M . .. ...-—--4.‘.c.-¢--v.-.,-..—. n—Q'v-i-vofifl~—-—<"-‘ ._ . fl ‘ '2: , V I - — ~ . " ‘ ~ . . -‘4‘ . ‘ A ,- ‘ V ‘ I"? ' \ \ , - ' . V . . . ‘ ’ . > ‘ 1 ‘ -» - >~. ' . u ”I 3 1' . .CREATEVITY MATERIALS FOR THEIMEDDkg'GRADEs mam DEVELOPMENT AND EFHCACY ,;_. , Thesis for the Degree 61f Ph.‘ D. , k? MECHEGAN smfaumvmsm’ - _ woman mama mums , ‘ ‘ 1970 f. I . I . . X 5 ‘ ~ ' ~ ' . . , . ' I}; a » .rru ‘ . .7; ”0de ‘0': ”5-2-2. . . 7-4 '; a .‘ . . , ‘ f . r"l',f’w’)t)r"£,lo*f"'f‘ A 2L t g. . V ' . . - . ’ .’ «yd-p .vr' uni-Ff 7"". I «v u ‘ - » . ' - or ,. -i—Fo>-»~flvr : .1... ‘1’,» Mt"... . - m v -' "I. ‘n. >an¢~x - rrvor’nv r "v. ‘ .« . ‘ A- H. .3...’.'.'.’fln n: o t'HF‘Q‘s This is to certify that the thesis entitled Creativity Materials for the Middle Grades: Their Development and Efficacy presented by Richard Chalmer Youngs has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doc tor ' Sdegree in Phi lo soph;r fl '” Majoflofgsg August 25, 1970 Date 0-169 ABSTRACT CREATIVITY MATERIALS FOR THE MIDDLE GRADES: THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND EFFICACY By Richard Chalmer Ybungs Purpose The purpose of the study was to test the efficacy of a set of learning materials developed from a base of educational theory and research, specifically designed to stimulate creative thinking in middle grade children. Procedures An analysis of the literature relating to creative thinking suggested that the divergent thinking section of Guilford's structure-of—intellect model was appropriate as a matrix for deve10ping seventy creative thinking activi- ties for children in grades four through six. The activi- ties were uniformly divided among the twenty-four cells of the matrix and were developed as self-instructional kits. The creative thinking kits were tested with.a group of twenty-four sixth.grade laboratory school children for thirty class periods over a period of four months. Richard Chalmer Youngs Treatment and control groups were identified and the treat- ment group used the creativity materials while the control group worked with science activities. Both groups occu- pied the same classroom.during the treatment period and were supervised and taught by the researcher. Seven hypotheses relating to improvement of verbal fluency, flexibility, originality; and figural fluency, flexibility, originality and.elaboration.were stated. Data were gathered through the use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and gains were compared through an analysis of covariance. Findings 1. No significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups following treatment for the measures of verbal fluency, flexibility, originality; and figural fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. 2. The gains of the treatment group exceeded the gains of the control group by a nonsignificant margin for six of the seven measures of creative thinking. The treatment group exhibited no- gains relative to the control group for measures of figural elaboration. Richard Chalmer Youngs Conclusions The seven hypotheses which declared that the treat- ment group would score significantly higher on measures of verbal fluency, flexibility, originality; and figural fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration were rejected. It was concluded that significant differences between the treatment and control groups were not demon- strated for any of the seven measures. Possible reasons for the lack of significance be- tween the groups included inadequacy cf the materials, short duration of the treatment period, contamination of the control group, insufficient sample size, and inade- quacy of the creative thinking test. CREATIVITY MATERIALS FOR THE MIDDLE GRADES: THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND EFFICACY BY Richard Chalmer Youngs A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 3 (, 7/54. Cc) Copyright by RICHARD CHAIMER YOUNGS 1970 PREFACE The disparity between research and practice is known to be a critical issue in the educational process. This study was undertaken for the express purpose of applying accepted research knowledge to c1assroom.prac- tice. Specifically, theory and research relating to cognitive processes, intellect, motivation, and classroom milieu were integrated into a framework which provided a basis for the development of materials designed to stimmp late creative thinking. The study was concerned with the development and efficacy of a set of creative thinking materials. The researcher is deeply indebted to Dr. William J. Walsh, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, whose en- couragement, knowledge, and assistance guided this study to completion. The researcher also wishes to acknowledge the contributions made by Dr. Charles.A. Blackman, Dr. William.K. Durr, and Dr. Richard J. McLeod who were members of the Guidance Committee and.gave generously of their time and talents in guiding the study. The wife of the researcher deserves grateful recog- nition for her assistance in developing the creativity materials, reading and commenting on the early drafts of ii the thesis, and supporting and encouraging the endeavor. The thesis is dedicated to the researcher's chil- dren.and their contemporaries for it is they who will need to generate the creative solutions to the problems con- fronting their generation. Finally, where regulations permitted, this thesis was bound in a colorful cover. The color of the cover was chosen to emphasize the viable nature of the topic, and to attract the attention of inquiring and innovative educators. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LI 8 T 0F TAB LES . C O O O 0 O O O C O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . NEED FOR THE STUDY . . . . . Cultural Change . . . . . . Individual Development . . The Gap Between Research.and Practice PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . BACKGROUND 0? THE STUDY . . . Early Investigations . . . A.Turning Point . . . . . . Early Programs . . . . . . THEORY FOR THE STUDY . . . . 'Individualized Instruction Motivational Theory . . . . Classroom.Milieu . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . iv Page xi xii \OGQN‘JUIWNl-‘H R; R3 {3 15 15 Data Gathering . . . . . Randomizing Groups . . . Class meetings . . . . . Observing Gains . . . . . DEFINITIONS FOR THE STUDY . Creativity . . . . . . . Divergent Thinking . . . ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Assumptions Listed_ . . . Limitations Listed . . . ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS Need for the Study . . . The Literature . . . . . Implementation . . . . . The Data . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . 2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . THEORIES OF CREATIVITY . . Unique Relationships, Associations and Abilities A Function of Mental Health . A Life Force or Self-Fulfillment A Factor of Intelligence PROCESS OF CREATING . . . . Page 17 17 18 l9 l9 19 20 22 {REE—’3 25 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 31 32 3h The Stages . . . . . . . . . . Levels of Creativity . . . . . TRAITS OF CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS . Creative Artists . . . . . . . Creative Scientists . . . . . . Characteristics Compared . . . Summaries of Traits of Creative CREATIVITY AND INTELLIGENCE . . . CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF ALL PERSONS Persons INSTRUCTIONAL THEORIES OF CREATIVITY . . Origin of Instructional Theory Newer Theoretical Implications CREATIVE THINKING AND IEARNING . CONDITIONS WHICH.AFFECT CREATIVITY . . . Parental Influence . . . . . . Risk-taking and Anxiety . . . . Maturation . . . . . . . . . . Relevant Factors . . . . . . . Motivation . . . . . . . . . . Groups Versus Individuals . . . Deferred Judgment . . . . . . . TEACHING FOR CREATIVE THINKING . Programmed Lessons . . .'. . . Guilfcrd's Model as a Theoretical Framework . . . . Page 31+ 36 37 37 38 39 51.555 R6 50 Sh 55 56 S7 S7 60 62 63 6h 67 Recommendations for Stimulating Creative Thinking . . . . . . . . . Teacher Characteristics . . . . . . . Programs for Developing Creativity . GUILFORD'S STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT MODEL TheModel.............. Using Guilford's Model . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF THE RELATED.RESEARCH . . . . Creative Process . . . . . . . . . . Creative Traits . . . . . . . . . . . Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stimulating Creative Thinking . . . . 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . ' PHILOSOPHY OF THE CREATIVITYMATERIALS . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS . . . . . . . 3 Divergent Thinking . . . . . . . . . Developing Creativity Materials . . . Student's Instructions . . . . . . Teacherts Haterials . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OPISCPERIMENT . . . . . . . . . ‘ Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . . Population ‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . . PREDICTING CREATIVE PERFORMANCE . . . . vii Page 69 71 7h 76 78 80 82 83 83 83 85 85 85 86 88 89 89 9O 91 92 93 95 98 Content Validity . . . . . Construct validity . . . . Concurrent validity . . . . Predictive Validity . . . . Test, Retest Reliability . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . Experimental Design . . . .- h. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . INTRODUCTION .3. . . . . . . FIELD NOTES . . . . . . . . . TEST DATA . . . . . . . . . . verbal Fluency . . . . . . verbal Flexibility . . . . verbal Originality . . . . Figural Fluency . . . . . . Figural Flexibility . . . . Figural Originality . . . . Figural Elaboration . . . . Comparison of Means . . . . TWOAWAY3ANALYSIS 0F VARIANCE WITH REPEATED MEASURES . . Tetal Mean Soores . . . . . QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . . Control Group . . . . . . . Experimental Group . . . . viii Page 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 105 105 106 109 109 110 111 113 11h 115 116 117 120 122 123 123 12h WWY O O O O O O 0 Field Notes . . . . Analysis of Covariance Two-Way Analysis of variance . with Repeated Measures Questionnaire Data 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY . . . . . . . The Problem.. . . . Theoretical Base . The Literature . . Assumptions for Materials Analysis and Results Conclusions . . . . Discussion . . . . Further Research . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . DISCUSSION .. . . . . Guilford's Model . Individualized Instruction Motivation . . . . Outcome of Study . O O O IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. Selected Sources for Creativity Materials ix Page 125 125 126 126 127 128 128 128 129 129 130 131 132 133 131+ 135 137 137 137 139 139 m5 155 B. C. Activity Titles . Selected Activities . Tape Recorded Instructions to Students Teacher's Instructions Verbal and Figural Protest and Posttest Data Computer Printouts for: verbal Fluency, verbal Flexibility, verbal Originality, Figural Fluency, Figural Flexibility, Figural. Originality, Figural Elaboration~ Computer Printouts for: Twoeway Analysis of variance with.Repeated Measures Questionnaires Page 157 159 165 172 177 179 186 187 Table 1. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Analysis of Covariance Findings for verbal Fluency . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Findings for verbal Flexibility . . . Analysis of Covariance Findings for verbal Originality . . . Analysis of Covariance Findings for Figural Fluency . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Findings for Figural Flexibility . . . {Analysis of CoVariance Findings for Figural Originality . . . Analysis of Covariance Findings for Figural Elaboration . . . verbal Mean Scores (Fluency, Flexibility, Originality) Figural Mean Scores (Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, Elaboration) TwoAWay.Analysis of variance with Repeated Measures . . . Pooled Mean Scores for Both Groups by subtests . . . xi Page 109 111 112 113 11h 115 116 118 119 122 123 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Cubical Model Representing the Stmc ture -Of-Int6116 0t 0 o e e e e e e 81 2. Divergent Thinking Section of the Structure-of-Intellect Model . . . . . 87 xii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION In this period of revolutionary ferment and continued technological development, we seek the new Renaissance man who is willing to ride the wild horse of change and tame it to his own uses. (Gallagher, 1966) NEED FOR THE STUDY ”Is America Neglecting Her Creative Talents?” inquired Arnold Toynbee in a recent publication.1 I He answered his question with a resounding "Yes,” pointing out that.America is losing that quality of a democracy which means 'giving,an equal opportunity to individuals to develop their unequal capacities.'2 Toynbee observed that America's lack of understanding of the implications of educational quality has stifled the creative mind. He condemned conservatism.as being in part responsible for America's neglect of her creative talents, stating, ”Creation is a disturbing force in society because 1Arnold Toynbee, 'On the Role of Creativity in History,” and ”Is America-Neglecting Her Creative Talents?" Creativity Across Education (Salt Lake City: University of- Utah Press, 1967), p. 23. 2Toynbee, p. 2h. 2 it is a constructive one."3 He summarized his position by stating 'Egalitarianism.and conservatism work together against creativity, and in combination, they mount up to a formidable repressive force.'u Cultural Change In regard to the question concerning the neglect of creative talent, a concern has been raised about the future of a culture which neglects its creative individuals. Cul- tures have been improved and.enhanced only through change. Changes or improvements of the social order have originated as thoughts and.ideas from within the mind of man.and socie- ties which have not produced and sustained individuals capable of innovative and creative thought have been destined to a future of repetition and stagnation. Torrance takes the position that ”social importance” is a reason for educators to be concerned with developing ‘ creativity. He pointed out, “It takes little imagination to recognize that the future or our civilization--our very surviva1--depends on the quality of the creative imagination .5 of our next generation. As one means of encouraging a positive approach to the situation this study was dedicated 3 it Toynbee, p. 27. Toynbee, p. 28. 5E. Paul Torrance, Guiding Creative Talent (Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeéHall, Inc., 1962), p. 6. 3 to the development and evaluation.of materials specifically designed to stimulate creative thinking in school-aged children. Individual DevelOpment One can identify several reasons why educators should be concerned with the development of an individual's creativity per se. Four paramount reasons were an individu- al's mental health, fully develgped functions, educational achievement, and vocational success.6 Torrance observed that stifling creativity ultimately creates an overwhelming tension with a deleterious effect on the individual's ability to function adequately. He noted, “There is also little doubt that one's creativity is his most valuable resource in coping with life's daily stresses."7 The demands of our culture haVe been ever increasing because of its complexity. Individuals who have not been ”fully functioning” persons have come to be a liability with ‘which our culture nust reckon. Torrance declared, "Certain- ly we cannot say that one is fully functioning mentally, if the abilities involved in creative thinking remain underde- veloped or paralyzed."8 6Torrance, Creative Talent, pp. 2-7. 7Torrance, Creative Talent, p. 2. 8Torrance, Creative Talent, p. 3. ll The concept of a ”fully functioning" person was ex- tended to include the student and his interaction with the school environment. Research done by Torrance, Getzels, and Jackson has demonstrated that creative thinking abilities contribute importantly to acquisition of informa- tion and other educational skills.9 An additional reason why educators should be con- cerned with developing creative thinking, said Torrance, is that it contributes to vocational success.10 He noted that creativity is a prominent characteristic of outstanding individuals in almost every field. Most educators feel that high intelligence, special talent, and technical skills alone are not enough for outstanding success. J. P. Guilford summarized most aptly the need for developing higher levels of creative performance when he stated, '. . . nothing could contribute more to the general welfare of the nation and to the satisfaction and mental health of its people than a rising of the general level of creative 9Tcrrance, Creative Talent, p. 1;, citing E. P. Torrance, ”Eight Partial Replications of the Getzels- Jackson Study,” Research Memo BER-60-18 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bureau oFEducationel Research, 1960); see also Torrance, Creative Talent, p. 11, citing J. W. Getzels and P. N. Jackson, ”The Meaning of 'Giftedness'—-an Examination 5;; an Expanding.Concept," Phi Delta Kappan, no (1958), 75- loTorrance, Creative Talent, p. 5. performance.”11 The Gap_Between.Research and Practice Considerable research has been.available to edu- cators who are concerned with.nurturing creativity. Unfor- tunately, only a small portion of this literature has found its way into the hands of teachers; even less of those findings reach the stage of classroom implementation. Obviously there has been a critical need to trans- late theoretical research into practical teaching methods and materials. Parnes acknowledged the hiatus when he stated, "In spite of this increasing concern, our present educational system, to a large extent, still overlooks the intentional enhancement of creative ability in students.'12 Taylor and others asserted, ”There is scanty assurance that the many basic research findings with potential relevance to education will quickly--or ever--be applied in determin- ing what happens in the classroom."13 .. 11J. P. Guilford, TA Psychometric Approach to Creativity,” Creativity in Childhood and Adolescence, ed. Harold H. AndersonPIPalo Alto, California: Science and Be- havior Books, Inc., 1965), p. l. lZMerrill B. Parnes, 'Imagination: Developed and Disciplined,” Instructional Media and.Creativity, ed. C.‘W. Taylor (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), p. 230. 13Calvin w. Taylor, Brewster Ghiselin, and John.A. Ublfer, ”Bridging the Gap Between Basic Research.and.Educa- tional Practice, The NBA Journal (January, 1962), 23. 6 Benjamin Bloom, in assessing the progress of educa- tional research during the past 25 years, observed a “lack of clear evidence about the instructional approaches which are effective in bringing about significant changes in higher mental processes."m Guilford, however, observed that these mental processes or ”thinking skills” should be an important educational goal}S Supporting Guilford in a recent study David Denny identified teacher-classroom vari- ables which facilitated pupil creative growth: Investigations of the development of crea- tivity might be criticized as premature in light of the limited stage of research defining creativity, . . . it is the opinion of many in education that the factors measured by the test developed to date are important in themselves whether labeled creativity or s imgly ideational fluency, originality, et cetera.1 Priestman summarised the urgency for the development of instructional programs which stimulate the higher thought processes in general and creativity in particular when she stated, ". . . for man is a thinking animal and we do mBenJamin 3. Bloom, ”Twenty-five Years of Educa- tional Research,“ American Educational Research Journal, III: 3 (M13. 1966): 2170 15L P. Guilford, ”Progress in the Discovery of Intellectual Factors, Instructional Media and Creativity, ed. 0. H. Taylor (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press , 1967): P0 77 16David A. Denny, "A Preliminary Analysis of an Observation Schedule Designed to Identify the Teacher- Classroom Variables which Facilitate Pupil Creative Growth," (ERIC, ID 010191;. 1967), p. 11. 7 children grievous wrong when we train them in school to listen and accept, instead of to experience and under- stand."17 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY As stated in an earlier section, the purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of materials specifical- ly designed to stimulate creative thinking. The researcher developed materials from a base of educational research and theory. Similarly, classroom implementation of the materials was founded upon current educational literature. A broad research goal was to bridge the gap between basic research and common educational practice; mmre specifically, the body of knowledge and the research of creativity were directed toward development of materials which stimulate creative thinking in sixth grade children. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Parnes and Burnelle reported that the number of titles relating to creativity were appearing in professional literature with increasing frequency. For example the quantity of research published during the eighteen-month period of January, 1965, to June, 1966, equaled the quantity l7Barbara Priestman, Froebel Education Today (Lon- don: University of London Press, 1952), p. 19. 8 reported in the preceding five years. A similar number of titles were developed during the previous ten years. A one hundred year period between 1850 and 1950 was required to produce the quantity of research equal to the amount pub- lished between January, 1965, and June, 1966.18 Earlnynvestigations Early investigations of creativity attempted to determine the hereditary factors linked to creativity.19 Studies carried out near the turn of the century examined intellectual and personality components of intelligence and their relation to creativity.20 By 1950 studies had been conducted relating to psychological aspects of creativity with specific attention to the personalities, interests, and aversions of creative individuals. Many of these studies were restricted to special groups and lBSidney J. Parnes and Eugene A. Brunelle, ”The Literature of Creativity (Part 1),” The Journal of Creative Behavior, I, 1 (Winter, 1967), 52.- 19?. Galton, Hereditary Genius: .An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences (New York: Macmillan.and Co., 1892), p. 12. 206. V. Dearborn, 'A Study of Imaginations ," American Journal of Psychology, 9 (January, 1898), 183-190; see also L. M. Terman, ”Genius and Stupidity: A Study of Some of the Intellectual Processes of Seven 'Bright' and Seven 'Stupid' Boys," Pedigogical Seminar, 13 (1906), 307-373. . - 9 occupations.21 In addition to the psychological aspects of creativity, the steps of the creative process were deline- ated by the early 1950's. A Turning Point Guilford regarded 1950 as a turning point with respect to interest in creativity.22 He suggested that this tuming point resulted from a number of causes in- cluding the pressures brought on society by World war II, the cold war, the space age, and the concomitant demands these conditions made on creative imagination. _E_a_r_l.y Programs Early in the 1950's the Creative Education Founda- tion was formed through the efforts of Alex I". Osborn. At that time attention was turned to improvement of adult creative production through special courses or programs.23 2J-Brewster A. Ghiselin (ed.), The Creative Process: A Symposium (Berkeley: University of CWa Press, , pp. 1-533 see also Jacques S. Hadamsrd, An Essa on the Ps cholggy of Invention in the MathemticalTIEfiL— r ceton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1915), pp. 100-115; see also J. Rossman, The Ps cholo of the In- ventor (Washén ton, D.C.: Inventormffififiggfbmpany, 1 PP- 3 ' 3- ’ 22.1. P. Guilford, “Creativity: Yesterday, Today, an: Tomzrrowf Journal of Creative Behavior, I, 1 (Winter, 19 7 s . 23A1ex Osborn, A lied Ima ination: Princi les and Procedures of Creative i‘roEIem SoiéIE'g' (Few York: SEE-FT” Bcribner's S ons, 1961), ppfix-xxii. 10 A list of these programs and courses is provided for the purpose of identifying institutions, and more importantly, individuals who were pioneers in the field of creativity. By 1959, six noteworthy centers had been established which were devoted primarily to the study of creative thinking abilities and to the development of instruments for measuring those abilities?“ These centers were located at the University of Southern California under the leadership of J. P. Guilford; the University of Utah, under the leader- ship of C. W. Taylor and B. A. Ghiselin; The Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California at Berkeley, under the leadership of D. H. MacKinnon and F. Barron; Pennsylvania State University, under the leadership of V. Lowenfeld; the University of Chicago with J. H. Getzels, P. Jackson and M. I. Stein pro- viding leadership; and the University of Buffalo with the program of the Creative Education Foundation, directed by S. Parnes and A. Osborn. A significant portion of the rele- vant research about creative individuals has been conducted at these six centers. More recently, researchers have belatedly turned their attentions toward the development of methods and Zl'E. P. Torrance, "Current Research on the Nature of Creative Talent ," Journal of Counseling and Psycholog, 6 (1959): 309-310. ll materials which stimulate creative performance.25 Even with these concentrated efforts, materials specifically designed to be used with children are scarce. THEORY FOR THE STUDY J. P. Guilford has suggested that intellect or intelligence consists of 120 different factors. These factors have been formed by Guilford into a cubical model representing a "structure-of-intellect."26 One of the five groups of intellectual operations predicted by the model was an individual's capacity to generate numerous plausible answers or solutions for a given problem” This operation was called.'divergent thinking." Several authors have sug- gested that unusual intellectual potency in the area of divergent thinking is a factor which gives rise to crea- tivity.27 In this study, the 2k cells of the divergent 25Sidney J. Parnes and Eugene.A. Brunelle, "The Literature of Creativity (Part I),' The Journal of Creative Behavior, I, 1 (Winter, 1967), 5a.- 26s. P. Guilford, 'Three Paces of Intellect,” American Psychologist,;XIV, 8 (August, 1959), h69-h79. 27James J. Gallagher, Teaching the Gifted Child (Boston: Allyn Bacon, Inc., 196h), p. 206; see also John Gowan, "What Makes a Gifted Child Creative?--Four Theories," Gifted Child Quarterl , IX (Spring, 1965), 3-6; see also 3. P. Guilford, 'Potentiality for Creative Behavior,‘ Gifted Child Quarterly, VI (Autumn, 1962), 98-90; see also George F. Knoller, The Art and Science of Creativit (New ‘York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 19 , p. 9. 12 thinking section of Guilford's model were used as a matrix for the preparation of specialized materials. Individualized Instruction In addition, development of these materials took cognizance of a growing concern in education for the importance of individualized instruction.‘28 Considering that children have different needs and aspirations, learn- ing materials and instructional methods need to be designed for pursuit of learning, at rates and in areas suited to the learner's needs. The creativity activities designed for this study were constructed with this desideratum in mind. Motivational Theory The steps of the creative process indicated that creativity could not be programmed because insight, a vital aspect of the creative process, did not occur at pre- dictable moments. The activities and materials designed for this study compensated for this difficulty by present- ing problem situations at regular intervals, with little or no external pressure upon the learner to arrive at a solution to the problem within a specified period of time. M de Eiemlhoun C. Collier, et al., Teachin in the o rn ementarLSchool New York: The FEcE’ETIan Company W). p. 119. ’ 13 Intrinsic motivation, however, encouraged the learner to progress at a rate which best suited his needs and abili- ties. For this approach there was support from a number of authors who have observed that motivation for creativity is intrinsic. It may be in the form of curiosity, self- realization, or the need to arrive at closure.29 The mate- rials were designed to incorporate these theoretical constructs . Classroom Milieu Studies have conclusively shown that classroom environment has considerable influence on creativity. Torrance has used these studies to develop five principles for teaching behavior which are important in stimulating creative thinking. 1. Be respectful of unusual questions. 2. Be respectful of unusual ideas of chil- dren. 3. Show children that their ideas have value. 1;. Provide opportunities for self-initiated learning and give credit for it. 29Carl R. Rogers, "Toward a Theory of Creativity,” Creativity and Its Cultivation, ed. Harold H. Anderson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 72: see also George F. Kneller, The Art and Science of Creativity (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 27. 1h 5. Provide for periods of non-evaluated practice or learning. Hypotheses The problem, stated in general terms, was: Could self-instructional materials be developed for middle school aged children which would measurably improve their ability to be creative? The critical portion of the question was whether or not materials could measurably improve creative performance. In approaching this question, four hypotheses were developed for testing which concerned components of creative thinking. One hypothesis relating to figural productivity alone was examined: 1. The treatment group would score significantly higher on measures of elaboration than would the control group. Three hypotheses were related to both verbal and figural productivity. They were: 2. The treatment group would score significantly higher on measures of fluency than would the control group. 3. The treatment group would score significantly higher on measures of flexibility than would 30E. Paul Torrance, 'Give the Devil His Dues,‘ Gifted Child Quarterly, 5 (Winter, 1961), 117-118. 15 the control group. b. The treatment group would score significantly higher on measures of originality than would the control group. DESIGN OF THE STUDY" The study'was concerned with.testing materials developed by the researcher to determine their efficacy in stimulating creative thinking. The experimental design involved a comparison of pretest and posttest scores for treatment and control groups. The protests consisted of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural Test Booklet A, and verbal Test Booklet A. The posttests included Figural Test Booklet B and verbal Test Booklet B of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.31 Population The population for this study was a 1969-70 sixth grade class of the Metcalf Laboratory School at Illinois state University, Normal, Illinois. A major portion of the children in the class was children of college faculty or professional people, and a large number of the children had attended Metcalf School since entering kindergarten. 3¥E. Paul Torrance, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinkin (Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel Press, Inc., 1966). 16 Many parents were teachers and.had been.prepared in tech— niques for teaching and motivating children. A stratified random sample technique was employed to insure that the children were randomly assigned to two groups, a treatment group and.a control group. Both groups were taught by the researcher and received the same instruc- tion during the semester except that the treatment group used the creativity materials for thirty class periods during the spring semester of 1970. During the time the treatment group worked with the creativity materials the control group received science instruction. The control group was permitted to work on science projects of their own choice. The self-instructional nature of the creativity materials permitted the researcher to supervise both the science projects and the creativity activities simultaneous- ly. A permissive classroom milieu was maintained for both groups. The instruction offered to the groups for the rest of the school day was essentially the same. From the administration of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking measures were obtained on verbal fluency, flexibility, originality, and figural fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. The data were subjected to an analysis of covariance and.differences which developed between the groups during the treatment period were ob- served mnd recorded. 17 Data Gathering Figural and verbal protests and posttests were ad- ministered. The figural tests required one fifty-minute setting and the verbal tests required one fifty-minute set- ting and one twenty—minute setting. The posttests were administered on the same days of the week and at the same times within the day as were the protests. The protests and posttests were separated by a four-month interval. The tests were scored by two individuals familiar with test scoring procedures and cognizant of the philosophy under- lying the test instrument. The verbal protests and posttests were scored by one scorer and the figural pre- tests and posttests were scored by a second scorer. All tests were scored in the same order. Randomising Groups Randomization of the treatment and control groups was obtained by permitting each child to select a number between 1 and 99. Their numbers were then compared with a table of random numbers. The numbers of the first six boys and first six girls to appear in the table comprised one group: the remaining seven boys and five girls constituted a second group. This stratified random sampling procedure was employed to insure balance of girls and boys in the two groups. Once two groups were identified a toes of a coin determined the treatment group. The 18 children participated in the selection procedure so that they could better understand the experimental process and be assured that their selection for either group was based purely on chance and not on “hidden" criteria. Their num- bers were later used in place of names on all tests to insure anonymity. Class Meetings The class met for forty minutes, three days a week for seventeen weeks. During thirty of the class periods the creative thinking kits were available for use by the treatment group. Most of the treatment group worked on the kits during all the time which was made available for that purpose. The control group received science instruction during these class periods. The remaining class periods were used to provide science instruction to the total class and administer the pretest and posttests. Four of the class periods, used for science instruction, were shortened to fifteen minutes to accommodate special faculty meetings. The materials were desigled so that they were self- instructional. They were not sequential in nature: instead they provided a milieu designed to stimulate creative thinking. The children progressed at various rates and pursued the activities in varying depths. A more detailed description, analysis, and evaluation of the materials is given in chapters three and four. l9 Observing Gains Measuring the efficacy of instructional materials depended on the purpose of the materials. These materials were designed to stimulate creative thinking and their success was determined by this purpose. More specifically the materials were designed to stimulate heightened levels of performance on tasks which required verbal fluency, flexibility, originality, and figural fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Protest and posttest scores on these seven.measures were compared through an analysis of covariance. Signifi- cant differences between the experimental and control groups were conceded for measures which.exceeded the .05 level of confidence. Other types of anecdotal data were gathered, sum- marized, and reported. No attempt was made to systematical- ly analyze the anecdotal data or to draw conclusions from those data; they were reported only when they related to or supported conclusions extracted from the statistical analysis. DEFINITIONS FOR THE STUDY' Creativity A variety of definitions have been offered for creativity. For the purpose of this thesis, creativity was defined as the production of ideas resulting in behaviors 20 or products which are newL original (and worthwhile to the person creating them. Some definitions of creativity have required that the idea be unique to the culture or that it be judged worthwhile by critics. This reservation to the definition of creativity was not applied in this study. Divergent Thinking The term divergent thinking included operations and content factors of creativity related to fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The operations were further defined: Fluency was the ability to generate many responses to a problem or stialulus. The quantity of output was important even when the quality was disregarded, although the response to the stimulus or problem must have been appropriate. Flexibility was the capacity to bring about change in meaning, interpretation or use, the ability to change a strategy, or a way of doing a task; it implied the ability to develop a new interpretation of a goal, through understanding or a change in direction of thinking. Originality was the productivity of unusual, far- fetched, remote, or clever responses; it included the ability to develop novel ideas, particularly 21 those new to the individual concerned. ‘Elaboration was the ability to improve, to enhance, and to develop from.a bare outline a finished product, and to develop from a simple plan or des- cription an improved and completed product or idea. In addition, divergent thinking content factors were de- fined: Figural factors meant concrete material perceived through the senses, not representing anything except itself, such as visual materials having properties of size, form, color, location or texture. gymbolic factors were composed of letters, digits, and.other conventional signs, often organized in general systems such as the alphabet or the number system. Semantic factors comprised verbal meanings or ideas, thoughts communicated through‘written or spoken language. Behavioral factors included actions, conduct, man- nerisms and a person's responses to observable stimuli. This factor is sometimes called social intelligence or social awareness. verbal factors consist of the same factors as do semantic factors. 22 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Assumptions concerning this study related to the children as a group, the materials as purveyors of change, and the test instrument as a satisfactory estimate of change. It was assumed that the children selected for this study were representative of average or above socioeconomic level middle school aged children found in many schools across the country, and that their reactions to the materi- als were similar to those of children of similar social, economic and intellectual levels. Further, it was assumed that the materials caused the change in student performance revealed by the tests, and that the materials, in their present form or with some modification, were appropriate for children of the middle school grade levels. The assumption was made that the test instrument effectively measured creativity as reported by test scores. Finally, it was assumed that the variables not controlled in this experiment had a random effect on the results and did not produce erroneous conclusions. The limitations of the study were similarly con- corned with the children, the materials, and the test instrument. Statements about the effectiveness of these materials need to be limited to the types of children for 23 which they were developed. One cannot assume similar re- sults from children differing in age ranges, intellect, social or economic levels. The materials were developed from.a theoretical base which predicted twenty-four different types of divergent thinking operations. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were effective in measuring only a por- tion of these intellectual operations. No claim can be made about the thinking operations other than those which are measured by the test instrument. Assumptions Listed Stated explicitly this study was predicated on the following assumptions: 1. The nurturing of creativity was a desirable educational goal. 2. Improving the skills of fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality would result in heightened levels of creativity. 3. Stimulating creative thinking in individuals as children would result in creative behavior as adults. h. The learning activities were properly generated from.the theoretical model. 5. The changes in performance were a result of the treatment. 2h 6. Test instruments effectively measured fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality. 7. The setting and population in which the experi- ment was conducted was not so unusual that the outcomes within limitation could not be gen- eralized to other similar populations. 8. variables not controlled in this experiment had a random.offect on the results and did not produce erroneous conclusions. Limitations Listed 1. The test instrument sampled only a portion of the twenty-four types of thinking operations. The remainder of the operations remained un- tested and.therefore statements could not be made about them. 2. The efficacy of the materials was limited to the appropriate use of the materials. 3. The generalization of the experimental results was limited to populations which.were similar to the treatment group. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS The thesis is composed of five chapters: an intro- duction, a review of the related literature, the implementa- tion of the study, an analysis of results, a summary and conclusions. 25 Need for the Study The introductory chapter identifies the need for the study and focuses on.bridging the gap between research and practice. The background, purpose, and theory of the study are discussed. In the last part of the chapter, general hypotheses are listed along with the discussion of the experimental design. The chapter closes with a listing of definitions, assumptions, and limitations of the study. The Literature The second chapter of the thesis contains a review of the related literature. The literature is organized into five categories. The initial category is concerned with the act of creation, followed by a category in which attitudes and aptitudes of creative individuals are con- sidered. An examination of the conditions which affect creativity comprises the third category, and in the fourth category ways of teaching for creative production are identified. In the last category, Guilford's model of the structure-of-intellect is considered in more detail, and studies using this model to develop methods and.materials are discussed. 26 Implementation In chapter three, the implementation of the study, the development of the materials is described along with a discussion of the experimental design. The experimental design includes an examination of the hypotheses tested, the population, the analysis of covariance model, and an assessment of the evaluation instrument. The Data Chapter four contains an analysis of results in- cluding summaries of field notes, questionnaires, pretest and posttest data. This chapter also includes a list of the hypotheses tested and statements of the significance of the findings. Summary and Conclusions The last chapter of the thesis, chapter five, in- cludes a summary of the thesis, a discussion of the con- clusions and recommendations. The results are also dis- cussed and implications for further development of the creativity materials examined. Suggestions are made for improving the creativity materials and questions for further investigation are considered. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Fools act on imagination without knowledge; pedants act on knowledge without imagination. The task of a university is to weld together imagination and.experience. (Whitehead, 1929) INTRODUCTION In this chapter, literature relating to creativity is examined. It is a long chapter because of the quantity of theory and research germane to development of education- al materials for creative thinking. The review of the literature has been organized into five categories and was limited to studies and opin- ions relating directly to development of instructional methods and.materials for elementary school children. In the initial category, the act of creation is considered. Included in this section are theories of creativity, the creative process and levels of creative performance. The next category contains an examdnation of the attitudes and.aptitudes an individual brings to the creative en- deavor. It includes consideration of characteristics of creative persons, levels of creativity in individuals and the relationship between creativity and.intelligence. The 2? 28 third category provides for consideration of the conditions which.affect creativity. In this section, a theory for instruction is examined along with the relationship be- tween thinking and creativity, environmental conditions ‘which affect creativity, and motivational factors of creativity. In the fourth category, teaching for creative pro- duction is reviewed. In this section, techniques for stimulating creative thinking are considered along with the role of the teacher in the process. Selected.proggams for stimulating creativity are noted. The last category in the chapter provides for a review of Guilford's structure-of-intellect model, and consideration of ways of using the model to develop instructional methods or materials. THEORIES 0F CREATIVITY Four types of theories explaining creative behavior were concerned with (l) creativity as a function of a unique relationship, association or ability, (2) creativity as a function of mental health, (3) creativity as self-fulfill- ment, and (h) creativity as factors of intellect. Unique Relationships, Associations and Abilities Early theories of creativity implied divine inspira- tion. Carlyle wrote '. . . the artist . . . must speak of 29 inspiration and . . . call his work the gift of divinity.”1 In the late 1800's, Galton postulated a genetic base for - variations in creative performance.2 Kneller summarizes the theory, Creativity as Intuitive Genius, as; . . . a wholesome, highly developed form of intuition . . . [which] . . . cannot be gener- ally educated because it is unpredictable, non-rat onal, and.limited to a few unusual people. Whitehead considered creativity a cosmic force, rhythmic, or cyclical in nature, wherein entities are born, develop, and die. He postulated that these rhythmic cycles consist of the stages of romance (the first encounter), precision (order is introduced), and generalization (mastery and application).h A Function of Mental Health Older theories of creativity stated that high levels of creative performance are a result of I'madness" or . 1Thomas Carlyle, quoted in John M. Fletcher, Psyehology in Education with.Emphasis on Creative Thinking (New York: Doubleday, l93h), pp. 36h-36S. 2Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into its Laws and Consequences (New Ybrk:.Macmillan and GOe, 1892), pa 1. 3George F. Knoller, The.Art and Science of Crea- tivity (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston;“IEETT'i9€S). P e e . . #Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education (New Ybrk: The American.1dbrary, l9h9). pp. 26:33. 30 neuroses.5 These theories asserted that creativity're- sults from.neurosis or mental.instability, and were still popular at the turn of the century.6 May reported a con- versation with.Alfred.Adler in.which.Adler discussed his compensatory theory of creativity. The theory, in brief, stated ”. . . human beings produce art, science, and other aspects of culture to compensate for their own inade- quacies."7 Later theories, however, suggested that creativity is the product of a healthy mind and helps to maintain mental health.8 In these theories, it is the creative per- son who can adjust to changes and problems presented by the environment. The creative production of solutions and changes made it possible for him to adapt to his 5Knellcr, p. 20. 60. Lombroso, The Manrpf Genius (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895); see also J'. F."'lebet, The Insanity of Genius (London: De La Nore Press,.1895). . . 7Rollo may, 'The Nature of Creativity,” Creativity and Its Cultivation,.ed. H. H. Anderson (New York: Harper and.Brothers, 1959). p. 56. , 8K’neller, p. 28; see also Kneller, p. 333 see also John C. Gowan, "What Makes a Gifted Child Creative?--Four Theories," The Gifted Child Quarterly, 9 (Spring, 1965), 3-6; see also E. Paul Torrance, Guiding_Creative Talent (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 3. 31 environment and hence maintain his mental health.9 A Life Force or Self-fulfillment Several theories described in this section.related to those previously considered. They differed in their extension beyond.the concept of adequate adjustment and mental health. This group of theories posited resolution of indi- vidual problems as a requisite to personal fulfillment. They suggested that individuals have a basic drive to be- come fully actualized, creative, or to achieve self- realization. In this group, creative thinking was expli- cated primarily as a reconstruction of patterns such that the patterns become complete. Thus, the need for com- pleteness motivated the creative act.10 Haslow spoke of creativity as a result of a ”self- actualizing individual" who can.free himself from.the psychological constraints inhibiting creativity.11 Rogers proposed a similar view and defined creativity as the urge ‘— 9Gowan, I'Four Theories," p. h. 10Kneller, p. 27. 11A. H. Haslow, ”Creativity in Self-Actualizing People," Creativity and-Its Cultivation, ed., H. H. .Agderson (New‘York: Harper'and.Brothers, 1959), PP. 83- 9 . . _ 32 to fulfill oneself}2 Wilson noted two conditions which maximize the likelihood of the emergence of creativity, "psychological safety'. and "psychological freedom," or the feeling of emotional security and lack of undue emotional constraints}3 Finally, Gutman argued that creativity had its roots in the biological needs of nan to reproduce and to creatum This was a particularly cogent postulate in light of the increasingly imminent population problem. A Factor of Intelligence In suggesting that creativity results from a par- ticular type of mental functioning the following were not in conflict with theories described previously. They dealt primarily with intellectual processes and did not involve aspects of personality, environment, and heredity. Older theories in this group held that creative acts were limited to a small and highly intelligent portion of the population, while more recent theories contended that 12Carl R. Rogers, "Toward a Theory of Creativity,” Creativity and Its Cultivation, ed., Anderson, p. 72. 13R. C. Wilson, 'Creativity,” Education for the Gifted, ed., N. B. HenryJYearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, 1958), LVII, 2, p. 117. 1leHerbert Gutman, ”The Biological Roots of Crea- KEEN”. Genetic Psychologgrical Monograph, 1966, pp, 14,19- 0 e. 33 “abilities involved in being creative are universal," and that the ability to be creative is possessed in some degree by all individuals.15 One of the better known theories of this group was Guilford's structure-of-intellect theory.16 This theory expanded the concept of intelligence beyond notions that intelligence consisted of one, two, six, or eight dimen- sions.17 These notions were rejected in favor of a multi- dimensional model consisting of 120 different intellectual factors.18 Over sixty of these factors have been empirically verified. 0f the 120 factors, twenty-four were in.a category designated as "divergent thinking." The theory implied that creativity is more apparent in individuals who have an unusual facility in the divergent thinking intellectual 1 5K'neller, p. 21; see also Wilson, p. 109. 16J. P. Guilford, “Three Faces of Intellect,” American Psychologist, XIV, 8 (August, 1959): h69eh79. 17Thelma G. Thurstone, "Primary Menta1.Abilities of Children,” Educational and Psychological Measurements, 18J. P. Guilford, “Progress in the Discovery of Intellectual Factors," Widening Horizons in Creativit ed., C. 'W. Taylor (New York: John Wiley and Son, 196 ), Pp e 261-2“. 3h factors.19 PROCESS OF CREATING Traditionally the creative process has been describai as a series of stages or steps. Although descriptions of stages varied among theoreticians the four-stage analysis advanced by‘Wallas was more prevalent.20 These stages con- sisted of periods of preparation and incubation, followed by culminating stages of illumination and verification. The Stages Patrick continued the work of wallas in identifying, describing, and.delineating the stages of the creative process.21 She also conducted experiments to determine the order and relation of these events to the creative process. The works of wallas, Patrick and others who have attempted to specify the steps of the creative process were 19Gowan, “Four Theories,” p. 3; see also J. P. Guilford, "Traits.of Creativity,! Creativity and Its Cul- tivation, ed. H. H. Anderson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 152; see also E. Paul Torrance, Rewarding Creative Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 5. 20G. wallas, The Art of Thought (New Ybrk: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), p. 52. zI'Katherine Patrick, What Is Creative Thinking? (New Ybrk: Philosophical Library, 1955), pp. 32h7. 3S summarized by Wilson, Marksberry, and Kneller.22 They describe the period of preparation as characterized by such activities as ”defining the problem, gathering data and material, and choosing a plan of action.”23 The second stage, the period of incubation, was a period of "uncon- scious activity, during which time there is a ripening or germinating of the solution“ within the mind.214 This period was often characterized by frustration, restless- ness, and feelings of inferiority. The third stage was the stage of illumination. During this stage the process of creation comes to a climax and,”sudden1y, the creator grasps the solution to his problem. . . .“25 The final stage was the period of verification, during which the plan or solution was tested and an evaluation of the solution'was.made. The four stages were generally called the stages of the creative process. The stages may not all occur in any particular creation: they may be telescoped, occur in rapid succession, extend over a long period of time, or the cycle repeated several times during a particular creation. 2 2Wilson, p. 111; see also Mary Lee Marksberry, Foundations of Creativity (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. 17; see also Kneller, p. A7. 23 2h Wilson, p. 112. Marksberry, p. 18. 25Kneller, p. 53. 36 Many authors held that the creative process consisted of a set of interrelated intellectual operations rather than a sequence of discrete events. Levels of Creativity Durr and Torrance described Taylor's five levels of creative performance. 1. 26 Expressive creativity. (Independent expression where skills, originality, and the quality of the product were unimportant. Spontaneous drawings of children exemplified this level.) Productive creativity. (Artistic or scientific products which.disp1ayed heightened realism, objectivity, and.eompletion.) Inventive creativity. (Ingenuity in the use of methods, materials, and techniques. It in- volved new applications of basic ideas.) .Innovative creativity. (Improvement through significant modification of basic skills.) Emergentive creativity. (The development of entirely new principles or assumptions.) 26William K. Durr, The Gifted Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 196R), p. 175, citing Irving A. Taylor, "The Nature of the Creative Process," Creativity: An.Examination of the Creative Process, A report on the Third Communications Conference of’the.Art Directors Club of New Ybrk, ed. Paul Smith (New York: Hastings House, 1959), PP. 5h-6l; see also Torrance, Creative Behavior, p. 5, citing Taylor, "The Nature of the Creative Process.” 37 The five levels represent a hierarchy of creative performance. The first and second levels were commonly observed among school children while the higher levels were rare even among adults. TRAITS OF CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS Many interesting studies have been conducted which were concerned with traits of creative individuals. Sump marized here are works particularly relevant to this study. Creative Artists Roe examined.artists and their works by conducting clinical studies of twenty living American painters. She found that some of the general characteristics of the group were an above average intelligence, a tendency toward abstract thinking, and a sensitive nonagressive person- ality.27 In another study, personality, thinking, and.per- ceptual differences between artists and non-artists were compared by Eiduson and it was found that artists ”look for ways of thinking that are original.and.unusua1."28- The 27Anne Roe, ”Artists and Their work," Journal of Personalit ,.XV (19h6), 3-h. . ZBBernice T. Eiduson, ”Artists and Non-artists: A ggmparative Study,‘ Journal of Personality,.XXVI (1958), 38 artists also showed a tolerance for ambiguity, a desire for personal recognition, and self-expression. Creative Scientists Roe studied the differences in personality and life history patterns between research scientists. An implica- tion of this study was that the process of investigation was motivated by curiosity, and.negated by authoritarian- ism. The author concluded the study with the observation that "Freedom breeds freedom, Nothing else does."29 The quotation implies that inquiry develops only in an environ- ment which is free and unrestricted. Barron attempted to determine which factors gener- ated originality.30 He found that: 1. Original persons preferred complexity and some degree of apparent imbalance in phenomenon. 2. Original persons were more independent in their judgments. 3. Original persons rejected suppression as a mechanism.for the control of impulse. 29Anne Roe, The Making of a Scientist (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1952), p. 2AA. 30F. Barron, 'The‘Disposition Towards Originality," The 1955 University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, ed. C. W. Tayigg (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956), p. . 39 Stein conducted a study to determine levels of creativity in scientists. He administered psychological tasks and biographical questionnaires to a group of indus- trial scientists and.found that:31 l. The less creative scientists were more submissive to authority and more acceptant of tradition. 2. The more creative scientists saw theme selves as more different from their work groups and.from.the general popu- lation than did the less creative scientists. Characteristics Compared MacKinnon has conducted several studies which were concerned.with characteristics of creative persons. He in- cluded samplings from the fields of creative writing, architecture, mathematics, industrial research, physical science, and engineering.32 Artistic creativity was repre- sented by studies of the work of poets, novelists, and essayists. Artistic creativity reveals itself as an expression of the creator's needs, perceptions, and motivations. 31Morris I. Stein, "A Transactional Approach to Creativity," in Barron, Utah Conference, pp. 226-227. 32Donald W; MacKinnon, ”The Nature and.Nurture of Creative Talent,".American Psycholo let, 1? (1962), ABA- h95; see also Donald W. MacKinnon, "Characteristics of the Creative Person: Implications for the Teaching-Learning Pgocess," Current Issues in Higher Education, 7 (1961), 89- 9 . . MO Through his products the artist externalized something of himself into the public field. In scientific creativity, on the other hand, the creator worked largely as a mediator between externally defined needs and goals. He simply operated on some aspect of his environment so as to produce a novel or appropriate product. MacKinnon also exandned architects because they represented both.artist creativity and scientific crea- tivity. He found that creative architects more often viewed themselves as being more inventive, independent, enthusiastic, determined, and industrious than did the less creative members of their profession.33 MacKinnon summarized the characteristics of the more creative individuals from all these groups. He found they were intelligent, more fluent, more independent in thought and action, relatively free from conventional restraints and inhibitions, and inclined to recognize and admit unusual and unconventional self-views.3h Hughes assembled a similar list by surveying mature creative scientists.35 He observed that they were 33MacKinnon, “Nurture of Creative Talent,” p. h87 BuMacKinnon, "Implications for the Teaching,” p. 90. 35Haroldfiughes, ”The Enhancement of Creativity," Journal of Creative Behavior, III, 2 (Spring, 1969), 82.- ul distinguished from their less creative peers by their selective memory, openness to new experience, ability to think divergently, attraction to resolve disorder, insis- tence on free time, and their need for a supportive climate. Summaries of Traits of Creative Persons Several summaries of traits of creative persons have been assembled.36 Several traits which reoccur in the summaries seem pertinent to the educational process. They indicate that the creative person: 1. Was less repressed, less inhibited, less formal, less conventional and.showed low authoritarian values; 2. Wes independent and autonomous; 3. Was more intuitive and perceptive; h. Was highly motivated to achieve in situations where independence of thought and action were required; 36James J. Gallagher, Research Summary on Gifted Child Education (Springfield, Illinois: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1966), p. h6; see also Donald W. MacKinnon, ”Personality Correlates of Creativity," Produc- tive Thinking in Education, ed. Mary Jane Aschner an Charles E. Bish (Washington: The National Education Asso- ciation, 1965), p. 161; see also Torrance, Creative Behavior, p. 7. 1+2 5. Produced novel and unconventional solutions to problems; 6. Showed tolerance for ambiguity. CREATIVITY.AND INTELLIGENCE Questions regarding the relationship between intel- ligence and creativity have been.raised.by'a.number of psychologists over the years. Terman, as early as 1906, came to the conclusion that creativity (invention) and intelligence were separate intellectual operations.37 Cropley concurred and argued that logical ways of thinking, as measured by IQ tests, differed from.creative ways of thinking, as measured by creativity tests.38 A study was done by Getzels and Jackson comparing academic performance of highly creative and highly intelli- gent high school students. They found that highly creative and bright students were able to compete academically with very bright but less creative students.39 Torrance reported 37Louis M. Terman, ”Genius and Stupidity: A Study of Some of the Intellectual Processes of Seven 'Bright' and Seven 'Stupid' Boys,” Pedagogic Seminary, XIII (1906), 372. - ,.. 38A. J. Cropley, Creativity;(Education Today Series. New York: Humanities Press, 1968), pp. 1-2. . 39.1. w. Getzels and P. w. Jackson, Creativity and Intelligence (New York: John Wiley, 1962), pp. 22-33. 1+3 on eight replications of the Getzels and Jackson study using elementary, high school, and college students.ho The results of these studies confirmed the former findings; bright students who scored high on creativity tests did as well scholastically as less creative students who scored very high on IQ tests. Torrance did find, however, that when the IQ scores of “high creative” students dropped below 120 they encountered more difficulty in competing. Other researchers have confirmed Torrance's finding that creativity correlated with intelligence when the full range of intelligence was considered. ‘When only the upper range of intelligence scores were compared with creativity scores, a correlation was not observed.“1 In Guilford's model of the structure-of-intellect, one section was designated as divergent thinking. Inter- secting with divergent thinking was a second set of. intellectual abilities called transformation. This group of abilities included the intellectual functions of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. .Although these processes appeared to be part of intelligence, Guilford lwe. Paul Torrance, Guiding Creative Talent (Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), p. thacKinnon, ‘Implications for Teaching,” p. 89; see also MacKinnon, ”Personality Correlates,” p. 161; see also Gallagher, Research Summagy, p. 50. - uh argued that they were not measured by conventional IQ tests. CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF ALL PERSONS A study, conducted by Bowers, investigated the hypothesis that many people have a potential for higher creative performance which is blocked from.expression by defensiveness. She found that individuals had ideas but were reluctant to express them or even consider them.unless they were provided with an environment that gave them a mental set different from their habitual set.u2 Another study, by Wallach and Kogan, compared sub- jects with varying levels of creativity. They found some subjects reluctant or fearful of being original, rather than unable to be original.h3 Guilford concluded, ". . . creativity is not a gift of the select few. It is instead a.property shared by all humanity, to a greater or smaller degree."uh O hZP. G. Bowers, "Effects of Hypnosis and Suggestions of Reduced Defensiveness on Creativity Test Performance” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1965), p. A6. hBN. A. Wellach.and N. Kogan, Modes of Thinking in YCun Children (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 19 a PP0 ’303- th. P. Guilford, "A Psychometric Approach to Creativity,” Creativity in Childhood and Adolescence, ed., H. H. Anderson (Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1965), p. 8. MS INSTRUCTIONAL THEORIES OF CREATIVITY In this section, instructional theory relating to creative development was examined. (The term instructional theory was meant to represent a set of statements based on sound research enabling one to predict the effect of par- ticular changes in the educational environment on pupil learning.”5 It was recognized that the theory and techniques for nurturing creativity.were not as highly evolved as those for developing cognitive processes. ,Authorities, however, held that instructional theories needed to be explicated and instructional methods and.materials could be developed to stimulate creative thinking. Although it is true that both theory and research in learning support the notion that creative, novel, insightful behavior cannot be rigidly con- trolled or predicted at this time, . . . present evidence suggests rather strongly that insight is more likely to result when certain appropriate responses have been previously acquired and that the develflgment of such responses may be taught directly. Bloom also supported this position by his statement: In contrast to the evidence about the great variety of instructional approaches which are “SAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Devel- opment, Criteria for Theories of Instruction (Washington: NEA, 1968), p. 3. h6N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally, Co.,’l963), p. H89. A6 relevant to the learning of information, is the lack of clear evidence about the instructional approaches which are effective in bringing about signififiant changes in the higher mental pro- cesses. 7 Origin of Instructional Theory Curricula which directly or indirectly provide opportunities for the development of creative talents probably had their beginnings in the works of such theoreticians as John Dewey, Harold Rugg, and William James. In a doctoral thesis concerned with a critical analysis of the concept of creativity in current education- a1 theory, Lynch identified William James and John Dewey as chief contributors to the tenets of self-cultivation, un- folding, creative expression, and fullest utterance of self.”8 Bellack, in reviewing the history of curriculum thought and.practice, cited the work of Seguel who examined the developing curriculum probleme in the early 1900's. He too identified several influential men in curriculum development at that time, including John Dewey and Harold h7Benjamin 3. Bloom, ”Twenty-Five Years of Educa- tional Research,” American Educational Research Journal, III, 2 (May, 1966), 217. heJ. E. Lynch, ”A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Creativity in Current Educational Theory” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The Catholic University of America, thhington, D.C., 1963), pp. 72-77. h? Rugg. Seguel concluded that this period was characterized by four persistent interests on the part of curriculum specialists. These interests were: (1) the nature of knowledge. (2) the nature of the learning process, (3) the professional status of the new specialty of curriculmm making, and (h) procedures for introducing new curriculum.insights into educational practice on a broad scale. More recently the national committee on the Project on Instruction identified five essential objectives for school programs. They are: (1) learning how to learn, how to attack new problems, and acquire new knowledge; (2) using rational process and developing an abiding interest in learning; (3) exploring values in new experiences; (A) understanding concepts and general zations; and (5) competence in basic skills. In this list of essential objectives, the first three were particularly relevant to the design of learning experiences intended to stimulate creative production. In an attempt to develop a theory of education from psychologica1.and other basic research findings, Taylor and others identified five perspectives for viewing educational “9Mary Louise Seguel, The Curriculum.Fie1d, Its Formative Years (New York: Teacher's College Press, 1966), Eitid"by.Arno;A. Bellack, ”A History of Curriculum Thought and Practice,” Review of Educational Research, XXIII, 3 ('7sz 1969): ”283 50National Education Association, DecidinggWhat to Teach (Washington: NEA, 1963), p. 92. h8 programs.51 One perspective was examined because it re- lated most directly to creative productivity. Frequently cited by Taylor was the work of Kubie, who stressed the importance of educational processes in- volving the learner in the solution of the problems of his environment. His view concluded that the great cultural processes have three functions: (1) to enable human nature to change, (2) to enable each generation to transmit to the next whatever wisdom gained about living, and (3) to free the creative potential latent in everyone.52 Certain- ly the first and third of these had implications for the development of materials designed to stimulate creativity. Newer Theoretical Implications Gowan focused attention on Guilford's structure-of- intellect model and stated that the model was ”particularly amenable to interpretations which suggest implications for creative learning.”53 He pointed out that the section of factor abilities labelled ”divergent production” reflected 51Calvin Taylor, et al., Development of a Theory of Education from.ngchological and Other Basic Research Findings (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 196A), p. 8. 52Taylor, Theory of Education, p. 25. 53John C. Gowan, ”Some Newer Theoretical Implica- tions for Creative Learning,” Creativity; Its Educational Im lications, eds. J. C. Gowan, G. D. Demos, E. P. Torrance (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 79. M9 a constellation of factors capable of stimulation through classroom experiences. He cited as examples such abilities as: ”ideational fluency,” ”spontaneous flexibility,” ”associational fluency,” ”expressional fluency,” and. ”originality."5u - Gowan envisioned a hierarchy of cognitive abilities. He noted the tendency of teachers to teach the simpler skills of the hierarchy while neglecting the higher-level cognitive abilities. He expressed the concern that divergent thinking is often neglected in the educational process.55 Meeker invested considerable effort in expli- cating Guilford's model. She showed how the model could be used to diagnose learning deficiencies and to develop and prescribe learning activities.56 Torrance listed five principles which he believed to be important in developing creative thinking.57 He suggested that teachers and parents who follow these prin- ciples would assist in the development of creative potential 5“Gowan, ”Creative Learning,” p. 79. 55Gowan, ”Creative Learning,” p. 80. S6MaryNacol Rocker, The Structure of Intellect: Its Inter station and Uses (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. HerrilI FSEIIsEing 00., 1939), PP. 105-108. 57E. Paul Torrance, ”Give the Devil His Dues,” Gifted Child Quarterly, 5 (Winter, 1961), 117-8. 50 in their children. The principles were: 1. Be respectful of unusual questions. 2. Be respectful of unusual ideas of children. 3. Show children that their ideas have value . h. Provide opportunities for self- initiated learning and give credit for it. 5. Provide for periods of non-evaluated practice or learning. A subsequent study conducted by Enochs examined the effi- cacy of Torrance's five principles and found creative thinking can be fostered by applying these principles.58 CREATIVE THINKING AND LEARNING The following paragraphs were a partial summary of the first chapter of a recent book titled Teaching for Thinking: Theory and Application.59 The authors took issue 'with school programs which maintained that students must learn the facts first, and then be asked to think about them.later. They held that students should compare and contrast different thoughts, events, and examples as they learn the facts. The authors proposed that thinking is a 58Paul Enochs, ”An.Experimental Study of a.Method for Developing Creative-Thtnking in Fifth-Grade Children,” (unpublished.Doctor's dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, l96h), p. 85. 5"9Lewis E. Baths, et al., Teaching for Thinking: Theory and Application (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1§67), pp. 1-30. 51 way of learning and a way of acquiring relevant factual informat ion . In an attempt to more clearly delineate the act of thinking, they described a number of cognitive operations. A summary of the operations was listed below because of their relation to the creative process. 1. 2. Comparing was to examine two or more objects, ideas or processes with the idea of seeing what relationships one has to another. Summarizing was to state in brief or condensed form the substance of what has been presented. Observing was to concentrate on details, sub- stance or procedures. Classifying was to put into groups according to some principle. Interpreting was to explain the meaning an object or event has to the observer. Criticising was to analyze and to make evalua- tions and Judgnents. Identifying assumptions was to note statements which were taken for granted. Imagining was to perceive in the mind what had not been wholly experienced. Gathering and organising data was to collect and collate findings. 10. 11. 13. 52 Hypothesizing was to propose a possible solu- tion to a problem. Application of knowledge was to apply facts and principles in new situations. Decision making was to apply knowledge for the purpose of determining an outcome. Designing projects or investigations was to develop a plan or experiment. The authors also listed aspects of human behavior reflecting inadequate experiences with thinking. They noted several behaviors which tended to curtail effective thinking and suggested that these behaviors could be altered as a result of a program which emphasized thinking. The behav- iors that had a negative influence on thinking were listed 1. Impulsiveness (reaction on the spur of the moment); Overdependence on the teacher : Inability to concentrate; Missing the waning (failure to comprehend the central theme or idea); Dogmatism (declarations in absolute terms and insensitivity to newness of expression and shades of meaning); Rigidity (inflexibility to changes in routine, behavior or thinking); 53 7. Extreme lack of confidence in one's own thinking; 8. Unwillingness to think (dependence on others for structure and direction). The authors (Raths, et a1.) emphasized that this list was not all-inclusive. They held, however, that higher mental processes could.not be developed without in- volving children.and students in these types of thinking operations. They also maintained that effective thinking could.not take place in the presence of a siseable quantity of’negative influences. Suchman compared creative thinking and.eonceptual growth.6O He pointed out that creative thinking had two definitive characteristics. First, the activity was autonomous and self-directed and secondly, the activity was directed toward the production of some new'forms Conceptual growth was the expansion, elaboration, or other modifica- tions of a conceptual framework. In addition, ”teaching methods which permit the learner to operate autonomously in the search for new understandings utilize creative thinking to promote concept development.”61 He pointed out that creative thinking can be promoted .. an aid to 60.1. Richard Suchman, ”Creative Thinking and Con- cgptual Growth,” Gifted Child Quarterlz,.6 (Autumn, 1962), 9 “990 . 61Suchman, p. 98. 51l- conceptual growth by making the teacher's role less direc- ‘tizg and more responsive. This would encourage the teacher to help the learner focus on a problem, allowing him to gather data freely with the help but Egg the direction of the teacher. CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT CREATIVITY A number of studies have been reported concerning environmental effects on creativity. Those discussed below were particularly concerned with children, adolescents, or the educational process. Parental Influence a study conducted‘by Ellinger examined the home environment and the creative thinking ability of children. She found that parents' interests and activities directly influence the interests and activities of highly creative children and that ”Families of highly creative children involved their children in family activities to a greater extent than did families of less creative children.”62 Highly creative children were read to more often and were plentifully supplied with.magazines, books, and reference 623ernice Dees Ellinger, ”The Home Environment and the Creative Thinking.Ability of Children” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Ohio State university, Columbus, 196k),.p. 168. SS materials. She noted that coersive discipline was nega- tively correlated with creative thinking and that girls seemed to be more directly influenced by home environment than were boys. Sears also examined the influence of parents on the development of creativity in their children. She found that children who displayed heightened levels of divergent thinking came from homes where the parents expressed sup- port and satisfaction with self and with child; there was a low degree of punishment, a low pressure for conformity, and a lack of intrusiveness.63 Risk-taking and Anxiety Pankove noted the relationship between creativity and ri sk-taking in fifth grade children. She found that creativity bore a more powerful relationship to risk-taking than it did to intelligencefiu he interesting studies have been conducted com- paring creativity with anxiety and stress. Hadley found sigiificant differences in creative performance depending 63Pauline 8. Sears, ”The Study of Development of Creativity: Research Problems in Parental Annecedonts” (ERIC ED021279). p. 1. . 6“Ethel Pankove, ”The Relationship Between Crea- tivity and Risk Taking in Fifth-Grade Children” (ERIC ED010216), p. 110. 56 on the level of anxiety. He observed the highest level of creativity displayed with m levels of anxiety. High and low levels of anxiety produced lower levels of crea- tivity.65 A similar study by Suedfeld and Vernon compared stress and verbal originality. They also observed a curvilinear relationship between verbal originality and stress.66 Ma turat ion Several fascinating longitudinal studies have been conducted by Torrance and his associates examining the re- lationship between creative performance and maturation.“ Torrance found that from 145 to 61 per cent of his subjects showed significant slumps at the fourth grade level. Torrance identified several cultural influences supposedly responsible for the fourth grade slump in creativity."8 65D. J. Hadley, ”Experimntal Relationships Between Creativity and Anxiety” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1965), p. 109. 66P. Suedfeld and J. Vernon, ”Stress and Verbal Originality in Sensory Deprivation,” Psychological Record, IV: E (1965), 567-570. . 67J. C. Gowan and E. P. Torrance, ”An Inter-Cultural Study of Mon—Verbal Ideational Fluency,” gifted Child Quar- terl , 9 (Spring, 1965), 29; see also E. Paul 1I.‘?rrance,TI n tudinal Examination of the Fourth-Grade Slump in Crea— tivity,” Gifted Child Quarterly, 11 (Winter, 1968), 195-199. -68E. Paul Torrance, ”Nurture of Creative Talents,” Explorations in Creativifl, eds. Ross L. Mooney and Tatter AésRazér (NewYErk: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967), pp. 1 ~19 . 57 .Adverse cultural influences affecting creative development might have been success orientation, peer orientation, sanctions against questioning and.exploration, misplaced emphasis on sex roles and divergency equated with abnor- mality. Relevant Factors In summarizing the literature regarding environ- mental conditions which affect creativity, Parnes stated, ”There are many variables; almost everything is relevant.”69 In reviewing the research, Parnes found that an environment which asks for creative behavior and rewards it, promotes its develOpment. He also observed that idea-seeking teachers gonerate an environment which is significantly more conducive to growth in student creative behavior. Motivation A key issue in any learning endeavor is motivation. Part of the research in this area is contradictory. Savoca observed the effect of rewards on the divergent thinking of very young children. He found that immediate material reinforcement had an overall enhancing effect on the 69Sidney J. Parnes, ”The Literature of Creativit: 7). Part II,” Journal of Creative Behavior, I, 2 (Spring, 19 192 . 58 divergent thinking of very youngchildren.7o Williams, however, came to the opposite conclusion in observing the reinforcement factors in creative performance of sixth grade students. He noted that an extended training;pro- gram with.reinforcement by the experimenter did not have the slightest effect on the development of the trait of originality.71 Torrance reported a positive relationship between competition and flexibility of responses on a product improvement task. He stated, ”There was a fairly consis— tent tondency for children under competitive conditions to excel those under other conditions.”72 Adams offers an opposing view as a result of his study comparing the rela- tive effects of various testing‘atmospheres on spontaneous flexibility. He found ”competition tends to hamper spon- taneous flexibility.”73' 79A. F. Savoca, ”The Effects of Rewards, Race, IQ and Socio-Economic Status on Creative Production of Pre- school Children,” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, 1965), p. 3h. 71Frank.E.‘williams, ”Practice and Reinforcement as Training Factors in Creative Performance” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1965). p. 12h. 7aTorrance, Creative Behavior, p. 1&7. 73John C. Adams, ”The Relative Effects of Various Testing Atmospheres on Spontaneous Flexibility, A Factor of Divergent Thinking,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, II, 3 (Summer, 1968), 193. 59 In his article, ”Creative Thinking and Conceptual Growth,” Suchman described briefly his inquiry training method. He stated that the key elements of this approach were the responsive environment, and the freedom given the children to operate within it. He considered the respon- sive environment, coupled with a child's native curiosity, to be the motivating factors in his program. He further defined ”responsive environment” as.an environment which gives the learner freedom to operate in his own way, at his own pace, without extrinsic rewards and,pressures.7u In discussing the motivation for creativity, Carl Rogers emphasized that the mainspring for creativity is ”man's tendency to actualize himself, to become his poten- tialities.”75 Rogers held that man has an innate drive to express and activate all his capacities. He believed that man lives in a hostile society and as a result needs to build psychological defenses to protect himself from.the hostilities. Some of these defenses have the effect of destroying his native creative ability. 7hSuchman, ”Creative Thinking,” pp. 96-97. 75Carl R. Rogers, ”Toward a Theory of Creativity,” A Sourcebook for Creative Thinking, eds. Sidney J. Parnes. and.Harold F. Harding (New'York: Charles Scribner and Son, 1962), p. 66. 60 A general achievement motive is reported by Alpert.76 The author reviewed the works of other re- searchers and suggested that achievement motivation in children is related to (l) the amount of contact between parent and child, (2) the intensity and stability of the effective bond between.parent and child, (3) the extent of the use by parents of psychological techniques of reward and punishment, and (u) the degree and.age of indepondence training. Alpert went on to observe, ”It appears that those people who are not successful in terms of tangible achieve- ment products are not lacking in motivation; they lack nonthreatening opportunities to express the motive.”77 He articulated concern that routes to achievement of success in the school are dwindling and that the educational process is increasingly limiting its rewards to the lower levels of cognitive functioning. Groups versus Individuals The research on the question of group versus indi- vidual settings for creative productivity also failed to 76Richard Alpert, ”Motivation to Achieve,” Produc- tive Thinking in Education, eds. M. J. Aschner and C. Bish (warnington: The National Education.Association, 1965), p. 109. . 77A1pert, ”Motivation,” p. 111. 61 find consensus regarding the suitable milieu. A study conducted by Dunnette and.ethers compared individual and group effectiveness in ”brainstorming.” (Brainstorming is a group creative process.) The author found ”individuals produced . . . more ideas than groups . . . without sacrificing quality.”78 .Another study by Cohen and others compared brainstorming by groups and pairs. They found brainstorming by pairs to be more effective.79 ' .A third study conducted by Taylor and others on the same topic observed a significant difference in favor of the groups.80 In addition the fourth study in this series, conducted by Zagona and others, examined group effective- ness in creative problemrsolving tasks. They concluded, ”In experiments that compared individuals to groups in creative problem-solving ability, the evidence tipped the 78M. D. Dunnette, J. Campbell, and K, Jaastad, ”The Effect of Group Participation on Brainstorming Effective- ness for Two Industrial Samples,” Journal of Applied Psy- chology, XLVII, l (1963), 36. 7913. Cohen, I. w. whitmyer, and w. H. Funk, ”Effec- tive Group CChesiveness and.Training Upon Creative Think- ing,” Journal of Applied Psyghclogy, XLIV (1960), 322. 80D. W. Taylor, P. C. Berry, and C. H. Block, ”Does Group Participation While Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking?” Technical Report No. 1 (pre- pared under contract No. 609-2-NRlSO-l66 for Office of Naval Research, New'Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, 1957). 62 scales in favor of the groups, though not on.man-hour measures.”81 Apparently, in some unidentified.circumstances, individuals working by themselves produce the greatest numr ber of creative ideas and products. Conversely, under other circumstances a group effort appeared to be the most productive. Deferred Judgment Parnes summarized fourteen studies which were con- cerned with the principle of deferred judgment. He observed that twelve of the fourteen studies demonstrated that more ideas and more high quality ideas were produced when sub- jects deferred evaluation of the ideas temporarily. It seemed, ”Deferred judgment frees the adult from.anxieties about hisideas, and thereby results in greater release of .82 creative potential. Parnes also cited the work by Cartledge and Krauser which examined the principle of deferred judgment with 813. v. Zagona, J. E. Willis, w. J. MacKinnon, ”Group Effectiveness in Creative Problem.Solving Task: An Examination of Relevant Variables,” Journal of Psycholggy, LXII, l (1966), IBM. - 82Parnes, ”Creative Literature Part II,” p. 198. 63 children.83 These researchers found _n_c_>_ difference between deferred judgment and conventional thinking. Parnes con- cluded, ”. . . young children will produce original ideas whether encouraged to or not. They have not yet learned to fear their ideas as adults do.” Parnes also noted, ”In the relatively uninhibited child, the release [of ideas] is evidently more natural. The internal givernor has not yet fully been established.”8"" Such a comment was implicitly a serious indictment of our culture and the edu- cational process. TEACHING FOR CREATIVE THINKING Many studies have been conducted which examine various techniques for stimulating creative thinking. Sum- marized below are a portion of these studies especially exphasizing programs designed for elementary children. A study by Cartledge and Krauser examined first grade children who had scored low on a screening test of creativity and were given experiences designed to stimulate creativity. Posttest scores revealed significant differences 83C. J. Cartledge and E. Krauser, ”Training First Grade Children in Creative Thinking Under Quantitative and Qualitative Motivation,” Journal of Educational Psychology, LIV: 6 (1963). 295-299“ 81(Parnes, ”Creative Literature Part II,” p. 198. 61; when compared with the control group.85 Hutchinson researched creative and divergent think- ing in the classroom.86 His objective was to determine which thinking and learning processes would be elicited in students by certain modifications of teaching models. Guil- ford's model of the structure-of-intellect was used to generate a system for classifying different teaching meth- eds. The four teachers who participated in the study each taught one experimental and one control group. The findings and conclusions of this study indi- cated gains on measures of creativity for the treatment groups were significantly greater than for the control groups on four of ten measures. Further, students who scored high in creativity did.not have an opportunity to use their creative potential in.control classrooms. Programmed Lessons Olton examined development of productive thinking skills in fifth.and sixth grade children through self- instructional programmed lessons. He observed significant 85C. J. Cartled e and E. Krauser, ”Training First Grade Children,” pp. 29 -299. 86Nilliam.L. Hutchinson, ”Creative and Productive Thinking in the Classroom,” Journal of Creative Behavior, Is ‘4 (F‘lls 1967): “19"“27- 65 gains in creative thinking and problem solving.87 Similar results were obtained by Krauser who also experimented with programmed instruction.88 Parnes experimented with ways of programming crea- tive behavior. His study concerned audio instructional materials designed to develop creative behavior. He con- cluded that experimental students ”made better gains than did the control students."89 Another study which concerned the development of creative problem solving abilities through programmed instruction was conducted by Treffinger and Ripple. They examined the effects of Crutchfield's Productive Thinking Program in bringing about changes in verbal creative thinking abilities and creative problem solving.90 The 87Robert M. Olton et a1. , ”The Development of Pro- ductive Thinking Skills in Fifth-Grade Children” (ERIC ED021312). p. 3. — 88Arthur W. Krauser, ”An Investigation of the De- velopment of Abstract Thinking in Children Through Pro- grammed Instruction (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, 19614), p. vi. 89.1. 8. Parnes, Programming Creative Behavior (Abstract of research supported by a grant from the U. 8. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U. 3. Office of Education: Title 7, Project No. 5-0716). 9°Dona1d Treffinger and Richard E. Ripple, ”Devel- oping Creative Problem Solving Abilities and Related. Abilities Through Programmed Instruction,” Journal of Creative Behavior, III, 3 (Spring, 1969).-16'§"T6"'_-1 . 66 conclusion.was that: . . . the results of this study offer_no sup- port for the effectiveness of the instructional materials with respect to the development of pupils' verbal creative thinking abilities at any of the four grade levels reported.91 The authors pointed out that these results were consistent with previous studies, not reported above, which used an abbreviated form of the experimental materials with eighth grade pupils. In that study, no significant differences between the instructed and control pupils on creative thinking measures were observed.92 Crutchfield.reported on two other major studies which have been conducted concerning the effectiveness of programmed materials for stimulating creative thinking.93 His findings do not support the conclusions reported above. He stated that the findings were clear; ”the trained children showed a marked superiority in performance over the control children.”9h He went on to say, ”It is manifest then that the audio instructional program does succeed in improving proficiency in creative problem solving, [and] the divergent thinking task adapted from 91 92 Treffinger, p. 109. Treffinger, p. 110. 93Richard S. Crutchfield, ”Instructing the Individ- ual in Creative Thinking,” The New Approach to Individual- izing Instruction (Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1965), p. 22. 9h0mtohrie1d, ”Thinking," p. 22. 6? Torrance shows similar positive results."95 He concluded, ”There is wide-spread generalization of the effects of the training lessons to the enhancement of imaginative and in- ventive processes in the individual."96 Guilford's Model as a Theoretical Framework A criticism of the Productive Thinking Program was that it was ”. . . not derived from any particular theoret- ical position.”97 Several authors have suggested that Guilford's model of the structure-of-intellect might be used to generate instructional methods and materials. Parnes and Brunelle reviewed the literature of creativity and concluded, The need also appears great for designing and carrying out a full-scale evaluative experi- ment that would use and integrate all the known approaches to the development of creative in- tellectual behavior. Guilford's structure-of- the intellect might provide the th oretical framework for such an experiment.9 950rutehrie1d, ”Thinking,” p. 22. 96Crutchfield, ”Thinking,” p. 23.