CHAPTER

6
Creativity in science:
leaping the void
Juliet Edmonds

I think the water in the puddle has disappeared because a big black dog came along and drank it
all up.
(Gita, aged 6)

the exact answer on evaporation that the teacher was expecting yet it is a
credible and creative explanation as to how water disappears from puddles in the street.
Gita had made a leap between knowing dogs need water to live, that puddles contain
water and that puddles seem to get smaller over time if the weather stays dry, to suggest
a hypothesis. It is those very leaps that scientists create to provide models of our
natural and physical world.
There is a public belief that science gains its credibility from the objectivity of scientific methodology. Scientific knowledge tends to hold a hallowed position in our society
at present, partly due to the belief that this objectivity provides knowledge which is
somehow superior and more valid than other methods of obtaining knowledge (Ziman
1968). The idea that scientists use this objective method and are methodical in their
exploration of the natural and physical world appears to exclude the idea of creativity.
Following a methodological process seems to be seen to exclude the activity of making
leaps of imagination and the process of originality. Yet this view of science neglects
to note that scientists have devised hypotheses to be tested in the first place. Having
carried out extensive, meticulous research which often involves a creative process of
making links to previous science knowledge, they then generalise the research to a
range of situations, coming up with possible explanation of patterns in data.
There are many examples of this process: Darwin and Wallace making hypotheses on
the process of evolution heretically contrary to the then current belief on creationism;
Watson and Crick playing with their cardboard base pairs to try and find a model
that would explain the results of X-ray crystallography pictures. They all provided
solutions to problems that were different to those within the prevailing paradigm of
scientific belief. Philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn would argue that these leaps of the

THIS MAY NOT BE

82

Creativity in science

imagination are the very way that scientific knowledge progresses. He suggests that
current paradigms of scientific belief are destabilised through such scientific revolutions; then the ultimate replacement of an old paradigm with a new one follows (Kuhn
1970). This suggests that progression in science depends on creative leaps and links to
unexpected knowledge. I recently heard a polymer scientist on the radio discussing how
he went into the wrong room at a conference centre and found links, and inspiration,
between the application of string theory in astrophysics to his own work and vice versa.
All these scientists surely fulfil the criteria from the National Advisory Committee
for Creativity and Culture in Education Report commissioned by the DfEE that the
characteristics of creativity involve
thinking or behaving imaginatively. Second, overall this imaginative activity is purposeful: that
is, it is directed to achieving an objective. Third, these processes must generate something
original. Fourth, the outcome must be of value in relation to the objective.
(NACCCE 1999)

Teachers attitudes to creativity in primary science

Ideas about the role of science in our society are reflected in teachers ideas about science
in the classroom. It is often the case that primary teachers believe that creativity is linked
to the arts and not the sciences (Feasey 2003) and their own level of subject knowledge
and attitudes to science can result in teaching styles that foster or destroy creativity.
There are a number of actions and attitudes displayed by teachers in classrooms
which influence childrens science. Primary science causes some teachers specific
problems, particularly those who lack accuracy and confidence in their own subject
knowledge. Researchers have found many teachers ideas of everyday occurrences to
be similar to those of the children they teach (Kruger et al. 1989). Many of the alternative
frameworks held by teachers about electricity and current are the same models used by
children of about 711 years of age. This does not have to stifle creativity within a classroom but it certainly affects the confidence levels of teachers which, in turn, affects their
chosen teaching methods and emphasis on knowledge over process (Littledyke 1997).
Teachers lacking confidence in their own science knowledge have been found to
teach using more didactic teaching methods than other teachers. They tend to avoid
discussion and are often unable to focus childrens thinking (Lee 1995; Tobin and Fraser
1990). Teaching strategies that enable children to think to solve problems are often more
likely to foster creativity in science than those which portray science as a set of facts in a
dusty textbook.
However, it appears that this situation is gradually improving. Ofsted recently
reported that Initial Teacher Training is very effective in preparing students to teach
science, and science learning centres are being set up around the country to continue the
support for teachers in school (Ofsted 2002). There is now a range of accessible books
on science subject knowledge for primary teachers that concentrate on the teachers
83

Unlocking Creativity

understanding, as opposed to GCSE textbooks which often have an emphasis on

mathematical modelling.1
Although there may be problems with teachers own attitudes to science, the aims,
processes and current pedagogical paradigm on developing conceptual understanding
makes the subject an excellent context for creativity in the primary classroom, as will
now be shown.

Creativity and the aims of Primary Science Education

When Harlen (2000) identifies the aims of primary science education we can see that science can be a highly creative process.2 She builds on the aims suggested in the National
Curriculum for science and suggests that as primary teachers we are aiming to among
other skills develop process skills in science including prediction and hypothesis;
planning; considering evidence; and evaluation develop attitudes including willingness to change ideas; critical reflection; and curiosity and start to develop current
concepts to explain our natural and physical world. All these aims have potential for
developing creative thought and activity. The potential of each will be considered in
turn.
Childrens development of process skills can provide a unique opportunity to think
of alternative ideas, methods and solutions.

Prediction and raising hypotheses

Prediction of the outcome of an investigation can allow children to think of, and work
through, alternative outcomes. A hypothesis is a more sophisticated form of prediction
where an outcome is suggested based on prior experience or scientific knowledge. This
allows the child to make links to previous understanding and also to make imaginative
leaps to alternative outcomes that could occur. This stage of the exploratory process can
be an important time for discussion about possible outcomes of investigations. Some
children are so convinced by their predictions that they can carry out theory-led datagathering. For example, when investigating whether the human cubit was the same
length as the foot size I watched one child take the measurement of another childs foot
with a tape measure, then, without letting go of the measurement on the tape, place it
on the childs cubit and confirm it was the same! He carried on using the same method
for all the children in his sample and then confirmed that his prediction had been
correct all along.

Planning and evaluating investigations

Planning and evaluating investigations allows children to suggest a variety of ways
of testing their hypotheses and to explore the notion of controlling variables. Even
if children suggest inappropriate methods for testing their hypotheses, the dialogue
between the teacher and the child can lead to greater understanding of fair testing or
84

Creativity in science

investigation. Prompting children to consider other ways in which hypotheses could

be tested before or after investigative work can also extend childrens thinking about
planning. The use of planning boards, writing frames and teacher prompts can be
helpful for taking children through the process for planning investigations.3

Considering evidence
Considering evidence is a time where children can interpret patterns in data or observations. There is much potential here for a variety of forms of creative thinking; making
meaningful links with previous learning, applying previous learning to a new situation,
making generalisations to apply to a range of different situations from the present, and
suggesting explanations of observed patterns. Children could even be involved in
forming theoretical models to explain the evidence for example, using toy cars in a
dual carriageway filtering down to one lane, modelling the effect of electrons travelling
through a fine light bulb element.

Willingness to change ideas

Harlens aims for developing scientific attitudes could also encourage the use of creative
thought through fostering a willingness to change ideas. It would seem that a precursor
to this would be a willingness to consider a range of ideas. A strategy to encourage this
skill is to look at alternative explanations of events. For example, when water in a
puddle appeared to disappear and the class believed the water was sucked up from the
ground, the teacher asked the children to suggest a range of alternative theories on
where the water had gone. The class set up investigations to explore each of the theories
and looked at which one best fitted the evidence. After watching a puddle on a black
plastic bag the children concluded that the water could not have gone into the earth.

Critical reflection
Critical reflection is also an important skill to check that imaginative ideas are purposeful and useful. Curiosity also can be the motivation behind thinking and trying
out new solutions to problems. Developing a questioning classroom through the collection of questions, teachers modelling questions, databases of questions, and recording
questions in notebooks while investigating, can be a first step in allowing curiosity to
flourish in a classroom.

Examples of fostering creativity through science exploration

While working with an inner-London school on non-fiction writing, an opportunity for
exploring creative hypotheses and model-making arose. I was working with a Year 6
class who had recently finished their SATs. The school was offering an enhancement
programme to children before they left in the summer. They had studied chemical
and physical change in science the previous term and had recently attended Junior
Citizen,4 a multi-agency initiative including the emergency services, that offered
85

Unlocking Creativity

training for Key Stage 2 pupils, so we decided to set them a problem. I used a situation
that had been posed to teachers on a CLIS (Childrens Learning in Science5 course, run
by Leeds University, where three candles of equal height were left burning under a bell
jar. The candles were placed in a line with one in the middle of the jar and the others at
either side. The children were given the task of predicting what might happen and why,
and of testing their ideas by moving and replacing candles. The candles and bell jar
were set in a sand tray to conform to health and safety guidelines. I remembered that the
course leaders had suggested that it was just as possible for a child to come up with an
answer as a university lecturer!
We started the session by asking the children about their subject knowledge from
their topic on change and also what they had learned about fire and heat during their
Junior Citizen training. We asked the children to predict what might happen to the
candles in the bell jar when they had been lit. The childrens ideas were recorded on the
whiteboard. We lit the candles and watched the sequence of events. The children were
surprised when first one outer candle then the other went out and the middle candle
continued to burn for a while. We asked the children to come up with alternative
patterns or ways to test the candles so we could find out more about why it had
happened. The children were excited and kept coming up with new hypotheses about
why the candle snuffing pattern was occurring. These hypotheses were often to do with
the length of the wick of each candle or the order of lighting. This also provided the
opportunity to explore ideas on fair testing through discussion on whether it was fair to
use the same candles in a new pattern, some of which were now shorter than others.
We got through rather a lot of candles during that lesson! The session also necessitated a great deal of new vocabulary. Children were asked to explain terms such as
oxygen and convection. The children finally went away in groups, having explored a
number of candle permutations in the jar, and argued and finalised their own explanation and theories on what was happening inside the bell jar. Many drew large diagrams
showing air movements inside the jar. Some children showed great creative thinking in
their explanations. They demonstrated original thought, albeit based on knowledge
they had built up through their learning and own experiences on the Junior Citizen
course where they had to escape from a smoke-filled room. The models helped the
children to understand why the smoke and air behave in a certain manner. Little of the
activity could be said to be covering the National Curriculum for Science (DfEE 1999)
but meaningful, relevant learning and creative thinking were going on. The children
commented that they felt they were acting like real scientists; discovering things for
the first time (Natalie, aged 11).
Another strategy using the development of process skills to develop creative thinking
is a kind of science workshop based on the writing workshop format.6 The children collect a number of science questions that arise in everyday life, during class investigations
or other science work, or from childrens personal interest. These questions were saved
in each childs notebook. The teacher then sets aside time when these questions could be
86

Creativity in science

FIGURE 6.1

Drawing of bell jar investigation

investigated, providing support for identifying questions that could be ethically and
viably investigated, planning, carrying out and evaluating evidence and methods. This
allows opportunities for children to develop their own curiosity about the natural and
physical world and gives children the chance to explore their own understanding and
form their own, sometimes creative, ideas about the world. Some examples of questions
for investigation were: Do square bubble blowers make square bubbles?; Can
woodlice swim? and Can children with longer legs run faster?.

Developing creativity through conceptual understanding

The aim of primary science education is to develop current concepts that explain the
natural and physical world. Therefore, there could be conflict between this and allowing
children to use their creativity to form their ideas about the world. However, current
thinking in science education states that it is ineffective to tell children science ideas.
The constructivist approach to learning in science recognises that children are active
learners and that they will take on board ideas which are congruent with their own mental frameworks to describe their world but will often reject current scientific ideas if they
are in conflict with their thinking (Osborne and Freyberg 1985). Curriculum materials
such as the Nuffield Primary Science (1995) advocate allowing children to explore their
own alternative frameworks and then provide a range of experiences to encourage the
children to alter their frameworks in line with current scientific thinking. The research
that influenced the development of Nuffield science recognised that although this is a
more effective method of helping children to understand science, it is often limited in
its success as many childrens alternative frameworks are persistent and last into
87

Unlocking Creativity

adulthood. Nevertheless, exploring childrens ideas in science provides opportunities

for creative thinking through the creation of theories and models to describe the world.

Examples of creative thinking about the natural and physical world

Childrens thinking about their world constantly surprises. I was working with a Year 5
class investigating what makes the best cup of tea: type of teabag, loose or bagged,
stirred or not stirred. Two girls quickly made it obvious that their curiosity lay in a
different direction; they were interested in how teabags work. This may sound obvious
to you or me, but there were some interesting alternative frameworks driving these
childrens actions. They were influenced by an advertising campaign that boasted the
superior design of the holes in a specific companys teabags. The girls completed a planning sheet and carefully proceeded to cover the holes in one tea bag with overlapping
strips of sticky tape and planned a fair test using the same amounts and temperature of
water. Not surprisingly, the tape shrivelled off the teabag immediately it was put into
the hot water. I encouraged the girls to try another method of testing their teabag. They
came back very proudly with the results of their labour; a teabag inside a knotted
plastic bag. I had to bite my tongue not to comment on this. I was astounded that the
girls actually expressed surprise that the bagged teabag did not colour the water at all.
They obviously had some interesting ideas about permeability and materials and were
willing to explore them using a variety of methods. At this point I gave the girls some
magnifying glasses and asked them to look very carefully at the surface of the teabag. It
would have been interesting to pursue these childrens thinking further. Although their
thinking may not have contributed to the class investigation they were certainly developing skills and curiosity that would encourage their creative thinking in the future.
There is always the temptation, even after sessions of exploratory investigative work,
such as the above, to sit the children down and tell them that their ideas were interesting
but this is the real scientific view. This tends to promote science as a set of facts and
negates the view of science as a way of working. In support of this, many of my science
education students report that the most significant learning for them in secondary
science was how to fiddle the results of your experiment to fit the expectation of the
teacher and then to regurgitate the conclusion stated by the teacher for homework! More
creative strategies for drawing together the knowledge and understanding in the lesson
are sessions where the teacher draws out the similarities and differences between the
childrens ideas and that of the current scientific views, or where the emphasis is on
explanatory stories, where the teacher looks at a variety of stories from the children and
from current science practice, making links between various bits of science artificially
atomised by National Curriculum and planning structures (Millar and Osborne 1998).

Metaphors, analogies and creativity

Sutton (1996) identified the importance of creating metaphors and analogies as one part
of science enquiry and sometimes the first stage in forming new scientific theories. He
88

Creativity in science

quotes the nineteenth-century scientist Faraday who was convinced that modelling
was one of the initial stages in forming scientific theories. Faraday suggested that this
modelling stage came before the scientific investigation and that the model was then
rejected or modified in light of the scientific evidence. Watson and Crick used this
method, creating models of the constituents of DNA and experimenting with a model
of a structure, trying out the models with X-ray crystallography images as well as
talking to chemists about the chemical forms possible in DNA and drawing on previous
research on the amounts of the various constituents in the structure. After a number of
false starts they found a model that agreed with all the currently held data on DNA and
also a structure which provided a possible explanation of how DNA replicates itself.
Watsons own awe and wonder is evident in his own account of the modelling. He was
concerned that the structure would turn out to be boring, but to his delight it seemed
beautiful and perfectly designed for its function (Watson 1970).
If this is the way scientific thinking can develop perhaps we need to spend more time
allowing children to create and explore their own models of such things as electrical
current, convection and so on, instead of making them conform to standard models and
analogies it will not only allow them to be more creative in their thinking but it will
also replicate the ways in which scientists work.

Fostering a creative science classroom

Teachers and their classroom ethos are pivotal in producing creativity in science. In
Chapter 1, Robert Fisher states that creative children are stimulated by creative teachers.
As discussed previously, the actions and attitudes of teachers are inherited from their
own experiences and training. Teachers need to be aware of their own limitations and
look critically at the ethos of their classroom to establish what actions can be taken to
develop a creative classroom. We all need to look at the roles played by teachers and
children in each subject. In which subjects do we encourage discussion and divergent
thought? In which subjects do we control the talking and responses of the children?
In which subjects do we tolerate divergent thought? What are our own experiences of
science and what messages are we passing on to the class about science?
Science in a creative classroom needs to be portrayed less as a set body of facts
and more as shifting, explanatory stories. It is more about a way of working than
about resultant knowledge that can only ever be provisional. In light of this view of
science, teachers could value and respect childrens alternative frameworks of the
world however inconsistent they are with the current scientific thinking. After all,
these ideas have done a fairly good job of allowing children to function in their
physical world to date. Of course, we have a responsibility to help children encounter
experiences that will challenge and help them reform their ideas, but without stamping
out the idea that there can often be a range of viewpoints and theories on the same
subject.
89

Unlocking Creativity

This open approach can be reinforced by developing a thinking classroom in which

even the teachers ideas can be questioned. In an account and analysis of two primary
teachers experiences of introducing Lets Think through Science (Adey et al. 2003) a
programme of developing thinking skills and metacognition in science to their
classrooms, it became apparent that there was a major shift in the language the teachers
used in the classroom and how they envisaged their role (Ambrose 2003). They
radically altered the style of their lessons, the way they asked questions and the amount
they interjected in the group work. Many of the tasks carried out had no set answer so
everyones opinion had a value. The project was highly beneficial in getting children to
think creatively, not only in science, but also across the whole curriculum.
Teacher questioning styles can also have a huge effect on thinking in science classrooms.
Asking person- rather than subject-centred questions allows children to express their own
thoughts and discourages a guess what the teacher is thinking style of teaching. For
example, What do you think will happen next? rather than What will the car do down the
higher slope? avoids implying there is only one correct answer (Harlen 2000; Jelly 1985).
Developing a type of discourse in science where childrens ideas and predictions and
methods are discussed can be helpful. Feasey reports that 20 per cent of teachers thought
that dialogue was a key strategy for increasing creativity by conscious effort; another
20 per cent cited practical activities and problem-solving (Feasey 2003). Teachers use
different language according to the subject matter and their beliefs about the subject
(Edwards and Mercer 1987). If we project a view of science as knowledge only available
from books, rather than a way of modelling and exploring our natural and physical
world, the result will be to stifle any exploration of the childs own thoughts and explanations. We need to set up discussions where the class and teacher explore currently
held ideas in science and their surroundings in a practical exploratory manner, where
the teacher can be questioned and where the child does not fear being questioned.
More importantly, we need to allow children time to explore and think about what
they have found in a supportive, relaxed environment. Neurologists have found that
we often have creative, original thoughts but we lose them in a mass of other information being processed by our brains. It will be familiar to all how many more innovative
ideas we have when we have time and are relaxed when on holiday for example. Children also need relaxed time at school. This seems unlikely in the pressured environment
of our primary schools where every minute of the teacher-led literacy and numeracy
sessions are accounted for and where teachers and children are under pressure to
produce results. Perhaps in science, if we resist mimicking the controlled teaching style
of these strategies, we can allow children the space, confidence, practical experiences
and time to think, and thereby allow them to be truly creative.

Notes
1

Useful books for developing teachers subject knowledge in science: Devereux, J. (2000) Developing
Primary Subject Knowledge in Science, PCP; or Wenham, M. (1995) Understanding Primary Science, PCP.

90

Creativity in science

Useful primary science text: Harlen, W. (2000) (3rd edn) The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools.
London: David Fulton.

For a range of writing frames to support the planning of investigations and recording in science see
Nuffield (1998) Science and Literacy: A Guide for Teachers. Collins.

Contact your local police authority for information about Junior Citizen training courses.

The work of the CLIS project is described in Driver, R. et al. (1994) Making Sense of Secondary Science:
Research into Childrens Ideas, Routledge. Nuffield Primary Science draws on the SPACE research on
childrens ideas in primary schools (see www.nuffield.org.uk).

For more information on writing workshops see Wyse, D. (1998) Primary Writing. Open University Press.

Further reading
Adey, P., Serret, N., Robertson, W. and Nagy, F. (2003) Lets Think through Science. NFER-Nelson.
Ambrose, J. and Edmondson, R. (2003) Lets Think in Year 1. Presented at the Cognitive Acceleration
Convention 2003 at the Hilton Hotel, Paddington.
DfEE (2000) The National Curriculum Handbook for Primary Teachers in England Key Stage 1 and 2: London: QCA.
Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Feasey, R. (2003) Creative futures, in ASE, Primary Science Review, 78, May/June.
Harlen, W. (2000) The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools (3rd edn). London: David Fulton.
Jelly, S. (1985) Helping children to raise questions and answering them, in Harlen, W. (ed.) Primary
Science: Taking the Plunge. London: Heinemann.
Kruger, C., Summers, M. and Palacio, D. (1989) INSET for primary science in the National Curriculum in
England and Wales: Are the real needs of teachers perceived? Journal for Education in Teaching, 16(2).
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, O. (1995) Subject matter knowledge, classroom management and instructional practices in middle
school science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4).
Littledyke, M. (1997) Science education for environmental awareness. Paper presented at the Third
Summer Conference for Teacher Education in Primary Science, University of Durham, July.
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (eds) (1998) Beyond 2000 Science Education for the Future. London: Kings College.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) All our Futures:
Creativity, Culture and Education. London: DfEE.
Nuffield (1995) Primary Science. London: Collins Educational.
Ofsted (2002) Science in Primary Initial Training. London: HMSO.
Osborne, R. and Freyberg, P. (1985) Learning in Science: the Implications of Childrens Science. London:
Heinemann.
Sutton, C (1996) Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1).
Tobin, K. and Fraser, B. (1990) What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27(1).
Watson, J. (1970) The Double Helix. London: Penguin.
Ziman, J. (1968) Public Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

91