Öğrenme Öğretme Bağlamlarında Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Algıları: 4P Çerçevesine Dayalı Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu çalışmada kimya öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme öğretme bağlamlarındaki bilimsel yaratıcılık algıları, Rhodes’un 4P (kişi, süreç, ürün, ortam) çerçevesine dayanarak incelenmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden betimsel durum çalışması deseninin kullanıldığı araştırmaya Ankara’daki bir eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören 20 kimya öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen "Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Algıları Formu" ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Algı formunda kimya eğitiminde farklı yaratıcı düşünme fırsatlarını temsil eden altı kurgusal örnek olay sunulmuştur. Katılımcılar; bu olaylardaki ürün, kişi, süreç ve ortam bileşenlerinin yaratıcı olup olmadığı konusundaki algılarını belirtmiş ve algılarını açıklayan gerekçelerini sunmuşlardır. Araştırmanın sonunda adayların örnek olaylardan biri dışında diğer tüm olaylardaki fırsatların yaratıcı olup olmadığını uygun olarak algıladıkları belirlenmiştir. Algılarının gerekçeleri incelendiğinde özellikle olaylardaki ürünlerin yeniliğini uygunluğundan daha çok önemsedikleri, yaratıcı olarak algılamada ürünün yenilik düzeyi ve soyut-somut olmasının etkisi konusunda sorunlar yaşadıkları görülmüştür. Araştırma sonuçları bütüncül olarak ele alındığında öğretmen yetiştirme konusunda çeşitli çıkarımlar içermektedir.

Keywords

• bilimsel yaratıcılık
• algı
• öğretmen adayları

Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Creativity in Learning and Teaching Contexts: An Analysis Based on the 4P Framework

Abstract

This study explored pre-service chemistry teachers' perceptions of scientific creativity in learning and teaching contexts, using Rhodes' 4P (person, process, product, environment) framework. Twenty pre-service chemistry teachers studying at an education faculty in Ankara participated, utilizing a descriptive case study design within qualitative research methods. Data were collected through the “Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Creativity Form”, developed by the researchers, and semi-structured interviews. The form included six fictional case examples representing different opportunities for creative thinking in chemistry education. Participants indicated whether the product, person, process, and environment components in these cases were considered creative and explained their reasoning. The findings showed that the pre-service teachers generally recognized the opportunities in all cases except one as creative. Analyzing their reasons revealed that they particularly valued the novelty of the products over their appropriateness, and that they faced challenges in perceiving creativity based on innovation and on whether the product was abstract or concrete. In summary, the results offer various implications for teacher education.

Keywords

• scientific creativity
• perception
• pre-service teacher

References

1. Akkanat, Ç., & Gökdere, M. (2015). Chemistry teachers’ views of creativity. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(1), 1–21.
2. Ayaz, E., & Sarıkaya, R. (2021). The effect of engineering design based science teaching on decision making, scientific creativity and design skills of classroom teacher candidates. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.961060
3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
4. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers No. 41). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
5. Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003.
6. Aytaç, S., Dursun, S., & Bağdoğan, S. Y. (2018). Psikolojiye giriş. Dora Yayıncılık.
7. Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.09.002.
8. Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creativity in the classroom. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 447–456). Springer.

9. Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
10. Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
11. Bryan, L. A. (2012). Research on science teacher beliefs. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 477–495). Springer.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (30. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
13. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996.
14. Charles, M., & Alex, S. (2021). Perceptions of physics teachers towards creativity in teaching and learning wave motion at secondary school level. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research, 9(11), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.70729/se211027160309.
15. Coll, R. K. (2006). The role of models, mental models and analogies in chemistry teaching. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.),
16. Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 65–77). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_6
17. Creswell, J. W. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
18. Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280305
19. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83–114). Hampton Press.
20. Cropley, A. J. (2015). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Routledge.
21. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge University Press.
22. Demir, S. (2015). Perception of scientific creativity and self-evaluation among science teacher candidates. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(18), 181–184.
23. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
24. Dikici, A. (2012). Perceptions of creativity by Turkish student teachers. International Journal of Educational Reform, 21(4), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791202100405
25. Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29039-3
26. 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.2012.35089
27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
28. Higuera Martínez, V., Lozano-Domingo, A., & Martínez-Navarro, J. (2021). Trends and opportunities by fostering creativity in science and engineering: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 11(9), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1974350
29. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106.
30. 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.
31. Jaksland, R. (2021). Teaching scientific creativity through philosophy of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11, 110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00427-9.
32. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.
33. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688.
34. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
35. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225.
36. 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.
37. Liu, S.-Y., & Lin, C.-S. (2014). Primary teachers’ beliefs about creativity in the classroom context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.868619.
38. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.28.3.116.
39. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
40. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortak Metni. MEB Yayınları.
41. Ndeke, G. C. W., & Keraro, F. N. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of classroom practices that inculcate scientific creativity. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 9(2), 27–42.
42. Ndeke, G. C., Okere, M. I., & Keraro, F. N. (2016). Secondary school biology teachers’ perceptions of scientific creativity. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n1p31.
43. Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802658842.
44. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
45. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307.
46. Puryear, J. S., & Lamb, K. N. (2024). Creativity knowledge of classroom teachers: Predictors and correlates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101666.
47. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
48. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
49. Schmidt, H. J. (2011). Creativity in science: Tensions between perception and practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 311–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2011.25063
50. Sevinç, N., & Kanlı, E. (2019). Öğretmenlerin yaratıcılık kavramı ile ilgili sahip oldukları mitler ve görüşler. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(2), 103–122.
51. Stephens, K. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity and how it relates to primary school science: A reflection. Research in Teacher Education, 11(2), 29–34.
52. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
53. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.
54. Tan, Y. S. M., & Caleon, I. S. (2023). The influence of science teachers’ beliefs and practices on students’ learning spaces and processes: Insights from Singapore. In O. Tan & W. Liu (Eds.), Effective teaching around the world: Theoretical, empirical, methodological and practical insights (pp. 635–651). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_28
55. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
56. Tezbaşaran, A. A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu (3. baskı). Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
57. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.