Creativity in chemistry class and in general – German student teachers’ views

Abstract

Creativity has become an increasingly important competence in today's rapidly changing times, especially for school graduates who strive for pursuing a technical or scientific career. But creativity has not been integrated in the lessons or curricula of STEM subjects. To successfully integrate it in the classroom, it is important to investigate teachers’ and student teachers’ views on creativity. A study with seventeen German student teachers, studying chemistry on a Master's degree, is already carried out using a new research instrument that includes the creation of concept maps and filling out a questionnaire. The implementation of this study, the analysis and evaluation of the data and a comparison with literature data are described in this article. One result of this study is that the methods are an adequate approach to investigate views and knowledge about creativity. Regarding this, all of the students already had conceptions, views and an understanding about creativity in general and in the context of chemistry education, although they did not get input on the topic. Furthermore, almost all of the students had a positive attitude towards creativity and its integration in chemistry lessons. However, also uncertainties like the definition of creativity could be identified.

---

Introduction

Creativity is a term for which no standard definition exists. Understanding, measuring and evaluating creativity is therefore individually different. What individuals call creative depends upon their society, its developmental history and the zeitgeist of the relevant period. Over the course of time a wealth of definitions has arisen for creativity, and many of which are still relevant today.

In Europe, creativity research remains a highly-neglected area even today (Urban, 1991). Nevertheless, creativity has become increasingly important for today's rapidly changing times, because economics depends more and more heavily on innovation. There is a need for creative and innovative workers especially in technical occupations. Creativity is therefore a requirement for school graduates, yet it has still not been made an integral part of education. It remains mainly in the artistic, musical and handicraft subjects in school. Especially in STEM subjects, which are important for technical occupations, creativity has not yet been established in the classroom and is not even mentioned in most curricula. It can therefore be assumed that the STEM teachers do not consciously integrate creativity in the lessons. They need knowledge and confidence in dealing with creativity to successfully integrate it in the classroom. In order to achieve this, there is a need to determine the views and attitudes of teachers and student teachers on the subject, because conceptions of creativity have a great impact on teaching and lesson planning (Newton and Newton, 2009). Views and conceptions of teachers and student teachers from the USA, Canada, China, India, Korea and some European countries were already investigated (for an overview of the studies since 1991, see Andiliou and Murphy, 2010 and Kampylis et al., 2009). Studies about the attitude of German teachers and student teachers towards creativity, their understanding of creativity and their will to integrate creativity in their own class are sorely lacking.

With this background, the purpose of this study is to answer the following research questions:

(1) Are the methods used in this study adequate to investigate the student teachers’ views, attitudes and knowledge about creativity?

(2) Which views and conceptions on creativity in general and creativity in chemistry class do German chemistry student teachers have?

(3) How extensive are the conceptions and knowledge of these student teachers about creativity (in chemistry class)?

(4) How do the investigated views and knowledge correspond to the results of other studies and to the aspects in the literature data? and

(5) What connecting factors are arising for teacher training?

To answer these questions, we developed a new instrument. It consists of three parts: an independent concept map, a concept map with given terms, and a short questionnaire. A first version of the instrument including the concept map with given terms and the questionnaire have already been evaluated in a pilot study. Because of changes and additions to the instrument, which were the results of a discussion in the context of the pilot study, the question about the instrument's adequacy was taken up again in this study. The changes and additions will be explained in detail in the methods section.

The data collected will not only give insights into the students’ views and knowledge about creativity, but it will also give insights into instructional practice. Finally, the data should serve as a starting point for further education, teacher training and possibly study seminars. It is important that students and teachers create a common understanding of creativity, which builds on prior knowledge and experiences about creativity and therefore can serve as the basis for creative teaching. To achieve this, it is also necessary to confront educators with their own personal views and to explicitly reflect upon them. The implementation and the results of the first study will be explained below.

Theoretical background

Modern creativity research came into being with Guilford's (1950) presentation at the Congress of the American Psychology Association (Guilford, 1950). In that time, there was a need for education in the field of creativity especially in America, because industry exhibited increased demands for people with innovative skills. Because of this, Guilford tried to describe and delineate creativity. He investigated the topic and found that creativity and intelligence are not necessarily related, however, creativity largely depends upon a person's intrinsic motivation and mentality (Guilford, 1968, p. 77/82). Although he repeatedly mentioned the concept of the “creative genius” (Guilford, 1968, p. 78), he understood creativity as something that can (at least theoretically) be attributed to every person.

Current research takes into account the fact that creativity can be viewed from various perspectives. These perspectives were integrated into Urban's 4P-E model (1995). This model states that creativity can be demonstrated by a person, product, problem or process, all of which are tied to social, cultural, political and historical factors in the surrounding environment. The British government formed the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) for investigating creativity. This body defines creativity as “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 30). This definition contends that creativity includes all human activities and that every human being has creative potential, which can be discovered, developed and promoted. These two definitions represent the foundation for this study.

There are many articles and books explaining what creative teaching should look like and how students’ creativity can be promoted (e.g.Feldhusen and Treffinger, 1977; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2004; Fautley and Savage, 2007; Starko, 2010). However, these offerings relate more to the general classroom. With regards to chemistry classes in Germany, only a few elaborated implementation possibilities can be found in the chemistry education literature, for example egg races (Borstel and Böhm, 2005; Schanze, 2009), learning companies (Witteck and Eilks, 2006) and working-at-stations (Orth and Hilgers, 2006), and specified experiments (Schwarz and Lutz, 2004). There is also one special issue about creativity in chemistry education (Gärtner, 1997), where the authors described creative methods like the ones mentioned before and general conditions and other aspects relating to creativity in chemistry classes. These will be explained in the following paragraphs. Studies about the attitude of German teachers towards creativity, their understanding of creativity and their will to integrate creativity in their own class are sorely lacking.

As described above, creativity is rarely seen as an attribute of science subjects in school. This is confirmed by various studies. These studies have indicated that teachers and students from Europe and the US view music, art, drama and handicraft subjects as appropriate to implement creative thinking, as these subjects are more open and practical (Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Kampylis et al., 2009; Newton and Newton, 2009). But there are also some studies in which teachers from Europe have indicated that creativity can be applied in every school subject (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 23). Such teachers also possess basically positive attitudes towards creativity in class. Yet differences exist in actual educational practices. Very few teachers explicitly mention methods with which creativity can be promoted in the classroom (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 33f.). Frontal teaching is still the method that is preferred by most teachers, while independent learning and student discovery are less frequently allowed in class.

In the literature on creativity, however, there is a consensus that classical authoritarian teaching methods such as frontal teaching do not result in promoting creativity. This would require new and more varied methods and forms of teaching. Creative teaching is associated with open, student-centered, cooperative and teaching strategies based on group work, which also refers to project work and learning opportunities outside of laboratory or school settings (Kind and Kind, 2007). In particular, inquiry- and discovery-based classrooms are viewed as a great opportunity for promoting creative skills (Fasko, 2001; Kind and Kind, 2007). As examples of creative methods egg races, jigsaw classrooms, learning companies and various types of learning at stations can all be cited. As described above, some of them have already been elaborated and tested in lessons in Germany chemistry classes. Not only the methods but also diverse media offerings can help foster creativity in the classroom. In particular, new technologies can provide opportunities for the development of creative skills and new approaches to learning (Fautley and Savage, 2007, p. 84f.). Teaching chemistry experiments is particularly important in the context of media and methods. Creativity in this area means formulating hypotheses, then planning, carrying out, reflecting upon and, if necessary, revising experiments (Newton and Newton, 2009). The subsequent critical evaluation of results is also a creative process. Furthermore, in chemistry classrooms the opportunity to design and build models independently and the teacher's creative use of models in the classroom belongs to this realm. Working with models promotes problem-solving skills and knowledge transfer, because knowledge must be applied to new situations. Thus, it can also encourage creativity and stimulate creative thinking processes (Sawyer, 2012, p. 401). Science thus involves some creative potentials that do not exist in other subjects. This shows one important characteristic of creativity; it always refers to a specific area and cannot be viewed as universal (Fautley and Savage, 2007, p. 10).

Creativity can take place at school only in a nurturing learning environment. This includes such factors as: creating a stimulating and fear-free classroom atmosphere, avoiding peer pressure and professional jealousy, valuing (unusual) ideas, recognizing different approaches to problem-solving, supporting free play and self-initiated learning, encouraging the questioning of rules, allowing mistakes to be made and learning to deal with constructive criticism (Feldhusen and Treffinger, 1977, p. 14; Fasko, 2001; Joubert, 2001; Craft, 2005, p. 60;. DeHaan, 2009; Lovat and Fleming, 2015). Knowledge learning is also a key condition belonging to any creative work on a topic. This includes a knowledge and understanding of contexts and the appropriate skill sets (Weisberg, 1999). Weisberg (1999) also refers to the opinion of some authors, who believe that too much knowledge can actually hinder the development of new thoughts. Fryer and Collings (1991) showed in their study that the inclusion of students in lesson planning and design is an important aspect of the implementation of creativity in the classroom. Even Kind and Kind (2007) emphasized student orientation, but this referred to classes in general. Accordingly, students should be given open tasks that allow them editorial freedom. Relating to this the intrinsic activity of the students in the classroom also plays a role. Acting autonomously, thinking and problem-solving all foster creative skills in learners by giving students the opportunity to develop, try and revise their own ideas (Craft, 2005, p. 60; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2004, p. 11).

To activate a learner's creativity there must be a problem that can be creatively solved. Both identification of the problem and problem-solving are important parts of the creative process (Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer, 2014). Generally, creativity itself has a procedural character, which may occur in several stages (Cropley and Urban, 2000). This includes the collection of ideas, the formulation of hypotheses and the appropriation of knowledge to confirm adequate ideas. These processes can take place over a long period of time. Generating ideas is a central aspect of creativity (Craft, 2005, p. 19; Sawyer, 2012, p. 88ff.). It is important to generate a wide variety of possible and different ideas, from which original and valuable solutions may arise. This is also an aspect of divergent thinking, which combines the creative process with convergent thinking processes (Urban, 1991). Parallel to these processes, constant self-reflection and evaluation phases must also take place (DeHaan, 2009). Phases of reflection and sharing with others are often followed by periods of reworking and polishing before the resulting product is made available to others. This exchange and reflection should lead to new perspectives from which new ideas can be produced. Also, such new perspectives can arise from the combination of seemingly mismatched, diffuse thoughts (Simonton, 2004, p. 84/112).

The processes described above begin at the place where something is developed or something completely new is created. Thus, they are well integrated into everyday life just as in scientific professions (Kind and Kind, 2007). In the sciences, the product resulting from the creative process takes a central position (Simonton, 2004, p. 15). In the classroom the teacher should ensure that students have enough time for such creative processes (Fasko, 2001).

The assessment of creative learning outcomes is a hurdle for many teachers and researchers when implementing creativity in the classroom. In a study of European teachers only half of the respondents believed that creativity can be assessed (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 28). Among researchers, this assessment is still controversial. Nevertheless, there is a consensus that assessment cannot be avoided, but needs to be changed and possibly moved temporally, so that students can develop their creativity in assessment-free phases. Examining creative achievements too early or instituting falsely-timed assessments can actually inhibit creativity (Joubert, 2001). It is therefore important that teachers highlight creative achievements. Another type of assessment, which seems to be crucial for creativity in class is self-assessment by the students (Joubert, 2001).

Curricula represent a further problem for implementing creativity in class, because most finalized examples contain no creativity-based exercises (or at best only superficial ones). This was confirmed in a study of European teachers (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 52). This study revealed that 90% of all the respondents believed that creativity needs to be better integrated into further education. Only 40% of German respondents stated that creativity was included in further education coursework (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 50f.). This non-inclusion of creativity means that teachers do not know how to implement creativity-building skills in their classes (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010). Additionally, it was found that the teachers lacking further education coursework express more negative attitudes towards creativity than their counterparts who have had in-service training in the field of creativity. These results illustrate that confronting creativity issues can have a direct impact on teachers’ attitudes and perceptions (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 50). Other obstacles, which teachers listed for the implementation of creativity, included: the complexity of class life, lack of support from school systems and lacking (or unsuitable) testing procedures (Andiliou and Murphy, 2010).

Whether creativity is ever taught at school or integrated into classes depends to a large extent on the teachers themselves. Not only lesson planning and design is of importance, but also the behavior and skill set of the individual teacher. Overall, a change in the traditional role of the teacher is necessary in this context (Safran, 2001). Some studies have indicated that creative behavior in teachers can positively affect the creative thinking and actions of students (Craft, 2005, p. 44; Fasko, 2001). Thus, teachers can set an example for their students. Among other things, such creative behavior includes an open attitude towards students’ questions and answers, the recognition of different ideas and approaches to solving problems and increased teacher-student interaction. In the report by NACCCE (1999, p. 103f.) it was also stressed that teachers cannot foster the creative skills of their students, if they do not recognize and use their own creative abilities (or even withhold them on purpose).

Of particular importance here is the fact that each person possesses creative potential. Creativity is therefore not a special talent, which is reserved only for certain people, as was previously believed (Sawyer, 2012, p. 390). European teachers support this claim, as Cachia and Ferrari (2010, p. 25) showed in their study. Other studies have found that students are able to learn with the aid of appropriate methods and exercises. They can develop diverse and creative ideas (Kind and Kind, 2007; Torrance, 1963, p. 27). Thus teachers can not only stimulate creative potential in their students, but also support the development of creativity awareness. Educators must be aware while planning their teaching that they cannot force creativity, just stimulate their students in that direction (Newton and Newton, 2009).

Creativity in class can be influenced by both the teacher and the student. Creativity in general is still influenced by social conventions, the social environment and intrapersonal characteristics. Creativity and creative products are measured by social conventions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). The social environment also has a great influence on a person's creativity. It can promote or inhibit individuals according to their characteristics (Feldman, 1999). In addition to family, friends, school and the professional environment, society at large plays a major role in this process. The development of creativity in students can sometimes be lessened by entry into school, or as demands are made for a person to adjust socially and/or accept social authorities. Furthermore, an individual's creativity can be restricted by age group orientation or conformity to peer pressure (Torrance, 1963, p. 75). Intrapersonal characteristics can also influence whether or not a person shows actual creativity (Guilford, 1968, p. 77f.). Intrinsic motivation is mentioned as a particularly important characteristic in the literature (Fasko, 2001; Simonton, 2004, p. 102). Other creativity-promoting properties include a willingness to work hard, perseverance (Simonton, 2004, p. 52), openness towards new things (Fautley and Savage, 2007, p. 113), self-confidence, and preparedness to take risks (Fasko, 2001). In this context, Westby and Dawson (1995) discovered that the latter characteristics are often rejected by parents and teachers, therefore not promoting them effectively among students. Instead, grownups tend to prefer characteristics such as obedience, logic and rational thinking.

Originality, innovation and adequacy are frequently mentioned as the key characteristics of creativity (Runco, 2004). Even European teachers list originality and innovation as characteristics of creativity. They also view creativity as an ability to produce something of value (Cachia and Ferrari, 2010, p. 27). Equally important is the crossing of borders, both social and individual (Craft, 2003).

Kind and Kind (2007) name one characteristic playing an important role in the creative process. It cannot, however, be detected directly. This is a person's imagination. Imagination is necessary if new ideas are to be developed or something out of one's personal experiences has not been thought through enough. Scientists use imagination to picture scientific phenomena and to “play” with these concepts in order to ultimately generate new ideas. This makes imagination an important aspect for science classes, because it helps students to better imagine certain phenomena and to reflect upon them.

Other characteristics of creativity arise from the observation of creative people. Different behaviors of creative people appear, but are not present in each person to the same degree. Creative people tend to be curious, among other things. They ask many questions, are independent in their thinking, are usually willing to take risks, and often act intuitively (Westby and Dawson, 1995; Sawyer, 2012, p. 390). It is important that teachers recognize these behaviors in their students. Then educators can support or even embody such characteristics themselves, in order to encourage creativity in the classroom and in their students.

Methods

To build a comprehensive picture of the views of student teachers, a triangulation (Flick, 2004) of methods was used. For this study, triangulation is not only a matter of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, but also of modifying the method of concept maps and adding a new qualitative method to the study to get more intensive and complementary data. According to Flick (2004), the “Within-Method-Triangulation” as well as the “Between-Method-Triangulation” were used here. Referring to the former, the creation of concept maps about the topic of creativity was combined with answering open questions in the questionnaire. Open questions should supplement the statements given in the concept maps by describing creative classroom situations, for example, and they should result in new aspects that are possibly not mentioned in the concept maps. The assessment of the own creativity is an example of such an aspect. Furthermore, the questionnaire should gather statistical data, which can be analysed quantitatively and therefore complement the qualitative data's analysis. The Between-Method-Triangulation exists between the two kinds of concept maps that were used in this study. No guidelines or requirements are given for the creation of the first concept map. However, the second concept map should be created using twenty-two prescribed terms as guidelines. These terms have a reference to creativity that arised from the elaboration of the creativity related literature already described above.

Within the new developed test instrument for this study, concept maps are used. Concept maps are structured, two-dimensional representations of knowledge resources, information or ideas about a topic. They consist of terms or rather concepts. Meaningful relations are produced by grouping corresponding compound words. Connecting two terms with the help of a relational category is referred to as proposition. These represent separate units of meaning and are therefore part of the cognitive structure. A map can consist of different areas that can be interconnected by cross-links. Concept maps are always focused around a main issue (Novak and Cañas, 2007). It is believed that concept maps’ structuring of the representations corresponds to the knowledge structure in the brain (Yin et al., 2005). Therefore, the cognitive knowledge structure can be visualized using concept maps (Novak and Cañas, 2008). It does not represent a picture of overall knowledge, but reveals only an excerpt or snapshot of a person's knowledge or understanding of an issue (Kinchin, 2013). The way, in which the terms are connected to one another, forms the concept map's structure. Yin et al. (2005) described and identified five different structures (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Structures of concept maps, modified from Yin et al. (2005, p. 170).

For planning the study, a literature-based concept map was designed by the authors to get an impression about the complexity of the topic as well as a structured overview about the literature. This map serves as basis for the extraction of important terms that will be provided to the teacher students. The literature-based concept map is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Literature-based concept map of the terms “Creativity” and “Creativity in Chemistry Classes”.

The questionnaire at the end of the test instrument is intended to support the concept maps and to collect personal data. The questions ask: (1) whether promoting creativity is an important goal in chemistry class, (2) if creativity has already been integrated into the classroom setting, (3) whether creativity should play a major role in the person's own future teaching, (4) if creativity plays (or played) a role in their chemistry studies, and (5) whether the person would describe herself/himself as creative. The participants are asked to give additional reasons for the major role of creativity in their own teaching. In addition, they are asked to give examples of personal teaching situations in which creativity has played a role. The personal information gathered by the study includes the person's sex, age, duration of study, the future type of school to be taught and the second (or third) subject taught.

Quality criteria

The quality criteria for quantitative research cannot be simply transferred to qualitative research. Therefore, objectivity, validity and reliability cannot be measured in a traditional way and they are not appropriate for this study, because the test instrument should investigate a person's individual view. That represents only a snapshot of the knowledge and understanding. Therefore, a replication of the study is not possible. Because of that, the quality criteria needs to be redefined. The researchers abide by six general quality criteria for qualitative research developed by Mayring (2014, p. 109): documentation of method, interpretation safeguards, proximity to the object, rule-boundedness, communicative validation and triangulation. To ensure the test instrument's reliability, a group discussion including PhD students, lecturers and a professor about the method, the data, the evaluation and especially the defining of categories occurred. “Interpretation in groups are a discursive way of producing inter-subjectivity and comprehensibility” (Steinke, 2004, p. 187).

Pilot study

For testing the new instrument, a pilot study including chemistry students, PhD students and professors of chemistry education with sixteen participants at the University of Oldenburg was conducted. Within the pilot study, the participants created one concept map with twenty-four given terms dealing with creativity and creativity in chemistry class and filled out a supplemental questionnaire, which includes the questions already described in the section about the methods.

Afterwards, the procedure and the evaluation were discussed as a group. The decision to include a second concept map without guidelines in the main study was an important result of this discussion. The reason for this was that the participants could not immediately agree on their own creativity ideas for the prescribed terms, but they were supposed to create only one concept map with given terms. Creating a second concept map without given terms was added to the instrument used in this study. The prescribed terms were reduced to twenty-two based on the terms selected by the participants in the pilot test. Furthermore, the participants have to give a reason for some of the questions in the questionnaire. The evaluation of the pilot study's data revealed that all of the participants created a concept map and therefore had knowledge about creativity. None of them had problems to fill in the questionnaire. Because of that, the methods including creating a concept map and filling out a questionnaire were considered appropriate for the purpose of this study. However, little problems have arisen when creating the concept maps during the pilot study because the knowledge and experiences in creating concept maps were different between the participants. Because of that, an example of a concept map together with an explanation about creating a concept map was implemented in the introduction for the main study. The whole instrument is attached as appendix to this article.

Main study

The final test instrument used in the presented study consisted of two concept maps and a questionnaire, what is different from the procedure in the pilot study. Therefore, the appropriateness of this modified instrument had to be evaluated again in this study.

The students created the first concept map without guidelines using only their own thoughts and ideas. They developed the second one using prescribed terms extracted from the literature-based concept map. The specification of terms is meant to investigate the participants’ understanding to exactly these areas (Novak and Cañas, 2008). In addition, the resulting concept maps are more easily comparable. Similarities and differences in understandings can be quickly determined and also facilitates a comparison with the data found in the literature (Kinchin, 2013).

The main study was undertaken in a seminar with chemistry students at the University of Oldenburg (Germany) in 2015 under the guidance and supervision of the researcher in this study. Attendance was voluntary and anonymous. Previously, the students were told that no answer would be wrong and that there was no time limit for creating concept maps and filling out the questionnaire. The students received the test instrument in two separate parts. They handled the two parts directly one after another. The first part consisted of a brief explanation of the study and its purpose, an introduction to creating a concept map with an example map, and the creation of the first concept map. The example help orient them during their own work. It illustrates a concept map as a concept map and explains the relevant terms and structures. By doing this, even people with little to no experience in creating concept maps understand what is expected of them. This first phase was given separately, so that the students would not be influenced by the information in the following phase. After finishing the first part, the students got the pages of the second part. This part consisted of making a second concept map with specified terms and in filling out the questionnaire at the end. During the development of the second concept map, the students were allowed to use their first map as an aid, but it could not be changed. The entire implementation took about sixty minutes.

Description of the sample

All students them were pursuing a teaching degree in secondary schools with a Master's degree in education in the field of chemistry. A total of seventeen students took part in the study. Table 1 shows the distribution of the students by age and sex.

Table 1 Distribution of the participated students by age and sex

Age	Female	Male
21–25	6	5
26–30	1	3
31–35	1	0
36–40	1	0
Total	9	8

---

Ten students were in the seventh or eighth semester of their studies at the time of the study. The other seven had already studied more than eight semesters. The second school subject varied widely, with biology being the most common. Other subjects included physics, political economy, German, English, sports, mathematics, art and music.

Evaluation and results of the study

In principle, it is possible that the students did not write linking phrases to all of the propositions. These propositions were excluded from the analysis, because the researchers could not interpret those. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the students copied some aspects from the neighbour's concept map, although the researcher was present during the entire implementation.

The analysis and evaluation was carried out quantitatively and qualitatively by the main researcher of this study. The quantitative analysis refer to the numbers of terms, propositions and unused, changed or newly-added terms in the concept maps. The qualitative analysis is divided into a structural and a content analysis. The researcher used the PC software © IHMC CmapTools (Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2014a, 2014b) for the structural analysis and the software tool © IHMC CmapAnalysis (Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2014a, 2014b) for the quantitative evaluation. She only used Microsoft Office Word to do the qualitative analysis including the creation of categories and the assignment of the propositions to these.

Quantitative evaluation

The number of terms used varied greatly between the concept maps, ranging from five to eighteen items in the first concept map and from fourteen to thirty-six terms in the second. The most common and the least-used terms can be found in Table 2. The number of propositions varied according to the number of terms. Thus, in the first concept maps between six and thirty-one propositions were created. For the second concept map between sixteen and fifty-one propositions arose. In the second concept map of one female participant a total of 137 propositions were included. This is viewed as an exception, because the interrelationships between the concepts were present, but were labeled insufficiently.

Table 2 Review of the use of given terms in the concept maps with prescribed terms (N = 17)

Given terms	Number of uses in concept maps
Teacher	16
Curriculum	16
Methods	16
New perspectives	16
Student	16
Knowledge	16
Media	15
Classroom atmosphere	15
Ability	12
Idea	12
Limits/rules	11
Cognitive process	11
Social environment	11
Adequacy/usefulness	10
Assessment	10
Originality/innovation	10
Social conventions	9
Intrapersonal characteristics	9
Problem	9
Behavior	8
Reflection	7
Product	3

---

The most-used terms in the first concept maps include “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” and “Creativity” with eight or nine occurrences, the terms “Experiments” with eight, and “Motivation” with nine.

With regard to the number of terms and propositions, differences could be recognized between the first unspecified concept map and the second prescribed term map. All but one student used significantly more terms in the second map. The number of propositions increased significantly in the second maps for the majority of participants. This suggests that the terms provided stimulated new links and new thought processes when creating the concept maps. The fact that the number of propositions did not rise as quickly as the number of terms indicates that many terms were not well-integrated into the second maps. This could be confirmed by analysing the maps’ structures. These little-connected terms predominantly represent the prescribed terms provided for creating the second concept map.

Differences in the terms chosen can be identified when comparing the first and second concept maps. A few of the given terms could be found in the first concept maps. While performing the task, nine students used the term “Creativity” and eight “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” in the concept map without any specifications. Four used the term “Methods” and three students used the terms “Teacher”, “Knowledge” and “Students”. This finding suggests that the participants had problems connecting their own ideas of creativity with the supplied terms. This statement is supported by the appearance of relatively few newly-added terms in the second concept map round. Here the number varied between one and three newly added terms, but only six participants ever chose other terms. These were always based on the concepts already used in the first concept maps and could be directly attributed to them. One person was the exception and added a total of fourteen new terms. The prescribed terms were, however, changed significantly by total of ten students. Changes in this context mean adding words and combining several terms together. The number of these terms varied between one and seven.

Gender differences could be identified. On average, male participants used more terms for their second mind map (average 19.1), in contrast to females (15.4). The number of propositions was also slightly higher in the males’ concept maps (24.6) than in those of the females (22.8). The exceptional concept map with a total of 137 propositions was excluded from the calculation. On average, male participants used more of the given terms (15.9) than females (14.3) in their concept maps. The number of non-integrated terms differs only in the first concept maps. Here, on average, females had twice as many terms which were not linked closely together (3.2) than males (1.6). In the second concept maps with prescribed terms, the number of barely integrated terms of the female and male participants is almost identical.

The second subject taught by the participants also made a difference. Students studying mathematics as their second subject used an average of 7.5 (male) and 15 (female) terms in both concept maps. Music students averaged about ten terms and were the second lowest group, but only for the first concept maps. In general, there were no major differences between the numbers of terms in the first concept maps. The person using the most terms in both the first (18) and in the second (36) concept map taught physics as a second subject.

Qualitative evaluation

The purpose of the qualitative analysis is to investigate the students’ knowledge. The classification into categories shall give an overview of the students’ knowledge and statements about creativity, so that commonalities and differences can be highlighted and the statements can be compared with literature data. In doing so, knowledge gaps, accumulation of knowledge and individual experiences can be determined. This knowledge can be used as a basis for developing lectures, training courses or further education. Teacher can take it up or make the knowledge gaps subjects of discussion.

To analyse the concept maps and the answers in the questionnaire, the procedure “inductive category assignment” (Mayring, 2014, pp. 79–83) was used. In analysing the data, the categories listed in Table 3 emerged after several rounds of analysis.

Table 3 Categories for evaluation of the concept maps

Creativity in Chemistry Classes	Creativity
Attitude	Individual definition
Implementation	Influencing factors on creativity
Conditions	Characteristics
Obstacles to implementation	Influencing factors on general processes in class
Consequences and effects
Students’ and teachers’ roles

---

To illustrate how these categories were achieved, two examples are given below for each category (see Table 4). Each example represents a selected proposition from a concept map where the words were grammatically changed so that a sentence could be created from it. Subsequently inserted words are enclosed in square brackets.

Table 4 Clarification of the coclusion of the categories with the help of anchor examples

Category	Anchor Examples
Attitude	“Variety in chemistry class [is] equated with creativity in chemistry class” “Creativity in Chemistry class fosters the students’ motivation”
Implementation	“Creativity in chemistry class is aided by a diversity of media and methods” “Creative methods enrich chemistry classes”
Conditions	“Creativity in chemistry class demands self-reflection and evaluation” “Creativity in chemistry class is conditioned by social environment”
Obstacles to the implementation	“Assessment inhibits creativity” “Curricula promote/inhibit creativity in chemistry class”
Consequences and effects	“Creativity in chemistry class creates a new kind of classroom atmosphere” “Creativity leads to new perspectives”
Students’ and teachers’ roles	“Creativity [includes the] planning of experiments by students” “The teacher allows students to be self-active”
Individual definition	“Creativity in chemistry class is [an] ability” “Creativity is an intrapersonal characteristic”
Influencing factors to creativity	“Social norms influence creativity” “The social environment influences creativity”
Characteristics of creativity	“Creativity includes originality/innovation” “Creativity [can be found] in different areas (for example art, science, music, etc.)”
Influencing factors to general processes in class	“New perspectives solve problems” “[The] self-activity of students [is an] essential condition [for the] construction of knowledge”

---

These examples illustrate that verbs chosen frequently and labeled by connecting lines are crucial for the development of a category and assigning terms to the category.

Structure

The structures refer to specific areas or concepts found in a concept map. For example, the majority of the concept maps had star structures, but these were limited a maximum of two terms in the concept map (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Example of a concept map with star structures (the researcher translated the concept map from German into English and made an English version using the software © IHMC CmapTools). A star structure is used when a term exclusively has outgoing connections, contains two or more connections total, or if it has one incoming and more than two outgoing connections (the connection between “Creativity” and “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” is not included, because it was already given by the researchers). In this case, there are star structures for the terms “Creativity” and “adequacy/usefulness”.

Star structures formed multiple patterns around the center, so that the term “Creativity” was often affected. In contrast, numerous creation of networks appeared more frequently, since many terms have multiple incoming and outgoing connections. This reflects the high interconnectedness of knowledge and distinctive understanding among the majority of the students.

Table 5 provides a comparison between two concept maps, which illustrates that the structures are not identical in most cases. This means that structures appearing in a person's first map do not necessarily appear in the second. In most cases this meant that the students had problems connecting the given terms with their own understanding of creativity or, quite possibly, to even establish a connection between these concepts and creativity. This finding supports the observation related to the rare divergence of the terms in the first map from those in the second, where generally only a few newly-added terms appeared. This led to many barely-integrated concepts which were linked with a single outgoing or incoming arrow. Only two of the non-specified concept maps possess five or more little-integrated terms. However, the second round of concept maps had nine such diagrams, of which two had ten and thirteen poorly-integrated terms, respectively. The term “Media” was poorly integrated in a total of eight concept maps, “Knowledge” in six and “Methods” in five. These terms seem to be a problem for many participants, who cannot meaningfully or fully connect them to the concept of creativity. There is a contradiction with the previous observations, since the other students were able to integrate the terms “Media” and “Methods” and used many connections to these words in their concept maps. The terms “Social Environment”, “Ability”, “Curriculum” and “Originality/Innovation” were poorly integrated into the nine non-specified concept maps.

Table 5 Number of different structures in the concept maps (N = 17)

Structure	Star	Chain	Circular	Tree	Network
Number of structures in the concept maps without prescribed terms	13	11	1	11	13
Number of the structures in the concept maps with prescribed terms	10	12	2	9	13

---

When considering the concept maps employing the supplied terms, it is shown that most students recognized the terms “Creativity” and/or “Creativity in Chemistry Classes” as central pillars. Even in the first concept maps without specifications, “Creativity” was placed at the center by some of the students. Other terms with the most connections included “Teacher”, “Differences”, “Media”/“Methods”, “Reflection” and “Student” or “Student Motivation”.

No significant gender differences appeared in the structures of concept maps, but differences related to the second school subject did occur. It was striking that network structures were primarily created by participants studying mathematics, physics, biology and political economy. Nine of these ten students created network structures in their concept maps; six created network structures in both concept maps.

Attitude to creativity in chemistry classes

All of the participants expressed a positive attitude towards creativity in chemistry class in at least one of their concept maps. This was shown by the fact that rating verbs such as “enrich”, “support”, “help” or “promote” were employed in their maps. Various aspects were included, for example, positive impacts on the students, the teachers themselves and teaching. The exact effects are described in detail in the following categories. This predominantly positive attitude was also reflected by the answers to the questionnaires. All of the participants indicated that they view promoting creativity in their students as an important aim of chemistry lessons. Furthermore, all but one of the students wanted creativity to play a major role in their own teaching. The only negative answer was expressed by a male student, who stated that creativity is indeed good for teaching, but only to a certain degree. He said that understanding and interpretative skills should not be changed so as to get incorrect results. Different reasons were also given for why creativity should play a major role in the classroom. Promoting student motivation with creativity is the most-often mentioned reason, with a total of six students mentioning it. Other reasons related to increasing the self-activity of students, aiding in the development of new perspectives among learners, stimulating cognitive processes and assisting in the development of key skills through creativity.

In four concept maps, the students used no rating verbs, so it was impossible to determine their personal attitudes directly from the concept maps. Three of the four students were male. Another male participant had a critical attitude towards creativity in chemistry classes, because he stated that creativity needs to have set limits and rules.

When asking about their own creativity, no such positive attitude trends could be found. Five people answered the question about their own creativity with “no”.

Implementation of creativity in chemistry classes

The most common answers in this category related to the use of media and methods, however, these were rarely specified in the concept maps.

The implementation of creativity was an idea that was named frequently, but it was a term that was not well-integrated into the maps as described in the structural analysis. Especially the terms “Media” and “Methods” were poorly integrated in a total of thirteen concept maps. This aspect was most noticeable among the female participants in the study. Fifteen students mentioned in the concept map that different approaches and other media and methods need to be used in the classroom in broader variety. However, concrete content matter or possible opportunities for expanded implementation were rarely mentioned. Egg-races, jigsaw classrooms and working-at-stations exercises were mentioned as examples of creative methods. Blackboards and smartboards were offered as examples of the implementation of creativity with media. There were, however, some detailed descriptions of creative teaching in the questionnaires. Eleven of the seventeen participants answered the question about the integration of creativity with “yes” when asked if they had either already seen or even conducted such lessons themselves. They gave at least one example of a teaching situation including creativity for both situations. One student mentioned the method of brainstorming as a concrete method, the others gave descriptions of creative teaching situations. It was of particular interest that specific teaching methods were mentioned exclusively by females. Seven participants responded by stressing the role of experiments in the questionnaires, particularly student experiments. They focused on situations in which students independently formulate hypotheses, plan experiments, and perform the lab work themselves. One male participant illustrated a specific topic, describing an introductory lesson on the topic “Avogadro's law”. Students were required to elucidate their own ideas for collecting gases and independently plan, prepare and carry out an experiment based on their perceptions. Ten students also described the use of experiments in their concept maps and student experimentation was one of the most frequently mentioned terms in the first concept maps. One person stated experiments should highlight everyday objects and indicated this as an example of creative teaching in the questionnaire. Two other participants pointed out the possibility of varying experimental content for the implementation of creativity in chemistry class. The concept maps referred to both independent student work and problem-solving processes as further possibilities for implementing creativity in chemistry classes. Four males and eight females suggested this in the study.

Independent student work also named exploratory-developing teaching is a way to allow creativity. This idea appeared in three concept maps and two times in the questionnaires. Three students described the use of models to support creativity in class in their concept maps. One participant stated in the questionnaire that independent description of models by students was already part of his/her own teaching. Two other students expanded upon independent model development by students as an example of creativity in class in the questionnaire. One person even mentioned the particle model as related to the physical states of matter. Two other participants mentioned the creation and explanation of posters in their answers.

One student mentioned the use of everyday objects to explain chemical phenomena as an example of creativity in the questionnaire. The description referred to the teacher's use of a sponge to illustrate the biological lock-and-key principle of enzymes. This respondent also stressed connections to everyday life objects in the concept maps. Another student talked about everyday life in both the concept map and questionnaire, referring to them as important components for implementing creativity in class.

Conditions for creativity in chemistry classes

In this category, frequently-mentioned aspects included: specific demands on the teacher, a call for student-centered lessons, the use and the selection of media and methods, and the interdependence of creativity and knowledge in the classroom atmosphere. Four students described the general dependence of creativity in chemistry class on the teacher as one of the demands placed on educators. Individual participants mentioned concrete requirements such as: the teacher's function as a moderator, the flexible planning and changing of teaching processes, the possession of a broadly diversified skill set, and the ability to decide on adequacy and usefulness of creativity in chemistry classes. Five students described student-centeredness in their answers. This refers to aspects such as the student-dependence of creativity in the classroom and the closer involvement of students, their ideas, knowledge and interests in the planning and organizational phases of teaching. Three female participants highlighted the usage and choice of media and methodologies. These should be varied, appropriate and tailored to the students.

Three female and one male respondent mentioned dependence when describing the classroom atmosphere in their concept maps, but did not go into detail. One concept map depicted the choice of room as important; specialized rooms should have an effect on creativity.

A further condition appeared in the assessments. Two concept maps showed assessment, reflection and evaluation as necessary considerations for creativity.

Ideas and new perspectives were described in three concept maps as prerequisites for creativity in chemistry class. Social conventions, the social environment, a quiet environment and freedom were mentioned as conditions influencing creativity in class.

Three students regarded orientation around the curriculum as a condition for the implementation of creativity in the classroom.

Obstacles to the implementation of creativity in chemistry classes

Curriculum was not only one of the most-used terms, but also played a significant role in the implementation of creativity in a negative sense. Eleven students saw curricula as obstacles for creativity in chemistry class, which inhibits or restricts creativity. The assessments tagged curricular requirements as both a difficult problem and a limiting factor for creativity. Teachers were also described as an obstacle, which might hinder creativity. This can come about due to teacher behavior, personality or a lack of skills. Four students were of the opinion that the lesson structure can hinder the implementation of creativity in chemistry class. Two mentioned classical teaching methods that can hinder creativity.

Social conventions were named as obstacles by three participants, but did not give further details.

Consequences and effects of creativity in chemistry classes

Overall, only the positive consequences and effects of creativity were mentioned by the participants in this area.

The most important things brought up in this category were new perspectives and ideas resulting from creativity in chemistry class. These were believed to enrich teaching chemistry, for example, by helping students to solve problems and enabling new perspectives on knowledge. Nine students mentioned new perspectives and ideas as consequences of creativity, but more females than males (six to three) addressed this point. Furthermore, some aspects related to higher levels of student inclusion were highlighted by ten participants. Creativity should therefore promote higher levels of activity, self-awareness, and motivation in students. It must also facilitate interest in chemistry class. These aspects appear frequently in the questionnaires, as has already been mentioned above, as a justification for creativity playing a larger role in classroom situations. The concept maps mirrored the justifications found in the questionnaires. For example, creativity was seen to stimulate thinking, be the basis of problem-solving efforts and offer more opportunities to vary lesson plans. According to this line of reasoning, the positive consequences related to promoting knowledge and expanding everyday understanding arise through creativity. One concept map even indicated that creativity highlights differences between students with reference to their abilities, behavior, problem-solving skills and acquisition of knowledge.

Another positive result of encouraging creativity in chemistry classes is the enrichment of teaching efforts themselves. This aspect was mentioned by six students and more female than male participants (four to two). Creativity can thus lead to several things: changes in classroom structure and atmosphere, alterations in the overall transmission of knowledge, new pathways linking other subjects to chemistry, a reclassification of tasks and experiments, an interdisciplinary view of the subject, increased self-reflection, evaluation and scientific thinking skills, and an increased level of stimulation with respect to cognitive processes. The most important factor according to the participants seemed to be the positive influence of creativity on the classroom atmosphere. It was stated that creativity can lead to positive feelings and motivating experiences among students.

Seven participants named the modified acquisition of knowledge as a positive result of creativity in chemistry classes. In contrast to teaching itself being enriched, this point was predominantly made by the male participants in their concept maps (five to two). Creativity does not only contribute to the construction of new knowledge, but is also intended to provide a whole new avenue of acquiring knowledge. It aids in structuring knowledge and offers a broader variety of approaches to acquiring knowledge.

Finally, creativity was regarded as a teacher aid by seven students. This was true in this case of teachers’ use of media and methodologies, in which modification by creativity plays a role. Moreover, creativity might lead to originality in teacher assessment, influence teacher behavior in the classroom and reveal new ideas and possibilities for knowledge transfer.

Students’ and teachers’ roles

The concept maps made several aspects apparent, which may be associated either with the influence of creativity on lessons or with the changing roles of students and teachers. The fact that both teachers and students generally play an important role in relation to creativity was already attested by the fact that these terms were among the most frequently-used in the concept maps. Autonomous activity seems to play a large role according to the participants, because seven students name this point in their concept maps. Self-activity consists of many things: independent development and problem-solving, working in groups, finding several solutions to a given problem, the development of one's own ideas, independent planning and performing of experiments, independent creation of panel paintings, and the implementation of cognitive processes. This means that students must take more responsibility as a result of their increased level of autonomy. It was very noticeable that more male than female participants (five to two) mentioned the self-activity of students in the analysis of this point. The issue of independence was also addressed in the questionnaires.

The inclusion of students in the organization and planning of the teaching was another aspect that was mentioned in various ways in eleven concept maps and in total by nine students. According to the statements made by the respondents, learners’ foreknowledge, motivation, personal ideas and interests should be included in the planning. They should exert direct influence on the methods selected, the classroom atmosphere, and creativity in the classroom. Six concept maps also revealed the belief that students should be influenced not only by the classroom atmosphere, but also by intrapersonal factors, the social environment, and the presence of ideas, knowledge and media offerings. These influences were, however, not specified past a general conclusion of one participant that student behavior is directly tied to the social environment and is largely controlled by social conventions.

Despite a stated wish to include students more thoroughly during lesson plan designing, the participants seemed to cast the teacher in the main role for determining the classroom atmosphere. Seven participants named this point. This was because the teacher was seen to generally choose the media, methods and creativity types involved in lesson planning. Five students highlighted the first aspect and seven mentioned the second. In this case, teachers were somehow supposed to better orient themselves towards the curriculum, even though this was described as the main obstacle in implementing creativity in the classroom. According to the concept maps, the teacher's responsibilities while planning lessons include adapting relevant information to their learners and providing such offerings with appropriate media. The teacher was also expected to evaluate the adequacy of the selected media, methods, and creativity in the classroom itself. Five participants named this point. Two students believed that educators should plan their teaching flexibly and spontaneously. It was stated by one student that teachers should use their own personal creativity to solve knowledge transfer problems during classes.

Other aspects were described in the study in addition to lesson planning and design. Further teaching responsibilities like surveying students’ (pre)conceptions, creating a positive social environment for learners, teacher self-reflection on one's personal teaching, and imparting knowledge to pupils were mentioned by a maximum of two students in each case. Three participants expressed a belief that teachers should set limits and delineate rules for their students. The responsibility of assessing learners was also attributed to the teacher, however, it was described by eight students, but only superficially in the concept maps. Although the focus of assessment can be problem-solving, media or methodology, the evaluation of the adequacy and usefulness of these things were always stressed.

Eight concept maps defined creativity in chemistry class as being dependent upon the person of the teacher. This included teacher behavior, personality, skills and abilities, personal knowledge and intrapersonal characteristics. These were seen to simultaneously have an influence on the teacher. These aspects were thought to either promote or inhibit creativity in chemistry class. According to two female participants, further influencing factors on teachers include the classroom atmosphere, the students, and ideas.

Eight participants also believed that creativity has an influence on pupils, their behavior, their character, and their personal abilities. Five concept maps emphasized that students are motivated by creativity, a factor which was often seen in the answers to the questionnaires. Furthermore, five students mentioned that pupils are generally fostered by demanding creativity from them and that both having fun and increasing the level of interest can be stimulated in such lessons.

Other aspects of the concept maps dealt with changes in the traditional teaching role. Seven students wrote about a new teaching role in their concept maps. This implied that teachers need to act in the role of a moderator, who largely pulls back from classroom activity and allows students to act autonomously. Furthermore, it was believed that teachers interact more with the students.

Individual definition of creativity

In summary, a few definitions of creativity emerged in the concept maps. Whenever a definition was mentioned, it related most frequently (three responses) to creativity as a personal ability or intrapersonal characteristic. Furthermore, creativity was viewed either as an individual type of design or as a product of ideas and methods. One participant indicated the difference between creativity in teaching and creativity in leisure in the concept map. The latter was seen to serve as compensation, since it enables positive feelings and experiences.

The small number of definitions for creativity may be related to the fact that more than half of the participants had never explicitly studied this topic in their coursework. This emerged from the answers to the questionnaire. Seven students indicated that they had come in contact with creativity-centered material as part of their studies. It was striking that five of the seven were studying a non-science second subject, namely music, art, English or German. For this reason, the positive answers in this study must be viewed critically, since they emerged from the feedback section following the study.

Influencing factors on creativity

Connections were made in the concept maps, which described the influences on creativity in general. These can either promote or inhibit creativity in the classroom, depending upon the conditions. The most commonly mentioned factors, which were pointed out by three participants, included personal abilities, the social environment, and social norms or conventions. Intrapersonal characteristics, ideas, knowledge, abstract thinking, imagination, personal emotions, and experiences were only viewed as influences by a maximum of two participants in each case. Furthermore, media was believed to foster creativity by two students. In one concept map the importance of peace and quiet–including free space for creativity was highlighted.

Negative impacts were limited to rules and limits that somehow prevent or restrict creativity.

Characteristics of creativity

Eleven students mentioned originality, innovation and stimulating new ideas in the concept maps as characteristics of creativity, which generally include or enable new perspectives. It was very conspicuous that this answer was predominantly given by females (eight to three). Five participants also indicated that ideas stimulated by creativity lead to new perspectives. Three of the respondents were of the opinion that creativity is individual and therefore has individual limits.

Two concept maps referred to creativity being linked to personal feelings and experiences. This also included aspects such as a need for sufficient time to contemplate and complete tasks, the correct amount of rest and recovery periods, and the ability to show results to others as a partner accompanying normal cognitive processes. Several comments also stated that creativity needs show up in the resulting products, not be limited by fixed targets, allow for a variety of approaches to knowledge, be innovative, promote learner autonomy, help to solve problems, allow learners to think outside the box, and be area-specific.

Influencing factors on general processes in class

This category indirectly addressed all aspects related to creativity. It covered influences on general processes in class, which are indirectly affected by creativity. These include characteristics of creativity that have an influence on certain classroom processes.

The most commonly selected terms in this case were cognitive processes and the acquisition of knowledge. Eight students named the first aspect and six students the second aspect in their concept maps. Cognitive processes, which are fostered by creativity, were seen to lead to new skills and new knowledge in three of the concept maps. They were described as enabling factors for the development of personal ideas, which can lead to new perspectives. Intrapersonal characteristics, originality/innovation and new perspectives were listed as influences in these areas. The acquisition of knowledge was believed to positively influence by newly-acquired skills with the help of ideas, self-reflection, and the evaluation of students. Participants stated that knowledge acquisition can be promoted by originality and innovation. Knowledge itself should be able to be applied to new ideas and lead to new skills.

Problem-solving was also mentioned in three concept maps. According to the respondents, this skill set can be achieved through cognitive processes, which result in the formation of new skills. Problems can be solved through new perspectives and the application of originality and innovation.

Comparison with literature data – discussion

The majority of participants expressed a positive attitude towards creativity. This coincided partly with the actual results of other studies. According to Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), Kampylis, Berki and Saariluoma (2009) and Newton and Newton (2009), many teachers opine that creativity is important for teaching lessons, but they do not practice this in their own science classes. The students in this study also indicated, that creativity should play a major role in their own teaching. In addition, specific examples of creative teaching situations were described by a few people. But only the positive consequences and effects of creativity on lessons were given. The effects mentioned mostly corresponded to the teaching style mentioned by NACCCE as “teaching creatively” (1999, p. 102f.). This means that creativity: promotes motivation and interest in chemistry class, offers new prospects for the problem-solving process and should work in class for change. The negative attitudes of teachers not taking part in further education measures, which was pointed out by Andiliou and Murphy (2010), could not be confirmed in the current study. This was largely due to the fact that most of the participants had never been confronted with creativity issues during their university studies and teacher training.

Case studies by Kind and Kind (2007) and NACCCE (1999, pp. 102–106) represent an attitude towards creativity which requires a modified use of methods and media in class. This aspect was pointed out in several of the concept maps in the current study. The broad variety of such ideas could also be noticed among the concept maps. Unlike teachers who could provide only a few creative teaching methods in a study carried out by Cachia and Ferrari (2010), several of the concept maps in this study mentioned concrete methods such as egg-races, jigsaw classrooms and working-at-stations exercises. Exploratory-developing and discovery-based classes as illustrated by Kind and Kind (2007) and Fasko (2001) were even presented in the concept maps as a way to promote creative skills. In addition, participants named specific models and experiments in their concept maps in this context, both of which areas were described in studies by Newton and Newton (2009) and Sawyer (2012). With regard to media offerings used in the classroom, new technologies such as tablets and smartboards were discussed only in one concept map. According to Fautley and Savage (2007, p. 84f.), such digital tools have great potential for promoting creativity in the classroom.

The conditions described in the concept maps for implementing creativity included student-centeredness, knowledge and a conducive classroom atmosphere. This differed from the available literature data, which significantly elaborate a broader spectrum of available conditions and possibilities. Student-centeredness was also pointed out by the teachers in studies performed by Fryer and Collings (1991) and Kind and Kind (2007). Weisberg (1999) has already indicated the need for knowledge as one condition for creativity. Among other things, Newton and Newton (2009) provided detailed descriptions of a classroom atmosphere, which could stimulate creativity, but these were missing in the concept maps in this study. Nevertheless, the students emphasized the importance of an adequate learning environment that could promote creativity. There was, however, a special focus on student-centeredness in several of the concept maps. This included the self-activity of the students and including students in the planning and organizational phases of teaching. These aspects were previously mentioned by teachers in a study by Fryer and Collings (1991). In particular, autonomous student activity was strongly emphasized as a central pillar for creative teaching efforts by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2004) and Craft (2005).

Reflection and evaluation were rarely mentioned in the current concept maps as a necessary condition for stimulating creativity in chemistry class. But reflection represents an important precursor for arriving at creative ideas and is therefore considered to be crucial by many researchers such as DeHaan (2009).

The ideas of these participants for assessing creativity do not correspond with those stated by teachers in Cachia and Ferrari's study (2010), which examined this factor in general. The assessment of creativity was presented as difficult in the concept maps, but several participants stated the opinion that it is a necessary factor. This is consistent both with the opinions uncovered by researchers such as Joubert (2001) and with teacher opinion studies carried out by Fryer and Collings (1991). But the participants in this study could not state any concrete ideas about assessing creativity. Their view tended to see assessment as a possible hindrance to creativity. They thought that creative work should therefore occur in free work phases without any assessment. This idea was shared by Joubert (2001). Joubert also views self-assessment by the student as playing a central role. This concept was not included in the current concept maps.

In addition to assessment, curricula were considered to be a major limitation of creativity in chemistry class, according to the concept maps. This result is consistent with the statements of many teachers, for example, those who took part in the study of Cachia and Ferrari (2010). Other limiting factors such as a lack of support from the school system, which have been repeatedly mentioned in interviews with teachers (as Andiliou and Murphy, 2010), were not found in the current concept maps.

The previously mentioned change in the students’ role must be attended by a change in the teacher's role, according to the received concept maps. The participants stated that the teacher has a central role in implementing creativity in the classroom. This is in addition to the teacher's responsibility for planning and organizing teaching, creating a creative atmosphere in the classroom and serving in the role of a moderator in class. These tasks were described, inter alia, by Kind and Kind (2007) and Safran (2001). But the leadership and role model function of the teacher as mentioned by Craft (2005) and Fasko (2001) was not indicated in any of the concept maps. Likewise, none of the students described any potential creative behavior by the teacher. Furthermore, the students failed to address the findings of Newton and Newton (2009). This study found that teachers can support their students in the development of creative skills and help stimulate creativity, but cannot force creativity through their efforts. The answers given in the questionnaire with regard to one's own evaluation of creativity are critical, if a change in the teacher's role is to be undertaken. NACCCE (1999) demands that teachers recognize their own creative abilities. However, this was not the case for a total of six of the present participants.

Social conventions, social environment and intrapersonal characteristics were mentioned as important factors influencing creativity. This holds true for both the concept maps generated in this study and in previous research performed by Csikszentmihalyi (1999), Feldman (1999), Torrance (1963) and Guilford (1968). Depending on how these factors appear, they can have either a positive or negative effect on creativity. Simonton (2004) and Fasko (2001) both mentioned intrinsic motivation as a particularly important characteristic. This was mentioned in the concept maps in relation to creativity in chemistry class. It was believed to have a positive effect on creativity development.

Craft (2005) and Sawyer (2012) have both pointed out the generation of ideas as one characteristic of creativity. The participants took this factor into account. Yet even though the generation and development of multiple ideas was seen as vital for creative efforts, this aspect was only mentioned by two concept maps. This factor is a direct reference to divergent thinking, but none of the concept maps detailed anything about this term. Finding new learner perspectives was highlighted as an important feature by both the participants and by Simonton (2004). However, the participants in this study gave no explicit descriptions of how this could occur. The most important characteristics found in the concept maps were originality and innovation, which were also previously listed by Runco (2004) and NACCCE (1999). The factor of imagination described by Kind and Kind (2007) was not mentioned in the current concept maps. Fasko (2001) also mentioned allowing students sufficient time as an important factor in the creative process. But only one participant mentioned this in this study.

Among other researchers, Fautley and Savage (2007) discussed the area-specificity of creativity. One of the participants in this study mentioned this idea in a concept map. Another participant indicated a difference between the creativity found in everyday life and that used in chemistry classes. Kind and Kind (2007) agree with this differentiation. Yet none of the participants mentioned the fact that anyone can learn creativity. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of creativity found in NACCCE (1999) and highlighted by various researchers such as Sawyer (2012) and Kind and Kind (2007). One of the concept maps even mentioned crossing boundaries and rules, even though this has been described as a key characteristic of creativity (Craft, 2003).

The definitions of creativity given in the concept maps are reflected by the literature. The broadest definition can be found in Urban's 4P-E model (1995). However, none of the concept maps outlined this idea in its entirety. The particular importance of a problem was rarely mentioned, although it is clearly expressed in the 4P-E model. Also, the term “Product” appears sporadically in the concept maps, but Simonton (2004) described the resulting product as an important factor in the natural sciences. Although individual terms only rarely occurred in the concept maps, creativity was nonetheless quite often illustrated as important for cognitive processes. The concept maps of the students reflect the fact that many different, but no standard definitions of creativity exist.

Discussion

As described above, using a second concept map with prescribed terms was a decision, which was made during the pilot test. The fact that the second concept map phase in this study resulted in more terms being used and in more propositions being created suggests that the prescribed list of terms stimulated new thought processes and idea connections in the participants. Nevertheless, the participants still had problems connecting their own ideas of creativity with the given terms. This could be shown by the analysis of the concept maps. The findings also correlated with the deliberate use of two concept maps, since this enables a broader understanding of the data and allows more concepts to be investigated. This decision was supported by the fact that high levels of overlap between the two resulting maps was lacking in most cases. Many of the terms were also modified by the participants in order to make them more compatible with their own understanding of an idea or factor.

Overall, creating concept maps was a difficult process for some students, as they described it in the answers in the questionnaire. But all of the students made two concept maps, which included a lot of meaningful propositions that could be analysed and interpreted by the researcher. Because of that, it can be noted, that the example of a concept map was adequate for the students in this study to create own concept maps. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the process of creating concept maps also monitor the skill and the success to create concept maps. However, because of the wealth of meaningful propositions it can be assumed that creating concept maps is an adequate way to test the views and knowledge about creativity, even for the persons who did not have a lot of experiences with that. Nonetheless, it is possible that the students could not present all of the knowledge, which they wanted to integrate, because of uncertainties or a lack of knowledge in creating concept maps. Although the students did not pick up this point in the questionnaire, it cannot be ruled out. In that case, a training course about creating concept maps could help to avoid it, but it would take a lot of time. It is doubtful whether all of the students and teachers would take part in training courses only to participate in one study. Because of the extensive data collected, the example of the concept map seems to be sufficiently for this study.

There is another point of criticism in relation to concept maps. Concept maps and the questionnaire reveals only a snapshot of the students’ knowledge and understanding about creativity. These can be modified or extended or some areas can be erased at any time. Against this background, the results figured out in this study can help to get an overview of the students’ knowledge and to plan courses about creativity, but it seems to be more expedient to investigate the students’ views immediately before giving the course. The test instrument presented in this article seems to be adequate for this purpose.

In terms of gender differences, male participants evidenced more extensive knowledge in this study. They not only used more terms and created more propositions, but they connected their terms only less slightly in the first concept map than they did in the second. Due to the small sample size of this study, further research is necessary in order to confirm this observation. A gender difference did appear with regard to content, especially for one's personal attitude to creativity. Only male participants expressed critical attitudes or made statements, which could not be clearly categorized. For further differences concerning content, it is currently unexplainable at this point why such differences occurred in these areas. Follow-up studies are necessary to find out if these differences are gender-related or not.

It was very interesting to note that the second school subject did not make a marked difference between the maps created. Although creativity is generally not attributed to science subjects, one participant who taught chemistry and physics created the most extensive concept maps. In addition, several concrete examples of creative situations in chemistry class were mentioned, which the students had personally observed or even performed in the classroom. This suggests that creativity among pre- and in-service chemistry teachers has already been integrated into the classroom at some level. Whether this finding can be confirmed or not will be seen in future studies on chemistry teachers.

Many students in this study had problems answering the questions presented in the questionnaire. In the feedback phase following the study, they reported uncertainty related to the questions about creativity being a part of their own studies and about describing themselves as creative people. The questions were not based on chemistry, so the answers given need to be viewed critically. These questions will be reformulated for future testing. In addition, no satisfactory connection could be made between the answers to the last question and their own creativity in terms of teaching chemistry. This is the reason that students will have to justify their answers at this point in future studies.

Conclusion

Although the concept maps and the questionnaire represent only a snapshot of student teachers’ understanding on creativity, they nevertheless provide some comprehensive insight. The resulting maps show student teachers’ personal attitudes, their subject knowledge of the topic, and their personal experiences that they have already had with creativity. Furthermore, the investigated views and conceptions correspond in many parts to the results from other studies with student teachers or teachers. Therefore, the concept maps in combination with the questionnaire have emerged as an adequate test instrument to investigate the student teachers’ conceptions, knowledge and attitudes about creativity.

One notable positive aspect of this study was that all of the respondents either placed creativity into context or made connections to this term without any input on the topic. This happened largely independently of their second school subject. Although creativity is a neglected area in schools and at universities, especially in the sciences, all of the students already possessed some ideas of how to connect creativity to teaching chemistry. Overall, all of the participants had broad knowledge of creativity that corresponded relating to some areas. Nevertheless, the structural analysis led us to the determination that the students could associate many concepts with creativity, but link them effectively together with much difficulty. Their subject knowledge was therefore broad, but it rarely went into any level of detail for many of the terms. This meant that the participants had problems in limiting creativity, specifically defining it, and in naming the key characteristics of creativity. These aspects could serve as a good starting point for more detailed examinations of the topic in further education and teacher training. The concept maps themselves are also suitable for being used in this as a way to reflect the own attitude, to share the own knowledge and to identify potential knowledge gaps and to fill these gaps.

The results clearly revealed a positive attitude towards creativity in chemistry class among the students in this study. This might be sufficient justification for further education efforts in this field, since the implementation of creativity in the classroom is dependent on teachers’ attitude. It is possible that the lack of creativity training in the students’ previous teaching and school experience resulted in the clear difference to the view of older teaching colleagues. Nevertheless, the results show that a demand exists for deepening the examination of creativity, so that it can be integrated safely and consciously into the classroom. This demand can also be seen in the fact that some of the students did not believe themselves to be creative. Further education needs to stimulate creative processes in such people and train them in the appropriate skills in order to give them more confidence in their own abilities.

The conceptions, that have arisen from the concept maps, correspond in many parts to the results from other studies with student teachers or teachers. This shows on the one hand, that there have hardly been developments or changes in this field in the last decades, on the other hand that there are no major differences between the views of teachers and students from different countries. It can be of particular interest in this context to compare these results with the views of students from countries with different educational systems and higher rankings on TIMSS and PISA. Therefore, a comparison with views of students from Japan is planned. Furthermore, studies with chemistry teachers in Germany are to be made and they will be compared with the study including student teachers.

Appendix – Instrument used in the study

Dear students,

I want to thank you for taking the time to take part in this investigation about “Creativity in chemistry classes”. The investigation takes place within the scope of my PhD Thesis which I am writing at the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg in Germany.

In the following, I am interested in your conceptions, knowledge, and your ideas to creativity generally and to creativity in chemistry classes. This will be done with two concept maps (Part A) and one questionnaire (Part B). Before starting with the investigation, there is an introduction in creating a concept map. There is also an explanation given what a concept map is.

By doing this, it is important that you create the concept map and fill in the questionnaire alone, without other's help. It will take about 60 minutes to complete all of it.

To prevent the influence of the following parts and information on creating your first concept map, I will give you the pages successively. You will get the other pages after completing your first concept map. Please check the completeness and the correct order of the pages in the end, before you give them off.

Creating the concept maps and filling in the questionnaire is anonymous, so a reference to any of you is not possible. The data's analysis und evaluation only take place in my PhD thesis. The data will not be passed on to third parties.

Yours sincerely,

Luzie Semmler

Part A: concept map 1

First, I am interested in your conception and your understanding of creativity generally and creativity in chemistry classes. Consequently you are supposed to create two concept maps. But before that, an explanation on what a concept map is and how to create it is given.

Concept maps are structured representations of knowledge, information or perceptions of an issue which is in the form of a network. The network consists of terms (concepts) and between them, meaningful relations are produced. Two connected terms produce a proposition. Following, the term “concept map” will be explained with a concept map itself to clarify the method's principle:

Please notice that this concept map is only an example. You do not need to transfer the concepts’ structure nor the linking phrases on your concept map.

First you are supposed to create your own concept map about creativity, respectively creativity in chemistry classes. There will be no inputs to create the concept map. Please pay attention to label all of the linking lines between two terms which you draw. But do not write too much in these linking phrases, please focus on the essential. So the concept map will remain to be clearly arranged. You can use the concept map above as a template while creating your own concept map.

You can use every word you want to, because the concept map should represent your own conception of creativity. There will be no right or wrong!

Take your time and enjoy creating the concept map (on the next page)!

Part A: concept map 2

You are supposed to create another concept map on the next page. This time the terms “Creativity” and “Creativity in chemistry classes” are already written in the concept map's center. There are other terms at the end of this page which you should use to create the concept map. But you do not need to use all of these terms. Furthermore, you are allowed to modify the terms or add some new terms to your concept map (e.g. examples).

You are also allowed to transfer the propositions built in your first concept map to this one if you have already used some of the terms written below in the previous concept map. Generally, you are allowed to transfer some propositions from your first concept map in this one if you think that these fit. Again, you are allowed to write in Japanese.

Once again, take your time and enjoy creating the second concept map!

Part B: questionnaire

In the questionnaire there are some questions referring to your academic studies and your practical training in schools and referring to you as a person. Please mark the answer which conforms to your attitude and your experiences or write something truthfully in the empty spaces.

1. Do you think encouragement of creativity within students in school is an important aim in chemistry education?

□ Yes □ No

2. Was or is creativity a part of your academic studies?

□ Yes □ No

3. Do you think that creativity was a part of the chemistry lessons which you watched or made by your own? If the answer is “Yes”, please describe one or some of the situations in class when creativity was relevant.

□ Yes □ No

Examples:

4. Should creativity play a bigger role in your own lessons?

Give a reason for your answer.

□ Yes, because… □ No, because…

5. Do you think you are a creative person?

□ Yes □ No

6. I am:

□ female □ male

7. How old are you?

□ <20 □ 31–35

□ 21–25 □ 36–40

□2 6–30 □ 40 years

8. How long have you been studied?

□ 1–2 semesters □ 7–8 semesters

□ 3–4 semesters □ more than 8 semesters

□ 5–6 semesters

9. At which type of school do you prefer to work as a teacher after studies? (more than one answer is possible)

□ Hauptschule □ Gymnasium

□ Realschule □ Gesamtschule

□ Oberschule

10. Which subject/subjects are you studying apart from chemistry?

11. Do you have any comments on the concept maps or the questionnaire?

Thank you for your cooperation!

References

1. Aljughaiman A. and Mowrer-Reynolds E., (2005), Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity and Creative Students, J. Creat. Behav., 39(1), 17–34.
2. Andiliou A. and Murphy P. K., (2010), Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: a review and synthesis of contemporary research, Rev. Educ. Res., 5(3), 201–219.
3. Borstel G. V. and Böhm A., (2005), Bau eines Schaumlöschers. Ein Egg-Race mit medizinischen Geräten, [Construction of a Foam Extinguisher. An Egg-Race using Medical Equipment.], Unterr. Chem., 14(75), 42–44.
4. Cachia R. and Ferrari A., (2010), Creativity in Schools: A Survey of Teachers in Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, retrieved 15 March 2016 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pdf.
5. Craft A., (2003), The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator, Br. J. Educ. Stud., 51(2), 113–127.
6. Craft A., (2005), Creativity in Schools. Tensions and Dilemmas, New York: Routledge.
7. Cropley A. J. and Urban K. K., (2000), Programs and Strategies for Nurturing Creativity, International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2nd edn, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 485–498.
8. Csikszentmihalyi M., (1999), Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity, in Sternberg R. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.
9. Csikszentmihalyi M. and Sawyer K., (2014), Creative Insight: The Social Dimension of a Solitary Moment, in Csikszentmihalyi M. (ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity. The Collected Works of Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 73–98.
10. DeHaan R. L., (2009), Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving in Science, CBE Life Sci. Educ., 8, 172–181.
11. Fasko D., (2001), Education and Creativity, Creat. Res. J., 13(3&4), 317–327.
12. Fautley M. and Savage J., (2007), Creativity in Secondary Education, Exeter: Learning Matters.
13. Feldhusen J. F. and Treffinger D. J., (1977), Teaching Creative Thinking and Problem Solving, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
14. Feldman D. H., (1999), The Development of Creativity, in Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–187.
15. Flick U., (2004), Triangulation in Qualitative Research, in Flick U., Kardorff E. V. and Steinke I. (ed.), A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 178–183.
16. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, (2014a), IHMC Cmap Analysis Tool, Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, retrieved 10 March 2015, from http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Miscellaneous/CmapAnalysis.shtml.
17. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, (2014b), IHMC CmapTools, Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, retrieved 09 February 2015, from http://cmap.ihmc.us/cmaptools/.
18. Fryer M. and Collings J. A., (1991), Teachers’ Views about Creativity, Brit. J. Educ. Psychol., 61(2), 207–219.
19. Gärtner H.-J., (ed.), (1997), Kreativität im Chemieunterricht, [Creativity in Chemistry Class]. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 42(8), 12–16.
20. Guilford J. P., (1950), Creativity, Am. Psychol., 5(9), 444–454.
21. Guilford J. P., (1968), Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications, San Diego: R. R. Knapp.
22. Joubert M. M., (2001), The Art of Creative Teaching: NACCCE and Beyond, in Creativity in education, London: continuum, pp. 17–34.
23. Kampylis P., Berki E. and Saariluoma P., (2009), In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity, Think. Skills Creat., 4(1), 15–29.
24. Kinchin I. M., (2013), Concept mapping and the fundamental problem of moving between knowledge structures, Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(1), 96–106.
25. Kind P. M. and Kind V., (2007), Creativity in Science Education: Perspectives and Challenges for Developing School Science, Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37.
26. Lovat T. and Fleming D., (2015), Creativity as Central to Critical Reasoning and the Facilitative Role of Moral Education: Utilizing Insights from Neuroscience, Creative Education, 6(11), 1097–1107.
27. Mayring P., (2014), Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution, Klagenfurt: Beltz, retrieved 24 October 2016 from http://nbn-resolving,de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
28. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE), (1999), All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, London: Department for Education and Employment, retrieved 07 January 2015 from http://sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf.
29. Newton D. P. and Newton L. D., (2009), Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science, Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 45–60.
30. Novak J. D. and Cañas A. J., (2007), Theoretical Origins of Concept Maps, How to Construct Them, and Uses in Education, Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29–42.
31. Novak J. D. and Cañas A. J., (2008), The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, retrieved 19 November 2015 from http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
32. Orth J. M. and Hilgers U., (2006), Einführung in das Teilchenmodell durch Lernen an Stationen, [Introduction to Particle Model by Working-at-Stations exercises.], Prax. Naturwiss., Chem. Sch., 55(3), 10–22.
33. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (2004), Creativity: find it, promote it. Promoting pupils’ creative thinking and behaviour across the curriculum at key stages 1, 2 and 3. Practical materials for schools, Great Britain: QCA, retrieved 09 June 2015 from http://https://www.literacyshed.com/uploads/1/2/5/7/12572836/1847211003.pdf.
34. Runco M. A., (2004), Creativity, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55(1), 657–687.
35. Safran L., (2001), Creativity as ‘Mindful’ Learning: A Case from Learner-Led Home-Based Education, Creativity in Education, London: Continuum, pp. 80–91.
36. Sawyer R. K., (2012), Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, USA: Oxford University Press.
37. Schanze S., (2009), Wer beherrscht die Hefe am Besten? Ein Egg-Race als Zugang zum forschenden Lernen, [Who has the best Command of Yeast? An Egg-Race as an approach to Explorative Learning.], Prax. Naturwiss., Chem. Sch., 58(6), 15–17.
38. Schwarz P. and Lutz B., (2004), Kreativer Chemieunterricht. Mikrochemische Experimente in der Schule, [Creative Chemistry Lessons. Microchemical Experiments in School.], Unterr. Chem., 15(81), 4–9.
39. Simonton D. K., (2004), Creativity in Science. Chance, Logic, Genius and Zeitgeist, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Starko A. J., (2010), Creativity in the Classroom. Schools of Curious Delight. 4th edn, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
41. Steinke I., (2004), Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research, in A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: SaGE Publications, 184–190.
42. Torrance P., (1963), Education and the Creative Potential, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
43. Urban K. K., (1991), Recent Trends in Creativity Research and Theory in Western Europe, European Journal of High Ability, 1(1), 33–113.
44. Urban K. K., (1995), Different Models in Describing, Exploring, Explaining and Nurturing Creativity in Society, European Journal of High Ability, 6(2), 143–159.
45. Weisberg R. W., (1999), Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories, Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 226–250.
46. Westby E. L. and Dawson V. L., (1995), Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom? Creat. Res. J., 8(1), 1–10.
47. Witteck T. and Eilks I., (2006), Using the learning company approach to allow students to investigate acids and bases. Sch. Sci. Rev., 88(323), 95–102.
48. Yin Y., Vanides J., Ruiz-Primo M. A., Ayala C. C. and Shavelson R. J., (2005), Comparison of Two Concept-Mapping Techniques: Implications for Scoring, Interpretation, and Use, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(2), 166–184.

---