MLMMSMMMM ‘MTTNNCTNTN ACADEMM ~* MMMMMMMMT MM”- TMTNT'VE : 2' . PERFORMANCE m SIXTH GRADE ‘ C[ASSROOMS TMTMM MM TMM MMMTMM °T PM D 7-412-— f '- -_ MlCHlGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOHN R ANDERSON 1 972 *4 LIBRARY M Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled CLASSROOM INTERACTION, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS presented by John R . Anderson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for l Ph. D. degree in Secondary Education and Curriculum l College of Education ; M \llllMTlllTllllMlfillllMMllTM V 31293 010917817 MP FAL 1982 2 Mwmwf 'Z “”7 \ Mme-A1 . sbét‘lfil.‘ 8 8.3.2ro Yr —_)1- CmfiSROOM Purpose: The purpose 0 no questions: (1 of divergent thoug for the study? (2 names of class: divergent thought Procedures: Creativity W which solutions, ' to given conditio tained from 769 P twenty~four schoo sample of 101 six Based upon averag Pupil Attitude Ir 3 . MMMTTNJ Classroon ABSTRACT CLASSROOM INTERACTION, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS BY John R. Anderson Purpose: The purpose of the study was to answer the following two questions: (1) What relationships exist between measures of divergent thought and measures of problem—solving devised for the study? (2) What relationships are found between measures of classroom verbal interaction and measures of divergent thought and problem—solving performance? Procedures: Creativity was defined as a problem—solving activity in which solutions, unique among peers, are produced in response to given conditions and problem requirements. Data were ob— tained from 769 pupils in thirty sixth—grade classrooms in twenty-four schools. Teachers were selected from a larger sample of 101 sixth—grade teachers of South Central Michigan. Based upon average classroom score obtained from the Michigan Pupil Attitude Inventory, ten high, ten middle and ten low— scoring classrooms were selected for further study. Tao figural and ‘ were selected from th tasks of Pmblem 501M ulSugqesting SOMMMT The seven taSkS vintvo Forms of th! forms of the Metroool uiauuary and May, Seven observers inservation to obtai in: each of the thi Four classroom tested in multiple r 0T creative performa termed Pupil~initia MM-MNNCY 0f pupil~j TN second variable, TMMMTTY defined as MMMTed or discuss MMMM by the mnemo] uteacher talk i de1 couaving, and acce: TMMMTined as the {I John R. Anderson Two figural and two verbal tasks of divergent production were selected from the Minnesota Test of Creativity. Three tasks of problem solving--Seeing Problems, Asking Questions, and Suggesting Solutions, were developed prior to the study. The seven tasks were combined to form the instrument, Test Your Imagination. A pre-, post-treatment design was used with two Forms of the test, Test Your Imagination, and two forms of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) administered in January and May, 1965. Seven observers used the Flanders system of classroom observation to obtain at least seven hours of interaction data from each of the thirty classrooms. Four classroom interaction variables were defined and tested in multiple regression with pre—experimental test scores of creative performance and academic achievement. The first, termed_pupil—initiated talk mesh (PIM) was defined as the frequency of pupil-initiated talk accepted by the teacher. The second variable, pupil—directed talk mesh (PDM) was similarly defined as the frequency of pupil—directed talk accepted or discussed by the teacher. The third variable, called by the mnemonic, IDEAS, was defined as the frequency Of teacher talk identifying, developing, expanding and en- couraging, and accepting student ideas. The fourth variable was defined as the ratio of silence to silence plus confusion OCR). The ratio of indirect to direct teacher influence use.) from an earl um | 4 _‘ Q, accmonal variable 1 9": L :EDJ. Ls Tue co fficien‘: aidivergent thinki iztxzi to be positive Level. The probler. its figural and Yer its correlation coe :easures. Three cl ad 10R were found regression with scc P1"‘x'w’as a signifies iisksub-scores, II with figural and D: in“ ~ , K :I\ . 80H: \ 1119 produCt a!“ (2) CreatiVe th , equality of the John R. Anderson (i/i+d) from an earlier study by Flanders was included as an additional variable of classroom interaction. Results The coefficients of correlation between problem-solving and divergent thinking measures of creative performance were found to be positive and statistically significant at the .05 level. The problem solving measures correlated as high with the figural and verbal tasks scores of divergent thinking as the correlation coefficients obtained between the latter two measures. Three classroom interaction variables, PIM, IDEAS and 10R were found significant independent variables in regression with scores of creative performance. In addition, PIM was a significant variable in regression with the verbal task sub—scores, IDEAS was found significant in regression with figural and problem—solving tasks sub-scores and 10R was found significant with all three tasks' sub—total scores. PDM was generally not found to be statistically significant. Conclusions: Four conclusions were made: (1) Creative performance can be considered a problem— solving product and process. (2) Creative performance of pupils can be facilitated by the quality of the verbal classroom interaction. (3) The promot detract from a supp (4) The class: of pupil-initiated seatwork will facil fomsnce. John R. Anderson (3) The promotion of creative performance does not detract from a support of academic achievement. (4) The classroom that exhibits flexibility in the use of pupil—initiated ideas, IDEAS and the use of silence and seatwork will facilitate both academic and creative per— formance. CLASSROOM in part; DePartment CLASSROOM INTERACTION, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS BY John RfrAnderson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1972 Copyright by JOHN R. ANDERSON 1972 Threaded throng? hinderson and Ned ‘ pedagogical signific relationships betwee problem-solving. Th sile the divising 0 has described in th Torrance to use the with the use of his silence as a form of light by Richard Su hattend and partic Train . H Trial testing c hole through the GE tenteachers in the promise of anonimit) Tulle acknowledgmer liSiigures were the In the Lansing Schoc { lily admiration 4 semingly can COI‘lVEl fighter, the stati: tiered to e .Taylor's death The ex "P ample iiibal tasks of c: ie classroom, made as were worth tr ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Threaded throughout this study are the ideas of Harold TL Anderson and Ned Flanders. Dr. Anderson saw so clearly the pedagogical significance of both the integrative-dominative relationships between people and the demands of creative problem—solving. The insights Dr. Flanders shared made pos- sible the divising of additional classroom interaction varia- bles described in this study. The kind permission of E. Paul Torrance to use the Minnesota Test of Creativity was followed with the use of his scoring protocols. The importance of silence as a form of classroom interaction was brought to light by Richard Suchman who "bent" his own rule to allow me to attend and participate in his summer institute on Inquiry Training. Trial testing of the problem-solving tasks was made pos- sible through the generous time and professional advice of four teachers in the vicinity of Lansing, Michigan. (The promise of anonimity of schools and school district preclude public acknowledgment by name.) The cover drawings and stimu— lus figures were the creations of Nancy Madtes, art teacher in the Lansing School District. My admiration and thanks are extended to Bill Rubin who seemingly can converse simultaneously with the language of the computer, the statistician and researcher. My appreciation is offered to the members of the committee, Frank H. Blackington, Charles A. Blackman, and Jack B. Kinsinger, for their indi— vidual and collective contributions to the ideas expressed in Hus study. Acknowledgement is particularly due to my advisor and committee chairman, Wayne T. Taylor, whose counsel guided the development of the study. My thanks to Julian R. Brandou who unhesitantly picked up the loose ends of the final chapter and assumed overall responsibility for the thesis after Dr. Taylor's death this summer. The example and help of my wife, Agnes, in scoring the verbal tasks of creativity, and trying some of my schemes in her classroom, made it possible to "know" that some of the ideas were worth trying. Finally, my thanks to Mrs. Shirley M. Goodwin who trans- lated my notes to their final form. ii HMMR I. INTRODUCTIOi IntroduC‘ The Prob Theory.. Need for Hypothes Statisti Statisti Delimita Definiti II. REVIEW or 1 An Overs Creativj Apprc Teaching HI. THEORY AND Review ( A Theor Stag COgn Clas Perf Clas MeaSure ACad Meas SCQI E Mess TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............. . ..... 1 Introduction ........ ....... ........... ..... l The Problem.......... ................... ... 2 Theory ............. .. ........... . .......... 2 Need for the Study ........ ....... .......... 3 Hypotheses.. ............ ... ................ 5 Statistics ....................... .......... 6 Statistical Assumptions ........ . ........... 6 DelimitatiOns ...................... . ...... . 7 DefinitiOns ............................... . 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. . ....... 10 An Overview of Literature on Creativity.... 10 PART I Creativity: Process and Product ........... 12 Approaches ........................ . ..... 18 PART II Teaching and Related Research .............. 35 III. THEORY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ........... . ........ 56 _ PART I ReView of Ideas and Reported Findings ...... 57 PART II A Theoretical Construct of Creativity ...... 58 Stages ................. . ................ 60 Cognitive Operations ............. . ...... 63 Classroom Attitudes and Behavior ........ 64 Performance Measures of Creativity ...... 63 Classroom Interaction ......... . ......... 6 M PART III . easurement of Creative Performance and 72 ACademic Achievement .......... .......... 72 EEaSurement of Creative Performance ..... coring Creative Performance with the 78 M Battery, Test Your Imagination ....... 78 eaSure of Academic Achievement ......... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS-- EHER Measures Descript: Populz statec Procec Select ti< Hypoti Iv. snomss. .. V. SUMMARY, co: Conceptu Product SampleH Findings Results COnclusi ImPlicat Educa Recommen Problems room innoGRAPHY ...... ”PWDICES A. Scoring PIC 5: 6, 7. . Instruction . Referenced or Basic Non-1: TABLE OF CONTENTS—~Continued CHAPTER Page PART IV Measures of Classroom Verbal Interaction... 79 PART V Description of Statistical Treatment and Population Selection: Hypotheses Re— stated .............................. 86 Procedure for Statistical Treatment ..... 86 Selection and Description of the Popula- tion ................................. 88 Hypotheses Restated in Experimental Form 90 IV. FINDINGS ...................... . ............... 93 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 146 Conceptualization .......................... 147 Product and Process Measures .............. . 148 Sample .......................... . .......... 150 Findings .............. ... ............. 150 Results of Post— hoc Analysis ...... . ........ 155 Conclusions ............................... 158 Implications and Suggestions to Teacher Educators and Curriculum Specialists.... 159 Recommendations for Further Research. . 165 Problems and Recommendations to the Class— room Teacher ............................ 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 169 APPENDICES A. Scoring Protocols for Problem Solving--Tasks 5, 6, 7... ............................ .... 177 B. Instructions to Examiners .................... 196 C. Referenced Data ........................ ...... 215 D. Basic Non-Referenced Data ............ . ....... 245 iv Inn 1. N .1- u. o“ . Expectations - Areas of i‘latr' A Sumary of R F}: tive Process. . - A Process—Prod - Surnary of Rec til’ity ........ ' CateTories for .l 7‘ l Process—Prod a) romance‘ . . - Color Code Cla A10 X 10 Mat} 9. ACOmParlSon ( ; ' Statis C ures 0f Creat; with EStima’ce: Torrance Battl I ”unwary Of Five FaCtOrs . Partial Corre AnalY'Sis. , . .. A Summary of tically IaSerO Int ent MeaSUres Results an Variables: 'I LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. A Summary of Results of Factor Analyses... ...... 31 2. Expectations for Different Stages of the Crea— tive Process ..... ............... ..... ........... 34 3. A Process-Product Pattern of Creativity......... 35 4. Summary of Recommended Tasks to Increase Crea— tivity... ....... . ........ ............. ........ .. 37 5. Categories for Interaction Analysis... ..... ..... 42 6. Areas of Matrix Analysis........... ............. 45 7. A Process—Product Construct of Creative Per— formance............................ ........... . 61 8. Color Code Classroom Interaction By Cells Within A 10 X 10 Matrix of Verbal Interaction.......... 81 9. A Comparison of Reliability Estimates of Meas— ures of Creative Performance from This Study With Estimates Reported by Wodtke on the Torrance Battery ...... . ....................... . 99 10. A Summary of Results of Factor Analysis with Five Factors ...... . ......... . ................... 105 11. Partial Correlation Coefficients and Signifi— cance Probabilities from Multiple Regression Analysis.............. ...... .... ..... ........... 107 12. A Summary of Classroom Interaction Variables.... 119 13. Statistically Significant Relationships Between Classroom Interaction Variables and the Depend- ent Measures of Creative Performance............ 124 14. Results of an Analysis of Covariance Dependent Variables: Total Score I B..................... 126 V7 LIST OF TABLES--Cont: iiBLE ,_. u‘ . - ax ,_. a) .. 4. up ... ,_. ‘. M I Corre . Results of An; Interaction V; . Results of Am Classroom Intl '. AComparison l ance Scores fl Riddle, Low A. Groups in Reg Creativity sc Classroom Gro Scores and C1 ' A comParison Intfiraction f . Results of In . Pearson Coe f f Variables of lieu of 50 PI Test Your Ime . Y Varia ImaginatiOn , Summar f y Stati ormEd “Easu; 6 Pearson Corr. Form S A and l lationaj m the Batt NOn ho [ST OF TABLES--Continued lBLE 15. Results of Analysis of Covariance with Three Interaction Variables .......... . ............. ... Results of Analysis of Covariance with One Classroom Interaction Variable ..... ... .......... A Comparison of Academic and Creativity Perform— ance Scores for Six Groups Designated High, Middle, Low Academic; High, Middle, Low Creative Findings from a Multiple Regression of Classroom Groups in Regression with Pre—Test Academic and Creativity Scores and a Least Square Addition of Classroom Groups in Regression with Pre—Test Scores and Classroom Interaction Variables ...... A Comparison of Selected Measures of Classroom Interaction for 30 Classrooms ................... Results of Interscorer Reliability Check Form A. Pearson Coefficients of Correlation Between 25 Variables of Forms A and B ........ .. ....... ..... Principal Factor Loadings from a Verimax Rota— tion of 50 Primary Variables of Forms A and B, Test Your Imagination (2 Factors) ............... Factor Loadings from a Verimax Rotation of 50 Primary Variables of Forms A and B, Test Your Imagination (6 Factors)........ ................. Summary Statistics and Distributions for Trans- formed Measures of Creative Performance ......... Pearson Correlations of Scores of Creativity Forms A and B, Test Your Imagination ............ Correlational Values Between Sub—Total Scores of Non-Verbal, Verbal and Problem Solving Measures from the Battery, Test Your Imagination ......... vi Page 128 130 134 139 141 217 218 219 221 228 233 LIST OF TABLES--Cont a: E; =- 1:: D'- so . Analysis of V Summary of Sc Your Imaginat . Distributions and Problem 5 Classroom Gro .- . Correlations Variables and action Variat . Comparisons c Creative Peri - Definitions C Calculations Teacher One , ‘ - 100 Cells of Matrix and V5 Nlllllberlni'u I CompariSOn O: Y Partial c, CdIlCe LeVEl, ' Smarl’ Stat formance and IST OF TABLES—-Continued ABLE 15. Page Analysis of Variance by Classroom Groups. A Summary of Scores From the Test Battery, Test Your Imagination. ............ .. ..... ........... 234 Distributions of the Total Score of Creativity and Problem Solving of Sixth Grade Pupils by Classroom Groups... .......... ..... ........ ..... 237 Correlations Form A with Classroom Interaction Variables and Correlations Classroom Inter— action Variables with Form B............. ..... . 238 Comparisons of Scores by Sex of Mean Scores of Creative Performance............ ............... 241 Definitions of Interaction Variables and Sample Calculations Taken from the 10 X 10 Matrix of Teacher One ........ ......... ...... ... ......... . 242 100 Cells of A 10 X 10 Interaction Analysis Matrix and Variables by Area and Reference Number.......... ........ ....... ............ .... 243 Comparison of Classroom Interaction Variables by Partial Correlation Coefficients and Signifi— cance Level. Dependent Variable : MAT B ....... 244 Summary Statistics of Measures of Creative Per— formance and Classroom Interaction Variables... 246 _f'v MRS I,“ o .-.; An Open-Restr Problems and Schedule of c ‘- battery, Test Format for dj sion.....,,,. Format for d: variables. . . . Designated a: interaction. . LIST OF FIGURES JRE Page An Open-Restricted—Closed Classification of Problems and Answers.......... .................. 68 Schedule of scores by Factors and tasks from the battery, Test Your Imagination ............... ... 78 Format for display of ANOVA in multiple regres— sion.......... ...... .. .......................... 87 Format for display of ANOVA with deletion of variables.............. .......... . ............ .. 87 Designated areas of a 10 x 10 matrix of verbal interaction............... ...................... 120 viii hhoduction DeSpite genera tion is to facilita exist few studies t attain that goal. practices can or dc in of children. c Elle thinking and r file classroom? Wha adifference? Can ill YlAlfred North ‘hdllls and Norgal he J-fW. Getzel: f. 0 L ' hhonal earnln . Ociet TltSOCle y, 19%4? CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Our schools then do not exist to discover and train leaders for the future. They exist to start persons on a venture intrinsically worthwhile, namely, the discovery of the kind of creativity which can be theirs along with their fellowmen in this kind of universe. Alfred North Whitehead :oduction Despite general agreement that a legitimate aim of educa- 1is to facilitate creative abilities of pupils, there ;t few studies that suggest the means or techniques to iin that goal. Even fewer studies indicate that teaching :tices can or do have a significant impact on the creativ— of children. One may ask along with Getzels, "Can crea— ethinking and problem—solving be systematically taught in classroom? What exactly is it that teachers do that makes fference? Can this be communicated to others?"2 \* 1 _ Alfred North Whitehead, Aims of Education (London‘ 1ams and Norgate, 1951), Po 27- 2 r J. W. Getaels, "Creative Thinking and Instruction," 6%_%£_L§grn1ng and Instruction, Sixty—Third Yearbook of the S a_ Soc1ety for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: OCIety, 1964), p. 258, the Problem The problem p tion of relationsh of classroom verba obtained from sele served as a focus 1. What rela thought and meas from tests devis 2. What rela Ieasures of teach thirty Sixth-grade th0119111: and proble A construct ( °f cWhitive proc: Whit of creativi‘ 0f Performance. eoncePtualization teacher-pupil int I 1 interaction vari Processes; the t the Viewpoint of “1&1 The theory ' t0 occur as a re Problem The problem presented in this study was the investiga— n of relationships that exist between selected measures classroom verbal interaction and measures of performance ained from selected measures of creativity. Two questions ved as a focus for investigation of the problem. 1. What relationships exist between measures of divergent ught and measures of problem-solving performance obtained m tests devised for the study? 2. What relationships are there between different sures of teacher—pupil classroom interaction observed in rty sixth-grade classrooms and measures of divergent >ught and problem solving performance? A construct of creativity was developed from a viewpoint cognitive processes or thought operations and from a view- .nt of creativity as a product to be evaluated by criteria performance. Both viewpoints were required to permit ceptualization and the subsequent test of variables of Cher—pupil interaction. The initial conceptualization of eraction variables stemmed from an analysis of the cognitive cesses; the test of the interaction variables stemmed from viewpoint of creativity as a product of pupil performance. 21 The theory is straightforward. Creativity is considered occur as a result of the problem-solving performances of fl [soils in which byan effort to had by the reqni predicted an as ties of the class creativity. Ther diversity of idea ences permitting With those of the Who have experien 1°9ical safety to criticism and the bilitr. to test t] their Performance to1°r°POSe solutit Additionally Creativity that 1 Creative perform cesses of converg '33 pesitea that More than one fi‘m aPpropriate diver‘JEnt thought Need for the Stud An analysis m Pupil perfor ils in which solutions, unique among peers, are produced an effort to manipulate one or more of the conditions specie d by the requirements of a task or goal. Thus, there is dicted an association between the problem—solving activi— s of the classroom and pupil performance on tasks of ativity. There will be an increase in the frequency and ersity of ideas among children who have classroom experi— es permitting the expression and sharing of their ideas h those of the teacher. The theory suggests that pupils have experiences of this nature in which there is psycho— ical safety to express ideas without fear of negative ticism and the freedom, with concommitant shared responsi— ity, to test their ideas and judgment, will increase in ir performance to sense problems and apply past experience propose solutions to new situations. Additionally, the present study presented a construct of ativity that included more than one operation of thought. ative performance was presented as including several pro— ses of convergent and divergent thought operations. It posited that creative performance will be found related more than one measure of teacher—pupil classroom interac— 1 appr0priate to different requirements of convergent and argent thought operations. 1 for the Study An analysis of creativity in terms of cognitive processes Pupil performance can be a first step toward a construct oicreativitY- If are found to be re can be a significa teacher gains infc he following stat 1. Before in] to foster or deve know if and how c determined only t 2. Few studi of the teacher on pupil interaction actions of thirty period of one aca trained by Ned F1 room observation, tional data from 3. Training .DIOduced some in HWever, the tra tions. In the p tions were offer interaction vari Could provide eV IOdified by claS eativity. If cognitive processes and pupil performance und to be related in predictable ways, such information a significant aid in the classroom as the classroom r gains information concerning the process of creativity. llowing statements indicate the importance of the study: Before initiating programs in the schools that purport ter or develop creative performance, it is necessary to 'f and how creativity can be facilitated. This can be ined only through experimental test. Few studies have objectively evaluated the influence teacher on creativity through an analysis of teacher— interactions. In the present study, the verbal inter- ns of thirty teachers were objectively coded during a i of one academic year. Eight classroom observers, ed by Ned Flanders to use the Flanders system of class— >bservation, provided a minimum of seven hours of observa— . data from each of the thirty classrooms. Training elementary pupils in thinking creatively has red some increase in performance on tests of creativity. tr, the training was very similar to the testing situa— In the present study, no special training or sugges— were offered from the experimenters. A comparison of ,ction variables demonstrated in different classrooms provide evidence that pupil creative performance can be ed by classroom influence. fl 4. Research of interaction us teachers control rides a model fr action. W Six hypothes tween measures of action. 1. There wil tionship between Salected tasks of 0f Problem solvinv 2. No relativ f0“11d between sco: creative performa 3. There wil tionship betwaen Heative performa lea solving. 4. No statis f011116 between a m Pupil ideas, and 5. There wil Ship found betwee 4. Research on teacher education suggests that feedback teraction used in the classroom is an aid in helping ers control and modify their behavior. This study pro— a model from which teachers can compare classroom inter- ix hypotheses were formulated to test relationships be— measures of creativity and measures of classroom inter— . There will be found no statistically significant rela— nip between measures of divergent thought obtained from ted tasks of the Minnesota Test of Creativity and scores Jblem solving obtained from the instrument, Test Your nation. 2. No relationship of statistical significance will be between scores of academic achievement and measures of .ve performance. 1. There will be found no statistically significant rela— rip between the frequency of pupil-initiated talk and .ve performance measures of divergent thought and prob— rlving. No statistically significant relationship will be between a measure of teacher talk, accepting and using ideas, and measures of creative performance. . There will be no statistically significant relation- ound between a measure of acceptable silence and fl . Statistics mmrk and ms s. The ratio not be found stati: scores of divergen' There are two its different int hypotheses 3 throu astudy of relatio nth pupil perform studied with Pears multiple linear suggest interpreta‘ Persons associated Malysis might sugr creative performanr “till he investigat breach of the hy metedict which it be positive . Statistical Assum There are two Prior to a statis here were signif ' from the test, Te rk and measures of creative performance. 6. The ratio of indirect to direct teacher influence will found statistically related to creative performance of divergent thought and problem solving. tics here are two types of relationships that may be tested. fferent interpretations are possible particularly with eses 3 through 6 above. These four hypotheses include y of relationships of classroom interaction variables upil performance variables. The relationships may be ad with Pearson intercorrelatibn, E or may be studied .tiple linear regression analysis, 3. The former might Lt interpretations of characteristics of classrooms or s associated with creative performance; the latter is might suggest classroom interactions predictive of ve performance. Although both types of relationships e investigated and a positive relationship is predicted h of the hypotheses in question, it would be premature dict which type of relationship (or combination) will itive. tical Assumptions here are two important assumptions that must be met to a statistical test of hypotheses. It was assumed that here significant differences in classroom scores obtained e test, Test Your Imagination. It was further assumed that there were 55 influence observer 1. The crite: aeasures used and In particular, th pencil test withi little personal c solutions. Crest creative forms ex part of this stud 2. Cndoubtec‘ verbal influence were limited to i server and to wine 3. A total 1 was not included measures identif: iiphasized the 51' rooms rather tha: to on to foster c 4' Careful t there were significant differences in teacher—pupil luence observed in the sample of thirty classrooms. .imitatiOns l. The criterion of creativity was restricted to the nsures used and limited to the validity of those instruments. particular, the tests required pupil response to a paper— 1cil test within short time durations to problems, with :tle personal commitment to the consequences of alternative Lutions. Creativity in the artistic and imagistic and the aative forms expressed on non—paper—pencil forms are not a :t of this study. 2. Undoubtedly, the total range and variation in teacher :bal influence was not observed within the sample. Data :e limited to that collected with the presence of an ob— :ver and to what could be heard and understood. 3. A total test of possible sources of teacher influence 5 not included, rather the study was restricted to those Lsures identified within the study. By design, the study )hasized the analysis of what w§§_done in existent claSSr ims rather than what could or should be done in the class— m to foster creativity among pupils. 4. Careful appraisal is required before generalization m this study is made. In particular, the sample of chers was limited to those from an area of a State that did include a large metropolitan center and to those who Jnteered and consented to allow classroom observers to C01" it the classroom. 5. While reference to several theories may be made in ious parts of the study, no single theory of creative nking is under study. Thus, results of the study will not interpreted within any single psychological View of )ught, e.g., S—R or Gestalt. finitions The following frequently used terms will be used in the utext of the following definitions: 1. Creative performance for the purposes of this study, limited to measures of student performance on tasks from sts of creativity or to the scores obtained by pupils by sponding to the task requirements. Five factors of crea- Ie performance were scored: Fluency, Flexibility, Origi— Lity, Elaboration and Adequacy (see Appendix A). For the :poses of the study two measures of creative performance :e termed divergent thought and problem solving. 2. Divergent thought measures of creative performance {uested the unique response of the pupil to four tasks: .cture Completion," "Circles" or "Squaresb" "Product movement," and "Unusual Uses." Scores of Fluency, Flexi- ity, Originality and Elaboration were obtained using scor— protocols from the Minnesota Test of Creativity. 3. Problem-solving measures of creative performance uested pupil identification of discrepancies, and problems two tasks, "Asking" and "Seeing Problems." A third task, ing Problems" requested pupils to suggest solutions that might resolve the problem and be equitable to several ved parties. 4. Creative thinking refers to the processes used to solve blem with a unique and acceptable answer. For example, nce defined creative thinking as, "the process of sensing or disturbing, missing elements; forming ideas or hypothe— oncerning them; testing these hypotheses; and communi— g the results, possibly modifying and retesting the hy— ses."3 The terms, "cognitive processes“ and "problem- ng" also refer to those activities of thought designed >tain a satisfactory resolution of a deterrent to a goal. 5. Problem-solving pattern refers to a measure of class— use of pupil-initiated ideas, teacher use of student , and the frequency of silence observed in the classroom. ggregate score includes measures of classroom interac— of teacher and pupils across different activities. ers defined teacher flexibility, "as a measure of the e a teacher makes in his verbal influence when one activ— eriod is compared to another."“ The problem—solving rn is a measure of verbal interaction observed for several ent activities. 3E. Paul Torrance, Guiding Creative Talent (Englewood Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 16. Ned A. Flanders, Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, :hievement, Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12 Lngton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965), are exh sinc '18: fire I23" CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE It should be possible to postulate on a basis other than faith that children are able and willing to produce original and productive ideas. A review of literature was conducted in two parts. , the characteristics of creativity as process or product 'dentified. Both the identification of characteristics of :ivity and approaches to its study are presented, not as istive lists, but as recurring ideas of authors that also promise as answers to some of the many problems of trement of creative performance. Suggested, used or tested instructional approaches are :nted in the second part of the literature review. The lization of the second part moves from suggested to tested 'uctional practice. A brief description of Flanders' :m of Interaction Analysis was also included since it was as the instrument of data collection of teacher—pupil l behavior. erview of Literature on Creativity Interest in creativity has increased markedly since 1950. t year, the subject of Guilford's Presidential Address American Psychological Association was "Education's 10 Along with the increase lling Neglect of Creativity." nterest has come a diversity of meaning and definitions e term "creativity." I. A. Taylor1 has catalogued over f the more widely used definitions. To some, it is a hysical quality of man's nature. Bertocci wrote, "The e of God’s purpose involved sharing creativity with man if this means risk and danger for everything within the of man's power."2 More recently, creativity has been ed as the product of educational experiences that permit xercise of curiosity and other motivated activity. tivity then is the product of a curriculum which opens :iences to children, creates new needs to know, and pro— : them with the skills which enable them to put curiosity action."3 While there may be little quarrel with the that creativity is a legitimate goal of education, the arity of the term has, in part, detracted attention a continuing effort to study creativity objectively. The study of creativity would be simplified if there ed either a criterion of creative performance accompanied 1I. A. Taylor, "Creativity Research for Future Creativity," ture of Creativity Research, Symposium sponsored by Los s State College and Chouinard Art Institute, 1962. gPeter A. Bertocci, Education and the Vision of Excel— (Boston: Boston University Press, 1960), p. 20. 3Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Lving, Behaving, Becoming: A New Focus for Education. {earbook (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1962), p, lei sol 12 :tablished instructional techniques or an understanding Le creative process. Either the criterion or the process l aid the evaluation of instructional methodology. .er exists. Referring to the more general case of problem ng, Bloom and Broder suggest three alternatives: 1. Give primary attention to the product criterion as has been done in the past. 2. Establish a relationship between processes of thought and product. 3. Secure evidence on both process and product by vary— ing the problem—solving task.” hird alternative most closely parallels the design of study and the two—part review of the literature that NS. Part I Creativity; Process and Product Ireativity results from complex human thought and behavior inifies the unique experiences of man in some expressive Creativity may be viewed as a product, in which case ind utility receive more attention than the interaction L and environment. Or it may be viewed as a process, in case the activities, experiences and motivations are Benjamin Bloom and Lois J. Broder, "Problem—Solving S of College Students," The Learning Process, ed. re L. Harris and Wilson E. Schwahn (Chicago: University cago Press, 1950), p. 60. considerations. Maslow,5 and Thurston6 stress that vity is self—initiated and self-fulfilling. Creativity ociated with behavior that is self-directed, controlled individual. There is thus an identification of the dual with his actions and accomplishments. gers and Stein stress that creativity is an on—going tion with environment. "The creative process is the ce in action of a novel relational product, growing out uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the ls, events, people, or circumstances of his life on er. The emphasis is on the on—going process of man is environment. Novelty, originality and satisfaction from the unique qualities and experiences of man him— 1teracting with an ever—changing environment. H. AnderSOn has similarly emphasized the here and now open system, but would also emphasize the product. ’oduct and the process are both important. Without the there would not be the product. Without the product ence of action or achievement there might not be more braham H. Maslow, "Creativity in Self—Actualizing " Creativity and Its Cultivation, ed. H. H. Anderson rk: Harper and Bros., 1959). . L. Thurstone, "Creative Talent," Applications of Dgy, ed. L. L. Thurstone (New York: Harper and Bros., pp. 18-37. arl R. Rogers, "Toward a Theory of Creativity," Lty and Its Cultivation, ed. H. H. Anderson (New York: 1nd Bros., 1959), p. 71. "8 tasy. erson would add the important qualifier that creativ— oal—directed. "Creativity is goal-directed manipula— knowledge into a novel, relational product."9 Nevell, Simon,10 Crutchfield,11 Henle,12 and Wertheimer13 creativity as a special case of problem—solving. oblem—solving is certainly goal—directed and involves pulation of knowledge, it is also associated with ng some obstacle to a goal.”’15 Nevell, Shaw and ite, "Creativity is a special class of problem—solving [arold H. Anderson, Creativity and Its Cultivation 7k: Harper and Bros., 1959), p. 243. )rval L. Petersen, "Creativity: Some Aspects and Impli— " Science Education, 43 (December, 1959), 420—427. .. Nevell, J. C. Shaw and H. A. Simon, "The Process of 2 Thinking," Contemporary Approaches to Creative Think— Howard E. Gruber, Glenn Terrell and Michael Wertheimer 'k: Atherton Press, 1962), pp. 63—119. ichard S. Crutchfield, "Instructing the Individual in Thinking," Explorations in Creativity, ed. Ross L. nd Taher A. Razik (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), ry Henle, "The Birth and Death of Ideas," Contemporary 5 to Creative Thinking, ed. Howard E. Gruber, Glenn and Michael Wertheimer (New York: Atherton Press, 1962), 2. ax Wertheimer, Productive Thinking (New York: Harper, erle W. Tate, Barbara Stanier and Berj Harootunian, :es Between Good and Poor Problem—Solvers. Project No. nsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, School of Edu— 1959). anald M. Johnson, The Psychologyfiof Thought and Judg— 0 York: Harper and Bros., 1955). 15 acterized by novelty, unconventionality, persistence and iculty in problem formulation.“6 From a third dimension, tivity may be viewed as a product of problem—solving vity. The notion of product invites the consideration of eria of product acceptability. Harmon writes, "... (the) tive process results in either a new form or a new combi— on of old elements; the new combination must be either cal or aesthetic or both, and must solve a problem."17 1d would add that a tangible product must result. Arnold agrees that the product results from recombinations, ngements of past experiences to meet an existing need. rites, Now the creative process is similar to all problem— solving processes. You must work with the information you have on hand. You bring to bear all your past ex- periences, distort it perhaps, combine it and recombine it into new patterns, configurations, arrangements, so that the new totality formed better solves some need of man and this need may be implied as well as expressed.18 In passing, Arnold and Harmon have contributed two issues; .5 an issue of mental activity or process. Are novel ________________ 16Nevill, Shaw and Simon, op. cit., p. 77. T7L. R. Harmon, "Social and Technological Determinants of }V}tyr" 1955 University of Utah Research Conference on the ification of Creative Scientific Talent, ed. C. W. Taylor Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956). 18John E. Arnold, “Education for Innovation," A Sourcebook reative Thinking, ed. Harold F. Harding and Sidney J. S (New York: Scribner's, 1962), P- 128- 1‘ A l6 ucts formed through the recombinations of past experi— s in memory? Or should the emphasis be on transactions on-going experiences as presented by Rogers and Stein? Drevdahl presents a more comprehensive View of possible a1 functions that may lead to diverse forms of creative ucts. He describes creativity as the capacity of persons to produce compositions, products or ideas of any sort which are essentially new or novel, and previously unknown to the producer. It can be imagi- native activity or thought synthesis, where the product is not a mere summation. It may involve the forming of new patterns in combinations of information derived from past experience, and the transplanting of old relation- ships to new situations and may involve the generation of new correlates. It must be purposeful or goal- directed, not mere idle fantasy, although, it need not have immediate practical application or be a perfect or complete product. It may take the form of an artistic, literary or scientific production or may be of a pro- cedural or methodological nature.19 Drevdahl suggests several ways the mind may produce novel n He suggests that experiences of the past can be trans— ed to new experiences or recombined through the imaginative ity of the mind. Spearman included the possibility of s as well as the mental construction of relationships and . Spearman believed the mind could build a relationship en two concepts or entities or build an entity from a ion and another entity.20 Whether the restricted View of d is adopted or the more comprehensive view of Drevdahl or r“— 19J. E. Drevdahl, "Factors of Importance for Creativity," pl of Clinical Psychology, 12 (1956), 22. 20C. Spearman, The Creative Mind (New York: Appleton, man, these three would agree that past experience and edge can enrich creative production. One additional characteristic often associated with ivity is the originality of the product. Stephenson s succinctly, "Creativity is pregnancy with newly ssed emotions."21 Russell believes associative thinking, problem-solving, cal thinking and creative thinking represent the differ- urposes in thinking rather than discrete processes.22 he too used originality of ideas to distinguish the 'ities of critical thinking and creative thinking. .tive thinking involves the thinking of new ideas whereas ,cal thinking involves reactions to the ideas of others ione's own previous ideas. It may be described as em—solving plus."23 To Parnes, originality is something new and gifted.2“ qualifies giftedness to a criterion of acceptability to group at some point in time.25 21W. Stephenson, Testing School Children (London: Long— Green, 1949), p. 64. 22David H. Russell, "Higher Mental Processes," Encyclo— of Educational Research, ed. C. W. Harris (New York: llan, 1960), pp. 652-653. 23David H. Russell, Children's Thinking (Boston: Ginn, I p. 306. 2l“Sidney J. Parnes and Harold F. Harding, A Source Book eative Thinking (New York: Scribner's, 1962). 25Morris I. Stein, "Creativity and Culture," Journal of r 36 (1953), 3ll. "" Different authors emphasize particular aspects of crea— ty from a position of their interests and experience. 11y the product is characterized with uniqueness and the lution of a problem; the process is characterized with ve transaction and self—direction. Johnson brought to— er the sometimes conflicting demands of process and uct when he wrote, "In the light of the present account of king, creative imagination is not a different process..., a search which is free enough to yield a solution new to searcher, yet controlled in such a way that the product be cherished."26 'oaches The approaches to the study of creativity may be grouped dly as the logical, the psychological and the psychometric. first refers to the activities of the mind, usually con— red in some act (process) of solving a problem. The nd refers to the content that is available to the conscious— of the mind. The third approach is actually a modification logical analysis, but assumes prominence as an approach to study of creativity. The analysis of thought by Dewey in 1910 was both sub— ive and philosophical. Yet, it has for over a half century 'ded a basis for a formal description of reflective— 26D. M. Johnson, "A Modern Account of Problem—Solving," ological Bulletin, 41 (1944): 208- l9 htific thought.27 Dewey recognized five phases: 1. Recognition of a problem 2. Analysis of a problem 3. Suggestions of a possible solution 4. Testing of the predictions 5. Judgment of the selected solution Later, Dewey was to distinguish between recognition of amiliar and observation of the unknown or the unexpected. vation that is exploratory for the sake of discovering hing unknown would be accompanied by a state of doubt or exity and an act of search and inquiry. While Dewey ained that five phases of thought could be enumerated, d also recognized that problem solving activities to ify the problem may be necessary. The stages were de- nt, in part at least, on the familiarity of the problem e pupil. Unfortunately, the fiVe steps have received more tion for their logical appeal and simplicity than the iency of the stages upon the learner. As Johnson28 noted, there is no evidence for or against spondence of these five logically distinct steps to alogical processes save the frequency with which educa— Iuote them. :7John Dewey, How We Think: A Restatement of the Rela— af Reflective Thifiking to the Educative Process (Boston: \Heath and Co., 1933), p. 9. 8D. M. Johnson, op. cit., p. 27. 20 aham Wallas29 analyzed thought activity in much the .y, using his own thoughts, reports of friends and some ltions from Helmholtz and others. Although Wallas ad these steps to be used as a guide in the thinking of .vidual, this analysis is now frequently accepted as a . statement of creative production. Wallas described .1owing steps: Preparation: a period in which the problem is in- vestigated and facts collected. Incubation: a period of n0n~directed activity, perhaps at a sub—conscious level. Illumination: includes a period of conscious revela— tion of the soluti0n(s). It would include the period in which the sudden flash of insight would most likely occur. Verification: the final period in which the soluti0n(s) are evaluated and a decision reached. me evidence in support of Wallas' analysis comes from a of studies by Patrick.” In her first study (1937). 55 nd 58 non—poets wrote poems under her direction. ng their comments, she found that most changes in ideas 1 in the first time period. The first line of poetry, ' 2 ;raham Wallas, The Art of Thought (London: Jonathan 6) atherine Patrick,"Wholeand Part Relationship in Crea— ught," American Journal of Psychology, 54 (1941), 21 as evidence of illumination, occurred in the second or period. In a second study, she collected additional nce, including testimony, that three-fourths of artists 1 She arrived at substantially similar find— incubation.3 with a third group of subjects in scientific fields. In last study, it was noted that stages overlapped and did ecessarily follow a precise order. Eindhoven and Vinacke were critical of Patrick's studies reveral reasons. The studies were based on introspective 'ts, conducted under laboratory conditions, and results zed under a priori considerations. Under different con— ns, including the use of four separate settings on dif— t days at the option of the subjects, artists sketched a hromatic picture. Not surprisingly, artists were found ve more control over the production than non—artists and not stages were not detected. Unfortunately, there was no t to collect evidence of incubation or illumination during ays the subjects were outside the studio.32 Rossman used a survey of a sample of over 700 productive :ors in his study. Chapter 8, in particular, contains lVitS affirming the experience of sudden insight.33 1Catherine Patrick, "Creative Thought in Artists,“ 1 of Psychology, 4 (1937), 35=73. 2J. E. Eindhoven and W. E. Vinacke, "Creative Processes nting," Journal of General Psychology, 47 (1952), 139- 3Joseph Rossman, The Psychology of the Inventor (Wash- , D. C.: Inventors Publishing Co., 1931), pp. 80—96. 22 nts out that the phenomenon of a flash of creative genius t one time, been a criterion of patentability. He also ;ed a sequence of steps: Detection of a difficulty or obstacle ‘ 1 Analysis of need (in the marketplace) 5. Survey of information available Formulation of possible solutions 3. Critical analysis of solutions prior to decision 3. Invention 7 Test and development {ossman's audience was chiefly inventors. He stressed the :ial importance to ascertain need (Step 2) and to analyze tacticality of proposed solutions (Step 5) before invest— Lrther time with an invention. Thus, there was more in- Lce on a sequence of steps than in the proposals of Wallas .rick. Wallas suggested that the pattern is seldom a cut series of four steps and the sequence varies from o step.3” atrick, in her 1941 study, decided that parts proceeded w to a general idea of the whole and the whole precedes rts as details are brought out for verification.35 1e evidence offers slight support for the stages proposed sman, Dewey and Wallas with the qualifications that wallas, op. cit. Catherine Patrick, "Whole and Part Relationship," of Psychology, 54 (1941), 128-131. V———————_ rth of time, sequence and repetitions probably vary with viduals and problems. The logical approach with its stages tends to exclude emotional, human aspects of creativity. Rossman writes, The important thing is an obstacle which prevents the satisfaction of the need by a direct response. Every need, every problem that cannot be readily solved causes a distinct emotional tension, restlessness and discomfort which is followed by active exertion and effort, physical and mental. ... Unquestionably, in all creative effort there is a decided emotional tone. From a logical analyst's viewpoint, the problem and solu— may entail a series of progressive steps. But the logical ‘Presents an imperfect picture of the thought, reasoning emotional commitment of the learner. The logical approach 5 to be complemented with regard to the thought processes nich the learner progresses through a problem. Some help :ovided from a psychological approach to the study of :ivity. The behavioral, Gestalt and humanistic orienta— s have had varying success in operationalizing theoretical :ions. The Behaviorists' approach to the study has had the most 53 in identifying training procedures and developing in- entation. Mednick's Remote Associates Test (RAT) presents words and requests the subject to supply a fourth, e.g. tree, skin (bark). According to some formulations of iative theory, the production of original ideas reinforces ierefore increases the frequency of low dominance \“ 16Rossman, gp. cit., p. 80. ks.37 In one research effort, 120 college freshmen 'ven free association word lists and divided into three of 40 subjects. One group received no training 1); the other two groups received practice in producing nt responses, one group also receiving praise. The was a significant difference in performance between the erimental groups and the control group, but not between erimental groups.38 e behaviorist approach to date has emphasized frequency a lesser degree, novelty of responses, but has given tention to quality or practicality of ideas. Guilford . to this problem (not necessarily his own position), .ve thinking is distinguished by the fact that there is ng novel about it; novel that is, to the thinking indi— The degree of creativity shown is directly propor— to the degree of novelty.“39 e Gestalt psychologist has less difficulty demonstrat— e validity for his tests of problem—solving. Test situ— Dr problems are typically constructed to require insight > successful performance. ;arnoff A Mednick, "The Associative Basis of the Crea— >cess,. Psyghological Review, 69 (1962), 220—232. Irving Maltzman, William Bogartz and Louis Breger, :dure for Increasing Word Association Originality and .sfer Effects," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56 392—398. . P. Guilford, "Intellectual Factors in Productive I" Productive Thinkingyin Education, ed. Mary Jane and Charles E. Bish (Washington: National Education ion, 1968), p. 6. 25 Persons whose problems are such that they can be solved by logical analysis advance their work, as we have seen, deliberately, progressively, with a minimum of trial—and— error activity and with full awareness of the meaning of each step taken. But the thinker who relies on insight, having employed every known technical or dialectical de- vice of the science or the art involved and being yet fundamentally baffled, is forced in sheer desperation and defense of emotional balance to relax his efforts for a time. ... When it reappears as insight, or solu— tion, it more fully represents the whole range of mental experience, the entire intellectual and emotional back— ground than the less related products of the logical method.‘+0 Here, insight is seen as a problem solving venture that Ludes a more intensive, complete solution than possible the use of methods of logic alone. Several studies have investigated relationships between sing in divergent thinking and performance on tasks requir- insightful problem solutions. In one study, Richard C. Richard M. Anderson trained 24 boys in the sixth grade to unusual uses for objects. There were ten 30 minute ions. The experimental (trained) subjects excelled on s requesting novel uses for objects, but not on a modified :er Box Problem.* While other problems may require dif— nt reasoning that may be found related to practice in giv— musual uses, the authors did conclude that the transfer ”oEliot Dole Hutchinson, How To Think Creatively (New Abingdon— Cokesbury Press, 1949), pp. 35— 36. *The Duncker Box Test presented the problem of attaching candles to a door. The preferred solution required the E a matchbox as a platform rather than as a conventional Lner. ID 26 actice will be difficult to demonstrate in areas of nation and training.1+1 There is some reason to suspect that practice on di- nt thinking tasks will not reliably transfer to tasks ring convergent insight e.g., Duncker's Box Problem. , from the viewpoint of measurement, a test of unusual is scored for frequency, a nearly continuous variable, the all-or—nothing quality of insight suggests a ete variable. Second, practice is generally not given prescription to increase insightful performance. er would have the thinker vary appropriate elements .ingfully" in an effort to reformulate the problem."2 I, whose own work to identify strategies in problem- ng is well known, asks, "... what methods of exercise in iven field are most likely to give the student a sense "1:3 telligent mastery over the material?... Bruner con— s in partial answer, Teaching specific topics or skills without making clear their context in the broader fundamental structure of the field of knowledge is, in many deep senses, uneco- nomical. First, such teaching makes it exceedingly difficult for the student to generalize from what he has *lRichard C. Anderson and Richard M. Anderson, "Transfer Lginality Training,V Journal of Educational Psychology, I63), 300—304. 2Karl Duncker, "On Problem—Solving," trans. Lynne S. Psychological Mimeographs, 58 (1945), 21, 47. 3Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge: d University Press, 1963), p. 30. Z‘CIé s . 4 pl. sflu 0‘» C -1 ‘\ In 7|. 0 LL mu KAI r. .FL 8 .J‘ 0 n 1.1. ‘5 [Vi “the \L‘ “Vt i.- \u Etc! bit 27 earned to what he will encounter later. Second, learn- ng that has fallen short of a grasp of general princi- 1es gives little intellectual excitement. Third, nowledge acquired without sufficient structure to tie t together is knowledge that is likely to be forgotten. ndividuals who have extensive familiarity with a subject spear more often to leap intuitively into a decision or 3 a solution of a problem, one which later proves to be spropriate.1+ 3th Duncker and Bruner insist that insight or intuition Lmized by the management of meaningful material or struc— Training in making remote or low frequency responses usually considered a part of the Gestalt approach to ad problem—solving capability. As Hilgard points out, aal issue is in describing how past experience is used ; the demands of a problem situation. According to ls—response theory, sufficient past experience should Lee the solution; according to insight theory, sufficient :perience will not guarantee the solution unless the .is so arranged that the relevant experiences are appro— y brought to bear.“+5 e two theoretical positions highlight a diSparity in used to assess creativity. Present tests of creativity 1y adaptations, advocated by the Associatists' S-R . Future tests of insightful problem-solving may well be composed of a series of appropriate steps or stages -, pp. 30-31; 62. 'rnest R. Hilgard, "Creativity and Problem—Solving," t and Its Cultivation, ed. Harold H. Anderson Harper and Bros., 1959), p. 163. k: 28 lg to a reasonable incidence of solutions within a chosen ition. {umanistic psychologists, Maslow, May and Rogers, con— creativity "a product of man's healthy tendency to lize himself to his potential.“+6 The inner conditions within the individual include: 1. Openness to experience 2. Internal locus of evaluation 3. Ability to play with elements and concepts ivity is seen to be facilitated by an environment free of nal evaluation, having empathetic understanding, uncondi- l acceptance of the worth of the individual and psycho— al freedom with responsibility. Rogers' position is ling to those disposed to give attention to teacher in— ce in the classroom. However, Maslow points to the dif— ties inherent in the constructs developed to date. As I come to the end, I am quite aware that I have een trying to break up widely accepted concepts of reativity without being able to offer in exchange a ice, clearly defined, clean—cut substitute concept. elf-actualizing creativeness is hard to define because 't sometimes seems to be synonomous with health itself. ... It is as if self—actualizing creativity were almost ynonomous with, or a sine qua non aspect of, or a defin- 'ng characteristic of essential humanness.‘+7 theless, openness to experience and awareness add a human ty. Openness, says Rogers, is the "opposite of psycho— il defensiveness, when to protect the organization of the ’GMaslow, op. cit., p. 83. '7Ibid., p. 94. 29 ertain experiences are prevented from coming into 58 except in distorted fashion.”8 One problem in edu- is to obtain a balance between an environment that is :ning to a pupil because it allows more freedom than the .ual can tolerate and sufficient freedom to allow crea— to occur. At least at the elementary grade levels, lual tolerance for ambiguity and perplexity must be due regard when devising a combination of structure -ternatives and choice. 1e psychometric approach, the last approach to be dis— in this chapter, is dominated today by the work of :d, Wilson, Lewis, Terman and Christensen. In this :h, the mind is considered to consist of mental abilities. mental abilities are postulated mainly on a subjective- L basis. Tests are then constructed and data analyzed Lally. The approach is appealing to those who seek some Lve evidence that creativity can be translated to quanti— lat align in predictable ways. 1 1951, the above authors hypothesized the existence it primary factors: Sensitivity to problems: an ability of awareness and recognition of the existence of problems. Fluency of ideas: an ability to call up large numbers of ideas per unit of time. Rogers, 93. cit., p. 75. 30 Flexibility: two abilities adaptive flexibility to changing rules, conditions or problems- spontaneous flexibility to shift to additional categories of objects to obtain additional alternatives. Originality: an ability to make statistically infre- quent responses- . Analysis: an ability to find component parts. Synthesis: an ability to organize parts to wholes. . Redefinition: an ability to reorganize the functional aspects of a problem to achieve insightful soluti0n(s) to a problem. It was anticipated that flexibility and synthesis would cover the process. . Penetration: an ability to apply judgment in a way to emphasize the quality of response-99 iree statistical methods for measuring originality were ared: Uncommonness of response Remoteness of association cleverness :ults: These three scoring methods were factor analyzed .dings of 0.30 or greater were achieved, thus lending J. P. Guilford, R. C. Wilson, P. R. Christensen and ew1s, "A Factor-Analytic Study of Creative Thinking," 1from the Psychological Laboratory, Stanford University, 951. 31 >ort to a general factor of originality.50 By 1954, four factors of interest to this study were itified and reported.51 (Table 1) TABLE 1 A SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSES tional Fluency Factor Loading Consequence Test (fluency score) .55 Brick Uses (fluency score) .54 inality Consequences (remote) .42 Unusual Uses .31 Common Situations .31 taneous Flexibility Brick Uses (flexibility score) .43 Unusual Uses (flexibility score) .39 Consequences (remote) .33 Common Solutions .33 itivity to Problems Social Institutions .70 Apparatus .59 While the factors: fluency, spontaneous flexibility, inality and problem sensitivity were identified with load- Of 0.30 or larger, the factors of penetration, analysis 50R. C. Wilson, J. P. Guilford and P. R. Christensen, Measurement of Individual Differences in Originality," >Sychological Bulletin, 50 (1953), 362—370. 51R. C. Wilson, J. P. Guilford, P. R. Christensen and Lewis, "A Factor Analytic Study of Creative Thinking .ties," Psychometrika, 19 (1954), 297-311. L— 32 synthesis were not obtained in this set of data. And to 2, tests derived from Guilford's battery of instruments, .uding those obtained from McNemar and others, are still 11y scored for fluency, flexibility and originality. A decade after the initial work to identify factors of tivity, a theoretical model was proposed as a "structure ntellect." Five "thinking operations" process four types ental "content" to form six levels of "products." idered in a three dimensional matrix, 120 different mental ities or factors are possible. Guilford has stated that oximately 50 of these have been identified.52 One way to ribe the Products is in terms of the Operations used in mental process. Guilford considers these terms in the owing way: ations that process existing information: Cognition - Recognition or discovery Memory — Retention of information tions that generate additional information from existing edge: Convergent Production — Thinking process that leads to a single, right or best answer. Divergent Production — Thinking process that leads to alternative or better or unconven- tional answers. tion that leads to a decision or choice or selection alternatives: Evaluation—Judgment 52Robert Wilson, "The Structure of the Intellect," News of Project on the Academically Talented, 2 (February, 1961). f7 33 :allagher suggests that the "Structure of the Intellect" >u1ar because it encompasses a wide breadth of cognitive .ors in one system rather than looking at mental abili— 3 There is one additional reason the .ndividually.5 has received considerable attention: the Operations 1 defined in terms of products produced (if communicated) given conditions. Thus, Divergent Thinking (operation) defined as the production of two or more solutions to n problem situation. The Aschner-Gallagher system of fication of verbal questions, discussed later in this r, is the result of operationally defined Operations.5“ allagher also presents the consideration of changing ations for different stages in productive thinking. erations of thinking propOSed by Wilson and Guilford, with considerations of personality have been juxtaposed stages of thought as presented by Wallas (Table 2). llagher suggests that a training program, designed to ate creative problem—solving, should, at the very least, bjects become aware of the various cognitive demands at age. eativity need not be limited to the four stages identi- Wallas and used by Gallagher. Creativity may be 3James J. Gallagher, "Productive Thinking," Review of Development Research, 1 (1964), 358-360. +Mary Jane Aschner and James J. Gallagher, A System for 5 in Thought Processes in the Context of Classroom Ver- :eraction, Institute for Research on Exceptional Children a: University of Illinois, 1962) (Mimeographed). 34 TABLE 2 ICTATIONS FOR DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS* ; of Predominant Personality Factor .ve Thinking or Attitude :5 Expected Form Operation Required Neat Studiousness "ation Well organized Cognitive Sustained Attention Well stated Memory SlOppy Intellectual freedom tion Often confused Divergent Risk Taking Incoherent Thinking Tolerance of Failure nation and Ambiguity Neat Convergent Intellectual cation Well organized Thinking Discipline Clearly stated Evaluative Following Logical Thinking Sequence J. Gallagher, "Productive Thinking,“ Review of Child opment Research, 1 (1964), p. 360. as both process and product. In tabular form, the teristics and approadhed to creativity are used to t an expanded conceptualization of creativity (Table 3). allagher‘s column, "Personality Factor or Attitude,“ be added for additional explication of behavioral and activities. However, the concept of creativity pre— here suggests that originality results not only from nt thinking of alternatives, but from insight and the uality of the person interacting with the environment. vity to problems, awareness and openness are included of the creative process. Cre; Pro j..' .i' 35 TABLE 3 A PROCESS-PRODUCT PATTERN OF CREATIVITY ntive Characteristics Approach Active transaction Openness Awareness ess Identification Individuality Self initiation Originality Insight Alternatives uct Solutions Analysis Evaluation A concept of creativity in tabular form presents an nization and structure that should be tempered by the ings of Patrick, the opinions of Wallas and the observa— s of Bruner. Logical stages are considered more as con- ent demarcations than representations of actual practice. um, creativity results from the iterative and heuristic of an individual (or group) to produce alternative solu- S, unique and acceptable among peers. Part II Teaching and Related Research In Part II of this chapter, teaching practices and re— research are reviewed to describe an environment Give to creativity. A review of related research is divi rent brit d into three sections titled: Learning objectives . Interaction Analysis System . Research findings e first section summarizes "learning objectives" recom— by four authors. The learning objectives serve as a between the general description of creativity of Part I eview of reports of research findings. ning Objectives E the many recommendations found in the literature, few sen tested by other than the originator. Guilford states that, "... we do not know how we can best teach for "55 Four authors have directed their attention to rity. relopment of curricular materials, test measures, and :ies to encourage and assess creative expression. iry of the major recommendations offered by Arnold, re, Ferebee, Denny, Rusch and Ives appear in Table~4. has directed his remarks to the person, usually an who would increase his own creativity. The latter three generally provide recommendations to an audience in cation field: Torrance in elementary education; Ferebee ish; Denny, Rusch and Ives in Art. Generally, the dations specify intended outcomes of curricular . P. Guilford, "Creativity Its Measurement and Develop— ource Book for Creative Thinking, ed. Sidney J. Parnes 1d Harding (New York: Scribner's, 19620, p. 164. 37 mcflxcflzp ucmmHm> new so msomwma DUDUGOU moosoflucmxw mcflsumca mm wHDHHMM me mommmooow Hflmsm OD Howwm mxumsou Hmsfl Imfluo m.HHmom Duommflm mHMGOHmmoMOHm mo moss IDHHB vac uum Doommmm ucofi IHHomxc .ouoamxc .smam mecca mCHUHMBwH ms Duomwo wHwUCHm mHDmQH pflsflu mo mHmww o>cflawm mcflsmpmfla w>flpmoocs mo mhmnmwofium pHflDm poem we Dogs mo whose coupfiflco oxmz mmostmsw anomcow counmflom Emfloflpflno m>flummos mmo pooh memem mafixcflsu w>flumono Mow swam cannon pom cosumsHm>w wmomo museum msflsucwa pcumauHCleme uuommsm >DH>AD Imeo men moac> ou paeno zooms memes mo cospmosamsfl Hash nmwe muowhno mo coHumasmflccE wmmnooocm coeu Imsam>w uaosufls 0p waamc0Hmmooo mumps anomscs Docmmom mDHHmsHmHHO cSHm> paw wNHcmooom moospws xnos Mo hpwssm> m mmD wCOHDmch w>flpmoo>OHm Mom Soumcmos mo mpocums cm: mQOHuocmm Moog pflo>o 0D nomoB wasp uwflov can o>Huom mpfl>oum onEmm ou wmwcmCflHHHB moHc>wQ wcofiuw Ifloomwm w>HummHo moHc>oo onozamOEDw m>flmmflsswm m opfl>osm Emompmmp pad mumasoomm mflfimcmsuwmuo moac>wo mCOHDMMOOmmw posocua cospwwow m>nwwno moss: wo omcwm m mon>oQ Moonmuos m assoc meomcH c>flumwho mon>oQ mumonwucfl Geomonn ou comm mcfluHHMflucouom moccasosxom mosmsuoa maflop coeumwdw Bed w xmd mawmuoo> BOGM UHOEH¢ 'ences but the methods or curricular experiences them— are rarely specified. evertheless, the agreement among the four authors lends rt for the four characteristics of creativity proposed in I. Most recommendations are directed toward the encour- nt and acceptance of originality, but problem—solving ities, awareness and the feelings of the originator also the attention of these authors. teraction Analysis Summaries of research of relationships between pupil rement and teacher classroom behavior and proficiency L an early state of development. Domas and Tiedeman : that prior to 1950, ratings were used in the over— Lng majority of studies in lieu of observation of class— >ehavior.56 Barr in his pioneering studies mounted a most comprehen— study with a sample of 99 teachers in grades two through in five Wisconsin cities. In all, nineteen inventories, ement measures and ratings were used. Yet, correlations ecedent variables were to Barr, “exceedingly low," g from zero to 0.35.57 6S. J. Domas and D. V. Tiedeman, "Teacher Competence: otated Bibliography," Journal of Experimental Education, 50), 101-218. 7A. S. Barr, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching ency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experi- Education, 16 (June, 1948), 203-283. H. H. Anderson, Helen and Joseph Brewer, and Mary F. d observed pre-school children and their contacts with r children. The terms, "Dominative" and "Integrative" acts were defined in terms of observable acts. Dominative acts tend to reduce alternatives and increase resistence. egrative contacts tend to increase flexibility and the her of alternatives with a decrease in resentment and nority. Anderson extended these early studies to the class- n and found that the contacts between teacher and pupil i to establish a class—wide tendency toward "integrative" ”dominative" acts. Pupils of teachers that exhibited inte— :ive contact behaviors were observed to show more spontan- I, initiative, voluntary social contributions and fewer 5 of aggression.58 Independently, Lewin, Lippett and White conducted their asical experiments. Under laboratory conditions, three ership patterns were identified. Although terminology ers, the integrative—dominative contacts have a close vioral correspondence with the democratic—authoritarian ership patterns. Withall introduced a seven category system of teacher ements to classify classrooms along a teacher—centered to 58Harold H. Anderson, J. E. Brewer and Mary F. Reed, dies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities," Applied hOlogical Monograph, 11 (1946), 101—156. ner—centered continuum. Withall described the student tions to an extremely learner-centered classroom remines- of the Lewin, Lippett and White description of grOup vior with laissez—faire leadership.59 The picture of the learning situation and pupil— teacher relationship obtained from these evaluation sheets filled out by the pupils is, on the whole, one of an impartial and cooperative individual who helped the learners to get some new ideas, but who, deSpite the pleasant, interpersonal relationships she created with them, did not from their frame of reference, help them sufficiently in identifying new problem areas and did not help them visualize the actual possibilities arising from such problems. This teacher, it would appear, did not adequately structure the situation for the learners so that they could identify and work upon problems that were challenging to them and pertinent to their interests. The constant reiteration by members of the class in their evaluation scales that they wasted their time and were bored, may be due to the fact that lack of structuring by the teacher frustrated many of them. The teacher seems to have related herself adequately as an individual to the majority of the pupils, but this satisfactory, social relationship failed to meet the needs and expectancies of the learners in so far as problem-solving and learning activities were concerned.60 Smith raised the question of overlapping concepts. For 1e, the autocratic leaders, identified in the Lewin, tt, White study used praise most frequently of the three rship types. Yet, praise is included in the "integrative" ner—centered" and "indirect" classifications of teacher ior. 59Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White, "Patterns gressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Cli— ," The Journal of Social Psychology,_10 (1939), 271-299. 60J. Withall, "The Development of a Technique for the rement of Social—Emotional Climate in Classrooms," (Unpub- d doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1948), pp, These findings suggest that extreme positions on Withall's inuum are not always optimal for gain in pupil achievement. recognized the complexity of the research problem as he .e, "It is probably erroneous to assume that specific acts good or bad divorced from purposes, principles, person and ation; this generalization may or may not apply to broad erns of behavior."61 A second observation, sometimes lost in the terminology focus on the social—emotional dimensions of interaction, hat the Anderson and Withall systems of observation include ific categories of problem—solving activity. Flanders used a testible theory relating patterns of teacher-pupil raction with problem—solving. Flanders modified the rson and Withall systems, adding one category of pupil (later two categories) and one omnibus category. Indirect uence was defined by categories one through four as verbal vior that expands pupil alternatives. Direct influence iefined by categories six and seven as verbal behaviors restrict pupil alternatives (see Table 5). An increase in pupil—initiated acts oriented to the de— of a problem and a decrease in compliance to the demands rections of the teacher, would result in an increase in ing. To test this, three hypotheses were given: 1. Indirect teacher influence increases learning when 61Barr, op. cit., p. 205. 42 TABLE 5 CATEGORIES FOR INTERACTION ANALYSIS** INDIRECT INFLUENCE DIRECT INFLUENCE ACCEPTS FEELING: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises or encourages student ac— tion or behavior. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or say- ing, "um hm?" or "go on" are included. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENT: clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to cate- gory five. ASKS QUESTIONS: asking a question about content or pro— cedure with the intent that a student answer. LECTURING: giving facts or opinions about content or procedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. GIVING DIRECTIONS: directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY: statements intended to change student behavior from nonacceptable to accept- able pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teach— er is doing what he is doing; extreme self—reference. TALK STUDENT TALK——RESPONSE: a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicite student statement and sets limits to what the student says. STUDENT TALK-—INITIATION: talk by Students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teach— er. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas. lO.* SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, short periods of silence and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the obServer. re is NO scale implied by these numbers. 1A. Flanders, Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, and Achievement, erative Research Monograph No. 12 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Govern— Printing Office), Office of Education, Dept. of Health, Education Welfare, p. 20. a student's perception of the goal is confused and ambiguous. 2. Direct teacher influence increases learning when a student's perception of the goal is clear and accept— able. 3. Direct teacher influence decreases learning when a student's perception of the goal is ambiguous.62 Flanders found that students of teachers who used an e average ratio of indirect to direct behavior learn more ested by instruments developed during this study. d, teachers with an above average proportion of indirect ence were found to exhibit more variability in their use oth direct and indirect behaviors. Analyses did reveal a ht trend to shift from an initial indirect influence to re direct influence pattern during a two week unit. This not pronounced with social studies teachers. Flanders Luded, "Perhaps the conclusion that needs to be emphasized most in this summary is that the students who achieved the and had significantly higher scores on our revised class- attitude instrument were in classes which were exposed to Lble patterns of teacher influence. This flexible pattern rded periods of predominantly indirect influence."63 62Ned A. Flanders, Teacher Influence: Pupil Attitudes and avement Cooperative ReSearch Project No. 397. (Minneapolis: —————* . of Minnesota, 1960). 63113151., p. 117. The data are recorded and preserved in sequence by three second time intervals. Thus data provide a record of fre— guency of category behaviors and the verbal behaviors that nrecede and immediately follow each time unit. To capitalize >n this quality, Flanders may display data within a 10 x 10 natrix. Interpretations of regions in the matrix have evolved luring the past decade. Table 6 is a matrix with a rather elaborate display of areas of interest and use in research. Cells in a matrix designate the intersection of a cate- ory of behavior at T1 with the category of behavior at T2 ob— erved three seconds later. The first number of each pair ndicates the row; the second number indicates the column. ‘he second number will be reentered in the next data pair, but 5 the row designator. Thus, it is possible to trace the flow" of interaction among classroom members because each ell represents the intersect of the verbal interaction found n a previous column and subsequent interaction to be found in succeeding row. The cell, 10 x 10 would contain the fre— uency pupils and teacher were observed to be silent or the erbalization was non—interpretable for periods exceeding 3 econds. Areas G1 and G2 are also of interest for the cells ndicate the frequency of indirect and direct influence of the eacher in response to pupil talk. A high frequency in area 62 .Aowsmcumowfiwzv counts: “smmfinoez "mflwmamcm sofluowkusH .mhopcmam .4 pmz* Illllllllilllllli wusmuo>Hco one .mosmsHmcH Hosomofi mcHMMHucmsm Mom osmsssooe m mo . . mee mee moccaam race uswpsum stomce Downs Honomma DocHHUsH a sons 0 mnom m moss fiII a «and Hayes _ _ OH mozqum _ _ ii 5 _ _ m i m onemHeHzH ezmooem 1. _ _ , N H W a 0 MQHAN 3 H mega o m um" _ o m x m mmzommmm ezmooew _ . _ _ _ s m EmHoHeHmo m coed _ _ m m a. _ _ o m m monecmmHo mm>Ho 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N o o L m a memoeomq me mmOH Gm CO . m a = o D u o. a monemmoo Mme I I . I I I I I I I I 4 .I I I I I I I I I N I _ _ m m m mmaH ezmooem _ _ n T. a m _ _ m mass m m o mmHamm _ _ H L _ _ H ozHHmmm mammooa _ _ Hmeoe OH m m s o m m wmoo oneao v m H Imeao IHmHmmaHo smoomemo *mHmNH¢Z¢ XHMBéE MO mfimmm 46 mld be interpreted as indicative of a discipline problem, high incidence of incorrect responses by pupils or the :currence of divergent ideas that obtain negative teacher :sponses. Additional analysis of the data in the matrix can ften resolve competing alternative interpretations. It rould be pointed out however, that the interpretation follows ialysis of data; the data collected by the classroom observer :eserves frequency and time-sequence information for later ialysis. Medley and Mitzel conclude, Flanders' scheme is extremely ingenious. Every one of the 100 cells in the matrix of Fig. 1 represents a different item of behavior with its own intrinsic inter— est. Yet the observer needs to learn and use only 10 categories. The idea of categorizing the dominant pattern of a three—second period rather than each state- ment or other unit of behavior is also ingenious. If, as Flanders says, the observer develops a natural "rhythm" in recording after some training the task must become at least as easy as that of using Withall's cate- gories after the manner of Mitzel and Rabinowitz. The dimension of classroom behavior which we have called classroom climate has been measured more success— fully than any other. There are differences in the terms applied to the dimension as it has been operationally defined in various studies—-Dominative—integrative, teacher-centered versus learner-centered, hostile—suppor— tive, direct—indirect influence. Yet there is little question that all are referring to highly similar, even identical, dimensions of behavior, reliably measurable, and important in educational theory.5” 61*Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, "Measuring Class— Om Behavior by Systematic Observation," Handbook of Research 1 Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), p. W— 47 C. Review of Research Few studies exist that include research on teacher—pupil interactions and creative performance. The studies that do exist are usually small exploratory or feasibility studies with teacher populations too small to warrant statistical tests of significance. Most of the studies, nonetheless, did include statistical analyses, usually with ambiguous results. Thus, a conservative review is reported more often as trends than as results. However, collectively they offer information and suggestions relevant to the purpose of this research. There is not as yet a common terminology or construct of creativity or of teacher behavior that would facilitate a tidy, logical review. In this section, attention is given to those studies applicable to categories of Flanders' System of Inter- action Analysis. Crutchfield65 has developed programmed instruction materials designed to encourage pupils and provide practice in both convergent and divergent problem-solving activities. This study is unique not only in its use of programmed instruc- tion materials, but also for the broad spectrum of objectives which include both cognitive process skills and affective attitudes of pupils regarding their own creativity. Crutchfield reported evidenceIDfincreased performance by pupils on the Minnesota Test of Creativity and on other measures developed m“— 65 Crutchfield, 9p. cit., pp. 196—205. 48 by project staff. There was a trend toward a positive shift on measures of self-confidence and self—evaluation, but the author indicated further development of materials was planned. In addition to curricular materials, a supportive teacher, one who can give opinion in a non-threatening manner, may be needed to effect a greater shift in positive affect. Mearns considered the influence of the teacher and the desire of children for his opinion. He gave detailed and tender atten- tion to the concerns and anxieties of children engaged in creative endeavors. He observed that children eventually sought the teacher's opinion and reactions about their work. He wrote, "They would not know it was good until someone had told them."66 Mearns realized that his opinion, in his posi— tion as teacher, contained an element of evaluation. Rather than shirk evaluation, he stressed the need for the teacher to be sensitive to the child's close identity with his work. Guilford noted a close tie between a feeling of satis- faction and evaluation. Too much evaluation applied too early is, of course, detrimental but there is one special role of evaluation that must be pointed out. The act of evaluation leaves us satisfied with our results or it leaves us dissatis— fied. If we are too easily satisfied, we miss opportuni— ties for making corrections and improvements and the general opportunity to grow.67 _ 66Hughes Mearns, Creative Power (New York: Dover Publi- cations, 1958), p. 20. 67J. P. Guilford, Creative Intelligence in Education (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, D1v1sion of Research and Guidance, 1958), p. 6. 49 Evaluation that is constructive and related to the prob- lems and alternatives of a problem-solving effort has been advocated by Torrance. Yet, he concluded after a series of field studies that teachers did not use evaluation as a learning opportunity. He concluded in part: Criticism and praise are among the favorite weapons and defenses of the respondents. Appeals to the child's own creative resources, the use of self-eyaluative approaches, and the l1ke are rarely used. Torrance has argued that praise and blame are often used by teachers as a form of evaluation that allows little oppor— tunity for self—evaluation on the part of the pupil. Instead, evaluative statements by teachers were found over—simplified, generalized praise or criticism especially in so far as con— tent was concerned. This description of the classroom use of evaluation is in sharp contrast to an environment advocated by H. H. Anderson. He described an open environment in which there is integrity of differences, along with an openness devoid of threat and manipulative control.69 The results of a study by Sears involving ten teachers and 195 pupils lend some support to the opinions expressed by Guilford, and Anderson and the observations of Torrance. She found that, "Children who get high scores on measures of . 68E. Paul Torrance, Role of Evaluation in Creative Think— }gg, Cooperative Research Project #725 (Minneapolis: UnIFEE: SltY Of Minnesota Press, 1964), p. 398. 69Harold H. Anderson, On the Meaning of Creativity, pre— pgggd for a workshop on Creativity in Childhood and Adolescence, 50 creativity tend to have teachers who reward by a technique of personal interest and praise for personal attributes and who avoid rewarding by evaluation."70 (Sears used the term "evaluation" to include criticism.) Interestingly, the trained observer, using Flanders System, probably would not record evaluative statements as criticism. The observer might well record such events in the category of giving opinion. As Mearns observed, teacher opinion is a part of evaluation and the source of satisfaction for the child, closely identi- fied with his work. But evaluation that does not include the student and his ideas is not likely to be the learning experi— ence or bring the satisfaction alluded to by Guilford. The term used by Anderson, "open environment" is some— times interpreted to mean, "permissive environment." As an outgrowth of the Sears study, Spaulding initiated a study involving twenty—one teachers in grades four and six. He found, "Only business—like lecture method with insistence upon attention—to—task and conformity to rules of procedure was found to have an educationally desirable relationship with all . 7 1 . e1ght target variables." There was alSO some ev1dence from 70Pauline Snedden Sears, The Effect of Classroom Condi- tions on the Strength of Achievement Motive and Work Output on Elementary School Children. Cooperative Research Project No. 373 (Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1963), p. 97. 71Robert L. Spaulding, Achievement, Creativity and Self— Concept Correlates of Teacher—Pupil Transactions in Elementary §2322£§. U. S. Office of Education, Project #1352 (Urbana, Illin01s: University of Illinois, 1963. 51 one teacher that a creative and disorderly pattern of planning and execution had a negative effect on pupil performance on measures of originality and flexibility. While Spaulding did not find many positive correlates with measures of creativity, the research lends evidence that a permissive environment, in the sense described earlier by Mitzel, is not conducive to optimal creativity for most children. Far from being unin— volved or non—directional, the teacher is a principal in providing an environment responsive to the interests and feel— ings of pupils and structured to the learning task. Yet, on the basis of a pilot study designed to help teachers treat pupils as "thinkers", Hutchinson observed: 1. Teachers did not listen to pupils attentively as evidenced in the way they summarized pupil ideas. 2. Teachers did not allocate time for the divergent ideas of pupils. 3. In classrooms where teachers continually derived generalizations, pupils waited for the teacher's generalizations rather than produce their own. Hutchinson elaborated on his observations to suggest that teachers in his study modified pupil ideas to conform with the teacher's preconceived idea.72 Three of five principles proposed by Torrance to guide the planning of creative experiences relate directly to the use of pupil ideas. The teacher is asked to be respectful of (l) unusual questions (2) imaginative ideas and (3) to show ——————____________ 72Hutchinson, pp. cit., p. 36. 52 3 . . And there 18 some ev1dence that their ideas have value.7 that teachers who follow these principles do facilitate creativity of pupils. Enochs.reCOrded classroom sessions of two teachers with an audio-video recorder and held conferences with each teacher at the close of the school day. Teachers were encouraged to use more indirect influence, allow more pupil talk, listen and accept what was said. The results indicated a tendency for experimental teachers to allow more pupil talk and to accept more of their ideas. Direct influ- ence behavior tended to decrease in frequency. Although the total use of indirect behavior did not substantially change in frequency, closer scrutiny suggests a change in the quality of teacher—pupil interactions. The use of pupil ideas increased from 3% to 7% of total classroom interactions. In addition, student talk increased 50% to nearly one—half of total class— room interactions. Pupils in the experimental classrooms were compared favorably by the author to control classrooms on measures of creativity.7L+ Soar used Flanders System in a study of 57 classrooms, grades three through six. After rotation of variables, he found one factor of teacher influence related to measures of 73E. Paul Torrance, "Creative Thinking Through School Experiences," Explorations in Creativity, ed. Ross L. Mooney and Taher A. Razik (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 192. 71+Paul David Enochs, "An Experimental Study of a Method for Developing Creative Thinking in Fifth Grade Children," {Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 964). 53 gain on the Minnesota Test of Creativity. This factor was termed "indirect" by Soar. But the factor was comprised principally of data indicating the frequency of teacher use of pupil ideas. He concluded that an, "indirect classroom, one in which pupil ideas are accepted, support growth in creativity and also produce a decline in the need pupils felt to describe themselves as conforming to adult norms."7S While Soar found the frequency of teacher use of pupil ideas related to measures of creativity, frequency of asking questions may not be as important as asking the right Eypgg of questions. Rubin stated, "The crux of the method hinges on the selection of questions for self—directed inquiry which demand a respectable degree of preliminary information and which require the student to employ a number of diverse intel— 6 Unless teachers lectual skills in reaching his conclusion."7 will ask questions that request or require divergent thinking Operations on the part of pupils, there is not likely to be pupil—initiated expression of their ideas. Yet, Carner found teachers most reluctant to use "creative" questions as compared . 7 7 to the use of "concrete" and "abstract" quest1ons. M. 75 . Robert S. Soar, An Integrative Approach to Classroom Learning (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1966), p. 184. 76Louis J. Rubin, "Creativity and the Curriculum," EEgggiyity Its Curriculum Implications, ed. John Curtis Gowan, George D. Demos and E. Paul Torrance (New York: Wiley, 1967), P. 204. . 77R. L. Carner, "Levels of Questioning," Studying Teach— ififl, ed. James Rath, John R. Pancella and James S. Van Ness (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1967), pp. 182-186. IILa________________________________________11 All. 54 Aschner and Gallagher developed an observation schedule based on the cognitive operations by Guilford (see page 32). The five major categories were: Routine, Memory, Convergent thinking, Divergent thinking and evaluation.78 Gallagher observed that a slight shift in question type on the part of the teacher resulted in a relatively large increase in pupil participation.79 Aschner and Wise found that four teachers identified as "indirect" used more divergent questions than a group termed "direct". In addition, pupils in the former group initiated a significantly greater number of their own divergent ques- tions and statements. This finding was found appealing, logically and operationally, for it suggests a way for a teacher to encourage pupils to express their ideas and solu- tions to problems.80 This review of research found few studies of teacher-pupil interaction effects with creativity. However, there was evi— dence of a tentative nature to suggest that divergent thinking 78Mary Jane Aschner, James J. Gallagher, Joyce Perry and Sibel Afsar, A System for Classifying Thought Processes in the Context of Classroom Verbal Interaction (Urbana: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1962) (mimeographed). 79Mary Jane Aschner and James J. Gallagher, "A Preliminary RePOrt on Analyses of Classroom Interaction," Merrill—Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9 (1963), 193—194. 8°Mary Jane Aschner and A. E. Wise, Supplemental Materials for Factors Related to Intellectual Initiative in the Classroom: Teacher Influence, Sex Differences (Mimeographed). 1964. 55 questions could be used to encourage pupil expression of their ideas. Listening, acceptance and perhaps elaboration of the ideas of pupils were in part found related to creative performance. The evidence and opinion regarding the use of praise was found ambivalent, but the slim evidence pointed to a cautious approach to test its importance to creativity in this study. This review included a survey of literature regarding the nature and characteristics of creative behavior. A process- product construct was adopted. Surprisingly, this was the first study to include a review of creativity prior to the conduct of tests of variables of teacher—pupil interaction. Sensitivity to problems, openness and awareness, and problem~ solving activity were considered along with originality as facets of creativity as process and product. In the next chapter, the criterion measures of creativity as a product are introduced. The teacher—pupil variables are identified by analysis within a 10 x 10 matrix, using Flanders guidelines. CHAPTER III THEORY AND RESEARCH DESIGN Knowledge is not a copy of reality. To know an Object, to know an event, is not simply to look at it and make a mental copy, or image of it. To know an object is to act on it. To know is to mod- ify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of this transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the object is constructed. An operation is thus the essence of knowledge; it is an interiorized action which modifies the object of knowledge.1 This chapter was divided into five parts. Part I in- cluded a resume of the pertinent ideas and findings of the previous chapter. In Part II, a construct of creativity was presented that suggested possible relationships between measures of creative performance (product measures), academic achievement, and classroom interaction (process measures). In part III, the creative performance measures of divergent thought and problem solving are described. Since the problem solving measure was developed for use in this study, a brief description of its development was also included in the third Part. Part IV contained the rationale and preliminary ____________________ 1Jean Piaget, "Notes on Learning," Saturday Review (May 20, 1967), p. 81. 56 57 definitions of classroom interaction variables. Finally, the population and statistical treatment are outlined in part V. Part I Review of Ideas and Reported Findings In the previous chapter, creativity was considered as both product and process. The product was characterized by its uniqueness and its resolution of some worthwhile problem. The process was described by some as a ser1es of steps, eg., Wallas' four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification.2 But the process was also qualified to depict an active transaction and sometimes described to have quality of openness, self—direction and responsiveness. Several studies of the possible effect of the classroom teacher on pupil performance on measures of creativity were reported. Torrance cautioned against the indiscriminate use of evaluation in the form of routine praise3 while Mearns forty years earlier described the need and the care to be exercised in teacher evaluation of pupils' creative endeavors.LI \— 2Graham Wallas, The Art of Thought (London: Jonathan Cape, 1926). _ 3E. Paul Torrance, Role of Evaluation in Creative Think— ing, Cooperative Research Project #725 (Minneapolis: Un1versity of Minnesota Press, 1964). ”Hughes Mearns, Creative Power (New York: Dover Publi— cations, 1958). 58 Skill in listening, clarifying and elaborating on pupil ideas was suggested by the findings of Soar and Hutchinson in their studies of teacher influence.5 The findings of Aschner and Wise demonstrated a positive relationship between the teacher's use of "open" or "closed" questions, the frequency of divergent pupil talk and pupil initiated talk.6 Finally, the conclusion of Flanders in his earlier study bears repetition. The flex— ible teacher, the one who modified his influence, direct or indirect, with pupil clarity of goals and procedures tended to increase pupil performance on measures of problem solving. It seemed that the freedom and the control that Johnson saw as part of the creative search could be encouraged and supported by patterns of classroom interaction that varied with the cognitive task. It is the purpose of this chapter to describe the theoretical construct, design and procedures used to test this idea. Part II A Theoretical Construct of Creativity Creativity was defined for the purpose of this study as the problem solving performance of the pupil by which “*— 5Robert S. Soar, An Integrative Approach to Classroom Learning (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1966); Eliot Dole Hutchinson, How To Think Creatively (New York: Abingdon— Cokesbury Press, 1949). 6Mary Jane Aschner and A. E. Wise, Supplementary Materials for Factors Related to Intellectual Initiative in the Class— room: Teacher Influence, Sex Differences (Mimeographed). 59 solutions, unique among peers, are produced that meet the conditions of a task or goal. Explicit in this definition is the performance of the pupil as evidenced by a solution that is both unique and meets some requirement of the problem. Three implications were drawn from a consideration of creativity to include problem solving activities. First, creativity was not viewed as a single act or moment, but a set of activities. Within the set, activities might differ both in immediate purpose and in behavior. Second, creativity would require, dependent in part on the problem, several intellectual or cognitive performance skills of the student. And third, different cognitive performance skills would require different patterns of interaction between teacher and learner. For this study a construct* was developed to illustrate the organization and associations of ideas and measures of creativity. It is not an idealized model of creativity or of instruction. Rather, the construct was used in the joint consideration of problem solving activities, classroom verbal interaction, and measures of classroom interaction and pupil performance. Thus, the construct is descriptive of theoretical and behavioral concepts used in the study of relationships found between several measures of creativity and selected measures of classroom interaction. Two purposes are served: (1) To ______________________ *Constructs are deliberate creations chosen to organize exPerience into general law—like statements. See Lee J. Cron- baCh: “Test Validation," Educational Measurement, 2nd Ed. Robert L. Thorndike, ed., (Washington: The American Council on Education, 1971), pp. 462—467. 60 present theoretical relationships between several measures of creativity, and (2) To present theoretical relationships between selected measures of classroom interaction and measures of creativity. Before detailing these relationships, the entire construct is presented for the reader. Stages To study creative performance and associated problem solving activities, a preliminary division was made following the lead of Wallas and Gallagher. Division of problem solving activities by stages is artificial in terms of sequence and continuity. Undoubtedly, the sensibility, organization and sequence of activities is peculiar to each individual and problem. Nevertheless, the four stages appeared basic to most if not all problem solving performance. Added to the four stages of creative performance offered by Wallas, was a stage termed, problem formulation. The introduction of a Fifth Stage or division of creative problem solving was first suggested by the writings of Rossman and DeweyJ7 Wallas apparently assumed the problem to be defined. However, Rossman included a step he called, "detection of a need", as part of problem solving. Dewey recognized that a . 7Joseph Rossman, The Psycholggy of the Inventor (Wash— ington, D.C.: Inventors Publishing Co., 1931; John Dewey, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (Boston: D. C. Heath and 00-. 1933). cmocHucoo womb 302 ucoEw>oumEH poopOHm Amonmoqm no moaonfluv xuos msoum can coeuaEnowmcmHH onomHnEm New wocmumaoe Sodom ucwpcomoch Acosu mstmu xmflm :oHuospoud cesumcHESHHH mama moons ImHmEoo ousuosde Eopmwuw Dammuw>flo HHH mwcsz pmucHuHcH Hedda mcHuouoouumwm HmouowHkucH :oHuanoocH COHDMOAHmmc mcflpmwm ucchoHowcflom :oflumEMOMCH uca>waou Downsch oueuomua mo coHuHcmoowm meme HHHHQ ucoEw>chow coHucouum unsecumom HHHHQ sceuflummwm anwtmo< mmmcmDOapoum xuosz coHumuadwum HH coHDmmeHmsuowHHoucH mumps powwow uoz monopoooud mcfluooHom mo mmflcmCOHumaou custom mcfltmflanmumm msmhaccc cofluflchwo .U mxwwm Monumoe mmwpfl HHQSQ ou muco>w mofiocmmmuomeo manna moon Honomoe ucmmosomflo mo :oHuHcmoowm 11 :oHsHmo ADHHOCHE muoowwc OD >us>flpsmccm coawcwswumeoo coHuHcmouom .m r0 new mumps Hausa mo om: chomwe mumps muowwno qumoHusu GQDMHDHCH Hedda mcoHumwmmow EOHDHDDCH GOHDM>HomQO .4 wwcflz mCOHummoc some "Doonm mmwwH mxmm stomoe mcoflumooo mesxmd coauacmoo coHpaHSEuom .6305 H mmmoomm memomeHEHZUOU mMMDm mUZHfi4mmu m0 EUDMBWZOU Busmommlmmmoomm d h mdm48 62 mmcfl emwso Ivaw Mo cosmumouua can sofluficmoomm soflpsbfluucoo can mCHcme Hmcowumm mcfiwwfluson MHnwuHuo cuss mcamoob mmmm mnemcwm wwmwnuomxn msflumme o>a oommHom mswoam> mcocH . maoflmsaucoo :H mDHsmou mWHumoood o>Huowmwd musmflm muHSmoH mom has muHHHnHw:0dmmn TUSHUCA on nonfiz IHHnHmcomme ownmrm ooumwu uoz HacquHHoDCH cosumdwm>m COHDMOHMHHQ> > cOHDoHnwnm pom coflpmcaamxw Hedda ucwfi $pr 9.3% “aromas Image HmcHu mchHoafiHz mmmpH mumps msfluaflm msoHuoHOm mcHmewo mpnmflm wmsflawom mcoap muHome mcsuochum mocflz mo oocmudmooa IsHOm mCHumommom muHsmoH coauuoponm COHpmnoomHm «mono can cosuflsmooom meHnoum mceoom Hmsuflse masumooom ucwmuw>soo . >H new 3mH>om BUDoomm mmHmOUMHHBHzooo mmmomdmz onBUm ImMBZH fidmmm> ooscwucooIIn mumme 63 period of doubt and search might precede deliberation of possible solutions. In addition, Dewey seemed to make allow- ance for intuition as a possible source of solution prior to formalized intellectualization of the problem. Apart from the logical analysts, H. H. Anderson coun— selled attention be given a stage of problem formulation from pedagogical considerations. For it is often here in the early stages of problem solving that the interplay of teacher and pupil not only determine the existence of a problem but also who, teacher or pupil, shall have the oppor— tunity of a creative solution. Without this stage, a goal may be so poorly defined as to result in an aimless pursuit, excessive anxiety and increased dependence upon the direction of others. Alternatively, goals or procedures may be described with such precision as to preclude variation in individual goal or procedures. Cognitive Operations Cognitive Operations after Guilford are included in the construct to indicate the predominate transformation of data and information to some idea production. Memory as a cogni- tive operation connotes minimal transformation of data. Evaluation as used here would result in an assessment of a jUdgment, choice or value to something. Convergent and di- Vergent idea production refer respectively to transformations 0f information to anticipated answers or to alternative 64 answers. Answers and solutions to questions or problems in convergent productions can be reached by reasoning from the information presented in the problem. In divergent idea production, an individual is free to take a new perspective and to add his own ideas, associations and problem limita- tions. While creativity has sometimes been equated with divergency, it may be noted that each type of cognitive Opera— tion is represented in the construct used here. Each cogni— tive operation results in the production of an idea that can be assessed with evaluative instruments. Thus, each stage with its predominate cognitive operation can be considered and assessed separately or as a part of a total set of problem solving activities. Classroom Attitudes and Behavior The third column of the construct consisted of a list of suggested behaviors and attitudes associated with the stages of problem solving activities. While not essential to this study, this column does afford a transition between measures Of creative performance and the covert mental Operations that are assumed the basis of idea production. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, but is intended to suggest behaviors and attitudes believed supportive to cognitive idea production. The list also serves as a basis for an informal check of con— sistency between supportive behaviors and attitudes of pupils On the one hand and suggested classroom patterns of classroom interaction introduced in column five of the construct. 65 Performance Measures of Creativity As indicated by column four, most tests of creativity may be categorized as measures of divergent idea production. In this study, however, assessment of a broader range of creative problem solving abilities was desired. Tate found that ideational tests, Seeing Problems (candle, pencil), Consequences (blindness, anarchy), Reasons (cities, trees) and gggg (brick, newspaper) did distinguish significant dif- ferences in scores obtained from a sample of seventh and eighth grade children identified as good and poor problem solvers. Perhaps just as revealing was the finding that fluency of responses did not distinguish between the two groups of problem solvers with one exception: Fluency scores with the ideational test, Consequences, favored poor problem solvers! But the scores obtained from the same test based on a criterion of quality did distinguish, as did the other ideational tests, two groups of problem solvers. Tate con— cluded that “poor problem solvers differ significantly in quality of response as elicited by our ideational-fluency tests."8 It also appeared desirable to present a task stimulus with a minimum set of restrictions or requirements to be met in formulating an answer. In particular, problem formulation M.— . 8Merle W. Tate, Barbara Stanier and Berj Harootunian, D1fferences Between Good and Poor Problem—Solvers, Project #368 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1959). 66 in this study was a stage during which discrepancies were recognized, gaps in knowledge identified and accommodation to elements of the problem occurred. The formulation of a problem could be based upon the then current observation and interpretation of events, background information, interest and the like. A set of tasks of creative performance of interest to this study was the Ask and Guess Test, developed by Torrance. This test was developed from a rationale that curiosity is reflected in the number and type of questions asked.9 In one version of this test, a picture of a Mother Goose story (Tom, the Piper's Son) is displayed and children are asked to ask questions, state possible causes of depicted events and give possible consequences. This study plus the gaps in measurement apparent from the construct presented earlier suggested tasks be developed that included conditions within the problem. These conditions would pose restrictions or requirements to be met while formu— lating an acceptable answer. It was found that problems, tasks and solutions could be broadly classified as: (l) ngp without restriction to acceptable, alternative answers (2 v Restricted to judgment or choice among several pre— selected alternatives M— 9E. Paul Torrance, Guiding Creative Talent (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 222—223. 67 (3) Closed to alternatives: one answer is considered best. Problems that require solutions in the form of facts, descrip- tions and rule-like statements tend to cluster at the "closed" end of an open—closed continuum. Adaptation of concepts to additional conditions and application of principles to new situations; evaluation,judgment and choice tend to center be— tween the "open" and "closed" poles of the continuum. This is because the alternatives are usually known or the rules and criteria are predesignated by which alternatives are selected, but the specific response may be left to be deter— mined by the student. At the other extreme of the continuum may be found problems, tasks or solutions with no restrictions to an acceptable answer. More frequently, "open" questions, tasks and problems do have at least implicit restrictions that permit some relationship to be drawn between a stimulus task and a reSponse. This classification, coarse as it may be, at once sug— gested that creative problem solving often includes more than one cognitive task. Further, creative problem solving often includes cognitive operations that tend to expand the number or choice of alternatives and also thought operations that are directed toward restricting the number or choice of alterna- tives. Indeed, a pattern of an alternating degree of restric- tion may be discerned from one stage to the next: open, restricted, closed, open, restricted, closed. Closed One acceptable answer. Criterion of accept— ability not known or imposed by rule. 68 Restricted Number of possible answers not known Criterion found in whatever a solution must accomplish. Open All answers ac— ceptable with— out (immediate) evaluation. Criterion may not be known or recognized. Example: Tennis shoes must be worn on gym floor. Example: How can tracking on the gymnasium floor be prevented? Example: The free associa— tive response. Example: 6 x 7 = 42 An Open—Restricted—Closed Classification of Problems and Answers. Figure 1. The alternating pattern of open—restricted-closed free- dom (or its reciprocal, restriction) of choice of alternative task or solution probably does not exist save in the model construct above. Nevertheless, it is suggested that one or more shifts in tasks along a continuum of degree of restric~ tion seems probable if a unique, workable solution is ex— pected. It is further suggested here that this construct with stages that include tasks with varying degree of restriction on alternative answers can be extended to a consideration of classroom interaction between members of the classroom. Classroom Interaction Our theory suggested that pupils would engage in the task Of observing and formulating a problem sufficiently to seek and determine relevancy of information and to suggest procedures to solve the problem. During a period in which these condi— tions were not met, the teacher might take an active stance with questions that encouraged pupils to identify gaps in information, to recognize the familiar and to test ideas with one another. The "open" question could be used to encourage pupils to offer opinion, to recount past experience, and to designate individual interest in certain facets of a problem or related problems. The teacher may well take an active part in clarifying pupils ideas, giving additional informa- tion that might lend support to pupil ideas and, if need be, protecting a minority opinion from dominance by a peer ma- jority. Until such time as pupils were oriented to the problem and requirements for obtaining a solution, the teacher uses control to manage class activities. For example, independent seat work or reading assignments might be given to pupils who from limited experience or background find it difficult to determine appropriate procedures. During periods in which pupils knew both goal and procedures and were problem oriented, the teacher might use a preportionately high frequency of directions and specific questions. This might be anticipated as the teacher facilitates pupil search for information and Student judgment concerning alternative solutions. Finally, if pupils and teacher in reality shared responsibility for Outcomes, pupil explanation and opinion contrasting results With the formulated problem could be expected. Thus, a supportive climate was not seen to be a permissive climate. Rather in roles as manager, discussant and resource person, the teacher assumed an active stance that could be modified with goal clarity, pupil experience and problem solving activity. Flanders in an earlier study formulated three hypotheses relating teacher influence patterns to goal clarity and pupil achievement. When goals were clear, Flanders found flexible teachers used a higher proportion of direct influence than they did when goals were unclear. In addition, Flanders also reported that flexible teachers tended to vary their verbal influence patterns with the learning task. More indirect influence was used during periods of planning and the intro- duction of new material. Extending the Flanders' findings to this study, it may be expected that flexible teachers who support the creative problem solving activities of pupils will vary their patterns of verbal influence with the clarity of goals and with the cognitive task. 1. Given that goals are unclear, a pattern of indirect influence will be found related to pupil achievement. 2. Given that goals are clear, a pattern of indirect influence will support pupil formulation of a problem, and divergent idea production. 3. Given goals are clear but information is insufficient to proceed, a flexible pattern of direct and indirect influence will support pupil achievement. Flanders' second hypotheses relating achievement and goal clarity with a direct influence pattern is modified in this study. The reason, of course, is that information is not a sufficient goal when the objective is creative per— formance. The information must not only be acquired and perhaps reinforced, but comprehended to sufficient degree to permit translation to the student problem at hand. It would seem that some combination of directed teacher influence, pupil activity and pupil-teacher interaction is required to facilitate creative performance. Flanders' hypothesis of direct influence with clear goals is modified when the cognitive task is either problem formu- lation or divergent idea production. Even with goal clarity, the cognitive task can be an overriding consideration in the designation of desired influence pattern. It may not be sufficient, however, to use the measures of indirect and direct influence patterns developed by Flanders. The problem of course is that these measures in— clude the frequencies of teacher talk to the total time in the classroom. If the student is to be creative, it is he who must contribute the ideas that are the mainstay of solu- tions to a problem. The teacher with planning and managerial control may facilitate pupil diversity with shared responsi- bility for the outcome. But indirect influence measures had to be identified that specified the type and quantity of pupil COntributions as well as the influence patterns of the teacher. 72 These measurement variables will be introduced with measure— ment variables of creative performance of pupils in a later section and in Chapter IV. Three implications drawn from the theoretical construct appeared tenable and instrumental for further study: First, creative problem solving may often include more than one cognitive task, as for example, discrimination, definition, divergent idea production and assessment. Second, creative problem solving includes both thought operations that tend to expand the number and choice of alternatives, and thought operations that tend to restrict the number of and choice of alternatives. And third, patterns of verbal interaction "consistent" with desired cognitive operations will facilitate student expansion or reduction of number and choice of alternatives. That is, teachers who exhibit flexibility in management of pupil and teacher patterns of verbal interaction will use patterns consistent with the attendant cognitive operation of students or class. Part III Measurement of Creative Performance and Academic Achievement Measurement of Creative Performance An Instrument, Test Your Imagination, was developed as a Part of this study. It consisted of four tasks of divergent 73 thinking from the Minnesota Test of Creativity (Torrance, 1960). Three additional tasks were developed to assess skills in "Asking" questions and sensing discrepancies, "Seeing Problems" and "Suggesting Solutions" to a problem situation. The two figural tasks from the Minnesota Test of Crea- tivity were selected to provide tasks that required a minimum of verbal skills. The Picture Completion Task presented a minimal stimulus line or curve. The student was asked to complete the picture by creating a new figure using the stimu— lus as part of the picture. The second figural task presented thirty—six regularly spaced circles. The subject was requested to draw objects or pictures using one or more circles as part of the drawings. The task required the subject to create a picture where one did not previously exist. In addition, it presented a test of subject flexibility or ability to respond differently to the same stimulus in a brief time period. The two verbal tasks from the Minnesota Test of Creativity required the student to alter an existing object. Product Improvement presented the task of improving a toy so that children may have more fun with it. The second task, Unusual EEEEI requested the subject to list different uses for a card— board box. The latter task had been used by Tate who found a significant correlation between scores of useful uses for the object and criterion scores of good problem solvers. A similar task was reported used as part of the A C Test of Creative Ability. The latter test battery was found to distinguish by 74 test scores eighteen engineering and technical staff person— nel judged "high" and eighteen personnel judged "low" in creative ability.10 Because of the emphasis of this study on creative problem solving abilities, the latter task had a particular appeal. But all of the four tasks from the Minnesota Battery were favored because multiple reSponses were encouraged, tasks had been developed particularly for elementary school children and each task had at least one constraint or rule. In addition to the four tasks from the Minnesota Battery, three additional tasks were developed for purposes of this study. The first of the three tasks, Asking Questions, was designed to provide a measure of at least two subdivisions of the Stage of Problem Formulation from the construct presented earlier. An unfamiliar stimulus was presented that had an aura of incredibility. To respond, by asking questions about the objects and to note the discrepant events in the picture, the subject was considered to have displayed evidence of attitudes of openness and curiosity. The next two tasks presented the subject with additional information about the unfamiliar stimulus that had to be taken into account. The information provided was designed to restrict alternatives that otherwise might have been available. ...—k 10Richard H. Harris, A. C. Test of Creative Ability, Test Administration Manual (Chicago: UnIVersity of Chicago, 1959) , pp. 13—15. 75 A measure of a population's ability to respond to a minimal set of constraints might then be compared to the ability of the population to respond to tasks with increasing number of restrictions and convergence to a single answer. The second of the three tasks asked the subject to list the problems foreseen in using an object described in the task above. This task, Seeing Problems (Consequences) was of additional interest for variations with other stimulus objects had been favorably reported in the validation studies of Tate11 and the A C Test of Creative Ability.12 The last task was designed to compare measures of pupil divergent idea production with measures of pupil ability to suggest solutions to problems. Again, information provided the subject about the stimulus figure had to be taken into account in the suggested solutions. But the task was made particularly difficult by adding the conditions that the solu— tions be fair and practical. In this way, the student was asked to evaluate his own responses or problem solutions. The interview technique with three to six children was used to refine test items. Quite unanticipated, perspective and anxiety seemed to underlie two major difficulties in the refinement of the three tasks. With drawings of objects pupils had not previously seen, objects were not perceived as 11Tate, Stanier and Harootunian, op. cit., p. 40. 12Harris, op. cit., p. 13. 76 an adult thought they should. In an earlier version of a cloud, for instance, with a pull-down hatch, a rope was seen by some to be a toothpick. Hence, a loop handle was added to a later version of the cloud (Cream Puff). The second difficulty was evidenced by some pupils to be inclined toward calamity rather than problems. For illustration, one earlier test stimulus of children playing on a small satelite moon had to be discarded because pupils were more concerned with children falling off or being pushed off than with the problem presented in the test. The last three tasks were pretested with 121 pupils from four classrooms. Different ages and socio—economic backgrounds were sought for this trial population since simple correlations between two forms were not the only con— cern. Readibility, two methods of test introduction, and cultural bias of rural, suburban and inner—city populations were also investigated. The four teachers were asked to observe and did give many helpful suggestions. A cover picture was added, eliminating the need to spend considerable time describing the nature of the test, the word, "imagination", substituted for the word, "creativity", and time limits set at a length at which children were still thinking but had stopped writing. Correlations of about .50 were set as minimal useful limits. The obtained correlations by task and factors for the group (n=60) receiving the "better" method are: 77 Asking Seeing Solving Questions Problems Problems Total Fluency .67 .59 .31 .69 Flexibility .64 .50 .12 .61 Adequacy .64 .64 .23 .59 Task 7, Problem Solving, proved too difficult for the trial population. It was retained to provide a higher upper ceiling should higher ability ranges be encountered in the larger test population. The test administration procedures and time require— ments were determined as part of trial tests (Appendix B). One additional problem of concern during trial use and refine- ment was with administrator influence on the examinee. The interest (or lack) and motivation of the examiner could con— ceivably negate a persistent, but less immediate teacher— classroom influence. Conversely, teacher influence that easily compensated should in some way be equalized. To adjust for such a contingency, a positive bias toward children's own creative ability and work was attempted as part of introduc— tory instructions. However, in some instances, this resulted in lengthy unwanted explanations of creativity with dubious results. It was found that every child claimed to understand imagination. The title of the test was changed, a cover illustration, plausible but improbable, was added and the test administrator had only to ask, "Do you have an idea what this test of your imagination is about?" to obtain a positive 785 response (see Appendix A, B, for Examiner Instructions and Scoring Protocols). Scoring Creative Performance with the Battery, Test Your Imagination Separate tasks of the Minnesota Test of Creativity were scored according to instructions provided by Torrance in the Scoring Manuals, Forms A and B. Tasks were scored for Fluency, Flexibility, Originality and in the figural tasks, Elaboration. The three tasks of problem solving developed for this study were scored for Fluency, Flexibility and Adequacy. Total scores for figural, verbal and problem solving sections of the test battery were computed. By title and scored factors, the seven tasks are given in Figure 2 below. Flexi— Origin— Elabor- Titlg Fluency bility ality ation Adequacy Picture Completion X X X X Pictures from Circles X X X Product Improvement X X X Unusual Uses X X X Asking Questions X X Seeing Problems X X X Solving Problems X X Figure 2. Schedule of scores by factors and tasks from the battery, Test Your Imagination. Measure of Academic Achievement In this study, the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT) were administered to provide measures of academic achievement. 79 The Intermediate Battery for grades 5 and 6 consists of eight tests of which five were used: Test 4 Language—-Usage, parts of speech and punctuation Test 5 Language Study Skills——Use of dictionary and information resources Test 6 Arithmetic Computation——Mathematical operations, fractions and graph interpretation Test 7 Arithmetic Problem Solving and Concepts-—Concepts of numbers and application to word-numerical problems Test 8 Social Studies Study Skills——Interpretation of maps, scales, bar graphs and tables. Test scores were converted to standardized scores and used for two purposes: First, pre-test scores were used in analysis of covariance to equate classroom groups for initial academic achievement. Second, post-treatment scores were used as a measure of academic achievement. Part IV Measures of Classroom Verbal Interaction The variables of classroom verbal interaction selected for this study were defined after review of the suggestions and conclusions of the writers cited in Chapter II, plus the ideas in a theoretical context introduced in this chapter. Briefly, these suggestions bear repetition: 80 1. Give time to test ideas. Introduce discrepant events. N 0 OJ 0 Encourage children to find their OWn problems. 4. Give children time to use their separate cognitive skills of problem sensitivity, intuition and evalua- tion. 5. Share evaluation and judgment. ON a Distinguish between closed, restricted and open objectives. 7. Build associations with varied experiences. 8. Help pupils see the implications of their ideas. 9. Treat questions and ideas with respect. 10. Allow for individual tolerance and skill in self- initiated learning. In addition, the claim by Rogers that creativity would be fostered in a climate of psychological safety was recalled. It was suspected that the points above might be conducive to psychological safety in the classroom. But a balance between the predictable and the unknown seemed a necessary condition at least for some elementary school aged children. The interaction analysis variables were identified from a ten by ten matrix of the ten major categories of the Flanders Observation Instrument (see Table 8). The frequency of pupil initiated talk is found in the 9 x 9 cell. The frequency of Pupil talk directed by the teacher may be found in the 8 x 8 Cell. Pupil talk directed by the teacher was interpreted to mama. \ mama. mama. name mama. mama. name OH \ \\\ \k§ Es. Ea Ea Hm< a K 283 mxw 9?. 92 92 on? SE m a o No No No No No a SEQ o o No No No mm mm m cam 83. \ \ \\ l \ mama Sana o o :03 m omm \ \ mums Him Sago o o . \ a cam meme Em :Hno o a \ \ \ m omm . V 989 Em Sana o a . R N mama Em saw a o a S m w a . e m _ s m . N H ZOHBO§MBZH Hfimmm> m0 NHMBAMZ OH N CH d4 ZHmBHZ mHQMU Mm ZOHBUflmmBZH ZOOMmmMHEU¢ mOOO. 4 mm A4909 mooo. fl m> fidaoe mooo. m >2 mfiqm 50. < >2 Q¢EOB m QflBOB mooo. WH. mooo. Om. mooo. om. m mm Q¢BOB mam moo. HH. mooo. Hm. mooo. hm. m mm Om04 mooo. PH. mooo. mm. mooo. Wm. m mm xDAm mqmflHm¢> mqdem¢> MBH>HEQ0w qumomm EmmBMMQ mooo. VA. mo. wo. mooo. mm. m m> Q OHmO mooo. QH. mo. mo. mooo. mg. m m> qum mooo. OH. mooo. 0H. mooo. mm. m >2 mfiqm mOOO. mH. mooo. ma. mooo. vm. m >2 Q2 OHmO HOD. NH. 000. OH. mooo. mm.o m >2 x392 mmOU mmoo hmoo MHZOHm dflHBMflm MHZOHm HfiHBM mqm¢HM£> mqdem€> mqmfiHm¢> 02H>QOm qumomw 92m2m>MHmU¢ UHEHQflUd MBH>HB¢MMU BmMEmmm Bzmmzmmmn mHmNH mo xfinpcfi OH x OH 6 mo mmmum owumsma .mmo .m wusmflm BUMMHQ . MMBZMU . HUMMHDZH mwmode mmmUm Q¢>m MWfl Mmfi mDm m> m> >2 >2 >2 EOOMWMHB¢MNU mo mmmbmmmz BZMQZWQMQ NEE 92¢ dem@Hm¢> ZOHBU¢MmBZH zoomwmmqo ZMMBBmm mmHmmZOHBfiqmm BZfiUHhHZOHm MdfiflUHBWHBfiBm MH Wflm¢8 125 the task requirement as perceived by the pupil. The last three variables, PIM, IDEAS and 10 Ratio, plus the sum of these vari- ables, TIPI, were found to be significant predictors of Task 6 and 7, evaluation. Three measures of teacher and pupil classroom interaction were found statistically significant in predicting Total Battery Score and Sectional Scores of Originality and Problem Solving. The PIM variable was the strongest predictor of verbal creativity performance, while IDEAS accounted for a higher amount of regression sum of squares with non-verbal and problem solving measures. The lO—R variable faltered only with the Task 5 measure (see Table 14). The variable, PDM, failed to be a significant predictor of Task 6 measure of problem solving. It had been predicted from the construct presented in Chapter III, page 62, to be a significant correlate. PDM was, however, found to be statistically significant in predicting scores of Task 7, Sgggesting Solutions. The shift in arithmetic sign from nega- tive and non-significant for measures of non-verbal and verbal creativity, and for the Task 5 measure, to positive and approach— ing the level of acceptance with Task 6; and then to positive and at an acceptance level of significance was conspicuous in its parallel with the increase in constraints from Task 5 through Task 7. The evidence that evaluation can be considered a different cognitive task, sensitive to different interaction Variables would be found credible save for the nagging 126 TABLE 14 RESULTS OF AN ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE DEPENDENT VARIABLE:* TOTAL SCORE I B CLASSROOM DEGREE INTERACTION OF VARIABLE FREEDOM MEAN SQUARE F-STATISTIC SIGNIFICANCE PD MESH 5 REGRESSION 7803.8 1 RESTRICTION 44.0 0.92 0.34 (N.S.) 759 ERROR 47.8 PI MESH 5 REGRESSION 7859 l RESTRICTION 319.9 6.7 0.009 759 ERROR 47.4 10 RATIO 5 REGRESSION 7957.3 1 RESTRICTION 811.5 17.35 0.0005 759 ERROR 46.8 IDEAS 5 REGRESSION 7930.3 (DBQI) 1 RESTRICTION 676.4 14.4 0.0005 759 ERROR 46.95 TIPI 5 REGRESSION 8011.9 1 RESTRICTION 1084.3 23.4 0.0005 759 ERROR 46.4 SMALL D 5 REGRESSION 7811.5 1 RESTRICTION 82.3 1.72 0.186 (N.S.) 759 ERROR 47.7 ID RATIO 5 REGRESSION 7795.5 1 RESTRICTION 2.492 0.052 0.80 (N.S.) 759 ERROR 47.83 *With Pre-treatment Academic Achievement and Creative Performance Measures, Age and Sex Covariates. 127 correlation of PDM with the area of the matrix termed Drill. A conclusion with a ring of finality must await a better measure of evaluation as it occurs in classroom interaction. The term, "Flexibility," was introduced by Flanders to mean the modification of teacher influence, direct and in- direct, with a change in classroom activity. In this study, no injustice is meant to the original meaning to include the modification of classroom interaction with a change in cogni- tive task. That is, the concept of teacher flexibility was extended to include different patterns of interaction with different cognition tasks. Then it might be expected that the sum of classroom interaction variables would account for more regression sum of squares than the most significant single interaction variable. Inspection of the mean squares for restriction and mean error sum of squares (Tables 15 and 16) indicated that the regression accounted by three separate covariates is not significantly different from the regression accounted by the single variable formed by the sum of the three normalized variables. From the results above, there emerged a problem solving Pattern of teacher-pupil classroom interaction. (1) If there is occasion for continuous pupil initiated talk that is accepted for the ideas expressed, crea— tive performance is enhanced. (2) And if with an increase in pupil initiated talk there is an increase in teacher statements in which the 128 no. w MOMMW Hmh OH. 00. MESH MWN me. mm. om.s oneonemmm m w. o.. mnoa omen «.mmm onmmmmomm ma mm. o. «0.: SHE m m> m.mmm momma am» me. so. mamoH uaeos Hoo. mm.m e.mmse oneonemmm m mo. mo. muoa mom m.esoom onmmmmomm me No. SH. mo. Bed H.omm mommm Hm» mo. mo. mmmcH m> mooo. me.o m.mvee oneonEmmm m mo. so. muofi ono «.mmmm onmmmmomm ma mm. mo. so. sHm e.mefi momma ems mooo. me. mamoH mooo. ma.e H.emm oneonemmm m mm. mo. mloe mane o.eemm onmmmmomm me me. man. Ho. SHE >2 o.moa momma ems mo. mo. mamoH qmeoe oao. ee.m o.oom oneonemmm m me. so. mnon mom no.mmme onmmmmomm me mm. mm. 0. see v.8m mommm ems mm. mo. mmmoH >2 emo. mo.m m.moa oneoHEEmmm m mo. so. sacs OHmo n.8mm onmmmmomm me mm. mm. 80. and a OHemHeaemum mmaoom 2am: zoommmm m d u mumauma> Emma .mO MQWHBQDZ QMNHBMANW ZOHBU/NMWBZH mmmmomo soommmauo immamszz> oneommmezH memes eses mozaHma>oo mo mHmwuaza mo meupmmm m H mam—<9 oommEHOMHom m>flvmouo mo wwmoaw 30A mumooumucfl cosmeuomuwm o>flumono 304 mummouousfl ucoEw>0H£o< 0HE0080¢ 309 wmth .OABmmloa .rmmz Hm new matte: .mmem e um: Ucm OHUUHE enmflm .wmd eat mavens .emam .xwm . "wwumaum .mwanmwum> ceauomuquH Soon . >00 mmMHO WOHEB t I!!! mm.ee mommm mm» moo. om. m H mooo. me.m e.moe oneonemmm m 800. as. mmmoH mmoom «.moom onmmmmomm AH mm. mm. mo. muoe qweoe sz OJ 2 me.eea mommm Ame on. co. m mm 11 Ho. mm.m e.moe ZOHeonemmm m mo. mo. mange umeoe m.memm onmmmmomm me mm. m. m-oa mam mm.ew mommm ems on. NH.N mm.mm oneonemmm m m.meen onmmmmomm ma o>.on mommm amp moo. em.e m.eem oneonemmm m m.weam onmmmmomm me mo.oe mommm Ame mo. ee.m em.em oneonemmm m v.6em onmmmmumm me m.ee mommm ems AH. hm.d h.hm ZOHEUHMBmmm m O.mm®H ZOHmmmmUmm MH ZOFHUHfluyfunn-d. .1. 130 vH. m mommm mmh Hm . 0 HM . O m m . N ZOHBUHMBmmm H mm . , NO . O Mmd 6.6sm onmmmmomm HH once oe.mmw mommm mme mooo. mm.oH e.emeeH onBOHmEmmm H no. mH. mm> m.HmNom onmmmmomm HH manoeumom H.mmm mommm mm» mooo. ee.mH mo.enme oneonemmm H mm. OH.o mm> m.ommo onmmmmomm HH ono Hm.omH mommm mme Hoo. we NH m.mOmH oneonemmm H mo. mH.o m>z m.momo onmmmmomm HH mmHm m.moH mommm mm» eoo. mm.m e.mmmH oneonemmm H mm. HH.o m>z o.mmmm onmmmmomm HH Hmeoeumom om.em mommm mms moo.o mMH m o.mHm onBOHmemmm H om. HH.o m>z o.OHOH ZOHmmmmomm HH memo m oHemHememum mmmoom mam: soommmm m u HmHemmm mo mHmHeHoz mom HmHe mmmmomo tflflmflHm<> ZOHEU§mBZH ZOOMmmflHU MZO 29.35 MUZQHmifiwOO m0 mHmwnEZ/m .mO WBHDWMM 0H mfimflm. 131 womon >0H>Humwuo 304 tam OHUUHS .Lmflm mumoonopcfl mocmeoomuwm o>HpmmHU 30g cam OHpon .zmflm mumwououcfl uaofio>wflsom oafiopmom 30H 0cm manta: egmam .< 942 .mmm .xmm .Ebm HmHB .OHQOHHO> :oHuomuoucH Eoonwmmao 0:0 "mOUMHHc>OU« mooo.o moouo moo. moo.o +OH.O me.oe mommm mme em.mm m.HOHH oneonemmm H me. eH.o m H ee.ooee onmmmmomm m Hmeoe me.msH mommm mms me.m 00.0mmH oneonemmm H mo. HH.o mmm mm.OHmOH onmmmmomm HH HEBOEImom ao.mm mommm Mme he.e m.HHH onBOHmemmm H om. mo. m mm mm.memH ZOHmmmmomm HH omom m.ee mommm mm» mm.m oe.eoe onBOHmemmm H em. HH.o Hm>m m.eoom onmmmmomm HH Haeoelmom «H.0H mommm «ms mm.e mo.om onBOHmemmm H Ho. oH.o um>m oe.moe onmmmmomm HH omom em.ee mommm mm» em.m mm.MHH ZOHBUHMBmmm H mo. 00. Mm< ¢©.m®md ZOHmmmmwmm HH Qm.>m mm.¢m om.am «.om mOOAm m >2 mama Hmom em.ma vom.e¢ o>.¢m mm.>o mm.me mo.mm N.oo >H.mm m >2 grace m mmm.o om.o mv.ma ma.>a om.mm om.¢a >H.>H m.om em.>a m >2 uHmo mv.a mo.0H mo.mm mmo.mv Ho.mo mm.ee Ho.om momm oo.om 4 H Q4909 @H.m mm.ma mvm.mm mo.wm meomm moamm embmm m.ov ma.mm a mm qmeoe m was. ma.m «v.0 mH.HH magma mo.> moose w.ma mm.aa m mm amom wo.v NH.mm memomm ov.mo encmoa Ho.me amemo m.@e mv.>o a m> @4909 m em.m Hmome om.m mm.mH mm mm mmtea onumm muom mo.mm a m> memo om.m menom om.mm mmoom em.mm em.me mm we mtmm Gnome m mmqm om.m ooooa maoov mwovm mouae mm mm moovm Hcmm mv.mm a >2 ameoe m mega me,“ am NH we m2 mo.mm ocma mmcmm moom ow.mH m >2 ono mom“ mam cm was men men men Dose men Qua Ham: mm ea mmume mvhmm motom em.mm mmumm H.vo mewomm m ems eo.m HM me oncom onocvm Hm.em vooom m.mo Hmuom a em: ema mom mma owe Hem nae mmn z meow come seem wowm momv meow ooa a N m 0o.m mo on mo o2 mo Hm om on on 02 um Hm qmeoe \Ih but I 'I lull: "l-‘h‘ II.“ \hll.‘l‘191||11 1, hI-It'l “11+; u II.“ «IIHHII I'd-III "Inlay! .lluilllululi. Millinligiru‘it '1 I . | ‘lJrF-Ifi it'll 9‘ I I‘ . . t . ll. . . in! PB ll\.|.l. E.l a} ‘3 . II.“ III Al. III! i ll I “V1" 1»! IIIIIIUI “alvaluulilh‘ulbuf'Vlu‘lanlillnl I!“ fonll?hlrfi En, .l'n'l.“ ilufl. If“ m>~emmmo son .mqoon .mon ionmomom son .mqooHE rmon omemzommmo mmoomo me mom mmmoom mozmzmommmm weH>Hem m n to and m m F—__________— 136 an estimate of standard error (N=200) was entered as an aid to ready estimation of a significant difference in means be— tween any two groups. It was possible for an individual to be classified in any of the nine combinations of the six groups. However, of the 197 pupils identified as "high academic", only 100 were also identified as "high creative“ by a computer tabulation. The correlation between academic and creative performance measures is more than random as can be visualized from the scores read- ing left to right. But the source of the moderate to low values obtained from correlational coefficients can be appreci- ated from the scores obtained in the groups selected by the creativity criterion. The difference in verbal sub-total scores between high creative and high academic groups equals the difference in scores between high and low academic groups. The increased correlation between academic and problem solving scores reported earlier can perhaps be better appreci— ated with the use of data from Task 5, Asking and Task 6 plus Task 7, Problems, average scores of adequacy. About one-half a point difference approaching significance between group means, was obtained between high creative and academic groups. The close numerical similarity in average scores across the high, middle and low groups was undoubtedly reflected in the increased values of the correlations between academic and prob— lem solving scores. Perhaps overlooked in noting the similar- ities in problem solving scores is that up to one-half of the 137 top scoring problem solvers would not have been identified by academic achievement criteria. Two differences in high classroom interaction measures are related to earlier remarks with regard to the teacher and the creative child. The frequency of pupil—directed talk in the 8 X 8 cell is highest in the high creative group. The frequency of pupil—initiated talk is highest in the high academic group. The teacher who feels threatened can exercise control to switch from the less predictable pupil-initiated talk to the directed pupil talk of Category 8. However, the high academic might be found by the teacher to be more reli- able and permitted a higher frequency of Category 9, pupil talk. This is also in evidence from the relatively high i/d ratio obtained from the high academic group. Are these differences noticed by the teacher? Informal observations suggested that the teacher who used small groups or individual project work was aware of differences in chil— dren‘s ability to offer different ideas. But the teacher who worked by total classroom more often than not, perceived a problem of control rather than individual differences. For example, the children in one group were assigned to tables on the basis of the teacher's observations of their creative and academic abilities. That teacher sought a "good mix" to help the creative evaluate his ideas and to encourage others to consider additional ideas. The ideas that passed the scrutiny of small groups could later be presented to a larger 138 sized class group. It is little wonder then that pupil— initiated talk in the first group exceeded teacher lecture, for it was the children that had much to explain to the class. By contrast, a comparable class had a different interaction pattern. In the second class group, different or unexpected ideas were presented to the entire class. Usually the ideas were met with immediate acceptance or rejection by the teacher. In the course of the year, classroom criticism was observed approximately one percent of the total time, while observed one-tenth as frequently in the first group. The second part of the post hoc study was anticipated. A computer program was used to enter each classroom group into an analysis of covariance on each measure of creative perform— ance. In addition, frequencies in selected cells of the inter— action matrix were calculated. A problem of unity developed when interaction variables and classroom variables were entered into the covariance matrix. A least square addition program (LSADD) was used together with least squares regression pro— gram without classroom variables. Table 18 presents the sig— nificance level of classroom groups below p = 0.05 obtained with the latter program. The probability entry was underlined if corroborated from the results of the LSADD computer program. Another table, Table 19, was prepared with a brief summary of classroom interaction data. Simple in form, "tens", "nines", “eights" were sub—totaled to present pupil participation. mooo: L- /|.. C(( mO.I mO-l mH \lO-l mO.| mO.| ...-0.... mO.I @H HO.I HO.+ NOO.+ mO.+ mOOO.l NH oo.+ «of S.- No.- woof NH mo.+ Hoo.+ mooo.+ Ho.+ fl oa Ho.+ moo;r Ho.+ Hoo.+ No.+ o B.- of mo;r o moi s an o «of Adam woof No? moi moi moi m mooor. moo... Bo... moor. woo...r Mmlw moo... ooo.+ mo.+ moo.+ a w 9|“ vo.+ so.+ mo.+ m l woof. 39+ moo.+ mooo.+ m H AflBOB O QflBOBIm Ommfi xqu Q¢EOBIm DHMO XDQM mfldm Q¢EOEIm meO NDQM .>IQIOlm .mlOIMIm HIflImIMIWI> dlfilmlmIMI> ZIOIZ a mmqmfiHm¢> ZOHBUdeBZH 200mmm¢AU 92¢ mmmOUm EmmBIMMm EBHB ZOHmmmmwmm ZH mmDomO 200mmmflqo m0 ZOHBHQQQ mmdbdm Bmfima mmmoom wBH>HE0. mo. oa. mo. ma 0H0. Ho. Ho. mm. ma. ma. Om. om. mo. vo. no. ma Ho. Hoo. moo. mm. ma. mo. ma. mm. No. wo. no. ma oo. Ho. Ho. mm. ma. mo. mm. mm. wo. mo. Nv. NH mo. moo. Ho. mm. vH. Hm. mm. moo. moo. oo. oo. Ha vo. moo. Ho. om. mo. na. om. wo. wo. OH. ow. OH mo. Hoo. Ho. Hm. ma. mo. vm. ma. vo. WM. no. 0 No. moo. ao. mm. ma. ma. mm. mo. mo. NH. mo. w No. moo. nmo. om. ma. HM. om. mo. oo. mm. mm. 5 mo. Ho. Ho. vm. no. mm. mm. vo. moo. ma. vv. 0 omo. moo. mo. mm. Ha. ma. mm. AH. OH. mo. mm. m Ho. moo. odo. Wm. mo. ma. om. NM. ma. mo. Hm. v Ho. Ho. Ho. mm. HM. ma. mm. HM. 00. HA. mu. m mo. No. mo. mm. no. mm. Hm. mo. mo. no. mm. N No. woo. Ho. mm. no. mm. mm. oa. oo. oo. mm. H m.m.axm.m.a exp axe qmeoe mxo.m.v me qmeoe m m OH o\H mom mom Hmmmucmosmmu mEOOmmmoms did not take problem-solving for granted. Their curricula included short 5 vidual variatio} in modifying m m changing a‘ what pupilS nee grovide the tim gay possess the rays classroom :ion. A prescr likely to trust Furthermore, ti so as to allow direction that can be expecte< rust be skille. of the cogniti' and adjustment ionake little PIObIem-solvin PIOduct that i to learn of a hero ' W This inve interaction v- C 165 Jded short and long term projects that permitted indi- al variation in problem and objective. Their flexibility 3difying the predominant classroom interaction pattern changing activities suggested they had a clear idea of pupils needed to be productive and were determined to ide the time and resources to that end. Not every teacher possess the requisite skills or come to understand the classroom activities may be related to creative produc— . A prescriptive approach to a creative process is quite ly to frustrate the creativity of many pupils and teachers. ermore, the teacher must be able to manage the classroom 5 to allow for individual work yet retain a focus and ction that pupils can clearly recognize. Not all teachers be expected to achieve this skill. The successful teacher be skilled in the management of communication, recognition he cognitive development of a problem and its solution, adjustment to the individual. These skills are likely ake little sense until they are related to manageable lem-solving activities of children and to creativity as a uct that is dependent upon the problem, how children come earn of a solution and the evaluation of the result. mmendations for Further Research This investigation of measures of creativity and classroom raction variables was predicated upon a construct of crea— ty as a problem solving activity. It is recommended that: 1. A clas evaluation nee require a conc its use in the evaluation may recognition ar 2. The pr quencies of ve without any a1 Based upon the what teachers creative perf. creative tale tobeapart 3. Addit provide a fur tasks. The s volved in Ser aPrOblem wor CognitiOn to SOlVing in d( PIOhlems and W \ Attenti. perhaps be b 1° The 166 l. A classroom verbal interaction measure of constructive aluation needs to be developed. This measure will likely quire a concurrent training program for teachers to insure 5 use in the classroom. It is suspected that constructive aluation may be one purposive means of increasing teacher cognition and acceptance of pupil feelings (Category One). 2. The present study was limited to patterns and fre— encies of verbal interaction as observed in the classroom ithout any attempt to modify the patterns or frequencies. ased upon the results reported here and elsewhere, a study of hat teachers should, can and are willing to do to facilitate reative performance is needed. The problem of recognizing reative talent, as creative performance is facilitated, needs 0 be a part of the study. 3. Additional problem solving tasks should be developed to movide a further test of the construct of multiple cognitive asks. The several cognitive skills and cognitive tasks in- olved in sensing, identifying and organizing the elements of problem would probably provide the necessary variation in ognition to test one part of a construct of creative problem- olving in detail. roblems and Recommendations to the Classroom eacher Attention needs to be focused on three questions that can erhaps be best answered by the experienced classroom teacher. 1. The first of these is the question of the identifica- ion of a creative performance. Considerable effort has been expended in th vidual. But t creative poten members. Reli permit interpr confidence. E dents of creat It is possible score can ser\ ability and pe 2. Oppori tion to applic lar<3er depenc can make a de< the curriculur formance of p' devised by te all advantage since they co ence. Certai he problems teacher may b Performance 1 3~ Final Organiline tt. “tivities. flexible in c aetion pattel pended in the identification of the gifted creative indi— dual. But the classroom teacher needs to recognize the eative potentials and performances of all classroom mbers. Reliability coefficients of approximately 0.75 do not rmit interpretation of scores to the individual student with nfidence. But the classroom teacher can be alert to inci- nts of creative performance, particularly if anticipated. is possible that the combination of observations and test ore can serve to identify individual differences in creative ility and performance. 2. Opportunities for children to extend factual informa— ion to applications in new or different situations are often argely dependent on teacher decisions. The classroom teacher an make a decided contribution, not only in the extension of he curriculum, but in the enhancement of the creative per— ormance of pupils. Creative problem—solving tasks can be evised by teachers for classroom use. These tasks would have advantage over creative test items now found on the market ince they could be closely related to the classroom experi— nce. Certain information could be assumed and required by he problems presented at the classroom level. Thus the eacher may be central to the development of creative pupil erformance in the school as a curricular experience. 3. Finally, the classroom teacher can try several ways of rganizing the classroom and its members for different learning ctivities. Creativity will probably require a teacher to‘be lexible in classroom management as well as in verbal inter— ction patterns. For example, the "when" and "how long“ of individual work present study f< interaction and of each that co: the classroom t- topic, must dec ith the establ This study that makes a di no in summary, icing to furthe Creativity Some teachers, Single process series of Steps solving Seems I Creative perfo; the schools, T attempt to . :heskilled, e ablettive may aildt wol‘ks Wit where there is and Where the expectatiOns g Solving tasks ifiEXible Cla fer 9 use Should 168 ividual work needs to be carefully examined. While the sent study found that a balance of individual work, pupil eraction and teacher coordination was desirable, the amount each that constitutes a balance has not been demonstrated. classroom teacher, experienced with his pupils and the ic, must decide how to relate problem solving activities h the established curriculum. This study began with observations of what teachers do t makes a difference in the creative performance of children. in summary, it ends with what teachers may and perhaps are ing to further the creativity of their pupils. Creativity as used here is not an educational panacea. ne teachers, by temperament, may seek the simplicity of a agle process of problem—solving. No single order, no fixed ties of steps nor even a uniform process for all problem— lving seems likely to exist. In the judgment of some teachers, eative performance is not even an apprOpriate objective for schools. It would seem inappropriate for these teachers, attempt to implement the findings of this study. But even skilled, experienced teacher who accepts creativity as an jective may need to experiment on a small scale to determine at works with him and his particular group of children. But, ere there is warmth and humor, a business—like atmosphere, d where the teacher is willing to extend the curriculum, and pectations go beyond the information level; where problem— lving tasks are part of the classroom experience; and where flexible classroom organization is employed, there a dif— rence should be found. laidon, Edmund Teacher in and Assocr Anderson, Harol of Teacher logical Mc Anderson, Harol Harper and hderson, Haro] a workshOp 1962. laderson, Richa Originalit 54 (1963) , ithld, JOhIl E. Creative f J-Parnes. Aschner, Mary ‘ Classif i1 Verbal . min \s‘eg' (Mmeoqray Aschner, Mary Report On Palmer Qu‘ 193-194. “Schner' Mary . Factors R« room; Te PaPer rear atlon Con BIBLIOGRAPHY n, Edmund J. and Flanders, Ned. A. The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Paul S. Amidon and Associates, Inc., 1963. rson, Harold H., Brewer, J. E. and Reed, Mary F. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities," Applied Psycho- logical Monograph,ll.(l946), 101-156. rson, Harold H. Creativity and Its Cultivation. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. rson, Harold H. On the Meaning of Creativity, prepared for a workshop on Creativity in Childhood and Adolescence, 1962. rson, Richard C. and Anderson, Richard M. "Transfer of Originality Training," Journal of Educational Psychology, 54 (1963), 300—304. ld, John E. "Education for Innovation," A Sourcebook for Creative Thinking. Edited by Harold F. Harding and Sidney J. Parnes. New York: Scribner's, 1962. ner, Mary Jane and Gallagher, James J. A System for Classifying Thought Processes in the Context of Classroom Verbal Interaction, Institute for Research on Exceptional Children. Urbana: Univer51ty of Illinois, 1962. (Mimeographed) ner, Mary Jane and Gallagher, James J. "A Preliminary Report on Analyses of Classroom Interaction," Merrill- Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9 (1963), 193—194. ner, Mary Jane and Wise, A. E. Supplementary Materials for Factors Related to Intellectual Initiative in the Class— room: Teacher Influence, Sex Differences. (Mimeographed) Paper read at the American Educational Research Associ- ation Conference, Chicago, February, 1964. 169 Association for Perce1vrn r 1962 Yearbc p. 153. Barr, A. 8. "Ti Efficiency: Experiments Bertocci, Peter Boston: Bc lloon, Benjamin of College Theodore L. University lruner, Jerome 5 Review, 29 Sinner, Jerome f Harvard Un; 379991, Jerome E Learning 0: (April, 191 :Hnerl R0 L. ‘ Edited by , Van Ness. :i‘Thfield. Ri. We Think. ROSS L. MO and Row, 1 :Sh‘ey’ JOhn . HI Reflectivg hides! S. J. an Annotated tlflb l6 ( Irevdahll J. E JOurn ' w it . ‘ ews, Elizabet claSsro N .19n8. P r___________ 170 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceivingi Behaving, Becoming: A New Fecus of Education. 1962 Yearbook (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1962), p. 153. Barr, A. S. "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education, 16 (June, 1948), 203—283. Bertocci, Peter A. Education and the Vision of Excellence. Boston: Boston University Press (1960), p. 2U? Bloom, Benjamin and Broder, Lois J. "Problem—Solving Process of College Students," The Learning Process. Edited by Theodore L. Harris and Wilson E. Schwahn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Bruner, Jerome S. "Learning and Thinking," Harvard Education Review, 29 (1959), 184—192. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1963), p. 30. Bruner, Jerome S. and Kenney, Helen. "Observations on the Learning of Mathematics," Science EduCation News, 4 (April, 1963), 2—5. Carner, R. L. "Levels of Questioning," Studying Teaching. Edited by James Rath, John R. Pancella and James S. Van Ness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1967. Crutchfield, Richard S. "Instructing the Individual in Crea— tive Thinking," Explorations in Creativity. Edited by Ross L. Mooney and Taher A. Razik. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Dewey, John. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1933. Domas, S. J. and Tiedeman, D. V. ”Teacher Competence: An Annotated Bibliography," Journal of Experimental Educa— tion, 16 (June, 1948), 101-218. Drevdahl, J. E. "Factors of Importance for Creativity," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12 (1956), 22. Drews, Elizabeth. Student Abilities, Grouping Patterns, and Classroom Interaction. U. S. Office of Research Publi- cations, Project 608. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963. d , E? E nncker, Karl. . Psychologlv iindhoven, J. E Painting, l39-l64. hochs , Paul . Da Developing Unpublishe 1964 . Eisichelli, v, Majors to Elanagan , J , C. W Flanders/ NGd . Flanders, Ned 1 fin Teal Undated (1 Flanders’ Ned . Achieveme. Washing to 1965, W zels’ J. W. LEarnin National ChiCagO: let 171 ncker, Karl. "On Problem—Solving,“ trans. Lynne S. Lees. Psychological Mimeographs, 58 )1945), 21, 47. ndhoven, J. E. and Vinacke, W. E. "Creative Processes in Painting," Journal of General Psychology, 47 (1952), 139—164. ochs, Paul David. "An Experimental Study of a Method for Developing Creative Thinking in Fifth Grade Children," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1964. sichelli, V. R. and Welch, L. "The Ability of College Art Majors to Recombine Ideas in Creative Thinking," Journal of Applied Psychology, 31 (1947), 278—282. anagan, J. C. "Definition and Measurement of Ingenuity," The Second University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent. Edited by C. Taylor. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1958. anders, Ned. A. Teacher Influence: Pupil Attitudes and Achievement. CooperatiVe Research Project #397. Univer— sity of Minnesota, 1960. anders, Ned A. Interaction Analysis: A Technique for Quanti— fying Teacher Influence. The University of Michigan: Undated (Mimeographed). .anders, Ned A. Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement. Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965. igne, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. dlagher, James J. "Productive Thinking," Review of Child Development Research, 1 (1964), 349—381. atzels, J. W. "Creative Thinking and Instruction," Theory of Learning and Instruction. Sixty-third Yearbook othhE7__‘ National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: The Society, 1964. iilford, J. P. Creative Intelligence in Education (Los Angeles; ‘ Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, Division of Research and Guidance, 1958), p. 6. Guilford: J. Pa Source Boo Parnes and Guilford, J. P- Productive Aschner an cation Ass Guilford, J. P. "A Factor- from the P No. 4, 195 Eamon, L. R. Creativity on the Ide Edited by Utah Press Harris, Richard Administra 1959. Bill, 1101118 M, tenc Rela Children 1 1960. Stole, Mal-Y. u A rOaChes Gruber, G1 Atherton p iligard’ Ernest CreatiVit}: . derson, Hutchinson, Eli 172 lford, J. P. "Creativity Its Measurement and Development," Source Book for Creative Thinking. Edited by Sidney J. Parnes and Harold Harding. New York: Scribners, 1962. .lford, J. P. "Intellectual Factors in Productive Thinking,“ Productive Thinking in Education. Edited by Mary Jane Aschner and Charles E. Bish. Washington: National Edu- cation Association, 1968. ilford, J. P., Wilson, R. C., Christensen and Lewis, D. J. "A Factor-Analytic Study of Creative Rhinkinq," Reports from the Psychological Laboratory. Stanford University, No. 4, 1951. :mon, L. R. "Social and Technological Determinants of Creativity," 1955 University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent. Edited by C. W. Taylor. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956. rris, Richard H. A. C. Test of Creative Ability, Test Administration Manual. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1959. i1, Louis M. Characteristics of Teacher Behavior and Compe- tency Related to the Achievement of Different Kinds of Children in Several Elementary Grades. U. S. Office of Education, Project # 7285. New York: Brooklyn College, 1960. 1e, Mary. "The Birth and Death of Ideas," Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking. Edited by Howard E. Gruber, Glenn Terrell and Michael Wertheimer. New York: Atherton Press, 1962. 1gard, Ernest R. "Creativity and Problem-Solving," Creativity and Its Cultivation. Edited by Harold H. Anderson. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. tchinson, Eliot-Dole. How To Think Creatively. New York: Abingdon—Cokesbury Press, 1949. tchinson, William Lloyd. "Creative and Productive Thinking in the Classroom." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1963. hnson, D. M. "A Modern Account of Problem—Solving," Psychological Bulletin, 41 (1944), 208. hnson, Donald M. The Psychology of Thought and Judgment. New York: Harper, 1955. looistra, Willi of Conserv Thinking c Piaget's C dissertati lanbert, Philip Adjustment Contained tive Resea University Lewin, Kurt, Li Aggressrve Climates ,' 271-299. hitzman, lrvrr cedure for Its Transi S6 (1958), haslow, Abrahay Creativitr M Anderson . Tu. Rollo. Cu ' ' m Harper an. 1’3: tions, 19 itddiey’ Donald Behavior ' 0n Teachi may va - ...dillck' Sarno PrOcesSlu hrrisvn. Bett P“Pile to istra, William H. "Developmental Trends in the Attainment of Conservation, Transitivity, and Relativism in the Thinking of Children: A Replication and Extension of Piaget's Ontogenetic Formulations." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. (No date given.) ert, Philip. Classroom Interaction, Pupil Achievement and Adjustment in Team Teaching as Compared with the Self— Contained Classroom. U. S. Office of Education, Coopera- tive Research Project #1391. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1964. in, Kurt, Lippitt, Ronald and White, Ralph. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," The Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (1939), 271-299. ltzman, Irving, Bogartz, William and Breger, Louis. .A Pro- cedure for Increasing WOrd Association Originality and" Its Transfer Effects," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56 (1958), 392-398. slow, Abraham H. "Creativity in Self—Actualizing People," Creativity and Its Cultivation. Edited by Harold H. Anderson. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. y, Rollo. "The Nature of Creativity," Creativity and Its Cultivation. Edited by Harold H. Anderson. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. arns, Hughes. Creative Power. New York: Dover Publica- tions, 1958. dley, Donald M. and Mitzel, Harold E. "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation," Handbook of Research 9n Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. inick, Sarnoff A. "The Associative Basis of the Creative Process," Psychological Review, 69 (1962), 220-232. rrison, Betty Mae. "The Reactions of External and Internal Pupils to Patterns of Teaching Behavior," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. ers, R. E. and Torrance, E. Paul. Invitations to Thinking gpd Doing.- Eugene, Oregon: Perceptive Publishing Co., 19610 7 7911,.A., Shaw, J. C. and Simon, H. A. "The Process of Crea— tive Thinking," Contemporary Approaches to Creative Think- ipg. Edited by Howard E. Gruber, Glenn Terrell and Michael Wertheimer. New York: Atherton Press, 1962. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-----::_________ OSbOInI A' F ' 1957. Parnes, Sidney, e Creatlv Patrick, Cathe: Patrick, Cathe: of Psycho Petersen, Orva tions, " 3 Piaget, Jean. 1967), 81 Rogers, Carl R and Its C New York; Rossman, Josep D’ co: I Rubin, Louis J Its Currl W 1967. Russell; David EdUCdtior Russell, Davic‘ SearS, PaUlinE the Strer Elemental Stanford, Soar, Robert 5 Philadelt Spilllding’ ROI gorrelate ch0018. m I . born, A. F. Creative Imagination. New York: Scribners, rnes, Sidney J. and Harding, Harold F. A Source Book for Creative Thinking. New York: Scribners, 1962. trick, Catherine. "Creative Thought in Artists," Journal of Psychology, 4 (1937), 35-73. trick, Catherine. "Whole and Part Relationship," Journal of Psychology, 54 (1941), 128—131. tersen, Orval L. "Creativity: Some Aspects and Implica— tions," Science Education, 43 (December, 1959), 420-427. 'aget, Jean. "Notes on Learning," Saturday Review (May 20, 1967), 81—84. gers, Carl R. "Toward a Theory of Creativity," Creativity and Its Cultivation. Edited by Harold H. Anderson. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. ossman, Joseph. The Psychology of the Inventor. Washington, D. C.: Inventors Publishing Co., 1931. ubin, Louis J. "Creativity and the Curriculum," Creativity Its Curriculum Implications. Edited by John Curtis Gowan, George D. Demos and Paul E. Torrance. New York: Wiley, 1967. ussell, David H. "Higher Mental Processes," Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by C. W. Harris. New York: Macmillan, 1960. ussell, David H. Children's Thinking. Boston: Ginn, 1956. ears, Pauline Snedden. The Effect of Classroom Conditions on the Strength of Achievement Motive and work Output on Elementary School Children. Cooperative Research #§73. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1963. Dar, Robert S. An Integrative Approach to Classroom Learning. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1966. paulding, Robert L. Achievement, Creativity and Self—Concept Correlates of Teacher—Pupil Transactibns in Elementary Schools. U- 3. Office of Education, Profiect #1352.“4‘ Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1963. Pearman, C. The Creative Mind. New York: Appleton, 1931. Stein, Morris I ogy, 36 (1 Stephenson, W. Green, l94 Suchman, J. Rlc in Scienti #216. Uri Taba, Hilda and Thought P1 1964), 52' iate, Merle W., Difference Project 4‘1; Universitj iaylor, C. w. (1963), 5 :3‘1'10I, Calvin Creativit M. John Wile Iaylor, I, A. “P LOS Angel 1962. Thurstone, L. Edited by Torrance, E. P Abil‘ ‘ fig 3- RESeaI PrentiCe. ,OIIanCe' E. I S uares f Bureau 01 hr rance’ E. ] C90perat; sity of 1 TorranCe’ E. ' 175 Stein, Morris I. "Creativity and Culture," Journal of Psychol- ogy, 36 (1953), 311. Stephenson, W. Testing School Children. London: Longmans, Green, 1949. Suchman, J. Richard. The.Elementary School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry. U. S. Office of Education, Project #216. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1962. Taba, Hilda and Elzey, Freeman F. ”Teaching Strategies and Thought Processes," Teachers College Record, 65 (March, 1964), 527—533. Tate, Merle W., Stanier, Barbara and Harootunian, Berj. Differences Between Good and Poor Problem—Solvers. Project #368, April, l958—August, 1959. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, School of Education, 1959. ‘Taylor, C. W. "Clues to Creative Teaching," Instructor, 73 (1963), 5. Taylor, Calvin W. and Barron, Frank (editors). Scientific Creativity: It's Recognition and Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Taylor, I. A. "Creativity Research for Future Creativity," The Future of Creativity Research, Symposium sponsored by Los Angeles State College and Chouinard Art Institute, 1962. Thurstone, L. L. "Creative Talent," Applications of Psychology. Edited by L. L. Thurstone. New York: Harpers, 1952. Torrance, E. Paul, at al. Assessing the Creative Thinking Abilities of Children. Minneapolis: Bureau of Education— al Research, University of Minnesota, 1960. Torrance, E. Paul. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. Torrance, E. Paul. Administration and Scoring Guide for the Sguares Test- Minneapolis: UniVersity of Minnesota, Bureau of Educational Research, 1963. Torrance, E. Paul. Role of Evaluation in Creative Thinking. Cooperative Research Project #725. Minneapolis: Un1ver- Slty of Minnesota Press (1964), p. 398. Torrance, E. Paul. Rewarding Creative Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., l955~ Torrance, E. PE ences, " E3 Mooney anc 1967 . talker, Helen a New York: (alias, Graham 1926. Belch, L. "Rec Journal 0: Wertheimer, Ma: 1945. 'otitehead, Alf. and Norga 'o‘ilson, R, C. I Measureme 1'1 ”Leia/pi Wilson, R. C., D. J. "A Abilities iilson, Robert NEA'S Pro BET iii-hall, J. H Mart of g lished dc Mike: Kennet Of Creati Universit Ulliversit Ments anc‘ NatiOnal 176 Torrance, E. Paul. "Creative Thinking Through School Experi— ences," Explorations in Creativity. Edited by Ross L. Mooney and Taher A. Razik. New York: Harper and Row, 196 . Walker, Helen and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953. Wallas, Graham. The Art of Thought. London: Jonathan Cape, 1926. Welch, L. "Recombination of Ideas in Creative Thinking," Journal of Applied Psychology, 30 (1946), 638—643. Wertheimer, Max. Productive Thinking. New York: Harper, 1945. Whitehead, Alfred North. Aims of Education. London: Williams and Norgate, 1951. Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P. and Christensen, P. R. "The Measurement of Individual Differences in Originality," The Psychological Bulletin, 50 (1953), 362—370. Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R. and Lewis, D. J. "A Factor Analytic Study of Creative Thinking Abilities," Psychometrika, 19 (1954), 297—311. Wilson, Robert. "The Structure of the Intellect," News of NEA'S Project on the Academically Talented, 2 (February, 1961). Withall, J. "The Development of a Technique for thenMeasure- ment of Social—Emotional Climate in Classroomsf Unpub- liShed doctoral dissertation, UniverSity of Chicago, 1948. A Study of the Reliability and Validity ary School Level. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Wodtke, Kenneth Henry. of Creative Tests at the Element University of Utah, Aug. 1963. University Microfilms, 1963. Wright, Muriel. "Interaction Analysis to Study Pupil Invol::- ments and Mathematical Contentf" Minneapolis: Minneso National Laboratory, 1964. (Mimeographed) APPENDICES SC APPENDIX A SCORING PROTOCOLS FOR PROBLEM SOLVING TASKS 5, 6, 7 177 This pape obtaining scor Adeguacy for T Test Your Imag e: is def .liency task. A relev to the picture Flexibility is the relevant r Adequacy is de m of t1". 1. Non-ar 2. Non-g] "Is the grass 3. Not ar 4. Not re 5?. "Floods me is scored once 5. Not '1: showing cause. is that the r< 5316 question, mlitYl bUt TIC the cloud droc thecluestion : 1“" example I tide given be: The foll< PQSitive term: the reSpOnSe: l. Relat. 2' Indie. 3- Indic. Capab 4~ Refle ‘ OccaSiOn geSted. P . t 178 This paper briefly describes the scoring procedures in staining scores on measures of Fluency, Flexibility and iequacy for Tasks five, six and seven of the instrument, ast Your Imagination. luency is defined as the number of relevant responses to each ask. A relevant response must be related in some way either a the picture, conditions or events presented in each task. lexibility is defined as the number of categories into which he relevant responses are classified. dequacy is defined as the number of relevant responses which eet all of the criteria listed below. Adequate responses are: 1. Non-anthropomorphic. 2. Non-global. An example of a global question might be, Is the grass green?" 3. Not answerable from the picture. 4. Not repetitious in idea or approach to the problem, g. “Floods may wash out houses, crops, stores, trees, etc.," 5 scored once for Adequacy. 5. Not in violation of an assumption of the scorer without howing cause. For example, one assumption made by the scorer s that the rope is identifiable as a rope or string. Thus, he question, "Is that a rope?" is scored for Fluency and Flexi— ility, but not for Adequacy. However, the question, "Why is he cloud drooling?" is scored for all three measures because he question indicates the rope is not perceived as such. The ast example may also serve to indicate the considerable lati— ude given before a question is considered anthropomorphic. The following rule has been found constructive, stated in ositive terms. Arbitrate in favor of an Adequacy score when he response: 1 Relates objects, time and/or function. 2. Indicates a discrepancy is discerned. 3. Indicates a question of potential function, purpose or capability. 4 Reflects more than "idle" curiosity. Occasionally a response may be classified equally well into wo categories. More rarely, an additional category is sug- eSted. The general rule in these cases is to maximize the lexibility score either by selecting that category which has 0t yet been utilized, or, as in the second case, indicating by n asterisk (*) an additional category. On the following pages are listed the categories with re— POnses illustrative of those receiving scores of zero and one or Adequacy. The lists of sample responses are by no means xhaustive. It would be well to point out here that a discon— lnuity exists between the sample responses. On a test, most responses flow clues. The ger generally disce 179 'esponses flow one from another providing important contextual :lues. The general orientation and approach of the testee is [enerally discernible from context. agoraptions: Cre face are recogniz Category 1. Cream Puff and 3?. either as feet or a pers ilkeam Puff pa: 311199: eyes, C' CH tOp, ere’ .‘. 25ml Buildlngs We: content Silo, etc. N ,- = ~03 PIOXJTuty ‘.- :arming W95 0f farm ‘ r 1. Turn Building: 180 Cream Puff Task 5 sumptions: Cream Puff (C.P.) is a cloud. Droplets, rope and parts of :e are recognizable, but not necessarily as a rope, eyes, door, etc. Adequacy Category Zero Point One Point Cream Puff and Contents C.P. either as an ob— What is it doing? What does it do? ject or a personage. How old is it? (Potential) Does he like people? Why does it have a face? Where does he live? How is it made? Does it have tonsils? Where did it come from? Does it cry? How does it operate? Is it alive? Does it make noise? Is it smog? Is it safe to climb? Is it really a blanket of smog? How large is this? Cream Puff Parts Hinge, eyes, door, rain What color are eyes? Do eyes operate? on top, rope, etc. Why is mouth open? Why is tooth being Why is mouth square? pulled? Why is it raining on top? Will door open when rope is pulled? Farm Buildings and Layout Fence, contents of barn, Where is the farmhouse? silo, etc. Is the silo leaning? Not proximity to town. IS the hay spilling OUt? Who owns the farm? Why a fence if no animals? Farming Type of farm, crops, etc . What type 0f farming? Are cows in the barn? Does the farm need rain? Town Buildings Why are buildings Are buildings substantial? striped? Why are doors so small? What is in drugstore? Do people live in the What are some of the buildings? other buildings? Where are the chimneys? 6 Community Sim location! 51” to farm abse] street' absem etc' 7. Time and Com Children a. Vegatation 1:. Animal Outside farm 11. Relationships C.P. with 0t} .c. Nomenclature . ON 11. Commit LocatiOn to farm, Street etc. y Structure I Slze, PrOXimitY absence of Time and Conditions Children Vegatation . Animal Outside farm context Relationships C.P. with other features. . Nomenclature , absence of People, 181 Why are they stand— ing there? Why are they there? What color is hair; dress? Are they talking to C.P.? Why do they have different clothes? Why is the tree there? What is the artist's name? Why isn't there any color? Who made this silly picture? Where are puddles? Where are other people? What is the name of the town? Why so close to the farm? What season is it? Is it cold? Is it a pleasant day? What time of day is this? Where is the sun? What are they looking at? Are they an official greeting party? What are their names? Why are arms dark; muddy; marked? How old? lated? Where are their coats? Will they pull the rope? What do they think of C.P.? Are they re— Why is the tree in the middle of the street? What kind of tree? Why aren't there leaves? Is that grass or snow on the ground? Did their dog run away? Are there horses they ride? Are animals hibernating? Why is C.P. caught in the tree? Why is C.P. so low to the ground? Is it clouding the sky? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllll...-....._______, 1. Cream Puff 2. Flood Flood and eff (See also rul 3. Storm Storm and ef: (See also ruj 1- Cream Puff 2. Flood Flood and effects (See also rule 4.) 3. Storm Storm and effects (See also rule 4) 5. Inconvenience 182 Cream Puff Task 6 He might fly away. May rain cream. May get mad; get bigger; explode; disintegrate. Anything may come out. People, animals, trees, crops, houses, buildings roads, bridges, cars, clothing, belongings lost or destroyed. (Count once.) Get hurt. Lightning, thunder, hail, snow, rain too hard, blow hurricane, tornado, wind. (Count once.) Diapers wet. May come down. May hit other cloud; buildings. May fill up with water. May get large enough to cover state. Water polluted for drinking. Wells flooded. Lake formedu Evacuation, panic, stranded. Need to rebuild Money to rebuild Need for additional help. Power and communica- tion failure. Schools close. problem.) Dams break Breed mosquitos Survivors homeless; need a place to stay or live. Will have to relocate. Increase accidents. (If a Start fires. Freeze after raining. Rain all the time. Get wet; catch cold. Have to swim to get around. Muddy, foggy, colder. Have to use boat trans— portation. Overflow swimming pools. Can't go out to work; play. No sunlight. a Mechanical ’. Control 5. Supply Distribution limited to t] movement and tion of Wate: Allocation DisuibutiOn at different Places. 1“ Conservation 183 6‘ Mechanical 7. Control 8. Supply 9. Distribution 10. 11 Limited to the physical movement and distribu— tion of water. AllocatiOn Distribution problems due to different needs at different times and places. - Conservation May not open; nothing happens. The rope may break. Rope may be too short. May rust. Keep on raining (see also Flood) How to turn it off. People keep pulling the rope. May come in one big blob. May move too high; too low. May hurt or crush oper— ator. Too much; too little. May only sprinkle. May move or be moved away. May evaporate, disappear, vanish. May not obtain enough to live. May not come often enough. How to move it around? Suppose it stays in one spot? How to move water (not C.P.) to city. Different amounts needed elsewhere. Different for different seasons. Who is going to decide? Not needed here anymore, but somewhere else. Prevent wastate. Storage; dig holes. Erosion control. ' I F A .1: L'Cg 12. Pollution and 13. Evaluation tion ,__. p; S ’4 .:. Communication City Routine “ Valuation 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 184 Pollution and quality Rain may be poisoned Evaluation Legislation Communication City Routine Vegetation Plants flooded or washed away (see Flood). Will it be tasteless? Will it be pure? People will get mad; angry. People will get that operator. Crowds will form. Kids pulling rope will be punished. Committees will have to be formed. Need for new laws. Law enforcement regulat— ing use. No time for weather reports. No warning for flash floods. Have to tell everyone about schedule. Shopping decreased. Plumbers overtaxes. People unresponsive to world times. May have accidents with airplanes. Plants growing too tall; too fast. Could have a jungle rain— forest. ‘_. Transport Inferred or C :otorized tre of water. 2. .19: The controlle water throng} closed syStEI Conservation Inferring th of the total quirenents 0 or the city. 4. Additional 8 Sources of w than C.P= , Plants. 3' Water substi Water. 185 Cream Puff Task 7 1. Transport Inferred or described motorized transportation of water. 2. Pipe The controlled flow of water through open or closed systems. 3. Conservation .5 o Inferring the minimizing of the total supply re- quirements of individuals or the city. Additional Sources Sources of water other than C.P., wells and plants. Find water (too general) Water substitutes Revisions which "replace" water. Truck water to town. Buy or borrow water from farmer. Have two houses. Have a bucket brigade. Use a plane (But not for rain). Pipelines, irrigation ditches, rivers and streams, and conveyor belt systems. Water pumps. Pipe in from Lakes Michigan or Huron or other lake source. Rationing, self dis— cipline. Suck stones. Refrain from running and exercise. Keep clean to eliminate baths. Eat a salt—free diet. Take washing to country. Eliminate watering grass; plants. Use melted snow, de— salted ocean water, out- of—state water, dew, mud, mountain snow, air moisture, radiator water. Run a lot of air condi- tioners. Drink milk, pickle juice, pop, etc. Use chemical fire extin- guishers. Use flour for fires. Have clothes dry cleaned instead of washed. : Substitutes ReviSions Wh need fOI wati :- .‘V ‘ \ I b r.“ orage 5. Wells 3 l . . vegetation l2. Chemical 11. Re~evaluatic ll! Cream Puff Usmg C.P. a machine. 186 6. Substitutes \! 10 ll 12 0 Revisions which reduce the need for water and/or rain. Storage Wells Vegetation Put plants in moist place. Stop growing crops. (too general) Chemical Re—evaluation (See also Alter Problem) Cream Puff Using C.P. as a machine. Throw away clothes. Use plastic dishes and clothes, synthetic grass. . Use perfume, lots of it. Use gas instead of steam. Freeze water for later use. Use dams, water towers, storage tanks, pools, excavations. Flood basement. Use wells, springs, dig for water. Grow cacti. Grow watermelons. Keep plants cool. Combine H and 0. Make a water factory. Revote; discuss prob- lems. Call in scientists. Remove city limits zone. Quit as city manager. Locate over a reservoir. Rent for emergency ser— vice. Store water for appoint— ments. Build wall to retain C.P. Make more C.P."s for distribution. Make more for each farmer. Make him smaller to keep out of way. ll. Citj 13. City Routine l4. Alter Problem 187 Use washing machine. Have a milk and water Use fire hydrants. man. Use city hountains. Stop smoking to reduce fire hazard. Use city water over and over. Step using fireplace. Bring C.P. back. Use C.P. on certain days. Seed clouds. Do a rain dance; pray. Get rid of C.P. Move out of city. Move city. | I I l l Assumptions: Corn Ball (C.B.) is a machine. 188 Corn Ball Task 5 Chain, wheel, hose, switch, lights and buttons are recognizable, although their functions may not necessarily be understood. Category 1. Corn Ball and Contents C. B. either as an object or a personage. 2. Corn Ball Parts Adequacy Zero Point Why is it shaped like that? Is it alive? What is it? Why is it round? Does it think? Does it have eyes, ears? What is that hanging down? What are buttons for? What are lights for? What is the steering wheel for? What is the smokestack for? One Point Why is C. B. there? Why is it in the sky? Why is it turned off? What happens when it over— heats? Does it compute? Where will it go? Are there many C.B.'s? Does it make a noise? Why chained to stand; to ground? Does smoke come out? Is it for publicity? Is it a robot? What is its rate of pro— duction? Did it drop that corn on the ground? Where does corn come out? Why so many buttons? What is the hose used for? What is the wheel used for? What are eye—like parts for? What are those feathers for? Do parts operate to— gether? Why is switch on "off"? 189 3. Farmer and Stand Is that a man? What'is he doing? Why is he there? Why is there a stand? Does the fence go all awaywaround. 4. Farming 5. Town Houses What is in the back— ground? 6. Community Structure 7. Time and Conditions 8' Children Why are children there? What color shirt has he? What kind of shoes are those? Why are they looking at C.B.? 9' veGetation Is that corn? Why is the farmer so tired? Is that a scarecrow? Does he sell much corn? Is he sleeping? Who is he; what is his name? Does he know that C.B. is there? Does farmer grow other crops? Where is his farm? Is there other farm machinery? Is the farm going out of business? What are in those pails? Who lives in the houses? What is in the shed? Is this house typical? Is this s town or part of country? Why aren't others around looking? Where is this; what is the name? Where does the path go? Where is the sun? What are they looking at? What are their names? Why are hands in pockets? Are they talking (not to C.B.)? Why don't they run; or do something? Have they seen C.B. before? Why is the corn on the ground? Is the corn good? Why isn't corn picked that is still on the stalks? Who is going to husk the corn? Why is corn growing right in the stand? 10. Animal ll. Relationships 190 C.B. with other features 12. Nomenclature How did they draw this? Is this to be our imagi— nation? What is this about? Who drew this? Where are farm animals? Do animals eat this corn? Why is C.B. located over corn stand? What is the cost of the corn? Is C. B. in competition? Why is it in the middle of road? How does the man reach the switch? 1. Cor.- ‘Ih 1m 1. Corn Ball 2. Surplus The creation or re— sult Of a surplus 3. Market 4' Inconvenience 191 Corn Ball Task 6 He might make popcorn He might make popcorn balls. It might sell product. Might fly away. Eat fresh corn (general) May rain corn. May ruin houses (general) It might fall or crash. May damage buildings (once). It might be stolen. Might blow corn away. It might have a hard time picking corn. It might start a fire in the cobs. May make too much. May have a house full of corn. Have to live with corn all around. Have to even sleep with corn. People may refuse to eat corn. (See also Inconvenience) May not be able to sell corn. May eliminate corn stands. May eliminate jobs. Farmers will need to find new jobs. People rushing to collect corn. It will block traffic. People may not like corn to begin with. Will have to pick up all that corn. Too much corn to peel and shock. Will have corn coming out of our ears. Will need a huge supply of butter. \‘-~._P‘ ’— 5. Heck Cont Reg 3 Sum All Prc ing .‘3: COI 192 5. Mechanical It will go batty. 6. Control Regulation of C.B. May not make enough. May keep on running. 7. Supply Might not make enough. (Score 1 if reason given.) 8. Distribution lelt to the Physical packaging and distribu~ tion. 9. Allocation Problems with equaliz- ing needs. 10- Conservation 11~ Storage 12. Quality Chain may break. May rush and stop pro— duction. May be too noisy. May blow one of those fuzes. May overheat; catch fire. May drop corn all over. Will require an operator. The operator may fall out. May pull chain too hard to shut it off. How to pull chain without getting hurt. May bury people in corn. May float away. Will need different kinds of corn. The state may become overpopulated. Need people to pack it. People to sort it. Have to pick and collect corn. Who plans the amount needed? How much to make at a time? May waste seeds. May waste corn. Need room for storage. Might not be as good. Might be bad for people. May get damp. May have mold. Might rot. May be too small. May drop corn on dirty ground. May overheat and make popcorn. 13. 16. 17. Evaluation . Legislation . Health and Safety General health due to a diet of corn. Animals City Routine 193 Kill C. B. People may try to stop or break C.B. People may fight and divi d3 state . Some may not be able to digest corn. May overeat; get too fat. Die of overeating. May eat too much corn° May be overrun with crows. May be a shortage and none for wildlife. May eliminate effort; the will to work. People may be afraid of disaster. People rely too heavily on a machine. 1. Transport 2. Market 3. Conservation 4. Crops 5. Food uses 6 . Additional Uses Additional uses for C.B. or for farmers other crops, Storage Control and regulation 194 Corn Ball Task 7 Sell corn. Buy corn (too general) Use less corn (general). Burn food. Stop making corn Use C. B. to transport corn. Give other foods to city people. Farmers buy the city corn. Advertise C.B. corn. Increase the number selling. Have a corn festival. Grow other crops. Change foods; eating habits. Grow small patches in the city. Use food for corn bread. Use the corn cobs. Use for seeds. Use for livestock. Eat as much as possible. Make dinners in the country. Have C.B. make more crops. Send corn to starving nations. Set up a restaurant chain. Store different foods. Have central storage places. Regulate production. Use as a supplementary source. Use only during the in— between seasons. Have a Governors Commission. Grow less. Country stop growing corn. Grow just enough for the family. 12. l3. 14. 195 Quality Mechanical Evaluation Corn Ball Using C.B. as a machine Turn it off. City Routine Alter Problem Don't eat corn. Move to the city. Ship C.B. away. Go live on the farm. Give it away. Get rid of it; destroy it. Take it apart. Move to another place. Change the taste, size. Use C.B. for better freshness. Build a reserve supply of C.B.‘s. Evaluate needs and mar— kets each week. Plan and weigh conse— quences before building or using C.B. Compromise with a system. Take it apart for other uses. Have C.B. bounce and rattle corn off. Have nutrition courses. APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS TO EXAMINERS 196 197 Directions to Test Administrators The Test of Imagination consists of seven tasks: Task 1 Picture Completion 2 pages 10 minutes testing time N Task 2 Circles pages 10 minutes plus short quiet rest break 0 Task 3 Product Improvement 2 pages 1 minutes N pages 10 minutes plus a break for stretching Task 4 Unusual Uses Task 5 Asking 1 page 5 minutes Task 6 Seeing Problems 1 page 5 minutes Task 7 Solving Problems 1 page 5 minutes Every reasonable effort should be made to provide good testing conditions——comfortable room temperature, adequate lighting without glare, and a pleasant, calm, business—like PSYChological climate. Children should be given an opportunity, so far as is feasible, to arrange themselves for comfort and privacy. Inform the teacher that the test today will utilize fifty- five minutes of actual testing time with an additional twenty minutes required for instructions and short rest periods. Ask the teacher where she may be contacted and procedure for excus- ing a child during a break, should the need arise. Explain to the class that the test today is a test Of their . . - f imagination and ability to think of new ideas and new ways 0 dOing things. Distribute the test booklets with the instruc- tions to look at the drawing on the cover sheet, but to keep 198 their questions and comments to themselves, since this is a test of their own imagination and abilities to think of new ideas and ways of doing things. Tell the class that they are going to fill out their name and the other blanks on the next page and then read the general directions. Ask the children to read the general directions on page one to themselves and determine if there are any questions. Restate that this is a test in which there is an opportunity to think of new ideas and ways of doing things and is not, therefore, a usual test with one "right" or "wrong" answer. There may be many answers. Turn to Task 1, Picture Completion, and read the direc- tions silently to yourselves as I read them out loud. Tell class to write "ten minutes" after the instructions: write "turn to next page" at the bottom of the first page write "stop" at the bottom of the second page Any questions? Begin. Time each task carefully with a sweep second watch or clock. 'Task 2 Read directions with the class. Note that there are two pages and ask the class to write "Stop" at the bottom of the second page. Time: 10 minutes ‘ le in a If a question arises whether to use more than one Cer = ~ ' ' — ittal drawing, Simply state that this IS pOSSible Wlth a non comm 199 tone of acceptance but lack of encouragement. Let the children rest a minute after Task 2, but discourage discussion of test, perhaps by introducing a neutral topic. Tasks 3 and 4 follow the same format. Ten minutes each. After Task 4 permit a standing break while the administrator passes the picture of Cream Puff face down on each desk. Simply inform children that this will be used once we begin again. Tasks 5, 6, and 7 are five minutes each. Look at picture quietly for a few moments and then read directions while class reads silently with you. Write "stop" at bottom of page and begin. The picture may be used as Often as the pupil wants for each of the Tasks 5, 6, and 7. Collect the picture first and then the sheets. Send for teacher. 200 Directions to Test Administrators The alternate form of the Test Your Imagination consists of seven tasks: Task 1 Picture Completion 2 pages 10 minutes testing time Task 2 Product Improvement 2 pages 10 minutes plus short rstretch break Task 3 Squares 2 pages 10 minutes Task 4 Unusual Uses 2 pages 10 minutes plus a stand—up break Task 5 Asking Questions 1 page 5 minutes Task 6 Seeing Problems 1 page 5 minutes Task 7 Solving Problems 1 page 5 minutes It is important that we know that each child's attention has been directed toward both pages of the first four tasks. Therefore, each child should be asked to write, "Turn the page," at the bottom of the first page of Task 1, and the word "Stop," be written at the bottom of page two of Tasks l, 3 and 4! Before the children begin writing their responses to Task 2 and 4, include the following ideas: ecessary. 1 You may use more than one line when n complete sentences——just enough 2 You do not need to write to tell your ideas. 3. Don't worry about so many lines, we just wanted to be sure everyone has enough. 4. I can be of help to you with very hard words if you need me. 201 202 TEST YOUR IMAGINATION Name Date: 9 10 ll 12 l3 Birthdate: _/_/___ Age (last birthday): '1 [:1 E] D , (Month) (Date) Epfi Girl Number of older brothers ___ sisters ___. Number of younger brothers ___ sisters ___ The tasks in this booklet are a test of your ability to use your imagination in thinking up ideas and putting them into words. There are no "right" or ”wrong" answers in the usual sense. We want you to think of as many ideas as you can. Try to think of unusual, interest— ing, and clever ideas —— something which no one else will think of. You will be given seven tasks to do and you will be timed on each one, so make good use of your time. Work as rapidly as you can without rushing. If you run out of ideas before time is called, wait until instructions are given before going on to the next task. Do not pay any attention to the rest of this page, bUt d0 “Qt turn to the next page until told to do so. ... . . uuuuu L ...... ... .. .. 4 AnnnnnononoAnnnonnnJ-Aonnnnnnan \ Scoring Category Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Tg§k_§ I§§E_Z Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration Adequacy l lllllll \\\llll \\lllll \\\lll ‘k***>‘:*******~k *************ata'c‘k***7‘:****>¥*a‘€*******=‘v**7‘:****7¥**************** 203 TASK 1: PICTURE COMPLETION By adding lines to the incomplete figures on this and the next page, you can sketch some interesting objects or pictures. Again, try to think of some picture or object that no one else will think of. Try to make it tell as complete and as interesting a story as you can by adding to and building up your first idea. Make up an interesting title for each of your drawings and write it at the bottom of each block next to the number of the figure. 204 y a x “2.17.17 ..Mmm. J 31191:... RE...” .4 is ......uesmfig. .. 205 TASK 2: CIRCLES In ten minutes see how many objects or pictures you can make from the circles below and on the next page. The circles should be the main part of whatever you make. With pencil add lines to the circles to com— plete your picture. You can place marks inside the circles, outside the circles, or both inside and outside the circles —— wherever you want to in order to make your picture. Try to think of things that no one else will think of. Make as many different pictures or objects as you can in each one. Make them tell as complete and as interesting a story as you can. Add names or titles below the object. O O O 0 GO Turn to the next page. 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 [©0000 207 TASK 3: PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT In the middle of this page is a sketch of a stuffed toy elephant of the kind you can buy in most dime stores for a half dollar to a dollar. It is about six inches tall and weighs about a pound. In the spaces on this page and the next one,list the cleverest, most inter— esting and unusual ways you can think of for changing this toy elephant so that children will have more fun playing with it. Do not worry about the cost of the changes. Think only about what would make it more fun to play with as a toy. 27‘. J Turn to the next page. 10. ll. 12.. 130 14. IS. 16. I7. 18. I9. 21. 22. 23. 27. 28. 29. 208 209 TASK 4: UNUSUAL USES (Cardboard Boxes) Most people throw their empty cardboard boxes away, but they have thousands of interesting and unusual uses. In the spaces below and on the next page, list as many interesting and unusual uses as you can think of. Do not limit yourself to any one size of box. You may use as many boxes as you like. Do not limit yourself to the uses you have seen or heard about; think about as many possible new uses as you can. I. 2. lO. ll. l2. 13. l4. IS. 16. l7. l8. l9. 20. 2l. 23. 24. 210 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. .(I'Y' \\I‘ AI‘I £> . ’ / ‘ ’\‘\\\ i) . ‘I‘Hi ”W..— Al" _. 1'9”, — “3:? | .. r “:1 - \ :1" ~ ,2 T. “f i. 212 TASK 5 ASKING —— On this page, write all the questions you can think of about the drawing of Cream Puff. Ask all the questions you would need to ask to know for sure what is happening. Do not ask questions which can be answered just by looking at the drawing. You may look at the draw— ing of Cream Puff as much as you wish. lO. ll. l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 213 TASK 6 Seeing Problems —— Suppose that it rains when Cream Puff’s rope is pulled, and suppose that all the water in this whole state comes from Cream Puff. List on the lines below, all the problems you can, that you think might possibly take place when Cream Puff's rope is pulled. lO. ll. 12. 13. l4. 15. 16. 214 TASK 7 SOLVING PROBLEMS —- Suppose that people in cities decide not to use Cream Puff, and people on farms decide to use Cream Puff for their crops. As a result, it now rains in the country, but never rains in the cities. People in the cities need water for drinking, washing clothes, watering trees and grass, to fight fires and for many other reasons. List,0n the lines below, as many suggestions as you can for solving some of the problems of living in a city in which it never rains. Be sure your suggestions are fair and practical. 10. ll. l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. APPENDIC C REFERENCED DATA 215 216 TABLE A-l RESULTS OF INTERSCORER RELIABILITY CHECK FORM A (N=25) FIRST TRIAL SECOND TRIAL RELIABILITY Aver. Score Aver. Score COEFFICIENT,(r) Task 1 Fluency Non-verbal 8.0 8.2 .93 Task 1 Flexibility Non-verbal 6.8 6.7 .93 Task 1 Originality Non-verbal 9.1 9 2 .91 Task 1 Elaboration Non-verbal 15.7 18 5 .93 Task 2 Fluency Non—verbal 12.5 12 3 .99 Task 2 Flexibility Non—verbal 7.5 7.8 .94 Task 2 Originality Non—verbal 9.6 9.0 .94 Task 2 Elaboration Non—verbal 28.3 29 5 .94 Task 3 Fluency Verbal 14.7 14.4 .99 Task 3 Flexibility Verbal 6.1 6.3 .93 Task 3 Originality Verbal 13.0 13.0 .99 Task 3 Elaboration Verbal 1.8 1.6 .93 Task 4 Fluency Verbal 21.2 21.6 .99 Task 4 Flexibility Verbal 7.6 7.7 .89 Task 4 Originality Verbal 14.3 14.4 .97 Task 4 Elaboration Verbal 0.6 1.2 .66 Task 5 Fluency Problem Solving 9.6 10.1 .97 Task 5 Flexibility Problem Solving 4.5 4.8 .72 Task 5 Adequacy Problem Solving 6.4 6 3 .96 Task 6 Fluency Problem Solving 8.6 8.9 .98 Task 6 Flexibility Problem Solving 3.2 3.2 .90 Task 6 Adequacy Problem Solving 4.4 4.3 .93 Task 7 Fluency Problem Solving 5.7 5.6 .98 Task 7 Flexibility Problem Solving 4.1 4.1 .95 Task 7 Adequacy Problem Solving 4.1 4.4 .95 217 TABLE A-2 PEARSON COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN 25 VARIABLES OF FORMS A AND B (N=769) Form A FORM B Aver. Aver. RELIABILITY Score Score COEFFICIENT, (r) Task 1 Fluency Non—verbal 8.5 9.2 0.40 Task 1 Flexibility Non-verbal 7.1 7.5 0.26 Task 1 Originality Non-verbal 9.3 9.1 0.31 Task 1 Elaboration Non—verbal 19.5 14.9 0.57 Task 2 Fluency Non—verbal 13.0 11.8 0.39 Task 2 Flexibility Non—verbal 8.1 9.0 0.44 Task 2 Originality Non—verbal 9.5 8.4 0.37 Task 2 Elaboration Non—verbal 29.2 16.2 0.45 Task 3 Fluency Verbal 13.9 16.9 0.56 Task 3 Flexibility Verbal 6.0 5.6 0.40 Task 3 Originality Verbal 11.9 7.4 0.42 Task 3 Elaboration Verbal 1.3 0.5 0.21 Task 4 Fluency Verbal 19.3 16.3 0.50 Task 4 Flexibility Verbal 6.9 6.7 0.41 Task 4 Originality Verbal 12.3 14.0 0.39 Task 4 Elaboration Verbal 1.3 0.5 0.17 Task 5 Fluency Problem Solving 7.8 8.6 0.49 Task 5 Flexibility Problem Solving 4.0 3.8 0.32 Task 5 Adequacy Problem Solving 5.2 6.2 0.39 Task 6 Fluency Problem Solving 7.0 5.9 0.40 Task 6 Flexibility Problem Solving 2.7 3.9 0.21 Task 6 Adequacy Problem Solving 3.5 4.4 0.38 Task 7 Fluency Problem Solving 4.4 3.5 0.46 Task 7 Flexibility Problem Solving 3.0 2.6 0.36 Task 7 Adequacy Problem Solving 3.1 2.3 0.37 Task 1 + 2 Flux Non—verbal 36.7 37.6 0.47 Task 1 + Originality Non—verbal 18.8 17.5 8.2: Task 1 + 2 Non—verbal Sub—total 55.5 55.2 0.63 Task 1 + 2 Elaboration Non-verbal 48.7 31.0 - Task 3 + 4 Flux Verbal 46.3 45.7 8.2: Task 3 + 4 Originality Verbal 22.5 19.8 0.57 Task 3 + 4 Verbal Sub—total 68.8 65.5 = Task 5+6+7 Flux Problem Solving 29.2 28.9 8.2: Task 5+6+7 Adequacy Problem Solving 11.9 13.3 0.57 Task 5+6+7 Problem Solving Sub-total 41.2 42.2 . 219 9 198.0 0.68 TEST TOTAL 218 TABLE A-3 PRINCIPAL FACTOR LOADINGS FROM A VERIMAX ROTATION OF 50 PRIMARY VARIABLES OF FORMS A AND B TEST YOUR IMAGINATION (2 FACTORS) FACTOR l FACTOR 2 TASK LOADINGS* TASK LOADINGS Flue 1A 30 Flue 1B 39 Flex 1A Flex 1B 35 Orig 1A 28 Orig 1B 41 Elab 1A 34 Elab 1B 41 Flue 2A 61 Flue 2B 63 Flex 2A 59 Flex ZB 60 Orig 2A 61 Orig 2B 66 Elab 2A 42 Elab 2B 42 Flue 3A 64 Flue 3B 71 Flex 3A 52 Flex 3B 56 Orig 3A 45 Orig 3B 58 Elab 3A Elab 3B Flue 4A 68 Flue 4B 68 Flex 4A 64 Flex 4B 61 Orig 4A 52 Orig 4B 53 Elab 4A Elab 4B Flue 5A 77 Flue 5B 72 Flex 5A 56 Flex 5B 51 Orig 5A 69 Orig 5B 62 Flue 6A 77 Flue 6B 69 Flex 6A 68 Flex 6B 47 Orig 6A 72 Orig 6B 58 Flue 7A 72 Flue 7B 65 Flex 7A 66 Flex 7B 60 Orig 7A 65 Orlg 7B 58 *Decimal omitted. i1 - owscwucoo .omuuHEO Hmsaomoa mm mo fin mfluo Hm mo <5 xwam mm Vb fin ODHh nu aw mayo VB <0 xwam on <0 wDHm mm mm mayo mm zv Afl mflflmv Am SNOW >zv Am zmomv A< Emomv.. mmcfiwwoq mmCvaoq museumoq meAUmoq mmcflomoq mmcflbmoq w Houomm m Houomm v Houomm m Houomm m Houomm H Houomm *Ammosoam my oneazHomzH moon Emma Mdszm Om m0 ZOHBflEOM deHmm> d Eomm mOZHmdqq KOBoflm Vlfl mum¢fi m QZfl fl mZMOM m0 mmqdem¢> M 220 mm m» mauo mm mm xwam on ma wsam mm mm mHHo vm mm wam an mm msHm mm mm memo Hm mm xwam mm mm Ozam av mv amam om mv mHHo hm mv xwam vb mv Ozam ma mm swam am mm mane mm mm xwflm mm mm OSHA on mm nmam ow Hm mm mm maao mm ow mm xoam vm Ho mm mm msam mm ma gnaw om mH mayo Va ma xmam an ma Ozam Am mflqmv A< H MmZV Am Emomv Afi Emomv mmcflbmoq mmCAUmoq meHmmoq mmsflmmoq mmcflomoq mmcaomoq o Houomm m Houomm v Mouomm m MOpOmm m Houomm H Monomm Omscapcoouuvua mamas 221 UQSGflnZMOO o.ooa mom Hmuoa o.ooa mow HMHOB 0.00H m.o v +w.>o o.ooa m.o w +mo v+ m.mm o.N 0H w.>onw.bm m.mm n.H ma m.m@|mm m+ m.hm v.NH mm o.hmlo.>v w.>m >.va mHH m.>m|nv m+ H.mw 0.0m hmm @.nVI©.hm H.mm o.mm wmm m.®v|wm H+ N.Vm m.0m me ©.hmn®.hm H.0m v.mm 0mm m.©mthm o b.ha w.©H ®NH ©.hm|w.wfi >.©H m.mH wHH m.mm|na H: m. m. n ©.©H|®.© v.H ¢.H Ha m.oau> mu m. o o 0.010 o o o m.©|o m: HM mm em m Hm fim>HousH aw kw aw w am HM>MOUQH N 0.0H ".Q.m 0.5m "Emmi H.0H ".o.m 0.0m "Goo: melm "magma m.®m "EMHUOZ m Noam >2 mulofi Mwmcmm m.®m "GOHUOE 4 xsam >2 xDHm Q¢mmm>IZOZ moz¢2m0hmmm m>HE¢mmU m0 mmmDmdmZ QMEMODmZflMB mom mZOHBDmHmbHD 02¢ wUHBmHBawch N o.n ..o.m m.AH ”mam: N.» ..O.m wh.ma .cmoz amuo “magma N.>H .amawmz m OHmo >2 manm .mmqmm m.wa .cmaomz a OHmo >2 MVEHQZHOHMO ...?NmMMN/IZOZ Omscauaoouumla momma 223 Cossaunoo H.00H hob m.mm mos Hmuoe H.00H m.o a +aoa m.mm v.0 m +qoa ¢+ m.aa w.m mm m.aoglam m.mm m.m mm m.aoa-mm m+ m.mm m.ma Hog m.omloo a.mm m.ag Ho m.¢ma©o m+ o.mm 6.6m «om m.m®1ma m.mw ¢.nm Ham m.m6|wa H+ 0.6m m.ma pmm ma.aana.mm m.6m o.Ha Sam m.ma-am o m.ma m.mH am m.mmlmo m.ma o.ma mag m.om-a HI o.H o.H w m.m-o m.o m.o a m.6ao m: H H A H A m w w .w w m Hm>kusH w m .w w .m Hm>HOFCH N m.am ..n.m ms.av "cam: a.mH ..o.m v.ma "cmwz mmauo .mmcmm e.ga "anawmz m qum m> moalo .mmcmm H.mv .cmaomz a xsqm m> xDQm Q¢mmm> Omsqaucooulmua mamas '._1-?“‘v 224 Uwflfifluc—OO m.mm mob o.ooa OOP Hmuoe m.mm m.o N m.amHuOHH O+ O.mm O.o m m.moaumm 0.00H m.o m O.OOIOO m+ o.mm o.H O m.HmuOk >.mm N.H a m.mOan O+ o.Om O.m ON m.mnuOm O.Om O.m am m.o>|mm m+ O.vm 0.5 Om m.mm-Om o.ma O.O OO O.Om am NO O.AO o.mm and m.smnom N.OO m.Om OOH o.Om-MN H+ O.aO O.OO aka m.maum O.OO m.aa OOm o.mm1a o o.m o.m mm O.Ouo O.NH O.NO Om m.Olo H- a a a a a a O O O O O O HO>HOOOO O O O .O a O HO>HOO¢H N o.OH ..o.m m.mfl “cams 0.0H ..o.m o.mm .smmz mmH:o "Omcmm A.OH .cOOOOs m OHmo m> Omuo “Omamm 0.0H “cmawwz a OHmo m> MBHHflZHOHmO gmmnmxw Owscflus00|um1< mamas UGSCHUGOU 0.00H OOB m.OOH mOa Hmuoe 0.00H v.0 m O.FBIOO m.oog O.o O O.H>-HO O+ O.mm m.m OH m.mOIOm O.Om O.N mm m.OO|m.ma m+ M.AO ~.m On m.mmlma O.Oa H.Oa mm m.maloa N+ H.OO v.mm nmm m.HO-ON O.mO «.om mmm O.mmamm O+ % a.vm O.oa mam m.smnOH «.mm a.oa mam m.Om-o pH 0 .2 H.OH O.NO Om O.OHIO O.OH O.ma OOH o.OH-mm.O O1 O.H O.O NH m.m-o 0.0 a.o a mm Ouo N! HO O O OO O HO HO>HOOcO HO O O HO O HO , 4O>HOOOO N NH ..o.m m.am "cam: mn.oa ..o.m O.sm ”:82 mayo "Omcmm m.ON .OOOOOZ m xsgm >OOO momm OOlo “Omcmm O.sm "OOOOOE < xoqm >OOO moma NDAm UZH>HOw qumomm Omsqaucoonumua mqmae 226 coscHucoo o.OOH OOH No.00H OOH Hmuoe o.OOH H.o H +ov m+ m.mm v.0 m m.mmumm .N.OOH m.o m +ON v+ m.ma o.m mm m.mmlsm m.mm O.m Om m.nm-mm m+ m.OO m.HH HO m.Om-om H.Om v.0H om m.Hm->H m+ m.mm n.0m Omm m.mHnMH H.OO m.0m Omm m OHINH H+ m.vm N.HO HHm m mHzm.m m.mm O.nm AON m.HH|a o m.mH m.mH «OH m.mlo O.aH O.AH OOH O.Oum.H H: v.0 «.0 m m.H-o m- H H H H H H O w O O w O HO>HOOCH O O O .O O .O Hm>HmusH N OOO.O ..o.m m.mH .cOOE OH.O ..0.0 m.HH ":OOz ovao .mmcmm O.HH "OOHOOE m amoa Omlo .Oacmm m.HH u:OHOOS a amoa woaoamoa OzH>HOO zmHmomm OODCHOGOOIImld mamma mom H® HOO. O op m OON NH NNO. m on N Hmn OOH OMH. N o» H OOO NON Ham. H on O «Om NON Ham. O op HI 7 . .2 NNH OOH OMH H- op NI 2 NH aH NNO. N- on mu HO HO HOO. m: op O- Am x sv m x Q m HO>HOOGH OmHozmoammO OmHoszommO oneomHmOOHo mmoom m>He «mm xoqm qoeoe am> ono mm> xoqm ma mmqm «>2 gonoe «>2 ono «>2 xoqm oneoommezH sm Emom EBHB mmflmflHmm> ZOHBUflMWBZH SOOMmmdQU mZOHqummmOU 02¢ mmqdem¢> ZOHBUdMMBZH 200mmm¢QU EBHS d Emom mZOHfidqmmmoo OHlfl mammB UQSCHDCOU mooo. mm. DH qqdzm mooo. Hm. woo. HH. Hoo. ma. mooo. vH. mmmz Hm mooo. ha. mooo. ma. mooo. vH. mmmz Om mooo. hm. mooo. ON. mooo. ma. mooo. ma. OHBflM Hm mooo. ON. Ho. 00.1 boo. OH.I OHEflm om mooo. ma. OHBfim OH mooo. 0N. OHB m>z mdqm m>z HéBOE m>z UHMO m>z xDHm d B¢E «H Q¢BOB flmm HdBOBImDm flmm Ommd ZOHBUflmMBZH decfiuGOOIloalm mqm¢8 240 mooo. Om. NO. mo. vo. ho. NO. mo. mo. 50. o 00. DH AHfiZm mooo. mm. mooo. mH. mooo. 5H. mooo. NH. mOOO. NH. mOOO. NH. mooo. wH. mOOO. VH. mmmz HQ 9 mo. moo. OH. mo. mo. mooo OH. 500. OH. mOOO. mH. mmmz om mOOO. Hm. mOOO° PH. mOOO. NN. mooo. mH. mooo. NN. mooo. NH. mOOO. wH. mOOO. OH. OHBQM Hm mooo. ON. 9 mo. 9 00. ® mo. ® PO. OHBmM om mOOO. VN. mooo. vH. mOOO. MH. mOOO. MH. HOO. MH. HOO. MH. mooo. vH. HO. OH. OHBflm OH mOOO. Hm. moo. MH. NOO. NH. HOO. MH. MOO. HH. Ho. mo. HOOo NH. HE mOOO. mN.I moo. HH.I mooo. VH.I mOOO. VH.I mooo. MH.I NO. mo.1 boo. OH.I o ho.l Q HQéZm mOOO. mH. H Qflézm mOOO. «N. mooo° mH. NOO. NH. HOO. NH. moo. HH. mOOO. mH. mOOO. wH. NOO. HH. m x OH.m.w vo. ho. m . mo. NO. mo. mooo. mH. w x m mOOO. MH.I HOO. NH. woo. HH. HOO. mH. moo. OH. «0. mo. moo. OH.+ mZMB woo. HH.| mooo. OH.| mo. wo.l Noo. HH.I HOO. NH.I mOOO° PH. mmEZmo mOOO. VN.I mooo. MH.I mOOO. OH.I mooo. OH.I mooo. mH.I NOO. HH.I moo. HH.I moo. OH.I QB mooo. mN. No. mo. o mo. 60. Ho. mo. HB mooo. mN.I woo. 00.1 Hoo. NH.I NOO. HH.I HOO. NH.I NO. mO.I mo. mO.I vo. DO.I h x h m x m moo. mo.l HO. mO.I mo. ho.l boo. OH.I moo. HH.! mOOO. mH.I m x m w x v .m .M .m .M .Q .h .m .H .Q .H .m .H .m on .m .H mqmflHm<> m Edi mH H4908 mmm HdBOB mmm Oma< mmm XDAh mm> A OHmO mm> xDHm ZOHfiommMBZH 3232001107... momma. 1.1 mooo. Ob.HON mm.whH MMOUm QmBOB mooo. vo.Hm om.nv ammo o ono ameoe mooo. om.vv oo.mm mm qmeoe1mom mooo. no.mH Ho.HH mm ammo mooo. Hm.mm vv.oa monBDAOm qmeoe1mom mooo. om.n mo.m monBDQOm @204 mooo. mH.om mm.oH ozH2m¢ qmeoe1mom mooo. nn.o om.m oszmo ammo mo. no.no Ho.mo m> qmooa1mpm 1. A.m.2v om. oo.mH mn.o2 m> ono M mooo. mm.mm mm.om mmqm mooo. om.nm om.mm >2 qmeoe1mom mo. Hm.mm mo.oa >2 ono qm>mq mommno>fl mmhoom cam: MmMB mwoMHm>¢ monoom cmmz xmme mUZH9mmmo m0 mmmoom zmmz m0 me wm mmmoom m0 mZOmHmm aha. m x m m.m H.H Hoa. nHHo. mmm. ammo. m x v n.H OH. nmmoo. ammoo. mvao. onmoo. mma x m m.m vH. memo. mmmoo. mmm. oomo. m x mmH o.v N.H oooo. memoo. mmm. Hmao. w x v m.m Hm. memo. Honoo. 0mm. ono. q x mma m.¢ mm. mmooo. whooo. omaoo. «maoo. mm x v m.m vm. memo. memoo. mma. mvao. v x mm m.m N.H vaooo. «wooo. mmooo. memooo. w x H o.m mo. mmwo. ammoo. memo omao. mmflxmmfi o.m mm.1 .movmoo H.om ,mqommamm m.ona m Ham: m.m om.n .qwnmon m.om .mvonommm H.NAH m Hmmz mom mool .momwo vo.m .ommmmmH m.om 4 ea: m.m mmo .mmmmn o.oH .mammama mooq a qaaoe H.m ow. .moaona m.ma ommnoma H.mm mm qmeoe Ham mvu .mamma mfium Hmmmfla m.HH 4mm amom ro mom mvo .ommmm mooH .mofimmo m‘nm «mm xmqm A. n.m hm, gmwmwow o.mm onmmmqav M.AQ m> gmeoe 99 H.m wofi .mnmmma m.ma ”mmwnmm m.am ¢m> meo Ham mmo ommomnm «.ma mmmaoma vomw xoqm H.m mv. oumAOm v.om mmmmvom m.wv «>2 mmqm i m.m mm. ovmnmmfl o.©H .HonquN m.mm >2 qaeoe m.m me, ommmem wfi.n .mvmmmm puma «>2 on0 H.m om” ”maaon N.oa ammmwwoa 6.6m «>2 xoqm mHmoemam mmmzzmMm zamz mma one¢H>ma mmmmsam mo 29m 2mm: mzmz 20mm m20H9ma mmaozmam ommaaam mo 2pm mmqdem¢> ZOHBUdeBZH 200mmm¢qu 02¢ moz¢2m0mmmm M>Hemmm0 m0 mmmbmflmz m0 mUHBmHBfifim Nm¢EZDm malm mammfi Umdzfluqoo m.N 0v. Hv.N thO. mm.HN OOH. mZMB w.N ON. Nw.m ammo. mw.O® NhN. MWEZMO ©.m Nm. hvm. NhNO. wH.v HOBO. QB v.m om. ammo. Hmmoo. mom. owHO. HE O.N NV. Nh.m Hmmo. vo.b¢ hmw‘ m x m¢mmm O.v mH.H th. mmHO. HH.H mmmo. v x MNH b.N ow. «m.H hmwo. mo.m mmmo. OH x OH O.N ON. ammo. mhmoo. vHN. mvHO. OH x m m.m Nb. OONO. OHOOO. NmH. m¢HO. OH x m H.OH m.m movo. ovhoo. oowo. hwhOO. OH x b m.N bH.l wOHO. wnvoo. vHN. meO. OH x O b.N Hw. mmmH. meO. m®.N hhmO. OH x mv N.N 0v. wOHO. Hmmoo. tho. «hmOO. OH x MNH H.m H.H mom. bwmo. mo.v mvoo. m x mm O.w m.H hmHO. meOO. OHVO. ©¢moo. m x n W H.v v.H mHHO. mmmOO. ammo. mmmOO. m x O 7 m.w v.H OmH. OWHO. hum, ammo. m x m I 7. w.m ow. mNNO. mmmOO. th. OMHO. m X v M m.N mO. NhH. mmHO. HO.H bmmo. m x MNH w.m ®.H wh.v mOmO. h®®.vH OHH. w x w w.m v.H mmOOO. mOMOO. VNHO. OFMOO. m x h o.m w.H Hhvo. mthO. wHH. wmmoo. m x m m.N mH. mNm. wmmo. w0.0H HHH. m x mw m.N Hm. mom. wwHO. hm.H hmmO. m x MNH N.© w.H OHbO. mmmOO. bMH. mmmOO. b x h m.w v.H wmmo. mmnoo. NMH. NHHO. b x mmv m.v N.H OOOOO. vHHOO. mwmoo. HOHOO. n x mmH 5.0 w.H Ohwo. OOHO. wHw. HHNO. w x w mHmOBmDM mmMZBMMm zmmz mmB ZOHBMO mmmmbam mo EDw z¢m2 mz¢z 20mm mZOHB€H>mQ QmeZ¢Bm can? mo 28 UmscHufioollmHlm mqmda 248 v.m 00.! .mmoow v.0H .0NmthN m.vm m 9&2 H.m vm. .mmeh 00.0 .HNNvaH 0.0m M.A Q¢EOB 0.0 H.N .OOHOMN 0.0H .MOOMHm m.0H mm> UHmO m.m Oh. .mvaMM m.HN .ommewH w.vv mm> XDQM h.v m0. .NNMHOH m.vH .050000 O.Hm m>z mdqm m.m mv. .hhm0hH ®.mH .hmHHNvN H.mm >2 AdBOB O.v Hm. .owmmm N0.® .mowHON m.hH m>z OHmO O.m ON. .Ommmw 00.0 .mvaHHH ®.hm m>z qum @.N hH.I mm.NH 0NH. .OHN wmm. DH quMO mmmmQ Qm¢QZ