A STUDY OF THE NATURE OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND THE INDICATED ENCOURAGEMENT OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS Thesis for the Degree of Ed; D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kenneth R. Clay 196.5 LIBRARY Michigan State UanCrf it)! This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE NATURE OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND THE INDICATED ENCOURAGEMENT OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS presented by Kenneth R. Clay has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed .1). degree in Education \ I A 9 CA ll: LA I? C“- /;){LM‘. Ha < Major professor 0-169 EEC“: 1:51? GMT r0” I: my Read”. LSL cud ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE NATURE OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND THE INDICATED ENCOURAGEMENT OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS By Kenneth R. Clay STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. The central concern of this study was to define operationally the nature of creative or non—creative behavior in the field of industrial arts and to determine the extent to which industrial arts teachers in Michigan indicate they encourage this type of behavior in their classrooms. It was hypothesized that differences would be found between indicated encouragement of creative behavior and such variables as: junior or senior high school teaching, multiple or limited area labora- tory teaching, belief in the primary objective or purpose of industrial arts, educational background, length of teaching experience and inter— relationships between these variables. METHODOLOGY. Individual creative and non—creative behavioral items were developed based on a review of literature and research on creativity. Items were validated bya panel of six judges who were industrial arts educators and had written on the subject of creativity. The final inventory consisted of forty creative and twenty non-crea- tive behavioral items agreed upon by five or all six of the judges. Kenneth R. Clay The inventory was administered by mail to a random sample of 297 junior or senior high school industrial arts teachers in the State of Michigan. Returns were received from 236 or eighty percent of the t¢1 sample. The Chi—square median test was employed to test all hypothesized differences. Reliability coefficients for the creative scale of .90 and .74 for the non-creative scale were computed by Hoyt's analysis of variance technique for unrestricted scoring methods. A complete inter- item correlation analysis was run between all items, individual items and the creative or non-creative scale, for the entire group and sub— groups. The .05 level of significance was used throughout the study. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Significant positive correlations ranging from .29 to .63 were found between each creative scale item and the entire creative scale and negative or low non-significant cor- relations between these same items and the entire non—creative scale. The same general relationship was found for nineteen of the twenty non- creative scale items with correlations ranging from .21 to .57 between these individual items and the entire non-creative scale. A correla- tion of .30 was computed between the entire creative and non—creative scales. Ma jor cone 1 us ions were : 1. Teachers who teach in multiple area laboratories indicate a greater encouragement of creative behavior and less encouragement of non-creative behavior than teachers who teach in limited area or unit Shop laboratories . u u. .. 1:: H... g... Kenneth R. Clay 2. Junior high school teachers who teach in multiple area labora- tories indicate a greater encouragement of creative behavior and less encouragement of non-creative behavior than junior high school teachers who teach in limited area or unit shop laboratories. 3. Senior high school teachers who teach in limited area or unit shop laboratories indicate a greater encouragement of non—creative behavior than senior high school multiple area teachers. it. Teachers who indicate they emphasize skill development or interpreting industry objectives of industrial arts also indicate greater encouragement of non-creative behavior than teachers who indicate they emphasize a self—realization objective of industrial arts. 5. Differences in teaching level (junior or senior high), educa- tional experience (masters or bachelors degree) and number of years teaching experience have no effect on indicated encouragement of crea— tive or non-creative behavior. 6. Creative and non-creative behavior in industrial arts can be described by the forty creative and twenty non-creative behavioral items found in the inventory used in this study. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOIMENDATIONS. The effect of environment as described by multiple and limited area laboratories, influenced the indicated encouragement of creative or non-creative behavior more than any other variable tested in this study. It was suggested that if creative behavior is to be effectively encouraged, the multiple area laboratory provides a better creative learning environment than the limited area laboratory. Furthermore, the limited area laboratory cs. 0 a.- Kenneth R. Clay tends to be more restrictive on the indicated encouragement of creativity at the junior high school level than senior high school level. Industrial arts teacher training institutions should examine their programs of preparation to determine the extent curricular experiences either inhibit or promote an understanding and sensitivity to the nature of creativity in industrial arts. Undergraduate and in-service programs should provide experience with: the nature of creative behavior in in—- dustrial arts, creative learning activities, effects of different environ- mental conditions on creativity and the evaluation of creative behavior. State departments of education, individual school districts and publishers of instructional materials should examine the extent to which their curriculum guides, courses of study, suggested projects and other instructional materials permit flexibility and latitude for the develop- ment of the students creative abilities. Since the study was limited to an analysis of industrial arts teachers indicated encouragement of behavior identified as creative or non-creative, it was recommended that the extent to which these teachers actually do encourage this type of behavior be investigated. A STUDY OF THE NATURE OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND THE INDICATED ENCOURAGEMENT OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS By Kenneth R. Clay A THES IS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1965 copyright by KENNETH RACINE CLAY 1965 '- 'V ACKNOWLEDQVIENTS My sincere appreciation is expressed to a number of individuals for their help and encouragement in making this dissertation a reality. Special recognition and appreciation is extended to Dr. Lawrence Borosage who, as major advisor and dissertation chairman, gave so gener— tnmly of his time and was a constant source of encouragement,and to the (“her members of the guidance committee - Dr. John Fuzak, Dr. William Faunce and Dr. Stanley Wronski -— for their helpful suggestions and comments. Tb Dr. Willard warrington, Dr. Robert Green and Dr. Walter Sufllwagen a special thanks is extended for their advice concerning the ébsign of the study and statistical analysis of the data and continued finerest in the project. .Appreciation is extended also to programmers Charles Hart and Paul Sassman who wrote original computer programs and assisted with the analysis of the data. Further appreciation is expressed to: the judges who served as 8 finyw those teachers in the local area who participated in the pilot stmhn the industrial arts teachers of Michigan who responded to the questionnaire inventory and to my colleagues for their suggestions and patience. Gratitude is expressed also to my mother for her many sacrifices mnicontinued faith and encouragement and to my children, Barbara and Melinda, for their patience and understanding during the past three years. ii I am deeply grateful to my wife, Elizabeth, for her constant encouragement and assistance with this study. Her devotion, sacrifice and cooperation have been a constant source of motivation without which successful completion of my studies could not have been accomplished. To her this study is dedicated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CmAPTER I. THE NATIJRE OF TIE stYo o o o o o o o a o o 0 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Purposes of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . Delimitation of the Study. . . . . . . . . . Theory and the Formulation of Hypotheses . . Major Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sub-Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO GENERAL VIEWS ON CREATIVI TY O O O I C C C O O O O O O O O O 0 ' Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Conceptual Model Approach. . . . . . . . . The Meaning of Creativity. . . . . . . . . . Product or Individual. . . . . . . . . . . Newness and Novelty. . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Creativity in Industrial Arts. . . Who Is Creative? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . Creativity in Various Fields . . . . . . . Factors, Attributes or Characteristics of Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Guilford and Lowenfeld Studies . . . . The Barron Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . The MacKinnon Study. . . . . . . . . . . . The Taylor Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . Creativity and Intelligence. . . . . . . . . Measuring Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . Multivariable Approach . . . . . . . . . . Developing Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . . Creative Problem—Solving Course Evaluation Nicholson Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University of Minnesota Studies. . . . The Hutchinson Study . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Creative Thinking in Industrial Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv l6 l6 17 18 18 2O 21 22 23 25 26 26 28 29 30 31 33 34 38 40 #1 42 #3 45 47 48 CHAPTER III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY. O I O C O C O C C O O O O C O O C O O 0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Studies That Developed Operational Defini- tions of Educational Goals. . . . . . . . . . . Elementary and High School Studies. . . . . . . . . Eight-Year Study Evaluation Project . . . . . . . . Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. . . . . . . . Industrial Arts Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations Based on These Studies . . . . . . . . General Plan for Operationally Defining Creativity in the Field of Industrial Arts . . . . . . . . . . Fluency as a Characteristic of Creativity . . . . . . Fluency and General Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . Word Fluency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associational Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideational Fluency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expressional Fluency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other View on Fluency . . . . . . . . . . Fluency and Implications for Industrial Arts. . . . Creative and Non—Creative Behavioral Statements Related to Fluency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flexibility as a Characteristic of Creativity . . . . Flexibility and General Creativity. . . . . . . . . Spontaneous Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptive Flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Views on Flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . Flexibility and Implications for Industrial Arts. . Creative and Non—Creative Behavioral Statements Related to Flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Sensitivity as a Characteristic of Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Sensitivity and General Creativity. . . . . Other Views on Problem Sensitivity. . . . . . . . . Problem Sensitivity and Implications for Indus— trial Arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creative and Non-Creative Behavioral Statements Related to Problem Sensitivity. . . . . . . . . . Originality as a Characteristic of Creativity . . . . Originality and General Creativity. . . . . . . . . Other Views on Originality. . . . . . . . . . . . . Originality and Implications for Industrial Arts. . Creative and Non-Creative Behavioral Statements Related to Originality. . . . . . . . . . . ... . NoneAptitude Traits as Characteristics of Creativ1ty. NonwAptitude Traits and General Creativity. . . . . NoneAptitude Traits and Implications for Indus- trial Arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creative and Non-Creative Behavioral Statements . Related to NoneAptitude Traits of Creativity. . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. . . . - Bibliography, , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v PAGE 55 SS 56 56 57 57 58 S8 59 62 62 62 64 66 68 69 70 72 75 76 76 78 79 80 81 84 84 86 87 88 91 91 94 96 97 101 102 107 108 111 112 CHAPTER IV. DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION OF STUDY. . . . . . . Null and.Alternate Hypotheses... . . . . , , , , , Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sub-Hypotheses Related to Major Hypotheses 1~4 . Initial Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . Creative and Non-Creative Behavioral Statements. Judges Classification of Items . . . . . . . . Judges Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives of Industrial Arts and Behavioral Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skill Development Objective and Behavioral Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Realization Objective and Behavioral Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpreting Industry Objective and Behavioral Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scaling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Information Items. . . . . . . . . . . . Junior or Senior High School Teachers. . . . . Multiple or Limited Area Laboratories. . . . . Pre-Testing and Final Instrument Development . . . Procedures . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administration of the Instrument . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mailing and Follow—up Procedures . . . . . . . . Identification of Respondents. . . . . . . . . . Returns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scoring and Coding . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA CONCERNING THE SAMPLE . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationships Between Individual Behavioral Items and the Creative and Non-Creative Scales . . . . Relationship Between Entire Creative and Non-Crea~ tive Scales by Total Group and Various Sub-Groups Reliability Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creative Scale Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Creative Scale Reliability . . . . . . . . . Hypothesized Relationships Between the Indicated Encouragement of Creative or Non-Creative Behavior and Various Categorized Groupings of Industrial Arts TeacherS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Teaching, Hypothese l and 2. . . . . . . vi PAGE 119 119 119 121 122 123 123 126 127 127 128 129 129 130 131 132 133 133 135 139 140 140 142 142 142 143 144 145 146 148 148 148 152 154 155 155 156 157 CHAPTER Multiple or Limited Area Teaching, Hypotheses 3 and 4. O O O O O I O O 0 0 First Choice of Three Industrial Arts Objectives, O l D O O O I O O O O O Hypotheses 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree Held, Hypotheses 7 and 8. Hypotheses 9 and 10. Length of Teaching Experience, Junior High School Multiple or Junior High School Limited Area Teaching, Hypotheses 11 and 12. . . Senior High School Multiple or Senior High School Limited Area Teaching, Hypotheses 13 and 14. . Junior High School Multiple or Senior High School Multiple Area Teaching, Hypotheses 15 and 16 . Junior High School Limited or Senior High School Limited Area Teaching, Hypotheses l7 and 18. . Non~Hypothesized Relationships Between the Indicated Encouragement of Creative or Non~Creative Behavior by Various Categories of Industrial Arts Teachers. Signature of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . Indicated Industrial Arts Objective Emphasis Institution Granting Bachelors Degree. . . . . C O O l and Summary. . . . Bibliography . . . . . D O O C C \H. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENIAIIONS O O O C O O 0 Summary. . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . Implications and Recommendations Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O C O O APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . vii 0 PAGE 161 165 169 172 175 179 182 185 188 188 192 194 198 199 199 203 205 210 211 TABLE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Associational Fluency Tests . LIST OF TABLES Correlations Among Measures of Creativity Word Fluency Tests. . . . . . O O O O Ideational Fluency Tests. . Spontaneous Flexibility Tests . O O C 0 Adaptive Flexibility Tests. Problem Sensitivity Tests . . O C O O O I O O O O Originality Tests . . . C 0 Correlations Between Originality and NoneAptitude Traits. Item Classification By Number of Judges in Agreement with Original Classification. . . . Retained and Dropped Items for Objective Scales A, B, C O O C, As A Result of Pilot Study . . . Troublesome Creative and Non—Creative Items Identified 0 0 By Pilot Study and Those Retained and Dropped . . . . Classification of Items in Part II of the Questionnaire Respondents and Their Level of Teaching . . . . . . . . 1 Relationship of Individual Creative Items to Entire Creative and Non-Creative Scales. Relationship of Individual Non-Creative Items to Entire Non-Creative and Creative Scales. Relationship of Responses to Creative and Non—Creative O Scales by Various Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Teachers Scoring Above or Below the Median on the Creative Scale and Teaching at the Junior or Senior High School Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii PAGE 33 63 65 66 76 78 84 92 95 127 137 138 139 143 149 150 153 158 v . TABLE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Creative I Significantly Between Teachers. . Number of Jun Above or Be Scale . . . Non—Creativ cantly Between Junior or Number of Multi or Below the Creative Items Significantly Number of Multi or Below the Non—Creative cantly Betw Number One Scoring Creative Scale. . . . Creative Items Where Between Teachers as Number One . . . . eachers Ranking Object Below the Com Number of T Number One Scori of the Non—Creative Non~Creative I cantly Between C as Number Number of Teac Scoring Above or Bel Creative Sca Creative Items Between Teac Number of Teac Scoring Above or NonsCreative Number of Teac Teaching Exp Median of th team Where Indicated Enc Junior or Senior Hi ior or Senior High low the Combined M Itenm Where En een Multiple or Limite of Teachers Ranking Obj Below the Combi G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 8 Items Where Encourageme Senior High Schoo ple or Limi Combined Me Where Indicate Between Multi ple or L Combined Median Above or 0 O O C O 0 Who Ranke ng Above or Scale . . . . tens Where Encoura Teachers Who Ra O O 0 One. . . . . . hers Holding Bachelors ow the 13 O O O O C Q Where Encouragement hers Holding Bachelo hers Holding Ba Below the Combine Scale. . . . . . . hers With 1-6, erience Scorin e Creative Scale. . . ix 0 l ouragement Differed gh School 0 O O I School Teachers Scoring edian of the Non—Creative nt Differed Signifi— imited Area Tea of the O ted Area Teac dian of the Cree hers Scoring Above ective A, B, ned Me O 1 Teachers. tive Scale. . d Encouragemen ple or Limited Area Tea 0 t Differed ching or C as Number dian of the Encouragement Differed Si d Objectives A, B, gnificantly couragement Differed Si d Area Teachers. . . . gnifi- O or C ives A, B, or C as bined Median gement Differed Signifi— nked Objective A, B, or or Masters Degrees 7—15, and 16 g Above or Below the Co chelors or Masters Combined Median of the 0 Degrees d Median of the O or More Years mbined O 0 chars Scoring Above Non-Creative Scale. Differed Significantly rs or Masters Degrees . PAGE 159 160 161 162 163 164 164 166 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 TABLE 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 PAGE Differed Significantly Where Encouragement and 16 or More Years hers with 1-6, 7—15, 1 O O 0 Creative Items Between Teac Teaching Experience. . . . .173 O O O O O O O O O 0 7—15, and 16 or More Years g Above or Below the Combined O O 0 Number of Teachers with 1—6, Teaching Experience Scorin Median of the Non—Creative Scale . . . .174 O I C O I e Encouragement Differed Signifi— um Wher 7—15, and 16 or More Teachers with 1—6, Experience. . . . Non~Creative Ite cantly Between Years Teaching 175 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Area Teachers Scor— Limited 6 Creative H.S. Multiple or ined Median of th he Comb O O O Number of J. ing Above or Below t scale 0 O O I O O O O O 176 O O I I O O O C ragement Differed ndicated Encou ple or Limited Area n J.H.S. Multi Creative Items Where I Significantly Betwee Teaching . . . . . . . . . .177 O O O O O C O O O 0 ea Teachers Scor— or Limited Ar f the Non- S. Multiple Combined Median 0 Number of J.H. low the ing Above or Be Creative Scale . . . .178 O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Area Teachers Scor— iple or Limited ian of the Creative Number of S.H.S. Mult the Combined Med ing Above or Below Scale. 0 0 O O D O .179 O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Creative Items Where Indicated Encouragement Differed Significantly Between S.H.S. Multiple and Limited Area Teaching . . . . . . . .180 O O C O O O C O O O O imited Area Teachers Scor~ n of the Non— ple or L Number of S.H.S. Multi he Combined Media ing Above or Below t Creative Scale . . . .181 O O O O O O O O O I O I O O 001 Multiple Area r Senior High Sch he Combined Median of Number of Junior 0 Above or Below t Teachers Scoring the Creative Scale . . High School Multiple Area Below the Combined Median O I I 0 Junior or Senior Above or ive Scale. . . . . Number of Teachers Scoring of the Non-Great l O O 0 School Limited Area r Senior High w the Combined Median Above or Belo Number of Junior 0 Teachers Scoring of the Creative Scale. . . .185 Encouragement Differed and S.H.S. Limited Area 5 Where Indicated n J.H.S. Creative Item Significantly Betwee Teachers. . . . . . .186 X TABLE 47 48 49 50 51 52 PAGE Number of Junior or Senior High School Limited Area Teachers Scoring Above or Below the Combined Median of the Non-Creative Scale. . . . . . . . . . 187 O O O O 0 Number of Teachers Signing or Not Signing the Question— naire Scoring Above or Below the Combined Median of the 189 C O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 0 Creative Scale. . . . Creative Items Where Indicated Encouragement Differed Significantly Between Teachres Who Signed or Did Not Sign Their Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Number of Teachers Signing or Not Signing the Question~ naire Scoring Above or Below the Combined Median of the 191 O 0 o O O O O O I C O O o o o Non-Creative Scale. . . Number and Percent of Teachers Ranking: (A) Skill Develop— ment, (B) Self-Realization or (C) Interpreting Indus- try Objectives Number One and Their Bachelors Degree 193 Granting Institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Summary of Hypothesized Differences Between Sub— O O C O O O O O O I I O O 0 Groups and Results. . . xi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING THE RELATIVE CREATIVE ABILITIES OF INDUSTRIAL ARTS STUDENTS. . . 212 B PRELIMINARY CREATIVE OR NON-CREATIVE BEHAVIOR INVENTORY................... ..215 1 SUMMARY OF JUDGES' RESPONSE . . . . . . . . 225 C DATA COLLECTING SCHEDULE . . . . . 228 D PIIDT STUDY FORMS. . . . . . . . . 230 1 INTRODUCTORY LETTER . . . . . . . 231 2 PROPOSED COVER LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 3 PILOT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 233 4 REACTION AND SUGGESTION SHEET . . . . . 240 E FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE, COVER AND FOLLOW—UP LETTERS 241 1 FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE - BEHAVIOR INVENTORY . . . 242 2 COVER LETTER. . . . . . . . . 244 3 FIRST FOLLOW-UP POST CARD . . . 245 4 SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER . 246 5 THIRD FOLLOW—UP POST CARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 F INTER-ITEM CORRELATION MATRICES . . 248 10REATIVESCALE................. .249 2 FACTORS OF FLUENCY AND PROBLEM SENSITIVITY . . . . 250 . 251 3 FACTORS OF ORIGINALITY AND FLEXIBILITY . xii CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE STUDY I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In recent years there has been increased interest and writing mithe subject of creativity. Today our educational system is being challenged to provide for the fullest development of the creative abithjes of all students. Historically, educators have made claims (fiffostering and developing the creative abilities of students but little evidence exists in support of these claims. Particularly lack- inglum been concrete evidence of what is creative behavior in specific mflfiect fields. One of the few descriptions of creative behavior in imhmtrial arts was Wilbur's behavioral analysis of the objectives of immunrial arts. (11:47—54) He analyzed the objective, "to encourage mmmtive expression in terms of industrial materials" and suggested efight expected behavioral outcomes: 1. They will design and make new projects. 2. They will think through the correct procedure for making a project and will then follow their plan. 3. They will experiment with new ways of solving construc— tion problems and will make improvements on the basis of their experiments. 4. They will develop skill and facility in the use of many materials. 5. They will appreciate or criticize constructively design in the work of others. 6. They will choose materials which are best suited for a given project or use. 7. They will take ideas from different sources and create new designs. . 8. They will increasingly attempt to solve their own pro- blems. (11:52) Examination of these outcomes has revealed guidelines for achiev— ing such an objective, but fall short of identifying general and specific behavior, that could be classified as creative in industrial arts. The need for a compflete identification and description of creative behavior in industrial arts has persisted. TWO interrelated problems were investigated in this study. One problem was to determine the nature of creative or non-creative be- havior in industrial arts at the secondary school level. This phase vms described as the development of an operational definition of crea— tivity in industrial arts. The second'problem.was to determine the degree :hmustrial arts teachers in Michigan indicate they encourage their stu- chnts to behave in a creative or non-creative manner. II. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY The specific purposes or objectives of this study were: 1. To develop an operational definition of the nature of creative and non-creative behavior in the field of in- dustrial arts. 2. To determine if Michigan industrial arts teachers at the secondary school level differ in their indicated encourage— ment of creative or non-creative behavior by their stu- dents on the basis of junior or senior high school teach- ing, limited or multiple area laboratories, teaching ex- perience, educational background, and interrelationships between these variables. 3. To determine if Michigan industrial arts teachers at the secondary school level differ in their indicated encourage— ment of creative or non-creative behavior by their students 3 on the basis of their selection of the primary role or ob- jective of industrial arts that they strive to achieve. III. NEED FOR THE STUDY The objectives and purposes of industrial arts are found in many statements. Two widely accepted lists of objectives are those stated by Wilbur (11:42—43) and the list of nine goals of industrial arts in A Guide to Improving Industrial Arts (1:18). Two major questions could be raised about these goals or objectives: (1) Is the type of student behavior exemplified by these objectives known, and (2) Are these goals and purposes of industrial arts being achieved? There have been several attempts to analyze in behavioral terms the general goals of industrial arts. Most significant have been the analysis of objectives by Wilbur (11:47—54), the American Vocational Association statement of educational objectives and behavior changes (l:l9~28) and indiviudal state and city curriculum guides. These behavioral descriptions have provided a general overview cf the type of behavior that should be developed or encouraged to achieve agmrticular objective but are not very extensive or specific. Swanson :hflicated that in the case of the.American Vocational Association sumtement no means of obtaining such statement of behavior was given butrmther "it was implied that such statements must be developed by the individual teacher." (6:49) The need to define operationally or behaviorally the objectives Ofindustrial arts was further highlighted in a survey of industrial mus teacher educators in thirty-two states, where problems and issues in'Um field of industrial arts were identified. Robert Hutchcroft Lt found that many respondents felt statements of goals were too theoretiv cal and what was needed were more concrete and tangible statements and "the desirability of defining objectives in terms of behavior outcomes." (4:8) Lindbeck found in his study a lack of evidence which supported the claims or goals held for industrial arts. As a result he formulated nine major hypotheses with appropriate sub~hypotheses based on nine generalizations of the claims or objectives held for industrial arts. lkasuggested that these hypotheses be empirically tested. (5:128-139) The goal of developing creative thinking or creative abilities lms been a particularly elusive objective. The contention has some~ times been held that in many cases the type of activities employed and the behavior expected of students in our schools operates in opposition to the development of creative thinking abilities. Emphasis has been {flaced on learning subject matter instead of developing thinking abilit- ies. Torrance points out that: "schools of the future will be designed IuM:only for learning but for thinking." (9:4) Today objectives are rarely stated in terms of thinking and the instructional activities employed amirelationships established with students are calculated to produce learning instead of thinking. Educational research and psychology have largely been devoted to the investigation oflearning and the learning gmocess; seldom to the thinking process or the psychology of thinking.(9:4) Bauer emphasized the need for research on creativity in industrial arts when he stated: Much has been written and said about creativeness in industrial arts. Exploration of the elements in industrial arts which fur- ther the creative drive of individual students, as well as our appraisal of the real objectives of industrial arts in respect to opportunities for creative expression, requires intensive research. (3:112) Op! 0.‘. Since 1961, two studies have been made on creativity and indus— trial arts. A study-by Sommers has shown that: "It is possible, by the use of specific methods designed to increase creative thinking, to improve certain abilities associated with creative thinking in an industrial arts [free hand drawing laboratory course]." (7:116) .A similar study by Anderson (2:158) has shown significant differences between three methods of increasing creative problem solving ability in industrial arts as measured by selected tasks from the Minnesota Creative Thinking Tests. (10:213-253) The investigators in both of these studies pointed out certain limitations inherent in the criter— ion instruments employed. A broad or total concept of creativity was not considered. Conclusions concerning gains in creativity referred only to gains on measures of abilities as defined by and limited in magnitude to a composite of scores on the criterion instrument. Many other factors are known to influence creative productivity. Such factors as knowledge, personality traits, motivation, skill, physical stamina, environmental conditions and others were not considered in either study. Anderson» sharpenedthese limitations when he indicated that the ultimate criteria are the only completely, satisfactory ones when evaluating the degree to which educational objectives are achieved. He suggested that a "list of behavioral changes which might be expected to accompany an increase of creative problem solving ability could have beendeveloped." (2:105) Difficulties inherent in assessing changed bahaVior led him to select a test of creative ability as the best criter- ion measure for his stud)“ 6 As so often is the case in practice, a substitute must some- times be accepted. However, if a concentrated effort is going to be made in assessing the contribution industrial arts can make toward the development of creative abilities, some ultimate and inclusive criteria cm creativity in industrial arts must be determined. Instruments must then be developed that will measure this total concept. This study has attempted to develop an operational definition of creativity in indus— trial arts by identifying certain student behaviors indicative of crea— tivity. Eventually techniques could be developed that will measure these behavior changes and provide a broader assessment of creativity in in— dustrial arts. IV. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY The previous discussions concerning the nature of this study and general views on creativity presented in.Chapter II have provided @udelines for the following assumptions upon which this study was based: 1. The abilities involved in being creative are universal and everyone possesses these abilities to some degree. 2. There are conditions that facilitate the development of creative abilities and there are conditions and circum— stances that restrict or prohibit the development of crea- tive potential. 3. Creative abilities can be fostered and developed through the educative process. 4. Creativity is not limited to one or several fields but manifests itself in all phases of human endeavor in diverse ways. 5. The goal of developing creative abilities or encouraging creative behavior is a significant and important goal or objective of industrial arts education. There is a need for increased knowledge about the nature of creative behavior in the field of industrial arts. The nature of creative and non~creative behavior in the field of industrial arts can best be described by a series of creative and non-creative behavioral statements. Creative and non-creative behavioral statements in the field of industrial arts can be derived through analysis of the research on the characteristics and identification of creative individuals. V. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY This study was delimited in the following ways: 1. 3a The description of creative and non-creative behavior, while perhaps applicable to some other fields, was developed specifically for the field of industrial arts. The factors, attributes, traits and characteristics of crea— tive people from which specific behavioral statements were extracted for industrial arts were limited to those intel- lectual factors of: fluency, flexibility, originality, pro— blem sensitivity and a general category of non—intellectual characteristics, for example: personality and motivation. The final inventory was limited to those creative and non- creative behavioral statements agreed upon by five or six 8 judges as representative of that type of behavior in industrial arts. 4. The survey involving the use of the inventory was confined to a sample of 300 Michigan industrial arts teachers who taught in school districts that had separate junior and senior high school facilities. Vocational industrial teachers and those industrial arts teachers who taught both junior and senior high school classes were eliminated from the study. 5. Comparisons between teachers, sub-groups of teachers and responses to the inventory were limited to the following variables and combinations: senior high school teachers, junior high school teachers, limited area laboratory, multiple area laboratory, industrial arts primary objective orientation, teaching experience and educational background. 6. The assessment and analysis of the sample population was restricted to their responses to the inventory and its in- dividual items. No empirical evidence involving the effect- iveness of these teachers in Umaencouragement or discourage— ment of this type of student behavior in their classrooms was presented. V1. THEORY AND THE FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES The type of instructional activities employed in many industrial artscflasses often are problemrcentered or involve the identification amleventual solution of problems. Even in the strict project-centered apmflmch, an awareness or recognition of eventual problems is an im- Peflmnt asset to success. Another important aspect of problem-solving .. 9 is the ability to suggest many alternative ideas or solutions to pro- blems that vary considerably from each other. Unique, new or original ideas are often encouraged and contribute to achievement of effective solutions to problems. Since these traits and abilities are important ingredients in solving many problems that are presented to students in industrial arts classes, it was hypothesized that many industrial arts teachers will indicate they encourage student behavior that is character— istic of these traits. Although the above theory is generally accepted, there still remains a wide and often distinct divergency among various industrial arts programs. For example: junior high school industrial arts pro- grmmsare usually offered to a heterogeneous group of students and mmsent a broad exploratory type of program. Senior high school indus- ufial arts programs usually become more specialized and serve a more lummgeneous population. As a result of the differences in the population and the breadth of programs between.junior and senior high school indus— txial arts offerings,it was hypothesized that junior high school indus— txial arts teachers will indicate greater encouragement of creative be- tmvior traits than senior high school industrial arts teachers. Indirectly related to the above hypothesis is the concept of thted area or multiple area laboratory type programs.* In a multiple éuea program, students come in contact with many different materials, amlitlgeneral have a wider range of experiences. Since "experience pro- vukm fuel for ideation" (6:54) and fluency of ideas is an attribute of creative behavior. The problem of degree or level of creative be- lmvior enters into most definitions. Irving A. Taylor, after reviewing amiumking a content analysis of over a hundred definitions of crea- thdty, identified five distinct psycholinguistic clusters of usages. Ikzidentified these clusters, or levels of creativity as: 24 Ex ressive: independent expression, where skills, origi- the quality of the product are unimportant. nality, and and freedom to explore are important. For Spontaneity example: children's spontaneous drawing. Productive: shows some mastery over some portion of the environment, with a new level of proficiency achieved by the individual. ingenuity is displayed with materials, techni- Inventive: Notes new and ques and inventive talent is operative. unusual relationships between previously separated parts. Innovative: involves improvement through modification of basic principles, requires a great deal of abstract con- ceptualizing skills. Emergentive: a new principle or assumption, around which new schools flourish, emerges at the most fundamental and abstract level. . . as exemplified by Einstein, Freud, Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright. (62:55—60) A somewhat different approach was taken by Smith and Tyler in cate— gorizing levels or degrees of creativity. Instead of employing a content analysis approach, they identified six levels of creativity in terms of general student behavior, characterized by the following statements: 1. Unimaginative: has given practically no evidence of originality or creativeness in imagination or action. Imitative: makes little or no creative contributions, yet shows sufficient imagination to see the implications in the creation of others and to make use of their ideas or accomplishments. Limited: shows the desire to contribute his own thinking and expression to situations, but his degree of imagination and originality is not in general high enough to have much influence on his accomplishments. shows a degree of creativeness that indicates Promising: the likelihood of valuable original contribution in some field although the contributions already made have not proved to be particularly significant. Specific: makes distinctly original and significant con- tributions in one or more fields. General: approaches whatever he does with active imagina- tion and originality, so that he contributes something that is his own. (61:478) 25 An understanding of the concept of degrees or levels of creativity helps prevent individuals from making misleading generalizations about Furthermore, it assists creativity that pass from one level to another. educators in handling the problem of developing the creative abilities cw students through a recognition that all students are capable of per— forming creatively at some level of behavior. k Creativity in Various Fields Another misconception that Carpenter pointed out has been the erroneous notion that creativity is confined to just certain fields such as music, art, writing,£nd scientific inventions and discoveries. 'Whis belief is not only false but extremely harmful. Creativity exists h1all phases of human thought and endeavor." (10:392) Further support that individuals differ not only in the level of development of general (neative ability, but also in the degree to which they can be creative his particular field of endeavor comes from Guilford and Russell. Gmflford contended that the inventor, writer and artist may have some (neative factors or attributes in common, but that there was also con- simnable variation in their pattern of abilities. Russell concluded that'Theative thinking undoubtedly differs in terms of the field ap- gfliedfl’(60:307) By way of illustration, he suggested that creative ‘Hdnking in the field of art probably is influenced by personal and amnional factors while creative thinking in the field of science may betmne closely related to objective or problem-solving abilities. (60:307) 26 V. FACTORS, A’I‘TRIBUTES, 0R CHARACTERISTICS or CREATIVITY Much of the current experimental research concerning creativity has been made possible by the identification of factors, attributes or chara- cteristics of creativity. Major credit must be given to Guilford and his associates at the University of Southern California, who were the first to attempt, empirically, to isolate and identify factors of creativity. Since their early study in 1952 (32) other researchers such as Barron, MacKinnon and Lowenfeld have also extended the understanding of the nature of the creative person. Several of these studies are reported in this section; however, only highlights and major findings are given. The results of these and other studies are explored in greater detail in Chapter III where relationships were drawn between the general research on creativity and implications for statements of creative and non-creative behavior in industrial arts . 1119 Guilford and Lowenfeld Studies Guilford, in his historic speech on creativity before the Ameri— can Psychological Association in 1950 emphasized the general neglect of the subject of creativity by psychologists and others. He presented his views and theory of creativity and proposed several specific hypotheses concerning creative abilities that should be tested. (27:444-h54) Fol— lowing this speech, Guilford set out to test these hypotheses by isolat— ing and defining abilities which were important in the domain of creative thinking. In his study he hypothesized a number of intellectual abili- ties associated with creativity. He then developed and assembled a bat- tery of possible tests of these factors and administered them to four hundred and ten air cadets and student officers in the U.S. Navy. 27 A factor analysis resulted not only in the identification of expected intellectual factors, but also in the identification of several other factors which Guilford suggested were also factors of creativity. The cuiginal list of hypotheses and factors of creativity as identified by Guilford were as follows: 1. 2. Sensitivity togproblems: the ability to see defects, needs or deficiences. Fluency a. WOrd fluency: the rapid production of words that ful- fill restrictive structural requirements. By ”structure" is meant that the letter combinations given are real words. Associated fluency: the rapid production of words meeting specific requirements of meaning. c. Ideational fluency: the rapid production of ideas in a situation in which there is relatively little res— triction. Flexibility a. Adaptive flexibility: the changing of one's mental set to meet new requirements imposed by changing problems. b. Spontaneous flexibility: the ability to change set not directed toward the solution of a narrowly defined problem, takes new directions with or without apparent good cause. Originality: the ability to produce (1) uncommon or statistically infrequent responses, (2) remote or uncon- ventional associations,and (3) clever responses as evalua- ted by ratings. Penetration: no verification Analysi : no verification Synthesis: the production of perceived objects. Redefinition: the ability to use common objects or their parts in new and unusual ways, or unusual adaption of common objects to new uses in order to solve practical problems. (32:19-23) In a series of studies done at Pennsylvania State University, Lowen_ fehireported,in l958,that his own group working independently of Guilford, 28 "arrived at almost exactly the same eight criteria of creativity which significantly differentiate between creative and less or non- creative people." (36:538) In order to determine if the two tests actually measured the same attributes, Kenneth Beittel found signi— ficant multiple correlations (.us and .54) in two studies between the attributes tested in both investigations. (36:538) The eight attributes of creativity identified by Lowenfeld were: Sensitivity to problems Fluency of ideas Flexibility Originality Redefinition and the ability to rearrange Analysis or the ability to abstract Synthesis and closure Coherence of organization (36:539-Su0) mva‘FWNH 0“... O The Barron Studies In a series of studies carried on at the Institute of Personality Amxmsment and Research of the University of California, Frank Barron studied the characteristics of a large number of creative individuals hie group that included painters, writers, physicians, physicists, lfiologists, economists and anthropologists. The degree of creativeness oftme subjects was estimated on the basis of opinions ventured by their uflleagues or by experts in their particular field of expression. The iolhnnng characteristics tended to differentiate this group of crea- tbmzindividuals from other individuals in similar fields: 1. Creative persons show a marked preference for drawings which are complex, asymmetrical and dynamic. They also exhibit considerable tolerance for drawings which most people would consider chaotic. 29 Creative persons may be attracted to disorder or ambiguity but their response to disorder is to find an elegant new order that is more satisfying than a simpler arrangement. 3. Creative persons are more independent in judgment than the less creative. Q. Creative people are especially observant, and they value accurate observations (telling themselves the truth) more than many other people do. 5. Creative individuals at times appear to be willing to stake their lives if this is what they think is necessary. 6. Creative people have exceptionally broad and flexible awareness of themselves. 7. Creative people have more contact than most people do with the life of the unconscious. 8. Creative persons are moved by an intense commitment that impels them to search for new forms of artistic vision. (7:150-166) (4:288-305) Tie; MacK innon Study In a study of the characteristics of a group of forty creative anndtects nominated by five professors of architecture, MacKinnon fmnmlumrked differences between this group and two other groups of mxmitects included in the study. Some of the more distinctive chara- cteristics were: 1. Creative persons are discerning and observant in a different- iated way; they are alert, capable of concentrating attention readily and shifting it appropriately; they are fluent in 3O scanning thoughts and producing those that serve to solve the problems they undertake. Creative persons are more inclined to expression rather than suppression or repression. Creative persons have a greater openness to experience. This openness and their relative lack of self-defensiveness makes it possible for them to speak frankly, critically and openly about themselves and their problems as an adult. Creative persons tend to prefer perceiving to judging and are inclined to be sure interested and curious, more open and receptive and seeking to experience life to the fullest. Highly creative persons are not conformists in their ideas, but are not deliberate nonconformists either. Creative individuals are more flexible with respect to means and goals. Creative persons are relatively less interested in small details or facts as such add more concerned with their meaning and implications. (38:15-17, 69) (37:484-“95) Elle Taylor Studies At the University of Utah, Taylor has studied the problem of imnmification of creative scientific talent. The characteristics of