Scientific Creativity and Imagination in Design-Based Makerspace Classrooms: From Problem-Solving to Possibility

• In Event: Multimethod Approaches to Understanding STEM Outcomes: The Importance of Scientific Thinking, Motivation, and Engagement

Abstract

Purpose and Background
Creative thinking and novel output are essential to scientists in the professional world, and necessary for scientific progress. Yet, despite “imagine” being on the Science and Engineering practices identified in A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), traditional school-based science instruction provides limited day-to-day opportunities to think creatively or exercise scientific imagination.
Creativity and imagination have both been studied in the field of child development (Vygotsky, 1967/2004; Sawyer et al., 2003) and addressed in problem solving research (Sternberg, 2006), but less so within science education. Some researchers have argued that creativity and imagination are not entirely interchangeable. Creativity is context-bound and defined by the problem space and working in and out of its constraints to develop new ideas or solutions; characterized by novelty, appropriateness, and value of ideas (Runco & Albert, 2010). For thinking that is unbounded, and not limited to the constraints of a problem space, there is less research in psychology or STEM disciplines. We operationalize this type of thinking as imagination.
One of the main avenues of studying creativity has been directly through studying how people solve problems (Sternberg & Lubart, 1993). We explored makerspaces because they began as informal sites of socially relevant problem-solving helping students learn and apply STEM knowledge to projects (Dougherty et al., 2013). In makerspaces students can incorporate art, science, and engineering (Sheridan et al., 2014).

Research Questions
1. How do students’ creativity and imagination develop over the course of the year in design-based makerspace classrooms?
2. When students attempted to solve a problem in their makerspace class, in what ways did creativity and imagination shape their approach, and were they different?

Methods and Design
We conducted a mixed methods study to collect and analyze data. To answer research question 1, piecewise, hierarchical linear growth modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was used to examine 3rd-6th grade students’ trajectories in self-perceived creativity over two years of participation in the makerspace course, with time specified at level 1 and student at level 2. Grade level and gender were specified as control variables.
We conducted 3 observations per classroom, think-aloud interviews with student groups, and collected artifacts (e.g. photos and blog posts). We used existing frameworks of creativity and imagination to code and identify student talk and practices to look for themes and patterns.

Findings and Significance
Results showed that students’ creativity scores decreased significantly in the intervening time between year 1 and year 2 participation (p<0.05) (Figure 1). The youngest students (grade 3) had the highest creativity scores on average, but slightly older students (grades 4 and 5) had much lower self-perceived creativity.
Whereas creativity is an inductive (ground-up) process, from problem to solution, imagination may be lacking the same directionality, instead prompting paradigmatic shifts in thinking. When using imaginative thinking students were engaged in supposition, and generating possibilities, often speculating ideas that they would not be able to immediately pursue. Student talk became constrained to the context over time, indicating declining imagination, and may explain the self-perceived decline in creativity.

Authors

• Ananya Matewos, St. Norbert College

• Vanessa Vongkulluksn, University of Nevada - Las Vegas