Comparative content analysis of the Biology book of eleventh year of high school and the Natural Sciences book of American high Schools based on Guilford's creativity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Graduate Student of Cellular Biology, Kharazmi University of Tehran

2 Graduate Student of Biology at Farhangian University

3 Elementary school student of Shahid Faraji high school of experimental science District 9 Education of Tehran

Abstract

One of the most important educational goals in developed countries is boom and creativity. Education as the most important educational institution with the production of creative content can be very influential in this regard. The research method is a content analysis using the Guilford Creativity and it is Applied. The statistical population consists of the content of the Biology book of eleventh year of high school and the book of natural sciences in high schools of the United States. In the first step, questions, pictures, activities and text of books were identified and coded. In the second phase, all units in all sections with the class were matched in terms of Guilford's creativity indices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the content of the motion section of the Biology book of eleventh year, attention is not paid to the levels of cognitive memory and convergent thinking, Depending on the level of creativity of Guilford. But attention has been paid to other levels, including divergent thinking and evaluation thinking. While the text of the book of natural sciences in high schools in the United States has focused on levels of cognitive memory and convergent thinking, But, the other levels, including divergent thinking and evaluative thinking, there has not been much attention. Thus, the Biology book of eleventh year has paid more attention to The Guilford's creativity components than the school's natural science book.

Keywords

References

انارکی،  فیروز (1387). بررسی تاثیر فعالیت علوم بر پرورش خلاقیت کودکان پیش دبستانی. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه شهید رجایی.
سرداری گرده، باقر (1381). بررسی تحلیل محتوای کتب درسی علوم دوره ابندایی در رابطه با اعمال ذهنی و شاخص های خلاقیت از نظر گیلفورد. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
سلیمانی، افشین.(1388).کلاس خلاقیت (تمرین ها و روش های عملی پرورش خلاقیت برای معلمان و مربیان). چاپ چهارم: تهران: انجمن اولیا و مربیان.
سلیمی، لیلا و عصاره، علیرضا (1392). ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮای ﮐﺘﺎب درﺳﯽ ﻋﻠﻮم ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯽ ﺳﺎل دوم راﻫﻨﻤﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺧﻼﻗﯿﺖ ﮔﯿﻠﻔﻮرد. ابتکار و خلاقیت در علوم انسانی، 2(4): 73-102.
کریمی، یوسف. (1395). روان شناسی تربیتی، چاپ سیزدهم، تهران: انتشارات ارسباران.
عیناوی، ندا.(1383). ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ و ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮای ﮐﺘﺎب ﻋﻠﻮم دوره اﺑﺘﺪاﯾﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺧﻼﻗﯿﺖ ﮔﯿﻠﻔﻮرد. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
مهدوی پور، محمدرضا (1387). ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮای ﮐﺘﺎب ﺷﯿﻤﯽ ﻧﻈﺎم ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻖ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺧﻼﻗﯿﺖ ﮔﯿﻠﻔﻮرد و ﻣﻬﺎرت حل مساله گانیه. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه شهید رجایی.
Linda Niman (2007). Whats Creativity, http://www.creativityatwork.com/?s=creativity (2013, Nov. 3)
Pandey, S., Sharma, RRK. (2009) Organizational Factors for Exploration and Exploitation. journal of Technology Management & Innovation,48-58.
Stojanova, B. (2010). Development of creativity as a basic task of the modern educational System. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2): 3395–3400.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking–Norms—Technical Manual Research Edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B—Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton NJ: Personnel Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics