«February 2015 Volume 5 Issue 1 ISSN: 2146-7463 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES IN THE WORLD February 2015, ...»
Intelligence and creativity have always been regarded distinct from each other especially in the context of artistic creation. The proposition “A person is talented even though s/he is not very intelligent” implies that cognitive characteristics that are not verbal or mathematical are regarded inferior to intelligence as “talent” (Kırışoğlu, 1991). Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1972) argue that intelligence and creativity represent separate processes and creative efforts in separate areas might require intelligence at differing levels. For instance, a creative artist does not need high intelligence, but a Nobel-winner physician definitely does (Sternberg and 75 Copyright © International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications / www.ijonte.org
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL STUDIES
Creativity draws new relationships between experience and knowledge. It also proposes new solutions for problems. On the other hand, Bailin (1988) thinks that creativity can be out of question if the product was not established strongly on the past. Some source framework has to exist and such sources should have correspondence with the past. As one makes some innovations, s/he should establish connections with what was done before. It is obvious that we cannot keep up with such a rapidly and constantly changing age by thinking within predetermined categories and classifications. New thinking schemes and classifications emerge rapidly and new information is produced. In an era of change with many temporary constructs, it is a must to give training in a way to enlighten the interaction between different groups of information (San 1979b).
Creativity is not necessarily possessed by individuals that are regarded intellectual, know every subject in depth, and can do quick mathematical operations. Still, lacking knowledge about the subject might be limiting for scientific creativity.
Creative Individuals’ Characteristics One can identify creative people with behaviours peculiar to them in their community if s/he observes diligently. Characteristics of such people include showing tolerance to tidiness; enjoying thrills; being so friendly; thinking of others; being aware of the existence of others; surprising others by doing something all the time; showing interest in what’s complex and mysterious; enjoying coping with hard tasks; being shy to the outer world; always giving constructive feedback; being brave; wanting what’s excellent; being determined;
having a different hierarchy than others; being disturbed by excessive orderliness; having control over where they are; being sentimental and sensitive; finding mistakes in everything; not being afraid of thinking differently from others; believing beauty is what’s extraordinary; being so curious; having inner piece; enjoying being on their own; having strong intuitions in making decisions; being hardworking, spending time on extraordinary activities, lacking business skills, accepting their mistakes, having unusual habits; having constantly preoccupied brains; preferring complex thoughts; suspecting and inquiring; favouring fundamental changes; being open to external stimuli; being open to others’ opinions; refusing suppressing their desires; refusing also being suppressed; being starters; being aware of themselves; being self-content; being self-sufficient; having a high sense of humour; being sensitive to what’s beautiful; remaining distant from power (authority); being sincere;
dealing with trivial details; struggling for distant goals; having sensitive enthusiasm; being careful; being indifferent to power and authority; being pure and simple; not accepting what others say without investigating;
producing charming but unpractical opinions; being versatile; being willing to take risk; and speaking less (Torrance 1962). Bowden (1994) suggested some other characteristics which link bipolar psychiatric disorders with creativity to guide future research and reflect causal relations: associating several concepts expanded across a large area, speed, determination, energy increase, decrease of sleep, focusing on oneself explicitly and increased sexual desire.
It is as difficult to give definitions as measuring creativity of individuals. Most scientists developed “Creative Thought Tests” assuming that they measure creativity. Cropley (2000), Fishkin and Johnson (1998) and Kirshcenbaum (1998) developed their own taxonomy in an attempt to measure creativity.
From the three classifications above, it can be concluded that creativity is multidimensional rather than unidimensional and linked with many psychological structures, and a good consideration requires proper measurement devices (Tekindal, 2009: 113).
The measurement devices which are still popular and contemporary in science world include;
1. Scientific creativity test; Developed by Hu and Adey (2002), the test shows dimensions of the scientific creativity in Figure 1. In this model, creativity is dynamic and has three dimensions. Its dimensions are product, process and trait. Dimension of product has sub-dimensions of technical product, scientific knowledge, scientific phenomenon and scientific problem. Process is comprised of sub-dimensions as thinking and imagining. Lastly, property has sub-dimensions of fluency, flexibility and originality. The model constitutes the theoretical infrastructure for measuring of scientific creativity and consists of 24 (2x3x4=24) cells (Balım and Çeliker 2012). The products to be obtained as a conclusion of scientific creative thinking need to be technical ones, put forth scientific information, be related with a scientific phenomenon and be designed for solving a scientific problem (Atasoy, Kadayıfçı and Akkuş, 2007; Hu and Adey, 2002).
2. Creative thinking test; Developed by Torrance in 1974. Though preliminary research started in 1958 yılında, Minnesota University stated between 1958 and 1966 that the test can be used for various age groups, professions and education levels. During those studies, challenges were faced in relation with (1) validity of the creative thought test (2) the relationship of intelligence with creativity (3) the relationship of creative thought with academic success, and (4) improving creative development with special training experiences. The test which was developed in 1966 included 10 tests in total "Seven in verbal part and three in formal part”. Later in 1984, streamline scoring system and standard score and norm table were added to the test (Aslan, 2001).
3. Creativity Assessment Packet; It was developed by Frank E. Williams in 1980. This scale is a pencil-paper scale used for measuring creativity of individuals aged 6–18. It can be administered in groups. The Creativity Assessment Packet is comprised of three sections as “Test of Divergent Thinking”, “Test of Divergent Feeling”, and “Williams model” to show how children’s creativity is perceived by their parents and teachers. The test is based on the Williams model and assesses the following cognitive-intellectual modes; fluent thinking, flexible thinking, original thinking and elaborative thinking. This scale is easy to implement but difficult to grade and requires specialized labor especially for grading. “The affective-feeling domains are examined: risk taking, complexity, curiosity and imagination. Scoring criteria and examples are provided as well as a rationale for each domain in the Divergent Thinking Test. For the Divergent Feeling Test, objective scoring is accomplished by the use of two templates. Test of Divergent Thinking consists of two parallel norms as A and B, and subtests of Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and elaboration thinking” (Shaughnessy, 1995, 9).
METHOD Quantitative research method was used in this study. Study data were analysed with “One-Group Post-test Only Design”.
Population and Study Sample The study was implemented in order to investigate creativity of students. Sample selection was made with convenience sampling. As a result, 59 students participated in the study. The participants attended İ. POLAR Ege Seramik Anatolian Technical High School in İzmir Kemalpaşa District during 2013-2014 academic years.
Data Collection Instrument Hu and Adey’s The Scientific Creativity Test was used for collecting data in this study. The test was adapted to Turkish by Çeliker & Balım. In calculating originality score of the first four items in the scale, of all responses, those listed in the 5 % were given 2 points, 5-10 % were given 1 point, and the others were given 0 point. In evaluation of the item 5, the respondents listed in 5 % were given 3 points; 5-10 % was given 2 points, while the others were 1 point. As for item 6, the respondents in 5 % were graded with 4 points, 5-10 % was 2 points, and others were given 0 point. Under item 7, the participants’ responses were obtained, but no grading was made due to the small number of respondents.
FINDINGS Below are listed frequencies of answers given by students for each question. Question 1: “Please specify below in what scientific ways a piece of glass can be used. Example; making an experiment tube” (cited by Çeliker and Balım 2012).
Question 2: “If you could travel to another planet on a space ship, what scientific questions would you study?
Please write as many questions as possible concerning such planet considering things you wonder. For instance, for the question if there are any creatures living on that planet, the answers are given with frequencies in Table 2.
Table 1: Frequency Analysis Originality Answers and frequencies score 0 Window (26), Glasses (26) 1 Automotive glass (22), Glass (19), Mirror (14), Lamp (13), 2 Bottle (12), Jar (11), Place (9), Vase (9), Aquarium (9), Frame (8), Television (7), Jug (6), Microscope (5), Clock (5), Door (5), Decoration object (5), Chandelier (4), Table (4), Telescope (3), Cupboards (3), Focusing glass (3), Enlarging lens (3), Solar energy panel (2), Pipe (2), Shop window (2), Flower pot (2), Boron glass (2), Lighter, (2), Pen (1) Dustbin (1), Cap (1), Gas lamp (1), Lens (1), Key chain(1), Shower cabin (1), Coffee table (1), Pencil case (1) Table 2: Frequency Analysis of Question 2 Originality Answers and Frequencies score 0 Is there life on the planet? (34), Is there water on the planet? (21) 1 Is there air on the planet? (11), Is there gravity on the planet? (11), Is there nature on the planet? (9), What do the live creatures look like? (8), 2 What do they live on? (6), Do they speak as we do? (6), What is the soil like on that planet? (6), How long is the life period? (3), What are the climates like? (3), How many planets are there?
(3), Are there human beings on the planet? (3), Is it a developed planet? (3), Do they grow fruit and vegetables? (3), How far is it from the Sun? (3), Have they got houses? (2), What are the geographical formations like? (2), Are they happy with their lives? (1), Do they wish to visit the Earth? (1), What do they think about humans? (1), Do they breathe? (1), What is the planet made up of? (1), Is there an end to the universe? (1), How is the time calculated? (1), How do they receive training? (1), How was the planet formed? (1), What colour is the sky? (1), How many degrees is the temperature? (1) Question 3: “If you could turn an ordinary bicycle into an interesting, useful and beautiful object, what would you do? Please specify. Example, “I would make flashing wheels to be noticed in dark”. The responses are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Frequency Analysis of Question 3 Originality Answers and Frequencies score 0 I would put light (23), 1 I would put an engine (10), I would assemble a horn (9), I would fix an umbrella for rainy weather (8), I would put an accumulator (7), 2 Auto cruiser without pedalling when tired (5), I would fix a loudspeaker (4), I would paint it in flashing colour (4), I would make the buffers bigger (3), I would make holeproof wheels (3), I would annex a signal arm (3), I would put a seat (3), I would put thicker tyres (3), I would assemble a TV and radio (3), I would make the seat more comfortable (3), If it runs into an object, it would detect it and stop (2), I would assemble a navigation device (2), I would place an airbag (2), I would fix 3 wheels (2), I would make a flying bike (2), I would make it automatic (gear) (2), I would fix a basket (2), I would assemble a car’s steering wheel (2), It would go in the water (2), It would slow down automatically when it accelerates excessively (1), I would make it lighter (1), I would put light working with kinaesthetic energy (1), I would make a jumping tyre (1), I would make a jumping seat (1), Flat tyre would repair itself (1), I would assemble an air-conditioner (1), I would assemble an alarm (1), I would put an electrical mirror (1), I would put caps onto wheel rims (1), There would be just one wheel (1), I would put a tent to break the wind (1)
Question 4: “What do you think would happen on the Earth if there weren’t gravity? Example: “People would be flying in the air”. Frequencies are given in Table 4.