Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 84Digital Storytelling and EducationCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceScience Education and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—the CCQ model for creativity

Open access
Smyrnaiou, Zacharoula, Georgakopoulou, Eleni, Sotiriou, Sofoklis·2020·International Journal of STEM Education

Abstract

Abstract Background This study presents the development of three research tools of scientific creativity. Our aim is to evaluate the development of student creativity while students write digital stories. Three models are linked to create a new model, called Creative, Cognitive, Qualitative Model for Creativity (CCQ tool). Our research tool examines how creativity can be standardized, first by researchers’ views and then by teachers and students’ creative products. The first tool is based on two existing tools; the Scientific Creativity Structure Model (SCSM) and the TTCT Figural Subscales, and on new characteristics, the effective learning environments, as we have developed them in the CREATIONS Program. We have tried to expand this tool by combining its key elements to the theoretical framework of creativity, as we have approached it in the CREATIONS and the STORIES Programs. The second tool “Students’ Creativity Evaluation Model” is a new tool that derives from empirical data and Grounded Theory methods. It examines the expected, original, and innovative ways of students’ thinking. The third tool “Experts’ Creativity Evaluation Model” allows us to examine the role of experts thinking on writing a story. It aims at tracking experts’ model of thinking and is viewed in comparison to the students’ creative model of thinking. We create a qualitative tool as we believe that a qualitative method delves deeper into students’ internal mechanisms of creativity. Results Twelve students’ stories from classrooms of different countries which participate to STORIES Program are analyzed indicatively by two independent researchers. The results seem to indicate that digital storytelling increases scientific creativity among students. Conclusions The main difference between expert and students’ approaches is that experts’ stories follow an up to bottom approach, while it is the opposite for students’ creative process. It has to be mentioned that almost all of the stories combined science with creative thinking. Students transformed their personal values into stories; therefore, this creative procedure was influenced by social, cultural, and ethnographical characteristics. The contribution of our research is that it offers a research tool that not only measures creativity but also studies the cognitive mechanisms involved in creative thinking.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40594-020-00223-6

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sharma, A., & Mahrshi, M. V. (2017). Construction and standardization of scientific creativity test. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences. 5 (6), ISSN 2349-4476. www.ijetmas.com.
  2. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Assessing scientific creativity: Conceptual analyses of assessment complexities. In National Research Council. (2014). Science of Science and Innovation Policy: Principal Investigators' Conference Summary. National Academies Press.

Cited by

See all 84

Metadata

Authors
Smyrnaiou, Z., Georgakopoulou, E., & Sotiriou, S.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Ellinogermaniki Agogi (GR)
Corresponding author
Smyrnaiou, Zacharoula
Venue
International Journal of STEM Education
Published
2020-06-16
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035324673
Cited by
84
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2
FWCI
17.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of STEM Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Horizon 2020 (731872, 66591)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Storytelling and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
scientific creativity, digital storytelling, effective learning environment, science education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.