Creativityin Education Falconeretal

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329076263
An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children
Article · October 2018
CITATIONS READS
13 9,287
3 authors, including:
David H Cropley Maureen Dollard

University of South Australia University of South Australia
213 PUBLICATIONS 3,730 CITATIONS 268 PUBLICATIONS 11,869 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Human-Computer Co-Creativity View project
Australian Workplace Barometer View project
All content following this page was uploaded by David H Cropley on 20 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., and Dollard, M. F. (2018). An Exploration of Creativity in
Primary School Children, International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving,
28:2, pp. 7-25.
Eliza G Falconer
School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy
University of South Australia
David H Cropley
School of Engineering
Maureen F Dollard
School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy
Primary School Children, International Journal of Creativity and Problem
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesised ‘Fourth grade slump in creativity’
(Torrance, 1968; Kim, 2011), through the application of a 4Ps-based creative skills
intervention. The creativity of eighty-five students was measured using a battery of four
creativity scales. Results partially supported the hypotheses, suggesting that a short creativity
program did increase creativity, and uncovered that girls scored significantly higher on
Creative Personal Identity than boys. Results did not support the existence of a fourth grade
creativity slump. This study extends previous literature by integrating top-level support in a
creativity intervention. It provides preliminary support for the use of the theoretical 4Ps
framework in fostering student creativity. Furthermore, the study findings support
implementation of a longer-term creativity investigation with a larger sample of school
children.
Key words: children; creativity; intervention; creativity slump; 4P framework

Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
The 21st century is an era of technological advances, unpredictability, and unfamiliar
demands. It is vital that creativity is at the heart of learning, in order to foster lifelong skills
required in this new age, such as idea generation, assumption making, problem-solving skills
and building self-efficacy (Jones, 2009; Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007; Riga &
Chronopoulou, 2014; Seng, 2000). Emerging literature suggests that creativity is critical, not
only in the domains of music and the arts, but also in science, engineering and teaching
(Kaufman, Baer, Cropley, Reiter-Palmon, & Sinnett, 2013).
Unfortunately, during a technological age when creativity and divergent thinking are
most needed, studies have suggested that the general population’s creativity scores over the
last 30 years are declining (Kim, 2011). Declining creativity, its causes and interventions,
have been extensively researched over recent years in an attempt to reverse this trend.
Alarmingly, declining creativity levels appear to have been largest in young children (D. H
Cropley, 2014; Doron, 2016; Kim, 2011; Tan, 2015). This is of concern given the importance
of being equipped with life skills to navigate a constantly evolving world. Torrance (1968)
initiated interest in children’s creativity levels by conducting a longitudinal study from 1959
to 1964 with three hundred and fifty students across grades one to six in the USA. A random
sample of one hundred grade three, four and five students was drawn for further analysis in
Torrance’s (1968) study, finding a general slump he labelled the ‘Fourth grade slump in
creativity’ (p. 195). The fourth grade slump generally impacts children of approximately the
age of nine (Barbot, Lubart, & Besançon, 2016). The results from Torrance (1968) may be
outdated due to the considerable evolution of the educational system. Further developmental
trajectory investigations into creativity have yielded mixed results (Alfonso-Benlliure &
Santos, 2016; Chae, 2003; Cropley, 2014; Darvishi & Pakdaman, 2012; Kim, 2011; Yi, Hu,
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Plucker, & McWilliams, 2013). Similar to the findings by Torrance (1968), a recent cross-
sectional study in Iran showed creativity increasing from grade one to three, then drastically
decreasing between the third and fourth grade before increasing again in grade five (Darvishi
& Pakdaman, 2012). The results of Kim (2011) and Yi et al. (2013) suggested a sixth-grade
creativity slump, occurring much later than the well-known fourth grade slump. A Korean
sample demonstrated statistically significant ascending levels of creativity, supporting the
idea of an increase prior to the grade four slump, however, this study did not assess the
anticipated later decline around the age of nine (Chae, 2003). In addition, a Spanish sample
found no significant global creativity slumps at any age, and rather a continual incline in
creativity throughout elementary education (Alfonso-Benlliure & Santos, 2016). Thus,
international studies on a creativity slump have produced mixed results, highlighting the need
for more comparative studies in young children to clarify the evidence of a creativity slump.
If the fourth grade creativity slump does exist, there needs to be a consideration of
explanations. It has been suggested that there have been societal changes to the value of
creativity, educational pressures, and cognitive changes. Is it that the standardisation of
testing in schools, which emphasises single solution questions and rote learning, reduces
creative problem skills (Kim, 2011; Lobascher, 2011; Yi et al., 2013)? The US school
curriculum employs extensive use of standardised tests, which may lead to instructors
suppressing their creativity (Cipollone, Schifter, & Moffat, 2015). Further, the pressure to
succeed during primary school, enforced by teachers and a peer competitive atmosphere,
diminishes imaginative play and adaptive thinking time for children (Darvishi & Pakdaman,
2012; Kim, 2011). Cognitive functioning and skills fluctuate with age, and the development
of logical thinking and reasoning abilities possibly alter the expression of creativity (Fehr &
Russ, 2016; Kim, 2011). As in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, the fourth grade
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
slump also coincides with the transition from the pre-conventional stage of morality to the
conventional stage, with decisions increasingly based on others’ view of right and wrong
(Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). Thus, at this stage children feel an increasing need to conform
with social norms and others’ opinions, possibly supressing the presentation of the
unconventional or unusual ideas vital for creative thinking (Darvishi & Pakdaman, 2012).
Assuming that creativity is declining, as some evidence suggests, it is highly pertinent
for schools and other educational settings to uncover effective methods of combatting this
decline (Gonzalez, 2014). A proposed method for fostering creativity is the use of classroom
interventions. Given that creativity-based programs have been found to improve creativity
(Barbot et al., 2016; Besançon & Lubart, 2008; Burke & Williams, 2008; Doron, 2016;
Gonzalez, 2014; Hu et al., 2013), there is an opportunity to implement a 4Ps based intervention
in young children. Research has highlighted that the role of the teacher is an important
consideration in student interventions (Sanderse, 2013; Tan, 2015), and therefore should
actively assist in implementing creativity through the 4Ps; an area which has not yet been
collectively investigated.
Creativity in Education: The Teacher’s Role in the 4Ps Framework
Rhodes (1961) paved the way for creativity studies by investigating the creativity
concept, and as a result identified the ‘Four P’ (4Ps) framework, consisting of four vital and
standalone strands of creativity: Person, Press, Process, and Product (Runco & Kim, 2011).
Riga and Chronopoulou (2014) suggested that a successful creativity intervention should touch
on the 4Ps, as well as provide options to students, create a supportive environment, allow
children to demonstrate initiative, and involve them in the decision-making process. In order
to promote greater creativity in education, it is important that teaching incorporates all aspects
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
of the holistic 4Ps framework, and has a balance between structure and freedom (Davies et al.,
2013; Salisu & Ransom, 2014; Saracho & Spodek, 2013). Further, it is crucial that learning is
an interactive process (Entwistle, 2013; Orlich, Harder, Trevisan, Brown, & Miller, 2016), with
more creatively inclined teachers influencing students’ own creative thinking by modelling
their own behaviours and processes (Sternberg et al., 2014; Sanderse, 2013).
Person: Enhancing Creativity in the Individual
The Person aspect of creativity incorporates personality, intellect, temperament, traits,
habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defence mechanisms, and behaviour (Rhodes,
1961; Runco & Kim, 2011). The critical underpinning of creativity training is the belief that
creativity is not an inborn trait, but instead is a fluid characteristic that can be constantly
improved through opportunity, encouragement and rewards (Cropley, 2015). Building self-
efficacy is a vital building block in the path of personal creative development, productivity,
and discovering ‘new knowledge’ (Bandura, 1997, as cited in Tierney and Farmer, 2002).
Creative self-efficacy is enhanced when teaching practices actively support students’ own
creative ventures and insights (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2016). Furthermore, studies have
demonstrated that the teacher’s own self-efficacy has a critical impact on classroom dynamics
and student performance (Yi et al., 2013; Yoon Yoon, Evans, & Strobel, 2014). In order to role
model the creative thinking process effectively for their students, Cropley (2014) argued that
teachers should be continuously provided with ways to encourage and reward creativity. Along
with Puente-Díaz (2016), these studies support the development of both student and teacher
creative self-efficacy in order to deliver effective programs.
Press: Environment Enhancing Creativity
In addition to the intrinsic factors of the Person that influence an individual’s creative
performance, the external environment also has an indirect effect on creative potential (Barbot,
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Lubart, & Besançon, 2016; Rhodes, 1961). The intensive time a child spends at an educational
facility creates a strong modelling environment (Salisu & Ransom, 2014; Sharma, 2016). This
concept of modelling is supported by Bandura (2016) stating that “individuals who model
unconventional styles of thinking and doing foster innovativeness in others” (p. 236). Creative
expression is influenced by the school’s implemented pedagogy (Besançon & Lubart, 2008;
Davies et al., 2013; Sharma, 2016; Yi et al., 2013). Unfortunately, traditionally rigid,
structured, and routinised educational environments directly oppose creativity. Introducing
creativity elicits an unpredictable and risk-taking atmosphere (Cropley, 2010), however
implementing an alternative pedagogy at the whole-of-school level may be a more effective
method. Sharma (2016) investigated pedagogy and creativity levels, and indicated that a
positive, open, democratic, and free environment, either at school or in the home, will
positively contribute to the child’s creative potential. A Chinese study by Yi et al. (2013) found
that school climate significantly affected divergent thinking scores, as did Besançon and
Lubart's (2008) two-year study comparing children from an alternative pedagogy school from
those in a more traditional environment. Observations and interviews at a Greek kindergarten
found that a 4Ps-focussed alternative pedagogy increased play and encouraged creative
thinking and behaviour (Riga & Chronopoulou, 2014). Despite the small sample of 33 students,
this study provides rich qualitative data supporting the vital role of the Press on enhancing
creative thinking skills. Research unquestionably supports the impact of school climate on
creativity levels, and therefore is an important consideration for school ethos and researchers
designing future interventions.
Process: Creative Thinking Skills
The Process element of creativity is comprised of motivation, perception, learning,
thinking, and communicating (Rhodes, 1961). Rhodes (1961) deems that the creative process
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
can be taught, which is supported by other researchers believing it is possible to foster creativity
in the appropriate environment and given the right experiences (D.H. Cropley, 2014; Davies et
al., 2013; Gonzalez, 2014; Niu & Kaufman, 2013; Scott et al., 2004; Sternberg & Williams,
1996). Most creativity training shares the common foundation of divergent thinking (Doron,
2016; Scott et al., 2004), characterised as a well-defined open solution problem that has
numerous novel responses. However, other researchers have identified the importance of other
facets of creativity, such as evaluative and problem-solving skills (Alfonso-Benlliure & Santos,
2016; Lin et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2004). Arguably the most important skill taught is explicitly
transferable cognitive skills required in current society, such as the ability to generate non-
conventional and innovative ideas (Lubart, 2001; Riga & Chronopoulou, 2014).
Product: Creativity Taking Shape
Creative thought processes typically result in a creative product, which is the embodiment
of one’s original idea or thought into a tangible form (Rhodes, 1961; Runco & Kim, 2011). A
creative product is one that satisfies the conditions of novelty; how original, unique, or
statistically rare it is, and practicality; the product’s functionality, usefulness, or ability to
satisfy the question or context (Abraham, 2016; Amabile, 1982). Understanding diverse and
multiple ways of presenting a product is an essential life skill, and harnessing this in the earlier
years will assist the individual to develop innovative products and creative solutions in future
life challenges.
Gender differences in creativity
A creativity slump most likely involves age-related changes, however a more holistic
understanding of creativity should also investigate gender differences, and the interaction of
age and gender. In addition to age-related cognitive changes, gender is one of the most cited
variables in educational and psychological research literature impacting one’s ability to

Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
express creativity (Ai, 1999). Much research has examined gender differences in creativity
levels (Alfonso-Benlliure & Santos, 2016; Chae, 2003; Darvishi & Pakdaman, 2012; He,
Wong, & Hui, 2015; Lin et al., 2012; Yi, Hu, Plucker, & McWilliams, 2013). A review of
personality literature by Baer and Kaufman (2008) indicated the strongest correlation
between openness to experience and creativity. Barbot et al. (2016) have found that openness
to experience increases in teenage girls but decreases in teenage boys, and that gender
stereotypes may account for creative differences and influence the expression of creativity.
For example, a Spanish study found boys were more creative than girls, however this may be
due to the graphical drawing measure of creativity employed, which does not highlight the
linguistic and social strengths more commonly identified in girls (Alfonso-Benlliure &
Santos, 2016). Alternatively, a Hong Kong study using a sample of 3-7 year olds found girls
significantly outperformed boys in creativity (He, Wong, & Hui, 2015). Finally, studies
conducted in Korea, Iran and the US found no significant differences between genders (Chae,
2003; Darvishi & Pakdaman, 2012; Fehr & Russ, 2016). It is evident that gender creativity
differences results vary with no strong conclusion (Fehr & Russ, 2016; He, Wong, & Hui,
2015; Lin, Hsu, Chen, & Wang, 2012). Therefore, it is recommended that in order to apply
creative techniques in the curriculum, the creative differences between both genders are first
understood.
The study reported in this paper begins with the premise that there may be a slump
during grade four. The study aims to address previous research recommendations, and the
gap in the literature for a brief, group-based skills training intervention with a focus on the
teacher’s influence in the 4Ps framework. The collected data will address whether there is a
fourth grade creativity slump, hereafter referred to as Year 4, and the effectiveness of an
interactive creativity skills program, hereafter termed intervention, on improving creativity

Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
levels. This study will also address the conflicting information on gender differences in
creativity. The sample of children (N = 85) allows for possible comparisons between the
variables of interest. The following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1) The Year 4 cohort will score lower than both the Year 3 and Year 5 cohort at
baseline on the Creativity Measurement Scale.
Hypothesis 2) The intervention group will outperform the control group on the Creativity
Measurement Scale post-intervention.
Hypothesis 3) A further objective of the study is to explore differences in the Creativity
Measurement Scale between girls and boys.

Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Method
Participants
The researcher approached 184 students from one private, co-ed, Adelaide-based
school. Informed consent was collected from parents prior to data collection after reading the
Parent/Guardian Information Sheet. Of the 184 students, 85 (46%) parental consent forms
were returned. Participants therefore comprised 85 students – 45 girls and 40 boys – in Year
Three (21 students), Year Four (34 students) and Year Five (30 students). Students ranged
from 8 to 11 years old (M = 9.45, SD = .88). Nine of the intervention students attended only
one of the two intervention workshops due to sports commitments and teacher requirements.
The project was approved by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics
Committee and the school’s Ethics Committee. Inclusion criteria were English speaking
students enrolled in Year 3, Year 4 and Year 5 at the school. In order to limit confounding
factors, all participants were from the same school. This sample was selected based on
convenience and the results are not generalizable beyond primary aged Australian school
students.
Measures
Demographic. A hard-copy demographic information form collected participants’
name, age, year level and gender.
Scales. The Creativity Measurement Scale (CMS) devised for this study contains a
battery of 4 sub-scales, comprising of:
Creative Self-Efficacy. The 3-item Creative Self-Efficacy instrument assesses one’s creative
opinions about themselves, adapted from Tierney and Farmer's (2002) 7-point Creative Self-
Efficacy measure, with a satisfactory reliability (range α = .83 to .87). The current study used
a 5-point Likert scale, altered pole labels that ranged from 1 (not at all like me) to
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
5 (a lot like me). A sample item included “I am good at coming up with new ideas.” Scale
reliability using Cronbach’s alpha (α) in the current study was .85 at baseline, and .75 at post-
intervention.
Creative Personal Identity. The 3-item Creative Personal Identity was adapted from a
Creative Role Identity scale (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003), with an alpha
coefficient of .80. Participants self-rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all
like me) to 5 (a lot like me). Scale reliability using Cronbach’s alpha (α) in the current study
was .78 at baseline, and .83 at post-intervention.
Verbal Caption Task. The Verbal Caption Task assesses one’s observed creativity rating,
requiring participants’ most creative title for a provided photo. As part of the highly regarded
consensual assessment technique (CAT), it employs multiple judges assessing the creative
product without a fixed creativity definition (Amabile, 1983). According to Kaufman et al.
(2007), the Verbal Caption Task rating has a good level of reliability, with four graduate
raters assessing 7 captions yielding a reliability coefficient of approximately .72. In the
current study, the three psychology student judges had an interjudge reliability, using
Cronbach’s alpha (α), of .74 at both baseline and post-intervention collection. Judges
assessed independently on a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 (not at all creative) to 6 (extremely
creative).
Openness to Experience. Participants’ personality was measured using the modified Big Five
Inventory 10-item version (BFI-10) (Rammstedt & John, 2007). The trait ‘Openness to
Experience’ was the variable of interest in the current study, with a 5-point self-rating Likert
scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (a lot like me). The instrument is available upon request.
A US university student sample showed acceptable psychometric properties, including the
BFI-10 test-retest reliability after six weeks averaging .72 (Rammstedt & John, 2007). The
Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
BFI-10 has been used in previous research for assessing children’s personality (Göllner et al.,
2017; Spinath, Freudenthaler, & Neubauer, 2010). The inter-item correlation had an r of .55
and p < .001 at baseline.
Materials and Instructions

Equipment included a demographics questionnaire, pencils and intervention material.
Standardised child-friendly alterations and instructions were read to all participants when
filling out the baseline and post-intervention Creativity Measurement Scale. A lesson plan
script was created for each workshop to maintain standardization across year levels, however
Workshop 3 was unable to be carried out due to time constraints. All workshop activities
were associated with the definition of creativity in order to reinforce knowledge through
repetition. The teacher was used to model creative ideas and class participation, as well as
supporting novel ideas and divergent thinking. A debrief and discussion period after the
workshops encouraged not only the creative product, but also the creative process. The
scripts are available on request.
Research Design
This study employs a cross-sectional, mixed within- and between-groups
experimental design. The students were measured at baseline and post-intervention.

Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., and Dollard, M. F. (2018). An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children, International Journal
of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Procedure
A pilot study was conducted to assess the intervention and understanding of the creativity survey. In the current study, there was
close collaboration between the school principal and researcher. The same researcher (EF) conducted all three stages of the study; baseline
Creativity Measurement Scale, intervention phase, and post-intervention Creativity Measurement Scale (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Procedure schedule.

Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
The principal assigned each student with a unique code. All students completed the
Creativity Measurement Scale one week prior to condition allocation. Within each year level,
the students were randomly allocated to a condition (control or intervention). Those in the
intervention group (n = 38) undertook a 40-minute workshop in week 1 and 2. The
intervention comprised of seven activities split over two workshops, outlined in Table 1.
Other than the pre- and post-tests, there was no involvement with the control group (n = 42)
during the intervention, and classes were continued as normal. The intervention phase had no
class teacher involvement, and was conducted in a group setting; the Year 3 group in
isolation, whereas the Year 4 and 5 intervention group were in a combined class due to
school availability. Week 4 was the collection of post-intervention Creativity Measurement
Scale data, each year level attending separately. Data matching across study phases was via
the student’s unique code, with names removed to ensure anonymity. After the data
collection week, the control group students received creativity skills training from their class
teacher. This training ensured equal treatment of all participants.

Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., and Dollard, M. F. (2018). An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children, International Journal of
Creativity and Problem Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Table 1.
Creativity skill intervention exercises.
Activity name Activity description Reference

Creativity definition 4P emphasis: Person, Press, Process, Product. Students discussed the meaning and uses of creativity. (Kaufman, 2016)
discussion The researcher explained the basic definition of creativity, and the novel and practical requirements for a
creative product.
Alternate Uses Test 4P emphasis: Process. This divergent thinking task required students to think of practical solutions to (Torrance, 1981)
solve a problem, or assist in everyday tasks. For example, discussion involved the numerous ways to use a
paper clip.
Creative Problem- 4P emphasis: Process, Product. Students were given 10 minutes to generate unique ways to move paper (Seng, 2000)
Solving exercise across a hypothetical river. The task emphasised effectiveness and novelty, as well as group collaboration.
Combining Objects 4P emphasis: Process, Product. Students were paired and required to combine two common objects into (Scott, Lonergan, &
an innovative product not seen before. The school principal and researcher demonstrated meta-cognitive Mumford, 2005)
modelling to the class.
Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., and Dollard, M. F. (2018). An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children, International Journal of
Creativity and Problem Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Animal Creation 4P emphasis: Process, Product. This task was altered from Starko’s (2013) exercise, combining divergent (Starko, 2013)
thinking, product design and the subject content of evolution and adaption. Students individually designed
an animal within certain constraints, and later discussed how each animal would survive and adapt if
moved to a drastically different environment.
Test of Creative 4P emphasis: Person, Process, Product. Divergent thinking was assessed with a drawing task on an A4 (Cropley, 2014;
Thinking-Drawing sized sheet. The drawing could be completed using all or some of the six figural fragments (He et al., Urban, 2005)
2015). The verbalised script was adapted from Cropley (2014).
Production (TCT-
DP)
What If 4P emphasis: Press, Process. A variety of imaginary and realistic scenarios were presented, requiring the (VanGundy, 2008)
generation of new and practical creative solutions in a collaborative environment.
Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., and Dollard, M. F. (2018). An Exploration of Creativity in Primary
School Children, International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28:2, pp. 7-25.
Results
Preliminary assumption checking revealed not all variables were normally distributed, as
assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p < .05) and Normal Q-Q Plot. In the MANOVA for Hypothesis
1, most data were not normally distributed. For Hypothesis 2 there was a non-normal distribution
for the baseline and post-intervention Combined Creativity scores in the two-way mixed
ANOVA. There was a non-normal distribution in the MANOVA for Hypothesis 3. Linearity was
assessed by scatterplot; with Hypothesis 1 revealing no linear relationships, indicating a loss of
power. In Hypothesis 1 and 2, there were homogeneity of variances (p > .05) and covariances, as
assessed by Levene's test of homogeneity of variances and Box's M test, respectively.
Hypothesis 3 had a significant Box’s M test in the mixed two-way ANOVA. There were no
univariate outliers, as assessed by boxplot, except for one outlier in Hypothesis 3. The outlier
was kept in the analysis as it was a variable of interest. There were four and one studentized
residual values greater than ±3 in Hypothesis 2 and 3, respectively. There was one multivariate
outlier in Hypothesis 1, and three multivariate outliers in Hypothesis 3, as assessed by
Mahalanobis distance (p > .001). These multivariate outliers were kept due to its small impact on
results and were vital variables. It was decided not to transform data based on Changyong et al.
(2014). There was no multicollinearity, Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Personal Identity (r
= .69, p < .001), Creative Self-Efficacy and Verbal Caption Task (r = .14, p = .200), Creative
Personal Identity and Verbal Caption Task (r = .003, p = .98), Openness and Creative Self-
Efficacy (r = .78, p < .001), Openness and Creative Personal Identity (r = .68, p < .001) and
Openness and Verbal Caption Task (r = .21, p =.06). Despite not satisfying all test assumptions,
robust statistical tests were used. Therefore, the analysis continued with the parametric tests,
mixed ANOVAs and MANOVAs, opposed to the non-parametric alternatives. Hypotheses 1 and
2 showed small to medium effect sizes, and Hypothesis 3 demonstrated medium to large effect
sizes (Cohen, 1988).

Descriptive Statistics
To explore the hypotheses, a descriptive analysis was performed. Means and standard
deviations are provided in Table 2, 3 and 4, for Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3, respectively. There were
no significant differences in age or gender between the conditions, nor significant differences on
the Creativity Measurement Scale between conditions at baseline. Therefore, it can be it can be
deduced that the participants originated from the same population.
Main Analyses
Hypothesis 1 proposed that the Year 4 cohort will score lower than Year 3 and Year 5
cohorts at baseline on the creativity test as assessed by the Creativity Measurement Scale.
Table 2.
Pooled Creativity for Each Year Level at Baseline
Year Level n Pooled Creativity (z)

Mean (SD)
3 21 .11 (.84)
4 34 -.09 (.62)
5 30 .03 (.75)
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of year level on creativity, using
the pooled dependent variable scores from the Creative Self-Efficacy, Creative Personal Identity
and Verbal Caption Task. The differences between year level on creativity at baseline was not
statistically significant, F (6, 160) = 1.0, p = .42; Wilks' Λ = .93; ηp² = .04 (See Figure 2).
Hypothesis 1 was not supported, with no significant evidence of a creativity slump.

Pooled Creativity Score for Years 3, 4 and 5

1
0.5
-0.5
-1
3 4 5
Year Level
Figure 2. Pooled Creativity for each year level at baseline.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that the intervention group will outperform the control group on
the Creativity Measurement Scale post-intervention. A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted
on student’s Combined Creativity scores at baseline and post-intervention to evaluate the effects
of a creativity skills program compared to the control group. There was a statistically significant
interaction between the condition and time on creativity level, F (1, 78) = 4.0, p < .05, ηp² = .05
(See Figure 3). Simple main effects were calculated via independent samples t-tests. There were
non-significant differences in creativity level between conditions at the baseline data collection, t
(83) = .03, p = .97. Cohen’s d = 0.0. At the post-intervention data collection, the intervention
group did increase in creativity, however the difference between conditions approached
significance, t (78) = 1.96, p = .05. Cohen’s d = .02 (See Table 3). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was
partially supported.
Table 3.
Combined Creativity in Conditions across Time
Condition Combined Creativity (z)

Mean (SD)
Baseline Post Intervention
n n
Control 45 -.01 (.61) 42 -.14 (.68)
Intervention 40 .03 (.83) 38 .16 (.71)
Combined Creativity Between Conditions at Baseline and Post-

Intervention
1
0.5
0
Intervention
-0.5 Control
-1
1 2
Baseline Post-Intervention
Data Collection Timepoint
Figure 3: Combined Creativity for each condition at baseline and post-intervention.
A further objective of the study in Hypothesis 3 explored differences in the Creativity
Measurement Scale between girls and boys. Table 4 summarises the descriptive statistics (mean
and standard deviation z-scores) for each Creativity Measurement Scale sub-scale.
Table 4.
Creativity Measurement Scale (CMS) Sub-Scales in Girls and Boys

CMS Sub-scale Gender
Girlsa Boysb
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
CSE 4.35 (.66) 3.96 (.98)
CPI 4.30 (.76)*** 3.62 (1.09)
VCT 2.62 (.85) 2.57 (.93)
Openness to Experience 4.57 (.66) 4.15 (.99)
Note. CMS = Creativity Measurement Scale; CSE = Creative Self-Efficacy; CPI = Creative
Personal-Identity; VCT = Verbal Caption Task. an = 45; bn = 40. ***p < .001.
A one-way MANOVA was run to determine the effect of gender on creativity, assessed on
the four sub-scales; Creative Self-Efficacy, Creative Personal Identity, Verbal Caption Task and
Openness to Experience. There was a statistically significant difference between gender on the
combined dependent variables, F (4, 80) = 2.8, p = .03; Wilks' Λ = .88; ηp² = .12. The level of
statistical significance has been adjusted for multiple comparisons of the four dependent
variables. Bonferroni correction altered the acceptance of statistical significance from p < .05 to p
< .0125. Follow up univariate ANOVAs showed that there were no significant differences in girls
and boys in Creative Self-Efficacy scores, F (1, 83) = 4.6, p = .035; ηp² = .05; Verbal Caption
Task scores, F (1, 83) = .06, p = .80; ηp² = .001 nor Openness to Experience scores, F (1, 83) =
5.3, p = .02; ηp² = .06. There was a statistically significant difference in Creative Personal
Identity scores between girls and boys, F (1, 83) = 11.3, p < .001; ηp² = .12 (See Figure 4).
Students’ responses on the Creative Personal Identity showed a large effect. An independent
samples t-test revealed that girls scored significantly higher on the Creative Personal-Identity
Scale at baseline than did boys, t (69) = 3.3, p = .002. Cohen’s d = 0.72. Levene’s test was
violated, thus equal variances were not assumed. This addresses the objective to investigate
gender differences, showing girls had a significantly higher creativity score in one of the four
variables.
Figure 4: Differences in girls’ and boys’ self-rated measures. Error bars represent standard
deviation.
Discussion
This study investigated students’ creativity levels and the effect of a creativity
intervention at an independent Adelaide-based school. Creativity levels have been declining in
the general population over the last 30 years (Kim, 2011), and some findings suggest a creativity
slump at Year 4 (Darvishi & Pakdaman, 2012; Torrance, 1968). In response to this concerning
situation, there is the need to develop effective group-based skills training for students.
Moreover, the importance of the teacher in fostering creativity, as well as the 4Ps of creativity,
has been acknowledged, however no studies have yet incorporated both aspects. This study has
addressed this gap by implementing an intervention whilst exploring creativity developmental
trajectories and gender differences on Creative Self-Efficacy, Creative Personal Identity,
Openness to Experience and a Verbal Caption Task.

Theoretical Implications
The current study’s findings challenge theoretical assumptions regarding how long it
takes to influence creativity (i.e. intervention length), the fourth grade creativity slump, and add
to gender related creativity research. The findings of the current study indicate that there were no
differences in creativity across the year levels, therefore do not support the existence of a fourth
grade slump in creativity (Torrance, 1968), as proposed in Hypothesis 1. It is plausible that the
current study was underpowered, however equally it may be that the veracity of the fourth grade
creativity slump phenomenon is not applicable to the current sample. Research on the creativity
slump has been extensively conducted overseas (Besançon & Lubart, 2008; Burke & Williams,
2008; Doron, 2016; Gonzalez, 2014), thus this theoretical notion may not be generalised to
Australian school students. Alternatively, the absence of a fourth grade creativity slump over the
three year span of this investigation may be due to a more gradual decline beyond the fourth year.
Evidence of a later slump in middle and high school was found by Kim (2011) and Yi et al.
(2013) and may be explained by the pressure to conform in these years.
Furthermore, there may be a theoretical advance relating to the duration of creativity
interventions. Despite the brief nature of the creativity program, a positive effect was found and
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. The intervention group showed higher creativity scores
than the control group, even approaching significance. Interestingly, these findings challenge
previous research emphasizing that only long-term interventions create change (Fehr & Russ,
2016). Several theoretically-based factors may have contributed to the change brought about by
the brief intervention. It may have been due to role modelling and creative passion demonstrated
by the school principal, whereby the teacher-directed instruction aided students’ acquisition of
creative strategies and processes (Bandura, 2016; Salisu & Ransom, 2014). Alternatively, the
brief intervention change may have been due to the increased understanding of creativity by
students and the conceptualisation that creative pursuits extend beyond the stereotypes of art and
music (Kaufman et al., 2013). In line with the brief intervention of Doron (2016), this current
study’s intervention encouraged students to break out of previous conventional ways of thinking
and behaving, to collaborate as a group, and link divergent thinking to problem solving. The
current study utilised the brainstorming technique, a simple technique outlined by Orlich et al.
(2016) to harness high levels of creativity. The current study’s 4Ps-based methodology resounds
with Besançon and Lubart’s (2008) suggestions for higher creativity levels. Suggestions included
an alternative pedagogical approach using divergent thinking-based exercises, as well as an
intrinsically motivated teacher implementing a creative pedagogy. Employing a learning
instructor in a theoretical 4Ps framework advances theoretical knowledge and provides
preliminary support for fostering student creativity.
The current study adds to the debate of gender differences, finding that girls were
significantly more likely to consider creativity important to their personal identity than boys, with
a large effect size. Lin et al.'s (2012) finding of the correlation between gender and openness to
experience was supported by the current study, the analysis demonstrating an r of .12 and p < .05
and an r of .25 and p < .05, respectively. Reflective of the research by Lin et al. (2012), girls in
the current study were similarly more open to experience, resulting in an openness to, and
acceptance of, creativity training and active participation in activities posed by the researcher.
Consequently, girls scored higher on all aspects of creativity measured, despite these differences
being just outside the range of significance. This is reflected in the personality literature by Baer
and Kaufman (2008) who identified a strong correlation between openness to experience and
creativity. Openness to experience provides a theoretical explanation for the significant gender
differences, and adds to gender and creativity theory.
Practical Implications
As this study challenges the existence of the fourth grade creativity slump in this
Australian sample, it shifts the focus from fostering creativity in year 4 students, to combatting
the general creativity decline. Supporting Gonzalez’s (2014) advocacy for the application of
creativity consistently across all year levels, it is suggested that the theoretical 4Ps framework be
implemented across the curriculum at the whole-school level. By supporting, challenging and
enhancing the existing theoretical base of creativity, this study has important implications for
practice within educational settings. Evidence that even a brief 4Ps-based intervention can
enhance aspects of creativity provides valuable knowledge for application within schools.
Research on gender differences in creativity will affect how creativity is taught in
classrooms, with the current finding that girls had higher creativity levels than boys. Such
difference may be explained by Abraham (2016), who reported that girls and boys have different
cognitive processes, whereas Ai (1999) found that it may be due to the aspect of creativity
measured. Lin et al. (2012) found that girls perform better on divergent thinking tests, whereas
Alfonso-Benlliure and Santos (2016) utilised a graphical drawing method with boys
outperforming girls. Therefore, it was unexpected when the divergent thinking emphasis in the
current study’s Verbal Caption Task did not yield any significant gender differences in creativity.
The lack of any observed differences may be explained by Kaufman et al. (2013), who indicated
that novice undergraduate students are not appropriate substitutes for experts in providing
creativity ratings. Consideration of observer rating raises questions regarding the accuracy of
teacher creativity ratings, and future research would inform the practical application of creativity
in classrooms. In addition, it is vital to understand these gender differences in creativity in order
to apply a program that takes into consideration the abilities of all students.
Strengths, Limitations and Recommendations
This study addressed limitations that have been outlined or overlooked in previous studies
with children. Firstly, the current study utilised an experimental design with a control and
intervention group to make explicit comparisons between children undertaking a creativity skills
program and children who did not participate in any creativity program.
Secondly, this study begins to address the research gap regarding the role that teacher’s
play, by involving the school principal as a role-model in an engaging interactive environment
designed to foster greater creativity. An informed school leader who rewards creativity may be
extremely influential in improving students’ creative ability and self-confidence (Salisu &
Ransom, 2014). Other strengths of the current study include the assessment of both self-rated and
observer rated creativity, and the group administration of an intervention. The group-based
administration is especially effective, according to Davies et al. (2013), as it is reflective of
school activities, thereby allowing for ease of application in a school setting. Additionally, Scott,
Leritz, and Mumford’s (2004) meta-analysis reviewed seventy studies and have found that it is
vital that interventions are structured around a successful framework, such as the 4Ps framework
incorporated in the current study.
Despite the outlined strengths in the current study, the limitations must also be
acknowledged. Firstly, the study was constrained to a single school design, with parental consent
further limiting the available sample. Future research would benefit from recruiting a larger sample
to provide sufficient power to detect group differences. For instance, in Hypothesis 1 a small effect
size was found even though it did not meet the minimum requirements of 187 students in each year
level, as calculated by the power analysis. Time restrictions also limited the possibility to investigate
the influence of the teacher’s understanding and creativity level on student creativity. It is
recommended that future interventions directly assess both teacher and student creativity, to
determine if there is a significant correlation between teaching style and student outcomes. Time
limitations also restricted the time given to brief the intervention teachers of the importance of
creativity prior to the study commencing. Briefing would have enabled teachers to infuse creativity
in general class teaching to the intervention classes between baseline and post-intervention
measurement. The time restriction, hence brief intervention, may have been inadequate for skill
enhancement. Thus, a longitudinal study with increased intervention frequency is recommended and
would provide more robust data to investigate gender differences, and changes in children’s
creativity levels over time. Finally, to accurately capture creativity it is recommended that
creativity’s multidimensional nature is assessed by both divergent thinking and problem solving
skills (Barbot et al., 2016).

Conclusions and Future Directions
Overall, the findings from the current study neither support Torrance’s (1968) Fourth
Grade creativity slump, nor a creativity slump at any year level. This is in contrast with previous
research that has found a slump during the primary school years. The current study does, however,
lend support to previous intervention studies, demonstrating that a brief group-based creativity
intervention can generate creativity improvements. Although it did not quite meet the level of
significance required, the study added to existing literature on gender differences in creativity,
finding girls were more creative than boys. Future research could address the limitations of this
study by increasing the power through examining a larger sample size, measuring teacher’s
creativity levels and assessing additional dimensions of creativity. Furthermore, extending the
duration and frequency of the intervention may show greater improvements in creativity. The
preliminary findings in the current study challenge theoretical knowledge on the fourth grade
creativity slump and intervention length literature, and develop the theoretical understanding of
gender differences in creativity. Expanding on this current creativity in education research could
provide teachers with explicit methods for fostering creativity, as well as long-term implications
for incorporating alternative pedagogy in schools to overcome the proposed decline in creativity.
References
Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific
literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10, 609-618. doi:
10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8
Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender differences.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 329-337. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11
Alfonso-Benlliure, V., & Santos, M. R. (2016). Creativity development trajectories in Elementary
Education: Differences in divergent and evaluative skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19,
160-174. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.003
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 43, 997-1013. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.43.5.997
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 37-63. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 42, 75-105. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
Bandura, A. (2016). The Power of Observational Learning Through Social Modeling. In R. J.
Sternberg, S. T. Fiske & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: One hundred
eminent behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp.
235-238). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barbot, B., Lubart, T. I., & Besançon, M. (2016). “Peaks, Slumps, and Bumps”: Individual
differences in the development of creativity in children and adolescents. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 33-45. doi:10.1002/cad.20152
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Nurturing creativity in the classroom: Cambridge:
University Press.
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
Burke, L. A., & Williams, J. M. (2008). Developing young thinkers: An intervention aimed to
enhance children's thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 104-124. doi:
10.1016/j.tsc.2008.01.001
Chae, S. (2003). Adaptation of a picture-type creativity test for pre-school children.
Language Testing, 20, 179-188. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt251oa
Changyong, F., Hongyue, W., Naiji, L., Tian, C., Hua, H., & Ying, L. (2014). Logtransformation
and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry,
26, 105-109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.02.009
Cipollone, M., Schifter, C. C., & Moffat, R. A. (2015). Minecraft as a creative tool: A case study.
Gamification: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 4, 956-969. doi:
10.4018/978-1-4666-8200-9.ch047
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cropley, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, J.
Kaufman & M. Runco (Eds.), The Dark Side of Creativity (pp. 297-316). doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511761225.016
Cropley, D. H. (2014). Fighting the slump: A multi-faceted exercise for fostering creativity in
children. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 24(2), 7-22.
Cropley D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. In G. E.
Corazza & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative
thinking. Creativity in the twenty first century (pp. 155-173). doi:
10.1007/978-981-287-618-8_10
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning
environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8,
80-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
Darvishi, Z., & Pakdaman, S. (2012). "Fourth Grade Slump in Creativity": Development of
creativity in primary school children. GSTF Journal of Law and Social Sciences
(JLSS), 1(2), 40-48. doi:10.5176/2251-2853_1.2.34
Doron, E. (2016). Short term intervention model for enhancing divergent thinking among school
aged children. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 372-378.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1195616
Entwistle, N. J. (2013). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational
psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An
application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618-630.
doi:10.2307/30040653
Fehr, K. K., & Russ, S. W. (2016). Pretend play and creativity in preschool-age children:
Associations and brief intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts,
10, 296-308. doi:10.1037/aca0000054
Göllner, R., Roberts, B. W., Damian, R. I., Lüdtke, O., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U.
(2017). Whose “storm and stress” is it? Parent and child reports of personality development
in the transition to early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 85, 376-
387. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12246

Gonzalez, N. E. (2014). Creativity as a whole school process: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (UMI 3670365)
He, M. W. J., Wong, W. C., & Hui, A. N. N. (2015). Gender differences in means and variability on
creative thinking: Patterns in childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood. Creativity,
Culture, and Development (pp. 85-98). NY: Springer Science +
Business Media.
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students'
scientific creativity: The “Learn to Think” intervention program. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1002/jocb.20
Jones, K. (2009). Culture and creative learning: A literature review. London, UK: Creativity,
Culture and Education.
Kaufman. J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity
vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332-340. doi: 10.1037/a0034809
Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the
consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 2, 96-106. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.002
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
Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into
Practice, 16, 53-59. doi:10.1080/00405847709542675

Lin, W. L., Hsu, K. Y., Chen, H. C., & Wang, J. W. (2012). The relations of gender and
personality traits on different creativities: A dual-process theory account. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts, 6, 112-123. doi:10.1037/a0026241
Lobascher, S. (2011). What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy education in
Australia? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(2), 9-19.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research
Journal, 13, 295-308. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American cultures: A synthetic
analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 77-87. doi: 10.1002/jocb.25
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Trevisan, M. S., Brown, A. H., & Miller, D. E. (2016). Teaching
strategies: A guide to effective instruction (9th ed.). MA, USA: Cengage Learning.
Puente-Díaz, R. (2016). Creative self-efficacy: An exploration of its antecedents, consequences, and
applied implications. The Journal of Psychology, 150, 175-195.
doi:10.1080/00223980.2015.1051498
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 203-212.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
Riga, V., & Chronopoulou, E. (2014). Applying MacKinnon's 4Ps to foster creative thinking and
creative behaviours in kindergarten children. Education, 42, 330-345.
doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.692700
Runco, M. A., & Kim, D. (2011). The Four Ps of Creativity: Person, Product, Process, and
Press. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 534-
537). doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-375038-9.00102-3

Salisu, A., & Ransom, E. N. (2014). The role of modeling towards impacting quality education.
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS), 21, 54-
61. doi: 10.18052
Sanderse, W. (2013). The meaning of role modelling in moral and character education.
Journal of Moral Education, 42, 28-42. doi:10.1080/03057240.2012.690727
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388. doi:
10.1080/10400410409534549
Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination:
Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal,
17, 79-98. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_7
Seng, T. O. (2000). Thinking skills, creativity, and problem-based learning. Temasek
Polytechnic Singapore.
Sharma, R. (2016). Effect of school and home environments on creativity of children. MIER
Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practices, 1, 187-196.
Spinath, B., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2010). Domain-specific school
achievement in boys and girls as predicted by intelligence, personality and motivation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 481-486. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.028
Starko, A. J. (2013). Schools of curious delight: Creativity in the classroom. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D. P., Naples, A., Stemler, S. E., Newman, T.,
…Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). Testing the theory of successful intelligence in teaching grade 4
language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106, 881-899. doi: 10.1037/a0035833

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. VA, USA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tan, O. S. (2015). Flourishing creativity: Education in an age of wonder. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 16, 161-166. doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9377-6
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship
to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-
1148. doi:10.2307/3069429
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195-199. doi:10.1177/001698626801200401
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Benesville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative thinking-drawing production
(TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6, 272-280.
VanGundy, A. B. (2008). 101 activities for teaching creativity and problem solving. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Yi, X., Hu, W., Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. (2013). Is there a developmental slump in creativity
in China? The relationship between organizational climate and creativity development in
Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 22-40.
doi:10.1002/jocb.21
Yoon Yoon, S., Evans, M. G., & Strobel, J. (2014). Validation of the Teaching Engineering
Self‐Efficacy Scale for K‐12 teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of
Engineering Education, 103, 463-485. Retrieved from
http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee
View publication stats

Creativityin Education Falconeretal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativityin Education Falconeretal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children

Article · October 2018

David H Cropley Maureen Dollard

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Human-Computer Co-Creativity View project

Australian Workplace Barometer View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Exploration of Creativity in Primary School Children

framework in fostering student creativity. Furthermore, the study findings support

implementation of a longer-term creativity investigation with a larger sample of school

Key words: children; creativity; intervention; creativity slump; 4P framework

The 21st century is an era of technological advances, unpredictability, and unfamiliar

(Kaufman, Baer, Cropley, Reiter-Palmon, & Sinnett, 2013).

sample demonstrated statistically significant ascending levels of creativity, supporting the

creativity throughout elementary education (Alfonso-Benlliure & Santos, 2016). Thus,

creativity, educational pressures, and cognitive changes. Is it that the standardisation of

Assuming that creativity is declining, as some evidence suggests, it is highly pertinent

Creativity in Education: The Teacher’s Role in the 4Ps Framework

Person: Enhancing Creativity in the Individual

The Person aspect of creativity incorporates personality, intellect, temperament, traits,

creative self-efficacy in order to deliver effective programs.

Press: Environment Enhancing Creativity

structured, and routinised educational environments directly oppose creativity. Introducing

creativity elicits an unpredictable and risk-taking atmosphere (Cropley, 2010), however

implementing an alternative pedagogy at the whole-of-school level may be a more effective

those in a more traditional environment. Observations and interviews at a Greek kindergarten

designing future interventions.

Process: Creative Thinking Skills

The Process element of creativity is comprised of motivation, perception, learning,

Product: Creativity Taking Shape

Gender differences in creativity

variables in educational and psychological research literature impacting one’s ability to

interactive creativity skills program, hereafter termed intervention, on improving creativity

variables of interest. The following hypotheses were proposed:

baseline on the Creativity Measurement Scale.

Measurement Scale post-intervention.

Hypothesis 3) A further objective of the study is to explore differences in the Creativity

Measurement Scale between girls and boys.

name, age, year level and gender.

battery of 4 sub-scales, comprising of:

was .78 at baseline, and .83 at post-intervention.

raters assessing 7 captions yielding a reliability coefficient of approximately .72. In the

A US university student sample showed acceptable psychometric properties, including the

and p < .001 at baseline.

Materials and Instructions

scripts are available on request.

experimental design. The students were measured at baseline and post-intervention.

Figure 1: Procedure schedule.

intervention group (n = 38) undertook a 40-minute workshop in week 1 and 2. The

school availability. Week 4 was the collection of post-intervention Creativity Measurement

teacher. This training ensured equal treatment of all participants.

Creativity skill intervention exercises.

Activity name Activity description Reference

assessed by scatterplot; with Hypothesis 1 revealing no linear relationships, indicating a loss of

assessed by Levene's test of homogeneity of variances and Box's M test, respectively.

outlier in Hypothesis 1, and three multivariate outliers in Hypothesis 3, as assessed by

sizes (Cohen, 1988).

deduced that the participants originated from the same population.

Pooled Creativity for Each Year Level at Baseline

Year Level n Pooled Creativity (z)

Hypothesis 1 was not supported, with no significant evidence of a creativity slump.