La educación en la Technoaldea¿privación de la creatividad?

  1. Valero Matas, Jesús Alberto 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Revista:
Foro de Educación

ISSN: 1698-7799,  1698-7802

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Transferencias, transnacionalización y transformaciones de las políticas educativas (1945-2018)

Volumen: 18

Número: 2

Páginas: 259-275

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.14516/FDE.737 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Foro de Educación

Resumen

Technology can not be considered with respect to creativity and education to be responsible for the death of analog creativity in the 21st century. This work tries to be a reflection on the importance of creativity, but also, like analogical creativity, which is substituted and abused in educational terms by a digital creativity One must keep in mind, following the studies and analyzes developed by social scientists in the 70s of the last century, the importance of creativity. As that analogical creativity (cognoscente and analogical) own of the human being is being replaced by the creativity of the machines or on the machines. That is to say, in the analogy the questions are about how to create to solve problems, in digital they ask the machines to create. Therefore, to develop digital creativity you need analogical creativity. Here we address and analyze this issue.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Amabile, M. T. (1996). Creatividad e innovación. Bilbao: Deusto.
  • Amabile, M. T. (2012). Componetial Theory of Creativity. Boston: Harvard.
  • Arnold L. G., & Mengxue K. (2019). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 395-408. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1489046
  • Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 6, 312-324. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550295
  • Blakeman, R., & Taylor, M. (2017). Technology in the Idea Generation Process: Voices from the Agency. Journal of Advertising Education, 21(1), 6-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/109804821702100104
  • Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The Impact of Technology on Creativity in Design: An Enhancement? Creativity and innovation Management, 19(2), 180-191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x
  • Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
  • Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 577-592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00028.x
  • Coyle, C., & Vaughn, H. (2008). Social networking: Communication revolution or evolution? Bell Labs Technical Journal, 13(2), 13-17.
  • De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking: creativity step by step. Londres: Harper & Row.
  • De Bono, E. (2010). El pensamiento creativo. El poder del pensamiento lateral para la creación de nuevas ideas. México: Paidos.
  • Garaigordobil, M., & Berrueco, L. (2011). Effects of a play program on creative thinking of preschool children. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 608-618.
  • Grant, A., & Grant, G. (2012). Who Killed Creativity?: ...And How Do We Get It Back? New York: Wrightbooks.
  • Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: what is taught, what is learned. Science, 323(5910), 69-71. doi: 10.1126/science.1167190
  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454.
  • Huxley, A. (2013). Un mundo feliz. Madrid: Debolsillo.
  • López-Martínez, O., & Navarro-Lozano, J. (2010). Creatividad e inteligencia: un estudio en Educación primaria. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 28(2), 283-296.
  • Lusk, B. (2010). Digital natives and social media behaviors: An overview. Prevention Researcher, 17, 3-6.
  • Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing Subgoals in Computer Programming Education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44-67.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • Munir, A., Panayiota, V., & Lampros S. (2017). Technology roadmap for the Creative Industries. Creative Industries Journal, 10(1), 40-58. doi: 10.1080/17510694.2016.1247627
  • Pecheanu, E., & Tudorie, C. (2015). Initiatives Towards an Education for Creativity. Procedia, 180, 1520-1526. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.301
  • Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., Philippou, S., & Robinson, S. (2015). The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency. In Wyse, D., Hayward, L., & Pandya, J. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment (pp. 187-201). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Roberts, J. A. (2015). Too much of a good thing: Are You Addicted to Your Smartphone? Austin: Sentia Publishing.
  • Robinson, K. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. London: Viking.
  • Robinson, K. (2015). Escuelas creativas. Barcelona: Grijalbo.
  • Salas, G., & Alexander, J. S. (2008). Technology for institutional enrollment, communication, and student success. New Direction for Service Student, 2008, 103-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.298
  • Timm, D. M., & Duven, C. J. (2008). Privacy and Social Networking Sites. New Direction for Service Student, 124, 89-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.297
  • Toyama, K. (2018). From needs to aspirations in information technology for development. Information Technology for Development, 24(1), 15-36. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1310713
  • Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11-36. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z
  • Valero Matas, J. A. et al. (2016). Creatividad y educación para el siglo XXI desde una perspectiva sociológica. RIPS: Revista de Investigaciones Políticas y Sociológicas, 15(2), 201-222. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15304/rips.15.2.3473
  • Valero Matas, J. A. (2020). Una visión interdisciplinar de la genialidad: la creatividad como factor determinante. In Valero Matas, J. A., & Galindo Calvo, P. (Eds.), Sociología de la Genialidad (pp. 1-18). Madrid: Delta.
  • Valero Matas, J. A., & Coca Jiménez, P. (2020). Creatividad y educación: una revisión crítica, en Valero Matas. In Valero Matas, J. A., & Coca Jiménez, P. (Eds.), Educación, ciudadanía y ciencia en el siglo XXI (pp. 137-150). Valladolid: Ediciones de la Universidad de Valladolid.
  • Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
  • Wang, Q., Chen, W., & Liang, Y. (2011). The Effects of Social Media on College Students. MBA Student Scholarship. 5. Recuperado de https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mba_student
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet