Creativity of Trainee Technology Teachers of the Baltic Countries as Readiness to Educate Learners Meeting the Needs of the Labor Market of the Beginning of the 21st Century
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol1.305Keywords:
Technologies (home economics), Technology teacher, creativity, expression of creativityAbstract
The paper analyzes the requirements for the labor market at the beginning of the 21st century, and overviews the novelties of employee assessment and selection which make a claim on the school and higher education, in particular teacher training. The priority for a creative society is a creative participant in the labor market. The needs of the multicultural market can be met by people who were brought up in a stable culture and are able to offer uniqueness and novelty, therefore, the paper focuses on the Baltic countries which are similar in their historical, political and geographical situation. The article analyzes the creativity of the trainee Technology teachers in their final years of study in the Baltic countries. Creativity breeds creativity, hence, the creativity of trainee teachers is analyzed as their readiness to educate learners who would meet the requirements of the labor market of the beginning of the 21st century. The activity of a creative person is relevant in diverse contexts from the school to the employer. Technology teachers were selected due to the particularity of their subject. In classes of home economics different school subjects are applied practically, thus the creativity of Technology teachers is becoming exclusive in the context of preparing learners for life. Relating the literature review and the data of a qualitative analysis, it can be anticipated that a creative teacher of Technologies in the Baltic countries can be an indicator of an attractive and successful school of the beginning of the 21st century.
References
Abreu, M.; Faggian, A.; Comunian, R.; McCann, P. (2012). Life is short, art is long': the persistent wage gap between Bohemian and non-Bohemian graduates. Annals of Regional Science. October 2012, Vol. 49 (2), p. 305-321.
Arias, J. J.; Scafildi, B. (2009). When Does Teacher Licensure Make Sense? B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy. 2009, Vol. 9 (1), preceding p. 1-45.
Bradley, F. (2012). Creativity: does place matter? London Review of Education. July 2012, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 145–157.
Girdauskienė, L. (2013). The Key Factors for Creativity Implementation and Knowledge Creation in An Organization: The Structural Approach. Economics & Management. Vol. 18 (1), p. 176-182.
Gong, Y.; Cheung, S. Y.; Wang, M.; Huang J.C. (2012). Unfolding the Proactive Process for Creativity: Integration of the Employee Proactivity, Information Exchange, and Psychological Safety Perspectives. Journal of Management. Vol. 38 (5), p. 1611-1633.
Haifeng, Q. (2010). Talent, creativity and regional economic performance: the case of China. Annals of Regional Science. August 2010, Vol. 45 (1), p133-156.
Hong, J. C.; Horng, J. S.; Lin, C. L.; ChanLin, (2008). Competency disparity between pre-service teacher education and in-service teaching requirements in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development. January 2008, Vol. 28 (1), p. 4-20.
Jieun, P.; Sujin, L.; Eun, J. J.; Kaist, S. (2010). The Influence of Temporal Fit/Nonfit on Creativity in the Leader-Subordinate Context: The Moderating Role of Task Enjoyment versus Performance Concern. Seoul Journal of Business. December 2010, Vol. 16 (2), p. 143-171.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Is Creativity Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), p. 251–259.
LR švietimo įstatymas (2011/05/26). Vilnius, Sapnų sala, Švietimo ir mokslo ministerijos Švietimo aprūpinimo centras (translation: Law on Education of the Republic of (05/26/2011). Vilnius: Island of Dreams, the Education Supply Center of the Ministry of Education).
Marrocu, E.; Paci, R. (2013). Regional Development and Creativity. International Regional Science Review. July 2013, Vol. 36 (3), p. 354-391.
Miller, A. H.; Imrie, B. W.; Cox, K. (2014). Student Assessment in Higher Education – A Handbook for Assessing Performance. Routledge, London, New York, p. 288.
Morgan, M. (2004). From production line to drama school: higher education for the future of tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 16 (2), p. 91-99.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York, p. 252.
Papert, S.; Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, New York, p. 518.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (Calif.) [etc.], Sage Publications, p. 598.
Pradinio ir pagrindinio ugdymo bendrosios programos (Technologijos) (2008). LR Švietimo ir mokslo ministerija, Vilnius. (translation: Lithuanian General Education Programmes for Technologies (2008). LR Ministry of Education, Vilnius. [online] [19.12.2014]. Available at <http://portalas.emokykla.lt/bup/Puslapiai/pagrindinis_ugdymas_bendras.aspx>; <http://portalas.emokykla.lt/bup/Documents/Pradinis%20ir%20pagrindinis%20ugdymas/Technologijos.pdf .
Rego, A.; Junior, D. R.; Cunha, M. P.; Stalbaum, G.; Neves, P. (2014). Store creativity mediating the relationship between affective tone and performance. Managing Service Quality. Vol. 24 (1), p. 63-85.
Scott, G. A. (2007) Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts: GAO-07-861T. GAO Reports. No. 5 (17), p. 1-17.
Statauskienė, L. (2003). Technologinio ugdymo paradigmos erdvė pasaulyje ir Lietuvoje. Pedagogika (translation: Space of Technology Education Paradigm in the World and in Lithuania, Pedagogy), Vol. 66, p. 15–23.
Statauskienė, L. (2005). Technologinio ugdymo didaktinių komponentų ir ugdymo proceso dalyvių santykio harmonizavimas. Daktaro disertacija. (translation: The harmonization of the connection between didactic components of technology education and participants of educational process. Doctoral Dissertation), Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, Kaunas, p. 182.
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights About Creativity: Questioned, Rejected, Ridiculed, Ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (3), p. 313-322.
Urhahne, D. (2011). Teachers Judgments of Elementary Students' Ability, Creativity and Task Commitment. Talent Development & Excellence. Vol. 3 (2), p. 229-237.
Žygaitienė, B.; Česnavičienė, J.; Švelnienė, D.; Vaivadienė, E.; Numgaudienė, A.; Pošiūnaitė. K. (2014). Technologinis ugdymas Lietuvos bendrojo ugdymo mokyklose: mokslo studija. Vilnius: Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla (translation: Technology Education in General Education Schools in Lithuania: Science Study. Vilnius: Publishing House of Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences), p. 90.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
