Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415

WCES 2014

Investigating Scientific Creativity Level of Seventh Grade Students

Erdoğan USTAa* , Çiğdem AKKANATb
a
Faculty Member, Department of Primary Education, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Taşlıçiftlik, Tokat/Turkey, 60250
b
Science Teacher, Amasya/Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate scientific creativity level of elementary seventh grade students. Additionally,
relationship between students’ scientific creativity and views of nature of science and attitude towards science and technology
were investigated. The participants of the research were consisted of 300, 7th grade students who attend to schools in Tokat
during 2011-2012 academic years and were selected with stratified sampling method. ‘Creativity in Science Test, CST’, which
was developed by the researcher to determine the scientific creativity level, was used. ‘Attitudes Toward Science and Technology
Course Scale’ (Akınoğlu, 2001) was used to assess student’s attitude toward science and technology course. And lastly, ‘Nature
of Science Scale for the Primary School Students’, adopted by Çelikdemir (2006) was used to students’ understanding of nature
of science. According to findings of the main study conducted in Tokat, a significant relation was found between scientific
creativity and attitude towards science class. It was found that there was a meaningful difference between students’ scientific
creativity level and their view of nature of science. Furthermore, it has been found that students’ scientific creativity varied
between low and moderate and the answers given to the questions on the test were lower than expected and mostly ordinary.
© 2015
© 2014Published
The Authors. Published
by Elsevier by Elsevier
Ltd. This Ltd.
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
Keywords: Scientific creativity, creativity, divergent thinking, science ability, science education

1. Introduction

Creativity has occupied an important place in the history of humanity. Modern human, Homo sapiens sapiens,
since about hundred thousand year ago after first appeared in South Africa, has been affecting the Earth, in an
unprecedented manner than any other living creature.

* Erdoğan Usta Tel.: +905334304707

E-mail address: eusta@live.com

1877-0428 © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643
 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415 1409

Today, in order to get benefit to solve problems in our lives, we are always in needs of creative ideas (Marx,
2006). For this reason, every nation’s education system gives very much importance to cognitive skills of children
and their developments. For example, development of creative thinking skills is very much emphasized in Turkey’s
science technology course program (Köseoğlu, 2004). Creativity, in general, can be summarised as production of
‘effective novelty’ (Guilford, 1956; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993; Mohamed, 2006). Thus, for creativity to be manifest,
any creative idea or product should be novel and useful. There are three major paradigms that have shaped and
continue to influence the trajectory of creativity in psychology. Historically, individualistic approaches constitute the
norm, locating creativity either inside “unique” individuals (the He-paradigm) or inside each and every person taken
separately (the I-paradigm). It is only in the last decades that more emphasis has been put on the role of social
factors in the creative process. Thus, a new paradigm, namely, the We-paradigm, which is a theoretical approaches
that try to see creativity in all its complexity (Glăveanu, 2010). According to I-paradigm of Glăveanu and others
(Lin at al., 2003; Amabile, 1998) every person can be creative in one or other field. For example, one can be creative
in music, while others in literature and, still others science or in other fileds. For this reason, scientific creativity can
be studied in its own. The previous research shows that scientific creativity is related with some factors including
problem solving, problem finding, formulating hypotheses, using analogies along with some personality factors such
as motivation (Feist,1998; Grosul, 2010; Liang, 2002; Dunbar, 2000). Scientific creativity can be defined as,
depending on previous experiences and knowledge, sensitivity to problems and their solutions, understanding nature
of the science and fascinating with it, and development of new, extraordinary and useful scientific knowledge,
experiments, theories and products. According to Newell and Simon (1972) problem solving is a way of scientific
thinking thus scientists must find creative solutions to problems. For that reason, one the main purposes of science
education is developing childrens’ problem solving ability. Scientific creativity requires sensitivity to problems
because finding creative problems to solve is an important aspect of being a good scientist. What makes Einstein,
Darwin, Pasteur and Freud better from the others is their ability to ask different questions not their ability to solve
problems (Aris, Davis & Stuewer, 1983). Another aspect of being a good scientist is formulating creative
hypotheses. It seems creative scientists formulate many hypotheses based on reasonable facts. In scientific inquiry,
formulating hypotheses involves more creativity than collecting data, testing hypotheses and reaching a conclusion.
Nature of science refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs
inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). According to some researchers
understanding nature of science is related to especially children’s scientific creativity because having modern
thoughts effects how the children looks into problems and that makes them get high scores on creativity tests (Liang,
2002; Jo, 2009). Attitude toward science addresses scientific attitudes, attitudes toward scientists, attitudes toward
scientific careers, attitudes toward methods of teaching science, scientific interests, attitudes toward parts of the
curriculum, or attitudes toward the subject of science (Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982). Unlike creativity on other
domains, scientific creativity is highly connected with attitudes. Having positive attitude towards science would
affect the abilities related with science. So it is important for children developing those abilities to have positive
attitudes towards science and science class. While general creativity has been being studied for years, scientific
creativity and creativity of scientists studied less (Liang, 2002; Mohamed, 2006). According to Mansfield and Buse
creativity can be at level of professional and amateur (student scientist). Amateur creative individuals are people
who are at primary or secondary schools that can be more creative than their peers (Liang, 2002). Research has
proven that students who have become experienced during their school times by making scientific experiments by
their own attempts are more creative in their later professional lives (Parloff, Datta, Kleman, & Handlon, 1968;
Segal, Busse & Mansfield, 1980; Mumford, Supinski, Baughman, Costanza & Threlfall, 2005; Simonton, 2008). It
may not give correct results when scientific creativity is measured by measures prepared for measuring general
creativity (Liang, 2002). Although new instruments are required to measure scientific creativity, in general, those
instruments that are used in general creativity has still been being used in the measurement of scientific creativity.
According to Mohamed (2006) this can lead to errors. Zeng, Proctor & Salvendy, (2011) has shown that a creativity
test that use problems in a specific field can be more suitable as compared to a general creativity test to measure
scientific creativıty. For this reason, it is usual that there are many filed specific creativity tests. There are also
scientific creativity tests but their numbers as compared to general creativity tests are low. For this reason, in this
study, in order to measure scientific creativity, a new test that shows various aspects of divergent thinking ability in
science, as defined by Guilford and his associates (Guilford, 1973), that estimates through its accepted
1410 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415

characteristics, such as measures of fluency, flexibility and originality were developed and used. The purpose of this
study, in general, is to determine scientific creativity of seventh grade students. In addition to this, among skills
specific to the science, such as views on the nature of science, attitudes toward science and technology course that
can affect student’s motivation are the two other variables. The relation between these variables and scientific
creativity will be determined.

2. Material and Methods

The model of this study is relational screening model in that student’s scientific creativity in relation to attitudes
toward science and understanding of nature of science is presented. Also, gender effect in scientific creativity is
studied. Data were gathered from seventh class secondary school students in Tokat. The sample students were
selected from different schools. The reason why seventh class students were chosen for the study is twosome: one is
that majority of sixth class students aren’t abstract thinker yet and, the other is that eight class students are very
much busy for the national high school entrance exam and thus are unmotivated for the study. The sample size used
for the main study was 300. The students were chosen form eight different primary school and have the following
composition: female students 151 (50,33%) and 149 male students (49,67). In this study three data gathering
instruments were use: (1) to measure student’s attitude toward science and technology course, ‘Attitudes Toward
Science and Technology Course Scale-ATSTC’ (Akınoğlu, 2001), (2) to measure student’s understanding of the
nature of science, an adapted scale ‘Nature of Science Scale for the Primary School Students-ENOS’, (Çelikdemir,
2006), and finally, to measure student’s scientific creativity namely ‘Science Creativity Test (SCT) which was
prepared by the researchers for this study. All scales were applied together in a single session. The ATSTC which is
5 point likert scale included 10 positive and, 10 negative items. Its alpha reliability coefficient was 0,89. Scale was
numbered from negative to positive in 1-5 intervals and has a total score of 100. The NOS has 11 questions and
evaluates student’s views on (1) scientific knowledge can change, (2) it has a subjective and creative nature, (3) its
social and cultural structure, (4) role of observation and inference in science, (5) scientific theories and laws, and (6)
uncertainty of scientific knowledge. In addition to these, there are also questions related to definition of science,
differences that separate science from other disciplines and scientific methods. The scale has alpha internal
consistency reliability coefficient was 0,71. Evaluation method of the scale was adjusted according to the purpose of
the study. Choices within the questions in the scale that reflect conventional views which aren’t suitable for the
nature of science was marked as ‘naive’ and those which reflect modern views suitable for the nature of science was
marked as ‘realistic’ as suggested by Rubba, Bradford & Harkness (1996). Those students who marked 6 choices out
of 11 that reflect modern view was accepted as to have ‘realistic’ views on the nature of science. SCT has 10 open-
ended questions aimed to measure 6th, 7th and, 8th class student’s scientific creativity. The scale’s alpha internal
consistency reliability coefficient was calculated as 0,775. Every item in the scale is composed of components that
are thought to relate to scientific creativity. The questions in the scale are formed contextually from semantic and
visual questions that were selected from Guilford’s Divergent Production Operation (Guilford, 1973). Within these
questions, skills such as, contingent thinking, problem finding, problem solving, formulating hypothesis, making
improvements, designing experiments and product designing that were thought to relate to student’s scientific
creativity were measured. SCT were applied in classroom environment and, for each question a 4 minutes time and
totally 40 minutes time were allowed. Since creativity tests measures regarding the quantity and quality of the
answers given within a limited time period, for each question a specialist instructed and read the question, such that
students can engage only one question at a time within the given time period. Answers to the questions were
evaluated in terms of fluency, flexibility and originality, and scores were determined for each dimension was
summed to obtain creativity scores. Distribution of divergent production operations (dpo) measurement fields (mf) of
questions (q) is as follows:
(1) q: eventuality - dpo: divergent production of semantic inferences - mf: make a prediction; (2) q: ideal fluency -
dpo: divergent production of semantic classes - mf: classification; (3) q: problem finding - dpo: divergent
production of semantic inferences - mf: scientific problem finding; (4 and 5) q: problem solving - dpo: divergent
production of semantic inferences - mf: scientific problem finding; (6) and (7) q: formulating hypothesis - dpo:
divergent production of semantic relations - mf: formulating hypothesis; (8) q: making improvements - dpo:
 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415 1411

divergent production of visual transformation - mf: creative product development/reconstruction; (9) q: experiment
design - dpo: divergent production of semantic and visual transformation - mf: creative product development and
(10) q: technological design - dpo: divergent production of visual transformation - mf: creative product development.
The questions within SCT are open-ended and thus have no accurate answers. Scoring was adapted from Hu &
Adey (2002) and Mumford, Supinski, Baughman, Costanza, & Threlfall, (1997). During evaluation of the answer of
the students, first of all, answers were selected according to their being logical or not scientifically, then those
answers that are scientifically logical were evaluated. Later, answers for 1.-9. questions were pooled and investigated
individually for each student and, appropriate categories were formed. The number of logical or scientifically correct
responses gave ‘fluency score’. The number of categories gave the ‘flexibility score’, while the ‘originality score’ is
developed from the frequency of all accurate responses obtained. If the frequency of the response is smaller than 5%,
2 points are granted; if it is from 5 to 10%, 1 point is granted and finally if it is greater than 10 %, 0 point is granted.
For the tenth question originality score were calculated by using a rubric and any additional function to the
instrument were scored. Scoring were done by two science teachers of which one is the researcher by herself, and the
other is another science teacher who is informed about the scale. Scoring were done by two science teachers of
which one is the researcher by herself, and the other is another science teacher who is informed about the scale
before scoring. Data were analyzed by using statistical package (SPSS-15). Besides basic descriptive statistical
methods, to compare quantitative data, t-Test is also used assuming that group means are belong to the same
variable, are independent, and distributed normally, and group variances are equal. Continuous and normally
distributed variables were investigated by Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Results were evaluated in 95%
confidence interval and, a two-tailed prediction was made at p<.05 significance level. To measure consistency
between raters a product-moment correlation coefficient, r were calculated (r=0,997, p<.05) which indicates that
scoring of answers are reliable.

3. Interpretation of results

3.1. Student’s Scientific Creativity Levels

The scores students got from the SCT fall in the range of 13-142, with a mean score of 73. The results were
tabulated in Table 1
Table 1 Descriptive values of test scores of students (N=300) obtained by SCT.
Questions Scores Range Minimum Maximum Mean S.D
Fluency 6.00 0.00 6.00 1.97 1.03
Flexibility 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.56 0.76
Question 1
Originality 8.00 0.00 8.00 2.21 1.96
Total 18.00 0.00 18.00 5.74 3.33
Fluency 10.00 0.00 10.00 3.50 1.96
Flexibility 3.00 0.00 3.00 1.55 0.62
Question 2
Originality 8.00 0.00 8.00 1.51 1.94
Total 19.00 0.00 19.00 6.56 3.93
Fluency 10.00 0.00 10.00 4.52 1.91
Flexibility 6.00 0.00 6.00 2.42 1.13
Question 3
Originality 16.00 0.00 16.00 4.80 3.13
Total 30.00 0.00 30.00 11.74 5.18
Fluency 8.00 0.00 8.00 3.44 1.46
Flexibility 5.00 0.00 5.00 2.32 0.92
Question 4
Originality 12.00 0.00 12.00 2.73 2.16
Total 24.00 0.00 24.00 8.49 4.00
Fluency 6.00 0.00 6.00 2.59 1.09
Flexibility 5.00 0.00 5.00 2.08 0.88
Question 5
Originality 6.00 0.00 6.00 1.89 1.73
Total 16.00 0.00 16.00 6.56 3.24
Fluency 8.00 0.00 8.00 2.90 1.43
Question 6
Flexibility 5.00 0.00 5.00 2.20 0.97
1412 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415

Originality 10.00 0.00 10.00 2.63 2.06

Total 20.00 0.00 20.00 7.73 3.97
Fluency 8.00 0.00 8.00 2.39 1.42
Flexibility 6.00 0.00 6.00 1.89 1.00
Question 7
Originality 9.00 0.00 9.00 2.19 1.87
Total 21.00 0.00 21.00 6.47 3.85
Fluency 10.00 0.00 10.00 3.95 1.74
Flexibility 5.00 0.00 5.00 2.22 0.93
Question 8
Originality 14.00 0.00 14.00 4.45 2.79
Total 27.00 0.00 27.00 10.61 4.88
Tools & Methods 6.00 0.00 6.00 1.51 1.61
Question 9 Originality 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.74 1.74
Total 10.00 0.00 10.00 3.25 3.09
Functionality 14.00 0.00 14.00 4.38 3.12
Question 10 Originality 5.00 0.00 5.00 1.39 1.46
Total 19.00 0.00 19.00 5.77 4.03
Total Score 129.00 13.00 142.00 72.93 23.93

Fluency score is the number of valid answers and the question that got highest score is the third question with a
mean of 4.52. In the ninth question, instead of fluency score, students were evaluated by scoring them within 0-3
interval according to the number of tools used. In the same way, students were evaluated by scoring them within 0-3
interval according to the methods they have used during experiment design. ‘Tools and methods’ scores are summed
and the highest score to get is 6. From Table 1, it is seen that student’s highest tools and methods score is 1.51 and is
highly low, but some students (14 students, 4.7%) has got 6 points. In the tenth question, instead of fluency, students
were scored according to the number of valid functions they added to an instrument. Student’s ‘functions score’
were calculated by multiplying valid function numbers by two. According to ‘functions scores’ some students (2
students; 0.7%) proposed seven valid functions and got 14. When the flexibility scores for the first eight questions
are investigated from the Table 1 , again, students got the highest scores from third question. Originality score for
the first eight questions were calculated according their uniqueness (when the frequency is 5-10%: 1 point; less than
5%: 2 point; all others frequencies 0 point) in the sample. From the Table 1 it is seen that students have given the
most infrequent ideas to the third question. In the ninth question, originality score were given to the originality
uniqueness (when the frequency is 5-10%: 2 point; less than 5%: 4 point; all others frequencies 0 point) of the
method. The mean score for the originality was calculated as 1.74. In the ninth question, originality scored,
specially, by the general impression related to the design of the rater in the interval of 0-5 points. The mean score for
this question is 1.39, but some students (5.7%) have gotten the highest score of 5 because they created creative
designs.

3.1. Relation between student’ scientific creativity and their attitudes towards science and technology course

From the results obtained from the ATSTC, relation between student’s scientific creativity and their attitudes
toward science and technology course, it was found that there is a low significant (r=0.246, p<.05) correlation
(Table 2). This can be due to the fact that attitudes toward a course are directly dependent on some factors, such as
the way the teacher teaches the course and the teacher identity.

Table 2.Relation between student’s scientific creativity and their attitudes towards science and technology course.
Factors 1 2
(1)Scientific Creativity Score 1 0.246*
(2)Atttide Towards Science Class 0.246* 1

When the determination coefficient (r2=0.06) is considered, %6 of the total variance in student’s scientific
creativity can be attributed to their attitudes towards science and technology course.
 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415 1413

3.2. Relation between student’s scientific creativity and their understanding of nature of science

Those students who gave answers that can be accepted tor have modern or realistic view of nature of science also
scored high in the scientific creativity. Independent Groups t-Test results were given in Table 3

Table 3 t-Test results of student’s scientific creativity total scores on the views of nature of science variable.
Views on Nature of Science N Mean Std. Dev. t Sd p
Scientific Creativity Realistic (Modern) 72 84.0972 22.42619 -4.701 298 0.00*
Naive (Conventional) 228 69.3991 23.3452
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

4. Discussion

Mean scientific creativity score were calculated as 72.9. The maximum score one can get is 142. Scientific
creativity levels of students within the sample are generally changing between low and intermediate level. These
results are supported by other Turkish researches, as they also got similar results (Kadayıfçı, 2008 and Kılıç, 2011).
When the answers to the questions were investigated qualitatively, most of them seem to be ordinary and in terms of
originality are below than that can be expected from seventh grade students. This ordinariness in the answers is in
parallel in the study of Pekmez, Aktamış & Taşkın (2009). Divergent thinking abilities of the students, as they are
restricted by various thinking patterns, are very low. Even though the science program encourages creativity, due to
time limitations during the courses students are always expected to thing in a convergent ways. For this reason,
students couldn’t have got out of focus and have been in difficulty in finding different ways of solution and new
ideas. Another reason of why creativity test scores are low is because students are affected by distracting factors
(Trentham, 1975). Since the tests were applied in classroom environment, students could have been distracted by the
noise generated by neighboring classes or by the students which are always coming in going out. Students answer
revealed that students have alternative concepts about eyesight and conductivity and about the age of dinosaurs whic
were also supported in other studies (Şen, 2003; Kubiatko & Prokop, 2007; Dal, 2007). Research findings show that
student’s attitudes toward science and technology course and generally science is at very low levels (Choi & Cho,
2002; Fensham & Harlen, 1999; Mbajiorgu & Ali, 2003; Yager & McCormack, 1989). In this study, it was found a
low positive relation (r=0.246, p<.05) between student’s scientific attitudes to science technology course and
student’s scientific creativity. Attitudes toward science and technology course 6% of the variance within scientific
creativity. This finding is generally supported by the findings in literature (Yager & McCormack, 1989; Lee &
Erdoğan, 2007). One study found a contrary result from Turkey in which it was found no significant (r=0.052,
p>.05) relation between student’s scientific attitudes to science technology course and student’s scientific creativity
levels (Kılıç, 2011). When all these results evaluated, the reason why attitudes towards science affect scientific
creativity at a low level could be; due to different factors and course achievement, may affect attitudes toward
science and technology course and due to the fact that attitudes toward science technology course may bear attitudes
toward teachers themselves and the ways teachers teach the course. In addition to these, attitudes toward science and
technology course may affect willingness to use cognitive skills related to the course, such as problem finding and
solving and hypothesis construction. There is a significant relation (t=-4.701, p<.05) between student’s views of
nature of science and scientific creativity. This is in behalf of those students who have a modern and more realistic
view of nature of science and scientific creativity of these students is higher. Liang (2002), though in high school
students, found that there is a significant correlation (r=0.245) between understanding of nature of science and
scientific creativity. Jo (2009), also found a meaningful relation (estimated parameter = 0.33) between
understanding of nature of science and scientific creativity. According to these findings, understanding of nature of
science is a determining factor in scientific creativity.

References

Akınoğlu, O. (2001). The effect of critical thinking skills based science education to learning outcomes (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis),
Hacettepe University, Ankara.
1414 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76–87.

Aris, R., Davis, H. T., ve Stuewer, R. H. (eds.) (1983). Springs of Scientific Creativity: Essays on Founders of Modern Science. Minneapolis:
Çelikdemir, M. (2006). Examining Middle School Students’ Understanding of The Nature of Science (Unpublished Thesis), Middle East
Technical University. Ankara.
Choi, K., & Cho, H-H. (2002). Effects of teaching ethical issues on Korean school students' attitudes towards science, Journal of Biological
Education, 37(1), 26-30.
Dal, B. (2007). Fosil Öğretimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,32, 52-64.
Dunbar, K. (2000). How Scientists Think in the Real World: Implications for Science Education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
21(1), 49–58.
Feist, G. J. (1998). Ameta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
Fensham, P. J. & Harlen, W. (1999). School science and public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education. 21(7), 755-
763.
Glăveanu, V. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New ideas in psychology, 28 (1).
pp. 79-93.
Grosul, M. V. (2010). In Search of The Creative Scientific Personality (Master’s Theses), San Jose State University.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin,53, 267–293.
Guilford, J. P. (1973). Characteristics of Creativity. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 080171.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED080171.pdf (25.01.2012).
Haladyna, T. & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis. Science Education, 66(4),547-563.
Hu, W. ve Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
Jo, S. M. (2009). A Study of Korean Students’ Creativity in Science Using Structural Equation Modeling (PhD Theses). The University of
Arizona.
Kadayıfçı, H. (2008). The effect of an instructional model based on creative thinking on students' conceptual understanding of separation of
matter subject and their scientific creativity (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis), Gazi Üniversity, Ankara.
Kılıç, B. (2011). Determining the level of scientific creativity and scientific attitude of 8th primary school students (Unpublished Master Thesis).
Osmangazi Universitiy, Eskişehir.
Köseoğlu, F. (Komisyon Bşk.) (2004). “Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Programı” – İlköğretim 4 – 5. Sınıflar. T. C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve
Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara.
Kubiatko, M. & Prokop, P. (2007). Pupils’ Misconceptions About Mammals. Journal of Baltic Science Education,6(1), 5-14.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lee, M-K. & Erdoğan, İ. (2007). The Effect of Science–Technology–Society Teaching on Students’ Attitudes toward Science and Certain
Aspects of Creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1315-1327.
Liang, J. (2002). Exploring Scientific Creativity of Eleventh Grade Students in Taiwan, (PhD Thesis), The University of Texas, Austin.
Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P. and Shen J. (2003). The Influence of CASE on Scientific Creativity. Research in Science Education 33, 143–162.
Marx, G. (2006).Using Trend Data to Create a Successful Future for Our Students,Our Schools, and Our Communities. ERS Spectrum,24(1), 4-8.
Mbajiorgu, N. M. & Ali, A. (2003). Relationship between STS approach, scientific literacy, and achievement in biology. Sci. Ed., 87, 31–39.
Mohamed, A. (2006). Investigating the Scientific Creativity of Fifth-Grade Students (PhD Thesis), The University of Arizona.
Mumford, M. D., Connely, M. S., Scott, G., Espejo, J., Sohl, L. M. Hunter, S. T., ve Bedell, K. E. (2005). Career Experiences and Scientific
Performance: A Study of Social, Physical, Life, and Health Sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2& 3), 105–129.
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A, Costanza, D. P., ve Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-
solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73-83.
Newell, A. ve Simon, H.A.(1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Parloff, M. B., Datta, L., Kleman, M., ve Handlon, J. H. (1968). Personality characteristics which differentiate creative male adolescents and
adults. Journal of Personality, 36, 528-552.
Pekmez, E. Ş., Aktamış, H. & Can, B. (2010). Fen Laboratuvarı Dersinin Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri ve Bilimsel
Yaratıcılıklarına Etkisi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 93-112.
Rubba, P. A., C.S. Bradford and Harkness, W. J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on science-technology-society instrument.
International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387–400.
Segal, S. M., Busse, T. V. & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). The Relationship of Scientific Creativity in the Biological Sciences to
PredoctoralAccomplishments and Experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 491-502.
Şen, A. İ. (2003). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Işık, Görme ve Aynalar Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgılarının ve Öğrenme Zorluklarının İncelenmesi.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 176-185.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Childhood Giftedness and Adulthood Genius: A Historiometric Analysis of 291 Eminent African Americans. Gifted
Child Quarterly,52(3), 243-255.
Sternberg, R. J., Lubart, T. I. ( 1993). Investing in Creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229-232.
Trentham, L. L. (1975). The Effect of Distractions on Sixth-Grade Students in a Testing Situation. Journal of Educational Measurement,
12(1),13-17.
University of Minnesota Press.
Yager, R. E. & McCormack, A. J. (1989). Assessing teaching/learning successes in multiple domains of science and science education. Sci. Ed.,
73, 45–58.
 Erdoğan Usta and Çiğdem Akkanat / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1408 – 1415 1415

Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W. & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests Be Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real-World
Creativity?. Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 24-37.