Flexible thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments

In an era of global changes, flexible thinking is a key competency, necessary for learning in technology-enhanced environments. Advancements in instructional science and educational technologies call for an updated conceptualization of 'flexible thinking' to address current educational challenges. Echoing this need, the goal of this study was to re-conceptualize flexible thinking and to generate a valid and reliable instrument for measuring an individual's inclination to think flexibly in contemporary learning situations. A Six-stage study was designed to assess and validate the new instrument. As a result, the Flexible Thinking in Learning (FTL) scale was generated, consisting of three subscales: Acceptance of new or changing technologies, Open-mindedness to others' ideas, and Adapting to changes in learning situations. Within the framework of the current study, findings confirmed the FTL scale's content, construct, and concurrent validity, indicating stability across populations and over time. Consequently, the FTL scale may serve as both a research instrument and a self-assessment tool. It may assist in the evaluation of learners' inclination to think flexibly or in explaining individual differences regarding the utilization of new learning methods. Yet, generalizability should be carefully considered and additional studies should be conducted to examine the FTL scale among learners from different age groups and academic background. Flexibility is a higher order thinking skill essential for learning in technology-enhanced environments.Flexible thinking in learning is the ability to be open-minded and adapt to new learning methods.The Flexible thinking in learning (FTL) scale is a valid and reliable instrument.The FTL scale can be used as both a research instrument and a self-assessment tool.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[2]  Katerina Ananiadou,et al.  21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries , 2009 .

[3]  Siu Cheung Kong,et al.  An experience of a three-year study on the development of critical thinking skills in flipped secondary classrooms with pedagogical and technological support , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Sara A. McComb,et al.  Team flexibility's relationship to staffing and performance in complex projects: An empirical analysis , 2007 .

[5]  Rand J. Spiro and Jihn-ChangJehng.  Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Theory and Technology for the Nonlinear and Multidimensional Traversal of Complex Subject Matter , 2012 .

[6]  Ellen A. Drost,et al.  Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. , 2011 .

[7]  Miri Barak,et al.  Distance education: towards an organizational and cultural change in higher education , 2012 .

[8]  Gita Taasoobshirazi,et al.  Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors , 2011 .

[9]  Kyle Lewis.  Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  Mary Thorpe,et al.  Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[11]  S. Whitbourne,et al.  Openness to experience, identity flexibility, and life change in adults. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  R. Rubin,et al.  A New Measure of Cognitive Flexibility , 1995 .

[13]  Jordan B. Peterson,et al.  Sources of openness/intellect: cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. , 2005, Journal of personality.

[14]  J. Fleiss.  Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[15]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[16]  J. Guilford,et al.  The nature of human intelligence. , 1968 .

[17]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[18]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[19]  Bertrand M. T. Lin,et al.  An effective approach for test-sheet composition with large-scale item banks , 2006 .

[20]  Richard G Heimberg,et al.  Examination of the known‐groups validity of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale , 2007, Depression and anxiety.

[21]  Pavlo D. Antonenko.  The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research , 2015 .

[22]  John Hattie,et al.  Procedures for Assessing the Validities of Tests Using the "Known-Groups" Method , 1984 .

[23]  Miri Barak,et al.  Wandering: A Web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer,et al.  Perspectives on problem solving and instruction , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Rand J. Spiro,et al.  Modes of openness and flexibility in cognitive flexibility hypertext learning environments , 2006 .

[26]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[27]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  Identifying Areas of Tension in the field of technology-enhanced learning: Results of an international Delphi study , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Individual Adaptability (I-ADAPT) Theory: Conceptualizing the Antecedents, Consequences, and Measurement of Individual Differences in Adaptability , 2006 .

[29]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[30]  J. Pellegrino,et al.  Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century , 2013 .

[31]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[32]  J. Garner.  Conceptualizing the Relations Between Executive Functions and Self-Regulated Learning , 2009, The Journal of psychology.

[33]  Patrick Griffin,et al.  Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills , 2011 .

[34]  Cesar C. Navarrete.  Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case study , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[35]  Robert F. Easley,et al.  Research Note - How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Yuan-Hsuan Lee,et al.  Facilitating critical thinking using the C-QRAC collaboration script: Enhancing science reading literacy in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Beliefs about thinking. , 1991 .

[38]  William Hare,et al.  Portraying science accurately in classrooms : Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism , 2000 .

[39]  Shaul Oreg,et al.  Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[40]  M. Barak.  Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century: a Pedagogical Framework for Technology-Integrated Social Constructivism , 2016, Research in Science Education.

[41]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. , 1997 .

[42]  Sheizaf Rafaeli,et al.  QSIA - a Web-based environment for learning, assessing and knowledge sharing in communities , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[43]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validity in psychological tests. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  Miri Barak,et al.  Closing the Gap Between Attitudes and Perceptions About ICT-Enhanced Learning Among Pre-service STEM Teachers , 2014 .

[45]  Thea Ionescu,et al.  Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. , 2012 .

[46]  Hossam Haick,et al.  Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[47]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2013 .

[48]  Po-Yao Chao,et al.  Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[49]  C. H. Lawshe.  A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY , 1975 .

[50]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[51]  Jonathan Osborne,et al.  Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change , 2014 .