 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 5 (Jun., 2015)
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 5 (Jun., 2015)
|
Chemistry teachers’ views of creativity have been explored in this study. According to analysis for the first sub-problem of this research; chemistry teachers generally mentioned novel ideas, problem solving and creativity domains when identifying creativity. This finding is apparent in the literature (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010). Also Emir and Bahar (2003) investigated prospective teachers’ and faculty members’ views about creativity and similarly they have found that new ideas and problem solving were associated with creativity. Maksić and Pavlović (2011) reported that the educational researchers used originality, novelty and difference as key descriptors of creativity in their study which they investigate implicit theories of Serbian educational researchers on creativity. While many definitions can be made for creativity, there are researchers that explicitly define creativity as novel ideas (MacKinnon, 1962; Sternberg, 1993) and as problem solving (Weisberg, 1995; Isaksen, Dorval & Treffinger, 2000) just like participating chemistry teachers.
Some of the participating teachers mentioned that creativity is domain specific while some of the others mentioned that there’s no such thing as general creativity, people can only be creative in particular domains. There’s an ongoing debate about this phenomenon. For instance, Plucker (2004) stated creativity is not domain specific although it seems like that and it can be said that there’s a general creativity. On the opposite, Sternberg and Lubart (1993) people are creative in different domains. There are researchers who accept both views and point out that it’s not important to make discrimination like this. In their Amusement Park Theory, Baer and Kaufman (2005) adopted a view in which creativity could be both domain general and domain specific.
Teachers used many characteristics of creative individuals. The characteristics they mentioned are consistent with previous research (Diakidoy and Phtiaka, 2002; Cheung, Tse and Tsan, 2003; Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). Our analyses have shown that teachers mentioned classroom behaviors such as respectful, rule-breaker and they have an aptitude to define students who are engaged in science lessons are creative. Along with these, teachers also mentioned cognitive traits (e.g. intelligence, percipient and fast thinking). These findings are supported by relevant literature (Saracho, 2012; Lee and Seo, 2006). In a research conducted by Chan and Chan (1999) with teachers in USA and China, traits related with creativity were investigated and it was seen that the teachers in China used cognitive traits while teachers in USA used behavioral traits to describe creativity. Also Chinese teachers associated socially undesirable traits with creativity in students; they argued that in Chinese culture, nonconforming or expressive behavior can be interpreted as arrogant or rebellious. Same could be argued with Turkish culture which is intolerant to expressive behavior in both children and adults.
Chemistry teachers in this study did not mention important traits such as sense humor, androgyny, tolerance for ambiguity and risk-taking. Reason behind this act could be associated with Turkish culture in which people who have sense of humor are thought to be rebel and are seen as negative figures. Oral and Güncer (1993) investigated teacher perceptions and have demonstrated that creative children are rated as more disruptive in the classroom. According to Hargreaves (1994) “in post-modern school systems, risk is something to be embraced rather than avoided. Risk-taking fosters learning, adaptability and improvement” (as cited in Craft, 1998). As teachers’ negative attitude towards misbehaving students shape their classroom practices, teachers should take their own risk to serve creative but socially unwanted children.
Teachers in our study identified intelligent and gifted individuals as creative therefore it could be said that chemistry teachers related these concepts with each other. As teachers pointed out, creativity is one of the criteria for being identified as gifted (Renzulli, 1998). According to threshold theory, creativity is a trait that can be seen in individuals who has at least IQ 120, above IQ 120 creativity level starts to drop (Guilford & Christensen,1973; Runco & Albert, 1986; Preckel, Holling and Wiese, 2006). However below IQ 120 and upper, negligible correlations were found between intelligence and creativity (Kim, 2006). Thus, it could be said that intelligence is not a pre-condition for high creativity. Additionally, chemistry teachers were asked to give examples of creative people and some of them gave examples from scientists while other chemistry teachers gave examples from historical persons, politicians, hosts and religious leaders but some of these persons’ creativity could be argued.
In third research problem, chemistry teachers’ views about the characteristics of creative product were identified. According to literature creative products must be original, adaptable to the real life and useful (Parnes & Treffinger, 1973; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Sawyer, 2006). Chemistry teachers mentioned that creative products are original, ergonomic, practical, functional, open to interpretation, complete and detailed. It could be said that chemistry teachers mentioned almost all of the qualities of creative products in related literature.
In fifth research problem, chemistry teachers’ views about the factors effecting creativity were explored. Teachers mentioned gender, age, social environment, family upbringing style, education, cultural barriers and negative labels.Most male teachers stated that males were more creative than females. Gralewski and Karwowski (2013) reported teachers’ ratings of creativity were moderated by gender. This view holds important risks for it could cause the ignorance of females by teachers even if they are creative. Researchers suggest that especially in eastern cultures (Arabic, Turkish etc.) because of cultural barriers and parents’ guidance, males become more creative than females (Baer, 1999). However there are conflicting studies about gender differences in creativity (Kousoulas and Mega, 2009) so in order to nurture creativity equally in school context, teachers should be aware of the risks and be open to support all of the students unconditionally.Teachers mentioned positive and negative factors in their responses. Although creativity is related with intrinsic motivation, teachers argued that creative students should be awarded. Eckhoff (2011) reported teachers considered using frequent praise and use of external awards but they recognized the importance of intrinsic motivation in her study with pre-service teachers. Teachers in our sample stated that creative students should be educated in special schools, creativity should be supported both in school base and in classroom base and technical equipment of learning environment should be appropriate. They also expressed that an important positive factor about developing creativity is teacher’s support for creativity. According to chemistry teachers it could be said that teacher traits which support creativity are; motivation, technological literacy, openness to innovation and domain knowledge. Teachers exemplified some techniques like brain storming; project based learning, drama creativity development. These findings are also in line with research conducted by Emir and Bahar (2003) and Tan (2001) in which similar teaching methods were suggested by teachers. Although teachers in our sample did not give examples such as SCAMPER technique, Creative Problem Solving, Good-Bad-Interesting exercise which were based solely on creativity development so it could be said that they may not be aware of these methods.
Teachers generally complained that chemistry education program is too intense and weekly lesson hour for chemistry class does not allow implementing any activities to develop creativity. These issues which were identified by many other researchers in different contexts are barriers to creativity development (Saarilahti, Cramond and Sieppi, 1999; Tomasevic and Trivic, 2014; Hartley and Plucker, 2014; Kampylis, Berki, Saariluoma, 2009). Also perceptions of cultural barriers were identified. Teachers stated that Turkish culture doesn’t support creativity enough. They expressed that parents often behave protective to their children, the existence of nondemocratic family structure, cultural degeneration and creativity not being supported in every domain in Turkish culture.
Explicit theory category of creativity that is generally internalized by chemistry teachers was identified. It was seen that teachers mostly preferred typological theories. Other mostly preferred are developmental-humanist theories, problem solving and expertise based theories and cognitive theories. Typological theories suggest creative people differ in many factors. And these factors could be classified via typologies. In this context it could be said that teachers acknowledge that creative students have different aspects. Another category of creativity that became prominent in this study is developmental-humanist theories. Theories in this group suggest that creativity can be developed over time so it is important for teachers to have this view for developing creativity in schools.
Copyright (C) 2015 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 5 (Jun., 2015). All Rights Reserved.
