A. N. WEBB, A. C. RULE
image shows a turtle’s carapace with concentric circle designs
(creative strength of elaboration) while the final image shows
the plastron on the underside of a sea turtle (creative strength of
an unusual perspective). The plastron in the drawing also shows
attention to detail, as the suture lines are visible (creative
strength of elaboration).
Misconceptions
An open-ended culminating project like the one described in
this article is a good place to examine misconceptions in stu-
dent thinking. Although none were detected in this project,
several research studies indicate that children have misconcep-
tions about animal life cycles that they eventually outgrow with
appropriate instruction. For example, Nguyen and Rosengren
(2004), in surveying parents concerning their children’s bio-
logical knowledge of life cycles, found fewer misconceptions in
5 to 6 year olds than 3 to 4 year olds, indicating that miscon-
ceptions are open to change and are eventually replaced with
accurate facts. For instance, some younger children thought that
babies grew from seeds like plants whereas older students knew
that babies grew inside their mothers’ bodies and had charac-
teristics of their parents. Similarly, Hickling and Gelman (1995)
reported that most children understood bef ore age five that plants
grow from seeds. Another common misconception among first
graders reported by teachers was the belief that insects were not
animals because they are not furry, four-legged creatures (Pine,
Messer & St. John, 2010). An emphasis on scientific classifi-
cation of animals into different classes such as mammals, rep-
tiles, and insects helps students understand that all animals are
not mammals. In this study, the teacher presented three life
cycles from these different classes of animals, drawing student
attention to the fact that dragonflies, as insects, are indeed a
type of animal.
Conclusion
Students were able to evidence their content knowledge and
vocabulary acquisition related to animal life cycles through this
activity. They incorporated 25 different words related to the life
cycles as was shown in Table 3 and showed many different
parts of the life cycles. This level of vocabulary acquisition is
particularly interesting, given the fact that students did not
study or review vocabulary for this assessment—the results in-
dicate student learning solely from the lessons. Additionally , stu-
dents were able to demonstrate and practice creative strengths
and problem-solving abilities through this exercise. They espe-
cially exhibited elaboration, breaking of boundaries, storytel-
ling articulateness, abstract thought, emotional expressiveness,
and unusual perspectives. Although the teacher focused more of
her instruction regarding creativity on adding details and using
materials in different ways, students spontaneously displayed
other strengths. The relaxed productive atmosphere produced in
the classroom by addressing creative thinking skills promoted a
safe environment where risk-taking was encouraged. Therefore,
students naturally evidenced other creative traits (Cremin, Bur-
nard, & Craft, 2006). This situation fits with Lin’s (2009, 2011)
triangular model for creative pedagogy of “creative teaching,”
“teaching for creativity,” and “creative learning” at each of the
three vertices. Teaching creatively involves “using imaginative
approaches to make learning more interesting and effective”
(NACCCE, 1999: p. 89): the teacher provided an exciting ac-
tivity with interesting recycled and craft items for students to
re-envision as life cycle parts. The “teaching for creativity”
aspects highlighted identifying and developing learner capabili-
ties as the teacher gave instruction on elaboration, breaking
boundaries, and generating original ideas. By standing back,
allowing students to take responsibility for their creative work,
by encouraging the students’ curiosity, questioning and deci-
sion-making, the teacher facilitated “creative learning” compo-
nent of Lin’s triangular model.
In future studies, this activity could be repeated several times
so that students could become more aware of all of the creative
strengths and practice these skills. If a teacher used this type of
activity for weekly practice of content, both academic content
and creativity skills might be practiced, allowing students to
make growth in multiple areas. The vocabulary and concepts
students depict in their work also provide a useful assessment
of information being learned.
REFERENCES
Assessment & Teaching of 21st Century Skills (2012). What are 21st
century skills? URL (last checked 28 May 2012).
http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/
Center for 21st Century Skills (2012). Redesigning education. URL
(last checked 28 May 2012). http://www.skills21.org/
Center on Educational Policy (2009). Compendium of key studies of the
no child left behind act. Washington DC, WA: Center on Educational
Policy.
Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility
thinking in the early years. International Journal of Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 1, 108-119. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.07.001
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted
and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Education Connection (2012). Center for 21st century skills at education
connection. URL (last chec ke d 2 5 M a y 2012).
http://www.skills21.org/
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Great Neck, NY: Creative
Synergistic Associates.
Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The Analysis of intelligence.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn,
A., Russell, J. L., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-based
accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers
and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corpo-
ration.
Hickling, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). How does your garden grow?
Early conceptualization of seeds and their place in plant growth cycle.
Child Development, 66, 856-876. doi:10.2307/1131955
Lin, Y.-S. (2009). Teacher and pupil responses to a creative pedag-
ogy—Case studies of two primary classes in Taiwan. Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis, Exeter: University of Exeter.
Lin, Y.-S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education—A concep-
tual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2, 149-
155.
Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative gen-
ius. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999).
All our futures: Creativity, culture & education. Sudbury, Suffolk:
Department for Education and Employment.
Nguyen, S. P., & Rosengren, K. S. (2004). Parental reports of children’s
biological knowledge and misconceptions. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 28, 411-420.
doi:10.1080/01650250444000108
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). A framework for 21st cen-
tury learning. URL (last checked 25 May 2012).
http://www.p21.org/home
Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2010). Children’s misconceptions
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
484