Why Thought Experiments Should Be Used as an Educational Tool to Develop Problem-Solving Skills and Creativity of the Gifted Students?

Abstract

Many educational tools that are recommended for the training of normal students are often encountered in programs that do not work very well and are subsequently abandoned. One of the important points that program developers should now consider is that teaching tools are presented in accordance with individual differences. It is seen that the instructional approach suggested as argument-based learning is tried to be applied in Turkey. However, the tools used are the basic argumentation tools. It has been argued in this study that the use of "thought experiment", one of the advanced argumentation tools, is appropriate for gifted students rather than normal students. The evidence-based data on thought experiments in which important scientists used in the history of science rather limited. In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.

Keywords

• gifted education,creativity,intuition,advanced argumentation,thought experiment

Why Thought Experiments Should Be Used as an Educational Tool to Develop Problem-Solving Skills and Creativity of the Gifted Students?

Abstract

Many educational tools that are recommended for the training of normal students are often encountered in programs that do not work very well and are subsequently abandoned. One of the important points that program developers should now consider is that teaching tools are presented in accordance with individual differences. It is seen that the instructional approach suggested as argument-based learning is tried to be applied in Turkey. However, the tools used are the basic argumentation tools. It has been argued in this study that the use of "thought
experiment", one of the advanced argumentation tools, is appropriate for gifted students rather than normal students. The evidence-based data on thought experiments in which important scientists used in the history of science rather limited. In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.

Keywords

• gifted education
• creativity
• intuition
• advanced argumentation
• thought experiment

References

1. Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2002). Aktif Öğrenme: Dünya Öğreniminde Yeni Yöneliş. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik, (822), 172Baer, J (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training, Journal of Creative Behavior, 30,
2. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
3. Bernstein, J., (2006). Albert Einstein Fiziği Sınırları. Çeviri. Yasemin Uzunefe Yazgan. Ankara: Tübitak Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
4. Clement, J. (2006). Designing classroom thought experiments: what we can learn from imagery indicators and expert protocols. NARST. San Fransisco.
5. Clement,J. (2008). Creative Model construction in scientists and students. Massachusetts: Springer. Colton, S., & Steel, G. (1999). Artificial intelligence and scientific creativity. ArtificialIntelligence and the Study of Behaviour Quarterly, 102.
6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. InSternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity, chap. 13, sf. 325–339. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, M.,& Gardner H. (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity(sf.135-158). Westport, CT: Praeger.
8. Dönertaş, Ş. (2011). Kavramsal fizik problemlerinin çözümünde düşünce deneylerinin rolü. DoktoraTezi. Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Ankara.

9. Galilei Galileo (1638). Two New Sciences Galilei Galileo. Çev. Henry Crew ve Alfonso deSalvio. 2003.
10. Galilei, Galileo. (1632/2008). İki Dünya Sistemi Hakkında Diyalog, Çeviri.Reşit
11. Aşçıoğlu.Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.s.258-259.
12. Gardner, H. (1994). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books
13. Georgiou, A., (2005).Thought experiments in physics problem-solving: on ıntuition and ımagisticsimulation, Unpublished Master Thesis. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Heisnberg, W., (1964). Fizik ve Felsefe. Çeviri.
14. Yılmaz Öner. 2000. Belge UluslararasıYayıncılık. İstanbul.
15. Helm, H., Gilbert, J., Watts, D.M ., (1985) Thought Experiments and Physics Education-Part 2. Physics Education, 20, 211-17
16. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students.International Journal of ScienceEducation, 24(4), 389-403.
17. İpekoğlu Y., (2000). Bohr-Einstein Tartışması. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi. Ekim.52-54
18. Johnson, A.P. (2015). Creativity and Intuition. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2),9-21
19. Julian Baggini & Peter S. Fosl (2003) The Philosopher's Toolkit: A compendium of philosophicalconcepts and methods, London: Blackwell Publishing.
20. Karakuyu, Y., & Tortop, H.S. (2009). Düşünce deneyleriyle ilgili problem çözmeetkinliğinin öğrencilerin mantıksal düşünme becerileri ve kavramsal anlama düzeylerineetkisinin araştırılması, AİBU Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 42-58.
21. Karasar, N., (1994). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler. 3A AraştırmaEğitim Danışmanlık Ltd.Ankara.
22. Kuhn, T. (1977). A Function of Thought Experiments. In T. Kuhn: The Essential Tension. SelectedStudies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago University Press, 240-265.
23. Lattery, M. (2001). Thought Experiments in Physics Education: A Simple and Practical Example. Science and Education, 10(5), 485-92.
24. Mach, E. (1893/1960). The Principle of the Inclined Plane (T. McCormack, Trans.). In The Science of Mechanics (6.Baskı., sf. 39-44). La Salle,IL: Open Court Publishers.
25. Mach, E. (1905/1976). On Thought Experiment (T. J. McCormack & P. Foulkes, Trans.). In Knowledge and Error (sf. 134-147). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
26. Maker, C. J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15, 232-251.
27. Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2005). Teaching models in education of the gifted (3. Baskı). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
28. Maker, J., & Zimmerman, R., Alhusaini, A., & Pease, R. (2015). Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS): An evidencebased model that meets content, process, product, and learning environment principles recommended for gifted students. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 19(1).
29. Matthews, M. (1994). Thought experiments in M. Matthews Science Teaching. The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York-London, 99-105.
30. Maxwell, J. (1871/ 2001) Theory of Heat, Dover, New York.
31. Newton, I. (1686/1999). The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (I. B.
32. Cohen & A. M. Whitman, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
33. Popper, K.R.,(1935). Bilimsel Araştırmanın Mantığı, Çeviri. İlknur Aka-İbrahim Turan. 2005.Yapıkredi Yayınları. İstanbul.
34. Reiner M., & Burko L.M. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics andthe consequences for physics education. Science and Education, 12(4), 365-385.
35. Reiner, M. (1998) Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 20, 1043-1058.
36. Reiner, M. (2006). The context of thought experiments in physics learning. Interchange,37(1–2), 97–113.
37. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological Resources for Thought Experimentationin Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 589–506.
38. Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3. Baskı). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Stephens, A.L., Clement, J.J. (2006). Designing Classroom Thought Experiments: What We Can Learn from Imagery Indicatorsand Expert Protocols. Proceedings of the NARST 2006 Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, United States).
40. Stevin, S. (1955). The Principal Works of Simon Stevin (Vol. 1: General Introduction and Mechanics). Amsterdam: C. W. Swets and Zeitlinger.
41. Tortop, H.S. (2013a). Bu benim eserim bilim şenliğinin yönetici, öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri ve fen projelerinin kalitesi odağından görünümü, Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 255-308.
42. Tortop, H.S. (2013b). Science teachers' views about the science fair at primary education level. Turkish Journal of Qualitative Inqury. 4(2), 56-64.Tortop, H.S. (2015a). Üstün zekâlılar eğitiminde farklılaştırılmış öğretim, müfredat farklılaştırma modelleri. Düzce: Genç Bilge Yayıncılık.
43. Tortop, H.S. (2015b). Üstün yetenekliler üniversite köprüsü eğitim programı ÜYÜKEP Modeli: Genç Bilge Yayıncılık.
44. Wallas, G (1926) The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
45. Fotoğraflar
46. Maxwell Cin (2016). http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness125.html Schröndinger’in Kedisi. http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat- die/
47. Gamma Ray Mikroskobu: https://260h.pbworks.com/w/page/30994984/Heisenberg's%20MicroscopeEinstein’nın Foton Tartısı: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bohr/discussions_with_ein stein.html