Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of some aspects of an enrichment program for selected grade seven gifted children : productive… Bishop, Carole 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 B56.pdf [ 4.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095077.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095077-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095077-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095077-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095077-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095077-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095077-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095077-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095077.ris

Full Text

AN EVALUATION OF SOME ASPECTS OF AN ENRICHMENT PROGRAM FOR SELECTED GRADE SEVEN GIFTED CHILDREN: PRODUCTIVE THINKING by CAROLE BISHOP B. P. E., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Oc t o b e r 1981 C a r o l e B i s h o p , 1981 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Bri t ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department nf Educational Psychology The University of Bri t ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date n r f n w , I Q « I Abstract E f f e c t s of the Chilliwack Enrichment Program which included the Productive Thinking Program (Covington, C r u t c h f i e l d , and Davies, 1966), were investigated through an ex post facto study of c e r t a i n divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s as assessed by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Two other areas of i n t e r e s t were studied: the e f f e c t s of the Productive Thinking Program on problem solving a b i l i t y , and on reading achievement. The study was conducted with 42 grade seven students who had been i d e n t i f i e d as the g i f t e d and/or talented p r i o r to the treatment program/ Two groups were formed from t h i s pool of students by school d i s t r i c t administrators before inv e s t i g a t i o n s by the present author. The experimental group remained an i n t a c t group throughput a four year Enrichment Program. TK'e'r.control group was composed of a l l other students not selected to the program. Formal t r a i n i n g on the Productive Thinking Program was completed during the f i r s t and second years of the Enrichment Program. As groups were not formed from random assignment, pretest comparisons of Lorge-Thorndike IQ and Torrance Battery Scores were made. I t was concluded that while the groups i n question did not d i f f e r i n terms of IQ and Torrance scores, s u b s t a n t i a l differences i n family occupations as a r e s u l t of geograph-i c a l l o c a t i o n resulted i n non-equivalent socio-economic status between the two groups. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966a) were used to measure divergent thinking a b i l i t y as defined by Torrance's (1966b) concepts of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y , and elaboration. Problem sol v i n g a b i l i t y was assessed by means of three well-known Maier (1945) problems; namely, the Prisoner problem, the Horse Trader problem, and the Two Stri n g problem. i i Reading achievement was assessed through the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, Advanced Form J . An analysis of variance was employed to assess pre to post t e s t e f f e c t s on Torrance Battery performances. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were observed i n favour of the experimental group for the subtask v a r i a b l e s of verbal fluency, verbal f l e x i b i l i t y , f i g u r a l fluency, f i g u r a l f l e x i b i l i t y , and f i g u r a l o r i g i n a l -i t y . However, weaknesses i n the experimental design severely l i m i t e d the extent to which the Productive Thinking Program could be deemed to be s o l e l y responsible for i n f l u e n c i n g divergent thinking scores. The Productive Thinking Program was introduced during the f i r s t two years of the four year Enrichment Program. Accordingly, i t was concluded that the evidence provided by the data could not be construed as an i n d i c a t i o n that the Productive Thinking Program was successful i n a f f e c t i n g the divergent thinking scores. Multiway frequency tables were employed to determine the e f f e c t s of the Productive Thinking Program on problem solving a b i l i t y . The r e s u l t indicated groups to be comparable although generally unsuccessful on a l l three Maier problems. Suspicion of a f l o o r e f f e c t reduced the l i k e l i h o o d of determining whether or not problem s o l u t i o n was r e l a t e d to t r a i n i n g i n the Productive Thinking Program. Further, Maier's (1945) notion of a reproductive/productive d i s t i n c t i o n was not substantiated for the problems employed by t h i s study, i n d i c a t i n g that the Maier problems may have been i n s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a f o r the purposes of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . While group differences were not observed for reading achievement, i n s u f f i c i e n t data on reading achievement p r i o r to the Enrichment Program as w e l l as d i f f e r i n g group SES prevented determination of the e f f e c t s of the program on reading achievement. i i i Three weaknesses i n the present study were i d e n t i f i e d : namely, lack of random assignment resulting i n non-equivalent groups, lack of experimenter control over the treatment program, and concern over the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a -b i l i t y of the Tortfance Battery. As a r e s u l t of the findings of the present study, i t was suggested that further research be directed toward the development of measures serving to i d e n t i f y special a b i l i t i e s i n children that are more independent i n content than the present indices. The development of such measures would be useful i n c l a r i f y i n g the types of behaviours that programs such as the Productive Thinking Program expect to influence. i v Table of Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Review of the Literature Training in Problem Solving Skills 5 The Productive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think 10 Divergent Thinking 13 The Problem 16 Rationale 19 3 Method 22 Design 22 Subjects 23 Description of the Variables 25 The Torrance-..Tests-.of .Creative' Thinking 25 Problem Solving 28 Reading Achievment 30 Procedure 31 Pretesting 31 Pilot Testing 32 Training 32 Post test on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking 33 Problem Sovling and the Stanford Reading Achievement Test 34 Scoring 35 4 Results 36 Analysis of Covariance of (ANCOVA) for Divergent Thinking Ab i l i t i e s 36 V Chapter Page Problem Solving 40 Reading Achievement 41 Summary of Results with Reference to Hypotheses 43 5 Discussion and Conclusions 45 Divergent Thinking Ab i l i t i e s 45 Problem Solving 48 Reading Achievement 49 Conclusions 49 Limitations 51 Recommendations 53 References ^ Appendices A. Chilliwack School District - Program for Gifted and Talented Children 58 B. Test Instrument for Problem Solving 72 C. Tables 79 v i List of Tables Table Page 1 Group Composition 80 2 Description of Experimental Variables and Corresponding Data Sources 81 3 Means, Standard Deviations (SD) , and Adjusted Mean Values for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking 82 4 Correlation Coefficients between Covariate (Pretest) and Criterion (Postest) Scores 83 5 Comparison of Experimental and Control Group Regression Lines for each pair of Pretest and Postest Scores (Testing Equality) 84 6 Analysis of Covariance for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking 85 7 Marginal Responses for the Maier Problems 86 8 Chisquare Probabilities for the Maier Problems 87 9 Correlation Matrix for the three Maier Problems 88 10 Analysis of Variance for Reading Achievement 89 vi i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The a u t h o r g r a t e f u l l y r e c o g n i z e s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h o s e who h e l p e d i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s m a n u s c r i p t . To Dr. S t a n l e y B l a n k , as t h e s i s a d v i s o r , whose knowledge i n t h e f i e l d o f g i f t e d c h i l d r e n was g e n e r o u s l y s h a r e d . To Dr. Seong Soo Lee f o r p a t i e n t d i r e c t i o n and s u p p o r t . To D r . LeRoy T r a v i s - f o r h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o h e l p a t any t i m e . To M e l Folkman o f t h e C h i l l i w a c k S c h o o l B oard f o r h i s c o o p e r a t i o n i n t h e c o l l e c t i n g o f d a t a f o r t h e p r o j e c t . F i n a l l y , t o H e a t h e r C a m p b e l l f o r h e r u n t i r i n g p a t i e n c e i n t h e s c o r i n g and t y p i n g o f t h e t h e s i s . v i i i 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Much of current research (Haslim, 1978; Hudson, 1966; Treffinger, 1978; Tremaine, 1979) has focused on what may be considered the prime objective of education - the Intellectual growth of the child. Regular school curricula, the vehicles u t i l i z e d to foster intellectual development have, however, been cri t i c i z e d as inadequate in nurturing the creative potential of intellectually gifted children. Following Guilford's (1950) address deploring "educations' appalling neglect of the study of 'creativity' (p. 444), the development of creative thinking a b i l i t i e s has been a subject of sustained educational concern. In particular, the belief that a l l problem solving may require at least a minimal level of creative thought (Guilford, 1950) led to a proliferation of programs designed to foster creative thinking and problem solving s k i l l s . Of these, the Productive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, 1966) has been widely used in efforts to f a c i l i t a t e certain components of creative thought as well as general problem solving s k i l l s . The Productive Thinking Program offers progressive training in problem solving and divergent thinking s k i l l s through a set of programmed materials specifically developed for grade five students. Research has been consistent in i t s support for the f a c i l i t a t i o n of divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s through deliberate training in the program for middle grade school children (Lutfiyya, 1978; McGinn, Viernstein, and Hogan, 1980; Treffinger and Ripple, 1968). Over a decade of investigation, however, has produced l i t t l e evidence that the Productive Thinking Program may similarly affect the creative 2 thinking and problem solving a b i l i t i e s of children possessing superior intellectual a b i l i t i e s . Limitations to the generalization of findings are considered in light of the following three factors for the purposes of the present study. F i r s t , subjects involved in most evaluations of the Productive Thinking Program have been limited to regular classroom students. With the exception of studies by Huber, Treffinger and Tracy (1979), Lutfiyya (1978), and McGinn,Viernstein, and Hogan (1980), who reported f a c i l i t a t i v e effects in creative thinking a b i l i t i e s as a result of training in programmed materials, few investigations have been conducted concerning the effects of the Productive Thinking Program on the divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s of intellectually gifted children. A second limitation is indicated by the fact that reliable evidence of Productive Thinking Program effects have been restricted to samples i n -volving students at the grade five level. Reports including older students have produced conflicting results (Ripple and Dacey, 1967) although the authors of the program contended that f a c i l i t a t i v e effects could be expected for students other than those in grade five. Variable task administration pro-cedures have been cited (Treffinger and Ripple, 1968) as important con-siderations on the interpretation of conflicting reports. Finally, i t is noted that appraisals of the Productive Thinking Program have generally been conducted immediately following administration of the program. The possibility that training in the creative thinking and problem solving s k i l l s of the Productive Thinking Program may produce long term effects remains to be determined. The three preceding factors are of particular relevance to the present study. Evidence of f a c i l i t a t i v e Productive Thinking Program effects for gifted children administered with the program during grades four and five may support the premise that the program is a satisfactory curriculum for the 3 development of creative thinking and problem solving s k i l l s for middle grade school children. The major intent of the present study was to determine whether or not training in creative thinking and productive problem solving s k i l l s of the Productive Thinking Program, administered as part of a four year enrichment program, would influence the scores of gifted grade seven children on a divergent thinking measure such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, (Torrance, 1966). In addition to this study of divergent thinking, the extent to which problem-solving performance was affected by such program intervention was also investigated. Finally, in order to determine whether or not students in the Enrichment Program attained academic standing commensurate with other students in the school d i s t r i c t , performance on a reading achievement test was examined. The present study is an ex post facto evaluation of the effects of the Productive Thinking Program (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, and Olton: revised edition, 1972) on the performances of selected grade seven gifted children in measures of divergent thinking and problem-solving tests. Program effects were evaluated following termination of the four year enrichment program. Interpretation of the treatment effects for such a design requires careful scrutiny of the experimental conditions. Three major shortcomings inherent in the design of the study were identified. The f i r s t shortcoming concerns the study sample. Subjects were delegated to experimental groups by virtue of geographical location. Lack of random assignment led to non-equivalent group socio-economic status. Secondly, the lack of experimenter control over the administration of the treatment (Productive Thinking Program) 4 limits interpretation of the treatment effects. Thirdly, serious questions concerning the validity of the divergent thinking measure (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) have been raised (Kazelkis, i n Buros, 1978) requiring caution in the interpretation of results. These limitations are discussed in Chapter 3. 5 Chapter 2 Review of the Literature Educators have, over the past few decades, directed much attention to various strategies and programs designed to maximize problem solving a b i l i t i e s . Kagan's (1967) premise that "a major responsibility of the public education system must be to teach the child confidence in his a b i l i t y to think creatively about problems" (p. 37) requires an understanding of the processes and conditions by which successful problem solving may occur. There is considerable diversity, however, in theoretical approaches to a concept of problem solving. As a result, definitions of problem solving vary widely according to the position adopted by the researcher. Despite such differences, there is a f a i r amount of agreement on what constitutes a problem. According to Resnick and Glaser (1975) the general description for a problem may be stated as a situation in which an individual is called upon to perform . a task not previously encountered, and for which .externally provided instructions do not completely specify the mode of solution. The specific task, then, is new to the individual although knowledge or processes already available may be required or used for solution (p. 44). While i t is obvious that such a description may not encompass a l l problem situations, Resnick and Glaser (1975) contended that such a definition was sufficient to define most problems for observations of general problem solving a b i l i t y . The assessment of problem solving performance has often been conducted by exposing an individual to a controlled problem situation, and then observing the successive steps, strategies, and decisions an individual makes upon con-frontation with the different aspects of the problem. Such research . has 6 resulted in numerous attempts to provide generalized schemes identifying stages of thought supposedly involved in the solution of typical problems. While theoreticalapproaches to problem solving differ - considerably, remarkable consistency in the elements presumed to be important has been demonstrated (Guilford, 1967). One of the earliest sequences was proposed by Dewey (1910). He identified five stages of problem solving activity: (1) re-cognition of the problem, (2) definition of the problem or: the isolation of the relevant features, (3) formulation of possible alternative solutions, (4) reasoning through various possibilities to determine the most lik e l y one, (5) testing the selected solution. A second schemata i n i t i a l l y identified by Wallas (1926) provided steps for describing 'ways in which we think'. These stages of activity are outlined as follows: (1) preparation, (2) incubation, (3) illumination, (4) verification. Guilford (1959),provided a three-dimensional system in connection with his factor analytic studies of human int e l l e c t . Briefly, he believed that the intellect manifests i t s e l f in problem solving, and, an understanding of the intellect requires an understanding of the nature of the problem at hand, and a classification of that problem. He envisioned the total problem solving process to consist of five phases: (1) preparation, (2) analysis, (3) production, (4) verification, and (5) reapplication. Sequences such as those described are generally accepted as representative of problem solving a c t i v i t i e s . Indeed, regardless of the conceptual framework adopted, i t would be d i f f i c u l t to argue against the constitution of these elements as a general description of thought processes commonly involved in problem solving. The chief d i f f i c u l t y in the identification of such stages li e s in the fact that they are essentially activities inaccessible to 7-observation. Accordingly, the results of thinking rather than the inter-vening processes that lead to such conclusions are most readily observed. Davis (1966) noted that of the vast literature documenting conditions for problem solving, the methods by which individuals, especially children, solve problems has not been satisfactorily investigated. The effects of specific variables as they affect problem solving performance has, however, received wide attention. In particular, studies of training in s k i l l s and strategies presumed to be important in problem solving have occupied a great deal of the literature on problem solving. Training in Problem Solving Skills The concept of creativity has received considerable attention in the training of problem solving s k i l l s . In fact, creativity and problem solving have been considered in some quarters to be different aspects of the same set of s k i l l s (Guilford, 1967; Newell, Shaw, and Simon, 1962). whatever the various arguments over such a position, a review of 142 studies by Torrance (1972) reporting success on the f a c i l i t a t i o n of 'creative thinking' s k i l l s through the use of various techniques attests to the popularity of such a notion. Encouragement of more 'original' responses, question-asking, constraint-seeking, hypothesis-testing, and evaluation are examples of the procedures used in inducing children to think more 'creatively'. Parnes (1961) for example, developed a 'creative' problem solving program that supposedly produced positive effects for subjects trained in the use of deferred judgements. The particular technique employed, brainstorming, has been a popular procedure for seeking creative thought. 8 Blank and Covington (1965) developed programmed materials in an attempt to change the question-asking behaviours of children, and noted that not only did trained subjects ask more relevant questions on the criterion task, but a significantly greater number of solutions were produced. A series of studies by Maltzman (1955) attested to the positive effects of training in free associations. Encouraging subjects to produce a large number of ideas in searching for solution alternatives led to the finding that solution probability was enhanced when the searcher could associate freely while looking for new ideas. Guilford (1959) identified 'ideational fluency' as an important component of creative thought. The concept was defined as the ab i l i t y to produce ideas f u l f i l l i n g specific requirements within a time limit. It was contended (Guilford, 1959) that high fluency scores may be related to the ab i l i t y to produce a greater number of relevant solution alternatives, and further, that training might improve fluency scores and thus problem solving a b i l i t y . Maltzman (1955) attempted to examine some of the conditions f a c i l i t a t i n g fluency scores and found that the mere urging of subjects to produce more solutions to problems yielded an increase in solution production. Johnson, Parrott, and Stratton (1968), urged subjects to produce more t i t l e s to paragraphs and noted a significant increase in solution superiority. They concluded that the total number of ideas is related to the tendency to produce newer,, more 'original', ideas. It is obvious that the a b i l i t y to produce large quantities of responses is at best a general kind of transfer to problem solving performance. While ideational production of the sort noted above may be limited in relevancy to general problem solving a b i l i t y , the case for training in creative thinking s k i l l s has met with much support. For example, subjects producing an 9 innovative solution to the 'change worker' problem C (Maier and Janzen, 1970) tended to;not-.pnly produce innovative solutions i n other problem situations, but also to solve s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems requiring a single solution. While i t would be d i f f i c u l t to dispute the notion that creative thinking i s important i n certain types of problem solving a c t i v i t i e s , a creative component of problem solving cannot be considered avsufficient condition for successful problem solving a b i l i t y . Strategies designed to d i r e c t the learner to appropriate problem solving methods through ins t r u c t i o n p r i o r to or during task presentation have also been reported as successful i n certain conditions. Burke, Maier, and Hoffman (1966) examined the effects of giving clues on solution to the 'hatrack' problem. Two groups were involved i n the study; and experimental group that received hints p r i o r to problem administration, and a control group that received no information untili.they had attempted the problem for a period of 20 minutes. The authors noted a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of solutions within a 10 minute period following presentation of the problem for the experimental group, and concluded that appropriate hints serve to end inapp-ropriate perservance and to redirect the solver to d i f f e r e n t strategies. In a study by Gagne and Smith (1962), instructions to verbalize the l o g i c for solution alternatives i n a problem, the 'pyramid' questiom, had the effect of s i g n i f i c a n t l y increasing the number of correct solutions. I t was concluded that forcing subjects to f i r s t analyse the steps taken, and to then verbalize the p r i n c i p l e s involved was responsible for the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c ts. Recognition and use of a l o g i c a l sequence i n e f f o r t s to solve problems has been supported by other investigators (Covington and Crutchfield, 1966; Huber, Treffinger, and Tracy, 1979) as an important technique i n teaching children problem solving. Covington and Crutchfield (1966) contended that 10 successful problem solving requires mental capabilities related to recognizance of the stages of problem solving activity and to appropriate application of creative thinking techniques. Bruner (1961) observed that the child who has flooded himself with disorganized information from unconnected hypotheses w i l l become discouraged and confused sooner than the child who has shown a certain cunning in his strategy of getting information - a cunning whose principal component is the recognition that the value of information i s not simply in getting i t but being able to use i t (p. 23). This observation led Covington and Crutchfield to speculate that a problem solving attitude might be a voluntary act that could be learned in a deliberate manner. Accordingly, they developed a set of instruction materials (The Productive Thinking Program, Covington et a l , 1966) designed to foster creative thinking and productive problem solving s k i l l s through the identification of problem sequences and the application of creative thinking s k i l l s at each stage of activity. The Productive Thinking Program: A Course in Learning to Think The Productive Thinking Program i s one of the most widely used programs for the training of putative generalized productive thinking s k i l l s . The programmed materials consist of fifteen individual lesson booklets which give emphasis to various components in problem solving. Students are presented with individual booklets outlining hypothetical problems and then guided through to solution by identification of rules and strategies generally presumed to lead to constructive problem solving. Practice on strategies as question-asking, information-seeking, hypothesis-formulating, hypothesis-testing, and evaluation is provided throughout the programmed lessons. The authors were of the opinion that training in the Productive Thinking Program would be effective 11 in "sensitizing,, students to mental capacities they already possess, and in strengthening and sharpening their effective use" (Crutchfield, 1969, p. 56). Verification of this premise was supplied by a study involving 120 f i f t h and sixth grade students that were divided into an instructional group and a noninstructional group. Covington and Crutchfield (1966) reported significant treatment effects for three subsequent measures: attitude and self evaluation scales, divergent thinking measures (The Torrance Tests), and a battery of paper and pencil problem solving tasks. In addition, they claimed that generalized transfer of problem solving s k i l l s may be strengthened by involve-ment in the program. Ripple and Dacey (1967) hypothesized that exposure to the Productive Thinking Program would transfer to a measure of problem solving a b i l i t y . This suggestion constitutes a test of Covington and Crutchfield's (1966) hypothesis that problem solving s k i l l s are directly transferable. Accordingly, 136 grade eight students were divided into two groups. The trained group received instruction in the program as well as experience with transfer tasks, whereas the untrained group received no such instruction. Trained subjects solved Maier's (1945) 'two string' problem significantly faster than did untrained subjects. It must be noted however, that trained subjects did not produce a significantly greater number of correct solutions to the 'two string' problem. Treffinger and Ripple (1968), on the other hand, were unable to detect any significant difference in the a b i l i t y to solve a paper and pencil test of problem solving a b i l i t y following instruction in the Productive Thinking Program for students in grades four through seven. Despite Covington and Crutchfield's (1966) premise that transfer effects may be enhanced by involvement in the Productive Thinking Program, reported 12. findings indicates that transfer of training to 'real l i f e ' problems involves more than the acquisition of general problem solving s k i l l s . The Productive Thinking Program has, nonetheless, demonstrated con-sistently f a c i l i t a t i v e effects for the creative thinking a b i l i t i e s of middle grade school children. Olton and Covington (1967), for example, applied the above mentioned materials to 44 grade five classes in a sixteen hour format to investigate the extent to which creativity and problem solving could be improved. Subsequent evaluation of divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s as measured by the Torrance Battery produced significant increments for the trained groups. Treffinger, Speedie, and Bruner (1974) found similar results for grade four students on the Torrance Tests, for Verbal Fluency and Verbal Originality. Treffinger and Ripple (1968)-*] in an earlier mentioned study, compiled a comprehensive report of the effects of the Productive Thinking Program on verbal creative thinking for 16 grades four to seven classes. Significant increases in creative thinking scores were produced, lending support to Olton and Covington's (1967) study. McGinn, Viernstein, and Hogan (1980) assessed the intellectual develop-ment of verbally gifted adolescents and found that the Productive Thinking Program significantly affected scores on the Guilford Consequences Test, and the Remote Associations Test. Fifty-two seventh and eight grade students were assigned to one of two treatment conditions. One group received direct i n -struction in the Productive Thinking Program and the other group received the program with no instruction except to work through the lessons. They concluded that the program had l i t t l e effect on creative thinking s k i l l s i n the absence of a focused attempt to learn the s k i l l s as presented in the Productive Thinking Program. Improvement in creative thinking was directly related to 13 s k i l l development. Evidence contesting findings of increased performance scores i n creative thinking a b i l i t y , specifically on a divergent thinking measure, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, surfaced in an earlier mentioned study by Ripple and Dacey (1967). No significant differences in fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , and originality between trained and untrained groups were found for grade eight students.. Despite the possiblity of variable task format effects (reduction of the fifteen lesson presentation to ten lessons), the authors suggest that the Productive Thinking Program may be less effective as the age of the student increases. The present writer has not, however, located any further research supporting this premise. The observation that a program like the Productive Thinking Program affects certain 'creative' or 'divergent' thinking a b i l i t i e s of middle grade school children warrants discussion of the specific behaviours that have been reported to be fa c i l i t a t e d . To this end, the following section w i l l deal with the concept of divergent thinking as i t relates to the present study. Divergent Thinking The concept of divergent thinking as a c r i t i c a l component of creative thought was i n i t i a l l y proposed by Guilford (1959) . His interest in the creative process played a large role in the .identification of components and operations not normally accounted for in conventional intelligence indices. Of these, a factor of divergent thinking supposedly requires the transformation of readily available information from memory to the production of new asso-ciations . It i s characterized by "searching activities with freedom to produce several responses, a l l satisfying the problem requirement" Guilford, 14 1959, p. 4). Whatever the logcial connection between divergence and creativity, the inclination to perceive the concepts as one and the same is;.not j u s t i f i a b l e . Hudson (1966) decried the tendency to view the diverger as potentially creative, and noted that the development of open-ended tests subsequently equated with 'creativity' tests served to promulgate this misconception. Ostensibly, the work of McKinnon (1962) may have provided the impetus for assumptions of parity between divergent thinking and creativity. He found that emminent scientists, a r t i s t s , and novelists were prone to give unusual responses to a word association test. The correlation is not high, however, and applies particularly to associations which are unusual; as opposed to associations of s t a t i s t i c a l rarity later proposed by Torrance (1966a) to be indicative of creative thought. Butcher (1971) summarized the evidence by suggesting that despite the volume of research on the topic, the following assumptions concerning creativity and divergent thinking have not been satisfactorily supported: (1) that high scores on divergent thinking tests relates to creative achieve-ment, and (2) that divergent thinking measures correlate well enough to support a separate factor of divergent thinking. Notwithstanding the foregoing counter arguments, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966a) have been widely used to measure the divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration. These four concepts are reflected in the Torrance Battery as determinants of creative thought. Torrance (1972) assumed the four concepts reflected "a constellation of general a b i l i t i e s , personality variables, and problem solving t r a i t s " (p. 237). 15 T o r r a n c e (1966) c l a i m e d t h a t t h e B a t t e r y a t t e m p t s t o a s s e s s a c t i v i t i e s i n terms o f G u i l f o r d ' s d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g f a c t o r s , and f u r t h e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e t e s t s w o u l d be u s e f u l i n r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s o f e d u c a t i o n a l programs, as w e l l as a p r e d i c t o r o f c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l . A l t h o u g h t h e d e f i n i t i o n s p r o v i d e d by t h e N o r m s - T e c h n i c a l Manual (1966) f o r t h e c o n c e p t s o f f l u e n c y , f l e x i b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y , and e l a b o r a t i o n c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l t h o s e o f G u i l f o r d ( 1 9 5 9 ) , l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f a l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e G u i l f o r d M odel i s p r o v i d e d . T o r r a n c e ' s (1966a) c o n c e p t i o n o f ' f l u e n c y ' p l a c e s emphasis on t h e q u a n t i t y o f r e s p o n s e s g e n e r a t e d . H i s ' f l e x i b i l i t y ' n o t i o n f o c u s e s a t t e n t i o n on t h e v a r i e t y o f i d e a s p r o d u c e d . ' O r i g i n a l i t y ' d e n o t e s n o v e l t y o r u n u s u a l n e s s i n e m i t t e d r e s p o n s e s . F i n a l l y , ' e l a b o r a t i o n ' c e n t r e s on t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h i d e a s a r e a m p l i f i e d o r e m b e l l i s h e d . D e s p i t e T o r r a n c e ' s c l a i m s , B a i r d ( i n B u r o s , 1978, p. 836) s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g may be b e s t i n t e r p r e t e d as an a t t e m p t t o measure c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f c r e a t i v i t y , and n o t as an a t t e m p t t o measure t h e i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n s o f c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . I t i s f u r t h e r n o t e d ( B a i r d , i n B u r o s , 1978) t h a t p r o m i s e s o f m a j o r r e v i s i o n s and improvements t o t h e B a t t e r y ( T o r r a n c e , 1966a) had n o t been p r o d u c e d t o d a t e , f u e l l i n g f u r t h e r c r i t i c i s m s o v e r t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e somewhat a m b i t i o u s t i t l e o f t h e B a t t e r y d e s e r v e s c r e d e n c e . N o n e t h e l e s s , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s u p p o r t i n g t h e T o r r a n c e B a t t e r y as a measure o f d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s ( C o v i n g t o n and C r u t c h f i e l d , 1966; G u i l f o r d , 1967; O l t o n and C r u t c h f i e l d , 1967; T r e f f i n g e r and R i p p l e , 1968; W a l l a c h and Kogan, 1965) have e x e r t e d a g r e a t d e a l o f i n f l u e n c e o v e r t h e use o f t h e t e s t s as a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h e c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l o f c h i l d r e n , and i n e v a l u a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l programs. The t e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s o f t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f 16 C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 3, The P r o b l e m The p u r p o s e o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g i n p r o d u c t i v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s k i l l s on s e l e c t e d d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s . The p o s s i b l i t y t h a t s u c h t r a i n i n g may a f f e c t d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s was e x p l o r e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f t h e P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program, a s e t o f i n e s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s d e s i g n e d t o f o s t e r g e n e r a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s . The w e i g h t o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e program i s e f f e c t i v e i n e n h a n c i n g d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s under c o n d i t i o n s s u c h a s t h o s e r e p o r t e d by C o v i n g t o n and C r u t c h f i e l d , 1966; O l t o n and C r u t c h f i e l d , 1 1 9 6 7 ; T r e f f i n g e r and R i p p l e , 1968; McGinn, V i e r s t e i n , and Hogan, 1980. The c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e , t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g were g i v e n f o l l o w i n g a f o u r y e a r c u r r i c u l a r e n r i c h m e n t program. S t u d e n t s i n t h e program c o m p l e t e d t h e T o r r a n c e B a t t e r y a t t h e end o f g rade s e v e n . The e n -r i c h m e n t program i n v o l v e d a s e r i e s o f s t u d e n t d i r e c t e d , i n - d e p t h p r o j e c t s and f i e l d t r i p s I n t h e s u b j e c t a r e a s o f E n g l i s h , S o c i a l S t u d i e s , M a t h e m a t i c s and S c i e n c e d u r i n g g r a d e s f o u r t h r o u g h s e v e n . I n l i g h t o f t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a t e m e n t s , t h e p r e s e n t e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y a d d r e s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : w i l l t r a i n i n g i n t h e P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program be e f f e c t i v e i n - e n h a n c i n g d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s , as measured by t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g f o r g rade seven c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as g i f t e d and/or t a l e n t e d . f o l l o w i n g a l e n g t h y i n t e r v a l between s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n t h e P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program and assessment of d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g a b i l i t y . 17 In addition, the question of whether or not students involved in the Productive Thinking Program would demonstrate successful problem solving performance was investigated. The inclusion of a problem solving component in the present study was considered essential in assessing the practical application of problem solving s k i l l s to 'real l i f e ' problems. Treffinger, Renzulli, and Feldhusen (1971) submitted that while divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s may be important c r i t e r i a in the assessment of creative and pro-ductive s k i l l s , they should not be considered sufficient conditions for the evaluation of educational programs fostering such s k i l l s . In order to provide a measure of problem solving a b i l i t y , each student was given a set of three problems presumably requiring two different thought processes, reproductive thinking and productive thinking. See the following section..:f or definitions of the two concepts. Finally, reading achievement was selected as a measure of academic achievement, in order to satisfy the question of whether or not students in the Enrichment Program achieved satisfactory reading s k i l l s , according to the objectives of the Enrichment program (See Appendix A for position statements of the Chilliwack Enrichment Program). A l l grade seven pupils in the Chilliwack School District were administered the Stanford Reading Achievement Test as part of the School District Assessment Program. The data from this Battery were examined in order to gain information on the relative:..effects of the Enrichment Program on the academic achievement of the study sample in question. The performances of two groups of grade seven children were assessed: those of an experimental group (E) that received a four year curricular program enrichment .iprogram including the Productive Thinking Program, and those of a 18 control group (C) that received no specific curricular enrichment. The two major expectations of the present study were: (1) Training the Productive Thinking Program w i l l be effective such that the enrichment group w i l l be superior to the control group on divergent thinking scores of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. (2) The same was expected in terms of problem solving performance on both 'productive' and 'reproductive' problems. More specifically, i t was expected on the basis of previous research findings, that on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: (1) There w i l l be a significant difference between groups in the ab i l i t y to generate ideas (fluency), with superior performance produced by the experimental group. (2) There w i l l be a significant difference between groups in the a b i l i t y to generate 'different' ideas ( f l e x i b i l i t y ) with superior performance produced by the experimental group. (3) There w i l l be a significant difference between groups in the a b i l i t y to generate 'original' ideas (originality), with superior performance by the experimental group. (4) There w i l l be a significant difference between groups in the a b i l i t y to generate 'elaborative' elements (elaboration),with superior performance produced by the experimental group. With reference to problem solving a b i l i t y and academic achievement, the following were expected: (5) There w i l l be a significant difference between groups in the a b i l i t y to solve 'reproductive' problems, namely the 'horse trader' and 'prisoner' problems, with superior performance evidenced by the experimental group. 19 (6) T h e r e w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups i n t h e a b i l i t y t o s o l v e a ' p r o d u c t i v e ' p r o b l e m , t h e 'two s t r i n g ' p r o b l e m ; w i t h s u p e r i o r p e r f o r m a n c e e v i d e n c e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. (7) T h e r e w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups i n r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t , as t h e program made no s p e c i f i c a t t e m p t s t o -n u r t u r e r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . R a t i o n a l e The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s were b a s e d on t h r e e a s s u m p t i o n s . The f i r s t a s s u m p t i o n , c o n c e r n i n g program i n t e r v e n t i o n , i s base d on t h e w e i g h t o f g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l ( e n r i c h -ment) program l e a r n e d p r o d u c t i v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s k i l l s as o u t l i n e d i n t h e P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program. T h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e ( O l t o n and C r u t c h f i e l d , 1969) t o s u g g e s t t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e program w i l l p r o d u c e f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s . They s u g g e s t e d t h a t any t y p e o f i n t e l - . l i g e n t , d i r e c t e f f o r t t o t r a i n t h i n k i n g s k i l l s was l i k e l y t o y i e l d p o s i t i v e outcomes. W h i l e t h i s b e l i e f does n o t a l l e v i a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d e v i a t i o n i n program a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t sample, i t i s t o be n o t e d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r i n v o l v e d was t r a i n e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program, and was r e p o r t e d t o have made s i n c e r e e f f o r t s t o meet t h e s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program ( C h i l l i w a c k S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f S c h o o l s , M e l Folkman, 1979). The second a s s u m p t i o n i s based on t h e p r e m i s e by M a i e r (1945) t h a t p r o b l e m s u c h as t h e ' p r i s o n e r ' , 'horse t r a d e r ' and 'two s t r i n g ' problems a r e adequate measures o f p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a b i l i t y . S e l e c t i o n o f t h e s e t h r e e 20 problems.- was- based' on i t e r ' s - (1945) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t w h i l e t h e problems r e -q u i r e d tw© d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s , t h a t o f p r o d u c t i v e and r e p r o d u c t i v e t h o u g h t ; b o t h r e q u i r e d g e n e r a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r , i t was assumed t h a t r e p r o d u c t i v e and p r o d u c t i v e t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s c o u l d be c o n c e p t u a l l y i s o l a t e d , and f i n a l l y t h a t t h e problems s e l e c t e d f o r t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were r e p r e s e n -t a t i v e o f t h e s e two t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s , M a i e r (1945) c l a i m e d t h a t r e p r o d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e p r o b l e m s i t u a t i o n and p r e v i o u s l y m a s t e r e d s i t u a t i o n s . P r oblems c l a s s i f i e d as ' r e p r o d u c t i v e ' t y p i c a l l y r e q u i r e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l e a r n e d p r i n c i p l e s f o r c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n , and a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t r a n s f e r o f t r a i n i n g . M a i e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e 'horse t r a d e r ' and ' p r i s o n e r ' problems as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f problems r e -q u i r i n g t h e s i m p l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f g e n e r a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s k i l l s t o t h e p r o b l e m s i t u a t i o n , P r o d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g , on t h e o t h e r hand, i n v o l v e s n o t o n l y t h e a p p l i -c a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s l e a r n i n g , b u t t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o meet new demands. S o l u t i o n r e q u i r e s r e c o m b i n i n g known el e m e n t s i n t o new c o m b i n a t i o n s , ones, t h a t d e v i a t e f r o m e x p e r i e n c e . One has o n l y t o examine M a i e r ' s (1931) 'two s t r i n g ' p r o b e l m (See App e n d i x B f o r examples o f t h e p r o b l e m s ) t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t , i n d e e d , o b j e c t s ( s u c h as p l i e r s ) w i t h known p r o p e r t i e s a r e n o t r e a d i l y used f o r new p u r p o s e s w i t h o u t p r i o r d i r e c t i o n . M a i e r a t t e m p t e d t o v a l i d a t e h i s c l a i m r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n c e p t s i n q u e s t i o n i n a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s (1945) e x a m i n i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r e p r o d u c t i v e and p r o d u c t i v e t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s , and c o n c l u d e d t h a t p roblems r e q u i r i n g t h e s i m p l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f g e n e r a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s , and problems r e -q u i r i n g c r e a t i v e , i n n o v a t i v e s o l u t i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e two s e p a r a t e t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s . I n c l u s i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f b o t h ' p r o d u c t i v e ' and 'reproductive' solution requirements was j u s t i f i e d as an attempt to deter-mine whether training in the Productive Thinking Program influenced solution probabilities for either or both types of problems. The f i n a l assumption involves the criterion variable, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The premise that the Battery is a valid indicator of the divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s in question has raised serious argument (Dewing, 1970; Paulus, 1970). Choice of a measure of divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s in the present study was limited by the fact that the Battery was designated by Chilliwack School District Administrators as the criterion measure for divergent thinking a b i l i t y . As a consequence, results must be interpreted with great caution in order to substantiate which a b i l i t i e s may be affected by program intervention. In addition, scores on the variables of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y , and elaboration as measured by the Torrance Tests- of Creative Thinking warrant careful consideration as to their importance in divergent thinking a b i l i t y . Finally, i t i s to be noted that although the Torrance Battery was uti l i z e d by Chilliwack School Board Administrators as an i n i t i a l screening device and subsequent criterion for entry into the four year Enrichment Program, the premise (Torrance, 1966b) that the Battery may be employed as an indicator of creative potential is not shared by a number of authors (Baird; in Buros, 1978; Dewing, 1970; Hudson, 1966; Paulus, 1970; Thorndike; in Buros, 1978) , As the purpose of the present study precludes verification of the creativity - divergency tissue, discussion w i l l be limited to those aspects of divergent thinking presumably assessed by the variables of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration. 22 Chapter 3 Method .Design The design involved two groups of grade seven gifted children, who had been designated as 'gifted' by school d i s t r i c t assessment procedures at the end of the third grade. The experimental group (E) consisted of an intact classroom group exposed to a curricular Enrichment Program during grades four through seven. The Productive Thinking Program was included as part of the Enrichment Program during grades four and five. The control group (C) consisted of a l l other students identified as gifted at the same time, but not included in the program. Students were assigned to the experimental and ... control groups by geographical location. Two pretreatment measures were obtained from data supplied by school board records i n order to determine the extent to which groups may have differed prior to the Enrichment (treatment) Program. The data obtained included a composite score on the Lorge-Thorndike IQ Test, and seven subscale scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Verbal and Figural Forms A). An analysis of variance was computed on these scores. As is evident from Insert Table 1 about here Table 1 (Tables are located in Appendix C) no significant differences between groups were observed for these measures. 23 Subjects Forty-rtwo grade seven gifted children from the Chilliwack School District were involved in the study. Subjects were identified as being gifted through an extensive screening process including assessments by teachers, principals, and school board examiners in the areas of academic achievement, creative potential, .^kinesthetic a b i l i t y , and psychosocial attributes, at the end of the third grade. Appendix A (p. 52) presents the c r i t e r i a u t i l i z e d by the Chilliwack School Board Administration for the identification of grade seven students possessing outstanding a b i l i t i e s in at least one of the afore-mentioned areas. As a result of this selection process, 50 grade three students were identified as gifted and/or talented. From this pool of 50 candidates, 22 students were selected for entry into the enrichment class at L i t t l e Mountain Elementary School by virtue of geographical location; that'is, only students living on the east side of the Chilliwack River were selected into the program as i t was deemed practically and financially unfeasible by school board o f f i c i a l s to include a l l students in the d i s t r i c t to the program. The f i n a l experimental group consisted of 21 students (one male from the original group had moved from the d i s t r i c t , leaving 10 males and 11 females). The control group included a l l other students i n i t i a l l y identified as the gifted for the purposes of the program. Of these, 24 students were located at four element-ary schools in outlying farming areas of Sardis. Incomplete pretest data on three of these students reduced the f i n a l control group to 21 students (10 males and 11 females) from four schools. 24 As groups were not randomly assigned, the possibility of differential socio-economic status was examined. The experimental group was comprised of students from central Chilliwack, whereas the control group involved students from outlying farming communities in Sardis. Data from Statistics Canada were examined to verify suspicions of substantially differing incomes for the two areas. However, since Sardis is included in the incorporated d i s t r i c t of Chilliwack, this examination was not f r u i t f u l as separate data on average yearly incomes are not collected for unincorporated areas. District co-ordinators at the Chilliwack Municipal Hall, however, unofficially verified that families from the four schools in the outlying farming communities were highly likely to earn substantially lower yearly incomes than would families in central Chilliwack whose incomes reflected professional and business related occupations. It was concluded on this basis that the two groups were of differing SES, with the control group evidencing substantially lower economic status than the experimental group. It i s noted that the selection process utilized by the administration staff for the identification of children with special talents placed emphasis on IQ and Torrance Battery scores to the extent that a l l 50 candidates recorded high scores on these measures. As no child was identified as the gifted and/or talented solely on the basis of psychosocial or kinesthetic attributes, i t was assumed that students in the sample were identified as the gifted by virtue of high scores on the IQ and Torrance measures. 25 Description, of the Variables Xab.le 2 lists- the variables of interest, and the corresponding sources Insert Table 2 about here from which the data were gathered. Methods for obtaining data on the variables described are discussed in detail in the following sections. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT): The criterion variable for the assessment of the effects of the Enrich-ment Program on divergent thinking a b i l i t y was a post test on the Torrance Tests, of Creative Thinking, Verbal and Figural (Non Verbal) Forms A. This Battery is considered by Torrance (1972) to assess* certain a b i l i t i e s different from those measured by achievement tests. Specifically, the author claimed that the tests were designed to measure selected divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s believed to be indicative of creative thinking; those of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration. The Verbal Test consists of seven parallel a c t i v i t i e s . The tasks include: Activity One (Ask and Guess), asking questions about a drawing; Activity Two (Guessing Causes), producing possible causes for an activity; Activity Three (Guessing Consequences), predicting consequences of action in a toy to make, i t more fun to play with; Activity Five (Unusual Uses), generating unusual, interesting uses for a household item; Activity Six (Unusual Questions), asking questions about qualities of a common object not normally 26 considered important; Activity Seven (Just Suppose) guessing about the ~.ef f ects of an improbable event. Group administration of the Verbal Battery required 45 minutes. Both Verbal and Figural Tests were administered in-a group context, as is usual with the Torrance Battery. The Figural (Non Verbal) Test is composed of three tasks requiring 30 minutes for completion. Activity One (Picture Construction), requires the examinee to complete a drawing, given a uniform reference for testing the activity. Activities Two (Picture Completion) and Three (Repeated Lines) require numerous drawings- and t i t l e s , given references for i n i t i a t i o n of each activity. The Verbal Test yields three sets of scores for each of the seven sub-tasks; those of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , and originality. The Figural Test yields four sets of scores; those of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration. The four measures of 'divergent thinking' fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration,were'-defined by Torrance (1966b) as follows: Fluency: "the a b i l i t y to produce a large number of ideas. Scoring is based on the total number of relevant responses. Relevancy is defined according to the scoring directions in the manual" (p.57). F l e x i b i l i t y : "the a b i l i t y to produce a variety of ideas or shifts in approach. Responses are classified categorically according to predetermined l i s t s as set out in the scoring guide" (p.57). Originality: "the a b i l i t y to produce ideas showing creative strength, that shift away from the obvious, commonplace, banal, or established" (p. 58). St a t i s t i c a l infrequency determines score weight, as outlined in the manual. 27 E l a b o r a t i o n : ( F i g u r a l T e s t o n l y ) " t h e a b i l i t y t o d e v e l o p , o r o t h e r w i s e e l a b o r a t e i d e a s " (p. 5 9 ) . P o i n t s a r e awarded f o r each i d e a i n c a t e g o r i e s i n w i d t h , d e p t h , s i z e , c o l o u r , s h a d i n g , d e c o r a t i o n , and v a r i a t i o n o f d e s i g n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c r i t e r i a o f t h e s c o r i n g manual. The T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g have been w i d e l y used i n r e s e a r c h e v a l u a t i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g on c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g s k i l l s (Houtz and S p e e d i e , 1977; L u t f i y y a , 1978; R i p p l e and Dacey, 1967; T r e f f i n g e r , R e n z u l l i , and F e l d h u s e n , 1971). The e x t e n t , however, t o w h i c h t h e B a t t e r y may be e x p e c t e d t o i d e n t i f y i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a b i l i t i e s r e l a t e d t o c r e a t i v e o r d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g i s l i m i t e d by c o n d i t i o n s as d i s c u s s e d below. P r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y i s i n l i n e w i t h o t h e r measures o f c r e a t i v e b e h a v i o u r ; t h a t i s , t h e r e has been l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f a f i r m l i n k a g e between t h e t r a i t s measured by such t e s t s and s o c i a l l y v a l u a b l e , c r e a t i v e b e h a v i o u r s . T e s t -r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y i s a l s o o f pr i m e c o n c e r n . I t has been s u g g e s t e d t h a t p r e t o p o s t t e s t e f f e c t s a r e n e g l i g b l e , and f u r t h e r ( T o r r a n c e , . 1966b) t h a t t h e same fo r m may be used w i t h o u t a g r e a t d e a l o f r i s k . R e l i a b i l i t y c o -e f f i c i e n t s , however, were r e p o r t e d f o r same fo r m e f f e c t s and ranged from .35 t o .91. Of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d i n t h e manual, many employed o n l y a p o r t i o n o f t h e s e v e n s u b s c a l e s , making i t d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e complete B a t t e r y under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . I t has been s u g g e s t e d ( H o e p f n e r , i n B u r o s , 1978) t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s c r i t i c a l l y a f f e c t t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e t e s t s c o r e s , an argument borne out by o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( K a z e l k i s , i n B u r o s , 1978). T o r r a n c e (1966b) c l a i m e d t h a t t h e B a t t e r y measured t r a i t s i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m e d u c a t i o n a l achievement i n d i c e s , d e s p i t e r e p o r t e d s t u d i e s ( e . g . P a u l u s , 1970) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h academic 28 intelligence and educational achievement. The Battery has been described as being "loaded with general academic aptitude" (Paulus, 1970, p. 42). Further claims that subscales of the Battery measure independent traits have not been substantiated. This observation is not surprising, however, as the variables of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , and originality are a l l accumulated on the same set of responses. In spite of the concerns discussed in the preceding section, Baird (in Buros, 1978) believed that the studies reported by the Torrance (1966b) manual do indicate that the Torrance Tests of Creativity measures behaviours con-sistent with the literature on creative behaviour. These considerations suggest that the results of the present study be interpreted with utmost caution and circumspection. Problem Solving: Three problems of the well-known type used by Maier (1945) were utilized for the purposes of the present study. The f i r s t two (the 'prisoner' and 'horse trader') problems are presumed to require habitual thought patterns deriving from the application of simple problem solving s k i l l s . According to Maier, the processes employed are identified as 'reproductive thought'. The f i n a l 'two string' problem is solved only i f the solver deviates from con-ventional thought patterns, and supposedly represents 'productive thought'. Examples of the test items are found in Appendix B, The problems are described below. 29 The P r i s o n e r P r o b l e m : t h e s o l v e r i s r e q u i r e d t o f i n d a p a t h on a d i a g r a m t h r o u g h a maze f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s o f a s s u m p t i o n . The Horse T r a d e r P r o b l e m : t h i s p r o b l e m r e q u i r e s t h e p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f some s i m p l e t r a n s a c t i o n s on t h e c o n t e n t d i m e n s i o n o f h o r s e t r a d i n g . The i t e m i s o f m u l t i p l e c h o i c e t y p e o f f e r i n g f i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s , one o f w h i c h i s t h e c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n . The Two S t r i n g P r o b l e m : s u b j e c t s a r e g i v e n a s m a l l s e t o f d a t a about a ..-,-/ h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n : ( o n e p a i r o f p l i e r s and t w o . s t r i n g s hung.from the c e i l i n g a t . a c e r t a i n d i s t a n c e ) . . S u b j e c t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o d e s c r i b e how t h e p r o b l e m ( g e t t i n g t h e s t r i n g s t i e d t o g e t h e r ) may be s o l v e d i n t h e s i t u a t i o n ; w h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o r e a c h b o t h s t r i n g s t h r o u g h e x t e n s i o n . A l l t h r e e problems, were s c o r e d i d e n t i c a l l y , w i t h a w e i g h t o f one awarded f o r a c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n , and a w e i g h t o f z e r o g i v e n f o r an i n c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n . (See A p p e n d i x B f o r p r o b l e m s o l u t i o n s ) . B o t h t h e ' p r i s o n e r ' and 'horse t r a d e r ' problems have s i n g l e c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n s t h a t y i e l d o b j e c t i v e d a t a f o r m e a s u r i n g p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a b i l i t y . The 'two s t r i n g ' p r o b l e m , however, r e q u i r e s an i n n o v a t i v e s o l u t i o n , t h a t i s , t h e s o l v e r must d i s c o u n t o r i g n o r e t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s o f p l i e r s and r e l a t e o n e - a t t r i b u t e o f t h e p l i e r s , w e i g h t , t o t h e c o n t r i v a n c e o f a pendulum i n o r d e r t o s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m . The t h r e e problems a r e o f h i g h d i f f i c u l t y , as e v i d e n c e d by h i g h r a t e s o f f a i l u r e f o r a l l s u b j e c t ages (Burke.\and M a i e r , 1 9 6 5 ) . I n t h e ' p r i s o n e r p r o b l e m ' , t h e s u b j e c t t y p i c a l l y a t t e m p t s many a l t e r n a t i v e s , each o f w h i c h may be d i s c o v e r e d as c o r r e c t o r i n c o r r e c t . I n c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n s a r e n o t m i s t a k e n f o r c o r r e c t ones so p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y i s n o t t e r m i n a t e d p r e m a t u r e l y . 30 In the 'horse trader' problem, the d i f f i c u l t y stems from the fact that f a i l u r e i s not apparent, as an incorrect answer may be accepted by the in d i v i d u a l as correct. The solution requires the application of arithmetic to some simple transactions. In the case of the 'two s t r i n g ' problem, however, solution requires that the most common of habitual associations be broken or ignored, and a search for new combinations be pursued. Solvers t y p i c a l l y proceed from attempts to 'get the other s t r i n g ' , to strategies getting the other s t r i n g to 'come to the middle'. Reading Achievement: The Stanford Reading Achievement Test (Advanced Form J) was u t i l i z e d to assess group differences i n academic achievement following immersion i n the Enrichment Program. This standardized achievement test was administered to a l l grade seven students i n the Chilliwack School D i s t r i c t . I t was selected for the purposes of th i s study as i t appears to provide a measure 6.f the higher l e v e l comprehension s k i l l s given emphasis i n the Enrichment Program. A composite score for the two parts of the test (paragraph meaning and word meaning) was obtained from school board records. The use of a composite score i s cited i n the Stanford Reading Achievement Test manual as an acceptable procedure for the evaluation of reading achievement. Ranges and standard deviations byi'grade reading l e v e l for the two groups are: Experimental group: range= 6.4 to 11.2, SD= 1.46, Control group: range= 5.6, to 11.7, SD= 1.41. Group and in d i v i d u a l scores were interpreted according to the percentile norms 31 available, in the Stanford Reading Achievement Test manual. Grade placement for the experimental and control groups were calculated at 7.9, indicating grade level at the time of testing. Burns (in Buros, 1978) indicated that r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients, for the. Stanford Reading Achievement Test were high enough (.84 for paragraph meaning and,,90 for word meaning) to warrant use as an appraisal of both individual and group reading achievement in the time limited tests. Procedure: Pretesting; The two pretre.atment measures were administered and scored by school board examiners as part of the screening process for the identification of children possessing exceptional a b i l i t i e s for the selction of candidates for the Enrichment Program. One hundred grade three students identified by the Lorgc-Thorndikc IQ Battery completed the Torrance Battery in June of the same year. See Appendix A (p.64) for details on the identification of students for the Enrichment Program. Examination of the raw data of the Torrance Battery indicated that task administration for the Figural Test items may not have been consistent for a l l three a c t i v i t i e s . Comparisons between sample means and means supplied by the Norms-Technical Manual (Torrance, 1966b) confirmed that mean scores for Activities One and Two (Picture Constructions and Picture Completion) were within normal limits of the Torrance means. Activity Three (Parallel Lines) means were exceptionally high for each of the subscale of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration as compared with the Torrance means. Inspection 32 of selected test booklets revealed that administrative discrepancies were confined to Activity Three of the Figural Test, and were apparently systematic for both groups. Subsequent T-tesfc analysis suggested that group means did not differ significantly for combined Activities One and Two, nor for Activity Three. It was concluded that the experimental and- control groups did not differ with respect to scores on the pretest Torrance Battery. Pilot. Tasting Pilot testingcof the problem solving items was carried out on two subjects in Chilliwack not involved in the Enrichment Program, as a check on test length and administration. One male and one female in grade seven were administered the three problems in the format uti l i z e d for the study. Both subjects reported ease in understanding what was required, and completed the items within the prescribed time limit. Both subjects solved the 'horse trader' problem, but were unsuccessful in the 'prisoner' and 'two string' problems. Training Training in the Productive Thinking Program (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies and Olton, Revised Edition, 1972) was initiated and completed by the teacher of theJEnrichment Program at L i t t l e Mountain Elementary School. The teacher involved completed a one week in-service training workshop in the Productive Training Program provided by the d i s t r i c t personnel. The program was taught during the f i r s t and second years (grades four and five) of the Enrichment Program. The present writer was not involved in the 33 administration of the program. Reported procedures for the administration of the Productive Thinking Program were as described below. Students spent portions of three weeks in the f i n a l quarter of grade four as an i n i t i a t i o n to the program in an attempt to familiarize students with solving strategies and sequences of the program. Practise in the various techniques was'offered in a variety of content dimensions and problem situations. Formal presentation of the program began in the second month of grade five following a brief review of the strategies presented in grade four. The fifteenllesson booklets were presented individually, by week. Two hours at the end of each week were set aside for discussion and review of the s k i l l s and concepts required for each lesson. As a result of the preceding i n -formation, i t is the assumption of the present writer that training in the Productive Thinking Program was completed in a satisfactory manner for the purposes of the present study. Post-Test on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: The post test of the Torrance Battery (Verbal and Figural Forms A) was administered by the present writer in mid June, 1979 to a l l experimental and control group subjects with aid from the classroom teachers. Classroom teachers were briefed on procedure, and after the present experimenter pre-sented students with the test instructions and booklets, were responsible for the timing and collecting of the test booklets. A l l testing of subjects was completed within the same week, with Verbal and Figural Tests given separately. 34 P r o b l e m S o l v i n g and t h e S t a n f o r d R e a d i n g Achievement T e s t : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g : i t e m s was com p l e t e d i n a s i n g l e s e s s i o n one week p r i o r t o a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e T o r r a n c e B a t t e r y . Two e x p e r i m e n t e r s , one male and one f e m a l e , were i n v o l v e d i n t h e t e s t i n g t o e n s u r e t h a t s t a n d a r d i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s were met by a l l s t u d e n t s . S i n c e b o t h a male and f e m a l e were i n v o l v e d i n a l l s e s s i o n s , e x p e r i m e n t e r gender was n o t c o n s i d e r e d an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e i n t h e s t u d y . S u b j e c t s were i n i t i a t e d i n t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e use o f a s t a n d a r d i n t r o d u c t i o n (See A p p e n d i x B, p.73) and g i v e n an e n v e l o p e c o n t a i n i n g f o u r pages. They were r e q u e s t e d t o p u l l o u t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e -sponse s h e e t s p e n d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . On c o m p l e t i o n o f any one s h e e t , a l l s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o f o l d t h e c o m p l e t e d s h e e t and i n s e r t i t i n t o t h e back o f t h e b o o k l e t b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o t h e n e x t page. T h i s p r o c e d u r e was f o l l o w e d i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t r e s p o n s e s w o u l d be un-a l t e r a b l e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f work on subsequent p r o b l e m s . A maximum o f 10 m i n u t e s f o r t h e ' p r i s o n e r ' p r o b l e m , 8 m i n u t e s f o r t h e 'horse t r a d e r ' p r o b l e m , and 12 m i n u t e s f o r t h e 'two s t r i n g ' p r o b l e m was g i v e n . A c c o r d i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n s by M a i e r and J a n z e n ( 1 9 7 0 ) , c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n s a r e r a r e f o l l o w i n g t h e t i m e s a l l o c a t e d as above, hence t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a t i m e f a c t o r was n o t seen as d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . The S t a n f o r d R e a d i n g Achievement T e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d by c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s t o a l l grade s e v e n s t u d e n t s i n t h e C h i l l i w a c k S c h o o l D i s t r i c t as p a r t o f t h e d i s t r i c t academic achievement assessment program. S t u d e n t s w r o t e b o t h p a r t s o f t h e r e a d i n g b a t t e r y (word meaning and p a r a g r a p h meaning) i n t h e t h i r d week o f May, 1979. S c o r i n g and r e s u l t s were c o m p i l e d by e v a l u a t o r s f r o m t h e 35 school board office. Scoring A l l scoring for the problem solving items and the post test on the Torrance Battery was completed by the present experimenter and one other trained individual. The experimenter scored a l l Figural items, as well as three of the seven verbal items. Interscorer r e l i a b i l i t y was judged to be satisfactory as both scorers scored ten complete verbal tests virt u a l l y identically in terms of scores for each subscale (fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality) and in judgement of response categories, in accordance with judgements rated similarly by Halpin and Halpin (1974) . Unfortunately, similar indices of confidence cannot be reported for scoring on the Torrance pretest, as noted by the Figural Test item discrepancies. 3 6 Chapter 4 Results Three performance scores for subjects i n the two groups obtained include scores of divergent thinking (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking), problem solving (three Maier problems), and reading achievement (Stanford Reading Achievement Test). The divergent thinking a b i l i t y scores were obtained i n seven dependent measures, the problem solving scores were obtained i n three measures, and the reading achievement score was obtained i n terms of a si n g l e measure. The s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used to analyse these data are described i n the following sections. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for Divergent Thinking A b i l i t i e s In order to s u i t a b l y t e s t the f i r s t major hypothesis, that t r a i n i n g i n the Enrichment Program would s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t scores on a divergent thinking measure, the following f a c t s were considered: (1) Given a lack of random assignment, group SES cannot be assumed to be equivalent f o r the two groups; indeed there was reason to suppose that the experimental group i s of higher SES than the control group. (2) Groups did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ofi the pretest measures of the Lorge-Thorndike IQ Battery, and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The design of the present study i s a non-equivalent c o n t r o l group design format (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). The non-equivalence of the experimental and control groups, despite s i m i l a r pretest scores, might have biased the experimental outcomes e i t h e r way, thus threatening the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the experiment. The e f f e c t s of such biases can be reduced by increases i n 37 similarity in selection of group samples, and in similarity of pretest scores. In the present study groups were similar according to pretest scores, but were not equivalent as a result of group assignment procedures. Given the preceding information, analysis of covariance was considered to be an appropriate method of analysis to determine whether or not groups differed in selected divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s following a training program. Basically, the procedure involves removing from the criterion (post-test Torrance scores) that part of a potential difference predictable from the pretest (Torrance) scores and the accompanying aspects of the pre-experimental differences. In effect, covariate (pretest Torrance scores) influences are removed from the within c e l l v a riability of the experimental and control group scores. Original and adjusted mean scores for the seven variables of the .Insert Table 3 about here Torrance Battery are presented in Table 3. The appropriate application and interpretation of analysis of covariance procedures requires that certain assumptions be met by the experimental design. These assumptions are discussed in detail below. (1) Random assignment to groups. It i s evident that the groups in question were not formed by random assignment. Group selection procedures were regarded as relevant and satisfactory for the specific design employed in the study (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). (2) Correlation between the covariate and criterion measures. The effectiveness Insert Table 4 about here of ANCOVA i s related to the linear relationship between the covariable and the 38 criterion measures. If the correlation i s nonsignificant, the value of the resultant correlation coefficient may be attributed to sampling error and the adjusted mean scores w i l l be more or less imprecise. Pretest Torrance scores were contemplated as the appropriate covariables for the present design. As seen from Table 4, computation of correlation coefficients for each of the seven subscale variables yielded moderate (.22 - .91) to high relationships between the pretest (covariate) and postest (postest) scores, as expected. The possibility of nonlinear relationships between pretest..:and postest scores was examined through scatterplot analysis. Evidence of nonlinear relationships were not observed for any of the seven subscale scores. (3) The third operational requirement specifies that covariable measures be taken prior to treatment application in order to regulate the possiblity of treatment influences on the covariable. This requirement was met by the present study. (4) Assumption of homogeneity of variance constitutes the fourth consideration for use of ANCOVA. There is considerable evidence (Glass and Stanley, 1970) that ANCOVA is unaffected by violations of this assumption. Barlett's test (UBC SPSS, 1970) was applied as a precaution with the result that group variances for a l l subscale variables of the pretest were not significantly different. Test statistics for the seven variables were well below the c r i t i c a l (chisquare) value of 3.84 £=.05). (5) The f i n a l assumption concerns homogeneity of regression lines. This assumption is a particularly important issue in analysis of covariance as violations may affect the risk of Type I error. A test s t a t i s t i c for each pair of postest (criterion) and pretest (covariate) scores (H :P>„=3„) was.. o * h. * (. 39 determined. Slopes of the regression l i n e s for each group were computed and Insert Table 5 about here compared for each p a i r . F values and t h e i r resultant p r o b a b i l i t i e s indicated that slopes of the experimental and c o n t r o l groups were p a r a l l e l f o r a l l sub-scale v a r i a b l es except for non-verbal elaboration. The lack of p a r a l l e l i s m between the slopes of the regression l i n e s f or the two groups i s indicated by s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) F s t a t i s t i c . It was concluded that s i x of the seven subscale variables displayed non-diff-ering regression l i n e s . Heterogeneity of regression was indicated by s i g n i f i -cantly d i f f e r e n t slopes for pretest and postest f i g u r a l elaboration. Should s i g n i f i c a n c e between group differences occur for f i g u r a l elaboration scores, i t i s possible that ^ .treatment by i n d i v i d u a l difference i n t e r a c t i o n might have occurred which would render further analysis uninterpretable. In summary, the pooling of within group regression information to form adjusted scores was regarded as a tenable procedure, and ANCOVA was employed. Analysis of covariance revealed s i g n i f i c a n t group differences i n d i v e r -gent thinking a b i l i t i e s on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking following t r a i n i n g i n the Enrichment Program on f i v e of the seven subscale v a r i a b l e s . That i s to say, s i g n i f i c a n t (p.<05) pre-to-post test differences between the two groups were found for verbal fluency, verbal f l e x i b i l i t y , f i g u r a l fluency, f i g u r a l f l e x i b i l i t y , and f i g u r a l o r i g i n a l i t y . Results of the analysis of Insert Table 6 about here covariance are presented i n Table 6. Between group variances were non-s i g n i f i c a n t f or verbal o r i g i n a l i t y and f i g u r a l elaboration. 40 Problem Solving A log-linear multiway frequency table was utilized to obtain a der-scription of the relationship between performance on the three Maier problems and treatment effects. The particular analysis made is based on f i t t i n g a . hierarchical log-linear model to c e l l frequencies. Briefly, the logarithm of an expected c e l l frequency is written as an additive function of the mean effects and the interaction, in a manner similar to an analysis of variance.. Chisquare probabilities are the resultant s t a t i s t i c for the model. Marginal Insert Table 7 about here tables for responses to the three problems are reproduced in Table 7. Results of the multiway frequency analyses indicated that there was no relationship between group condition and the a b i l i t y to solve specified , Insert Table 8 about here problems. As can be seen in Table 8, i t appears that the two groups performed comparably on a l l three problems. In fact, neither group solved any one problem more frequently than the other. Burke and Maier (1965) noted that the three problems were of high but not extreme d i f f i c u l t y for a l l age groups, although their investigations were limited to junior high school through college students samples. The results of the present study indicate that a floor effect may have occurred; that i s , the problems may have been too d i f f i c u l t for the two groups to solve successfully. This possibility neces-sarily limits the interpretation of training effects on problem solving ab i l i t y . 41 It was predicted that training in the Enrichment Program (in which the Productive Thinking Program was embedded would affect problem solving per-formance for the three Maier problems. The results for this second major question indicate that no significant differences existed between the two groups in the a b i l i t y to solve either 'reproductive' or 'productive' problems as exemplified by the 'prisoner', 'horse trader', and 'two string' problems. As noted earlier, i t was assumed that the 'prisoner' and 'horse trader 1 problems required similar strategies for solution, and were representative of 'reproductive' problems defined by Maier (1945). In order to examine the preconceived notion of a productive/reproductive distinction, a correlation matrix between problem solving performances on the three problems is re-produced in Table 9. Insert Table 9 about here The analysis revealed l i t t l e association between the two 'reproductive' (Prisoner and Horse Trader) problems. It was expected that i f the notion of a 'reproductive' problem distinction were tenable, a significant relationship between the two problems would be evidenced. The data indicate that this was not the case. Further, i t was expected that the relationship between the 'productive' and 'reproductive' problems would be negligible. While this expectation was met, the author cautions that verification of a 'reproductive'/ 'productive' distinction through the examination of the three problems of the study has not been convincingly established. Inclusion of a greater number of problems of both 'reproductive' and 'productive' type problems is viewed as a necessary condition for a comprehensive evaluation of problem solving a b i l i t y . The significance of the relationship between the supposedly 'reproductive' problems leads to questions concerning the importance of variables other than 42 those of the problem solving strategies- identified by Maier (1945) as c r i t i c a l to the two proeessesat issue.' Obvious- content, differences between the two problems, for example, may have been important in both influencing solution probabilities and obscuring similarities between the problems. In summary, the premise (Maier, 1945) that the 'Prisoner' and 'Horse Trader' problems were representative of problems requiring 'reproductive' solutions was not adequately tested in the present study. Reading Achievement An analysis of variance was computed in order to determine whether or not the experimental and control groups differed in reading achievement following immersion in the Chilliwack Enrichment Program. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 10. Group means from the performances on the Stanford Battery did not differ significantly at the .05 level of significance. Con-version of group means to grade reading levels were calculated. Grade reading Insert Table 10 about here levels were 10.35 for the experimental group and 10.51 for the control group, according to instructions in the Stanford Reading Achievement Test manual. School board records confirmed a grade reading level of 7.4 for a l l other grade seven students i n the d i s t r i c t , normal and acceptable by School District standards. Thus gifted students in the study sample demonstrated reading ab i l i t y far superior to other students in grade seven. This finding i s not unexpected as the gifted students were i n i t i a l l y identified by exceptional academic a b i l i t y , among other attributes. 43 As noted earlier, the question of whether or not the Chilliwack Enrichment Program would, provide opportunities; for gifted children to realize acceptable and comparable levels of academic achievement compared to other grade seven students was addressed by means of an examination of reading achievement. On the basis of insufficient pretest information in reading achievement, and in view of the fact that the two groups were of differing SES, i t was concluded that effects of the Enrichment Program on Reading Achievement was inadequately tested for the purposes stated above. Accordingly, no conclusions were drawn on the effects of the Enrichment Program on reading achievement. Summary of Results with Reference to the Hypotheses The results for the f i r s t major question concerning the difference between groups in divergent thinking scores following training in the Enrichment Program may be stated as follows: (1) Experimental group subjects recorded significantly higher scores on verbal and figural fluency subjects than did control group subjects. (2) Experimental group subjects recorded significantly higher scores on verbal and figural f l e x i b i l i t y subjects as compared with control group subjects. (3) Experimental group subjects recorded significantly higher scores on the figural originality subtests than did control group subjects. There were no significant differences between groups on verbal originality subtest scores. (4) There was no significant difference between groups on figural elaboration scores. The second major question was whether or not training in the Enrichment Program would be effective in f a c i l i t a t i n g problem solving performance. There 44 were no significant differences between groups in the a b i l i t y to solve either reproductive or productive problems. Finally, with reference to the effects of the Enrichment Program on reading achievement, the data indicated that there were no significant differences between groups in scores on the Stanford Reading Achievement test. It i s t<i be noted, however, that insufficient knowledge of pretreat-ment reading levels severely limits the interpretation of the data of the present study. 45 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion The present study was- designed to evaluate the effects of the Chilliwack Enrichment Program (in which the Productive Thinking Program was embedded) on the divergent thinking a b i l i t i e s of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration, as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Two other areas of interest were investigated as well, namely, (1) the effects of the Enrichment Program on the a b i l i t y to solve problems whose solutions require 'productive' or 'reproductive' responses, and (2) the effect of the Enrichment Program on reading achievement. The following discussion w i l l deal with the above concerns. Divergent Thinking A b i l i t i e s The results of the present study may seem, at f i r s t glance, to indicate that a significant relationship exists between training in the Productive Thinking Program and performance on selected variables of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The experimental group realized greater gains on five of the seven measures from the Torrance Battery, namely those of verbal fluency, verbal f l e x i b i l i t y , figural fluency, figural f l e x i b i l i t y , and figural originality. These findings appear to be consistent with other studies employing the Productive Thinking Program to enhance divergent thinking :. a b i l i t i e s on the Torrance Battery (Covington and Crutchfield, 1966; Harris, 1978; Huber, Treffinger, and Tracy, 1979; McGinn, Viernstein, and Hogan, 1980). Performance gains for the trained subjects are reported for experimental 46 conditions which formally resemble., those of the present study. The extent to which performance gains in the present study can be directly attributed to training in the Productive Thinking Program, however, remains in question as a result of the following limitations. F i r s t , the Productive Thinking Program was not the sole content of the Enrichment Program. Training in the Productive Thinking Program was restricted to the f i r s t two of the four years which elapsed between the time that the pretest and postest measures were obtained. Accordingly, the degree to which the Productive Thinking Program may be viewed as responsible for observed differences remains in question. As noted earlier, concern over the re-l i a b i l i t y of the Torrance Battery, especially under varying test conditions has been expressed by a number of investigators (Kazelkis, in Buros; 1979), despite Torrance's (1966b) claim that interscorer and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y effects are negligible. This constitutes a further reason for circumspection in the interpretation of results. The validity of Torrance's claim is subject to doubt in the present study as well. Of particular concern is the suspicion of unreliable pretest scoring. While the testing situation for the pretest appears to be similar to postest administration, scorers of the pretest seem to have elevated scores of Figural Activity Three. This suspicion proved d i f f i c u l t to verify, although the effects of elevated scores on the two groups was apparently systematic. Such discrepancies corroborate other criticisms of the notor.iously_tedious.-scoring: system. In addition, examination of the basic writing s k i l l s of subjects in the study between the pretest (grade three) and the postest (grade seven) revealed that increases in the number of responses in the verbal test may have been related to writing speed. Examination of selected test papers showed 47 qualitative differences in l e g i b i l i t y and penmanship from pretest to postest for the same child. Confidence in the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the Battery is.not enhanced by.this observation, and this possibility contributes to the di f f i c u l t y in interpretation of test results. Lack of experimenter control over the administration of the Productive Thinking Program constitutes further limitations to the interpretation of results. Two considerations are of importance here. F i r s t , as discussed earlier, the fact that the program was taught solely by the classroom teacher makes verification of appropriate administrative procedures impossible, despite reports of competent execution of the program. Secondly, the lengthy interval between program intervention and testing by the experimenter must have provided other experiences for the experimental group subjects that also affected performance on the Torrance Battery. While i t was of interest in the present study to examine whether effects would be observable over a lengthy interval, i t i s obvious that verification i s not possible within these confines. In effect, i t i s concluded that despite significant group differences, the evidence provided by the present study should not be construed as an indication that the Productive Thinking Program was successful in the main. While limitations in the present design significantly affect interpretation of results, failure to determine the extent to which the Productive Thinking Program was responsible for affecting divergent thinking - scores, oh the-Torrance Battery does not rule out the possibility that^training effect observed i s merely a Hawthorne effect. In summary, adequate measures of the effects of the Productive Thinking Program were not procurable within the present study. Presumably, stringent control over the affected factors would have provided greater precision in the interpretation of treatment effects. 48 Problem Solving Kieslar (1969) stated that the most important problem solving strategies and s k i l l s to teach are those which result in transfer to 'real l i f e ' problems. The results of this study suggest, however, that despite Covington and Crutchfield's (1966) contention that the Productive Thinking Program serves to develop and strengthen effective problem solving strategies, simple acquisition of such s k i l l s has l i t t l e effect on the a b i l i t y to solve certain 'real l i f e ' problems. Findings replicate the general trend, that i s , trained subjects were unable to solve 'real l i f e ' problems any better than control group subjects. The failure of the present study to demonstrate marked differences in problem solving may be explained on several bases. First of a l l , despite attempts to include an adequate measure of problem solving a b i l i t y , i t may be that the Prisoner, Horse Trader, and Two String Problems were not adequate representations of problems requiring strategies promoted by the Productive Thinking Program. That i s , suspicion of a floor effect made i t impossible to determine whether or not the likelihood of problem solution was related to training. The inclusion of both 'reproductive' and 'productive' problems was j u s t i f i e d on the premise that superior performance by trained subjects on either or both types of problems would indicate which type of problem training in the Productive Thinking Program could be expected to f a c i l i t a t e . Failure to substantiate Maier's claim that the 'horse trader 1 and 'prisoner' problems required 'reproductive' thought processes further limits intepretation of problem solving a b i l i t y for groups in question. In summary, the present study did not determine whether or not training in the Productive Thinking Program was successful in affecting superior problem solving performance. This.result is in keeping with the general consensus of previous findings which question whether acquisition of generalized problem solving s k i l l s such as those presented by the Productive Thinking Program can be expected to transfer to other problem situations. Reading Achievement There were no significant differences between groups in reading achieve-ment as measured by the Stanford Reading Achievement Test following immersion in the Enrichment Program. Experimental group subjects scored comparably with control group subjects, and both groups performed significantly better than the rest of the ..grade seven population in the d i s t r i c t . It was concluded that while the two groups in question did not differ in terms of reading achievement level, at the conclusion of the four year Enrichment Program, effects of the program on reading achievement was not adequately tested in the present study. Lack of pretest data on reading achievement coupled with the fact that the experimental group and control groups were of differing: SES restricted determination of the effects of the program on reading achievement. Conclusions It i s evident from the present study that while experimental group per-formances on the Torrance Tests of Creativity manifested some signs that may be interpreted as treatment effects, limitations in the design forced the author to caution the reader against drawing conclusions about the origin of such effects. .-Further, limitations in the problem solving measures suggest that prudence is in order with regard to the conclusions which can be drawn about the potency of the Productive Thinking Program for improving some putative problem solving a b i l i t y . 50 It w i l l be recalled that some authors are inclined to suppose that in-r. ...... creases in divergent thinking scores on the Torrance Battery (attributable to training in the Productive Thinking Program) \ suggest that children who manifest such gains w i l l also think more 'creatively' about problems. The relative importance of the concepts of fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration has not, however, been satisfactorily c l a r i f i e d . The assumption that these concepts are not only c r i t i c a l components of divergent thinking, but also of importance in effective problem solving has not been established (Butcher, 1971; Hudson, 1966). This view is supported by the present work. By definition, Torrance's divergent thinking variables appear to measure quantity rather than quality of response. Nuttall (1970) expressed concern over the fact that scores for fluency, f l e x i b i l i t y , originality, and elaboration were gathered over the same set of responses for some of the items in the Battery. He concluded that concepts as defined by Torrance were dubious c r i t e r i a for the identification of 'creative' or 'divergent' thinking s k i l l s . Further, i t is apparent that any reported consistencies (Covington.and Crutchfield, 1966; Treffinger, Speedie, and Bruner, 1974) in the relationship between training in the Productive Thinking Program and performance on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking are limited to general statements and do not identify which subscale variables of the Battery are affected by training in the Productive Thinking Program. While varying subscales were employed in the studies reviewed, most studies reporting positive effects did not supply a rationale for partial selection of the Battery. Thus identification of the spec-i f i c variables that training in.„the Productive Thinking Program may be expected to f a c i l i t a t e has not been c l a r i f i e d . Finally, these concerns relate to the extent to which the Productive Thinking Program may be viewed as an effective curriculum for the development of 51 'creative' thinking and 'productive' problem solving s k i l l s . Covington and Crutchfield (1966) stated that their 'Productive Thinking Model' centered on the strengthening of a 'master thinking s k i l l ' comprised of well-integrated strategies that may be applied to solve the problems at hand. The weight of the literature as well as the results of the present study indicate that studies of the Productive Thinking Program have provided l i t t l e evidence that training i n the strategies and s k i l l s of the program has a c r i t i c a l impact on the processes related to competency in problem solving. While analysis of the steps involved in effective problem solving has proven important in some experimental situations (Gagrie and Smith, 1962), the soundness of the premise that the Productive Thinking Program is an effective education*!.curriculum for developing problem solving competency remains untested. Limitations Major limitations to the present study, namely; concerns over the re-l i a b i l i t y and validity of the Torrance Battery, lack of experimenter control over the treatment program, and limitations of the problem solving measure have been discussed in the preceding sections. The major exception, group selection, remains to be dealt with in terms of i t s impact on the results of the present study. As noted i n Chapter 3, group assignment was not random, resulting in groups of differing SES, albeit similar IQ and Torrance pretest scores. It is noteworthy that in studies of an ex post facto nature, access to equal groups, especially those involving students with exceptional a b i l i t i e s may be limited. The present study is a case in point. Groups were formed according to financial and geographical considerations. Analysis of covariance was employed to reduce the effects of unequal..groups. As noted earlier, the. 52 e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f ANCOVA i s h i g h l y r e l a t e d t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e c r i t e r i o n and c o v a r i a t e v a r i a b l e s ; w i t h a p p r e c i a b l y g r e a t e r power e v i d e n c e d when t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s u r p a s s e s .60. A c c o r d i n g t o T a b l e 4, t h e p r e c i s i o n o f . a d j u s t e d p o s t e s t s c o r e s i s somewhat d e c r e a s e d f o r t h e v a r i a b l e s o f F i g u r a l F l u e n c y , F i g u r a l F l e x i b i l i t y , and F i g u r a l E l a b o r a t i o n . V e r b a l F l e x i b i l i t y and F i g u r a l O r i g n a l i t y a r e more s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d , thus l i m i t i n g t h e a c c u r a c y and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f ANCOVA r e s u l t s . Of f u r t h e r c o n c e r n i s t h e manner i n w h i c h s t u d e n t s were i d e n t i f i e d as g i f t e d and/or t a l e n t e d f o r t h e E n r i c h m e n t Program. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e d a t a p r o v i d e d by S c h o o l B o a r d r e c o r d s , t h e s i n g l e c r i t e r i o n a s s u r i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l t a l e n t was p r o v i d e d by s c o r e s on t h e L o r g e - T h o r n d i k e IQ B a t t e r y . C r i t i c i s m s o f t h e T o r r a n c e B a t t e r y l i m i t t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h h i g h s c o r e s on t h e t e s t s may be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i v e o f t a l e n t s u n r e l a t e d t o IQ. D e s p i t e a s s u r a n c e s ( T o r r a n c e , 1966b) t h a t t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g measures t r a i t s i n d e p e n d e n t o f c o n v e n t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e i n d i c e s , r e p o r t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s ( e . g . P a u l u s , 1 9 7 0 ) , between IQ and t h e . T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g s u g g e s t t h i s p r e m i s e t o b e ^ u n j u s t i f i e d . Thus t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s o f t h e program were i n d e e d g i f t e d and/or t a l e n t e d i s s u b j e c t t o q u e s t i o n . I t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t i n v i e w o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t o . t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e , on t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s and. .importance^of ;the P r o d u c t i v e . . T h i n k i n g . Program on t h e d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g and p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a b i l i t i e s o f g r a d e seven ' g i f t e d ' c h i l d r e n was n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Recommendations for Future Study Recommendations for future research are based on review of some of the limitations examined in the previous sections. The identification of and provision for children with special a b i l i t i e s has l e f t unanswered the question of whether or not such students might not in fact have done as.'.;, well without special consideration. Evaluations of special educational programs are in sore need of viable c r i t e r i a which may serve to justify the adoption of such curricula. Further, development of and appropriate use of measures that may be expected to provide important distinctions between academic or educational achievement and other types of a b i l i t i e s requires consideration as a salient area for research. Finally, the v i a b i l i t y of the Productive Thinking Program as a significant curriculum for the development of effective problem solving s k i l l s and strategies warrants further examination. The impor£ance_,of putative problem solving behaviours that training in the Productive Thinking Program expects to f a c i l i t a t e requires verification in order to justify i t s use in elementary school curricula. Further, the question of whether or not involvement i n the program holds long term effects for grade seven gifted children also remains unanswered. R e f e r e n c e s B l a n k , S. S. & C o v i n g t o n , M. I n d u c i n g c h i l d r e n t o a s k q u e s t i o n s i n t h e s o l u t i o n o f p r o b l e m s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1965, 59, 21-27. B r u n e r , J . S. The a c t o f d i s c o v e r y . H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1961, 31, 21-32. B u r k e , R. J . and M a i e r , N. R. F. A t t e m p t s t o p r e d i c t s u c c e s s on an i n s i g h t p r o blem. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1965, 17, ( 1 ) , 303-310. B u r k e , R. J . , M a i e r , N. R. F. and Hoffman, L. R. F u n c t i o n s o f h i n t s i n i n d i v i d u a l p r o b l e m solving'.' A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 79, 389-399. B u t c h e r , H. J . Human i n t e l l i g e n c e - i t s n a t u r e and assessment. London: Methuen, 1971. B u r o s , 0. K. The s e v e n t h m e n t a l measurements yearb o o k . V o l . 1-2, N. J . : The Gryphon P r e s s , 1978. C a m p b e l l , D. T. and S t a n l e y , J . C. E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l  D e s i g n s f o r R e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand-McNally and Company, 1966. C o v i n g t o n , M. V. & C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S. F a c i l i t a t i o n o f c r e a t i v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . Programmed I n s t r u c t i o n , 1966, 4, 3-5. C o v i n g t o n , M. V., C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S. and D a v i e s , L. B. The P r o d u c t i v e  T h i n k i n g Program: A Course i n l e a r n i n g t o t h i n k . Columbus, O h i o , C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l , 1966. C o v i n g t o n , M. V., C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S., D a v i e s , L. B., and O l t o n , R. M. The P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Program ( R e v i s e d ) . Columbus, O h i o , C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l , 1972. C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S. N u r t u r i n g t h e C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s o f P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g . I n L. R u b i n ( e d . ) , L i f e s k i l l s i n s c h o o l and s o c i e t y . , W a s h i n g t o n , NEA, 1969, 53-71. D a v i e s , G. A. C u r r e n t s t a t u s o f r e s e a r c h and t h e o r y i n human p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1966, 66, 36-58. Dewey, J . (1910) i n R. M. Gagne\ The c o n d i t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n , 1970. Dewing, K. Some c o r r e l a t e s o f c r e a t i v i t y t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e on s e v e n t h g r a d e c h i l d r e n , A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 22 ( 3 ) , 269-276. Folkman, M e l . S. D. No. 33 ( C h i l l i w a c k ) . Program Development f o r G i f t e d  & T a l e n t e d S t u d e n t s . U n p u b l i s h e d P a p e r , 1975. 5§ Gagne, R. M. and S m i t h , E. C. A s t u d y o f t h e e f f e c t s o f v e r b a l i z a t i o n on p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 63, 12-18. G l a s s , G. and S t a n l e y , J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n E d u c a t i o n and P s y c h o l o g y . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970. G u i l f o r d , J . P. C r e a t i v i t y . A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1950, _5, 444-454a. G u i l f o r d , J . P. Human a b i l i t i e s i n e d u c a t i o n . C a l i f o r n i a J o u r n a l o f  I n s t r u c t i o n a l Improvement, 1959, 3-6. G u i l f o r d , J . P. The N a t u r e o f Human I n t e l l i g e n c e . New Y o r k : McGraw-H i l l , 1967. H a l p i n , G. & H a l p i n , G. Can s e l f t r a i n e d s c o r e r s r e l i a b l y s c o r e t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g ? P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 1974, 11, 56-58. H a r r i s , D. G. C r e a t i v e P r o b l e m S o l v i n g i n Grade 5. M. A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978. H a s l i m , V. T e a c h i n g t h e G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d : A R e s o u r c e M a n u a l , E d u c a t i o n S e r v i c e s Group, VSB, 1978. Huber, J . , T r e f f i n g e r , D., and T r a c y , D. S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n a l Use o f Programmed C r e a t i v i t y T r a i n i n g M a t e r i a l s w i t h G i f t e d and R e g u l a r S t u d e n t s , J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, ( 7 1 ) , 3, 303-309. Hudson, L. C o n t r a r y I m a g i n a t i o n s , Methuen, 1966. Jo h n s o n , D. M. P s y c h o l o g y : A P r o b l e m s o l v i n g a p p r o a c h . New Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row, 1961. Jo h n s o n , D. M.,. P a r r o t t , G. L., and S t r a t t o n , R. P. P r o d u c t i o n and Judge-ment o f S o l u t i o n t o F i v e P r o b l e m s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1968, 5 9 . ( 6 ) , 1-21. Kagan, J . (ed.) C r e a t i v i t y and l e a r n i n g . B o s t o n : Houghton, M i f f l i n , 1967. K e i s l e r , E. R. T e a c h i n g C h i l d r e n t o S o l v e P r o b l e m s : A R e s e a r c h G o a l J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h Development i n E d u c a t i o n ; 1969, 3 ( 1 ) , 3-14. L u t f i y y a , L. A c o m p a r i s o n o f a c h i e v e m e n t , s e l f - c o n c e p t , c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g and r e a l i s t i c s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n o f g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s w i t h i n and w i t h o u t s p e c i a l programs f o r g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d s t u d e n t s i n Grades 4-12. D i s s . A b s t . I n t . , 1978 ( M a r ) , V o l . 38 (9-A) 5382 -5383, U. o f S. C a r o l i n a . McGinn, P. V., V i e r n s t e i n , M. C., and Hogan, R. F o s t e r i n g t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l Development o f V e r b a l l y G i f t e d A d o l e s c e n t s , J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 1980, Aug. 2 (4), 494-499. 56 McKinnon, D. W. The p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s o f c r e a t i v i t y : a s t u d y o f A m e r i c a n a r c h i t e c t s . I n : P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h C o n g r e s s  on A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 2, 11-39. M a i e r , N. R. F. R e a s o n i n g i n humans: t h e mechanisms o f e q u i v a l e n t s t i m u l i and o f r e a s o n i n g . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1945, 35, 349-360. M a i e r , N. R. F. R e a s o n i n g i n humans: I I . The s o l u t i o n o f a p r o b l e m and i t s appearance i n c o n s c i o u s n e s s . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e  P s y c h o l o g y , 1931b, 12, 181-194. M a i e r , N. R. F. & J a n z e n , J . C. A r e good p r o b l e m s o l v e r s a l s o c r e a t i v e ? I n N. R. F. M a i e r (Ed.) P r o b l e m S o l v i n g and C r e a t i v i t y . Belmont, Brooks & C o l e , 1970. Maltzman, I . T h i n k i n g : f r o m a b e h a v i o u r i s t i c p o i n t o f v i e w . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review, 1955, 66, 367-386. N e w e l l , A; Shaw, J . C.; and Simon, H. A. Elements o f a t h e o r y of p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1958, 6_5, 151-166. N u t t a l l , E. N. C r e a t i v i t y i n b oys: a s t u d y o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s o c i a l b a c k g r o u n d , e d u c a t i o n a l a c h i e v e m e n t , and p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s on t h e c r e a t i v e b e h a v i o u r o f t e n y e a r o l d boys. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1970, J u l y , V o l . 3 1 ( 1 ^ ) 231-232. O l t o n , R. M. & C o v i n g t o n , M. The development o f p r o d u c t i v e t h i n k i n g s k i l l s  i n f i f t h g r a de c h i l d r e n . U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , ED 022312, November, 1967. O l t o n , R. M. and C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S. D e v e l o p i n g S k i l l s o f P r o d u c t i v e .... T h i n k i n g . I n P. Mussen, J . L a n g e r and M. C o v i n g t o n ( e d s . ) , Trends  and I s s u e s i n D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n , 1969, p. 68-91. P a r n e s , S. J . E f f e c t s o f e x t e n d e d e f f o r t s i n c r e a t i v e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 52, 117-122. P a u l u s , D. H. A r e s u b t e s t s o f t h e T o r r a n c e T e s t i n d e p e n d e n t ? A b s t r a c t , A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , 1970, 2, 42-43. R e s n i c k , L. B. & G l a s e r , R. P r o b l e m s o l v i n g and i n t e l l i g e n c e . I n L. B. R e s n i c k (Ed.) The N a t u r e o f I n t e l l i g e n c e , L a u r e n E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1975. R i p p l e , R. & Dacey, J . The f a c i l i t a t i o n o f p r o b l e m s o l v i n g and v e r b a l f l u e n c y e x p o s u r e t o programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e  S c h o o l s , 1967, 4 ( 3 ) , 240-245. Torrance, E. P. Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1972, jj, 236-252. Torrance, E. P. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel Press, 1966(a). Torrance, E. P. Torrance Tests: Norms-Technical Manual, Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel Press, 1966(b)... Treffinger, D. J. Guidelines for encouraging independence and self-direction among gifted students. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1978, 12, 14-20. Treffinger, D.J., Renzulli, J. S. & Feldhusen, J. F. Problems in the assessment of creative thinking. Journal of Creative  Behaviour, 1971, 5, 104-112. Treffinger, D. & Ripple, R. The effects of programmed instruction in  productive thinking on. verbal creativity and problem solving  among elementary school pupils. Final Report. U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., University Microfilms, December, 1968. Treffinger, D., Speedie, S. A. & Bruner, W. D. Improving Children's Creative Problem Solving A b i l i t y : The Purdue Creativity Project, The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1974, 8(1), 20-30. Tremaine, C. Do Gifted Programs make a difference? Gifted Child  Quarterly, 1979, F a l l , 23, No. 3. Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. A new look at the creativity-intelligence distinction, Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 349-369. Wallas, G. The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1926. Appendix A Chilliwack School District Enrichment Program for Gifted and Talented Children Position Statement Definition Goals - Intended Learning Outcomes Program Objectives Selection Criteria for the Enrichment Program POSITION STATEMENT Gifted and talented children and youth are a unique population, diferring markedly from their peers in a b i l i t i e s , talents, interests and psycholgical maturity. The most versatile and complex of a l l human groups they cannot ordinarily excel without assistance. The Department of Education recognizes the right of a l l children and youth to a program of educational experiences which provide opportunities for development to the f u l l limit of their capabilities. To this extent, i t i s the intention of the Chilliwack Board of School Trustees to develop a program which w i l l : 1) identify gifted and talented children early in their school years, 2) provide learning experiences which are i n keeping with unique developmental needs of the gifted and talented, 3) provide financial resources for program development, purchase of appropriate materials and in-service education for teachers and principals, 4) f a c i l i t a t e the implementation of appropriate programs throughout the District. Definition In the Chilliwack School District, gifted and/or talented childre are those who have been identified as having outstanding a b i l i t i e s in at least one of the following categories: 1) Academically gifted: students- who exhibit high intellectual potential. 2) Creatively gifted: students who manifest creative thinking, and/or demonstrate creative a b i l i t i e s in the visual or performing arts. 3) Kinesthetically gifted: students who demonstrate superior psychomotor .ability,including those with exceptionally fine motor co-ordination. 4) Psychosocially gifted: students who exhibit outstanding leadership. GOALS — INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES The goals of the program are: 1) To provide a learning atmosphere which w i l l enable the gifted child to develop his potential and exceptional a b i l i t i e s particularly in the areas of decision making, planning, performing, reasoning, creating..andacommunicatihg.:.:which makes him unique. 2) To provide an opportunity for the student to u t i l i z e his in i t i a t i v e , self-direction and orignality in dealing with problems. 3) To provide the environment for r e a l i s t i c goal setting in which the students accept responsibility as evidenced throughout the selection of projects and programs which are designed to aid in developing and expanding his cognitive and effective a b i l i t i e s and to broaden his f i e l d of personal reference. 4) To provide activities which incorporate a multi-media, multi-level, interdisciplinary approach and for transfer for learning. 5) To provide an opportunity for relationships and experiences in order to extend his experential horizons, project greater goals for himself, and gain a sense of responsibility and intellectual freedom. 62 Program Objectives The specific program objectives were designed to f a c i l i t a t e the develop-ment of: (1) Basic S k i l l s . Students w i l l be able to: - use higher level thinking s k i l l s including logic - effectively organize and present ideas and information -achieve at least the basic s k i l l s of learning for their grade level, as outlined by the Ministry of Education in Mathematics, English, Social Studies, and Science. (2) Creative Thinking S k i l l s . Students w i l l be able to: - generate many and varied ideas - expand on ideas - seek the unusual in problem solving (3) Productive Thinking S k i l l s . Students w i l l be able to: - produce creative solutions to problems - approach problems from different directions - focus on best solutions to problems - evaluate effectiveness of such solutions (4) Social Development and Leadership S k i l l s . Students w i l l : - develop an awareness of personal s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s - improve the a b i l i t y to relate effectively to others - acquire decision making s k i l l s - develop personal talents (5) Academic Excellence. Students are encouraged to: - direct increased attention to academic excellence i n Mathematics, English, Social Studies, and Science - direct increased attention to special academic talents 63 Selection Criteria for the Enrichment Program Students were identified as gifted and/or talented according to the following c r i t e r i a : (1) Lorge-Thorndike IQ scores: A l l Grade three students in the Chilliwack School District completed the Battery. Only students with IQ scores above 115 were considered for the enrichment program as School Board Administrators were concerned that less academically able students would have d i f f i c u l t y coping with the workload of the program. Approximately 100 students were identified by the Battery as potential candidates. (2) Torrance Tests of Creativity identified by the Lorge-Thorndike Battery completed the Torrance Battery. While no criterion was established for the Torrance Tests, 20 students were rejected according to low scores on the composite verbal and figural scores on the Battery. (3) Nomination Forms: Guideline forms for the nomination of students were completed by teachers, in consultation with principals and parents for the 80 students identified by IQ and Torrance scores. The forms are reproduced on the following pages. Of these 80 candidates, students assessed as possessing other, exceptional a b i l i t i e s from information on the nomination forms were identified. A f i n a l pool of 50 students were identified as 'gifted and/or talented' for the selection into the enrichment program. SCHOOL DISTRICT # 3 3 (CHILLIWACK) SCREENING AND NOMINATIONS FORM FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE GRADE FOUR GIFTED PROGRAM Name Address B i r t h d a t e Grade Teacher Home Telephone S c h o o l Date T e s t Data 6k 1 . Academic Achievement T e s t s Name 4 . Other T e s t s or E x a m i n a t i o n s " Name - ~ — — — — — — — — — R e s u l t s R e s u l t s Name R e s u l t s Grad e Date i • i ! 1 2. G r o u o A h i 1 i t v T s e t c . . ( Grade I Date Nane R e s u l t s Grade Date Grade ; Date + ! INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING 65 Disregarding test r e s u l t s , would you rank t h i s pupil in the upper 5 percent of his class in academic performance? In your opinion, i s t h i s c h i l d "men-t a l l y gifted"? Is classroom performance consistent with r e s u l t s of stand-ardized tests? Upper 5 Percent? "Mentally gifted"? Performance consistent with tests? Yes • No Yes No Yes | No 1 • ' Check the column which best describes the c h i l d ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning. These items include a range of possible c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or objectives. A c h i l d i s not expected to be high on a l l of them. Item to be evaluated L i t t 1 le » 2 foderi 3 ite 4 Much 5 1. Knowledge and s k i l l s (Possesses a comfort-able knowledge of basic s k i l l s and fac t u a l information). 2. Concentration (Has a b i l i t y to concentrate; is not e a s i l y distracted) 3. Enjoyment of school (Enjoys academic pur-suits and assignments; l i k e s school). 4. Persistence (Has the a b i l i t y and desire to fvllow through on work; concerned with com-p e t i t i o n ; able to see a problem through). In own interests In assigned tasks 5. Responsiveness (Is e a s i l y motivated; re-sponsive to adult suggestions and ques-tions) . 6. I n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o s i t y (Pursues in t e r e s t s primarily to understand or s a t i s f y curios-i t y ; questions the common, ordinary, or the usual; wants to know how and why; generates questions of his own, in connection with personal interests or group concerns). 7. Challenge (Enjoys the challenge of d i f f i -c u l t problems, assignments, issues, and materials) . 6. Perceptiveness (Is a l e r t , perceptive, and observant beyond his years; aware of many stimuli) . 9. Verbal f a c i l i t y (Shows marked f a c i l i t y with language; uses many words e a s i l y and accur-ately) • 66 I t e m t o be e v a l u a t e d L i t t l 1 e M 2 o d e r a 3 t e 4 Much S 10. f l u e n c y o f i d e a s ( P r o d u c e s a l a r g e number o f i d e a s o r p r o d u c t s , o f t e n v e r y q u i c k l y ) . 1 1 . F l e x i b i l i t y ( I s a b l e t o a p p r o a c h i d e a s and p r o b l e m s f r o m a number o f p e r s p e c t i v e s ; a d a p t a b l e ; a b l e t o f i n d a l t e r n a t i v e ways b f s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s ) . 1 2 . S e n s i t i v i t y t o p r o b l e m s ( P e r c e i v e and i s aware o f p r o b l e m s t h a t o t h e r s may n o t s e e ; i s r e a d y t o q u e s t i o n o r c h a n g e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s and s u g g e s t i m p r o v e m e n t s ) . 1 3 . O r i g i n a l t i y ( O f t e n u s e s o r i g i n a l m e t h o d s o f s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s , i s a b l e t o c o m b i n e i d e a s and m a t e r i a l s i n a number o f w a y s , o r c r e a t e s p r o d u c t s o f u n u s u a l c h a r a c t e r o r qua 1 I t y ) . 14. I m a g i n a t i o n ( Can f r e e l y r e s p o n d t o s t i m u l i w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f m e n t 3 l i m a g e s ; may " p l a y " w i t h i d e a s o r p r o d u c e r e m o t e , f a n -c i f u l a s s o c i a t i o n s o r i r s i g h t s ) . 15. R e a s o n i n g ( I s l o g i c a l , o f t e n g e n e r a l i z e s o r a p p l i e s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n new s i t u a t i o n s , e x p a n d s c o n c e p t s i n t o b r o a d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , o r s e e s p a r t s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e w h o l e ) . 16. S c i e n t i f i c method (Can d e f i n e p r o b l e m s , f o r m u l a t e h y p o t h e s e s , t e s t i d e a s , and a r -r i v e at v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s ) . 17. I n d e p e n d e n c e i n t h o u g h t ( I n c l i n e d t o f o l l o w h i s own o r g a n i z a t i o n and i d e a s r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t r u c t u r i n g o f o t h e r s ) . 18. I n d e p e n d e n c e i n a c t i o n ( A b l e t o p l a n and o r g a n i z e a c t i v i t i e s , d i r e c t a c t i o n , and e v a l u a t e r e s u l t s ) . 19. I n d e p e n d e n c e i n work h a b i t s ( R e q u i r e s a minimum o f a d u l t d i r e c t i o n and a t t e n t i o n ; p o s s e s s e s r e s e a r c h s k i l l s t o f a c i l i t a t e i n d e p e n d e n t w o r k ) . 20. E l a b o r a t i o n ( C o n c e r n e d w i t h d e t a i l and c o m p l e x i t y ; o f t e n i n v o l v e d w i t h a v a r i e t y o f i m p l i c a t i o n s and c o n s e q u e n c e s ) . 2 1 . A e s t h e t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n ( E n j o y s and i s r e -s p o n s i v e t o b e a u t y i n t h e a r t s o r n a t u r e ) . 1 1 67 22. Describe any unpredictable behavior which i n t e r f e r e s with study;e.g wandering away from seat without apparent purpose: 23. Describe any unusual preoccupations such as "daydreaming" or " f l i g h t s into fantasy" which lessen the pupil's learning e f f i c i e n c y : 24. Describe any learning c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which seem outstanding or would es p e c i a l l y f a c i l i t a t e t h i s c h i l d ' s progress i n a challenging education-e l program: 25. Describe any learning d i f f i c u l t i e s the c h i l d might have in p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s - - d i f f i c u l t i e s which could hinder progress in such a program: 26. Describe any examples of the c h i l d ' s creative p r o d u c t i v i t y : 68 The f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f s u b j e c t s and a c t i v i t i e s i s t o be checked f o r (1) t h e c h i l d ' s a p p arent i n t e r e s t , Judged by your o b s e r v a t i o n s o f h i s c l a s s r o o m be-h a v i o u r ; (2) p e r f o r m a n c e , judged e i t h e r by grades o r q u a l i t y o f p r o d u c t s or a c t i o n s ; and (3) t h e grade l e v e l , a t whi c h t h e c h i l d seems c a p a b l e o f f u n c t i o n i n g . Interest Performance C a p a b i l i t y Subj e c t L i t t ] 1 Le Mc 2 )de r£ 3 t t e M 4 uch 5 Lov 1 ; A 2 i v e r 3 age 4 High 5 Grade L e v e l A r t C o n s t r u c t i o n o r m a n i p u l a t i o n D r a m , i t i c e x p r e s s i o n Language a r t s H a n d w r i t i n g O r a l e x p r e s s i o n R e a d i n g S p e l l i n g W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n M a t h e m a t i c s M u s i c P h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s Sc i enc e S o c i a l s t u d i e s • i — * Comment on any i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s you have o b s e r v e d which a r e not i n c l u d e d i n the p r e c e d i n g i t e m s : PHYSICAL DSVSLOPMiNT 69 Item to be evaluated Litt" 1 le 2 Moder 3 ate 4 Much 5 1, ''Physical expression (indicates that physical a c t i v i t i e s are a comfortable, enjoyable area for self-expression) 3; Physical a b i l i t y (Coordination, timing, a g i l i t y , and a b i l i t y to participate satisfactorily in organized games) 3. Energy level (Has available resources of pep and vir;or for carrying on most ac t i v i t i e s ) 4. Physical appearance (Appears neat and wo 11-groomed; has appropriate clothes for age and group) I 5. Check the spaces which best describe the c h i l d ^ physical build and posture as comrared with the rest of the class: Physical build- Posture: Small stature Good Medium build Average More physically developed Poor than most 6 . Describe any important aspect of the pupil's health or physical development which might affect participation in a challenging educational program: 70 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Check the column which best describes t h i s c h i l d ' s s o c i a l development. Iteri to be evaluated L i t t l 1 e Mo .2 \ derate 1 !-Much U 5 1. Popularity (Others seen to want to be with this child; frequently seen interacting with others in a social, friendly manner). With s:ir;e sex With orpesite sex 2. Acceptance of ether's (Relates to others with genuine interest and concern; enjoys others; seeks then out; shows warmth). -3. Status (Assur.es public roles and leadership positions or enjoys considerable status in • t«er rrcur). T h. Social maturity (Able and w i l l i n g to work with ethers; can "give and take"; i s sensitive to the needs and feelings of others; shows con-sidemticn: observes rules of social conduct). $. Sense cf humor* (Ability to laugh at himself; gets enjoyment and pleasure from lighter moments in school day; laughs easily and com-fortably). i 6. Sense of well-being (Seems self-confident, harrv, and comfortable in most situations). 7. Rapport with teacher (Two-way communication which seems to bring enjoyment to both child and teacher; relatively open and re-laxes). 8. Describe any char<j*eristic of social behavior which you f e e l could interfere with this child's educational progress: 9. Comment upon the child's apparent c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r forming friendships and i d e n t i -f y i n g with groups such as Boy Scouts, YMCA, and the l i k e : 71 EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Check th e column P l e a s e note t h a t which f o l l o w . w h ich b e s t d e s c r i b e s a h i g h Score may not t h i s c h i l d ' s be d e s i r a b l e e m o t i o n a l on a l l o f development. the items Item t o be e v a l u a t e d ( I s a b l e t o cope w i t h o f l i v i n g ; a d j u s t s t o o f d i f f i c u l t y ) . id d i s p l a y s L i t t l e 1 Moderate 3 i 4 17 E m o t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y normal f r u s t r a t i o n s chance w i t h minimum ( E x p r e s s e s ' E n o t i o n a l c o n t r o l emotions a p p r o p r i a t e l y ; b u r s t s r a r e l y o c c u r ) an< e m o t i o n a l out 3 . 6 p e n n e s s to e x p e r i e n c e (Appears t o be re-c e p t i v e t o new'tasks or e x p e r i e n c e s ; seems a b l e t o t a k e r e a s o n a b l e r i s k s ; can respond n a t u r a l l y t o u n u s u a l o r unexpect-ed st inu11 . )  Enthusiasm ( E n t e r s i n t o most a c t i v i t i e s • w i t h e a g erness and w h o l e h e a r t e d p a r t i c i -p a t i o n ; m a i n t a i n s e n t h u s i a s m f o r d u r a t i o n o f a c t i v i t y ) 5. S e l t - a c c c p t a n c c (Seems t o u n d e r s t a n d and a c c e p t s e l f ; a b l e t o view s e l f i n terms of both l i m i t a t i o n s and a b i l i t i e s ) Z~. Independence ( B e h a v i o u r u s u a l l y i s d i c -t a t e d by h i s own s e t o f v a l u e s ; i s con-cerned w i t h the freedom t o e x p r e s s i d e a s and f e e l i n g s ) L o n l o r m i t y ( B e h a v i o u r i s i n f l u e n c e d by e x p e c t a n c i e s and d e s i r e s o f o t h e r s ) I n f l u e n c e o f a d u l t s I n f l u e n c e ct peers A n x i e t y over achievement (Seems a n x i o u s about ach i e v e m e n t ; w o r r i e d or concerned about schoo l w o r k or t h e i m p r e s s i o n any erforrr.ance makes on o t h c r s ) ompet i t i v e n e s s (Has h i g h s t a n d a r d s f o r p e r f o r m a n c e , u s u a l l y d e s i r i n g t o do as w e l l or b e t t e r than p e e r s ' 1 lTTT r r r Dominance ( A s s e r t s s e l f w i t h i n f l u e n c e i n a q r n u r s i t u a t i o n ) A g g r e s s i v e n e s s ( A c t s w i t h apparent i n -t e n t to h u r t o t h e r s ) t e n t i n n u r ; u t n e r s i • • | i » i 1 2 . b e s c r i b e any e m o t i o n a l i m m a t u r i t y or o t h e r p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w h i c h c o u l d h i n d e r t h i s c h i l d ' s development. 72 Appendix B Test Instrument for Problem Solving Experimenter Introduction Student Information Form The Prisoner Problem The Horse Trader Problem The Two String Problem Problem Solutions 73 EXPERIMENTER INTRODUCTION Subjects were briefed about the experimental situation as follows: I am interested in how students your age solve problems, particularly the different ways you go about getting answers to problems. I have a small set of problems for you. You may find them quite easy or quite d i f f i c u l t . I am only interested in individual answers, so please keep your work to yourself. I w i l l hand you an envelope containing four pages. Please do not take out a page u n t i l requested to do so. The f i r s t page simply requires information about yourselves. The three pages contain the problems. You w i l l be given a time li m i t for each problem, after which you w i l l fold your answer page and return i t to the envelope. Let's begin. i Name Male : Female Birthdate (Month) (Day) (Year) School > 1. THE PRISONER PROBLEM Below i s a diagram showing the arrangement of ce l l s in a State prison. One day the prisoner in the c e l l marked "x" went crazy and broke through a c e l l to the next prisoner and k i l l e d him. I He then proceeded to each c e l l and k i l l e d the prisoner there. After each was dead, he would drop the body and go onto the next. He would never go back to a c e l l containing a dead body. Every c e l l contained a prisoner, he never went through a c e l l without murdering the occupant, and he never broke through an outside wall or corner. When the police f i n a l l y came, he had just k i l l e d the last inmate in the c e l l marked "o". Show on the diagram below a path he might have taken to arrive at that c e l l last. X o II. THE HORSE TRADER PROBLEM A man bought a horse f o r $60.00 and sold i t f o r $70.00. He then bought i t back f o r $80.00 and sold i t for $90.00. How much money did he make i n the horse business. Check one answer below. l o s t $10.00 broke even made $10.00 made $20.00 made $30.00 III. THE STRING PROBLEM Imagine 2 pieces of string hung from a ceiling , spaced so far apart you could not reach them both with your hands. Your job is to try and find a way to t i e them together. The only other thing in the room i s a pair of p l i e r s . Since you may not take the strings down, how would you get them together? Answer below on this page. 78 PROBLEM SOLUTIONS P r o b l e m s o l u t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g : P r o b l e m I The P r i s o n e r P r o b l e m : The p r i s o n e r goes t o t h e a d j a c e n t c e l l , k i l l s t h e man t h e r e , r e t u r n s t o h i s own c e l l and p r o c e e d s t o the" o t h e r a d j a c e n t c e l l s . P r o b l e m I I The H o r s e T r a d e r P r o b l e m : c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n made = $20.00 P r o b l e m I I I The Two S t r i n g P r o b l e m : c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n = t i e t h e p l i e r s t o t h e end o f one s t r i n g , t h e n s w i n g i t as a pendulum, g r a s p t h e o t h e r s t r i n g when t h e a r c o f t h e pendulum i s n e a r e s t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e s t r i n g s . ( M a i e r and J a n z e n , 1970) 79 Appendix C Tables 80 Table 1 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Group C o m p o s i t i o n Group E x p e r i m e n t a l (Exp) C o n t r o l (Con) F r e q u e n c y M a l e s 10 Females 11 T o t a l 21 Mean Age ( i n y e a r s ) M a l e s 13.05 Females 13.06 T o r r a n c e T e s t s ( p r e t e s t means) V e r b a l Items Mean F l u e n c y 42.23 Mean F l e x i b i l i t y 54.59 Mean O r i g i n a l i t y 42.64 F i g u r a l Items Mean F l u e n c y 45.30 Mean F l e x i b i l i t y 49.76 Mean O r i g i n a l i t y 50.28 Mean E l a b o r a t i o n 56.45 L o r g e - T h o r n d i k e IQ (mean) 125.71 10 11 21 13.00 13.01 40.40 53.69 41.38 49.16 51.47 52.88 50.16 124.38 1.64 1.02 1.11 1.25 1.12 1.53 1.02 1.24 ,28 .97 ,82 ,62 .81 ,34 .96 ,63 81 T a b l e 2 D e s c r i p t i o n o f E x p e r i m e n t a l V a r i a b l e s and C o r r e s p o n d i n g D a t a S o u r c e s V a r i a b l e S o u r c e Independent V a r i a b l e s Group S c h o o l R e c o r d s Dependent V a r i a b l e s D i v e r g e n t T h i n k i n g | T o r r a n c e T e s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g V e r b a l Form A F l u e n c y F l e x i b i l i t y O r i g i n a l i t y F i g u r a l Form A F l u e n c y F l e x i b i l i t y O r i g i n a l i t y E l a b o r a t i o n P r o b l e m S o l v i n g M a i e r and J a n z e n (1970) R e p r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g P r i s o n P r o b l e m a H o r s e T r a d e r P r o b l e m P r o d u c t i v e T h i n k i n g Two S t r i n g P r o b l e m R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t S t a n f o r d R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t (Form J ) S c h o o l R e c o r d s 82 Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Adjusted Means for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Variable Experimental Group Mean SD (Adj) Control Group Mean SD (Adj) 1 ( D i f f ) Adj ( D i f f ) Pre Test . Verbal Fluency 42 .23 6.31 40.40 4.94 1.83 Verbal F l e x i b i l i t y 54 .59 11.16 53.69 11.07 .90 Verbal O r i g i n a l i t y 42 .64 3.44 41.38 3.27 1.26 F i g u r a l Fluency 45 .30 9.37 49.16 8.38 -3.86 F i g u r a l F l e x i b i l i t y 49 .76 7.56 51.47 8.00 -1.71 i F i g u r a l O r i g i n a l i t y 50 .28 11.85 52.88 8.76 -2.60 F i g u r a l E l a b o r a t i o n 56 .45 11.85 60.16 11.73 -3.71 Postest Verbal Fluency 64. 49 13.29 64 .02 54.45 14.07 55 .12 10.24 8 90 Verbal F l e x i b i l i t y 68. 52 11.01 68 46 55.85 11.18 55 .91 12.67 12. 55 Verbal O r i g i n a l i t y 61. 61 11.50 61. 04 56.09 10.47 56 67 5.52 4. 37 F i g u r a l Fluency 43. 07 7.45 43. 71 40.21 6.00 39. 58 1.86 4. 13 F i g u r a l F l e x i b i l i t y 49. 09 11.04 49. 43 43.59 6.54 43. 26 5.50 6. 17 F i g u r a l O r i g i n a l i t y 54. 16 12.04 54. 41 45.45 8.07 45. 11 8.71 9. 30 Fi g u r a l E l a b o r a t i o n 60. 57 14.79 61. 34 64.57 12.99 63. 80 • -4.00 -2. 46 T a b l e 4 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between C o v a r i a t e ( P r e t e s t ) and C r i t e r i o n ( P o s t e s t ) S c o r e s V a r i a b l e r p V e r b a l F l u e n c y .73 .05 V e r b a l F l e x i b i l i t y .22 .44 V e r b a l O r i g i n a l i t y .91 .07 F i g u r a l F l u e n c y .33 .004 F i g u r a l F l e x i b i l i t y .39 .03 F i g u r a l O r i g i n a l i t y .26 .10 F i g u r a l E l a b o r a t i o n .41 .02 BMDrPIV 84 Comparison of Experimental and Co n t r o l Group Regression Lines Table 5 source o l Variance df MS F P Slope (Exp) Slope (Con) Verbal Fluency 1 61.52 .34 .56 .89 .44 Verbal F l e x i b i l i t y 1 162.20 1.31 .25 .30 -.05 Verbal O r i g i n a l i t y 1 147.23 1.29 .26 1.45 .31 F i g u r a l Fluency 1 39.94 1.05 .31 .22 .45 F i g u r a l F l e x i b i l i t y 1 .60 .00 .93 .37 .40 F i g u r a l O r i g i n a l i t y 1 12.82 .12 .72 .21 .33 F i g u r a l Elaboration 1 969.84 6.33 .02 .82 -.005 BMD: P1V Table 6 Analysis of Covariance for the Torran ce T e s t s of Creative Thinking Source of Variance df SS MS Verbal Fluency Group Covariate Residual Verbal F l e x i b i l i t y Group Covariate Residual Verbal Originality Group Covariate Residual Figural Fluency Group Covariate Residual Figural F l e x i b i l i t y Group Covariate Residual Figural Originality Group Covariate Residual Figural Elaboration 1 1 39 1 1 39 1 1 39 1 1 39 1 1 39 1 1 39 810.06 680.71 6826.94 1652.21 75.32 4853.46 193.53 376.16 4464.58 170.80 345.22 1485.69 394.72 370.04 2925.06 911.18 271.17 3931.43 810.06 680.71 175.04 1652.21 75.32 124.44 193.53 376.16 114.47 170.80 345.22 38.09 394.72 370.04 75.00 911.18 271.17 100.81 4^63 3.88 13.27 .60 1.69 3.28 4.48 9.06 5.26 4.93 9.03 2.69 .04 .05 .008 .44 .20 .07 .04 .004 .02 .03 .004 .10 Group Covariate Residual 1 1 39 61.65 962.71 6788.05 61.65 962.71 174.05 .35 5.53 .55 .02 BMD: P1V r 86 Table 7 Marginal Responses f o r the Maier Problems Response Reproductive Productive Problem 1 Exp Con Problem 2 Exp Con Problem 3 Exp Con Correct Incorrect 7 8 14 13 6 10 15 11 7 3 14 18 T o t a l 21 21 21 21 21 21 Note: Exp = Experimental Group Con = Control Group T a b l e 8 C h i s q u a r e P r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r t h e M a i e r P r o b l e m s E f f e c t d f C h i s q u a r e P r o b l e m 1 1 3.48 .06 Group 1 ^ .00 1.00 I n t e r a c t i o n 1 .10 .74 P r o b l e m 2 1 2.40 .12 Group 1 .00 1.00 I n t e r a c t i o n 1 1.63 .20 P r o b l e m 3 1 2.12 .06 Group 1 .00 1.00 I n t e r a c t i o n 1 2.15 .14 BMD: P3F Table 9 C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix f o r the Three Maier Problems Prisoner Problem (#1) Horse Trader Problem (#2) Two S t r i n g Problem (7/3) (#1) 1.000 .029 .011 (#2) 1.000 -.098 (#3) 1.000 Note. C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i s p h i . 89 T a b l e 10 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t Sum o f Mean F F S o u r c e D.F. Squares S q u a r e s R a t i o P r o b . Between Groups 1 20.0238 20.0238 0.081 0.7778 W i t h i n Groups 1 9922.7461 248.0686 Total 41 9942.7695 

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.831.1-0095077/manifest

Comment

Related Items