Creatividad científica y alta habilidaddiferencias de género y nivel educativo

  1. ESPARZA MOLINA, Fernando Javier 1
  2. RUIZ MELERO, María José 1
  3. FERRANDO PRIETO, Mercedes 1
  4. SAINZ GÓMEZ, Marta 1
  5. PRIETO SÁNCHEZ, M.ª Dolores 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Journal:
Aula: Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca

ISSN: 0214-3402

Year of publication: 2015

Issue Title: Los talentos en la educación

Issue: 21

Pages: 49-62

Type: Article

DOI: 10.14201/AULA2015214962 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Aula: Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca

Abstract

 The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of gender and educational level on scientific creativity among gifted/talented students. A cohort of creatividad científica y alta habilidad: diferencias de género y nivel educativo 78 secondary school students from 12 to 16 years old participated in this research. The scientific creativity was measured using the Creative Scientific Ability Test (Sak & Ayas, 2011) designed for secondary school students from 11 to 14 years old. Its theoretical framework sets up the measurement of a three dimensional structure: general creative abilities (fluency, flexibility and creativity), scientific creative abilities (hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing and evidence evaluation) and scientific knowledge. This test has the right adequate psychometric properties with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.848 (Sak & Ayas, 2013). Results indicated that male students scored significantly higher in a task named Interaction Graph which measures hypothesis generation in interdisciplinary science. The analysis also showed that students involved in upper education levels scores significantly higher in general fluency and in the task called The Food Chain which measures evidence evaluation in the area of ecology.

Bibliographic References

  • AKTAMIS, H. y ERGIN, Ö. (2008) The effect of scientific process skills education on students scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9 (1), 1-21.
  • AYVERDI, L.; ASKER, E.; ÖZ AYDIN, S. y SARITAŞ, T. (2012) Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic achievement in science and technology courses. İlköğretim Online, 11, 646-659. Obtenido de: http://ilkogretim-online. org.tr/vol11say3/v11s3m6.pdf.
  • BAER, J. (1998) The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 173-177.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
  • BAER, J. (1999) Domains of creativity. En M. A. Runco y S. Pritzker (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 591-596). New York: Academic Press.
  • BAER, J. y KAUFMAN, J. C. (2008) Gender Differences in Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 42 (2), 75-105.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
  • BENNETT, J. y LUBBEN, F. (2006) Context based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (9), 999-1015.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702496
  • CASTELLÓ, A. y BATLLE, C. (1998) Aspectos teóricos e instrumentales en la identificación del alumnado superdotado y talentoso. Propuesta de un protocolo. FAISCA, 6, 26-66.
  • CERAN, S. A.; GÜNGÖREN, S. Ç. y BOYACIOĞLU, N. (2014) Determination of scientific creativity levels of middle school students and perceptions through their teachers. European Journal of Research on Education, 47-53. Obtenido de: http://iassr.org/rs/020408.pdf.
  • CHARPAK, G.; LÉNA, P. y QUÉRÉ, Y. (2006) Los niños y la ciencia: La aventura de la mano en la masa. Siglo XXI.
  • CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1996/1998) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper. Trad. castellano: Creatividad: el Fluir y la Psicología del Descubrimiento y la Invención. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
  • DIEKMAN, A. B.; BROWN, E. R.; JOHNSTON, A. M. y CLARK, E. K. (2010) Seeking congruity between goals and roles a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21 (8), 1051-1057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
  • DUNBAR, K. (1999) Science. En M. A. Runco y S. R. Pritzker (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity (vol. II) (pp. 525-531). New York: Elsevier.
  • DUSCHL, R. A. (1997) Renovar la enseñanza de las ciencias: importancia de las teorías y su desarrollo. Madrid: Narcea.
  • FERRANDO, M. y FERRÁNDIZ, C. (2013) Early years’ Creativity. En A. Gariboldi y N. Catellani (eds.) Creativity in Preschool Education (pp. 70-78). Scandiano, Italia: sern. (isbn-13: 978-8890487842).
  • HALPERN, D. F.; BENBOW, C. P.; GEARY, D. C.; GUR, R. C.; HYDE, J. S. y GERNSBACHER, M. A. (2007) The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological science in the public interest, 8 (1), 1-51.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
  • HAMBLETON, R. K.; MERENDA, P. y SPIELBERGER, C. (eds.) (2005) Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, nj: Lawrence S. Erlbaum Publishers. HAN, K. S. (2003) Domain Specificity of Creativity in Young Children: How Quantitative and Qualitative Data Support It. The journal of creative behavior, 37 (2), 117-142.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00829.x
  • HENNESSEY, B. A. y AMABILE, T. M. (1999) Consensual assessment. En M. A. Runco y S. R. Pritzker (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity (vol. i) (pp. 347-359). New York: Elsevier.
  • HU, W. y ADEY, P. A. (2002) Scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 389-403.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  • IBM CORP. (2011) ibm spss Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, ny: ibm Corp.
  • JO, S. M. (2009) A study of Korean students’ creativity in science using structural equation modeling. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Arizona.
  • KING, D. (2012) New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 48 (1), 51-87.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2012.655037
  • LIANG, J. (2002) Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Texas at Austin.
  • LIN, C.; HU, W.; ADEY, P. y SHEN, J. (2003) The influence of case on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143-162. doi: 10.1023/A: 1025078600616.
  • LUBART, T. y ZENASNI, F. (2010) A New Look at Creative Giftedness. Gifted and Talented International, 25 (1), 53-57.
  • MOHAMED, A. (2006) Investigating the Scientific Creativity of fifth-grade students. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
  • OCDE (2006) El programa pisa de la ocde ¿Qué es y para qué sirve? París: ocde. Recuperado en http://www.oecd.org/pisa/39730818.pdf (última visita 2015.03.05).
  • OKERE, M. I. y NDEKE, G. C. W. (2012) Influence of gender and knowledge on secondary school students’ scientific creativity skills in Nakuru District, Kenya. European Journal of Educational Research, 1 (4), 353-366.
  • ÖZDEMIR, N. N. y SAK, U. (2013) A Componential Analysis of Gender Differences in Scientific Creativity. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 3 (2), 53-65.
  • PERKINS, D. N. (2000/2003) Archimedes’ bathtub: The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. New York: Norton & Company. Trad. castellano: La bañera de Arquímedes y otras historias del descubrimiento científico: el arte del pensamiento creativo. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • PLUCKER, J. A. y BEGHETTO, R. A. (2004) Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter. En R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko y J. L. Singer (eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). Washington, dc, us: American Psychological Association.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10692-009
  • RUIZ, M. J. (2013) Estudio del pensamiento científico-creativo en una muestra de alumnos de Educación Secundaria. Trabajo Fin de Máster. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
  • RUIZ, M. J.; BERMEJO, R.; FERRANDO, M.; PRIETO, M. D. y SAINZ, M. (2014) Inteligencia y Pensamiento Científico-Creativo: Su convergencia en la explicación del rendimiento académico de los alumnos. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12 (2), 283-302.
  • RUIZ, M. J.; BERMEJO, M. R.; PRIETO, M. D.; FERRÁNDIZ, C. y ALMEIDA, L. S. (2013) Evaluación del Pensamiento Científico-Creativo: Adaptación y validación de una prueba en población española. Revista Galego-Portuguesa de Psicoloxía e Educación, 21 (1), 175-194.
  • SAK, U. y AYAS, B. (2011) Creative Scientific Ability Test (c-sat). Manuscrito sin publicar.
  • SAK, U. y AYAS, M. B. (2013) Creative Scientific Ability Test (c-sat): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55 (3), 316-329.
  • Schawartz, A. T.; Bunce, D. M.; Silberman, R. G.; Stanitski, C. L.; Stratton, W. J. y ZIPP, A. P. (1997) Chemistry in Context. Application to society. 2.ª edición. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • SNYDER, A.; MITCHELL, J.; BOSSOMAIER, T. y PALLIER, G. (2004) The creativity quotient: an objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 415-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1604_4
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534552
  • STERNBERG, R. J. y DAVIDSON, J. E. (1999) Insight. En M. A. Runco y S. R. Pritzker (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity (vol. ii) (pp. 57-69). New York: Elsevier.
  • STERNBERG, R. J. y LUBART, T. I. (1995/1997) Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press. Trad. castellano: La creatividad en una cultura conformista: un desafío a las masas. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
  • STERNBERG, R. J. y O’HARA, L. (2005) Creatividad e inteligencia. cic (Cuadernos de Información y Comunicación), 10, 113-149.
  • WEIPING, H. y PHILIP, A. (2002) A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 389-403.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  • WEISBERG, R. W. (2014) Case Studies of Genius: Ordinary Thinking, Extraordinary Outcomes. En D. K. Simonton (ed.) The Wiley Handbook of Genius (pp. 139-165). Chichester, uk: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118367377.ch8
Data source: Dialnet