exploring scientific creativity of 7th grade students

 EXPLORING SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF 7TH GRADE STUDENTS Esin Şahin PEKMEZ Ege University Izmir / TURKEY [email protected] Hilal AKTAMIŞ Adnan Menderes University Aydin / TÜRKEY [email protected] Bilge Can TAŞKIN Pamukkale University Denizli / TÜRKEY [email protected] ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to adapt the scientific creativity test developed by Hu & Adey (2002) into Turkish, and to make the reliability analysis. In addition, the responses given by the students have been presented as categorized for the originality step and the evaluation on the answers have been discussed. In this purpose, this study is to determine the scientific creativity of the students by performing a validity and reliability study on the scientific creativity scale regarding determination of scientific creativity of primary education 7th grade students. Key words: Scientific creativity, scientific creativity tests, scientific processes. YEDİNCİ SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİLİMSEL YARATICILIKLARINI BELİRLEME ÖZET Bu çalışmanın amacı Hu ve Adey (2002) tarafından geliştirilen bilimsel yaratıcılık testinin Türkçe’ye uyarlan‐
masıdır. Ek olarak ilköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin teste verdiği cevaplar kategorilere ayrılarak öğrencilerin bilimsel yaratıcılıkları belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda bilimsel yaratıcılık testi Türkçe’ye çev‐
rilerek, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları ilköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerine uygulanarak yapılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Bilimsel yaratıcılık, bilimsel yaratıcılık testi, bilimsel süreçler Introduction Weisberg (1986) claimed that creativity occurs through a series of small steps in which earlier ideas are modified and elaborated. The nature of creativity occurs when the problem solver runs into obstacles, proposes solutions, runs into further obstacles, and then refines and elaborates the earlier solutions. E. Paul Torrance (1962) defined creativity as “the process of sensing gaps or disturbing missing elements; and com‐
204 municating the results, possibly modifying and retesting the hypotheses” (stated in Houtz, 1994). Creativity is a thinking and respon‐
ding process that involves connecting with our previous experience, responding to stimuli (objects, symbols, ideas, people, situations), and generating at least one unique combination (Parnes 1963, stated in Isenberg & Jalongo, 1997). From a psycho‐
logist’s point of view, creativity is the ability to make something new out of available and stored information (Isenberg & Jalongo, Journal of Qafqaz University Exploring Scientific Creativity of 7th Grade Students 1997). Researchers agree that creativity is the production of useful new products and ideas (Amabile, 1983), ability to wonder, ability to solve problems, understanding the world around you, seeking solutions and ability to think (Torrance, 1988; Weisberg, 1986; Sternberg, 1988). According to Torrance, central features of creativity are fluency, flexibility and originality (Hu and Adey, 2002): ‘Fluency means the number of original ideas produced, Flexibility is the ability to ‘change tack’, not to be bound by an established approach after that approach is found no longer to work efficiently. Originality can be explained statistically: an answer which is rare, which occurs only occasionally in a given population, would be considered original’. Scientific creativity, what does it mean? Although creativity has been studied by the psychologists and researchers for many years, studies on ‘scientific creativity’ and creativity of scientists are rare (Mansfield and Buse, 1981; stated in Liang, 2002). It is accepted that creativity is an important aspect of scientific skills. Problem solving, hypothesis formulation, experiment plan‐
ning and technical innovation require a specific type of creativity peculiar to science. A person can be creative in a specific field. For instance, one may be creative in chemistry but not in drawing (Liang, 2002). Therefore, artistic creativity should be differentiated from scientific creativity (Lin et al., 2003). Our understanding of the difference between artistic creativity and scientific creativity is clarified in the following. Basically, scientific creativity is the ability to find and solve new problems and the ability to formulate hypotheses; it usually involves some addition to our prior knowledge, whereas artistic creativity may Number 26, 2009 give some new representation of life or feelings (Liang, 2002). Scientific creativity is defined by Moravcsik (1981) as: “Scientific creativity may be view as the attainment of new and novel steps in realizing the objectives of science. Scientific creativity can manifest itself “in the conception of new ideas contributing to scientific knowledge itself, in the formulation of new theories of science, in the devising of new experiments to probe nature’s law, in the development scientific ideas applied to particular domains of practical interest, in the realization of new organiza‐
tional features of scientific research and of scientific community, in the novel implemen‐
tation of plans and blueprints for scientific activities, in trail‐blazing undertakings to transmit the scientific outlook into the public mind, and in many other realms” Hu and Adey (2002) have been defined the structure of scientific creativity as below: 1. Scientific creativity is different ‐from artistic or linguistic creativity ‐ since it is concerned with creative science experi‐
ments, creative scientific problem finding and solving. 2. Scientific creativity is a kind of ability which includes intellectual factor. 3. Scientific creativity depends on scientific knowledge and scientific process skills. 4. Creativity and analytical intelligence are two different factors of a singular function originating from mental ability. Additionally, Mansfield and Buse (1981, stated in Liang, 2002) addressed their five stages of creative process in science fields: 1. The selection of the problem sensitively. 2. Extended efforts to solve the problem. 3. Deciding and using experimental, methodological and cognitive skills. 4. Changing the decisions according to the hypotheses in the 3rd item above. 5. Verification and elaboration needs repeating the experiment. 205
Esin Şahin Pekmez, Hilal Aktamış, Bilge Can Taşkın In summary, the aspects of scientific creativity would be summarized as follows: being sensitive to any problems, ability to product new ideas which are technologi‐
cally accepted, ability to wonder, under‐
standing the world around, ability to prob‐
lem solving, seeking solutions, designing experiments, imagination, identifying difficulties, making predictions or hypothe‐
sizing, etc. The relationship between scientific creativity and scientific process skills Scientific research requires creativity in the sense of creating original solutions and new understanding. Problem solving in science requires a student to explore his/her own repertoire, to imagine a variety of routes to a solution. This is the justifi‐
cation for considering scientific creativity as worthy of attention in the education of students who will either become scientists or who need an understanding of society (Hu and Adey, 2002). Solving problems in science is a process in which investigative/inquiry activities aim at giving opportunities to students for to solve a problem using their skills and their conceptual framework (Gott and Duggan, 1995). By doing these, students use their skills of applying the scientific processes. These skills can be grouped within 5 major categories (Sahin‐Pekmez, 2000): 1. Identification of the problem and formu‐
lating hypothesis. 2. Designing the experiment by deciding the variables. 3. Making measurements, observation and finding the evidence and defining them. 4. Presentation of the data using tables and graphs. 5. Evaluation of the process by criticizing the validity and reliability of the data and drawing conclusions. 206 In somewhere else these skills are grouped into two as the following: Basic skills: Observation, classification, communication, measurement, estimation, prediction, inference. Integrated skills: Identifying and controlling variables, hypothesizing, experimenting, drawing graphs, interpreting, modeling (Martin et. al., 1998). The skills are also encompassed within 4 major categories (Dhillon, 1996). 1. Formulation includes identification of the problem, hypothesizing, prediction of the outcomes, and planning of the study. 2. Implementation includes observing, making measurements and recording. 3. Evidence involves analyzing and inter‐
preting the data, and drawing conclusions. 4. Explanation entails providing the link between theory and the findings. The all categories above are actually explaining scientific process skills which are much related to the components of scientific creativity. The creativity component of the investi‐
gative work could be measured by checking the students’ skills of producing a problem and deciding the variables, planning experiments, trying different methods and etc. It is believed that finding out students’ scientific process skills will also show how much students’ have the scientific creativity components. Findings are also helpful for science teachers in order to understand their specifications as a scientist. ‘Scientific creativity test’ which measures scientific process skills and scientific creativeness of students (Hu and Adey, 2002) has been selected for this study. So that it can be found the correlation between students’ scientific creativity and students’ scientific process skills. Table 1 explains the relation‐
Journal of Qafqaz University Exploring Scientific Creativity of 7th Grade Students ship between scientific process skills and scientific creativity. Table 1. Scientific Process Skills and Scientific Creativity The aspects of scientific process skills The aspects of scientific creativity Raising question – problem defining Finding out problem, Curiosity Hypothesis formulation – variable determination Searching for solution ways, understanding the world around, making use of previous experiences. Planning a fair test Designing an experiment using existing knowledge Measurement, data collection, data presentation Testing whether the used method or hypothesis is appropriate or not, determining a new method if required Evaluation, coming to a conclusion Producing new scientific and technological ideas As stated before, the aim of this study is to determine the scientific creativity of the students by performing a validity and reliability study on the scientific creativity scale regarding determination of scientific creativity of primary education 7th grade students. The test items in this research have included both components of scientific creativity and scientific process. Methodology The Sample The test was administered to a sample of 79 students selected amongst 7th grade from 2 primary schools in Turkey. The schools were sub‐urban mixed comprehensive schools with broad ability ranges. 56% of the students (n: 44) were female and 44% (n: 35) were male. Instrument The question of assessing scientific creativity has been considered in detail by Hu and Adey (2002). They developed a Scientific Creativity Structure Model. On the basis of this model they designed a paper and pencil test: The Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School Students. The first draft of the test was administered to 160 secondary students in England by Hu and Adey. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of internal consistency of this test is .893. Some questions of the original test have been modified and some other questions have been added according to the Turkish language and culture. Pupils were asked to answer the questions during a 40 minutes lesson period. Their teacher encouraged them by having said that their attitudes of being a scientist were going to be measured. They were also verbally asked to give their personal details, like gender, age and name. Below table 2 explains the original items and the items have used in this study and their relations to scientific process skills (SPS) and scientific creativity skills (SCS). Table 2. Description of the test items Original items Our items SPS SCS 1) Please write down as many as possible scientific uses as you can for a piece of glass. For example, make a test tube. Please write down as many as possible scientific uses (for example in a lab) as you can a) for a plastic bottle, b) for a can. *Problem solving skill *Ability to produce new ideas which are technologically accepted
Reason of change: It has been changed since the students have great possibility of facing many plastic bottles and cans in their daily life. Number 26, 2009 *being sensitive to difficulties and problems 207
Esin Şahin Pekmez, Hilal Aktamış, Bilge Can Taşkın 2) Please think up as many possible improvements as you can to a regular bicycle making it more interesting, more useful and more beautiful. For example, make the tires reflective, so they can be seen in the dark. * Hypothesizing * Ability to produce technologically accepted * Designing experiment new ideas * Data evaluation Please think up as many possible improvements as you can to a regular school bag, making it more interesting, more useful and more beautiful and please tell why you need the improvements you stated and how could you prove that your suggestions are suitable? Reason of change: Students use school bags while they come and go to school and they experience problems regarding this matter. 3) Suppose there was no gravity; describe what the world would be like? For example, human beings would be floating. a) Suppose there was no night, always daytime, describes what the world would be like? b) Suppose the world is not turning around the sun, describes what the world would be like? * Hypothesizing * Scientific imagination * Estimation * Ability to wonder * Explaining the results
* Understanding the world around * Ability to problem solving * Ability to problem solving * Ability to wonder * Seeking solutions * Designing experiment imagination * Identifying difficulties Reason of change: These concepts have been chosen since they are related to the subjects they face in science courses.
4) There are two kinds of napkins. How can you test which is better? Please write down as many possible methods as you can and the instruments, principles and simple procedure. There are two kinds of toilet papers. How can you test which is better? Please write down as many possible methods as you can and the instruments, principles and simple procedure. Reason of change: There is a TV ad in which the above experiment is done. This test is applied by placing coins on two different branded toilet papers on two jars in order to clarify which toilet paper brand is of a better quality. This has been changed in order to understand whether the students are influenced by this ad or not, and to see if they are able to create different solutions. * Making prediction 5) Please design an apple‐
It is the same with the picking machine. Draw a original item picture; point out the name and function of each part. * Seeking solutions * Hypothesizing * Being productive * Designing experiment * Designing experiment * Imagination Results Modifications and the development of the test First, the item discrimination was calculated in terms of a t ratio, taking the upper and lower 27 percent cases of the 208 sample. Items were only considered for the final form of the test if the t value is significant at the 0.01 level or less (p<0.01). Secondly, the responses given by the students have been scored by two different researchers for reliability. Pearson product‐
moment correlation coefficients have been Journal of Qafqaz University Exploring Scientific Creativity of 7th Grade Students measured in order to find the scoring reliability of the test (the consistence between points) (Table 3). The correlations between scores vary from 0.89 to 1.00 with a median of 0.94. The results suggest that the scoring procedure is adequately objective. Table 3. Agreement between two scorers. Scorer Agreement (n=79) 1a 1b 2 3 4a 4b 5 0.92 0.89 1.00 0.96 0.94 0.91 1.00 The type of validity determined in this study is the face validity: Do the items include the components of scientific process skills and scientific creativity? To obtain a measure of face validity of the test, 15 people of science education researchers (n= 12) and science teachers (n=3) were asked the above questions (Table 4). The results are shown in table 4, suggesting a high degree of face validity amongst science education researchers and science teachers. In addition the articles taken as they were in scale has been translated to Turkish language by four science teachers for language validity, the similarities were checked and it was found out that there exists a 90% agreement. For the translations on which an agreement could not be achieved, researchers have discussed and reached an accord of viewpoints. Table 4. Face validity: teachers and science educators. Responses (n = 15) yes no 1a 15 ‐ 1b 15 ‐ 2 15 ‐ 3 15 ‐ 4a 15 ‐ 4b 15 ‐ 5 15 ‐ Number 26, 2009 Analysis showed adequate reliabilities and validities. Scoring the Test Fluency, flexibility and originality steps of the test were taken into consideration while scoring the test. Fluency: the number of responses that the students give to the questions, Flexibility: whether the students find an alternative way when the way they propose for solution of the problem does not work, (This category has not been taken into evaluation since no responses that are appropriate for evaluation of students have been seen.). Originality: The originality score is developd ‐ as in the original analysis‐ from the frequency of all responses obtained. If the frequency of the response is smaller than 5%, 2 points are granted; if it is from 5 to 10%, 1 point is granted and finally if it is greater than 10%, 0 point is granted. Categories of the Responses of the Students to the Test Questions and Samples Categories determined in accordance with the “originality” of the responses to the test questions given by the students and the scores given to the categories have been presented in the table below. The responses evaluated as original in the categories established for each question on the tables are the responses thought to be original in accordance with the responses given by students within the sampling in the study. The replies taken as to this question are summarizied below. Question 1‐a,b: Table 5. Evaluation of question 1a Responses given n % Score ‘Funnel’ 4 5.063 1 ‘For the liquid pressure experiment’ 5 6.329 1 209
Esin Şahin Pekmez, Hilal Aktamış, Bilge Can Taşkın ‘For the diaphragm experiments’ 3 3.797 ‘As a container (beaker)’ 38 48.101 0 ‘In case I need a transparent container (for ex. to observe melting of ice)’ 1 2 1.266 Non‐scientific responses (vase, 28 35.443 trash bin) and no responses 2 0 When we check Table 5, we see that the number of the students thought to use plastic bottle as a beaker is in majority. While scoring, the responses given as “I would cut an empty plastic bottle from the middle and use the part with an opening as a funnel.” are deemed to be included in the funnel category, and evaluated in this category. Responses like “I would do a lung experiment. I would place a balloon to the mouth of the plastic bottle. Then I would cut the bottle from the middle. And then, I would blow in through the balloon and make the balloon go off with the air inside.” thought to be included in diaphragm experiment category and evaluated in this category. The most original response in the group according to the scoring made is the one regarding transparency. Table 6. Evaluation of question 1b Responses given n % Score ‘In the experiments regarding 6 heat’ 7.594 1 ‘In the sound isolation experiments’ 6 7.594 1 ‘As a container (beaker, experiment tube etc.)’ 50 63.29 0 ‘In liquid pressure experiments’ (can be expressed as container) 4 5.063 1 Non‐scientific responses (vase, flowerpot, trash bin)and no responses 13 16.456
0 Generally it has been observed that the students think to use the tin can as a beaker or an experiment tube. The responses regarding liquid pressure as “we put some water in an empty tin can. Then the water is 210 discharged when we drill holes on sides of this tin can” have been considered as liquid pressure and evaluated in this category. Responses as “I would make a sound isolation experiment. I would create isolation by placing some cotton and paper in it” have been considered as sound isolation and evaluated in this category. In this question which is about problem solving of scientific process skills 1 point has been given for each solution students produce. Question 2: Table 7. Evaluation of question 2 n % Score
‘Motorcycle with motor and battery’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Multi‐compartment, touch sensitive system’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Strong material’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Steel support for stroke resistance’ 3 3.78 2 ‘Multi‐compartment’ 20 25.32 0 ‘Tire’ 2 2.53 2 ‘Bag with lift’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Electronic bag’ 2 2.53 2 ‘Small in appearance, big inside’ 2 2.53 2 ‘Anti‐dirt bag’ 1.266 2 1 ‘Robot bag’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Inflated bag’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Extra material for strength’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Remote controlled’ 7 8.861 1 The responses given by the students have been considered under practicality category. While some students gave responses like singing bag, bag with lights for highflying category, some gave response of making decoration for aesthetics category. However, since these categories are not considered to be scientific, they are not given in the table. It is seen in the table that students gave responses in very different categories, but the majority of them thought to make a bag with multi compartments. The responses considered as original are expressions like robot bag, inflated bag, anti‐dirt bag. Journal of Qafqaz University Exploring Scientific Creativity of 7th Grade Students This question only measures the hypothesis formulation an experiment planning steps of SPS. 1 point has been given for each hypothesis formulated and experiment planned by the students. The replies taken as to this question are summarizied below. Question 3.a‐b: Table 8. Evaluation of question 3a n % ‘Drought begins’ 7 ‘Insomnia’ 18 22.78 0 ‘Aridity’ 5 6.33 1 ‘No seasons’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Stars and the Moon would not be seen’ 6 7.594 1 ‘No photosynthesis’ 3 3.78 2 ‘Plants would wilt’ 4 5.063 1 ‘Living organisms would wear off’ 11 13.92 0 ‘It would be so cold’ 2 2.53 2 ‘People would turn to black’ 2 2.53 2 ‘Global warming’ 2 2.53 2 ‘Technology would not develop’ 1 1.266 2 ‘It would be luminous’ 5 6.33 1 ‘Electricity consumption would decrease’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Working efficiency would decrease’ 9 8.86 11.39 Score
1 0 When we check out Table 8, we see that students gave different responses to question 3a. Responses like “living orga‐
nisms would wear off” and “insomnia” are more frequently given ones, however responses which are considered to be original as “there would be no seasons”, “technology would not develop” have been given each by one student. The replies taken as to this question are summarizied below. Table 9. Scores obtained by the students for Question 3b n % ‘Everywhere would get dark’ 5 6.33 1 ‘No day and night would occur’ 29 36.71
0 ‘No life would occur’ 9 0 Number 26, 2009 11.39
Score
‘Deserts would occur’ 2 2.53 2 ‘No seasons’ 8 10.13
0 ‘On side of the world would be hot, 7 and the other side would be cold’ 8.86 1 4 5.063
1 Sun would turn around the world 2 2.53 2 This would be the end of world 6.33 1 ‘There is no heat and no light’ 5 When we consider Table 9 for question 3b, we see that responses like “no day and night”, “no life”, “no seasons” are frequent; however responses which are considered to be original as “deserts would occur”, “the sun would turn around the world” have been given each by two students. Questions 3a and 3b only measure if students make prediction or formulate an hypothesis (SPS). 1 point has been given for each prediction and hypothesis formulation students produce. Question 4: Table 10. Evaluation of question 4 Responses given n % The same example of the TV Ad 52 65.82 Total score 0 ‘Softness’ 6 7.594 1 ‘Softness / length’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Softness / water resistance and which one runs out first’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Softness / absorption power / drying early’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Price/ softness / length’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Softness / price’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Softness and absorption power’ 1 1.266 2 ‘Absorption power’ 1.266 2 1 This question only measures the steps of experiment designing and deciding variables of SPS. 1 point is given for each indepen‐
dent variable which students stated and for each experiment planned by students. For example, because there are two variables in a response given as “softness and absorption power”, it’s graded with 2 points. It’s seen that most of the students (65.82 %) were under influence of the advertisement about the paper towel. While the responses 211
Esin Şahin Pekmez, Hilal Aktamış, Bilge Can Taşkın of the students are being evaluated for the quality of the paper towel, they are graded by categorizing according to the type of the variables they examined. The students who state more than 1 variable are less and it is thought that these responses are the original. The students have suggested dif‐
ferent methods from the TV advertisement in order to discover which paper towel is better. While some of them have said that they would search for the softness, some have expressed that they would search for softness and length together. An example experiment designed by students related to the fourth question; Question 5. Table 11. Evaluation of question 5 Responses given n % Score
‘Finding the apples, Reaching, Picking’ 7 8.8 1 ‘Reaching’ 2 2.5 2 ‘Picking’ 18 22.7 0 ‘Transporting to the ground’ 1 1.266
2 ‘Sorting out’ 1 1.266
2 ‘Putting the apples’ 4 5.063
1 ‘Moving on to the next tree’ 1 1.266
2 ‘Putting, picking’ 4 5.063
1 ‘Picking, transporting, washing’ 1 1.266
2 ‘Picking, transporting’ 6 7.594
1 19 0 This question only measures the step of experiment designing of SPS. Which part of the apple collection machine is designed by the students in the planning is surveyed and 1 point is given for each part designed. For example, the number of the students who draw only the collection part is quite a lot. However, some students have also designed parts such as washing, carrying, putting in addition to the collection part. Examples of the apple collection machine designed by the students related to the fifth question. Picture 1. ‘Picking, transporting, putting’ 15 The pictures drawn by students and their explanations are examined and an evaluation is made for the designed parts of the apple collection machine. The responses such as “transporting to the ground”, “sorting out and moving on to the next tree” are thought to be original. 212 Journal of Qafqaz University Exploring Scientific Creativity of 7th Grade Students Picture 2. Picture 3.
Picture 4. Conclusion In this study the test developed by Hu and Adey (2002) is translated into Turkish. Some of the questions in the original test were modified and reliability and validity study is made. The reliability of the grading of the test is made by two researchers and found .94. Besides, a reliable and a valid measure is obtained by the amendments made in accordance with the suggestions of the academicians, work about the subject, (n=15) for the validity of vision. Number 26, 2009 The analysis of the test has been done by evaluating the responses only about the view of fluency and originality steps of scientific creativity. No responses in accordance with the flexibility step are encountered among the responses given by the students during the test. Therefore, no evaluations are made for this step. Also, the responses which the students gave for each question are evaluated differently from the evaluation made in the original test and these are graded. When the responses which the students gave for the questions are examined, it’s seen that the number of the students which produce original solution is less in general. For example, it is seen that the most of the students share the same idea for the purpose of using a plastic bottle or a tin can in the laboratory. For example, they thought that they could use a plastic bottle as a beaker. It is also seen that they try to make effort to solve the problems which they encounter during their daily lives, so they bring the solidity in the foreground while making a schoolbag. When we asked “What would be if the world did not turn and there was no night?” some general expressions were “there would be no seasons” and “we would suffer insomnia”. In order to evaluate the responses given for this question which measures the prediction and hypothesis forming steps of SPS, in accordance with originality, flexibility and fluency, the question “how to prevent” may be added with the purpose of measuring also the steps of seeking solutions separate from the steps of SPS and explaining their reasons. The students took interest about how to collect apples by the apple collection machine most, and there were a few students who took the notice of points such as how to operate this machine, what kind of mechanism it will stand on and what to do with the collected apples. 213
Esin Şahin Pekmez, Hilal Aktamış, Bilge Can Taşkın The responses of the students can be classified ordinary most of the time. The reason of such a case would be the given educations do not give an opportunity to students to think critically. Instead of this, we can provide students to contend with more open ended questions and problems whose answer is not single and about the daily life. Additionally, some activities can be held which provide them to reach the solution by considering alternatively while solving a problem they encounter in their daily lives so that students’ ability of creative thinking. An interview can be also made with the same questions in the test which is developed in order to determine the scientific creativity of the students. Besides, more objective results can be obtained for the categories which are formed for the step of originality by applying a wider exemplification to the test. −
Martin, R. Sexton, C. Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J. (1998). Science for All Children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, −
Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in science education, Science Education, 65 (2): 221‐227. −
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). A three‐facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Sociological Perspec‐
tives (220‐238). New York: Cambridge University Press. −
Şahin‐Pekmez, E. (2000). Procedural understan‐
ding: Teachers’ perceptions of Conceptual Basis of Practical Work. unpublished EdD Thesis, University of Durham, School of Education: UK. −
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psycholo‐
gical Perspectives (43‐ 75). New‐York: Cambridge University Press. −
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Problem solving and creativity. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspec‐
tives (148‐176). New York: Cambridge University Press. REFERENCES −
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer‐ Verlag. −
Dhillon, A. S. (1996). Obtaining an understan‐
ding of investigative work in school science. Paper presented at the Australian Science Educa‐
tion Research Association conference,. Canberra, Australia: University of Canberra. −
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. London: Open Uni‐
versity Press. −
Houtz, J. C. (1994). Creative problem solving in the classroom: contributions of four psycholo‐
gical approaches, Runco, M. A. (ed). Ablex publishing Corporation Norwood, New Jersey. −
Hu, W. & Adey, P. A (2002) Scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4):389‐403. −
Isenberg, J. P. & Jalongo, M.R.(1997). Creative Expression and Play in Early Childhood. Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall. Columbus, Ohio. −
Liang, J. (2002) Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. Unpublished PhD thesis, , The University of Texas at Austin. −
Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P. & Shen, J., (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33 (2): 143‐162. 214 Journal of Qafqaz University