View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Problem Space Matters: The Development of Creativity and Intelligence in Primary School Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Problem Space Matters: The Development of Creativity and Intelligence in Primary School Children
Language: English
Authors: Welter, Marisete Maria, Jaarsveld, Saskia, Lachmann, Thomas
Source: Creativity Research Journal. 2017 29(2):125-132.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Creative Development, Intelligence, Elementary School Students, Creative Thinking, Creativity Tests, Scores, Cognitive Development, Intelligence Tests, Statistical Analysis, Correlation
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Raven Progressive Matrices
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302769
ISSN: 1040-0419
Abstract: Previous research showed that in primary school, children's intelligence develops continually, but creativity develops more irregularly. In this study, the development of intelligence, measured traditionally, i.e., operating within well-defined problem spaces (Standard Progressive Matrices) was compared with the development of intelligence operating in ill-defined problem spaces (Creative Reasoning Task) and the development of creativity (Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production), in primary school children (N = 175) across four grade levels. Results showed that problem space matters: Traditional intelligence test scores increased regularly with grade level, whereas creativity, as well as intelligence operating in an ill-defined problem space, developed irregularly but similarly. This suggests that when creativity is fostered, intelligence's ability to operate in ill-defined problem space may be fostered, likewise.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 44
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1146585
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGpIinZzQuAV-SCgr29e0n4AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEi5rJAnxy6Lb3jTXwIBEICBmvTyJZuqTU1T0Z7pqvDD8iRCqnIMFqYNDiNzPSOGtUOsivrGNmQUUy_GYgSNI9nzz4rglAJVeI0m0AsFIRQekz7PTWzhXgnIZhRGQH5kNBZFSgWiPUmDhd4i773-TVgdPqO-iqp6GKbnwUW4zHWeyY34dyQG7s6ls5EJS3DCH65SuaY3pAIirXR0FxYYBTGaMd3ryJNxpWnNMd4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0123847531;7lo01apr.17;2019Feb12.16:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0123847531-1">Problem Space Matters: The Development of Creativity and Intelligence in Primary School Children. </title> <p>Previous research showed that in primary school, children's intelligence develops continually, but creativity develops more irregularly. In this study, the development of intelligence, measured traditionally, i.e., operating within well-defined problem spaces (Standard Progressive Matrices) was compared with the development of intelligence operating in ill-defined problem spaces (Creative Reasoning Task) and the development of creativity (Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production), in primary school children (N = 175) across four grade levels. Results showed that problem space matters: Traditional intelligence test scores increased regularly with grade level, whereas creativity, as well as intelligence operating in an ill-defined problem space, developed irregularly but similarly. This suggests that when creativity is fostered, intelligence's ability to operate in ill-defined problem space may be fostered, likewise.</p> <p>Guilford ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]) defined the concepts of convergent and divergent thinking. He described convergent thinking as the ability to search for a specific solution in well-defined problem spaces, and divergent thinking as the ability to generate ideas of a certain quantity (fluency), variety (flexibility) and exceptionality (originality or relative frequency; cf. Guilford, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]) in ill-defined problem spaces. Problem spaces are representations of sets of possible and logical steps that one must take to find the final solution. This is true for problems that present themselves as clear and synoptic situations to the one who will solve them, and for problems that were hitherto unperceived and have to be formulated by the perceiver. The former situation requires the ability of problem solving, the latter the ability of problem finding (Carson & Runco, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Convergent thinking is considered to be an important subset of intelligence (Sternberg, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]), whereas divergent thinking is the cognitive process most commonly linked with creativity (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Despite the fact that Guilford ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]) considered convergent and divergent thinking as related concepts, intelligence and creativity have been studied as two separate constructs. Here, the focus is on children's development of intelligence and creativity considering both as two distinct constructs.</p> <p>Research on the development of intelligence revealed that performances on intelligence tests correlate positively with chronological age and advancement in school education (Brouwers, Van de Vijver, & Van Hemert, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]; Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Ceci & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]; McArdle, Ferrer-Caja, Hamagami, & Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]; Neisser et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]). The latter was found to be the best predictor of performance on intelligence tests (Brouwers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]). This means that the development of a child's intelligence is directly affected by school attendance (Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; Ceci & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; Neisser et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]), but also that "schooling fosters the development of cognitive processes that underpin performance on most IQ tests" (Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>], p. 703).</p> <p>Research on the development of creativity revealed less consistent results. Some researchers found a positive correlation between creativity and chronological age or advancement in school education (e.g. Chae, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]; Claxton, Pannells, & Rhoads, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]), whereas others even described a decrease in creativity associated with increasing age/grade (e.g. Kim, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]; Torrance, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]). A well-known effect of decline in creative performance with grade level was first highlighted by Torrance ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]). Using a longitudinal design, he found evidence for a decline in creativity in fourth-grade children, which he called the <emph>fourth-grade slump</emph>. Torrance ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref23">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]) generalized that children in grade 3 are more creative than children in grade 4. According to Nash ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>]), this "slump" is a "result of increasing peer group pressure for conforming behavior around age nine or ten" (p. 170). Charles and Runco ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]) found that the fourth grade slump is restricted to certain aspects of creativity; although fluency of ideas increased, the proportion of appropriate ideas declined with grade level.</p> <p>Several authors emphasized the impact that the educational environment has on creativity (Maker, Jo, & Muammar, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]), either fostering its development or inciting its decline (Lubart & Georgsdottir, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]). According to Besançon and Lubart ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]), "The main goals of most educational systems are to transmit knowledge, rigorous working habits, and societal values" (p. 381). These goals form the basis of most educational curricula. Hence, these curricula may place more emphasis on convergent thinking than on divergent thinking, and this may be the reason why the development of creativity and intelligence yield different patterns of development (Houtz, Rosenfield, & Tetenbaum, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Up to now, however, in studies comparing the development of intelligence and creativity, the intelligence measures considered came from tests in which cognition operates in a well-defined problem space, i.e., where the task is to find the one and only correct answer. Creativity measures, on the contrary, came from tests operating in an ill-defined problem space, where the task is to generate as many ideas as possible. Therefore, it cannot be affirmed whether, if a difference between the development of intelligence and creativity is found, would in fact be due to the application of the different cognitive abilities related to both constructs or rather due to the differences in problem spaces in which these operate. What would be expected when intelligence is measured operating in an ill-defined problem space? Recent research suggests that intelligence can, in fact, be measured and studied operating in ill-defined problem space situations (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]). This research shows that intelligence measured in ill-defined problem spaces functions differently from intelligence measured in well-defined problem spaces (Jaarsveld, Lachmann, Hamel, & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]; Jaarsveld, Lachmann, & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Jaarsveld et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]) inferred that in a creative thinking process, intelligence (considered as mostly convergent thinking) intertwines with creativity (considered as mostly divergent thinking). Others have argued, as well, that creativity works with intelligence (Ambrose, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]; Cropley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]). This intertwining between convergent and divergent thinking is called <emph>creative reasoning</emph>, and it may be understood as the ability to generate original, yet appropriate, solutions (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]). In other words, both convergent and divergent thinking intertwine within a cognitive process that emerges from a problem task or a problematic situation for which no solution is readily available. Therefore, both abilities mutually contribute to generating a solution, which emerges after several alternating stages of convergent and divergent thinking (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]; Jaarsveld & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]). In this process, both abilities are addressed; divergent thinking creates new approaches and ideas, and convergent thinking ensures that the correct choices are taken and that the logical aspects of the solution are considered (Jaarsveld & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]). Aiming to measure this cooperative cognitive process, a new, innovative measurement method, called the creative reasoning task (CRT), was developed (detailed information about the CRT is presented in the method section; see also Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>In our study, the development of intelligence (operating in closed problem spaces) and creativity in primary school children of grades 1–4 was compared. Both were related to the development of intelligence operating in ill-defined problem space. Taking into consideration findings of research on intelligence and creativity, the hypotheses were: (a) Traditionally measured intelligence will develop continually across grade level and (b) creativity will develop irregularly. The main research question is whether intelligence measured in ill-defined problem spaces, i.e. creative reasoning, develops more like traditional intelligence or more like creativity. In other words, is the difference in development between intelligence and creativity found in previous research due to cognitive abilities related to these constructs or to the problem space in which they operate?</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-2">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0123847531-3">Participants</hd> <p>At the start of the school year, a sample of 175 primary school children from Grade 1 to Grade 4 (between 6 and 10 years old) was tested. State authorities approved this study and parents consented to the participation of their children. Children were informed that they could end their participation at any time during the session if for any reason they felt uncomfortable; one female child did so and, accordingly, her results were excluded from the study. Also excluded were eight children (all Grade 1) who produced a SPM answer form that was invalid because several solutions were marked. Hence, the final sample was composed of 166 children (89 male and 77 female). Per grade, number of participants and mean ages in years were as follows: Grade 1 (<emph>M</emph> = 6.28, <emph>N</emph> = 25), Grade 2 (<emph>M</emph> = 7.00, <emph>N</emph> = 61), Grade 3 (<emph>M</emph> = 8.05, <emph>N</emph> = 39), Grade 4 (<emph>M</emph> = 9.17, <emph>N</emph> = 41).</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-4">Material</hd> <p>Traditional intelligence and creativity were investigated with the paper-and-pencil version of standardized tests, the Standard Progressive Matrices test (SPM, Raven, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]) and the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP, Urban & Jellen, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref46">43</reflink>]). respectively. Additionally, the CRT (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref48">20</reflink>]) was used to test intelligence operating in an ill-defined problem space.</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-5">SPM</hd> <p>The SPM (Raven, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]) is a nonverbal intelligence test consisting of 60 items grouped in five sets. Each of the items comprises an incomplete pattern presented in the form of a 1 × 1, 2 × 2 or 3 × 3 matrix. Participants are asked to complete the pattern by choosing a figure from six or eight possible solution options given below the matrix. The maximum score is 60 points, because each item is fixed as pass or fail. The items are, at first, easy and simple, but become increasingly more difficult within and across sets, requiring higher levels of cognitive abilities to encode and analyze information (Raven, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]). The individual test processing time and the difficulty progression of the SPM items are functional in assessing the extent of clear thinking (Heller, Kratzmeier, & Lengfelder, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The SPM was intended to capture cognitive ability in as many age groups as possible, regardless of education, nationality, or health condition (Heller et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]). Raven intended to develop a test that is easy to administer, is clear to interpret, and could be employed to individuals of different ages (from 6 years on) and socio-economic backgrounds (Raven, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]), who all have to solve the same set of tasks in the same order (Heller et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-6">TCT-DP</hd> <p>The TCT-DP (Urban & Jellen, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref55">43</reflink>]) is a test for the measurement of an individual's creative thinking potential. It can be used to identify very high creative potential, as well as to recognize individuals with underdeveloped creative abilities, who may be in need of stimulation and support (Urban & Jellen, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref56">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The test contains two answering forms (form A and form B) both providing six figure fragments in a square frame, inspiring further drawing. Based on these fragments, the respondent is requested to complete the drawing in a free and open way. The fragments are: semicircle, dot, large right angle, curved line, broken line, and a small open square outside the frame (Urban & Jellen, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The drawing is evaluated and scored by means of 14 criteria that can deliver up to six raw points each, except for the four criteria of unconventionality which are valued at a maximum of 3 points (maximum score = 72). The criteria are: <emph>continuations, completions, new elements, connections made with a line, connections made to produce a theme, boundary breaking that is fragment dependent, boundary breaking that is fragment independent, perspective, humor and affectivity, unconventionality A, unconventionality B, unconventionality C, unconventionality D</emph>, and <emph>speed</emph>. The test is applicable in a single or group testing with individuals aged between 5 and 95 years with administration requiring 15 min.</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-7">CRT</hd> <p>The CRT is a diagnostic device that measures intelligence and creativity intertwined in an ill-defined problem space. This is in contrast to traditional intelligence tests that measure intelligence in a well-defined problem space (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref59">20</reflink>]). The CRT involves generating components and generating relationship(s) that connect these components; it thus represents a cognitive thinking process in which both intelligent and creative abilities interact (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]). This interaction evolved as a cognitive mechanism when human survival depended on finding effective solutions to both common and novel problem situations (Gabora & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]). Creative reasoning solves that minority of problems that are unforeseen and yet of high adaptability (Jung, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The CRT is a creative reasoning test because individuals have to reason creatively. They are directed to thinking creatively because the task comes with an open problem space: The constraints of the task are ill-defined. The instruction asks them "to create a matrix that is as original and as difficult to solve as possible." Hence, individuals are urged to apply their reasoning abilities in creating a matrix that never existed before but is nevertheless solvable by another person.</p> <p>The CRT is a creativity test because each individual creates her or his own matrix. The matrix is created on a blank form with only the outlines of a 3<bold> × </bold>3 matrix showing. Each created matrix is different. The frequency distributions of components and relationships created in the CRT do not compare to those of the components and relationships solved in the SPM (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref65">20</reflink>]; Jaarsveld, Lachmann, & van Leeuwen, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]). In fact, created matrices (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref67">18</reflink>]; <emph>N</emph> = 52, 19–42 years old) were shown features not contained in the SPM, like original intertwining of relationships, components that are not exclusively geometrical, and three-dimensionality.</p> <p>For this study three test forms were applied, each corresponded to one of the three possible types of matrix formats contained in the SPM: 1 × 1 (continuous pattern); 2 × 2 and 3 × 3. The figure that completes the matrix should be drawn within the matrix in the outlined square in the lower right corner. Children were free in their choice of test form. The CRT contains two subscores: one for intelligence in an ill-defined problem space, i.e., CRT-Relations (CRT-R), and one for creativity, i.e., CRT-Components & Specifications (CRT-C). Due to the research question and design, the latter was not used in the present study.</p> <p>The CRT-R score represents the logic and coherence in a pattern of components for a matrix that was created and it is evaluated by means of defined relations that can deliver up to 128 raw points. These relations are: matrix 1<bold> × </bold>1 (<emph>idiosyncratic and semantic coherence, jigsaw, and pattern completion</emph>); string (<emph>iteration of one component and iteration of two or >2 components</emph>); matrix 2<bold> × </bold>2 (<emph>symmetry, change, increase, and succession</emph>); and matrix 3<bold> × </bold>3 (<emph>change, increase, succession, combination, indication of mathematical operation, and two values</emph>, see Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>] for detailed information). However, as the CRT deals with ill-defined space problems, it is therefore impossible to fix a set of evaluation criteria for all possible solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The tests were performed during the first weeks of the school year. Children were tested in groups during class time. All tests were performed within one session. Children were asked to work alone and quietly. To facilitate this, they were seated sufficiently far away from each other. Two researchers conducted the session without the teacher being present. Children were asked first to perform the SPM (45 min), then to generate a SPM-style item in the CRT (20 min), and finally, to complete the TCT-DP (15 min; Form A). The appropriate instruction was given to the whole group before each of the tests. Those children who finished a test before the given time limit were allowed to read books that lay ready to this purpose.</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-9">RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmed normal distribution of the data. Therefore, to test the effect of grade level on intelligence (SPM and CRT-R) and creativity (TCT-DP) scores, analyses of variance (ANOVA) were run. Because a Levene's test revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis-Test was performed additionally. Moreover, bivariate Pearson's correlations were performed between grade, gender, and the raw scores of the three dependent variables. Means and standard deviations of the SPM, CRT-R, and TCT-DP raw scores are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Means and (standard deviations) of raw scores of SPM, CRT-R and TCT-DP by grade levels</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Test</td><td>Grade 1 (<italic>N</italic> = 25)</td><td>Grade 2 (<italic>N</italic> = 61)</td><td>Grade 3 (<italic>N</italic> = 39)</td><td>Grade 4 (<italic>N</italic> = 41)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SPM</td><td>24.80 (8.78)</td><td>30.48 (9.57)</td><td>40.67 (6.43)</td><td>43.54 (5.07)</td></tr><tr><td>CRT-R</td><td>7.32 (12.49)</td><td>6.59 (11.40)</td><td>20.77 (18.62)</td><td>22.41 (24.63)</td></tr><tr><td>TCT-DP</td><td>9.52 (4.74)</td><td>11.56 (6.02)</td><td>16.59 (6.02)</td><td>18.27 (8.80)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. SPM = Standard Progressive Matrices; CRT-R = Creative Reasoning Task—Relations subscore; TCT-DP = Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production.</p> <p>Results of the Pearson's correlation showed that grade correlated positively with mean scores of all applied tests, the SPM (<emph>r</emph> = .654, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>N</emph> = 166), the CRT-R (<emph>r</emph> = .356, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>N</emph> = 166), and the TCT-DP (<emph>r</emph> = .440, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>N</emph> = 166). This suggests that children in higher grades performed superiorly in comparison to children from lower grades on the traditional intelligence test, on the intelligence test operating in an ill-defined problem space, and on the creativity test. There was no correlation between the dependent variables and gender.</p> <p>Partial Pearson's correlation performed within the whole sample between SPM, TCT-DP, CRT-R raw scores, controlled for grade, revealed no correlation. However, correlation analyses performed separately within each grade level showed significance in Grade 4 (<emph>N</emph> = 41) between the following scores: SPM and CRT-R, <emph>r</emph> = .313, <emph>p(two-tailed)</emph> = .046, <emph>p(one-tailed)</emph> = .023; SPM and TCT-DP, <emph>r</emph> = .339, <emph>p(two-tailed)</emph> = .030, <emph>p(one-tailed)</emph> = .015. For the other grade levels no correlations were found. Similar results were obtained by Jaarsveld et al. (2012; <emph>N</emph> = 205, 6–10 y old; SPM raw scores correlated with those of CRT-R, <emph>r</emph> = .192, p < .01 and with those of the TCT-DP, <emph>r</emph> = .225, p < .001).</p> <p>Regarding intelligence, ANOVA results indicated a main effect of Grade on both intelligence test measures: SPM, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>, 162) = 43.870, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>=</emph>.448, and CRT-R, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>, 162) = 10.094, <emph>p</emph> < .001, =.157. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis-Test revealed the same pattern of results as the ANOVA, <emph>H</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>) = 79.059, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for SPM and <emph>H</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) = 28.002, <emph>p</emph> < .001 for CRT-R.</p> <p>The SPM mean scores increased regularly through grade levels (see Figure 1a); Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase from grade 1 to grade 2 (<emph>p</emph> = .016), and from grade 2 to grade 3 (<emph>p</emph> < .001). The increase from grade 3 to 4 reached the 5% criterion of significance for an independent pairwise <emph>t</emph>-test, but it failed after conservative Bonferoni correction. In contrast to the SPM scores, the CRT-R scores improved irregularly with grade level (Figure 1b), i.e., there was a significant increase from grade 2 to grade 3 (<emph>p</emph> = .001) only; no differences were observed between grade 1 and grade 2 and between grade 3 and grade 4.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Means and standard errors of the raw scores of the SPM (a), the CRT-R (b) and of the TCT-DP (c) for the four grade levels. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001 (Bonferroni post-hoc analysis, except for SPM (a) between Grade 3 and 4: t-test without Bonferroni correction).</p> <p>Regarding creativity, results showed that TCT-DP scores presented a main effect of grade, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>, 162) = 13.781, <emph>p</emph> < .001, =.203. In accordance with the ANOVA, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis-Test also showed a significant effect of grade, <emph>H</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>) = 35.825, <emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>For TCT-DP scores, there was an irregular increase with grade level, similar to the results for the CRT-R (Figure 1c), i.e., Bonferroni post-hoc analysis showed a significant increase only between grades 2 and 3.</p> <p>Results showed that traditionally measured intelligence develops more regularly across grade levels than creativity. Interestingly, intelligence measured in an ill-defined problem space showed a pattern of development comparable to the one presented by creativity; a step function where the scores remained the same over the first two grade levels, with a significant peak in grade 3 and no further change in grade 4.</p> <p>This finding indicates that problem space matters and not necessarily the application of the different cognitive abilities related to the constructs of intelligence and creativity. In other words, it is the character of the problem space, being well- or ill-defined, which offers different possibilities for an individual's cognitive abilities. In tasks with a well-defined problem space, different abilities are addressed than in tasks with an ill-defined space. Intelligence operating an in ill-defined space seems to compare better to creativity, which also unfolds in ill-defined spaces, than to intelligence operating in a well-defined space. Thus, it seems that cognitive processes addressed and operating in well-defined problem spaces develop differently from those addressed and operating in ill-defined spaces.</p> <hd id="AN0123847531-10">GENERAL DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Results showed, first, that difference in the development between intelligence and creativity can be ascribed to the differences in problem space in which cognitive abilities operate. Second, when children developed abilities that help them find the one and only correct solution, they do not necessarily develop abilities that help them find new and appropriate solutions.</p> <p>Traditional intelligence displayed a continual growth throughout grade levels indicating a stable and continuous development. This result is common in the literature; performance on intelligence tests correlates with chronological age and advancement in school education (Brouwers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]; Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]; Ceci & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>]; McArdle et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]; Neisser et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]; Welter, Jaarsveld, van Leeuwen, & Lachmann, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref80">44</reflink>]). In a cross-cultural meta-analysis, Brouwers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]) found that the performance of children on Raven's progressive matrices increased across childhood. Findings showed a positive correlation between advancement in school education and test scores; advancement in school education was found to be the best predictor of performance on intelligence tests (Brouwers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The relationship between advancement in school education and SPM test scores may occur because the SPM requires cognitive abilities that are nurtured and trained in school (Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref83">6</reflink>]; Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]). Alternatively, the relationship could reflect a more general effect of cognitive development: the way the SPM was constructed, i.e., with increasing item complexity, gives benefit to older children who are more advanced in general cognitive development (Jaarsveld et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref85">20</reflink>]). Normally, both factors work together; the older a child gets, the better it can manipulate complex relationships and, the older a child gets, the longer it has benefited from the educational system.</p> <p>Creativity findings showed only an increase in scores from grade 2 to grade 3. This suggests a possible stagnation in the development of creativity. As reported in creativity research, some decreases in creativity scores may happen in certain stages of the development (e.g., Kim, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>]; Torrance, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>]). Torrance ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref88">38</reflink>]) observed a decline in creativity scores of fourth grade children, the fourth grade slump. Our results cannot be characterized as a slump (decline in score, as found by Torrance), but rather as a slowdown or a stagnation. Charles and Runco ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref89">9</reflink>]) found that the development of creativity in grade 4 depends on what aspects are measured; while the fluency of ideas increases from grade 3 to grade 4, the proportion of appropriate ideas declines. This task involves both aspects, with a focus of fluency (Urban, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref90">42</reflink>]). This may explain why there is neither a significant increase nor a decrease in the present data.</p> <p>These results are also in accordance with other studies reporting stagnations in creativity scores for the TCT-DP. For instance, Urban & Jellen ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]) found that, on average, tests scores increase with grade level. However, the improvement was not linear, but showed a step-like pattern with a plateau profile after grade 5. Theurer, Berner, and Lipowsky ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref92">37</reflink>]), tested children in three sessions; at the beginning of the first school year, at the end of the second school year, and at the end of the fourth school year. They found a discontinuous pattern of development of creativity; children's creative performance stagnated after the end of the second year. Besançon and Lubart ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]) tested 211 children in two sessions. Their results showed an influence of grade on the creative performance. Children who went from third to fourth grade showed less improvement than children who advanced to grade 2 or grade 3.</p> <p>It can be inferred that traditional intelligence and creativity developed differently across grade levels, with intelligence growing continually and creativity developing in an irregular way presenting peaks and periods of what seemed to be a stagnation. According to Houtz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]), this discrepancy may be a consequence of educational curricula, which, throughout grade levels, focus increasingly on convergent thinking. Therefore, schools should take reasonable steps to guide children in their creative development (Lubart & Georgsdottir, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref95">25</reflink>]; Maker et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>]), changing from an approach that emphasizes recognition and memorization of information to one that challenges children not only to think creatively and to explore the unknown (Beghetto, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]; Smith & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref98">35</reflink>]; Torrance, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref99">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref100">40</reflink>]), but also to find and then formulate problems for which no ready available answer is at hand (Carson & Runco, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref101">5</reflink>]; Getzels, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref102">13</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>]; Runco, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>These findings suggest that intelligence measured in an ill-defined problem space developed differently from traditionally measured intelligence, but similarly to creativity. This means that the problem space of tests should be considered in interpreting developmental patterns. The difference found in the developmental patterns of both intelligence measurements confirms what was highlighted by Jaarsveld et al. (2010, 2012): intelligence operates differently in well-defined and ill-defined problem spaces. According to Jaarsveld et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref105">20</reflink>]), this difference may occur because the performance on the SPM requires abilities that are more likely to be trained in school than the abilities required for the CRT in which no solution is readily available. School education mainly aims at developing abilities that help to find the one and only correct solution.</p> <p>The similarity in development between creativity and intelligence measured in an ill-defined problem space indicates that similar abilities are needed when performing ill-defined tasks; i.e., intelligence operating in an ill-defined problem space requires abilities that typically are requested in creativity tests. This fact may imply that in fostering creativity, the abilities related to intelligence operating in ill-defined problem spaces may be fostered, as well.</p> <p>This last observation is not only of theoretical relevance, but is also of very practical importance. All observations and implications made about the educational setting in relation to children's creativity are also valid in relation to intelligence measured in ill-defined problem space situations. In these types of situations, children are encouraged to generate, rather than only solve problems. This was already emphasized by Kim ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref106">24</reflink>]): Children should be encouraged to find and recognize problems, rather than be offered problems to solve.</p> <p>In sum, these results show that problem space matters: intelligence functions differently in ill-defined and well-defined problem space situations. The cognitive abilities usually required for creativity tasks compare to those that intelligence requires when operating in ill-defined problem space. The results imply that when education does not attend to creative thinking, it might endanger intelligent thinking which is needed to find and solve problems for which no ready answer is available.</p> <ref id="AN0123847531-11"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref35" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We would like to thank all children from the Pestalozzi Grundschule in Kaiserslautern, their teachers and parents for the great support we received. Marisete Welter was supported by the Catholic Academic Exchange Service (KAAD), the Graduate School of the Center for Cognitive Science and the Nachwuchsring both at the University of Kaiserslautern.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0123847531-12"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ambrose, D. (2009). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: An interdisciplinary exploration. Cresskill, NJ, USA: Hampton Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref97" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 381–389. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven's Progressive Matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 330–338. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carson, D. K., & Runco, M. A. (1999). Creative problem solving and problem finding in young adults: Interconnections with stress, hassles, and coping abilities. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 167–190. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01195.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ceci, S. J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American Psychologist, 52, 1051–1058. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.10.1051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chae, S. (2003). Adaptation of a picture-type creativity test for pre-school children. Language Testing, 20, 178–188. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt251oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Charles, R. E., & Runco, M. (2000). Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 417–437. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 327–335. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1704_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabora, L., & Kaufman, S. B. (2010). Evolutionary approaches to creativity. In J. S. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 279–300). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Getzels, J. W. (1987). Creativity, intelligence, and problem finding: Retrospect and prospect. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 88–102). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect model. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293. doi:10.1037/h0040755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, K. A., Kratzmeier, H., & Lengfelder, A. (1998). Matrizen-Test Manual, Band 1. Göttingen, Germany: Beltz-Test.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houtz, J. C., Rosenfield, S., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1978). Creative thinking in gifted elementary school children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 513–519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaarsveld, S., Fink, A., Rinner, M., Schwab, D., Benedek, M., & Lachmann, T. (2015). Intelligence in creative processes: An EEG study. Intelligence, 49, 171–178. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.01.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T., Hamel, R., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Solving and creating raven progressive matrices: Reasoning in well- and Ill-defined problem spaces. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 304–319. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T., & van Leeuwen, C. (2012). Creative reasoning across developmental levels: Convergence and divergence in problem creation. Intelligence, 40, 172–188. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T., & van Leeuwen, C. (2013). The impact of problem space on reasoning: Solving versus creating matrices. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2632–2638). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaarsveld, S., & van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from a design process: creative cognition inferred from intermediate products. Cognitive Science, 29, 79–101. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2901_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung, R. E. (2014). Evolution, creativity, intelligence, and madness: "Here be dragons". Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 784. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00784</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285–295. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.627805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubart, T. I., & Georgsdottir, A. (2004). Creativity: Developmental and cross-cultural issues. In S. Lau, A. H. H. Hui, & G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity. When East meets West (pp. 23–54). River Edge, NJ, USA: World Scientific Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maker, C. J., Jo, S., & Muammar, O. M. (2008). Development of creativity: The influence of varying levels of implementation of the DISCOVER curriculum model, a non-traditional pedagogical approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 402–417. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McArdle, J. J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., & Woodcock, R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 38, 115–142. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.38.1.115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nash, W. R. (1974). The effects of a school for the gifted in averting the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18(3), 168–170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J., Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J. C. (1998). Standard Progressive Matrices, Sets A, B, C, D & E. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J. C. (2009). The Raven progressive matrices and measuring aptitude constructs. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 2, 2–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runco, M. A. (2003). Idea evaluation, divergent thinking, and creativity. In M. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 69–94). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Educational creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 250–264). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 225–307). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theurer, C., Berner, N., & Lipowsky, F. (2012). Die Entwicklung der Kreativität im Grundschulalter: Zur Kreativitätsmessung im PERLE-Projekt. Journal for Educational Research Online, 4, 174–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behaviour, 6, 114–143. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00923.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research. Beyond the basics (pp. 189–215). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected, ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 313–322. doi:10.1007/BF02213376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6, 272–280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1995). Test zum Schöpferischen Denken - Zeichnerisch (TSD-Z). Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welter, M. M., Jaarsveld, S., van Leeuwen, C., & Lachmann, T. (2016). Intelligence and creativity: Over the threshold together? Creativity Research Journal, 28, 212–218. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1162564</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marisete Maria Welter; Saskia Jaarsveld and Thomas Lachmann</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1146585
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Problem Space Matters: The Development of Creativity and Intelligence in Primary School Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Welter%2C+Marisete+Maria%22">Welter, Marisete Maria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jaarsveld%2C+Saskia%22">Jaarsveld, Saskia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lachmann%2C+Thomas%22">Lachmann, Thomas</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Creativity+Research+Journal%22"><i>Creativity Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2017 29(2):125-132.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Development%22">Creative Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence%22">Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity+Tests%22">Creativity Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Development%22">Cognitive Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence+Tests%22">Intelligence Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Raven+Progressive+Matrices%22">Raven Progressive Matrices</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302769
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-0419
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Previous research showed that in primary school, children's intelligence develops continually, but creativity develops more irregularly. In this study, the development of intelligence, measured traditionally, i.e., operating within well-defined problem spaces (Standard Progressive Matrices) was compared with the development of intelligence operating in ill-defined problem spaces (Creative Reasoning Task) and the development of creativity (Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production), in primary school children (N = 175) across four grade levels. Results showed that problem space matters: Traditional intelligence test scores increased regularly with grade level, whereas creativity, as well as intelligence operating in an ill-defined problem space, developed irregularly but similarly. This suggests that when creativity is fostered, intelligence's ability to operate in ill-defined problem space may be fostered, likewise.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 44
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1146585
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1146585
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302769
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 125
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creative Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Raven Progressive Matrices
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Problem Space Matters: The Development of Creativity and Intelligence in Primary School Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Welter, Marisete Maria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jaarsveld, Saskia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lachmann, Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-0419
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Creativity Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1