Creatividad y ecofeminismo en la formación de maestrosAnálisis cualitativo de cuentos digitales

  1. Echegoyen Sanz, Yolanda
  2. Martín Ezpeleta, Antonio
Journal:
Profesorado: Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado

ISSN: 1989-6395,  1138-414X

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 25

Issue: 1

Pages: 23-44

Type: Article

DOI: 10.30827/PROFESORADO.V25I1.15290 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Profesorado: Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado

Abstract

This work investigatesself-assessment of creativity in preservice teachers, while analyzing creativity indigital stories created by the same group of alumni. These were part of a didactic proposal based on interdisciplinarity and ecofeminism, a key movement to assimilate the role of women in nature preservation. The sample is composed of93 students from theGrades of Teacher in Primary Education and Early Chilhood Education. Results obtained by completing the creativity test K-DOCS show that preservice teachers obtain high values in the self/everyday and scholarly domains, with intermediate values in the rest. Menshow highervalues than women in all domains exceptthe artistic one. There are statistically significant differences between genders for all domains except self/everyday.There were no significant differences depending on secondary studies. The ecofeminist digital stories created were then analyzed using Atlas.ti and the results show that the real creativity of preservice teachers is low and there is no correlation between the self-perception of creativity and product creativity

Bibliographic References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the socialpsychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Andersson, K., Hussénius, A., & Gustafsson, C. (2009). Gender theory as a tool for analysing science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 336-343. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.011.
  • Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creative Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177. DOI: 10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7.
  • Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain-specific? En J. C. Kaufman y R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511763205.021.
  • Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75-105. DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x.
  • Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  • Cela-Ranilla, J. M., Esteve González, V., Esteve Mon, F., González Martínez, J., & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2017). El docente en la sociedad digital: una propuesta basada en la pedagogía transformativa y en la tecnología avanzada. Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación de profesorado, 21(1), 403-422.
  • Echegoyen Sanz, Y. (2019). Sostenibilidad y género. El ecofeminismo y su dimensión educativa. En H. Rausell y M. Talavera (coords.), Género y Didácticas. Una mirada crítica, una aproximación práctica, (pp. 225-246). Valencia: Tirant lo Blanc.
  • Faletič, L., & Avsec, A. (2019). Validation of the Slovene form of Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. Psiholoska Obzorja, 28, 40-52. DOI: 10.20419/2019.28.499.
  • Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. En R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity, (pp. 57-82). Washington: American Psychologist Association. DOI: 10.1037/10692-005.
  • Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood. Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 62-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00536-6.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 255-268. DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1995.tb01399.x.
  • Flys Junquera, C. (2015). Ecocrítica y ecofeminismo. Diálogo entre la filosofía y la crítica literaria. En A. H. Puleo (coord.), Ecología y género en diálogo interdisciplinar, (pp. 307-320). Madrid: Plaza y Valdés.
  • Gifford, R., & Sussman, R. (2012). Environmental attitudes. En S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, (pp. 65-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004
  • Gough, A. (1999). Recognising women in environmental education pedagogy and research: Toward an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 143-161. DOI: 10.1080/1350462990050202
  • Henderson, K. A. (1997). Ecofeminism and Experiential Education. The Journal of Experiential Education, 20(3), 130-133.
  • Herrero, Y. (2016). Una mirada para cambiar la película. Ecología, ecofeminismo y sostenibilidad. Ediciones Dyskolo.
  • Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space, Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152-165. DOI: 10.1080/10400410902855259.
  • Kara, N., Cigdem, C., & Cagiltay, K. (2013). Investigating the activities of children toward a smart storytelling toy. Educacional Technology & Society, 16(1), 28-43.
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1065-1082. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1255.
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (KDOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308. DOI: 10.1037/a0029751.
  • Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative – but not in Mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143-155. DOI: 10.2190/26HQ-VHE8-GTLN-BJJM.
  • Kaufman, J. C., Waterstreet, M. A., Ailabouni, H. S., Whitcomb, H. J., Roe, Ak. K., & Riggs, M. (2009). Personality and self-perceptions of creativity across domains. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29(3), 193-209. DOI: 10.2190/IC.29.3.c.
  • Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M. L., & Baer, J. (2010). The American idol effect: Are students good judges of their creativity across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(1), 3-17. DOI: 10.2190/EM.28.1.b.
  • Kerslake, L., & Gifford, T. (coords., 2013). Feminismo/s. Revista del centro de estudios sobre la mujer de la Universidad de Alicante, monográfico “Ecofeminismo/s: mujeres y naturaleza”.
  • Laso y León, E. (2010). La literatura infantil y juvenil: el nacimiento de una conciencia. En C. Flys Junquera, J.M. Marrero Henríquez, & J. Barella Vigal (Eds.), Ecocríticas. Literatura y medio ambiente (pp. 339-370). Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
  • Lee, K. H. (2005). The relationship between creative thinking ability and creative personality of preschoolers. International Education Journal, 6(2), 194-199.
  • López Mújica, M. (2012). Literatura, ecología y educación. En VV. AA., Comunicación y escrituras. En torno a la lingüística y la literatura francesas, (pp. 531-540). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias.
  • Lubart, T., & Guignard, J.-H. (2004). The Generality-Specificity of Creativity: A Multivariate Approach. En R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization, (pp. 43–56). Worcester: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/10692-004
  • Martín Ezpeleta, A., & Echegoyen Sanz, Y. (2020). Actitudes medioambientales en el aula de literatura. Profesorado: Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 24(1), 184-202. DOI: 10.30827/profesorado.v24i1.8504
  • Martos Núñez, E., Campos Fernández-Figares, M., & Martínez Ezquerro, A. (2017). Superando la dicotomía entre humanidades y ciencias. De las narrativas míticas a la difusión científica a través de la cultura del agua. CTS. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, 12 (35), 177-182.
  • Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1998). La praxis del ecofeminismo. Biotecnología, consumo y reproducción. Barcelona: Icaria.
  • Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (2009). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processess, 15(1), 37-72. DOI: 10.1080/01638539209544801
  • Ortega Béjar, M. A., Llamas, F., & López-Fernández, V. (2017). Efecto de un programa de enseñanza creativa en las inteligencias múltiples y la creatividad en alumnos de 3 años. Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 21 (2), 67-83.
  • Peinado, F., Francisco, V., Herva’s, R., & Gerva’s, P. (2010). Assessing the Novelty of Computer-Generated Narratives Using Empirical Metrics. Minds & Machines, 20, 565-588. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-010-9209-8.
  • Phillips, M., & Rumens, N. (Eds., 2016). Contemporary perspectives on ecofeminism. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Prádanos, L. I. (2015). La enseñanza del español en la era del antropoceno. Hacia la integración de la sostenibilidad en las clases de español como lengua extranjera. Hispania, 98(2), 333-345. DOI: 10.1353/hpn.2015.0056
  • Priest, T. (2006). Self-evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music, 34(1), 47-61. DOI: 10.1177/0305735606059104
  • Puleo, A. H. (2011). Ecofeminismo para otro mundo posible. Madrid: Cátedra.
  • Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of self-perceptions of creativity: Is it a useful criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 107-114. DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.676980
  • Runco, M. A. (2010). Testing creativity. En P. Peterson, E. Baker y B. McGaw (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education, 3ª edición, (pp. 170-174). Elsevier Science. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00239-6
  • Russell, C. L., & Bell, A. C. (1996). A politized ethic of care: environmental education from an ecofeminist perspective. En K. Warren (Ed.) Women’s voices in experiential education, (pp. 172-181). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.
  • Shiva, V. (2006). Earth democracy: justice, sustainability and peace. Londres: Zed Books Ldt.
  • Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087-1090. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015.
  • Spencer, M. E., & Nichols. S. E. (2010). Exploring Environmental Education through ecofeminism: narratives of embodiment of science. En A. Bodzin, B. Shiner Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.) The inclusión of Environmental Education in Science Teacher Education, (pp. 255-266). New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9222-9_17.
  • Sturgeon, N. (1997). Ecofeminist natures: race, gender, feminist theory and political action. Londres: Routledge.
  • Torrance, P. (1976). Tests de pensée créative. Paris: Les Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
  • Trilling, B., & Fadel C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • UN (2015). Transformar nuestro mundo. La agenda 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&Lang=S. Recuperado el 10.1.20.
  • Villalba, E. (2017). Critical Thinking in Relation to Creativity. En P. Peterson, E. Baker y B. McGaw (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, (pp. 323-325). Elsevier Science. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.06160-5.
  • Wu, J., & Chen, D.-T.V. (2020). A systematic review of educational digital storytelling. Computers and Education, 147, 103786. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103786.
  • Yilmaz, R. M., & Goktas, Y. (2017). Using augmented reality techology in storytelling activities: examining elementary students’ narrative skill and creativity. Virtual Reality, 21, 75-89. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-016-0300-1.
  • Zell, S. K. (1998). Ecofeminism and the science classroom: a practical approach. Science Education, 7(2), 143-158. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008654323091.
Data source: Dialnet