Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Children’s problem finding and creative responses in and between reading and art Barber, Lois J. 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 B36.pdf [ 5.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055288.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055288-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055288-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055288-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055288-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055288-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055288-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055288-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055288.ris

Full Text

CHILDREN'S PROBLEM FINDING AND CREATIVE RESPONSES IN AND BETWEEN READING AND ART by LOIS J . BARBER B.A., Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Cu r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t u d i e s F a c u l t y o f Ed u c a t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Sept. 1981 © L o i s J . Barber, 1981 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the re-quirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l -able for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representa-t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date: Sept., 1981 Abstract In order to investigate what comes before a creative solu-t i o n to a problem, and to examine the significance of the prob-lem formulation component of creative a c t i v i t y , twenty-nine Grade 3 subjects were observed i n t y p i c a l school a r t and read-ing s i t u a t i o n s . The subjects were presented with a selection of objects to investigate and draw, and a selection of books to investigate and read. A variety of measures were used to determine each subject's scores i n both problem f i n d i n g — r e f l e c t i n g t h e i r investigative behavior—and problem s o l v i n g — assessing the o r i g i n a l i t y and craftsmanship of t h e i r products. In the art s i t u a t i o n a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of r=.38 was found between the t o t a l problem formulation of physi-c a l investigation and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the student's drawings In the reading s i t u a t i o n , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between making predictions about the material sur-veyed and creative reading responses; but not between physical investigation and creative responses. Between the a r t and read ing situations, problem finding i n a r t correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with several measures of creative responses i n reading. This study i n part affirms the t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical importance of the problem formulation component of creative pro duction, and suggests the i n c l u s i o n of problem formulation a c t i v i t i e s i n art and reading classroom situations i n which educational goals include the encouragement of students' crea-t i v e responses. i i i . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 Background 1 The Problem 3 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 6 J u s t i f i c a t i o n 7 Hypotheses to be Tested 9 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM... 10 Organization of Chapter 2 10 Introduction 10 Review of Literature and Research of General Relevance to the Problem 14 Psychological Considerations of C r e a t i v i t y . . . . 14 Perceptual Analysis of C r e a t i v i t y 14 Psychoanalytic View of C r e a t i v i t y I 7 Combinatorial Mental Play..... 17 Structural Problems 19 Discovery of Problems 21 Questioning 23 Review of Literature and Research of S p e c i f i c Relevance to the Problem 24 Introduction 24 i v . Page Chapter Manipulation i n Relation to Creative Re-sponses i n Areas other than Reading and Art... 25 Problem Finding and C r e a t i v i t y i n Art 2 9 Problem Formulation and C r e a t i v i t y i n Reading. 30 Summary of Reviewed Literature and Research... 3 4 3. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 3 9 The Sample 3 9 Method 3 9 Procedure 4 0 The Art Situation 4 0 The Reading Situation 4 2 D e f i n i t i o n and Measurement of Variables 4 4 The Art Situation 4 5 Problem formulation: s e l e c t i o n and arrangement 4 5 Problem formulation: questioning 46 Problem solution 48 The Reading Situation 49 Problem formulation: investigation and selection 49 Problem formulation: predicting 50 Problem solution 51 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures 53 4. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 55 Introduction 55 Hypothesis 1 56 Hypothesis II 58 V . Page Chapter Hypothesis III 62 Other Data 63 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 64 Introduction 64 Discussion of Results 64 Hypothesis 1 64 Hypothesis II 68 Hypothesis III 70 Other Data 72 Summary to Discussions and Conclusions 73 Limitations 74 Implications 76 Art Classes 77 Reading Classes 78 Art i n the Elementary School Curriculum 78 Suggestions f o r Further Research 78 REFERENCES 100 APPENDICES 80 A. Art Situation Behavior Scoring Chart 80 B. Art Situation Behavior Scores Recording Chart 81 C. Reading Situation Behavior Scoring Chart 82 D. Reading Situation Behavior Scoring Chart 83 E. Reading Situation Behavior Scores Recording Chart.. 84 F. L i s t of Books Displayed for Reading Selection 85 G. Text Used i n S i l e n t Reading Section 86 v i . Page Chapter APPENDICES - (Con't.) H. Text Used for Students' Oral Readings 88 I. Rank-Order Frequency Scores for Objects and Books Selected During Art and Reading Problem Formulations 89 J . Judges Ratings of S k i l l and O r i g i n a l i t y of Children's Drawings 90 K - l . Examples of Children's Drawings which Received the Highest and Lowest Ratings f o r S k i l l and O r i g i n a l i t y 91 K-2. Drawing A which Received Highest Rating for O r i g i n a l i t y 92 K-3. Drawing B which Received Highest Rating for O r i g i n a l i t y 93 K-4. Drawing C which Received Lowest Rating for O r i g i n a l i t y 94 K-5. Drawing D which Received Second Lowest Rating for O r i g i n a l i t y 95 K-6. Drawing E which Received Highest Rating for S k i l l . 96 K-7. Drawing F which Received Second Highest Rating for S k i l l 97 K-8. Drawing G which Received Lowest Rating for S k i l l . . 98 K-9. Drawing H which Received Lowest Rating for S k i l l . . 99 v i i . LIST OF TABLES Page 3.1 L i s t of a l l Variables i n the Art and Reading Situations 4 4 3.2 Examples of the I n t e l l e c t u a l Products Categories of Questions 4 7 3.3 Means and Standard Deviations for a l l Variables 54 4.1 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation and the Evaluations of the A r t i s t i c Products 56 4.2 Correlation Matrix of Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation 5 7 4.3 Correlation Matrix of Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products 5 8 4.4 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables with Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation and Evaluations of Reading Responses 5 9 4.5 Correlation Matrix of Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables and Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation... 6 0 4.6 Correlation Matrix of Dimensions with Subtotal of Evaluations of Reading Responses 61 4.7 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation and Dimensions of Evaluations of Reading Responses 6 3 4.8 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior V a r i -ables and Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation and Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products 6 3 v i i i . LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Areas of Problem Finding as They Relate to Creative Responses 15 4.1 Graphic Display of the Presented Internal Correla-tions within Each Group and the Correlations Between Each Group i n the Study 55 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper i s the r e s u l t of the coordinated e f f o r t s of many people. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l for the assistance and guidance of Dr. P a t r i c i a A r l i n , Dr. Roland Gray, Donna Davies, S i l v i a Marshall and Robin Barber. The cooperation of the p r i n c i p a l s of the schools i n which the research was conducted was invaluable. CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Background The creative process has been praised and encouraged, yet generally regarded as i n t r i n s i c a l l y incomprehensible. "To the layman and indeed to the a r t i s t himself the nature of the creative process i s mysterious and unanalyzable", writes Ver-non i n the introduction to C r e a t i v i t y , Selected Readings (1970, p. 12). Perhaps i t i s p r e c i s e l y the mystery of the creative process and the f a c t that i t i s indeed "one of the most i n -t r i c a t e ways i n which humans int e r a c t with t h e i r environment" that has made i t elusive to researchers as we l l . I t has been generally agreed that the creative process, p a r t i c u l a r l y the beginning of the process, which Mackworth (1965) c a l l s "prob-lem f i n d i n g " , i s i n the realm of pure i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y and as such i s "too involved to permit adequate analysis by d i r e c t study" (p. 58). A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on c r e a t i v i t y reveals a lack of d i r e c t analysis of the creative process. Rather than i n -vestigating the process, most of the inquiry has been directed at the creative products or producers. Discussions of creative products or responses have p r i -marily centered on questions of aesthetics. " C r e a t i v i t y i s always r e l a t i v e to a p a r t i c u l a r culture" (Vernon, p. 14), and aesthetic considerations serve to define what i s "creative" within a c u l t u r a l framework. The discussions of products, though they make clearer what i s considered creative, leave questions unanswered concerning why i t i s that creative 1 2 responses are made. In addressing the question of why individ u a l s make crea-t i v e responses, researchers and th e o r i s t s have turned t h e i r attentions from creative products to creative producers. The biographies of creative people have been analyzed and compared i n an attempt to determine the spe c i a l q u a l i t i e s of upbringing that mark a person as having creative a b i l i t i e s (Roe, 1952). Psychologists, s o c i o l o g i s t s , h i s t o r i a n s , and educators have studied the l i v e s of creative people both to understand the phenomenon and to provide measures that could be used to sel e c t i n d i v i d u a l s who show po t e n t i a l f o r c r e a t i v i t y . Taylor and E l l i s o n (1964), f o r example, developed a "bio-graphical inventory" which they administered to 1600 s c i e n t i s t s i n an attempt to i d e n t i f y factors which could be used to pre-d i c t an aptitude f o r c r e a t i v i t y i n the f i e l d of science. S i m i l a r l y , Guilford's work (1956) on the structure of the i n t e l l e c t u t i l i z e d a factor-analysis approach to i d e n t i f y the various " t r a i t s of c r e a t i v i t y " that could be measured i n any i n d i v i d u a l . As well as providing models for the q u a l i t a t i v e analysis of the person as creator, the l i t e r a t u r e also holds many ex-amples of se l f - r e p o r t i n g and introspective materials from i n -dividuals recognized for t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y . Such autobiograph-i c a l material not only provides information on the backgrounds, fam i l i e s , attitudes, and p e r s o n a l i t i e s of the creators, but often gives accounts of the development of s p e c i f i c creative responses, as i s the case with Einstein's reports on the 3 development of his theory of r e l a t i v i t y . Biographical mater-i a l often turns attention away from the q u a l i t i e s of the i n -d i v i d u a l to the q u a l i t i e s of the creative process. The creative process, though discussed i n t h i s biographi-c a l manner, has not u n t i l recently been investigated a n a l y t i c -a l l y . Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971) acknowledged t h i s lack of a n a l y t i c a l inquiry when writing, "Despite much recent research on c r e a t i v i t y , perhaps the most c r i t i c a l aspect of the problem has eluded systematic inquiry: the process of creative production i t s e l f " (p. 47). The present study, a systematic inquiry into t h i s process, grew out of the author's i n t e r e s t , p r a c t i c a l experience, and research i n the areas of a r t education and reading education. Informal observations made while teaching these two subjects suggested that the ways i n which a student approached or began a problem solving s i t u a t i o n were related to the c r e a t i v i t y of the products or responses made by that student. Investigative behaviors i n the a r t class included physical manipulation of materials and the asking of questions. In the reading c l a s s , i n i t i a l i nvestigative behaviors included the physical a c t i v i -t i e s of selecting and surveying books, and the i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s of making predictions and asking questions. In both situations i t appeared that what came before the creative re-sponse i n some way helped that response to come about. The Problem Several questions resulted from the informal observations noted above: What comes before a creative response? Is i t 4 something unique to each subject area? Is i t a common element of the problem solving process? The l i t e r a t u r e concerning the creative process reviewed i n preparation f o r t h i s study provided a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r an investigation of the above questions. Mackworth (1965), though s p e c i f i c a l l y discussing o r i g i n a l -i t y i n the f i e l d of science, provided a model of the problem solving process that can be applied to the study of c r e a t i v i t y i n other areas. Mackworth made a d i s t i n c t i o n between scien-t i s t s who mainly r a i s e questions, "people who can formulate important research questions" (p. 52), whom he c a l l s "problem finders" (p. 52), and those who mainly solve problems. Mack-worth developed the idea that there i s an a l l important q u a l i t a t i v e d i f -ference between problem solving and fin d i n g . I t i s clear that problem solving i s a choice between e x i s t i n g programs or sets of mental rules—whereas problem finding i s the detec-ti o n of the need for a new program based on a choice between ex i s t i n g and expected future programs. (p. 57) Mackworth suggested that "an a c t i v i t y l i k e problem f i n d -ing would seem to be close to the heart of o r i g i n a l i t y i n creative thinking i n science" (p. 54). To te s t Mackworth's assumption that there i s a po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between problem finding and c r e a t i v i t y , one must f i r s t i d e n t i f y the problem finding behaviors s p e c i f i c to the area of inv e s t i g a t i o n . Mackworth suggested that the asking of questions i s an element of problem fi n d i n g . Researchers and theorists i n reading and art have suggested other a c t i v i t i e s which can be viewed as elements of problem finding. 5 In the area of reading, Stauffer (1975) i n Directing the  Reading Thinking Process c l a r i f i e d the relationship between the investigative a c t i v i t i e s that occur before one ac t u a l l y begins reading a book, and the qu a l i t y and type of responses made during and af t e r reading. Stauffer i d e n t i f i e d several investigative a c t i v i t i e s that can be viewed as problem finding i n the reading process. His t h e o r e t i c a l and research work drew attention to the importance of the i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between reader and what i s read. The work of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1966, 1970, 1971, 1976) dealt a n a l y t i c a l l y with the creative process i n a r t , and provided guidance to the author's present study. Their research "Discovery-Oriented Behavior and the O r i g i n a l i t y of Creative Products: A Study with A r t i s t s " (1971), not only produced i n -teresting findings, but also established a method for i n v e s t i -gating and quantifying the i n i t i a l component of the creative process. The present study, adapting Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's methods for use with elementary school children, i s directed to these questions: (1) What categories of observable behavior come before a creative response to an a r t i s t i c problem? (2) What categories of observable behavior come before a creative response to a reading prob-lem? A t h i r d question resulted from the author's p a r t i c u l a r i n -terest i n the inte r a c t i o n between students' a r t a b i l i t i e s and 6 t h e i r reading a b i l i t i e s . (3) Are students' in v e s t i g a t i v e behaviors i n an a r t s i t u a t i o n related to t h e i r making of creative responses i n a reading situation? D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Creative Product or Response Creative product or response s h a l l mean a solution to a problem presented to the student recognized as unconventional or o r i g i n a l ; usually combining f a m i l i a r objects or elements i n new ways which produces " e f f e c t i v e surprise". " E f f e c t i v e sur-p r i s e " i s defined by Jerome Bruner (1973) as being, "the un-expected that s t r i k e s one with wonder or astonishment" (p. 209). Guilford (1962) adds to t h i s the need for the response to be "presented i n terms of the s t a t i s t i c a l infrequency of a response among members of a c e r t a i n population that i s c u l t u r -a l l y homogenous" (p. 382). One must point out, as did Getzels and Jackson (1962), that the responses must be o r i g i n a l "not only i n the sense of s t a t i s t i c a l l y unique (which may of course be merely bizarre) but o r i g i n a l i n the sense of ingenious (that i s , adaptive to the r e a l i t y s i t u a t i o n ) " (p. 111). Reading Problem and Art Problem An explanation of the use of the term problem i n t h i s way needs to be made. Individuals do not consider that they are facing "problems" every time they read books or do drawings. I t can be use f u l , however, f o r a n a l y t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n to con-sider these acts within a problem solving framework. Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1970) point t h i s out by con-7 sidering the a r t i s t i n the s i t u a t i o n of wanting to do a draw-ing and asking himself or herse l f , "what i s the work to be about? ( i e . , what i s the problem?), how i s i t to be done? ( i e . , what i s the method?), when i s i t completed? ( i e . , what i s the solution?)" (p. 93). The reading act also can be viewed as a problem solving s i t u a t i o n . Some authorities i n the f i e l d (Moffett, 1973; Stauffer, 1975) hold that i t i s es s e n t i a l that the reading pro-cess be viewed as a problem solving process by the reader. Viewed as such, the product of the reading act i s seen as the reader's response to what i s read. In the reading s i t u a t i o n the question, "what i s the problem?", can be seen as the read-er's s e l ection of the material along with questions, predictions and statements of purposes for reading; "what i s the method?", can be viewed as the type of reading the reader w i l l use (skim-ming, scanning, reading i n depth); and "what i s the solution?", can be considered to be the reader's response to what i s read. Considering the a r t and reading processes as problem solv-ing processes makes possible a study and analysis of them using e x i s t i n g problem solving theories. Problem Finding Problem finding s h a l l mean conceiving, i d e n t i f y i n g or formu-l a t i n g a problem to be solved. In t h i s paper problem finding and problem formulation are used interchangeably. J u s t i f i c a t i o n Given that the encouragement of c r e a t i v i t y i s an objective of our educational systems, then a clear e r understanding of the 8 creative process would be help f u l i n suggesting teaching methods and curriculum design. In order to gain such an understanding i t would be he l p f u l to i d e n t i f y the various parts of the crea-t i v e process and the variables within the parts, as well as to investigate t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1966, 1970, 1971, 1976) d i d th i s f o r the creative process of a r t i s t i c production using as subjects college juniors and seniors of a major American a rt school. These individuals were i d e n t i f i e d as having a r t i s t i c t alent and previous t r a i n i n g i n a r t . The present study i s an attempt to determine whether or not the variables, i d e n t i f i e d by Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi as parts of the creative pro-cess, and p o s i t i v e l y related to creative production, are usable i n investigating the creative production of a random se l e c t i o n of grade 3 children who have not received any special t r a i n i n g i n a r t . The present study w i l l also examine i f with t h i s sample the same p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be found between problem formulation and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the products. In the f i e l d of reading there i s a need f o r a greater under-standing of the parts of the reading process (Gray, 1937; Stauffer, 1975). This study w i l l attempt to determine i f Getzels* and Csikszentmihalyi's methods can be adapted for use i n investigat-ing the reading process as well as providing empirical data on the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i t s parts. Furthermore, by comparing the problem formulation and problem solving components of a r t and reading s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s hoped that the present study w i l l shed some l i g h t on the possible 9 r e l a t i o n s h i p of a r t a c t i v i t i e s to creative achievement i n the area of reading. Hypotheses To Be Tested There are three hypotheses to be tested i n t h i s study: (1) There w i l l be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between investigative behavior and creative responses i n a problem solving a r t s i t u a t i o n presented to grade 3 ch i l d r e n . (2) There w i l l be a po s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between investigative behavior and creative responses i n a problem solving reading s i t u a t i o n pre-sented to grade 3 ch i l d r e n . (3) There w i l l be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between those children who score high i n inve s t i g a t i v e behavior i n the a r t s i t u a t i o n and those who score high i n creative responses i n the reading s i t u a t i o n . CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM Organization of Chapter 2 The review of the l i t e r a t u r e i s organized into three parts. F i r s t : The introduction, which presents theories of the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s among questioning, problem finding, prob-lem solving and c r e a t i v i t y . Second: A review of the l i t e r a t u r e of general relevance to the problem i s presented i n terms of a model of problem finding. Components of problem finding theory, which are pre-sented include; perceptual and psychoanalytic theories, physi-c a l manipulation, mental combinatorial play, a b i l i t y to see s t r u c t u r a l problems, questioning, and the discovery of prob-lems. A review of t h e o r e t i c a l positions or research findings i s given for each of these areas, except physical manipulation which appears i n part 3 of Chapter 2. Third: A review of the l i t e r a t u r e of s p e c i f i c relevance to the problem, reviews writings and research which explores the rel a t i o n s h i p of physical manipulation to creative produc-t i o n i n several areas with an emphasis on a r t . Also presented i s a review of l i t e r a t u r e and research i n the f i e l d of reading which investigates the rel a t i o n s h i p of active student involve-ment i n the investigation of reading materials, and the stu-dents' subsequent responses to the materials. Introduction Theories of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between questioning and 10 11 thinking, p a r t i c u l a r l y creative thinking, form part of the background of t h i s study. Attempts to define thinking as part of the creative process have led theoreticans to examine the int e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s among questioning, problem formulation and problem solving. The rel a t i o n s h i p between questioning and problem solving has been noted by observers over a long period of time. I t was Socrates who said "A good question i s half the answer". John Dewey (1933) took a strong p o s i t i o n , equating ques-tioning with thinking i t s e l f . "Thinking i s inquiry, i n v e s t i -gation, turning over, probing or delving into, so as to f i n d something new or to see what i s already known i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t . In short, i t i s questioning" (p. 265). There might be some argument about t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of thinking, but there i s agreement concerning the importance of questioning as part of the thinking process, and as such, as part of the problem solving process. Russell Stauffer (1975), r e f l e c t i n g on the reading-thinking process, writes, "The a r t of asking i n s i g h t f u l ques-tions i s probably the best mark of a scholar" (p. 34). But more than observing the importance of questioning to the a b i l i t y to solve problems, to think, or to be successful at scholarship, writers have recognized the relat i o n s h i p of ques-tioning to creative achievement. Max Wertheimer (1945), i n Productive Thinking, writes, "Often i n great discoveries the most important thing i s that a certa i n question i s found. Envisaging, putting the productive question i s often more important, often a greater achievement than 12 solution of a set question" (p. 123). Albert E i n s t e i n (1938) expressed the same idea, "To raise new questions, new p o s s i b i l i t i e s , to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks r e a l ad-vance i n science" (p. 92) . The importance of questioning a b i l i t i e s to c r e a t i v i t y i s recognized i n the Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking (M.T.C.T.) developed by E. Paul Torrance (1964 a). In t h i s test the c h i l d -ren are shown pictures and asked to produce a l l the questions they can about what i s i n the pictures. The questions are scored for fluency, o r i g i n a l i t y and adequacy, a l l considered to be elements of c r e a t i v i t y (Torrance c i t e d i n Arasteh, 1976, p. 15). Karlins & Lamm (1967), r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r study of i n f o r -mation processing a b i l i t y , wrote, "to produce a number of ques-tions about an unknown environment might i t s e l f be considered an aspect of c r e a t i v i t y " (p. 458). Eins t e i n suggests that the relat i o n s h i p of questioning to c r e a t i v i t y l i e s i n the fac t that questioning i s a t o o l for the larger and more important task of forming new problems. In the words of Ein s t e i n and Infeld (1938), "the formulation of a prob-lem i s often more esse n t i a l than i t s solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental s k i l l " (p. 92). Eins t e i n points out that the relationship between the forming of problems and c r e a t i v i t y i s separate and d i s t i n c t from the solving of problems and technical s k i l l . This r e l a -tionship was l a t e r empirically analyzed by researchers Getzels 13 and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976), and A r l i n (1975, 1977). A review of t h i s research w i l l be presented l a t e r i n Chapter 2. Also considering c r e a t i v i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c achievement, Kuhn (1962), l i k e E i n s t e i n recognized the importance of the formulation of problems. Kuhn wrote, "Outstanding instances of creative achievement involve solutions to problems which were not even formulated as such, but f i r s t had to be i d e n t i -f i e d as problems" (p. 47-48) . Drawing upon the work of Werthiemer, E i n s t e i n and Kuhn, Mackworth (1965) described a q u a l i t a t i v e difference between problem solving and problem finding. " I t i s cl e a r that prob-lem solving i s a choice between e x i s t i n g programs or sets of mental rules—whereas problem finding i s the detection of the need f o r a new program" (p. 57). Mackworth proposed that an a c t i v i t y l i k e problem finding i s "close to the heart of o r i g i n a l i t y i n creative thinking i n science" (p. 54). He suggested that problem finding i s a much more complex cognitive process than problem solving, and that the problem finding process must be studied to understand or-i g i n a l i t y (p. 52). The development of the ideas reviewed so f a r can be summarized with the following l i s t of suggested re l a t i o n s h i p s . questioning and thinking questioning and c r e a t i v i t y questioning and problem formulation problem formulation and c r e a t i v i t y The i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the items i n t h i s l i s t are analyzed i n more d e t a i l i n the following sections of Chapter 2. 14 Review of L i t e r a t u r e and Research of General Relevance to the Problem A review of the l i t e r a t u r e led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of seven areas of consideration of problem finding and i t s re-lat i o n s h i p to creative responses. These areas appear i n Figure 2.1. Each of these areas w i l l be discussed i n the following sections of Chapter 2. Psychological Considerations of C r e a t i v i t y The focus of t h i s paper i s on behavioral measures of prob-lem formulation. Since the observable behaviors discussed no doubt have t h e i r roots i n the cognitive and a f f e c t i v e domains, i t i s seen as h e l p f u l to consider problem formulation from psychological and epistemological perspectives. This hope-f u l l y can serve to make clearer (1) what psychological a c t i v -i t y i s part of problem formulation, and (2) to c l a r i f y the re-lat i o n s h i p between the problem formulation component of the problem solving process and c r e a t i v i t y . The areas of psychological consideration relevant to the r e l a t i o n s h i p of problem formulation to c r e a t i v i t y reviewed here are those concerned with individuals' interactions with s t i m u l i from the environment. The theories considered here are the Perceptual Theory of Schactel (1959) and the Psychoanalytic Theory of Kubie (1958). Perceptual Analysis of C r e a t i v i t y The perceptual analysis of c r e a t i v i t y presented here i s from the work of Schactel (1959). The author i s indebted to Getzels and Jackson (1962) for t h e i r c l e a r and concise presen-t a t i o n of Schactel's work which describes two basic modes of 15 s t i m u l i Figure 2.1 Areas of problem finding as they r e l a t e to creative responses. 16 human perception; subject centered or autocentric, and object centered or a l l o c e n t r i c . In the autocentric mode the emphasis i s on how or what the person f e e l s as perceiver and subsequent receiver of the st i m u l i . "There i s a close r e l a t i o n , amounting to a fusion, between sensory q u a l i t y and pleasure and un-pleasure f e e l i n g s , and the perceiver reacts primarily to something impinging on him" (p. 83). In the a l l o c e n t r i c mode there i s o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of st i m u l i , "the emphasis i s on what the object i s like . . . t h e perceiver turns to the object a c t i v e l y and i n doing so eithe r opens himself toward i t receptively or, f i g u r a t i v e l y or l i t e r -a l l y , takes hold of i t , t r i e s to 'grasp' i t " (p. 83). Schactel developed the idea that human development pro-ceeds from the autocentric to a l l o c e n t r i c mode of perception. But i n the process a secondary aut o c e n t r i c i t y develops based on the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l within a family and larger society. Schactel proposed that i t i s the degree of th i s secondary autocentricity that determines how open or closed an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be to the world he perceives. On the autocentric end of the scale objects are perceived i n terms of "how they w i l l serve a ce r t a i n need of the perceiver, or how they can be used by him for some purpose, or how they have to be avoided i n order to prevent pain, displeasure, injury, or discomfort" (p. 83). In the most extreme autocentric p o s i t i o n an i n d i v i d u a l remains "closed" to new ideas, objects, encounters, anything new and strange that might disturb his security. At 17 the other end of the scale Schactel describes the perceptually open i n d i v i d u a l operating i n the a l l o c e n t r i c mode as welcoming and seeking out new r e f l e c t i o n s of the world and i t s objects. I t i s the person operating i n the a l l o c e n t r i c mode that meets Schactel's c r i t e r i a f o r his d e f i n i t i o n of c r e a t i v i t y , "the art of seeing the f a m i l i a r f u l l y i n i t s inexhaustible being, without using i t a u t o c e n t r i c a l l y for purposes of remaining embedded i n i t and reassured by i t " (p. 84). Schactel went on to write that one's openness leads to a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t type of in t e r a c t i o n with whatever one perceives. He described t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n of perceiver and perceived as free combinatorial play which provides the foun-dation for creative a c t i v i t y . Psychoanalytic View of C r e a t i v i t y From a psychoanalytical viewpoint Kubie (1958) presented an account of c r e a t i v i t y i n which the psyche of an i n d i v i d u a l i s seen as divided into three d i s t i n c t parts; the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. Kubie considered the precon-scious to be the breeding ground for c r e a t i v i t y as i t has "the highest degree i n freedom of allegory and i n f i g u r a t i v e imagi-nation which i s attainable by any psychological process" (p. 47). He held that the creative i n d i v i d u a l maintains a cer t a i n balance of these three states of consciousness, one i n which the preconscious i s not dominated or impinged upon by either the conscious or unconscious, e i t h e r or which can r i g i d i f y and make useless the processes of the preconscious. Combinatorial Mental Play Both Schactel*s a l l o c e n t r i c modes and Kubie's preconscious 18 processes can be seen to account for an in d i v i d u a l ' s c r e a t i v i t y by providing for combinatorial investigative a c t i v i t i e s . Schac-t e l described encounters with the world r e s u l t i n g from an a l l o -c e n t r i c perceptual mode as consisting of "the free and open play of attention, thought, f e e l i n g , perception, etc." (p. 244-45). Kubie described the work of the preconscious processes to be the "gathering, assembling, comparing, and r e s h u f f l i n g of ideas" (p. 47). The importance of t h i s combinatorial play of the mind has been discussed by others as being an e s s e n t i a l part of the creative process. Freud (1949) wrote, "imaginative creation, ... i s a con-tinuation of and substitution f o r the play of childhood" (p. 181-82) . E i n s t e i n i n his famous l e t t e r concerning his own creative process wrote, taken from a psychological viewpoint, t h i s combinatory play seems to be the e s s e n t i a l feature i n productive thought—before there i s any connection with l o g i c a l construction i n words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others. (Hadamard, p. 142) Another consideration i s given to combinatorial play by Jerome Bruner (1973) writing on "Conditions of C r e a t i v i t y " . He stated, "I would propose that a l l forms of e f f e c t i v e surprise [creative response] grow out of combinatorial a c t i v i t y " (p. 210). I t i s t h i s author's opinion that t h i s unseen inve s t i g a t i v e combinatorial a c t i v i t y or play of ideas may be related to the observable investigative behavior of the creative process, the observable behavior which t h i s study attempts to explore. 19 Structural Problems The a b i l i t y to see s t r u c t u r a l problems has received much the o r e t i c a l attention as being an e s s e n t i a l part of the crea-t i v e problem solving process. John Dewey i n 1910 i n the f i r s t e d i t i o n of How We Think l i s t e d the f i v e phases of r e f l e c t i v e thought as: (i) a f e l t d i f f i c u l t y ; ( i i ) i t s location; d e f i -n i t i o n ; ( i i i ) suggestions of possible solutions; (iv) development by reasoning of the bearings of the suggestions; (v) further observation and experiment leading to i t s acceptance or r e j e c -t i o n ; that i s , the conclusion of b e l i e f or d i s -b e l i e f , (p. 72) In the 1933 e d i t i o n of How We Think Dewey changed the wording of the phases of r e f l e c t e d thought but maintained that i t i s the i n i t i a l " f e l t d i f f i c u l t y " which begins and gives d i r e c t i o n to the thought or problem solving processes. He described the f i v e phases as beginning with, "(1) Suggestions, i n which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution; (2) an i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n of the d i f f i c u l t y or perplexity that has been f e l t ( d i r e c t l y experienced) into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought" (p. 107). Wertheimer (1945), i n Productive Thinking, presented h i s model of the thinking process, which l i k e Dewey's began with a recognition of a d i f f i c u l t y , or as Wertheimer termed i t , "struc-t u r a l trouble" (p. 84). For Wertheimer the thinking process proceeds with the structuring of "Gestalten", and his model of th i s process included two d i s t i n c t parts. F i r s t there i s the problem s i t u a t i o n , S - l , which i s viewed as being s t r u c t u r a l l y incomplete, with a gap or s t r u c t u r a l trouble. This i s followed by the so l u t i o n - s i t u a t i o n , S-2, i n which the gap i s f i l l e d and 20 the s t r u c t u r a l trouble no longer e x i s t s . Wertheimer's S - l , S-2 model has been the basis of both t h e o r e t i c a l considerations and research studies investigating c r e a t i v i t y i n various subject areas. Based on Wertheimer*s S - l , S-2 models, Getzels and Jack-son (1962) investigated "the a b i l i t y to see new problems" as a variable related to c r e a t i v i t y i n a mathematical context. As a measure of t h i s a b i l i t y they administered what they c a l l e d "The make-up problems t e s t " (p. 87) to t h e i r subjects as part of t h e i r larger study on c r e a t i v i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e . In t h i s t e s t they presented the children with a mass of numerical data and asked them to create t h e i r own problems, ( S - l ) , f o r which a correct solution, (S-2), was possible although not yet known or formulated. The creative children, i d e n t i f i e d as such by various cre-a t i v i t y t e s t s , "saw more problems and were able to conceive more novel and ingenious questions than were other children" (p. 87). Getzels and Jackson noted that these children did not possess superior mathematical s k i l l s as measured on stand-ardized t e s t s , but rather had the a b i l i t y to deal f l e x i b l y with the material given them and discover unusual problems. Applying Wertheimer's theory i n the subject area of read-ing, Torrance (1964 b) viewed the a b i l i t y to see " s t r u c t u r a l problems" as the i n i t i a l step i n the creative reading process. He wrote, "The creative reader sensitized himself to problems, gaps i n knowledge, missing elements, something incorrect" (p. 60). Torrance stated that t h i s i n i t i a l recognition c a l l s 21 for the "formation of new relationships and combinations, syn-thesizing relatively unrelated elements ..." (p. 60), a type of combinatorial activity previously referred to by Schactel, Kubie, Einstein, and Bruner in their explanations of the creative process. Discovery of Problems The work of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1965, 1970, 1971, 1976) suggests that, to paraphrase Torrance, "being sensitive to structural problems, gaps or missing elements" directs the individual to discover, or formulate his or her own problems. Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi in their research on creativity with artists, have made a distinction between the presented problem and the discovered problem and hold that i t i s the discovered problem situation which i s most directly linked to creative production. Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1970) conducted a study with college art students in which the students were presented with the task of drawing an arrangement of s t i l l l i f e objects. After the drawings were completed the artists were questioned on their attitudes toward their drawings as they were developed from i n i t i a l marks to completion. Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels con-cluded from their data: Artists who stated that they approached the a r t i s t i c task with no set problem in mind and therefore had to discover one did in fact pro-duce drawings rated by a r t i s t - c r i t i c s as sig-nificantly more original and higher in overall aesthetic value than did those who formulated their problem in more predetermined ways. (p. 101) In subsequent research Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) 22 incorporated the idea of the discovered problem into their definition of problem finding: "The way problems are envis-aged, posed, formulated, created" (p. 5). Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1970, 1976) also examined what they considered to be an attitudinal component of dis-covery, "concern for discovery", as well as a behavioral com-ponent which they called, "discovery-oriented-behavior". They hypothesized that both of these would be significantly related to creative production because in both cases the i n -dividuals are being active in "The f i r s t step in the [prob-lem solving] process (and perhaps the crucial step) ... the activity of discovering the problem i t s e l f " (1970, p. 94). Getzels* and Csikszentmihalyi's position i s most concisely put in their statement, "The forerunner of a creative solution i s the formulation of a creative problem" (1976, p. 4). Their research w i l l be examined in more detail in the following section. In another area of theory and research, that of reading education, there i s also consideration given to the role dis-covering problems plays in the creative process. Adler, in How To Read a Book (1940), described the read-ing process as a discovery process. He wrote: The act of reading involves a l l the s k i l l s in the art of discovery: perceptive keen-ness, functional memory, creative inquiry, logical reasoning and c r i t i c a l evaluation, (p. 43) The notion of approaching a task to discover one's own problem, and that this in effect leads to a creative response, 23 i s prominent i n the work of Russell Stauffer (1975). Stauffer posited that establishing a problem for oneself leads a reader to making e f f e c t i v e and creative responses. Research which investigates Stauffer's theory concerning the importance of discovery to creative responses w i l l be presented and discussed i n the following section. Questioning In the research se t t i n g , the work of A r l i n (1975, 1977) empirically investigated the rel a t i o n s h i p of questioning to thinking, c r e a t i v i t y , and problem finding as reviewed i n the previous section of Chapter 2. A r l i n (1975) developed a cog-n i t i v e process model of problem finding which used as an opera-t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of problem finding an analysis of questions raised by the subjects i n response to a problematic s i t u a t i o n . The subjects, 50 female college seniors, were presented with an array of objects on a table and were instructed to r a i s e as few or as many questions as they could i n a ten minute time period. Their questions were analyzed according to the " i n t e l l e c t u a l products" categories of Guilford's structure of  the i n t e l l e c t model (1956). (See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 f o r a description of Guilford's categories.) An assumption i n the scoring of the questions was that a higher order category ques-t i o n represented a higher a b i l i t y of problem f i n d i n g . The subjects i n t h i s study were also given three i n d i v i d -ual tasks as an assessment of formal operational thinking; six c r e a t i v i t y tasks measuring f l e x i b i l i t y , fluency and elaboration; and an information processing task. 24 The results indicated that three of the creativity v a r i -ables: a) expressional fluency; b) adaptive f l e x i b i l i t y ; c) elaboration; and the formal operational thinking variable, were significantly correlated with problem finding quality. Arlin (1977), in a similar study with 7, 9, and 11 year old children, compared problem finding a b i l i t i e s , i.e., ques-tioning quantity and quality, to levels of operational think-ing. The results indicated that operational level and ques-tion quality are quite related, as before the level of formal operations the higher category questions did not appear. Of particular interest to the present study i s that Arlin's research used questioning as a measure of problem finding, and indicated a relationship between problem finding, creativity, and operational level. By including a question asking situa-tion similar to Arlin's, the present study w i l l examine the relationship between question quality and creativity in grade three children. Theories and research concerning the relationship of physi-cal investigation to creativity as well as studies concerned with the investigative stage of the reading process w i l l ap-pear in the next part of Chapter 2 as these topics are most directly related to the major concerns of this study. Review of Literature and Research of Specific Relevance to the Problem Introduction The literature reviewed here is concerned with identify-ing behavioral variables of problem finding, or investigating 25 the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the variables of problem finding and creative responses. Theoretical discussions and research studies which address these issues are relevant to the present study i n three d i s t i n c t categories: (1) the relat i o n s h i p of manipulation to creative responses, i n a c t i v i t i e s other than a r t and reading. Rossman (1964) i n -vestigated the influence of manipulation on c r e a t i v i t y i n science. Torrance (1963) dealt with the rel a t i o n s h i p of manipu-l a t i o n to creative thinking i n general problem solving, and, (1970) i n question production; (2) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of behavioral variables of problem finding, including physical manipulation of objects, and the rela t i o n s h i p of these variables i n a r t i s t i c creative responses (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1971, 1976); (3) and f i n a l l y , t h e o r e t i c a l writings and research studies which i d e n t i f i e d variables of problem finding i n reading, and which investigated the rel a t i o n s h i p of these variables to both reading s k i l l s and the c r e a t i v i t y of reading responses (David-son, 1970; Petre, 1970; Stauffer, 1975; Torrance, 1964b). Manipulation i n Relation to Creative Responses  i n Areas other than Art and -Reading Manipulation, the physical investigation of objects, has been recognized by several investigators of the creative pro-cess as having a relat i o n s h i p to creative production. Rossman (1964), i n In d u s t r i a l C r e a t i v i t y , The Psychology  of the Inventor, a study of over 700 inventors, suggested that manipulation i s an important element of the inventive process. He noted that "exploration seeks the facts as they e x i s t , while 26 invention modifies or rearranges the f a c t s " , (p. 92) and that these two processes are i n t e r r e l a t e d by the a c t i v i t y of manipu-l a t i o n . He wrote, "Facts must be known to be manipulated, while manipulation brings to l i g h t new f a c t s " (p. 92). Rossman d i f f e r e n t i a t e d four types of manipulation which occur developmentally i n young children. The f i r s t type of simple manipulation that can be observed i n very young i n -fants supplies facts about an object as well as provides f o r the development of physical dexterity. The second l i n e of development i n the d i r e c t i o n of constructiveness concerns tak-ing things apart and putting things together, and seeing ways i n which objects can be rearranged and combined. The t h i r d l i n e i s a type of representational manipulation i n which the manipulated objects stand f o r something other than that which i s being manipulated. Rossman uses the example of a c h i l d pushing blocks along pretending that they are a t r a i n . This leads to the f i n a l type of manipulation i n which one mentally manipulates symbols and forms them into new patterns. Rossman describes t h i s i n young children as story t e l l i n g . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that Rossman's model can be looked at o n t o l o g i c a l l y as representing the development of an i n d i v i d u a l over a long period of time, or more s p e c i f i c a l l y as represent-ing the development of an i s o l a t e d encounter that occurs many times throughout a l i f e t i m e . The variables of problem finding i d e n t i f i e d and measured i n the present study can be seen as r e l a t i n g to three of Rossman's categories of manipulation. They are: type 1 -27 number of objects touched and manipulated; type 2 - arrange-ment of objects; and type 3 - questions of the r e l a t i o n s , sys-tems, transformations and implications categories. Torrance (1963) working i n a more experimental mode, also investigated the rel a t i o n s h i p between manipulation and inven-t i o n . In t h i s study 212 f i r s t , second and t h i r d graders were given time to play with three toys and then asked to invent ways of improving the toys so that they would be more fun to play with. Three categories were used to c l a s s i f y the degree of man-ip u l a t i o n that took place during the play period; low, i n which the children didn't handle the toys at a l l , medium, i n which the children manipulated one or two toys but not to a high degree, and high, characterized by considerable manipulation. The measures of the creative responses were; fluency, number of improvements suggested, and f l e x i b i l i t y , number of d i f f e r e n t approaches used i n making the improvements. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study were that both fluency and f l e x i b i l i t y of the responses were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the degree of manipulation at a l l three grade l e v e l s . These findings are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the present study, since i t too has as subjects grade three c h i l d r e n . I t i s suggested by the author of the present study that an improve ment would be made to the Torrance study i f an objective rather than subjective measurement of manipulation were to be used. I t i s also important to note that the Torrance study used a verbal measure of c r e a t i v i t y . This not only narrowed the 28 area for the expression of creative responses, but could also have been affected by the l e v e l of verbal s k i l l s of the young children who were the subjects. In another study aimed at developing ways of f a c i l i t a t i n g the question asking s k i l l s of preprimary children, Torrance (1970) investigated the e f f e c t that manipulating objects had on children's question production. The 66 subjects of t h i s study, a l l approximately six years old, were divided into 11 groups of six children each. Each set of children were pre-sented with two d i f f e r e n t toys one of which they could manipu-late themselves and investigate p h y s i c a l l y , the other of which was demonstrated for them by the experimenter and which they could not touch. This "warm-up" period of exposure to the toys lasted f o r f i v e minutes, and was followed by a period of ten minutes i n which the children were asked to produce ques-tions about the toys that could not be answered by observation. The children's questions were recorded and c l a s s i f i e d as "obvious" (questions that could have been answered by the c h i l d by looking, f e e l i n g , etc.) or as "puzzling and hypothesis s t a t -ing" (questions that could not be answered by looking, touch-ing, etc., but which required additional information). The r e s u l t s were that the difference i n means for both measures of questions, "obvious" and "puzzling, or hypothesis stating", were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at better than the .01 l e v e l i n favor of the manipulative condition. The children produced more questions and higher l e v e l questions a f t e r manipu l a t i n g a toy than a f t e r watching someone else manipulate i t . 29 Torrance did not give these children any t e s t to measure t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y , but implied from his former work (1963) that question asking i s related to creative production. The work of Torrance, which suggests the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween manipulation, question asking and creative responses, as well as that of A r l i n (1975, 1977), previously discussed, sug-gested the i n c l u s i o n of questioning variables of both quantity and q u a l i t y i n the problem finding component of the a r t seg-ment of the present study. Problem Finding and C r e a t i v i t y i n Art The research which i s most relevant to the present study, providing the model upon which i t i s based, i s that of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976) i n which they defined and measured behavioral variables of the creative process, and ex-amined the r e l a t i o n s h i p of those variables to various q u a l i -t i e s of the product. Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi were concerned with how a r t i s t s work. The subjects of t h e i r study were 31 male upper-classmen at a major a r t school i n the United States. Each student was c l o s e l y observed as they selected objects from a table, arranged the objects on a second table, and completed a drawing of the arrangement. The task was divided into two components; problem formulation and problem solution. The prob-lem formulation component was further subdivided into three behavioral variables: (a) the number of objects manipulated; (b) uniqueness of the objects chosen; and (c) the amount of investigation and arrangement of the objects. Each student's 30 observed behavior while preparing to draw was given a t o t a l Problem Formulation Score. The Problem Solution component was scored by a panel of a r t i s t c r i t i c s who evaluated the finished drawings for (a) craftsmanship, (b) o r i g i n a l i t y , and (c) o v e r a l l aesthetic value. A l l three of the behavioral variables of problem formula-ti o n were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the o r i g i n a l -i t y of the Problem Solution Score of the finished drawing. These r e s u l t s suggested the importance of problem finding a c t i v i t i e s to the c r e a t i v i t y of the solutions. Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's r e s u l t s also indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t re-lat i o n s h i p between physical manipulation during problem formu-l a t i o n and the c r e a t i v i t y of the solu t i o n . By devising an investigative method which makes possible quantifiable, empirical measurement of components of the crea-t i v e process, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi provided a model for investigation of c r e a t i v i t y i n areas other than a r t i s t i c production. The present study uses t h e i r model to investigate the creative process i n children's reading, p a r a l l e l l e d with a r e p l i c a t i o n of Getzels* and Csikszentmihalyi's study of the pro-cess of producing a drawing. The reading component of the present study was suggested by a body of l i t e r a t u r e which deals with the i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of readers with written material. Problem Formulation and C r e a t i v i t y i n Reading Literature and research i n the f i e l d of reading was re-viewed to determine what a c t i v i t i e s of the reading process could be i d e n t i f i e d as a c t i v i t i e s of problem formulation, and 31 i f research indicated any correlations between problem formula-ti o n a c t i v i t i e s and c r e a t i v i t y of reading responses. The work of Stauffer (1975) concerning the reading process i s primarily directed at the i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between read-er and written material, and the e f f e c t t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n has on subsequent parts of the reading process. By analyzing the investigation stage of the reading process Stauffer's work i s helpf u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g a c t i v i t i e s of problem formulation. Stauffer developed a method of reading i n s t r u c t i o n c a l l e d The Directed Reading Thinking A c t i v i t y , or D-R-T-A, which focuses on involving the students a c t i v e l y and d i r e c t l y i n the i n i t i a l stage of int e r a c t i o n with the written material, and having the students as a r e s u l t of surveying, questioning and predicting, set t h e i r own purposes for reading. This investiga-t i v e a c t i v i t y can be viewed as the problem formulation stage i n the reading process and can be analyzed to suggest the following variables; (1) physical manipulation of surveying a book, i . e . , touching, f l i p p i n g pages, investigating the pictures, and skimming or reading parts of the text, and (2) making predic-tions concerning the content of the material. These variables of problem formulation i n a reading s i t u a t i o n were measured i n the present study. Stauffer proposed that t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t y which leads a reader to declare h i s or her own purposes for reading i s a c r i t i c a l element i n the reading process, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the reading process i s recognized as a thinking process. He writes, "The a b i l i t y to declare purposes marks the d i f f e r -32 ence between an able adroit and e f f i c i e n t reader and an i n -t e l l e c t u a l bungler" (p. 23). Stauffer believes that by declaring purposes the reader "has a problem i n mind and questions to answer and his reading becomes an active search" (p. 32). Throughout the search, "the purposes f o r reading or questions raised provide the d i r e c t i o n a l and motivational forces that keep a reader on course" (p. 36). Perhaps of most significance to the present study, Stauffer proposed that, "the nature and complexity of the purposes to be achieved regulate the rate and scope of the reading-thinking process and l a r g e l y determine the answers being sought" (p. 22). Considering these statements i n terms of thevpreviously presented model of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi one could de-duce that the a c t i v i t y of the problem formulation stage de-termines the q u a l i t y and character of the problem solution. Two studies, those of Petre (1970) and Davidson (1970) based on Stauffer's work, attempted to measure the e f f e c t Directed Reading Thinking A c t i v i t y i n s t r u c t i o n has upon various measures of students' reading responses. The Petre (1970) study compared the quantity, q u a l i t y , and var i e t y of responses of 120 fourth grade students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n two d i f f e r e n t group i n s t r u c t i o n a l reading procedures, namely a Directed Reading A c t i v i t y (D-R-A, which i s generally recom-mended to accompany most North American basal reading series) and a Directed Reading Thinking A c t i v i t y (D-R-T-A). The major difference between these two i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods i s that the D-R-T-A encourages investigative a c t i v i t i e s on the part of the 33 students and r e l i e s on the students to set t h e i r own purposes for reading, whereas i n the D-R-A the purposes for reading are declared by the in s t r u c t o r . During the reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l periods of the study a l l of the students' responses were recorded and coded on the Qual-i t y of Pupil Response Scale (Wolfe, et al) which c l a s s i f i e s questions on f i v e l e v e l s : Level 1, random responses; Level 2, l i t e r a l responses; Level 3, giving i l l u s t r a t i o n s , applying and interpreting; Level 4, imagining, hypothesizing and theorizing; and Level 5, evaluating, judging and using c r i t e r i a . Levels 1 and 2 represent n o n - c r i t i c a l l e v e l s of thinking; Levels 3, 4, and 5 represent c r i t i c a l l e v e l s of thinking that go beyond the l i t e r a l l e v e l , responses that are also considered to be representative of creative reading. Petre's r e s u l t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the pupils' responses r e l a t i v e to the type of reading i n s t r u c t i o n they received. Students who received D-R-A i n s t r u c t i o n tended to make responses that were c h i e f l y n o n - c r i t i c a l representing lower l e v e l s of thinking that did not go beyond the l i t e r a l l e v e l , while students who received the D-R-T-A i n s t r u c t i o n tended to make responses that were c h i e f l y c r i t i c a l represent-ing higher l e v e l s of thinking. In a r e p l i c a t i o n of the Petre study, Davidson (1970) found the same s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between type of read-ing i n s t r u c t i o n , D-R-A or D-R-T-A, and the q u a l i t y of the students' responses. Torrance (1964 b) i n a s i m i l a r study with 150 f i r s t grade 34 children investigated the e f f e c t s of various reading programs on the questioning a b i l i t i e s of the children. The data of t h i s study indicated that a teaching approach to reading which emphasized the incompleteness of knowledge and d i r e c t p a r t i c i -pation of the students i n the problem formulation stage im-proved the questioning performance of the subjects. Although not included as part of t h i s study, Torrance stated that t h i s increased questioning "would seem to lead to creative problem solving" (p. 19). The work of Stauffer (1975), and the research of Petre (1970), Davidson (1970), and Torrance (1964 b) are a l l s i g -n i f i c a n t to the present research i n that they indicate a re-lat i o n s h i p of the i n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n stage of the reading process and the higher l e v e l thinking and c r e a t i v i t y of the students' responses. They also provided an i n d i c a t i o n of what categories of behavior can be i d e n t i f i e d as measures of problem finding i n a reading s i t u a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y ; physical manipulation and surveying of a book, and making predictions on what the book w i l l be about. These categories of behavior are used as measures of problem finding i n the reading component of the present study. Summary of Reviewed Li t e r a t u r e and Research At the root of the present study, which attempts to define what comes before children's creative responses i n reading and a r t , i s the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n expressed by Mackworth (1965) that there i s a q u a l i t a t i v e difference between problem finding 35 and problem solving, and that i t i s problem finding which i s most d i r e c t l y related to creative production. The l i t e r a t u r e and research which was most important to the present study (1) suggested q u a l i t a t i v e elements of prob-lem finding, and(2) proposed or tested the p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -ship of those elements to creative production. Dewey (1910), considering the question of How We Think, proposed that questioning i s the i n i t i a l step i n the thinking process. This idea was expanded upon by E i n s t e i n (1938), Wertheimer (1945), and Torrance (1963) who suggested the p o s i -t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between questioning and creative thinking. E i n s t e i n (1938), further exploring t h i s topic proposed that the p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between questioning and creative produc-t i o n l i e s i n the f a c t that questioning i s a t o o l f o r the larger and more important task of forming new problems. Kuhn (1962), supporting Einstein's p o s i t i o n , wrote, "Out-standing instances of creative achievement involve solutions to problems which were not even formulated as such, but f i r s t had to be i d e n t i f i e d as problems" (pp. 47, 48). Mackworth (1965), working from the writing's of E i n s t e i n , Kuhn and others, presented the idea that there i s a q u a l i t a -t i v e difference between the acts of problem finding and prob-lem solving, and that i t i s the a c t i v i t y of problem finding which i s close to the heart of o r i g i n a l i t y i n creative think-ing i n science" (p. 54). These t h e o r e t i c a l writings provided a background to the present study i n that they suggested the importance of problem 36 formulation, i . e . , problem fi n d i n g , as a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t act, i n the process of creative achievement, and proposed that questioning i s an element of problem fi n d i n g . These t h e o r e t i c a l positions were examined i n the l i g h t of writings and research findings i n various subject areas such as psychology (Kubie, 1958; Schactel, 1959), epistemology ( A r l i n , 1975, 1977; Dewey, 1910, 1933; Getzels and Jackson, 1962; Wertheimer, 1945), f i n e arts (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1965, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1976), and reading (Davidson, 1970; Petre, 1970; Stauffer, 1975; Torrance, 1964 b). The investigation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between problem finding a c t i v i t i e s and c r e a t i v i t y explored i n each of these subject areas yielded seven categories that are considered i n the present study to be areas of problem f i n d i n g . These are: perceptual openness (Schactel, 1959); preconscious processes (Kubie, 1958); combinatorial mental play (Bruner, 1973; E i n -s t e i n , 1954; Kubie, 1958); a b i l i t y to see s t r u c t u r a l problems (Dewey, 1910, 1933; Getzels and Jackson, 1962; Torrance, 1964 b; Wertheimer, 1945) discovery of problems (Getzels and Csikszent-mihalyi, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1976; Stauffer, 1975); questioning ( A r l i n , 1975, 1977); and physical investigation (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1971, 1976; Rossman, 1964; Torrance, 1963). These seven categories provided a conceptual framework for the understanding of the suggested r e l a t i o n s h i p between problem finding and creative production and provided examples of behavioral a c t i v i t i e s which could be considered as elements of problem finding and measured i n reading and a r t problem f i n d -ing s i t u a t i o n s . 37 S p e c i f i c a l l y , the categories of behavior suggested and used i n the present study were, i n the a r t s i t u a t i o n : A - l , num-ber of objects touched, and A-2, number of objects manipulated (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1971, 1976; Rossman, 1964; Torrance, 1963); A-3, number of objects chosen, A-4, uniqueness of objects chosen, and A-5, arrangement of objects (Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1971, 1976); B - l , quantity of questions and B-2, q u a l i t y of questions ( A r l i n , 1975, 1977); i n the reading s i t u a t i o n : D-l through D-7, physical investigation of a book (adapted from Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1971, 1976; Stauf-f e r , 1975); and E - l , quantity of predictions and E-2, q u a l i t y of predictions (Davidson, 1970; Petre, 1970; Stauffer, 1975). Each of the research studies which suggested the behavioral a c t i v i t i e s of problem finding outlined above, also yielded data which indicated i n t h e i r various areas of study the r e l a t i o n -ship between a c t i v i t i e s of problem finding and creative produc-t i o n . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the present study was the re-search of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976) which i d e n t i f i e d behavioral a c t i v i t i e s of problem finding i n an a r t i s t i c problem solving s i t u a t i o n . In t h e i r study with male college a r t students, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi reported finding a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between problem finding a c t i v i t i e s , which they c a l l e d , "discovery-oriented behavior", and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the subjects' a r t i s t i c products. The research of A r l i n , a study of problem finding with college females, (1975) suggested the use of question quantity 38 and q u a l i t y as measures of problem finding and reported finding a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between question q u a l i t y and various measures of c r e a t i v i t y . In the f i e l d of reading the t h e o r e t i c a l work of Stauffer (1975), who developed a method of reading i n s t r u c t i o n c a l l e d the Directed Reading Thinking A c t i v i t y , was of p a r t i c u l a r s i g -nificance to the present study. Stauffer recognized the im-portance of the i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of the reader and written material and suggested that the type and qu a l i t y of the i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y surveying, making predictions and setting purposes for reading, determined the type and q u a l i t y of the reader's response to the material read. The research reviewed of Davidson (1970) , Petre (1970), and Torrance (1964 b), a l l supported the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n of Stauffer, augmenting the general agreement among the writers reviewed i n Chapter 2 of t h i s paper that problem formulation i s a c r i t i c a l component of creative production. The theories discussed and research reviewed have thus provided a background for and given d i r e c t i o n to the present study which investigates the question, "what comes before a creative response with grade three children i n reading and art situations?" CHAPTER 3 DESIGN AND PROCEDURES The Sample The subjects were 29 grade three children from two e l e -mentary schools i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. The 14 g i r l s and 15 boys were randomly selected from the school populations. In both schools, art and reading i n s t r u c t i o n was provided by the regular classroom teachers following the p r o v i n c i a l c u r r i c -ulum. The subjects ranged i n age from 8 years 5 months to 10 years 2 months, with a mean age of 9 years 0 months. The schools' administrations suggested that the socio-economic leve l s of the school populations were lower-middle to upper-middle c l a s s . Method The study consisted of two separate parts; (1) the art si t u a t i o n , and (2) the reading s i t u a t i o n . Each of these were divided into two components; problem formulation and problem solution. These components were further divided into v a r i -ables which were observed and measured. Every student p a r t i c i -pated i n the components of both the art and reading s i t u a -tions and received a score for each variable. The testing i n each school was completed i n two days. The researcher directed and scored a l l the students i n the reading s i t u a t i o n , while the research assistant directed and scored a l l the students i n the a r t s i t u a t i o n . 39 40 Procedure The Art Situation Each student was c a l l e d i n d i v i d u a l l y from his or her classroom and met at the door of the testing room, either the l i b r a r y i n one school or an unused classroom i n the other, by the research assistant. They were greeted i n t h i s way: Hi, my name i s ' . Have you ever done a drawing of something that you could see? Well, today you w i l l have a chance to choose some things you would l i k e to draw and then do a drawing of them. But f i r s t , I need to know your name, birthday, and how old you are now. Thank you. The data were f i l l e d i n on chart A - l (Appendix A) and the c h i l d was led over to the table which had on i t 15 objects covered with a c l o t h . The objects were selected to be s i m i l a r to those used by Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976), but adapted to appeal to grade three children. The objects were: 1. a woven basket 9. a 9" wooden human figure 2. a metal b e l l with movable parts 3. a ceramic b i r d 10. an old metal box 4. a wooden block 11. an orange 5. a book with a p l a i n 12. a pair of p l i a r s black cover 13. a wooden s t i c k 6. a candle i n a brass 14. a small wooden t r a i n candle s t i c k 15. a metal watering can 7. a small bunch of straw flowers 8. a glass decorative j a r The assistant then said to the c h i l d : On t h i s table under the cover there are many things. When I remove the cover you can look at them, touch them, pick them up, and even play with them. Choose the ones you would l i k e to draw and put them over on t h i s other table. You may choose as many as you l i k e . Please t e l l me when you have a l l the things you want to draw on the other table. The assistant then removed the covering c l o t h , stepped 41 back and recorded the behavior of the c h i l d on chart A - l (Appendix A). When the student indicated that they were finis h e d the assistant said: Fine. Now you can arrange these things or put them together any way you would l i k e to draw them. When you have them the way you want them, here i s paper, pen c i l s , erasers and crayons for you to use. Take as long as you l i k e to do one drawing of a l l these things together. When you have finished give me your paper. Enjoy your-s e l f . The assistant stepped away from the student to make them less nervous and continued the observation record on chart A - l . When the student completed t h e i r drawing the assistant accepted i t and said: Good. Now l e t ' s put a l l these things back on the table and I'd l i k e you to help me do something e l s e . (the objects drawn were returned to the f i r s t table) I have to make up a l i s t of questions about these things. For example, one question might be, "How many things are made of wood?". Another might be, "Can the b e l l f i t into the box?". What other questions could you ask about these objects? I would l i k e to have as many questions as you can make. I ' l l write them down for you. O.K., do you have a question? A l l the questions were recorded verbatim on chart A - l . When the student stopped providing questions they were asked i f there were any more questions. This was repeated u n t i l the student said, "No". This completed, the student proceeded to the reading section of the experiment. They waited outside the room, i f waiting was necessary. The order was varied between doing the reading and a r t sections. 42 The Reading Situation Each student was greeted at the door of the test i n g room i n t h i s way: Hi, my name i s Have you ever chosen books that you would l i k e to read? Well today y o u ' l l have a chance to choose some books you would l i k e to read and then play a reading game with me. But f i r s t I need to know your name. Their names were recorded on chart R-l (Appendix C), and they were led over to the table with 10 books arranged on i t and covered with a c l o t h . The t i t l e s of the books appear i n Appendix P. The researcher then said to the stu-dent: On t h i s table under the cover there are many books. When I remove the cover you can look at them, touch them, pick them up, look through them, and even read a l i t t l e b i t of them. Choose the ones you would l i k e to read and put them over on th i s other table. You may choose as many as you l i k e . Please t e l l me when you have a l l the books you want to read on the other table. The researcher removed the c l o t h from the table, stepped back and recorded the behavior of the student on chart R - l . When the student indicated that he or she was fin i s h e d , the researcher said: Good, perhaps y o u ' l l get to read them l a t e r on. Right now I have another book I would l i k e you to look at. You can look at and through i t , perhaps read some of i t , i n any way you l i k e for one minute. Then I w i l l ask you to t e l l me as much as you can about what the book w i l l be about. Here i s the book. The book presented to the c h i l d was, Two i s Company, by Judy Delton, 1976, Crown Publishing, New York. 43 After one minute the book was taken away and the c h i l d was asked, "What do you think might happen i n t h i s book?". The c h i l d ' s response was recorded on tape. When he or she had fin i s h e d the researcher asked, "Anything else?". And then "Anything else?" once more. The researcher then said: Now I have a story that I would l i k e you f i r s t to read to yourself and then out loud. When you have fin i s h e d we w i l l t a l k about i t . The student was observed reading the story, (Appendix G), and when he or she had completed reading i t once, he or she was asked to read the f i r s t three paragraphs out loud, (Appendix H). This reading was recorded on tape for l a t e r analysis. The researcher then said: Fine. Would you t e l l me now as much as you can about the story you just read. Any-thing else? Anything else? The student's responses were taped. The researcher then said: If you had written t h i s story, perhaps things might have happened d i f f e r e n t l y . For example, (1) Mrs. Marble gave Tom and Jane each a piece of cake. Would you have had Mrs. Marble give them a piece of cake or something else? (2) The children get into the shed through an open door. Would you have had them get into the shed t h i s way or some other way? (3) The children f i n d a machine i n the shed. Would you have had the secret be a machine or something else? To each of the three questions above, the student was given time eith e r to accept the story as written or to change i t . Their responses were recorded. The researcher then asked: 44 The l a s t l i n e i n the story i s : "At that moment a t e r r i b l e thing happened." What do you think happened next?... Anything else?... Anything else? How do you think the story ended? Thank you. This concluded the student a c t i v i t y segment of the re-search. D e f i n i t i o n and Measurement of Variables A l i s t of a l l the variables i n the reading and art situa-tions appears i n Table 3.1. The variables, A - l through F-12, described i n the following sections r e f e r to those appearing i n Table 3.1. Table 3.1 L i s t of A l l Variables i n the Art and Reading Situations Art Situation Problem Formulation A. Physical i n v e s t i g a t i v e behaviors A - l number of objects touched A-2 number of objects manipulated A-3 number of objects chosen A-4 uniqueness of objects chosen A-5 time for choosing objects A-6 arrangement of objects A-7 time for arrangement of objects A-8 time for selection and arrangement Total A - t o t a l a r t problem formulation score B. Questioning B-l quantity of questions B-2 q u a l i t y of questions Problem Solution C. Dimensions of evaluations C - l craftsmanship C-2 o r i g i n a l i t y C-3 time for drawing Reading Situation Problem Formulation D. Physical i n v e s t i g a t i v e behaviors 45 D-l number of books touched D-2 number of books with pages f l i p p e d D-3 number of books with page by page inspection D-4 number of books with text read D-5 number of books chosen D-6 uniqueness of books chosen D-7 time for selection Total D - t o t a l reading problem formulation score E. Predicting E - l quantity E-2 q u a l i t y Problem Solution F. Dimensions of evaluations F - l miscue F-2 r e c a l l of facts and d e t a i l s F-3 r e c a l l of sequence F-4 completeness of r e c a l l Subtotal F - t o t a l of r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s F-5 personal intrusions F-6 t o t a l time for r e t e l l i n g F-7 acceptance or change of question 7 F-8 acceptance or change of question 8 F-9 acceptance or change of question 9 F-10 t o t a l acceptance or change score F - l l time for story continuation F-12 o r i g i n a l i t y of story continuation The Art Situation Problem formulation: s e l e c t i o n and arrangement. The stu-dent's behavior was observed and recorded on chart A - l , (Appen-dix A). Later t h i s was scored with the scoring recorded on chart A-2 (Appendix B). One point was given for each of the objects touched, A - l * . One point was given f o r each of the objects manipulated, A-2, that i s , the objects were turned i n the hands, t h e i r moving parts were moved, they were held up to the l i g h t , and t h e i r r e l a t i v e weights were judged, etc. One point was given for each object chosen and moved to the other table, A-3. The uniqueness of objects chosen, A-4, was derived from the objects •Variables mentioned re f e r to those l i s t e d i n Table 3.1. 46 selected f o r drawing and moved to the second table. Each ob-j e c t was given a score corresponding to the rank-order f r e -quency with which i t had been chosen by the sample as a whole. Thus, the most frequently chosen object,the candle i n the candlestick, was given a score of 1, the l e a s t frequently chosen, the book, was assigned a score of 15. A subject's score on t h i s v a r iable, A-4, was the average rank score of a l l the objects he selected. The time f o r choosing, A-5, was re-corded from the time the examiner stopped speaking to the time when the student indicated he was f i n i s h e d . The arrangement score, A^6, was determined by giving one point i f the objects were simply placed on the table with no attention given to t h e i r relationships; two points were given i n the objects were manipulated i n d i v i d u a l l y but just placed on the table without regard to t h e i r relationships; three points were given i f the objects were arranged i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other. The time for arrangement of objects was recorded as A-7. The time f o r selection and arrangement of the objects was re-corded as A-8. The t o t a l a r t problem formulation score, Total A, was determined as follows: The student received a f i n a l score of 1 i n categories A - l , A-2, A-4, and A-6 i f h i s raw score i n each of those categories was above the average score i n that category for the entire sample. The t o t a l problem formulation score, Total A, was the t o t a l of these above average scores. Problem formulation: questioning. The questions produced by the students were scored according to the category system 47 adapted by A r l i n (1975, 1976) i n conjunction with Jacob Getzels and based on the " i n t e l l e c t u a l products categories" of Guilford's (1956) structure of the i n t e l l e c t model. The questions were categorized from one through six corresponding to the six cate-gories of the i n t e l l e c t u a l products, category 1 being units; category 2, classes; category 3, r e l a t i o n s ; category 4, systems; category 5, transformations; and category 6, implications. Ex-amples of these categories appear i n Table 3.2. Table 3.2 The I n t e l l e c t u a l Product Categories Category 1. Units 2. Classes 3. Relations 4. Systems 5. Transfor-mation 6. Implications D e f i n i t i o n Basic u n i t s of informa-t i o n C lass can be embodied using d i f f e r e n t sets of p a r t i c u l a r s . Connections between ob-j e c t s or u n i t s such as opp o s i t i o n , part-whole, agent-action, e t c . To t a l k about r u l e s , p r i n c i p l e s , orders, o r i e n t a t i o n s , and s t r u c -tures i s to speak of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l pro-duct o f system. A transformation i s any kind of change such as expanding, r e v e r s a l , interchange, and so on. A connection between two u n i t s of information. Relations are d e f i n a b l e kinds of connections... comes nearest to the t r a d i t i o n a l notion of a s s o c i a t i o n . Example ''How many things are on the table?" "Hov- many things are itiade of wood?" " I f t h i s paper's hole was bigger, I could put t h i s quarter through i t . Maybe, can I put the quarter through the hole without r i p -ping i t ? " "I bet t h i s box, open up, how do you open i t , there i s a way, i s n ' t there?" " I f you were given t h i s s t e e l t h i n g , what could you change i t i n t o ? What could you make?" "In what ways can you arrange the objects on the t a b l e to represent how you f e e l at t h i s moment?" How could these matches be man's enemy?" •Adapted from Arlin, 1975, p. 101. 48 Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t i e s for these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were of the order of .99. From t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the data two variables, q u a l i t y and quantity of problem finding, were derived. Quantity was defined as the t o t a l number of questions asked by a subject. Quality represented the weighted average of the questions according to the i n t e l l e c t u a l products category. The relationship was: Quality=l(cat l)+2(cat 2)+3(cat 3)+4(cat 4)+5(cat 5)+6(cat 6) t o t a l number of questions asked by the subject This information was recorded on chart A-2 (Appendix B). Problem Solution. The students' drawings were judged by three a rt education professors, a l l of whom had experience deal-ing with children's artwork. Each judge scored each drawing i n two areas, (1) craftsmanship or s k i l l , and (2) o r i g i n a l i t y . For each category they rated each drawing on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest, 5 the highest. Each drawing was judged aft e r the judges saw a l l the drawings and the o r i g i n a l selection of objects. The average for the three judges ratings were the f i n a l scores for each drawing i n both categories. The i n t e r -rater r e l i a b i l i t i e s f or a l l three judges for the craftsmanship score were: .62 for judge 1 with judge 2, .73 for judge 1 with 49 judge 3, and .68 for judge 2 with judge 3. For the o r i g i n a l -i t y category they were: .54 f o r judge 1 with judge 2, .51 for judge 1 with judge 3, and .80 for judge 2 with judge 3. These are acceptable correlations given the unspecified nature of the c r i t e r i a for judging c r e a t i v i t y . The t o t a l time i t took each c h i l d to complete his or her drawing was recorded as C-3. The craftsmanship, C - l , o r i g i n -a l i t y , C-2 and time, C-3, scores were recorded on chart A-2. This scoring procedure was adapted from the research of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976). The Reading Situation Problem formulation: investigation and selec t i o n . The student's behavior was observed and recorded on chart R-l (Appendix C). Later t h i s was scored and recorded on chart R-3 (Appendix D). The scoring was done i n the following way. For each book touched, D^-l, the c h i l d was given 1 point. For each book that was investigated by f l i p p i n g through the pages, D-2, 1 point was given. For each book that was investigated by a page by page inspection, D-3, 1 point was given. For each book whose text was read i n part, D-4, 1 point was given. One point was given for each book chosen and moved to the second table, D-5. The uniqueness of books chosen. D-6, was derived from the books selected and moved to the second table. Each book was given a score corresponding to the rank-order frequency with which i t had been chosen by the sample as a whole. Thus, the most frequently chosen book was given a score of 1, the l e a s t frequently chosen was given a score of 10. A subject's score 50 was the average rank score of a l l the books he selected. The time for selection, D-7, was the t o t a l time i t took the sub-je c t to choose a l l the books he wanted to read. The t o t a l read-ing problem formulation score, Total D, was determined as f o l -lows. The average score for the entire sample was calculated for categories D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-6. When an i n d i v i d -ual's raw score was above the group average i n any of the cate-gories l i s t e d above, he received a f i n a l score i n that cate-gory of 1. A subject's Total D score was the sum of his above average scores. For example, i f he scored above the average i n a l l f i v e categories his t o t a l reading problem formulation score, Total D, would be 5. This scoring system i s an adaptation of that used by Get-zels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976) i n scoring the problem formulation component of an a r t s i t u a t i o n . Whenever possible corresponding variables were i d e n t i f i e d between the art s i t u a -t i o n and the reading s i t u a t i o n of t h i s study. Problem formulation; Predicting. The ch i l d ' s a b i l i t y to make predictions about a book a f t e r having time to survey the book was used as a variable i n the problem formulation stage of the reading s i t u a t i o n . Quality, quantity and time to make the predictions were a l l measured as variables of predicting. For quantity, E - l , the subject received 1 point for every pre-d i c t i o n made. A prediction was considered to be the names of characters mentioned, or a descriptive clause or a phrase stating what might happen i n the story. These were rated by two scorers with an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .90. The qual-51 i t y of predictions, E-2, were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lea s t , 5 the highest. Consideration was given to the scope, d e t a i l and descriptiveness of the subject's pre-d i c t i o n s . The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y f or t h i s variable was .74. The time for making predictions, E-3, was the t o t a l time i t took the subject to make a l l h i s or her predictions. Problem solution. This section was based on the subject's reading of a portion of a story selected from a grade three basal reader unfamiliar to the subject, which appears i n Ap-pendix G. The c h i l d read the entire story s i l e n t l y and then read the f i r s t three paragraphs aloud (Appendix H). The tape of t h i s reading was l a t e r scored to measure the ch i l d ' s read-ing s k i l l or craftsmanship, scores F - l through F-4, as a cor-r e l a t i o n to the s k i l l or craftsmanship category i n the a r t si t u a t i o n . The S i l v a r o l i (1973) system of miscue analysis was used to score the readings, with only miscues that actually changed the meanings of sentences counted as errors. Miscues were: omissions, insertions, substitutions,non-words and reversals i n word order. One point was given for each miscue with the t o t a l recorded as F - l . The next four scores, F-2 through F-4 and Subtotal-F, were considered to be measures of the student's comprehension of what they had read. After reading the story s i l e n t l y and then part of i t aloud, each c h i l d was asked to t e l l the interviewer as much as they could about what happened i n the story. The r e - t e l l i n g s were taped and scored using a scale of 1 to 5 to 52 rate each category, 1 being the lowest, 5 the highest. F-2 was the score for r e c a l l of facts and d e t a i l s . The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for F-2 was .95. Recall of sequence of events i n the story was recorded as F-3, with the i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y being .93. The completeness of r e c a l l , that i s , how well the subject described events that occurred i n the beginning, middle, and end of the story was recorded as F-4. The i n t e r - r a t e r re-l i a b i l i t y for t h i s category was .93. The t o t a l of r e c a l l a b i l -i t i e s , Subtotal F, was determined by c a l c u l a t i n g an i n d i v i d -ual's average of his F-2, F-3 and F-4 scores. Several categories were established to measure what could be considered creative responses to a reading problem. The f i r s t of these concern the student's r e t e l l i n g of the story that they had just read s i l e n t l y and p a r t i a l l y aloud. The a b i l i t y to put oneself into a story has been considered a creative reading a c t i v i t y (Harris, L. and Smith, C., 1976). The personal intrusion category, F-5, was intended to measure t h i s aspect of a creative reading response. The scoring was based on the number of changes made i n the r e t e l l i n g of the story where the student introduced some personal idea or ex-perience . The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for F-5 was .32, which re-f l e c t s inadequately communicated c r i t e r i a between the judges for scoring t h i s category of response. The t o t a l time for r e t e l l i n g the story was recorded as F-6. F l e x i b i l i t y has also been considered as one of the charac-t e r i s t i c s of c r e a t i v i t y by Guilford (1956, 1962) and . 53 Torrance (1962, 1964). In an attempt to measure t h i s q u a l i t y i n terms of a reading response the following measure was de-vised. The student was read three separate sentences from the story and for each selection was given the choice eit h e r to accept i t as written or to change i t with his or her own input. The three opportunities for acceptance or change were recorded as F-7, F-8 and F-9. The t o t a l of these three scores was re-corded as F-10. The f i n a l two measures of a creative response were based on the student's continuation and completion of the open-ended story he or she had read (Appendix G). These measures were taken from the work of Getzels and Jackson (1962, p. 18) i n which they used the continuation of an open-ended fable as a t e s t for c r e a t i v i t y . They are attempts to measure fluency and elaboration, both considered to be " t r a i t s of c r e a t i v i t y " by Guilford (1956, 1962), and Torrance (1963, 1964b), as well as "the novelty and va r i e t y of adaptive responses to a given stimulus task" used by Getzels and Jackson (1962, p. 17) as a measure of creative responses. Time for story continua-t i o n , considered to be a measure of fluency, was recorded as F - l l . The o r i g i n a l i t y of the story continuation, elaboration, was recorded as F-12. The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for F-12 was .92. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures The means and standard deviations for a l l 38 variables i n the study were calculated and appear i n Table 3.1 which follows. The main analysis involved the use of non-parametric 54 s t a t i s t i c s since the data were i n t e r v a l data. The s t a t i s t i c used was Spearman's rank order c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t rho. The correlations are reported as they r e l a t e to each of the author's hypotheses. Table 3.3 Means and Standard Deviations for A l l Variables Art Variables Reading Variables Means S.D. Means S.D. A - l 4.97 3.84 D-l 5.55 3.22 A-2 3.38 3.49 D-2 2.93 2.79 A-3 3.14 1.60 D-3 2.41 2.60 A-4 4.98 2.42 D-4 1.41 1.62 A-5 1.96 1.80 D-5 3.21 2.04 A-6 2.07 1.03 D-6 3.81 1.72 A-7 0.27 0.41 D-7 2.60 2.03 A-8 2.22 1.98 Total D 12.31 8.15 Total A 15.39 8.04 E- l 6.72 4.04 B-l 4.34 1.76 E-2 2.14 1.38 B-2 1.27 1.03 P-l 3.14 6.58 G-l 0.26 0.11 F-2 2.90 1.66 G-2 0.25 0.10 F-3 3.07 1.79 C-3 7.72 4.18 F-4 2.79 1.61 Subtotal F 2.41 1.22 F-5 1.38 1.02 F-6 0.88 0.58 F-7 0.59 0.50 F-8 0.62 0.49 F-9 0.59 0.50 F-10 1.79 0.77 F - l l 0.56 0.47 F-12 2.69 1.65 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Introduction The variables i n t h i s study f a l l into four groups: (1) art problem formulation; (2) a r t problem solution; (3) reading problem formulation; and (4) reading problem solution. The variables within each of these groups appear i n Table 3.1. The variables within the art problem formulation group have A or B prefixes. A prefixes r e f e r to physical investigative behaviors, B prefixes r e f e r to investigative questioning. The variables within the a r t problem solution group have C prefixes. The variables within the reading problem formulation group have D and E prefixes. D prefixes r e f e r to physical investigative behaviors, E prefixes r e f e r to predicting. The variables within the reading problem solution group have F prefixes. In order to present a l l the data c o l l e c t e d , the tables i n Chapter 4 show matrixes of correlations of the variables within each of the four groups described above, and matrixes of c o r r e l a -tions of variables between each group described above. The corre l a t i o n s within each group and between each group are i l l u s t r a t e d i n figure 4.1. Art Reading Problem A & B D & E formulation variables variables Problem D F solution variables variables 55 56 Figure 4.1, on the previous page, i s a Graphic Display of the Presented Internal Correlations within Each Group and the Correlations Between Each Group i n the Study. The findings are presented i n r e l a t i o n to each of the three hypotheses of t h i s study. Hypothesis I Table 4.1, which follows, i s a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of the variables relevant to the t e s t i n g of hypothesis I which states: There w i l l be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween inve s t i g a t i v e behavior and creative responses i n a problem solving a r t s i t u a -tion presented to grade 3^  c hildren. Table 4.1 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior Variables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation and The Evaluations of the A r t i s t i c Products 1 Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products Art Investigative Variables Physical Investigating Question-ing A - l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 Total A B-l B-2 C-l Craftsmanship .20 .24 -.11 .20 .28 .26 .02 .23 .31* .29 .24 C-2 Originality .07 .20 .20 .27 .28 .46* .28 .29 .38* .27 .04 C-3 Time for Drawing .22 .23 .26 .35* .28 .33* .24 .30 .31* .45' .08 note: n=29 * p < .05. 57 The s i g n i f i c a n t * p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.38) between Total A,the t o t a l a r t problem formulation score, and C-2, o r i g i n a l i t y dimension of the children's drawings, as shown in Table 4.1, supports Hypothesis I. Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix of Investigative Behavior Variables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation Art Investigative Variables Physical Investigating Ques-J t i o n i A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 Tota A i B - 1 Physical Investi-gating A-2 Tfc * .52* • A-3 .52 .15 -A-4 .28 .10 .33 . 3 4 * ' A-5 .74** .69** .58** .35* A-6 .34* .16 .60** .37* 4 3 * • A-7 .38* .24 .81** .16 .50* .70** A-8 .70** . 66** .65** .32* .98** .47* .61** Total A .78** .61** .54** .62** .80** .55** .49* Question-ing B-1 .38* .38* .01 .07 .01 .18 .12 .06 .11 B-2 .17 .17 -.06 -.20 .01 -.12 -.04 .10 .22 Note: N=»29 * p <.05 ** p < .001 ignificance i s established at p < .05 unless otherwise indicated. 58 Table 4.2 presents the i n t e r n a l correlations of the A and B variables of a r t problem formulation. Table 4.3 Correlation Matrix of Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products i Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Pro-ducts C-l C-2 i i i C-2 .58** i C-3 .49* .38* Note: n=29 * p < .05 ** p < .001 Table 4.3 presents the i n t e r n a l correlations of the C variables of art problem solution. Hypothesis II Table 4.4^following, i s a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of the variables relevant to the t e s t i n g of Hypothesis II which states: There w i l l be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between investigative behavior and creative responses i n a problem solving reading s i t u a t i o n presented to grade 3 children. 59 Table 4.4 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior Variables with Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation and Evaluations of Reading Responses Reading Investigative Variables of Evalua-tions of Reading Responses S k i l l s Ph ysical Investigating Pre-dicting D-l D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 Total D E - l E-2 F - l .13 .20 -.06 -.18 -.14 .17 .03 .11 -.46* -.65* F-2 .10 -.00 .00 .14 .32* -.09 .14 .02 .73** .78** F-3 .06 -.06 .03 .10 .31* -.09 .14 -.02 .68** .75** F-4 .12 -.03 .02 .20 .28 -.17 .17 .03 .71** .76** Sub-tot a l 1 ? .07 -.07 .03 .09 .28 -.14 .17 -.01 .66** .77** F-5 .18 -.04 .11 -.11 .18 .08 .18 .13 .24 .31* F-6 .38* .13 .14 .07 .33* .06 .41* .27 .57** .47* F-7 .05 .02 -.26 .17 .04 -.08 • -.16 -.05 .28 .38* F-8 .15 .01 .28 .25 .25 .07 .42* .20 .18 .27 F-9 .24 .28 .02 .02 -.02 .24 .09 .26 .10 -.08 F-10 .26 .17 -.02 .03 .13 .12 .17 .23 .34* .33* F-11 .21 .00 ' .12 .22 .25 -.19 .10 .19 .42* .34* F-12 .02 -.16 .04 .30 .21 -.28 .09 -.01 .54** .60** Reading s Creativ-i t y of Responses F 7 9 Note: n - 29 * p < .05 ** p < .001 Inspection of Table 4.4 problem formulation score of correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with shows that Total D, t o t a l reading physical i n v e s t i g a t i o n , does not any of the measures of a creative 60 reading response, F-5 through F - 1 2 . However, i t does show that both measures of the reading problem formulation score of predicting, E - l and E - 2 , do correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with every measure of a creative reading response except F - 8 and F - 9 . These data i n part support Hypothesis I I . Table 4.5 Correlation Matrix of Investigative Behavior Variables and Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation Reading Investigative Variables Reading Physical Investigating Investi- Pre-dicting gative Variables D-l D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 Total D E- l Physical D-2 Investi- .80** gating D-3 .47* .11 D-4 .28 .04 .66** D-5 .64** .49* .46* .30 D-6 .54** .59** .23 .06 .22 D-7 .60** .29 .82** .59** .49* .27 Total D .94** .77** .63** .47* .67** .57** .69** E - l Pre- . . .45* .27 .33* .37* .55** .19 .41* .43* dieting E-2 .24 .09 .19 .13 .34* .01 .27 .17 .73** Note: n = 29 * p < .05 ** p < .001 Table 4.5 presents the internal correlations of the D and E variables of reading problem formulation. Table 4.6 C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix of Dimensions with Subtotal of Evaluations of Reading Responses ^ Dimensions of Evaluations of Reading Responses Dimensions of Evaluations of Reading Responses F - l i F-2 F-3 F-4 58|li t F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 F-9 F-10 F-11 F-2 -.64** Reading S k i l l r J -.60** .95** F-4 -.62** .97*' .94** Sub-t o t a l F -.62** .94 .94** .95** F-5 .30 .30 .25 .31* .46* C r e a t i v - F - 6 -.08 .56** .45* .55** .54** .26 Reading -.18 .35* .25 .38* .37* .34* .29 Responses _ _ r — o -.31* .29 .27 .26 .25 -.10 .45* -.22 F-9 .29 -.05 -.08 .02 .04 .21 .10 .29 - .37* F-10 -.14 .36* .25 .41* .40* .27 .55* .71** .22 .60 F-11 -.24 .47* .39* .53 .37* .02 .55** .34* .27 .01 .39* F-12 -.47* .66*' .61* .76* .68** .27 .47* .57** .11 .12 .50* .65** Note: n = 29 * p < .05 ** p < .001 62 Table 4.6 presents the i n t e r n a l correlations of the F variables of reading problem solution. Hypothesis III Table 4.7 i s a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of the relevant variables for testing Hypothesis III which states: There w i l l be a posit i v e c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween those children who score high i n investigative behavior i n the art s i t u a -t i o n and those who score high i n creative responses i n the reading s i t u a t i o n . (See following page, 6 3 . for Table 4.7). Inspection of Table 4.7 shows that Total A, the t o t a l for physical investigation of art problem formulation, correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with four variables of creative reading responses, F-6 (r=.60), F-10 (r=.55), F - l l (r=.35), and F-12 (r=.34). B - l , quantity of questions, also a variable of art problem formulation, also correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with two measures of a creative reading response. A l l of these correlations support Hypothesis I I I . Other Data In order to show a l l the data c o l l e c t e d , Table 4.8 i s pre-sented which shows the correlations between the D and E v a r i -ables of reading problem formulation and the C variables of art problem solution. 63 Table 4.7 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior Variables with Subtotal of Art Problem Formulation and Dimensions of Evaluations of Reading Responses Art Investigative Variables is .4.11 ic J i s l u n t t of Evalua-tions of Reading Physi =al Ini /estigating Ques-tioning Responses A - l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 Total A B-1 B-2 r - i . -.04 -.15 -.06 -.10 -.07 -.26 -.18 -.08 -.25 -.27 -.27 CP C rt rt rt -Ti rt F-2 .29 .43* .14 .30 .31* .26 .28 .34* .50* .46' .29 0) Ul K „ , .15 .35* .04 .25 .19 .16 .19 .21 .35* .51' .32* F-4 .27 .38* .15 .32* .25 .27 .29 .30 .48* .49* .28 Subtotal F .27 .43* .05 .25 .25 .25 .17 .26 .47* .49* .41* c F-5 .22 .44* -.03 -.09 .23 .17 -.08 .21 .27 .33' .53* iadi F-6 .47* .55* • .36* .25 .62*' .23 .39* .65*' .60* > .26 -.01 w a a -F-7 " .32* .35* .10 .18 .21 .33* .16 .20 .46* .14 .24 —* Ul P _ Q 0 a * M cr . >, 0 _ .27 .34* .25 .12 .43* .32* .35* .43* .32* .14 .24 4J a F-9 rt 0) > ci — .01 -.04 .04 .21 -.01 -.01 .02 .0 .08 .01 -.30 rt DC « F-10 .36* .40* .22 .32* .39* .39* .32* .40* .55* .21 -.03 U u F-11 .27 .14 .55 .17 .24 .37* .62* • .35* .35* .31' .07 F-12 .23 .13 .28 .16 •15 .41* .40* .24 .34* .40* .36 Note: n = 29; * p < .05'; **' p < .001 j Table 4.8 Correlations Between Investigative Behavior Variables and Subtotal of Reading Problem Formulation a S ^ Dimensions of Evaluations of A r t i s t i c Products Dimensions of Evalua-tions of A r t i s t i c Products Craftsmanship C-l Originality C-2 Time for Drawing C-3 Note: n = 29; * p < .05 Phys. Leal Ir lvestigating Pre-D-l D-2, D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 rotal D E-l E-2 .01 .04 .06 .10 -.07 .04 .12 .02 .09 .38' .31* .26 .08 .00 .19 .10 .08 .26 .20 .34' .23 .17 .23 .37* .19 .16 .23 .31* .29 .24 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Introduction The findings of t h i s study w i l l be discussed i n t h i s Chap-ter i n three parts corresponding to the three Hypotheses. The res u l t s w i l l also be considered i n rel a t i o n s h i p to those studies, reviewed i n Chapter 2, which suggested the Hypotheses. A section on the implications of the findings for elemen-tary i n s t r u c t i o n i n art and reading w i l l follow, and the Chapter w i l l be concluded with a discussion of the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study, and suggestions f o r further research. Discussion of Results Hypothesis I The s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of (r = .38) between Total A, t o t a l problem formulation score for physical investiga-t i o n , and C-2, o r i g i n a l i t y of drawings, which appears i n Table 4.1, supports Hypothesis I. This observed c o r r e l a t i o n agrees with the findings of Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's (1971, 1976) research with college a r t students, upon which the pres-ent study was modeled. While both studies report a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween these two variables, differences i n the data between the two studies should also be noted. Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's findings show a much higher c o r r e l a t i o n between t o t a l problem formulation scores and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the students' draw-ings. Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's data, with a r t student 64 65 subjects, correlated .54 (p < .005); while the data of the present study, with t h i r d grade subjects, correlated .38 (p < .05). This difference i n strength of correlations i s perhaps due to the differences i n sample populations of the two studies. The sample i n the Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi research were college a r t students who were already selected as being a r t i s t s and had received much t r a i n i n g and practice i n a r t i s t i c ac-t i v i t i e s , whereas the sample of the present study, a group of grade three children, had no p a r t i c u l a r t r a i n i n g or experience i n a r t . Another difference i n the findings of the two studies i s that Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi reported a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i -t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between 5 of the 6 variables of problem formu-l a t i o n and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the drawings, whereas the present study shows a po s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between only one of the i n -d i v i d u a l variables of problem formulation, A-6, arrangement of objects, and the o r i g i n a l i t y of the drawings. The A-6 score, arrangement of objects, r e f l e c t s the subjects' consideration of the relationships among the objects as they were placed to be drawn, distinguishing i t from variable A-2, manipulation of each i n d i v i d u a l object. The fac t that A-6, arrangement of objects, correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with o r i g i n a l i t y of drawings at .46, while A-2, manipulation of each object, does not, i s inte r e s t i n g to consider i n l i g h t of the research reviewed i n Chapter 2. If i n f a c t the physical arrangement and combining of objects measured i n variable A-6, represents mental combina-66 t o r i a l play, then these findings support the positions reported on i n Chapter 2 of Schactel, Kubie, E i n s t e i n , Bruner, and Ross-man, a l l of whom emphasized the importance of combinatorial a c t i v i t y to creative production. The fact that A-2, manipulation, did not correlate s i g n i f i -cantly with the o r i g i n a l i t y of the drawings was surprising to t h i s researcher. This finding does not agree with that of Torrance (1965) who reported a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between manipulation of objects and two verbal measures of creative responses. Further research on t h i s matter i s needed. Consideration needs to be given to the non-significant p o s i t i v e correlations between both measures of mental investiga-tion; B - l , question quantity, and B-2, question quality; and C-2, o r i g i n a l i t y of the drawings. These r e s u l t s d i f f e r from those of A r l i n ' s 1975-1976 study with 50 female college seniors i n which s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were found between question q u a l i t y and three variables of c r e a t i v i t y . There i s a large difference of age and other factors between the samples of the two studies, and each used d i f f e r e n t measures of a creative response. The findings of the present study do agree with those of A r l i n ' s 1977 research i n that both studies found that the sub-j e c t s , children of s i m i l a r ages, did not ask any questions i n the transformations and implications categories. Concerning the questioning variables of the present study, i t i s i n t e r e s t -ing to note that B - l , question quantity, correlated more highly, at r » .27, with C-2, o r i g i n a l i t y of the response, than did B-2, 67 question quali t y , at r = .04 with o r i g i n a l i t y of the response. Table 4.2 presents the in t e r n a l correlations of the A and B variables of art problem formulation. Discussion of the data presented i n t h i s Table w i l l be presented here as the A and B variables appeared i n Table 4.1 r e l a t i n g to Hypothesis I. Table 4.2 shows the i n t e r n a l correlations between the A variables of physical investigative behavior and the B v a r i -ables of questioning. Only A - l , number of objects touched, and A-2, number of objects manipulated, correlated s i g n i f i -cantly with B - l , number of questions; while none of the A v a r i -ables correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with B-2, qu a l i t y of questions. Those students who ph y s i c a l l y touched and manipulated the most objects also produced the most questions about the.objects, but not the higher q u a l i t y of questions. These findings agree i n part with those reported by Tor-rance (1970) who concluded that children who manipulated ob-jects showed a greater frequency and qu a l i t y of question ask-ing about the objects. The difference i n findings between the Torrance study and the present study regarding q u a l i t y of ques-tions could be explained by the f a c t that the two studies used very d i f f e r e n t methods for assessing t h i s variable. An inspection of Table 4.2 also indicates a p o s i t i v e corre-l a t i o n , although not s i g n i f i c a n t , between B-l and B-2. This i s i n contrast to the findings of a study conducted by A r l i n (1975-1976) with female college seniors i n which there was a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between question quantity and q u a l i t y . This d i f f e r -ence can be understood by an analysis of the questions asked by 68 each group. In the A r l i n study the adults produced questions from a l l six categories of the question scale; those asking the most questions, asked the lower category questions; while those asking the fewer questions, asked the higher category questions. This accounts for the negative c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween quantity and q u a l i t y . In the present study the c h i l d -ren a l l asked questions i n the three lower categories, with no questions i n the three upper categories. This i s consist-ent with the findings of A r l i n ' s 1977 study i n which the sub-jects were children 7, 9, and 11 years old; and supports A r l i n ' s p osition that before reaching the formal operational l e v e l i n -dividuals do not ask the higher categories of questions involv-ing transformations and implications. Hypothesis II The variables r e l a t i n g to the te s t i n g of Hypothesis II appear i n Table 4 . 4 . Inspection of these correlations shows that neither Total D, t o t a l for physical investigation of reading problem formula-t i o n , nor any of the i n d i v i d u a l D variables correlates s i g n i f i -cantly with any of the variables of a creative reading response. These findings do not support Hypothesis I I . S i g n i f i c a n t cor-r e l a t i o n s are present, however, between both variables of men-t a l i nvestigative behavior of reading problem formulation, E - l , quantity of predictions, and E-2, q u a l i t y of predictions, and most ofthe variables of a creative response. These data do support Hypothesis I I . These findings suggest a contrast: i n the a r t s i t u a t i o n , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween investigation and c r e a t i v i t y manifested by physical 69 combinatorial a c t i v i t y ; while i n the reading s i t u a t i o n , mental investigation manifested by making predictions was s i g n i f i -cantly related to c r e a t i v i t y . The data i n Table 4.4 also show that the reading predic-t i o n variables, E - l and E-2, correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with every variable of reading s k i l l . These correlations, of both predicting quantity and pre-d i c t i n g q u a l i t y , with both c r e a t i v i t y and reading s k i l l support the t h e o r e t i c a l position of Stauffer, discussed i n Chapter 2, on which Stauffer's Directed Reading Thinking A c t i v i t y method of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i s based. These findings are i n agree-ment with those of Davidson (1970), and Petre (1970) which are concerned with D-R-T-A i n s t r u c t i o n and are described i n Chapter 2. In both the art and reading situations quantity of ques-tions and quantity of predictions, (but not quality) related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the other variables of physical i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A possible explanation for t h i s would be the age and opera-t i o n a l l e v e l of these grade three children. Table 4.6 presents the i n t e r n a l correlations of the v a r i -ables i n group F. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that subtotal F, representing reading s k i l l , correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with a l l measures of a creative reading response. I t should be noted that due to the low i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a -b i l i t y for scoring F-5, personal intrusions, correlations with t h i s variable were not reported. The researcher f e e l s that t h i s variable i s a v a l i d measure of a creative response and suggests that other research which contains t h i s variable 70 should provide the raters with more s p e c i f i c guidelines f o r scoring personal intrusions. After the data were co l l e c t e d , the present researcher also recognized the need for a t o t a l creative response score for the reading problem solution. Table 4.5 presents the i n t e r n a l correlations of the D and E variables of reading problem formulation. Inspection shows that E - l , quantity of predictions, correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with 5 variables of physical investigation and t o t a l D; whereas E-2, q u a l i t y of predictions, correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with only one variable of physical i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Those children who were the physical investigators also made the highest quantity (but not quality) of predictions. These findings are very similar to those presented i n Table 4.2, and previously discussed, concerning the c o r r e l a -tions of question quantity and q u a l i t y to physical investiga-t i v e behavior. Hypothesis III Hypothesis III i s supported by the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a -tions between Total A of physical investigative behavior of art problem formulation, and every variable of a creative reading response, F-6, F-10, F-11 and F-12. These data are presented i n Table 4.7. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n contrast to the c o r r e l a t i o n s , presented i n Table 4.4 and previously discussed, between the variables of reading problem formulation and those of reading problem solution. No s i g n i f i c a n t c o rrelations were 71 observed between any variable of physical investigative behavior of reading problem formulation and any variable of a creative reading response. In short, physical investigation of objects correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with creative reading responses, while physical investigation of books does not. These findings suggest that i n future studies, rather than having books to manipulate for the problem formulation component of the reading s i t u a t i o n , the researcher could pre-sent objects on a table for the subjects to investigate as they choose. These objects would then appear i n the subject matter of a story to be read and responded to by the subjects. One would expect from the findings of the present study to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the investigation of the objects during problem formulation and the creative reading responses. The correlations i n Table 4.7 also show the s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between Total A, t o t a l a r t problem formulation score, and four of the f i v e measures of reading s k i l l . An inspection of Table 4.7 shows that A-2, manipulation of in d i v i d u a l objects,|correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with a l l but one of the measures of reading s k i l l ; but not with F-11 or F-12, meas-ures of a creative reading response. A-6, arrangement of ob-jects , previously discussed as representative of combinatorial a c t i v i t y , does not correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with any measure of reading s k i l l , but does correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with F-10, F-11 and F-12, a l l of which are measures of a creative reading re-sponse. This again suggests the r e l a t i o n s h i p of combinatorial 72 a c t i v i t y to c r e a t i v i t y . It i s also i n t e r e s t i n g to note that B-1, quantity of ques-tions, correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with three measures and the subtotal for reading s k i l l , as well as two measures of a crea-t i v e response. This i s i n contrast to B-2, q u a l i t y of ques-tions, which relates to only one variable and the subtotal of reading s k i l l and no variables of creative response. With children of t h i s age, i t seems that quantity, not q u a l i t y , of questions asked i s most r e f l e c t i v e of the c h i l d ' s mental i n -vestigative a c t i v i t i e s . Other Data Table 4.8 shows the correlations between investigative be-havior i n the reading problem formulation and responses i n a r t problem so l u t i o n . E-2, q u a l i t y of predictions, i s the only measure of investigative reading behavior which correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the s k i l l of a r t i s t i c responses. E-2, q u a l i t y of predictions and D-l, number of books touched, are the only measures of investigative reading behavior which s i g -n i f i c a n t l y correlate with c r e a t i v i t y of a r t i s t i c responses. These data can be considered i n r e l a t i o n to the data pre-viously discussed concerning Hypothesis III i n which s i g n i f i -cant correlations were observed between the t o t a l for physical investigation i n the art s i t u a t i o n with 6 measures of creative reading response; and the quantity of questions with 2 meas-ures of creative reading response. In t h i s study, physical investigation and question quan-t i t y i n a r t correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with creative reading 73 responses; but physical investigation and prediction quantity i n a reading s i t u a t i o n do not correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with c r e a t i v i t y of a r t responses. I t should be noted, however, that prediction q u a l i t y i n the reading s i t u a t i o n does correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with c r e a t i v i t y of a r t responses. Summary to Discussion and Conclusions The operational measures of physical investigation be-havior of problem formulation i n an a r t s i t u a t i o n , derived from the work of Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976) appear to be useful tools i n the study of creative production with grade three children. The data presented support Hypo-thesis I and agree with the findings of Getzels and Csikszent-mihalyi that investigation during problem formulation i s re-lated to creative production i n an a r t s i t u a t i o n . Adding A r l i n ' s (1975-76, 1977) measures of problem f i n d -ing, i . e . , question quantity and q u a l i t y , to the problem formu-l a t i o n component i n the art s i t u a t i o n provided measures of mental investigation to add to those of physical investigation derived from the Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi model. The correlations among the questioning variables, although not s i g n i f i c a n t , indicated that for grade three children ques-ti o n quantity rather than q u a l i t y i s more related to creative production. Adapting Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's research design for use i n investigating problem formulation and responses i n a reading s i t u a t i o n proved s a t i s f a c t o r y . Suggestions were made i n regard to the operational measures of reading problem 74 formulation. In the reading s i t u a t i o n , Hypothesis II was p a r t i a l l y supported by the findings. While none of the physical i n v e s t i -gative measures correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with those of crea-t i v e responses, both variables of mental investigative be-havior, quantity and q u a l i t y of predictions s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with most of the measures of creative responses, sug-gesting that i n reading i t i s the mental investigative and combinatorial a c t i v i t i e s used i n making predictions, rather than physical investigation, that i s important to a creative response. The fact that both pred i c t i o n measures also corre-lated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with almost every measure of reading s k i l l supports the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n of Stauffer (1975) and agrees with the research reviewed concerning his methods. Hypothesis I I I was supported by the findings. Physical investigation i n a r t problem formulation correlated s i g n i f i -cantly with measures of a creative response i n reading problem solution. The quantity of children's questions produced i n the a r t problem formulation component also correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with most measures of both reading s k i l l and c r e a t i v i t y i n the solution component of the reading s i t u a t i o n . Limitations I t must be noted that the structure of t h i s research pro-j e c t w^as such that only correlations between variables could be reported on, and that no cause and e f f e c t statements could be made. Accordingly, i t should be recognized that the behavioral 75 measures that correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with measures of crea-t i v e responses cannot be viewed as causing those responses. Furthermore, the implied r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical a c t i v i t i e s and mental a c t i v i t i e s which i s suggested i n t h i s paper by the inclu s i o n of the review of psychological consid-erations can at best only be implied. Additional research needs to be done i n order to c l a r i f y these implications and to make any cause and e f f e c t statements. The sample was also a l i m i t a t i o n of the study. The 29 grade three students were selected from two classes from two d i f f e r e n t schools i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, and the selection was not random and no attempt was made to control f o r e f f e c t s of socio-economic status. Although the B.C. Ministry of Education provides a c u r r i c -ulum guide f o r a r t and reading education, the emphasis on con-tent and choice of i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods depends f o r the most part on the preferences of i n d i v i d u a l teachers. Consequently, i t cannot be known i f a l l the members of the sample received s i m i l a r t r a i n i n g or experience with the problem formulation types of a c t i v i t i e s used i n t h i s study. This study was also l i m i t e d by the measures used i n the evaluation of creative responses. In the a r t si t u a t i o n the expression of c r e a t i v i t y was lim i t e d to a two dimensional draw-ing with only pencils and crayons as the media. In the reading s i t u a t i o n expressions of c r e a t i v i t y were lim i t e d to responses r e l y i n g heavily on verbal s k i l l s . 76 Implications The present research adds to the body of l i t e r a t u r e which indicates the importance of problem formulation to creative production. ( A r l i n , 1975, 1977; Davidson, 1970; E i n s t e i n , 1938; — Kuhn, 1962; Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1976; Getzels and Jackson, 1962; Mackworth, 1965; Petre, 1970; Rossman, 1964; Stauffer, 1975; Torrance, 1963, 1970), " ~";/ The present study has implications for further research by providing an adaptation of Getzels' and Csikszentmihalyi's model for investigating the a r t i s t i c production process for use with elementary school c h i l d r e n i n the areas of a r t and reading. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the present study i d e n t i f i e s variables and sug-gests measures of these variables of problem formulation i n these areas. Since no cause and e f f e c t statements can be based on the findings of t h i s research, any discussion of the educational implications of the present study must be confined to sugges-tions and opinions. I t i s hoped that the present research and the l i t e r a t u r e from which i t was developed w i l l suggest to educators that they become more aware of the problem formulation stage of the prob-lem solving process and of problem finding a c t i v i t i e s that are s p e c i f i c to i n d i v i d u a l subject areas. This study provides a model for structuring classroom ac-t i v i t i e s that are directed towards stimulating students' crea-t i v e behavior. Teachers who organize t h e i r lessons to engage students i n problem finding a c t i v i t i e s , and then provide 77 opportunities for creative expression, may observe whether or not the s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between problem finding and c r e a t i v i t y reported i n t h i s study are confirmed by t h e i r stu-dents' behaviors. Art Classes The following are suggestions developed from t h i s study for structuring a r t a c t i v i t i e s i n order that students may p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n physical investigations related to problem exploration and formulation. Applying t h i s p r i n c i p l e to grade three art projects would suggest including a physi-c a l investigation and discovery stage i n which physical manipu-l a t i o n and combinatorial a c t i v i t y would be encouraged. For example, with the drawing of s t i l l l i f e arrangements the prob-lem formulation a c t i v i t y might be to have the students f i r s t sort a l l the objects to be drawn according to d i f f e r e n t c l a s s -i f i c a t i o n systems such as color, s i z e , or texture, or to weigh every object and graph the r e s u l t s , or to trace every object, cut out the silhouettes and arrange them to make abstract pat-terns. These are a c t i v i t i e s which involve the students i n physical manipulation and combinatorial play which leads to the subsequent stage of problem solution, i n t h i s case the actual s t i l l l i f e drawing. Another example of applying t h i s p r i n c i p l e to a r t i n s t r u c -t i o n would be for the lesson to be structured to include a physical investigation time for each medium or combination of media introduced, before the students used the materials to solve a given problem. 78 Reading Classes Reading a c t i v i t i e s which include student a c t i v i t y i n prob-lem formulation include structuring reading classes so that students p a r t i c i p a t e i n ^ surveying the material to be read and making predictions that they then validate by reading the material. This i s very much what Stauffer (1975) described i n Directing the Reading Thinking Process i n which he gives ample i n s t r u c t i o n and suggestions to teachers on how to imple-ment these procedures. Art i n the Elementary School Curriculum The correlations supporting Hypothesis III suggest the in c l u s i o n of a r t experiences and i n s t r u c t i o n i n the elementary school curriculum, not as "art f o r art's sake", or to develop the a r t i s t i c talents of the students, but to provide the stu-dents with opportunities to experience physical investigation and combinatorial play. Other areas of the curriculum can be structured to provide t h e i r own time for problem formulation a c t i v i t i e s , but a r t , perhaps due to the physical and combina-t o r i a l nature of i t s involvement with materials, could provide a place for problem formulation a c t i v i t i e s to be encouraged and developed. These behaviors might then be transferable for use i n other subject areas. The te s t i n g of t h i s patterning and transfer of problem formulation behaviors from one subject to another would be an i n t e r e s t i n g research project. Suggestions for Further Research Suggestions for further research include adapting the 79 Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1971, 1976) research model, as was done for the present study, to investigate the r e l a t i o n s h i p of problem formulation to creative responses i n other subject areas. This would involve f i r s t i d e n t i f y i n g the variables of problem formulation and aspects of creative responses s p e c i f i c to the subject areas under inves t i g a t i o n . Such research could provide information about the creative process i n each area of study, and might t e s t the hypothesis that the correlations ob-served by Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi and by the present re-searcher are examples of a general p r i n c i p l e — t h e p o s i t i v e re-lationship of problem formulation with c r e a t i v i t y — o r are phe-nomena r e s t r i c t e d to the creative responses appropriate to the areas studied. Additional research i s needed to further define what i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of creative responses at d i f f e r e n t ages or stages of development i n both a r t and reading. Further studies might also include research designs with manipulation of objects, combinatorial play, questioning, pre-d i c t i n g , etc., as independent vari a b l e s . Such experimental studies would investigate the e f f e c t of these variables of problem formulation upon creative responses or production i n various subject areas. 80 APPENDIX A. Art Situ a t i o n Behavior Scoring Chart  Chart A - l Student 1s number Student's name B i r t h date ' Present Age Sex Grade Nationality Misc. Notes OBJECT Art 1. basket <s>. S i t u a t i o n <V *x ^ \ -- o» *<s> •v . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9 . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. b e l l b i r d block book candle flowers glass j a r man metal box orange p l i a r s s t i c k t r a i n watering can questions: 81 APPENDIX B. Art Situation Behavior Scores Recording Chart Student's name Student's number Chart A-2 I. Art Situation. Raw Above A. Problem Formulation Score average 1. number touched 2. number manipulated 3. number chosen 4. uniaueness of obiects chosen 5. time for choosina 6 . a r ranaemf inr . 7. time for arranaement 8. t o t a l time for selection and arranaement Total A - Total problem formulation score. B. Questioning - Problem Finding 1. quantity I a. units b. classes c. r e l a t i o n s d. svstems e. transformations f. implications. 2. q u a l i t y 1 C. Problem Solution 1. craftsmanship 2. o r i a i n a l i t v 3. t o t a l time for drawincr 82 APPENDIX C. Reading Situation Behavior Scoring Chart Chart R-l Student's number Student's name Reading Situation 1. Yellow Balloon 2. V i o l i n 3. No Dogs Johnathan 4. Goggles 5. Custard Dragon 6. Fish for Supper 7. The T e r r i b l e Roar 8. Meal One 9. Henderson Cat 10. Animals touched flipped through pages page by page inspection reading of text chosen time for selection 83 APPENDIX D. Reading Situation Behavior Scoring Chart Student's name Student's number Marker Date Chart R-2 Predictions 1. quantity = 2. qua l i t y = 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 3. time = sec. Miscue score = Story R e t e l l i n g 1. r e c a l l of facts & d e t a i l s = 1-2-3-4-5 2. r e c a l l of sequence = 1-2-3-4-5 3. completeness = 1-2-3-4-5 4. personal intrusions = 1-2-3-4-5 5. t o t a l time = sec. Acceptance or Change Change 1. #1 2. #2 3. #3 4. t o t a l change Story Continuation average story r e t e l l i n g 6. 1. fluency ( t o t a l time) = 2. o r i g i n a l i t y = 1-2-3-4-5 sec. 84 APPENDIX E. Reading Situation Behavior Scores Recording Chart Student's name Student's number Chart R-3 Reading Situation D. Problem Formulation - book choice 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. number touched f l i p p e d through pages page by page inspection. reading of text, " number chosen. uniqueness of choice, time for selection raw score above average Total D - Total reading problem formulation score E. Problem Formulation - Predictions 1. quantity 2. qu a l i t y 3. time F. Problem Solution 1. M i s n u e story r e t e l l i n g ; 2. r e c a l l of facts & d e t a i l s 3. r e c a l l of sequence 4. completeness Subtotal F. t o t a l of r e c a l l ^ 5. personal i n t r u s i o n s ^ 6. t o t a l time _ Acceptance or change j 7. question 1 8. question 2 9. question 3 10. t o t a l f o r change I Story continuation 11. time (fluency) 12. o r i g i n a l i t y 85 APPENDIX F. L i s t of Books Displayed  for Reading Selection 1. A l l e n , R.T. The V i o l i n . Toronto: McGraw H i l l Ryerson, 1976. 2. Brunn, B. Animals: The Strange and Exciting Stories of Their Lives. New York: American Heritage Press, 1970. 3. C h r i s t i a n , M.B. No Dogs Allowed, Johnathan! Toronto: Addison Wesley, 1975. 4. Cutler, I. Meal One. London: Pan Books, 1971. 5. Donnison, R. Henderson The Supermarket Cat. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1975. 6. Fenton, E. The Big Yellow Balloon. New York: Double-day, 1967. 7. Goffstein, M.B. Fish For Supper. New York: The D i a l Press, 1976. 8. Keats, E.J. Goggles! Toronto: Macmillan, 1969. 9. Nash, O. Custard The Dragon. Boston: L i t t l e Brown, 1959. 10. Pinkwater, M. The T e r r i b l e Roar. New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1970. 86 APPENDIX G. Text Used i n S i l e n t Reading Section  The Secret of the Shed by Antony Maitland One hot summer afternoon Tom and Jane Robbins were working in t h e i r garden. To be quite t r u t h f u l , they were t i r e d of gardening. In a few days they would be st a r t i n g school, and they did want something e x c i t i n g to happen while there was s t i l l time. Tom suddenly had an idea. "Let's go next door to see Mr. and Mrs. Marble," he said. "There are always l o t s of i n -teresting things to do i n t h e i r house." Mr. Marble was an inventor, and his house was f u l l of strange inventions. Many of these had never been fi n i s h e d , usually because he had forgotten why he was inventing them. When the children arrived, Mr. Marble was too busy to see them, but Mrs. Marble gave them each a s l i c e of cake and sent them out into the garden to explore. An enormous black shed stood at the end of the garden. When Tom and Jane were i n t h e i r own garden, they could hear strange howling noises coming from the shed. They had always wanted to know what was i n i t , but Mr. Marble never would t e l l them. He just smiled and pointed to the sign that said SECRET. On t h i s afternoon the children played as near the shed as they dared. There was nobody around, and a l l was quiet. Then Jane noticed that the l i t t l e side door was not quite shut. "Why don't we take a quick look inside?" she asked. " I t couldn't do any harm." Tom was a l i t t l e older than Jane, and he knew he ought to 87 say no. But he did want to see what was i n the shed, so when they had made sure that no one could see them from the house, the children crept up to the door and looked i n . "Oh! Just look at that!" c r i e d Tom. "What i s i t ? " Jane whispered. There i n front of them stood the secret of the black shed. I t was a very strange machine, and i t looked brand-new. Even i n the dim l i g h t i t sparkled and shone. Tom ;and Jane crept inside the shed to walk around and admire the machine. "It's c a l l e d DABCHICK," said Jane, reading out the name that was painted on i t . A small door i n i t was open so Tom and Jane climbed i n -side . At that moment a t e r r i b l e thing happened. 88 APPENDIX H. Text Used for Students' Oral Readings  The Secret of the Shed by Antony Maitland One hot summer afternoon Tom and Jane Robbins were working i n t h e i r garden. To be quite t r u t h f u l , they were t i r e d of gardening. In a few days they would be st a r t i n g school, and they did want something e x c i t i n g to happen while there was s t i l l time. Tom suddenly had an idea. "Let's go next door to see Mr. and Mrs. Marble," he said. "There are always l o t s of i n -teresting things to do i n t h e i r house." Mr. Marble was an inventor, and his house was f u l l of strange inventions. Many of these had never been fi n i s h e d , usually because he had forgotten why he was inventing them. 89 APPENDIX I. Rank-Order Frequency Scores for  Objects and Books Selected During Art  and Reading Problem Formulations Art Situation OBJECTS book watering can metal box block p l i a r s b e l l b i r d orange s t i c k glass j a r flowers man basket t r a i n candle NUMBER OF TIMES SELECTED 1 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 7 7 8 8 11 12 13 RANK 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FREQUENCY SCORE 15 13.5 13.5 11.5 11.5 10 8.5 8.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 3 2 1 BOOK NAMES V i o l i n Meal One Animals Fi s h for Supper Goggles The T e r r i b l e Roar Henderson Cat Custard Dragon Yellow Balloon No Dogs, Johnathan Reading Situation NUMBER OF TIMES SELECTED 1 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 14 19 RANK 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FREQUENCY SCORE 10 9 7.5 7.5 6 5 3.5 3.5 2 1 90 APPENDIX J . Judges' Ratings of S k i l l and  O r i g i n a l i t y of Childrens' Drawings S k i l l O r i g i n a l i t y Judges Judges s t u -dent #2 ! #3 Total Av. #1 #2 #3 f Total Av. numbers 1. 2 2 3 7 2.3 1 2 2 5 1.7 2. 4 3 4 11 3.7 3 4 3 10 3.3 3. 1 1 1 3 1.0 2 1 1 4 1.3 4. 1 2 2 5 1.7 2 1 2 5 1.7 5. 1 2 2 5 1.7 1 4 3 8 2.7 6. 3 3 4 10 3.3 4 4 4 12 4.0 7. 1 1 1 3 1.0 1 1 1 3 1.0 8. 1 1 2 4 1.3 1 1 2 4 1.3 9. 3 2 3 8 2.7 3 3 2 8 2.7 10. 2 3 4 9 3.0 3 5 5 13 4.3 11. 3 2 4 9 3.0 5 3 3 11 3.7 12. 2 3 3 8 2.7 2 3 2 7 2.3 13. 3 3 3 9 3.0 2 2 2 6 2.0 14. 1 1 2 4 1.3 1 1 1 3 1.0 15. 4 3 5 12 4.0 2 3 3 8 2.7 16. 2 3 4 9 3.0 2 2 2 6 2.0 17. 2 2 2 6 2.0 3 1 2 6 2.0 18. 3 5 3 11 3.7 3 5 4 12 4.0 19. 4 4 4 12 4.0 3 4 4 11 3.7 20. 3 1 2 6 2.0 1 1 2 4 1.3 21. 1 2 2 5 1.7 2 4 2 8 2.7 22. 5 5 4 14 4.7 2 5 3 10 3.3 23. 3 2 3 8 2.7 5 4 2 11 3.7 24. 2 1 1 4 1.3 2 1 1 4 1.3 25. 2 3 3 8 2.7 2 2 2 6 2.0 26. 2 4 3 9 3.0 4 5 4 13 4.3 27. 1 1 2 4 1.3 2 3 2 7 2.3 28. 3 2 2 7 2.3 3 5 3 11 3.7 29. 4 3 5 12 4.0 2 3 2 7 2.3 30. 2 3 3 8 2.7 3 4 3 10 3.3 91 APPENDIX K - l . Examples of Children's Drawings Which  Received the Highest and Lowest Ratings*"  f o r S k i l l and O r i g i n a l i t y O r i g i n a l i t y Drawing Score See Appendix: HIGHEST A 4.3 K-2 RATINGS B 4.3 K-3 LOWEST C 1.0 K-4 RATINGS D 1.3 K-5 S k i l l Drawing Score See Appendix: HIGHEST E 4.7 K-6 RATINGS F 4.0 K-7 LOWEST G 1.0 K-8 RATINGS H 1.0 K-9 •ratings are averages from the scores of three independent judges. The drawings or photocopies follow. 92 APPENDIX K-2. Drawing A which Received Highest Rating for Original i ty 94 APPENDIX K-4. Drawing C which Received Lowest Rating for Original i ty APPENDIX K-5T 'TfoWnTTEIiftTcfi*KeceT¥eq Second Lowest Rating for  Original i ty : / i * S' > 1 96 APPENDIX K-6. Drawing E which Received Highest Rating for Sk i l l 97 APPENDIX K-7. Drawing F which Received Second Highest Rating for Ski l l 98' APPENDIX K-8. Drawing 6 which Received Lowest Rating for Ski l l it* 4*r ) 99 APPENDIX K-9. Drawing H which Received Lowest Ra'ting for Sk i l l \ ci 100 REFERENCES Adler, M.J. How To Read a Book. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1940. Aresteh, A. & Aresteh, D. C r e a t i v i t y i n Human Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976. A r l i n , P.K. A cognitive process model of problem f i n d i n g . Educational Horizons, winter 1975, 54, no. 2, 99-106. A r l i n , P.K. Piagetian operations i n problem f i n d i n g . Developmental Psychology., 1977, 13_, no. 3, 297-298. Bruner, J.S. Conditions of C r e a t i v i t y . In Anglin, J.M. (Ed.) Beyond the Information Given, Studies i n the Psychology  of Knowing. New York: Norton, 1973. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Getzels, J.W. Concern f o r discovery: an a t t i t u d i n a l component for creative production. Jour-nal of Personality, 1970, 38, no. 1, 91-105. Dewey, J. How We Think. Boston: Heath, 1910. Dewey,J. How We Think (2nd ed.). Boston: Heath, 1933. E i n s t e i n , A. & I n f i e l d L. The Evolution of Physics. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1938. Freud, S. The r e l a t i o n of the poet to daydreaming. Collected  Papers. (Vol. 4). London: The Hogarth Press, 1949. Getzels, J.W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creative Thinking i n Art  Students: Ah Exploratory Study. Cooperative Research Report No. 5-080. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1965. Getzels, J.W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. Discovery-oriented be-havior and the o r i g i n a l i t y of creative products: a study with a r t i s t s . Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychol- ogy, 1971, 19, no. 1, 47-52. Getzels, J.W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. P o r t r a i t of the a r t i s t as an explorer. Transaction, Sept.-Oct., 1966. Getzels, J.W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. The Creative V i s i o n . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976. Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. C r e a t i v i t y and Intelligence:  Explorations with Gifted Students. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. Gray, W.S. The nature and types of reading. In The Teaching of Reading: A Second Report, T h i r t y Sixth Yearbook of The 101 References (Con't.) National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Bloomington, I l l i n o i s : Public School Publishing Co., 1937. G u i l f o r d , J.P. The structure of the i n t e l l e c t . Psychology  B u l l e t i n , 1956, 53, 267-293. Guil f o r d , J.P. Factors that aid and hinder c r e a t i v i t y . Teachers College Record,1962, 63, 380-92. Hadamard, J . The Psychology of Invention i n the Mathematical  F i e l d . New York: Dover Publications, 1954. Harris, L. & Smith, C B . Reading Instruction, Diagnostic Teaching i n the Classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976. K a r l i n s , M. & Lamm, H. Information search as a function of conceptual structure i n a complex problem-solving task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5_, no. 4, 456-459. Kubie, L.S. Neurotic D i s t o r t i o n of the Creative Process. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1958. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Mackworth, N.H. O r i g i n a l i t y . American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 51-66. : 1 • Maitland, A. The secret of the shed. In Golden Treasure (level 11, grade 3-2, pp. 17-19, Reading Unlimited). Glenview, I l l i n o i s : Scott Foresman, 1976. Moffett, J . A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-6, A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: Houghton-M i f f l i n Co., 1973. Petre, R.M. Quantity, q u a l i t y and v a r i e t y of p u p i l responses during an open-communication structured group Directed-Reading-Thinking-Activity and a closed-communication structured group Directed Reading A c t i v i t y . Ph.D. d i s s . , University of Delaware, 1970. Roe, A. A psychologist examines sixty-four eminent s c i e n t i s t s . S c i e n t i f i c American, 1952, 187, 21-5. Rossman, J. I n d u s t r i a l C r e a t i v i t y : The Psychology of the In-ventor New York: University Books, 1964. 102 References (Con't.) Schactel, E.G. Metamorphosis: On the Development of Af f e c t , Perception, Attention, and Memory. New York: Basic Books, 1959. S i l v a r o l i , N.J. Classroom Reading Inventory (2nd ed.). Duburque, Iowa: Brown, 1973. Stauffer, R. Directing the Reading Thinking Process. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Taylor, C.W. & E l l i s o n , R.L. Prediction of c r e a t i v i t y with the biographical inventory. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.), Pre-d i c t i n g Creative performances from multiple measures, Widening Horizons i n C r e a t i v i t y , New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Torrance, E.P. Education and the Creative P o t e n t i a l . Minnea-p o l i s : University of Minnesota Press, 1963. Torrance, E.P. The Minnesota studies i n creative thinking, 1959-1962. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening Horizons i n C r e a t i v i t y . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Ta) Torrance, E.P. Developing creative readers. In R.G. Stauffer (Ed.), Dimensions of C r i t i c a l Reading, Proceedings of the Annual Education and Reading Conference, 1863-1964. Newark: University of Delaware, 1964 (b). Torrance, E.P. Freedom to Manipulate objects and question asking performance of six-year-olds. Young Children, D e c , 1970, 93-97. Vernon, P.E. (Ed.). C r e a t i v i t y . New York: Penquin Books, 1970. Wertheimer, M. Productive Thinking. New York: Harper & Row, 1945. Wolfe, W., Huck, C.S., & King, M.L. C r i t i c a l Reading A b i l i t i e s of Elementary School Children. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, O f f i c e of Education (Project No. 5-1040, Contract No. OE-4-10-187), Columbus: Ohio State University, 1967. 

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.831.1-0055288/manifest

Comment

Related Items