SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity / 2016 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Why Thought Experiments Should Be Used as an Educational Tool to Develop Problem-Solving Skills and Creativity of the Gifted Students?

Hasan Said TORTOP
Pages
35–48
Publication Date
2016-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Many educational tools that are recommended for the training of normal students are often encountered in programs that do not work very well and are subsequently abandoned.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One of the important points that program developers should now consider is that teaching tools are presented in accordance with individual differences.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:gifted education · creativity · intuition

Abstract

Many educational tools that are recommended for the training of normal students are often encountered in programs that do not work very well and are subsequently abandoned. One of the important points that program developers should now consider is that teaching tools are presented in accordance with individual differences. It is seen that the instructional approach suggested as argument-based learning is tried to be applied in Turkey. However, the tools used are the basic argumentation tools. It has been argued in this study that the use of "thoughtexperiment", one of the advanced argumentation tools, is appropriate for gifted students rather than normal students. The evidence-based data on thought experiments in which important scientists used in the history of science rather limited. In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.

Özet

Many educational tools that are recommended for the training of normal students are often encountered in programs that do not work very well and are subsequently abandoned. One of the important points that program developers should now consider is that teaching tools are presented in accordance with individual differences. It is seen that the instructional approach suggested as argument-based learning is tried to be applied in Turkey. However, the tools used are the basic argumentation tools. It has been argued in this study that the use of "thought experiment", one of the advanced argumentation tools, is appropriate for gifted students rather than normal students. The evidence-based data on thought experiments in which important scientists used in the history of science rather limited. In this study, the thought experiments are explained and the arguments about why the thought experiments should be used in gifted education are presented by providing information about important thought experiments and types.

🔖

Cite This Article

TORTOP, H. S. (2016). Why Thought Experiments Should Be Used as an Educational Tool to Develop Problem-Solving Skills and Creativity of the Gifted Students?. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 35–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/238659

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2002). Aktif Öğrenme: Dünya Öğreniminde Yeni Yöneliş. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik, (822), 172Baer, J (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training, Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
  2. Bernstein, J., (2006). Albert Einstein Fiziği Sınırları. Çeviri. Yasemin Uzunefe Yazgan. Ankara: Tübitak Popüler Bilim Kitapları. Clement, J. (2006). Designing classroom thought experiments: what we can learn from imagery indicators and expert protocols. NARST. San Fransisco. Clement,J. (2008). Creative Model construction in scientists and students. Massachusetts: Springer. Colton, S., & Steel, G. (1999). Artificial intelligence and scientific creativity. ArtificialIntelligence and the Study of Behaviour Quarterly, 102. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. InSternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity, chap. 13, sf. 325–339.
  3. CambridgeUniversity Press,
  4. Cambridge, UK. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, M.,& Gardner H. (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity(sf.135-158).
  5. Westport, CT: Praeger. Dönertaş, Ş. (2011). Kavramsal fizik problemlerinin çözümünde düşünce deneylerinin rolü. DoktoraTezi. Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Ankara. Galilei Galileo (1638). Two New Sciences Galilei Galileo. Çev. Henry Crew ve Alfonso deSalvio. 2003.
  6. Galilei, Galileo. (1632/2008).
  7. İki Dünya Sistemi Hakkında Diyalog, Çeviri.Reşit Aşçıoğlu.Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.s.258-259.
  8. Gardner, H. (1994). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books Georgiou, A., (2005).Thought experiments in physics problem-solving: on ıntuition and ımagisticsimulation, Unpublished Master Thesis. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Heisnberg, W., (1964). Fizik ve Felsefe. Çeviri. Yılmaz Öner. 2000. Belge UluslararasıYayıncılık. İstanbul.
  9. Helm, H., Gilbert, J., Watts, D.M., (1985) Thought Experiments and Physics Education-Part 2. Physics Education, 20, 211-17
  10. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students.International Journal of ScienceEducation, 24(4), 389-403. İpekoğlu Y., (2000). Bohr-Einstein Tartışması. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi. Ekim.52-54
  11. Johnson, A.P. (2015). Creativity and Intuition. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2),9-21 Julian Baggini & Peter S. Fosl (2003) The Philosopher's To