Investigation the Scientific Creativity of Gifted Students Through Project-Based Activities

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to identify the scientific creativity of gifted students through project-based activities. In accordance with this purpose, a study has been carried out with 13 gifted students studying in third and fifth grade. In the study, students have been informed about the project development stages and they have been asked project designs that would facilitate the daily life. Following the project designs, semi-structured interviews with the students and teacher observations in the process have been carried out. In addition, pictures of the students' project drawings have been taken. Interviews, observations and pictures have been subjected to content analysis. Categories have been defined depending on the size of scientific creativity which was suggested by Hu and Adey (2002). Within the context of the categories; proposals have been offered to researchers and people in concern. Activities can be enhanced for the development of different aspects of scientific creativity.

A Review of Articles Using Observation Methods to Study Creativity in Education (1980–2018)

“…Some authors elected to include multiple definitions of creativity (Pitri, ), which made it difficult to pinpoint the study's contributions to specific creativity theories. Emphasis on cognitive components included divergent thinking, convergent thinking, fluency, and flexibility (e.g., Karademir, ). Problematically, Robson and Rowe () used a standard creative thinking framework that conflated “imagination” with “creativity,” which they then proceeded to explain in terms such as originality and novelty, and even critical thinking.…”

“…Critical incident sampling, where a case or participant is sampled as an important example of a construct (Patton, ), was used in one article; surveys and interviews led to the selection of three students for classroom observations based on their use of creativity in science (Meyer & Lederman, ). Other studies sampled students identified as gifted (e.g., Karademir, ), and then proceeded to conduct observations.…”

“…While some articles described the research focus, such as teaching method (Walker, ), professional development (Lorimer, ), and student art activities (Pitri, ; Thomas, ), the larger research design remained obscure. Designs included case study (James, ; Karademir, ; Katz‐Buonincontro, , ) and ethnography (Guay, ; Mars, ; Petsch, ), which is frequently associated with the method of observation as defined in the APA standards for reporting qualitative research (Levitt et al., ). With respect to connecting creativity to learning, attempts were made to tie general pedagogy to teaching for creativity in specific subjects: Meyer and Lederman () and Sullivan () mapped science instruction to the demonstration of creativity and Donovan et al.…”

“…Thick description (Geertz, ; Rile, 1949) of the creativity process was evident in the following 11 articles: modeling in art instruction (Budge, ) and online music collaboration (Biasutti, ) and student‐teacher interactions (James, ; Thomas, ). Videos and photographs of student drawings and creative projects (Karademir, ; Katz‐Buonincontro, , ; Lorimer, ; Pitri, ; Vuk et al., ; Walker, ) strengthened observation descriptions.…”

“…Likewise, the coding method for deriving codes, categories or themes were not used, or if they were used, methodologists were not cited (Budge, ; Cho et al., ; Coulson & Burke, ; Geist & Hohn, ; Godart & Mears, ; Kandemir & Gur, ; Lorimer, ; Pitri, ; Walker, ; Walmsley, ; Wielgosz & Molyneux, ). Examples of well‐articulated coding of observations included the constant comparative method—a systematic approach to coding used in grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, )—(Katz‐Buonincontro, , ; Meyer & Lederman, ), content analysis method (Karademir, ), interaction analysis examining routine practices of individuals and their environment (Jordan & Henderson, ; Sullivan, ), semantic analysis (Thomas, ) and symbolic interactionism (James, ), or how people interpret meaning from symbol systems (Blumer, ). However, even with some of these coding methods, it was hard to discern the preparation of field notes for analysis and the identification of discrete codes relating to final, larger themes reported as “results.”…”