Share This Article:

Encouraging Creativity with Scientific Inquiry

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2010.11001    6,884 Downloads   13,824 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Creativity facilitates scientists in their investigations of new problems or with a new orientation. However, K-12 science education typically does not acknowledge this aspect of creativity. Science/Technology/Society provides an avenue for creativity when addressing inquiry. The use of Cothron et al.’s [1] four question strategy allows for a planning approach for inquiry.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Barrow, L. (2010). Encouraging Creativity with Scientific Inquiry. Creative Education, 1, 1-6. doi: 10.4236/ce.2010.11001.

References

[1] J. Cothron, R. Giese and R. Rezba, “Science Experiments and Projects for Students,” Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, 2006.
[2] P. Kind and V. Kind, “Creativity in Science Education: Perspectives and Challenges for Developing School Science,” Studies in Science Education, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1-37.
[3] R. Root-Berstein and M. Root-Bernstein, “Artistic Scien-tists and Scientific Artists: The Link between Polymathy and Creativity,” In: R. Sterberg, et al. Ed., Creativity from potential to realization, American Psychological Associa-tion, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 127-151.
[4] C. Snow, “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolu-tion,” Cambridge University Press, London, 1959.
[5] M. Cschszentmihalyi, K. Rothende and D. Whalen, “Ta-lented Teenagers,” Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, 1993.
[6] D. Mosley, et al., “Framework for Thinking,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
[7] M. Runco, “Creativity,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, 2004, pp. 657-687.
[8] H. Gardner, “Multiple Intelligences,” Basic Books, Inc., New York, 2006.
[9] M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Creativity,” HarperCollins, New York, 1996.
[10] J. Nakaimura and M. Czekozenbmchalji, “Catalytic Crea-tivity: The Case of Linus Pauling,” American Psychologist, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2001, pp. 337-341.
[11] M. Plucker, et al., “Why isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potential Pitfalls and Future Directions in Creativity Research,”Educational Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2004, pp. 83-96.
[12] M. Plucker, “A 100 year review of creativity research,” A paper presented at the International Creativity Education Conference, Ksionong, Taiwan, 24 October 2008.
[13] H. Gardner, “Frames of Mind,” Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1983.
[14] V. John-Steiner, “Notebooks of the Mind,” University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1985, pp. 203-204.
[15] A. Koestler, “The Act of Creation,” Macmillan, New York, 1964.
[16] National Research Council, “National Science Education Standards,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996.
[17] D. Taylor, M. Jones, B. Broadwell and T. Oppewal, “Creativity, Inquiry, or Accountability? Scientists’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Science Education,” Science Education, Vol. 92, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1058-1075.
[18] D. Hodson and D. Reid, “Science for All-Motives, Meaning and Implications,” School Science Review, Vol. 69, No. 249, 1988, pp. 653-661.
[19] R. Yager and A. McCormack, “Assessing Teaching/ Learning Success in Multiple Domains of Science and Science Education,” Science Education, Vol. 73, No. 1, 1989, pp. 45-58.
[20] R. Yager and R. Roy, “STS: Most Persuasive and Most Radical of Your Approaches to Science Education,” In: R. Yager, Ed., What Research Says to Science Teachers, Na-tional Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C., Vol. 7, 1993, pp.7-16.
[21] R. Yager, “Science-Technology-Society as Reform,” School Science & Mathematics, Vol. 93, No. 3, 1993, pp. 145-151.
[22] J. Penick, “Creativity and the Value of Questioning in STS,” In: R. Yager, Ed., Science/Technology/Society: As Reform in Science Education, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1996, pp. 84-94.
[23] M. Lee and I. Erdogan, “The Effect of Science Technology Society Teaching on Students’ Attitude toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity,” International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 29, No. 11, 2007, pp. 1315-1327.
[24] American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Science for all Americans,” Author, Washington, D.C., 1989.
[25] L. Barrow, “A Brief History of Inquiry—from Dewey to Standards,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2006, pp. 265-278.
[26] National Research Council, “Inquiry and National Science Education Standards,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 29.
[27] J. Swaab, “The Teaching of Science as Inquiry,” In: J. Swaab and P. Brandwein, Eds., Teaching of Science, Cambridge, Howard University Press, MA, 1962, pp. 1-103.
[28] A. Coburn, “An Inquiry Primer,” Science Scope, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2000, pp. 42-49.
[29] J. Settlage, “Demythologizing Science Teacher Education: Conquering the False Ideal of Open Inquiry,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, pp. 461-467.
[30] A. Johnston, “Demythologizing or Dehumanizing: A Response to Settlage and the Ideals of Open Inquiry,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2008, pp. 11-13.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.