117

DEMETRIOS P. STASI NOS

Enhancing the CreativePotential and Self-Esteemof Mentally HandicappedGreek Children*

Psychologists dealing with the nature of creativity and per­sonality characteristics of the creative person assumed that:

1. The ability to think creatively is present. at leastpotentially. in almost all persons including men­tally handicapped (MH) children (Crutchfield.1966; Maslow. 1959; Rogers. 1959).

2. Creative individuals tend to display strong self­acceptance and positive self-evaluative behavior(Fromm. 1959; Guilford, 1950).

Researchers confirmed these assumptions when theyfoundthat intelligence appears to be far from a reliable predictorof creativity (e.g., Getzels [, Jackson. 1962). and that the crea­tive person is more self-accepting and displays more positiveself-evaluative attitudes than others (Garwood, 1964; Sears.1960; Terman [, Oden, 1947).

School intervention studies using creativity training pro­grams have shown that creative potential can be enhancedthrough systematic classroom experiences in creative think­ing activities (Britton, 1968; Callahan, 1973; Covington [,Crutchfield, 1965; Feldhusen, Bahlke & Treffinger, 1969;Khatena [, Dickerson, 1973; Meadow & Parnes, 1959). Animplication of the research on the nature and nurture ofcreativity conducted successfully along the continuum ofintelligence is that a school's legitimate function is to trainstudents to increase their creative abilities. When the indi-

"This paper is based on the author's doctoral dissertation, "The Assessmentof a Training Programme for the Development of Creativity and Self·Esteemin Mentally Handicapped Greek Children" (The University of Dundee.Scotland. March. 1981).

Volume 18 Number 2 1984

118

Enhancing the Creative Potentlallind SeIf·Esteem ofMentally Handicapped Greek Children

vidual becomes capable of creative performance, he prepareshimself to be more flexible and to cope with the rapidly chang­ing demands of our society related to work and daily living.

Until recently there has been relatively little research onnurturing creative thinking in intellectually normal childrenand a dearth of such endeavor on MH children who have fre­quently been described as displaying limited adaptive mecha­nisms. Studies of personality characteristics assumed to berelevant to the MH child's creative performance, such as self­esteem which theoretically is thought to be low in this child(Goldstein (, Seigle, 1961), have also been noticeably absent.

AEt.ATED Evidence from twenty years of creativity research suggestsRESEARCH that all individuals have the ability to be creative. except for

pathologies. Controversy exists about the correlation between.creativity and intelligence test scores in children. Dependingmainly on the size and quality of the samples such as thosedrawn from heterogeneous-unselected-populations (Allen,Dacey (, Madaus, 1969; Bowers, 1960; Dacey & Madaus,1971; Hudson, 1966) or consisting of homogeneouslygroup children (Ripple & May, 1962), correlations betweenintelligence and creativity measures reported by thesestudies have ranged from near zero to around +.50 or +.60.In particular, when reviewing the related literature Taylor andHolland (1967) concluded that most studies suggest that therelationship between these two traits is positive but low (.20to .40) in heterogeneous populations and zero or even nega­tive for homogeneous samples at high levels of intelligence.Torrance (I966a), in his review of several related studies,reported that 178 coefficients of correlation yielded a meanscore of .20 between measures of intelligence and a totalscore of creative thinking ability.

When comparing productive thinking abilities of specialclass MH children with those of both regular class MH indi­viduals and intellectually normal children, Tisdall (1962)found no significant differences among the three groups onnonverbal productive thinking scores. Similar findings havebeen reported in comparative studies conducted by Kelson(1965), Smith (1967) and Stern (1963). They explored factorscomprising creative ability throughout the intelligence range.In his investigation, Buffmire (1969) found that MH childrenscored significantly higher than did their intellectually normalpeers on only one nonverbal measure - the mosaic creativitytest. Cawley and Chase (1967), on the other hand, reportedno significant differences between MH and non-MH children ofequal mental age in their productive thinking abilities as

119

The Journal of Crutlve Behallior'

measured by a variety of productive thinking tasks. However,comparative studies have generally shown that MH childrenexhibit greater deficits in verbal as opposed to nonverbal crea­tive thinking abilities that may be related to a lack of expres­sive ability rather than lower creative thinking ability.

Very few intervention studies in creativity of MH childrensuggest that their creative potential can be improved throughtraining involving creative thinking activities, Yet, when apply'ing a predominantly brainstorming-oriented training program,Rouse (1965) found significant improvement in both verbaland nonverbal scores for the experimental group. She con­cluded that brainstorming sessions seem to provide l'a goodvehicle" for experiences "in leaming by doing" and that MHchildren can show significant improvement after them. How­ever, a repeat study by Budoff et at. (1968) failed to confirmRouse's findings, perhaps because of discrepancies betweenthe experimental groups in the studies. Ladner's work (1971 )with the same creativity training program with institutionalizedadolescents supported Rouse's findings. It indicated that en­hancement of creative potential would be feasible in such apopulation and that brainstorming as a teaching tool for MHindividuals has great value. A study by Ross and Ross (1973)involving practice in general problem-solving skills providedstrong evidence that MH children can benefit from formalproblern-solvinq training. When working with a number ofcreativity training activities from the Mark I, New Directions inCreativity (NDC) program (Renzulli, 1973), in a sample of MHsubjects from different special education classes, Ford (1975)found significant improvement by the children. Pinkerton(1979) evaluated the effectiveness of a personal problem­solving training program for MH adults on their self-esteern.He reported no significant change in self-evaluative attitudesof these individuals after the program.

Reviewing studies of MH children to explore the possibilityof enhancing their creative potential through classroom expe­riences in creative thinking activities reveals that, with theexception of Ford (1975), most were deficient in terms of thesample, treatment procedures and training material. Thisdiminished their validity.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-termeffectiveness ofall creative thinking activitiesintheMarkl,NDCprogram to enhance the creative thinking potentjal and self­esteem in MH Greek children. It attempts to avoid the method­ological weaknesses of previous similar studies and providethe subjects with more practice in creative thinking skills. The

120

EnMndng the Creal1ve Potential and SeK-Esteem ofMentally Handicapped Greek ChIIdR!n

Mark I, NDC program consists of a book of 48 spirit masters(24 distinct activities classified according to Guilford's Struc­ture-of-the-lntellect model). Also included is a self-containedteacher's guide with suggestions for individual instruction andfollow-up programming. An initial evaluation study (Callahan,1973) of this program established its effectiveness with intel­lectually normal populations. The program's ability to improvecreative performance and self-evaluative behavior among MHGreek children was evaluated by testing these six hypotheses:

1. Work with the systematic set of the Mark I, NewDirections in Creativity(NDC) materialswould helpMH children achieve higher scores on some Tor·ranee Tests of Creative Thinking (TICT) than MHchildren not so exposed.

2. Male MH children who worked with the Mark I,NDCmaterialswould notgenerallyachievehigherscoreson some of the tests than female MH children whohad also worked with the materials.

3. Exposure to the Mark I, NDC materials would helpMH children to rate themselves higher in Cooper­smith's Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) than MH chil­dren not so exposed.

4. Male MH children who worked with the Mark I,NDCmaterials would not rate themselves higher in theSEI scale than female MH children who also usedthese materials.

5. Mentally handicapped children who worked withthe Mark I, NDC materials would be rated higherby their teachers in Coopersmith'sBehaviorRatingForm (BRF) than MH children who had not workedwith these materials.

6. Female MH children who worked with the Mark I.NDC materials would be generally rated higher bytheir teachers in the BRF scale than male MHchildren who also used them.

SUBJECTS The sample consisted of 90 middle- and upper-grade MH chil­dren in self-contained special education classes at 17 specialstate schools randomly chosen from the urbanareasofAthens,Piraeas, Patras and Jannina in Greece. Eight schools wererandomly assigned to the experimental group and nine to thecontrol. Each group contained an equal number of subjects(N = 45; experimental group: 32 boys and 13 girls; controlgroup: 31 boys and 14 girls). The IQ range of the sample popu-

121

The Journal orCreative Behavior

lation was 50 to 80 and the children ranged in age from 10 to16 years. Over 90 percent of the children's fathers were un­skilled and skilled workers corresponding to the first two cate­gories of social-economic status in Greece (National StatisticalService of Greece, 1975).

Teachers from the special schools assigned to the experi­mental group were provided by the experimenter with theMark I, NDC book and a complete set of creative thinkingactivities for the children. The author translated the NDCprogram into Greek altering it as necessary to make it applic­able to MH Greek children. Each teacher was asked to use theMark I, NDC materials in his classroom at the rate of threeper week for 16 consecutive weeks. The control group classescontinued regular activities during the period.

Control group teachers were told that their classes weretaking part in this experiment and that the performance of theirpupils would be used as a check on the effectiveness of theexperimental program. It was felt that this approach, coupledwith the pre- and posttest assessments, would reduce if noteliminate the Hawthorne effect.

EXPffiIMENTfl. A Pretest-Posttest Control Group design (Campbell [, Stanley,DESIGN 1963) was used since it is perhaps the most frequently em­

ployed design in social science research and easily interpret­able (Cook [, Campbell, 1979).

Verbal and figuralsubtests from the Torrance Tests of Crea­tive Thinking (TTCT) (1968 revised) and two self-esteeminstruments designed by Coopersmith (1967) were used topretest both groups. They were used because of their pastapplicability in several creativity studies with MH populations.The creativity tests were: three verbal (Product Improvement-Forrn B, Unusual Uses-Form B and Just Suppose-Form A)and three figural including the complete set of Form A­Picture Construction, Picture Completion and Lines. The twoself-esteem instruments were Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) tomeasure the children's subjective self-esteem and BehaviorRating Form (BRF) to measure behavioral self-esteem. Thesame examinations and instruments were used in posttesting.At the end of the training period, the experimental groupteachers and the children were asked to complete TeacherandPupil Questionnaires to assess their opinion of the program.

The experimenter personally administered the creativitytests and the subjective self-esteem instrument to both groupsto insure the uniformity of procedures for all subjects. Be­cause of MH children's verbal handicap and the lack of estab­lished norms for measuring their creative thinking potential,

Enhancing the Creative Potential lind Self-Esteem ofMentll/Iy Handic:llpped Greek Children

the investigator decided to disregard the fixed time limitsimposed for all creativity and self-esteem measures. The ex­perimenter allowed the children as much time as needed foreach measure. He also gave writing and spelling assistance tochildren who requested it on the figural creativity tests and Self­Esteem Inventory. Responses to the verbal creativity tests werenoted by the experimenter. Torrance's (1968) and Cooper­smith's (1967) scoring procedures were used by the twoscorers, the experimenter and a secondary school teacherinterested in creativity. In order to provide a more reliableestimate of the research findings and to minimize teacherinfluence on performance and behavior. it was decided to useschool mean scores as the statistical unit for comparisonsbetween schools and the individual pupil scores for compari­sons within schools. To assess the effectiveness of the Mark I.NDC program. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using the GUMprogram (Baker & Neider. 1978) was applied to the pretestand posttest data with the teaching program. school. sex andsex by teaching program treated as variables. ANOVA based

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of scores in pre-test and post­test measures on three verbal tests of creative thinking forexperimental and control groups.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Pre-test Post-testVARIABLE Means S.D.s Means S.D.s

Verbal Fluency 9.31 4.17 21.51 6.6

Verbal Aexibility 6.73 2.92 12.29 3.68

VerbalOriginality 2.56 2.51 6.76 5.03

CONTROL GROUP

Verbal Auency 9.76 5.9 8.8 3.27

VerbalFlexibility 6.64 2.96 5.82 2.45

VerbalOriginality 2.29 3.04 2.09 2.15

TOTAL

Verbal Fluency 9.53 5.08 15.16 8.23

Verbal Flexibility 6.69 2.92 9.06 4.5

Verbal Originality 2.42 2.78 4.42 4.51

122

The Journal of Creative Behavior

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of scores in pre-test and post-test measures on three figural tests of creative thinking forexperimental and control groups.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Pre-test Post·testVARIABLE Means S.D.s Means S.Ds

Figural Auency 20.13 923 27.47 8.94

Figural Aexibility 14.47 631 18.82 4.79

Figural Originality 29.09 16.58 42.58 17.4

Figural Elaboration 22.79 17.45 22.24 12.66

CONTROL GROUP

Figural Auency 19.22 8.68 2033 9.22

Figural Aexibility 14.56 5.56 15.89 5.8

Figural Originality 28.16 14.89 29.87 15.84

Figural Elaboration 20.67 14.98 18.67 13.17

TOTAL

Figural Auency 19.68 8.92 23.9 9.72

Figural Aexibility 14.51 5.91 1736 5.49

Figural Originality 28.62 15.68 36.22 17.74

Figural Elaboration 21.72 16.2 20.46 12.96

123

RESULTSScores on

Creotlvity Tests

on the GUM program with the same sources of variation wasalso applied to the pretest data only, to assess the initial corn­parability of the two groups. In addition, responses to thequestionnaires were tabulated and summarized for the experi­mental group to obtain further information on teacher andchild attitudes toward the training materials.

To assess the initial comparability of the experimental andcontrol groups, an ANOVA was conducted for each creativityand sef-esteem variable in the pretest data using the GUMprogram with the four previously mentioned variables treatedas sources of variation. The only significant differencebetween the groups existed with the variable of sex on theverbal fluency measure (F =4.54; p .05; df =1.71).

Tables 1 and 2 present the means and standard deviationsof scores in pretest and posttest measures on Torrance's three

ChongcslnSelf-Esteem

Table 3

Enhancing the Creative Potential and Self-Esteem ofMentally Handicapped Greek Chlldn:n

verbal and three figural tests of creative thinking, for boththe experimental and control groups. These tables show thatthe means for all measures except two, figural flexibility andfigural elaborations, differed widely between the two groups,with the experimental group consistently attaining the great­est score in five of the seven cases.

An ANOVA was also performed for the pretest-posttest dataseparately for each creativity variable, using the GUM programwith the teaching program and school treated as sources ofvariation. The ANOVA yielded for the verbal and figuralmeasures the following F ratios (df = 1.15 for all measures):Verbal Fluency; F =43.B5; p. 01, Verbal Flexibility; F =34.2b;p. 01, Verbal Originality; F = 12.32; P .01, Figural Fluency;F =6.73; p. 05, Figural Flexibility: F =3.97 (not significant),Figural Originality: F =7.17; p .05, and Figural Elaboration:F = .16 (not significant). These data indicate that the Mark I,NDC program had the greatest effect on the children's verbalcreativity measures. As previously related studies with MHchildren demonstrated (Smith, 1967; Tisdall, 1962), thesechildren exhibit greater deficiencies in verbal as opposed tononverbal creative thinking abilities.

It had been predicted that exposure to the Mark I, NDCmaterials would improve MH children's subjective and

Means and standard deviations of scores in pre-test and post­test measures on two self-esteem scales for experimental andcontrol groups.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

VARIABLEPre-test

Means S.D.sPost-test

Means S.D.s

Self-Esteem Inventory

Behavior Rating Form

26.36 21.16

9.18 5.51

35.39

8.15

24.63

4.12

CONTROL GROUP

Self-EsteemInventory

Behavior Rating Form

26.11

7.36

TOTAL

19.04

2.54

18.18

7.19

11.21

3.39

124

Self-Esteem Inventory

Behavior Rating Form

26.23 20.02

8.27 4.36

26.74

7.67

20.88

3.78

125

The Journal of Creallve Behavior

Table 4 Means and stand~rd deviations of scores in pre-test and post-test measures on three verbal tests of creative thinking formales and females of experimental and control groups takenseparately.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Pre-test Post-testVAR Males Females Males Females

Means S.D.s Means S.D.s Means S.D.s Means S.D.s

Flu 9.81 4.02 8.08 4.42 22.47 6.9 19.15 5.34

Fie 7.12 2.96 5.77 2.68 12.59 3.93 11.54 2.96

Ori 2.62 2.46 2.38 2.72 7.38 5.5 5.23 3.34

CONTROL GROUP

Flu 10.84 6.56 736 3.1 9.06 3.01 821 3.83

Fie 8.00 3.21 5.64 2.06 6.1 2.6 521 2.04

Ori 2.61 3.4 1.57 1.95 2.06 1.81 2.14 2.85

TOTAL

Flu 1032 5.4 7.7 3.74 15.87 8.59 13.48 8.18

Fie 7.11 3.06 5.7 2.33 9.4 4.66 826 4.06

Ori 2.62 2.94' 1.96 2.34 4.76 4.88 3.63 3.42

behavioral self-esteem as measured by Coopersmith's Self·Esteem Inventory and Behavior Rating Form, respectively.Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of scoresin pretest and postlest measures on the two self-esteem scalesfor experimental and control groups. As this table shows, thetwo groups differed greatly in means of the subjective self­esteem measures, with the experimental group attaining thehigher score. In contrast, means of the behavioral self-esteemmeasures were approximately the same for both groups. Whenan ANOVA was performed for the pretest-posttest data sepa­rately for each self-esteem variable using the GUM program,with teaching program and school treated as variables, the Fratios obtained were: subjective self-esteem: F = 11.19; P .01(df =1.15) and behavioral self-esteem; F = 1.09 (not signifi­cant). This indicates there was significant improvement inchildren's subjective self-esteem, probably as a result of thecreativity training program.

126

SaOi/I'erencesInCreatlws

FtiifonuollccandSer~

EnMndng the Ctutfve PotentJallind Self-Esteem of/lllentlllly IVndlapped Greek C11IJdren

It was hypothesized that male MH children who worked withthe Mark I, NDC materials would not achieve higher scores onTorrance's creativity tests than females using these materials,that males would not rate themselves higher in the SEI scalethan females and that females would be generally rated higherby their teachers in the BRF scale than males, both havingworked with these materials. Tables 4 and 5 present the meansand standard deviations of scores in pretest and posttestmeasures on verbal and figural tests of creative thinking,respectively, considered separately for males and females inthe experimental and control groups. Table 6 presents thesame kind of information on the two sell-esteem scales. Thetables show that means on all measures did not differ widely.since both groups attained approximately the same scores inevery case. An ANOVA was performed for the pretest-posttestdata separately for each creativity and sell-esteem variableagain using the GUM program with the variables of school,sex and sex by teaching program. Insignificant F ratios for allmeasures were found - indicating that the program wasequally effective for both sexes.

The pupil and teacher questionnaires used to assessexperimental group reaction to the Mark I, NDC materialsshowed a positive response to the creative activities. In par'ticular, children found most of the activities enjoyable. Theyexpressed a desire to continue working on them and felt theactivities had an influence on their school subjects. Teacherparticipants noticed improvement in the pupils' creative think·ing abilities. However, they made some suggestions for pos­sible program modifications to better serve the needs of MHGreek children. It was suggested that instructions on theactivity sheets should be simplified and that activities requir­ing language skills, particularly those in spelling, should bereduced to a minimum and fewer responses should bedemanded for each activity.'

The findings demonstrate dramatic improvement in creativitytest performance by the experimental group. It was foundthat significant differences between the experimental andcontrol groups existed in five out of the seven creativityfactors. No significant differences were found for figuralflexibility and figural elaboration. The program affected mostlythe subject's verbal fluency, followed by verbal flexibility andverbal originality.

I Due to space limitation. we cannot report the large amount of data fromteacher and pupil questionnaires. Persons interested in such data are invitedto contact the author.

127

The Journal of CreatiYe Behmor

Table 5 Means and standard deviations of scores in pre-test and post-test measures on three figural tests of creative thinking formales and females of experimental and control groups takenseparately.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

'Pre-test Post-testVAR Males Females Males Females

Means S.Ds Means S.D.s Means S.Ds Means S.Ds

Flu 20.19 9.91 20.00 7.66 27.28 9.24 27.92 8.49

FIe 14.56 6.79 14.23 5.18 18.75 4.81 19.00 4.92

Ori 29.34 17.98 28.46 13.13 42.25 18.42 43.38 15.24

Ela 24.31 18.06 19.00 15.88 20.88 12.98 25.62 11.62

CONTROL GROUP

Flu 18.87 7.87 20.00 10.54 19.19 925 22.86 8.97

Fie 14.74 5.46 14.14 5.95 15.42 6.19 16.93 4.88

Ori 27.55 1534 29.15 1429 27.87 15.56 3429 16.11

Ela 20.45 15.78 21.14 13.59 16.9 11.97 22.57 1524

TOTAL

Flu 19.54 8.92 20.00 9.09 233 10.04 253 8.95

Fie 14.65 6.12 14.18 5.48 17.11 5.74 17.93 4.91

Ori 28.46 16.62 29.00 13.49 35.18 18.42 .38.67 16.07

Ela 22.41 16.95 20.11 14.49 18.92 12.55 24.03 13.45

In contrast, Ford's (1975) study indicated that activitiesof this program had the greatest effect on the subject's verbalflexibility, with significant effects on verbal originality andverbal fluency. This discrepancy might be due to the follow­ing reasons:

1. The sample ofFord's studywasnothomogeneous;the subjects came from different classroom set­tings in special education.

2. Ford used part of the Mark I, NDC materials in herstudy, while the present study used the entire setof materials.

128

Enhandna the Crutlve Potential and Self-Esteem ofMena.lly fbndlapped (lrftk Children

3. Different creativity tests were used in the twostudies.

4. The American culture in which Ford's subjectslive perhaps pays greater attention to an indiovidual's flexible development than does Greeksociety.

That the greatest effect came on the subject's verbal fluencymight be attributed to the notion that the Mark I.NDC programattempts "to capitalize on the fluency principle (i.e.• the brain­storming technique) by including a number of exercises thatgenerate a large number of responses" (Renzulli. 1973). Thefact that the greatest differences between the two groups arein verbal creativity rather than figural test scores could bebecause the program appears to be heavily loaded with exer­cises requiring verbal skills. Moreover. the curriculum designused on a tentative basis by special schools throughout Greecehas focused on development of MH children's verbal skills(Department of Special Education. 1974). Such an effectcould also be related to a prejudice among Greek people thatMH children cannot be trained to become flexible and original.

Table 6 Means and standard deviations of scores in pre-test and post­test measures on two self-esteem scales for males and femalesof experimental and control groups taken separately.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Pre-test Post-testVAR Males Females Males Females

Means S.D.s Means S.D.s Means S.D.s Means S.D.s

SEI 24.65 19.71 30.5524.71 37.04 23.11 31.09 28.59

BRF 8.47 5.73 10.92 4.69 7.57 3.4 9.59 5.41

CONTROL GROUP

SEJ 26.62 18.82 24.98 202 18.49 11.81 17.51 10.15

BRF 7.12 2.72 7.9 2.09 6.49 2.86 8.74 4.04

TOTAL

SEJ 25.62 19.15 27.66 2223 27.89 20.54 24.05 21.83

BRF 7.81 4.52 935 3.83 7.04 3.17 9.15 4.68

129

The Journal 01 Cruthte Behavior

Such prejudice might influence the children's family environ­ment, as well as how they are educated in Greek schools.

The two groups did notsignificantly differ in figural flexibilityand figural elaboration measures of creativity for two possiblereasons: Either the program did not have enough nonverbal(drawing) activities and/or their insensitivity precluded effi­cient differentlation of the flexibility and elaboration factorsof creativity by the groups.

It was also noteworthy that the experimental group childrendeveloped significantly more positive self-esteem, as rated bythemselves, than did the control group. Such an indicationimplies that increased classroom opportunities for developingcreative potential might enhance positive subjective self­evaluative behavior among MH children. This conclusionappears to be of major importance since it has been theorized(Goldstein f, Seigle, 1961) that MH children are character­istically prone to seff-devaluation. partly as a result of pastfailures.

The evidence, that the program did not significantly affectthe experimental MH children's behavioral self-esteem maybe explained in two ways. Possibly, behavioral manifestationsof self-esteem were inadequate, thus causing difficulty fortheir teachers in faithfully portraying the children's behavioras a manifestation of their prevailing sell-appraisals. Even ifsuch behavior was adequate, an unconscious distortion mighthave occurred in the behavior ratings by the teachers due toprejudice. From the theoretical standpoint, however, it hasbeen stated that" it is significant that the subjective experienceof esteem, rather than the behavioral assurance or discrepantpersonality, that is most clearly related to ... creative behavior"(Coopersmith, 1967).

The indication that sex made no difference in either the MHchildren's creativity test performance or their self-esteemratings was not surprising because there appears to be con­tradictory research and evidence on the subject. Torrance(1963) attempted to interpret sex differences in creative per­formance of intellectually normal children in terms of sexidentification and differential treatment of the sexes. In gen·eral, he and his associates found few sex differences belowthe fourth grade in samples drawn from various places in theUnited States. Above that level, however, when sex identifica­tion emerges rather strongly, girls usually excelled over boysin creativity, a situation consistent with the greater emphasisAmerican society places on the verbal development of girlsover boys. If that is so, this study's findings should be inter-

130

Enhanclng the Crutive Potential and Self-Esteem ofMentally Handicapped Greek Children

preted to mean that either it takes a long time for MH childrento become sensitive about sex identification and/or differentialtreatment of the sexes among these children does not appearstrong enough in Greek society to determine their level ofcreative functioning.

The indication of this research that creativity and subjectiveself-esteem might be improved through systematic experi­ences in creative thinking has some interesting implicationsfor curriculum development and educational reform in Greekschools. In particular, creative work in the classroom mightchange teachers' attitudes positively. It is also possible tobroaden the teaching of MH children in the Greek system toinclude divergent thinking as well as the basic skills of literacyand numeracy. Moreover, the chief function of special educa­tion in Greece should be the fullest development of thesechildren, taking into account their needs as well as the needsof their society. More specifically, children should be encour­aged to develop their mental abilities through a systematiccreativity training program emphasizing the use of brain­storming technique in problern-solvlnq situations. Further,they should be able to acquire basic skills such as reading andwriting, through participation in Greek language activitiesincluded in a creativity training program. The selection ofcontent to be covered in creative thinking activities shouldbe based on MH children's immediate experiences at homeand in school.

Creative work in the classroom might also change the affec­tive domain of MH children by altering their school interests,enhancing their attitudes toward self and school and irnprov- r

ing their personal, social and occupational adjustment. Such .work helps these children become more flexible and raisestheir self-esteem.

AEfEAENCES AlLEN. A..DACEY.J. [, MADAUS. G. An analysis of two hypotheses concern-ing the relationship between creativity and intelligence. Paper read at the1969 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.February 5-8. 1969. at Los Angeles. California.

BAKER. R. J. [, NELDER. J. A. (eds.). The GUM system. Oxford. England:Royal Statistical Society. 1978. (Release 3. manual)

BOWERS. J. Explorations of creative thinking in the early school years:XIV. A preliminary factor·analytic study of the creative thinking abilitiesof children. Minneapolis. MN: Bureau of Educational Research. 1960.

BRIlTON. R.J. A study of creativity in selected sixth grade groups. Dissene­tion Abstracts. 1968.28 (7). 3546A·3547A.

BUDOFF. M.•MESKIN. J. D. [, KEMLER. D. J. Training productive thinkingof EMRs: a failure to replicate. American Journal of Mental Deficiency.1968. 73. 195-199.

BUFFMIRE. J. A. A comparative study of creative ability in educable retarded

J3J

The Journal of Creative Behavior

and normal children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.UniversityofUtah.1969.

CALLAHAN. C. M. The effects of the Connecticut Mark I creativity program onthe creative thinking of sixth-grade students. Doctoral Dissertation. TheUniversity of Connecticut. 1973.

CAMPBELL D. T. £, STANLEY.J. C. Experimental and quesi-experimentsldesigns for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing. 1963.

CAWLEY. J. F. £, CHASE. D. V. Productive thinking in retarded and non­retarded children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1967.37.356·360.

COOK, T. D. s CAMPBELL D. T. Quasi·experimentation: design andanalysis for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.1979.

COOPERSMITH, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H.Freeman. 1967.

COVINGTON, M. V.£' CRUTCHFIELD. R. S. Facilitation of creative problemsolving. Programmed Instruction. 1965.4 (4), 3·5.10.

CRUTCHFIELD. R. S. Creative thinking in children: its teaching and testing.In Brim. G. G.• Crutchfield. R. S. £, Holtzman. W. H. (eds.), Intelligence:perspectives 1965. NYC: Harcourt. Brace. 1966.

DACEY. J. S. s MADAUS. G. F. An analysis of two hypotheses concemingthe relationship between creativity and intelligence. Journal of Educe­tional Research. 1971. 64 (5). 213·216.

DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION. Curriculum design in specialschool for educable mentally handicapped children. Athens. Greece.1974 (mimeographed edition).

FELDHUSEN. J. F.. BAHLKE. S. J. s TREFFINGER. D. J. Teaching creativethinking. Elementary School Journal. 1969. 70. 48·53.

FORD, B. G. An evaluation of creativity training activities with mentallyretarded youngsters. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Connecticut.1975.

FROMM, E. The creative attitude. In Anderson. H. H. (ed.), Creativity and itscultivation. NYC: Harper £, Row, 1959.

GARWOOD, D. Personality factors related to creativity in young scientists.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1964.68.413·419.

GETZELS. J. W.s JACKSON. P.W. Creativity and intelligence. NYC: Wiley.1962.

GOLDSTEIN, H. £, SEIGLE, D. Characteristics of educable mentally handi·capped children. In Rothstein, J. H. (ed.), Mental retardation. NYC: Holt.Rinehart, 1961.

GUILFORD. J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist. 1950.5.444-454.

GUILFORD, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. NYC:McGraw·HiII. 1967.

HUDSON, L. Contrary imaginations. London: Methuen, 1966.KELSON, F. An assessment of creativity in the retarded child. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1965.

KHATENA, J. £, DICKERSON. E. C. Training sixth grade children to thinkcreatively with words. Psychological Reports, 1973,32.841·842.

LADNER,J. L.Enhancement of productive thinking in institutionalized mentalretardates. Final report Project No. 42·2272; Grant No. OEG·2-700017.Washington, DC: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1971.

MASLOW, A. H. Creativity in self·actualizing people. In Anderson, H. H. (ed.),Creativity and its cultivation. NYC: Harper £, Row, 1959.

MEADOW, A. £, PARNES, S. J. Evaluation of training in creative problemsolving. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1959.43 (3), 189-194.

132

Enhancing the Creative Potential and Self.£steem ofMenUiIy Handicapped Greek Children

NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICEOF GREECE. Statistics of stated incomeof natural persons and the taxation of it during the fiscal year 1974. Athens.Greece. 1975.

PINKERTON. C. A. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a personal problemsolving training program for mildly and moderately retarded adults ontheir self-esteem. adaptive behavior and ability to gen~rate alternativesolutions. Dissertation Abstracts. 1979.39 (8). 4049B.

RENZULLI. J. S. New directions in creativity: mark f. NYC: Harper GRow.1973.

RIPPLE.R. E. [, MAY.J. Caution in comparing creativity and IQ. PsychologicalReports. 1962. to. 229·230.

ROGERS. C. R. Towards a theory of creativity. In Anderson. H. H. (ed.), Cree­tivity and its cultivation. NYC: Harper f, Row. 1959.

ROSS. D. M. f, ROSS. S. A. Cognitive training for the EMR child: situationalproblem solving and planning. American Journal of Mental Deliclencii1973. 78 (1 ). 20·26.

ROOSE. S. T. Effects of a training program on the productive thinking ofeducable mental retardates. American Journal of Mental Deliciencg1965.69.666·673.

SEARS. P.S. The pursuit of self-esteem: the middle childhood years. Unpub·lished paper. Laboratory of Human Development. Stanford University.Stanford. Calitornta, 1960.

SMITH. R. M. Creative thinking abilities of educable mentally handicappedchildren in the regular grades. American Journal of Mental Deficiency1967.71.571-575.

STERN. A. Divergent thinking in educable mentally retarded childrencompared with average and superior children. Doctoral Dissertation. TheUniversity of Texas. 1963.

TAYLOR, C. W. [, HOLLAND. J. L Development and application of testsof creativity. In Mooney. R. L. G Razik.T.A. (eds.), Explorations in creativityNYC: Harper f, Row. 1967.

TERMAN. L. M. G ODEN. M. H. Genetic studies of genius: vol. 4. The giftedchild grows up. Twenty-five years' follow-up of the superior child.Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press. 1947.

TISDALL. W. J. Productive thinking in retarded children. ExceptionalChildren. 1962. 29. 36-41.

TORRANCE. E P. Education and creative potential. Minneapolis. MN:University of Minnesota Press. 1963.

TORRANCE. E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking: norms·technicalmanual. Princeton. NJ: Personnel Press. 1966.

TORRANCE. E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking: directions manualand scoring quide. (Separate booklets for figural form A. figural form B.verbal form A and verbal form B.) Princeton. NJ: Personnel Press. 1968(rev.).

Demetrios P. Stasmos, Lecturer.Address: University of loennina, Psychological Laboratory. loannina. Greece.