october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 Overall, the social climate was claimed to have the greatest effect on stimulating the student’s imagination, followed by organizational measure and human aggregate. Although the physical component had the smallest effect, its mean (3.78) was high enough to be considered influential. This result suggests that a soft mechanism like a welcoming climate is the most powerful stimulus to facilitate imagination. Harder factors like institutional measures, intangible factors such as tradition or culture, and physical environment like space and its facilities, are also effective stimuli. Furthermore, a regression analysis was conducted to analyze whether or not gender and academic standing would result in differences on imagination stimulation. There were no significant differences between genders but there were differences depending on academic standing. The graduate participants claimed that their imagination was greater than the undergraduate subjects. This result may be partially because graduate students are more mature in both personality and expertise, and tend to be more independent, more disciplined and show more initiative. Their life and professional experiences are also richer than undergraduates. All of these qualities allow them to be more confident on this survey. In the aspect of environmental influence, statistics showed that there was a significant effect which physical component had on different genders at the p < .05 level. The mean of female participants was significantly greater than that of the male. There was not enough evidence to conclude that the imagination of female students was more easily influenced by surrounding environment, but this study opens up a valuable issue to be inquired in the future. In addition, the means of graduate participants were significantly greater than those of the undergraduate subjects in both factors of social climate and organizational measure. Taken together, the results suggest that special attention should be paid to the physical environment for the female students, and the organizational measure and social climate to the graduates (refer to Table 5). Table 5: Regression analysis on gender and academic standing differences Variance Gender Academic standing Imagination 0.13* Learning environment Social climate 0.17* Physical component -0.11* Organizational measure 0.17* Human aggregate Note: A paired-comparison technique was employed to observe differences among academic standings. *p < .05. Moreover, the results of the F test and paired comparison technique indicated that means of both phase 1 (analysis) and phase 2 (design/development) were greater than those of phase 3 (implementation/evaluation) in the social climate and human aggregate factors. The results of organizational measure were similar, but mean of phase 2 here was significantly greater than that of phase 1. In addition, the mean of phase 2 was significantly greater than those of both phases 1 and 3 in the physical component (refer to Table 6). The results suggest that environmental variables have significant effects on imagination stimulation, especially in the first two phases. Specially, the effect of the organizational measure in the second phase was significantly greater than in the other phases. According to personal experiences, the results of this study are compatible with the reality of the educational technology system. For example, both discussion with classmates and free expression in class are important for stimulating imagination in the phase one in order to clarify the design task and initiate action. Having a pleasant learning climate and rich learning resources are critical for concept development in phase two. Mutual support between teachers and classmates and teacher’s tolerance for error are crucial for the third phase. The results also imply that a set of unique instructional strategies applied during both phases one and two could be particularly beneficial to students. These results also echo the study done by Büscher et al. (2004) in which the work environment, the tools to be used, and the nature of the task were sought out to form the best combinations for designers to utilize their imagination. Table 6: F test and paired comparison for environmental influences on the three different phases Factors Mean Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 F Paired comparison Social climate 4.06 4.08 4.00 12.56* 1 > 3; 2 > 3 Physical component 3.74 3.90 3.70 24.41* 2 > 1; 2 > 3 Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 437
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 Organizational measure 4.01 4.06 3.89 26.93* 2 > 1 > 3 Human aggregate 3.93 3.96 3.85 11.28* 1 > 3; 2 > 3 *p < .05. The research team examined the relationship between the imagination and environmental factors, and found it reached a significance level, p < 0.05. In the integrative analysis of the different design phases, the averaged correlation coefficient is .3, and the individual coefficients are between .23 and .35 (refer to Table 7). The averaged correlation of the first phase is .25, .28 for phase two, and .27 for phase three. The results also showed that the four environmental factors were significantly correlated, p < 0.05. The averaged correlation coefficient of the integrative process is .62, and the individual coefficients are between .45 and .74 (also see Table 7). The averaged correlation of the first phase is .55, .59 for phase two, and .58 for phase three. Specifically, the correlation of social climate and organizational measure was noticeably high. This result may imply the interrelationship between these two factors. It also implies that the items of these two factors may be overlapped and thus may need to be modified further. Table 7: The correlation analysis of the imagination and environmental factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Imagination -- 2. Social climate .35* -- 3. Physical component .30* .57* -- 4. Organizational measure .34* .74* .53* -- 5. Human aggregate .23* .66* .45* .62* -- *p < .05. The research team further utilized the maximum likelihood estimator of structural equation modeling method with LISREL 8.80 to examine the relationship between environmental factors and imagination. The following indicators recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), Jöreskog and Sörbom (1996), and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) was used to assess goodness of model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90-.95 indicating an acceptable fit), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; .05 or below indicating excellent fit, .05-.08 indicating an acceptable fit), Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR; .05 or below indicating excellent fit, .05-.08 indicating an acceptable fit), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90-.95 indicating an acceptable fit). The results showed a good fit to match the hypothesis that four environmental factors influence imagination, with X 2 (395)= 1104.13; CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .06, TLI = .95. The squared standardized path coefficient of the social climate is .0441, the physical component is .0144, the organizational measure is .0625, and the human aggregate is .0225. The residual of this analysis is .81 which makes the total explained variables 19%. This result is possibly because of the high correlations among environmental factors. The high multicollinearity caused an unstable parameter estimation which, in turn, may result in the insignificant prediction result. The other inference by the research team is that, similar to multiple influential factors on human creativity (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004), the learning environment is only but one factor stimulating a learner’s imagination. Additional factors such as psychology and personality should be added for further inquiries. CONCLUSIONS The increasing rate of change in human society and the escalating penetration of advanced technology require us to learn more to cope. As Marshall (2001) claimed, the more quickly things change, the more imaginative we have to be to keep up. Educational technologists need a more radical and holistic imagination to distinguish between enduring fundamentals of learning and teaching, and the transient froth splashed up by new waves of innovation (Goodyear et al., 2010). In other words, educational technologists not only need technological imagination to make predictions about the future, but also need to engage with the practical problems of educational reform in a rapidly changing society. Even more, educational technologists today need to foster a hybrid imagination, mixing scientific and technical skills with a sense of social responsibility (Jamison & Mejlgaard, 2010). Bearing these expectations in mind, this study inquired imagination under a certain societal environment, and tried to learn how this environment influences the inhabitants’ imagination. This particular environment is the higher education system. Imagination in this study is defined as the process of transforming an instructional design student’s inner images. The results of this study indicated that imagination is consisted of several characteristics: productivity, transformation, sensibility, intuition, novelty, exploration, effectiveness, crystallization, and elaboration. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 438
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
*p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 412 and 413: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 426 and 427: eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 470: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?