Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Educational Action Research to Achieve the Essential Competencies of the Future Cover

Educational Action Research to Achieve the Essential Competencies of the Future

Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
Volume 18 (2016): Issue 1 (June 2016)
By:   
Open Access
|Jun 2016
References

References

  1. Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard business review, 76(5), 76-87.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Bebre, R. (2003). Kreativitātes psiholog̔ijas pētījumi Latvijā. Rīga: RaKa.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Beghetto, R. (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity? The Educational Forum (69), 254-263.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Binkley, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, et al. (Ed.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 17-66).
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1), 9-21.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Cedefop, (2008). Future skill needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Chapnick, S., & Meloy, J. (2005). Renaissance eLearning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning: Wiley.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L., & Ambrose, D. (1999). Adaptation and Creativity. In M. A. P. Runco, S. R. (Ed.), Enciclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 1). San Diego, USA, London: Academic Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools : tensions and dilemmas. London: Continuum.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis M. (Ed.). (2011). Future Work Skills 2020: Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Davis, G. (1999). Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes. In M. A. P. Runco, S. R. (Ed.), Enciclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 165-185). San Diego, USA, London: Academic Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Dick, B. (2009). Theory in action research. Action research, 7(5), 5-12.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. EC. (2008). Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation. A Background Paper. Slovenia: Slovenian EU Council Presidency.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. EC. (2008a). The European Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/leaflet_en.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. ELGPN. (2014). European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from http://www.elgpn.eu/elgpndb/search/metadata/view/251
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Grišāne, O. (2008). Designing environment for research and learning in secondary school. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 10, 17-31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Grundspeņķis, J., Anohina, A. (2005). Agents in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: State of the Art. RTU zinātniskie raksti, 5.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Iliško, D. (2007). Teachers as agents of societal change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 7, 14-26.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Kapenieks, A. (2009). Zināšanu sabiedrības tehnolog̔ijas un jaunā mūžizglītība. Latvijas vēsture, 1(73), 6-14.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Kapenieks, J. (2010a). Empowering users by applying the action research approach in e-studies. Paper presented at the eLearning Baltics 2010, Rostock, Germany.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Kapenieks, J. (2010b). Action reserch for creating knowledge in e-learning environment. Paper presented at the 8th International JTEFS/BBCC conference “Sustainable development. Culture. Education”, Paris, France.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Kapenieks, J. (2011b). Collaboration trends during action research in an e-learning environment for developing and acquiring effective personal knowledge. Paper presented at the CSEDU 2011 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Kapenieks, J., & Salīte, I. (2012). Action reserch for creating knowledge in e-learning environment. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 14(2), 111-129. DOI: 10.2478/v10099-012-0012-x.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. Kevin Barge, J., & Fairhurst, G. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4(3), 227-251.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Penguin Books.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Kostuolas - Makrakis, N. (2010). Developing and applying critical and transformative model to address education for sustainable development in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 12(2), 17-26.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Lefrançois, G. (2000). Psychology for Teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved May 6, 2016, from http://sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work, 39(3).
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Olson, H. (1995). Quantitative ‘versus’ qualitative research: The wrong question. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from http://www.ualberta.ca/dept/slis/cais/olson.htm
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Runco, M. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Russ, S. (2003). Play and creativity: developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (3), 291-303.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Salīte, I. (2008). Educational action research for sustainability: Constructing a vision for the future in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 10, 5-16.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Salīte, I., Mičule, I., Kravale, M., Ili-ko, Dz., & Stakle, A. (2007). Towards the sustainability in teacher education: promise of action research. Education and sustainable development, 2.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in Second Life. Educational Research, 52(2), 169-182.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. Simplicio, J. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Štāle, G., Slaidiņš, I., & Kapenieks, A. (2005). New approach of e-learning solutions for empowerment of people in regional development context. Paper presented at the ICTE in Regional Development: Annual Proceedings of Vidzeme University College, Valmiera, Latvia.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. UNESCO. (2011). ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/internationalstandard-classification-of-education.aspx
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Whitehead, J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research, 7(1), 85-99.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/curriculum_and_teaching_innovation2.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0008 | Journal eISSN: 1691-5534 | Journal ISSN: 1691-4147
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 95 - 110
Published on: Jun 28, 2016
Published by: Daugavpils University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
e-learning,
action research,
competencies,
collaborative learning,
adaptive thinking
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Education,
Education, other

© 2016 Jānis Kapenieks, published by Daugavpils University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 18 (2016): Issue 1 (June 2016)
Previous article
Next article