Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering Creativity in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses with In-class Research Projects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creativity and Innovation Among Science and Art

Abstract

Chemical educators have viewed creativity in different ways, ranging from spontaneous “eureka–moments,” to informed hunches, to a skill that may be practiced and improved upon. Intertwined with these descriptions is consideration of what chemists do, how they seek and solve puzzles, and how creativity plays a role. When it comes to educating students in chemistry, traditional laboratory instruction has presented limited opportunities for promoting creativity and decision making. This has begun to change, however. A promising pedagogical approach for fostering creativity in chemistry is the inclusion of in-class research experiences in introductory courses. The Research Experiences to Enhance Learning (REEL) program is an exemplar of a program that has introduced more than 10,000 students to in-class research in Ohio. REEL courses diverge from traditional instruction in many ways, and in this chapter, aspects of the program that foster creativity are discussed. Student perspectives on REEL laboratories are quite positive, with their opportunity to creatively propose and explore research their own questions an important consideration.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Higher education partner institutions included the University of Akron, Bowling Green State University, Capital University, Central State University, University of Cincinnati, Cleveland State University, Columbus State Community College, University of Dayton, Kent State University, Miami (OH) University, Ohio University, the Ohio State University, University of Toledo, Wright State University, and Youngstown State University.

  2. 2.

    Student quotes are from open-ended surveys following their participation in a 3-week in-class REEL research project in General Chemistry. The number of students involved in a particular research project ranged from 150 to 450. Most students had already completed ~25 weeks of General Chemistry laboratory instruction (presented in an expository format) before beginning the research project.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practices: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of operational research is past. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascheron, C., & Kickuth, A. (2005). Make your mark in science. Creativity (presenting) publishing, and patents. A guide for young scientists. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, R. L. (2008). A brief history of undergraduate research, with consideration of its alternative futures. In R. R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science. The transformation from student to scientist. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. A. (1977). Creativity, discovery, and science. Journal of Chemistry Education, 54(12), 720–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E, Jr, Bursten, B. E., Murphy, C. J., & Woodward, P. M. (2012). Chemistry: The central science (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buono, J. A., James, L., & Fasching, J. L. (1973). Initiative, ingenuity, creativity, and chemistry, too? A group approach to analytical projects. Journal of Chemistry Education, 50(9), 616–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2004). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. M. (2009). A statewide initiative for engaging undergraduates in chemical research. In M. K. Boyd & J. L. Wesemann (Eds.), Broadening participation in undergraduate research. Washington: Council on Undergraduate Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem: What you should know about science. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, A. C. (1961). Encouraging creativity (editorial). Journal of Chemistry Education, 38(12), 589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crease, R. P. (2003). The prism and the pendulum: The ten most beautiful experiments in science. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditzler, M. A., & Ricci, R. W. (1994). Discovery chemistry: Balancing creativity and structure. Journal of Chemistry Education, 71(8), 685–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76(4), 543–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domin, D. S. (2009). Considering laboratory instruction through Kuhn’s view of the nature of science. Journal of Chemistry Education, 86(3), 274–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, B. D., Acosta, G. M., Wingard, D. A., & Smith, R. L, Jr. (1994). Improving creativity, solving problems, and communicating with peers in engineering and science laboratories. Journal of Chemistry Education, 71(7), 592–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, F. R. (1972). Creativity in science. Journal of Chemistry Education, 49(6), 382–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellspermann, S. J., Evans, G. W., & Basadur, M. (2007). The impact of training on the formulation of ill-structured problems. Omega, 35, 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1970). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197–230). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Furlan, P. Y., Kitson, H., & Andes, C. (2007). Chemistry, poetry, and artistic illustration: An interdisciplinary approach to teaching and promoting chemistry. Journal of Chemistry Education, 84(10), 1625–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallet, C. (1988). Problem-solving teaching in the chemistry laboratory: Leaving the cooks. Journal of Chemistry Education, 75(1), 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1981). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1906). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature, being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902. United Kingdom: Longmans, Green & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. B., Li, Y. (2011). Evaluation of research experiences to enhance learning: Final report. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970a). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–24). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970b). Reflections on my critics. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 231–278). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 170–196). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, S., Hunter, A. B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences. Engaging students in real science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipkowitz, K. B., & Daniel Robertson, D. (2000). Conformer hunting: An open-ended computational chemistry exercise that expresses real-world complexity and student forethought. Journal of Chemistry Education, 77(2), 206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopatto, D. (2009). Science in solution: The impact of undergraduate research on student learning. Tucson: Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. (1959). The threat and the glory. Reflections on science and scientists. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. L. (1996). How to get a research idea and get someone to pay you to work on it. Journal of Chemistry Education, 73(4), 332–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. L. (1993). Demonstration-exploration-discussion: Teaching chemistry with discovery and creativity. Journal of Chemistry Education, 70(3), 187–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Committee on high school science laboratories: Role and vision, In S. R. Singer, M. L. Hilton & S. R. Singer (Eds.), Board on science education, center for education. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF Report. (2011). Ohio consortium for undergraduate research: Research experiences to enhance learning. Award Number 0532250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, W., & Baker, R. A. (1931). The relation of the scientific hunch to research. Journal of Chemistry Education, 8(10), 1969–2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51–58). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P. F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2010). Training chemists in the United Kingdom. Journal of Chemistry Education, 87(4), 353–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachelam, C., & Rudolph, R. W. (1974). Cookbook versus creative chemistry. A new approach to research-oriented general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemistry Education, 51(7), 479–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski, T. J. (2009). Fostering creativity and learning using instructional symbolic mathematics documents. Journal of Chemistry Education, 86(12), 1466–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Research Experiences to Enhance Learning (REEL), The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

    Ted M. Clark

Authors
  1. Ted M. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ted M. Clark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Blacklick, Ohio, USA

    Christine Charyton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clark, T.M. (2015). Fostering Creativity in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses with In-class Research Projects. In: Charyton, C. (eds) Creativity and Innovation Among Science and Art. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6624-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6624-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6623-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6624-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation