Thinking about Creativity in Science Education

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.35089

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.5, 603-611

Published Online September 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.35089

Thinking about Creativity in Science Education

Yannis Hadzigeorgiou1, Persa Fokialis1, Mary Kabouropoulou2

1Department of Pre-School Education and Educational Design, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

2Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

Email: hadzigeo@r ho d e s.aegean.gr

Received June 28th, 201 2; revised July 26th, 2012; a c c e p t e d A u g u s t 1 2 th, 2012

In this paper we discuss the notion of creativity in the contexts of science and science education. In doing

so, we consider and reflect on some taken-for-granted ideas associated with school science creativity,

such as inquiry science, and integrating art and science, while we search for a notion of scientific creativ-

ity that is compatible with both the nature of science and the general notion of creativity, and also realistic

in the context of school science education. We then propose a number of activities/strategies that encour-

age creativity, and more specifically imaginative/creative thinking, through the learning of school science.

Keywords: Creativity; Imagination; Science; Science Education

Introduction

Is there anything new to be said about creativity when the

literature on the subject is literally voluminous and covers al-

most half a century’s research? An ERIC search revealed that

well over one million articles have been written about creativity

in the contexts of education and learning, and a little over one

hundred and fifty thousands about creativity in the context of,

or relating to, science education. Yet the above question is quite

timely, now that creativity is increasingly considered a crucial

ability for the future. As we are entering a new era, creativity is

not just becoming increasingly important (Pink, 2005), but it

seems that “our future is now closely tied to human creativity”

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996: p. 6). Gardner (2010), in his Five Mi nd s

for the Future, has argued for the crucial role of creativity, as a

one of the five cognitive abilities that leaders of the future s hould

seek to cultivate.

The fact that curriculum documents worldwide make explicit

reference to creative thinking as a worthwhile aim of education

reflects the great importance we attach to creativity. If the wor l d,

as we know it today, is the result or the product of the creative

thinking of few individuals, and if progress in any human en-

deavor and field of study is due exclusively to the development

of new ideas and new ways of seei ng reality, then it makes se ns e

to make creative thinking a curricular goal. Science is one of

the disciplines that can make a contribution to the achievement

of this goal. The current Creative Little Scientists project, aim-

ing to foster creativity in early childhood in several European

countries, is evidence of the priority given to creativity in gen-

eral and creativity through science in particular, especially in

early years education (www.creative-little-scientists.eu).

However, there is empirical evidence that students do not ap-

preciate the creative thinking required in doing science, and that

they do not view science in general as a creative endeavour (see

Schmidt, 2011). This is somehow paradoxical, given that crea-

tivity is inextricably tied to the nature of science itself (McCo-

mas, 1998), and also the consensus among scientists and sci-

ence educators that scientific knowledge is indeed the product

of creative thinking (Osborne et al., 2003). On the other hand,

the rhetoric around creativity in general and scientific creativity

in particular is also something that needs to be considered. Slo-

gans such as “creative science”, “creative problem solving” and

“creative inquiry” may remain just slogans if we keep on pay-

ing lip service to these notions (Kind & Kind, 2007; Schmidt,

2011) and if we tend to identify creativity simply, or mainly,

with the generation of novel ideas without appreciating the spe-

cial role of imagination (Holton, 1996) and the role of content

knowledge in creative thin king (Rowla nds, 2011).

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the notion of creativ-

ity in the contexts of science and science education and then

propose a number of activities/strategies that encourage creativ-

ity, and more specifically imaginative/creative thinking, through

the learning of school science. What Jean Piaget has said about

creativity provides a purpose for the writing of this paper, since

slogans around creativity abound, and since one has to critically

look at what scientific creativity is, before implications for sci-

ence education are drawn and certainly before activities that sup-

posedly make children more creative are designed and imple-

mented.

The principal goal of education is to create men who are

capable of doing things, not simply of repeating what other gen-

erations have done—men who are creative, inventive, and dis-

coverers. The second goal of education is to form minds which

can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are

offered. The great danger today is of slogans, collective opin-

ions, ready-made trends of thoughts. We have to be able to re si st

individually, to criticize, to distinguish between what is proven

and what is not. (Ginsberg & Opper, 1969: p. 5)

Creativity in Science

The idea that science is a creative endeavour is indisputable.

Scientific ideas are creations of the mind. As Einstein and In-

feld (1938) put it, “Physical concepts are free creations of the

human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely de-

termined by the external world.” (p. 33). The invention, of

course, of concepts and theories, more often than not, requires

extraordinary imaginative leaps, but it is also true that even

everyday scientific work, like, for example, problem finding

a nd s o l vi n g , hypothesis formation, an d modelli ng, require s imagi-

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

native/creative thinking, although the latter is not usually asso-

ciated with novelty.

If creativity is one’s “ability to come up with new ideas that

are surprising yet intelligible, and also valuable in some way”

(Boden, 2001: p. 95), then novelty and value should be the two

conditions or characteristics of scientific creativity too. And ac-

cording to these two characteristics, scientific creativity can be

identified either with “historical creativity ” (i.e., when somethi ng ,

like a new idea, a new theory, a new discovery, is historically

new) and/or with “personal creativity” (when something is new

in a personal sense regardless of whether that something is not

new to others) Boden, 2004, for a distinction between h-crea-

tivity and p-creativity). It can also be identified with both ex-

traordinary, “big C creativity” (BCC) and ordinary, everyday,

“little c-creativity” (LCC) (Craft, 2001). It seems reasonable to

identify LCC with “normal science” and BCC with “revolu-

tionary science”, according to Kuhn’s (1970) terminology,

since LCC is akin to imaginative and what Craft (2001) calls

“possibility thinking”, which is a kind of thinking that takes

place in everyday life.

In distinguishing between ordinary (LCC) and extraordinary

creativity (BCC) one may be tempted to think of the latter as a

purely personal ability, since it involves imaginative leaps and,

sometimes, sudden insights. But since it (BCC) exists within a

socio-cultural system, consisting of three interacting elements

(i.e., a domain or culture that sets symbolic rules, a person who

brings new ideas into the domain, and a community of experts

who will validate the produced novelty) (Feldman, Czikszent-

mihalyi, & Gardner, 1994), the purely personal dimension of

creativity, even in the case of some rare individuals, who make

new discoveries and invent new scientific theories, seems to be

complement ed with a soci al dimension. It is for this reason that

creativity is increasingly considered a socio-related issue (Miell

& Littleton, 2004; Ricchuito, 1996). Whitehead’s (1957: p. 116)

view that “Everything of importance has been said before by

somebody who did no discovered it”, certainly reflects the so-

ciological view that the source of ideas is the individual and

would be “more correct to say that s/he participates in think

further what others have thought before her/him” (Mannheim,

1972: p. 3). However, it raises an issue in regard to the original-

ity of the ideas put forward by scientists.

To pursue this issue further is beyond the scope of this paper,

but it is nonetheless important to consider it when approaching

creativity in the context of school science (see next section).

Suffices to say here, it makes sense to view creativity as a men-

tal ability emerging from a social context, which is, anyway,

compatible with the social dimension of science itself. In actual

fact, the view that science is a social activity—“constitutively

social”—as Woolgar (1988: p. 13) put it—says much than sci-

ence having a social dimension. It rather conveys the view that

that the very nature of science is social. There is evidence that

creativity emerges from interacting scientists (Latour & Wool-

gar, 1986). The image of the “l one star” scientist, working i n the

lab and experiencing a sudden inspirations and insight, thus sol v-

ing a problem on his/her own, although not completely a myth,

is very rare, at least nowadays. Interactions among scientists

and among groups of scientists play a catalytic role in the crea-

tion of knowledge (Feldman, Czikszentmihalyi, & Gardner,

1994; Simonton, 2004).

However, in talking about scientific creativity, the personal

dimension of creativity, which is associated with the aesthetic

element of science, needs to be considered. In actual fact, the

philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn has stressed its impor-

tance in scientific revolutions: “Aesthetic considerations can be

decisive. Though they often attract only a few scientists to a

new theory, it is upon those few that its ultimate triumph may

depend.” (Kuhn, 1970: p. 156). The history of science provides

evidence that aesthetic factors did play a major role in theory

construction and in influencing scientific practice in general

(Hadzigeorgiou, 2005 ). It should be noted th at the common ground

shared by art and science has been recognized after a shift from

positivist epistemology took place. Science, in fact, might have

a greater commonality with art than was originally thought in a

more positivist era (Tauber, 1996).

The idea that “wholeness”, through its association with beauty,

can be experienced during one’s appreciation of both a sci ent ifi c

theory and a work of art, is evidence of the common ground

shared by science and art (Bohm, 1998). This means that s cientifi c

truth is not judged solely on the grounds that scientific ideas

correspond to certain observable facts, but also because they

contribute to a sense of wholeness (Bohm, 1988). That aesthetic

factors contribute to this sense of wholeness is well document-

ed in the literature (Root-Bernstein, 2002; McAllister, 1996,

1997).

What is important to point out is that inspiration and imagi-

native engagement are shared by both artists and scientists. And

that at the moment of creation, the boundaries between art and

science cease to exist and aesthetics play a central role (Miller,

2001). What is also important to bear in mind is that with the

advent of quantum physics and the theory of relativity, the dis-

tinction between art and science became blurred. Not only aes-

thetics (Tauber, 1997; Root-Bernstein, 2002) but also symbolic

language became central to the creation of scientific knowledge.

Werner Heisenberg described Niels Bohr as an artist, who, in

using his brushes and various colours, tried to convey, just like

an artist, his own images to other scientists (Heisenberg, 1971).

And Bohr himself did point out that in the new physics, where

one studies the behaviour of atoms, “language can be used as in

poetry” (Tolstory, 1990: p. 16). Miller’s (2001) work on the life

and work of Einstein and Picasso reveals parallels between the

two men, and provides an insight into how the shift from posi-

tivism influenced both art and science. For the distinctions be-

tween the visible and the invisible, the distant and the near be-

came blurred, and the unification of time and space, the idea of

simultaneity and that no two observers see exactly the same

thing, were ideas that were common in both art and science.

The similarities between cubism and the theory of relativity is

evidence, according to Miller’s (2001) analysis, of those com-

mon ideas. Moreover, the creation of mental imagery and

analogies, used by both artists and scientists, points to the cru-

cial role of imagination in both artistic and scientific creativity.

Yet, despite these similarities, the differences between art and

science should also be stressed. For example, while in art “some-

thing travels”, in the sense that people, who did not participate

in the creative act (which produced a piece of art), feel delight

and inspiration, and are carried away, in science the delight and

inspiration are closely tied to the act and context of the scien-

tific discovery itself, that is, to the scientist who made the dis-

covery or developed a scientific theory (Medawar, 1967: p.

172). Also in science there is always the process of verification,

which does not exist in art.

Simonton (2004), in using as examples The Principia, The

Republic, Hamlet, The Last Supper, and the Fifth Symphony,

makes Newton’s scientific creativity quite distinctive from all

604

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

the rest, since, as his argument goes, any literate person can get

an understanding of Plato’s logical argument in the Republic, or

an idea of the dramatic development in Hamlet and also what is

graphically conveyed in the Last Supper or musically expressed

in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, but makes no sense of what

Newton in The Principia actually put forward. It is perhaps this

reason why scientific creativity is culturally valued more than

artistic creativity.

From neuroscience’s perspective, Dietrich’s (2004) work on

creativity types is very informative, since it can help us di ff ere n-

tiate between scientific and artistic creativity. He classifies crea-

tivity into four major types: deliberate and cognitive, deliberate

and emotional, spontaneous and cognitive, and spontaneous and

emotional. Scientific creativity requires sustained attention and

focus on an idea or problem and is therefore the result of a de-

liberate cognitive function (taking place in the prefrontal cor-

tex), although there are occasions when spontaneous cognitive

creativity makes one solve a problem. Artistic creativity, on the

other hand, is associated with spontaneous and emotional func-

tioning (taking place in the amygdala). Scientific creativity,

more often than not, is based on logic, in the sense that “Once a

scientist masters the logic of science and the substance of a

particular discipline, creativity is assured.” (Simonton, 2004: p.

6). In other words, what is usually considered a mystical inspi-

ration, a product of some extraordinary ingenuity, may very w ell

be the product of logic. Although logic is one of the sources of

scientific creativity—the other being genius, chance and zeit-

geist, according to Simonton (2004)—it is nonetheless an im-

portant one. There is consensus that scientific creativity is always

matched by rationality, with experiments playing a crucial role

(Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). Scientific ideas, as

was pointed out previously, are always subject to verification

through experimental testing.

The comparison that has been made between art and science

is quite crucial, given the interdisciplinary connection between

the two in the context of education. This issue I will take up in

the next section, but here the point that should be made co nce rn s

both the similarities and differences between the two, which

need to be considered when one approaches creativity. Art is

more imaginary than science, in the sense that in science logic

is always a complement to imagination. Which though is more

creative is hard to answer, granted that both can be creative, and

in fact transformative, in the sense that they can both contribute

to our change of outlook on the world (Miller, 2001).

This comparison may lead one to identify scientific creativity

mainly with two general abilities, that is, imaginative and logi-

cal thinking. Both intellectual abilities, in actual fact, are con-

sidered necessary, although not sufficient, for the generation or

production of novel ideas. Yet creativity, as an emergent ability,

is the result of a complex interplay of several factors, such as

intellectual abilities (i.e., problem finding, seeing problems in

novel ways), prior, domain-specific knowledge, p ersonality t ra it s

(i.e., self-efficacy, risk taking, a tolerance for ambiguity), mo-

tivation and environment (Sternberg, 2006). This complexity,

coupled with the way and the circumstances under which scien-

tific ideas burst forth (Gardner, 1994, 1997), makes scientific

creativity an unpredictable ability or event. For it is also true

that the subconscious and unconscious have also played a cata-

lytic role in the generation of novel ideas and problem solutions.

According to the literature, dreaming and daydreaming have

resulted in sudden and unexpected insights—even illuminations

(Vernon, 1970; Kind & Kind, 2007).

The age of those involved in the creation of novel and rev olu -

tionary scientific ideas is also a factor that needs some consid-

eration with regard to scientific creativity, as is the fact that

scientists, more often than not, are “deliberately creative” (in

the sense that they deliberately look for novelty that can be

useful to society). The fact that the scientists who transformed

both their disciplines and the way people see the world were

very young—i.e., in their early or mid-twenties (Simonton,

2004), is something that may very well have implications for

science education.

It is therefore apparent that scientific creativity is the ou tcom e

of a complex interplay of factors that cannot be predicted. Yet

despite the complexities inherent in science, as a field of inq ui ry ,

and despite the complexities in approaching it as a creative en-

deavor, a reliable picture of it should be based upon the fo l lo w in g

statements (Kind & Kind, 2007: p. 14):

 Scientific theories are creative products (ideas) made by

scientists.

 Many scientists work on the same problems and new ideas

(theories, laws) emerge by common effort.

 Most science theories develop over a long period in small

steps.

 Some scientists are highly creative and make substantial

contributions in their fields, but they always build on other

people’s ideas.

 All scientists must use their imagination when contributing

to the development of science.

 Scientific theories are created in many different ways. The

processes are sometimes highly creative and/or highly logic,

rational and/or accidental.

 In science creativity and rationality always work together.

Scientific creativity never works without rationality and st r i c t

empirical testing.

This reliable picture is important to consider when ap pr oa chi ng

scientific creativity in the context of school science and science

education. The reason is it can provide the background and

rationale for designing activities, which have the potential to

foster creativity in school science education. However, two id ea s

that do not explicitly appear in the above list are 1) The a es th e tic

dimension of science of scientific knowledge (Girod, 2007) and

2) the idea of scientific inquiry , which includes asking q ue s t i on s,

problem solving, designing and conducting investigations,

forming hypothesis formation and formulating explanations, an d

a l s o r ef l ec ti n g u p on e x pl an a ti on s a nd f in d i ngs ( Ba r row , 2010).

Although implicit in the above list, these two ideas, along with

imagination, need to be seriously considered by science tea-

chers and science educators in approaching scientific creativity.

Iimagination, as a mental ability that has a close relationship

with scientific creativity, deserves special attention. As McCo-

mas (1998) has pointed out, “close inspection will reveal that

scientists approach and solve problems with imagination and

creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance.” (p. 58).

Imagination, as an ability that allows one to form mental

images and also to think of the possible rather than just the actual

(Egan, 1990), and “to play with different hypotheses” and “with

different ways of making objects” (Gaut, 2003: p. 280), is not

simply important but central to science. For scientists, in their

attempt to understand how the world works, visualize unobser-

vable entities (i.e., atoms, electrons, lines of force) and pheno-

mena (i.e., electromagnetic induction, change in intermolecular

distance) and also think of possible ways to explain phenomena.

They also play with ideas, with different possibilities, through

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

thought experiments, analogies and modelling. It must have be e n

in the aforementioned sense that Einstein considered imagina-

tion more important than knowledge. For he is reputed to have

said that while knowledge points to what there is, imagination

points to what there can be. And he also urged people who want

to become scientists to take thirty minutes a day and think like

non-scientists (Di Trocchio, 1997).

That imagination is the sine qua non of science can been seen

not only in its role in some indispensable mental abilities, such

as re-imagining problems, creating mental images, and possibility

thinking, but also in its central role in narrative thinking. This

kind of thinking is co mpletely divergent and co mplements lo gi c o -

mathematical thinking (Bruner, 1986). There is evidence that

narrative thinking is central to science (Hadzigeorgiou & Ste-

fanich, 2001; Klassen, 2006). As Nobel Prize winner Peter Med-

awar commented, scientists, in building exploratory structures,

are in fact “telling stories which are scrupulously tested to see if

they are stories about real life” (Medawar, 1984: p. 133). Ex-

planatory schemes (i.e., hypotheses, theories) are the result of

both narrative and logico-mathematical thinking, since the latter

checks and tests ideas generated by the former, no matter how

imaginative, against reality and also in relation to what is al-

ready known about reality . This complementary, but at the sam e

time central, role of the imaginative element in science has be en

stressed by Richard Feynman as follows:

The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the

sole judge of scientific “truth”. But what is the source of knowl-

edge? Where do the laws to be tested come from? Experiment,

itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us

hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints

the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple,

but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experi-

ment to check again whether we have made the right guess.

(Feynman, 1995: p. 2)

Feynman’s view concurs with that of Holton (1996), who

believes that “logic, experimental skill, and mathematics are

constant guides” but “are by no means adequate to the task of

scientific investigation” (p. 78). But Holton (1996) goes further,

in that he distinguishes between three types of imagination, that

is, “three closely related companions that are rarely acknowl-

edged: the visual imagination, the metaphoric imagination, and

the thematic i m a g i nation” (p. 78).

Yet imagination is one of those concepts whose importance

cannot be found in scienti fic reports and variou s research pa pe r s.

It can be found though where scientists speak about their life

and about the role of imagination in their work and in other

scientists’ work. Van’t Hoff, for example, in a letter to his fa-

ther, wrote: “The fact is the basis, the foundation. Imagination

the building material, the hypothesis the ground to be tested,

and reality is the building” (Van’t Hoff, 1967: p. 2). Maxwell,

in admiring Faraday’s exceptionally imaginative thought said:

“Faraday, in his mind’s eye, saw lines of force, traversing all

space, where the mathematicians saw centres of force attracti ng

at a distance. Faraday saw a medium where mathematicians s a w

nothing but distance” (McAllister, 1996: p. 54), while Planck

(1933: p. 215) did remark that: “Imaginative vision and faith in

the ultimate success are indispensable. The pure rationalist has

no place here” (meaning “no place” in modern physics).

It is therefore important that the role of imagination in the

creation of scientific knowledge be acknowledged. What Gell-

Mann, a Nobel laureate in physics, has said is certainly impor-

tant: “Rationality is one the many factors governing human

behaviour, and it is by no means always the dominant factor.”

(Jenkins, 1996: p. 147). Yet imagination, as the analysis so far

suggests, is a mental ability that should be explicitly l inke d wit h

science, and therefore with science education.

Creativity in Science Education

The answer to the question “what does creativity in science

education mean?” may seem quite straightforward. For one can

readily say that creativity in the context of science education

refers, or should refer, to what the science teacher does (i.e.,

s/he stimulates and encourages creative thinking) and/or to the

opportunities the students have, independently and/or as a result

of what their teacher does, for creative thinking. What is not

straightforward, however, is the extent to which creativity in the

context of the science classroom can or should reflect scientific

creativity. For it sounds reasonable, one might say, that creativ-

ity in the context of science education should reflect, as much

as possible, the notion of scientific creativity. There is a view

that any approach to scientific creativity in the context of school

science should be both “authentic” in scientific research terms

and meaningful and appropriate to the students’ needs and abilities

(Kind & Kind, 2007). However, the idea of “authenticity” may

be misleading.

Although “scientific creativity” should reflect what real sci en-

tists do, the differences between scientists and children as well

as the nature of the tasks encountered by them need to be taken

into account. Children have neither the scientists’ conceptual

framework nor the time to pursue a topic for a long time, unless

of course this has been arranged (i.e., through participation in a

project, that poses no immediate restrictions on time). More-

over the deliberate pursuit of novelty by scientists may be to-

tally absent from students, who may very well do things, in-

cluding scientific inquiry, because they have to. The nature of

the problems scientists encounter is also another issue (i.e., ill-

structured problems admitting multiple solutions) to be ser ious ly

considered. This point I take up further down this section of the

paper.

A point also that needs to be made here is that although we

know what real scientists do, we cannot say the same about

what and how they think. Given that there is no “universal

scientific methodology”, scientists can approach and solve the

problems they face in their research in many possible ways (see

Simonton, 2004). Moreover, as Medawar (1979) observes, “Sci-

entists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing di ffe ren t

things in very different ways” (p. 3). In other words, scientific

creativity emerges from experiences extremely unique to the

individual scientists. Even if some students had conceptual

frameworks si milar to those of scie ntists, the nature of cr e a t iv i ty ,

as an emergent intellectual ability, would make the comparison

between students and scientists unrealistic. All these arguments

make “a ut hent ici ty ” an u nrel ia ble, i f not i nva lid, cr ite rio n w her eb y

one judges scientific creativity in the context of school science.

The issue of “authenticity”, however, becomes more complex

if one considers it the context of scientific inquiry. For there is

also a crucial question: “how authentic can inquiry science be?”

Are students really free to explore or are somehow guided by

their teachers to follow a step-by-step procedure (i.e., collect

and analyze), if not a recipe for inquiry (Asay & Orgill, 2010).

The main flaw with inquiry science, as Kind and Kind (2007)

have observed, is that the freedom and openness existing in real

science is rarely achieved in the everyday reality of the science

606

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

classroom, and, more often than not, teachers inevitably

“frame” student inquiry, by facilitating and providing most of

what is required in the investigation. There is some evidence, as

they report, to argue that scientific inquiry does not offer any

guarantee for fostering students’ scientific creativity. In fact this

evidence suggests that “any claims that “scientific creativity” is

developed through inquiry science are certainly spurious” (Kind

& Kind, 2007: p. 27). Moreover, it is questionable whether the

fact that different groups of students come up with different

ways to answer questions and approach problems (Barrow, 2010)

can be taken as an indication or a criterion whereby one can

judge scientific creativity.

Yet these words of caution do not imply that inquiry science

cannot be creative. Three examples can help illustrate the point

here In a science cl ass a teacher provides the groups of students

with certain materials, like batteries, wires and light bulbs, and

asks them to make the light bulb light. In another classroom

students are asked to make a model of a house and investigate

how illumination (with light coming from the sun) within the

house can increase. And in another classroom students are aske d

to investigate and then come up with an explanation, how sub-

stances like sugar and salt, affect the evaporation rate of the

water in a container. Here one can see three different activities

with the first requiring little imagination and divergent think-

ing—trial and error suffices to get the simple system working,

the second requiring imagination and divergent thinking in

order for students to try possible factors that might affect the

illumination in the house (i.e., the position of windows, the

colour of curtains, the arrangement of furniture), and the third

requiring the creative formation of a theory to explain why

add in g s ubs tances such as salt or sugar to water causes the water

to evaporate more slowly at a given temperature. (Students

wil l h av e t o visualize water mole cules forming bo nds with sugar

or salt molecules, so it will take extra energy to break those

bonds thus slowi ng do wn the evap orati on pr ocess ). Of cour se,

different variables here, like distilled water and tap water, may

be included in the investigation, making the whole process even

more creative (Barrow, 2010). And despite a lack of conclusive

evidence resulting from a critical evaluation of some inquiry

science approaches to scientific creativity, programs that offer

extended opportunities for project work over a longer period

of time, demanding student commitment and ownership, ap-

pear to be more promising as far as the development of crea-

tivity is concerned. Such programs appear to meet “creativity”

criteria to a greater extend than traditional inquiry teaching

(Kind & Kind, 2007).

A word of caution, however, should also be said about art.

True, art is an excellent tool to help students learn science (Ashley,

2011; Merten, 2011). For example, students who make a col-

lage, illustrating the water cycle or the states of water, are he lp ed

to learn science content. Moreover, for some students, such an

activity can be a great stimulus for learning. But this is different

from saying that this activity necessarily helps students de velop

scientific creativity, in the sense that they can successfully ap-

proach activities that “explicitly” encourage divergent/imagina-

tive thinking (e.g., creating an analogy for the water cycle or

the states of water, writing about the daily life of a photon). For

although an art-based science activity requires i maginat ive /di ver-

gent thinking, the differences between “artistic” and “scientific”

creativity need to be seriously considered. The point that is

being made here is that participation in an art activity may in-

spire and motivate students but may not make them use their

creative imagination in order to approach other tasks and activi-

ties, like problem solving and inquiry.

Yet, in talking about two different kinds of creativity, that is,

“artistic” and “scientific” creativity, one should also bear in m i n d

that the two are not so distinguishable (see previous section).

And the fact that this particular activity (i.e., making a collage),

like other art-based activities, can lead to an aest hetic experie nce ,

and hence to a creative moment, involving even an imaginative

leap and a sudden insight, is a point that needs particular atten-

tion (Watts, 2001; Hadzigeorgiou & Fotinos, 2007). If science

is indeed “a holistic enterprise that may be influenced by art,

music, dance, yoga, meditation, imagination, wonder and may

other things” (Lunn & Nobel, 2008: p. 803), then art, through the

possibilities it can provide for aesthetic experiences, should be

considered an excellent avenue to an aesthetic kind under-

standing, which is documented in the literature regarding both

science and science education (Girod, 2007). Jackson’s (1998:

p. 33) argument provides not only a justification of art and sci-

ence connections in the curriculum, but also an answer to the

question regarding how one can induce an aesthetic/transform-

ative understanding of school science:

The arts do more than provide us with fleeting moments of

elation and delight. They expand our horizons. They contribute

meaning and value to future experience. They modify our ways

of perceiving the world, thus leaving us and the world itself

irrevocably changed.

This idea of aesthetic/transformative experience in regard to

scientific creativity is crucial, since it relates directl y to creati v i t y,

namely, to the ability to see things and ideas in novel and unusual

ways (Gardner, 1993a, 1993b, 2010; Sternberg, 2006). The

development of this ability, or at least the effort to foster it, can

be considered an important goal regarding scientific creativity,

and should complement two more (traditional) goals, such as 1)

The generation of multiple ideas (i.e., solutions to problems,

answers to questions), and evaluation of those, which are worth-

while to be pursued further; and 2) Making associations between

semantically remote or seemingly unrelated ideas, events, and

phenomena (Craft, 2001; Sternberg, 2006). It is apparent that

the above three goals concerning creativity in school science are

both compatible with the general notion of creativity (Sternberg,

2006; Gardner, 2010) and scientif ic creativity in particular (K ind

& Kind, 2007; Gardner, 1993b, 1997; Schmidt, 2011; Simonton,

2004), and also realistic in the context of science education, in

the sense that activities aiming to achieve them can be designed

and implemented (Hadzigeorgiou & Fotinos, 2007; see next

section).

The above goals necessitate a distinction between an innova-

tive teaching approach and an approach that provides opportu-

nities for creative thinking. Helping students to think creatively

in the context of school science is certainly very different form

both teaching them creatively (i.e., by implementing an innova-

tive approach) and teaching them about the nature of science, in

order to help them become aware of and appreciate science as a

creative endeavour. It is also helpful, in the sense that a distinc-

tion between learning to be novel in the context of everyday life

is very different from learning to be creative in science (Row-

lands, 2011). It is for these reasons that the distinction between

three frames, namely “creative teaching”, “teaching about crea-

tivity” and “fostering stud ents s cien tific creativity” (Kind & Kind,

2007), is important to consider. Such distinction focuses our

attention on what we really do or on what we really want to do.

The above goals also necessitate a special attention to imag-

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

ination. There is empirical evidence to support the view the

people who have opportunities to operate in imagined worlds

become more creative. And although the evidence that imaginative

skills in science education are transferable to other areas is not

convincing, there is good reason to believe that “imagination

offers the promise of making scientific creativity more concrete

and helping to identify a potential starting point for further

research” (Kind & Kind, 2007: p. 25). The work done by the

Imaginative Education Research Group (IERG), directed by

Kieran Egan at Simon Fraser University, is promising, at least

as far as the role of imagination in learning is concerned. More

research is certainly needed, especially in regard to creativity

(Kind & Kind, 2007), but, nonetheless, such research needs to

be based upon a theoretical framework, which gives primacy to

imagination.

Fostering Creativity in the Science Classroom

The discussion thus far begs the question: How can we best

foster students’ scientific creativity? This discussion may have

been illuminating, yet the evidence about the effectiveness of

certain teaching strategies (i.e., imagery/visualization, inquiry

science, integrating art with science) is inconclusive. An analysis,

in fact, of research studies in science education points to the

fact that “creativity in school science is at a much lower level

than is required even to begin approaching an answer” (Kind &

Kind, 2007: p. 2). Moreover, research based on the life stories

of scientists (e.g., Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, Watts, Feynman)

questions the development of students’ imaginative skills by

formal schooling. For as Shepard (1988) has pointed out, “their

development occurs before, outsi de of or perhaps in spite of s uc h

schooling—apparently through active but largely solitary in-

teraction with physical objects of one’s world” (p. 181). All

these make the development of students’ creativity a real chal-

lenge. This challenge becomes even greater if we consider the

fact that creativity is grounded in knowledge, and therefore

science teachers should help students build content knowledge,

but “without killing the creativity” (Boden, 2001: p. 102).

However, the above question can still be answered in the

affirmative, if we consider what we know about creativity in

general, namely, that individuals can become creative through

the confluence of several factors, including the environment

and the challenges it offers (Robinson, 2001; Sternberg, 2006).

Moving beyond the rhetoric, by carefully analysing and re-

flecting on current practices that supposedly help students de-

velop their creativity can be more fruitful than simply following

the trend and adopting and implementing those practices. Even

if one believes that creativity is to a large extent a matter of

innate ability, talent, and capability (Moravcsik, 1981: p. 227),

one can nevertheless acknowledge that “there are many ways in

which science education can locate, foster, encourage, practice ,

and enhance traits, attitudes, and skills in the students so that

whatever creativity the student has, it is more effectively con-

verted into achievements and accomplishments.” (p. 227).

Having already made reference to ideas from the nature of

science that have a bearing on creativity (i.e., the social nature

of science, its aesthetic dimension, the idea of scientific inquiry,

and the role of imagery and imagination in science), and consi-

dering evidence from research on the effect of temporal and

spatial distance on creativity (Shapira & Liberman, 2009), it

goes without saying that a notion of creativity in the context of

school science should certainly take these ideas into account an d

should also be compatible with the general notion of creativity.

A few points that are crucial for designing activities can be

reiterated here.

First, th e foste ring of cre ativi ty pre su ppose s a str ong co nc ept ua l

framework. In other words, science content knowledge is a

prerequisite for thinking and hence a prerequisite for creative

thinking. Students should be as knowledgeable about science

(i.e., content knowledge) as possible.

Second, creativity in science education is about divergent/

imaginative thinking. Encouraging creativity in the context of

school science means encouraging idea generation in a non-

threatening and critique-free environment. This means that, in

order for students to be creative, all ideas need to be heard and

not ridiculed, no matter how crazy the may sound. Di Trocchio

(1997) provides ample evidence that what once thought to be a

crazy idea was finally accepted by the scientific community (i. e. ,

the transmission of electromagnetic waves over long distances,

the splitting of the atom, the general theory of relativity).

Third, imagery and visualization should have a central place

in science curriculum and teaching. As Mathewson (1999) poi nted

out, visual-spatial thinking is an overlooked aspect of science

education.

Fourth, the ideas of “aesthetic experience” and particularly t he

notion of wonder need special attention. An aesthet ic experi e n c e ,

particularly when accompanied by a sense of wonder, increases

the possibilities for deeper engagement in science a nd in s p i rat i on

(Hadzigeorgiou, 2005).

Fifth, thinking about future events and possibilities (i.e., tem-

poral distance) and also about far away events and people (i.e.,

spatial distance) is a strategy that can be incorporated in te a c hi n g

activities.

Sixth, (although an argument about whether individual crea-

tivity is superior or inferior to social creativity is hard to defend,

or maybe meaningless in the sense that there is an interplay

between the two) the social nature of science, as has already

been discussed, points to activities that provide students with

opportunities to interact in a social setting, thinking imagina-

tively and divergently. In short, creativity, without completely

excluding individualized activities, should be fostered within a

socio-cultural milieu. This milieu includes both the culture of

scientific inquiry and the culture of the school classroom, and

both cultures can play a role in developing students’ creative

thinking.

However, a few words about evaluating the results of our

teaching should also be said here. Given that no one can predict

the emergence of creativity—given the nature of creativity, and

scientific creativity in particular as was discussed, there appears

to be a problem. This is not to say that creative thinking cannot

be recognized. On the contrary, we can tell when we see it. The

problem is that, even if one teaches deliberately for creative

thinking, one cannot expect to assess it when one wants to as-

sess it, as a result or consequence of his/her teaching. The p rob-

lem becomes more complicated if one considers the fact that,

regardless of the opportunities students have for creative think-

ing, the testing situation may not provide a reliable means to

assess creativity. For the test itself may be felt as a constraint

on a student’s freedom. And the inauthentic situation in which

it is taken may also be a constraint on his/her ability to thin

creatively. According to the literature, freedom and authentic

situations can be considered, among other factors, preconditions

for creativity, since they both relate to motivation, purpose, ex-

ploration, and confidence (Gardner, 1993b; Mumford, 2003;

608

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

Sternberg, 2006; see also Simonton, 2004).

So the best we, as science educators and science teachers,

can do is to provide an environment that increases the possibili-

ties for creativity to emerge. In the light of what has been dis-

cussed so far, some activities can be considered more appro-

priate for fostering scientific creativity in science education.

Th ose are activities that are more likely 1) To provide opportu-

nities for imaginative/divergent thinking; and 2) To lead to aes-

thetic experiences. These activities are compatible with the

three goals regarding creative thinking in science education (see

previous section). For the achievement of the first two goals

require divergent/imaginative thinking, while the third one, in

addition to such kind of thinking, presupposes a sense of

wonder and aesthetic experiences in general.

Compatible with these goals and what has been thus far ab out

scientific creativity, the following activities, although not a recipe,

have the potential to increase the possibilities for students’

creativity to emerge:

 Creative problem solving (e.g., measuring the height of a

building using a barometer or tennis ball, measuring the sur-

face of an irregular shape using a mechanical balance, the

fate of the earth after the total disappearance of the sun,

calculating the density of a proton, of a black hole).

 Problem solving in the STS context (e.g., how technology

might affect the environment in the future, how we can pro-

duce electrical power in the future, how we might approach

the sudden invasion of bacteria from space).

 Creative writing (e.g., a day in the life of a proton, a day

without gravity).

 Creative science inquiry (e.g., investigating possible factors

that might have an effect on the illumination of a room, the

construction of a flashlight from simple materials, ways to

produce electricity for the house in a case of emergency,

ways to heat water in the absence of metal containers).

 Creating analogies to understand phenomena and ideas (e.g.,

the phenomenon of resonance, the ideas energy, nuclear fis-

sion and fusion, chemical bonding).

 Challenging students to find connections among apparently

unrelated facts and ideas (e.g., what would be a connection

between Newton’s laws, a nurse and a soccer-player? Be-

tween light, electrons and a surgeon? Between a glass of

wine, the age of the universe and the evolution of stars?

Between the sinking of Titanic and hydrogen bonding).

 Mystery solving (e.g., detective work in order to explain the

disappearance of something, like a certain volume of liquid,

to find something that is missing, like a beam of light, to

find connection between seemingly unrelated ideas, as in

the case between a thief, the police and the speed of light).

 Approaching the teaching and learning of science through

the arts (e.g., using photography and making a collage to

present the results of a study of a topic such as the effect of

modern technology on everyday life, using technologies to

construct scientific models, using drawing to represent a

phenomenon, such as photosynthesis).

Concluding Comments

Whether or not one agrees with the idea that the development

of creativity should be the first most important goal of educa-

tion, is irrelevant when it comes to the notion of scientific crea-

tivity. Given that imagination and creativity are considered cen-

tral to the nature of science, a good science education cannot

help but foster students’ imaginative skills and creativity. If all

learning is a possibility (Brent, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008;

Hadzigeorgiou, 2005), the development of students’ creative

powers through science learning is a possibility too. Maslow’s

(1968) distinction between “special talent creativene ss” and “s el f-

actualizing creativeness” can provide food for thought for those

who are willing to make school science, not just an adventure,

but a creative endeavour too, so that students’ creative acts will

be both acts of self-expression and acts of self-actualization.

Although “special talent” creativity” has played a catalytic role

in the development of our civilization, in the context of educa-

tion, “self-actualizing” creativity appears to be a much more

realistic notion and also a more fruitful and promising one. Carl

Rogers’ (1961) definition of creativity as “the emergence in

action of a novel relational product growing out of the unique-

ness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials,

events, people or circumstances of his life on the other,” (p.

351), when applied to education, makes the distinction between

the various degrees and/or kinds of creativity (as found in the

literature) unimportant and orients us to the process of whole-

hearted engagement, as the first necessary condition of creativity

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Perhaps, if approached from this

perspective, creativity in school science can open new vistas for

both teachers and students, and can provide an answer to the

perennial problem of students’ engagement in science.

REFERENCES

Asay, L. & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry

in articles published in The Science Teacher. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 2 1, 57-79. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9152-9

Ashley, C. (2011). Avenues to Inspiration. Science Scope, 35, 24-30.

Barrow, L. (2010). Encouraging creativity with scientific inquiry. Crea-

tive Education, 1, 1-16. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.11001

Boden, M. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, &

M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 95-102). London:

Continuum.

Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New

York: Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1998). On creativity. London: Routledge.

Brent, D., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds:

Changing teaching in complex ti mes. New York: Routledge.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Craft, A. (2001). Little C creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leib-

ling (Eds.), Creativity in education. New York: Continuum Interna-

tional.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. Feldman,

M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A

framework of the study of creativity (pp. 135-158). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of

discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psy-

chonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1011-1026.

doi:10.3758/BF03196731

Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2001). Tell-tale signs of the inquiry oriented

classroom. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 24-34.

doi:10.1177/019263650108562304

Di Trocchio, F. (1997). Il genio incompress. Milan: Mondadori.

Egan, K. (1990). Romantic understanding. Chicago: University of Chi-

cago Press.

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Feynman, R. (1995). Six easy pieces. Reading, MA: Helix Books.

Feldman, D., Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT and

London: Praeger.

Gardner, H. (1993a). Multiple intelligences. The theory in practice.

New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993b). Crea t i n g m i n d s. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing

our own and other people’s minds. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds. New York: Harper Collins.

Gardner, H. (2010). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard Business School Press.

Gaut, B. (2003). Creativity and i magination. In B. Gaut, & P. Livingston

(Eds.), The creation of art (pp. 268-293), Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ginsberg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theory of intellectual devel-

opment: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Girod, M. (2007). A conceptual overview of the beauty and aesthetics

in science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 38-61.

doi:10.1080/03057260708560226

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005). Romantic understanding and science educa-

tion. Teaching Education, 16, 23-32.

doi:10.1080/1047621052000341590

Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Stefanich, G. (2001). Imagination in science edu-

cation. Contemporary Education, 71, 23-29.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Fotinos, N. (2007). Imaginative thinking and the

learning of science. Science Education Review, 6, 15- 22.

Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. London: Allen & Unwin.

Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, history, and other passions. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Jackson, P. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

Jenkins, E. (1996). The “nature of science” as a curriculum component.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 13 7-150.

doi:10.1080/0022027980280202

Kind, P., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspec-

tives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Sci-

ence Education, 43, 1-37.

doi:10.1080/03057260708560225

Klassen, S. (2006). The application of historical narrative in science

learning: The Atlantic Cable story. Science & Education, 16, 335-

352.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of

scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lunn, M., & Nobel, A. (2008). Revisioning science “love and passion

in the scientific imagination”: Art and science. International Journal

of Science Education, 30 , 793-805.

doi:10.1080/09500690701264750

Mannheim, K. (1972). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

Mathewson, J. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science

overlooked by educ at ors. Science Education, 83, 33-54.

do i :1 0 . 1 0 02 / ( S I CI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<33::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;

2-Z

McAllister, J. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

McAllister, J. W. (1997). Laws of nature, natural history, and the

description of the world. Princeton: Voordracht Institute for Advanc-

ed Study (Conference lecture).

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:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Medawar, P. (1967). The art of the soluble: Originality in science.

Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Medawar, P. (1979). Advice to a young scientist. New York: Harper &

Row.

Medawar, P. (1984). Pluto’s republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Merten, S. (2011). Enhancing science education through art. Science

Scope, 35, 31-35.

Miell, D., & Littleton, K. (2004). Collaborative creativity: Contempo-

rary perspective s . London: Free Association Books.

Miller, A. (2001). Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty That

Causes Havoc. New York: Basic Books.

Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in science education. Science Edu-

cation, 65, 221-227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730650212

Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going?

Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15,

107-120. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003).

What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school? A Delphi

study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 40, 692- 720. doi:10.1002/tea.10105

Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Trade.

Planck, M. (1933). Where is science going? London : Allen & Unwin.

Ricchiuto, J. (1996). Collaborative creativity. Cleveland, OH: Oakhill

Press.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds. Learning to be creative.

Chichester: Capstone.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton,

Mifflin.

Root-Bernstein, R. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common crea-

tive aesthetic. In A. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis. Aesthetics

and science (pp. 49-82). Boston, London: Klu wer.

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1786-6_3

Root-Bernstein, R. (2002). Aesthetic cognition. International Studies in

Philosophy of Science, 16, 61-77.

doi:10.1080/02698590120118837

Rowlands, S. (2011). Discussion article: Disciplinary boundaries for

creativity. Creative Education, 2, 47-55.

doi:10.4236/ce.2011.21007

Schmidt, A. (2011). Creativity in science: Tensions between percep-

tions and practice. Creative Education, 2, 435-445.

doi:10.4236/ce.2011.25063

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Devel-

oping views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit

approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific

inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.

doi:10.1002/sce.10128

Shapira, O., & Liberman, N. (2009). Why thinking about distant things

can make us more creative. URL (last che cke d 3 F ebruary 2012).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-easy-way-to-in

crease-c#comments

Shepard, R. (1988). The imagination of the scientists. In K. Egan, & D.

Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 153-185). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Simonton, D. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and

zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139165358

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25

years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 2-12.

doi:10.1037/1931-3896.S.1.2

Tauber, A. (1996). The elusive synthesis. Science and aesthetics. Bos-

ton, London: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1786-6

Tolstory, I. (1990). The knowledge and the power: Reflection on the

history of science. London: Canongate.

Trefil, J. (2003). The nature of science: An A-Z guide to the laws and

principles governin g the universe. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Van’t Hoff, J. (1967). Imagination in science. New York: Spriger-

Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87040-8

Vernon, P. (1970). Creativity: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Pen-

guin.

Watts, M. (2001). Science and poetry: Passion vs prescription in school

science? International Journal of Science Education , 23, 197-208.

doi:10.1080/09500690120685

610

Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.

Whitehead, A. (1957). The aims of education. New York: Free Press.

Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. Lon do n: Ro ut le dg e.

Zenasni, F., Besancon, M., & Lubart, T. (2011). Creativity and to-

lerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 42, 61-73. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x