 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 11, Issue 1, Article 17
(Jun., 2010) |
The paper reflects that there are at least three approaches for infusing creative thinking elements into normal science lessons, i.e. through science process, science content and science scenario. In fact, this study made no final conclusion as to which approach is better. It seems that the science content approach would be easier to gain recognition in an educational system which is dominated by knowledge content and examinations. However, with the limited skills and experience in creativity, teachers and students might feel that the science process and science scenario approach easier to start with, as they are less constrained by the rigid content in the syllabus. All three approaches have their potentials and problems. Curriculum reform is such a complicated process, which has no simple direct path. Studies on multiple approaches of creative teaching are likely to be more beneficial to science education field than a unidirectional one. In future, science educators should try to develop more useful teaching strategies and learning activities for each approach, and further examine their strengths in various teaching contexts.
Educators should also be aware that all the three approaches have their limitations and constraints. They need to address several problems, including the original content-curriculum, time constraints, student interests and abilities, and the discrepancies between student and teacher expectations. These problems were originated from discrepancies in the divergent nature of creative thinking and the convergent nature of content-teaching, and that inside the local educational system (such as public examinations, rigid core curriculum, overloaded time-table, big class size and etc). Among all these sources of problem, the heavy knowledge-content of existing curriculum is considered as most crucial in creating teacher tensions and dilemmas in creative teaching. Educational policy-makers should seriously attend to the dilemma between this heavy content and creativity development in future reforms. Inevitably, creativity reforms would bring adaptation problems to both teachers and students who are unfamiliar with this new way of learning and teaching. Teachers and students need to readjust and reconstruct their teaching and learning methods, classroom expectations, communication methods and conceptions of science teaching and learning.
In fact, heavy knowledge-content and examination-oriented curriculum, CHC classroom culture and teachers and students being novice at creativity are all common characteristics in educational systems of many Asian places. Therefore, the result of this study somehow can reflect, or at least partially reflect, the situation of creativity education reform in many Asian places. It sheds light on the potentials and obstacles of the three creative science teaching approaches in other places which are undergoing similar educational reforms.
In future, to better understand the potentials and obstacles of the three approaches, further studies of the three creativity approaches in different educational contexts, including both Eastern and Western ones, are necessary. Another suggested area of future study is the interaction of teachers and approaches. For instance, teachers of different teaching styles and skills may perform quite differently in different creativity approaches. In future, researchers may further explore these complicated interacting relationships.
Acknowledgement
Sincerely thanks to Mr. Ken Ng, Mr. Sit Kwok Wing, Mr. Ho Chun Yan and Miss Angel Wong and Miss Xia Beibei for their kind support and assistance in the publication of this article.
Copyright (C) 2010 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 11, Issue 1, Article 17 (Jun., 2010). All Rights Reserved.
