Investigating the Relationship between Using Educational Technology and Creativity and Innovation among Students of Education at the University of Kurdistan

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M.A. student in Curriculum Studies, Department of Education, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.

2 M.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, English Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Education, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.

https://www.doi.org/10.34785/J012.2022.039

Abstract

We are witnessing an increase in technology use which has turned out to be a major element to improve students' teaching and learning processes in today’s educational system. This change has had various positive educational technology outcomes for learners. Using educational technology and innovation is considered one of the essential components of developing creativity and innovation in students. Over time, much attention has been paid to what teachers need to know in order to effectively use technology in the classroom, and in addition, the competencies needed to nurture creative students. Since creativity and technology are vital for the success of educational organizations, especially universities, extensive studies have made efforts in order to determine the relationship between these two areas. These studies examine how various emerging technologies offer many specific benefits to educational organizations. However, there seem to be three outstanding benefits in the realm of creativity and innovation, which is a product of the technological world: an improved ability to the connection and empowerment of learners, an improved ability to organize the knowledge base of educational centers, and an improved ability of the organization to go beyond borders. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between using educational technology and creativity and innovation of students of educational sciences at the University of Kurdistan. Regarding methodology, the current study was applied in terms of purpose. It is a descriptive survey research in terms of method. In this research, the documentary method was utilized, i.e., books, articles, English and Farsi theses, and also a field questionnaire was used to collect the required data. The questionnaire has been prepared and arranged in three parts: The first part includes 4 demographic questions (gender, age, marital status, and education). Of the 43 questions in the main body of the standard questionnaire, 30 questions were on the dimensions of technology, 8 questions measured creativity, and finally, 5 questions investigated innovation concept in the students. All the analyses, descriptive and inferential statistics were performed via the SPSS26 and Smart PLS3 packages. By using Smart PLS3 software, reliability, validity, divergence, and convergence were measured. The participants were students of educational sciences at the University of Kurdistan, including both undergraduate and postgraduate students. In order to determine the sample size, Cochran’s formula was used and 235 participants were selected among 620 students by simple random sampling. In order to examine the educational technology variable, four components including "Educational objectives, educational conditions, educational resources, and educational efficiency" were used on 5 levels of the Likert scale (1 = "very little" to 5 = "very much"). Also, the variable of innovation and creativity (combined creativity and advanced creativity) was validated and measured at 5 levels of the Likert spectrum (1 = "completely disagree" to 5 = "completely agree"). As for the mean and standard deviation of variables of creativity and innovation obtained, the most creativity variable related to "summary" variables with a mean of 3.84 and a standard deviation of 1.08, and the variable of "internal affairs development" with a mean of 3.81 and a standard deviation of 1.12. The lowest variable of creativity according to students related to the variable "lack of proper planning" with a mean of 2.49 and a standard deviation of 1.13. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted in order to assess the relationship between research variables. The results showed a positive and significant relationship between educational goals and educational resources (p<0.01, r=0.73). Also, there was a positive and significant relationship between educational resources and educational conditions (p<0.01, r=69). Further, the Pearson moment correlation for other research variables showed a positive and significant relationship at p<0.01 level. Regarding structural equation model fit, the value of the T statistic calculated for all components and sub-components was higher than 1.96. Thus, the significance of questions and relationships between variables can be confirmed at the 95% confidence level. The second criterion regarding structural equation model fit was R2 coefficients, which represent the percentage of variance explained by the independent variable of a dependent variable. As for R2 values, the data obtained was 0.688 for educational dimensions, and 0.818 for educational conditions. The acquired data for the other dimensions were higher than 0.67 which indicated a strong fit of the structural model of the research. The third criterion in structural equation model fit was the Q2 criterion, which showed the predictive power of the model. The Q2 value for educational technology dimensions and also creativity and innovation was higher than 0.15. which represented a moderate to high structural model fit. Therefore, it can be concluded that due to the predictive value of “learning performance”, which was 0.395, higher than 0.35, this dimension had the strongest predictive value compared to other research dimensions. Finally, after examining and confirming the conceptual model of the research, analyzing data by using PLS, and also results obtained from the connection between variables, path coefficients, T-statistics, significance level, mean, and rank concerning the research questions, with the path coefficient of 0.911, the obtained T= 66.708 was confirmed. Thus, it revealed that there was a positive relationship between educational resources and creativity and innovation of the students. The same positive result was obtained for the relationship between educational conditions and creativity and innovation with a path coefficient of 0.904 and T=80.625. Regarding the third question, the relationship between educational efficiency and creativity and innovation of the students was also positive. Further, the obtained data for the fourth question, path coefficient of 0.898 and T= 70/334 revealed a significant and positive relationship between educational aims and creativity and innovation of the students. In conclusion, based on the findings, it was shown that the educational technology variable was able to explain 57% of the changes in creativity and innovation. Among the dimensions of educational technology, the effect observed from the highest to the lowest, related to educational conditions, educational resources, educational goals, and educational efficiency. As final remarks, it was suggested that education policymakers integrate more technology into course contents, hold educational technology workshops in order to develop creativity and innovation in students, and provide sufficient educational infrastructure to incorporate modern technologies into classrooms

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Al Hashimi, S., Al Muwali, A., Zaki, Y., & Mahdi, N. (2019). The effectiveness of social media and multimedia-based pedagogy in enhancing creativity among art, design, and digital media students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 14(21), 176-190.
Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary invigoration of creativity studies. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 348-351.
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2021). Universities and social innovation for global sustainable development as seen from the south. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162 (February 2020), 120399.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The generality-specificity of creativity : Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC ☆. Learning and Individual Differences.
Ben-Zvi, T., & Carton, T. C. (2014). Applying Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in Business Games. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning.
Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2021). Technology-enhanced creativity: A multiple case study of digital technology-integration expert teachers’ beliefs and practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100791.
Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 23-1200).
Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., & Karpklon, S. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions and experience in using technology for the classroom. Call-Ej, 22(1), 1–24.
Buasuwan, P. (2018). Rethinking Thai higher education for Thailand 4.0. Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(2), 157-173.
Bunjak, A., Černe, M., & Popovič, A. (2021). Absorbed in technology but digitally overloaded: Interplay effects on gig workers’ burnout and creativity. Information and Management, 58(8).
Chen, A., Li, L., Li, X., Zhang, J., & Dong, L. (2013). Study on innovation capability of college students based on extenics and theory of creativity. Procedia Computer Science, 17, 1194–1201.
Derbel, F. (2017). Technology-capable teachers transitioning to technology-challenged schools. Electronic Journal of e-learning, 15(3), 269-280.  
Dron, J. (2022). Educational technology: what it is and how it works. AI and Society, 37(1), 155–166.
Entezari, Y. (2005). Innovative Economy: A New Model for Analysis and Policy Development of Science, Technology and Innovation. Research and Planning in Higher Education, 35(11), 219-256.
Fardanesh, Hashem (2011). Theoretical Foundations of Technology, [In Persian], Second Edition, Tehran Samat Publications..
Grover, V., & Goslar, M. D. (1993), "The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in us organizations", Journal of Management Information Systems, pp. 141-163
Haryani, E., Coben, W. W., Pleasants, B. A., & Fetters, M. K. (2021). Analysis of Teachers' Resources for Integrating the Skills of Creativity and Innovation, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Collaboration, and Communication in Science Classrooms. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(1), 92-102.
Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., Sointu, E. T., & Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and Technology in Education : An International. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409–424.
Kannan, J., & Munday, P. (2018). New trends in second language learning and teaching through the lens of ICT, networked learning, and artificial intelligence. Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a La Comunicacion, 76, 13–30.  
Lidolf, S., & Pasco, D. (2020, May). Educational technology professional development in higher education: A systematic literature review of empirical research. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 35). Frontiers Media SA.
Mishra, P. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Crayons are the Future. TechTrends, 56(5), 13–16.
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(1), 6-19.
Nilakanta, S., & Scamell, R. W. (1990). "The effect of information sources and communication channels on the diffusion of innovation in a data base development environment", Management Science, 36 (1), pp. 24-40.
Rajabi Khozani, M., Derikondi, Z., & Rezaian, H. (2015). Investigating the effect of information and communication technology training courses on the creativity of trainees [In Persian]. Education Technology, 9(3), 201-211.
Rajaei, Z., Mohemi, & Arghavani, A. (2017). The impact of informational technology on the Cretivity and Entrepreneurship of the Birjand Universities students [In Persian]. Development of Jundishapour Education, 8(Special issue), 168-173, https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=465305
Saberi Dehkordi, A., Esmailikarani, R., & Jazayeri Farsani, S. (2019). The effect of Flipped Teaching on Creativity and Motivation of 8th-Grade Students in Work and Technology Course [In Persian]. Islamic Research and Studies, 5(1), 14-28.
Sartipi, F. (2020). Diffusion of innovation theory in the realm of environmental construction. Journal of Construction Materials, 1(4), 2-4.
Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional strategies to support creativity and innovation in education. Journal of education and learning, 6(4), 201-208.
Sharif, R. (2019). The relations between acculturation and creativity and innovation in higher education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 28, 100287.
Shubina, I., & Kulakli, A. (2019). Pervasive Learning and Technology Usage for Creativity Development in Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(1).
Songkhram, N. (2013). Creating innovation: Changed learners to innovators. Bangkok, Thailand.
Stolaki, A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). The Creativity Challenge Game: An educational intervention for creativity enhancement with the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Computers and Education, 123, 195–211.
Tatli, Z., İpek Akbulut, H., & Altınışık, D. (2019). Changing Attitudes Towards Educational Technology Usage in Classroom: Web 2.0 Tools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 1–19.
Tuma, F. (2021). The use of educational technology for interactive teaching in lectures. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 62, 231-235.
Whattananarong, K. (2011). Innovation and technical education technology. Bangkok, Thailand: King Mongkut’s University of Technology, North Bangkok.
Yalcinalp, S., & Avci, Ü. (2019). Creativity and emerging digital educational technologies: A systematic review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 18(3), 25-45.
Yigitcanlar, T., Mehmood, R., & Corchado, J. M. (2021). Green artificial intelligence: Towards an efficient, sustainable and equitable technology for smart cities and futures. Sustainability, 13(16), 8952.
Yu, T. K., Lin, M. L., & Liao, Y. K. (2017). Understanding factors influencing information communication technology adoption behavior: The moderators of information literacy and digital skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 196–208.
Zanganeh, H., Mousavi, S., & Badali, M. (2013). The Effect of Using Information And Communication Technology on Developing Creative Thinking [In Persian]. Innovation and creativity in humanities, 3(2), 39-59. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=242858.
Research in Teaching
Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
October 2022
Pages 102-76

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics