Influence of Gender and Knowledge on Secondary School Students’ Scientific Creativity Skills in Nakuru District, Kenya

Year 2012, , 353 - 366, 15.10.2012

Mark İ. O. Okere Grace C. W. Ndeke

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.4.353

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of gender and knowledge on scientific creativity among
form three biology students (third year in secondary school cycle) in Nakuru district in Kenya. The cross- sectional
survey research was employed. The population of the study comprised all form three biology students in public
secondary schools in Nakuru district. A sample of eight schools with a total of 363 students was selected from the
population using stratified sampling technique. Two instruments, namely, Biology Achievement Test (BAT) and
Biology Scientific Creativity Test (BSCT) were used to collect data. The psychological definitions of creativity
tested are sensitivity, recognition, flexibility and planning. The mapping of these psychological definitions of
creativity onto scientific meanings is explained using the model that guided construction of items in BSCT. Data
analysis was done using quantitative methods. The statistics used were Pearson correlation coefficient(r), chisquare,
t-test and ANOVA, at α=0.05 level of significance. The findings of this study indicate that the form three
biology students who participated in the study had a low level of scientific creativity. Secondly, the level of scientific
creativity is knowledge and gender dependent. The findings may help teachers and other stake holders in
education in inculcating creativity skills amongst science students.

Keywords

Influence, Gender, Knowledge, Scientific creativity

References

• Adams,J.L. (2001). Conceptual Blockbusting. A guide to better ideas. Perseus Publishing Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Amabile,T. M. (1983).The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer vela in Tan Al-Girl(Ed) creativity: A handbook for teachers. World Scientific Publishing co. pte Ltd
• Baer, J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender Differences in Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour. Vol. 42(2):75-105. DOI:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tbo1289.x
• Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Bartlett, F.C. (1958). Thinking: An Experimental and Social study. Allen and Unwin, pp. 131-137
• Burt, C. C. (1962). Critical notice; the psychology of creative ability. In P. E. Vernon (ed). Creativity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, pp. 203 – 216.
• Christine, C. (2005). Creativity (Scientific, Artistic, Gender) and Risk Tolerance among Engineering and Music Students. Dissertations abstract International Section: Humanities and Social Sciences. vol. 66(5A).Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.psycnet.apa.org/psyinfo/2005-99021-133.
• Crawford, R. P. (1954). The techniques of creative thinking. New York. Hawthorn.
• Cropley A. J. (1966). Creativity and intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology. In J. Freeman et. al. (eds). Creativity a Selective review of research. London: Society for research into Higher Education Ltd.
• Dunbar, K. (1999) Scientific creativity. The encyclopedia of creativity. Academic press, (1):1379-1384.
• Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specification, clarification and needed :research: Centre for Science Education.USA.
• Eshiwani, G. S. (1986). A study of women’s access to higher education with special reference to Mathematics and Science education: Bureau of Educational Research; Kenyatta University. Freeman, J. et al. (1971) Creativity a selected review of research. London: Society for research into Higher Education.
• Getzels. J. W. and Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and Intelligence. In J. Freeman et. al. (eds) Creativity a selective review of research. London. Society for research into Higher Education Ltd..
• Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. C. & Gernsbacher, M. N. (2007). “The Sience of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.” Association for Psychological Science. 8.1:1-51
• Hudson, L. (1966). “The question of Creativity”, in Contrary Imaginations, Methuen, pp.100-115. Penguin Books (eds.) 1967.
• Loehle, C. (1990). A guide to increased creativity in research-Inspiration or perspiration? Bioscience. In. Garfield, E. Current comments, Essays of an information scientist: Journalogy (13): 240. Institute for scientific information. Philadelphia.
• Lovel K. & Shields J. (1967). Some aspects of a study of the gifted child. In J. Freeman et. al. (eds) Creativity a selective review of research. London. Society for research into Higher Education Ltd.
• Mackinnon, D. W. (1968). Selecting students with creative potential. In P, Heist (eds). The creative college student. In P.E Vernon (ed) Creativity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Mondoh, H. A. (1986). A study of the relationship between sex of the child and his or her mathematical abilities among some Nairobi primary schools: Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, Kenyatta University.
• Okere. M. I. O. (1986). Creativity in Physics Education. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of London.
• Okere, M.I.O. (1988). Meanings and Measures of creativity for physics education. Kenya Journal of Education,vol.1 pp. 38-46.
• Okere, M. I. O. (1991). The Design of Scientific Investigations by High School Pupils and 1st Year Undergraduates. East Africa Journal of Education Vol.1 No. 1. The East African University Council.
• Okere, M.I.O., Illa,T.A., & Changeiywo, J. (2010). Effects of Concept Mapping Teaching Strategy on Students’ Creativity in Physics Education, in Nyando District, Kenya. Egerton Journal of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Vol.IX, pp 157-170
• Otieno. A. (1991). The competence of junior secondary school pupils in some selected science process skills. Kenya Journal of Education (5): 1.
• Parnes, S. J. (1963). Education and creativity. In P.E Vernon (ed) Creativity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New York: Doubleday. Anchor books.
• Republic of Kenya, (1992). Ministry of Planning. Nairobi. Government Printers.
• Republic of Kenya, (1997). National Development Plan (1997 – 2001). Nairobi. Government Printers.
• Republic of Kenya, (1999). Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training. Nairobi. Government Printers.
• Republic of Kenya (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. A Globally competitive and Prosperous Kenya. Nairobi. Government Printers.
• Roe, A. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science, In P.E Vernon (ed) Creativity. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Rogers, C.R. (1954). “Towards a theory of Creativity” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Vol: 11, pp. 249-60.
• Standler, R. B. (1998). Creativity in Science and Education. United States of America.
• Steinkamp, M. & Maehr, M. (1983). Affect ability and science achievements: A quantitative synthesis of correlation research. Review of Educational Research (53): 369 – 396.
• Steinkamp. M.. & Maehr. M. (1984). Gender differences in Motivational orientations towards achievements in school science. A quantitative synthesis American Educational Research Journal. (21): 39 – 59.
• Taasooboshirazi, G. & Carr, M. (2008). Gender,Ethnicity and the Structure of Self esteem; An attitude Theory Approach. Journal of Social Psychology 133(4):479-488.
• Torrance, E.P. (1962), Guiding Creative Talent, Printice-Hall, pp. 1-15.
• Torrance, E.P., (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed). The nature of creativity, pp 43- 73: Cambridge University Press.
• Treffinger, D. (2001). The importance of creative learning. In Treffinger (Ed) Creative Learning Today. Centre for creative learning newsletter.Vol.11(2)
• Treffinger, D. (2002). Creativity and life’s challenges. In Treffinger (Ed) Creative Learning Today.Centre for creative learning newsletter. Vol.11(2).