Investigation of the development of creativity in secondary school children: a four-year longitudinal study
Abstract
In this study, which is planned to observe the advancement of creativity in secondary school children in the sixth, seventh and eighth classes starting from the fifth class, the relational scanning model which is one of the describe approachs was used. This is as well lengthwise research. The population of the study contained of children attending the first grade of secondary schools in Yozgat (Turkey) city center in 2015–2016 academic year. The sample of the study contained of 154 children (78 girls, 76 boys) attending two fifth grade branches in three secondary schools selected from these secondary schools. In the sixth grade, the number of samples decreased to 147 (72 females, 75 males), 137 in the seventh grade (68 females, 69 males) and 132 (65 females, 67 males) in the eighth grade. The analyzes were performed on data collected from 132 children in the eighth grade. General Information Form and Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Figure Form A and Form B) were used as data collection tools. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, frequency, analysis of variance for rehearced measurements and T-Test for unrelated measurements were performed. Hence of the study, it was seen that the creative thinking scores of the children in the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth classes differed in all sub-dimension scores and total creativity scores. In the fluency sub-dimension, the scores obtained in the fifth grade and sixth, seventh and eighth classes differed in favor of the sixth, seventh and eighth classes, respectively. In the sixth grade, the difference between the scores received in the seventh and eighth classes advantage of the scores obtained in the seventh and eighth classes, respectively. Moreover, the difference between the scores obtained in the seventh class and the scores taken in the eighth class were found advantage of the scores obtained in the eighth grade. In the sub-dimension of originality, there was a difference between the scores obtained in the fifth grade and the scores obtained in the seventh and eighth classes, respectively, in favor of the scores obtained in the seventh and eighth grades. It was found that there was a differentiation between the scores obtained in the seventh grade, and the scores obtained in the eighth grade in the seventh and eighth classes, respectively. It is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the scores obtained in the fifth, sixth and eighth grades in the abstraction of headings advantage of the scores obtained in the seventh grade. In the enrich-ment sub-dimension, it was found that the scores obtained in the fifth and sixth grades differed significantly from the scores obtained in the eighth grade in favor of the scores obtained in the fifth and sixth grades. In the sub-dimension of resistance to early closure, it was observed that there was a difference between the scores obtained in the fifth, sixth and eighth grades and the scores obtained in the seventh grade advantage of the scores obtained in the seventh grade. In the total creativity scores, there was a difference between the scores obtained in the fifth grade and the scores obtained in the sixth class advantage of the ratings obtained in the sixth grade. It was determined that the scores obtained in the fifth sixth and eighth grades differed significantly advantage of the scores obtained in the seventh class (p <.05). It was determined that the total creativity rating of the children participator in the survey in the sixth class and the early closure resistance subscale scores obtained in the eighth grade differed according to gender (p <.05).
Santrauka
Šiame tyrime, kuriame buvo suplanuota stebėti vidurinės mokyklos šeštos, septintos ir aštuntos klasių, pradedant nuo penktosios, moksleivių kūrybiškumo pažangą, buvo taikomas vienas iš aprašomųjų metodų – santykinio skenavimo modelis. Šis tyrimas taip pat yra ir išilginis. Tyrimas apima vaikus, 2015–2016 mokslo metais lankiusius Jozgato (Turkija) pirmas vidurinių mokyklų klases. Tyrimo dalyvių imtis – 154 vaikai (78 mergaitės, 76 berniukai), trijose vidurinėse mokyklose lankantys pasirinktus du penktų klasių skyrius. Šeštoje klasėje tiriamųjų skaičius sumažėjo iki 147 (72 moteriškosios lyties, 75 vyriškosios lyties tiriamieji), septintoje – iki 137 (68 moteriškosios lyties, 69 vyriškosios lyties tiriamieji), o aštuntoje klasėje – iki 132 (65 moteriškosios lyties, 67 vyriškosios lyties tiriamieji). Analizė buvo atlikta, remiantis 132 vaikų, besimokančių aštuntoje klasėje, duomenimis. Bendroji informacijos forma ir Torrance’o kūrybinio mąstymo testai (skaitinė forma A ir forma B) buvo naudojami kaip duomenų rinkimo priemonės. Analizuojant duomenis, pakartotiniams matavimams atlikti buvo taikoma aprašomoji statistika, dažnis, dispersijos analizė, o nesusijusiems matavimams atlikti – t testas. Taigi tyrimo metu buvo pastebėta, kad penktoje, šeštoje, septintoje ir aštuntoje klasėse besimokiusių vaikų kūrybinio mąstymo vertinimas balais buvo skirtingas visiems paaspekčiams vertinti skiriamų balų atžvilgiu ir visuminiam kūrybiškumui vertinti skiriamų balų požiūriu. Sklandumo paaspekčio atveju balų skaičius, kurį surinko penktų bei šeštų, septintų ir aštuntų klasių moksleiviai, atitinkamai skyrėsi nuo šeštų, septintų ir aštuntų klasių moksleivių gautų balų skaičiaus pastarųjų naudai. Šeštose klasėse skirtumas tarp septintoje ir aštuntoje klasėje besimokančių moksleivių gautų balų skaičiaus atitinkamai buvo pranašesnis už septintoje ir aštuntoje klasėje besimokančių moksleivių surinktų balų skaičių. Be to, skirtumas tarp septintų klasių moksleivių gautų balų skaičiaus ir aštuntų klasių mokseivių surinktų balų skaičiaus buvo pastebėtas aštuntose klasėse gautų balų skaičiaus pranašumas. Originalumo paaspekčio atžvilgiu vyravo skirtumas tarp balų skaičiaus, kurį surinko penktų klasių moksleiviai, ir balų skaičiaus, kurį surinko septintų ir aštuntų klasių moksleiviai atitinkamai septintų ir aštuntų klasių moksleivių naudai. Nustatyta, kad vyravo skirtumas tarp septintų klasių moksleivių gauto balų skaičiaus ir balų skaičiaus, surinkto aštuntose klasėse besimokančių moskleivių atitinkamai septintų ir aštuntų klasių moskleivių atžvilgiu. Matyti, kad vyrauja statistiškai reikšmingas skirtumas tarp balų skaičiaus, kurį gavo penktų, šeštų ir aštuntų klasių moksleiviai, abstrahuodami antraštes – pagal surinktų balų skaičių jie yra pranašesni už septintų klasių moksleivius. Praturtinimo paaspekčio atžvilgiu nustatyta, kad balų skaičius, kurį gavo penktų ir šeštų klasių moksleiviai, reikšmingai skyrėsi nuo balų skaičiaus, kurį surinko aštuntų klasių moksleiviai penktų ir šeštų klasių moksleivių naudai gautų balų skaičiaus atžvilgiu. Pasipriešinimo ankstyvojo uždarumo paaspekčio požiūriu buvo pastebėta, kad vyrauja skirtumas tarp balų skaičiaus, kurį surinko penktų, šeštų ir aštuntų klasių moksleiviai, bei balų skaičiaus, kurį gavo septintų klasių moksleiviai – šiuo atveju pagal turimą balų skaičių laimi septintų klasių moksleiviai. Bendrųjų kūrybiškumo vertinimo balų skaičiaus atžvilgiu vyrauja skirtumas tarp balų skaičiaus, kurį surinko penktų klasių moksleiviai, ir balų skaičiaus, kurį gavo šeštų klasių moksleiviai – vertinimo pranašumas pastebimas šeštų klasių moksleivių atžvilgiu. Nustatyta, kad balų skaičius, kurį surinko penktų, šeštų ir aštuntų klasių moksleiviai, reikšmingai skyrėsi ir lėmė pranašumą septintų klasių moksleivių surinktų balų skaičiaus atžvilgiu (p <.05). Nustatyta, kad apklausoje dalyvavusių vaikų, besimokiusių šeštoje klasėje, bendrasis kūrybiškumo vertinimas skyrėsi pagal lytį nuo aštuntose klasėse besimokiusių vaikų gautų balų skaičiaus pasipriešinimo ankstyvojo uždarumo paaspekčiu (p <.05).
Reikšminiai žodžiai: vaikas, kūrybiškas vaikas, kūrybiškumas, ilgalaikis tyrimas, vidurinė mokykla.
Keyword : child, creative child, creativity, longitudinal research, secondary school
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Grade level and creativity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 247–266.
Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı. Sakarya Kitabevi.
Aral, N. (1996). Dokuz ve on dört yaşlarındaki çocukların yaratıcılıkları ile sosyo-ekonomik düzey ve cinsiyet arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 20(101), 65–72.
Aral, N. (1992). Farklı sosyo-ekonomik düzeydeki ortaokul son sınıfa devam eden öğrencilerin yaratıcılıkları ile ilgi alanlarının bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [PhD/Doctoral Thesis. Hacettepe University]. Ankara, Turkey. http://nek.istanbul.edu.tr:4444/ekos/TEZ/23494.pdf
Aral, N., Köksal-Akyol, A., & Çakmak, A. (2007). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının yaratıcılıkları üzerinde drama eğitiminin etkisinin incelenmesi. In A. Yılmaz & F. Gürsul (Eds.), Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Sorunları Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı (pp. 149–153). Azerbaycan Devlet Pedagoji Üniversitesi.
Aslan, E. (2001). Torrance Yaratıcı Düşünce Testi’nin Türkçe Versiyonu. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14, 19–40.
Aslan, E. (2000). Yaratıcı bir çocuk yetiştirmek. In H. Ergunalp (Ed.), The First Series of Interactive Conferences on Creativity in Turkey 2nd Year: Proceedings (pp. 102–110). Bilge Yön International & Eventus.
Aslan, E. (2007). Yaratıcı düşünce eğitimi. In A. Oktay & Ö. P. Unutkan (Eds.), İlköğretim çağına genel bir bakış içinde (pp. 75–101). Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
Ataman, A. (1992). Eğitim sürecinde yaratıcılık. In A. Ataman (Ed.), Yaratıcılık ve eğitim (pp. 105–124). Türk Eğitim Derneği.
Atay, Z. (2009). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarına devam eden 5–6 öğrencilerinin yaş, cinsiyet ve ebeveyn eğitim durumlarına göre incelenmesi: Ereğli örneği [Master’s Thesis. Selçuk University]. Konya, Turkey. http://acikerisimarsiv.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/8643/249673.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Bakır, S., & Öztekin, E. (2014). Creative thinking levels of preservice science teachers in terms of different variables. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 231–242.
Berretta, S., & Privette, G. (1990). Influence of play on creative thinking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(2), 659–666. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.71.2.659
Bessis, P., & Jaqui, H. (1973). Yaratıcılık nedir? İstanbul Reklam Ofset.
Birgili, B. (2015). Creative and critical thinking skills in problem-based learning environments. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.18200/JGEDC.2015214253
Black, R. A. (2003). Kırık mum boyalar: Yaratıcılığınızı geliştirmek için yol haritası. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Yayıncılık.
Ceylan, E. (2008). Okulöncesi eğitime devam eden 5–6 yaş çocuklarının bilişsel tempoya göre yaratıcılık düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Master’s Thesis. Selçuk University]. Konya, Turkey. http://acikerisimarsiv.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/9944/218736.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1704_4
Cohen, L. M. (1988). Developing children’s creativity, thinking, and interests: strategies for the district, school, and classroom. OSSC Bulletin, 31(7). Oregon School Study Council.
Çağatay-Aral, N. (1990). Alt ve üst sosyo-ekonomik düzeydeki dokuz yaş grubu kız ve erkek çocukların yaratıcılıklarını etkileyen bazı faktörler üzerine bir araştırma [unpublished PhD/Doctoral Thesis]. Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Çakmak, A., & Baran, G. (2007, 27–30 June). Köyde ve kentte yaşayan altı yaş çocuklarının yaratıcılıklarının karşılaştırılması. In Bildiriler Kitabı. Avrupa Birliği Sürecinde Okulöncesi Eğitimin Geleceği Sempozyumu (Uluslararası Katılımlı) (pp. 154–169). Kyrenia, Cyprus. Cyprus Education Research Association.
Dinçer, D. (1993). Anaokuluna devam eden beş yaş grubu çocukların anne-baba tutumları ile yaratıcı düşünmeleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Master’s Thesis. Marmara University]. Istanbul, Turkey. https://katalog.marmara.edu.tr/eyayin/tez/T0041413.pdf
Eratay, E. (2017). An investigation on the creativity of Turkish fine arts high school students: a case study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2017.56
Erdoğdu, Y. (2006). Yaratıcılık değerlendirme ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(12), 61–79.
Erlendsson, J. (1999). The role of creativity. http://www3.hi.is/~joner/eaps/cq_cr04.htm
Ersoy, E., & Başer, N. (2009). İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin yaratıcı düşünme düzeyleri. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(9), 129–137.
Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., & Dollard, M. F. (2018). An exploration of creativity in primary school children. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28(2), 7–25.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1975). Teachers’ attitudes and practices in teaching creativity and problem-solving to economically disadvantaged and minority children. Psychological Reports, 37(3), 1161–1162. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1975.37.3f.1161
Goree, K. (1996). Accepting the challenge: creativity in the classroom... Do we really want it? Gifted Child Today, 19(4), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759601900413
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and the educational implications. Knapp Publishers.
Güleryüz, H. (2001). Eğitim programlarının dili ve yaratıcı öğrenme. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Haviz, M., & Maris, I. M. (2020). Measuring mathematics and science teachers’ perception on thin-king and acting in 21st-century learning. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1319–1328. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.747395
Karakuş, M. (2001). Eğitim ve yaratıcılık. Eğitim ve Bilim, 26(119), 3–7.
Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Dağıtım.
Kenett, Y. N., Levy, O., Kenett, D. Y., Stanley, H. E., Faust, M., & Havlin, Sh. (2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative ındividuals represented by percolation analysis. In PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(5), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717362115
Knapp, R. H. (1963). Demographic, cultural, and personality attributes of scientists. In C. W. Taylor & R. Barron (Eds.), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (pp. 205–216). Wiley.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. Ch. (2010). Development trends of creativity: what twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.503543
Lucas, B. (2016). A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206
Mangır, M., & Aral, N. (1992). Çocukta yaratıcılık ve yaratıcılığın geliştirilmesi. YA-PA Okulöncesi Eğitimi ve Yaygınlaştırılması Semineri Kitabı (pp. 41–50). Ya-Pa Yayınları.
Moran, J. D. III, Sawyers, J. K., & Moore, A. J. (1988). Effects of structure in instruction and materials on preschoolers’ creativity. Family and Consumer Sciences: Research Journal, 17(2), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X8801700203
Mullineaux, P. Y., & Dilalla, L. F. (2009). Preschool pretend play behaviors and early adolescent creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01305.x
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
Nur, S., Zubaidah, S., Mahanal, S., & Rohman, F. (2020). ERCoRe learning model to ımprove creative-thinking skills of preservice biology teachers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.673022
Öncü, T. (2000). Anasınıfı (6 yaş) düzeyindeki çocukların şekilsel yaratıcılıklarının cinsiyet değişkeni açısından karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1–2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dtcfder_0000000584
Öncü, T. (2003). Torrance yaratıcı düşünme testleri-şekil testi aracılığıyla 12–14 yaşları arasındaki çocukların yaratıcılık düzeylerinin yaş ve cinsiyete göre karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(1), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dtcfder_0000000164
Öncü, T. (1989). Torrance yaratıcı düşünme testleri ve Wartegg-Biedma kişilik testi aracılığıyla 7–11 yaş çocuklarının yaratıcılığı ve kişilik yapıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [unpublished PhD/Doctoral Thesis]. Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Özden, Y. (1993). Yaratıcılığı geliştirme düşünmeyi öğrenme öğretme biçimleri. Pegem Yayınları.
Packer Isenberg, J., & Renck Jalongo, M. (2000). Creative expression and play in early chilhood. Prentice Hall.
Rein, R. P., & Rein, R. (2000). Çocuğunuzun beceri ve yeteneklerini nasıl geliştirebilirsiniz? Ya-pa Ya-ınları.
Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play: longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_5
Salehudin, M., Degen, N. S., Sulthoni, S., & Ulfa, S. (2019). The influence of creative learning assisted by Instagram to improve middle school students’ learning outcomes of graphic design subject. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 849–865. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.626513
San, İ. (1979). Sanatsal yaratma ve çocukta yaratıcılık. İş Bankası Yayıncılık.
Sönmez, V. (1993). Yaratıcı eğitim. In A. Ataman (Ed.), Yaratıcılık ve Eğitim, XVII: Eğitim Toplantısı (pp. 144–166). Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayını.
Smutny, J. F. (1993). Research paper on gifted young children [unpublished source].
Taylor, C. W. (1972). Can organizations be creative, too? In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for Creativity: Report of the Seventh National Research Conference on Creativity, Vol. 9 (pp. 1–22). Pergamon General Psychology Series. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-016329-1.50004-X
Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1959). The college environment as a determinant of research potentiality. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.) [Conference presentation]. The Third University of Utah Research Conference on the Indentification of Creative Scientific Talent (pp. 213–231). The University of Utah Press.
Thomas, N. G., & Berk, L. E. (1981). Effects of school environments on the development of young children’s creativity. Child Development, 52(4), 1153–1162. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129501
Torrance, E. P. (2018). Guiding creative talent. Muriwai Books.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: experiments in classroom creativity. Prentice Hall, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1989.tb00683.x
Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creative Research Journal, 4(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534384
Wang, Ch.-S., & Tzeng, Y.-R. (2007, 26–28 March). Framework for bloom’s knowledge placement in computer games. In Proceedings of 2007 The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL’07). Jhongli City, Taiwan. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4148848&casa_token=SMP12DoJxCwAAAAA:2cUjFugXAZelW2XoEu-bF7Op9DLJKoPQqMpVEalJYsDXFPbToh_Ie2NYR6J0OokdIEJTwxF7bwAV&tag=1
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1990.tb00525.x
Yıldız, F. Ü. (2000). Deneysel yaratıcılık programının 4–5 yaş çocuklarının sosyal ve bilişsel gelişimlerine etkileri [Master’s Thesis. Selçuk University]. Konya, Turkey. http://acikerisimarsiv.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/3993
Yıldız, V., Özkal, N., & Çetingöz, D. (2003). Okul öncesi eğitimi alan ve almayan 7–8 yaş grubu çocuk-larda yaratıcı potansiyelin değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(13), 129–137.