Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1967). Science – A process approach. Washington, DC: Ginn.
Bayliss, V. (1999). Opening minds: The final report of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). London: RSA.
Boden, M. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 95–102). London: Continuum.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–175.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Craft, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 45–61). London: Continuum.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Feldman, D., Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CO: Praeger.
Graves, N., & Graves, T. (1990). A part to play. Melbourne, Australia: Latitude Publications.
Haigh, M. (1999). Investigative practical work in Year 12 Biology programmes. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Haigh, M. (2001). Supporting student investigators. New Zealand Science Teacher, 96, 39–41.
Haigh, M. & Hubbard, D. (1997). “I know I’ve learnt something”: Investigating in secondary science. In Bell, B & Baker, R. (eds.) Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 53–66). Auckland: Longmans.
Hammersley, M., & Gomm, R. (1997). Bias in social research, Sociological Research Online, 2(1). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/r/2.html.
Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. School Science Review, 73(264), 65–78.
Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.
Jalongo, M. (2003). The child’s right to creative thought and expression. Childhood Education, 79(4), 218–228.
Johnston, M. (1990). Experiences and reflection on collaborative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(2), 173–183.
Jones, A., Simon, S., Black, P., Fairbrother, R, & Watson, J. (1992). Open work in science: The development of investigations in schools. Hartford, UK: ASE.
Jungck, J. (1985). A problem posing approach to biology education. The American Biology Teacher, 18, 127–136.
Kaufmann, G. (2003). What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 235–252.
Klinckmann, E. (1970). Biology teacher’s handbook (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley.
Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrech, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lewis, J. (2002). The effectiveness of mini-projects as a preparation for open-ended investigations. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 139–150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lin, A. C. (1996). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. McComas (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Medawar, P. (1967). The art of the soluble: Originality in science. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Murdock, M. (2003). The effects of teaching programmes intended to stimulate creativity: A disciplinary view. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 339–358.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: DFEE.
Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods. (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nuffield Foundation. (1996). Physics: Teachers’ guide I. London: Longman.
Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Towards a meta-research agenda in science and environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 591–605.
Runco, M. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research. Melbourne, Victoria: Macmillan Education Australia.
Screen, P. (1986). The Warwick Process Science Project. School Science Review, 72(260), 17–24.
Simon, S., & Jones, A. (with Fairbrother, R., Watson, J., & Black, P.) (1992). Open work in Science: A review of existing practice. OPENS Project 1992. London: Kings College, University of London, Centre for Educational Studies.
Welle-strand, A., & Tjeldvoll, A. (2003). Creativity, curricula and paradigms. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 359–372.
Yin, R. (1988) Case study research: Design and methods. United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haigh, M. Can Investigative Practical Work in High School Biology Foster Creativity?. Res Sci Educ 37, 123–140 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9018-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9018-5