Based on the analysis that has been carried out, the United States and China recorded the publication of a high number of articles compared to other countries.…”

“…The researcher has identified the purpose of the study that has been carried out which is 14 research articles related to the implementation of online teaching and learning Durandt et al (2022) (Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Chen & Huang, 2018;Rocha et al, 2022), three articles aimed at studying related to developing mathematics teaching models (Bakar, Mohamad & Ismail, 2020;L. Wang et al, 2020;Pavlysh et al, 2021;), two articles aim to examine students' perceptions of online teaching and learning (Batra et al, 2021;Cavanaugh et al, 2022), one article aims to study teachers' perceptions of online teaching and learning (Cao et al, 2021) and one article aimed at studying interventions in teaching and learning (Bouck & Long, 2021). Based on the analysis of the purpose of the study of all articles that have been published, it can generally be seen that the purpose of the study carried out is related to teaching and learning online because the 2018-2022 period includes the period of the Covid-19 pandemic.…”