Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Chemical Reactions are Like Hell Because…’

Asking Gifted Science Learners to be Creative in a Curriculum Context that Encourages Convergent Thinking

  • Chapter
Interplay of Creativity and Giftedness in Science

Part of the book series: Advances in Creativity and Giftedness ((ACAG))

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is an activity, a science analogy game, introduced as part of a science enrichment programme for 14–15 year old gifted students attending English state schools. The ‘game’ was designed to be fun, but had a serious rationale. The activity was intended to encourage students to think divergently around school science concepts, and thus to be creative in a science learning context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ Experiences of Ability Grouping – disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631–648. doi: 10.1080/713651583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, S., Reiss, M., & Stobart, G. (2010). What happens when high-stakes testing stops? Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(3), 273–286. doi: 10.1080/0969594x.2010.496205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conservatives. (n.d.). Raising the bar, closing the gap; An action plan for schools to raise standards, create more good school places and make opportunity more equal. No place of publication given:Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crook, D. (2002). Local authorities and comprehensivisation in England and Wales, 1944–1974. Oxford Review of Education, 28(2–3), 247–260. doi: 10.1080/03054980220143405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • DfEE/QCA. (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England, key stages (pp. 1–4). London, England: Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • DfES. (2002). Teaching able, gifted and talented pupils: Overview, 2002. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/midbins/keystage3/

  • Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography – students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Retrieved from Kiel, http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html

  • Eilam, B. (2008). Long-term laboratory enquiry: Promoting understanding of ecology. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching science K-16 (pp. 77–109). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, S. G. (1969). Working with gifted children in science. In S. A. Bridges (Ed.), Gifted children and the brentwood experiment (pp. 128–135). Bath, England: The Pitman Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, O. R. (1979). What little I remember. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1998). Extraordinary minds. London, England: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutting, G. (1972). Einstein’s discovery of special relativity. Philosophy of science, 39(1), 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, L. (1967). Contrary imaginations: Psychological study of the english schoolboy. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York, NY: W H Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are gifted underachievers highly creative? Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234–242. doi: 10.1080/10400410802060232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1959/1977). The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 225–239). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about “misconceptions”: Preservice secondary science teachers’ views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96(5), 927–959. doi: 10.1002/sce.21022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 54–57. doi: 10.1080/00098650903505399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1963/1990). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The threat and the glory (pp. 228–233). New York, NY: Harper Collins. (Reprinted from: The Listener, Volume 70: 12th September, 1963.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meitner, L., & Frisch, O. R. (1939). Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: A new type of nuclear reaction. Nature, 143, 239–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakiboglu, C., & Taber, K. S. (2013). The atom as a tiny solar system: Turkish high school students’ understanding of the atom in relation to a common teaching analogy In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 169–198). Dordecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2000). Teaching chemistry as a rhetoric of conclusions or heuristic

    Google Scholar 

  • principles – a history and philosophy of science perspective. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467. doi: 10.1080/09500690010006518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962/1969). The unaccountable element in science. In M. Greene (Ed.), Knowing and being: Essays by Michael Polanyi (pp. 105–120). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1989). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (5th ed.). London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1970). Teacher’s expectations. In L. Hudson (Ed.), The ecology of human intelligence (pp. 177–181). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in Science: Chance, genius, logic and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1993). The concept of ‘giftedness’: A pentagonal implicit theory. The origins and development of high ability (pp. 5–21). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 327–336. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2001). When the analogy breaks down: Modelling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36(3), 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2007a). Choice for the gifted: Lessons from teaching about scientific explanations. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 158–171). London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2007b). Enriching school science for the gifted learner. London, England: Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2007c). Science education for gifted learners? In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 1–14). London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (Ed.). (2007d). Science education for gifted learners. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2011a). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Nova. Retrieved from https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/wiki/eclipse/Constructivism.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2011b). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of

    Google Scholar 

  • science research – Concepts and methodologies (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2011c). Patterns in nature: Challenging secondary students to learn about physical laws. Physics Education, 46(1), 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2013). Upper secondary students’ understanding of the basic physical interactions in analogous atomic and solar systems. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1107–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2015). Developing a research programme in science education for gifted learners. In N. L. Yates (Ed.), New developments in science education research (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S., & Cole, J. (2010). The CREST awards scheme: Challenging gifted and talented students through creative STEM project work. School Science Review, 92(339), 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S., & Riga, F. (2006). Lessons form the ASCEND project: Able pupils’ responses to an enrichment programme exploring the nature of science. School Science Review, 87(321), 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Strategies. (2008). Gifted and talented education. Guidance on preventing underachievement: A focus on excpetionally able pupils [00066-2008KT-EN]. Nottingham, England: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, A. (2007). Practical work for the gifted in science. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 172–181). London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. (1987). The comprehensive ideal and the rejection of theory. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35(3), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Keith S. Taber

Authors
  1. Keith S. Taber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Biomedical Philosophy, USA

    Melissa K. Demetrikopoulos

  2. University of West Florida, USA

    John L. Pecore

  3. Institute for Biomedical Philosophy, USA

    John L. Pecore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taber, K.S. (2016). ‘Chemical Reactions are Like Hell Because…’. In: Demetrikopoulos, M.K., Pecore, J.L. (eds) Interplay of Creativity and Giftedness in Science. Advances in Creativity and Giftedness. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_18

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-163-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation