التربية من أجل الإبداع في العلوم ٢_a .. كتاب الإبداع وتربية

Now suppose that this description of the creative process and creative scientists is correct, and as long as our purpose is to increase creativity in science, the important question is: the educational method that increases the number of creative individuals and increases their scientific creativity at the same time?

In answering this question, we would like to note that we did not claim that what we said about creativity and innovators are scientific facts that do not rise to any doubt. Therefore, it is natural that our answer to the question posed is of a speculative nature. The main problem is proposing an educational process that allows mastering the strict methods of trial. Then he collected large collections of facts and theories that make up current knowledge. Then inculcate the habits of efficient use of available ideas and facts without allowing repression or mental inflexibility that limits free and imaginative research and benefit from acquired knowledge and skills.

And if we focus our attention, at present, on the needs of the individual, not the society, we can identify the basic characteristics of the educational process that are designed to increase productivity in the sciences:

We must instill in the learner the habit of skepticism, the habit of criticizing information, encouraging and stimulating non-conventional interpretations of experience, and this is especially necessary in problem-solving. It is of great importance, especially in childhood and adolescence, that we encourage new ideas and novel applications and not rush to criticize and denounce them.

Since the organized information is kept in memory, it is necessary to emphasize the principles, laws, constructive relationships, and the like. We should also encourage the development of habits and skills in searching for ideas and the possibility of their interdependence and interest in achieving results and validating them.

After that, we must help the maturing individual to develop an integrated method commensurate with his personality, abilities, and knowledge, and use it in approaching the problem, through research or otherwise, in his field of interest.

And what we said about the scientific researcher is true about the engineers whose work includes the horizons of science and technology.. Whether we refer to the scientific researcher or the engineer, the creativity of each of them depends on expanding the horizons of his information, especially in the field of his specialization and related fields, and from here it was necessary for the innovator to follow up Learning and obtaining information.

Let us assume now that what we said previously gives the necessary specifications for an educational program for creativity in science, but what do we do after that? We now have no useful way of predicting faithfully and reliably which individuals will be creative in the sciences or in any other field, no matter how much effort we put into nurturing them. We do not believe that such a method will appear in the near future. Therefore, Weissner believes that the method is to take students who have the minimum level of intelligence necessary for creativity in science. Intelligence (IQ) of not less than 130. He indicates that there are a large number of men and women who have this IQ and who have not had the opportunity to enter the university. Therefore, he suggests that all of them, regardless of their race, gender or nationality, be provided with higher education opportunities.

He then refers to the importance of excitement and suspense and says: The interest in science and detachment from it cannot mature if appropriate and sufficient learning opportunities are not provided for the learners, and that creativity does not take place unless the education is exciting and interesting. It is proposed to increase the science classes or their curricula, but it is suggested that the topics that are taught in the science classes be truly scientific and presented to the learners in an appropriate manner. It also calls for raising the level of mathematics and science to suit students' abilities. It confirms the now well-known fact that children are capable of serious learning at a much earlier age than previously thought. Thus, the correct sciences and mathematics can be taught from the early grades.

Weissner points out that in the Soviet Union the duration of primary and secondary education is ten years (compared to twelve years in America). Nevertheless, every student studies physics for five years, mathematics for six years, biology for three years, and chemistry for four years, and the content of the lessons in the last two years is equivalent to the lessons given in the first two years of university in America.

Weissner criticizes the teaching of science in American secondary schools and universities in the light of his ideas and proposals. It is suggested that students be admitted to scientific disciplines on the basis of rigorous aptitude tests. He says that there is an urgent need to reform the teaching of science at the university level as well. He believes that the current emphasis on mock learning in colleges and universities and not resorting to real scientific research at the undergraduate level is very harmful. Finally, he indicates that effort should be made to attract the best minds to the study of the sciences, and to restrict the employment to those who have been well trained.