دانلود رایگان مقالات بیس علوم تربیتیدانلود رایگان مقالات پژوهشی علوم تربیتیدانلود رایگان مقالات ژورنالی علوم تربیتیدانلود رایگان مقالات سال 2018دانلود رایگان مقالات وایلی - wileyدانلود رایگان مقاله ISI تکنولوژی آموزشی به زبان انگلیسیدانلود رایگان مقاله ISI علوم تربیتی به زبان انگلیسی سال 2022 و 2023سال انتشار
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد کاوش اثرات آموزش در عملکرد و خودکارآمدی خلاق – وایلی ۲۰۱۸
| مشخصات مقاله | |
| انتشار | مقاله سال ۲۰۱۸ |
| تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | ۱۳ صفحه |
| هزینه | دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد. |
| منتشر شده در | نشریه وایلی |
| نوع نگارش مقاله | مقاله پژوهشی (Research Article) |
| مقاله بیس | این مقاله بیس میباشد |
| نمایه (index) |
Scopus – Master Journal List – JCR
|
| نوع مقاله | ISI |
| ایمپکت فاکتور(IF) | ۱٫۶۱۵ در سال ۲۰۱۷ |
| شناسه ISSN |
۲۱۶۲-۶۰۵۷
|
| شاخص Quartile (چارک) |
Q2 در سال ۲۰۱۷
|
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Exploring the Effects of Creativity Training on Creative Performance and Creative Self-Efficacy: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study |
| ترجمه عنوان مقاله | کاوش اثرات آموزش خلاق در عملکرد خلاق و خودکارآمدی خلاق: شواهدی از یک مطالعه طولی |
| فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
| رشته های مرتبط | علوم تربیتی |
| گرایش های مرتبط | تکنولوژی آموزشی |
| نوع ارائه مقاله | ژورنال |
| مجله | مجله رفتار خلاقانه – The Journal of Creative Behavior |
| کلمات کلیدی | آموزش خلاقیت، عملکرد خلاقانه، خودکارآمدی خلاق، CSE، مطالعه طولی |
| کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی | creativity training, creative performance, creative self-efficacy, CSE, longitudinal study |
| شناسه دیجیتال – doi | https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.234 |
| کد محصول | E8072 |
| وضعیت ترجمه مقاله | ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید. |
| دانلود رایگان مقاله | دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
| سفارش ترجمه این مقاله | سفارش ترجمه این مقاله |
| بخشی از متن مقاله: |
| There is no doubt that creativity and innovation play an important role in fostering organizational performance, success, and growth (Anderson, Potocnik, & Zhou, 2014). In particular, the capability of generating and implementing ideas that are both novel and useful has become a decisive success factor for any organization (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Taking the individualistic perspective, researchers have long investigated personal characteristics and contextual factors as the basis to enhance creativity in the workplace (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Choi, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). These insights led educational institutes as well as other organizations to develop different approaches for encouraging creativity (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Out of these, creativity training programs aiming at developing specific personal dispositions in order to increase participants’ creative problem-solving skills have been the preferred approach (Clapham & Schuster, 1992; Mansfield, Busse, & Krepelka, 1978). Despite researchers’ general agreement on the beneficial results of creativity trainings (Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim, 2017), three questions remain largely unanswered so far. First, to be considered successful, creativity trainings need to generate sustainable and long-lasting effects that should persist beyond the period of the actual training. However, most of the studies investigating creativity trainings are limited to pre- and post-training comparisons of creative performance (CP) with two measurement waves. Only few studies exist that investigate the consistency of creativity training effects so far, and the question whether creativity training effects are long-lasting has not yet been resolved. Second, the question arises whether all participants benefit from such trainings equally in terms of their CP, that is, a participant’s performance regarding a creative task. We assume that training effectiveness highly depends on certain personal (pre-) conditions or individual criteria. Research on learning curves has shown that while people develop a certain skill, returns on training diminish the more the skill is trained. This means that training effects are lower for individuals that are already quite saturated or experienced in a specific domain, and vice versa. Since it would be worth finding out whether the effects revealed in other training settings could also be discovered in the field of creativity, we propose to look at creativity training effects through the lens of such learning curves. Third, an increasing number of studies (e.g. Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009; Tang & Werner, 2017) have shown that creativity trainings may also be able to increase participants’ creative self-efficacy (CSE), that is, the valuation and confidence in one’s own creativity (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007; Puente-Dıaz & Karwowski, 2017; Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011). Other studies, however, seem to contradict these results as they did not find evidence for this effect, and authors have, therefore, questioned whether creativity trainings really are a viable option to increase participants’ CSE (Starkey, McKay, Hunter, & Miller, 2017). In sum, studies regarding the underlying dynamics on how exactly creativity trainings affect participants’ CP and their CSE are still scarce. Since it is highly relevant to understand this complex relationship, there is an urgent need for studies focusing on this topic (Karwowski, 2011). |
