Educational Action Research to Achieve the Essential Competencies of the Future

• Authors: Jānis Kapenieks
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article analyses the conformity of the educational action research (EAR) process for the improvement of selected competencies that will be necessary in the near future for each active and responsible person. The most requested competencies in the near and midterm future are determined in accordance with near future structural requirements of labour demand, determined by international organoizations. The contribution is based upon the outcomes of the action research carried out in the internet environment, by Bachelor students majoring in information technologies at Riga Technical University, Latvia. Working in groups, they supplemented each other’s ideas, developing living theories. The content analysis of the students’ supplementary submissions and living theories was carried out to identify the features indicating the development of student actions towards the improvement of the most necessary competencies in the near future. To accomplish the objective of action research, at first, the most requested competencies in the near and midterm future were determined. Then the changes of the features, mentioned during the three action research cycles were identified. Finally, the most important features of the students’ actions indicating the development of two of key competencies, namely, Novel and adaptive thinking and Design Mindset, were identified. Perfection of referred competencies is viewed as the substantial part of education for sustainable development (ESD). The conclusions were drawn about the development of students’ competencies according to the future needs identified during the action research process on the internet.

Keywords

EN

e-learning; action research; competencies; collaborative learning; adaptive thinking

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 95-110

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-06-28

Contributors

author

Jānis Kapenieks

• Distance Education Study Centre, Riga Technical University, Kronvalda bulv. 1, Riga, LV-1010, Latvia

References

• Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard business review, 76(5), 76-87.
• Bebre, R. (2003). Kreativitātes psiholog̔ijas pētījumi Latvijā. Rīga: RaKa.
• Beghetto, R. (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity? The Educational Forum (69), 254-263.
• Binkley, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, et al. (Ed.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 17-66).
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1), 9-21.
• Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
• Cedefop, (2008). Future skill needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• Chapnick, S., & Meloy, J. (2005). Renaissance eLearning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning: Wiley.[WoS]
• Cohen, L., & Ambrose, D. (1999). Adaptation and Creativity. In M. A. P. Runco, S. R. (Ed.), Enciclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 1). San Diego, USA, London: Academic Press.
• Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools : tensions and dilemmas. London: Continuum.
• Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis M. (Ed.). (2011). Future Work Skills 2020: Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute.
• Davis, G. (1999). Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes. In M. A. P. Runco, S. R. (Ed.), Enciclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 165-185). San Diego, USA, London: Academic Press.
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Dick, B. (2009). Theory in action research. Action research, 7(5), 5-12.
• EC. (2008). Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation. A Background Paper. Slovenia: Slovenian EU Council Presidency.
• EC. (2008a). The European Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/leaflet_en.pdf
• ELGPN. (2014). European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from http://www.elgpn.eu/elgpndb/search/metadata/view/251
• Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf
• Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
• Grišāne, O. (2008). Designing environment for research and learning in secondary school. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 10, 17-31.
• Grundspeņķis, J., Anohina, A. (2005). Agents in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: State of the Art. RTU zinātniskie raksti, 5.
• Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Iliško, D. (2007). Teachers as agents of societal change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 7, 14-26.
• Kapenieks, A. (2009). Zināšanu sabiedrības tehnolog̔ijas un jaunā mūžizglītība. Latvijas vēsture, 1(73), 6-14.
• Kapenieks, J. (2010a). Empowering users by applying the action research approach in e-studies. Paper presented at the eLearning Baltics 2010, Rostock, Germany.
• Kapenieks, J. (2010b). Action reserch for creating knowledge in e-learning environment. Paper presented at the 8th International JTEFS/BBCC conference “Sustainable development. Culture. Education”, Paris, France.
• Kapenieks, J. (2011b). Collaboration trends during action research in an e-learning environment for developing and acquiring effective personal knowledge. Paper presented at the CSEDU 2011 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
• Kapenieks, J., & Salīte, I. (2012). Action reserch for creating knowledge in e-learning environment. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 14(2), 111-129. DOI: 10.2478/v10099-012-0012-x.[Crossref]
• Kevin Barge, J., & Fairhurst, G. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4(3), 227-251.
• Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Penguin Books.
• Kostuolas - Makrakis, N. (2010). Developing and applying critical and transformative model to address education for sustainable development in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 12(2), 17-26.
• Lefrançois, G. (2000). Psychology for Teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth.
• Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.[Crossref]
• NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved May 6, 2016, from http://sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
• Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work, 39(3).
• Olson, H. (1995). Quantitative ‘versus’ qualitative research: The wrong question. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from http://www.ualberta.ca/dept/slis/cais/olson.htm
• Runco, M. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324.[Crossref]
• Russ, S. (2003). Play and creativity: developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (3), 291-303.[Crossref]
• Salīte, I. (2008). Educational action research for sustainability: Constructing a vision for the future in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 10, 5-16.
• Salīte, I., Mičule, I., Kravale, M., Ili-ko, Dz., & Stakle, A. (2007). Towards the sustainability in teacher education: promise of action research. Education and sustainable development, 2.
• Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in Second Life. Educational Research, 52(2), 169-182.[Crossref][WoS]
• Simplicio, J. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680.
• Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Štāle, G., Slaidiņš, I., & Kapenieks, A. (2005). New approach of e-learning solutions for empowerment of people in regional development context. Paper presented at the ICTE in Regional Development: Annual Proceedings of Vidzeme University College, Valmiera, Latvia.
• UNESCO. (2011). ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/internationalstandard-classification-of-education.aspx
• Whitehead, J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research, 7(1), 85-99.
• Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/curriculum_and_teaching_innovation2.pdf

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/jtes-2016-0008