The Impact of STS-Oriented Nature Education Programs on Middle School Students’ Creativity

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of a Science-Technology-Society (STS)-based nature education program on the creativity levels of middle school students. Recognizing creativity as a crucial human capacity for individual and societal progress, the research focused on its core elements, including the generation of novel solutions, diverse perspectives, and original ideas. The STS approach, which emphasizes constructivist learning and problem-solving within real-world contexts, was employed to enhance skills such as visualization, mental image formation, combining objects and ideas innovatively, generating alternative uses, and designing tools and machines. A quasi-experimental single-group pre-test–post-test design was utilized. Participants included 60 middle school students (15 from each of grades 5 to 8) comprising 30 gifted students enrolled in Science and Art Centers simultaneously. Students’ creativity levels were assessed using the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP), which is a figural test measuring holistic creativity across 14 criteria. Data were analyzed using arithmetic means, paired-sample t-tests, and independent-sample t-tests. The results demonstrated a statistically significant and large improvement in overall creativity following the intervention (t(59) = 7.14, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.92). Notably, no significant differences in creativity were observed between the gifted and non-gifted groups either before or after the program. These findings align with previous research indicating that out-of-school environmental and nature-based activities can enhance students’ creative thinking and problem-solving skills. The study suggests that STS-based nature education effectively fosters creativity and should be integrated into curricula to strengthen problem-solving, perspective-taking, and idea generation skills.

1. Introduction

Creativity is recognized as a critical human capacity fundamental to individual and societal progress in contemporary societies (İkikat, 2019; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996; Kanlı, 2014a; Ateşgöz, 2020). In the literature, creativity is often defined as the ability to produce ideas or products that are both new (original, unexpected) and appropriate (functional and useful) (Torrance, 1966; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996, 2009; Kim, 2006). This process involves sensing discontinuities, generating ideas and hypotheses, testing them, and modifying them as needed, particularly in scientific creativity (Aktamış, 2007; Sönmez, 1993).

Creativity is conceptualized from diverse perspectives and is often understood either as a cognitive capacity, exemplified by Guilford’s (1950, 1956, 1967) emphasis on divergent thinking, or as a skill rooted in personality, as detailed in Sternberg and Lubart’s (1996) Investment Theory (Atakaya, 2018; Ateşgöz, 2020; Kanlı, 2014a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Broadly, it can be approached through its various components: the person (creative behavior, personality traits), process (creative processes), product (creative achievements, products), and press (environment) (Atakaya, 2018; Ateşgöz, 2020; Kanlı, 2014a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Prominent theoretical frameworks, such as Sternberg and Lubart’s (1996, 2009) Investment Theory, further integrate factors like intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, motivation, personality, and environment as key sources of creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996, 2009; Çitil et al., 2020). Historically, Guilford (1950, 1956, 1967) significantly advanced the understanding of creativity by defining it through cognitive processes, specifically emphasizing divergent thinking—the ability to generate numerous diverse and original ideas in response to open-ended problems—within his Structure of Intellect model (Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1967; Ateşgöz, 2020). Building upon this foundational work, assessment tools such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) have been widely employed to measure dimensions like fluency (total number of ideas), flexibility (variety of conceptual categories), originality (uniqueness of ideas), and elaboration (level of detail) (Torrance, 1966, 1990; Ateşgöz, 2020; Sak, 2014). Complementing these, the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT-DP), developed by Urban and Jellen, offers a more holistic and gestalt-oriented approach to creativity assessment, going beyond the purely quantitative focus of traditional divergent thinking tests (Urban, 1990, 2004, 2005; Cropley et al., 2024; Desmet et al., 2021). Unlike tests primarily focused on quantitative metrics like fluency, flexibility, and originality, the TCT-DP evaluates creative products based on a comprehensive set of 14 criteria that also include qualitative aspects such as completion/integration, use of new elements, thematic connections, overcoming boundaries (risk-taking), perspective, humor, and various forms of unconventionality (Urban, 2005; Yontar-Toğrol, 1999; Cropley et al., 2024; Donii, 2022). This design emphasizes the overall ‘gestalt’ or coherence of the creative end product, reflecting a broader range of creative facets beyond just ideational output, including cognitive and personality components like risk-taking and imagination, as part of Urban’s (1995) interactive components model of creativity (Cropley et al., 2024; Desmet et al., 2021).

Creativity is defined as the ability to produce ideas or products that are both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or effective) (Runco, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). It is widely considered an important component of giftedness (Atakaya, 2018; Kanlı, 2014a), moving beyond traditional definitions focused solely on intelligence and featuring prominently in models such as Renzulli’s (1986) Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Desmet et al., 2021; Renzulli, 1986; Sorrentino, 2019). The relationship between creativity and intelligence has also been a subject of extensive research (Atakaya, 2018; Çitil et al., 2020; Kanlı, 2014a, 2014b; Özdemir & Sak, 2013; Runco, 1989). It is complex, with research reporting a low to moderate correlation, suggesting they are distinct but overlapping constructs (Ayas, 2017; Kanlı, 2014a). This connection is often discussed through the “threshold hypothesis,” which posits that intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creativity, though empirical support for this theory is mixed (Desmet et al., 2021; Kim, 2005). Research on gender differences has yielded inconsistent results, with some studies finding no significant differences in creativity (Ateşgöz, 2020; Özdemir & Sak, 2013) and others reporting variations across different dimensions or contexts (Kanlı, 2014a). Furthermore, affective and environmental factors such as a positive scientific attitude (Kanlı, 2017), motivation (Desmet et al., 2021), and supportive family processes (Cho & Lin, 2011) are also significant predictors of creative problem-solving.

While there is an ongoing debate on whether creativity is a general trait or a domain-specific skill (Baer, 1998; Kanlı, 2017), studies show that effective educational interventions can foster creativity in students. Education systems are fundamentally obligated to provide environments conducive to students’ realizing and developing their full potential. Crucially, this involves fostering creative potential from an early age and supporting it through specialized programs (Sak, 2013). In science education, for example, approaches like Science-Technology-Society (STS) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) have been shown to improve students’ creative thinking, problem-solving skills, and academic achievement by connecting learning to real-world socio-scientific issues (Acut & Antonio, 2023; Demirçalı & Demirçalı, 2018; Kanlı & Emir, 2013).

Within this framework, the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach emerges as a vital interdisciplinary teaching approach. It aims to cultivate scientific literacy and problem-solving skills by promoting active student participation in the learning process (Yager & McCormack, 1989; Yager et al., 2009). The STS approach effectively facilitates learning by connecting abstract scientific concepts to daily life, thereby stimulating scientific inquiry (Louca & Zacharia, 2012), and enhancing students’ engagement with scientific thinking processes (Demirçalı, 2014).

The STS approach is a crucial interdisciplinary approach that aims to develop scientific literacy and problem-solving skills by encouraging students’ active participation in the learning process. This approach emphasizes the application of theoretical and technological science within a societal context, prioritizing societal values, needs, and desires, and encouraging interdisciplinary activities that do not have a single right or wrong answer (Yager & McCormack, 1989; Yager et al., 2009; Karışan, 2017).

The STS approach is highly effective in fostering creative thinking because it facilitates learning by relating abstract scientific concepts to daily life and encouraging scientific inquiry (Louca & Zacharia, 2012). Students educated with the STS approach demonstrate creative characteristics such as asking unique questions, providing reasons for their ideas, and developing unusual solutions (Yager & McCormack, 1989). It promotes diverse activities like research, inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making, which often include divergent thinking, collaborative small group work, student-centered classroom discussions, and debates (Aikenhead, 1998). Ultimately, studies indicate that teaching with the STS approach positively influences students’ creativity, helping them to functionalize knowledge and transform it into value for themselves and their environment.

Creativity, considered a significant sub-dimension evaluated within Science-Technology-Society (STS) education, encompasses behaviors such as providing explanations for quantitative and qualitative questions and predicting outcomes (Yager et al., 2009). Scientific creativity is recognized as a crucial aspect of scientific skills (Kanlı, 2014b), involving the production of new, original, and useful ideas or products (Hu & Adey, 2002; Kanlı, 2014a; Kim, 2006; Runco, 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996, 2009). It plays an integral role in scientific thought processes and the advancement of science, as it requires building upon existing knowledge through creation rather than just memorization (Kanlı, 2014a; Aktamış, 2007). Key components of scientific creativity include problem-solving, hypothesis generation, experiment design, and technical innovation (Ateşgöz, 2020; Ayas, 2017). Notably, problem finding is considered a fundamental source of scientific creativity (Ayas, 2017; Hu & Adey, 2002).

This study was designed to investigate the impact of nature education, based on the STS approach on the creativity levels of middle school students. The research employed a quasi-experimental design utilizing a single-group pre-test/post-test model.

The study aimed to answer the following research questions:

• To what extent does participation in a Science-Technology-Society (STS)-based nature education program affect the overall creativity levels of middle school students?
• Are there significant differences in creativity levels between gifted and non-gifted middle school students, both before and after their participation in the STS-based nature education program?

These questions formed the basis of the research aimed at empirically examining the overall impact of the nature education program on creativity levels and its differential effects on gifted and non-gifted students.

2. Materials and Methods

The purpose of this study was to investigate the creativity levels of middle school students who participated in a nature education program. This program was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), a prominent Turkish institution dedicated to advancing science and technology. Within the scope of the program, activities were meticulously designed and implemented based on the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach, which aims to foster an understanding of how theoretical and technological science are applied within societal contexts, prioritizing societal values, needs, and desires. This interdisciplinary method promotes active student participation in the learning process, enhancing scientific literacy and problem-solving skills by connecting abstract scientific concepts to everyday experiences and encouraging scientific inquiry (Yager & McCormack, 1989; Yager et al., 2009; Louca & Zacharia, 2012).

2.1. Research Design

The study employed a quasi-experimental design featuring a single-group pre-test/post-test model. This particular design is widely recognized and frequently utilized in educational research for its effectiveness in evaluating the impact of specific interventions (Büyüköztürk, 2018). In this study, the independent variable was the STS-based nature education program, and the dependent variable was the students’ creativity levels. The creativity levels were measured before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the implementation of the program using the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). The transformation of qualitative drawing data into quantitative scores for statistical analysis is detailed in the Data Analysis section.

2.2. Participants

The research group consisted of a total of 60 middle school students drawn from various middle schools. These students had voluntarily applied to participate in the STS-based nature education project, demonstrating their interest. Informed consent was obtained from their parents for their participation in the study. The sample was specifically composed of 15 students from each of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th-grade levels. A notable characteristic of the participant group was that 30 of these students were enrolled in Science and Art Centers, which are specialized educational centers in Turkey that provide differentiated programs for gifted students (Çitil et al., 2020). The inclusion of gifted students in the sample aligns with the broader aim of fostering creative potential from an early age, often facilitated by tailored educational environments that encourage original thought and problem-solving (Sak, 2013).

2.3. Intervention

The intervention implemented in this study was a nature education project conducted under the framework of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) 4004 Nature Education and Science Schools Support Program. This program was designed to facilitate middle school students’ exploration of the Earth and sky through the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach and artistic perspectives. The STS approach is a science education philosophy that emphasizes the application of science within a societal context, encouraging interdisciplinary engagement and activities that do not necessarily yield single “right” or “wrong” answers.

The program translated this philosophy into a series of constructivist, hands-on activities covering a range of current topics. For example, sessions on CERN and space exploration were framed to have students analyze the societal benefits and technological spin-offs of large-scale scientific endeavors, fostering critical thinking about science funding and priorities. The nature of the scientific approach was explored through inquiry-based activities using simple materials like rolls, ropes, and fossils, allowing students to experience scientific processes such as observation, inference, and modeling firsthand. Learning was extended beyond the classroom into authentic contexts; astronomy was taught through night sky observations to introduce constellations, while geological formations were studied through field trips to sites like Yanartaş and hands-on rock activities. The curriculum also addressed socio-scientific issues by examining local environmental challenges, such as the protection of Caretta Caretta nesting sites, and the interplay between natural and cultural landscapes, thereby situating scientific knowledge within a tangible ecological and social context. To complement these scientific explorations and explicitly integrate the “artistic perspectives” mentioned in the program’s design, the intervention included a dedicated creative arts session in which students were introduced to watercolor and pastel painting techniques and encouraged to create artwork that visualized their aspirations and ideas. This component was designed not only to foster artistic expression but also to enhance key creativity skills such as imagination and visualization, providing students with an alternative, non-verbal medium to explore and communicate their thoughts, thereby creating a holistic learning experience that balanced analytical inquiry with creative expression. To inspire future engagement, a session on the future of technology and cybersecurity introduced students to national and international science competitions and events, encouraging them to apply their knowledge in innovative ways.

Overall, these activities were explicitly linked to daily life to enhance the students’ scientific literacy, contribute to their career planning, and strengthen their interest in scientific endeavors. The STS framework, by integrating scientific content with the students’ everyday experiences, aimed not only to teach concepts but also to encourage students to reflect on the meaning and purpose of life and their relationships within the global community and with the nature of science itself.

2.4. Data Collection Instrument

Students’ creativity levels were assessed using the “Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production” (TCT-DP). This instrument was originally developed by Urban and Jellen (1986, 1996), and its usability in Turkey was validated by Yontar-Toğrol (1999). The instrument was explicitly adopted from the Iowa Assessment Handbook (Enger & Yager, 1998), which grants open access for educational use. The TCT-DP is designed as a paper-and-pencil test to differentiate between divergent and convergent thinking, and it can be administered individually or in group settings and typically requires approximately 15 min for completion (Yontar-Toğrol, 1999).

The TCT-DP is applicable across a wide age range, from 4 to 95 years (Yontar-Toğrol, 1999). For high-ability students, the TCT-DP has been shown to provide useful additional information regarding creativity that is independent of intelligence, school motivation, curiosity, and academic achievement (Desmet et al., 2021). The test evaluates students’ drawings using 14 criteria—fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, completion/integration, addition, use of new elements, figural connections, thematic connections, overcoming boundaries, part-dependent or independent limitations, perspective, humor, and uncommonness (Yontar-Toğrol, 1999; Urban & Jellen, 1986).

2.5. Data Analysis

Pre-test data were collected before the program’s commencement, and post-test data were subsequently gathered following a one-week Science-Technology-Society (STS)-based nature education program. The qualitative data, consisting of student drawings from the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP), were converted into quantitative scores by scoring them according to the 14 criteria established by the test’s developers (Urban & Jellen, 1996). To ensure the reliability of this scoring process, all drawings were evaluated by two independent raters. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using both Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)—computed using a two-way random effects model with absolute agreement. The analysis revealed a very high and statistically significant correlation between raters (r = 0.97, p < 0.001), and the ICC value also demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI [0.95, 0.98]), a level considered “excellent” according to established classifications (Koo & Li, 2016).

The resulting quantitative dataset underwent statistical analysis, employing arithmetic means for descriptive purposes. The Shapiro–Wilk tests confirmed that all datasets followed a normal distribution, with p-values well above 0.01 for all (both gifted and non-gifted) groups at the pre- and post-test. This indicates no significant deviation from normality. Meeting this assumption validates the use of parametric tests such as independent- and paired-samples t-tests, ensuring the analyses are statistically reliable.

To investigate the extent to which participation in an STS-based nature education program affected the overall creativity levels of middle school students, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre-test and post-test creativity scores of all participants, assessing within-group changes over time. Furthermore, to determine whether there were significant differences in creativity levels between gifted and non-gifted middle school students, both before and after their participation in the STS-based nature education program, independent-samples t-tests were performed. These tests compared the creativity levels between the gifted and non-gifted subgroups at both the pre-test and post-test stages.

Statistical significance for all analyses was set at an alpha level of 0.01. The collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 software.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

In adherence to ethical principles, written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all participants, and voluntariness was ensured throughout the study. This aligns with generally accepted ethical practices in research, which emphasize the importance of informed consent for human participants. Additionally, studies frequently highlight the necessity of such measures to protect individual rights and ensure participation is voluntary.

3. Results

This section presents both the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study. The analysis begins with the statistical outcomes of the creativity assessments, followed by a qualitative examination of the student drawings to provide a richer understanding of the changes observed.

The first research question investigated the extent to which participation in an STS-based nature education program affects the overall creativity levels of middle school students. To address this, a paired-samples t-test and effect size analysis were conducted to compare the overall creativity scores of all participants from the pre-test to the post-test.

Table 1. Paired Samples t-Test and Effect Size Results for the Overall Group’s Pre-Test and Post-Test Creativity Scores.

Test	n	Mean (Pre-Test)	Mean (Post-Test)	t	p 1 *	Cohen’s d
Pre-Test–Post-Test	60	33.77	39.02	7.14	<0.001	0.92

¹ * p < 0.01.

presents the results of the paired samples t-test and effect size analysis comparing the overall pre-test and post-test creativity scores of all participants before and after the implementation of the STS-based nature education program.

As seen in Table 1, the mean creativity score increased from 33.77 in the pre-test to 39.02 in the post-test, indicating a notable improvement in the participants’ performance. The paired samples t-test revealed that this increase was statistically significant, t(59) = 7.14, p < 0.001, suggesting that the program had a meaningful impact on enhancing creativity levels. Furthermore, the calculated effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.92) fell within the category of a large effect, according to Cohen’s classification, highlighting the substantial practical significance of the observed improvement. These results provide strong empirical evidence that the STS-based nature education program effectively fostered the participants’ creative thinking skills, and both groups exhibited a similar level of improvement, indicating that the program was effective for both groups. The qualitative analysis of the pre-test drawings indicated that the students’ initial creative outputs were characterized by simple and limited solutions. The drawings primarily consisted of basic completions of the given figures, with minimal detail, elaboration, or thematic development. Students tended to produce conventional solutions, rarely moving beyond the most obvious interpretations of the fragmented shapes. The use of advanced creative criteria—such as perspective, unconventional symbol combinations, humor, or boundary-breaking—was largely absent. This baseline performance suggests that, prior to the intervention, the students’ approach to the task was structurally simple and constrained, reflecting a need for development in the core dimensions of creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality. In contrast, the post-test drawings demonstrated a significant qualitative transformation in the students’ creative thinking. The most pronounced developments were observed in criteria specific to the TCT-DP, such as Completion (Cm), Addition (Ad), New Elements (Ne), Connections Made to Produce a Theme (Cth), Perspective (Pe), and Boundary Breaking (Bfd, Bfi), which includes using the small outer square and drawing beyond the main frame. Furthermore, there was a noticeable increase in the use of unconventional symbol combinations. However, development remained limited in other criteria, including Connections Made with a Line (Cl), Humor (Hu), and various forms of Unconventionality (Uc) such as material manipulation and abstract elements. Overall, these changes suggest that students made substantial progress in the broader dimensions of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, though they still require support in more unconventional areas like humor.

From a qualitative perspective, this progress was evident in the shift from simple integrations with few elements in the pre-tests to complex and detailed compositions in the post-tests. Fluency increased through the addition of numerous new elements, while flexibility was enhanced by making transitions between different conceptual categories. Originality was highlighted through the creation of functional process narratives and unique symbolic combinations, and the elaboration dimension was enriched with details like shading, text, and labels. A particularly significant finding was the integration of interdisciplinary themes related to space, energy, biology, and engineering. For instance, students created process models depicting a sun–plant–irrigation cycle or a bulb–prism–rainbow production system. This demonstrates that students began to represent not only what they were drawing, but also their understanding of why and how these scientific processes work. This development signifies a progression toward creativity—characterized by the ability to produce new, original, and useful products—and indicates that the findings represent not just a quantitative increase in scores, but also a qualitative transformation in the depth and diversity of the students’ thinking skills.

The second research question aimed to determine whether there were significant differences in creativity levels between gifted and non-gifted middle school students, both before and after their participation in the STS-based nature education program. This was examined using independent samples t-tests for comparisons at both the pre-test and post-test stages.

Table 2. Independent Samples t-Test Results for the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of gifted and non-gifted Groups.

Test	Group	n	Mean	t	p 1 *
Pre-Test	Non-gifted	30	33.30	−0.48	0.634
	Gifted	30	34.23
Post-Test	Non-gifted	30	37.63	−1.41	0.162
	Gifted	30	40.40

¹ * p < 0.01

presents the results of the independent samples t-test comparing the pre-test and post-test creativity scores of students in the Gifted and Non-gifted groups.

As shown in Table 2, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test mean creativity scores of the gifted students (M = 34.23) and the non-gifted students (M = 33.30), t(≈58) = −0.48, p = 0.634. This is a crucial finding, as it establishes that both groups began the program from a comparable baseline, ensuring that subsequent gains can be more confidently attributed to the intervention itself. Following the program, a comparison of post-test scores showed that while the gifted group achieved a numerically higher mean score (M = 40.40) than the non-gifted group (M = 37.63); this difference was not statistically significant (t = −1.41, p = 0.162). Critically, within-group analyses confirmed that both groups exhibited a statistically significant level of improvement from pre-test to post-test. This demonstrates that the STS-based nature education program was equally effective for both gifted and non-gifted students, suggesting its benefits are not confined to a specific cognitive profile.

The comparative qualitative analysis between the gifted and non-gifted students revealed further nuances in their creative development. Gifted students tended to exhibit more advanced performance in dimensions of depth, diversity, and originality, suggesting a higher capacity for abstraction and symbol generation. In contrast, non-gifted students demonstrated more pronounced development in foundational areas such as basic completion and elaboration. These findings indicate that while gifted students may excel in complex cognitive tasks, non-gifted students show significant potential for growth in originality and unconventional usage when provided with structured support programs. However, it is crucial to note that, as reported in the quantitative results, these observed qualitative differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, while these findings suggest certain developmental tendencies, they do not establish a definitive performance gap between the two groups in this study. This outcome underscores that creative potential is shaped not solely by cognitive capacity but is also significantly influenced by variables such as the educational environment, instructional strategies, and the quality of activities.

4. Discussion

Creativity plays a crucial role in individual and societal development, enhancing self-esteem, intrinsic motivation, and academic achievement (Ayas, 2017; İkikat, 2019; Kanlı, 2017). Fostering creative potential from an early age is particularly valuable, as it cultivates creative thinking skills that later influence both personal growth and educational outcomes (İkikat, 2019; Kanlı & Emir, 2013; Sak, 2014). Within science education, creativity allows learners to transform scientific knowledge into meaningful and original products rather than merely accumulating information (Aktamış & Ergin, 2007; Ateşgöz, 2020; Hadzigeorgiou et al., 2012; Kanlı, 2014b). Consequently, integrating creativity into science education programs from elementary levels onward is essential for developing innovative thinking (Aktamış & Ergin, 2007; Ateşgöz, 2020; İkikat, 2019; Kanlı, 2017; Taber, 2011).

The findings of this study revealed a statistically significant improvement in the middle school students’ creativity levels following participation in the Science-Technology-Society (STS)-based nature education program (t(59) = 7.14, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.92). The mean creativity score increased from 33.77 in the pre-test to 39.02 in the post-test, indicating a large effect size. This outcome is consistent with earlier research showing that outdoor and nature-oriented activities enhance students’ creative thinking, problem-solving abilities, and environmental awareness (Aktamış & Ergin, 2007; İkikat, 2019).

The effectiveness of the STS approach in fostering creativity can be attributed to its constructivist, problem-based, and interdisciplinary structure, which situates learning in authentic real-life contexts and encourages multiple solutions (Karışan, 2017; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Recent research provides a more holistic understanding of the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach in science learning and its effects, laying a robust foundation for researchers and educators to design more contextual and innovative STS-based learning experiences that address modern educational challenges (Nawahdani et al., 2025). A current meta-analysis by Acut and Antonio (2023) highlights that the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach in education can effectively lead to high levels of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes in students (Acut & Antonio, 2023).

Research highlights that STS-based learning promotes inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making, which often involve divergent thinking and collaborative group work (Louca & Zacharia, 2012; Yager & McCormack, 1989; Yager et al., 2009; Akcay & Yager, 2016). Students in STS-oriented classrooms have also been found to ask original questions, provide reasons for their ideas, and propose unusual solutions (Enger & Yager, 1998). Comparative studies further reinforce these results: Hacıeminoğlu et al. (2015) reported that students in STS-based classrooms demonstrated higher creativity and problem-solving skills compared to those in traditional settings, while Çınar and Çepni (2021) showed that elementary students in STS-oriented classes exhibited greater creative thinking, more positive science attitudes, and improved academic achievement. Additionally, Demirçalı and Demirçalı (2018) determined that instruction and activities utilizing the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach positively changed the 7th-grade students’ creativity levels, guiding them toward scientific and technological decision-making and creative thinking.

Similar findings have been documented in environmental and interdisciplinary education contexts. Lu (2017) and Ceylan (2020) reported that participation in environmental and waste-management-themed programs significantly enhanced the students’ creative thinking and critical thinking dispositions by linking conceptual knowledge with real-world applications. These results highlight the potential of STS and nature-based interventions to foster creativity across diverse learning environments.

The second research question explored whether the STS-based intervention had differential effects on gifted and non-gifted students. The results revealed significant improvements in creativity scores for both groups, with no substantial differences in the magnitude of progress. This finding suggests that STS-based nature education benefits students across different cognitive profiles. Prior studies similarly indicate that creativity can be fostered in both gifted and non-gifted groups when instructional approaches include authentic problem-based opportunities (Kanlı, 2008, 2014b; Çitil et al., 2020). Importantly, previous research has emphasized that creativity is not strictly tied to intelligence or academic performance. For instance, Runco (1992) described creativity as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond divergent thinking, while Kanlı (2017) found that even students with lower academic achievement may display high creative potential, and high achievers may not necessarily exhibit creativity at advanced levels.

The assessment of creativity remains complex, requiring multidimensional approaches. The TCT-DP has been extensively validated and applied in various international contexts, with studies highlighting its conceptual foundation, reliability, and cross-cultural applicability (Urban, 1990, 2004, 2005) and provides information independent of intelligence, particularly for high-ability students (Desmet et al., 2021). However, a developmental plateau has been observed around early adolescence, which may partly explain the comparable creativity levels observed across groups (Kanlı, 2017). Donii (2022) further highlighted the value of analyzing TCT-DP subcategories to reveal domain-specific manifestations of creativity, particularly distinguishing between artistic and intellectual giftedness. Similarly, Cho and Lin (2011) emphasized that creativity assessments should consider multiple perspectives, including self-report and evaluations by teachers, peers, and families, to capture the breadth of creative potential across different populations.

These findings collectively emphasize that creativity-focused interventions should not be restricted to gifted education but should be incorporated into mainstream curricula. This is because creativity encompasses a broad range of essential skills, including problem-solving, hypothesis generation, scientific process skills, and critical thinking (Aktamış & Ergin, 2007; Guilford, 1967; Hu & Adey, 2002; Kanlı, 2014a; Sak & Ayas, 2013; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). STS-based approaches are particularly effective in this regard, as they provide equitable opportunities for enhancing creativity among all learners (Aktamış & Ergin, 2007; Sak & Ayas, 2013). This highlights the ongoing need for continued exploration of the STS approach to effectively meet contemporary educational demands. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of integrating practical and reflective approaches within STS research to ensure its sustained relevance in the dynamic educational landscape (Nawahdani et al., 2025).

5. Conclusions

This study has definitively established that a Science-Technology-Society (STS)-based nature education program provides a statistically significant and large-effect increase in the creativity levels of middle school students. This marked improvement in the participants’ post-program creativity scores empirically demonstrates the effectiveness of the core tenets of the STS approach—such as problem-based learning, engagement with real-world contexts, and interdisciplinary thinking—in nurturing creative thinking skills.

One of the most notable findings of this study is that this positive effect was equally valid for both students identified as gifted and their peers in mainstream education. The absence of a significant difference in creativity levels between the two groups, both before and after the program, indicates that the intervention is accessible to students across different cognitive profiles and offers universal potential for the development of creativity. This finding is also consistent with the literature suggesting that creativity is a developable skill independent of intelligence.

These results strongly support the view that creativity is not a fixed trait exclusive to an elite group, but rather a universal potential that can be developed in all students through constructivist, problem-based, and real-world context-based educational approaches. Therefore, this study provides significant evidence that creativity-fostering interventions should not be confined to gifted programs but should, on the contrary, be integrated as an essential part of the general education curriculum to provide equitable opportunities for all learners. Ultimately, interdisciplinary and experiential programs, such as STS-based nature education, offer a powerful and inclusive model for equipping students with essential 21st-century skills, including problem-solving, developing diverse perspectives, and generating innovative ideas.

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The findings of this study should be interpreted within the context of several methodological considerations, which in turn suggest valuable directions for future inquiry. First, the use of a single-group pre-test–post-test design, while effective for observing change, makes it advisable to interpret the gains with caution, as factors such as student maturation could have contributed to the results. Future research employing an experimental design with a control group would be valuable for more precisely isolating the program’s specific impact. Second, because the participant group was composed of volunteers who may possess higher motivation, replicating this study with larger and more academically varied populations would strengthen the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, creativity was assessed using a single figural instrument (the TCT-DP), which may not have fully captured the multifaceted nature of creative potential, such as verbal or scientific creativity. Future studies could provide a more comprehensive profile of the students’ abilities by incorporating a multi-method assessment approach, including domain-specific instruments. Finally, the short-term nature of the one-week intervention raises the possibility of a “novelty effect”, where initial engagement is heightened due to the newness of the experience. Therefore, longitudinal follow-up studies are recommended to investigate the durability of the creative gains fostered by such interventions. Addressing these considerations would build upon the important findings of this study and further clarify the impact of STS-based interventions.