The Effect of STEM Applications on the Scientific Creativity of 9th-Grade Students

Year 2022, , 17 - 36, 31.01.2022

Seyide Eroglu , Oktay Bektas

https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1059124

Abstract

The study aims to investigate the effect of STEM applications designed for the atomic system and periodic system unit on the scientific creativity of 9th-grade students. The exploratory sequential design, mixed research, is used in the study. The pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design has been preferred for the quantitative part of the study and the phenomenology design for the qualitative part. The study lasted 12 weeks during the first semester of the 2016-2017 academic year. The sample of the study consists of 133 ninth-grade high school students. The study uses an experimental and a control group. The Scientific Creativity Test was used as a data collection tool. Quantitative data were analyzed using the independent samples t-test through the package program SPSS 22. On the other hand, the qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. As a result of the study, a statistically significant difference was observed to exist between the groups in terms of scientific creativity in favor of the experimental group. In addition, the participants were determined to have put forward many different and extraordinary thoughts with different perspectives. Based on these results, including activities that will improve students’ scientific
creativity in chemistry lessons is suggested. 

Keywords

Experiential learning theory, STEM education, Scientific creativity, Atomic and periodic system

References

• Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27, 33-51.
• Atasoy, B., Kadayıfçı, H., & Akkuş, H. (2007). Öğrencilerin çizimlerinden ve açıklamalarından yaratıcı düşüncelerinin ortaya konulması (Çizimler ve açıklamalar yoluyla yaratıcı düşünceler). Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 5(4), 679-700.
• Azizoğlu, N., Aslan, S., & Pekcan, S. (2015). The periodic system and teaching with analogies model: the effects of teaching method, gender and motivation on students’ achievement. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 472-488. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.39450
• Barry, D. M., & Kanematsu, H. (2006). International program to promote creative thinking in chemistry and science. The Chemist, 83(2), 10-14.
• Barry, D. M., Kanematsu, H., Lawson, M., Nakahira, K., & Ogawa, N. (2017). Virtual STEM activity for renewable energy. Procedia Computer Science, 112, 946-955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.130.
• Boden, M.A. (1994). What is creativity? In M.A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 75-117).
• Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from biological sciences curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98.
• Chen, Q. L., Xu, T., Yang, W. J., Li, Y. D., Sun, J. Z., Wang, K. C., ... & Qiu, J. (2015). Individual differences in verbal creative thinking are reflected in the precuneus. Neuropsychologia, 75, 441-449.
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2015). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Daud, A. M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., & Osman, K. (2012). Creativity in science education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 467-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302.
• Deniş Çeliker, H., & Balım, A. (2012). Adaptation of scientific creativity test to Turkish and its assessment criteria Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 1-21.
• Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States (Paper) Presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research on Dec 8-11, 2010 in Australia.
• English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24.
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th edition, Washington, DC: Sage.
• Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step by Step,3th edition, Bostan, MA, USA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Glück, J., Ernst, R., & Unger, F. (2002). How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity. Communication Research Journal, 14(1), 55-67.
• Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(1), 1-4.
• Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Fokialis, P., & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education. Creative Education, 3(5), 603-611. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.3508.
• Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM journal, 1(2), 1-7.
• Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Correlation: A measure of relationship. In Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
• 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. The journal of creative behavior, 47(1), 3-21.
• Kanematsu, H., & Barry, D. M. (2016). STEM and Creativity. In STEM and ICT Education in Intelligent Environments (pp. 15-23). Springer, Cham.
• Kang, D., Park, J. &Hong, H. (2015). Changes in the number of ideas depending on time when conducting scientific creativity activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14 (4), 448-459.
• Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
• Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of technology education, 17(1), 35-52.
• Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 143-162.
• Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th Edition). USA: Sage Publications.
• Martins, E.C., & Terblanche, F. (2003) “Building Organizational Culture that Stimulates Creativity and Innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
• Merriam, SB (2013). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. (S. Turan, Trans). Nobel Academic Publishing (Original work published 2009).
• Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in science education. Science Education, 65(2), 221-27.
• Nuangchalerm, P. (2018). STEM education and Kolb’s learning styles. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 11(2), 11-17.
• Ostler, E. (2012). 21st century STEM education: A tactical model for long-range success. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1), 28-33.
• Özkök, A. (2005). Effects of interdisciplinary creative problem-solving teaching program on creative problem-solving skills. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28, 159-167.
• Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Kullanma Klavuzu Spss ile Adım Adım Veri Analizi. (S. Balcı ve B. Ahi, Trans). Anı Yayıncılık (Original work published 2013).
• Selby, E. C., Shaw, E. J., & Houtz, J. C. (2005). The creative personality. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 300-314.
• Semmler, L., & Pietzner, V. (2017). Creativity in chemistry class and in general–German student teachers’ views. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 310-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00230g.
• 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.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6theds). Pearson.
• Thompson, S. K. (1990). Adaptive cluster sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(412), 1050-1059.
• Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 153-156.
• Torrance, E.P. (1990). Torrance Test of Creative Talent. Beaconville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
• Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing Creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272-280.
• Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30.
• Van Soom, C., & Donche, V. (2014). Profiling first-year students in STEM programs based on autonomous motivation and academic self-concept and relationship with academic achievement. PloS one, 9(11), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112489.
• Walsh, E., Anders, K., & Hancock, S. (2013). Understanding, attitude and environment: The essentials for developing creativity in STEM researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1), 19-38.
• White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-9.