Pen Academic Publishing
Journals • Publish with us • Publishing partnership • About Us • Türkçe
Research article | Open Access
Journal of Educational Philosophy and Sociology 2025, Vol 6(1) 31-57

The Effect of STEAM-Based Activities on Collective Creativity of Gifted Students in Science Classes

Çağatay NALÇAOĞLU • Aynur Doğru • Sezgin Yaprak
Cite this article
Article Type
Research article
Publication Date
June 30, 2025
Pages
31-57
DOI
10.29329/jeps.2025.1332.2

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of STEAM-based activities on the development of collective creativity among gifted middle school students in science classrooms. Conducted in a Science and Art Center, the intervention engaged 45 students in a 50-hour series of hands-on, collaborative design challenges that required them to illuminate an LED bulb in fifty different ways. The process emphasized experimentation, iterative thinking, and peer interaction—key components of collective creativity in a STEAM framework. The creativity levels of students were assessed using a multidimensional instrument administered before and after the intervention. Results revealed significant increases across all dimensions, including individual and collective creativity, cognitive and affective engagement, classroom environment perception, and perceived teacher support. While no significant differences were observed in creativity outcomes based on school type or gender, 8th-grade students demonstrated comparatively higher growth, suggesting a developmental trend associated with age. Qualitative observations supported the quantitative findings, highlighting the role of group dynamics, problem-solving dialogue, and teacher facilitation in shaping a productive classroom climate. Students actively engaged in open-ended inquiry, shared responsibilities, and showed increasing willingness to take creative risks. Reflective journals revealed that many students experienced shifts in their perception of creativity—from an individual trait to a shared cognitive process. The study emphasizes the pedagogical value of integrating STEAM activities in gifted education programs and positions collective creativity not as a secondary outcome, but as a central goal of science instruction. These findings provide actionable insights for curriculum designers, policymakers, and educators aiming to create inclusive and innovation-oriented learning environments that move beyond rote knowledge and foster transformative, student-centered creativity.

Keywords: STEAM Education Collective Creativity Gifted Studentsi Science Classrooms and LED Experiments
Cite this article
NALÇAOĞLU, Ç., Doğru, A., & Yaprak, S. (2025). The Effect of STEAM-Based Activities on Collective Creativity of Gifted Students in Science Classes. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Sociology, 6(1), 31-57. https://doi.org/10.29329/jeps.2025.1332.2

  • Aguilera, D., & Ortiz-Revilla, J. (2021). STEAM education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 11(8), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Alkış Küçükaydın, M., & Akkanat Avşar, S. (2025). Adaptation of the Science Classroom Creativity Scale (SCC) to Turkish culture and its validation study. Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Barak, M. (2013). Impacts of learning inventive problem-solving principles: Students’ transition from systematic searching to heuristic problem solving. Instructional Science, 41(4), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9250-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. In M. Kaufman (Ed.), Creativity and innovation in the classroom (pp. 27–41). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Craft, A. (2015). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Trentham Books. [Google Scholar]
  • Demirhan, E., & Köksal, M. S. (2021). The effects of collaborative inquiry-based science teaching on students’ science process skills and creative thinking. Science Education International, 32(3), 217–226. [Google Scholar]
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Fosterk, S., & Silverman, L. (2015). The affective side of giftedness: How teachers can support emotional development. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), [A1][A2]125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Ghahremani, A., Karami, A., & Shirkhani, S. (2022). Collaborative creativity in gifted learners: A process–outcome framework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221107375 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Hong, E., & Song, Y. (2020). Creativity in science classrooms: An ecosystemic framework. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 495–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09508-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Hong, E., Choi, I., & Song, Y. (2022). Development and validation of the Science Classroom Creativity (SCC) scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(4), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  • Karnes, F. A., Stephens, K. R., & Whorton, J. E. (2004). Teacher behaviors that encourage creativity in gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 38–44. [Google Scholar]
  • Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2023). Effects of STEAM instruction on creativity in culturally diverse gifted students. Roeper Review, 45(2), 102–116. [Google Scholar]
  • Konkuş, Y., & Topsakal, Ü. (2022). The impact of STEAM activities on gifted students’ teamwork and attitudes: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Science Learning, 5(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v5i1.47681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Lage-Gómez, C., & Ros, C. (2023). Transdisciplinary learning and creativity development in gifted education: Findings from a three-year STEAM program. Gifted Education International, 39(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294221145632 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • McLean, L. (2015). The learning environment and its impact on the development of creative thinking: A review of literature. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 16(13), 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  • Mercin, L. (2019). Interdisciplinary creativity in the visual arts. In Özer, S., & Demirbatır, E. (2023). Creativity and interdisciplinary education in the 21st century (pp. 97–111). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  • OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 framework. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/ [Google Scholar]
  • OECD. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Özgün, D., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2022). The impact of STEAM practices on gifted students’ scientific creativity and self-efficacy. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1052681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Park, H., Byun, Y. C., & Kim, K. J. (2019). Effects of maker-centered science learning on middle school students’ creativity and perceptions of the science classroom environment. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(6), 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  • Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford handbook of group creativity and innovation. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Sarıtepeci, M. (2020). The effect of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude and motivation in science courses: A meta-analytic and thematic review. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(1), 124–143. [Google Scholar]
  • Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  • Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Stinkeste, J., van der Velde, H., & van Aalderen-Smeets, S. (2021). Co-creativity and emotional safety in primary school STEAM projects: The role of team climate. Creative Education, 12(3), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.123036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Sun, K., Wu, Y., & Tsai, M. (2020). Enhancing creativity in gifted students through maker-centered learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(2), 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19887498 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Timotheou, M., & Ioannou, A. (2021). Collective creativity in maker education: Elementary students working with arts and technology to create musical instruments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100831 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Tran, M. T., Le, H. T., & Nguyen, Q. V. (2021). Integrating STEAM to promote creativity in middle school students: A case study from Vietnam. Frontiers in Education, 6, 702712. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.702712 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Ülger, B., & Çepni, S. (2020). Effect of STEM activities on gifted students’ attitudes and creativity. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 7(2), 97–111. [Google Scholar]
  • van Tassel-Baska, J. (2018). Curriculum planning and instruction for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Yoon, S. A., Evans, C. A., & Strobel, J. (2014). Validation of the Design-based Learning model in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang, Y., Wang, W., & Liu, X. (2021). Distributed creativity in interdisciplinary learning: A multilevel analysis in Chinese STEAM classrooms. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.442 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]