Authors : Prashant Kumar Mishra; Dr. Amrita Katyayni

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 11 - November

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2x9zm9z2

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/464e8dpe

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25nov974

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Scientific creativity is a skill that enables students to think critically, solve real-world problems innovatively and apply scientific reasoning. This study examines the experiential learning enabling environment of schools and scientific creativity of its students. The study has employed mixed-method of research design, where both qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted. The sample was selected by stratified random sampling technique of Ajmer city. The data was collected with the help of Verbal Test of Scientific Creativity (VTSC) by Dr. V.P. Sharma and Dr. J.P. Shukla (1985) and Observation Schedule based on Experiential Learning Enabling Environment developed by the researcher. The study reveals that there is average levels of scientific creativity of students. However, gender and socio-economic status do not influence the scientific creativity significantly. The results further indicated that the experiential learning enabling environment in schools plays a crucial role in fostering scientific creativity among students as significant difference was observed between both. Schools that provided interactive, hands-on learning experiences demonstrated higher levels of scientific creativity rather than those using traditional teaching methods. The study highlights the importance of promoting experiential learning environments in schools to enhance students’ scientific creativity. It suggests that integrating inquiry-based and student-centered learning approaches into the curriculum can significantly improve students’ engagement with science.

Keywords : Scientific Creativity, Experiential Learning, Middle-Stage Students, Socio-Economic Status, Gender.

References :

1. Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential learning: Its effects on achievement and scientific process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 15-26.
2. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 42(2), 75-105.
3. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Do we all have multicreative potential? ZDM, 41(1), 39-44.
4. DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 172-181.
5. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
6. Jiusto, S., & DiBiasio, D. (2006). Experiential learning environments: Do they prepare our students to be self‐directed, life‐long learners? Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 195-204.
7. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science.
8. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
9. Raj, H.A.N.S., & Saxena, D. R. (2016). Scientific creativity: A Review of researches. European Academic Research, 4(2), 1122-1138.
10. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity research journal, 24(1), 92-96.
11. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity, 1(3-15).