Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparative study : two approaches to enhance creative problem-solving in grade 5 students Harris, Darlene Gloria 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1977_A8 H37.pdf [ 6.25MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054677.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054677-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054677-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054677-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054677-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054677-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054677-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A COMPARATIVE STUDY: TWO APPROACHES TO ENHANCE CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING IN GRADE FIVE STUDENTS by DARLENE GLORIA HARRIS B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Curriculum Theory We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1977 Q Darlene Gloria Harris, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g o r . pub l i c a t ion o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Curriculum Theory The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date (QjiUl 3; mj i i ABSTRACT The purpose of the present exploratory study was to compare two approaches designed to enhance creative problem-solving: The Productive Thinking Program (PTP) and the Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Creativity Program. The nature of this study was threefold: to investigate further the effectiveness of the PTP; to examine the ability of the Pre-Task Phase to meet its stated objectives; and, to compare the success of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase as methods of enhancing creative problem-solving in six areas of student behavior. Pre and post-test scores for the variables of Reading Achievement (Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, STEP, Reading), Self-Concept and Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving (Sears/Spaulding Self-Concept Inven-tory) , Guest ion-Asking (fluency on the Blank Riddle Problem), Problem-Solving Skills (question-asking, hypothesis-generation and total fluency on two complex and two real-life problems), and Creativity (Torrance Tests of Verbal and Figural Creative Thinking) were determined for 103 children in four f i f t h grade classes. One Control and one Experimental group existed in each of two elementary schools. Previous PTP research was replicated for the skills of question-asking and hypothesis-generation. Interesting and significant findings were pro-duced in two controversial areas in the literature: verbal creativity and transfer of training to complex and real-life problem situations. The present study supported the literature re the positive relation-ship between the classroom climate and creative functioning of students, as well as furnishing the f i r s t evidence of the success of the Pre-Task Phase in facilitating the techniques of student question-asking. i i i The data indicated that training in both the FTP and the Pre-Task Phase was successful in enhancing the creative problems-solving ability of students for the majority of variables and sub-variables assessed. Three of these measures reached statistical significance: complex question-asking, real-life hypothesis-generation, and verbal fluency, flexibility, and originality. The Pre-Task Phase appeared to be superior to the PTP for a l l vari-ables examined, two of which reached statistical significance: reading achievement; and creativity for verbal fluency and verbal and figural originality. As a result of the analysis, i t was concluded that the Pre-Task Phase provided a successful method for increasing both the skills and related attitudes of creative problem-solving for grade five students of a l l ability levels, housed in typical heterogeneous classrooms. It was also concluded that the Pre-Task Phase served a valuable purpose as the introductory or orientation phase of the Chilliwack Creativity Program. In spite of the comparative lack of success of the Productive Thinking Program, because of the subjective judgment of the writer and the positive in-put of the participating teachers, i t is suggested that the PTP remain as one of the teaching strategies utilized during the Pre-Task Phase. It was recommended that subsequent research direct itself to further examination of the effects of the Pre-Task Phase on classroom environment and interpersonal relations, the total Chilliwack Creativity Program and on reading achievement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Problem-Solving 6 The Productive Thinking Program 15 The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment 22 Reading and Creative Problem-Solving 29 The Problem 33 Rationale 34 III. METHOD 39 Subjects 39 Design 40 Instruments . 41 Reading Achievement 41 Self-Concept and Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving 42 Question-Asking 43 Problem-Solving 43 Creativity 45 Teacher Training 47 Procedure 48 IV. RESULTS 49 Statistical Procedures 49 Pre-Treatment Differences 49 Pre and Post-Test Differences 53 Examination of Research Questions 58 V. DISCUSSION 63 V Chapter Page V (cont'd.) The Productive Thinking Program 63 The Pre-Task Phase - . . 68 Comparison of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase 72 Reading 72 Creativity 74 Conclusions 75 Limitations 76 Recommendations 76 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 77 APPENDICES 83 A Test Instruments 84 (1) Self-Concept Inventory 85 (2) Self-Concept Inventory Classification of Items According to Theoretical Dimensions 9 3 (3) The Riddle Problem 94 (4) Complex Problem-Solving 95 (5) Real-Life Problem-Solving 104 B Sample Pre-Task Phase Materials 109 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE P A G E I COMPOSITION OF CLASSES 40 II SYMBOLS USED IN TABLES 51 III PP£-TREATMENT MEANS (X), F RATIOS (F), AND PROBABILITY LEVLES (p) FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONDITIONS AND BETWEEN SCHOOLS 52 IV (A) PROBABILITY LEVELS FOR PRE AND POST TEST MEANS (X) AND VARIANCE (V) . . 54 (B) PRE AND POST TEST MEANS (X) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR T-TESTS 55 V SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF OOVARIANCE FOR SIX VARIABLES 59 v i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. PROTOTYPES OF THREE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS 8 2. FACTORS IN PROBLEM SOLVING 12 3. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PRODUCTIVE THINKrNG PROGRAM AS INFLUENCED BY THREE EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES 16 4. CREATIVITY SEQUENCES: A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR THE CHILLIWACK CREATIVITY PROGRAM 36 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to express her gratitude to those who have contri-buted in various ways to this work: To Dr. Stanley Blank, under whose supervision this research was completed, for this confidence in the undertaking of a study of this nature and for his comments, criticism, and support. To Dr. Joseph Katz, for his direction and encouragement during the manuscript preparation. To Dr. John Wormsbecker, for his kind permission to conduct this study and for his continued interest and helpful advice. To Joyce Fox, for her valuable assistance during the data analysis. To Dr. Norman E l l i s and Mr. Allan Moodie, Evaluation and Research Services, Vancouver School Board, for their involvement in the organiza-tional stages of this investigation. Finally, to the classroom teachers, Neil Dyck, Anita Gabel, Frances Kolotyluk, and Anne O'Donaghue, and to their students for their enthusi-astic cooperation and participation. 1 CHAPTER I-LNTRODUCTICN Kagan (1967) identified a principal concern of education as being to "teach the child confidence in his ability to think creatively about intellectual problems". Guilford (1967) designated to the school the responsibility of facilitating development of creative thinking and problem-solving through instruction. Olton and Crutchfield (1969) added that "education should center around the ability to solve problems"; the kind of problem-solving that requires the individual to be an independent thinker and to strive to achieve his or her own solutions to complex problems. In educational research, the term "problem-solving" has earned a reputation as the most chaotic of a l l identifiable categories of human learning. Davis (1969) proposed that this situation was causally related to: 1) a lack of consistent general definition of problem-solving; and 2) the use of a large number of differing tasks criteria for problem solution performance. Kagan (1967) and Keislar (1969) exemplified the many writers who defined a problem in terms of "a goal, the progress towards which is some-haw blocked"; or "recognition of a terminal state to be reached and an awareness that i t has not yet been reached". Eberle (1973) portrayed problem-solving as "a personal challenge to cope with unknowns and to achieve a solution". Blank (1974) described i t as "purposive, goal-directed activity". 2 A "problem" in this broad conception, pertains to a l l types of subject matter, to real l i f e and to a l l domains of human activity, both simple and complex, mundane and creative (Davis, 1973). Johnson (1961) contended that "there is no clear-cut difference between creative thought or creative imagination and other kinds of problem-^solving". (See as well Osbom, 1963; Torrance, 1965; and Taba, 1967). Newell, Shaw and Simon (1962) viewed problem-solving as creative to the extent that one or more of the following conditions were satisfied: 1) i f the product of the thought has novelty and value either for the thinker or for society 2) i f the thought is unconventional in the sense that i t requires modification or rejection of previously-accepted ideas 3) i f i t requires high motivation and persistence, taking place either over a considerable span of time or at high intensity 4) i f i t deals with or solves a problem so that part of the task of the creative thinking was to formulate the problem itself, to'give i t structure. Numerous educational authorities attest to the feasibility of foster-ing creativity in educational settings. Treffinger and Gowan (1962) and Parnes (1967) cited bibliographic searches of the literature that describe such educational programs. These indicate a ninety percent success rate among students classified from retarded to intellectually gifted, from first grade through college. Torrance and Meyers (1970) reported successes "from the pre-primary grades through the graduate school years" with the overall effect being that students improved their ability to develop original and useful 3 solutions to problems. Torrance, in 1972, presented a similar picture in his summary of 142 such studies. Research has been consistent in i t s support for deliberate training in the strategies and processes of creative thinking and problem-solving i.e., becrariing sensitive to and aware of problems; and utilizing fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality to re-define problems, to formu-late hypotheses, and to search for solutions. Osborn (1963) and Parnes (1967) advocated that creative efficiency can be increased i f children are familiarized with the nature of the creative process and taught the strategies of inquiry, creative research and creative problem-solving". (See also Mearns, 1958; Schwab, 1962; Suchman, 1961; and Taylor, 1963). Olton and Crutchfield (1969) agreed that the ability and readiness to effectively and efficiently use the cognitive capacities inherent in productive thinking and problem-solving at any given stage of development can benefit substantially from training. This seems particularly true of the higher-level functions central to problem-solving where research has indicated an especially pronounced gap between potential and actual performance. The most important problem-solving skills are those which result in broad transfer. Aschner and Bish (1965) submitted that a child will transfer learning when s/he is challenged to solve new problems in which s/he becomes interested because they are within his or her range of com-prehension. Anderson (1965) commented that "...children can acquire, retain and transfer rather complex and 'advanced' problem solving skills when presented with suitable training". 4 The act of problem-solving concerns the internal state of the learner interacting with the external condition of the environment. Parnes (1967) suggested two kinds of educational effort were required to facilitate such creative functioning and development: 1) deliberate training programs designed to remove internal blocks to optimum creative performance; and 2) provision for environmental conditions that eliminate external blocks to such performance". He stressed as well, the f u t i l i t y of removing one as long as the other was left unaltered. Jones, Siegel and Gilligand(1969) accumulated well-documented evidence that "creativity can be fostered and developed by direct and indirect intervention within the learning environment". Crutchfield (1969) outlined three types of intrapersonal factors crucial to problem-solving: 1) specific thinking skills; 2) motivation-al dispositions; and 3) a master ttiinking s k i l l . MacKinnon (1969) added a "master being s k i l l " , defined as "the s k i l l to be fully and honestly oneself". The present study addressed itself to an examination of cre-ative problem-solving as one aspect of creative thinking (Covington, 1967). The intent of this research was to compare two approaches to train inter-mediate-age students in the skills and attitudes of creative problem-solving : those teaching procedures which will stimulate students to think independently, to test their ideas and to corimunicate them to others (Freeman, 1968). The theoretical approach taken by the writer focused on pre-adolescent youngsters and the relationships between entry behavior and training i.e., "the investment of educational precepts, principles and techniques conducive to the development of creative talent and aptitude"(Freeman, 1968). 5 This was accomplished by direct and indirect strategies that dealt with previously identified internal and external conditions of problem-solving as they are conceived of in: 1. The Productive Thinking Program (PTP), Covington Crutchfield, Davies and Olton, 1972. 2. The introductory or Pre-Task Phase of The  Chilliwack Creative Problem-Solving Program, Blank, et. al. 1974. The success of these two approaches will be determined by changes evident in six areas of student behavior:achievement in reading; self-concept; and the specific attitudes and abilities associated with problem-isolving, including question-asking and creative thinking. The assumption was made that, any type of intelligent, serious, and direct effort to train thinking skills was likely to yield positive out-comes (Olton and Crutchfield, 1969). This being the case, i t became of interest to the writer to determine i f differences would be found in the effectiveness of the two approaches under consideration, and what the nature of these differences might be. The problem under investigation posed the question: Will the Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Program i.e., the establishing of an "open" classroom and a learning climate conducive to problem-solving, result in equal enhancement of the creative thinking attitudes and skills of grade five students, as compared to the application of the more-structured Productive Thinking Program? 6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Problem-Solving The writer has included the following resume of the historical and contemporary development of the relevant theoretical positions upon which the two models under comparison in this present study are based. Green (1967) recognized that traditional psychological research on problem-solving has diligently examined the conditions for the occurrence of problem situations with major emphasis on the previous, learning of the problem solver interacting with the structure of the problem. Keislar (1969) made reference to a number of comprehensive summaries of such research (Duncan, 1959; Gagne, 1959; Kleinmuntz, 1967; and Davis, 1967). These reviews presented much the same position as Ray (1955) who stated that, "problems used in laboratory studies of problem-solving vary so much that i t is impossible to organize the findings in an intelligible fashion." Davis (1973) commented that traditionally, the major theoretical schism in experimental psychology has been the near-century-old dispute between Stimulus-Response Behaviorists, and the Gestaltists or other cognitive theorists. Basically, the issue at hand is a "mechanistic" versus a "mentalistic" perception of the problem-solving process. Where the Gestaltists stress the perception of stimuli in each problem situation and the reorganization the solver imposes on them, the Behaviorists stress the importance of previously learned responses and their recombinations. Hilgard (1966) proposed that "while the Gestalt theorists would agree 7 that past experience will facilitate solution, they object to explanations in terms of previous experiences without taking organization into account." The theoretical gap between the early S-R psychologists (Thorndike, 1898; Hull, 1934; Skinner, 1966) and the Gestaltists (Kohler, 1925; Wertheimer, 1945; Duncker, 1945) has grown consistently less distinguish-able in the contemporary positions of Cognitivism (Bruner and Ausubel ) and the Neo-Behaviorism of Gagne. Gagne (1966) defined problem-solving as " inferred change in human capability that results in the acquisition of a generalizable rule which is novel to the individual, which cannot have been established by direct recall, and which can manifest itself in applicability to the solution of a class of problems..." Ausubel (1967) stated a similar philosophical position in his definition of the problem-solving process as "...any activity in which both the cognitive representation of prior experiences and the components of a current problem situation are re-organized in order to achieve a designated objective." While there has been considerable disagreement in the theoretical approaches to problem-solving, there has been noticeable consistency in the models proposed to differentiate the internal stages involved in the process of problem solution. (See Figure 1) Newell (1972) defended the obvious comparative aspects of the models as "traditional support for the linkage of creative production with creative problem-solving." Despite their deceptive linear and step-like appearance, the models re-present a consensus in the literature that these seemingly discrete "stages" do not easily f i t into a "problem" and "solution" scheme. Patrick (1955) conceptualized this creative process as mental activity 8 FIGURE 1 PROTOTYPES OF THREE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS (Guilford, 1964) Dewey Wallas Rossman Difficulty is felt Difficulty located and defined Possible solutions suggested Consequences con-sidered Solution is accepted Preparation (informa-tion gathered) Incubation (unconscious work going on) Illumination (solutions emerge) Verification (solutions tested and elaborated) Need or difficulty observed Problem formulated Available information surveyed Solutions formulated Solutions critically examined New ideas formulated New ideas tested and accepted characterized by: "constant, often involuntary, alternation between the conscious and the unconscious." The implicit and explicit components here stated illustrate the true nature of the process: one that constant-ly overlaps, back-tracks and regresses to earlier stages and even emits stages altogether. Basic to a l l contemporary research is the Wallas (1926) model (adapted from Helmholtz, 1891) which outlined a four-stage description of the creative process: 1) preparation; 2) incubation; 3) illumination; and 4) verification. Kingsley and Gary (1957) specified a more detailed behavioral in-terpretation of problem-solving activity: 1) a difficulty is felt; 9 2) the problem is clarified and defined; 3) a search for clues is made; 4) various suggestions appear; 5) a suggested solution is accepted; and 6) the solution is tested. Osborn (1963) made the distinction between "idea creation" and "idea evaluation". He designated a one-two type of procedure in which two separate and major kinds of thinking are identified: "creative" and "judicial". Davis (1973) affirmed this contribution as the single-most important and pivotal principle of creative problem-solving. From Osborn on, problem-solving models emphasized the phase of "idea-generation" as "... the very core of the problem-solving process" (Olton and Crutchfield, 1969). Parnes (1967) communicated Osborn's model in terms of five facets: 1) fact finding; 2) problem finding; 3) idea finding; 4) solution finding; and 5) acceptance finding. Davis (1967) pointed out that the vast literature on the conditions for problem-solving provided very l i t t l e practical information on how people actually go about solving problems, and in particular, how this relates to developmental processes and other influential variables in the solving of problems by children. Covington (1968) suggested that, i f anything, the result of such misunderstanding of the creative process has perpetrated misconceptions about creative functioning and its f a c i l -itation which have led to teaching methods and curriculum that "fetter" creative thought rather than enhance i t . Crutchfield (1965) indicated that creative thinking was a "multi-plex" process requiring many skills." Davis (1973) described human problem-solving and innovative thinking as important examples of the "highest and most complex forms of human mental l i f e . " The problem-10 solving paradigm can be viewed simplistically as consisting of two com-ponents: a "creative" and a "critical" aspect. These attributes are also identified by Mackworth (1964) as "problem finding" and "problem solving" and by McGuire (1969) as "hypothesis generation" and hypothesis testing". Davis (1973) contended i t was self-evident that problem-solving "ndnimally requires that we f i r s t become aware of the problem, then proceed to solve i t . " The writer agrees with Davis that, the many his-torical and contemporary stage-analyses which have been devised to clarify and systematize the complexities of human problem-solving activ-ity are in fact just "elaborations of this truism" and, as such, are of l i t t l e practical value for the purposes of classroom instruction. Newell (1962) asserted that a l l historical models have proposed compatible stages attempting to describe the process of human problem-solving, and a l l have been similarily sterile and restrictive. Keislar (1969) concurred with general agreement in the literature that formal models of the problem-solving process were probably of l i t t l e direct value for instruction. In the opinion of the writer, several current theoretical models do lay the groundwork for the generation of useful instructional programs (such as the Productive Thinking and Chilliwack Creativity Program) by identifying appropriate strategies for training creative thinking and problem-solving. These are discussed following. Bruner (1963) articulated a "concept learning approach" which focuses on the learner as an active, purposive problem-solving organism. Problem-solving in this interpretation, becomes a matter of rearranging or transferring the evidence that is assembled to yield new insights. Bruner identified the process of "coding" to delineate the categories, 11 principle learning and theory construction that enable the conscious human to solve many kinds of problems. Through such a process, the prob-lem solver uses a system of categorization to simplify what otherwise would be an overwhelming complex array of information, and to move beyond information given to transform familiar, higher-order principles to un-familiar problem situations. This theory, however, fails to specify how the learner can be trained to operationalize such a necessary reformula-tion of the problem, or how to coordinate the processes of perception, analysis, reflection and flexibility of thought deemed necessary to be-coming a productive problem solver. Gagne (1966, 1970) exemplified the Neo-Behaviorist approach to problem-solving. This model sets in motion the principles derived from laboratory studies of human learning that have significant prescriptive and practical value. Problem-solving is depicted here as "the ability to use previously learned concepts and rules in some combination to achieve some goal" (1970). Gagne depicted a series of learning outcomes (See Figure 2) which move sequentially from signal learning (classical conditioning) to stimulus-response learning and chaining, verbal response and multiple discrimination, to concept learning, the learning of princi-ples and finally to problem-solving itself. His hierarchy of internal processes examines the "functions of instruction" and "individual differ-ences" by a succession of flexible stages: including the recall of subordinate rules; search and selection combining these rules; and veri-fication. Keislar (1969) reiterated that the most important problem-solving skills to teach are those which result in broad general transfer. He 12 FIGURE 2 FACTORS IN PROBLEM SOLVING (Gagne, 1966) Functions of Instructions Internal Processes Individual Differences Solution Rule <- Matching specific to retained general model Retaining solution model Provide solution, model y Verification Provisional I Rule | Combining Sub-Guide Thinking_. ^ . ordinate Rules ^_ Search and Makes cues distinctive ^ Selection _ Fluency in making new combinations Stimulate Recall Recall of ^ Subordinate 1— ' Rules Distinguishing relevant and irrelevant cues Recall of previously learned rules \ Number of previously learned rules 13 underscored the issue of transfer as a vital and primary concern to a l l models of human problem-solving that attempt to present strategies and techniques to directly train creative production: i f we seek to develop a broad, flexible behavior which will help the pupil to keep an 'open mind1 and not be rigid, the child may learn l i t t l e that offers him specific guidance in solving problems ... i f we provide the pupil with a strategy that gives him helpful cues and clear direction for his efforts, he may develop a rigid, mechanical approach to new problems. Crutchfield (1961) suggested that a functional analysis of the interrelationships among various steps in the problem-solving process was more useful than a study of distinct stages. Covington and Crutch-field (1965) conceived of a more comprehensive and potentially operative model than the ones already discussed. This "productive thinking" model takes into account the previously-stated concern of Keilsar and consti-tutes the basis for the two approaches under comparison in this study. The model centres on two pivotal concepts: "cognitive strategies" and a "master thinking s k i l l " . The training of creative problem-solving ability in the individual is viewed as the strengthening of a variety of thinking skills which are integral to the creative process along with the encouragement of attitudes and motivational dispositions. This diverse assortment of cognitive and affective considerations are apportioned into broad sets of generalized thinking skills or "cognitive strategies". A "master thinking s k i l l " is introduced through which the separate skills and dispositions are synthesized into an organized attack on creative problems: "the appropriate selecting, timing, harmonizing and flexible sequencing in the strategic use of the specific skills called for " 14 (Crutchfield, 1965). This master s k i l l deterinines the manner in which a l l contributing skills are integrated and applied to the problems at hand. The cognitive strategies identified in the problem-solving process are: problem formulation; organizing and processing information; idea generation; and idea evaluation. Each set of skills is described briefly. One main set of skills encompasses problem discovery and formula-tion. These skills consist of awareness and recognition of the problem which exists or the creation of a novel problem out of personal "incessant mental activities" (Crutchfield, 1969). Also included in this strategy are: sensitivity to puzzling and odd facts, discrepancies and inconsis-tencies in given information; a continuous mental set toward problem discovery; and a readiness to look at things from a novel or unusual point of view. A second broad set of problem-solving skills has to do with the establishing of an overview of the facts for the efficient organizing and processing of problem information. The important s k i l l of question-asking is implicit in this concern as the problem solver learns to recognize gaps in information and to acquire necessary data. A third set of skills relates to idea generation and the possibil-ities for problem solution i.e., directions to be investigated and hypo-theses to be tested. Here the problem solver learns to restructure the original problem through "insightful mental reformulation" — the heart of the problem-solving process. The final set of skills outlines _the procedure of idea evaluation through critical/logical thinking and inferential thought processes in which the consequences or implications of outcomes are examined. These 15 skills equip the solver with the means to accept, modify or abandon hypo-theses and to test out their validity. The Covington/Crutchf ield model has been incorporated into The  Productive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think (PTP) , Covington, Crutchfield, Davis and Olton (1972). The fifteen-lesson programmed format of the instructional materials used in this study has developed from experimental versions of the General Problem Solving Program (GPSP) des-cribed by the authors as "creative tasks in miniature" that attempt to sensitize grade five and six students to skills they already possess. Each lesson presents a mysterious occurrence that provides the vehicle whereby the student practices a number of broad rules and strategies con-cerned with the various facets of effective problem-solving. The Productive Thinking Program Numerous investigations have been carried out using various prelimi-nary editions and modified versions of the GPSP, along with more current research on the augmented PTP as utilized in the present study. The very consistent results attest to the high degree of success with which this program meets its stated objectives. Treffinger and Ripple (1971) present a unique visual interpretation of the theoretical constructs of variables common to a l l PTP research (See Figure 3). Each of the studies included and those which succeed this research are discussed following. Two early studies were reported by Covington and Crutchfield (1965, 1966). The GPSP was administered to 481 grade five and six children with 267 students given the auto-instructional training materials and the 16 Proposed c r i t i c a l factors in interpretation Support for the program's effectiveness Conditions Optimum (distributed) Maximum concentration Teacher Criterion Participation similarity Present (structured) Absent entirely High Low Low, -^High Olton and Crutchfield (1969) Covington and Crutchfield (1965) Wardrop et a l . (1969) Ripple and Dacey (1967) Treffinger and Ripple (1968, 1969) Low ^-(Effectiveness) -^High Figure 3 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PRODUCTIVE THINKING PROGRAM AS INFLUENCED BY THREE EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES (Treffinger, and Ripple, 1971) remaining 214 (equated for intelligence, sex, racial distribution and school achievement) specified as controls. The thirteen and sixteen-lesson programs were administered as part of the regular classroom work on a basis of one lesson per day for a three or four week period. Exten-sive pre and post-program testing revealed the performance of the instructed Ss to be markedly superior on traditional tests of problem^solving ability, on tests of creative thinking, and on inventories of attitudes and values toward tliinking. The trained Ss asked a greater number of relevant ques-tions, were more sensitive to clues and discrepancies (puzzling facts), 17 generated more and better ideas, and were better able to use clues and hints in arriving at problem solution. In most cases, the magnitude of the differences attributed to training, were absolutely large and beyond mere statistical significance for experimental Ss of a l l I.Q. and ability levels. In a follow-up study (occurring five months after the program's completion) with eighty percent of the children from the original sample, the instructional group surpassed their control counterparts in problem-solving ability to a statistically significant degree, except on creative thinking which was marginal. Ripple and Dacey (1967) employed a ten-lesson adaptation of the PTP materials to demonstrate that creative thinking and problem-solving skills of grade eight students could be facilitated through training, i.e. that instruction in verbal creativity would transfer to a "behavioral" measure of problem-solving and that such effects would test the Covington, Crutchfield (1965) hypothesis regarding the transferability of direct train-ing of problem-solving skills. The 136 Ss were tested on two versions (paper and pencil, and behavioral) of Maier's (1931) "two-string problem". Find-ings indicated that subjects in the instructional treatment solved the problem significantly faster than did those in the non-instructional treat-ment. A slight, but not significant, difference was found in actual prob-lem-solution. No significant differences were found between instruction-al and control Ss in creative thinking (fluency, flexibility and origin-ality) as assessed by independent measures. Although these findings did not-confirm the earlier research (Covington and Crutchfield, 1965) with regard to verbal creative tJiinking, they did support their hypothesis with regard to transferability of problem-solving skills. This study 18 tends to disparage the earlier research of the PTP authors. These find-ings are interesting, but the writer questions the design of the study on three points: First, the selection of grade eight students, where no psychological research base defends the appropriateness of this choice. Second, the arbitrary reduction of the instructional materials from six-teen to ten lessons with no clearly-stated rationale, other than such a modification constituted the "more advanced and/or differently oriented program" advocated by Covington and Crutchfield (1965) thus providing more effective training for students at a higher grade level. Third, the validity of the evaluation criterion, the "two-string problem" as being truly representative of a suitable "insight" problem for grade eights, therefore a good indicator of the transferability of generalizable problem-solving skills. It is noted that on this point,the findings of this study contradict the author's original assumption about the selection of the criterion problem, rendering, make i t even more suspect. An important study by Olton, Wardrop, Covington, Goodwin, Crutchfield, Klausmeier and Ronda (1969) was conducted with forty-four grade five classes to investigate the extent to which creativity and problem-solving could be improved through a set of programmed lessons. The PTP materials were applied in a severely compressed four-week training period consisting of a total of sixteen classroom hours of instruction. The materials were used by each student entirely alone without the support of teacher inter-vention or class discussion. Even under these restrictive conditions, the training produced statistically significant increments in student problem-solving performance on a wide variety of productive thinking measures. Mean performance of the trained group exceeded that of the 19 controls in thirty out of forty internal and post test measures; eleven of which reached statistical significance. Performance of instructed children was consistently superior to that of controls regardless of sex or level of I.Q. Contrary to prediction, the hypothesis was not upheld that students in a "facilitative" learning climate (based on Torrance's (1962) guide-lines for rewarding creative behavior) would exhibit more productive thinking behavior than those in noh-facilitative circumstances. Greater gains were found in classrooms judged to provide relatively l i t t l e encour-agement for productive thinking. The writer suggests that this research documents the efficacy of the PTP to overcome less than optimal conditions relating to teacher attitude and classroom environment. In addition, the authors speculated that, considerably greater educational benefits could be expected under conditions where materials were reinforced by active teacher participation. Olton and Crutchfield based their 1969 study on the recommendations of Covington (1968) and made use of an augmented version of the PTP with ten experimental and control classes of 280 grade five and six pupils of above average academic ability. This study broadened the research of those previously discussed in four principal ways: 1) the training period was extended to eight weeks; 2) the teacher took on an active role; 3) the sixteen-lesson series was expanded to include a set of supplemen-tary exercises designed to reinforce and extend problem-solving in curriculum-related topics; and 4) transfer of skills was enhanced by problems representative of widely divergent curriculum content (social studies, science, human relations and current affairs). Large and impressive 20 instructional effects on a wide variety of thinking tasks were reported. At a l l ability levels, trained students maintained a clear superiority in a l l twenty-three indices of creative and productive thinking tested, regardless of i n i t i a l level of thinking performance. Despite the existence of a positive relationship between I.Q. and performance on productive thinking tasks, instructional effects were such that performance scores of the average Ss were as high as those of the high I.Q. untutored Ss. In addition, there were marginally significant relationships between positive student attitudes toward problem-solving tasks and confidence in own ability as a problem solver. Enduring instructional gains were noted in a follow-up study conducted six months after the training appli-cation. Consistent with the findings of earlier studies which used preliininary editions of the materials, and with Olton, Wardrop, et al (1969), the authors underscored the advantages of teacher and student participation. In another study, Treffinger and Ripple (1969) undertook a comprehensive report of the effectiveness of the PTP to enhance attitudes and skills of verbal creative thinking and verbal, insightful, and curri-cular-based problem-solving in 380 pupils in sixteen classes from grades four to seven. The self-instructional lessons were administered one per day for sixteen days, with no teacher participation. Although significant increases were produced in student attitudes toward creative thinking and problem-solving, these were not evidenced in self-confidence or belief in self as a problem-solver. Contrary to Covington and Crutchfield (1965), Ripple and Dacey (1967), and Olton and Crutchfield (1969), there was no evidence of transfer from the instructional program to other 21 measures of problem-solving. Findings were consistent with Ripple and Dacey and with Olton, Wardrop, et al (for verbal creative thinking) , and with Olton, Wardrop, et al with regard to lack of transfer from instructional materials to subject-specific situations. The writer agrees with Davis (1973) who proposed that this lack of transfer related to in-appropriate selection of test problems and assessment instruments. The tests administered were not considered to have been used extensively enough to provide reliable external criteria for validation and the data assembled do not comprise conclusive evidence of the appropriateness of the tasks. The writer concurs with the authors who agree with Olton, Wardrop, et al (1969) and Olton and Crutchfield (1969), that the rigors of the training conditions were contributory to the lack of impressive instructional effect, and that under more optimal conditions, increased improvement would likely result. Treffinger, Speedie and Brunner (1974) furnished further evidence that some creative thinking and problem-solving abilities of grade five students can be positively influenced to a statistically significant degree by deliberate instructional efforts. They make specific compari-sons between the efficacy of the PTP and another well-known creativity training program, the Purdue Creative Thinking Program (PCTP), Feldhusen, Treffinger and Bahlke (1970). Previous research has shown the PCTP to be effective in fostering creative thinking, problem-solving and related attitudes among elementary students (Feldhusen, Bahlke and Treffinger, 1970; Feldhusen, et al 1971; Shively, et al 1972). Deriving out of Treffinger and Ripple's (1971) recommendations for further research on the PTP, Treffinger,(1974) contrasted the two programs with regard to the 22 influence of active teacher participation, the level of creativity of the teacher and the distribution of training and criteria of evaluation i.e., massed (four^week) versus distributed (eight^weeks). Using the 1972 version of the PTP, the authors reported the PTP supe-rior to the PCTP with 793 students and. their teachers at the grade five level. Findings indicated'both programs resulted in significant enhance-ment of positive attitudes and abilities of creative thinking (particu-larly verbal) and creative problem-solving. However, no single factor yielded significant results which were uniform across a l l experimental conditions. It was inconclusive that one program was "better" than the other, that one rate of presentation was always preferable, or that either program will always be more effective with high-or-low-rated creative thinkers, or as a function of teacher participation. The PTP appeared less influenced by variations in rate of presentation, teacher participa-tion and teacher creativity. These findings were in keeping with the original intent of the program and verified in related research as pre-viously discussed. The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment There is a wide and conflicting body of research on the significance of two mediating variables: 1) the teacher; and 2) the classroom learning environment, as they affect the success of any training program designed to enhance creative problem-solving in elementary-age students. Relevant literature is here presented on these two factors as they further substan-tiate a research-base for the relatively experimental Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Program. 23 Learning can be expressed as any change in behavior which occurs as a result of interaction with the environment. It is common knowledge that learning, in general, is enhanced where the environment is comfort-able, attractive and rewarding, and that "children learn along the lines they find rewarding" (Torrance, 1970). Rogers (1961) made the point that, the only truly lasting influence on student behavior is "self-discovery and self-approximated learning". Borrow (1959) commented that "school contributes to the formation of positive student attitudes and effective personal interaction, not alone by direct, deliberate teaching about human behavior, but also by establish-ing a stable social microcosm." Lutsk (1972) suggested that the establishing, by the teacher, of an "affective relationship with students in a. healthy learning the basis of a l l other relationships." Taylor (1962) stated that such a learning experience may affect.... feelings of self-worth and confidence: feelings which are critical for effective fulfillment of the creative process." Stein (1974) called this "social relationship" between the teacher and the students the "core of experience that affects....attitudes toward self, creativity and future social relationships involved in the creative process." See also Sears (1963); Fox, Luszki and Schmuck (1966); Crutchfield (1966) and Wasserman (1967). The advantages of securing such a relationship are further dcicumented. Dennison (1969) declared that "the basic drive is to feel comfortable in a variety of experiences." It is through this process that students learn to identify and relate their personal worth to a global environmental setting. Cantor (1950) set out a prototype for the Pre-^ask Phase utilized 24 in this present study when he advocated the establishing of a classroom atmosphere characterized by "personalized socialization" where students "feel comfortable about expressing their differences with teachers.... to be themselves and share personal feelings without fear of ridicule.... acknowledging their inadequacies accepting responsibility for real decisions they have made....and focusing on the here and now." This confidential., "creative relationship" (Moustakas, 1959) forms the basis for "co-experiencing" (Fiedler, 1950). As such, i t induces the teacher to assume the "facilitative mode" (Rogers, 1970) and to deal authentically or genuinely with students (Holt, 1969). Torrance (1970) regarded the role and influence of the teacher and classroom climate as inseparable: together creating a total learning environment or "therapeutic community" (advocated in the Pre-Task Phase). In such a warm and non-threatening atmosphere, the teacher can manipulate students as individuals and as a group by generating a "cooperative learn-ing climate" (Gillham, 1959; Deutsch, 1966) which makes i t safe for pupils to risk and to ask the questions that are vital to increased efficiency in thinking and problem-solving. It is proposed that such a learning climate fosters the necessary internal conditions for creative functioning and, therefore, facilitates the development of psychological well-being: a behavioral manifestation of psychological freedom and safety which imbues students with the courage to become "fully functioning and self-actualizing" (See also Maslow, 1962; Bettleheim, 1969; and Rogers, 1970). Torrance (1962) more clearly outlined the role of the teacher in facilitating the prerequisite conditions necessary for this kind of creative functioning: 1) to be respectful of unusual questions; 2) to 25 be respectful of the unusual ideas of children; 3) to show children that their ideas have value; 4) to provide opportunities for self-initiated learning and to give credit for i t ; and 5) to provide for periods of non-evaluative practice or learning. At the crux of this undertaking is the training and establishing of what May (1959) called the "creative attitude", an openness to experience" and a "sensitivity to the environment", i.e., to self and to others. There is considerable evidence in the literature to suggest that the social climate of the classroom does affect creative performance. Despite the undeniable existence of such an association, there has been historical disagreement on what constitutes an effective learning environment, and the role of the teacher within i t . Conclusions and implications (parti-cularly where theory is tested in the practical arena of the classroom) are ambiguous in stating specifically the influences and interdependencies of teaching style, behavior, and creativity on student creativity, achieve-ment and self-concept. The majority of research tends to emphasize posi-tive correlations. Denny (1966), working with thirty classes at the grade six level, examined the variety of teacher and student behaviors which contributed to student gains in creativity. He found that classroom climate was basic to such creativity,enhancement. Clark and Trowbridge (1971) recorded that teacher training in produc-tive thinking and in the strategies for humanizing the classroom were successful in increasing self-concept, and in developing thinking abilities of pupils. (This approach was used in the present study to prepare teach-ers for the training conditions.) 26 In a notable study in 1965 of achievement, creativity, and self-concept correlates of teacher-student transactions, Spaulding strongly affirmed the importance of the classroom relationship and condition. He cited the one variable significantly related to the development of student creativity and self-concept as "integrative" teacher behavior, i.e., the student-centered, task-oriented, "democratic" classroom concept as opposed to the directive, teacher-centered organization. Enochs (1964) assessed teacher attitude and behavior and student creativity in grade five classrooms where Torrance's "five rules for the creative classroom" (1963) had been employed. He found the "open" class-room organization (such as is advocated in the Pre-Task Phase) promoted original thinking to a significant degree, but flexibility to a lesser extent. He concluded that creative thinking can be fostered through classroom climate, and that such improvement can be noted even when the teacher does not exhibit a positive attitude. On the other hand, a study at the sixth grade level by Sisk (1966) explored the possible causal relationships between the classroom environ-ment and the fostering of student self-knowledge and creativity (based on the theories of Combs, Maslow and Torrance). She noted a positive rela-tionship between high self-concept and increased performance in creative thinking. Along the same lines, Olmsted, Blackington, and Houston (1974) docu-mented the intensity of the student-teacher relationship and.'.identified the "Child Focuser" as the most integrated and most effective teacher style. This finding is supportive of other research that defines the facilitative learning environment as one which lies midway between the 27 teacher Geminated, closed and coercive classroom, and the child-centered, but laissez-faire setting. This position is consistent"with the Chilliwack Model which advocates the establishing of an "open guided"democracy", i.e., a structured and reflective learning environment conducive to creative functioning. An opposing body of data in the literature are also of interest in view of the nature of the present study. Representative of such research is Smith (1955) who produced no support for the implied dependence of emotional climate in the classroom and control level of the teacher. He speculated, however, that a supportive atmosphere with structure seemed to present the greatest potential for creative growth. Taba (1967) con-curred, advocating the necessity of structure in any productive environ-ment, but emphasizing "flexibility" of teaching style (more than any specific behavior pattern) as being integral to creative learning. Wodtke, in a notable study in 1965, considered directive teacher practices and environments which encouraged creative thinking in grade four and five students. Classrooms of the low control (warm/permissive) teachers were distinguished by learning climates which advocated free movement, interaction, choice, decision-making and discussion; while the high control (cold/controlling) teachers established classrooms with the opposite characteristics i.e., highly restrictive and teacher-centered. He found l i t t l e support for the many suppositions on teaching style and classroom climate. Marburg, in a five-month study in 1970, detected no differences be-tween "open" and "coercive" classroom climates and creative performance of 100 students. Contrary to his hypotheses, and an impressive body of 28 research, there was no corroboration that the social classroom climate affected creative performance among students to any significant degree. Rookey (1972) produced similar findings where modification of class-room atmosphere to the "open-democtratic" concept was attempted through modification of teacher attitudes by training in the theory and techniques of creative teaching. Contrary to Enochs (1964) and to the predictions of the author, the treatment had no significant effect upon teacher attitude or student creative attitude and ability scores. Teacher attitude toward the open classroom did relate, however, positively and significantly to student creative attitudes. The present study did not attempt to examine the relationships of teacher style and creativity level and the effects of the training conditions. As participation was voluntary, the following research substantiates the rationale discussed later in the chapter in this respect. Two studies by Yamamoto are considered significant. Research in 1962 with 461 grade five Ss explored the relationship of social adjustment of students to high or low level of teacher creativity. Findings indicated that highly creative teachers did not foster greater student adjustment. Yamamoto (1963) found no support for his hypothesis that more creative teachers can provide a classroom environment more conducive to the student's whole development, whereas the development of student creativity is held back by the less creative teacher. As he failed to identify any differ-ences in classroom behavior of high and low creative teachers, he con-cluded that a high level of creativity in students and teachers does not usually result in better student achievement, favorable student adjustment and emotional climate of the classroom. (See also Shively, 1970). Positive attitudes toward creativity and the problem-solving process apparently can be 29 fostered in groups where there is either a high or low creative teacher. Torrance (1963) re-analyzed the findings of Yamamoto and found dif-ferences between low and high creative teacher behavior, but qualified his findings by stating that " i f there are interactions of teacher creativity and student creativity, they are complex and by no means always advantageous." In a large-scale study in 1964, Beiderman surveyed 72 grade five and six classes. He detected no significant interrelationships between stud-ent achievement, productivity, and teaching style. He did find, however, that task-oriented/student-centred teacher behavior did result in higher student morale (i.e. self-concept). In a 1967 study, Broome produced consistent findings in his consider-ation of high and low creative teachers and students at the grade five level. In a study of 142 Ss, no significant differences in creative thinking, vocabulary development and reading comprehension were found to be related to teacher creativity. Teacher creativity appeared to neither add to nor detract from children's learning. These findings, although inconclusive and admittedly conflicting, are included to reinforce the exploratory nature of the present study, where the effects of the Pre-Task Phase are concerned. It is the intent of the writer to present both sides of the research picture at this time to facilitate later consideration and discussion. Reading and Creative Problem-Solving The PTP materials are very much print-oriented and in that sense a "reading" program. Because of previous findings with regard to the Chilliwack Program (discussed later in this chapter), a discussion follows oh the relevant literature regarding the suggested relationship between reading and creative problem-solving. 30 De Boer (1963)concluded that "reading is inseparable from thinking." Both comprise a l l the higher-level mental processes: perception; concept formation; relationships; conclusions; comparisons; and applications. They share with a l l creative effort, the purpose of attempting to "combine and re-combine the materials of language to achieve a meaningful result." Russell (1956) proposed four overlapping stages in which creative reading (the highest of the four) was described as: a) implied and in-ferred meanings; b) appreciative reaction; and c) critical evaluation. Torrance (1965), Smith (1969) and Barbe (1971) interpreted Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect Model (1956) to stress creative reading as a think-ing process in which students make frequent use of the strategies of both convergent and divergent production. Torrance (1965) added that: when a person reads creatively, he is sensitive to problems and possibilities....aware of the gaps in knowledge, the unsolved problems, the missing ele-ments, things which are incomplete or out of focus. To resolve this tension....the creative reader sees new relationships, creates new combinations, syn-thesizes relatively unrelated elements into a coherent whole, redefines or transforms certain pieces of information to discover new uses, and builds onto what is known. •.Covington (1967) described a connection between "insightful, thought-ful reading and higher-order cognitive processes" in which comprehension is labelled as a high-level cognitive activity. He accepted the identity of two kinds of reading comprehension: passive understanding (the necessary absorption and uncritical categorization of potentially useful information) and creative understanding (which leads to a significant restructuring of point of view). Along with De Boer, he equated creative thinking to thoughtful or reflective reading. This perception is corroborated by 31 Witty (1971) who defined the total reading process as a "thinking process in which new ideas are originated, evaluated and applied." Another congruous approach is based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956). Smith (1966) and Jarolimek (1967) established creative reading as "a search for new products, patterns or structures" compatible with Bloom's fifth category: Synthesis, which delineates a sequence of intellectual operations (thinking, asking questions and solving problems, etc.) based on interpreting, processing, and using information. (See also Blank and Covington, 1965). Using the research on stages of developmental thought of Piaget (1923) and the developmental tasks of Havighurst (1972), Shafer (1973) formulated an additional case for creative reading instruction. Students at the intermediate level demonstrate an openness and a lack of inhibition seen as fundamental to creative functioning. Smith (1971) indicated i t is during this period that children are capable of deriving principles and generalizations. They have sufficient background experiences to incorporate ideas and feelings from the past with ideas and feelings identified in their reading. Research that relates creative reading instruction to creative thinking is sparse. Documentation is almost nonexistent on the conclu-sions and implications of direct training in reading skills through creative thinking and problem-solving, instruction, or vice-versa. Covington (1967) utilized early research on the PTP already discussed to specify a sample of 188 Ss at the grade five level involved in a study that hypothesized "to the extent that the GPSP promotes the skills and dispositions considered central to a l l higher-order thought, i t 32 should foster not only innovative problem-solving but thoughtful, alert readers as well". In spite of a widely heterogeneous range of reading proficiency, the benefits of direct instruction were noted (when reading level was adjusted) . Students reading as much as two years below grade level profited considerably from such training, with the instructed Ss performing better than the middle-range ability average readers in the control group and often on a par with the average of the high ability controls. The instructed Ss were found to be consistently superior to untutored control Ss in that they appeared to be more willing and able to make use of the cognitive skills and strategies common to both creative problem-solving and to reflective reading. The three dimensions identi-fied as crucial to creative understanding were: 1) the ability to draw inferences from facts; 2) sensitivity to factual discrepancies; and 3) a propensity for asking questions. Blank, Fox, and Nelson (1976), reporting on the i n i t i a l year of the Chilliwack Program (utilizing the PTP) with gifted grade four students, found that increased interest in reading was evidenced by experimental Ss. No significant differences in reading achievement accompanied this apparent attitudinal change although results indicate that the program did not have any detrimental effect. The literature, then, is in agreement on two important points rele-vant to this study: 1) direct instruction in creative reading/thinking is necessary; and 2) these skills can be taught to intermediate-age child-ren of a l l ability levels. 33 The Problem The purpose of this present study was to examine further the effec-tiveness of The Productive Thinking (PTP) as a means of enhancing creative problem-solving in grade five students. In addition, this study attempted to examine the efficacy of the Pre-Task Phase of The Chilliwack Creative Problem-Solving Program (to be outlined later in this chapter) to meet some of its objectives. Furthermore, this research attempted to determine i f the Pre-Task Phase, i.e., the establishing of an "open" classroom and a learning climate conducive to problem-solving (as described in Chapter II> "The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment") would result in equal enhancement of the reading achievement, self-concept, problem-solving, and creative thinking performance of students as compared with the application of the more-structured Productive Thinking Program. The six major questions the writer sought to answer were: Would there be any significant differences between stud-ents using the PTP and those using the Pre-Task Phase in any of the following areas: 1. gains in reading achievement 2. gains in self-concept 3. gains in attitudes toward problem-solving 4. gains in question-asking 5. gains in problem-solving skills 6. gains in creativity, i.e., verbal fluency, flexibility and originality; and figural, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration 34 Rationale Research has clearly substantiated the success of The Productive Thinking Program in increasing the creative problem-solving performance of grade five students (See Covington and Crutchfield, 1965; Ripple and Dacey, 1967; Olton, Wardrop et al, 1969; Olton and Crutchfield, 1969; Treffinger and Ripple, 1969; Treffinger, Speedie and Brunner, 1974). This study attempted to replicate the findings of earlier studies in this regard by employing the 1972 version of the PTP materials which incorpo-rated the following four recommendations as cited in the literature. These are: 1) active participation of the teacher in presenting lessons and in guiding student discussion 2) use of a teacher's guidebook which furnishes explicit instructions and procedures for dis-cussion and follow-up exercises 3) the inclusion in each of the fifteen lesson booklets of supplementary class exercises and problem sets intended to reinforce specific cognitive strategies or "thinking guides" and to apply them to a variety of educationally and socially relevant problems; and, 4) an extended training period to permit a one-lesson-per-week application with distributed practice The Chilliwack Creative Problem-Solving Program utilizes The Produc-tive Thinking Program as an integral aspect of the introductory or Pre-Task Phase because of its proven success: 1) in sensitizing students to the use of their minds in effective, intelligent and creative ways directed toward the solution of problems 35 2) in developing a sense of enjoyment in the pro-ductive use of the mind; and, 3) in fostering attitudes and motivations which nourish intellectual growth. Because of its program-like format, both the students and the teacher are led systematically through the entire problem-solving process. The PTP is, therefore, viewed as a valuable supplement to the basic problem-solving model described in the Chilliwack Program (See Figure 4) and an appro-priate complement to the establishing of the "comfortable classroom" con-cept. The Chilliwack Program, based upon the theoretical work of Piaget, Bruner and Gagne, was originally devised to meet the special needs of creatively gifted students in grades four through six. The model was designed to encompass the development and transfer of the skills and attitudes of creative thinking to curricular-based tasks and, at the same time, to encourage students to identify and solve, with originality, their own real-life problems. The model outlines, in task-analytic form, a synthesis of the beha-viors associated with productive thinking (Blank, 1974, 1976) verbal and ideational fluency and flexibility; originality; question-asking; sensi-tivity to problems; the willingness to take risks; tolerance for ambiguity; and, the belief in self as a problem solver. These abilities are c u l t i -vated by the two phases of the program: the Pre-Task and the Curriculum Phase. The Pre-Task Phase (See Appendix B) is a concentrated, affective learning experience. It involves students in a series of orientation tasks which firmly set classroom tone and goals while initiating the .. 3.6. T L E A R N S B A S I C PROBLEM S O L V I N G S K I L L S Ai-D THE A L T E R N A T E SEQUENCES FOR T H E I R U SE increase divergency L E A R N S TO S T R I V E FOR MORE DIVERGENCY I N EACH QT T H E PROBLEM S O L V I N G S K I L L S I N DEPENDENTLY U S E S PROBLEM S O L V I N G S K I L L S D I V E R G E N T L Y TO S O L V E PROBLEMS FIGURE "r CREATIVITY. SEQUENCES; A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR THE CHILLIMSCK, h",,>"'"" CBEKTIVTTV PRQOJtaM v ' " , " u ' non verbally 37 desired conversion in learning climate to the problem-solving environment. These tasks provide the time and the structure for teachers and students to build a positive and cooperative relationship based on collegial decision-making in an open and democratic setting. The over-all objectives during this phase are: 1) Students and teachers make the classroom a comfortable place to learn and work together 2) Students learn to ask questions (as opposed to simply following instructions or answering the teacher's questions) 3) The teacher learns to facilitate student question-asking and decision-snaking. The intended learning outcomes of this phase, exclusive of the s k i l l of question-asking, propose that students become: 1) aware of themselves as individuals and that they like what they think they are 2) concerned with the needs of others 3) concerned about how well they get along with, and interact with, their peers and with the adults around them 4) comfortable in their classroom environment and that they feel mutual respect and trust for those who share that environment. The fifteen-week period of training specified in this study under-took to expand the introductory Pre-Task period (recommended for the fi r s t one to two months of the school year) into a comprehensive and integrated learning experiment. Teachers were urged to select (from a wide variety of suggested sources included in the teacher's manual) those materials and activities that were compatible with their individual teaching styles, and ones they felt would contrive the favourable psychological conditions 38 needed to e l i c i t increased proficiency in the attitudes and related cog-nitive skills of creative problem-solving. Students were, in this way, introduced to, and provided with, the necessary practice to become risk-takers and responsible learners. Students learned to ask questions, to make decisions in "comfort groupings", and to identify and solve problems. It is the belief of the writer that the Pre-Task Phase is of signif-icant but as yet undocumented value to students with a widely diverse range of abilities and learning styles. As the research is ambiguous with regard to the particular relationships between teaching and learning style, creativity, and classroom environment, i t is, therefore, assumed that teacher style and creativity level will not significantly affect the success of either approach under consideration. Because the literature indicates that a "responsive" classroom environment coupled with direct instruction can promote creative functioning and problem-solving in students, i t is anticipated that any experienced teacher, appropriately trained, can be equally successful in applying either of these approaches to a-typical heterogeneous class of grade five students. 39 CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects Working in cooperation with the Central Office of the Vancouver School District, nine elementary schools were initially selected as being representative of the general school population according to statistical data gathered by the District's Evaluation and Research Services. From the original number contacted, two schools volunteered to participate in this project. This study involved one male and three female teachers and a l l the students from four grade five classes, a total of 106 subjects. Subject attrition due to student arrival or departure during the training period, or absence during pre and/or post testing (nine subjects) resulted in a final sample of one hundred three students (50 males and 53 females) for whom a l l experimental measures were available. The final composition of each class by sex can be seen in Table 1. Class heterogeneity was estab-lished through subjective teacher assessment and by consulting school records. None of the participating teachers or students had previously been involved in any program to enhance creative thinking or problem-solving, nor were they familiar with either the PTP or the Pre-Task Phase materials. A further stipulation specified that the classroom teacher spend a mini-mum of f i f t y percent of instructional time with his or her homeroom class. 40 A l l teachers were rated by their principals as demonstrating a high degree of competence in the classroom as well as displaying a positive attitude twoard participation in this project. Design The design involved one control and one treatment condition in four pre-existing classrooms in two schools. For a period of fifteen weeks, two classes, Control 1 and Control 2 (Cl, C2), were exposed to the Pro- -ductive Thinking Program, and two classes, Experimental 1 and Experimental 2 (El, E2), were exposed to the Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Program. Cl and El were both housed in School 1, and C2 and E2 were both housed in School 2. The variables examined in the comparison groups were: Reading Achievement; Self-Concept; Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving; Question-Asking; Problem-Solving Skills; and Creativity. Table I COMPOSITION OF CLASSES School Condition No. of Students Male Female 1 C 25 13 12 2 C 26 13 13 1 E 24 9 15 2 E 28 15 13 N 103 50 53 41 Instruments Reading Achievement As a measure of reading achievement, the Sequential Tests of Educa-tional Progress (STEP) Series II, Reading, Form 4a (pre-treatment) and 4B (post-treatment) was employed. As this i s a "power" rather than a speed test, the forty-five-minute time li m i t i s adequate to allow the majority of students to complete a l l sixty items. The test has two separately-timed parts. Part I contains sentence comprehension items of two basic types: l i t e r a l comprehension and inference. Part II contains six passages of varying lengths with several questions accompanying each selection. Raw scores for Part I and II are translated into a single converted total score. This standardized test of reading achievement has been selected be-cause i t appears to provide a measure of the higher level reading s k i l l s which most closely approximate the creative reading/thinking s k i l l s iden-t i f i e d i n the discussion of the literature i n Chapter II. Reading achieve-ment i s assessed under three item classification categories: Comprehension; Translation and Inference; and, Analysis. "Comprehension" i s defined as the a b i l i t y to understand written material that implies a knowledge of sentence structure and word relationships and involves a recollection of sequences of ideas and facts. "Translation" and "Inference" are defined as the a b i l i t y to identify ideas when they are stated i n language different from the original presentation, to deduce the meaning of figurative or obscure language, to apply ideas to new situations, and to recognize direct and intended inferences. "Analysis" i s defined as the a b i l i t y to recognize and appraise literary devices and logical structure, along with the author's 42 purpose and related influencing factors (attitudes, beliefs, etc.) Self-Concept and Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving Student self-concept regarding self image, general personal competence in school activities and classroom tasks was measured using an inventory revised by Spaulding (1966) from one developed by Sears (1963). The revised instrument was extended to include measures of divergent thinking and attitudes related to creative problem-solving along with mental abilities of a more conventional nature. A copy appears in Appendix A along with the "Classification of Items According to Theoretical Dimen-sions" . This measure utilizes 90 items to be assessed on a modified Likert scale administered untimed on a pre and post test basis. For the purposes of clarity, the inventory items in this study are presented in a different sequence from the Spaulding measure. This minor alteration to the original format is not expected to influence the reliability of the test in any way. This instrument was successful (with grade four and six students) in attaining statistically significant gains in the listed theoretical dimen-sions as a result of the kinds of interaction that took place between students, the teacher condition and the classroom condition. Test-retest reliability for this measure as determined by Spaulding was reported as .85 and .82 for height of. :self-concept and differentiation of self-concept. respectively. 43 Question-Asking Blank and Covington (1965) successfully used the "Riddle" problem as an independent specific measure of question-generation. The pre and post versions (See Appendix A) differ only in the statement posed. Students are presented with a riddle, "It is black. What is it?" Students are then asked to l i s t a l l the questions they would want to ask to try and solve the riddle. No time constraint is imposed, and students are encour-aged to ask as many questions as they wish (fluency). Problem-Solving A. Complex Problems The overall process of problem-solving was assessed by instruments previously recommended by Keislar (1969), and used with success by Crutch-field (1965), Covington (1968), Olton, Wardrop, et al (1969), and Treffinger, et al (1974). These instruments were selected to evaluate skills of both a specific and a general nature. Two conventional tests of problem-solving: the "Old Black House" and the "X-Ray" problems describe complex extended problems with an emphasis on creative problem-solving as taught directly in the PTP and indirectly in the Pre-Task Phase. Performance indicators are the number of questions and ideas generated (fluency). The two tasks are highly diverse in both content and structure. The problems are in-cluded in Appendix A. The "Old Black House" problem occurs in Lesson Two of the Productive Thinking Program. To assure that., no unfair advantage existed for the PTP Ss, this problem was administered as a pre^treatment measure. Students attempt to solve a puzzling mystery in which they must make an insightful 44 reorganization of the elements of the problem. The story concerns a detective who is looking for gold hidden in an old black house out in the country. After thoroughly searching the house, the detective is invited by the owner of a nearby white house to spend the night. The next morning, the detective looks out of the bedroom window to find that the old house has completely disappeared. The reader is informed that the owner of the white house is responsible for the disappearance and that the problem is to discover how i t was done (Covington, 1967). The post-treatment measure sets out a problem type that is totally unrepresented in any of the PTP or Pre-Task materials. Therefore, i t is quite unlike anything encountered in either condition. The "X-Ray" prob-lem is a simplified version of one used by Duncker some thirty-five years ago in his classic research on the processes of productive thinking. The reader is required to invent a method using an x-ray to k i l l a tumor deep inside a body without harming the surrounding healthy tissue. The primary constraint is that i f the x-ray is too strong, i t will k i l l the healthy tissue along with the tumor. If, on the other hand, the x-ray is made too weak, i t will not harm the good tissue, but neither will i t k i l l the tumor. In both problems, students are assessed on the number of relevant questions asked, the number of hypotheses generated, and a total fluency score. B. Real-Life Problems Studies undertaken to assess how students apply the strategies of problem-solving to real-life problems have yielded poor results. Treffinger, Speedie, and Brunner (1974) conclude that one major difficulty of evalu-ating problem-solving with elementary-grade students is motivation. The 45 generation of hypotheses which, lead to appropriate solutions to problems will only be as successful as the ability of the researcher to structure problematic situations that are meaningful enough to trigger that healthy state of anxiety which initiates the whole problem-solving process. The "Real-Life" problems selected for this research present another indepen-dent measure of problem-solving s k i l l . They have been used experimentally with success to measure problem-solving at the intermediate-grade level (Litwintschik,1975). Both problems were devised by students to exemplify what constitutes a real problem to a grade five and six student. The "Boat" problem visually and verbally describes a situation in which a student wants to go boating, but finds that there is a hole in the boat. The "Fort" problem describes a situation in which a student wants to build a fort but finds that there is no wood available. Both problems are administered on a pre and post basis. In each problem, stud-ents are requested to fir s t write down any thing, they would like to know to help them solve the problems, (information-seeking and question-genera-tion) then to write down a l l the ideas they have as to how the problems may be solved (hypothesis-generation). Tests are untimed and students are encouraged to produce as many questions and ideas as they can (fluency). A total problem-solving score is determined along with sub-scores for question-asking and hypothesis-generation. Creativity Four measures of creativity: fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration were obtained by adndnistering the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Verbal and Figural batteries, Form A prior to and Form B 46 following the training conditions. "Fluency" is defined as the total number of relevant responses given. "Flexibility" is.described as a shift in attitude, focus or approach which can be assessed by the number of different response categories as set out in the scoring manual. The "originality" score is based on the sum of credits of the statistical rarity or uniqueness of the response. Routine responses count zero, less common responses score one, and responses too infrequent to be included on the l i s t in the scoring manual (i.e., given by less than two percent of the sample on whom the test was standardized) are given a credit of two. "Elaboration", as detBrrniner of figural creativity, is defined as the exposition of detail to make pictures or drawings t e l l as complete and interesting a story as possible. Elaboration is scored according to the number of ideas communicated in addition to the rruiiimum basic idea. The minimum and primary response is seen as a single response. Credit is given for each pertinent detail (idea) added to the original stimulus figure itself, to its boundaries, and/or to the surrounding space. The Verbal Test consists of seven parallel tasks with a total admin-istration time of forty-five minutes. Four of these were selected for this research based on a precedent set in the literature by Treffinger, et al (1974). Each task is believed to bring into play somewhat different mental processes, yet each requires the subject to think in divergent directions in terms of possibilities. The task include: Activity 1 (Ask-and-Guess), asking questions about a drawing; Activity 4 (Product Improve-ment), producing ideas for improving a toy so that i t will be more fun for children to play with; Activity 5 (Unusual Uses), generating interesting and unusual uses for a common object; and, Activity 7 (Just Suppose), 47 thinking of the varied possible ramifications of an improbable event. The Figural Test includes three activities with an overall adminis-tration time of thirty minutes. The fir s t task, Picture Construction, is designed to stimulate originality and elaboration. The two succeeding tasks, Incomplete Figures and Repeated Figures, e l i c i t increasingly greater variability in fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The sum of the raw scores on these measures are converted into T-scores, using grade five norms provided in the scoring manual. These batteries were designed to provide a measure of creative think-ing defined by Torrance (1972) as "a constellation of general abilities, personality variables and problem-solving traits". Creativity is estab-lished in the literature (See Chapter II ) as a natural human process of problem identification and solution. The comprehensiveness of this de-scription and the successful use of these instruments in previous similar research (See Crutchfield, 1965; Ripple and Dacey, 1967; and Olton, Wardrop et al, 1969) make the Torrance Tests particularly suitable for the purposes of the present study. Teacher Training Teachers participated in an intensive half-day workshop prior to the application of the conditions in the individual classrooms. Two workshop sessions were conducted, one for the Control and one for the Experimental condition, so that teachers would not gain any pre-treatment knowledge of the other condition under consideration. It is the opinion of the writer that, as these were experienced classroom teachers, the orientation sessions provided sufficient training for them to take f u l l responsibility 48 for administering the test instruments as well as for coordinating the training conditions in their own classrooms. To maintain close super-vision of the conditions as they progressed, and to provide any assistance required, teachers were contacted by the writer on a two-to-three times weekly basis throughout the duration of the study. Procedure Both conditions were conducted as part of the classroom language arts program. Approximately one-third of the time allotment for this subject was devoted to the present study. This represented approximately 135 minutes of instructional time per week timetabled into four (40-minute) periods scheduled regularly but at the discretion of the teacher. The Control Condition classes worked through the fifteen lessons of the PTP completing one lesson each week. The Experimental Treatment classes were exposed to an extensive application of Pre-Task activities as out-lined in the teacher's manual of the Chilliwack Creative Problem-Solving Program. The six measures previously discussed were administered on a pre and post test basis the week prior to and following the training conditions. 49 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Statistical Procedures An analysis of variance was conducted to determine i f there were any significant* differences on the pre-test scores between the pre-existing groups on each of the variables of interest. T-tests examined the pre and post-test scores for each variable within each group for significant increments or decrements. The differences in increments or decrements due to treatment, school, and treatment x school, were tested by analysis of covariance in order to partial out the effect of pre-test. Symbols The symbols used in the tables appear in Table II. Pre-Treatment Differences Results of the examination of the pre-treatment differences between condition groups and between schools are recorded in Table III. Between Condition Differences No significant differences were found between condition groups for pre-test means on the variables of: Reading Achievement; Self-Concept; Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving; and for the measure of Real-Life Hypothesis-*Throughout this chapter, the term "significant" denotes "statistically significant". 50 generation. Significant differences in mean scores were recorded for: Question-Asking; Problem-Solving, for the sub-variable of Real-Life Problem-Solving; and for Creativity, on the sub-variable of Verbal Originality. A l l signi-ficant differences were in favour of the Experimental Treatment. Further analysis on the variable of Problem-Solving revealed that the significant difference in the Real-Life Total mean for this measure was causally-related to a significant difference in the measure of Question-Asking only, and was not representative of an overall discrepancy in prob-lem-solving ability between condition groups. Between School Differences No significant differences were found between schools on the measures of: Self-Concept; Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving; Complex Problem-Solving for Hypothesis-Generation and Total Problem-Solving; Real-Life Problem-Solving for the measure of Question-Asking; and Creativity for Verbal Fluency and Flexibility. Significant differences existed in pre-treatment means between schools.. in favour of School 1 for the measures of: Reading; Question-Asking; Com-plex Problem-Solving for Question-Asking and Real-Life Problem-Solving for Hypothesis-Generation and Total score. The only significant differences which existed in favour of School 2 were on the variable of Creativity for the measure of Verbal Originality and for a l l four measures of Figural Creative Thinking. The design of this study was such that each condition operated in one class in each of the two schools. This was done to control for differences of a pre-treatment nature. 51 TABLE II SYMBOLS USED IN TABLES VARIABLE SUB-VARIABLE SYMBOL READING ACHIEVEMENT 1 RA SELF-CONCEPT 2 SC ATTITUDES TOWARD 3 PSA PROBLEM-SOLVING QUESTION-ASKING 4 QA PROBLEM-SOLVING 5 PS COMPLEX PROBLEM-SOLVING 5A CPS QUESTION-ASKING 5A1 OQU HYPOTHESIS-GENERATION 5A2 CHY TOTAL 5A3 CTOT REAL-LIFE PROBLEM-SOLVING 5B RLPS QUESTION-ASKING 5B1 RLQU HYPOTHESIS-GENERATION 5B2 RLHY TOTAL 5B3 RLTOT CREATIVITY 6 CT VERBAL 6A VCT FLUENCY 6A1 VFLU FLEXIBILITY 6A2 VFLEX ORIGINALITY 6A3 VORIG FIGURAL 6B FCT FLUENCY 6B1. FFLU FLEXIBILITY 6B2 FFLEX ORIGINALITY 6B3 FORIG ELABORATION 6B4 FELAB C 0 S C PS CT N D H 0 RA SC PSA QA CPS RLPS VCT FCT I T 0 L CQU CHY CTOT RLQU RLHY RLTOT VFLU VFLEX VORIG FFLU FFLEX FORIG FETAB X C 1 36.44 36.72 134.60 8.32 5.70 1.42 7.12 3.30 4.52 : 7.84 24; 70 13.;32 7.24 46.80 50.00 45.80 51.60 C 2 35.43 34.04 131.36 13.53 6.08 1.75 7.83 9.00 4.85 13.85 29.42 14.49, 11.17 46.51 51.98 . 45.66 56.42 F c .193 2.95 .300 23.22 .318 1.06 1.54 61.69 .281 31.83 2.95 1.16 ; 9.28 .018 .994 .005 3.16 P c .661 .089 .585 .000 .574 .305 .264 .000 .597 .000 .089 .284 .000 .893 .321 .946 .079 X E 1 39.20 34.73 135.90 14.45 7.56 1.73 9.29 7.14 5.39 12.53 29.08 14.00 6.92 42.14 47.04 41.22 47.86 E 2 32.94 35.89 130.24 7.87 4.39 1.46 5.85 5.41 4.06 9.48 24.35 13.85 11.39 50.74 54.63 49.81 59.72 F E 8.04 .533 .917 42.82 28.92 .697 22.31 3.67 4.80 6.63 1.83 .018 12.32 19.14 16.81 21.70 22.73 P E .000 .467 .341 .000 .000 .406 .000 .058 .031 .011 .180 .893 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 TABLE III PRE-TREATMENT MEANS (X), F RATIOS (F), AND PROBABILITY LEVELS (p) , FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONDITIONS AND BETWEEN SCHOOLS 53 Pre and Post-Test Differences T-tests were conducted on each of the variables and each of the sub-variables under consideration. The gains or losses in achievement were analyzed for each of the four classrooms. The results are recorded in Table IV (A) and Table TV (B). The changes in class mean scores were largely incremental and tended to be highly significant. For Reading Achievement, significant increments in class means (p ^..05) were noted for the Experimental Treatment in School 1. The range of scores for this group was also reduced, and this reduction was signi-ficant. For Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving, both Experimental classes pro-duced an increment in class means significant at the p 4..05 level. For Question-Asking, the gains in mean scores for both Control Con-dition classes and the Experimental Treatment in School 1, reached-a significance level of .p<^  01. The Control Condition in School 1 also recorded a significant reduction in the range of scores, with the Experi-mental Treatment in School 1 approaching significance. For Problem-Solving, both the Experimental Treatment and the Control Condition recorded significant (p^.01) increments in Total Problem-Solving mean scores for each of the four classes (with the exception of the Expe-rimental Group in School 2). For the sub-variable of Complex Problem-Solving, the measure of Question-Asking also produced a significant (p^.01) increase in the means of each of the four classes. Pre and post mean differences in the sub-variable of Hypothesis-Generation reached a level of significance (p 4..01) for the Control Condition in School 2 and approached significance for the Experimental Treatment in School 2 at the p^..01 level. X c 0 N D I T S C H 0 0 L RA SC PSA QA PS CT CPS RIPS VCT FCT OQU CHY CTOT RLQU RLHY KLTOT VFLU VFLEX VORIG FEIiU FELEX FORIG FELAB C 1 .074 .559 .301 .000 .000 .207 .000 .004 .018 .000 .000 .000 .000 .081 .010 .000 .000 V .275 .522 .612 .000 .000 .207 .032 .081 .889 .770 .011 .005 .000 .370 .034 .273 .506 X c 2 .524 .613 .622 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .018 .002 .000 .008 .054 .347 .000 V .975 .341 .149 .330 .000 .574 .000 .322 .003 .007 .177 .112 .000 .259 .056 .464 .710 X E 1 .048 .367 .042 .000 .000 .017 .000 .013 .001 .000 .010 .000 .000 .185 .195 .000 .148 V .007 .400 .469 .011 .033 .574 .065 .609 .122 .010 .487 .010 .000 .350 .554 .020 .576 X E 2 .174 .123 .022 .248 .000 .447 .000 .644 .003 .142 .000 .000 .000 .005 .017 .000 .939 V .218 .548 .513 .200 .119 .018 .001 .004 .273 .033 .010 .003 .000 .334 .310 .882 .293 TABLE IV (A) PROBABILITY LEVELS FOR PRE AND POST TEST MEANS (X) AND VARIANCES (V) C 0 S C PS CT N D H 0 PA SC PSA QA CPS RLPS vcr FCT I T 0 L OQU CHY CTOT RLQU RLHY RLTOT VFLU VFLEX VORIG FFLU FFLEX FORIG FELAB X C 1 37.96 35.72 135.04 10.96 0.20 0.80 1.00 2.60 4.28 6.92 22.36 11.56 5.92 40.80 45.40 39.60 41.80 36.36 36.68 141.64 20.96 3.84 0.56 4.40 5.76 5.60 11.52 39.64 24.36 21.40 45.00 51.20 52.60 49.80 SD 10.00 9.33 33.49 4.56 0.58 0.91 1.32 2.68 2.81 4.70 11.04 4.74 3.50 9.54 8.89 7.21 9.56 10.95 8.37 30.58 11.83 1.84 0.71 2.08 3.88 2.74 4.98 15.82 7.62 8.5S 7.91 5.64 8.91 10.75 X C 2 34.92 37.72 134.16 5.68 0.88 0.96 1.84 4.00 4.76 8.76 27.04 15.08 8.56 52.80 54.60 52.00 61.40 ! 35.64 38.60 137.00 8.88 6.49 0.96 7.44 8.24 8.68 16.92 33.28 20.20 21.52 44.00 49.20 49.60 46.80 SD 9.67 9.36 35.47 3.38 1.05 0.89. 1.25 2.99 2.37 4.39 10.84 5.73 5.08 11.73 9.93 12.42 11.23 9.63 7.87 27.85 4.14 2.85 0.79 3.43 3.57 4.26 7.25 13.85 7.77 11.49 9.24 6.72 10.79 10.50 X E 1 40.50 33.71 136.79 18.08 0.88 0.75 1.63 10.42 6.04 16.46 36.08 16.54 7.96 43.54 48.75 42.92 54.17 43.63 35.00 145.58 24.33 6.92 1.13 8.04 14.23 10.54 24.83 45.08 24.21 35.08 45.83 50.63 57.71 49.79 SD 12.73 6.62 29.59 5.41 1.15 0.61 1.50 5.28 4.36 6.66 17.78 5.43 6.06 7.73 7.41 6.90 13.16 ' 8.96 7.71 32.54 8.80 1.84 0.68 2.24 5.89 5.98 11.06 19.91 8.67 18.23 9.17 6.65 11.23 11.75 X E 2 31.24 34.31 126.86 9.76 1.00 0.86 1.86 7.83 3.86 11.69 23.90 12.79 13.83 48.97 54.66 47.93 58.28 33.45 36.28 135.93 10.90 3.69 1.14 4.83 7.52 5.86 13.38 50.10 24.79 33.86 40.52 48.45 61.03 58.10 SD 11.98 6.19 21.17 3.45 1.95 0.99 2.18 2.85 2.50 4.61 12.42 5.10 8.51 10.12 10.69 9.31 13.18 10.12 6.86 23.45 4.42 2.52 1.58 3.76 4.53 3.07 6.68 18.95 7.98 19.50 12.20 8.77 9.58 11.05 TABLE IV (B) PRE AND POST TEST MEANS (X) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR T-TESTS 56 It is interesting to note that a significant increase in variance accompanied these results. The range of scores in Total Complex Problem-Solving for both Conditions increased significantly. For Complex Question-Asking, the range of scores increased for each of the two classes in the Control Condition to a significance level. For Hypothesis-Generation, only the Experimental Treatment in School 2 showed a significant increase in the range of scores recorded. Where the sub-variable of Real-Life Problem-Solving skills were assessed, post-test scores also showed increments in a l l factors measured for a l l four classes (with the exception of the Experimental Treatment in School 2 Question-Asking and Total). For Total Real-Life Problem Solving, the difference in pre and post means for both the Control Condition groups and the Experimental Treatment in School 1 reached a significance level of p^.01. For the sub-variable of Question-Asking, increments in class mean scores at a p<.01 level of significance were recorded for the Control Condition, and the Experimental Treatment in School 1 at a p^.05 level of significance. For Hypothesis-Generation, class mean scores for the Control Condition reached a significance level of p<C.01 in School 1 and pZ.,05 in School 2. Class means for the Experimental Treatment showed a significant (p<.01) increment. A significant (p<£ .01) increase in the range of scores for Total Iteal-Life Problem-Solving was recorded for the Control Condition School 2 and for the Experimental Treatment. For the measure of Question-Asking, only the Experimental Treatment in School 2 showed a significant increase in the range of scores while for Hypothesis-Generation, only the Control Condition in School 2 displayed a significant increment in range of scores recorded. For Creativity, Verbal Creative Thinking increments of a p£_.01 level 57 of significance were reported in the class mean scores for a l l measures (Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality) for three of the four classes (both Experimental Groups, and the Control Group in School 1) . The exception was the Control Condition in School 2, where an increment in class mean reaching a p^.05 significance level was recorded in Verbal Fluency. A l l four classes recorded a significant increase in the range of scores for Verbal Originality. For Fluency, the range of scores in-creased significantly for both the Control Condition in School 1 and the Experimental Treatment in School 2. The range of scores also increased significantly for the Control Group in School 1 in Verbal Flexibility, as well as for the Experimental Treatment. For the sub-variable of Figural Creative Thinking, significant (p^C.Ol) increments between pre and post-test class means were recorded in Origin-ality for the Experimental Treatment and for the Control Condition in School 1. The latter group also produced a significant (p^.01) increment in class mean for Flexibility and Elaboration, and an increment approach-ing a p ^ .05 level of significance in Fluency. A significant (p^.01) decrement in class mean score was noted in Figural Fluency for the Control Condition and the Experimental Treatment in School 2, as well as in Elaboration for the Control Condition in School 2. A decrement in Flexibility for the Control Condition class mean score in School 2 approached the p^.05 level. A similar condition existed for the Experimental Treatment in School 2 at the p^.05 significance level. It is interesting to note that the significant decrements in Figural Fluency and Flexibility occurred in both classes in School 2. A significant (p ^ .05) decrease in the range of pre and post-test 58 scores was produced in Figural Flexibility for the Control Condition in School 1, with School 2 approaching a significance level. Figural Origi-nality for the Experimental Treatment in School 1 showed an increase in the range of scores which approached a level of significance. Examination of Research Questions The six questions the writer sought to answer were: Would there be any significant differences between students using the PTP and those using the Pre-Task Phase in any of the following areas? 1. gains in reading achievement 2. gains in self-concept 3. gains in attitudes toward problem-solving 4. gains in question-asking 5. gains in problem-solving skills 6. gains in creativity, i.e., verbal fluency, flexibility and originality; and, figural fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration Results of the examination of these questions are recorded in Table V. A summary of the answers to each question follow: For Question 1, the Pre-Task Phase was superior to the PTP in in-creasing the reading achievement of students (p £.05). As this is an unexpected and impressive finding, its implications are discussed in detail in Chapter V. For Question 2, the measure of self-concept demonstrated an increase over both training conditions, although the increments were not statisti-cally significant given the size of the population in this study. 59 TABLE V SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF OOVARIANCE FOR SIX VARIABLES X SCHOOL CONDITION VARIABLE 1 2 C E F P 1 39.92 34.46 .731 .395 36.00 38.06 • 6.291 .014 GR-TR 36.36 43.62 35.64 33.45 4.449 .038 2 35.86 37.35 .513 .475 37.64 35.70 .215 .643 GR-TR 36.68 35.00 38.60 36.28 .001 .977 3 143.6 136.4 .784 .378 139.3 140.3 .492 .485 GR-TR 141.6 145.6 137.0 135.9 .002 .965 4 22.61 9.96 21.642 .00001 14.92 16.98 .070 .792 GR-TR 20.96 24.33 8.88 10.90 .015 .904 5A 7.74 4.63 27.461 .000 5.92 6.28 .275 .601 GR-TR 7.4-": 8.04 4.40 4.83 .659 .419 5B 20.80 12.52 18.276 .00004 14.22 18.87 .111 .740 GR-TR 16.92 24.83 11.52 13.38 2.126 .148 6A1 42.31 42.31 .793 .375 36.46 47.83 .143 .015 GR-TR 39.64 45.08 33.28 50.10 .023 .00002 6A2 24.29 22.67 1.723 .192 22.28 24.53 .605 .439 GR-TR 24.36 24.21 20.20 24.79 17.224 .00007 6A3 28.10 28.15 7.277 .008 21.46 34.41 8.886 .004 GR-TR 21.40 35.08 21.52 33.86 1.598 .209 6B1 45.41 42.13 4.337 .040 44.50 42.92 .412 . .522 GR-TR 45.00 45.83 44.00 40.52 .729 .395 6B2 50.92 48.80 2.705 .103 50.20 49.43 .286 .594 GR-TR 51.20 50.62 49.20 48.45 .000 .999 6B3 55.10 55.74 1.621 .206 51.10 59.53 19.125 .00003 GR-TR 52.60 57.71 49.60 61.03 5.004 .028 6B4 49.80 52.87 1.340 .250 48.30 54.34 3.418 .068 GR-TR 49.80 49.79 46.80 58.10 19.727 .00002 60 Personality characteristics, such as self-concept, tend to resist measur-able change: (Sisk, 1966, Purkey, 1971) and when some change is indica-ted, the intervention has usually been of an intensive and/or long-term nature (Spaulding, 1962, 1965). For the.purposes of this study, i t appears that the Pre-Task Phase did not produce effects different from the PTP. It would be interesting to contrast the two training conditions for changes in self-concept measures given a larger number of subjects, and possibly a longer, more intensive interaction. For Question 3, both classes of Pre-Task students demonstrated significantly increased positive attitudes toward problem-solving. The PTP produced a less impressive effect, but there was no significant dif-ference between the two conditions. The findings do, however, support those of Taylor (1963), Flanders (1964), and Crutchfield (1965) with regard to the apparent interaction between the establishing of the "com-fortable classroom" and increased student self-confidence. Pre-Task students appeared to be more secure and comfortable in taking on the new role of problem-solver. This apparent increase in self-confidence did not, however, seem to transfer to the measure of self-concept. Perhaps the motivational dispositions related to problem-solving can exist with average or even low self-concept, or perhaps the instrument used did not adequately distinguish between those attitudes specifically related to self-concept, and those related to problem-solving behavior. The latter explanation seems the more satisfactory in view of the comment of Sears (1963), the originator of the inventory used in the present study. She suggested that "an important part of the child's self-image is the degree to which s/he expects to succeed in solving problems." (See also Briggs, 61 1970) It is puzzling that the marked increase in self-confidence was not manifest in improved performance except for reading. Perhaps (as Quandt, 1972, suggests) reading achievement is the one variable out of a l l those examined, where student performance is most affected by the level of self-confidence exhibited by the reader. For Question 4, no significant difference existed between the in-creased question-asking ability of students participating in the Pre-Task Phase or the PTP. The implications of the increments (in particular as they pertain to the Pre-Task Phase) will be discussed in Chapter V. For Question 5, no significant difference in increased problem-solving skills was found between either condition. For Question 6, no significance difference in creativity was found between the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase conditions in verbal flexibility, and figural fluency, flexibility, and elaboration (although the latter approached a p^.05 level of significance in favour of the Pre-Task Phase) . A between-condition difference was recorded on verbal fluency and origi-nality, and figural originality. The Pre-Task Phase was superior to the PTP in increasing the verbal fluency and originality of students to a significance level of p^.05 with figural originality increasing to a pZ..01 significance level. As this is a replication of an earlier finding, implications will be discussed in Chapter V. The lack of significant differences between Experimental and Control Ss for a l l the creativity subtests, along with the noted decrements for figural creative thinking is not surprising. The Torrance Tests appear to be subject to teacher and/or school influence (as evidenced by between school pre-treatment differences). These tests tend to vary according 62 to a number of uncontrollable factors and, therefore, the results cannot be taken to be causally^related to only the effect of the training con-ditions. Wallach and Kogan (1965), Van Mondfrans,. et al (1970), and Treffinger, et al (1971) remark that research on the Torrance Tests seems to indicate that "variations in work time, test atmosphere, and directions given to the examinees" can a l l yield different kinds of results and different patterns of correlations between creativity scores and other cognitive or achievement variables. 63 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The present research was an exploratory study to compare the effects of two approaches designed to enhance the attitudes and skills of creative problem-solving in a group of grade five students. This research undertook to explore three areas of interest: 1) to investigate further the effectiveness of the Productive Thinking Program 2) to examine the ability of the Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Creativity Program to meet seme of its stated objectives 3) To compare the success of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase in enhancing creative problem-solving in six areas of student behavior. The following discussion will deal with the results of this study as they pertain to the grade five students in each of these areas. The Productive Thinking Program Even though the findings of the present study indicate that the PTP was not superior to the application of the Pre-Task Phase for any of the six variables measured, the very interesting increments demonstrated by the Control group suggest that this study provides results typical of those obtained when the PTP is appropriately taught. (See Covington and Crutchfield, 1965, Olton, Wardrop, et al, 1969, Treffinger, et al, 1974). To underscore the contention that the Control classes did indeed serve as "controls", or representatives of a successful exercise in productive thinking, i.e., sensitizing students to mental capacities already possessed and strengthening and sharpening their effective use (Crutchfield, 1969); 64 i t should be noted, that the increments demonstrated by the Control Ss reached statistical significance for nearly every variable. Comprehensive research citing the success of the PTP as a method of enhancing creative problem-solving has already been documented in Chapter II. It was of interest, therefore, to the writer to determine the degree to which the present research replicated earlier findings. This question is considered in the discussion which follows. Question-asking, one of the major themes identified in the Program, evidenced a highly significant increment in both Productive Thinking Pro--gram classes. Increased fluency in question-generation, as measured by the Riddle Problem, was further reinforced by impressive and highly signi-ficant gains on an additional independent criterion measure which recorded question-asking tendency in both complex and real-life problem-solving. This finding is also consistent with the research done with grade five students by Covington and Crutchfield (1965) , Covington (1968), Olton, Wardrop, et al (1969), and Treffinger, et a l (1974). In making specific references to the similar findings on the "Old Black House" and the "X-Ray" problems (both of which were used in the present study) these authors found that "the magnitude of the differences in increased question-asking gains attributed to training were absolutely large and beyond mere statis-tical significance." A second area of problem-solving where the PTP was successful in ob-taining large increments was hypothesis-generation. Several previous studies have reported the success of the PTP in increasing fluency in hypothesis or idea production. (Covington, Crutchfield, 1965, Olton and Crutchfield, 1969, etc.) The present study replicated Crutchfield 1s findings on the same problems used in the 1965 study, i.e. the PTP appeared 65 to facilitate "readiness to generate numerous ideas and to increase the volume of idea output." A highly controversial issue in PTP research has been "transfer of training" or the development of what Crutchfield (1965) called a "Master Thinking Skill", i.e., the effective coordination, integration, and u t i -lization of problem-solving skills. Several researchers (Ripple and Dacey, 1967, Treffinger and Ripple, 1969, 1971) have recorded l i t t l e success in verifying positive transfer of the generalizable problem-solving skills taught in the PTP as reported by the authors of the Program. An important finding of the present study replicates the transfer of skills results of earlier research (utilizing the same problems) conducted by the PTP authors (1965). Another aspect of the findings of the present research is of interest here because i t provides further evidence that contradicts Treffinger, et al (1974) who found students participating in the PTP unable to transfer problem-solving skills when assessed by two measures of real-life problem-solving. Post-test results in the present study for PTP Ss were highly significant for a l l measures of fluency in real-life problem-solving. The writer's findings differ from Treffinger, et al, and Tuckman, et al (1968) who found that "effects of the PTP tend to become less effective as prob-lem situations become more general or dissimilar from those in the training program." Rather, the findings of the present research coincide with those of Olton (1969) in which instructional benefits of the PTP were evident "throughout a broad range of thinking tasks, including ones which were very different from the problems used in the training lessons." Implica-tions of the present research indicate that effects of the PTP exhibited what Crutchfield (1965) called the "ultimate criterion objective" of 66 problem-solving training: success in obtaining solutions to "genuine" problems which transcend particular kinds of problems or subject matter. A third area of success occurred in the development of creativity among students who participated in the PTP. As discussed in Chapter III, the present study utilized an incomplete, but research^-valid, (Treffinger, et al, 1974) version of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Verbal) Battery. The PTP was highly successful in increasing verbal creative thinking of students in both classes in terms of fluency, and in one class in flexibility and originality. The class in which the gains were not made was housed in the school where creative thinking scores were signi-ficantly higher before treatment. The findings of the present study with regard to verbal creativity are consistent with those of Covington and Crutchfield (1965), Covington (1968), and Treffinger, et al (1974) but contradictory to the bulk of the research where the PTP displayed a marked lack of success in increasing verbal creative functioning. Treffinger and Ripple (1969) concluded that there appears to be"no support for the effectiveness of the instruction (PTP) materials with respect to the dev-elopment of students' verbal creative thinking abilities." It is noted by the writer that the lack of significant differences produced on the Torrance Tests often came from incomplete as well as earlier versions of this measure (Ripple and Dacey, 1967, Olton and Wardrop, et al, 1969). The writer suggests that incomplete or inappropriate selec-tion and/or combination of creative thinking activities might have affected the validity of the results. It is noted as well that, unlike the previous research where lack of success was noted, the present research utilized the revised (1972) PTP materials. The writer proposes that this might have accounted for the 67 noticeable gains in creative flunking as(predicted by Covington, 1968, Olton, 1969, and Treffinger and Ripple, 1969, 1971) as there is consider-ably increased emphasis in the (1972) Program on oral discussion and teacher-student interaction. As well, the augmented format exposes stud-ents much more intensively to a wide range of creative thinking (curricular and real-life) problematic situations on which to transfer and practice newly-acquired skills. The extended time limit of the present study may also have been a contributing factor. This assumption is discussed later in the chapter. For figural creative thinking, the PTP appeared to have l i t t l e effect, with the exception of the sub-test of originality. In fact, decrements over the training period were noted in three of the four sub-tests. Only one previous reference was located (Crutchfield, 1965) where figural cre-ativity was significantly increased by use of the PTP. Tests used in the 1965 study closely approximated the Torrance Figural Battery employed in the present study. Apparently increased figural creative thinking is more directly linked to specific instruction and practice in these skills and there is l i t t l e transfer from verbal to figural proficiency. The success of the PTP in the present study, particularly where the implications for verbal creativity are concerned, appears to provide further evidence of Treffinger and Ripple's (1971) conclusion that three general variables in the literature can be identified which positively influence the Program's effectiveness: 1) administrative conditions (time, i.e., distributed over massed practice; and use of supplementary . exercises; 2) teacher involvement; and 3) appropriate evaluation criteria. These findings are important as they document the similar prognosis of Covington (1968), Olton (1969) and Treffinger, Speedie and Brunner (1974). The present study represents (to the writer's knowledge) the only 68 recorded research done on the PTP that has exceeded an eight-week instruc-tional period. The present study was conducted for almost twice the length of time of the Olton and Crutchfield (1969), Treffinger, et al (1974) re-search, which, in themselves, extended the instructional period well beyond any other previous studies. The Pre-Task Phase A second area of interest in the present study concerned the success of the Pre-Task Phase in meeting some of its stated objectives. The pre-sent study is a departure from previous research on the Chilliwack Cre-ativity Program (Blank, 1974, Blank, Fox, and Nelson,'1976) in two ways: 1) i t attempts to separate out effects of the Pre-Task Phase from the effects of the total program; and 2) i t attempts to examine the effects of the Pre-Task Phase on students of a l l ability levels housed in regular classroom settings. It should be noted that i t was not the intent of this study to deli-berately restrict or structure the evaluation of the Pre-Task Phase in any way. Rather, this research was exploratory, limited only by the design of the study and by the nature of the criterion instruments and variables under examination. The implications and relationships of the effects of the Pre-Task Phase objectives and intended learning outcomes (identified in Chapter II and expanded upon in Appendix A) are outlined briefly as they pertain to the overall success of the Pre-Task Phase and as they relate to "previous research. Those aspects of the Pre-Task Phase which proved not only successful, but significantly superior to the PTP, are discussed in the third and final area examined in this chapter. The rationale for the Pre-Task Phase has been carefully set out in 69 the review of the literature under the heading of "The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment". The success of the Pre-Task treatment (particularly where i t has shown itself to be superior to the PTP) clearly demonstrates that these training materials and teaching strategies are meeting their objectives, and that they provide a practical method for the classroom teacher in training students to be creative thinkers and problem-solvers. The Pre-Task Phase appears to be pedagogically sound, satisfying both the criteria advocated by Parnes (1967) as to the kinds of internal and external educational effort required to facilitate cre-ative functioning and development. In addition to the impressive findings relating to specific Pre-Task objectives (as recorded in Chapter IV), the following discussion expands upon the ways in which the Pre-Task Phase corroborates the literature with regard to the teacher and the classroom environment variables. As pre-dicted by Yamamoto, 1963, Beiderman, 1964, Broome, 1967, Shively, 1970, etc., the teacher variable does not seem to affect the successful applica-tion of the Pre-Task Phase Approach. It may be that any experienced teacher with appropriate training can utilize the Pre-Task Phase in the classroom and expect positive results among his or her students. What is also evident in the present study is the importance of positive teacher attitude (advocated by Rookey, 1972) as a significant factor in the suc-cessful use of the Pre-Task Approach. In the present study, positive teacher attitude prior to and throughout the duration of the training period was substantiated by observation of the writer and by informal discussion with principals and participating teachers. Another important outcome of the success of the Pre-Task treatment emphasizes the need for such a structured step-by-step program in addition 70 to specific training in the theory and techniques of creative problem-solving. This is demonstrated by the success of the present study over that of Marburg (1970) who focused on theory only and attempted to modify classroom environment through modification of teacher attitudes without prescribing accompanying teaching strategies and materials. The findings of present study support the positive relationship be-tween classroom climate and creative functioning with regard to the value of establishing an "affective teacher relationship" (Lutsk, 1972), as well as for the classroom environmental conditions proposed by Cantor (1950). It appears possible for teachers to assume the "facilitative mode" (Rogers, 1970), and to establish the "comfortable classroom" which is the pivotal concept of the Pre-Task Phase. The "comfort" principle expanded upon by Dennison (1969) re-affirms the validity of the three associated processes identified by Rogers (1951) as being essential to psychological safety and well-being and evidence of a successful "therapeutic community" such as is advocated in the Pre-Task Phase: 1) acceptance of the worth of the individual; 2) lack of external evaluation; and 3) empathetic understanding. Further, the present research also verifies the findings of Spaulding (1965) with regard to the relationship between facilitative teacher behavior and the establishing of a "structured, reflective environment" (Olmsted, et al, 1974), i.e., a "student-centered, task-oriented, democratic class-room". It is noted that the present study is highly contradictory to the literature (exemplified by Wodtke, 1965, and Marburg, 1970) where the establishing of a "democratic" classroom had l i t t l e effect on students' attitudes and creative behavior This study substantiates the majority of the research indicating the 71 positive effects of classroom environment on the attitudes and skills related to success in creative problem-solving. Such results are inter-esting in view of the possible implications such findings may have for teachers and students who represent a wide range of teaching/learning styles and creativity levels. The present study indicates that instruction in the Pre-Task Phase can increase significantly the development of the techniques of student question-asking in both traditional (complex) and real-life problem situations. This is an important finding, as the ability to ask questions has been substantiated as a precursor to problem-solving and a crucial component of creative functioning (Blank and Covington, 1965). Suchman (1961) identified the s k i l l of question-asking as one which is noticeably absent from the general behavior of students and one which must be developed by direct instruction. It is interesting that the Pre-Task phase students, along with increased question-asking, demonstrated a significant increase in attitudes toward problem-solving. This finding appears to corroborate Suchman who suggested that question-asking will encourage children toward greater self-confidence or self-reliance and belief in self as a problem solver. Although the present research did not attempt to analyze the questions students asked according to the three "types" presented in the teacher's manual (See Appendix B), i t appears, from the results, that a l l three types (clarification, information-seeking and hypothesis-generation) had been more than adequately taught through the Pre-Task Phase Approach. The present study provides evidence of the potential of the Pre-Task Phase to overcome the common deficiency in student question-asking which 72 Blank and Covington (19651 suggest is causally-related to a lack of "strong-enough set or readiness" (classroom climatel and a lack of "ade-quate skills" (specific instruction). Comparison of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase In the present study, the Pre-Task Phase, which advocates the estab-lishing of an "open" classroom and a learning climate conducive to problem-solving, has been shown to result in greater enhancement of the creative thinking attitudes and skills of grade five students than the application of the Productive Thinking Program. There are two instances where the Pre-Task Phase is significantly superior to the PTP in increasing the achievement level of students who participated. These major findings are discussed in detail in the following sections. Reading In this study, the Chilliwack Creative Program Pre-Task Phase had an enhancing effect upon the reading achievement of students in contrast to the Productive Thinking Program which produced no effect. While the two Pre-Task classes were different in reading achievement both before and after the treatment, both classes increased in mean score to a greater extent than would have been expected during the fifteen-week treatment period had there been no special circumstances. On the other hand, PTP students displayed no measurable gain in reading achievement level over the same training period. This statement is made on the basis of estimating (from standardized norms) the achievement gain that might be expected one-tlrird of the way through the school year, and comparing this with the actual pre and post-test findings. 73 The Pre-Task students in School 1 were superior readers (to the other Experimental class in School 2) before the Pre-Task Treatment was begun. It is this former group that demonstrated the significant increase in reading score. After treatment, the Pre-Task students in School 2 (who began with the lowest mean score) had closed some of the gap between that class and the next lowest group (which was one of the Control classes). This is an interesting finding as the Pre-Task Phase was not designed for low achievers. In Blank, et al (1976), i t was noted that exposure to the Chilliwack Program appeared to increase student interest in reading. It was assumed by the authors that the PTP had a beneficial effect upon reading achieve-ment because of the high interest content. Covington (1967) had previously made indirect reference to the enhancing effects of the PTP for the teach-ing of reading. In the present study, i t appears that the Pre-Task stra-tegies may produce an impressive enhancement of reading achievement, even in the instance of students who are not high achievers, and in the present example, even in relation to the lowest achievers among the four training groups. The evidence from this research further suggests that, i f Pre-Task Phase training has such a beneficial effect, i t might be considered for incorporation into the total classroom reading program for students of a l l ability levels. The disappointing effects of the PTP upon reading achievement are difficult to understand. It may be that the Productive Thinking Program enhances reading achievement when taught in addition to the total reading program, but i t is not an adequate substitute for such a large part of the classroom program as was provided in this study. The present research 74 indicates that, i f the PTP is used as a reading program, i t should be combined with, the intensive affective tasks described in the Pre-Task Phase. Creativity Significant between-*treatment differences on the sub-tests of verbal fluency, and verbal and figural originality were produced in the present study in favour of the Pre-Task Treatment. Despite the difficulties dis-cussed in Chapter IV,regarding the Torrance Tests administration, this is a particularly important finding as Blank, et al (1976) reported similar results with gifted grade four students who had participated in the total Chilliwack Creativity Program (including both the Pre-Task Phase and the PTP). It is noted that the present study displayed even more impressive gains in creativity enhancement with non-gifted grade five students for a shorter training period. The most interesting comparison in creative thinking occurs in the sub-test of figural creativity. In both Blank, et al, and the present study, there was a decrement produced in figural fluency and flexibility, accompanied by a significant increment in figural originality. (The pre-sent study recorded an even more significant increment in this sub-test.) Figural fluency and flexibility appear to decrease as originality increases. As the present research and Torrance (1962) suggest, verbal fluency appears to facilitate verbal originality. However, the same relationship is not evidenced in figural creative thinking. It is noteworthy that the Chilliwack Creativity Program apparently facilitates the increase of ori -ginality. The writer proposes that the increase in both verbal and figural originality might well be due to the application of the Pre-Task Phase. 75 Conclusions The implications of the findings of this study suggest that the positive effects of the PTP may be replicated and to some extent improved upon by classroom teachers who have undergone only brief training i n productive thinking and creative problem^solving strategies. The writer notes that the two teachers who administered the PTP materials were highly enthusiastic about the changes (many only subjectively-based) that they had observed i n their students. Both were planning to secure the PTP materials for use in their classroom programs during the following school year. The two teachers who administered the Pre-Task Phase were also very positive to using the same approach again. However, they expressed a strong desire to u t i l i z e the PTP materials as well. It i s proposed that, despite the lack of impressive results i n the present study, the PTP (at least for teachers new to this f i e l d of endeavour) may act as much as a training program for the teacher as i t i s for the students. Further i n -vestigation with a larger teacher population would be an interesting avenue to pursue for future research. It was certainly worthwhile, for the purposes of this study, to sep-arate out the application of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase. The drawback to exclusive dependence upon Pre-Task strategies,in"Jspite of their obvious value for classroom instruction, i s that the absence of a step-by-step printed program for students requires a considerable time ccmmitment and much extra energy on the part of the teacher. To obtain optimal effect in the training of creative problem-solving i n students at the grade five level, i t can be concluded that an ideal arrangement seems to be to combine the Pre-Task, PTP and other problem-solving incentives, as has been done 76 in the Chilliwack Creativity Program, Limitations Although the present research was successful in its intent, some suggestions are proposed to overcome several limitations which may have had a possible effect upon the results obtained. If a study of this com-plexity were undertaken again, the writer recommends that the researcher seek permission to participate more actively in the selection of the participating students and teachers, and that allowance be made for the gathering of pre-treatment data regarding areas of teacher effect which are controversial in the literature. In addition, i t is recommended that a l l pre and post testing be done externally by the researcher, to maintain as careful control over this aspect of the study as is possible. Recommendations As this was an exploratory study, some interesting extensions of the present research for future consideration might be: 1) more intensive in-depth assessment of the Pre-Task Phase, particularly in the areas of classroom environ-ment and interpersonal relations 2) further examination of the effects of the total Chilliwack Creativity Program with and without the application of the Pre-Task Phase 3) continued investigation of the effects of the Pre-Task Phase on reading achievement. 77 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, H.H. (ed.) Creativity and its Cultivation. New York: Harper Bros., 1959. Aschner, Mary Jane and Bish, Charles E. (eds.). Productive Thinking in Education. New York: The National Education Association, 1965. Ausubel, David P. "Fostering Creativity in the School". Paper presented at "How Children Learn". Centennial Symposium. Toronto: Phi Delta Kappa and OISE, 1967. Beiderman, David D. "Relationship Between Teaching Style and Pupil Behavior," Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1964. Blank, Stanley S. "The Talented Child: Our Ignored Asset," Journal of  Supervisors of Instruction, 3 (1), 1974f pp. 29-32. Blank, Stanley S. and Covington, Martin. "Inducing Children to Ask Questions in Solving Problems," The Journal of Educational Research, 59 (1), 1965, pp. 21-27. Blank, Stanley S., Fox, J., Harris, D. and Litwintschik, J. What is Creativity?: How to Solve Problems Uniquely. (A Teacher's Guide for the Chilliwack Creative Problem Solving Program) Unpublished Manu-script, 1974. Blank, Stanley S., Fox, Joyce, and Nelson, Gordon. "An Initial Report on a Program Developed to Facilitate Creative Thinking on the Part of Gifted Elementary School Pupils." Unpublished article, 1976. Briggs, Dorothy. Your Child's Self-Esteem: The Key to His Life. , Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1970. Broome, L. W. "The Effect of Teacher Creativity on Children's Learning." Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 1967. Bruner, Jerome. "Theorems for a Theory of Instruction." In Jerome Bruner (ed.) Learning About Learning: A Conference Report. Working Con-ference on Research on Children's Learning. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education, 1963, pp.: 196-211. • The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Cantor, Nathaniel. The Dynamics of Learning. Buffalo: Foster and Stewart, 1950. Castelli, CD. "An Exploration of the Relationship Between Teacher Cre-ative Ability and Teacher-Pupil Creative Behavior." Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1964. 78 Clark, B.M. & Trowbridge, N. "Encouraging Creativity Through Inservice Teacher Education." Journal Of Research and Development in Education, 4 (3), 1971, pp. 87-94. . Coopersmith, Stanley, and Silverman, Jan. "How to Enhance Pupil Self-Esteem," Today's Education, 58 (4), 1969, pp. 28-29. Covington, Martin V. "Promoting Creative Thinking in the Classroom," The Journal of Experimental Education, 37 (2), 1968, pp. 22-30. __. "Some Experimental Evidence on Teaching for Creative Under-standing," The Reading Teacher, 1967 (Feb.), pp. 390-396. Covington, M. and Crutchfield, R.S. "Experiments in the Use of Programmed Instruction for the Facilitation of Creative Problem Solving," Programmed Instruction, 4, 1965, pp. 3-10. Covington, M.V., Crutchfield, R.S., Davies, L. and Olton, R.M. The Pro- ductive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1972. Crutchfield, Richard S. "Creative Thinking in Children: Its Teaching and Testing." In O.G. Brim, Jr., R.S. Crutchfield, and W.H. Holtzman, (eds.), Intelligence Perspectives. The Terman-Otis Memorial Lectures. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965, pp. 33-64. . "Nurturing the Cognitive Skills of Productive Thinking." In L. Rubin (ed.), Life Skills in School and Society, Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1969, pp. 53-71. Davis, Gary, A. Psychology of Problem Solving: Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973. Davis, G.A., Houtman, S.E., Warren, T.F. and Roweton, W.E. A Program for Training Creative Thinking: I Preliminary Field Test. Technical Report No. 104. Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cog-nitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, 1969. De Boer, John J. "Creative Reading and the Gifted Student." The Reading  Teacher, May, 1963, pp. 436-441. Delias, Marie. "Effects of Creativity Training Defensiveness and Intelli-gence on Divergent Thinking," Doctoral Dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970. Dennison, George. The Lives of Children. Random House, 1969. Denny, David A. "A Preliminary Analysis of an Observation Schedule Designed to Identify the Teacher-Classroom Variables which Facilitate Pupil Creative Growth," Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University, 1966. Eberle, Robert. "Problem-Solving Modes of Classroom Instruction," Edu- cational Leadership, 1973 (May), pp. 726-728. 79 Enochs, Paul D. An Experimental Study of a Method for Developing Creative Thinking in Fifth-Grade Children, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1964. Flanders, Ned. A. "Teacher and Classroom Influences on Individual Learning." In Harry A. Passow (ed.), Nurturing Individual Potential, Washington: ASCD, 1964, pp. 57-65. Foster, John. Creativity and the Teacher. London: Macmillan, 1971. Fox, R., Luszki, M. and Schmuck, R. Teachers and Learners: Diagnosing Classroom Learning Environments. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966. Freeman, J., McCcmisky, J.M. and Buttle, D. "Research into 'Divergent1 and 'Congruent' Thinking." International Journal of Electrical Engineer- Education, 6, 1968, pp. 99-108. Gagne, Robert M. "Human Problem Solving: Internal and External." In B. Kleinmuntz (ed.), Problem Solving: Research, Method and Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 128-148. . The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1970. Guilford, J.P. "Can Creativity Be Increased by Practice?" In J.C. Gowan, G. Demos, and E.P. Torrance (eds.), Creativity: Its Educational  Implications. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967. Hilgard, E. R. "Gestalt Theory." In E.R. Hilgard and G.H. Bower, Theories  of Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966, pp. 229-263. Holt, John. The Underachieving School. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1969. Johnson, D.M. Psychology: A Problem-Solving Approach. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Jones, J., Siegel, A. and Gilliland, S. "Creating a Climate for the Aesthetic Experience." Journal of Education, 152.(2), 1969, pp. 54-58. Kagan, Jerome (ed.). Creativity and Learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967. Kagan, Jerome. "Motivational and Attitudinal Factors in Receptivity to Learning." In Jerome Bruner (ed.) Learning About Learning: A Conference  Report. Working Conference on Research on Children's Learning. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education, 1963, pp. 34-39. , EeislaT, Evan R. "Teaching Children to Solve Problems: A Research Goal," Journal of Research Devleopment in Education, 3 (1), 1969, pp. 3-14. Litwintschik-Ellis, Julia. "Development of a New Criterion Measure for Creative Problem Solving." M.A. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1975. 80 Lutsk, Bruce M. "Teacher Behavior: A Different Perspective," Clearing  House, 46 (6), 1972, pp. 364-369. Lytton, Hugh E. Creativity and Education. New York: Schocken Brooks, 1972. MacKinnon, Donald W. "The Courage To Be: Realizing Creative Potential." In L. J. Rubin (ed.), Life Skills in School and Society. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969, pp. 95-109. Marburg, G.S. "The Relationship Between Classroom Climate and Creative Performance Among Fifth Grade Elementary School Children. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland, 1970. Maslow, Abraham. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1962. Moustakas, Clark M. Psychotherapy With Children. N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1959. Newell, A., Shaw, J.C. and Simon, H.A. "The Process of Creative Thinking," In H.E. Gurber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer (eds.), Contemporary  Approaches to Creative Thinking. New York: Atherton, 1962, pp. 63-119. Olmsted, Ann G., Blackington, Frank, and Houston, Robert. "Stances Teachers Take: A Basis for Selective Admission," Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (5) 1974, pp. 330-334. Olton,. R. M. "A Self-Instructional Program for Developing Productive Think-ing Skills in Fifth and Sixth-Grade Children." Journal of Creative  Behavior, 1969, 3, pp. 16-25. Olton, R. M. and Crutchfield, R.S. "Developing the Skills of Productive Thinking." In P. Mussen, J. Langer, and M. Covington (eds.), Trends  and Issues in Developmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp. 68-91. Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Seribner's. ' Sons, 1963. Parnes, Sidney J.7 and Brunelle, E.A. "The Literature of Creativity (Part I)." The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 1967, pp. 52-109. Patrick, C. What is Creative Thinking? New York: Philosophical Library, 1955. Peavy, R. V. "Notes on Facilitative Teaching: The Need for Healthy Inter-Action," University of Victoria, May 16, 1974. An essay. Provus, Malcolm. "Some Personal Observations on Creativity." In Calvin Taylor and Frank Williams (eds.), Instructional Media and Creativity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 123-146. Purkey, William. Self Concept and School Achievement. Englewood Cliffs, N..J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. 81 Quandt, Ivan. Self Concept arid Reading. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1972. Ripple, R.E. and Dacey, J.S. "The Facilitation of Problem Solving and Verbal Creativity by Exposure to Programmed Instruction," Psychology  in the Schools, 4, 1967, pp. 240-245. Rogers, Carl. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. . On Becoming a Person. Cambridge, Mass: The Riverside Press, 1961. . "Toward a Theory of Creativity." In P.E. Vernon (ed.), Creativity. London: Penguin Education, 1970, pp. 137-151. Rookey, Thomas R. "The Impact of an Intervention Program for Teachers on Creative Attitude and Creative Ability of Elementary Pupils. Doctoral Dissertation, Lehigh University, 1972. Russell, D.H. Children's Thinking. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1956. Schwab, Joseph and Brandwein, Paul. The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. Sears, Pauline. "Attitudinal and Affective Factors in Children's Approaches to Problem Solving." 1963, pp. 28-33. Shively, Joe E. "Evaluation of the Effects of Creativity Training Programs in the Elementary School," Doctoral Dissertation. Purdue University, 1970. Sisk, Dorothy. "The Relationship Between Self Concept and Creative Thinking in Elementary School Children: An Experimental Investigation," Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, 1966. Smith, James A. Setting Conditions for Creative Teaching in the Elementary  School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. Spaulding, Robert L. "Achievement, Creativity and Self-Concept Correlates  Of Teacher-Pupil Transactions in Elementary School Classrooms."' Doc-toral-Dissertation. New York: Hobstra University, 1965. Stein, Morris I. Stimulating Creativity. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1974. Suchman, J. R. "Inquiry Training ': Building Skills for Autonomous Dis-covery." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 7, 1961, 171-180. Taylor, Calvin W. and Barron, Frank (eds.). Scientific Creativity: Its  Recognition and Development. New York: Wiley, 1963. Torrance, E. Paul. "Can. We Teach Children to Think Creatively?" The  Journal of Creative Behavior, 6 (4), 1972, pp. 114-143. . Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962. 82 _. Rewarding Creative Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965. _ _ . Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual. Princeton, N.J.: Personnel Press, 1966. Torrance, E.P. and Myers, R.E. Creative Learning and Thinking. New York: Dodd, 1970. Treffinger, Donald and Ripple, Richard. "Developing Creative Problem Solving Abilities and Related Attitudes Through Programmed Instruction." The Journal of Creative Behavior, 3, 1969, pp. 105-110, 127. Treffinger D., Renzulli, J. and Feldhusen, J. "Problems in the Assessment of Creative Thinking." The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5 (2), 1971, pp. 104-112. Treffinger, Donald,J., Speedie, Stuart M., and Brunner, Wayne D. "Improving Children's Creative Problem Solving Ability: The Purdue Creativity Project," The Journal of Creative Behavior, 8 (1), 1974, pp. 20-30. Wallach, M.A. and Kogan, N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1965. Williams, Frank E. "Assessing Pupil-Teacher Behaviors Related to a Cognitive Affective Teaching Model," Journal of Research and Development, 4, 1970-71, pp. 14-22. Witty,'Paul. "Rationale for Fostering Creative Reading in the Gifted and Creative." In Michael Labuda (ed.), Creative Reading for Gifted  Learners: A Design for Excellence. Newark: International Reading Association, 1974. . "The Education of the Gifted and Creative in the U.S.A." Gifted Child Quarterly, XV (2), 1971, pp. 109-116. Wodtke, K.H. and Wallen, N.E. "Teacher Classroom Control, Pupil Creativity, and Pupil Classroom Behavior." Journal of Experimental Education, 34 (1), 1965, pp. 59-65. Yamamoto, Kaoru. "A Study of the Relationship Between Creative Thinking Abilities of Fifth Grade Teachers and Academic Achievement." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1962. . "Relationships Between Creative Thinking Abilities of Teachers and Achievement and Adjustment of Pupils," Journal of  Experimental Education, 32, (1) ,'• 3-25, 1963. 83 A P P E N D I X APPENDIX A TEST INSTRUMENTS 85 Appendix A - (1) SCI./75-76 D.G.H. Name Bey Girl (Check one) School Teacher Date Grade This is a chance for you to look at yourself and think about what your strong points are and what your weak points are. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Be sure your answers show how you think about yourself. 86 Instructions to Students Before you start, here i s an example for you to try. Read number 1 and then answer the question. Better TPYAMDTT? V e I Y '^^Ii Not SO EXAMPLE: Excellent Good most OK Good Compared with other g i r l s and boys my age, how do I rate myself? 1. Working on my own. The words at the top of each column show what each line stands for. Find the line under the heading that shows your answer. Make an X on that l i n e . 87 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself? 1. Keeping at my work until I get i t done 2. Being able to read well. 3. Being able to laugh about things easily. 4. Listening to someone even when I haven't been treated fairly or had a chance to t e l l my ideas. 5. Knowing how to solve arith-metic problems. 6. Wanting to learn about things scientists do. 7. Being careful not to spend too much time on T.V., sports and play. 8. Learning about people around the world and being interested in them. 9. Being able to listen to people who don't like my ideas. 10. Being able to figure out the right answer that is asked for. 11. Knowing how other people feel when they have troubles and problems. 12. Spending most of my time on my work and not goofing off. 13. Seeing small but important facts in solving hard problems. 14. Being able to talk about my ideas in a group. 88 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself?  15. Being a good sport. 16. Making friends easily. 17. Being able to see things in my mind easily when I want to. 18. Not minding i f others don't agree with my ideas. 19. Having a friendly smile ready for everyone. 20. Being a good size and build for my age. 21. Using old facts in many different ways. 22. Being able to set my own goals and work toward them. 23. Working with others to get a job done. 24. Being able to talk to teachers easily and feel comfortable with teachers. 25. Thinking up answers to problems no one else has. thought of. 26. Letting others do their jobs in their own ways and not bossing people around. 27. Seeing new ways of thinking about things and putting ideas together. 28. Being able to finish one job before I start another. 29. Being able to figure out how to solve a hard problem. 89 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself?  30. Being honest about my feelings. 31. Enjoying funny things people do or say. 32. Knowing what it's like to have your feelings hurt and that others feel the same way. 33. Being able to find new ways of fitting ideas together. 34. Going ahead with school work on my own and not waiting to be told to get started. 35. Having ideas come quickly and easily. 36. Being able to t e l l my ideas in front of other people. 37. Taking my turn and not cutting in line in front of other people. 38. Having plenty of friends. 39. Being able to keep my mind on my work. 40. Being interested in new things and excited about a l l there is to learn. 41. Being willing to t e l l my ideas when no one else agrees with me. 42. Liking something in everyone no matter who they are. 43. Being attractive, good-looking or handsome. 44. Being well organized and having things ready when they're needed. 90 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself?  45. Being able to enjoy jokes and having a good sense of humour. 46. Helping on group projects when it's my turn. 47. Being cooperative with teachers. 48. Getting my school work in on time and not getting behind. 49. Knowing what to do to get the right answer to a problem. 50. Having high standards for myself and knowing the kind of person I want to be. 51. Not minding others who have different ideas of right and wrong. 52. Seeing important facts that other people miss. 53. Not expecting everything I do to be perfect. 54. Being able to pay attention even when I'm angry. 55. Letting my imagination go when I want to. 56. Making up my own mind even i f other people don't agree with me. 57. Understanding other people's feelings. 58. Changing my point of view to get new ideas. 59. Being able to make people laugh. 91 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself? 60. Being fair to other people even when I don't like them much. 61. Having fun at school with teachers. 62. Thinking of unusual things — things other people don't think about very much. _ 63. Being able to admit my mistakes. 64. Liking everybody at least a l i t t l e bit. 65. Being able to lead my l i f e my own way. 66. Doing my part in class activities including work jobs and clean-up. 67. Being able to solve a hard problem by turning i t around and seeing i t in a new way. 68. Being able to listen to someone else even when I think what they are saying is a l l wrong. 69. Being able to think quickly and easily. 70. Understanding my feelings and being able to control myself. 71. Learning about new things even when other people aren't inter-ested - studying about things on my own. 72. Knowing how others feel when they have hard problems to solve. 73. Solving problems in ways others haven't tried before. 92 Better Very Than Not so Excellent Good Most OK Good Compared with other girls and boys my age, how do I rate myself?  74. Being a good sport when I lose in a game. 75. Being friendly to others. 76. Taking part in class projects and doing my share. 77. Having new and original ideas. 78. Knowing that everyone has a right to be different. 79. Learning things quickly. 80. Remembering what I have learned. 81. Being willing for others to have their way sometimes. 82. Being confident, not shy nor timid. 83. Being a good student. 84. Being a leader. 85. Making other people feel at ease. 86. Having brains and being smart. 87. Liking school. 88. Being able to use what I have learned. 89. Being able to change things when they don't suit me. 90. Being easy to get along with. Appendix A {2) 93 SELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY CLASSIFICATION OF ITEMS ACCORDING TO THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS (SPAULDING, 1965) Item No. I. Social Behavior 16,38 II. Attractive Appearance 20,43 III. Social Relationship with Teachers 24,47,61 IV. Work Habits V. A. Persistence/Perseveration 1,28 B. Organi zation/Planning 34,44,48 C. Concentration/Application 12,39,88 Mental Abilities Including Creativity '•-A. Convergence 10,49,79,80 B. Sensitivity/Abstractness/Awareness 13,52 C. Imagination/Fantasy Production 17,55 D. Flexibility 21,58 E. Divergence/Originality 25,62,73,77 F. Integration/Synthesis 27,33 G. Penetration/Analysis/Circumspection 29,67 H. Fluency 35,69 I. Interest/Curiosity 40,71 VI. Mental Attitudes A. Humor/Playfulness 3,31,45,59 B. Emotional Self-Acceptance/Integrity 9,30,53,63 C. Dcminance/Assertion/Ascendance 14,36,84 D. Self-Confidence/Independence/Autonomy 18,41,56,65,83,89 E. Personal Aspiration/Standards 22,50,82,86,87 VII. Human Relations Skills A. Emotional Control 4,54,70 B. Empathy/Understanding 11,32,57,72 C. Fairness/Good Sportsmanship 15,37,60,74,81 D. Warmth/Friendliness 19,42,64,75,85,90 E. Cooperation/Participation 23,46,66,76 F. Acceptance/Tolerance 26,51,68,78 VIII. School Subjects 2,5,6,8 94 Appendix A - (3) Q.A./75-76 D.G.H. Name Boy Girl (check one) School : Teacher Date Grade Do you like to solve mystery problems? Here is a riddle: "It is black. What is it?" On the lines below, write down a l l the questions that would help you-answer this riddle. 95 Appendix A - (4) C. P.S. 75/76 D. G.H. N a m s Boy Girl (check one) School Teacher , Date Grade Here is a chance for you to become a detective and solve a mystery written by a famous detective story writer called Ellery Queen. Good Luck! 96 THE MYSTERY OF THE OLD BLACK HOUSE A detective from the city was sent to an old black house far out in the country where some stolen money was said to be hidden. After driving along the main highway from the city, he turned off onto a narrow road. He passed a lake, then a graveyard. At last, he reached the black house among some h i l l s . On his fi r s t search of the house he didn't find any money, but he kept searching. Next door was a white house. In i t lived Mr. Rook who owned some other houses like i t in the neighborhood. Since Mr. Rook wanted to find the hidden money for himself, he figured out a plan to get the detective to go away. He asked the detective to spend the night with him in the white house. The detective's bedroom had only one small window, but he had a good view of the black house and the sun setting right behind i t . After dinner with Mr. Rook, the detective felt very sleepy, so he went to bed. In the morning, after a deep sleep, he looked out of the small window and saw the sun rising. But the black house was GONEI He rushed outside and looked a l l around. Yes, the black house had complete-ly disappeared. There weren't even any marks on the ground. The detective was stumped! He decided to go back to the city. He drove past a barn and turned onto the main highway to the city. YOUR PROBLEM IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED 97 HERE IS A MAP TO HELP YOU From the book THE NEW ADVENTURES OF ELLERY QUEEN INCLUDING THE AMAZING SHORT NOVEL, "The Lamp of God," by Ellery Queen. Copyright, 1940, by Frederick A. Stokes Company. Renewal, c. 1969 by Manfred B. Lee and Frederic Dannay. From "The Lamp of God" as abridged by permission of J.B. Lippincott Company, the author, and the author's agents, Scott Meredith Literary Agency, Inc., 580 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036. 98 .1. Write down any things you would like to know to help you solve this mystery. 99 2. Write down as many ideas as you can to explain what really happened. 100 C. P.S. 75/76 D. G.H. Name Boy Girl (check one) School Teacher Date Grade Here is another mystery problem for you to solve. This time you are a doctor who has a very sick patient. 101 There is a harmful lump or tumor deep inside the body of your patient. The tumor is completely surrounded by good, healthy tissue. You can make your patihet well by sending a narrow beam of x-rays through the patient's body to hit the tumor and k i l l i t . However, when the x-rays are strong enough to k i l l the tumor, they are also strong enough to k i l l the good tissues. This would only make your patient worse. If the x-rays are made weaker, they do not harm the good tissues, but they are not strong enough to destroy the tumor. YOUR PROBLEM IS TO THINK OF SOME WAYS TO USE X-RAYS SO THAT THEY CAN KILL THE TUMOR WITHOUT HARMING THE GOOD TISSUES. GOOD LUCK: 102 1. Write down any things you would like to know to help you solve this problem. 103 2. Write down as many ideas as you can to explain how you can cure your patient. 104 Appendix A - (5) R.L.P.S. 75/76 D.G.H. Name Boy Girl (check one) School Teacher Date Grade Here are 2 problems that other students your own age have made up for you to solve. 105 106 Problem #1 - THE BOAT PROBLEM 1. Write down any things you would like to know to help you solve this problem. 2. Write down a l l the ideas you have to solve this problem. 108 Problem #2 - THE FORT PROBLEM 1. Write down any things you would like to know to help you solve this problem. 2. Write down a l l the ideas you have to solve this problem. 109 APPENDIX B * SAMPLE PRE-TASK PHASE MATERIALS * N.B. Permission to view the complete teacher's manual for the Chilliwack Creativity Program from which the following sample materials have been taken may be obtained by con-tacting Dr. Stanley Blank, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of B.C. 110 INTRODUCTION This manual is a compilation of suggestions on how to apply the creativity tasks and how to reach the goals described in Section I. The emphases here are on the words "suggestions" and "goals". We believe that challenge is a stimulus for creativity; and that, i f teacher and students are going to enthusiastically involve themselves in problem solv-ing, they need to set challenging goals. The teachers must be convinced that our spelled-out methods are only suggestions which leave them free to explore as many alternatives as possible, thereby creating a model of creativity. The notion of providing a model of creativity is frightening to a good many of us, perhaps because teachers sometimes feel that they are responsible for providing information or solutions rather than for directing their students toward more original sources of data, hypotheses generation and solution. If we look at the teachers of successful writers, musicians and artists, the whole notion of direction toward creativity becomes clearer. Teachers can help others do things that they cannot do themselves, and not so incidentally, find great satisfaction in the stud-ents who outdistance them. The suggestions in the manual are divided into two sections: Phase 1 - Pre-Task and, Phase 2 - Curriculum The Pre-Task Phase provides an introductory period designed to help teacher and students get to know each other. This i n i t i a l period of inter-action is the ideal time to set the tone and goals of the classroom, to discover interests and special talents of its members, to ascertain levels I l l of achievement and perhaps to do some remediation based on indicated need. This is an especially important time for students who have not been en-couraged to ask questions or to solve their own problems. The Pre-Task Phase is a natural time for a change of style without the added complica-tion of new material. We have mentioned that, during the f i r s t part of the school term, students and teacher will ordinarily be getting to know one another. Even i f the students have a l l or mostly shared a class the previous year, un-less they have participated in a program with a similar orientation, they will need to get to know one another in new ways. Some students will lack experience at solving problems because they have been in "free", "pure discovery", "experimental", or "student-centered" environments. If these students have been learning in a more laissez-faire, haphazard atmosphere than the one we are describing, they may not have had much practice in the concentration required for creative problem solving. In addition, the problem solving teacher must also be prepared to help young-sters from the "traditional", "teacher-centered" "didactic" method of classroom. These students have probably taken l i t t l e responsibility for their own learning, and they will require practice in making choices and taking consequences for them rather than looking to others for guidance. It is during this period that the class develops its "group feeling", and for this reason, i t is suggested that the class be in i t i a l l y operated as a self-contained unit, more so than at other times of the year when cross-class and extra-class interaction is encouraged. One of the dangers of extra-class activities during this period is that, for students who have not been used to handling their own problems, excursions or projects, 112 can become recreational outlets without any particular challenge or goal. In choosing activities for this period, the teacher should keep his/her own particular skills and interests in mind, as well as searching out the interests and skills of the students. This is the time to operate in areas of most familiarity and comfort for both students and teacher. One of the ways to avoid unsupervised and haphazard activity is for students and teacher to look for answers to problems that are currently of concern, and not to worry, at this point, about how these questions relate to the curriculum. Pre-Task Activity Charts and problems have been provided for this purpose, as has the Field Trip Philosophy. It is re-commended that for greatest success the Field Trip Philosophy be carefully and systematically implemented along with the other strands of the Pre-Task procedure. Another instructional aid could be the introduction of the Covington Crutchfield Program as a model for thoughtful as contrasted to random activity. This program encourages the teacher to develop more confidence and experience in guiding students through organized problem situations designed to expose students to the creativity tasks with which they must become familiar. In order to solve problems independently, students must fi r s t acquire some of the skills necessary for problem solving. The most basic of these is the technique of asking questions in order to amass information and to gain ideas. 113 Why Problem Solvers Must Ask Questions When most people encounter problems, their immediate reaction is to try and f i t a known solution pattern to the new problem. Frequently, i f the old pattern does not f i t the new problem, the person either gives up or perseveres in a haphazard, frustrating fashion. If we teach people that, when they encounter a problem, their f i r s t step should be: to ask a l l sorts of different questions about the problem; then they will find that: The information or ideas that result will usually lead to enough new solution patterns to prevent perseveration and/or withdrawal from the problem. Asking diverse questions is a way to distance oneself from a problem (put oneself on a ladder), in order to get a bird's-eye view of the prob-lem, its patterns and possible solutions. Question-asking, as we tnink of i t , is akin to brainstorming, in that its eventual purpose is the production of ideas. The difference lies in the fact that question-asking is an individual process with specific purposes in mind during the entire process. Creative problem solving is a risky procedure for many students and they need a l l the support they can get. It is risk-taking in the sense that, in asking questions and in trying to be unique, the students leave themselves open to the possibility of ridicule. That is why, in this program, the students much of the time will be working in what we call Comfort Groups (see How to Achieve Comfort Groups). The students are en-couraged to work together in small groups with the people they find most 114 4^&1M11«»MS Found 115 comfortable as work partners. Problem solving should be initiated either in an area of familiar content, or in a high interest activity. Samples of problems follow that teachers have used that are related to these preliminary activities and to familiar content. These serve as models of a l l levels of the problem solving approach (described in the Creativity Sequences Chart), upon which teachers, in-experienced in these strategies, can rely as an organizational framework for discussion in the problems they choose to explore with their students. In our model, i t will be noted that the complexity of solutions are arranged in three hierarchical steps (see Creativity Sequences Chart). In the f i r s t step, the missing data is described as information . . . . 116 Q. A. 1 INFORMATION DEFIGTENT PROBLEMS  Sample Problem TEACHER: I want to buy 25 apples for our field trip. How much money do I need? Ask me anything you think you need to know and I ' l l try to answer. STUDENTS: We can't answer because we don't know how much the apples cost. Statements are not encouraged but the students are encouraged to spot the missing information. TEACHER: You noticed what information is missing. What do you need to ask me? Go ahead and ask and I will do my best to answer. STUDENTS: How much does each apple cost? TEACHER: Each apple costs IOC. Now you can easily find out how much money I need. It will be noted that risk-taking and originality are required throughout the program. For many students, i t will be a risky situation just to ask for basic information. When the students spontaneously ask for information about a problem, i t is safe to assume that they are ready for larger risks and more original questions. Sample Problem TEACHER: Suppose you asked me to buy 25 apples for our field trip. The red apples cost 15C, the yellow apples cost IOC and the green apples cost 5C. How much money do I need to take with me to the store? Ask me anything you need to know and I ' l l try to answer. STUDENTS: Which apples do you plan to buy? 117 TEACHER: I don't know yet which would be the best apples for our trip. Perhaps you can ask me questions which will help me to decide. STUDENTS: How much money do you have to spend? TEACHER: That's a helpful question. I would certainly need to know that. Suppose I have enough money to buy the 15C apples but I am wondering i f I should spend that much money. Perhaps you can think of more questions that would help me to decide. STUDENTS: Which apples taste the best? TEACHER: That is a very useful question. Suppose I find out that the red apples taste a l i t t l e better than the other apples, but I am s t i l l not certain that I should spend that much money. What else would you like to ask me before I buy the apples? When there are no further questions, prompting is in order. TEACHER: Wouldn't you like to ask how large the different types of apples are? Originality can be encouraged in a number of ways. For instance — STUDENTS: Will the green apples give us a stomach-ache? TEACHER: That is a question we haven't thought about and i t would cer-tainly be important to find out about that. The information-deficient problems referred to must be true problems, in that they should present a situation which demands that the students finally reach some conclusion or decision as to a solution path. They differ from more usual problems, in two ways: 1. They do not, in the f i r s t instant, provide a l l the in-formation necessary for their solution but rather are of a nature that requires students to dig for the necessary information - after deciding what information is needed. 118 Students do this in part by fi r s t defining what the problem i s . 2. The problems may have more than one possible and measur^ able solution. Both teachers and students must learn to tolerate some degree of ambiguity in problem solving situations as well as a possible lack of closure. If the problems are relevant and interesting, the students will enjoy finding the missing piece of information. Sometimes, the missing clue may be supplied by the teacher, or with the teacher's help, while at other times the students should have to find i t out by themselves. The word "problem" and the activity of "problem solving" for many students and teachers will have a negative connotation. Early in the year, the idea that problem solving can be fun, must be developed. Here, the Pre-Task Phase can be of great assistance. Its emphasis on the game-like aspects of problem solving can set the tone for the balance of the year's activities. S t i l l , many of the techniques we will suggest for the students may, to some extent, arouse some feelings of apprehension. A reminder is in order here, to introduce the Crutchfield program at the beginning of the year: and after i t is introduced, that i t be presented at regularly scheduled intervals. This program will act as the guide for the students in defin-ing insufficient data, and in asking the questions which will supply the missing data as well as describing the fears that naturally accompany problem solving . . . . When the students easily and spontaneously ask information seeking questions; teacher and students should be ready to tackle idea-deficient problems. Again, we suggest returning to the original familiar problems, 119 data and material so that only the kind of problem is new and different. It i s difficult for a l l of us to learn more than one new thing, at a time and extremely difficult to teach several new things simultaneously. In this manual, we have attached information-deficient problems to the curricular material in Task I, steps 1 and 2. Of course, some s students will be expert information askers long before this material is covered. This is only one of the many reasons that the teacher is left free to improvise, to speed up or slow down the sophistication of the problem solving apart from the curricular material. With some groups or individual students the teacher may be successfully engaged in presenting idea-deficient problems (suggested toward the end of Task I) much earlier than laid out in the task analysis and at other times, will s t i l l be initiating new material with information-digging long after the material in Steps 1 and 2 is completed. Idea-seeking may be required at any time after the students easily and comfortably seek information, and may indeed happen spontaneously as a natural product of the situation. We are suggesting a switch to greater complexity while the material is becoming familiar and comfortable and that i f the students are s t i l l not ready for more complex problem-solving, the teacher had best wait for the material in the next Task to become familiar before attempting more complex problems. In Task II, the students not only seek information but are given an opportunity to identify the class of the information they are seeking in new material. This is the intermediary step that assists students toward skills of generalization and identification of patterns and groups. Hope-fully, the students will be eventually able to use these ideas to project, predict, and to hypothesize. As the students learn to take risks and to 120 value original questions, they are preparing themselves to seek out alter-native ideas, new ways of classifying and novel descriptions of classifi-cation. Anytime that students show s k i l l at information-seeking, the teacher may move into idea-seeking as follows: Q. A. 2 IDEA DEFICIENT PROBLEMS (The teacher groups a l l questions as to price of apples). Sample Problem TEACHER: I am going to put a l l these questions together. They a l l have similar purpose. What do you think that purpose is? (Requirements for generalization are enriched by requiring risks, guesses, and originality.) Sample Problem TEACHER: Suppose you want to find a different way of grouping your questions. How could you do i t and what would be the purpose of your group? In regard to step 1, again using familiar materials, students can be pre-pared for hypothesizing about new material i f they have had experience with familiar material. Q. A. 3 HYPOTHESIS DEFICIENT PROBLEMS  Sample Problem TEACHER: Why do you think there are so many different kinds of apples? TEACHER: How do you think the different kinds of apples might have been developed? 121 The foregoing variations of the "apple" problems are simplistic samples of how the same topic can be converted to three levels of problem complexity. The students have discovered considerable information about different kinds of apples. (Q.A.I) They have learned to group this in-formation into different classifications arbitrarily labelled e.g. cost, taste, digestibility. (Q.A. 2) The value of guessing, risk-taking and originality now becomes most apparent as they put forth hypotheses about these complex problems. A great reward is in store for those who form-ulate hypotheses that are easily verified. An even greater reward awaits the students who think of original hypotheses and manage to find data (here-to-fore unrelated) that support these. Students who have learned to search for information, have been exposed to classification and generalization. The teacher's role at this level is to pose the problem in such a way that the students notice the need for formulating their own generaliza-tions — the more unique, the better — in order to supply the solution. Students who have developed competence in learning from peers, from the teachers and from self-instruction, in searching cut multi-sensory or alternate presentations of the problem and have learned something about incubation, should have the entering skills for idea-generation. Hypothesis formulation could be described as the combination of two of more ideas. Again, the product (where creative) is more than a sum of the elements and presumably the earlier steps are applicable to hypothesis generation. Students who participate with the teacher in a problem solving approach to learning and who are encouraged to be creative, will have much of the time, a sense of enjoyment, game playing and laughter. Indeed, humour has been described as one of the facets of creativity. We hope that the reward of enjoyment will be the stimulus that propels the student into the final step, or the verification of the problem solu-tion. Unfortunately, this is a procedure that appears to be of less interest and more work than the preceding steps. We have noted the con-siderable amount of unverified theory which is popularly accepted as factual. Let us emphasize that verification is necessary in order to proceed to the next step then move back to the beginning and to a new adventure in problem solving 123 How to Facilitate the Comfortable Classroom I. Pre-Task Phase Objectives During the f i r s t month of school, three goals are of priority importance. Students and teacher make the classroom a comfortable place to learn and work together. Students learn to ask questions (as opposed to simply following instructions or answering the teacher's questions). Teachers learn to facilitate student question-asking and decision-making. In order to make the classroom comfortable, each person must feel good about: - her/himself - the other people in the classroom - the ways s/he interacts with the others in the class Along with question asking; at the end of the Pre-Task Phase, in prepara-tion for entering the Curriculum Phase of the program, the students as a group will display behavioural characteristics that show they are: 1) aware of themselves as individuals and that they like what they think they are 2) concerned with the needs of others 3) concerned about how well they get along with and interact with their peers and the adults around them 4) comfortable in their classroom environment and that they feel mutual respect and trust with the others in that environment. 124 Evaluation Evaluation in this phase is an ongoing process. Intuitive teacher judgment is of high value. The classroom teacher, because of her close-ness and commitment to the situation, is encouraged to take the initiative and to assume final responsibility for evaluation procedures and subsequent decisions arising from them. However, unless there is continual evaluation methodically compiling proof of the types and amounts of learning and progress being made, teach-ers must be content with only subjective evaluation concerning changes in pupils' behaviour in the areas of values, self-image and attitudes. These materials have been provided to furnish such proof and to com-plement and validate the impressionistic assessments of the teacher there-by establishing more reliable criteria for entering the Curriculum Phase of the program. Procedure A l l four objectives are inter-related, inter-dependent and cumulative, and i t is expected that after i n i t i a l introduction there will be a free and constant shift in emphasis among them. Because the progression of objectives is hierarchical in nature: moving from concentration on SELF to inclusion of ANOTHER and finally to interaction with the GROUP, the teacher must follow the procedures outlined in the introductory period of this phase. This is particularly important as the activities move from the simple to the complex. The objectives progress in 3 steps: 125 1. pre-activity evaluation which helps to determine selection of 2. individual and group activities which lead to 3. post-activity evaluation which facilitates the group move to the next objective and ultimately to the Curriculum Phase of the program. The references, activities and evaluative material following have been selected to both aid teachers and pupils in planning suitable learn-ing experiences and in judging the degree of successful attainment of specific objectives. To afford maximum freedom for the individual teacher to choose those exercises that she feels best meet the particular needs of her pupils and best suit her personal teaching style, several parallel approaches to the topics have been provided: these give as much variety and scope as possible. Teachers are encouraged to use discretion as to the number and types of activities and evaluative exercises undertaken as well as to the length of time spent on these activities. Keeping in mind that class experiences in these areas do not stop with the completion of the Pre-Task phase, teachers are encouraged to utilize this material when and where "teachable' moments" arise at any time during the year, and to repeat and supplement i t as is seem f i t . It is hoped that through teacher-pupil co-operation and interaction, this unit can set a positive tone to the opening portion of the school year, developing a feeling of self-worth and other concern that can be enlarged upon freely in the environment of the comfortable classroom. As a "group", teacher and pupils can build their relationship upon this solid 126 foundation and in so doing, grow and develop together throughout the year. The remainder of this unit is comprised of four charts that outline strands in which: A. objectives are briefly described in terms of skills, techniques and ideas to be developed B. teacher-pupil resources, specific activities, and appropriate evaluative materials are listed C. pre-objective teacher readings are co-ordinated with A and B above OBJECTIVE STRANDS DEVELOPMENTAL & EVALUATIVE ACTIVITIES TEACHER REFERENCES #1 Discovery of S e l f (teacher & pupils) g e t t i n g t o know each other Time Capsule Tool 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22* Strategies 1, 36, 37 Micro Labs I , I I , I I I (reference obj.#4 forming Comfort groups) Background Sharing Exercise Sentence Completion* P u p i l Interest Inventory & P u p i l ' s Inter est Record, Meeting Individual Needs S p r i n g f i e l d Interest Finder, I d e n t i f i c -a t i o n Sheet *Here I Am (introduction) & Primary l e v e l books, Chpr. 1 *Empathy Training, Teacher f o l d e r *TABA materials, Teacher f o l d e r *Diagnosing Classroom Environment Chpr. 6, 7, 9 *Values C l a r i f i c a t i o n , p. 13-27 •Encounter i n the Classroom, pp. 18-22, Chpr. 4 Teachers & Learners, p. 82 Teacher f o l d e r , Values C l a r i f i c a t i o n Teacher fo l d e r Teacher fo l d e r (Group Behavior) i d e n t i f y i n g & exploring f e e l i n g s held by s e l f Here I Am, Chpr. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 S t e n c i l s & a c t i v i t i e s *TABA materials, Teacher f o l d e r Here I Am, Chpr. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 i d e n t i f y i n g & exploring a t t i t u d e s held by s e l f Here I Am, Chpr. 6, 7, 8, s t e n c i l s & A c t i v i t i e s Microlabs I , I I , I I I *Here I Am, Chpr. 6, 7, 8 Encounter i n the Classroom i d e n t i f y i n g & exploring values held by s e l f ' Strategy #3, 4, 7, 10, 34, 76, 77, 78 Values C l a r i f i c a t i o n understanding & r e l a t i n g s e l f concept Self-Rating Scale, Self-evaluation Scale Here I Am, Chpr. 10 s t e n c i l s & a c t i v i t i e s Tool 20, 21 *"P u p i l Self-Concept Teacher f o l d e r *Self Concept & School Achievement *TABA materials, Teacher f o l d e r *Teacher folder Here I Am, Chpr. 10 *Pre Objective T pursuing (teacher) s e l f e xploration & evaluation sacher Reading 1 S t y l e of Teaching Inventory, P r o f i l e s of Teacher Competency, Se l f E v a l . of E f f e c t i v e CI. management *Farallones Scrapbook •Teaching with F e e l i n g , Chpr. 1, 2, 3, 10, 14, 15 *Non Verbal Communication Chpr. 3, 4, 5 •Teachers & Learners, Chpr. 1 & 10 •Teacher Folder & Group Behavior materials 128 PRE-TASK PROBLEMS The following examples are aid teachers in developing ques-tion-asking strategies among students in response to problems that arise spontaneously out of Pre-Task class interaction or to direct teachers as to how to pose problems that will e l i c i t question-asking behaviour on the part of the students. Numerous opportunities will arise from which to select situations that could be turned into excellent real-life problems within the class-room environment. As the Pre-Task Phase emphasizes the encouragement of question-asking as well as participatory decision-making, teachers are directed to make as much time available as possible for these activities at this stage of the program, in order that students will naturally use these skills when confronted with curriculum problems in Task I. For example, in establishing the Comfortable Classroom, students may ask i f changes can be made in the physical organization of the room. Students must feel that the classroom is their space and that they are responsible for its condition and organization. To encourage the occur-rence of such a problem, i t must suit the needs of those who occupy i t , both teacher and student. Teachers may refrain from doing any September decorating of the room or from designating areas for specific purposes. Desks may not even be ini t i a l l y set out in any specific pattern so as to keep the environment flexible, and to impress upon the students the real-ity of their responsibility. It i s important that change be introduced gradually so that students do not become confused or overwhelmed. Equally important, teachers need to feel at ease in whatever situation they create. Depending on previous experiences, teachers may elect to set up their classroom as they have 129 done i n the past, and during the course of the Pre-Task Phase, gradually allow for more f l e x i b i l i t y and student decision-making. This w i l l vary with individuals and certainly with the maturity and personalities of the children themselves. Teachers are encouraged to be innovative and flex-ible i n this regard as soon as they feel confident i n doing so. By the time the class i s ready to enter the Curriculum Phase of the program, the teachers and pupils should be familiar with flexible seating patterns, with comfort grouping for specific purposes, with decision-making, and with question-asking. SAMPLE PROBLEM #1 Topic: Classroom seating arrangement (This could be attempted early in September or i n October previous to entering the Curriculum Phase of the program). TEACHER: Tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock you w i l l be able to s i t wherever you wish i n the classroom, provided that no one else disagrees with your choice. I would l i k e you to think about this decision carefully, so you w i l l make a wise choice. You may ask me anything you need to know that w i l l help you be ready to move tomorrow. STUDENTS: Could we s i t together? TEACHER: Yes, but you must get the permission of the other people i n the class, including myself. TEACHER: Perhaps someone would l i k e to ask me i f you must s i t at a desk. (Teachers may elect not to allow student choice i n this matter.) 130 Encourage many questions that explore a variety of seating arrange-ments. Encourage students to ask questions regarding where you will sit. Possibly the discussion will drift to how much space each person can take up, or someone may ask i f a poster could be brought from home to put up in the xcom. This line of questioning could lead to new but related problems such as: - how to decorate the classroom to make i t a more interesting place or - how to organize the classroom to best suit the needs of the occupants. . . 131 HOW TO ACHIEVE COMFORT GROUPS During the last stages of the Pre-Task Phase, teachers and students will participate in activities designed to develop the Comfortable Class-room. In such an atmosphere, students can learn to communicate and co-operate in meaningful ways, extending positive self-concept, risk-taking and question-asking. In preparation for entering the Curriculum Phase of the program, students are to be given opportunities to work with a variety of class-mates in many learning situations, so that students can become aware of those who have similar interests and compatible work habits. It is im-portant that students be allowed and encouraged to practice grouping them-selves so that they can learn how to select the most appropriate partners for specific purposes, and can become more aware of how group size affects goals. The teacher has a two-fold function to f u l f i l in reserving "veto" power, i f and when students make less than efficient choices and in taking advantage of the group concern to specifically help "loners" find some security in group situations. As well, teachers will be able to identify and support their goal-oriented students who work comfortably by them-selves. With teacher guidance, these Comfort Groupings will facilitate the development of small group interaction and discussion skills. Partner and group activities outlined in Pre Task objectives allow for a wide variety of experiences along these lines, and teachers are encouraged to supplement these with ideas of their own. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items