Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA JPPI
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 p-ISSN 2477-1422 e-ISSN 2477-2038
13
Fostering Scientific Creativity in Teaching and Learning Science in Schools:
A Systematic Review
(Received 9 January 2020; Revised 20 May 2020; Accepted 20 May 2020)
Rubaaiah Sidek 1*, Lilia Halim2, Nor Aishah Buang3, Nurazidawati Mohamad Arsad4
1,2,3,4Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
Corresponding Author: *P92614@siswa.ukm.edu.my
DOI: 10.30870/jppi.v6i1.7149
Abstract
Fostering creativity among the students will result in the production of a skillful
workforce and human capital in the future. Creativity is a concept that has its roots in
specific knowledge domains or disciplines including scientific creativity that is specific to
science. This article attempts to fill the gap in understanding and identifying the factors
and pedagogical approaches that influence and facilitate the effort to foster scientific
creativity in science teaching and learning in schools. Thus, the questions arise of what
pedagogical approaches and factors that foster students’ scientific creativity as well as
support the teaching and learning in science classrooms. A systematic review of 30
studies was conducted to investigate effective interventions and variables that influence
scientific creativity among students in school science classrooms. Pedagogical
approaches and strategies such as teaching creative thinking techniques, problem-based,
project-based, model-based, ICT-based, integrated STEM-based, and collaborative
learning were found to improve scientific creativity among students. Meanwhile,
students’ factors, teachers’ factors, and environmental factors were identified to facilitate
the inculcation of creativity in science teaching and learning. This review suggests that
the role of teachers is crucial in fostering scientific creativity in the science classrooms
and there is a need to study teachers’ beliefs and practices in real settings. Also, future
studies could also focus on identifying constraining factors that may hinder the fostering
of scientific creativity by teachers in the classrooms.
Keywords: Scientific Creativity, Science Education, Fostering Creativity, Creative
Thinking Methods, School Science
.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 14
INTRODUCTION
Students nowadays have to be
prepared to face and overcome future
challenges. One of the key aims of
modern educational system is to foster
their creativity. Dikici and Soh (2015) as
well as Cropley (2018) highlighted that
students will be able to solve unexpected
problems in the future by honing their
potentials during their school years.
Researchers and educational policy
makers around the world share a similar
view and belief that fostering creativity
among the students will result in the
production of skilful workforce and
human capital in the future. In this era
where no one can escape from
technology, many countries have
established shaping critical and creative
citizens as the main agenda in their
educational policy to produce innovative
producers and makers as opposed to
being the end users of technology.
Scientific creativity
In science, creative thinking skills
are referred to as scientific creativity.
Previously, scientists had successfully
created useful ideas, theories and
products that promote and advance
human civilisation. Scientific creativity
can be defined as the ability to produce
new ideas and products that are relevant
to scientific contexts. It is also an ability
to discover and solve scientific problems
by applying scientific knowledge and
skills. Researches on scientific creativity
have been done focusing on identifying
and investigating the criteria for
creativity among individuals working in
scientific fields, researches and those
who are science graduate students. The
criteria are based on product elements
such as patents, publications, research
products, instruments, ideas and
methods. It is also based on behaviours
including sensitivity to problems,
flexibility, technology competency,
communication and interpersonal
relationship (Sprecher, 1975). Paul E.
Torrance pioneered creativity research
in education especially at the school
level. Torrance (1965) defines creativity
in education as the ability to be sensitive
to problems (Starko, 2013)
Aspects of scientific creativity
According to researches,
creativity is an intellectual trait that
contributes to individuals’ achievement
in whatever domain they are working in.
However, creativity is a concept that has
its root in specific knowledge domains
or disciplines. For instance, scientific
creativity is creativity that is specific to
science. It is stand-alone and separated
from general creativity (Lin et al., 2003;
Mukhopadhyay, 2012). In other words,
creativity in individuals consists of
creativity traits and domain-specific
knowledge or skills. Thus, in scientific
creativity, scientific knowledge and
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 15
skills are necessary besides creativity
itself.
According to Mohtar & Halim
(2015), among the scientific creativity
models commonly referred to by
educational researchers are Hu and
Adey's Scientific Structural Creativity
Model (SSCM) (2002), Son's Scientific
Creativity Model (2009) and Park's
Model of Scientific Creativity (2010).
These models of scientific creativity are
illustrated as in Table 1.
Table 1 Models of scientific creativity
SSCM by Hu dan
Adey
Scientific Creativity
Model by Son
Model of Scientific
Creativity (MSC) by Park
Aspect
Cognitive
Cognitive and non-
cognitive
Cognitive
Constructs
Product
Traits
(Divergent
thinking)
Process
(Thinking,
imagination)
Scientific proficiency
Creative competency
Intrinsic motivation
Context that support
creativity
Scientific creativity
Creative thinking
Scientific knowledge
Scientific inquiry skills
SSCM by Hu and Adey is built
based on the Guilford Intellectual
Model. This three-dimensional model
consists of 24 cells designed to show the
connections between dimensions
(products, process and traits). In this
model, scientific creativity is described
as the intellectual ability to produce
relevant scientific products by thinking
and imagination. Similarly, Park’s
model also presents the cognitive
aspects of scientific creativity. It,
however, goes a step further by positing
that creative thinking skills are needed
to complement scientific domain
knowledge (biology, physics, chemistry)
and inquiry skills to develop scientific
creativity. This model makes it clear that
the combination of these three
components will produce individuals
with scientific creativity. Meanwhile,
the Scientific Creativity Model by Son
adapted from the Amabile Creativity
Model (1996) highlights that scientific
creativity depends on scientific
knowledge, skills and attitude. The
attitude component, which sets this
model apart from the other two models,
refers to the tendency in learning science
including the motivation to complete
science tasks or experiments and interest
in pursuing tertiary education or career
in the sciences.
Systematic review on fostering
scientific creativity in school
Systematic review is a study of
selected researches identified by a
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 16
systematic method. These relevant
researches are then critically reviewed to
answer prior formulated questions. To
summarise the results of the included
studies, statistical method may or may
not be conducted (Higgins et al., 2011).
The rigorous study can be claimed by
the authors of systematic review as the
systematic methods applied including
screening and analysis. It also allows the
study to fulfil the gaps of previous
researches and give directions for future
researches (Shaffril, Abu Samah and
D’Silva, 2017).
Despite the abundance of studies
on scientific creativity in science
education at school level, there is still
lack of systematic review on these
studies. This article was aimed at filling
the gap in understanding the factors and
identifying pedagogical approaches
influencing and facilitating the effort to
foster scientific creativity in science
teaching and learning in schools. This
peer reviewed literature report provides
a general and baseline overview on
fostering scientific creativity in science
teaching and learning in schools. This
review aims to fill an important gap in
the literature, which is the lack of
systematic review on scientific
creativity. Previous studies on creativity
in school include a systematic review on
environment in creativity (Davies et al.,
2013), teachers’ belief, conception,
perception and roles in promoting
creativity in the classroom (Andiliou
and Murphy, 2010; Davies et al., 2014;
Mullet et al., 2016; Bereczki and
Kárpáti, 2018), support system in school
creativity (Wang and Nickerson, 2017)
and measuring creativity (Said-
metwaly, 2017). Meanwhile, literature
reviews on scientific creativity in school
have been done to measure and assess
scientific creativity (Mukhopadhyay,
2013; Nur Erwani and Lilia, 2018) and
the constructs of scientific creativity
(Mohtar and Halim, 2015). Furthermore,
a meta-analysis has been done to study
creative personality differences between
artistic and scientific individuals (Feist,
1998). Thus, this study is important to
provide an understanding on the issues
in fostering scientific creativity at
school.
To construct a relevant systematic
review, the current article was guided by
two main research questions –
1. What are the possible and suggested
approaches that foster students’
scientific creativity in the science
classroom, and
2. What are the facilitating factors that
support teaching for scientific
creativity?
This study attempts to analyse
existing literature on facilitating factors,
pedagogical approaches and practices to
foster scientific creativity in science
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 17
lessons. This section elaborates the
purpose of a systematic review, while
the next section explains the
methodology and the PRISMA
Statement (Preferred Reporting Items
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis)
conducted in this study. Available
scientific literature that are relevant to
the aspects related to the issue of
fostering scientific creativity in science
teaching and learning are appraised and
critically reviewed in the following
section. The last section identifies
possible directions for future research.
METHOD
In this section, the method used to
retrieve articles related to scientific
creativity in science classroom is
discussed. This study used the PRISMA
method, which includes resources from
databases Scopus and Web of Science.
The systematic review included the
processes of screening, eligibility and
exclusion criteria, steps of the review
process (identification, screening,
eligibility) as well as data abstraction
and analysis.
PRISMA
This study was guided by the
PRISMA Statement (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses). Conducting
PRISMA Statement allows clear
research questions that permit a
systematic research to be defined, while
inclusion and exclusion criteria can be
identified and large database of
scientific literature in a defined time can
be examined (Sierra-Correa and Cantera
Kintz, 2015). The PRISMA Statement
enables a rigorous investigation of terms
related to scientific creativity in school
and their impact.
Databases/Resources
Two main journal databases –
Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were
used in this study. WoS is a database
consisting peer reviews and high
influence journals. It covers over 256
disciplines and various subjects
including physical sciences, health
sciences, life sciences and social
sciences. Scopus, on the other hand, is
one of abstract and citation databases. It
consists of peer-reviewed literature
including journals from many publishers
worldwide. Scopus covers subject areas
such as environmental sciences, social
sciences and biological sciences. As of
January 2019, the WoS has at least
13100 journals and 10.5 million
proceedings articles while Scopus
covers 19150 journals and 8 million
proceeding articles. Both databases
update their resources daily.
Systematic Review Process
The review process was carried
out in four stages. The initial review
process was carried out in August 2019.
The process consisted of several phases
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 18
namely identification, screening and
eligibility
Identification
The first phase involved
identifying keywords for the search
process. By referring to previous
studies, a thesaurus and suggestions
from experts, keywords similar and
related to scientific creativity in school
science education were used (Table 2).
The keywords used have been validated
by the experts before proceeding to
searching process. At this stage, five
duplicated articles were removed.
Screening
The second stage was the
screening stage. At this stage, a total of
102 of 162 articles eligible to be
reviewed were removed due to inclusion
and exclusion criteria (Table 3). Firstly,
with regard to literature type, only
journal articles or conference
proceedings with empirical data and
book chapters were selected. This
indicates that article reviews, book
series and books were excluded.
Secondly, to avoid any confusion and
difficulty in translating, the selection
excluded non-English publication.
Thirdly, with regard to timeline, a period
of 10 years was selected (between 2009
and 2019) as it is considered an
adequate period to focus on
contemporary pedagogical approaches
in fostering scientific creativity in
science classroom. Besides, this
systematic review focused on science
subjects taught in school including
biology, chemistry, and physics. Articles
that focused on other domains or
subject-specific creativity such as arts,
Mathematics and computer science were
effectively excluded.
Eligibility
The third stage was eligibility in
which full articles were accessed.
Several eligibility and exclusion criteria
were determined for this review. After
careful examination, 30 articles were
further excluded due to their irrelevance
in content, methodology or findings.
The last stage yielded a total of 30
articles selected and used for in-depth
analysis (Fig. 1). The remaining articles
were assessed and analysed. Careful and
concentrated effort and attention were
devoted to specific studies that
responded to the formulated research
questions.
Data analysis
The remaining articles were
assessed and analysed. Efforts were
concentrated on specific studies that
responded to the formulated questions.
The data were extracted by reading
through the abstracts first, followed by
the full articles (in-depth) to identify the
interventions used to enhance students’
scientific creativity and variables
included in the studies.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 19
Table 2 The search string used for the systematic review process
Database
Search String
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (("scientific creativity" OR "scien* creativ*" OR
"creativity in science*" OR "creativity in bio*" OR "creativity in
chemistry*" OR "creativity in physics*") AND (student* OR pupil* OR
child* OR kids OR teenagers OR adolescent) AND (primary* OR
elementary OR middle OR secondary OR high) AND (school*))
Web of
Science
TI = (("scientific creativity" OR "scien* creativ*" OR "creativity science"
OR "creativity in science*" OR "creativity in science*" OR "creativity in
bio*" OR "creativity in chemistry*" OR "creativity in physics*") AND
(student* OR pupil* OR child* OR kids OR teenagers OR adolescent)
AND (primary* OR elementary OR middle OR secondary OR high) AND
(school*))
Table 3 The inclusion and exclusion criteria
Criterion
Eligibility
Exclusion
Literature
type
Journal (research articles) and
conference proceedings.
Journals (systematic review),
book series, book, chapter in book
Language
English
Non-English
Timeline
2009 to 2019
< 2009
Subjects
Sciences (Biology, physics,
chemistry)
Computer science, mathematics
and arts
Research
respondent
School students (pre-school,
elementary, middle and high school)
University students
Figure 1 The flow diagram of the study (Adapted from Moher et al., 2009)
The identification of effective
interventions used in the study was to
answer the research questions on what
pedagogical approaches can be applied
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 20
in teaching and learning to foster
scientific creativity. On the other hands,
the variables correlated to scientific
creativity were identified to answer the
formulated questions on the factors that
affect the process of fostering scientific
creativity in students.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the analyses
provided multiple views on the current
classroom practices to foster scientific
creativity. Of the 30 studies analysed for
this review, 28 employed quantitative
research design, while the remaining
two were qualitative studies. The
majority of the studies (n = 25) involved
school students as the respondents or
participants. Most of these studies have
participants from among secondary or
high school students (n = 21) and a few
concentrated on elementary or primary
school students (n = 4). The level of
schooling was seen to vary depending
on the countries the studies were
conducted and their respective school
systems. Among the 25 studies that
involved students, three focused on
gifted students while the remaining 22
look into mainstream students. In
addition, only five studies involved
teachers as the participants.
Pedagogical approaches, strategies
and techniques in fostering scientific
creativity
In this review, studies with
school-based intervention were
identified (n = 10). In order to establish
effective pedagogical approaches to
foster scientific creativity in school, this
type of studies is useful as it involves
implemented intervention plans and its
effects on students’ level of scientific
creativity that are seen as dependant
variables. The detailed contents of the
studies are summarised in Table 4.
The constructs of scientific
creativity measured vary between the
studies. As mentioned in Table 1, the
scientific creativity model presents
different constructs of scientific
creativity. By overlapping those three
models of scientific creativity, it can be
presented as input, processes and output
–while motivation and contextual
aspects act as moderator.
Based on the review, five aspects
of scientific creativity that are mostly
measured (vary according to study) are
a) divergent thinking (creative traits), b)
creative thinking, c) scientific
imagination, d) scientific products and
e) inquiry skills (scientific skills). These
aspects were incorporated in the tests of
scientific creativity in the studies.
However, there were no studies that
measured all five aspects of scientific
creativity as a whole. Nevertheless, out
of 11 studies, two studies assigned
creativity as independent variable as it
was embedded within the intervention,
while the effects were measured in terms
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 21
Figure 2. Scientific creativity aspects based on models by Hu and Adey (2002), Son
(2009) and Park (2010)
of science process skills and motivation
in learning science.
Based on Table 4, almost all of
the studies measuring the effects of
approaches and strategies have used
experimental research designs between
groups, with some comparing with
control groups (n=3) or treatment groups
(n=5). Only one qualitative study was
found to examine the effects obtained
through qualitative instruments such as
interview, online data, video tape
recordings and journals (Jang, 2009). In
most studies, the interventions were
carried out on students with only one
attempted them on teachers (Laius and
Rannikmae, 2011). There were two
studies that attempted to embed creative
thinking techniques in science and
measure their effects on other variables
(Astutik et al., 2019; Moote, 2019).
Overall, the participants of school-based
intervention studies were ranged from
primary 5th graders to high school
seniors in several Asian countries such
as Indonesia, Malaysia, China and
Taiwan and other countries such as the
UK, Germany and Estonia.
Based on the reviews, all the
interventions showed positive effects on
students’ level of scientific creativity.
However, no studies have measured the
whole aspects of scientific creativity.
Also, there were still lack of studies that
measure the effectiveness of the
interventions on non-cognitive aspects
of scientific creativity such as attitude,
motivation and contextual aspects.
Therefore, in the future, researchers who
wish to measure the effectiveness of
their interventions should consider all
aspects involved in scientific creativity
(cognitive and non-cognitive aspects) to
be able to claim that the interventions
have positive effects on scientific
creativity.
Pedagogical approaches is vital in
fostering creativity in the science
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 22
classroom as they assist learners to
recognise thoughts and view ideas from
original angles (Alsahou, 2015). This
review showed various effective
strategies to foster scientific creativity
among students in science classroom in
schools. The pedagogical approaches in
the interventions that can foster
scientific creativity can be classified as
follow:
Teaching creative thinking techniques
Creative thinking is a key to
developing creativity on top of sufficient
domain knowledge and motivation.
Creative thinking skills, as listed by Hu
et al. (2013), include analogy,
reorganization, brainstorming, breaking
the set and transference. Teaching
creative thinking techniques promotes
the development of scientific creativity.
Improvement in students’ creative
thinking skills denotes better
comprehension on the concept of
creativity, increased knowledge,
heightened interest and confidence as
well as reflection on creativity. Creative
thinking is also a crucial part in finding
and solving problems. Participating in
problem-based learning requires
students to maximize the use of their
creative thinking techniques. The step-
by-step approach proposed by Astutik et
al. (2019) and Iwan Wicaksono et al.
(2017) in their teaching and learning
models shows that learning starts by
identifying problems, followed by the
application of creative thinking
techniques in formulating hypotheses,
discussing alternatives and designing to
solve the problems. The development of
thinking and knowledge of innovation
should begin at the school level and
students have to be trained to involve in
solving ‘real-world’ problems as it can
inculcate the creativity skills among
them (Rahman et al., 2014).
Problem-based learning
Teaching and learning that are
based on problems, projects and
modelling allows students to learn by
themselves and construct their own
knowledge, which is the core of the
constructivism approach to learning.
Constructivism has long been
considered a dominant paradigm in the
field of science education. In addition to
constructivism, constructionism is also
an important approach in science
education. Constructionism promotes
student-centred discovery learning, in
which students make use of prior
information to acquire more knowledge.
Learners typically have more autonomy
over what they learn and could
customize their projects to fit their own
interests and abilities. Studies in this
review indicate that by applying these
approaches, students are able to express
their diversity including scientific
creativity.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 23
Table 4 Articles included in the review: effects of intervention on scientific creativity
Author/
Year/
Country
Inter-
vention
label
Target
students
(number,
level)
Scientific creativity aspects
measured
Effect
Divergent
thinking
Creative
thinking
Scientific
imagination
Scientific
products
Inquiry
skills
Zulkarnaen
, Supardi,
& Jatmiko,
2017,
Indonesia
(C3PDR)
teaching
model
Secon-dary
(n = 96, 8th
grade)
/
/
/
/
+
Astutik &
Prahani,
2018,
Indonesia
Collaborati
ve
Creativity
Learning
(CCL)
Model
High
school
(n = 144,
juniors)
/
/
/
+
Mierdel &
Bogner,
2019,
Germany
Hands-on
Modelling
Module
Secondary
(n = 115,
9th grade)
/
/
+
Sattar, et al
2018,
Malaysia
The
Science of
Smart
Communiti
es (SoSC)
Programme
Secondary
(n = 330,
multilevel)
/
/
/
+
Siew &
Ambo,
2010,
Malaysia
PjBL-
STEM
Module
Primary
(n = 60, 5th
grade)
/
/
Hu et al.,
2013,
China
Learn To
Think
Interventio
n
Programme
Secondary
(n = 107,
multi
levels)
/
/
/
/
+
Laius &
Rannikmae
, 2011,
Estonia
Teacher’s
professiona
l training
Middle
school
(n = 248,
9th grade)
/
+
Wicaksono
, Wasis, &
Madlazim,
2017,
Indonesia
Virtual
Science
Teaching
Model
High
school
(n = 318,
seniors)
/
+
Jang, 2009,
Taiwan
Web-based
technology
Secondary
school
(n = 31, 7th
grade)
/
/
/
+
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 24
They have shown interest, and strived to
produce the best designs and creations,
thus increase their productive skills.
ICT-based learning
In this technology-driven era, the
teaching and learning process should
also be tailored to meet current demands
and trends. By using information and
communication technology (ICT),
teachers are able to enrich their teaching
with more innovative techniques and
approaches. Two of the studies in the
review have shown that the use of ICT
in the teaching and learning of science
can foster scientific creativity in
students. Both studies agreed that the
use of ICT teaching media contributes
greatly to students’ creativity as they
facilitate the development of ideas by
providing access to up-to-date data and a
plethora of knowledge, which in turn
stimulates brainstorming. Students can
also make and create with the aid of
technology. Using ICT as a tool in the
classroom has been proven to increase
scientific literacy, scientific attitude and
students’ motivation as the students said
that the learning was fun and interactive
(Rubini, Permanasari and Yuningsih,
2018). Furthermore, the use of ICT can
help to solve the problems created by
constraints in manpower and resources.
Creativity in the science domain has
contributed to the invention of various
useful innovations and the incorporation
of technology elements to it has resulted
in extraordinary extension such as
invention in biotechnology (Osman,
Hamid and Hassan, 2009)
Integrated STEM-based learning
STEM education is an
interdisciplinary approach that integrates
the studies of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. Through
this approach, students are challenged to
make connections between learning and
the real world. This integration of
multiple disciplines will affect learners’
inquiry skills as it involves active
learning and problem-solving skills
(Syukri et al., 2018). Students
participating in the STEM program have
the advantage and tendency to further
their studies in the STEM field at a
higher level and have also been proven
more creative, scientific and confident in
doing hands-on activities compared to
those who are not exposed to STEM in
school.
Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is able to
improve students’ creativity since
students are afforded equal opportunities
and access to the same tasks and could
therefore mutually teach and
complement each other. In activities that
necessitate teamwork, students realise
that producing a good quality product
requires cooperation among team
members. Furthermore, group members
strive to help each other, which will
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 25
foster team spirit and satisfaction. Each
student contributes a new idea to the
experimental results.
Teacher development programme
When discussing creativity in
science education, the role of teachers
should also be considered. Teachers
themselves must be creative as well to
achieve instructional goals. Teachers
who are able to perform their duties as a
good facilitator, mentor and mediator in
the classroom will bring about
improvement of scientific creativity
among their students. Laius &
Rannikmae (2011) claimed that the
construction of scientific knowledge is
increasingly reflexive, interdisciplinary
and rapidly developing in contemporary
learning, and this, consequently, places a
greater demand on teachers’
professionalism. This has been proven in
their study, which revealed that the level
of teachers’ professional training has a
significant impact on their students’
improvement in skills associated with
socio-scientific reasoning and scientific
creativity.
In conclusion, the approaches can
be classified into six categories as
discussed previously. All the approaches
suggested by the studies showed some
similar characteristics such as more to
student-centred where students can
actively learn and have more autonomy
in their learning processes. These
approaches give the chance to the
students to build their own knowledge
and understanding, and then make
connection to the real world. In addition,
these suggested pedagogical approaches
mostly incorporate brainstorming and
reasoning skills in their activities such as
in problem-based or project-based
learning. Brainstorming and reasoning
are thinking techniques that have been
frequently mentioned in many studies as
the techniques that can develop
creativity.
Facilitating factors that influence
teaching for scientific creativity
This review found several studies
that focused on variables that influence
scientific creativity traits in students as
summarised in Table 4. Thirteen studies
were of quantitative descriptive studies,
two were qualitative descriptive and
four were mixed method. Only four
studies involved teachers as the
participants while the others involved
students including gifted students
(N = 4). Researches that studied gifted
students mostly aim to relate scientific
creativity skills to their respective talent.
These studies were also found to
investigate their motivation, emotional
and parental support on top of
intellectual capabilities (Cevher, Ertekin
and Koksal, 2014; Ruiz et al., 2014;
Kang, Park and Hong, 2015a; Usta and
Akkanat, 2015; Şahin, 2016). For
studies that focused on students as
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 26
participants, some were found to relate
scientific creativity with demographic
aspects including gender (Mierdel &
Bogner, 2019; Yu, 2010a) and age (Yu,
2010a).
These studies revealed no
significant differences in the level of
scientific creativity among male and
female students as well as those of
different schooling levels (Yu, 2010a).
However, Mierdel and Bogner (2019)
reported that girls can produce better
models than boys in model-based
learning.
Studies on the relationship of
scientific creativity with cognitive
achievement have been done by
correlating students’ scientific creativity
with their intellectual abilities, often in
the form of academic achievements
(Cevher, Ertekin and Koksal, 2014; Ruiz
et al., 2014; Şahin, 2016). Two such
studies reported a positive correlation
between scientific creative abilities and
cognitive achievement, which in turn
indicates that both variables can
significantly influence each other.
However, as emphasised by Cevher et
al. (2014), the level of scientific
creativity of gifted students is only
average, even though they are above-
average in intelligence tests.
Researchers have also focused on
specific skills to relate to scientific
creativity such as thinking and inquiry
skills. Studies on thinking skills look
into convergent and divergent thinking
skills (de Vries & Lubart, 2018), critical
thinking and scientific reasoning skills
(Mustika, Maknun and Feranie, 2019)
and modelling skills (Mierdel and
Bogner, 2019). Overall, the results of
the studies showed a significant positive
correlation between thinking skills and
scientific creative abilities.
Some affective factors related to
the students have also been examined.
The factors included some personality
traits including well-being and self-
control (Şahin, 2016), risk- taking and
curiosity (Yu, 2010b; Qian and Yu,
2012). The results reported are
consistent with previous studies that
indicate a generally positive correlation
between personality traits and scientific
creative performance. One study also
focused on learners’ motivation (Xue et
al., 2018) and concluded that motivation
must be fully considered when
cultivating adolescents’ scientific
creativity. Another study by Usta and
Akkanat (2015) on views on the nature
of science (NOS) and attitude towards
science classes reported a significant
relationship between scientific creativity
and attitude towards science. The study
also revealed a significant difference
between students’ level of scientific
creativity and their view of NOS.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 27
Meanwhile, studies on teachers
were more focused on their perspectives,
conceptions and beliefs regarding
scientific creativity and ways to
inculcate it in science lessons (Newton
and Newton, 2009; Liu and Lin, 2014;
Hetherington et al., 2019). The
participants among teacher were
reported to hold positive views and
perspectives in relating creativity with
science subjects. The findings indicated
a broad agreement internationally that
science is a creative endeavour.
Meanwhile, even though the teachers
have captured the central features of
scientific creativity and able to
distinguish between creative and
reproductive activities, they still have a
narrow conception and a tendency to
overlook some aspects related to
scientific creativity. Three studies were
conducted involving in-service teachers
while another study involved pre-service
teachers in the university. The said
studies attempted to correlate scientific
creativity with their alma mater, level of
study and behaviour. However, the
studies reported no significant difference
in the ability to foster creativity in pre-
service science teachers based on the
variables of university attended, major
studied, year of study and gender.
Of the studies reviewed, there
were two studies that focused on other
contextual factors such as family
background, number of language
spoken, school climate as well as the
support from parents and teachers
(Akkanat & Gökdere, 2018; de Vries &
Lubart, 2018). A study by De Vries &
Lubart (2018) reported that the more
languages are spoken and the more the
family has foreign background, the
fewer ideas are synthesised by the
students. Meanwhile, Akkanat and
Gökdere (2018) reported that perceived
involvement of parents and teachers, as
well as the school climate also
contributed significantly to the creativity
levels in science classrooms.
The studies reviewed in this
article focused on factors associated
with students, teachers and environment
or contexts. These factors are illustrated
in Figure 2. Based on the figure, it can
be identified that most researches were
done to study students’ factors. These
may be due to the assumption that
scientific creativity is seen as an innate
quality, whereby the individuals are
born with it. However, creativity can
happen in daily life or sometimes known
as Little c creativity that can be fostered
(Craft, 2002). Thus, there are also other
factors in the classroom that could
contribute to students’ scientific
creativity.
In addition, in teaching and
learning process, teacher plays an
important role to achieve effective
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 28
learning. Based on the reviews, the
factors associated with teachers were
only on their belief, conception and
perception on scientific creativity. These
factors can be considered as the essential
prerequisite factors in fostering
scientific creativity as they can help the
teachers to make decisions in the science
classroom (Liu & Lin, 2014; Mullet et
al., 2016; Newton & Newton, 2016).
However, it is also important to study
other factors such as teachers’
intellectual traits, their pedagogical
content knowledge as well as their
practices in the classroom, which can be
the factors in developing students’
scientific creativity.
Table 5 Articles included in the review: studies focusing on variables that influence
scientific creativity
Author/ Year
Method
Respondent (N,
level)
Aspects studied on scientific
creativity
(Hur and
Lee, 2015)
Quantitative
Teachers (75,
prospective)
- University attended
- Major studied
- Year of study
- Gender
- Behaviour
(de Vries &
Lubart,
2018a)
Mixed
Students (118,
7- 10 year olds)
- Divergent thinking
- Convergent thinking
- Nationality
- Number of languages spoken
(Yu, 2010b)
Quantitative
Students (495,
middle school)
- Affective factors
(Mierdel &
Bogner,
2019)
Quantitative
Students (115,
9th graders)
- Model quality scores
- Gender
(Mustika, et
al 2019)
Mixed
Students (42,
11th graders)
- Critical thinking skills
- Scientific reasoning skills
(Ruiz et al,
2014)
Quantitative
Students (98, 2nd
& 4th year of
secondary)
- Academic achievement in
mathematics and linguistic
domains
- Intellectual abilities
(Akkanat &
Gökdere,
2018)
Quantitative
Gifted Students
(698)
- Academic involvement
- School climate
- Parents and teacher support
(Xue et al,
2018)
Quantitative
Students (120,
7th & 8th
graders)
- Extrinsic motivation
(Kang et al
2015b)
Quantitative
Students
(gifted and
ordinary)
- Time-based fluency
(Cevher, et
al, 2014)
Quantitative
Gifted Students
(20, 8th grade)
- Intellectual abilities
(Şahin,
2016)
Quantitative
Gifted Students
(178)
- Academic achievement
- Emotional (self-control)
- Intellectual abilities
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 29
CONCLUSION
There are many approaches and
techniques that can be applied by
teachers to achieve effective teaching
and learning in science. Nevertheless,
certain approaches can be applied to
have more effect in fostering students’
scientific creativity.
Based on this systematic review,
some pedagogical approaches were
identified as effective practices that can
foster scientific creativity. Instructional
practices that have been proved in
encouraging creativity are more on
cognitive skills related to analyses,
syntheses, making inferences and
critical conclusion (Dehaan, 2011).
Even though existing studies have
designed and provided possible
activities and interventions to be
applied, the responsibility of making
decisions about what should or should
not be applied to foster students’
creativity lies on the teachers. Therefore,
to foster students’ scientific creativity,
teachers also have to be more proactive
in taking initiatives and always willing
to learn for the enhancement of their
professionalism in teaching.
Focusing solely on pedagogical
approaches is not enough. They must be
combined with contextual factors that
may facilitate students’ creative
endeavours and can be very helpful for
science educators as well as teachers
(Alsahou, 2015). The factors identified
by this systematic review are mostly
similar to the factors that can facilitate
Author/ Year
Method
Respondent (N,
level)
Aspects studied on scientific
creativity
(Yu, 2010a)
Quantitative
Students
(400, middle
school)
- Age
- Gender
(Qian & Yu,
2012)
Quantitative
Students (400,
middle school)
- Affective factors
(Yang et al.,
2016)
Quantitative
Students (321,
3rd - 6th grade
- Scientific inquiry skills
(Usta &
Akkanat,
2015)
Quantitative
Students (300,
7th grade)
- Attitude towards science
- View of nature of science
(Newton &
Newton,
2009)
Qualitative
Teachers
- Conceptions of scientific
creativity
(Hetheringto
n et al.,
2019)
Mixed
Educators (270)
- Perceptions on the relationship
between science and creativity
(Liu & Lin,
2014)
Qualitative
Primary teachers
- View on creativity in science
classroom
(Santi, 2018)
Mixed
Students (112,
primary and
secondary)
- Interest in Responsible Research
and Innovation (RRI) activities.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 30
teaching and learning, which involve
teachers’, students’ and environmental
factors. The reason being is that the
process of fostering scientific creativity
is not isolated. It is embedded in the
teaching and learning in the classroom.
There are many educational factors that
can influence teaching and learning, but
the most important role lies on the
teachers (Halim, Meerah & Syed,
2013).Thus, it can be suggested that
more researches should focus on science
teachers’ creative competency,
intellectual traits, their content
knowledge, perceptions and practices in
the real setting. Furthermore, in addition
to highlighting the facilitating factors, it
is also essential to review the constraints
that would hinder and limit the
emergence of scientific creative abilities
among students.
Figure 2: Facilitating factors that influence teaching for scientific creativity
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank UKM for
providing us the grant GG- 2019-043
which this publication is related to.
REFERENCES
Akkanat, Ç. and Gökdere, M 2018, ‘The
effect of academic involvement
and school climate as perceived
by gifted students in terms of
talent , creativity , and motivation
in science ’, Universal Journal of
Educational Research, vol. 6, no.
6, pp. 1167–74.
Alsahou, H 2015, Teachers ’ beliefs
about creativity and practices for
fostering creativity in science
classrooms in the State of Kuwait,
PhD Thesis, University of Exeter,
London.
Andiliou, A. and Murphy, P. K 2010,
‘Examining variations among
researchers’ and teachers’
conceptualizations of creativity: A
review and synthesis of
contemporary research’,
Educational Research Review,
vol. 5 no. 3, pp. 201–19.
Anna Craft 2002, Creativity and early
years education: A Lifewide
foundation. Continuum studies in
lifelong learning. London, United
Kingdom.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 31
Astutik, S., Mahdiannur, Suliyanah, and
B K Prahani, BK. 2019,
‘Improving science process skills
of junior high school students
through the implementation of
collaborative creativity learning
(CCL) model in physics learning’,
Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, vol 1171 no. 1.
Astutik, S. and Prahani, B. K 2018, ‘The
practicality and effectiveness of
collaborative creativity learning
(ccl) model by using phet
simulation to increase students’
scientific creativity’, International
Journal of Instruction, vol. 11 no.
4, pp. 409–24.
Bereczki, O. and Karpati, A 2018,
‘Teachers ’ beliefs about
creativity and its nurture : A
systematic review of the recent
research literature’, Educational
Research Review vol. no. 23, pp
25-56.
Cevher, A. H., Ertekin, P. and Koksal,
M. S 2014, ‘Investigation of
scientific creativity of eighth
grade gifted students’,
International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and
Change, vol. 1 no. 4 pp. 1-6.
Davies, D., Snape, D.J, Collier, C.,
Digby, R., Hay, P., Howe, A
2013, ‘Creative learning
environments in education-A
systematic literature review’,
Thinking Skills and Creativity.
Elsevier Ltd, vol. 8 no. 1, pp. 80–
91.
Davies, D. Snape, D.J, Collier, C.,
Digby, R., Hay, P., Howe, A
2014, ‘The roles and development
needs of teachers to promote
creativity: A systematic review of
literature’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, vol. 41, pp. 34-41.
Dehaan, R. L. 2011, ‘Teaching Creative
Science Thinking’, Education
Forum, vol. 334 (December), pp.
1499–500.
Dikici, A. and Soh, K. 2015, ‘Indexing
creativity fostering teacher
behaviour : Replication and
modification’, Higher Education
of Social Science, vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 1–10.
Feist, G. J 1998, ‘A Meta-Analysis of
Personality in Scientific and
Artistic Creativity’, Pers Soc
Psychol Rev, vol. 2 no. 4, pp.
290–309.
Gardner, H 1983, Frames of mind: The
theory of multiple intelligences.
Basic Books, New York.
Halim, L., Abdullah, S.I.S.S. & Meerah,
T.S.M 2014, ‘Students’
perceptions of their science
teachers’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge’, Journal of Science
Education and Technology,
vol. 23, no 2, pp. 227-37.
Hetherington, L., Chappell, K., Keene,
H.R., Wren,H., Cukurova, M.,
Hathaway, C., Sotiriou, S.,
Bogner, F 2019, ‘International
educators’ perspectives on the
purpose of science education and
the relationship between school
science and creativity’, Research
in Science and Technological
Education, pp. 1–23.
Hu, W. and Adey, P 2002, ‘A scientific
creativity test for secondary
school students’, International
Journal of Science Education, vol.
24, no. 4, pp. 389–403.
Hu, W.Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan,C.,
Meyer, W., Kaufman, J.C 2013,
‘Increasing students’ scientific
creativity: The “Learn to Think”
Intervention Program’, Journal of
Creative Behavior, vol. 47 no. 1,
pp. 3–21.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 32
Hur, Y. J. and Lee, S. Y 2015, ‘Analysis
of instruction fostering creativity
in prospective natural sciences
and engineering teachers’,
Information (Japan), vol. 18 no.
3, pp. 867–72.
Wicaksono, I, Wasis and Madlazim
2017, ‘The effectiveness of virtual
science teaching model (vs-tm) to
improve student’s scientific
creativity and concept mastery on
senior high school physics
subject’, Journal of Baltic Science
Education, vol. 16 no. 4, p. 13.
Jang, S. J 2009, ‘Exploration of
secondary students’ creativity by
integrating web-based technology
into an innovative science
curriculum’, Computers and
Education. Elsevier Ltd, vol. 52
no. 1, pp. 247–55.
Kang, D., Park, J. and Hong, H 2015,
‘Changes in the number of ideas
depending on time when
conducting scientific creativity
activities', Journal of Baltic
Science Education, vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 448–59.
Laius, A. and Rannikmae, M 2011,
‘Impact on student change in
scientific creativity and socio-
scientific reasoning skills from
teacher collaboration and gains
from professional in-service’,
Journal of Baltic Science
Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
127–38.
Lin, C.Hu, W., Adey,P., Shen, J. 2003,
‘The influence of cultural factors
on scientific production’,
Research in Science Education,
vol. 33, no. 33, pp. 137–46.
Liu, S. C. and Lin, H. shyang 2014,
‘Primary teachers’ beliefs about
scientific creativity in the
classroom context’, International
Journal of Science Education, vol.
36, no.10, pp 1551–67.
Mierdel, J. and Bogner, F. X 2019, ‘Is
creativity, hands-on modeling and
cognitive learning gender-
dependent?’, Thinking Skills and
Creativity. Elsevier Ltd, vol. 31,
pp. 91–102.
Mohamad Sattar, R., Nosrsalehan, Z.,
Lilia, H., Roseamnah, A.R 2018
‘Impact of integrated stem smart
communities program on students
scientific creativity’, Journal of
Engineering Science and
Technology, Special issue
November, pp. 80–9.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J.,
Altman, D.G., The PRISMA
Group, 2009, ' Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: the PRISMA
statement', PLoS Med. vol. 6, no.
7.
Mohtar, L. E. and Halim, L 2015,
‘Konstruk Kreativiti Saintifik
Bagi Kajian Dalam Pendidikan
Fizik Sekolah Menengah : Satu
Sorotan Literatur’, in Sixth
International Conference on
Science and Mathematics
Education. CoSMEd 2015 16 –
19 November 2015, Penang,
Malaysia.
Moote, J 2019, ‘Investigating the
Longer-Term Impact of the
CREST Inquiry-Based Learning
Programme on Student Self-
regulated Processes and Related
Motivations: Views of Students
and Teachers’, Research in
Science Education, vol. 49, no.1,
pp. 265–94.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 33
Mukhopadhyay, R 2012, ‘Whether
aptitude in physics, scientific
attitude, and deep approach to
study explain achievement in
physics significantly – An
investigation’, International
Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Invention, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 57–63.
Mukhopadhyay, R 2013 ‘Measurement
of creativity in physics - A brief
review on related tools’, IOSR
Journal Of Humanities And
Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), vol.
6, no. 5, pp. 45–50.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K.,
Kettler, T 2016, ‘Examining
teacher perceptions of creativity:
A systematic review of the
literature’, Thinking Skills and
Creativity. Elsevier Ltd, vol. 21,
pp. 9–30.
Mustika, M., Maknun, J. and Feranie, S.
2019, ‘Case study : analysis of
senior high school students
scientific creative, critical
thinking and its correlation with
their scientific reasoning skills on
the sound concept’, Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, vol.
1157, no. 3.
Newton, D. P. and Newton, L. D 2009,
‘Some student teachers’
conceptions of creativity in school
science’, Research in Science and
Technological Education, vol. 27,
no. 1, pp. 45-60.
Newton, L. & Newton, D 2016,
‘Elementary school science
creative thinking and teaching for
creativity in elementary school
science’, Gifted and Talented
International, vol. 25, no.2, pp.
111-24 .
Osman. K, Hamid A, S.H, Hassan, A
2009, ‘Standard setting: inserting
domain of the 21st century
thinking skills into the existing
science curriculum in Malaysia’,
Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, no.1 (2009), pp. 2573–
77.
Park, J 2010, ‘Practical ways for
teaching and evaluation scientific
creativity’, XIV IOSTE
Symposium: Socio-cultural and
Human Values in Science and
Technology Education. Bled,
Slovenia.
Qian, J. and Yu, J 2012, ‘Students
creativity modeling with gene
expression programming’,
International Conference on
Computer Science and
Electronics Engineering, ICCSEE
2012, vol. 3, pp. 582–85.
Rahman, S 2014, ‘Using Problem-
focused Approach to Nurture
Creativity and Entrepreneurship
among Students’, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences,
no. 191 ( 2015 ), pp 2782 – 6
Rozi, N.E,. and Halim, L 2018, ‘Sorotan
literatur: Instrumen pengukuran
kreativiti saintifik dalam sains’,
International Conference on
Global Education Vi, (May), pp.
163–79.
Rubini, B., Permanasari, A. and
Yuningsih, W. 2018, ‘Learning
Multimedia Based on Science
Literacy on the Lightning
Theme’, Jurnal Penelitian dan
Pembelajaran IPA, vol. 4, no. 2,
p. 89.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 34
Ruiz, M. J., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M.,
Prieto, M.D., Sainz, M 2014,
‘Intelligence and scientific-
Creative thinking: Their
convergence in the explanation of
students’ academic performance’,
Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 283–302.
Şahin, F 2016, ‘General intelligence,
emotional intelligence and
academic knowledge as predictors
of creativity domains: A study of
gifted students’, Cogent
Education. Cogent, vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 1–16.
Said-metwaly, S 2017, ‘Approaches to
measuring creativity : A
systematic literature review ’, vol.
4, no. 2, pp. 238–75.
Santi, E. A 2018, ‘Scientific Creativity
Related To Rri - Psychological
And Practical Implications For
Students’, The European
Proceedings of Social &
Behavioural Sciences (March),
pp. 619–26.
Shaffril, H. A. M., Abu Samah, A. and
D’Silva, J. L 2017 ‘Adapting
towards climate change impacts:
Strategies for small-scale
fishermen in Malaysia’, Marine
Policy, 81(December 2016), pp.
196–201.
Sierra-Correa, P.C., Cantera Kintz, J.R
2015. 'Ecosystem-based
adaptation for improving coastal
planning for sea-level rise: A
systematic review for mangrove
coasts', Mar. Policy vol. 51, pp.
385–93.
Siew, N. M. and Ambo, N 2010,
‘Development and evaluation of
an integrated project- based and
stem teaching and learning
module on enhancing scientific
creativity among fifth graders’,
Journal of Baltic Science
Education, vol. 17, no. 6, pp.
1017–33.
Son Mi Jo 2009, 'A Study of Korean
Students’ Creativity in Science
Using Structural Equation
Modeling', PhD Thesis,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
Sprecher, T. B 1975, ‘A Proposal for
identifying Meaning of
Creativity’, in Scientific
Creativity: Recognition and
Development. Robert E. Kreiger
Publishing Company, New York.
Starko, A. J 2013, 'Creativity in the
Classroom : Schools of Curious
Delight', Taylor & Francis Ltd,
London.
Syukri, M., Soewarno, S., Lilia, H.,
Lilia, E.M 2018, ‘The impact of
engineering design process in
teaching and learning to enhance
students’ science problem-solving
skills’, Jurnal Pendidikan IPA
Indonesia, vol. 1, pp. 66-75
Torrance, E. P 1965 ‘Scientific views of
creativity and factors affecting its
growth’, Daedalus, vol. 94, no. 3,
pp. 663–81.
Usta, E. and Akkanat, C 2015,
‘Investigating scientific creativity
level of seventh grade students’,
Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 191, pp. 1408–15.
de Vries, H. B. and Lubart, T. I 2018
‘Scientific creativity: divergent
and convergent thinking and the
impact of culture’, Journal of
Creative Behavior, pp. 1–11.
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA Sidek, et al
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, p. 13-35 35
Wang, K. and Nickerson, J. V 2017, ‘A
literature review on individual
creativity support systems’,
Computers in Human Behavior,
vol. 74, pp. 139-51.
Xue, Y., Gu, C., Wu, J., Dai, D.Y., Mu,
X., Zhou, Z. 2018, ‘The Effects of
Extrinsic Motivation on Scientific
and Artistic Creativity among
Middle School Students’, Journal
of Creative Behavior, pp. 1–14.
Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z., Lin,
H. S. 2016, ‘Exploring the
assessment of and relationship
between elementary students’
scientific creativity and science
inquiry’, Creativity Research
Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 16–23.
Yu, J. 2010a, ‘The application of GA-
based clustering analysis for the
student scientific creativity’,
Proceedings - International
Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Computational
Intelligence, AICI 2010, vol. 2,
pp. 574–76.
Yu, J 2010b, ‘The application of neural
networks and rough set in
creativity measurement’, 2010
International Conference on
Computational Intelligence and
Software Engineering, CiSE 2010,
pp. 1–3.
Zulkarnaen, Supardi, I. and Jatmiko, B
2017, ‘Feasibility of creative
exploration, creative elaboration,
creative modeling, practice
scientific creativity, discussion,
reflection (C3PDR) teaching
model to improve students’
scientific creativity of junior high
school’, Journal of Baltic Science
Education, vol. 16, no. 6, pp.
1020–34.
