METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION
1
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES Researchers in each country measured the creativity of 209 eight year old children (120 Canadian, 89 Norwegian) in the spring of 2011 using the Figural version of Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974). Tests were administered as in-school exercises in the native language of each school, and scored independently by Scholastic Testing Service. Analysis of the results was guided by the following questions: Are there any differences in the mean scores of Canadian and Norwegian children? What, if any, differences exist between countries on the sub-score indices (fluency, flexibility, originality, titles, and resistance to premature closure)? What may account for differences, if any are observed? METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES Standard scores provided by Scholastic Testing Service were analyzed using SPSS independent sample T-test comparisons. Results of an overall analysis show significant between-group differences in the children's Originality scores. Further analysis not shown here, which controlled for community size (small, medium and large) points to overall average differences, as well as sub-scale differences in fluency, originality, and titles. The purpose of this research was to explore the early determinants of human ingenuity by investigating environmental and cultural differences between Norway and Canada. By conducting this research, formal collaborative partnerships have been established for the continued investigation of human creativity and ingenuity. The goal of Western’s human ingenuity project (Hansen, 2008) was to identify the characteristics of innovative people working in the trades, technical professions, and engineering. It aimed to identify the source(s) of innovative traits and better understand which experiences, inside and outside of the workplace, play a role in the development of inventive people. Using that framework, this research further explores the role of the environment in fostering and nurturing creative potential. By examining two similar countries with contrasting educational philosophies, the evidence gathered allows more questions to be asked about the role of culture and formal education in the development of creative potential and innovative ideas. 98.43 106.21 101.91 86.63 98.48 96.17 101.43 92.64 89.11 99.27 Average Fluency Originality Titles Elaboration Mean Comparisons - Figural Data Canada Norway * sig t df Sig Mean Difference Std. Error Average 1.26 207 .21 2.27 1.79 Fluency 1.55 207 .12 4.78 3.09 Originality 3.31 207 .001 9.27 2.01 Titles -.87 207 .38 -2.48 2.84 Elaboration -.38 207 .70 -.80 2.07 Closure .24 207 .81 .56 2.35 Independent Samples T-Test Findings support further investigation of the specific ways that culture and pedagogy influence children’s creativity. Though large differences were not found between overall scores on the TTCT, the approach and philosophical underpinnings of formal education in both countries is significantly different. Diversity in teacher training, curriculum requirements, and the role of state-sponsored testing may influence the types of creativity and applied ingenuity children demonstrate in the future. Of particular interest are comparisons between community size, and type of school, as well as a more qualitative study of children’s environments in both countries. The next stage of this research is expected to begin in the spring of 2012. Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC. Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC. Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC. Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Transcript of METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVES
Researchers in each country measured the creativity of 209 eight year old children (120 Canadian, 89 Norwegian) in the spring of 2011 using the Figural version of Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974).
Tests were administered as in-school exercises in the native language of each school, and scored independently by Scholastic Testing Service.
Analysis of the results was guided by the following questions:
Are there any differences in the mean scores of Canadian and Norwegian children?
What, if any, differences exist between countries on the sub-score indices (fluency, flexibility, originality, titles, and resistance to premature closure)?
What may account for differences, if any are observed?
METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Standard scores provided by Scholastic Testing Service were analyzed using SPSS independent sample T-test comparisons. Results of an overall analysis show significant between-group differences in the children's Originality scores. Further analysis not shown here, which controlled for community size (small, medium and large) points to overall average differences, as well as sub-scale differences in fluency, originality, and titles.
The purpose of this research was to explore the early determinants of human ingenuity by investigating environmental and cultural differences between Norway and Canada.
By conducting this research, formal collaborative partnerships have been established for the continued investigation of human creativity and ingenuity.
The goal of Western’s human ingenuity project (Hansen, 2008) was to identify the characteristics of innovative people working in the trades, technical professions, and engineering. It aimed to identify the source(s) of innovative traits and better understand which experiences, inside and outside of the workplace, play a role in the development of inventive people.
Using that framework, this research further explores the role of the environment in fostering and nurturing creative potential. By examining two similar countries with contrasting educational philosophies, the evidence gathered allows more questions to be asked about the role of culture and formal education in the development of creative potential and innovative ideas.
98.43106.21
101.91
86.63
98.4896.17101.43
92.6489.11
99.27
Average Fluency Originality Titles Elaboration
Mean Comparisons - Figural Data
Canada Norway
* sig
t df Sig Mean Difference
Std. Error
Average 1.26 207 .21 2.27 1.79
Fluency 1.55 207 .12 4.78 3.09
Originality 3.31 207 .001 9.27 2.01
Titles -.87 207 .38 -2.48 2.84
Elaboration -.38 207 .70 -.80 2.07
Closure .24 207 .81 .56 2.35
Independent Samples T-Test
Findings support further investigation of the specific ways that culture and pedagogy influence children’s creativity. Though large differences were not found between overall scores on the TTCT, the approach and philosophical underpinnings of formal education in both countries is significantly different. Diversity in teacher training, curriculum requirements, and the role of state-sponsored testing may influence the types of creativity and applied ingenuity children demonstrate in the future.
Of particular interest are comparisons between community size, and type of school, as well as a more qualitative study of children’s environments in both countries. The next stage of this research is expected to begin in the spring of 2012.
Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC.Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC.
Hansen, R. (2008, May). Experience trumps knowledge: The awkward position of schools and teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Vancouver, BC.
Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
