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.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 H37.pdf [ 6.25MB ]
Metadata
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
831-1.0054677-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054677.ris

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  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  at  thesis  make  that  it  freely  permission  purposes  for  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y  may  representatives.  is  financial  of  University  British  Date  gain  Columbia  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  (QjiUl  3  ;  mj  of  Columbia,  British  by  for  shall  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Curriculum Theory of  of  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  available  permission.  Department  The  thesis  of  that  study.  this  thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  o r . p u b l i c a t ion  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  my  ii 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 a b i l i t y of the Pre-Task Phase to meet i t s stated objectives; and, to compare the success of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase as methods of enhancing creative problem-solving i n 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), ProblemSolving Skills (question-asking, hypothesis-generation and total fluency on two complex and two r e a l - l i f e 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 i n each of two elementary schools. Previous PTP research was replicated for the s k i l l s of question-asking and hypothesis-generation.  Interesting and significant findings were pro-  duced i n two controversial areas i n the literature:  verbal creativity  and transfer of training to complex and r e a l - l i f e problem situations. The present study supported the literature re the positive relationship 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.  iii The data indicated that training in both the FTP and the Pre-Task Phase was successful in enhancing the creative problems-solving a b i l i t y of students for the majority of variables and sub-variables assessed.  Three  of these measures reached statistical significance: complex questionasking, r e a l - l i f e hypothesis-generation,  and verbal fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y ,  and originality. The Pre-Task Phase appeared to be superior to the PTP for a l l v a r i 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 s k i l l s and related attitudes of creative problem-solving  for grade five students of a l l a b i l i t y  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 i s suggested that the PTP remain as one of the teaching strategies utilized during the Pre-Task Phase.  I t was recommended  that subsequent research direct i t s e l f 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 I. II.  Page  INTRODUCTION  1  LITERATURE REVIEW  6  Problem-Solving The Productive Thinking Program  6 15  The Teacher and the Classroom  III.  Learning Environment  22  Reading and Creative Problem-Solving  29  The Problem  33  Rationale  34  METHOD  39  Subjects  39  Design  40  Instruments Reading Achievement  . 41 41  Self-Concept and Attitudes Toward  IV.  V.  Problem-Solving  42  Question-Asking  43  Problem-Solving  43  Creativity  45  Teacher Training  47  Procedure  48  RESULTS  49  Statistical Procedures  49  Pre-Treatment Differences  49  Pre and Post-Test Differences  53  Examination of Research Questions  58  DISCUSSION  63  V  Chapter Page V  (cont'd.) The Productive Thinking Program The Pre-Task Phase Comparison of the PTP and the PreTask Phase  63 - . . 68 72  Reading  72  Creativity  74  Conclusions  75  Limitations  76  Recommendations  76  SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY  77  APPENDICES  83  A  B  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  Sample Pre-Task Phase Materials  104 109  vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE  P A G E  I  COMPOSITION OF CLASSES  40  II  SYMBOLS USED IN TABLES  51  PP£-TREATMENT MEANS (X), F RATIOS (F), AND PROBABILITY LEVLES (p) FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONDITIONS AND BETWEEN SCHOOLS  52  (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  SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF OOVARIANCE FOR SIX VARIABLES  59  III  IV  V  vii 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 4. CREATIVITY SEQUENCES: A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR THE CHILLIWACK CREATIVITY PROGRAM  16 36  viii  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  The writer wishes to express her gratitude to those who have contributed i n various ways to this work: To Dr. Stanley Blank, under whose supervision this research was completed, for this confidence i n 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 i n the organizational 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 enthusiastic cooperation and participation.  1 CHAPTER ILNTRODUCTICN  Kagan (1967) identified a principal concern of education as being to "teach the child confidence i n 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 a b i l i t y 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. to:  Davis (1969) proposed that this situation was causally related  1) a lack of consistent general definition of problem-solving; and  2) the use of a large number of differing tasks c r i t e r i a for problem solution performance. Kagan (1967) and Keislar (1969) exemplified the many writers who defined a problem i n terms of "a goal, the progress towards which i s somehaw 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". i t as "purposive, goal-directed activity".  Blank (1974) described  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 i s 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 i s unconventional in the sense that i t requires modification or rejection of previouslyaccepted 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 i t s e l f , to'give i t structure.  Numerous educational authorities attest to the feasibility of fostering 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 f i r s t 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, i n 1972, presented a similar picture in his summary of 142 such studies. Research has been consistent i n 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 u t i l i z i n g fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , elaboration and originality to re-define problems, to formulate 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 a b i l i t y 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 s k i l l s are those which result in broad transfer.  Aschner and Bish (1965) submitted that a child w i l l  transfer learning when s/he i s challenged to solve new problems in which s/he becomes interested because they are within his or her range of comprehension. Anderson (1965) commented that "...children can acquire, retain and transfer rather complex and 'advanced' problem solving s k i l l s 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 l e f t 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 s k i l l s ;  a l dispositions; and 3) a master ttiinking s k i l l .  2) motivation-  MacKinnon (1969) added  a "master being s k i l l " , defined as "the s k i l l to be f u l l y and honestly oneself".  The present study addressed i t s e l f 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 intermediate-age students i n the s k i l l s and attitudes of creative problemsolving : those teaching procedures which w i l l 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 i n : 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. a l . 1974.  The success of these two approaches w i l l be determined by changes evident in six areas of student behavior:achievement in reading;  self-concept;  and the specific attitudes and a b i l i t i e s 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 s k i l l s was likely to yield positive outcomes (Olton and Crutchfield, 1969). This being the case, i t became of interest to the writer to determine i f differences would be found i n 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 s k i l l s 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 i s impossible to organize the findings i n an i n t e l l i g i b l e fashion." Davis (1973) commented that traditionally, the major theoretical schism i n 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 i s a  "mechanistic"  versus a "mentalistic" perception of the problem-solving  process.  Where  the Gestaltists stress the perception of stimuli i n 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 w i l l facilitate solution, they object to explanations i n 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 distinguishable i n the contemporary positions of Cognitivism (Bruner and Ausubel ) and the Neo-Behaviorism of Gagne. Gagne (1966) defined problem-solving as "...an inferred change i n human capability that results i n the acquisition of a generalizable rule which i s novel to the individual, which cannot have been established by direct recall, and which can manifest i t s e l f i n applicability to the solution of a class of problems..." Ausubel (1967) stated a similar philosophical position i n 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 reorganized i n order to achieve a designated objective." While there has been considerable disagreement i n the theoretical approaches to problem-solving, there has been noticeable consistency i n the models proposed to differentiate the internal stages involved i n 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 represent a consensus i n 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)  Wallas  Dewey  Rossman  Difficulty i s f e l t  Need or d i f f i c u l t y observed Problem formulated  Difficulty located and defined  Preparation (information gathered) Incubation (unconscious work going on) Illumination (solutions emerge) Verification (solutions tested and elaborated)  Possible solutions suggested Consequences considered  Solutions formulated Solutions c r i t i c a l l y examined New ideas formulated New ideas tested and accepted  Solution i s accepted  characterized by:  Available information surveyed  "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 i s 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 i n terpretation of problem-solving activity:  1) a d i f f i c u l t y i s f e l t ;  9  2) the problem i s c l a r i f i e d and defined; 3) a search for clues i s made; 4) various suggestions appear; 5) a suggested solution i s accepted; and 6) the solution i s tested. Osborn (1963) made the distinction between "idea creation" and "idea evaluation".  He designated a one-two type of procedure i n which  two separate and major kinds of thinking are identified: "judicial".  "creative" and  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 i n 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 i n particular, how this relates to developmental processes and other influential variables i n 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 i t s 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 "multiplex" process requiring many s k i l l s . "  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 components:  a "creative" and a " c r i t i c a l " aspect.  These attributes are  also identified by Mackworth (1964) as "problem finding" and "problem solving" and by McGuire (1969) as "hypothesis testing".  generation" and hypothesis  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 c l a r i f y and systematize the complexities of human problem-solving activi t y are i n 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 problemsolving, and a l l have been similarily sterile and restrictive.  Keislar  (1969) concurred with general agreement i n 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 i n this interpretation, becomes a matter of rearranging or transferring the evidence that i s 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 unfamiliar problem situations.  This theory, however, f a i l s to specify how  the learner can be trained to operationalize such a necessary reformulation of the problem, or how to coordinate the processes of perception, analysis, reflection and f l e x i b i l i t y of thought deemed necessary to becoming a productive problem solver. Gagne (1966, 1970) exemplified the Neo-Behaviorist approach to problem-solving.  This model sets i n motion the principles derived from  laboratory studies of human learning that have significant prescriptive and practical value.  Problem-solving i s depicted here as "the a b i l i t y  to use previously learned concepts and rules i n 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 principles and f i n a l l y to problem-solving i t s e l f .  His hierarchy of internal  processes examines the "functions of instruction" and "individual differences" by a succession of flexible stages:  including the recall of  subordinate rules; search and selection combining these rules; and verification. Keislar (1969) reiterated that the most important problem-solving s k i l l s to teach are those which result i n broad general transfer.  He  12  FIGURE 2 FACTORS IN PROBLEM SOLVING (Gagne, 1966) Functions of Instructions  Individual Differences  Internal Processes  Solution Rule  Matching specific to retained general model  <-  Retaining solution model Provide solution, model  y Verification  Provisional I Rule |  Guide Thinking_.  Makes cues distinctive  Stimulate Recall  ^  Combining Sub. ordinate Rules  ^_  Search and ^ Selection  ^ '  _  Fluency i n making new combinations  Distinguishing relevant and irrelevant cues  Recall o f Subordinate 1— Rules  \  Recall of previously learned rules  Number of previously learned rules  13 underscored the issue of transfer as a v i t a l 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 w i l l help the pupil to keep an 'open mind and not be rigid, the child may learn l i t t l e that offers him specific guidance i n 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. 1  Crutchfield (1961) suggested that a functional analysis of the interrelationships among various steps i n the problem-solving process was more useful than a study of distinct stages. f i e l d (1965) conceived of a more comprehensive  Covington and Crutch-  and potentially operative  model than the ones already discussed. This "productive thinking" model takes into account the previously-stated concern of Keilsar and constitutes the basis for the two approaches under comparison i n this study. The model centres on two pivotal concepts: and a "master thinking s k i l l " .  "cognitive strategies"  The training of creative problem-solving  a b i l i t y i n the individual i s viewed as the strengthening of a variety of thinking s k i l l s 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 s k i l l s or "cognitive strategies".  A  "master thinking s k i l l " i s introduced through which the separate s k i l l s 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 s k i l l s called for  "  14  (Crutchfield, 1965).  This master s k i l l deterinines the manner i n which  a l l contributing s k i l l s are integrated and applied to the problems at hand. The cognitive strategies identified i n the problem-solving are:  process  problem formulation; organizing and processing information; idea  generation; and idea evaluation.  Each set of s k i l l s i s described briefly.  One main set of s k i l l s encompasses problem discovery and formulation.  These s k i l l s 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 i n 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  s k i l l s 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  i s implicit i n this concern as the problem solver learns to recognize gaps i n information and to acquire necessary data. A third set of s k i l l s relates to idea generation and the possibili t i e s for problem solution i.e., directions to be investigated and hypotheses to be tested.  Here the problem solver learns to restructure the  original problem through "insightful mental reformulation" — of the problem-solving  the heart  process.  The f i n a l set of s k i l l s outlines _the procedure of idea evaluation through c r i t i c a l / l o g i c a l thinking and inferential thought processes i n which the consequences or implications of outcomes are examined.  These  15 s k i l l s equip the solver with the means to accept, modify or abandon hypotheses and to test out their validity. The Covington/Crutchf ield model has been incorporated into The Productive Thinking Program: A Course i n Learning to Think (PTP) , Covington, Crutchfield, Davis and Olton (1972).  The fifteen-lesson programmed format  of the instructional materials used i n this study has developed from experimental versions of the General Problem Solving Program (GPSP) described by the authors as "creative tasks in miniature" that attempt to sensitize grade five and six students to s k i l l s they already possess. Each lesson presents a mysterious occurrence that provides the vehicle whereby the student practices a number of broad rules and strategies concerned with the various facets of effective problem-solving.  The Productive Thinking Program Numerous investigations have been carried out using various preliminary editions and modified versions of the GPSP, along with more current research on the augmented PTP as utilized i n the present study.  The very  consistent results attest to the high degree of success with which this program meets i t s 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 i n interpretation  Conditions  Teacher Participation  Optimum (distributed)  Present (structured)  Criterion similarity  Support for the program's effectiveness Low,  -^High Olton and Crutchfield (1969)  High  Covington and Crutchfield (1965) Wardrop et a l . (1969) Ripple and Dacey (1967) Treffinger and Ripple (1968, 1969)  Maximum concentration  Absent entirely  Low  Low ^-  -^High  (Effectiveness)  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 sixteenlesson 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 a b i l i t y 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 i n problemsolving 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  s k i l l s 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 training 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 treatment. A slight, but not significant, difference was found in actual problem-solution.  No significant differences were found between instruction-  a l and control Ss in creative thinking (fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y and originality) 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 sixteen 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 problemsolving s k i l l s .  It i s 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 intervention or class discussion. training  Even under these restrictive conditions, the  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) guidelines for rewarding creative behavior) would exhibit more productive thinking behavior than those in noh-facilitative circumstances.  Greater  gains were found i n classrooms judged to provide relatively l i t t l e encouragement 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 supplementary exercises designed to reinforce and extend problem-solving  in  curriculum-related topics; and 4) transfer of s k i l l s 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 a b i l i t y 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 a b i l i t y as a problem solver.  Enduring instructional gains were  noted in a follow-up study conducted six months after the training application.  Consistent with the findings of earlier studies which used  preliininary editions of the materials, and with Olton, Wardrop, et a l (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 s k i l l s of verbal creative thinking and verbal, insightful, and curricular-based problem-solving in 380 pupils i n 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 i n 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 a l  (for verbal creative thinking) ,  and with Olton, Wardrop, et a l 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 i n appropriate selection of test problems and assessment instruments.  The  tests administered were not considered to have been used extensively enough to provide reliable external c r i t e r i a 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 a l (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 l i k e l y result. Treffinger, Speedie and Brunner (1974) furnished further evidence that some creative thinking and problem-solving a b i l i t i e s 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 a l 1971; Shively, et a l 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 c r i t e r i a of evaluation i.e., massed (four^week) versus distributed (eight^weeks). Using the 1972 version of the PTP, the authors reported the PTP superior to the PCTP with 793 students and. their teachers level.  at the grade five  Findings indicated'both programs resulted in significant enhance-  ment of positive attitudes and a b i l i t i e s of l a r l y verbal) and creative problem-solving.  creative thinking (particuHowever, 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 w i l l 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 participation and teacher creativity.  These findings were in keeping with the  original intent of the program and verified i n related research as previously discussed.  The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment There i s 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 i s here presented on these two factors as they further substantiate a research-base for the relatively experimental Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Program.  23 Learning can be expressed as any change i n behavior which occurs as a result of interaction with the environment.  It i s common knowledge  that learning, i n general, i s enhanced where the environment i s comfortable, 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 i s "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 establishing a  stable social microcosm."  Lutsk (1972) suggested that the establishing, by the teacher, of an "affective relationship with students i n a. healthy learning environment.is the basis of a l l other relationships." learning experience  Taylor (1962) stated that such a  may affect.... feelings of self-worth and confidence:  feelings which are c r i t i c a l 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 i n 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 i s to feel comfortable i n a variety of experiences."  It i s 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 This confidential.,  now."  "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 learning climate" (Gillham, 1959; Deutsch, 1966) which makes i t safe for pupils to risk and to ask the questions that are v i t a l to increased efficiency in thinking and problem-solving.  It i s 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 i n 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; their ideas have value;  3) to show children that  4) to provide opportunities for self-initiated  learning and to give credit for i t ; and 5) to provide for periods of nonevaluative practice or learning.  At the crux of this undertaking i s 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 i s considerable evidence i n 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 i s tested i n the practical arena of the classroom) are ambiguous i n stating specifically the influences and interdependencies of teaching style, behavior, and creativity on student creativity, achievement 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 i n creativity.  He found that classroom climate was basic to  such creativity,enhancement. Clark and Trowbridge (1971) recorded that teacher training i n productive thinking and i n the strategies for humanizing the classroom were successful i n increasing self-concept, and i n developing thinking a b i l i t i e s of pupils.  (This approach was used i n the present study to prepare teach-  ers for the training conditions.)  26 In a notable study i n 1965 of achievement, creativity, and selfconcept 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 i n 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 i s advocated in the Pre-Task Phase) promoted original thinking to a significant degree, but f l e x i b i l i t y 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 environment 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 i n creative thinking. Along the same lines, Olmsted, Blackington, and Houston (1974) documented the intensity of the student-teacher relationship and.'.identified the "Child Focuser" as the most integrated and most effective teacher style.  This finding i s supportive of other research that defines the  facilitative learning environment as one which l i e s midway between the  27 teacher Geminated, closed and coercive classroom, and the child-centered, but laissez-faire setting.  This position i s 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 i n the literature are also of interest in view of the nature of the present study.  Representative of such research  i s Smith (1955) who produced no support for the implied dependence of emotional climate i n 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) concurred, advocating the necessity of structure i n any productive environment, but emphasizing " f l e x i b i l i t y " of teaching style (more than any specific behavior pattern) as being integral to creative learning. Wodtke, i n 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, i n a five-month study in 1970, detected no differences between "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 classroom atmosphere to the "open-democtratic" concept was attempted through modification of teacher attitudes by training i n 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 i n the chapter i n this respect. Two studies by Yamamoto are considered significant.  Research i n  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 i s held back by the less creative teacher.  As he failed to identify any differ-  ences i n classroom behavior of high and low creative teachers, he concluded that a high level of creativity i n 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 i s either a high or low creative teacher. Torrance (1963) re-analyzed the findings of Yamamoto and found d i f 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. that task-oriented/student-centred  He did find, however,  teacher behavior did result i n higher  student morale (i.e. self-concept). In a 1967 study, Broome produced consistent findings in his consideration 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 i s the intent of the  writer to present both sides of the research picture at this time to f a c i l i t a t e later consideration and discussion. Reading and Creative Problem-Solving The PTP materials are very much print-oriented and i n 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 i s 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 i n -  ferred meanings; b) appreciative reaction; and c) c r i t i c a l evaluation. Torrance (1965), Smith (1969) and Barbe (1971) interpreted Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect Model (1956) to stress creative reading as a thinking 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 i s sensitive to problems and possibilities....aware of the gaps i n knowledge, the unsolved problems, the missing elements, things which are incomplete or out of focus. To resolve this tension....the creative reader sees new relationships, creates new combinations, synthesizes relatively unrelated elements into a coherent whole, redefines or transforms certain pieces of information to discover new uses, and builds onto what i s known. •.Covington (1967) described a connection between "insightful, thoughtful reading and higher-order cognitive processes" in which comprehension i s labelled as a high-level cognitive activity. of two kinds of reading comprehension:  He accepted the identity  passive understanding  (the necessary  absorption and uncritical categorization of potentially useful information) and creative understanding of point of view).  (which leads to a significant restructuring  Along with De Boer, he equated creative thinking to  thoughtful or reflective reading.  This perception i s 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 i s 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 f i f t h 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 i s 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 i n their reading. Research that relates creative reading instruction to creative thinking i s sparse.  Documentation i s almost nonexistent on the conclu-  sions and implications of direct training i n reading s k i l l s 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 s k i l l s 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 a b i l i t y average readers i n the control group and often on a par with the average of the high a b i l i t y 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 s k i l l s and strategies common to both creative problem-solving and to reflective reading. The three dimensions identified as crucial to creative understanding were: 1) the a b i l i t y 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 i n reading was evidenced by experimental Ss. No significant differences i n reading achievement accompanied this apparent attitudinal change although results indicate that the program did not have any detrimental effect. The literature, then, i s i n agreement on two important points relevant to this study:  1) direct instruction in creative reading/thinking  i s necessary; and 2) these s k i l l s can be taught to intermediate-age children of a l l a b i l i t y levels.  33  The Problem The purpose of this present study was to examine further the effectiveness of The Productive Thinking (PTP) as a means of enhancing creative problem-solving i n 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 i n this chapter) to meet some of i t s 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 i n Chapter II>  "The Teacher and the Classroom Learning Environment") would result  in equal enhancement of the reading achievement, self-concept, problemsolving, 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 students using the PTP and those using the Pre-Task Phase in any of the following areas: 1.  gains i n reading achievement  2.  gains i n self-concept  3.  gains in attitudes toward problem-solving  4. gains i n question-asking 5.  gains in problem-solving s k i l l s  6. gains in creativity, i.e., verbal fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y and originality; and figural, fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , 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 a l , 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 incorporated 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 discussion and follow-up exercises  3)  the inclusion i n 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 onelesson-per-week application with distributed practice  The Chilliwack Creative Problem-Solving Program u t i l i z e s The Productive Thinking Program as an integral aspect of the introductory or PreTask Phase because of i t s 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 productive use of the mind; and,  3)  in fostering attitudes and motivations which nourish intellectual growth.  Because of i t s program-like format, both the students and the teacher are led systematically through the entire problem-solving process.  The PTP  i s , therefore, viewed as a valuable supplement to the basic problem-solving model described i n the Chilliwack Program (See Figure 4) and an appropriate complement to the establishing of the "comfortable classroom" concept. 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 s k i l l s 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 r e a l - l i f e problems. The model outlines, i n task-analytic form, a synthesis of the behaviors associated with productive thinking (Blank, 1974, 1976) verbal and ideational fluency and f l e x i b i l i t y ; originality; question-asking; sensit i v i t y to problems; the willingness to take risks; tolerance for ambiguity; and, the belief in self as a problem solver.  These a b i l i t i e s 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) i s 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 LEARNS  BASIC  SOLVING ALTERNATE  PROBLEM  SKILLS  SEQUENCES  Ai-D FOR  THE THEIR  USE  increase divergency  LEARNS  TO S T R I V E  MORE D I V E R G E N C Y THE PROBLEM  SOLVING  INDEPENDENTLY SOLVING TO S O L V E  FOR I N EACH  SKILLS  USES  QT  SKILLS  PROBLEM  DIVERGENTLY  PROBLEMS  FIGURE "r CREATIVITY. SEQUENCES; A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR THE CHILLIMSCK, " "'"" CBEKTIVTTV PRQOJtaM '" " ' h  ,,>  v  ,  u  non verbally  37 desired conversion i n 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 i n this study undertook to expand the introductory Pre-Task period (recommended for the f i 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 f e l t would contrive the favourable psychological conditions  38  needed to e l i c i t increased proficiency in the attitudes and related cognitive s k i l l s of creative problem-solving.  Students were, in this way,  introduced to, and provided with, the necessary practice to become risktakers and responsible learners.  Students learned to ask questions, to  make decisions in "comfort groupings", and to identify and solve problems. It i s the belief of the writer that the Pre-Task Phase i s of significant but as yet undocumented value to students with a widely diverse range of a b i l i t i e s and learning styles.  As the research i s ambiguous  with regard to the particular relationships between teaching and learning style, creativity, and classroom environment, i t i s , therefore, assumed that teacher style and creativity level w i l l 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 i n students, i t i s anticipated that any experienced teacher, appropriately trained, can be equally successful i n applying either of these approaches to atypical heterogeneous class of grade five students.  39  CHAPTER III METHOD  Subjects Working i n cooperation with the Central Office of the Vancouver School District, nine elementary schools were i n i t i a l l y 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 i n 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 i n a final sample of one hundred three students (50 males and 53 females) for whom a l l experimental measures were available. each class by sex can be seen i n Table 1.  The f i n a l composition of  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 i n 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 minimum 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 i n the classroom as well as displaying a positive attitude twoard participation in this project.  Design The design involved one control and one treatment condition i n four pre-existing classrooms i n 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 E l were both housed i n School 1, and C2 and E2 were both housed in School 2. The variables examined i n the comparison groups were: Reading Achievement; Self-Concept; Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving; Question-Asking; Problem-Solving Skills; and Creativity. Table I COMPOSITION OF CLASSES  Male  Female  25  13  12  C  26  13  13  1  E  24  9  15  2  E  28  15  13  103  50  53  School  Condition  1  C  2  N  No. of Students  41 Instruments Reading Achievement As a measure of reading achievement, the Sequential Tests of Educat i o n a l Progress (STEP) Series I I , Reading, Form 4a (pre-treatment) and 4B  (post-treatment) was employed.  As t h i s i s a "power" rather than a  speed t e s t , the forty-five-minute time l i m i t i s adequate to allow the majority of students to complete a l l s i x t y items. separately-timed parts. two basic types:  The t e s t has  two  Part I contains sentence comprehension items of  l i t e r a l comprehension and inference.  Part II contains  s i x passages of varying lengths with several questions accompanying each selection.  Raw  scores f o r Part I and II are translated i n t o a s i n g l e  converted t o t a l score. This standardized t e s t of reading achievement has been selected because i t appears to provide a measure of the higher l e v e l reading  skills  which most c l o s e l y approximate the creative reading/thinking s k i l l s ident i f i e d i n the discussion of the l i t e r a t u r e i n Chapter I I .  Reading achieve-  ment i s assessed under three item c l a s s i f i c a t i o n categories: Translation and Inference; and, Analysis.  Comprehension;  "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 r e l a t i o n s h i p s and involves a r e c o l l e c t i o n of sequences of ideas and f a c t s .  "Translation" and "Inference" are defined  as the a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y ideas when they are stated i n language d i f f e r e n t from the o r i g i n a l presentation, to deduce the meaning of f i g u r a t i v e or obscure language, to apply ideas to new and intended inferences.  situations, and to recognize d i r e c t  "Analysis" i s defined as the a b i l i t y to recognize  and appraise l i t e r a r y devices and l o g i c a l 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 a b i l i t i e s of a more conventional nature.  A copy appears i n Appendix A  along with the "Classification of Items According to Theoretical Dimensions" . 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 i n this study are presented i n a different sequence from the Spaulding measure. This minor alteration to the original format i s not expected to influence the r e l i a b i l i t y of the test in any way. This instrument was successful (with grade four and six students) i n attaining statistically significant gains i n the listed theoretical dimensions as a result of the kinds of interaction that took place between students, the teacher condition and the classroom condition. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y 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 i n the statement posed. are presented with a riddle, "It i s black. What i s i t ? "  Students  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 i s 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 Crutchf i e l d (1965), Covington (1968), Olton, Wardrop, et a l (1969), and Treffinger, et a l (1974).  These instruments were selected to evaluate s k i l l s 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). are highly diverse in both content and structure.  The two tasks  The problems are i n -  cluded i n Appendix A. The "Old Black House" problem occurs i n 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 i s looking for gold hidden i n an old black house out i n the country.  After thoroughly searching the house, the detective i s 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 i s informed that the owner of the  white house i s responsible for the disappearance and that the problem i s to discover how i t was done (Covington, 1967). The post-treatment measure sets out a problem type that i s totally unrepresented i n any of the PTP or Pre-Task materials.  Therefore, i t i s  quite unlike anything encountered i n either condition.  The "X-Ray" prob-  lem i s a simplified version of one used by Duncker some thirty-five years ago i n his classic research on the processes of productive thinking.  The  reader i s 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 i s that i f the x-ray i s too strong, i t w i l l k i l l the healthy tissue along with the tumor.  If, on the other hand, the x-ray i s made  too weak, i t w i l l not harm the good tissue, but neither w i l l 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 r e a l - l i f e problems have yielded poor results.  Treffinger,  Speedie, and Brunner (1974) conclude that one major difficulty of evaluating problem-solving with elementary-grade students i s motivation.  The  45 generation of hypotheses which, lead to appropriate solutions to problems w i l l only be as successful as the a b i l i t y 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 dent measure of problem-solving s k i l l .  indepen-  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 i n which a student wants to go boating, but finds that there i s a hole i n the boat.  The "Fort" problem describes a situation in which a student  wants to build a fort but finds that there i s no wood available. problems are administered on a pre and post basis.  Both  In each problem, stud-  ents are requested to f i r s t write down any thing, they would like to know to help them solve the problems, (information-seeking and question-generation) 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 i s determined along with sub-scores for question-asking and hypothesis-generation.  Creativity Four measures of creativity:  fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , 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" i s 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 i n the scoring manual. The "originality" score i s based on the sum of credits of the s t a t i s t i c a l 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 i n 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, i s defined as the exposition of detail to make pictures or drawings t e l l as complete and interesting a story as possible. Elaboration i s scored according to the number of ideas communicated i n addition to the rruiiimum basic idea. The minimum and primary response i s seen as a single response.  Credit i s given  for each pertinent detail (idea) added to the original stimulus figure i t s e l f , to i t s boundaries, and/or to the surrounding space. The Verbal Test consists of seven parallel tasks with a total administration time of forty-five minutes.  Four of these were selected for  this research based on a precedent set i n the literature by Treffinger, et a l (1974). Each task i s believed to bring into play somewhat different mental processes, yet each requires the subject to think i n divergent directions i n terms of possibilities.  The task include: Activity 1 (Ask-  and-Guess), asking questions about a drawing; Activity 4 (Product Improvement), producing ideas for improving a toy so that i t w i l l 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 administration time of thirty minutes.  The f i r s t task, Picture Construction, i s  designed to stimulate originality and elaboration.  The two succeeding  tasks, Incomplete Figures and Repeated Figures, e l i c i t increasingly greater variability i n fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , 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 thinking defined by Torrance (1972) as "a constellation of general a b i l i t i e s , personality variables and problem-solving traits".  Creativity i s estab-  lished i n 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 i n previous similar research (See Crutchfield, 1965; Ripple and Dacey, 1967; and Olton, Wardrop et a l , 1969) make the Torrance Tests particularly suitable for the purposes of the present study.  Teacher Training Teachers participated i n an intensive half-day workshop prior to the application of the conditions i n 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.  I t i s 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 i n 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 (40minute) 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 outlined i n 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 i n 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 i n 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 i n the Real-Life Total mean for this measure was causally-related to a significant difference i n the measure of QuestionAsking only, and was not representative of an overall discrepancy i n problem-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 F l e x i b i l i t y . Significant differences existed i n 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 i n each of the two schools. This was done to control for differences of a pre-treatment nature.  51 TABLE II SYMBOLS USED IN TABLES  SUB-VARIABLE  VARIABLE  SYMBOL  READING ACHIEVEMENT  1  RA  SELF-CONCEPT  2  SC  ATTITUDES TOWARD PROBLEM-SOLVING  3  PSA  QUESTION-ASKING  4  QA  5 5A  PS CPS  QUESTION-ASKING HYPOTHESIS-GENERATION TOTAL  5A1 5A2 5A3  OQU CHY CTOT  REAL-LIFE PROBLEM-SOLVING  5B  RLPS  5B1 5B2 5B3  RLQU RLHY RLTOT  6 6A  CT VCT  6A1 6A2 6A3  VFLU VFLEX VORIG  6B  FCT  6B1. 6B2 6B3 6B4  FFLU FFLEX FORIG FELAB  PROBLEM-SOLVING  COMPLEX PROBLEM-SOLVING  QUESTION-ASKING HYPOTHESIS-GENERATION TOTAL CREATIVITY  VERBAL FLUENCY FLEXIBILITY ORIGINALITY FIGURAL FLUENCY FLEXIBILITY ORIGINALITY ELABORATION  X  C 0 N D I T  S C H 0 0 L  C  1  36.44  36.72 134.60  C  2  35.43  34.04 131.36  PS RA  SC  PSA  QA  CT  CPS  RLPS  VCT  CQU  CHY  CTOT RLQU  RLHY  8.32  5.70  1.42  7.12  3.30  4.52 : 7.84 24; 70 13.;32  13.53  6.08  1.75  7.83  9.00  1.06  1.54  61.69  RLTOT VFLU  FCT  VFLEX VORIG  FFLU  FFLEX  7.24  46.80  50.00  45.80  51.60  4.85 13.85 29.42 14.49, 11.17  46.51  51.98 . 45.66  56.42  FORIG  FETAB  F  c  .193  P  c  .661  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  3.67  4.80  6.63  .018 12.32  19.14  16.81  21.70  22.73  F  E  P  E  8.04 .000  2.95 .089  .300 23.22  .318  .585  .574  .000  .305  .264  .533  .917 42.82 28.92  .697 22.31  .467  .341  .406  .000  .000  .000  .000  .058  .281 31.83 .597  .031  .000  .011  2.95 .089  1.83 .180  1.16 ; 9.28 .284  .893  .000  .000  TABLE III PRE-TREATMENT MEANS (X), F RATIOS (F), AND PROBABILITY LEVELS (p) , FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONDITIONS AND BETWEEN SCHOOLS  .018  .994  .005  .893  .321  .946  .000  .000  .000  3.16 .079  .000  53 Pre and Post-Test Differences T-tests were conducted on each of the variables and each of the subvariables under consideration.  The gains or losses in achievement were  analyzed for each of the four classrooms.  The results are recorded i n  Table IV (A) and Table TV (B). The changes i n 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 significant. For Attitudes Toward Problem-Solving, both Experimental classes produced an increment i n class means significant at the p 4..05 level. For Question-Asking, the gains in mean scores for both Control Condition classes  and the Experimental Treatment in School 1, reached-a  significance level of .p<^ 01. The Control Condition i n School 1 also recorded a significant reduction i n the range of scores, with the Experimental Treatment i n School 1 approaching significance. For Problem-Solving, both the Experimental Treatment and the Control Condition recorded significant (p^.01) increments i n Total Problem-Solving mean scores for each of the four classes (with the exception of the Experimental Group i n School 2). For the sub-variable of Complex ProblemSolving, 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 i n 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.  c 0 N D I T  S C H 0 0 L  C  1  PS RA  SC  PSA  QA  CT  CPS OQU  CHY  RIPS  VCT  CTOT RLQU  RLHY KLTOT VFLU  FCT  VFLEX VORIG FEIiU  FELEX  FORIG  FELAB  X  .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  .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  .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  .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  c  E  E  2  1  2  TABLE IV (A) PROBABILITY LEVELS FOR PRE AND POST TEST MEANS (X) AND VARIANCES (V)  S C H 0 0 L  C 0 N D I T X  C  1  SD  X  C  2  SD  X  E  1  SD  X SD  E  2  PS PA  SC  PSA  QA  CT  CPS  RLPS  OQU  CHY  CTOT  RLQU  vcr  FCT  RLHY RLTOT VFLU VFLEX VORIG  FFLU  FFLEX  FORIG  FELAB  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  5.76  5.60 11.52  39.64  24.36  21.40 45.00  51.20  52.60  49.80  3.84  0.56  4.40  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  0.88  0.96  1.84  4.00  4.76  8.76  27.04  15.08  8.56 52.80  54.60  52.00  7.44  33.28 20.20  21.52 44.00  49.20  49.60  46.80  9.93  12.42  11.23  9.24  6.72  10.79  10.50 54.17  34.92  37.72 134.16  35.64  38.60 137.00  5.68 8.88  6.49  0.96  8.24  8.68 16.92  9.67  9.36  35.47  3.38  1.05  0.89. 1.25  2.99  2.37  4.39  10.84  5.73  9.63  7.87  27.85  4.14  2.85  0.79  3.43  3.57  4.26  7.25  13.85  7.77  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  43.63  35.00 145.58 24.33  10.54 24.83  35.08 45.83  5.08 11.73 11.49  61.40 !  6.92  1.13  8.04  14.23  45.08  24.21  50.63  57.71  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  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  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  58.10  11.98  6.19  10.12  6.86  49.79 13.16 '  3.69  1.14  4.83  7.52  5.86 13.38  50.10  24.79  33.86 40.52  48.45  61.03  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  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 i s interesting to note that a significant increase i n variance accompanied these results.  The range of scores i n Total Complex Problem-  Solving for both Conditions increased significantly.  For Complex Question-  Asking, the range of scores increased for each of the two classes i n the Control Condition to a significance level.  For Hypothesis-Generation,  only the Experimental Treatment i n School 2 showed a significant increase i n the range of scores recorded. Where the sub-variable of Real-Life Problem-Solving s k i l l s were assessed, post-test scores also showed increments i n a l l factors measured for a l l four classes (with the exception of the Experimental Treatment i n School 2 Question-Asking and Total).  For Total Real-Life Problem Solving,  the difference i n pre and post means for both the Control Condition groups and the Experimental Treatment i n School 1 reached a significance level of p^.01. For the sub-variable of Question-Asking, increments i n class mean scores at a p<.01 level of significance were recorded for the Control Condition, and the Experimental Treatment i n 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 i n School 1 and pZ.,05 i n School 2. Class means for the Experimental Treatment showed a significant (p<.01) increment.  A significant (p<£ .01) increase i n 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 i n School 2 showed a significant increase i n the range of scores while for HypothesisGeneration, only the Control Condition i n School 2 displayed a significant increment i n 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, F l e x i b i l i t y , and Originality) for three of the four classes (both Experimental Groups, and the Control Group i n School 1) . The exception was the Control Condition in School 2, where an increment i n class mean reaching a p^.05 significance level was recorded i n Verbal Fluency.  A l l four classes recorded a significant increase i n the range  of scores for Verbal Originality.  For Fluency, the range of scores i n -  creased significantly for both the Control Condition i n School 1 and the Experimental Treatment i n School 2. The range of scores also increased significantly for the Control Group i n 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 i n Origina l i t y for the Experimental Treatment and for the Control Condition i n School 1. The latter group also produced a significant (p^.01) increment in class mean for Flexibility and Elaboration, and an increment approaching a p ^.05 level of significance i n Fluency. A significant (p^.01) decrement i n class mean score was noted i n Figural Fluency for the Control Condition and the Experimental Treatment i n School 2, as well as i n Elaboration for the Control Condition i n School 2.  A decrement i n Flexibility for the Control Condition class mean score  in School 2 approached the p^.05 level.  A similar condition existed for  the Experimental Treatment i n School 2 at the p^.05 significance level. It i s interesting to note that the significant decrements i n Figural Fluency and F l e x i b i l i t y occurred i n both classes i n School 2. A significant (p ^.05) decrease in the range of pre and post-test  58  scores was produced i n Figural Flexibility for the Control Condition i n School 1, with School 2 approaching a significance level.  Figural Origi-  nality for the Experimental Treatment i n School 1 showed an increase i n 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 PreTask Phase i n any of the following areas? 1.  gains i n reading achievement  2.  gains in self-concept  3.  gains i n attitudes toward problem-solving  4.  gains i n question-asking  5.  gains in problem-solving s k i l l s  6.  gains i n creativity, i.e., verbal fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y and originality; and, figural fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , 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 i n creasing the reading achievement of students (p £.05).  As this i s an  unexpected and impressive finding, i t s implications are discussed i n detail in Chapter V. For Question 2, the measure of self-concept demonstrated an increase over both training conditions, although the increments were not s t a t i s t i 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  VARIABLE 1 GR-TR 2 GR-TR 3 GR-TR 4 GR-TR 5A GR-TR 5B GR-TR 6A1 GR-TR 6A2 GR-TR 6A3 GR-TR 6B1 GR-TR 6B2 GR-TR 6B3 GR-TR 6B4 GR-TR  1  2  39.92  34.46  36.36  43.62  35.86  37.35  36.68  35.00  143.6  136.4  141.6  145.6  22.61  9.96  20.96  24.33  7.74  4.63  7.4-":  8.04  20.80  12.52  16.92  24.83  42.31  42.31  39.64  45.08  24.29  22.67  24.36  24.21  28.10  28.15  21.40  35.08  45.41  42.13  45.00  45.83  50.92  48.80  51.20  50.62  55.10  55.74  52.60  57.71  49.80  52.87  49.80  49.79  CONDITION E C  36.00 35.64  38.06 • 33.45  37.64 38.60  35.70 36.28  139.3 137.0  140.3 135.9  F  P  .731 6.291 4.449  .395 .014 .038  .513 .215 .001  .475 .643 .977  .784 .492 .002  .378 .485 .965  14.92 8.88  16.98 10.90  21.642 .070 .015  .00001 .792 .904  5.92 4.40  6.28 4.83  27.461 .275 .659  .000 .601 .419  14.22 11.52  18.87 13.38  18.276 .111 2.126  .00004 .740 .148  36.46 33.28  47.83 50.10  .793 .143 .023  .375 .015 .00002  22.28 20.20  24.53 24.79  1.723 .605 17.224  .192 .439 .00007  21.46 21.52  34.41 33.86  7.277 8.886 1.598  .008 .004 .209  44.50 44.00  42.92 40.52  4.337 .412 . .729  .040 .522 .395  50.20 49.20  49.43 48.45  2.705 .286 .000  .103 .594 .999  51.10 49.60  59.53 61.03  1.621 19.125 5.004  .206 .00003 .028  48.30 46.80  54.34 58.10  1.340 3.418 19.727  .250 .068 .00002  60  Personality characteristics, such as self-concept, tend to resist measurable change:  (Sisk, 1966, Purkey, 1971) and when some change i s 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 i n 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 d i f ference between the two conditions. those of Taylor  The findings do, however, support  (1963), Flanders (1964), and Crutchfield (1965) with  regard to the apparent interaction between the establishing of the "comfortable classroom" and increased student self-confidence.  Pre-Task  students appeared to be more secure and comfortable i n taking on the new role of problem-solver.  This apparent increase i n 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 i n view of the comment of Sears (1963), the originator of the inventory used i n the present study.  She  suggested that "an important part of the child's self-image i s the degree to which s/he expects to succeed i n solving problems."  (See also Briggs,  61 1970)  It i s puzzling that the marked increase i n self-confidence was  not manifest in improved performance except for reading. Quandt, 1972,  Perhaps (as  suggests) reading achievement i s the one variable out of  a l l those examined, where student performance i s most affected by the level of self-confidence exhibited by the reader. For Question 4, no significant difference existed between the i n creased question-asking Phase or the PTP.  ability of students participating i n the Pre-Task  The implications of the increments (in particular as  they pertain to the Pre-Task Phase) w i l l be discussed in Chapter V. For Question 5, no significant difference in increased problemsolving s k i l l s was found between either condition. For Question 6, no significance difference in creativity was found between the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase conditions i n verbal f l e x i b i l i t y , and figural fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , and elaboration (although the latter approached a p^.05  level of significance i n favour of the Pre-Task Phase) .  A between-condition difference was recorded on verbal fluency and o r i g i 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 pZ..01 significance level.  with figural originality increasing to a As this i s a replication of an earlier finding,  implications w i l l 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 i s 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 conditions.  Wallach and Kogan (1965), Van Mondfrans,. et a l (1970), and  Treffinger, et a l (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 s k i l l s of creative problem-solving i n 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 a b i l i t y of the Pre-Task Phase of the Chilliwack Creativity Program to meet seme of i t s stated objectives  3)  To compare the success of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase i n enhancing creative problem-solving i n six areas of student behavior.  The following discussion w i l l deal with the results of this study as they pertain to the grade five students i n 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 i s appropriately taught.  (See Covington and  Crutchfield, 1965, Olton, Wardrop, et a l , 1969, Treffinger, et a l , 1974). To underscore the contention that the Control classes did indeed serve as "controls", or representatives of a successful exercise i n 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 i n Chapter II.  I t was of interest, therefore, to the writer to determine the degree  to which the present research replicated earlier findings.  This question  i s considered i n the discussion which follows. Question-asking, one of the major themes identified i n the Program, evidenced a highly significant increment i n both Productive Thinking Pro-gram classes.  Increased fluency i n question-generation, as measured by  the Riddle Problem, was further reinforced by impressive and highly significant gains on an additional independent criterion measure which recorded question-asking tendency i n both complex and r e a l - l i f e problem-solving. This finding i s also consistent with the research done with grade five students by Covington and Crutchfield (1965) , Covington (1968), Olton, Wardrop, et a l (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 i n the present study) these authors found that "the magnitude of the differences i n increased question-asking gains attributed to training were absolutely large and beyond mere statist i c a l significance." A second area of problem-solving where the PTP was successful in obtaining large increments was hypothesis-generation. Several previous studies have reported the success of the PTP i n increasing fluency i n hypothesis or idea production. Crutchfield, 1969, etc.)  (Covington, Crutchfield, 1965, Olton and  The present study replicated Crutchfield s 1  findings on the same problems used i n the 1965 study, i.e. the PTP appeared  65 to f a c i l i t a t e "readiness to generate numerous ideas and to increase the volume of idea output." A highly controversial issue i n PTP research has been "transfer of training" or the development of what Crutchfield (1965) called a "Master Thinking S k i l l " , i.e., the effective coordination, integration, and u t i lization of problem-solving s k i l l s . Dacey, 1967,  Several researchers (Ripple and  Treffinger and Ripple, 1969,  1971)  have recorded l i t t l e  success in verifying positive transfer of the generalizable problem-solving s k i l l s taught i n the PTP as reported by the authors of the Program.  An  important finding of the present study replicates the transfer of s k i l l s results of earlier research (utilizing the same problems) conducted by the PTP authors (1965). Another aspect of the findings of the present research i s of interest here because i t provides further evidence that contradicts Treffinger, et a l (1974) who found students participating in the PTP unable to transfer problem-solving s k i l l s when assessed by two measures of r e a l - l i f e problemsolving.  Post-test results in the present study for PTP Ss were highly  significant for a l l measures of fluency in r e a l - l i f e problem-solving.  The  writer's findings differ from Treffinger, et a l , and Tuckman, et a l (1968) who found that "effects of the PTP tend to become less effective as problem 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) i n 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 i n the training lessons." tions of the present research indicate that effects of the PTP  Implicaexhibited  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 i n Chapter III,  the present study utilized an incomplete, but research^-valid, (Treffinger, et a l , 1974) version of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Battery.  (Verbal)  The PTP was highly successful i n increasing verbal creative  thinking of students in both classes in terms of fluency, and in one class in f l e x i b i l i t y and originality.  The class in which the gains were not  made was housed in the school where creative thinking scores were significantly 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 a l (1974) but contradictory to the bulk of the research where the PTP displayed a marked lack of success i n 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 development of students' verbal creative thinking a b i l i t i e s . " It i s 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 a l , 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 i s 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, Olton, 1969, and Treffinger and Ripple, 1969,  1971)  1968,  as there i s consider-  ably increased emphasis in the (1972) Program on oral discussion and teacher-student interaction. As well, the augmented format exposes students much more intensively to a wide range of creative thinking (curricular and real-life) problematic situations on which to transfer and practice newly-acquired s k i l l s .  The extended time limit of the present study may  also have been a contributing factor.  This assumption i s 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 creativity 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 i s more  directly linked to specific instruction and practice in these s k i l l s and there i s 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 c r i t e r i a .  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 instructional period.  The present study was conducted for almost twice the length  of time of the Olton and Crutchfield (1969), Treffinger, et a l (1974) research, which, i n themselves, extended the instructional period well beyond any other previous studies. The Pre-Task Phase A second area of interest i n the present study concerned the success of the Pre-Task Phase i n meeting some of i t s stated objectives.  The pre-  sent study i s a departure from previous research on the Chilliwack Creativity Program (Blank, 1974, Blank, Fox, and Nelson,'1976) i n 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 i n regular classroom settings. It should be noted that i t was not the intent of this study to d e l i berately restrict or structure the evaluation of the Pre-Task Phase i n 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 i n 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 i n  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 i t s e l f 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 c r i t e r i a advocated by Parnes (1967) as to the kinds of internal and external educational effort required to facilitate creative 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 application of the Pre-Task Phase Approach.  I t may be that any experienced  teacher with appropriate training can u t i l i z e the Pre-Task Phase i n the classroom and expect positive results among his or her students. What i s also evident i n the present study i s the importance of positive teacher attitude (advocated by Rookey, 1972) as a significant factor i n the successful 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 i n addition  70 to specific training in the theory and techniques of creative problemsolving.  This i s 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 between 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 i s 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 i s advocated in the Pre-Task Phase: individual;  1) acceptance of the worth of the  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 f a c i l i t a t i v e teacher behavior and the establishing of a "structured, reflective environment"  (Olmsted,  et a l , 1974), i.e., a "student-centered, task-oriented, democratic classroom".  I t i s noted that the present study i s 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 s k i l l s 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 i n the Pre-Task Phase can increase significantly the development of the techniques of student question-asking i n both traditional (complex) and r e a l - l i f e problem situations.  This i s an important finding, as the a b i l i t y 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 i s noticeably absent from the general behavior of students and one which must be developed by direct instruction.  I t i s 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 w i l l encourage children toward greater self-confidence or self-reliance and belief i n self as a problem solver. Although the present research did not attempt to analyze the questions students asked according to the three "types" presented i n 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 i n student question-asking which  72 Blank and Covington  (19651 suggest i s causally-related to a lack of  "strong-enough set or readiness" (classroom climatel and a lack of "adequate s k i l l s " (specific instruction).  Comparison of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase In the present study, the Pre-Task Phase, which advocates the establishing of an "open" classroom and a learning climate conducive to problemsolving, has been shown to result in greater enhancement of the creative thinking attitudes and s k i l l s of grade five students than the application of the Productive Thinking Program. There are two instances where the Pre-Task Phase i s 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. Pre-Task classes were different in reading achievement  While the two  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 i s made on the basis of estimating  (from standardized norms) the achievement gain that might be expected tlrird of the way through the school year, and comparing this with the actual pre and post-test findings.  one-  73 The Pre-Task students i n School 1 were superior readers (to the other Experimental class in School 2) before the Pre-Task Treatment was begun. It i s this former group that demonstrated the significant increase i n reading score. After treatment, the Pre-Task students i n 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 i s an interesting finding as the Pre-Task Phase was not designed for low achievers. In Blank, et a l (1976), i t was noted that exposure to the Chilliwack Program appeared to increase student interest i n reading.  It was assumed  by the authors that the PTP had a beneficial effect upon reading achievement because of the high interest content.  Covington (1967) had previously  made indirect reference to the enhancing effects of the PTP for the teaching 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 i n the present example, even i n 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 a b i l i t y levels. The disappointing effects of the PTP upon reading achievement are d i f f i c u l t to understand.  I t may be that the Productive Thinking Program  enhances reading achievement when taught in addition to the total reading program, but i t i s 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 i s used as a reading program, i t should be combined with, the intensive affective tasks described i n the Pre-Task Phase. Creativity Significant between-*treatment differences on the sub-tests of verbal fluency, and verbal and figural originality were produced i n the present study i n favour of the Pre-Task Treatment.  Despite the d i f f i c u l t i e s dis-  cussed i n Chapter IV,regarding the Torrance Tests administration, this i s a particularly important finding as Blank, et a l (1976) reported similar results with gifted grade four students who had participated i n the total Chilliwack Creativity Program (including both the Pre-Task Phase and the PTP).  It i s noted that the present study displayed even more impressive  gains i n creativity enhancement with non-gifted grade five students for a shorter training period. The most interesting comparison i n creative thinking occurs i n the sub-test of figural creativity.  In both Blank, et a l , and the present  study, there was a decrement produced i n figural fluency and f l e x i b i l i t y , accompanied by a significant increment in figural originality.  (The pre-  sent study recorded an even more significant increment i n this sub-test.) Figural fluency and f l e x i b i l i t y appear to decrease as originality increases. As the present research and Torrance (1962) suggest, verbal fluency appears to f a c i l i t a t e verbal originality.  However, the same relationship i s not  evidenced in figural creative thinking.  I t i s noteworthy  that the  Chilliwack Creativity Program apparently facilitates the increase of o r i 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 o f t h i s study suggest that the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s o f the PTP may be r e p l i c a t e d and t o some extent improved upon by classroom teachers who have undergone only b r i e f t r a i n i n g i n productive thinking and c r e a t i v e problem^solving s t r a t e g i e s .  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 t h e i r students. materials year.  Both were planning t o secure the PTP  f o r use i n t h e i r classroom programs during the following school  The two teachers who administered the Pre-Task Phase were a l s o  very p o s i t i v e t o using the same approach again.  However, they expressed  a strong d e s i r e t o u t i l i z e the PTP materials as w e l l .  I t i s proposed that,  despite the lack of impressive r e s u l t s i n the present study, the PTP (at l e a s t f o r teachers new t o t h i s f i e l d of endeavour) may a c t as much as a t r a i n i n g program f o r the teacher as i t i s f o r the students.  Further i n -  v e s t i g a t i o n with a larger teacher population would be an i n t e r e s t i n g avenue t o pursue f o r future research. I t was c e r t a i n l y worthwhile, f o r the purposes of t h i s study, t o separate out the a p p l i c a t i o n of the PTP and the Pre-Task Phase.  The drawback  to exclusive dependence upon Pre-Task strategies,in"Jspite of t h e i r obvious value f o r classroom i n s t r u c t i o n , i s that the absence of a step-by-step printed program f o r students requires a considerable time ccmmitment and much extra energy on the part of the teacher.  To obtain optimal e f f e c t  i n the t r a i n i n g of c r e a t i v e problem-solving i n students a t the grade f i v e l e v e l , i t can be concluded that an i d e a l arrangement seems t o be t o 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 i n i t s 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 i n 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 i n the literature.  In addition, i t i s 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 i s 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 i n the areas of classroom environment 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 PreTask Phase on reading achievement.  77 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, H.H. (ed.) Bros., 1959.  Creativity and i t s Cultivation.  New York: Harper  Aschner, Mary Jane and Bish, Charles E. (eds.). Productive Thinking i n 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," Supervisors of Instruction, 3 (1), 1974 pp. 29-32.  Journal of  f  Blank, Stanley S. and Covington, Martin. "Inducing Children to Ask Questions i n Solving Problems," The Journal of Educational Research, 59 (1), 1965, pp. 21-27. Blank, Stanley S., Fox, J., Harris, D. and Litwintschik, J. What i s Creativity?: How to Solve Problems Uniquely. (A Teacher's Guide for the Chilliwack Creative Problem Solving Program) Unpublished Manuscript, 1974. Blank, Stanley S., Fox, Joyce, and Nelson, Gordon. "An I n i t i a l 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 Conference 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. Press, 1961. Cantor, Nathaniel. 1950.  Cambridge: Harvard University  The Dynamics of Learning.  Buffalo: Foster and Stewart,  Castelli, CD. "An Exploration of the Relationship Between Teacher Creative 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 SelfEsteem," Today's Education, 58 (4), 1969, pp. 28-29. Covington, Martin V. "Promoting Creative Thinking i n the Classroom," The Journal of Experimental Education, 37 (2), 1968, pp. 22-30. __. "Some Experimental Evidence on Teaching for Creative Understanding," 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. ductive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1972.  The ProColumbus:  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 S k i l l s 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. New York:  Psychology of Problem Solving: Basic Books, Inc., 1973.  Theory and Practice.  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 Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, 1969. De Boer, John J. "Creative Reading and the Gifted Student." Teacher, May, 1963, pp. 436-441.  The Reading  Delias, Marie. "Effects of Creativity Training Defensiveness and I n t e l l i 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," Educational Leadership, 1973 (May), pp. 726-728.  79 Enochs, Paul D. An Experimental Study of a Method for Developing Creative Thinking i n 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 'Divergent and 'Congruent' Thinking." International Journal of Electrical EngineerEducation, 6, 1968, pp. 99-108. 1  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. Corp., 1969. Johnson, D.M. and Row,  Psychology: 1961.  A Problem-Solving Approach. New York: Harper  Jones, J., Siegel, A. and Gilliland, S. Aesthetic Experience." Kagan, Jerome (ed.).  New York: Pitman Publishing  "Creating a Climate for the  Journal of Education, 152.(2), 1969, pp. 54-58.  Creativity and Learning.  Boston:  Houghton M i f f l i n ,  1967.  Kagan, Jerome. "Motivational and Attitudinal Factors i n 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 i n 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," House, 46 (6), 1972, pp. 364-369. Lytton, Hugh E.  Creativity and Education. New York:  Clearing  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 F i f t h Grade Elementary School Children. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland, 1970. Maslow, Abraham. 1962.  Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: D. Van Nostrand,  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 Thinking S k i l l s i n F i f t h and Sixth-Grade Children." Journal of Creative Behavior, 1969, 3, pp. 16-25. Olton, R. M. and Crutchfield, R.S. "Developing the S k i l l s of Productive Thinking." In P. Mussen, J. Langer, and M. Covington (eds.), Trends and Issues i n Developmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp. 68-91. Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination. New York: Sons, 1963.  Charles Seribner's. '  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 i s Creative Thinking? New York:  Philosophical Library, 1955.  Peavy, R. V. "Notes on Facilitative Teaching: The Need for Healthy InterAction," 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. N..J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.  Englewood C l i f f s ,  81 Quandt, Ivan. Self Concept arid Reading. Newark, Del.: Reading Association, 1972.  International  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. . Press,  Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , On Becoming a Person. 1961.  1951.  Cambridge, Mass: The Riverside  . "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. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.  Cambridge,  Sears, Pauline. "Attitudinal and Affective Factors i n 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."' Doctoral-Dissertation. New York: Hobstra University, 1965. Stein, Morris I. Suchman, J. R. covery."  Stimulating Creativity.  N.Y.:  Academic Press,  1974.  "Inquiry Training ': Building Skills for Autonomous DisMerrill-Palmer Quarterly, 7, 1961, 171-180.  Taylor, Calvin W. and Barron, Frank (eds.). Scientific Creativity: Recognition and Development. New York: Wiley, 1963. Torrance, E. Paul. "Can. We Teach Children to Think Creatively?" Journal of Creative Behavior, 6 (4), 1972, pp. 114-143. . Guiding Creative Talent. Prentice-Hall, 1962.  Its  The  Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:  82 New Jersey:  _ . Rewarding Creative Behavior. Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, 1965.  __. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Manual. Princeton, N.J.: Personnel Press, 1966. Torrance, E.P. and Myers, R.E. Dodd, 1970.  Norms-Technical  Creative Learning and Thinking.  New York:  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 i n 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 i n Young Children. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ltd., 1965.  New York:  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 F i f t h 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  School  Teacher  Date  Grade  Girl  This i s a chance for you to look at yourself and think about what your strong points are and what your weak points are. This i s not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Be sure your answers show how you think about yourself.  (Check one)  86  Instructions t o Students  Before you s t a r t , here i s an example f o r you to t r y . Read number 1 and then answer the question. Better TPYAMDTT?  V  EXAMPLE:  Excellent  e  I  Y  Good  '^^Ii  most  Not  OK  Compared with other g i r l s and boys my age, how do I rate myself? 1.  SO  Good  Working on my own.  The words a t the top o f each column show what each l i n e stands f o r . Find the l i n e under the heading that shows your answer. Make an X on that l i n e .  87  Excellent Compared with other g i r l s 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 f a i r l y or had a chance to t e l l my ideas.  5.  Knowing how to solve arithmetic 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 i s 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 i n solving hard problems.  14.  Being able to talk about my ideas i n a group.  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  88  Excellent Compared with other g i r l s and boys my age, how do I rate myself? 15.  Being a good sport.  16.  Making friends easily.  17.  Being able to see things i n 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 i n 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 i n 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.  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  89  Excellent 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 i t ' s like to have your feelings hurt and that others feel the same way.  33.  Being able to find new ways of f i t t i n g 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 i n front of other people.  38.  Having plenty of friends.  39.  Being able to keep my mind on my work.  40.  Being interested i n new things and excited about a l l there i s to learn.  41.  Being willing to t e l l my ideas when no one else agrees with me.  42.  Liking something i n 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.  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  90  Excellent 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 i t ' s my turn.  47.  Being cooperative with teachers.  48.  Getting my school work i n on time and not getting behind. Knowing what to do to get the right answer to a problem.  49. 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.  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  91  Excellent 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 little bit.  65.  Being able to lead my l i f e my own way.  66.  Doing my part i n 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 i n a new way.  68.  Being able to listen to someone else even when I think what they are saying i s 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 interested - studying about things on my own.  72.  Knowing how others feel when they have hard problems to solve.  73.  Solving problems i n ways others haven't tried before.  _  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  92  Excellent Compared with other g i r l s 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 i n 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.  Very Good  Better Than Most  OK  Not so Good  Appendix A  93  {2)  SELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY CLASSIFICATION OF ITEMS ACCORDING TO THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS (SPAULDING, 1965) Item No. I. II. III. IV.  V.  Social Behavior  16,38  Attractive Appearance  20,43  Social Relationship with Teachers  24,47,61  Work Habits A. Persistence/Perseveration B. Organi zation/Planning C. Concentration/Application  1,28 34,44,48 12,39,88  Mental Abilities Including Creativity A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.  VI.  Humor/Playfulness Emotional Self-Acceptance/Integrity Dcminance/Assertion/Ascendance Self-Confidence/Independence/Autonomy Personal Aspiration/Standards  3,31,45,59 9,30,53,63 14,36,84 18,41,56,65,83,89 22,50,82,86,87  Human Relations Skills A. B. C. D. E. F.  VIII.  10,49,79,80 13,52 17,55 21,58 25,62,73,77 27,33 29,67 35,69 40,71  Mental Attitudes A. B. C. D. E.  VII.  Convergence Sensitivity/Abstractness/Awareness Imagination/Fantasy Production Flexibility Divergence/Originality Integration/Synthesis Penetration/Analysis/Circumspection Fluency Interest/Curiosity  '•-  Emotional Control Empathy/Understanding Fairness/Good Sportsmanship Warmth/Friendliness Cooperation/Participation Acceptance/Tolerance  School Subjects  4,54,70 11,32,57,72 15,37,60,74,81 19,42,64,75,85,90 23,46,66,76 26,51,68,78 2,5,6,8  94 Appendix A - (3)  Name School  Boy :  Date  Q.A./75-76 D.G.H.  Girl  (check one)  Teacher Grade  Do you like to solve mystery problems? Here i s a riddle:  "It i s black.  What i s i t ? "  On the lines below, write down a l l the questions that would help youanswer this riddle.  95 Appendix A - (4) C. P.S. D. G.H.  Boy  N a m s  School  Teacher  Date  Grade  Girl  Here i s a chance for you to become a detective and solve a mystery written by a famous detective story writer called Ellery Queen. Good Luck!  75/76  (check one) ,  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.  black house among some h i l l s .  At last, he reached the  On his f i 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 i n 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 i n 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 f e l t 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. rushed outside and looked a l l around. ly disappeared.  But the black house was GONEI  He  Yes, the black house had complete-  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 F i f t h 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  School  Teacher  Date  Grade  Girl  Here i s another mystery problem for you to solve.  This time you are a doctor who  has a very sick patient.  (check one)  101 There i s a harmful lump or tumor deep inside the body of your patient.  The tumor i s 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 h i t 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  School  Teacher  Date  Grade  Girl  Here are 2 problems that other students your own age have made up for you to solve.  (check one)  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 contacting Dr. Stanley Blank, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of B.C.  110 INTRODUCTION This manual i s a compilation of suggestions on how to apply the creativity tasks and how to reach the goals described i n Section I.  The  emphases here are on the words "suggestions" and "goals". We believe that challenge i s a stimulus for creativity; and that, i f teacher and students are going to enthusiastically involve themselves i n problem solving, 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 i s 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 i n the students who outdistance them. The suggestions i n 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 i s the ideal time to set the tone and goals of the classroom, to discover interests and special talents of i t s members, to ascertain levels  Ill  of achievement and perhaps to do some remediation based on indicated need. This i s an especially important time for students who have not been encouraged to ask questions or to solve their own problems.  The Pre-Task  Phase i s a natural time for a change of style without the added complication of new material. We have mentioned that, during the f i r s t part of the school term, students and teacher w i l l ordinarily be getting to know one another.  Even  i f the students have a l l or mostly shared a class the previous year, unless they have participated i n a program with a similar orientation, they w i l l need to get to know one another i n new ways. Some students w i l l lack experience at solving problems because they have been i n "free", "pure discovery", "experimental", or "student-centered" environments.  If  these students have been learning i n a more laissez-faire, haphazard atmosphere than the one we are describing, they may not have had much practice i n the concentration required for creative problem solving. In addition, the problem solving teacher must also be prepared to help youngsters 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 w i l l require practice i n making choices and taking consequences for them rather than looking to others for guidance. It i s during this period that the class develops i t s "group feeling", and for this reason, i t i s suggested that the class be i n 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 i s encouraged. One of the dangers of extra-class activities during this period i s 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 s k i l l s and interests i n mind, as well as searching out the interests and s k i l l s of the students.  This i s the time to operate i n  areas of most familiarity and comfort for both students and teacher. One of the ways to avoid unsupervised and haphazard activity i s 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.  I t i s re-  commended that for greatest success the Field Trip Philosophy be carefully and systematically implemented along with the other strands of the PreTask 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 i n 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 f i r s t acquire some of the s k i l l s necessary for problem solving.  The most basic of these  i s the technique of asking questions i n order to amass information and to gain ideas.  113 Why Problem Solvers Must Ask Questions When most people encounter problems, their immediate reaction i s 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 i n 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 w i l l find that: The information or ideas that result w i l l usually lead to enough new solution patterns to prevent perseveration and/or withdrawal from the problem. Asking diverse questions i s a way to distance oneself from a problem (put oneself on a ladder), i n order to get a bird's-eye view of the problem, i t s patterns and possible solutions. Question-asking, as we tnink of i t , i s akin to brainstorming, i n that i t s eventual purpose i s the production of ideas. The difference l i e s i n the fact that question-asking i s an individual process with specific purposes i n mind during the entire process. Creative problem solving i s a risky procedure for many students and they need a l l the support they can get.  I t i s risk-taking i n the sense  that, i n asking questions and in trying to be unique, the students leave themselves open to the possibility of ridicule.  That i s why, i n this  program, the students much of the time w i l l be working i n what we c a l l Comfort Groups (see How to Achieve Comfort Groups).  The students are en-  couraged to work together i n small groups with the people they find most  114  ^4&1M11«»MS  Found  115  comfortable as work partners. Problem solving should be initiated either i n an area of familiar content, or i n 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 i n the Creativity Sequences Chart), upon which teachers, i n experienced in these strategies, can rely as an organizational framework for discussion i n the problems they choose to explore with their students. In our model, i t w i l l be noted that the complexity of solutions are arranged i n three hierarchical steps (see Creativity Sequences Chart). In the f i r s t step, the missing data i s described as information  ....  116  Q. A. 1  INFORMATION DEFIGTENT PROBLEMS Sample Problem TEACHER:  I want to buy 25 apples for our f i e l d 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 i s missing. What do you need to ask me?  Go ahead and ask and I w i l l 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 w i l l be noted that risk-taking and originality are required throughout the program. For many students, i t w i l l be a risky situation just to ask for basic information. When the students spontaneously ask for information about a problem, i t i s 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 f i e l d t r i p .  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 t r i p . Perhaps you can ask me questions which w i l l 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 i s 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 i s i n order. TEACHER:  Wouldn't you like to ask how large the different types of apples are?  Originality can be encouraged i n a number of ways. For instance — STUDENTS: Will the green apples give us a stomach-ache? TEACHER:  That i s a question we haven't thought about and i t would certainly 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 f i n a l l y reach some conclusion or decision as to a solution path. differ from more usual problems, i n two ways: 1. They do not, i n the f i r s t instant, provide a l l the i n formation necessary for their solution but rather are of a nature that requires students to dig for the necessary information - after deciding what information i s needed.  They  118 Students do this i n part by f i 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 i n problem solving situations as well as a possible lack of closure. If the problems are relevant and interesting, the students w i l l 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 w i l l have a negative connotation. Early i n the year, the idea that problem solving can be fun, must be developed. Phase can be of great assistance.  Here, the Pre-Task  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 w i l l suggest for the students may, to some extent, arouse some feelings of apprehension.  A reminder i s i n order  here, to introduce the Crutchfield program at the beginning of the year: and after i t i s introduced, that i t be presented at regularly scheduled intervals.  This program w i l l act as the guide for the students i n defin-  ing insufficient data, and in asking the questions which w i l l 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 i s new and different. It i s d i f f i c u l t for a l l of us to learn more than one new thing, at a time and extremely d i f f i c u l t to teach several new things simultaneously. In this manual, we have attached information-deficient problems to the curricular material i n Task I, steps 1 and 2. Of course, some s students w i l l be expert information askers long before this material i s covered.  This i s only one of the many reasons that the teacher i s l e f t  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 i n presenting idea-deficient problems (suggested toward the end of Task I) much earlier than laid out i n the task analysis and at other times, w i l l s t i l l be initiating new material with information-digging long after the material in Steps 1 and 2 i s 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 i s 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 i n 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 i s the intermediary step that assists students toward  s k i l l s of generalization and identification of patterns and groups.  Hope-  fully, the students w i l l 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 alternative ideas, new ways of classifying and novel descriptions of c l a s s i f i 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 prepared 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 i n -  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 i s i n store for those who formulate 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 i s to pose the problem in such a way that the students notice the need for formulating their own generalizations — the more unique, the better — in order to supply the solution. Students who have developed competence i n learning from peers, from the teachers and from self-instruction, i n searching cut multi-sensory or alternate presentations of the problem and have learned something about incubation, should have the entering s k i l l s for idea-generation. Hypothesis formulation could be described as the combination of two of more ideas. Again, the product (where creative) i s 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, w i l l 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 w i l l be the stimulus that propels the student into the f i n a l step, or the verification of the problem solution.  Unfortunately, this i s a procedure that appears to be of less  interest and more work than the preceding steps. We have noted the considerable amount of unverified theory which i s popularly accepted as factual.  Let us emphasize that verification i s necessary in order to  proceed to the next step then move back to the beginning and to a new adventure i n 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 decisionmaking. In order to make the classroom comfortable, each person must feel good about: - her/himself - the other people i n the classroom - the ways s/he interacts with the others i n the class Along with question asking; at the end of the Pre-Task Phase, i n preparation for entering the Curriculum Phase of the program, the students as a group w i l l 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 i n their classroom environment and that they feel mutual respect and trust with the others i n that environment.  124 Evaluation Evaluation i n this phase i s an ongoing process. judgment i s of high value.  Intuitive teacher  The classroom teacher, because of her close-  ness and commitment to the situation, i s encouraged to take the initiative and to assume final responsibility for evaluation procedures and subsequent decisions arising from them. However, unless there i s continual evaluation methodically compiling proof of the types and amounts of learning and progress being made, teachers must be content with only subjective evaluation concerning changes i n pupils' behaviour i n the areas of values, self-image and attitudes. These materials have been provided to furnish such proof and to complement and validate the impressionistic assessments of the teacher thereby establishing more reliable c r i t e r i a for entering the Curriculum Phase of the program.  Procedure A l l four objectives are inter-related, inter-dependent and cumulative, and i t i s expected that after i n i t i a l introduction there w i l l be a free and constant shift i n emphasis among them. Because the progression of objectives i s hierarchical i n nature:  moving from concentration on SELF  to inclusion of ANOTHER and finally to interaction with the GROUP, the teacher must follow the procedures outlined i n the introductory period of this phase.  This i s particularly important as the activities move from  the simple to the complex. The objectives progress i n 3 steps:  125 1.  pre-activity evaluation which helps to determine selection of  2.  individual and group activities  3.  post-activity evaluation  which lead to  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 i n planning suitable learning experiences and i n 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 i n mind that class experiences  i n these areas do not stop with the completion of the Pre-Task phase, teachers are encouraged to u t i l i z e this material when and where "teachable' moments" arise at any time during the year, and to repeat and supplement i t as i s seem f i t . It i s 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 i n the environment of the comfortable classroom. As a "group", teacher and pupils can build their relationship upon this solid  126 foundation and i n so doing, grow and develop together throughout the year. The remainder of this unit i s comprised of four charts that outline strands in which: A.  objectives are briefly described i n terms of s k i l l s , 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  STRANDS  OBJECTIVE #1 Discovery o f Self  DEVELOPMENTAL & EVALUATIVE ACTIVITIES  TEACHER REFERENCES  (teacher & p u p i l s ) g e t t i n g t o know each o t h e r  *Here I Am (introduction) & P r i m a r y l e v e l books, Chpr. 1 *Empathy T r a i n i n g , Teacher f o l d e r *TABA m a t e r i a l s , Teacher f o l d e r *Diagnosing Classroom Environment T o o l 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22* Chpr. 6, 7, 9 *Values C l a r i f i c a t i o n , p. 13-27 S t r a t e g i e s 1, 36, 37 M i c r o Labs I , I I , I I I (reference obj.#4 •Encounter i n the Classroom, pp. 1822, Chpr. 4 forming Comfort groups) Teachers & Learners, p. 82 Background Sharing E x e r c i s e Teacher f o l d e r , V a l u e s C l a r i f i c a t i o n Sentence Completion* P u p i l I n t e r e s t Inventory & P u p i l ' s I n t e r Teacher f o l d e r Teacher f o l d e r (Group Behavior) e s t Record, Meeting I n d i v i d u a l Needs Springfield Interest Finder, I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Sheet  identifying & exploring f e e l i n g s h e l d by s e l f  Here I Am, Chpr. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 Stencils & activities  *TABA m a t e r i a l s , Teacher f o l d e r Here I Am, Chpr. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9  Here I Am, Chpr. 6, 7, 8, s t e n c i l s & Activities  *Here I Am, Chpr. 6, 7, 8  identifying & exploring a t t i t u d e s h e l d by s e l f  identifying & exploring v a l u e s h e l d by s e l f '  Time Capsule  Microlabs I , I I , I I I  Encounter i n the Classroom  S t r a t e g y #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 & activities T o o l 20, 21 p u r s u i n g (teacher) s e l f exploration & evaluation  *Pre O b j e c t i v e T sacher Reading  1  S t y l e o f Teaching Inventory, P r o f i l e s o f Teacher Competency, S e l f E v a l . o f E f f e c t i v e C I . management  * " P u p i l Self-Concept Teacher f o l d e r * S e l f Concept & School Achievement *TABA m a t e r i a l s , Teacher f o l d e r *Teacher f o l d e r Here I Am, Chpr. 10  * F a r a l l o n e s Scrapbook •Teaching w i t h F e e l i n g , Chpr. 1, 2, 3, 10, 14, 15 *Non V e r b a l Communication Chpr. 3, 4, 5 •Teachers & Learners, Chpr. 1 & 10 •Teacher F o l d e r & Group Behavior materials  128 PRE-TASK PROBLEMS The following examples are given.to aid teachers in developing question-asking strategies among students i n response to problems that arise spontaneously out of Pre-Task class interaction or to direct teachers as to how to pose problems that w i l l e l i c i t question-asking behaviour on the part of the students. Numerous opportunities w i l l arise from which to select situations that could be turned into excellent r e a l - l i f e problems within the classroom 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, i n order that students w i l l naturally use these s k i l l s when confronted with curriculum problems i n Task I. For example, i n establishing the Comfortable Classroom, students may ask i f changes can be made i n the physical organization of the room. Students must feel that the classroom i s their space and that they are responsible for i t s 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 i n i t i a l l y set out i n any specific pattern so as to keep the environment flexible, and to impress upon the students the reali t y 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 i n 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 o f the Pre-Task Phase, gradually allow f o r more f l e x i b i l i t y and student decision-making.  This w i l l vary  with i n d i v i d u a l s and c e r t a i n l y with the maturity and p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f the children themselves.  Teachers are encouraged t o be innovative and f l e x -  i b l e i n t h i s regard as soon as they f e e l confident i n doing so.  By the  time the c l a s s i s ready t o enter the Curriculum Phase o f the program, the teachers and p u p i l s should be f a m i l i a r with f l e x i b l e seating patterns, with comfort grouping f o r s p e c i f i c purposes, with decision-making, and with question-asking.  SAMPLE PROBLEM #1 Topic:  Classroom seating arrangement (This could be attempted e a r l y i n September o r i n October previous t o entering the Curriculum Phase o f the program).  TEACHER:  Tomorrow a t 9:00 o'clock you w i l l be able t o s i t wherever you wish i n the classroom, provided that no one e l s e disagrees with your choice.  I would l i k e you t o think about t h i s decision  c a r e f u l l y , so you w i l l make a wise choice.  You may ask me  anything you need t o know that w i l l help you be ready t o move tomorrow. STUDENTS:  Could we s i t together?  TEACHER:  Yes, but you must get the permission of the other people i n the c l a s s , including myself.  TEACHER:  Perhaps someone would l i k e t o ask me i f you must s i t a t a desk. (Teachers may e l e c t not t o allow student choice i n t h i s matter.)  130 Encourage many questions that explore a variety of seating arrangements. Encourage students to ask questions regarding where you w i l l sit.  Possibly the discussion w i l l d r i f t 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 i n 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 w i l l participate in activities designed to develop the Comfortable Classroom.  In such an atmosphere, students can learn to communicate and co-  operate i n 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 classmates i n many learning situations, so that students can become aware of those who have similar interests and compatible work habits.  It i s im-  portant that students be allowed and encouraged to practice grouping themselves 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 i n reserving "veto" power, i f and when students make less than efficient choices and i n taking advantage of the group concern to specifically help "loners" find some security i n group situations.  As well, teachers w i l l be able to identify  and support their goal-oriented students who work comfortably by themselves.  With teacher guidance, these Comfort Groupings w i l l facilitate  the development of small group interaction and discussion s k i l l s . Partner and group activities outlined i n 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.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054677/manifest

Comment

Related Items