Active Teaching Techniques in Science Education: Effects on Students' Scientific Creativity

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, fen derslerinde kullanılan aktif öğretim tekniklerinin 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıkları üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Özel bir okulda öğrenim gören 38 altıncı sınıf öğrencisinin dahil edildiği çalışmada karma yöntem deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Nicel veriler Hu ve Adey (2002) tarafından geliştirilen bilimsel yaratıcılık testi kullanılarak, nitel veriler ise yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Deney grubunun son test puanlarında kontrol grubuna kıyasla anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Özellikle, akıcılık ve esneklik puanlarında iyileşmeler gözlenmiş ve başlangıçta tüm ön test alanlarında özgünlük açısından düşük puan alan öğrencilerin son test puanlarında artış meydana gelmiştir. Nitel bulgular, öğrenciler tarafından algılanan yaratıcılıkta bir artış bildirildiği için nicel sonuçlarla tutarlıdır. Nicel bulgulara göre alternatif kullanımlar alt testinde anlamlı bir fark görülmemesine rağmen, öğrenciler tarafından çeşitli nesnelerin alternatif kullanımlarına ilişkin farkındalığın arttığı vurgulanmıştır. Ek olarak, sınırlı sayıda katılımcıyla ve bu katılımcıların ikili görüşmeye aşina olmamasıyla ilgili zorluklar tartışılmış ve bu sorunları ele almak için potansiyel çözümler önerilmiştir.

Keywords

• Bilimsel yaratıcılık
• SCAMPER
• aktif öğretim teknikleri

Active Teaching Techniques in Science Education: Effects on Students' Scientific Creativity

Abstract

The impact of active teaching techniques in science classes on the scientific creativity of 6th-grade students is examined in this research. A total of 38 sixth graders from a private school were included in the study, which utilized a mixed-method experimental design. Quantitative data were collected using a scientific creativity test developed by Hu and Adey (2002), while qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. A significant difference was found in the post-test scores of the experimental group compared to the control group. Notably, improvements were observed in the fluency and flexibility scores, and increased post-test scores were reported by students who initially scored low in originality across all pre-test areas. The qualitative findings were consistent with the quantitative results, as an increase in perceived creativity was reported by the students. Although no significant difference was indicated in the alternative uses sub-test according to the quantitative findings, an increased awareness of alternative uses for various objects was highlighted by the students. Additionally, challenges associated with a limited number of participants and their unfamiliarity with dyadic interviewing were discussed, and potential solutions to address these issues were proposed.

Keywords

• active teaching technics
• mixed methods research
• SCAMPER
• scientific creativity

References

1. Akcanca, N., & Ozsevgec, L. C. (2018). Effect of activities prepared by different teaching techniques on scientific creativity levels of prospective pre-school teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.1.71
2. Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students’ scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. AsiaPacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 21. http://search.proquest.com/docview/61875613?accountid=14719
3. Alfaiz, F. S. (2019). The influence of the levels of fidelity of implementation of the REAPS model on students’ creativity in science [Doctoral thesis]. The Graduate College The University of Arizona.
4. Alkan, F., & Altundag, C. K. (2018). The effect of inquiry based chemistry experiments practices on inquiry skills and scientific creativity. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS) , 9, 36–41. www.isres.org
5. Asal Özkan, R., & Sarıkaya, R. (2023). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen etkinliklerinin dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi (The effect of science teaching with engineering design-based activities on scientific creativity of fourth grade students). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education], 55, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1208412
6. Astutik, S., & Prahani, B. K. (2018a). Developing teaching material for physics based on collaborative creativity learning (CCL) model to improve scientific creativity of junior high school students. Jurnal Penelitian Fisika Dan Aplikasinya (JPFA), 8(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.26740/jpfa.v8n2.p91-105
7. Astutik, S., Susantini, E., Madlazim, Nur, M., & Supeno. (2020). The effectiveness of collaborative creativity learning models (CCL) on secondary schools scientific creativity skills. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 525–238. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13336a
8. Atabaş, Ü. (2020). STEM eğitiminin fen bilimleri dersinde dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına, problem çözmeye yönelik yansıtıcı düşünme becerilerine ve stem eğitimine ilişkin görüşlerine etkisi (The effect of STEM education on fourth grade students’ scientific creativity, reflective thinking skills for problem solving and opinions on STEM education in the science course) [Doctoral thesis]. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Marmara University Graduate School of Education).

9. Ayverdi, L. (2018). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin fen eğitiminde teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematiğin kullanımı: FETEMM yaklaşımı (Usage of technology, engineering and mathematics in science education for gifted students: STEM approach) [Doctoral Thesis]. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Ensitüsü (Balikesır Universıty Institute Of Science).
10. Ayverdi, L., Asker, E., Aydin, S. Ö., & Saritaş, T. (2012). Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic achievement in science and technology courses. Elementary Education Online, 11(113), 646–659. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
11. Babayiğit, B., Alagöz Hamzaj, Y., & Çardak, Ç. S. (2018). A connectivist learning activity supporting creative thinking: Analogy wall. Elementary Education Online, 17(4), 2049–2074. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506953
12. Bayrak, Ç. (2014). CORT 1 düşünme programının “yaşamımızdaki elektrik” ünitesinde kullanılmasının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerine etkisi (The effects of using the expanding (CORT 1) thinking program in the unit “electiricity in our lives” in primary education 7th grade lesson, science and technology, to students academic achivement, scientific creativity and tendency of critical thinking) [Master thesis]. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Adnan Menderes University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences).
13. Boonpracha, J. (2023). SCAMPER for creativity of students’ creative idea creation in product design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101282
14. Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: Effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002 Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
15. Çalışıcı, S., & Benzer, S. (2021). The effects of STEM applications on the environmental attitudes of the 8th year students, scientific creativity and science achievements. Malaysian Online Journal Educational Science, 9(1), 24–36. http://mojes.um.edu.my/EISSN:2289-3024
16. Çepni, S., & Sarıoğlu, S. (2021). Beceri nedir ve neden önemlidir? . In Ü. Ormancı & S. Çepni (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve öğretimi (1st ed., pp. 1–12). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
17. Cevher, A. H., & Köksal, M. S. (2018). BİLSEM’de eğitim gören sekizinci sınıf üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin anomalik durumlara odaklı dayanaklandırma (argümantasyon) sürecinin bilimsel yaratıcılık düzeylerine katkısı (The effects of teaching anomalous cases of scientific creativity on eighth grade gifted students’ argumentation processes). HAYEF: Journal of Education, 15(2), 6–58. https://doi.org/10.26650/hayef.2018.15.2.0007
18. Chang, Y. S., Chien, Y. H., Yu, K. C., Chu, Y. H., & Chen, M. Y. C. (2016). Effect of TRIZ on the creativity of engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.003
19. Chiu, F. C. (2015). Improving your creative potential without awareness: Overinclusive thinking training. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.001
20. Creswell, J. W., & Clark Plano, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (third Edit). SAGE Publications.
21. de Bono, E. (2015). Serious creativity. Penguin Random House.
22. Demir, S. (2014). Bilimsel tartışma ve araştırmaya dayalı tasarlanan laboratuvar programının, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi (The effect of a laboratory program designed based on scientific discussion and research on pre-service science teachers’ scientific creativity) [Doctoral thesis]. Marmara Universitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences).
23. Demirhan, E., & Şahin, F. (2021). The effects of different kinds of hands-on modeling activities on the academic achievement, problem-solving skills, and scientific creativity of prospective science teachers. Research in Science Education, 51, 1015–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09874-0
24. Deniş Çeliker, H. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji dersi “Güneş Sistemi ve ötesi: Uzay bilmecesi” ünitesinde proje tabanlı öğrenme uygulamalarının öğrenci başarılarına, yaratıcı düşünmelerine, fen ve teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarına etkisi (Science and Technology Course in the Unit of Solar System and Beyond: Space Puzzle the Effect of Project Based Learning Applications on Student Achievements, Creative Thinking and Their Attitudes towards Science and Technology) [Doctoral thesis)]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Dokuz Eylul University Institute of Educational Sciences).
25. Deniş Çeliker, H., Tokcan, A., & Korkubilmez, S. (2015). Fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyon bilimsel yaratıcılığı etkiler mi? (Does motivation toward science learning affect scientific creativiy?). Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute), 12(30), 167–192.
26. Diep, N. H., Thuy, H. T. P., Lai, D. T. B., Viet, V. Van, & Chung, N. T. K. (2023). A comparison of three stem approaches to the teaching and learning of science topics: Students’ knowledge and scientific creativity. International Journal of Education and Practice, 11(2), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v11i2.3336
27. Dikici, A., Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2020). The relationship between demographic variables and scientific creativity: Mediating and moderating roles of scientific process skills. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 2055–2079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9763-2
28. Doğan, A., & Kahraman, E. (2021). The effect of STEM activities on the scientific creativity of middle school students. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 1241–1266.
29. Doyan, A., Susilawati, S., & Hardiyansyah, H. (2020). Development of natural science learning tools with guided inquiry model assisted by real media to improve students’ scientific creativity and science process skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 7(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v7i1.485
30. Ebert, M., Hoffmann, J. D., Ivcevic, Z., Phan, C., & Brackett, M. A. (2015). Teaching emotion and creativity skills through art : A workshop for children. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 25(2), 23–35.
31. Eren, C. D., & Akinoglu, O. (2012). The effects of problem based learning on scientific creative thinking skills in science education. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, special issue, 976–980.
32. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2022a). The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science. Learning and Individual Differences, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102181
33. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2022b). The effect of STEM applications on the scientific creativity of 9th-grade students. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 8(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1059124
34. Glăveanu, V. P., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Creativity: A historical perspective. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776721.002
35. Göçmen, Ö., & Coşkun, H. (2019). The effects of the six thinking hats and speed on creativity in brainstorming. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.006
36. Gök, B., & Sürmeli, H. (2022). The effect of scientific toy design activities based on the engineering design process on secondary school students’ scientific creativity. Asian Journal of University Education, 18(3), 692–709. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v18i2.17987
37. Gölcük, A. (2017). Bilimsel hikâyelerle desteklenen fen eğitiminin öğrencilerin yaratıcılıkları ve duyuşsal özellikleri üzerindeki etkileri (The effect of science education that is supported by scientific stories on students’ creativity and affective properties) [Master thesis]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences).
38. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
39. Hanif, S., Wijaya, A. F. C., & Winarno, N. (2019). Enhancing students’ creativity through STEM project-based learning. Journal of Science Learning, 2(2), 50. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v2i2.13271
40. Hebebci, M. T. (2019). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik eğitimi uygulamalarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin akademik başarı, bilimsel yaratıcılık ve tutumlarına yönelik etkisi (The impacts of science, technology, engineering and mathematics applications on middle school students’ academic achievement, scientific creativity and attitudes) [Doctoral Thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan Universitesi Eğitim bilimleri enstitüsü (Necmettin Erbakan University Institute of Educational Sciences.
41. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
42. Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students’ scientific creativity: The “Learn to Think” intervention program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20
43. Huang, P. S., Peng, S. L., Chen, H. C., Tseng, L. C., & Hsu, L. C. (2017). The relative influences of domain knowledge and domain-general divergent thinking on scientific creativity and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25(48), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.001
44. Jo, S. M. (2009). A study of Korean students’ creativity in science using structural equation modeling [Doctoral thesis]. The University of Arizona.
45. Karacali, K. (2022). Fen laboratuvarında kullanılan argümantasyon odaklı öğretimin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, sorgulayıcı öğrenme becerilerine ve yaratıcılıklarına etkisi (The effect of argumentation based ınstruction on students’ academic success, ınquiry learning skills and creativity used in science laboratory) [Doctoral thesis]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Bursa Uludağ University Institute of Educational Sciences).
46. Karademir, E. (2016). Investigation the scientific creativity of gifted students through project-based activities. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.05662
47. Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J. A., Lans, T., Aazami, M., & Mulder, M. (2016). Fostering students’ competence in identifying business opportunities in entrepreneurship education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.993419
48. Kılıç, B., & Tezel, Ö. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi (Determination of scientific creativity levels of primary school eighth grade students). Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Science Education], 9(4), 84–101. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/472
49. Kırıcı, M. G., & Bakırcı, H. (2021). The effect of STEM supported research-inquiry-based learning approach on the scientific creativity of 7th grade students. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021067921
50. Koç, A., & Büyük, U. (2021). Effect of robotics technology in science education on scientific creativity and attitude development. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.52
51. Kozhevnikov, M., Ho, S., & Koh, E. (2022). The role of visual abilities and cognitive style in artistic and scientific creativity of Singaporean secondary school students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.522
52. Kurtuluş, N. (2012). Yaratıcı düşünmeye dayalı öğretim uygulamalarının bilimsel yaratıcılık bilimsel süreç becerileri ve akademik başarıya etkisi (The effect of instructional applications based on creative thinking on scientific creativity, scientific process skills and academic achievement) [Master thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Educational Sciences).
53. Lee, I., & Park, J. (2021). Student, parent and teacher perceptions on the behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity and the implications to enhance students’ scientific creativity. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67
54. Liang, J.-C. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan [Doctoral thesis]. The university of Texas at Austin.
55. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143–162.
56. Lin, C. S., & Wu, R. Y. W. (2016). Effects of web-based creative thinking teaching on students’ creativity and learning outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(6), 1675–1684. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1558a
57. Madyani, I., Yamtinah, S., Utomo, S. B., Saputro, S., & Mahardiani, L. (2020). Profile of students’ creative thinking skills in science learning. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 957–964. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200129.070
58. Majid, D. Ab., Tan, A., & Soh, K.-C. (2003). Enhancing Children’s Creativity: An Exploratory Study on Using the internet and SCAMPER as Creative Writing Tools. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving.
59. Nurlaela, L., Suparji, Setyo Budi, K., Ayu Pratama, S., & Irawati, Y. (2018). Inquiry-based learning to increase students’ creative thinking skills in vocational high school. Advences in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 201, 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365
60. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2024). OECD Learning Compass 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
61. Oktavia, R. S., Rahayu, Y. S., & Yuliani, D. (2019). Implementation of guided inquiry-based learning model to improve students’ creativity thinking skill. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains, 9(1), 1756–1762. https://doi.org/10.26740/jpps.v9n1.p1756-1762
62. Ormancı, Ü. (2021). 21. yüzyıl becerileri. In Ü. Ormancı & S. Çepni (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve öğretimi (1st ed., pp. 15–34). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
63. Ozdemir, G., & Dikici, A. (2017). Relationships between scientific process skills and scientific creativity: Mediating role of nature of science knowledge. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275696
64. Pampasit, R. (2018). The waste management of the local administrative organization in Khao Kho District, Phetchabun Province, Thailand. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028(1), 1028–012172. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012172
65. Panjaitan, M. B., & Siagian, A. (2020). The effectiveness of inquiry based learning model to improve science process skills and scientific creativity of junior high school students. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2020.74.380.386
66. Prahani, B. K., Suprapto, N., Rachmadiarti, F., Sholahuddin, A., Mahtari, S., Suyidno, & Siswanto, J. (2021). Online scientific creativity learning (OSCL) in science education to improve students’ scientific creativity in Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(Special Issue), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.73
67. Rasul, M. S., Zahriman, N., Halim, L., & Rauf, R. A. (2018). Impact of integrated STEM smart communities program on students scientific creativity. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue on I-CITE, 80–89.
68. Sagita, S. G. N., & Aminatun, T. (2019). Combination of CPS and SAVI on biology learning media to improve student’s understanding and creativity on environmental change topic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1397(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1397/1/012057
69. Saldana, J. (2019). Nitel araştırmacılar için kodlama el kitabı (A. Tüfekcı Akcan & S. N. Şad, Eds.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786052416051
70. Sandika, B., & Fitrihidajati, H. (2018). Improving creative thinking skills and scientific attitude through inquiry-based learning in basic biology lecture toward student of biology education. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 4(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i1.5326
71. Sariçam, U. (2019). Dijital oyun tabanlı STEM uygulamalarının öğrencilerin STEM alanlarına ilgileri ve bilimsel yaratıcılığı üzerine etkisi: Minecraft örneği (How digital game-based STEM applications can help students on their interest in STEM fields and scientific creativity impact the example of Minecraft ) [Master thesis]. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences).
72. Serrat, O. (2017). The SCAMPER technique. In knowledge solutions (pp. 311–314). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33
73. Siew, N. M., & Ambo, N. (2018). Development and evaluation of an integrated project-based and stem teaching and learning module on enhancing scientific creativity among fifth graders. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.1017
74. Siew, N. M., & Chin, M. K. (2018). Design, development and evaluation of a problem-based with cooperative module on scientific creativity of pre-schoolers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.215
75. Siew, N. M., Chin, M. K., & Sombuling, A. (2017). The effects of problem based learning with cooperative learning on preschoolers’ scientific creativity. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.100
76. Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Lee, B. N. (2015). Fostering fifth graders’ scientific creativity through problem-based learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.655
77. Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Cinko, M. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi [Data analysis via SPSS in social sciences]. Beta Press.
78. Susilawati, S., Doyan, A., & Harjono, A. (2022). Development of learning media for wave ripple tanks with the implementation of guided inquiry models on students’ mastery of concepts and scientific creativity. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(2), 985–991. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i2.1542
79. Suyidno, Nur, M., Yuanita, L., Kurnia Prahani, B., & Jatmiko, B. (2018). Effectiveness of creative responsibility based teaching (CRBT) model on basic physics learning to increase student’s scientific creativity and responsibility. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(1), 136–151.
80. Tawil, M., & Dahlan, A. (2017). Developing students’ creativity through computer simulation based learning in quantum physics learning. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(8), 1829–1845.
81. Tran, N. H., Huang, C. F., Hsiao, K. H., Lin, K. L., & Hung, J. F. (2021). Investigation on the influences of STEAM-based curriculum on scientific creativity of elementary school students. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.694516
82. Tran, N. H., Huang, C. F., & Hung, J. F. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM-based courses on junior high school students’ scientific creativity. Frontiers in Education, 6, 666792. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.666792
83. Türkmen, H., & Sertkahya, M. (2015). Creative thinking skills analyzes of vocational high school students. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies, 5(1), 74–84. www.ijonte.org
84. Uğraş, M. (2018). The effects of STEM activities on STEM attitudes, scientific creativity and motivation beliefs of the students and their views on STEM education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.05.012
85. Üstündağ, T. (2020). Yaratıcılığa yolculuk. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789756802847
86. van Hooijdonk, M., Mainhard, T., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Tartwijk, J. (2020). Creative problem solving in primary education: Exploring the role of fact finding, problem finding, and solution finding across tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100665
87. Wicaksono, I., Wasis, & Madlazim. (2017a). The effectiveness of virtual science teaching model (VS-TM) to improve student’s scientific creativity and concept mastery on senior high school physics subject. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 549–561. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.549
88. Wicaksono, I., Wasis, & Madlazim. (2017b). The effectiveness of virtual science teaching model (VS-TM) to improve student’s scientific creativity and concept mastery on senior high school physics subject. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 549–561.
89. Wulansari, R., Rusnayati, H., Saepuzaman, D., Karim, S., & Feranie, S. A. (2019). The influence of scientific creativity and critical worksheets (SCCW) on creative thinking skills and critical scientific as well as students’ cognitive abilities on project-based learning work and energy concepts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052039
90. Zainuddin, Suyidno, Dewantara, D., Mahtari, S., Nur, M., Yuanita, L., & Sunarti, T. (2020). The correlation of scientific knowledge-science process skills and scientific creativity in creative responsibility based learning. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13321a
91. Zhang, X., Cheng, L., Dai, D. Y., Tong, W., & Hu, W. (2020). Adolescents with different profiles of scientific versus artistic creativity: Similarity and difference in cognitive control. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100688
92. Zulkarnaen, Z., Supardi, Z. A. I., & Jatmiko, B. (2017). Feasibility of creative exploration, creative elaboration, creative modeling, practice scientific creativity, discussion, reflection (C3PDR) teaching model to improve students’ scientific creativity of junior high school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6), 1020–1034. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.1020