Advertisement

The Create Excellence Framework’s Impact on Enhancing Creativity: Examining Elementary Teacher Candidate Mathematics Lesson Planning

  • Janet Lynne TassellEmail author
  • Rebecca Stobaugh
  • Marge Maxwell
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)

Abstract

The focus of this research is to examine the impact of an instructional instrument to improve the quality of pre-service teachers’ lesson plans to enhance creative learning opportunities for children. The Create Excellence Framework focuses on four components essential to high-quality lesson plans: Cognitive Complexity, Real-World Learning, Engagement, and Technology Integration. The research study examined data from two elementary education teacher candidate classes for five semesters to measure the impact of the instrument on instructional planning for mathematics or mathematics and science integration. Over the course of the five semesters, for each component, the mean scores increased, and there was a positive statistically significant difference between the scores from the baseline semester to the fifth semester. In the fifth semester, the component of Technology Integration had the largest increase and Real-World Learning has the highest mean score. As students learned to design instruction around authentic tasks, cognitive levels and engagement also increased. Students were exposed to and utilizing new digital tools to enhance their learning. Using these digital tools along with real-world applications of the content encouraged students to think creatively to solve authentic problems.

Keywords

Lesson planning Real-world learning Creativity Technology integration Math instruction 

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Why should we group students within-class for learning? Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 158–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Antonetti, J. V., & Garver, J. R. (2015). 17,000 classroom visits can’t be wrong: Strategies that engage students, promote active learning, and boost achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, K. C., & Smith, L. A. (2000). Themes or motifs? Aiming for coherence through interdisciplinary outlines. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 54–63.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Philadelphia, PA: David McKay Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.Google Scholar
  9. Crie, M. (2005). Inquiry-based approaches to learning. New York, NY: Glencoe. Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/subject/inquiry_based.phtml.
  10. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  11. Davidovitch, N., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Creative thinking as a predictor of teacher effectiveness in higher education. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 385–390.Google Scholar
  12. Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education. (2000). Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm.
  13. European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. European Schoolnet. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/survey-schools-ict-education.
  14. Giroux, H. A., & Schmidt, M. (2004). Closing the achievement gap: A metaphor for children left behind. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greaves, T. W., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Chicago, IL: Market Data Retrieval.Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  17. Henrickson, D. (2011). We teach who we are: Creativity trans disciplinary thinking in the practices of accomplished teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3489807).Google Scholar
  18. Henricksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2013). Learning from creative teachers. Educational Leadership, 70(5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb13/vol70/num05/Learning-from-Creative-Teachers.aspx.
  19. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71.Google Scholar
  20. Hung, D., Tan, S. C., & Koh, T. S. (2006). Engaged learning: Making learning an authentic experience. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 29–48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). The national educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx.
  22. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). The national educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx.
  23. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jukes, I., McCain, T., & Crockett, L. (2010). Understanding the digital generation: Teaching and learning in the new digital landscape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keyek-Franssen, D. (2010, December 15). Clickers and CATs: Using learner response systems for formative assessments in the classroom. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/clickers-and-cats-using-learner-response-systems-formative-assessments-classroom.
  26. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez, M. (2014). Deeper learning: The new normal. Retrieved from http://www.advanc-ed.org/source/deeper-learning-new-normal.
  28. Maxwell, M., Constant, M., Stobaugh, R., & Tassell, J. L. (2011). Developing a HEAT framework for assessing and improving instruction. In C. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2011 (pp. 13–20). Chesapeake, VA: SITE.Google Scholar
  29. Maxwell, M., Stobaugh, R., & Tassell, J. L. (2017). Real-world learning framework for elementary schools: Digital tools and practical strategies for successful implementation. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  30. Maxwell, M., Stobaugh, R., & Tassell, J. L. (2015). Real-world learning framework for secondary schools: Digital tools and practical strategies for successful implementation. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  31. McGinnis, J. O. (2006). Age of the empirical. Policy Review, 137, 47–58.Google Scholar
  32. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology and creativity in the 21st century: On being (in)disciplined. Tech Trends, 56(6), 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers’ use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(3), 10–18.Google Scholar
  34. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, and millennials: Understanding the “new students”. Educause Review, 38(4), 37–47.Google Scholar
  35. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P-12 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.
  36. Pence, H. E., & McIntosh, S. (2010). Refocusing the vision: The future of instructional technology. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petti, W. (2017). Math questions worth asking. Education World. Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/mathchat/mathchat026.shtml.
  38. Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 61–81.Google Scholar
  39. Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  40. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  41. Raths, J. (2002). Improving instruction. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson, W. (2013). Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 10–14.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Rosen, L. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Schamel, D., & Ayres, M. P. (1992). The minds-on approach: Student creativity and personal involvement in the undergraduate science laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(4), 226–229.Google Scholar
  46. Schools We Need Project. (n.d.). An engaging program of real world learning. Retrieved from http://schoolsweneed.wikispaces.com/Real+World+Learning.
  47. Shriki, A. (2010). Working like real mathematicians: Developing prospective teachers’ awareness of mathematical creativity through generating new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shriki, A. (2013). A model for assessing the development of students’ creativity in the context of problem posing. Creative Education, 4(7), 430–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwartzbeck, T. D., & Wolf, M. A. (2012). The digital learning imperative: How technology and teaching meet today’s education challenges. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  50. Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sternberg, R. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.Google Scholar
  52. Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction: A lesson design handbook for the elementary grades. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tassell, J. L., Maxwell, M., & Stobaugh, R. (2013). CReaTE excellence: Using a teacher framework to maximize STEM learning with your child. Parenting for High Potential, 3(2), 10–13.Google Scholar
  54. Tennessee Department of Education. (2007). Educator licensure standards. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/education/.../lic_educator_licensure_standards.pdf.
  55. Texas Education Agency. (2014). Texas teaching standards. Retrieved from https://www.ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter149/ch149aa.html.
  56. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004). Integrating ICTs into education: Lessons learned—A collective case study of six Asian countries. Bangkok, Thailand: Author. Retrieved from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ict/e-books/ICTLessonsLearned/ICT_integrating_education.pdf.
  57. U.S. 21st Century Workforce Commission. (2000). A nation of opportunity: Building America’s 21st century workforce. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=key_workplace.
  58. Wood, D. F. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326(7384), 328–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wood, J. (2010, April 11). Rewiring education and connecting with the iGeneration. Retrieved from JoeWoodOnline Blog: http://www.joewoodonline.com/rewiring-education-connecting-with-the-igeneration/.
  60. Wood, T., Merkel, G., & Uerkwitz, J. (1996). Creating a context for talking about mathematical thinking. Educacao e matematica, 4, 39–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Lynne Tassell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca Stobaugh
    • 1
  • Marge Maxwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations