Models for Creative Inventions

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_381
  • 85 Downloads

Synonyms

Key Concepts and Definition of Terms

A model is characterized by representing objects, phenomena, or processes of the world. Stachowiak (1973) introduces three key features of models: imaging feature, reduction feature, and pragmatic feature. Creativity can be defined quantitatively or qualitatively and has three directions of impact (Hanke et al. 2011): the creative product, the creative process, and the creative person. In general, creativity is referred to the creation of novel and useful artifacts (Mumford 2003). Models for creative inventions are representations of the world that are novel, i.e., different from already existing representations, and originate after an iterative model-building process.

Theoretical Background

Taking into account that creative inventions are understood as artifacts that are new as well as useful and are created by a divergent way of thinking, this requires an iterative process of model building...

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

References

  1. Clariana RB, Strobel J. Modeling technologies. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merrienboer JJG, Driscoll MP, editors. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. p. 329–44.Google Scholar
  2. de Jong T, van Joolingen WR. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res. 1998;68(2):179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Greeno JG. Situations, mental models and generative knowledge. In: Klahr D, Kotovsky K, editors. Complex information processing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1989. p. 285–318.Google Scholar
  4. Hanke U, Ifenthaler D, Seel NM. Modeling the world of instruction: creative insight or learnt by advise? Open Educ J. 2011;4(Suppl 1:M10):113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ifenthaler D, Seel NM. A longitudinal perspective on inductive reasoning tasks. Illuminating the probability of change. Learn Instr. 2011;21(4):538–49. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonassen DH. Computers as mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Jonassen DH, Cho YH. Externalizing mental models with mindtools. In: Ifenthaler D, Pirnay-Dummer P, Spector JM, editors. Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 145–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mumford MD. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creat Res J. 2003;15:107–20.Google Scholar
  9. Murray T, Winship L, Bellin R, Cornell M. (2001). Toward glass box educational simulation. Reifying models for inspection and design. AI-ED Workshop. External Representations in AIED: Multiple Forms and Multiple Roles; San Antonio, TX; 2001.Google Scholar
  10. Seel NM. Weltwissen und mentale Modelle. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1991.Google Scholar
  11. Seel NM. Model-centered learning and instruction. Technol, Instr, Cognit Learn. 2003;1(1):59–85.Google Scholar
  12. Seel NM, Ifenthaler D, Pirnay-Dummer P. Mental models and problem solving: technological solutions for measurement and assessment of the development of expertise. In: Blumschein P, Hung W, Jonassen DH, Strobel J, editors. Model-based approaches to learning: using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2009. p. 17–40.Google Scholar
  13. Smith JP, diSessa AA, Roschelle J. Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J Learn Sci. 1993;3(2):115–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stachowiak FJ. Allgemeine Modell theorie. Berlin: Springer; 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA