Enhancing Imagination and Problem Solving in Science

• In Event: Crafting Engagement in Science Environments Through Project-Based Learning

Abstract

Objectives and Purpose
This paper measures the effect of Project-Based Learning ([PBL]; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik & Shin, 2014) on students’ creative experiences in U.S. and Finnish high school physics and chemistry classrooms. Several key features of PBL include starting with a driving question, participating in scientific practices to solve problems, and engaging in collaborative activities to find solutions. Runco (2014) suggests that in order for teachers to cultivate creative thinking in their classrooms they must present open-ended problems that appeal to students’ intrinsic interests. Project-based instruction and environments that breed creativity share some similar features, so we hypothesize that a project-based science intervention will increase students’ creative thinking and problem solving.
Methods
We employed a single-case reversal (ABAB) design in which ten teachers in the US and nine teachers in Finland alternated between regular instruction (baseline) and project-based units (treatment). Creativity was measured in situ via the experience sampling method (ESM), delivered by smartphone technology. Students received three signals per day for three days during their science class, and rated their use of imagination and different points of view required for the activity on a four-point Likert scale. Because repeated measures are nested within classrooms, we used a Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) for analysis. A treatment indicator at the moment-level allows us to estimate the effects of the PBL units on creativity outcomes, while accounting for differences in students’ slopes at level two.
Results
Estimation of a standardized effect size for single-case designs is not as straightforward as it is in a typical between-subjects design. However, Hedges, Pustejovsky, and Shadish (2012) have developed a measure that is comparable to Cohen’s d. A pooled (across cases) mean difference is combined with a pooled (across cases) estimate of the variance, accounting for differences in the number of observations between cases and the repeated baseline and treatment phases. We used this approach to calculate effect sizes. For use of imagination, the standardized effect size was .29 in the US and .29 in Finland. For exploration of different points of view the standardized effect size was .27 in the US and .36 in Finland. Based on previous ESM work, we would characterize these as relatively strong effects.
Conclusion
The observed increase in imagination and using different points of view are consistent with PBLs emphasis on arguing, challenging, and trying out new ideas. The use of a driving question allows students to use their imaginations and to think about different approaches to problems as opposed to being told a “right” answer. Overall the project-based physics and chemistry intervention described here had a positive effect on key indicators of creativity, and these results point to PBL as a promising approach for fostering creative thinking and problem solving in high school science classrooms.

Authors

• Christopher R Klager, Michigan State University

• Janna Inkinen, University of Helsinki