Improving creative thinking skills of students through differentiated science ınquiry ıntegrated with mind map


  • Siti Zubaıdah Universitas Negeri Malang, INDONESIA
  • Nur Miftahul Fuad SMPN 2 Puncu Kediri, INDONESIA
  • Susriyati Mahanal Universitas Negeri Malang, INDONESIA
  • Endang Suarsını niversitas Negeri Malang, INDONESIA



creative thinking skills,, differentiated science inquiry, gender, mind map


In inquiry-based learning, teachers usually only apply one level of inquiry from the four available levels. The diversity of students should be a serious consideration. Differentiated Learning Science Inquiry (DSI) implements the four levels of inquiry. To train students’ creative thinking, inquiry can be integrated with mind maps. This research aims to determine the difference in creative thinking skills between male and female students who were given three different science learning models i.e., DSI, DSI integrated with mind map (DSIMM), and the conventional model. This research was a quasi-experimental research, which used a nonequivalent pretest posttest control group design. The samples of the research were 96 students from three classes spreading across three junior high schools in Kediri, Indonesia. The data on students’ creative thinking skills were taken from an essay test on science learning assessed using a creative thinking skills rubric. The results of the research showed that there was a difference in students' creative thinking skills for different models. The highest creative thinking skills were exhibited by the students taught using the DSIMM model. The results of the research also showed that there was a difference in creative thinking skills between the male and the female students. The male students had higher creative thinking skills than the female students. This was presumably because in the differences of brain anatomy affecting the students’ pattern of learning and activities.


Download data is not yet available.


Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609-618.

Abraham, A. Thybusch, K., Pieritz, K., & Hermann, C. (2014). Gender differences in creative thinking: behavioral and FMRI findings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8(1), 39-51.

Aktamis, H., Higde, E., & Ozden, B. (2016). Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’ achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science: A meta-analysis science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 248-261.

Al-Jarf, R. (2009). Enhancing freshman students’ writing skills with a mind mapping software. Paper presented at the 5th International Scientific Conference, eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, 9-10 April 2009.

Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 25-31.

Baer, J. & Kaufman, J.C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.

Baker, M. & Rudd, R. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51(1), 173-188.

Bakir, S. & Oztekin, E. (2104). Creative thinking levels of preservice science teachers in terms of different variables. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 231-242.

Boden, M. (2001). Creativity in education. London: Continuum.

Buzan, T. (2002). How to mind map: The ultimate thinking tool that will change your life. London: Thorson.

Charyton, C. & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 213-225.

Christidou, V. (2008). Introducing children in sciences. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis.

Cook, J. L., & Cook, G. (2005). Child development: Principles & perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Daud, A. M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., & Osman, K. (2012). Creativity in science education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 467- 474.

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kaper, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Ltd.

Fin, L. S. & Ishak, Z. (2012). A priori model of student’s academic achievement: The effect of gender as moderator. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 1092-1100.

Fuad, N. M., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2015). Profil hasil belajar, keterampilan berpikir kritis dan kreatif siswa serta strategi pembelajaran yang diterapkan guru SMP di Kediri (The profile of learning outcomes, critical and creative thinking skills students and teacher learning strategy applied SMP in Kediri), Proceeding of the National Seminar and Workshop on Biology and Its Learning), Biology Department FMIPA UM, Malang, October 17, 2015 (pp. 807-815).

Fuad, N. M., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2017). Improving junior high schools’ critical thinking skills based on test three different models of learning. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 101-116.

Gurian, M., Stevens, K., Patricia, H. & Terry, T. (2010). Boys and girls learn differently: A guide for teachers and parent. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.

Greenstein, L. (2012). Accessing 21 century skills: To guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. USA: Corwin.

Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: effect on gender difference performance, conceptual learning, and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 776-788.

Harris, C. J. & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science. Journal Science Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.

Handoko, F., Nursanti, E., Harmanto, D., & Sutriono, (2016). The role of tacit and codified knowledge within technology transfer program on technology adaptation. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 11(8):5275-5282.

Hadzigeorgiou1, Y., Fokialis, P., & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education. Creative Education. 3(5), 603-611.

He, W. & Wong, W. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality & Individual Differences, 51(7), 807-811.

He, W., Wong, W., Li, Y., & Xu, H. (2013). A study of the greater male variability hypothesis in creative thinking in Mainland China: Male superiority exists. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 882–886.

Hines, M. (2004). Brain gender. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodiyanto. (2014). Meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa melalui pembelajaran pemecahan masalah ditinjau dari gender (Improving students' creative thinking skills through solving problems learning related to gender). Jurnal Pendidikan Informatika dan Sains, 3(1), 27-41.

Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2/3), 167-180.

Johnson, A. P. (2000). Up and out: Using creative and critical thinking skills to enhance learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 1065-1082.

Keles, O. (2012). Elementary teacher's views on mind mapping. International Journal of Education, 4(1), 93-100.

Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1-37.

Lane, J. L. (2007). Inquiry-based learning. Retrieved 5/8/2016, from

Listiana, L., Susilo, H., Suwono, H., & Suarsini, E. (2016). Empowering students’ metacognitive skills through new teaching strategy (Group investigation integrated with think talk write). Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(3), 391-400.

Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. California. Corwin A Sage Company.

Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high science through inquiry and argumentation. California: Corwin A Sage Company.

Long, D. & Carlson, D. (2011). Mind the map: How thinking maps affect student achievement. Journal for Teacher Research, 13(2), 1-7.

Mahanal, S., Zubaidah, S., Bahri, A., & Dinnurriya, M. S. (2016). Improving students’ critical thinking skills through Remap NHT in biology classroom. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 17(2).

Matud, M., Rodríguez, C. C., & Grande, J. J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality & Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137-1147.

Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29.

Michalopoulou, A. (2008). The development of children’s aptitude for comparison in kindergarten. International Journal of Learning, 15, 219-224.

Michalopoulou, A. (2014). Inquiry-based learning through the creative thinking and expression in early year education. Creative Education, 5, 377-385.

Minstrell, J., & Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: an exploration of theory and practice. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Nurhadi, Lukman, Abas, R., Erni, Yuliana, & Hamrina. (2016). Implementation of inquiry based learning to improve understanding the concept of electric dynamic and creative thinking skills (An empirical study in class IX Junior High School students state 4 Kendari). International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(3), 471-479.

Olasehinde, K. J. & Olatoye, R. A. (2014). Comparison of male and female senior secondary school students’ learning outcomes in science in Katsina State, Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 517-522.

Olson, S. & Horsley, S.L. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards, a guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academies Press.

Ong, E. T., Mesman, N., & Yeam, K. P. (2014). Exploring attitudes towards science among Malay and Aboriginal primary students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(3), 21-34.

Ozdemir, O. & Isik, H. (2015). Effect of inquiry-based science activities on prospective elementary teachers’ use of science process skills and inquiry strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(1), 43-56.

Potur, A. & Barkul, Ö. (2009). Gender and creative thinking in education: a theoretical and experimental overview. ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 6(2), 44-57.

Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, A.D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students with high and low level academic achievement, Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(2), 266-277.

Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking fuqua school of business, Duke University. Psychological Science, 1, 1-11.

Reuter, M., Panskepp, J., Schnabel, N., Kellerhoff, N., Kempel, P., & Hennig, J. (2005). Personality and biological markers of creativity. European Journal of Personality, 19(2), 83-95.

Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89.

Santrock, J. W. (2011). Educational psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Seyihoglu, A. & Kartal, A. (2010). The views of teaching about mind mapping technique in elementary life science and social science lesson based constructivist method. Educational Science: Theory & Practice, 10(3), 1637-1656.

Singh, S. K. (2014). Creative thinking among school students: comparisons across achievement category, gender, and residential background. Resesarch Journal of Social Science & Management, 4(1), 62-67.

Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Steyn, T. & Boer. (1998). Mind mapping as a study tool for underprepared students in mathematics and science. Journal of Ethnology, 21(3), 125-131.

Stoltzfus, G., Nibbelink, B. L., Vredenburg D., & Thyrum, E. (2011). Gender, gender role, and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(3), 425-432.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., & Selby E. C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Sarasota: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Center for Creative Learning.

Tsai, K. C. (2013). Examining gender differences in creativity. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 115-122.

Weinstein, D. (2014). Mind map: A lesson in creativity. The Utah Journal of Literacy, 17(1), 44-51.

Wheeldon, J. (2011). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Using mind maps to facilitate participant recall in. The Qualitative Report.

Wheeler, S., Bromfield, C. & Waite, S. J. (2002). Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 367-378.

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 297-310.

Wyatt, S. (2005). Extending inquiry-based learning to include original experimentation. The Journal of General Education, 54(1), 83-89.

Yusnaeni, Corebima, A.D., Susilo, H., & Zubaidah, S. (2017). Creative thinking of low academic student undergoing search solve create and share learning integrated with metacognitive strategy. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 245-262.

Zip, G. & Maher, C. (2013). Prevalence of mind mapping as a teaching and learning strategy in physical therapy curricula. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(5), 21-32.






15.12.2017 — Updated on 15.12.2017


How to Cite

Zubaıdah, S. ., Fuad, N. M. ., Mahanal, S. ., & Suarsını, E. (2017). Improving creative thinking skills of students through differentiated science ınquiry ıntegrated with mind map. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(4), 77-91.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 456

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.