This site uses cookies for user authentication, optional permanent login and monitoring the number of page views (Google Analytics).
Do you agree with cookies being used in accordance with our Privacy policy? You can change your decision regarding the use of cookies on the Privacy page.

I want to know more

Horizons of Psychology :: Psihološka obzorja

Scientific and Professional Psychological Journal of the Slovenian Psychologists' Association

Indexed in:
Scopus
PsycINFO
Academic OneFile

Member of DOAJ and CrossRef

sien
CONTENTS FOR AUTHORS ABOUT EDITORIAL BOARD LINKS

Search

My Account

Most viewed articles

 

« Back to Volume 23 (2014)

flag Pojdi na slovensko stran članka / Go to the article page in Slovene


The IPOO-model of creative learning and the students' information processing characteristics

Katalin Mező & Ferenc Mező

pdf Full text (pdf)  |  Views: 90  |  flagWritten in English.  |  Published: March 29, 2015

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

Abstract: The present study was designed to examine secondary school students' information processing characteristics during learning and their relationship with the students' academic averages, internal motivation for learning and cognitive abilities, such as intelligence and creativity. Although many studies have previously focused on this issue, we are now studying this topic from the perspective of the IPOO-model, which is a new theoretical approach to school learning (note: IPOO is an acronym of Input, Process, Output, Organizing). This study featured 815 participants (secondary school students) who completed the following tests and questionnaires: Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) intelligence test, the "Unusual Uses" creativity test (UUT), the 2nd version of the Jupiterbolha-próba (Jupiter Flea test – JB2) to test the information processing method of learning, and the Learning Attitude Questionnaire (LAQ). In our analysis we took the gender, school grade and academic average of participants into account. According to our results, the quality of information-processing methods of learning is at a low level, and there are no significant strong correlational relationships among the tests and questionnaire results (except in the cases of fluency, originality, and flexibility). There were no significant differences between genders or classes. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous studies.

Keywords: information processing, creativity, learning, IPOO-model, secondary school students


Cite:
Mező, K., & 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


Reference list


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.


Cited By via 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


« Back to Volume 23 (2014)