DEVELOPING CREATIVE THINKING SKILL THROUGH SCIENCE EDUCATION: REFLECTIONS FROM THESES CONDUCTED IN TURKEY

Öz

Creative thinking is one of the most important skills that individuals are expected to have in order to increase the welfare level of countries by contributing to scientific and technological developments in the twenty-first century. One of the main purposes of science education is to develop creative thinking skills and a lot of effort is spent for this. In order to reveal the results of this effort, in this study, it is aimed to examine the theses on creative thinking skills in the field of science education in Turkey. The aims, working groups, methods, findings and results of 72 master's or doctoral theses, which were examined by the document review method, were analyzed and evaluated by the content analysis method. Although theses conducted between 2002-2021 were carried out at all levels from pre-school to university, it is seen that they were mostly conducted with seventh grade and science teacher candidates. The aims of theses are mostly to examine the effect of a science teaching method on creative thinking skills, to determine its relationship with factors that may affect creativity, or to reveal a situation related to creativity. It has been found that more quantitative and mixed method researches are carried out to achieve these goals, while Torrance and Scientific Creativity Tests are mostly used as measurement tools. It has been concluded that the contemporary teaching methods tried in the theses generally have a positive effect on the development of creative thinking skills, there are no consistent results regarding the relationship of creativity with different variables and the situation evaluations about creativity show different results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science education
• creativity
• 21st skills

FEN EĞİTİMİYLE YARATICI DÜŞÜNME BECERİSİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: TÜRKİYE’DE YÜRÜTÜLEN LİSANSÜSTÜ TEZLERDEN YANSIMALAR

Öz

Yirmi birinci yüzyılda bilimsel ve teknolojik gelişmelere katkı sağlayarak ülkelerin refah düzeyini yükseltebilmek için bireylerin sahip olması beklenen en önemli becerilerden birisi yaratıcı düşünmedir. Fen eğitiminin temel amaçlarından biri de yaratıcı düşünme becerisini geliştirmektir ve bunun için çokça çaba harcanmaktadır. Bu çabanın sonuçlarını ortaya koyabilmek için, bu çalışmada Türkiye’de fen eğitimi alanında yaratıcı düşünme becerisi üzerine yürütülen tezlerin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Doküman inceleme yöntemi ile incelenen 72 yüksek lisans veya doktora tezinin amaçları, çalışma grupları, yöntemleri, bulgular ve sonuçları içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiş ve değerlendirilmiştir. 2002-2021 yılları arasında yürütülen tezlerin okul öncesinden üniversiteye tüm kademelerde gerçekleştirilmiş olmasıyla birlikte daha çok yedinci sınıf ve fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları ile yürütüldüğü görülmektedir. Tezlerin amaçları çoğunlukla bir fen öğretim yönteminin yaratıcı düşünme becerisine etkisini incelemek, yaratıcılığı etkileyebilecek faktörlerle ilişkisini belirlemek ya da yaratıcılık ile ilgili bir durumu ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaçlara ulaşmak için daha çok nicel ve karma yöntem araştırmalarının yürütüldüğü, ölçme aracı olarak ise daha çok Torrance ve Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Testi kullanıldığı bulunmuştur. Tezlerde denenen çağdaş öğretim yöntemlerinin yaratıcı düşünme becerisini geliştirmede genelde olumlu etkisi olduğu, yaratıcılığın farklı değişkenlerle ilişkisine yönelik ise tutarlı sonuçların olmadığı ve yaratıcılıkla ilgili durum değerlendirmelerinin farklı sonuçlar gösterdiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen eğitimi
• yaratıcılık
• 21. Yy becerileri

Kaynakça

1. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(5), 997–1013.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
3. Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: A literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740110402328.
4. Arrington, T.L., Moore, A.L. & Bagdy, L.M. (2021). K12 Practitioners perceptions of learning from failure. creativity, and systems thinking: A collective case study. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00596-7
5. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind myths and mechanisms. London: Routledge.
6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. s.27
7. Burnard, P. (2015). Repositioning creativities in relation to effective arts pedagogy: UK perspectives on teaching for creativity and teaching creatively in the arts. In J. Fleming, R. Gibson & M. Anderson (Eds.), How arts education makes a difference (pp. 249–264). London: Routledge.
8. Charyton, C. (2014). Creative engineering design assessment. London: Springer.

9. Chien, C. & Hui, A. (2010). Creativity in early childhood education: Teachers’ perceptions in three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.02.002
10. Cho, Y. S., Seong, J. S. & Lee H. J. (2008). Creativity education: Development and education of creative problem-solving skills. Ewha Womans University Press, Seoul: Ewha Womans University.
11. Colwill, I. & Gallagher, C. (2007). Developing a curriculum for the twenty-first century: the experiences of England and Northern Ireland. Prospects, 37, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9044-3
12. Conradty, C., & Bonger, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: how to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240.
13. Cooper, R. & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls' interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27-38.
14. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbookCresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
15. Cszikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity-flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harpercollins.
16. Çetin, Z., Üstündağ, A., Kerimoğlu, G. & Beyazıt, U. (2015). Ülkemizde ve dünyada çocuklarda yaratıcılığın ölçülmesinde kullanılan testlerin incelenmesi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 31-49.
17. Demiral, Ö. (2011). Eğitimde yeni yönelimler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
18. Denson, C. D. (2015). Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering design. Journal of Technology Education,27(1), 23–40.
19. Furnham, A. & Nederstrom, M. (2010). Ability, demographic and personality predictors of creativity. Personality & Individual Differences, 48(8), 957–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.030.
20. Furnham, A., & Nederstrom, M. (2010). Ability, demographic and personality predictors of creativity. Personality & Individual Differences, 48(8), 957–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.030.
21. Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Newton: Allyn and Bacon.
22. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C. & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74-83.
23. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
24. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14.
25. Hacıoğlu, Y. (2017). Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (STEM) eğitimi temelli etkinliklerin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel ve yaratıcı düşünme becerilerine etkisi (Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
26. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.
27. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching Practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), 15 https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
28. Hossieni, A., ve Khalili, S. (2011). Explanation of creativity in postmodern educational ideas. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1307–1313.
29. Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
30. Jacob, F. (2001). Imagination in art and in science. The Kenyon Review, 23(2), 113–121.
31. Jindal-Snape, D., Davies, D., Collier, C., Howe, A., Digby, R., & Hay, P. (2013). Yaratıcı öğrenme ortamlarının öğrenciler üzerindeki etkisi: Sistematik bir literatür taraması. Okulların İyileştirilmesi. 16 (1): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1177 / 1365480213478461
32. Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
33. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for self–reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162– 6057.2009.tb01310.x.
35. Lai, E. R., Yarbro, J., DiCerbo, K., & de Geest, E. (2018). Skills for today: What we know about teaching and assessing creativity. London: Pearson.
36. Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring collective mathematical creativity in elementary school. The Journal of Creative Behavior.45(3), 215-234.
37. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 143–162.
38. Luria, S. R., Sriraman, B. & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Enhancing equity in the classroom by teaching for mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education 49, 1033–1039 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0892-2.
39. MEB. (2005). İlköğretim 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programları. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
40. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2018). İlköğretim 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programları. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
41. Nargund-Joshi, V. & Liu, X. (2013). Understanding Meanings of Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry in an Era of Next Generation Science Standards. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
42. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic.
43. Newton, D. P. & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 45–60.
44. Oh JY (2008) A suggestion for a creative teaching-learning program for gifted science students using abductive inference strategies. Journal of Korean Association Science Education,28(8), 786–795.
45. Oh, JY. (2021). Understanding the scientific creativity based on various perspectives of science. Axiomathes. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09553-8
46. Öztürk Aynal, Ş. (2010). Eğitimde yaratıcılık. E. Ç. Öncü (Ed). , Erken çocukluk döneminde yaratıcılık ve geliştirilmesi (s. 134-158). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
47. Parkhurst, H. B. (1999). Confusion, lack of consensus, and the definition of creativity as a construct. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 1–21.
48. Pásztor, A., Molnár, G., & Csapó, B. (2015). Technology-based assessment of creativity in educational context: the case of divergent thinking and its relation to mathematical achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.05.004.
49. Paul, R., Binker, A.J., Kensen, K. & Kreklau, H. (1990). Critical thinking handbook: 4-6 grades a guide for remodelling lesson plans in language arts, social studies & science. Rohnert Park, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Sonoma State University.
50. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.
51. Prentice, R. (2000). Creativity: A reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education. Curriculum Journal, 11(2), 145-158.
52. Ramirez, A. (2013). Cultivating, creativity and curiosity with STEM. ARCADE, 31(2).
53. Randle, J. M., & Stroink, M. L. (2018). The development and initial validation of the paradigm of systems thinking. Systems Research & Behavior Science, 35(6), 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2508.
54. Robinson, S. K. (2003). Yaratıcılık-aklın sınırlarını aşmak (N. G. Koldaş Çev.). İstanbul: Kitap.
55. Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E. & Van den Noortgate, W. (2018). The factor structure of the figural torrance tests of creative thinking: A meta-confirmatory factor analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 352–360.
56. Sánchez, A., Font, V. & Breda, A (2021). Significance of creativity and its development in mathematics classes for preservice teachers who are not trained to develop students’ creativity. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00367-w
57. Saracaloğlu, S.,Gündoğdu, K., Altın, M., Aksu, N., Kozağaç & Koç, Z. (2014). Yaratıcı düşünme becerisi konusunda 2000 yılı ve sonrasında yayımlanmış makalelerin incelenmesi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 62-74.
58. Starko, A.J. (2014). Creativity in the classroom. Fifth edition. Routledge, New York, NY.
59. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
60. Şimşek, H. (2009). Methodical Problem In The Researches of Educational History. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 42(1), 33-51. [Çevrimiçi: http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/40/1147/13450.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 01.07.2015].
61. Torrance, E. P. & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Streamlined (Revised) Manual. Figural Tests A & B. Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service.
62. Torrance, E.P. (1972). Predictive validity of Torrance tests of creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236-252.
63. Üstündağ, S. & Beşoluk, Ş. (201). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerilerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. X. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde.
64. Yeh, Y. C., Rega, E. M. & Chen, S. Y. (2019). Enhancing creativity through aesthetics- integrated computer-based training: The effectiveness of a FACE approach and exploration of moderators. Computers & Education, 139, 48-64.