Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines, theoretically and empirically, a methodology for developing university students' creative abilities based on STEAM technologies in a digital learning environment. The aim of the study is to identify and test the didactic mechanisms specific to an adult (university) audience. The work follows a mixed-methods design: the theoretical component critically analyses sources published between 2019 and 2026, while the empirical component reports a quasi-experiment with a control group (86 students). Creativity was measured with three independent instruments: the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, the Consensual Assessment Technique and the K-DOCS self-report scale. The analysis shows that the evidence in the literature regarding the effect of STEAM on creativity is contradictory, and that in meta-analyses the true effect size falls from about 0.53 to 0.29–0.32 once corrected for publication bias. The author refrains from treating STEAM technologies as a guaranteed means of developing student creativity and argues that effectiveness lies not in the technology itself but in andragogically grounded project design. The novelty of the work is expressed in a five-component methodological model oriented towards the little-c to Pro-c transition of the Four-C model.
References
1. O'zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2019-yil 8-oktabrdagi PF-5847-son "O'zbekiston Respublikasi oliy ta'lim tizimini 2030-yilgacha rivojlantirish konsepsiyasini tasdiqlash to'g'risida"gi Farmoni. — Toshkent, 2019.
2. "Raqamli O'zbekiston — 2030" strategiyasi. O'zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2020-yil 5-oktabrdagi PF-6079-son Farmoni. — Toshkent, 2020.
3. O'zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2024-yil 14-oktabrdagi PQ-358-son "Sun'iy intellekt texnologiyalarini rivojlantirish strategiyasi to'g'risida"gi qarori. — Toshkent, 2024.
4. Guilford J.P. Creativity // American Psychologist. — 1950. — Vol. 5, No. 9. — P. 444–454.
5. Amabile T.M. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. — Boulder: Westview Press, 1996. — 336 p.
6. Csikszentmihalyi M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. — New York: Harper Collins, 1996. — 456 p.
7. Kaufman J.C., Beghetto R.A. Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity // Review of General Psychology. — 2009. — Vol. 13, No. 1. — P. 1–12. DOI: 10.1037/a0013688
8. Knowles M.S. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. — Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1984. — 292 p.
9. Kaufman J.C. Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS) // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. — 2012. — Vol. 6, No. 4. — P. 298–308.
10. Amabile T.M. Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. — 1982. — Vol. 43, No. 5. — P. 997–1013.
11. Sio U.N., Lortie-Forgues H. The Impact of Creativity Training: A Meta-Analysis // Psychological Bulletin. — 2024. — Vol. 150, No. 5. — P. 554–585.
12. STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review // Education Sciences. — 2021. — Vol. 11, No. 7. — Art. 331. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11070331
13. Perignat E., Katz-Buonincontro J. STEAM in Practice and Research: An Integrative Literature Review // Thinking Skills and Creativity. — 2019. — Vol. 31. — P. 31–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
14. Mishra P., Koehler M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge // Teachers College Record. — 2006. — Vol. 108, No. 6. — P. 1017–1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
15. OECD. Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. — Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015. — 204 p. DOI: 10.1787/9789264239555-en
16. Papert S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. — New York: Basic Books, 1980. — 230 p.