Psychometric properties of Guiding Creative Thinking Competency Scale

Highlights

• Guiding creative thinking competency scale is found to be valid and reliable.

• There is a positive relationship between teachers’ competency in guiding creative thinking and their own creative thinking dispositions.

• The competency to guide creative thinking is higher in the case of elementary school teachers who specialize in teaching gifted students than that of those in general education.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to gather data on how often teachers use creative thinking techniques and encourage students to use such techniques. For this purpose, a valid and reliable scale for guiding creative thinking competency was developed. A survey model was used in the research, which was carried out with participants working as elementary school teachers in Istanbul province of Turkey. The current research was conducted with the participation of 815 individuals in four different sample groups. Data was analyzed via SPSS 21.0 and LISREL software.

The findings indicate that there is a positive relationship between teachers’ competency of guiding creative thinking and their own creative thinking dispositions. The competency to guide creative thinking is higher in the case of elementary school teachers who specialize in teaching gifted students than that of those in general education.In conclusion, the scale for creative thinking competency demonstrated a strong factor structure, strong internal consistency and evidence for construct and concurrent validity.

Introduction

Creativity is viewed as the symbol of today’s education (Gibson, 2005), but educators state that schools are not successful enough to develop or nurture the creativity of students (Kim, 2011; Malaguzzi, 1987; Robinson, 2006; Runco, Acar, & Cayirdag, 2017). The reason for this can be that formal education focuses on known answers which do not allow students to think deeply on given topics and do research on the subject matter. Unfortunately, this can hinder academic development (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008) thus, schools fail to reinforce the development of all abilities, emphasizing concepts rather than skills (Kaplan, 2019; Robinson, 2001). Regarding that creative thinking scores are decreasing and creativity in education is facing a crisis situation, several scholars suggest that educational institutions globally focus more on creativity and creativity teaching (Kim, 2011; Wyse & Ferrari, 2015).

Creativity can be described as a process as well as a unique unique end product (Noyanalpan, 1993; Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004). Creativity occurs following creative thinking processes, while creative thinking is considered as a prerequisite for the emergence of creativity, in which the environment is extremely effective (Öncü, 1992; Plucker et al., 2004). When we consider the concept of school, the environment of a student includes his/her teachers, friends, classrooms, and the school setting (Davies et al., 2013). Therefore, schools and teachers can be considered important actors in supporting students’ creativity (DaVia Rubenstein, McCoach, & Siegle, 2013; Davies et al., 2013; Hu, Wu, & Shieh, 2016). Since it is a common belief that creativity can be developed in schools through education, many countries have prioritized the development of creative thinking in schools (Garaigordobil, 2006; Wyse & Ferrari, 2015). Therefore, in terms of this creative thinking process, teachers can be considered as one of the prominent actors. Nevertheless, teachers are not sufficiently well-informed about creative thinking processes (Kaplan, 2019). They seem to act within the boundaries of their own inner theories of creative thinking, which are generally not based on solid foundations (Kampylis, 2010; Kowalski, 1997). Research shows that creative thinking techniques such as Plus Minus Interesting-PMI (Sharma, Priyamvada, & Chetna, 2020), Brainstorming (Aiamy & Haghani, 2012; Al-Shammari, 2015), Synectics (Aiamy & Haghani, 2012), Mind Mapping (Widiana & Jampel, 2016) SCAMPER (Hussain & Carignan, 2016; Ozyaprak, 2016) and Attribute Listing (Kashani-Vahid, Afrooz, Shokoohi-Yekta, Kharrazi, & Ghobari, 2017) can positively affect elementary school students’ creativity/creative thinking skills.

In this study, the Guiding Creative Thinking Competency Scale which was adopted based on these creative thinking techniques, was developed to gather data on how often elementary school teachers use the creative thinking techniques and how they guide their students to apply these techniques. The scale was developed to contribute to the creation of educational environments in which students’ creative thinking can be supported and to guide practitioners evaluating and developing learning environment in terms of creativity in their efforts to develop and evaluate the learning environment in terms of creativity.

Rhodes (1961) formed the creativity framework based on 4Ps: person, process, press and product. While person refers to the individual creative act, process corresponds to the creative thinking processes that occur during such an act (Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). The process is essential regarding support for creativity. In particular, teachers and the techniques they use are two of the main factors fostering students’ creative thinking as an element of creativity process (Davies et al., 2014). Craft (2005) stressed that the teacher’s own beliefs about creative thinking, their fears, the way they are equipped, and some other characteristics will inevitably affect students’ creative thinking abilities. For example, in terms of methods and techniques, it is essential to frequently utilize brainstorming in the classroom, use an inquiry method, offer creative problem-solving cases, find multiple solutions, expose students to real life situations and educational experiences deriving from students’ own games or stories, and introduce an educational program that supports creativity in schools (Trnova, 2014). In the classroom, it is vital to use inventive ways. Therefore, techniques enabling creativity improvement (Nickerson, 1999; Rıza, 2004; Sternberg & Williams, 1996) should be integrated into the education system, through which it will be possible to increase creative thinking abilities of individuals (Işık, 2012).

There are several different scales in the literature in order to measure the behaviors of teachers regarding creativity:Classroom Creativity Observation Scale (Denny, 1972), Creativity and Learning Environment Scale (Fishkin & Johnson, 1998), Creativity Supporting Primary Education Teachers Index by Soh (2000),Questionnaire on the Contribution of Teacher Behaviors to Improving Creative Thinking Skills developed by Yenilmez and Yolcu (2007) and Marmara Creative Thinking Disposition Scale (Özgenel & Çetin, 2017). Although it can not be found any study that measure teachers’ competency to use creative thinking techniques. It is predicted that the scale developed at this study will contribute to the researchers with regard to teachers and administrators in the field of creativity and education.

Since there are numerous creative thinking techniques used frequently in educational context (Black, 1998; De Bono, 2012; Eragamreddy, 2013; Renzulli & Callahan, 2000; Starko, 2018). First, all these techniques were examined and presented to a group of experts consisting of academics and those having PhD. degrees in education and working on creativity. They were asked to range the techniques from simple to complex and list the ones appropriate for use in elementary school context.By taking their opinions into consideration and based on the existing literature (Karataş, Akçayır, & Gün, 2016; Sak, 2020; Westberg, 1996; Yiğitalp, 2014), seven techniques are chosen and focused while preparing the scale.

These techniques are; Plus/Minus/Interesting-PMI (De Bono, 2012), Brainstorming (Osborn, 1953), Synectics (Gordon, 1961), Mind Mapping (Wycoff, 1991), Forced Relationships (Black, 1998), SCAMPER (Eberle, 1972) and Attribute Listing Techniques (Crawford, 1964). In PMI, it is essential to focus an idea and analyze it as plus-positive points, minus-negative points and interesting points which can lead to look from different angles for finding new ideas about the topic (De Bono, 2012). Brainstorming is a technique that requires thinking and generating ideas on a topic or problem within limited time without judgement (Osborn, 1953; Starko, 2018) Synectics is another technique to find parallelism or similarity between two or more things with its three types; direct analogies, personal analogies and compressed conflicts (Sak, 2020; Starko, 2018). Forced relationships is another technique intended to analyze properties of an animal or an object and transfer them into another object for innovation (Black, 1998). SCAMPER is a technique which includes questions formed as an acrostic;Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Magnify/Minify/Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse/Rearrange. When the technique is applied, an object or situation is focused and questions like 'Can I substitute this with another one; Can I combine it with something, Can I adapt or imitate it….etc.' are asked (Sak, 2020; Starko, 2018). In Attribute Listing it is required to analyze attributes of an object like size, shape, materials, ingredients etc. Under these attributes, the properties of the objects are listed and by changing the properties, it is aimed to have new products (Sak, 2020).

Among the various factors affecting teachers’ competency to guide students to think creatively, teachers’ personality traits, family factors, background and learning experiences, peer interaction, beliefs regarding education, devotion to creative instruction, motivation, and organizational environment are some of the prominent ones (Horng, Hong, ChanLin, Chang, & Chu, 2005). In addition to these traits, another factor is ’disposition’ which can be defined as the tendency of a person to do something. Since having the ability alone is not enough to ensure ongoing performance, disposition is also required. That is, just like knowing how to play the piano does not guarantee to play it without having the disposition; having certain thinking skills does not mean that one will necessarily use them. Creativity is not an exception, either as research shows students often fail to use the thinking skills they are taught (Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993). One explanation is that creativity occurs as the combination of skills, attitudes, and dispositions (Fisher, 1995; Özgenel & Çetin, 2017). A person can convert creativity into potential only by using his/her creative thinking disposition. Such a disposition includes the following traits; innovation search, courage, self-discipline, inquisitive mind, doubt and flexibility (Özgenel and Çetin, 2017). Unless teachers possess the disposition to think creatively in addition to an awareness of creative thinking techniques, they can neither become role models regarding creativity nor guide students to use creative thinking techniques. Based on this assumption, in this study, the Creative Thinking Dispositions Scale is used to determine the concurrent validity of the test.

Learning outcomes are the result of a teacher’s personal characteristics, his/her pedagogical skills, and the environment in which s/he operates (Bramwell, Reilly, Lilly, Kronish, & Chennabathni, 2011; Chan & Yuen, 2014). Horng et al. (2005) suggested that, in order to be able to raise creative teachers, creative instruction should begin with teacher-training programs at universities. Teachers should be equipped with the knowledge and strategies of creative instruction, while stirring learners’ motivation. Such teacher training programs should present deep knowledge of creative instruction and must provide an environment that will foster creativity (Kaplan, 2019). In general, studies so far have presented evidence for the effectiveness of creativity training and reported the effectiveness of creativity courses (Alencar, 2007; Cheung, 2013; Maloney, 1992; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Trnova, 2014; Yılmaz & Karataş, 2018). Teachers participating in such courses can engage in creative thinking by learning about creative thinking techniques, using them, contemplating them, and sharing them.

In general, creativity training programs/creativity courses are focused on students and are of two basic types. The first type includes curriculum such as Creative Problem Solving, which focuses on developing students’ problem-solving skills, while the second type includes programs such as Future Problem Solving and Destination Imagination which extend learning through competition (Hunsaker, 2005). Even though we also have some examples of creativity training programs for teachers (Karwowski, Gralewski, Lebuda, & Wiśniewska, 2007) in Turkish context, there are courses on creativity at the undergraduate level only in two majors delivered by faculties of educational sciences. One is for preschool education teachers, and the other one is for gifted elementary school teachers (Turkish Council of Higher Education, 2010). Besides, there are two undergraduate programs targeting elementary school teachers, one for elementary school teachers in general education students and other one for gifted students. Within the scope of the current study, these two groups were compared regarding /the fact that the former group is offered creativity courses in undergraduate level while the latter is not provided with such a course.