Spletna stran Psiholoških obzorij uporablja piškotke za namene avtentikacije uporabnikov po prijavi na spletno stran, morebitno stalno prijavo na željo uporabnika in za namen beleženja števila ogledov posameznih strani Psiholoških obzorij.
Ali se strinjate, da na vaš računalnik (brskalnik) naložimo piškotke za te namene? Svojo odločitev lahko kasneje tudi spremenite na strani Zasebnost.

Želim izvedeti več

Psihološka obzorja :: Horizons of Psychology

Znanstveno-strokovna psihološka revija Društva psihologov Slovenije

Indeksirana v:
Scopus
PsycINFO
Academic OneFile

Smo člani DOAJ in CrossRef

sien
VSEBINA ZA AVTORJE PREDSTAVITEV UREDNIŠTVO POVEZAVE

Iskalnik

Moj račun

Članki z največ ogledi

 

« Nazaj na Letnik 23 (2014)

flag Go to the article page in English / Pojdi na angleško stran članka


IPOO-model ustvarjalnega učenja in značilnosti procesiranja informacij pri učencih

Katalin Mező in Ferenc Mező

pdf Polno besedilo (pdf)  |  Ogledi: 85  |  flagNapisan v angleščini.  |  Objavljeno: 29. marec 2015

pdf https://doi.org/10.20419/2014.23.414  |  Citati: CrossRef (1)

Povzetek: Namen raziskave je bil preveriti, kako učenci v srednji šoli procesirajo informacije med učenjem in kakšen je odnos med značilnostmi procesiranja in njihovo učno uspešnostjo, notranjo motivacijo in kognitivnimi sposobnostmi, kot sta inteligentnost in ustvarjalnost. Čeprav so bile na tem področju v preteklosti že opravljene raziskave, se pričujoča študija te problematike loteva z vidika IPOO-modela, ki predstavlja nov teoretski pristop k šolskemu učenju (IPOO je akronim za Input (vnos), Process (proces), Output (izdelek), Organizing (organizacija)). V raziskavi je sodelovalo 815 dijakov, ki so izpolnili naslednje teste oziroma vprašalnike: Ravenove zahtevne matrice (APM), Test ustvarjalnosti "Nenavadne uporabe" (UUT), Jupiterbolha-próba test – druga verzija (JB2) za testiranje učne metode procesiranja informacij in Vprašalnik učnih stališč (LAQ). V raziskavo smo kot spremenljivke vključili tudi spol, razred in povprečno učno uspešnost sodelujočih učencev. Rezultati so pokazali nizek nivo kakovosti učne metode procesiranja informacij in nepovezanost med testnimi rezultati ter rezultati na vprašalnikih (razen v primeru fluentnosti, originalnosti in fleksibilnosti). Razlike med spoloma in razredi se niso izkazale kot statistično značilne. Ugotovitve so skladne z ugotovitvami predhodnih študij.

Ključne besede: procesiranje informacij, ustvarjalnost, učenje, IPOO model, dijaki


Citiraj:
Mező, K. in Mező, F. (2014). The IPOO-model of creative learning and the students' information processing characteristics. Psihološka obzorja, 23, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.20419/2014.23.414


Seznam literature v članku


Balogh, L. (2004). Iskolai tehetséggondozás [Talent development in school]. Debrecen, Hungary: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.

Baer, J. (2012). Gender differences in creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 215–250). New York, NY, USA: Hampton Press.

Barkóczi, I., & Zétényi, T. (1981). A kreativitás vizsgálata [Examination of the creativity]. Budapest, Hungary: Országos Pedagógiai Intézet.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), (unpaginated).

Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.

Craft, A., Cremin, T. Burnard, P., & Chappell, K. (2007). Teacher stance in creative learning: A study of progression. Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 136–146. CrossRef

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 81–112). Cresskill, NJ, USA: Hampton Press.

Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in the education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London, UK: Kogan Page

Davis, G. (1992). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, IA, USA: Kendall.

Feist, J. G., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Trends in the creativity literature: An analysis of research in the Journal of Creative Behavior (1967–1989). Creativity Research Journal, 6(3), 271–283. CrossRef

Furnham, A., Clark, K., & Bailey, K. (1999). Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 247–259. CrossRef

Galperin, P. Ya. (1989). Organization of mental activity and effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27, 65–82. CrossRef

Gordon, K. A., & Austin, J. T. (2002). The relationship of gender and academic performance to motivation: Within-ethnic-group variations. The Urban Review, 34(4), 293–316. CrossRef

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. CrossRef

Guilford, J. P. (1962). Creativity: Its measurement and development. In J. J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds.), A source book for creative thinking (pp. 151–168). New York, NY, USA: Scribners.

Halpern, D. F., & LaMay, M. L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 229–246. CrossRef

Helmholtz, H. v. L. (1896). Vorträge und Reden [Presentations and speeches] (5th ed.). Braunschweig, Germany: Friederich Vieweg und Sohn.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. CrossRef

Jeffrey, B. (Ed) (2006). Creative learning practices: European experiences. London, UK: Tufnell Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The G factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT, USA: Praeger.

Józsa, K. (2000). Az iskola és a család hatása a tanulási motivációra [Effect of the school and family on learning motivation]. Iskolakultúra [School culture], 8, 69–82.

Kontra, J. (2006). Középiskolások tanulás iránti attitűdje [Learning attitude of secondary school students]. Képzés és Gyakorlat [Education and Practice], 4(1), 28–32.

Kris, E. (1953). Psychoanalysis and the study of creative imagination. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 29, 334–351.

Lynn, R., Irwing, P., & Cammock, T. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge. Intelligence, 30(1), 27–39. CrossRef

Lucas, B. (2001). Creative teaching, teaching creativity and creative learning. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 35–47). London, UK: Continuum.

McLaurin, W., Jenkins, J., Farrar, W., & Rumore, M. (1973). Correlations of IQ on verbal and non-verbal tests of intelligence. Psychological Reports, 22, 821–822. CrossRef

Mező, F. (2011). Learning development by IPOO-minimum program. In I. Pšenáková (Ed.), Science For Education – Education For Science (pp. 241–246). Nitre, Slovakia: Faculty of Central European Studies of Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra.

Mező, F., & Kurucz, Gy. (2014). Az APM intelligenciateszttel kapcsolatos vizsgálati tapasztalatok a Debreceni Egyetem tehetséggondozó Programjában 2002-2008 között [Experiences of the APM intelligence test in the talent development program of University of Debrecen between years 2002-2008]. Budapest, Hungary: Magyar Tehetségsegítő Szervezetek Szövetsége.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. CrossRef

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1, 21–38. CrossRef

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 4: The Advanced Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX, USA: Harcourt Assessment.

Rózsa, S. (2006). Raven Progszív Mátrixok: Kézikönyv [Raven Progresive Matrixes: Handbook]. Budapest, Hungary: OSHungary.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. CrossRef

Stein, M. I. (1974). Stimulating creativity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Strenberg R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Corwin Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sullo, B. (2007). Activating the desire to learn. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). 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, USA: Personnel Press.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY, USA: Harcourt Brace.

Whiting, C. S. (1958). Creative thinking. New York, NY, USA: Reinhold.


Citati prek sistema CrossRef (1)

Intellektuális akadálymentesítés az oktatásban: problémafelvetés, alternatívák keresése
       Mónika Krasznay
       Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica, 2022
       https://doi.org/10.24193/subbtref.67.2.13


« Nazaj na Letnik 23 (2014)