Playing with English Alphabet and its Impact on Students’ Participatory Creativity
Subject Areas : Creativity and innovation from psychological, epistemological, educational and pedagogicalSuzan Arezi 1 , Bahman Saeidipour 2 , Mohammad Reza Sarmadi 3 , Bahman Zandi 4
1 - Ph.D. Student, Distance Education Programming, Payame Noor University
2 - Associated Professor, Departmet of educational sciences, Payame Noor University
3 - استاد گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
4 - استاد گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
Keywords: Students, Playing, English Alphabet, Participatory Creativity,
Abstract :
Objective: the main objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of playing with English alphabet on students’ participatory creativity. Methodology: this research was a semi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design and a control group. The population consisted of all students of Kermanshah Payam-e-Noor University who were passing their specialized English course. Using convenience sampling method, 60 students were selected out of the whole population. Then, the selected students were randomly divided into two groups of experimental and control. Using educational games and routine procedures, students in the experimental group were trained for one semester. The data were collected by the Abedi Test of Creativity (ATC), whose validity and reliability had already been confirmed. The SPSS software was used to statistically analyze the collected data and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conductedto test the study’s hypotheses. Results: the results showed statistically significant differences between average scores obtained by the two groups in subskills of Fluency (F=16.015), Elaboration (F=4.576), Originality (F=5.265) and Flexibility (F=6.155), indicating that the used educational games had significant impacts on the mentioned subskills of creativity. Conclusion: according to the results of this study,playing with English alphabet positively affects creativity and learning of university students. In other words, students can be expected to be more creative when playing such educational games.
امیرتیموری، محمد حسن. (1394). رسانه های یاددهی- یادگیری: شناسایی، انتخاب، تولید و کاربرد. تهران: انتشارات ساوالان.
جعفرخانی، فاطمه. (1396). بررسی تأثیر آموزش بر اعتبار آزمن های خلاقیت. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی. (7)، 1-16.
جمالی پاقلعه، مهدیه. (1387). دانش آموزان و ناتوانی آن ها در تکلم به زبان انگلیسی. رشد آموزش زبان، (4).
جوکار، سارا؛ جاوید، هانیه. (1393). بررسی موانع یادگیری آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان عرب. نخستین همایش آموزش زبان فارسی، انجمن علمی زبان و ادبیات فارسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
خزایی، سعید؛ وحیددستجردی، حسین و طالبی نژاد، محمدرضا. (1390). نقش فناوری ارتباطات سیار در آموزش و یادگیری واژگان زبان انگلیسی. فن آوری و آموزش، 6(2)، 135- 142.
رحیمی وند، مریم؛ عباس پور، عباس. (1394). تأثیر شیوه های جدید آموزش برخلاقیت و پیشرفت تحصیلی دانشجویان. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی،(4)، 119- 142.
رضوی، عباس. (1383). تأثیر استراتژی های استقرایی و قیاسی بر یادگیری و یادداری مفاهیم علوم تجربی پایه پنجم دبستان. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی.
عابدی، جواد. (1372). خلاقیت و شیوهای نو در اندازه گیری آن. پژوهش های روانشناختی، 2(1)، 46-54.
عنایتی، الهه؛ عابدی، احمد. (1395). فراتحلیل اثربخشی مداخلات آموزشی بر خلاقیت دانش آموزان. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی، (1)، 1-18.
قربان دردی نژاد، فرهاد. (1393). بررسی نقش استفاده از راهبرد آگاهی ساخت واژه در یادگیری واژگان انگلیسی. نوآوری های آموزشی؛ 13(3)، 7-22.
گنجی،کامران؛ تقوی، سعیده؛ عظیمی، فتانه. (1394). فراتحلیل متغیرهای همبسته با خلاقیت. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی، (4)، 1-49.
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a newly-constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9 (1), 89-95.
Azimian E. A. (2000). The role of the Keyword Method on The Tranian Learner's Immediate and Delayed Recall of Foreign Language Vocabulary. Dissertation for M.A in University for Teacher Training.
Barani, G. (2012). The impact of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on vocabulary achievement of Iranian university students EFL learners. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, 2(5), 531-537.
Bekleyen, N. (2012). The impact of computer-assisted language learning on vocabulary teaching: JING⢠and instant messaging. NWSA: Education Sciences, 7(1), 419-425.
Carolyn Yang, Y.T. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education 5, 365–377.
Chan, Alice. Y. (2004). Syntactic transfer; Evidence from the inter language of Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners. The modern language Journal. 88, 56-74.
Duffy, B. (2006). Supporting creativity and imagination in the early years. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Education.
Fedotova, O, Latun,V. (2015).Experimental Study of Audiovisual Approach in a ourse on the Psychology of Creativity, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191 (2015) 1054 – 1061.
Gardner. Robert. C. (2009). Teachers Motivation, Classroom Strategy Use, Students motivation and second language achievement, p 31-34.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies insecond language Acquisition, 24.
Jones, L. C. (2009). Supporting student differences in listening comprehension and vocabulary learning with multimedia annotations. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 267–289.
Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 1-15.
Karwowski, M., Gralewski J., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2007). Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 57-61.
Koppet, K. (2001). Training to imagine. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Madrid, D. (2002). The Power of the FL Teacher’s Motivational Strategies. Cauce, 25.
Maher, M. L. (2012). Computational and collective creativity: Who's being creative Paper presented at the International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2012, pp. 67-73.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridg hand book of multimedia learning, 31-48. Cambridge: University Press.
Ortiz, Alba. A. (2007). English language learning with special needs; Effective instructional strategies. Journal of learning disabilities. 30. 420-321.
Pishghadam, R., Ghorbani Nejad, T., & Shayesteh, Sh. (2012). Creativity and its relationship with teacher success. BELT Journal, 3(2), 204-216.
Sakar, A. & Ercetin, G. (2005). Effectiveness of hypermedia annotations for foreign language reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 28–38.
Sanders, L. (2001). Collective creativity. AIGA Journal of Interaction Design Education, 3, 1-6.
Schmidt, R. & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Simons, R. J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning, pp. 1–20. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tokaç, A. (2005). A comparison of computer-assisted vocabulary instruction and teacher-led vocabulary instruction (Unpublished MA thesis). The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent University.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between language and development: From mind to society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Żygadlo, P. (2007). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Effectiveness of vocabulary learning with the help of the authorial on-line application of the Catch'n'Practise v 1.0. (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Warsaw.
_||_
