Journal of Education and Future

year: 2023, issue:24, 1-14

DOI: 10.30786/jef.1294764

Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers'

Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

Article Type Received Date Accepted Date

Research 10.05.2023 20.09.2023

Sema Aydın Ceran*

Abstract
The aim of this study is to improve mothers' scientific literacy and children's scientific creativity
through science practices based on mother-child interaction. For this purpose, a training program
based on mother-child interaction and including scientific experiments and activities that can be
done at home and at school was prepared. The study was designed in a quasi-experimental design
within the framework of quantitative research methodology. The participants were 62 mothers and
their children (62 children) who had primary school 4th-grade level children in a public primary
school. The data of the study, which lasted 6 months during the 2021-2022 academic year, were
collected with the Scientific Literacy Test and the Scientific Creativity Test. The results obtained
from the study indicate that the science practices training program based on mother-child interaction
increased the scientific literacy level of mothers. In addition, it was concluded that mother-child
interactive activities were more effective in children's scientific creativity dimensions such as
scientific imagination, creative experimental ability, and creative scientific product design skill.
Also, it was determined that the children of mothers with high levels of scientific literacy showed
higher success in all sub-dimensions of scientific creativity compared to their controls.
Keywords: Mother training program, mother-child interaction, scientific literacy, scientific
creativity in primary school.
.

*
Assist. Prof. Dr., Selcuk University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Konya, Turkey.
E-mail: sema.aydinceran@selcuk.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-2766
2 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

Anne-Çocuk Etkileşimli Bilim Uygulamaları: Annelerin

Bilimsel Okuryazarlığı ve Çocukların Bilimsel
Yaratıcılıklarının Geliştirilmesi

Makale Türü Başvuru Tarihi Kabul Tarihi

Araştırma 10.05.2023 20.09.2023

Sema Aydın Ceran*

Öz
Bu çalışmanın amacı, anne-çocuk etkileşimine dayalı bilim uygulamaları yoluyla annelerin bilimsel
okuryazarlıklarını ve çocukların bilimsel yaratıcılıklarını geliştirmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda
anne-çocuk etkileşimli bilimsel deney ve etkinlikler içeren uygulamalı ve teorik bir eğitim programı
hazırlanmıştır. Çalışma nicel araştırma metodolojisi çerçevesinde ön test-son test kontrol gruplu
yarı deneysel desende tasarlanmıştır. Katılımcılar, bir devlet okulunun ilkokul 4. sınıf düzeyinde
çocuğu olan 62 anne ve çocuklarıdır (62 çocuk). 2021-2022 eğitim öğretim döneminde altı ay süren
çalışmanın verileri Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Testi ve Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Testi ile toplanmıştır.
Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, anne-çocuk etkileşimine dayalı bilim uygulamaları eğitim
programının annelerin bilimsel okuryazarlık düzeyini artırdığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca anne-
çocuk etkileşimli etkinliklerin çocukların bilimsel hayal gücü, yaratıcı deneysel yetenek ve yaratıcı
bilimsel ürün tasarlama becerisi gibi bilimsel yaratıcılık boyutlarında daha etkili olduğu sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte, bilimsel okuryazarlık düzeyi yüksek olan annelerin çocuklarının
bilimsel yaratıcılığın tüm alt boyutlarında kontrollerine nazaran daha yüksek başarı gösterdiği
belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Anne eğitim programı, anne-çocuk etkileşimi, bilimsel okuryazarlık, ilkokulda
bilimsel yaratıcılık.

*
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Temel Eğitim Bölümü, Sınıf Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, Konya, Türkiye.
E-posta: sema.aydinceran@selcuk.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-2766
 Sema Aydın Ceran 3

Introduction
In raising 21st-century citizens, the goals of education systems are quite different compared to those
of the previous century. Creative thinking is at the top of the list of skills expected of individuals in this
new century (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019; The World
Economic Forum [WEF], 2020). Given the pace of change and the number and diversity of expectations
placed on individuals, the importance of creativity has never been greater (Puccio et al., 2011).
Moreover, the reflections of this importance attributed to creativity in education have rapidly emerged.
So much so that OECD (2019) stated that Creative Thinking Skills will also be investigated in the 2022
session of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study, which is an international
education indicator of science, mathematics, and reading comprehension. Also, the World Economic
Forum (WEF) includes creative thinking as one of the top 15 skills for 2025 in its Future of Jobs research
report published in 2020, which points to the importance of teaching creative thinking. On the other
hand, research indicates that creativity is contextual (Runco, 2017) and that creativity has domain-
specific components (Alexander, 1992; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989). In this context, the term
"scientific creativity" (Meyer & Lederman, 2013, p.400) is used in the field of science education.
Because solving problems, generating hypotheses, experimental design and technical innovation all
require a special form of creativity that is unique to science (Lin et al., 2003). Hu and Adey (2002) use
the following argument to justify scientific creativity;
"Almost by definition, scientific research requires creativity in the sense of going beyond existing
knowledge and techniques, of creating new understandings. But even at a more mundane level,
solving problems in science requires a student to explore his or her repertoire, to imagine a
variety of routes to a solution, and frequently to create novel combinations of knowledge or novel
techniques for a solution." (p. 389).
According to Lee and Park (2021), a student's scientific creativity is influenced by cognitive,
affective, attitudinal, and environmental factors (p.67). Perhaps the most important of these is the child's
first environment, the family, and especially the mother. In this study, we focused on mothers’ scientific
literacy as a factor in developing children's scientific creativity. The most important influence in
determining this focus is the transfer of school activities to the home with the COVID-19 pandemic
because the influence of mothers on their children has increased, especially during the distance
education periods. This has led us to rethink the impact of mothers’ attitudes in encouraging children's
creativity. The majority of the research of the past years has referred to the quality of the child's
environment in developing creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Szarka, 2012; Sternberg & Ohara, 2000).
However, results from the 2019 TIMSS survey show that students with more education and parents who
provide resources and activities at home have greater average achievement in science in both 4th and
8th grade (Mullis et al., 2020). Studies conducted with adolescents state that the attitude of the family
is an important factor in the acquisition of skills and habits that enable individuals to develop problem-
solving skills (Arslan & Kabasakal, 2013). Datta and Parloff (1967) conducted research regarding the
relationship between children and their parents in terms of scientific creativity and discovered that both
highly creative young scientists and their comparably intelligent but less talented peers described their
parents as tending to promote intellectual autonomy. However, Runco et al. (2017) found that despite
science and technology education at school, students in the Turkish sample exhibited more creative
skills outside of school. This reveals the importance of providing an atmosphere that is more supportive
of children's scientific creativity in informal settings. This is because the experiences and knowledge
that children acquire in the climate in which they live provide them with raw materials for further
creative processes (Kwaśniewska, 2019). Saptano and Hidayah (2020) reviewed the literature on
scientific creativity between 2001 and 2019 and found that the most studied topics related to scientific
creativity were test development, teacher perceptions, scientific creativity level, the relationship
between variables, and instructional strategies. It is noteworthy that Saptano and Hidayah's (2020) meta-
analysis did not mention the "home-parent" dimension in scientific creativity studies. Examining the
distinction between creativity within the classroom and outside the classroom is a chance to employ
educational experiences to realize creative potential. Research shows that teachers and parents consider
divergent thinking, independence, curiosity, experimenting to solve problems, questioning, and sharing
ideas as crucial for scientific creativity (Liu & Lin, 2014; Lee & Park, 2021; Park & Jee, 2015). Park
4 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

and Jee (2015) stated that parents' perceptions and attitudes towards scientific creativity can also affect
scientific creativity. Therefore, improving the scientific literacy of mothers, especially those from lower
socio-cultural levels, and enriching the time the child spends with their mother with scientific activities
can increase the potential for scientific creativity in children. In this respect, the idea of developing and
supporting mothers' scientific literacy was a driving force in conducting this study, as it could improve
children's scientific creativity.
Based on all these explanations, a child-mother interactive training program was designed for
mothers with low socio-cultural/economic status to improve their science literacy. Thus, based on the
findings that field-specific knowledge and skills are an important component of creativity (Hu & Adey,
2002) and that child-family interaction is effective in the development of creativity (Harrington et al.,
1987; Miller et al., 2012; Runco & Albert, 2005), it was aimed at improving the scientific creativity of
primary school children. The value attributed to science in the child's home and coming from a
scientifically literate environment may be a factor in the improvement of scientific creativity, which has
been the subject of curiosity for this research. In this context, the research questions are as follows.
1) Is there a statistical difference between the scientific literacy of the experimental and control
groups of mothers?
2) Is there a statistical difference between the scientific creativity of the experimental and control
groups of children?
3) What are the scientific creativity levels of the children in the experimental group according to
the sub-dimensions before and after the implementation?
4) Is there a statistical difference between children's scientific creativity test scores and mothers'
scientific literacy test scores after the implementation?

Method
Research Method
This is a quasi-experimental study with a pre-test post-test control group. In the pretest posttest
control group design, two groups are formed by random assignment as experimental and control groups,
and measurements are made in these groups before and after the experiment (Karasar, 2012). Creswel
(2003) draws attention to the fact that in quasi-experimental designs with pre-test and post-test applied
experimental and control groups, participants should be randomly assigned. In this direction, thirty-two
of 76 mothers who applied to the mother-child science practices training program were randomly
selected, which is the experimental-mother group. The experimental-child group was formed with the
children of the randomly selected mothers. Among the mothers who were not selected for the training
program, 32 were randomly assigned to the control-mother group and their children to the control-child
group. After this distribution, two mothers in the control group withdrew due to health problems. The
science practices education program was implemented with the mothers and children in the
experimental group for six months in the 2021-2022 academic year.
Study Group
Primary school grade 4th students and their mothers from a public school at the research. The main
criterion for selecting a public school was the selection of a school in a socio-economically and socio-
culturally disadvantaged region. In this context, 62 mothers and their children (62) participated in the
study. The number of mothers who graduated from middle and high schools was dominant. None of the
mothers had any profession and were working. Most of the mothers and children participating in the
study were receiving financial government support. Information about the experimental and control
groups is presented in Table 1.
 Sema Aydın Ceran 5

Table 1
Information on the Mothers and Children in the Study Group
Group Number of Group Mothers’ Education Status Total
Students
Girl Boy Primary Middle High
School School School
Experimental-C 15 17 Experimental-M 5 16 11 32
Control-C 14 16 Control-M 6 14 10 30
* Note: In the table, C stands for Children, and M stands for Mothers.
Data Collection Tools
Scientific literacy test
In the study, the Scale for Determining the Scientific Literacy of Turkish Society (SLT) developed
by Karataş et al. (2019) as part of a TUBITAK project was used to determine the scientific literacy of
pre-service primary school teachers. The 36-item scale aims to develop a tool suitable for the definition
of 21st-century scientific literacy in the light of the opinions of experts using the Delphi technique and
to determine the scientific literacy levels of Turkish citizens aged 18-65 (Karataş et al., 2019).
Participants receive one point for the correct answer and zero for all other possibilities. Cronbach’s
Alpha value of the original test was 0.80. In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha value of the trial was 0.85
based on the pre-test conducted on 62 mothers.
Scientific creativity test
The version of the Scientific Creativity Test (SCT) developed by Hu and Adey (2002) and adapted
into Turkish by Deniş-Çeliker and Balım (2012) was used to determine children's scientific creativity.
Pilot implementations of the seven-item SCT were conducted with 389 middle school students, and
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.86 (Deniş-Çeliker & Balım, 2012). The validity and
reliability study of the Scientific Creativity Scale (Hu & Adey, 2002) for the fourth grade of primary
school was carried out by Asal (2020), and the Cronbach alpha coefficient was found to be 0.74. Within
the framework of this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the SCT was found to be 0.78. In
addition, it is seen that the SCT was applied to primary school 4th-grade students in both national and
international studies (Asal, 2020; Baysal et al., 2013; Gülay & Özsevgeç, 2017).The SCT consists of
seven open-ended questions, and each item in the scale covers more than one sub-dimension: Item 1 -
the use of objects for a scientific purpose; Item 2 - the degree of sensitivity to scientific problems; Item
3 - students' ability to design technical products; Item 4 - students' scientific imagination; Item 5 -
students' creative scientific solving ability; Item 6 - creative experimental ability; and Item 7 - students'
ability to design creative scientific products. Also, when the evaluation principles of the scale items are
examined (Hu & Adey, 2002), there is no maximum scoring limit in the scale. Because the answers that
the student can give to the relevant question are proportional to the skills specified in the sub-dimensions
of the scale, and there is no limit.
Data Analysis
The Scientific Literacy Test (SLT) has multiple-choice items, and they are scored according to the
answer key prepared by Karataş et al. (2019). In the analysis of the SCT, student statements were coded
independently by the researcher and a teacher who is an expert in science education, their frequencies
were specified, and they were scored in accordance with the scale (Hu & Adey, 2002). In the analysis
of the data obtained from the study, mean, standard deviation, and t-test analyses were used to determine
whether there was a difference in the SLT and SCT pre- and post-test scores according to the group
(experimental/control) independent variable, and to compare the SCT results of the children in the
experimental and control groups according to mothers’ scientific literacy score after the implementation.
In order to determine whether the method was effective in the difference between the groups, the Cohen-
d effect size value was calculated in addition to statistical significance. For the interpretation of Cohen’s
6 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

d, the effect size d value is stated as small for 0.2, medium for 0.5, large for 0.8, and very large for above
1 (Cohen, 1992). A p-value>0.05 was considered statistical. SPSS 25.00 was used for data analysis.
Implementation Process
Before starting the training, the training modules were shared by the school management through
posters and school WhatsApp groups, and the modules were introduced. Consent for voluntary
participation was obtained from all mothers and their children participating in the study. The Science
Practices Education Program was implemented with the mothers of the experimental group for six
months. The Science Practices Education Program consists of 2 stages. The first phase included
theoretical and practical training with the mothers. The implementation process of this phase lasted one
month. In this context, 3-hour trainings were held twice a week. The second phase included training
activities that included experiments based on the interactions between mothers and children. The
training was conducted outside of school hours in a classroom. In addition to the trainings at the school,
a WhatsApp group was created for mother-child interactive experiments. Mothers and children
videotaped and shared the experiments they conducted together. They also shared the questions they
wanted to ask in this group. In designing the mother-child interactive science practices, the Ministry of
National Education (MoNE) Science Curriculum (2018) was accepted as the framework, and care was
taken to design the experiments according to the level of primary school students. Each experiment was
designed within a daily life context. In the implementations based on mother-child interaction, the
researcher guided mothers and children in the classroom. The WhatsApp group was also used to guide
the experiments conducted at home. Worksheets were prepared by the researcher to conduct the
experiments. The design of the worksheets was based on the scientific process skills steps. There were
11 theoretical courses in the first phase and 29 activities/experiments in the second phase of the 144-
hour mother-child interactive Science Practices Training Program (Appendix).
Results
In this section, statistical analyses revealing the equivalence of the experimental and control groups
participating in the study before the implementation are included. In addition, the findings and
interpretations obtained from the analysis of the tests applied to determine the effects of science
practices based on mother-child interaction on mothers' scientific literacy and children's scientific
creativity are included.
Before the analyses, test scores were subjected to normality analysis. In this framework, the
findings regarding the normality analysis of the data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Findings Related to Normality Analysis of Scores
Shapiro-Wilks
Statistics df Sig.
Experiment-M SLT Pre-test Scores .912 29 .221
Experiment-M SLT Post-test Scores .927 29 .350
Control-M SLT Pre-test Scores .923 27 .654
Control-M SLT Post-test Scores .956 27 .478
Experiment-C SCT Pre-test Scores .973 29 .139
Experiment-C SCT Post-test Scores .962 29 .296
Control-C SCT Pre-test Scores .945 27 .782
Control-C SCT Post-test Scores .932 27 .403

Shapiro-Wilks test was used in the normality analysis since the group size was less than 50
(Büyüköztürk, 2014). Shapiro-Wilks coefficients were greater than 0.05 significance value (Table 2).
According to the results, the data conform to normal distribution.
 Sema Aydın Ceran 7

Findings Related to the Equivalence of Experimental and Control Groups Before the
Implementation
First of all, the pre-test scores of all mothers in both groups on the SLT were analyzed. Whether
there was a statistical difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental and control
groups was analyzed with the Unpaired Samples t-Test due to the normal distribution of the scores. The
findings related to the analysis are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
T-Test Results of Mothers' SLT Pre-Tests
Test Group N X̄ S SD t p
Experimental-M 32 9.74 2.14
SLT 60 .292 .223
Control-M 30 9.38 1.98
*p>0.05
There is no statistical difference between the SLT pre-test scores of the experimental and control
groups (Table 3) [t(60)=-2.29, p>.05]. Accordingly, the experimental and control groups are equivalent
in terms of SLT pre-test scores.
On the other hand, the pre-test scores of the children in the experimental and control groups on the
SCT were analyzed before the implementation. In this direction, whether there was a statistical
difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental and control groups was analyzed with
the Unpaired Samples t-Test due to the normal distribution of the scores. The findings related to the
analysis are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
T-Test Results of Children's SCT Pre-Tests
Test Group N X̄ S SD t p
SCT Experimental-C 32 47.07 14.39
60 .251 .864
Control-C 30 46.73 15.88
*p>0.05

There was no statistical difference between the pre-test scores of the experimental and control
groups in terms of SCT [t(60)=,332, p>.05]. Accordingly, the experimental and control groups were
similar in terms of SCT pre-test scores.
After determining that the experimental and control groups including mothers and children were
equivalent groups in terms of pretests, the analyses related to the sub-problems of the study were started.
Findings of the First Sub-Problem
In the first sub-problem of the study, it was aimed to determine the effect of the practices on
mothers' scientific literacy level. Whether there was a statistical difference between the mean SLT
posttest scores of the experimental and control mother groups were examined. Findings are presented
in Table 5.
Table 5
T-Test Results of SLT Post-Tests of Experimental-M and Control-M Groups
Test Group N X̄ S SD t p
SLT Experimental-M 32 22.12 6.19
Control-M 30 10.27 3.12 60 4.292 .001
*p>0.05
8 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

There was a statistical difference between the mean SCT posttest scores of the experimental and
control groups [t(60)=5.409, p>.05] (Table 4). The difference is in the experimental group's with mother
favor.
Findings of the Second Sub-Problem
The second sub-problem of the study aimed to determine the effects of the practices on children's
scientific creativity. Whether there was a statistical difference between the mean SCT posttest scores of
the experimental and control groups was examined. The findings related to the unrelated samples t-test
are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
T-Test Results for the SCT Post-Tests of the Experimental-C and Control-C Groups
Test Group N X̄ S SD t p

SCT Experimental-C 32 120.68 26.74

60 5.462 .001
Control-C 30 49.19 15.99
*p>0.05

There is a statistical difference between the SCT posttest mean scores of the experimental and
control groups [t(60)=5,409, p>.05] (Table 6). The difference is in the experimental group's with
children favor.
Findings of the Third Sub-Problem
In the third sub-problem of the study, the SCT scores of the children in the experimental group
according to its sub-dimensions before and after the practices were examined. In this context, the
descriptive statistics of the items in the pre-posttest of the scientific creativity scale in terms of the skills
it aims to measure are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Children in the Experimental Group on the Pre- and Post-
Test Sub-scales of the SCT
Test Sub-dimensions N X̄ SD Min Max X̄2- X̄1

Using Objects for a Scientific Purpose 32 6.34 3.22 1 14

SCT Pre-test

Sensitivity to the Scientific Problem 32 8.08 3.47 1 21

Ability to Design Technical Products 32 7.67 4.53 2 16
Scientific Imagination 32 6.44 4.21 1 18
Creative Scientific Problem-Solving Ability 32 7.52 3.12 2 20
Creative Experimental Ability 32 5.23 3.67 2 17
Ability to Design Creative Scientific Products 32 5.79 4.19 1 16
Total 32 47.07 14.39 20 81
Using Objects for a Scientific Purpose 32 12.88 9.27 5 34 6.54
SCT Post-test

Sensitivity to the Scientific Problem 32 14.73 12.65 6 38 6.65

Ability to Design Technical Products 32 16.20 10.97 6 31 8.33
Scientific Imagination 32 18.89 11.21 8 34 12.45
Creative Scientific Problem-Solving Ability 32 16.66 10.69 7 25 9.14
Creative Experimental Ability 32 19.57 11.91 6 46 14.34
Ability to Design Creative Scientific Products 32 21.75 9.87 7 35 15.96
Total 32 120.6 26.74 58 186 73.61
* X̄1 and X̄2 represent the mean of the items in the pre-test and the mean of the items in the post-test, respectively.

The minimum and maximum SCT scores were 20 and 81. The average SCT pre-test score was
47.07 (Table 7). The minimum and maximum SCT posttest scores were 58 and 186. When the mean
scores of the children in the experimental group from the pre-test of the SCT were analyzed according
to the sub-dimensions of the scale, all mean scores had close values. When the post-tests are analyzed,
it is seen that the sub-dimensions with the highest increase in the mean scores of the students are
 Sema Aydın Ceran 9

Scientific Imagination (X̄2- X̄1=12.45), Creative Experimental Ability (X̄2- X̄1 =14.34), and Creative
Scientific Product Design Skill (X̄2- X̄1 =15.96). In addition, it is seen that the increase in the SCT post-
test mean score compared to the pre-test mean score was 73.61.
Findings of the Fourth Sub-Problem
In the fourth sub-problem of the study, whether there was a statistical difference between the SCT
sub-dimension scores of the children in the experimental and control groups and their mothers' scientific
literacy was examined. The finding related to the first sub-problem was taken as a reference in the
classification of mothers' scientific literacy. The scientific literacy levels of the mothers of the
experimental group were high, while the scientific literacy levels of the mothers of the control group
were low. It was examined how children's scientific creativity levels changed according to whether their
mothers were in the experimental or control group. The t-test results of children's scientific creativity
according to their mothers' scientific literacy levels are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
T-Test Analyses of Children's Scientific Creativity Scale Subscale Scores According to Mothers’
Scientific Literacy Level
Test Sub- Mothers’ N X̄ SD t p Cohen’s d
dimensions Scientific
Literacy Level
Using Objects Experimental-M 32 12.88 9.27 4.788 .000 .81
for a Scientific Control-M 30 6.01
Purpose
Sensitivity to the Experimental-M 32 14.73 12.65 5.109 .000 1.11
Scientific Control-M 30 7.08
Problem
Scientific Creativity

Ability to Experimental-M 32 16.20 10.97 4.390 .000 .72

Design Control-M 30 6.88
Technical
Products
Scientific Experimental-M 32 18.89 11.21 4.652 .000 .98
Imagination Control-M 30 7.66

Creative Experimental-M 32 16.66 10.69 5.344 .000 .92

Scientific Control-M 30 7.52
Problem-
Solving Ability
Creative Experimental-M 32 19.57 11.91 5.087 .000 1.01
Experimental Control-M 30 8.25
Ability
Ability to Experimental-M 32 21.75 9.87 4.304 .000 .94
Design Creative Control-M 30 5.79
Scientific
Products
*p>0.05

There was a statistical difference between all sub-dimensions of SCT and mothers’ scientific
literacy (p<0.05) (Table 8). The mean SCT posttest scores of the children were in favor of the children
of the mothers in the experimental group in all sub-dimensions. Cohen's d values of the effect size
showed that mothers’ scientific literacy level had a high-level effect on the child's Use of Objects for a
Scientific Purpose (.81), Sensitivity to Scientific Problems (1.11), Scientific Imagination (.98), Creative
Scientific Problem Solving Ability (.92), Creative Experimental Ability (1.01), and Creative Scientific
Product Designing Ability (.94), while it had a medium level effect (.72) on Technical Product
Designing Ability.
10 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations

In this study, a mother-child education program was designed to improve the scientific literacy
level of mothers and thus to develop children's scientific creativity. In this context, the results obtained
from the study are discussed in terms of the scientific literacy levels of mothers, children's scientific
creativity levels, and the results of the change process of children's scientific creativity levels according
to mothers’ scientific literacy.
The first result of the study is that the program increased mothers’ scientific literacy levels. There
are various family education programs in the literature (Barlow et al., 2012; Tavil & Karasu, 2013;
Tönbül, 2019; Manav et al., 2021). However, there exist no structured training programs specifically
aimed at improving the scientific literacy of mothers. In this respect, the implementation process of the
study and the result of the development of mothers' scientific literacy at the end of this process are
unique in the field. According to OECD data, the rate of women aged 25-34 with secondary education
is 37% in Türkiye, whereas the global OECD average is 12% indicating the education level of today's
young adult mothers in Turkey (tedmem, 2022), Considering that the education level of the mothers
who participated in the study is at the secondary education level and below, it is important to support
the scientific literacy of mothers to create a society promoting to science. National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA, 2014) states that adults play a central role in children's learning of science and that
parents' scientific literacy levels and attitudes toward science education have a decisive influence on
children's early science experiences. As Brossard and Shanahan (2006) state, a scientifically literate
population is needed for the proper realization of democratic processes in an increasingly
technologically demanding society. Therefore, providing mothers with a scientific perspective is an
important investment for children. Moreover, today's denial of scientific knowledge, such as the
coronavirus pandemic, and the unreliable sources of information about the techno-scientific risks we
are exposed to every day, are a warning to revitalize the global commitment to scientific literacy
(Valladares, 2021).
Another result obtained in the study was that the education program improved children's scientific
creativity. In this study, an enriched science education program was presented to the child at home.
Thus, in the process, the child embarked on a qualified science learning journey with their mother. In
the literature, in addition to studies examining the relationship between scientific creativity according
to variables such as gender, grade level, science achievement, parental education level, etc. (Baysal et
al., 2013; Kılıç & Tezel, 2012; Liang, 2002; Matud et al., 2007), there are also studies examining the
positive effects of various teaching practices on children's scientific creativity levels (Hu et al., 2013;
Lin et al., 2003). Runco et al. (2017) found that students in a Turkish sample demonstrated more creative
skills outside of school. This research followed a process that nurtured the child's informal environment
in developing scientific creativity. Therefore, a novel result is that mother-child interactive activities
have a positive effect on developing scientific creativity. This effect was higher in the Scientific
Imagination, Creative Experimental Ability, and Creative Scientific Product Design Skill dimensions
of scientific creativity. In this result, it is thought that the content of science practices education based
on mother-child interaction is effective. As a matter of fact, when the educational practices of this study
are examined, design-oriented experiments that prioritize the child's sense of curiosity, where scientific
process skills are used effectively, and design-oriented experiments are included.
One of the important results of the study was that there was a statistical difference between
mothers’ scientific literacy and all sub-dimensions of scientific creativity. Children of mothers with
high levels of scientific literacy showed higher success in all sub-dimensions compared to controls.
Furthermore, the impact value of maternal science literacy on this achievement is also quite high.
Tennent and Berthelsen (1997) highlighted that creative people grow up in families encouraging
innovation and diversity. Quality science education that young children receive at an early age can
accompany their already innate sense of curiosity and desire to explore, creating opportunities for them
to understand the world and test their own predictions and theories about the world, and can create an
interest in science at an early age and a positive attitude later in life (Broström, 2015). Studies
advocating the positive effects of family climate in developing children's creativity emphasize spending
quality time with the child, encouraging the child to develop new interests, accepting the child's
incompatibilities, providing an environment for the child's independent experimentation, and supporting
 Sema Aydın Ceran 11

the child's imagination (Bloom & Sosniak, 1981; Gardner, 1993; Gute et al., 2008). In this study, it was
seen that scientific creativity, which is a domain-specific component of creativity, can be improved
through interactive scientific activities that support mothers’ scientific literacy. From this point of view,
it can be suggested that activities, projects, and programs that bring science into the home, introduce
parents to the applicable and fun aspects of science, and support parent-child interaction should be
expanded in raising creative children.

References
Alexander, R. (1992). Policy and practise in Education. Routledge.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment
inventory. Creativity research journal, 2(4), 231-253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534321
Arslan, G., & Kabasakal, Z. (2013). Investigation of relationships between attitudes of parent and
problem-solving skills of adolescents. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(6), 33-42.
Asal, R. (2020). The effect of engineering design-based science teaching on primary school 4th grade
students scientific creativity and critical thinking skills. [Master's thesis]. Gazi University.
Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Huband, N., Roloff, V., & Bennett, C. (2012). Group‐based parent training
programmes for improving parental psychosocial health. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1-
197. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.15
Baysal, Z., Baysal, Z. N., Kaya, N., & Üçüncü, G. (2013). Examination of scientific creativity level of
fourth grade students in terms of several variables. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty
Journal of Educational Sciences38(38), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.15285/EBD.2013385566
Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development vs. schooling. Educational
Leadership, 39(2), 86-94.
Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy
measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28(1), 47-63.
Broström, S. (2015). Science in early childhood education. Journal of Education and Human
Development, 4(2), 1.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS
applications and interpretation. (19th Edition). Ankara: Pegem.
Creswell, J. (2003). Researchdesign: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155-159.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Newyork.
Datta, L. E., & Parloff, M. B. (1967). On the relevance of autonomy: Parent-child relationships and
early scientific creativity. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association. American Psychological Association.
Deniş, H., & Balım, A. G. (2012). Adaptation of scientific creativity test to turkish and it’s assessment
criterias. Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 1-21.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Basic books.
Gute, G., Gute, D.S., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihályi, M. (2008). The early lives of highly creative
persons: The influence of the complex family. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 343-357.
12 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

Gülay, A., & Özsevgeç, L. C. (2017). Determining the Creative Thinking Levels of Fourth Grade
Students at Primary School: Qualitative Research Report. Psycho-Educational Research
Reviews, 6(2), 48-60. https://www.perrjournal.com/index.php/perrjournal/article/view/275
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers's theory of creative
environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 52(4), 851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.851
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International
Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students'
scientific creativity: The “learn to think” intervention program. The journal of creative
behavior, 47(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20
Karasar, N. (2012). Scientific research method. (23rd Edition), Ankara: Nobel.
Karataş, F. Ö., Abdüsselam, M. S., Falk, J. H., Çelik, S., Orçan, F., & Akaygün, S. (2019).
Determination of Scientific Literacy Level of Turkish Society. TÜBİTAK SOBAG Project.
Kılıç, B., & Tezel, Ö. (2012). Determining Scientific Creativity Levels Of 8th Grade Students. Journal
of Turkish Science Education, 9(4).
Kwaśniewska, J. M. (2019). Climate for Creativity: How to Measure It in Parent–Child
Relationships? The Palgrave Handbook of Social Creativity Research, 93-107.
Lee, I., & Park, J. (2021). Student, Parent and Teacher Perceptions on the Behavioral Characteristics of
Scientific Creativity and the Implications to Enhance Students' Scientific Creativity. Journal of
Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67
Liang, J. C. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh-grade students in Taiwan. The University
of Texas at Austin.
Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P. et al. The Influence of CASE on Scientific Creativity. Research in Science
Education 33, 143–162 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078600616
Liu, S. C., & Lin, H. S. (2014). Primary teachers' beliefs about scientific creativity in the classroom
context. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1551-1567.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.868619
Manav, A. I., Gozuyesil, E., & Tar, E. (2021). The effects of the parenting education performed through
WhatsApp on the level of maternal-paternal and infant attachment in Turkey. Journal of pediatric
nursing, 61, 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.04.018
Matud, M. P., Rodríguez, C., & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality
and individual differences, 43(5), 1137-1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.006
Meyer, A. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2013). Inventing creativity: An exploration of the pedagogy of
ingenuity in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 400-409.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12039
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Science curriculum (Primary and secondary school
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
Miller, A. L., Lambert, A. D., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Parenting style, perfectionism, and
creativity in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 35(4), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212459257
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international
results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
National Science Teaching Association (NTSA). (2014). NSTA position statement: early childhood
science education. https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood.aspx
 Sema Aydın Ceran 13

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I):
What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Park, J., & Jee, K. (2015). Investigating students, teachers, and parents' recognition of contrary views
on scientific creativity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 395-402.
https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0395
Szarka, S. (2012). Creative climate as a means to promote creativity in the classroom. Electronic
Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 10(28), 1011-1034.
https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v10i28.1547
Puccio, G., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents' personality and the creative potential of exceptionally
gifted boys. Creativity research journal, 17(4), 355-367.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1704_7
Runco, M. A., Abdulla, A. M., Paek, S. H., Al-Jasim, F. A., & Alsuwaidi, H. N. (2016). Which test of
divergent thinking is best?. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 3(1), 4-18.
Runco, M. A. (2017). Creative thinking. In The Routledge international handbook of thinking and
reasoning (pp. 472-486). Routledge.
Runco, M. A., Acar, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2017). A closer look at the creativity gap and why students are
less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 242-249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.003
Saptono, S., & Hidayah, I. (2020). Scientific creativity: a literature review. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series (Vol. 1567, No. 2, p. 022044). IOP Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J., & O'Hara, L. A. (2000). Intelligence and creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Tavil, Y. Z., & Karasu, N. (2013). Parent training studies: a review and meta-analysis. Education and
Science, 38(168).
Ted-Mem. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: Assessments and recommendations on Turkey.
https://tedmem.org/mem-notlari/degerlendirme/bir-bakista-egitim-2022
Tennent, L., & Berthelsen, D. (1997). Creativity: What Does It Mean in the Family Context?. Journal
of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 91-104.
Tönbül, Ö. (2019). Investigation of the Effect of Family Education Program on Mothers' Raising
Attitudes. The Journal of School Counseling, 2(1), 46-72.
Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation: Critical perspectives about science
participation and emancipation. Science & Education, 30(3), 557-587.
World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future [REF 09012020].
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf
14 Mother-Child Interactive Science Practices: Improving Mothers' Scientific Literacy and Children's Scientific Creativity

Appendix

Science Practices Training Program

Phase Training/Experiments Implemented Duration
• Scientific literacy: Science for the People
• How Can I Improve My Scientific literacy?
• Awareness Raising Resources in Science and Scientific literacy:
Web, Books, Magazines, Applications
• Children, Science, and Scientific Attitude
• Parents' Roles in Giving Children a Scientific Perspective
First Phase/Theoretical

• Science in Primary School - How to Guide Little Scientists? 24 hours

• The Role of the Family in Raising Inquisitive Children
• How Can I Make My Child Aware of Nature and the
Environment?
• What is STEM? How Can I Support My Child's STEM Skills?
• Chemicals in Daily Life - What Parents Should Pay Attention to!
• Label Reading for a Healthy Generation (Chemicals, Food and
Drinks)
• Journey to the Micro World: Why Should We Wash Our Hands?
• Where Are These Germs? Cool Mushroom Experiment
• Global Epidemics: Vaccine, Immunization, Immunity
• Which one travels farther? Friction Force
• Forces we cannot see with our eyes: Water Resistance
• Weather Observation: Wind Rose - Rain Gauge - Air Pressure
Measurement
• The Ball in the Balloon? An acid and base reaction
• Family and Family Ties: Can We See DNA?
• Dancing Peppercorns: Sound Vibrations - Measuring Sound Level
• Treble and Pes Sounds: Let's Make a Guitar
• In the Name of the Power of Sound: How Did the Glasses Tip
Second Phase/Application

Over?
• Can We See Sound? 120
• Plant Life Cycle - Let's Collect Data! hours
• Let's Observe the Effect of Light on Photosynthesis
• Let's Observe Air Pressure with the Egg in a Bottle Experiment
• A Diver Under Pressure!
• Paper that Doesn't Get Wet
• The Balloon that Moves the Ship: Static Electricity
• Let's Make a Model of the Solar System
• Lunar and Solar Eclipse
• How Does the Kidney Work? Kidney Dissection
• How Does Our Eye See? Eye Dissection
• The Structure of Bone: How Do We Move?
• Let's Observe Global Warming with Experiments
• Let's Observe Air Pollution
• Let's Make Environmentally Friendly Detergent
• Earthquake Experiment at Different Intensities
• Light Pollution: Monitor Your City
• Sound Pollution: Let's Listen to Our Environment