INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO RIASEC INTEREST INVENTORY
Abstract
The primary goal of this study was to identify which of the RIASEC categories the students participating in the sample fell into. The other goal was to determine whether the students’ scientific creativity and metacognitive awareness scores differed significantly depending on their RIASEC categories and gender. The study was a descriptive survey including 162 students studying in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades of a public middle school in Turkey. The students were asked to fill out the RIASEC Inventory, Scientific Creativity Scale and Metacognitive Awareness Scale. Student t-test and one-way ANOVA were conducted in the statistical analysis. Based on the analyses, it was found that most of the students fell into a single category in terms of the RIASEC category classification. There was no significant difference between the scientific creativity scores of the students in terms of the RIASEC categories. Their metacognitive awareness scores, however, differed significantly depending on the categories. The significant difference between the metacognitive awareness scores was found to be in favor of the students falling into two categories, in comparison to those belong to a single category. Considering the sub-dimensions of metacognitive awareness, it was observed that the difference was in the sub-dimensions of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, and in the sub-dimension of monitoring ability in terms of metacognitive regulation. The interpretation of the findings obtained through the analyses led to the conclusion that the students’ creativity scores were not influenced by the RIASEC categories to which they belonged, and that their metacognitive awareness scores could be associated with the categories of this model of vocational interest. Implications for practice into the classroom are discussed and further recommendations for future studies provided.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545.
Aktamıs, H., & Ergin, O. (2007). Investigating the relationship between science process skills and scientific creativity. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 11-23.
Baraz, A. (2012). The effect of using metacognitive strategies embedded in explicit-reflective nature of science instruction on the development of pre-service science teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Baysal, Z. N., Kaya, N. B., & Üçüncü, G. (2013). Examination of scientific creativity level of fourth grade students in terms of several variables. Journal of Educational Sciences, 38, 55-64.
Blankenburg, J. S., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Fostering today what is needed tomorrow: Investigating students’ interest in science. Science Education, 100(2), 364-391.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100.
Cetinkaya, G. (2012). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service science teachers’ understandings of nature of science and their personal characteristics. Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2001). An examination of situational interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3), 383-400.
Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
Demirci, C. (2007). The effects of the creative approach in the science teaching on achievement and attitude. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. 32: 65-75.
Dierks, P. O., Höffler, T. N., Blankenburg, J. S., Peters, H., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Interest in science: A RIASEC-based analysis of students’ interests. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 238-258.
Dierks, P. O., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2014). Profiling interest of students in science: Learning in school and beyond. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 97-114.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391-409.
Duruk, U. (2017). The effect of metacognitive strategies embedded in contextualized nature of science instruction on preservice science teachers’ understandings of nature of science and the retention of these understandings. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Adiyaman University, Adiyaman.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6-25.
Erdoğdu, M. Y. (2006). Relationships between creativity, teacher behaviours and academic success. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 5(17), 95-106.
Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 455-469.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Göksun, D. O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ use of 21st century learner skills and 21st century teacher skills. Education and Science, 190, 107-130.
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and model environments. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Höft, L., Bernholt, S., Blankenburg, J. S., & Winberg, M. (2019). Knowing more about things you care less about: Cross‐sectional analysis of the opposing trend and interplay between conceptual understanding and interest in secondary school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(2), 184-210.
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
Kadayıfçı, H. (2008). Yaratıcı düşünmeye dayalı öğretim modelinin öğrencilerin maddelerin ayrılması ile ilgili kavramları anlamalarına ve bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Karatas, S., & Ozcan, S. (2010). The effects of creative thinking activities on learners’ creative thinking and project development skills. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 11(1), 225-243.
Kesici, S., Erdogan, A., & Özteke, H. I. (2011). Are the dimensions of metacognitive awareness differing in prediction of mathematics and geometry achievement?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2658-2662.
Kılıc, B., & Tezel, O. (2012). Determining scientific creativity levels of 8th grade students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(4), 84-101.
Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational-psychological perspective. Development and Motivation, 2, 57-84.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liliana, C., & Lavinia, H. (2011). Gender differences in metacognitive skills. A study of the 8th grade pupils in Romania. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 396-401.
Liu, S. C., & Lin, H. S. (2014). Primary teachers' beliefs about scientific creativity in the classroom context. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1551-1567.
Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self‐regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382-396.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Academic Press.
Sackes, M., & Trundle, K. C. (2017). Change or durability? The contribution of metaconceptual awareness in preservice early childhood teachers’ learning of science concepts. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 655-671.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. Handbook of motivation at school, 197-222.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in science education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students' metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45-62.
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515-537.
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 313-322.
Tüysüz, C., Karakuyu, Y., & Bilgin, I. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının üst biliş düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17, 147-158.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.
Young, A. E. (2010). Explorations of metacognition among academically talented middle and high school mathematics students (Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley).
Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449-475.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329.
Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.3067
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Ümit Duruk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
