Creativity and innovation are among the key pre-requisites for industrialization. One of the key defining features of the 21st century is the use of information communication technologies (ICTs) in every sphere of life. For Kenya to realize her vision 2030 of transforming to a newly industrialized, middle-income country that provides a high quality life to all citizens by the year 2030, there is need to integrate the use of ICTs in education. This would enhance creativity and innovation and spur industrialization and economic growth. This study investigated the effects of Cooperative E-Learning (CEL) teaching strategy on students’ creativity in biology. Solomon Four Non-Equivalent Control Group design was used. The study involved four County secondary schools in Nauru County and focused on Form Two (second grade in the secondary school cycle) students. Convenience sampling was used to select the four schools. A total of 200 students participated in the study. The instrument that were used in this study a Creativity Achievement Test (CAT). with a reliability coefficient of 0.98. Data generated was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), t-test. Statistically significant values were accepted at α =0.05. The findings show that the students exposed to CEL teaching strategy were more creative than students exposed to conventional teaching methods. It is concluded that CEL is an effective strategy that can enhance creativity and innovation and should be incorporated in the teaching of school biology and teacher education programs.
Alexpoulou, E. and R. Driver, 1996. Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10): 1099-1114.
Alsalloum, I.O., S.T. AL-Zahrani and A.S. Al-Kureadees, 2012. The impact of e-learning technologies on the academic achievement. Business Quarterly Review, 3(3): 51-60.
Bianchin, J.A., 1997. Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10): 1039- 1065.
Cai, D.J., E.M. Harrison, J.C. Kanady and S.C. Mednick, 2009. REM, not incubation improves creativity by priming associative networks, USA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 10130-10134.
Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell, 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. New York: Rand McNally.
Cooper, J. and P. Robinson, 2002. Small-group instruction in science, mathematics, engineering and technology disciplines. Dominguez Hills: California State University. Available http://www.wcer.wisc.educ/nise. [Accessed 12th Dec., 2013].
Craft, A., 2005. Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London: Rutledge.
Derek, S., 2003. E-learning definition and explanation, Derek. Available from WWW.derekstockley.com.au [Accessed 17th July, 2013].
Fasko, D.J., 2001. Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4): 317- 327.
Feldhusen, J.F. and D.J. Treffinger, 1980. Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Feldman, D., M. Czikszentmihalyi and H. Gardner, 1994. Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT and London: Praeger.
Ferrari, A., R. Cachia and Y. Puine, 2009. Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. European Commission, Luxembourg.
Frankel, J.R. and N.E. Wallen, 2000. How to design and evaluate research in education. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Franken, R.E., 2007. Human motivation. 3rd Edn., Northridge: California State University.
Gall, M.D., W.R. Borg and J.P. Gall, 1996. Educational research. 6th Edn., New York & London: Longman.
Halford, G.S. and W.H. Wilson, 2002. Creativity, relational knowledge and capacity: Why are humans so creative? In Terry, D (ed.), Creativity, cognition and knowledge. London: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp: 153-168.
Karnes, M.B., G.F. McCoy, R.R. Zehrbach, J.P. Wollersheim, H.F. Clarizo, L. Costin and L.S. Stanley, 1961. Factors associated with underachievement and overachievement of intellectually gifted children. Champaign, IL: Champaign Community Unity Schools.
Kelly, G.J. and J. Green, 1998. The social nature of knowing: Towards a social cultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzeti & C.Hynd (Eds.), Perspective on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world , mahwal, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp: 145-181.
Keraro, F.N., S.W. Wachanga and W. Orora, 2007. Effects of cooperative concept mapping teaching approach on secondary school student’s motivation in biology in Gucha district, Kenya. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1): 111 – 124.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar, 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Moeng, B., 2004. IBM tackles learning in the workplace. IBM Management Development Solutions, Nov. 8, 2004. Available from www.itweb.co.zan [Accessed 14th September, 2013].
Pink, D.h., 2005. A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Books.
Simonton, D.K., 2004. Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierachy of the sciences. Review os General Psychology, 8(10): 59-67.
Sternberg, R., 2006. ThSimonton, D. 2004. Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165358.
Thorndike, R.L. and R.M. Thorndike, 1994. Reliability in education and psychological measurement. In Husen T. & Postleth-Waite T.N. (Eds.). The international encyclopaedia of education. 2nd Edn., Boulevard: Pergamon, 9: 4991-4992.
Wiersma, W. and S.G. Jurs, 2005. Research methods in education. An introduction. 8th Edn., Boston: Pearson.