Using a multimedia learning tool to improve creative performance

This study explored the effects of using computer-based multimedia learning materials on creative performance. A multimedia learning tool (MLT) was developed as part of a specific mechanical engineering subject taking into consideration appropriate load on the cognitive system for effective information and creative cognitive processing. The theoretical perspectives and design principles of Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) shaped the development of the MLT. Students’ creative thinking and product creativity were measured using established creativity instruments namely the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS). For creative thinking the results showed that the MLT was instrumental for students to generate flexible and original ideas, but not fluent ideas. This was reflected through students’ product creativity which showed novel and aesthetic qualities, but lacked practicality. Students’ perceptions supported the MLT's partial influence especially through the use of animations. The findings suggest possible effects of dynamic learning materials on creative performance which however require further exploration.

[1]  R. Moreno.  Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods , 2007 .

[2]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Facilitating Flexible Problem Solving: A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2010 .

[3]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice , 2003 .

[4]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study , 2005 .

[5]  Karen O'Quin,et al.  Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test of a Judging Instrument , 1986 .

[6]  Robert D. Tennyson,et al.  Improving problem solving and creativity through use of complex-dynamic simulations , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  H. Gardner.  Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective , 1988 .

[8]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[10]  Steven M. Edwards.  The Technology Paradox: Efficiency Versus Creativity , 2001 .

[11]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers , 2006 .

[12]  D. Campbell.  Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. , 1960, Psychological review.

[13]  F. Paas,et al.  Attention Cueing as a Means to Enhance Learning from an Animation , 2007 .

[14]  Susan P. Besemer.  Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison Among Products--Three Novel Chairs , 1998 .

[15]  Feirong Yuan,et al.  Differential Effects of Expected External Evaluation on Different Parts of the Creative Idea Production Process and on Final Product Creativity , 2008 .

[16]  Susan P. Besemer,et al.  Analysis of Creative Products: Review and Synthesis* , 1981 .

[17]  C. Martindale.  Personality, situation, and creativity. , 1989 .

[18]  S. Mednick.  The associative basis of the creative process. , 1962, Psychological review.

[19]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[20]  Alexandra Yeung,et al.  Still pictures, animations or interactivity – What is more effective for elearning? , 2012 .

[21]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Creativity as a Constrained Stochastic Process. , 2004 .

[22]  Mark A. Runco,et al.  Cognition and creativity , 1995 .

[23]  A. Cropley,et al.  Resolving the paradoxes of creativity: an extended phase model , 2008 .

[24]  Bonnie B. Armbruster.  Metacognition in Creativity , 1989 .