Can Investigative Practical Work in High School Biology Foster Creativity?

Creativity is recognised as a valuable human quality for personal, social, technological and economic reasons and many school curriculum documents assert that creativity can be taught. In science education it is often argued that it is through engagement in practical work that students develop their possibility thinking and problem solving abilities. This paper uses data generated during a four-year study of students engaged in open investigative practical work in senior biology to indicate how such engagement might foster personal and collaborative creativity.

[1]  J. Olson,et al.  The Nature of Science in International Science Education Standards Documents , 1998 .

[2]  Anna Craft.  Little c Creativity , 2001 .

[3]  William F. McComas,et al.  THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE: DISPELLING THE MYTHS , 1998 .

[4]  Hans Niedderer,et al.  Teaching and learning in the science laboratory , 2003 .

[5]  M. Shayer.  Improving Standards and the National Curriculum. , 1991 .

[6]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical Work In School Science , 1993 .

[7]  Neuman.  Social Research Methods , 2007 .

[8]  M. Runco.  Education for Creative Potential , 2003 .

[9]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention , 1996 .

[10]  Marilyn Johnston,et al.  Experience and reflections on collaborative research , 1990 .

[11]  Anne Welle-Strand,et al.  Creativity, Curricula and Paradigms , 2003 .

[12]  S. Selwood.  A PART TO PLAY? , 2006 .

[13]  J. T. Dennis,et al.  Science - A Process Approach. , 1972 .

[14]  William F. McComas,et al.  The nature of science in science education : rationales and strategies , 1998 .

[15]  Jenny Lewis.  The Effectiveness of Mini-projects as a Preparation for Open-ended Investigations , 2002 .

[16]  P. Screen.  The Warwick Process Science Project. , 1986 .

[17]  G. Kaufmann.  What to Measure? A new look at the concept of creativity , 2003 .

[18]  J. Jungck.  A Problem Posing Approach to Biology Education , 1985 .

[19]  E. Guba,et al.  Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, 416 pp., $25.00 (Cloth) , 1985 .

[20]  Fouad Abd-El-Khalick,et al.  Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science , 1998 .

[21]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[22]  Towards a meta-research agenda in science and enviormental educaion , 1993 .

[23]  Ann Chih Lin,et al.  Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods , 1998 .

[24]  Bob Jeffrey,et al.  Creativity in Education , 2001 .

[25]  Martyn Hammersley,et al.  Bias in Social Research , 1997 .

[26]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Redefining and Reorienting Practical Work in School Science , 1992 .

[27]  Judith M. Ramsden.  If It's Enjoyable, Is It Science?. , 1992 .

[28]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[29]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Changing the World: A Framework for the Study of Creativity , 1994 .

[30]  M. Murdock.  The Effects of Teaching Programmes Intended to Stimulate Creativity: A disciplinary view , 2003 .

[31]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[32]  M. Jalongo.  A Position Paper of the Association for Childhood Education International: The Child's Right to Creative Thought and Expression , 2003 .