Abstract
Although creativity is considered one of the key competencies in modern society and a central aspect of nature of science, it has been neither established as a main topic in chemistry education research nor in today’s chemistry education practice. In contrast to its real nature, students mostly characterise chemistry as a solely logical and analytical discipline and fail to appreciate the importance of creativity in the development of chemical knowledge. The research project tries to address this deficiency. Based on the assumption that chemistry teachers’ adequate conceptions represent a necessary condition on the way to implement creativity into education practice, the principle aim of our study was to support prospective chemistry teachers in developing these conceptions. Thus, two different approaches were evaluated concerning their impact on teacher students’ conceptions in pre-service chemistry teacher courses at the University of Cologne. While the first approach reflects concrete historical examples of creative modelling processes, the latter offers learning environments, in which teacher students have to become creative themselves. Data were collected by open-ended questionnaires, participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The findings indicate that the first approach particularly enables the students to recognise that creativity is important in chemistry, while the latter rather offers the opportunity to realise how creativity works in chemistry. In order to develop comprehensive conceptions, a combined approach seems to be the most suitable.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Becker, H. J., Kühlmann, J. K., & Parchmann, I. (2014). Trendbericht Chemiedidaktik. Der Kompetenzbereich “Erkenntnisgewinnung” [Trend report chemistry didactics. The area of competence “epistemological and methodological knowledge”]. Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 62, 356–359.
Bliersbach, M., & Reiners, Ch. S. (2015). Implementierung von Kreativität in den Chemieunterricht?! [Implementation of creativity into chemistry education?!]. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Heterogenität und Diversität – Vielfalt der Voraussetzungen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht [Heterogeneity and diversity – Variety of requirements in science education] (pp. 193–195). Kiel: IPN.
Cohen, E. (1912). Jacobus Henricus van’t Hoff. Sein Leben und Wirken [Jacobus Henricus van ‘t Hoff. His life and his work]. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.
Gillespie, R. J. (2004). Teaching molecular geometry with the VSEPR model. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 298–304.
Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49, 35–68.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.
Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–421.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.
Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Olson, H. F. (1958). Dynamical analogies. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
Rocke, A. J. (2010). Image and reality. Kekulé, Kopp, and the scientific imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, L. A. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: The Research Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bliersbach, M., Reiners, C.S. (2017). “Creating Creativity”: Improving Pre-service Teachers’ Conceptions About Creativity in Chemistry. In: Hahl, K., Juuti, K., Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A., Lavonen, J. (eds) Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58684-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58685-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)