نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

2 دانشجوی دکتری رشته روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

3 دانشیار دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

4 استادیار دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

چکیده

هدف از انجام این پژوهش بررسی اثربخشی فرایند حل مسأله خلاق (CPS)، به عنوان یک راهبرد آموزشی، بر افزایش تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری در دانشجویان دانشگاه شهید چمران بود. آموزش فرایند CPS (با استفاده از دوازده تکنیک خلاقیت در دو دوره تفکر خلاق و انتقادی) به عنوان متغیر مستقل و تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری به عنوان متغیرهای وابسته بودند. پژوهش حاضر یک طرح آزمایش میدانی با پیش آزمون-پس آزمون و پیگیری با گروه گواه بود. ابزار این پژوهش شامل پرسشنامه‌های تفکر علمی لیانگ و همکاران، خلاقیت عابدی و نوآوری کولز و واندن بروک بودند. نمونه‌ی پژوهش شامل 60 دانشجوی پسر و دختر دوره‌ی کارشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران در سال تحصیلی 88-1387 بود که با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی چند مرحله‌یی انتخاب و به دو گروه آزمایش و گواه گمارده شدند. قبل از آموزش فرایند CPS از هر دو گروه آزمایش و گواه پیش آزمون‌های تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری گرفته شد. سپس، به گروه آزمایش فرایند CPS آموزش داده شد و به گروه گواه هیچ آموزشی ارایه نشد. پس از اتمام دوره‌ی آموزشی بلافاصله از هر دو گروه پس آزمون گرفته شد. در نهایت، پس از 6 هفته از اتمام دوره‌ی آموزشی دوباره از هر دو گروه آزمون‌های تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری، به عنوان پیگیری، گرفته شد. نتیجه‌ی تحلیل کوواریانس چند متغیری (مانکوا) نشان داد که آموزش فرایند CPS باعث افزایش معنی‌دار تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری در دانشجویان می‌شود. همچنین، نتیجه‌ی تحلیل کوواریانس چند متغیری با سنجش‌های تکراری نشان داد که اثر آموزش فرایند CPS در طول زمان بر تفکر علمی، خلاقیت و نوآوری دانشجویان اثر پایدار دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The effects of creative problem solving process training on scientific thinking, creativity and innovation in Shahid Chamran University students

نویسندگان [English]

  • M Shehni Yailagh 1
  • A.R. Hajiyakhchali 2
  • A. Haghighi 3
  • N. Behroozi 4

1

2

3

4

چکیده [English]

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of creative problem solving (CPS) process training on scientific thinking, creativity and innovation in Shahid Chamran University students. The instruction of CPS process (using 12 creativity techniques in two phases of creative and critical thinking) was the independent variable and scientific thinking, creativity and innovation was dependent variables. The present study was a field experimental design with pretest-posttest and followup control group design. The instruments of this study include Scientific Thinking of Liang et.al, Abedi's Creativity Questionnaire  and Cools and Van Den Brook's Cognitive Style scale. The sample consisted of 60 male and female undergraduate students, of Shahid Chamran University (2008-2009), who were selected randomly by multi-stage sampling method. The participants were then assigned randomly to experimental and control groups. Before teaching CPS process, pretests on scientific thinking, creativity and innovation were taken from both experimental and control groups. Afterwards, the experimental group was treated with CPS process, but the control group didn't receive any training. After the intervention, posttests were taken immediately from both experimental and control groups. Finally, after six weeks of intervention, followup tests on scientific thinking, creativity as well as innovation were taken. The results of MANCOVA analysis showed that CPS process training caused significant improvement in students' scientific thinking, creativity as well as innovation. Also, the results of repeated MANCOVA revealed that the effects of CPS process over time remained significant. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • creative problem solving (CPS)
  • scientific thinking
  • creativity
  • innovation
  • university students
فارسی
شهنی‌ییلاق، منیجه، سهرابی، فریبا و شکرکن، حسین (1384). تأثیر آموزش بارش مغزی بر خلاقیت دانشجویان دختر دانشگاه شهید جمران اهواز با کنترل هوش. مجله علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، دوره سوم، سال دوازدهم، شماره 1، ص. 94-71.
عابدی، جمال (1372). خلاقیت و شیوه‌های نو در اندازه‌گیری آن. مجله پژوهشهای روانشناختی، دوره دوم، شماره 1 و 2.
 
لاتین
Allwood, C. M., Hemlin, S., & Martin, B. R. (2008). Creative knowledge environments. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (2), 196–210.
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Basadur, M. (1997). Organization development interventions for enhancing creativity in the work place. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 54-73.
Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1), 103-121.
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (3), 199-229.
Cools, E., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2007). The cognitive style indicator: Development and validation of a new measurement tool. Journal of Interdisiplinary and Applied Psychology, 141 (4), 359-387.
Cruchfield, R., & Covington, M. (1965). Programmed instruction creativity. Programmed Instruction, 4, 1-10.
Cunningham, J., & MacGregor, J. N. (2008). Training insightful problem solving: Effects of realistic and puzzle-like contexts. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (3), 291–296.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy Management learning and Education, 3 (3), 342-357.
Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Forrester, V., & Hui, A. (2007). Creativity in the Hong Kong classroom: What is the contextual practice? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 (1), 30-38.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York: Wiley.
Giles, D. (2002). Advanced research methods in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature ofhuman intelligence. New York: MacGraw Hill.
Hsing Ma, H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21 (1), 30– 42.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1987). Creative problem solving: Three components and six specific stages. Instructional handout. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applid Psychology, 61, 622-629.
Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (40), 1–128.
Liang, L. l., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M.,  & Ebenezer, J. (2006). Student understanding of science and scientific inquiry (SUSSI): Revision and further validation and assessment instrument.  Paper presented for annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
Martinsen, O. (1993). Insight problems revisited: The influence of cognitive styles and experiences of creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 435- 448.
Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientifc inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (3), 313 - 351.
Nystrom, H. (1990). Organizational innovation. In M. S. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (143-162). New York: Wiley.
Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146.
Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727.
Puccio, K. (1994). An analysis of an observational study of creative problem solving for primary children. M. S. Thesis, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, N. Y.
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 1-22.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 361-388.
Shalley, C. E. (2007). Team cognition: The importance of team process and composition for the creative problem-solving process. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 7, 289-304.
Sterenberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236-262.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Norma-technical Manual). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. (204-215). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 15-19.
Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative problem solving: Overview of educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (3), 301-312.
Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E .C., & Isaksen, S. G. (2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving.  Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (4), 390-401.
Yalcin, B. M., Karahan, T. F., Karadenizli, D., & Sahin, E. M. (2006). Short-term effects of problem-based learning curriculum on student self-directed skills development. Curriculum Medline Journal, 47, 491-498.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.