Thinking What No One Else Has Thought: Investigating the Scientific Creativity of Primary School Students in a Science Class

  • Shanaia Marie Fernandez Senior High School Department, Sotero B. Cabahug FORUM for Literacy, Cebu, Philippines
  • Pauline Kaye Madelo Senior High School Department, Sotero B. Cabahug FORUM for Literacy, Cebu, Philippines
  • Ray Anne Lu Suico Senior High School Department, Sotero B. Cabahug FORUM for Literacy, Cebu, Philippines
  • Jas Felicisimo Cane Senior High School Department, Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
  • Joy Magsayo Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City, Philippines
  • Mae Capuyan Nangka Elementary School of the Department of Education, Cebu Province Division, Cebu, Philippines
  • Nyet Moi Siew Faculty of Psychology and Education, University Malaysia Sabah, Sabah, Malaysia
  • Dharel Acut Senior High School Department, Sotero B. Cabahug FORUM for Literacy, Cebu, Philippines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1514
Keywords: primary school students, problem solving, scientific creativity, STEM education, scientific structure creativity model (SSCM)

Abstract

For the advancement of humanity, scientific creativity is a crucial skill for coming up with innovations, addressing existing issues and interpreting particular scientific phenomena. The present study aimed to determine the scientific creativity level of 23 primary school students. In a single cross-sectional study, a descriptive survey questionnaire modelled on the Scientific Structure Creativity Model (SSCM) incorporated a seven-item scientific creativity test specifically designed to align with the backgrounds of primary school students. The results show that the students have a balance between a low or intermediate scientific creativity level. Of the 23 respondents, 8 have a low scientific creativity level, 8 have an intermediate scientific creativity level and 7 have a high scientific creativity level. The respondents are the most scientifically creative in creative science problem solving. The researchers recommend an intervention such as integrating the arts into the STEM curriculum to help develop students' scientific creativity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044

Acar, S., Burnett, C., & Cabra, J. F. (2017). Ingredients of creativity: Originality and more. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776

Acut, D., & Antonio, R. (2023). Effectiveness of Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach on students’ learning outcomes in science education: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 13(3), 718-739. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2151

Akanat, C., & Usta, E. (2015). Investigating scientific creativity level of seventh grade students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1408-1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643

Anderson, R. C., & Graham, M. (2021). Creative potential in flux: The leading role of originality dur Creative potential in fl ux: Th e leading role of originality during early adolescent development. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100816

Aschauer, W., Haim, K., & Weber, C. (2021). A contribution to scientific creativity: A validation study measuring divergent problem solving ability. Creativity Research Journal, 43(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1968656

Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(10), 732-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12062

Beghetto, R. A . (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.027

Bi, H., Mi, S., Lu, S., & Hu, X. (2020). Meta-analysis of interventions and their effectiveness in students’ scientific creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100750

Borowiecki, K. J., & Mauri, C. A. Originality, influence, and success: A model of creative style. Journal of Cultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-023-09481-y

Concepción, A. (2018). Creativity in science domains: A reflection. Universidad de Concepción, 517.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038688

Erwin, A. K., Tran, A., & Koutstaal, W. (2022). Evaluating the predictive validity of four divergent thinking tasks for the originality of design product ideation. PLOS ONE, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265116

Genek, S. E., & Doğança Küçük, Z. (2020). Investigation of scientific creativity levels of elementary school students who enrolled in a STEM program. İlköğretim Online, 19(3), 1715-1728. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734849

Guingguing, B. J. O., Yway, D. A. A., Magsayo, J. R., Caparoso, J. K. V., & Lahoylahoy, M. E. (2016). Scientific creativity among selected high school students. In C. Yuenyong, P. Pongsophan, D. Treagust, G. P. Thomas, F. Ying Yang, M. B. Barquilla, C. Dahsah, C. Faikhamta, P. C. Taylor, M. Sumida, L. Halim, & K. C. D. Tan (Eds.), International Conference of Science Educators and Teachers (ISET) 2016 (pp. 254-260). KhonKaen University, Thailand.

Haavold, P.Ø., & Sriraman, B. (2022). Creativity in problem solving: Integrating two different views of insight. ZDM Mathematics Education, 54, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01304-8

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

Hu, W., Shi, Q.Z., Han, Q., & Wang, X. (2010). Creative scientific problem finding and its developmental trend. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579551

Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. (2013). Increasing students’ scientific creativity: The “Learn to Think†intervention program. The Journal of creative behavior, 47(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20

Kambeyo, L. (2017). Scientific reasoning skills: A theoretical background on science education. NERA Journal, 14, 40-64.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.448 Kenett, Y. N., Levy, O.,

Kenett, D. Y., Stanley, H. E., Faust, M., & Havlin, S. (2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(5), 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717362115

Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L. A., & Vallett, D. B. (2015). The interface of creativity, fluency, lateral thinking, and technology while designing Serious Educational Games in a science classroom. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(2), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.36.14110

Land, M. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317

Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-93

Mukhopadhyay, R., & Sen, M. K. (2013). Scientific creativity – a new emerging field of research: Some considerations. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR), 2(1), 1-9.

Okere, M. I. O., & Ndeke, G. C. W. (2012). Influence of gender and knowledge on secondary school students’ scientific creativity skills in Nakuru District, Kenya. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.4.353

Prahani, B. K., Suprapto, N., Rachmadiarti, F., Sholahuddin, A., Mahtari, S., Suyidno, & Siswanto, J. (2021). Online Scientific Creativity Learning (OSCL) in science education to improve students’ scientific creativity in Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.73

Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029359

Runco, M. A. (2017). Comments on where the creativity research has been and where is it going. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 308-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.189

Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3

Sak, U., & Ayas, M. B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Dept. of Special Education, Faculty of Education, Anadolu University, 55(3), 316-329.

Segarra, V. A., Natalizio, B., Falkenberg, C. V., Pulford, S., & Holmes, R. M. (2018). STEAM: Using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1360

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

Smyrnaiou, Z., Georgakopoulou, E., & Sotiriou, S. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling – the CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(25). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00223-6

Stevenson, C. E., Kleibeuker, S.W., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Crone, E. A. (2014). Training creative cognition: Adolescence as a flexible period for improving creativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 827. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00827

Van der Zanden, P. J. A. C., Meijer, P. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2020). A review study about creativity in adolescence: Where is the social context? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100702

Wiyanto, Saptono S., & Hidayah, I. (2020). Scientific creativity: A literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1567. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/2/022044

Wu, Y., & Koutstaal, W. (2020). Charting the contributions of cognitive flexibility to creativity: Self-guided transitions as a process-based index of creativity-related adaptivity. PLoS ONE, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234473

Published
2024-01-15
How to Cite
Fernandez, S. M., Madelo, P. K., Lu Suico, R. A., Cane, J. F., Magsayo, J., Capuyan, M., Siew, N. M., & Acut, D. (2024). Thinking What No One Else Has Thought: Investigating the Scientific Creativity of Primary School Students in a Science Class. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1514
Issue
2025: Recently Accepted Papers
Section
VARIA

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
  2. The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
  3. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.