Integrating online and offline teaching to promote creativity for STEM learners

Yaqin Fan

doi:10.55056/etq.723

Authors

Yaqin Fan North China Electric Power University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7536-8908

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.723

Keywords:

online and offline, integrated teaching, creativity, STEM learners

Abstract

This research extends previous findings by proposing an online and offline integrated teaching framework to enhance creativity for STEM learners. The framework integrates key elements from both modalities, featuring a combination of virtual and physical resources to support a comprehensive learning experience. The study introduces a "smart flowerpot" project as a practical application, detailing the instructional design, learning resources, and assessment strategies. It highlights the challenges in resource selection and the increased workload for teachers transitioning from traditional classroom settings. While the framework offers a promising approach, it acknowledges the need for empirical testing and consideration of external factors that may influence its effectiveness. The research advocates further exploration to validate the framework and its potential to transform STEM education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract views: 153 / PDF views: 32

References

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N. and Mabry, E., 2002. Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), pp.83–97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3

Bicer, A., Nite, S.B., Capraro, R.M., Barroso, L.R., Capraro, M.M. and Lee, Y., 2017. Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students’ creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). pp.1–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190545

Bowman, J.P., 2003. It’s Not Easy Being Green: Evaluating Student Performance in Online Business Communication Courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(1), pp.73–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990306600109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990306600109

Conradty, C. and Bogner, F.X., 2018. From STEM to STEAM: How to Monitor Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), pp.233–240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195

Fan, Y. and Sarfo, J.O., 2023. Factors Associated with Creativity among STEM Learners: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 12(3), pp.1014–1030. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2023.3.1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2023.3.1014

Hennessey, B.A. and Amabile, T.M., 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, pp.569–598. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

Horn, M.B. and Staker, H., 2014. Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. Jossey-Bass. Available from: http://hozekf.oerp.ir/sites/hozekf.oerp.ir/files/kar_fanavari/manabe%20book/Thinking/Blended_%20Using%20Disruptive%20Innovation%20to%20Improve%20Schools.pdf.

Hurlbut, A.R., 2018. Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: a comparison of student progress. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), pp.248–266. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265

Krueger, 2023. Comparing Online and Traditional Assessment Practices in Middle School Mathematics. Masters in Curriculum and Instruction. ED 696 Capstone Project. Minnesota State University Moorhead. Available from: https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/821.

Lamb, R., Akmal, T. and Petrie, K., 2015. Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), pp.410–437. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200

Liu, Y., 2007. A Comparative Study of Learning Styles between Online and Traditional Students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), pp.41–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2190/TJ34-6U66-8L72-2825. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/TJ34-6U66-8L72-2825

Longhurst, J., 2003. World History on the World Wide Web: A Student Satisfaction Survey and a Blinding Flash of the Obvious. The History Teacher, 36(3), pp.343–356. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1555691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1555691

Nemiro, J., Larriva, C. and Jawaharlal, M., 2017. Developing Creative Behavior in Elementary School Students with Robotics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), pp.70–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.87

Ngai, G., Lau, K.H. and Kwan, K.P., 2024. A Large-Scale Study of Students’ E-Service-Learning Experiences and Outcomes During the Pandemic. Journal of Experiential Education, 47(1), pp.29–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259231171852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259231171852

Rivera, J.H., 2016. Science-based laboratory comprehension: an examination of effective practices within traditional, online and blended learning environments. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 31(3), pp.209–218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1208080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1208080

Robertson, S., 2006. What’s Wrong with Online Readings? Text, Hypertext, and the History Web. The history teacher, 39(4), pp.441–454. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/30037065. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30037065