Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of active peer–peer interaction on the generation of new hypotheses or models and the increase of new solutions have attracted widespread attention. Therefore, the peer discussion portion of peer instruction is supposedly effective in developing students’ creativity. However, few empirical research involves how to adapt peer instruction to concrete subject areas to increase different-level students’ creativity. This study aimed to assess the possibilities and limitations of peer instruction in teaching technical creativity to different-level students through empirical teachings in authentic high school classrooms. The results showed that peer discussion was effective in improving the creative performances of all (higher-, medium-, and lower-level) students when they have already had original ideas. However, in facilitating lower-level students to generate their own ideas from nothing, peer instruction was not as good as a teacher-centered teaching method—explicit technical creativity teaching. To develop different-level students’ creativity, a hybrid-type of peer instruction, i.e., the combination of peer instruction and explicit technical creativity teaching, was suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983a). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983b). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belski, I. (2009). Teaching thinking and problem solving at university: A course on TRIZ. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(2), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 37–60). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. S., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Dmitrieva, J., Dong, Q., & Xie, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction to “be creative” across domains and cultures. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. Y. (2010). Tension and dilemmas of teachers in creativity reform in a Chinese context. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, M. (2011). Creativity in advertising design education: An experimental study. Instructional Science, 39(6), 843–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 107–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physics Teachers, 69(9), 970–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, L. E. (1963). Test instructions and identification of creative scientific talent. Psychological Reports, 13, 495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, L. E. (1964). Test instructions and identification of creative scientific talent: Supplementary report. Psychological Reports, 14, 233–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D., Snape, D. J., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Science Education, 8(3), 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334, 1499–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4). http://asq.org/edu/2009/08/best-practices/active-learning-an-introduction.%20felder.pdf.

  • Fogarty, R., & Tighe, J. M. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gok, T. (2011). The impact of PI on college students’ beliefs about physics and conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: Effects on gender difference performance, conceptual learning and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 776–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gok, T. (2015). An investigation of students’ performances after peer instruction with stepwise problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1966). Measurement and creativity. Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186–189 + 202.

  • Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. E., Antonenkot, P. D., & Greenwood, C. M. (2012). The impact of collaborative and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 28, 477–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88, 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R. & Amabile, T. M. (2000–2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 285–294.

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeungAngela, K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education—A conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. Q., & Schonwetter, D. J. (2004). Teaching creativity in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(5), 801–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2012). Progression in creativity-developing new forms of assessment. Newcastle: CCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2010). Just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. In S. P. Simkins & M. H. Maier (Eds.), Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 39–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., Knott, J. R., Horn, S. V., Borowski, W., et al. (2006). Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(1), 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, D. P. (2013). Moods, emotions and creative thinking: A framework for teaching. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classrooms. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 458–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Liu, D. (2009). Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an indicative instruction “to be creative” and a more elaborate heuristic instruction on Chinese student creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, W. G., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Recent transformations in China’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(4), 247–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity—An introduction. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poon, J. C. Y., Au, A. C. Y., Tong, T. M. Y., & Lau, S. (2014). The feasibility of enhancement of knowledge and self-confidence in creativity: A pilot study of a three-hour SCAMPER workshop on secondary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B, & Zingaro. D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computing education research (pp. 45–52). ACM.

  • Roger, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Cambridge: Perseus Book Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee J., Tamayo, K., & Cutts, Q. (2010). Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 341–345). ACM.

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., et al. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Science Education, 10, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. (1999). The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creativity resources: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–325). Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

  • Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE Life Science Education, 14, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S. J., & Murota, M. (2015). Creativity development conception and execution in Chinese high school ICT classes. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 9(1), 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. O. (2016). Levels of creativity. http://thesecondprinciple.com/creativity/creativetraits/levels-of-creativity/. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.

  • Zampetakis, L. A., Tsironis, L., & Moustakis, V. (2007). Creativity development in engineering education: The case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 370–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computer & Education, 71, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning, 3, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2007). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high- achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 8, 337–353.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Xin Du, who is a local teacher at Linyi No. 4 Senior Middle School of Shandong Province, China, for her contributions towards facilitating our research and rating the students’ products.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Major in Social and Human Sciences, School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-W9-23, O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 1528552, Japan

    Shijuan Wang & Masao Murota

Authors
  1. Shijuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masao Murota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shijuan Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Murota, M. Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instr Sci 44, 501–525 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9385-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9385-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation