Thinking about evolution: Combinatorial play as a strategy for exercising scientific creativity

Journal of Biological Education

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 50-53

  Wingate, Richard J T ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Creativity; Evodevo; Evolution; Neuroanatomy

Indexed keywords

VERTEBRATA;

EID: 81255196401     PISSN: 00219266     EISSN: 21576009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2011.537840     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Amundson, R. 2005. The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bruner, I. 1960. The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Duschl, R. 2000. Making the nature of science explicit. In Improving science education, eds. R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne, 187-206. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.
4. Harding, P. and W. Hare. 2000. Portraying science accurately in the classroom: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 225-36.
5. Heathcote, D. and G. Bolton. 1995. Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of expert approach to education. New York, NY: Heinemann.
6. Knor Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions, vol. 2.2, 210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. Lederman, N.G. 2006. Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education, vol. 25, eds. L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman, 301-17. Dordrecht: Springer.
9. McComas, W.F. 1998. The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In The nature of science in science education, vol. 5, ed. W.F. McComas, 53-70. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
10. McComas, W.F. and J.K. Olson. 1998. The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In The nature of science in science education, vol. 5, ed. W.F. McComas, 41-52. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. McPeck, J.E. 1981. Critical thinking and education. Oxford: Martin Robinson and Company.
12. Millar, R. 1989. Bending the evidence: The relationship between theory and experiment in science education. In Doing science: Images of science in science education, ed. R. Millar, 38-61. London: The Falmer Press.
13. Nieuwenhuys, R., H.J. ten Donkelaar, and C. Nicholson. 1998. The central nervous system of vertebrates. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
14. Popper, K. 1934 [2002]. The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford: Routledge.
15. Schwab, J.J. and Brandwein, P.F. 1966. The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Schwartz, R.S. and Crawford, B.A. 2006. Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education, vol. 25, eds. L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman, 331-55. Dordrecht: Springer.
17. Tobin, K. and Tippins, D. 1993. Constructivism as a referrant for teaching and learning. In The practice of constructivism in science education, ed. K. Tobin, 3-21. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Wandersee, J.H. and L.M. Roach. 1998. Interactive historical vignettes. In Teaching science for understanding, ed. J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee and J.D. Novak, ch. 11. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. Wilson, S. 2010. Art and science now. London: Thames and Hudson.
20. Winchester, I. 1993. 'Science is dead. We have killed it, you and I' - How attacking the presuppositional structures of our scientific age can doom the interrogation of nature. Interchange 24: 191-8.
21. Yore, L.D., B. M. Hand. and M.K. Florence. 2004. Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41: 338-69.
22. Ziman, J. 1984. An introduction to science studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.