ED 036 019

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 004 902

DAVIS, GARY A.; AND OTHERSA PROGRAM FOR TRAINING CREATIVE THINKING: I.PRELIMINARY FIELD TEST.WISCONSIN UNIV., MADISCN.. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTCENTER FOR COGNITIVE LEARNING.OFFICE OF EDUCATION (DHEW) , WASHINGTON, D.C.TR-104NOV 69OEC-5-10-15423P.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.25 BC-$1.25COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, *CREATIVE ABILITY, CREATIVEDEVELOPMENT, *CREATIVE THINKING, *CREATIVITY,*EXCEPTICNAL CHILD RESEARCH, QUESTIONNAIRES, STUDENTATTITUDES, TESTING

A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO DEVELOP THE CREATIVE POTENTIALOF SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS, INCORPORATES IDEAS FRCMA THREE-PART MODEL WHICH CONCEPTUALIZES THE COMPONENTS OF CREATIVITYAS APPROPRIATE CREATIVE ATTITUDES, VARIOUS COGNITIVE ABILITIES, ANDILEA-GENERATING TECHNIQUES. IT ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE STUDENTS'AWARENESS OF, AND APPRECIATION FOR, CHANGE AND INNOVATION; PROVIDEEXERCISE FOR CREATIVE ABILITIES WHICH FACILITATE THE FLUENTPRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL IDEAS; TEACH TECHNIQUES FOR THE SYSTEMATICPRODUCTION OF NEW IDEA COMBINATIONS; AND, THROUGH HUMOR, TO CREATE AFREE ATMOSPHERE ENCOURAGING SPONTANEITY AND IMAGINATION. IN APRELIMINARY FIELD TEST, RESPONSES TO AN ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE ANDTHREE DIVERGENT PRODUCTION TASKS (SUCH AS THINKING OF CHANGES ANDIMPROVEMENTS FOR A DOORKNOB) SHOWED THE PROGRAM TO BE EFFECTIVE.TWENTYTHREE SUBJECTS (21 SEVENTH AND TWO EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS) WHOSTUDIED THE PROGRAM IN A 10-WEEK CREATIVE THINKING COURSE PRODUCED65% MORE IDEAS ON THE DIVERGENT THINKING TASKS (IDEAS WHICH WERE_RATED AS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CREATIVE) THAN 32 SEVENTH GRADE CONTROLSS ENROLLED IN A CREATIVE WRITING COURSE. THERE ALSO WAS GOODINDICATION THAT THE TRAINED SS ACQUIRED MORE CREATIVE ATTITUDES,INCLUDING CONFIDENCE IN THEIR OWN CREATIVE ABILITY, THAN THE CONTROL'SS. (AUTHOR /RAJ)

A PROGRAM FOR TRAININGCREATIVE THINKING:

I. PRELIMINARY FIELD TEST

ri H \, Pr\lE

-CENTER FOR

COGNITIVE LEARNING

Technical Report No. 104

4, I

A PROGRAM FOR TRAINING CREATIVE THINKING:

I. PRELIMINARY FIELD TEST

By Gary A. Davis, Susan E. Houtman,Thomas F. Warren, and William E. Roweton

Report from the Task and Training Variables inHuman Problem Solving and Creative Thinking Project

Gary K. Davis, Principal Investigator

Wisconsin Research and DevelopihentCenter for Cognitive Learr OngThe University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

November 1969

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION t WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS TEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

'PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

Published by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, supportedin part as a research and development center by funds from' the'United States Office of Education,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the Office of Education and no official endorsement by the Officeof Education should be inferred.

Center No. C-03 / Contract OE 5-10-154

NATIONAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE

Samuel BrownellProfessor of Urban EducationGraduate SchoolYale University

Henry -ChaunceyPresidentEducational Testing Service

Elizabeth KoontzPresidentNational Education Association

Patrick Suppe:ProfessorDepartment of MathematicsStanford University

Launer F. CarterSenior Vice President on

Technology and DevelopmentSystem Development Corporation

Francis S. Chas.ProfessorDepartment of EducationUniversity of Chico°

Martin DeutschDirector, institute for

Developmental StudiesNew York Medical College

Jack Ed lingDirector, Teaching Research

DivisionOregon State System of Higher

Education

Roderick McPheePresidentPunahou School, Honolulu

G. Wesley SowardsDirector, Elementary EducationFlorida State University

*Benton J. UnderwoodProfessorDepartment of PsychologyNorthwestern University

UNIVERSITY POLICY REVIEW BOARD

Leonard Borkowitz.ChairmanDepartment of Psychology

Archie A. BuchmillerDeputy State SuperintendentDepartment of Public instruction

*James W. ClearyVice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs

Leon D. EpsteinDeanCollege of Letters and Science

John Guy FowlkosDirectorWisconsin improvement Program

Robert E. GrinderChairmanDeportment of Educational

Psychology

H. Clifton HutchinsChairmanDepartment of Curriculum and

instruction

Clauston JenkinsAssistant DirectorCoordinating Cornmittes for

Higher Education

Herbert J. Mau:meterDirector, R & D CenterProfessor of

ogYEducational

Ps Ychol

Donald J. McCartyDeanSchool of Education

Ira SharkanskyAssociate Professor of Political

Science

Henry C. Wein lickExecutive SecretaryWisconsin Education Association'

M. Crawford YoungAssociate DeanThe Graduate School

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Edgar F. BorgattaBrittingham Professor of

Sociology

Max R. GoodsonProfessor of Educational Policy

Studies

Russell J. Hos lerProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction and of Business

*Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector, R & D CenterProfessor of Educational

Psychology

Wayne OttoProfessor of Curriculum and

instruction (Reading)

Robed G. Petzo IdAssociate Dean of the School

of EducationProfessor of Curriculum and

fnstruction and of Music

Richard L. VonezkyAssistant Professor of English

and of Computer Sciences

FACULTY OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

Ronald R. Allen Gary A. DavisAssociate Professor of Speech Associate Professor of

and of Curriculum and Educational PsychologyInstruction

Vernon L. AllenAssociate Professor of Psydri logy

(On leave 1965.69)

Nathan S. BlountAssociate Professor of English

and of Curriculum andInstruction

Robert C. Calf..Associate Professor of Psychology

Robed E. DavidsonAssistant Professor of

Educational Psychology

M. Vera De VaultProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction (Mathematics)

Frank H. FarleyAssistant Professor of

Educational Psychology

John Guy Fowlkus (Advisor)Professor of Educational

AdministrationDirector of the Wisconsin

improvement Program

Lester S. GolubLecturer in Curriculum and

Instructionand in English

Max R. GoodsonProfessor of Educational Policy

Studies

Warren 0. HagstromProfessor of Sociology

John G. HarveyAssociate Professor of

Mathematics and Curriculumand Instruction

Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector, R & D Center

Professor of EducationalPsychology

Burton W. Km idowProfessor of Educational Policy

Studies and of Agriculturaland Extension Education

Richard G. MorrowAssistant Professor of

Educational Administration

Wayne OttoProfessor of GOITIM11011 and

Instruction (Reading)

Milton 0. PellaProfessor of Curriculum and

Instruction (Science)

Thomas A. RombergAssistant Professor of

Mathematics and ofCurriculum and Instruction

Richard L. VenezkyAssistant Professor of English

and of Computer Sciences

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL*Herbert J. Klausmeier

Director, R & D CenterActing Director, Program 1

Mary R. QuillingDirectorTechnical Section

Thomas A. RombergDirectorPrograms 2 and 3

James E. WalterDirectorDissemination Section

Dan G. WoolpertDirectorOperations and Business

* COMMUTE' CHAIRMAN

STATEMENT OF FOCUS

The Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learningfocuses on contributing to a better understanding of cognitive learning bychildren and youth and to the improvement of related educational practices.The strategy for research and development is comprehensive. It includesbasic research to generate new knowledge about the conditions and processesof learning and about the processes of instruction, and the subsequent develop-ment of research-based. instructional materials, many of which are designed foruse by teachers and others for use by students. These materials are tested andrefined in school settings. Throughout these operations behavioral scientists,curriculum experts, academic scholars, and school people interact, insuringthat the results of Center activities are based soundly on knowledge of subjectmatter and cognitive learning and that they are applied to the improvement ofeducational practice.

This Technical Report is from the Task and Training Variables in HumanProblem Solving and Creative Thinking Project in Program 1. General objec-tives of the Program are to generate new knowledge about concept learning andcognitive skills, to synthesize existing knowledge, and to develop educationalmaterials suggested by the prior activities. Contributing to these Program ob-jectives, this project is focused on investigating creative problem solving asa trainable cognitive skill. The development and testing of creative thinkingprograms follows research on basic problem-solving variables in differentsituations.

iii

Sy

List of Tables

Abstract

I Introduction

II MethodSubjectsProcedureDependent Measures

III ResultsCreativity Tests

Hot Dog ProblemDoorknob ProblemCoat Hanger Problem

Attitude QuestionnaireAdditional Information

IV Discussion

References

Appendices

CONTENTS

'et

, -

Page

vii

ix

1

3333

5556668

9

11.

13

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Summary of Results: Hot Dog Problem 5

2 Summary of Results: Doorknob Problem 6

3 Summary of Results: Coat Hanger Problem 7

4 Summary of Attitude Questionnaire Results 7

5 Summary of Student Evaluations 8

S

vii

111"4141OVINVI4044400,1040.00LIWORRo*R..RR' .R.R, 1.4"

3'

7.1

ABSTRACT

A three-part model conceptualizing the components of "creativity" as(1) appropriate creative attitudes, (2) various cognitive abilities, and(3) idea-generating techniques, suggests a structured approach for improv-ing creative thinking. Thinking Creatively: A Guide to Training Imagination,a program designed to develop the creative potential of Sixth-, Seventh- andEighth-Grade students, incorporates many concepts and principles of thisthree-part model. It attempts to: increase students' awareness of, andappreciation for, change and innovation; provide exercise for creative abil-ities which facilitate the fluent production of original ideas; teach tech-niques for the systematic production of new idea combinations; and, throughhumor, to create a free atmosphere encouraging spontaneity and imagination.

In a preliminary field test, responses to an attitude questionnaire andthree divergent production tasks (such as thinking of changes and improve-ments for a doorknob) showed the program to be effective. Twenty-three Ss(21 Seventh- and 2 Eighth-Grade students) who studied the program iri a 10-week creative thinking course produced 65% more ideas on the divergentthinking tasks (ideas which were rated as significantly "more creative")than 32 Seventh-Grade control Ss enrolled in a creative writing course.There also was good indication that the trained Ss acquired more creativeattitudes, including confidence in their own creative ability, than the con-trol is .

,04

ix

INTRODUCTION

Stimulating or teaching creative thinkingis generally accepted as an important goal ofeducation. However, there have been rela-tively few answers to the obvious question:What do you teach when you "teach creativity?"In spite of considerable inherent differencesin individual abilities, growing evidence indi-cates creative problem-solving skills can beincreased (Davis, 1969; Davis, Manske, &Train, 1967; Edwards, 1968; Olton & Crutch-field, 1969; Fames, 1962). Creative indi-viduals appear to possess certain facilitativeattitudes (awarenesses, sets, predispositions) ,various cognitive abilities which contribute tothe production of new combinations of ideas,and they often use particular techniques forsystematic idea generation. While strategiesexist for strengthening genetically determinedcreative abilities through exercise (Myers &Torrance, 1964, 1965a, 1965b, 1966a, 1966b,1968), it is the attitudes and techniques whichmore clearly may be defined and taught. Thepresent experiment was a preliminary field-test of Thinking Creatively: A Guide to Train-ing Imagination, a program designed to increasethe creative potential of Sixth- to Eighth-Gradestudents by teaching appropriate attitudes andparticular creative thinking techniques.

Attitudes may be defined as learned, emo-tionally toned predispositions to react con-sistently, favorably or unfavorably, towardspersons, objects, or ideas (Klausmeier &Goodwin, 1966, p. 343). One of the mostimportant attitudes contributing to creativedevelopment is simply a favorable reactiontoward "wild," imaginative ideas, an attitudewhich would predispose S to produce imagina-tive ideas and be receptive to the "wild" ideasof others. Another important attitude conduciveto creative behavior has been named "construc-tive discontent" (Parnes, 1966): the notionthat virtually any object (literary, artistic,technological, or even such common objectsas thumbtacks and doorknobs) can be changed

for the better. Also important is an apprecia-tion for the critical role of innovation in allaspects of our fast-changing societyespec-ially in regard to one's own future occupation.Finally, the attitude that we can learn to bemore productive and more original thinkers isboth important and teachable.

In addition to attempting to teach attitudes,Thinking Creatively presents techniques forsystematically producing new combinations ofideas. Most of these procedures are simplifiedforms of effective creative thinking techniquestaught in many university and industrial crea-tivity training programs (Davis, Manske, &Train,,1967; Edwards, 1968; Olton & Crutch-field, 1969; Farness 1962), and were originallyderived from introspective reports of highly cre-ative individuals.

One of the most basic is the PART-CHANGINGmethod, an adaptation of Crawford's (1954) attri-bute listing procedure. The student learns toidentify important attributes or parts of an ob-ject, considering each attribute as a source ofpotential improvement. For example, with anobject as simple as a button, students learn toidentify the attributes of size, shape, color,and material. By considering changes for eachof these individual attributes, ideas for a largevariety of buttons may be quickly produced. ThePART-CHANGING procedure both sensitizes stu-dents to properties of objects and provides themwith a simple yet effective means of innovation.

Another technique is the CHECKERBOARDmethod, a simplification of the morjhologicalurtthesis technique (Allen, 1962). Studentsfirst list specific ideas for changing one partof an object along one axis o! a two-dimensionaldiagram, and specific ideas fo: another partalong the other axis; novel idea combinationsare found in the intersecting squares of theCHECKERBOARD. For example, if students wereasked to "invent new kinds of vehicles whichhave never before been considered," they mightlist types of vehicle bodies along one axis, list

1

potential sources of vehicle power along theother axis, then examine the many idea com-binations occurring in the cells of the matrix.Since this procedure invariably produces anenormous quantity of idea combinations in avery short period of time, the production oftotally new ideas, some of which may be sur-prisingly valuable, is virtually guaranteed.

With the CHECKLIST procedure, studentsconsider each item on a prepared list as a pos-sible source of innovation in respect to a givenproblem. For example, a history book may serveas a "checklist" of ideas for writing themes orshort stories; the Yell,w Pages could provideideas for vocational guidance or for uses andmarkets for new inventions . There also existchecklists designed specifically for creativeproblem solving. Thinking_Creatively instructsstudents in the use of lengthy idea checklistfor improving objects shown in Appendix A, andin using the shorter, seven-item idea checklist:

Change ColorNew SizeChange ShapeNew Material.Add or Subtract Something

. Rearrange ThingsNew Design

Other idea-finding techniques include usingdeliberate metaphorical activity, i.e., askinghow other people, or even animals, plants, andinsects, have solved similar problems (Gordon,1961); proposing "ideal" or "perfect" problemsolutions (such as having the problem solve it-self), and then thinking of workable ways ofimplementing the perhaps far-fetched ideal

2

,f- %,. , '..,,,

solution; and thinking of how a given problemmay be solved a hundred or thousand years inthe future.

In Thinking Creatively, the above attitudesand creative thinking techniques are presentedto the student in such a way that he should eas-ily be able to comprehend and then apply themto a variety of short exercises in the programand, hopefully, to future educational, voca-tional, and other personal problems of his own.The content of the program is in the form ofdialogue among four story characters: Dudleyand Maybelle, a young boy and girl approxi-mately the age of the students reading the pro-gram, their pet bear Max, who epitomizes "whatcreativity shouldn't be," and Mr. I, a backyardscientist-inventor who teaches the critical atti-tudes and techniques to the others. Throughoutthe program, the four friends-attack numeroussimple and complex problems: Mr. I explainsthe creative problem-solving procedures andattitudes likely to aid in solving a given prob-lem, And Dudley, Maybelle, and sometimesMax use the principles to produce specificproblem solutions.

Humor in the situations and dialogue providesa motivational vehicle intended to maintain stu-dents' interest as they learn. In addition, thehumor contributes toAhe free atmosphere re-quired for a spontaneous and uninhibited imag7ination: . . .

In sum then, the purpose of the present re-searc was to test, in .a preliminary fashion,the effectiveness of Thinking Creatively for in-creasing the creative potential of junior highschool students by teaching them certain atti-tudes and creative thinking procedures.

METHOD

SUBJ ECU

Twenty-one Seventh- and two Eighth-Gradestudents who volunteered for a creative thinkingcourse comprised the Experimental Group; Con-trol Ss were 32 Seventh-Grade volunteers for acreative writing course .1

PROCEDURE

Over a period of 10 weeks, 45 minutes perday, the Experimental Ss studied the workbookThinking Creatively: A Guide to Training Imagi-nation (Davis (Sc Houtman, 1968) which containedvarious techniques and attitudes (describedabove) assumed to increase creative potential.The instructor and students read through theprogram together in. class, often discussing theprinciples and procedures of creative thinking.

Exercises at the end of each chapter, whichwere discussed and solved as a class, providedpractice with a given creative thinking proce-dure and gave as an opportunity to be imagina-tive, open-minded, and flexible. The instructoroccasionally devised additional problems for theclass to solve.2

1The authors are very grateful for the ex-cellent cooperation and assistance of MissGretchen Collins, Assistant Principal, Mr.Robert Mull, instructor of the creative thinkingcourse, and Mrs. Donna Waterston, who taughtthe creative writing course, all of CentralSchool, Glencoe, Illinois.

2Several of Mr. Robert Mull's exerciseshave been incorporated into the final revisionof Thinking Creatively.

DEPENDENT'MEASURES

At the end of the 10. weeks, as in the Experi-mental and Control Groups worked on threeproblem-solving tasks. The first (Hot Dog)problem asked as to "Pretend you are going toopen a hot-dog stand at the State Fair. Youwould like to have some new and different kindsof hot-dogsnew kinds of wieners or buns orboth. How many ways can you think of to in-vent some new kinds of hot-dogs? You willhave 15 minutes." For the second (Doorknob)problem, the instructions were to "List as manyways as you can to change or improve a door-knob. You will have 10 minutes." In the third(Hance) problem, students were asked to "Thinkof c lerent ways to use a wire coat hanger.What are they? You will have 10 minutes."Accompanying each problem statement were twopages containing 33 numbered blanks. The aswere advised that they could write on the backsof these pages if additional space were needed.

For each of the three tests, six dependentmeasures were available:

(1) Total number of responses

(2) Mean "originality" (or uniqueness) asrated on a 7-point scale, "very common"to "very rare; " by Judges

(3) Number of original ideas (ideas ratedabove the "originality" scale midpoint,II 41, )

(4) Mean "practicality" (or usefulness,feasibility) as rated on a 7-point scale,"very impractical" to "very useful," byjudges

(5) Number of practical ideas (ideas ratedabove the "practicality" scale midpoint,II 411)

(6) Number of ideas rated above scalemidpoints on both originality and prac-ticality.

3

The Ss in both groups were also given an 18-item attitude questionnaire designed to detectindividuals' feelings about creativity in generaland in relation to themselves. More specifically,this questionnaire (reproduced in Appendix B)sought to determine Ss' appreciation for and re-ceptivity to imaginative ideas, their awarenessof creativity and innovation, and their perceptionof their own creative capacity. Instructions onthe cover of the questionnaire advised studentsthat "These questions deal with how you feelabout new ideas and thinking. For each ques-tion, place a checkmark in the blank which best

4

describes the degree to which you think thatthe statement is true. There are no 'right' or'wrong' answers; just be honest." A 9-pointscale, in the form of 9 numbered blanks, ap-peared after each of the 18 questions. Three ofthe scale points were labelled "Never True" (1),"One-Half True" (5), and "Always True" (9).

For additional information on Thinking Cre-atively, 20 of the Experimental Ss respondedto five questions intended to determine if theyfelt the program was difficult to read or under-stand, if it was interesting and enjoyable, andif the exercises seemed too complex.

1-1

III

RESULTS

CREATIVITY TESTS

Since four Experimental (both Eighth-Giadeplus two Seventh-Grade students) and two Con-trol Ss did not take all three tests, these sixSs were eliminated, leaving a final N for theExperimental Group of 19 Ss and for the ControlGroup of 30 Ss.

Hot Dog Problem

Mean performance scores for as in the Ex-perimental and Control Groups, for all six de-pendent measures, are summarized in Table 1.The results of separate analyses of variance on

these data also appear in Table 1. It can beseen that the trained Experimental as performedin an impressively more creative fashion thandid the Control Ss. The as in the ExperimentalGroup produced reliably more ideas which, onthe average, were rated as more original. Ex-perimental Ss also produced a significantlygreater number of ideas scored above the scalemidpoint ("4") in "Originality, " and signifi-cantly more ideas scored above the scale mid-points in both "originality" and "practicality."The finding that Control Group ideas were ratedas significantly more "practical," comparedwith ideas listed by Experimental Ss, was notsurprising since earlier studies consistentlyshowed a strong negative relationship between

Table 1

Summary of Results: Hot Dog Problem

DependentMeasure

Group Means F1,47 E<Experimental Control

Mean No. Ideas 24.26 15.80 12.22 .001

Mean Originality Rating 4.51 4.05 6.11 .02(7-point Scale)

Mean Practicality Rating 4.21 4.94 15.84 .001(7-point Scale)

Mean No. Ideas Above Scale 8.00 3.80 5.84 .02Midpoint in Originality

Mean No. Ideas Above Scale 9.47 7.50 1.50Midpoint in Practicality

Mean No. Ideas Above Scale 1.89 1.30 10.50 .002Midpoint in Originality

and Practicality

5

rated originality and rated practicality (Manske& Davis, 1968). In the Hot Dog Problem, thePearson correlation between the originality andpracticality ratings was r = -.61.

Doorknob Problem

Mean performance scores and their relatedF's are summarized in Table 2. Again, creativeproduction by the trained as was strikingly su-perior to that of the Control Ss . ExperimentalSs produced significantly larger numbers of .

ideas, their mean originality ratings were higher,they listed more ideas rated above the scale mid-point in "originality," and they generated moreideas rated as both "original" and "practical."Unlike the "practicality" rating: results in theHot Dog Problem, with the Doorknob Problemthe-Control Ss' ideas were not ratedas signifi-cantly,more practical than the ideas of the Ex-perimental Ss, although the negative relation-ship between originality and practicality wasagain evident t = -.46) .

Cost Hanger Problem

Theresults of the Coat Hanger Problem ap-pear in Table 3. As-mith the other two problems,EXperimental Ss produced significantly moreideas, which .were rated as .higher in originality,and greater numbers of ideas rated in the upper

half of the originality scale. The Experimentaland Control as did not differ significantly inmean practicality ratings nor in the numbers ofideas rated above average in both originalityand practicality.

ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE

Eighteen Experimental (16 Seventh- plus thetwo Eighth-Grade) Ss and 32 Control Ss com-pleted the attitude questionnaire (Appendix B),an experimenter-designed instrument intendedto detect attitudes related to creative thinking.Analyses of variance on each of the 18 itemsshowed just three of these items to reflectstrong attitudinal differences between the Ex-perimental and Control Ss. Four more itemsshowed "suggestive" differences between thetwo groups. With one of these items (Item 16),the Control Ss responded in the more creativedirection. The particular items, Experimentaland Control Group means, F's, and associatedprobabilities appear in Table 4.

Generally, the questionnaire results providesome qualified support for the hypotheses thatThinking Creatively will increase a student'sconfidence in his ability to be creative (Items10 and 7), increase his awareness of creativeinnovation (Items 1 and 17), and increase hisappreciation for the importance of unusualideas in creative problem solving (Items 5and 14).

Table 2

Summary of Results:, Doorknob Problem

DependentMeasure

Group. Means r1,47 P.Experimental Control

Mean No. Ideis

Mean Originality Rating(7-point Scale)

Mean Practicality Rating

Mean No. Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Originality

Mean No. Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Practicality

Mean No. Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Originality

and Practicality

21.16

4.76

4.30

8.11

6.47

1.58

14.13

4.16

4.38

2.87

4.87

.600

5.52

9.54

.16

19.56

1.44

10.95

.02

.003

.0001

.002

6

n "

Table 3

Summary of Results: Coat Hanger Problem

DependentMeasure

Group Means-1,47 p.<Experimental Control

Mean No. Ideas

Mean Originality Rating

Mean Practicality Rating

Mean No. Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Originality

Mean No. Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Practicality

Mean No . Ideas Above ScaleMidpoint in Originality

and PraCticality

20.68

4.58.

3.63

9.37

4.16

.05 .

10.83

3.43

3.87

3.20

3.67

.23.

13.18

9.49

.35

20.74

.31

.. 1.25

.001

.004

.0001

Table 4

Summary of Attitude Questionnaire Results

ItemGroup Means

Experimental Control

al. just about anything in the worldcould be changed for the better.

b5. Creative thinkers do not spendtime on wild ideas.

a7. I think my ideas are about asgood as anyone else's.

a10. I think I am creative.

b14. It's best to make sure an idea isa good one before suggesting it toa group.

*b16. I usually criticize wild ideas, nomatter who produces them.

a17 I often look for better ways of do-ing things.

7.28 6.16-' 7

2.22 4.16

6.22 5.31

6.28 5.16

3.78 6.56

4.00 3.03

7.11 6.28

1,48 2.

1.46 .23

7.92 .007

2.08 .16

3.91 .05

17.08 .001

1.99 .16

2.38 .13

aHigher score considered more creative.

bLower score considered more creative.

Control group responded more creatively.

7

The results with Item 16, suggesting thatthe trained Experimental Ss are more criticalof "wild" ideas than the Control Ss, areunexplainable. Item 16 was one of six items(Items 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18; see Appendix B)intended .to measure Ss' appreciation for andreceptiveness to unusual, innovative ideasattitudes given considerable emphasis inThinking Creatively. All items except Item 16showed the Experimental as to respond in themore creative direction; with Items 5 and 14,the differences were statistically significant.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Sixteen Experimental as responded to thefive questions shown in Table 5. It can beseen that most of the as who studied ThinkingCreatively felt the program was not difficult toread or understand, nor were the exercises toodifficult. The majority of their responses alsoindicated that, "compared with other books orworkbooks," Thinking Creatively was interest-ing and enjoyable.

Table 5

Summary of Student Evaluations

ItemFrequency

Yes No Sometimes No Opinion

1. Was the program, "Thinking Creatively,"difficiat to read?

2. Was the program, "Thinking Creatively,"difficult to understand?

3. Were the exercises too difficult?

4. Compared with other books or workbooks,did you find the program interesting?

5. Compared with other books or workbooks,did you find the program enjoyable?

0 13 3

0 14 2 0

0 9 6 1

10 3 2

9 3 3 1

8

IvDISCUSSION

The overall results of this preliminary fieldtest are very encouraging. With the brief"creativity" tests, Ss in the ExperimentalGroup produced 54% (Hot Dog Problem), 50%(Doorknob Problem), and 91% (Coat HangerProblem) more ideas than the Control Ss.Also , the ideas of the trained Ss were ratedas significantly more "original" than theideas of the Control Ss. Furthermore, whilethe results of the attitude questionnaire werenot overwhelmingly strong nor completely .

unambiguous, they definitely suggest thatthe Experimental Ss did indeed feel morecreative, more appreciative of imaginativeor "wild" ideas, and more aware of the .

importance of change and innovation aftertraining.

While these results are considered favor-able, certain qualifications must be noted.First of all, it is difficult to determine whetherthe superior performance of the ExperimentalSs was due entirely to the training program, tothe creative behavior of the particular instructor,or to some combination of these two. Discus-sions with the instructor and informal observa-tions of student-teacher interaction left littledoubt that the instructor contributed greatly toan open and creative atmosphere by directlyencouraging imaginative behavior. Consequently,though we assume the program to be mainly re-sponsible for the positive results, it is difficultto determine the exact extent of its contributionsindependent of those of the instructor.

Subject selection also was not random, withthe Experimental Group comprised of volunteersfor a course in creative thinking. While sucha sampling procedure may favor more creativeSs, the Control Group, comprised of volunteersfor a creative writing course, should also at-tract more creative Ss. The teachers of theExperimental and Control Groups, and anassistant principal who also was familiar withthe students involved, felt the two groups wereindeed comparable in initial creative ability.

Another question relates to the validity ofthe "creativity tests" for measuring "true,"long-term creative ability. That is, can thefluent and original performance of as in theExperimental Group on our three idea-productiontasks be taken to mean that these students aretruly "more creative" than the Control Ss? Thecriterion problem, concerning the difficulty ofmeasuring creative ability, certainly is notunique to the present experiment and, unfor-tunately, the present authors cannot satisfac-torily answer this question better than others.For research purposes, we must assume thatSs' test performance is a "fair" predictor offuture open-minded and imaginative behavior.Studies validating similar tests against numer-ous criteria of creative ability lend support tothis assumption (Torrance, 1965, 1967).

Regarding the 18-item attitude questionnaire,only three items differentiated the Experimentaland Control Groups beyond the .05 significancelevel; four more items were suggestive of dif-ferences between the two groups. It is diffi-cult, therefore, to determine whether most ofthe items were insensitive to "true" differencesbetween the Experimental and Control. Groups,or if these differences simply were very slight.Also, with those differences which did occur(see Table 4 on page 7), one might ask whetherthe responses of the Experimental as to thequestionnaire were the "right" answers, astaught in the program, or if the attitudes ofthese as were truly altered in a more creativedirection. It is important to note that someitems, to which the Experimental as respondedmore creatively than the Control Ss, reflectattitudes not directly taught in the program:

Item 7. "I think my ideas are about asgood as anyone else's."

Item 10. "I think I am creative."

Item 17. "I often look for better ways ofdoing things."

9

;r

Generally then, the available questionnaire,data do suggest that the Experimental Ss ac-quired more creative attitudes. Of particularinterest is the finding that the Experimental Ssshowed more confidence in their creative ability(Items 7 and 10), a finding which often occursafter systematic training in creative thinking(Mason, 1960; Parnes, 19612) . Furthermore,the very favorable performance of.the Experi-mental as on the three idea-production testsprovides strong evidence that these as had ac-quired attitudes associated with liberally pro-ducing imaginative ideas.

Despite some difficulties, the results ofthis preliminary field test provide considerable

10

evidence that the program Thinking Creatively:A Guide to Training Imagination is effective inincreasing the creative potential of (mainly)Seventh-Grade students. Based upon theseresults, the authors (Davis & Houtman, 1968)have revised Thinking Creatively, primarily byadding exercises, shortening some chapters,and generally polishing the dialogue. Futurelarge-scale field studies of the revised program,using modified tests and questionnaires, shouldprovide information regarding the effectivenessof this program for different age and abilitylevels along with producing additional evidencefor the effectiveness of the program for increas-ing creative potential in the schools.

REFERENCES

Allen, M. S. Morphological creativity. Engle-wood Cliffs, N. j.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Crawford, R. P. The techniques of creativethinking. New YOrk: Hawthorn, 1954.

Davis, G. A. Training creativity in adoles-cence: A discussion of strategy. In R. E.Grinder (Ed.), Studies in adolescence. II.New York: Macmillan, 1969, in press. Re-printed in Journal of Creative Behavior, 1969,in press.

Davis, G. A., & Houtman, S. E. Thinking Cre-atively: A guide to training imagination.Wisconsin Re Search and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning, University of Wiscon-sin, 1968.

Davis, G. A., Manske, M. E., & Train, A. J.Training creative thinking. Occasional PaperNo. 6, Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive Learning, University ofWisconsin, 1967.

Edwards, M. 0. A survey of problem solvingcourses. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1968,2 33-51.

Gorden, W. J. J. Synectics. New York:Harper, 1961.

Klausmeier, H. J., & Goodwin, W. Learning andhuman abilities. New York: Harper, 1966.

Manske, M. E., & Davis, G. A. Effects ofsimple instructional biases upon perform-ance in the Unusual Uses Test. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 1968, 79, 25-33.

Mason, J. G. How to be a more creative execu-tive. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Invitationsto thinking and doing. Boston: Ginn, 1964.

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Can yo_ uimagine? Boston: Ginn, 1965. (a)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Invitationsto speaking and writing creatively. Boston:Ginn, 1965. (b)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. For thosewho wonder. Boston: Ginn, 1966. (a)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Plots, puz-zles and ploys. Boston: Ginn, 1966. (b)

Myers, R. E., & Torrance, E. P. Stretch.Minneapolis: Perceptive, 1968.

Olton, R. M., & Crutchfield, R. S. Develop-ing the skills of productive thinking. InP. Mussen, J. Langer, and M. V. Covington(Eds.), New directions in developmentalpsychology. New York: Holt, 1909, inpress.

Parnes, S. J. Can creativity be increased?Iii S. J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds.),A source book for creative thinking.New York: Scribner's, 1962, Pp. 185-191.

Parnes, S. J. Workbook for creative problemsolving institutes and cOurses. Buffalo:Creative Education Foundation, 1966,

Torrance, E. P. Rewarding creative behavior.Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,1965.

Torrance, E. P. The Minnesota studies of cre-ative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior,1967, 1, 137-155.

11

APPENDIX A

MR. I'S CHECKLIST FOR NEW IDEAS

Change Color? Change Shape? Add Or Subtract New Design?Something?

Blue Round From Other Countries?Green Square Make Stronger Oriental designYellow Triangle Make Faster Swedish design

Orange Oval Exaggerate Mexican designRed Rectangle Something French designPurple 5-Sided Duplicate Eskimo designWhite 6-Sided Something Russian designBlack 8-Sided Remove American design

Olive Green 10-Sided Something Indian designGrey Lop-Sided Divide Egyptian design

Brown Sharp Cornerit Make Lighter Spanish designTan Round Corners AbbreviateSilver Egg-Shaped Add New Do-DadGold Doughnut- Add New Smell From Other Time?

Copper Shaped New Sound Old WestBrass "U" Shaped New Lights Roaring TwentiesPlaid Other Shapes? New. Flavor Past CenturyStriped New Beep Beep Next CenturyPolka-dotted New Tingle Middle Ages

Psychedelic New Material? Jingle Cave ManFlowers Subtract The PioneerSpeckles Plastic Thing ThatPaisley Glass Doesn't DoPop Art Fiberglass Anything From Other Styles?Other Colors? Formica HippieColor Paper Beatnik

Combination? Wood Rearrange Things? Other WeirdosOther Patterns? Aluminum Ivy League

Nylon Switch Parts Secret AgentCloth Change Pattern Elves and Fairies

New Size? Gunny Sack Combine Parts Clown(Burlap) Other Order of Football Uniform

Longer Cardboard OperationShorter Steel Split UpWider Leather Turn BackwardFatter Copper Upside DownThinner Rubber Inside OutThicker Other Combine PurposesHigher Material? Other Switcheroo?LowerLarger

Combinationof These

Smaller Materials?JumboMinatureOther Size?GPO G11110110-4

13

Name

APPENDIX B

Attitude Questionnaire

Grade

Sex

These questions deal with how you feel about new ideas and thinking.For each question, place a checkrnark ( V ) in the blank which best des-cribes the degree to which you think that the statement is true. For ex-ample:

1. I enjoy new activities.

0) E-e

1

Ht 4t 0

0Z 0

1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, just be honest.

I

Q

15

1. Just about anything in theworld could be changed forthe better.

2. I think I have a good senseof humor.

3. When solving problems, it'sbest to Just find one or twogood ideas, rather than think-ing of lots of possible ideas.

4. Anyone can learn to think ofnew ideas.

5. Creative Thinkers do notspend time on wild ideas.

6. I often think about new ideas.

7. I think my ideas are about asgood as anyone else's.

8. Unusual or wild ideas areusually of no help in solv-ing a serious problem.

9. Finding new ideas is amysterious ability thatJust a few people have.

16

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

.4

4.. .. .e A=0

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8

R

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10. I think I am creative.

11. Writers, scientists, and engi-neers need new ideas, but theaverage person doesn't.

12. Sometimes I am afraid myideas might be laughed at.

13. Wild ideas can sometimeslead to good ideas.

14. It's best to make sure anidea is a good one beforesuggesting it to a group.

15. People can improve theirmemories, but they cannotlearn to think better or getbetter ideas.

16. I usually criticize wildideas, no matter who pro-duces them.

17. I often look for better waysof doing things.

18. It's best to think only ofgood, practical ideas.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

a)

EE-1

t 1RI

.0I

a0

a)

fl)>to3

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9

17

?

GPO 15.4115-4

ADDENDUM

A study of the readability of Thinking Creatively by Gary A. Davisand Susan E. Houtman was performed by Joanne Strike of the WisconsinResearch and Development Center for Cognitive Learning using the Dale-Chall Formula for Predicting Readability.1 Twenty 100-word sampleswere drawn from this book with two samples taken from each of the tenchapters . The average sentence length and the percentage of unfamiliarwords were determined. When this information was applied to the Dale-Chall Formula, the results showed the predicted readability of ThinkingCreatively to be 7th through 8th grade level.

1 Dale, Edgar and Jeanne Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability."Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 11-20.

Dale, Edgar and Jeanne Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability:Instructions." Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 37-54.

19