Fostering Scientific Creativity in Primary Students through Outdoor STEM Education: A Case Study in Phuket Province
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to (1) examine Grade 4 students’ scientific creative thinking skills before and after participating in outdoor STEM learning based on the context of Phuket Province, (2) develop these skills through local context-based activities, and (3) identify effective practices for organizing such learning experiences. The study involved 22 Grade 4 students from a school in Phuket during the second semester of the 2024 academic year, using a classroom action research approach with purposive sampling. Three outdoor STEM activities were implemented: eco-printing with Southern Thai plants, tie-dye using Sino-Portuguese patterns, and making “Apong” coconut milk desserts with natural dyes. A scientific creative thinking test based on Guilford’s theory was used to assess four components: originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. Findings revealed significant improvements in students' scientific creative thinking, particularly in fluency and elaboration. Students displayed enhanced creative behavior, confidence in presenting ideas, and the ability to solve problems using diverse, well-reasoned solutions. They creatively applied local knowledge to design unique patterns and innovate with natural color mixtures. The activities also promoted teamwork and 21st-century problem-solving skills. Post-test scores were significantly higher than pre-test scores at the 0.05 level, indicating the effectiveness of outdoor STEM learning in fostering scientific creativity through real-life context integration.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
Buasai, S. (2015). Education and labor market needs in the 21st century.
Department of Academic Affairs. (1992). Creativity: Principles, theories, teaching methods, and assessment (2nd ed.). Krusapa Printing.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Intalaporn, J. (2015). Study on STEM-based learning strategies for primary school students. Veridian E-Journal, 8(1), 62–74.
Isranews Agency. (2015). OECD to add creative thinking assessment in 2021 exams.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Kocabas, S. (1993). Elements of scientific creativity. AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01.
Ko-hwai, C. (2020). Development of STEM integrated learning units on sound for Grade 11 students (Master’s thesis, Srinakharinwirot University). Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Kotchapan, P. (2017). Development of a creativity measurement for scientific thinking for Grade 9 students (Master’s thesis, Mahasarakham University). Graduate School, Mahasarakham University.
Liang, J. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at Austin.
Leung, W. M. V. (2023). STEM education in early years: Challenges and opportunities in changing teachers’ pedagogical strategies. Education Sciences, 13(490).
Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(25), 25–29.
Miles, E. (2008). In-service elementary teachers’ familiarity, interest, conceptual knowledge, and performance on science process skills [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Mohammed, S. H., & Kinyo, L. (2020). The role of constructivism in the enhancement of social
studies education. Journal of Critical Review, 7(7), 249-256.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. (2016). Thailand's national economic and social development plan.
Office of the National Education Commission. (1999). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments.
Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713–717.
Patcharee Nakphong. (2019). Strategies for Thailand’s educational reform.
Park, J. (2011). Scientific creativity in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(3), 144–145.
Piangduangjai, N. (2015). Constructivist learning for developing scientific process skills.
Radakan, S. (2012). Creativity and Innovation in a competitive world.
Rauf, R. A., Rasul, M. S., Mansor, A. N., Othman, Z., & Lyndon, N. (2013). Inculcation of science process skills in a science classroom. Asian Social Science, 9(8), 47–57.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone Publishing.
Torkos, H. (2021). Mathematics and natural sciences teaching models in primary school using outdoor education. Educ. Plus, 29, 200–214.
Siriphatrachai, P. (2013). STEM education and the development of 21st century skills. Journal of Administrators, 33(2), 49–56.
Ünal Çoan, G. (2013). The effects of inquiry supported by argument maps on science process skills and epistemological views of prospective science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 271–288.
Villalba, E. (2008). On creativity: Towards an understanding of creativity and its measurements. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Wyke, R. M. (2013). Teaching creativity and innovation in higher education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
Zhang, J., Liu, G., & Lin, C. (2012). An action-oriented approach to gifted education: Evidence from the field of scientific creativity. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 123–125.