Previous research on the scientific creativity of children has been limited. The most salient limitations of previous literature have been: (a) narrowness of theoretical frameworks, (b) limitedness in using a variety of science process skills, (c) ignorance of the gender differences in scientific creativity, and (d) ignorance of elementary school students. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Scientific Creativity Test for fifth-grade students to identify scientific creativity in those students. A related purpose was to investigate the gender differences in scientific creativity. The Scientific Creativity Test consisted of three subtests: Problems and Solutions, Grouping of Flowers, and Design an Experiment. The test was administered to 138 fifth-grade students from six different elementary schools. The reliability analysis showed that the Scientific Creativity Test had a .89 coefficient as a consistency of scores. The concurrent validity analysis indicated that the Scientific Creativity Test had medium correlations with Teachers' Ratings of students' Scientific Ability (r = .42), Science Content Knowledge (r = .42), and Scientific Creativity (r = .51). The interrater reliability of the three items rated by two independent raters [1C (designing a construction about a solution), 2D (drawing a diagram about the relationships among the groups of flowers), and 3B (drawing an experiment to develop a solution for the environmental problem)], using the Consensual Assessment Technique showed medium to high correlations. The General Linear Modeling (GLM) Repeated Measures Two-Way Analysis of Variance indicated no overall significant differences between males and females. An interaction effect, however, was found. Females performed better than males in Subtest II (Grouping of Flowers) and slightly better in Subtest III (Design an Experiment). The analysis using the independent-samples t test indicated no significant differences between females and males in the scientific creativity test except in four items: 2A (grouping flowers) Fluency, 2A Flexibility, 2A Originality, and 2A Complexity. These differences were in favor of females. The findings present support of the psychometric properties of the Scientific Creativity Test in the identification of scientific creativity in children.

A l'origine de cette thèse il y a le constat d’une science en changement. Ce changement se caractérise par deux grandes tendances globales : la dépendance croissante à des grands équipements coûteux et partagés et la production de données de masse qui sont également très coûteuses à stocker et gérer. Dans les deux cas ces ressources sont financées par des programmes publics et proposés à la communauté scientifique selon un principe d’ouverture à des utilisateurs extérieurs sous forme de Infrastructures de recherche (IR). Plusieurs facteurs peuvent nous amener à penser que les IR sont des lieux favorables à la créativité. Cependant les moyens par lesquels les IR favorisent la créativité n’ont pas été étudiés. L’objectif de cette thèse est de répondre à cette question. La problématique se décline en deux sous-questions de recherche. D’abord nous nous demandons, comment les IR peuvent-elles contribuer à la créativité scientifique de leurs utilisateurs ? Puis nous nous interrogeons sur : comment mesurer cet impact ? / At the origin of this thesis there is the observation of a changing science. This change is characterized by two major global trends: the growing reliance on large expensive and shared equipment and the production of mass data which are also very expensive to store and manage. In both cases these resources are financed by public programs and proposed to the scientific community according to a principle of openness to external users in the form of Research Infrastructures (RIs). Several factors may lead us to believe that RIs are favourable places for creativity. However, the means by which RIs promote creativity have not been studied. The purpose of this thesis is to answer this question. The research question is divided into two sub-questions of research. First, we wonder how IRs can contribute to the scientific creativity of their users. Then we ask ourselves: how to measure this impact

Fostering students’ creativity in school subjects has recently become a central focus of educational researchers, educators, and educational policymakers around the world. In Kuwait, educational researchers and teacher educators have supported the need to foster students’ creativity via a national curriculum. Yet, the Ministry of Education has conducted few studies to explore practitioners’ perspectives on how to foster creativity through the current curriculum. The overall aims of this study were to explore science teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices in fostering creativity in science classrooms as well as to investigate the influences of sociocultural factors on teachers’ beliefs and practices in fostering creativity. The study also examined the consistency and inconsistency levels between teachers’ beliefs and practices. The study has a qualitative nature that stands on an interpretive worldview. The methodology uses eight case studies, each of which consisted of a male science teacher and one of his classes. Multiple methods were used, including semi-structured interviews (pre- and post-observational interviews), student focus groups, unstructured observations, participants’ drawings, and field notes. The analysis was based on thematic analysis model proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Thematic findings and case studies findings were drawn from the analysis of the data collected. In general, the thematic findings indicated that science teachers are able to define the meaning of creativity and its main aspects. Professed pedagogical beliefs enforce four teaching approaches to foster creativity in the science classroom: the teaching of thinking skills, inquiry-based learning, cooperative learning, and practical investigation (experimentation). The teachers believe that these approaches could promote students’ creativity in science classroom when specific sociocultural factors facilitate the effectiveness of such approaches in terms of fostering creativity. Three interdependent categories represent these facilitating factors: (1) educational setting-related factors, (2) teacher-related factors, and (3) student-related factors. Differences and similarities appeared when these professed beliefs were compared to the applied classroom practices. The thematic analysis revealed several themes underlying the main categories. Extensive teacher-centred practices and modest student-centred practices were evident; more specifically, the observations revealed primarily teacher-centred approach inside the science classes. Meanwhile, student-centred approaches were modestly applied in comparison to teacher-centred activities. The teachers justified their practices in accordance with the sociocultural factors that mediate their beliefs and practices as well as the role of their goal orientation. The science teachers perceived the mediating factors as constraints that prevent them from applying their beliefs about fostering creativity in classroom practices. Multiple constraining factors emerged, and they were categorised into personal, external, and interpersonal constraints. Concerning the case study findings, consistencies and inconsistencies were identified using a cut-off point as an analytic technique to classify teachers’ beliefs and practices into traditional (non-creativity fostering), mixed, or progressive (creativity fostering). The case study findings identified four consistency and inconsistency levels characterizing teachers’ beliefs and practices: traditional (consistent level), mainly traditional (inconsistent level), mixed (consistent level), and mainly progressive (inconsistent level). Each level was represented by an exemplary case study. The exemplary case studies revealed that sociocultural contexts influence teacher’s belief-practice relationship with respect to fostering students’ creativity in science classroom. Further, the thematic and case study findings were discussed in relation to the existing body of knowledge, followed by an illustration of significant conclusions, including some implications, contributions, limitations, and future suggestions.