The effect of teaching innovation on learning effectiveness among the students of Taiwan and Mainland China universities

• Authors: Yu-Ting Huang , Tzong-Ru Lee , Yi-Jyu Jiang
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper presents a teaching innovation that has proved successful in stimulating the in-class participation and learning effectiveness of Asian students. The sample population of the research was the teachers and the students of universities in Taiwan and Mainland China. Convenience sampling was used. Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) was used to explore the feedback of learning course. The research results showed that (1) students in Taiwan and Mainland China both have a good confience in attendance and teamwork projects at the beginning of the course and; (2) Taiwanese students are confient in their own creativity and application ability at the beginning of the course and students from Mainland China have a regular habit of reading relevant marketing books.

Keywords

EN

teaching innovation, learning effectiveness, grey relational analysis, cross-cultural research

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: International Journal of Synergy and Research
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 7

Dates

published

2018

online

2019-03-02

Contributors

author

Yu-Ting Huang

author

Tzong-Ru Lee

author

Yi-Jyu Jiang

References

• Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian council for Educational Research.
• Bruce, R. (1989) “Creativity and instructional technology: Great Potential, imperfectly studied”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14,241~256.
• Cairney, T. (2000). The knowledge based economy: Implications for vocational education and training. Sydney: Centre for Regional Research and Innovation, University of Western Sydney.
• Chen, S. C. (2009). A study of the Relations between Innovative Teaching Capacity and Teaching Effectiveness of Teachers in Elementary and Junior High Schools in Penghu County.
• Chen, S.-M. (2010), “Empirical study of negative emotions of the reader services librarian at work - A case study of public libraries,” Journal of Library and Information Science, 8(1).
• Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 309424.
• Entwistle, N. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
• Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States.
• Hampden-Turner, C. (2009). Teaching innovation and entrepreneurship: Building on the Singapore experiment. Cambridge University Press.
• Hannon, J. (2008). Breaking down online teaching: Innovation and resistance. Ascilite 2008 Melbourne, 389–399.
• Jones, B. L. (1996), “Self-Efficacy And Personal Goals In Classroom Performance: The Effect of Task Experience”, A Dissertation Submitted to the Kent State University Graduate School of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
• Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2007). “Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 57–61.
• Kember, D. (2001). “Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education”, Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205-221.
• Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). “Quality requirements for teacher educators”. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 157–176.
• Lin, C. D. (2009). Researches into Creative Talents and Creative Education. Economic Science.
• Loo, Robert. (1999), “Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985) ”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 213-219.
• Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993). “Conceptions of learning”, International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300.
• Meyers, C. & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning, Strategies for College Classrooms, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass publishers.
• Pantic, N., & Wubbels, T. (2010). “Teacher competencies as a basis for teacher education-views of Serbian teachers and teacher educators”. Teaching, 26(3), 694–703.
• Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone
• Runco, M. A. (2003). “Education for creative potential”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324.
• Runco, M. A.(2007).Creativity: Theories and themes: research, development, and practice. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
• Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). “Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 81–104.
• Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective, I – some common sense conceptions, Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, no.77.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tigelaar, D.E.H., Dolmans, D.H.J.M., Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P., and van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2004), “The development and validation ofa framework for teaching competencies in higher education”, Higher Education, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 253–268.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/ijsr.2018.7.0.111-121