How Does Pre-Service Teachers' Empathy Influence Their Collaborative Design? An Epistemic Network Analysis

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Kailiang Chen, Juanjuan Chen, Yuwei Sun, Guorui Yan
{"title":"How Does Pre-Service Teachers' Empathy Influence Their Collaborative Design? An Epistemic Network Analysis","authors":"Kailiang Chen,&nbsp;Juanjuan Chen,&nbsp;Yuwei Sun,&nbsp;Guorui Yan","doi":"10.1002/jocb.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Understanding and supporting pre-service teachers' creativity in collaborative instructional design has gained increasing attention. To design novel and effective learning experiences or activities for students, they need to build empathy with students, that is, understanding students' learning needs. This study aimed to (1) explore the patterns of design cognition in empathy-scaffolded pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design, and (2) investigate the differences in patterns of design cognition caused by two empathy interventions. Two classes, comprising 64 pre-service teachers, were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (that used structured empathy strategy) or the control condition (that used unstructured empathy strategy). The pre-service teachers worked in groups of 3–4 members to perform design tasks. Their group discourses were audio-recorded and coded; an epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to analyze the coded data to reveal the design cognitive processes and patterns. The ENA results revealed that empathy was cyclical and intertwined with defining problem and ideation (including generating ideas, building on ideas, elaborating and selecting ideas). Group discussions concentrated more on ideation than empathy. The comparison between the two interventions showed significant difference in design cognition. The experimental groups' discourses exhibited stronger co-occurrences between empathy and ideation, between defining the problem and generating new ideas, and between building on ideas and elaborating ideas. In contrast, the control groups' discourses were less focused on empathy, they concentrated more on the ideation processes. Regarding product creativity, there was no differences in terms of usefulness and novelty across the two conditions. This study can deepen understanding of the complexity and dynamic nature of pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.70040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding and supporting pre-service teachers' creativity in collaborative instructional design has gained increasing attention. To design novel and effective learning experiences or activities for students, they need to build empathy with students, that is, understanding students' learning needs. This study aimed to (1) explore the patterns of design cognition in empathy-scaffolded pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design, and (2) investigate the differences in patterns of design cognition caused by two empathy interventions. Two classes, comprising 64 pre-service teachers, were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (that used structured empathy strategy) or the control condition (that used unstructured empathy strategy). The pre-service teachers worked in groups of 3–4 members to perform design tasks. Their group discourses were audio-recorded and coded; an epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to analyze the coded data to reveal the design cognitive processes and patterns. The ENA results revealed that empathy was cyclical and intertwined with defining problem and ideation (including generating ideas, building on ideas, elaborating and selecting ideas). Group discussions concentrated more on ideation than empathy. The comparison between the two interventions showed significant difference in design cognition. The experimental groups' discourses exhibited stronger co-occurrences between empathy and ideation, between defining the problem and generating new ideas, and between building on ideas and elaborating ideas. In contrast, the control groups' discourses were less focused on empathy, they concentrated more on the ideation processes. Regarding product creativity, there was no differences in terms of usefulness and novelty across the two conditions. This study can deepen understanding of the complexity and dynamic nature of pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design.

职前教师共情对协同设计的影响?认知网络分析
理解和支持职前教师在协同教学设计中的创造性已越来越受到重视。要为学生设计新颖有效的学习体验或活动,他们需要与学生建立共鸣,即理解学生的学习需求。本研究旨在(1)探讨共情框架下职前教师协同教学设计的设计认知模式;(2)探讨两种共情干预对设计认知模式的影响。两个班64名职前教师被随机分配到实验组(采用结构化共情策略)和控制组(采用非结构化共情策略)。职前教师以3-4人为一组,完成设计任务。他们的集体话语被录音并编码;采用认知网络分析(ENA)对编码数据进行分析,揭示设计认知过程和模式。ENA的结果显示,同理心是周期性的,与定义问题和想法(包括产生想法、建立想法、阐述和选择想法)交织在一起。小组讨论更注重创意,而不是同理心。两种干预措施比较,设计认知有显著差异。实验组的话语在移情和构思、定义问题和产生新想法、建立想法和阐述想法之间表现出更强的共现性。相比之下,控制组的话语不太关注同理心,他们更关注思维过程。关于产品创造力,在两种情况下,在有用性和新颖性方面没有差异。本研究可以加深对职前教师协同教学设计的复杂性和动态性的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Creative Behavior
Journal of Creative Behavior Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Creative Behavior is our quarterly academic journal citing the most current research in creative thinking. For nearly four decades JCB has been the benchmark scientific periodical in the field. It provides up to date cutting-edge ideas about creativity in education, psychology, business, arts and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信