From STEM to STEAM: Cracking the Code? How Creativity & Motivation Interacts with Inquiry-based Learning

References

• Aberg, K. C., Doell, K. C., & Schwartz, S. (2017). The “Creative Right Brain” revisited: Individual creativity and associative priming in the right hemisphere relate to hemispheric asymmetries in reward brain function. Cerebral Cortex (new York, N.Y. : 1991), Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. pp. 7-27
   Google Scholar
• Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 Missing Reference: Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations 1. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194. doi:10.1080/14681366.2012.748676
   Google Scholar
• Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative potential in educational settings: Its nature, measure, and nurture. Education 3-13, 43(4), 371–381. doi:10.1080/03004279.2015.1020643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998. doi:10.1080/09500690802425581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogner, F. X. (1998). Environmental perception of irish and bavarian adolescents. A Comparative Empirical Study, the Environmentalist, 18, 27–38. doi:10.1023/A:1006578101077
   Google Scholar
• Bogner, F. X. (2010). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29. doi:10.1080/00958969809599124
   Google Scholar
• Brodbeck, K.-H. (1999). Entscheidung zur Kreativität (2nd ed.). Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Buck, A., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Bridging the gap towards flying: Archaeopteryx as a unique evolutionary tool to inquiry-based learning. In U.Harms & M.J.Reiss (Eds.): Evolution Education Re-considered: Understandingwhat works. Berlin, Germany: Springer. p.149-165 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88–98.
   Google Scholar
• Chow, B. (2010). The quest for ‘Deeper Learning’: Commentary: Rigorous and deeper learning. Education Week, 30(6), 22–24. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/06/06chow_ep.h30.html?qs=the+quest+for+deeper+learning
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conradty, C, & Bogner, F.X. (2011). Computer-aided learning: unguided versus guided instruction. Advanced Science Letters, 4(11/12), 3310-3316.
   Google Scholar
• Conradty. C. & Bogner, F.X.. (2016). Hypertext or Textbook: Effects on Motivation and Gain in Knowledge. Education Science, 6(29). doi:10.3390/educsci6030029
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety (25. anniversary ed.). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (2nd German ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta.
   Google Scholar
• de Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step (1. Perennial Library ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieser, O, & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Young people’s cognitive achievement as fostered by hands-on-centred environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 22(7), 943-957. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1054265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdous, A. A., & Plake, B. S. (2007). Item selection strategy for reducing the number of items rated in an angoff standard setting study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(2), 193–206. doi:10.1177/0013164406288160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, B., Xiang, L., Collett, J., Rhoads, M., & Osborn, J. (2015). Open inquiry-based learning elicits deeper understanding of complex physiological concepts compared to traditional lecture-style or guided-inquiry learning methods. The FASEB Journal, 29(1) supplement.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. Oxford, England: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, A., Grant, G., & Gallate, J. (2012). Who killed creativity? – And how we can get it back? Seven essential strategies to make yourself, your team and your organisation more innovative. Milton, Qld: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10538669
   Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. STEAM, 1(2), 1–9. doi:10.5642/steam
   Google Scholar
• Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2010). Kreativität: Konzept und Lebensstil (3. Aufl.). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
   Google Scholar
• ISB Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst. (2017). LehrplanPlus 2017. München: ISB Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung. Retrieved from https://www.lehrplanplus.bayern.de/schulart/realschule
   Google Scholar
• Joseph D. Novak. (1988). Learning Science and the Science of Learning, Studies in Science Education. 15(1), 77–101. doi:10.1080/03057268808559949
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). The effect of STEAM education on elementary school student’s creativity improvement. In T. Kim,T.-h., Stoica, A., Fang, W.-c., Vasilakos, T., Garcia Villalba, J.,Arnett, K.P., Khurram Khan, M., Kang, B.-H. (Eds.), Computer applications for security, control and system engineering. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 339). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35264-5_16
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2012). Internet environments for science education. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1046792
   Google Scholar
• Marth, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2017a). How a Hands-on BIONICS lesson may intervene with science motivation and technology interest. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(5), 72–89.
   Google Scholar
• Marth, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2017b). Does the issue of bionics within a student-centered module generate long-term knowledge? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55(55), 117–124. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, A. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2013). Inventing creativity: An exploration of the pedagogy of ingenuity in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 400–409. doi:10.1111/ssm.2013.113.issue-8
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. L. (2014). A self-report measure of cognitive processes associated with creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 203-218. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.901088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2016). Creative cognitive processes in higher education. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(4), 282–293. doi:10.1002/jocb.2016.50.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I., & Flinger, M. A. (2013). The basic practice of statistics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 107–120. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469
   Google Scholar
• Parkhurst, E. (1922). Education on the Dalton plan. London, Great Britain: University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popp, S. (2016). Der Daltonplan in Theorie und Praxis: Ein aktuelles reformpädagogisches Modell zur Förderung selbstständigen Lernens in der Sekundarstufe. Studienverlag GmbH. EAN: 9783706557900.Austria, Vienna: Studienverlag. ISBN 978-3-7065-5790-0
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, J. M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 306–307. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, K., & Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenz, D., Walber-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-scienceeducation_en.pdf..
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Acar, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2017). A closer look at the creativity gap and why students are less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 242–249. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160. doi:10.1002/tea.v46:10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2015). Effects of students’ effort scores in a structured inquiry unit on long-term recall abilities of content knowledge. Education Research International, (2015(2), 1–11. doi:10.1155/2015/826734
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). How an inquiry-based classroom lesson intervenes in science efficacy, career-orientation and self-determination. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2342–2360. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1380332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumm, M. F., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Measuring adolescent science motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 434–449. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1147659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, W., Liu, C., Shi, C., & Yuan, Y. (2015). Gender differences in creative thinking. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(8), 1380. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01380
   Google Scholar
• Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2015). A 2200-Year old inquiry-based, hands-on experiment in today’s science classrooms. World Journal of Education, 5, 2. doi:10.5430/wje.v5n2p52
   Google Scholar
• Sotirou, S., Bybee, R. W., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). PATHWAYS – A case of large-scale implementation of evidence-based practice in scientific inquiry-based science education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 8. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p8
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, E., Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2012). Progression in creativity: Developing new forms of assessment – Final research report. Newcastle, Great Britain: CCE.Retrievedfrom https://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CCE-Progression-in-Creativity-Literature-Review-2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988). The developing applied technology of generalization and maintenance. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 5–19). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Student‐oriented versus Teacher‐centred: The effect of learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 941–959. doi:10.1080/09500690701313995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! Experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33. doi:10.1111/cogs.2011.35.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1966). The torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research: The torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, Forms A and B-Figural tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyan, Y.-S., Liao, J.-R., Shen, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-C., & Weng, J.-C. (2017). Gender differences in the structural connectome of the teenage brain revealed by generalized q-sampling MRI. NeuroImage Clinical, 15, 376–382. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.05.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 177–191. doi:10.1080/10400419109534384
   Google Scholar
• Volf, N. V., & Tarasova, I. B. (2013). The influence of reward on the performance of verbal creative tasks: Behavioral and EEG effects. Human Physiology, 39(3), 302–308. doi:10.1134/S0362119713020187
   Google Scholar