Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding for Creative Product Possibilities in a Design-Based STEM Activity

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Creativity can and should play a role in students’ science experiences. Beghetto (Roeper Review 29(4):265–270, 2007) suggested a framework for teachers to assist students in transforming their creative ideas into creative products. This framework involves taking time to listen to students’ ideas, helping them recognize the constraints of a task, and giving them multiple opportunities to think through and try their ideas. Ill-structured problems, such as those found in inquiry and engineering design activities, provide excellent opportunities for students to experience creative processing and express their creativity through product creation. These types of problems are typically challenging, but the use of appropriate questioning has been shown to assist students in solving problems. This multiple case study investigated the use of inquiry-based questioning as a means of supporting creativity within a design-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activity. Findings suggest that groups facilitated by inquiry-based questioning strategies were better able to solve an ill-structured problem and achieved a more linear progression toward creative products than groups who were not facilitated by inquiry-based questions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wadem, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: a task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (1994a). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: a multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (1994b). Performance assessments of creativity: do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 7(1), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29(4), 265–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: a case for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here”?. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Bear (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: an information processing approach (pp. 227–250). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: modeling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, A. (2000). Teaching creativity: philosophy and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: a study of naïve, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: cognition in design. Oxford, England: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, D., Hathcock, S., Stonier, F., & Levin, D. (2012). The great build-a-buoy challenge. Science and Children, 50(4), 62–66.

  • Evans, D. L. (1990). Integrating design throughout the curriculum. Engineering Education, 80(5), 516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: mastering complexity, individuality and in groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. (1974). The informed vision: essay on learning and human nature. New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In S. Pritzker & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity: volume I (pp. 347–359). Salt Lake City, UT: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

  • MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). What makes a person creative? In D. W. MacKinnon (Ed.), Search of human effectiveness: identifying and developing creativity (pp. 178–186). New York: Universe Books.

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk among teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University.

  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies.

  • Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). Effects of advance questioning and prior knowledge on science learning. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 and 2), 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2003). Creativity, cognition, and their educational implications. In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 25–56). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., Lubart, T. I., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2005). Creativity. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 351–370). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

  • van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood (M. E. Sharpe, Inc., Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42, 7–97. (Original work published 1967).

  • Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: a review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Stephanie J. Hathcock

  2. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Daniel L. Dickerson, Angela Eckhoff & Petros Katsioloudis

Authors
  1. Stephanie J. Hathcock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel L. Dickerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Eckhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petros Katsioloudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie J. Hathcock.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    What did you learn about buoys today?

  2. 2.

    Tell me about the process you went through to design and build your buoy.

  3. 3.

    What was difficult about this activity?

  4. 4.

    What was the point of the Weebles (treatment group only)?

  5. 5.

    Dr. D talked to some groups, asking questions like, “What just happened?” or “What do you think you should do next?” He also showed some groups toy Weebles, which are bottom heavy.

    1. a.

      Treatment groups: What effect do you think this had on your success?

    2. b.

      Comparison groups: If he had asked your group questions or shown you the Weebles, do you think that would have had an effect on your success? How?

    Example of group-specific questions:

  6. 6.

    Your group used a weave-like structure to hold golf balls. Can you tell me how you came up with that design? (group 1)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hathcock, S.J., Dickerson, D.L., Eckhoff, A. et al. Scaffolding for Creative Product Possibilities in a Design-Based STEM Activity. Res Sci Educ 45, 727–748 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9437-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9437-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation