Thinking Skills and Creativity: Show More

09/03/2023, 11:22 Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training program - ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity

Volume 32, June 2019, Pages 92-101
Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training

program
Xiaojing Gu , Ap Dijksterhuis, Simone M. Ritter
Show more
Share Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.002 ↗
Get rights and content ↗
Abstract
Creative thinking is an important 21st century skill. To prepare children for our complex and fast-changing
world, it is essential to cultivate their creative thinking skills. The objective of the current study was to
develop and examine the effectiveness of a brief, domain-unspecific creativity training program: the 5-I
training program. Children (N = 172) aged 7–12 years participated in the training, which consisted of eight
creativity exercises performed in a training session of two hours. The effectiveness of the training on
stimulating children’s creative thinking skills was assessed by means of a pretest and posttest comparison
using three creativity tasks (Alternative Uses Task, drawing task and guessing task). For each task several
measures of creative performance were examined (e.g., fluency, flexibility, infrequency, elaboration).
Following the creativity training, improvements were observed on the three creativity tasks. The
effectiveness of the 5-I training program was found for all measures of creative performance, except for
flexibility. Implications for educational settings are discussed.
Introduction
Creativity is generally defined as the ability to generate novel and useful ideas or products (e.g., Amabile,
1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). In a time of rapid change and increasing competition, creativity is
important in various domains. On a societal level, creativity has become the driving force for artistic
creation, technical innovation and scientific discovery (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). On a personal level, we
frequently engage in creative activities to cope with everyday problems and challenges (Collard & Looney,
2014; Newton, 2014; Nussbaum, 2011). Organizations regard creativity as a crucial resource to be innovative
and competitive in the global market (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012;
Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In schools, students need a creative and flexible mind for learning and
integrating new knowledge (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Overall, it is essential that we cultivate young
learners’ creative capacity in order to be well-prepared for study, work and personal life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187118303468 1/8
Teachers more and more acknowledge the importance of fostering students’ creative thinking. There are two
ways of creative thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking
is the ability to find many possible solutions by searching from different directions (Guilford, 1967), whereas
convergent thinking is the capacity to look in all directions to come up with a single correct solution
(Simonton, 2003). Both divergent thinking and convergent thinking are important for creative solutions to
emerge. However, when it comes to the classroom, it seems that divergent thinking is seen as less
important. In many classrooms, the class norms remain structured and people focus on the standardized
tests (Beghetto, 2007, 2010; Runco, 1993). As a result, students are generally taught to find the single correct
solution to a problem, instead of being challenged to explore freely and think creatively (Beghetto, 2007;
Kennedy, 2005).
Most researchers agree that creativity has a multifaceted nature (e.g., Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013;
Rhodes, 1961; Runco, 2004; Snow, 1994; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). One influential theory was the 4 Ps
theory proposed by Rhodes (1961). According to the 4 Ps theory, creativity consists of four aspects: Person,
Process, Press and Product. Person refers to the personal characteristics or dispositions. Research has shown
that personality traits such as openness to experience (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997; Silvia et al., 2008) and
tolerance of ambiguity (e.g., Wiseman, Watt, Gilhooly, & Georgiou, 2011) positively correlate with creativity.
Process refers to the cognitive process involved in the creative behavior. When solving creative problems,
one has to perform certain cognitive operations in order to generate many potential solutions. De Bono
developed the CoRT (cognitive research trust) training program to teach different aspects of thinking, and
one was creative thinking (De Bono, 1983). The CoRT consisted of a series of lessons, and employed mainly a
perceptual (cognitive) approach. The CoRT has been widely used across age groups and in different
countries, and has been proved to be an effective tool to develop students’ creative thinking (e.g., De Bono,
1983; Daher, Tabaja-Kidan, & Gierdien, 2017; Barak & Doppelt, 1999). Press means influence from the
environment. There were many studies suggesting that environmental factors such as culture (Baer, 2003),
organizational setting (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) or educational setting (Besançon, Fenouillet, &
Shankland, 2015; Thomas & Berk, 1981), has a significant influence on individual’s creative performance.
Finally, Product refers to the creative outcome.
As Rhodes (1961) argued, there is a high interdependency among the four aspects. Usually the product is
forced by a specific situation (press) where a person solves problems by going through a series of mental
processes, whereas the product, in turn, affects the evaluation of the creative person and the creative
process. Hence, a person’s creative capacity is a combination and interaction of these four aspects, and
individual differences on these aspects will influence their creative performance. In that sense, it is
necessary to foster individual’s creative potential on all these aspects, that is, from a comprehensive
approach.
Substantial evidence has been provided for the effectiveness of single “P” programs (for reviews, see Ma,
2006; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a, 2004b). For example, using a “person” approach, participants
showed significant improvement on divergent thinking after recognizing a group of ambiguous figures,
which improved their tolerance of ambiguity (Wu, Gu, & Zhang, 2016). Ritter and Mostert (2017) employed a
“process” approach to train students’ domain-unspecific, creative thinking skills. In their study, participants
who learnt cognitive-oriented techniques (e.g., SCAMPER), showed significant improvement in their creative
performance. Other studies focusing on the “press” aspect have shown that students’ creativity benefited
from learning in alternative schools such as Montessori and Freinet schools in which students are exposed
to various creative activities, have greater freedom, and have more opportunities to express themselves
(Besançon & Lubart, 2008; Besançon et al., 2015; Thomas & Berk, 1981). Yet other studies showed that the
selection and evaluation of new products can be facilitated using a set of criteria with the particular context
(e.g., how to develop new eco-tourism services in Amazonian region) taken into account (Gabriel, Camargo,
Monticolo, Boly, & Bourgault, 2016).
Although these findings have shown positive effects of single “P” approaches in enhancing creativity, there
are shortcomings in each training approach. As suggested by the meta-analyses from Scott et al. (2004a), a
“person” approach might entail too much personal exploration and thus fail to provide clear strategies or
techniques, whereas a “process” approach focuses too much on domain-specific knowledge and makes it
challenging to transfer creative techniques to other domains (Baer, 1994, 2010; Kaufman, Beghetto, & Baer,
2010). With regard to the “press” interventions, the findings were inconclusive (Scott et al., 2004b) as there
are many uncontrollable factors involved in the environment. Besides, the training effectiveness varied
depending on what type of creativity (e.g., divergent thinking, convergent thinking) was measured (e.g.,
Blanco-Herrera, 2017; Ritter & Ferguson, 2017).
An extensive literature search using PsychoInfo1 revealed that no previous studies related to creativity
training have taken the person, process, press and product aspects into account. In the current study, we
developed a creativity-training program that incorporated the 4 Ps of creativity in one creativity training,
and moreover, creative inspiration was added.
The training developed in the current project is called the 5-I training, and consisted of five components:
Inclination, Ideation, Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration. Inclination focuses on the person aspect. It
aims to develop the personality traits that facilitate creative thinking such as openness to experiences,
flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. Ideation focuses on the process aspect. It aims to stimulate creative
cognition such as a flexible thinking style, taking multiple perspectives and making remote associations.
Interaction focuses on the press aspect. It aims to make use of the physical and interpersonal contexts for
implementing creative endeavor. Identification focuses on the product aspect. It aims to train children not
only how to generate creative ideas, but also to evaluate and recognize creative ideas. Inspiration aims to
evoke the motivation to be creative, for example, by observing others’ creations. Creative inspiration is
considered as a motivational resource that supports the creative process (Oleynick, Thrash, LeFew,
Moldovan, & Kieffaber, 2014; Thrash, Maruskin, Cassidy, Fryer, & Ryan, 2010). When providing children with
a creativity training, it’s necessary to inspire them and hereby motivate their creative thinking. By now,
there are only a couple of studies that investigated the relationship between creativity and inspiration, but
how to trigger creative inspiration has remained unexplored.
The training was designed in a brief and single session, using a variety of exercises adapted to children. The
exercises were carefully selected as a means to foster creative thinking. Finally, eight exercises were used,
each with a specific focus on one or two components of the 5-I. Each exercise is explained in detail in the
“Procedure” section.
The purpose of the current study was to develop a creativity training program from a comprehensive
approach, and to scientifically test the effectiveness of the training program. Specifically, the current
training program focused on children’s divergent thinking skills, that is, the ability to generate ideas from
different perspectives (Guilford, 1967). Three divergent thinking tasks (i.e., Alternative Uses Task, drawing
task, guessing task) were used to measure children’s creative performance by means of a pretest and
posttest comparison. We hypothesized that the current creativity training program improves children’s
creative performance from pretest to posttest.
Section snippets
Participants
To determine the sample size required for the current study, we conducted a power analysis using Shiny
Web applications. The effect size used was based on the study conducted by Garaigordobil (2006), as this
study is comparable with regard to age of the participants and the study design. Power analysis revealed
that a minimum sample size of 95 participants would be required to identify the training effects (statistical
power = .80 with p = .05).
The current study included 172 children from two…
Data cleaning
There were 6 children who didn’t take the pre/posttest seriously and made scratches elsewhere on the
paper, 2 children who were not able to write, and 2 children who didn’t understand the task. These children
were not included in the data analysis. One additional child was excluded from the guessing task because
the paper-version of that task was missing. This resulted in a dataset of 162 participants for the Alternative
Uses Task and the drawing task, and a dataset of 161 participants for the…
Summary of the findings
In the current study, we developed the 5-I creativity training program which consisted of five components
(Inclination, Ideation, Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration) with eight exercises employed to train
children’s creative thinking skills. The effectiveness of the training program in fostering children’s creative
thinking skills, specifically their divergent thinking skills, was scientifically examined. The results showed
significant improvements on all of the measures (i.e.,…
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.…
Declarations of interest
None.…
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gillis Altman, Lieke van den Boom, Rebecca Kahmann, Michiel Kiggen, Lisanne van
der Kruis, Luise Schlindwein, Iris Verpaalen and Anne Vlaanderen for their help with providing the creativity
training. We would like to thank Madelon Gerrits and Marjo Mierlo for typing children’s handwritten
responses into digital format. Finally, we would like to thank the children who participated in the training.…
Research data for this article
for download under the CC BY 4.0 licence ↗
Data for: Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking Skills with the 5-I Training Program ↗
This dataset consists of three sub-datasets of the children's creativity training study. 1) Raw data. Children's handwritten
responses were typed into digital version by two Dutch native speakers. 2) Data scoring files, including the scoring manual,
raters' ratings, and raters'reliability.…
Dataset
ChildrenCreativityTainingStudy.zip 207MB
View dataset on Mendeley Data ↗
Further information on research data ↗
References (67)
Y. Zhu et al.
Creativity: Intuitive processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2017)
R. Snow
A person-situation interaction theory of intelligence in outline
C.E. Shalley et al.

The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from
here?
Journal of Management (2004)
T. Lubart et al.
Children’s creative potential: An empirical study of measurement issues
Learning and Individual Differences (2010)
A. Gabriel et al.
Improving the idea selection process in creative workshops through contextualisation
Journal of Cleaner Production (2016)
D. Dziedziewicz et al.
Developing 4-to 6-year-old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program
Thinking Skills and Creativity (2013)
E. Doron
Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based
short term intervention program
M. Besançon et al.
Influence of school environment on adolescents’ creative potential, motivation and well-being
M. Besançon et al.
Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse
learning environments
R.A. Beghetto
Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response

preferences
View more references
Cited by (20)
Making design thinking for education sustainable: Training preservice teachers to address
practice challenges
2023, Thinking Skills and Creativity
Show abstract
The inﬂuence of digital educational games on preschool Children's creative thinking

2022, Computers and Education
Show abstract
Active versus Passive Strategy in Online Creativity Training: How to Best Promote Creativity of
Students with Different Cognitive Styles?
Show abstract
Fostering creativity as a problem-solving competence through design: Think-Create-Learn, a

tool for teachers
Show abstract
Promoting children's creative thinking through reading and writing in a cooperative learning
classroom
Show abstract
Creative thinking patterns in primary school students’ hands-on science activities involving
robotic as learning tools
2023, Asia Pacific Education Review
View all citing articles on Scopus
Recommended articles (6)
Research article
Using a creativity framework to promote teacher learning in lesson study

Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 32, 2019, pp. 114-128
Show abstract
Research article
Evaluating The Imagineerium: The Trowsdale Indices of Confidence in Competence, Creativity

and Learning (TICCCL)
Show abstract
Research article
How a dialogic space can impact children’s creativity and mood valence in Drama Pedagogy
Training: Study with a French 4th grade sample
Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 33, 2019, Article 100576
Show abstract
Research article
Creative Thinking features and museum interactivity: Examining the narrative and Possibility
Thinking features in primary classrooms using learning resources associated with museum
visits
Show abstract
Research article
Effects of gamified classroom management on the divergent thinking and creative tendency of
elementary students
Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 36, 2020, Article 100664
Show abstract
Research article
Effectiveness of Training Creativity on Preschool Students

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 102, 2013, pp. 643-647
Show abstract
View full text
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.
Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking skills with the 5-I Training Program
Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking Skills with the 5-I Training
Program
Xiaojing Gua*, Ap Dijksterhuisa, & Simone M. Rittera
a
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Xiaojing Gu, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: x.gu@bsi.ru.nl
Declarations of interest: none
To cite: Gu, X., Dijksterhuis, A., & Ritter, S. M. (2019). Fostering Children’s Creative
Thinking Skills with the 5-I Training Program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 32, 92-101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.002
Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking skills with the 5-I Training Program
Abstract
Creative thinking is an important 21st century skill. To prepare children for our complex
and fast-changing world, it is essential to cultivate their creative thinking skills. The objective
of the current study was to develop and examine the effectiveness of a brief, domain-
unspecific creativity training program: the 5-I training program. Children (N = 172) aged 7 -
12 years participated in the training, which consisted of eight creativity exercises performed
in a training session of two hours. The effectiveness of the training on stimulating children’s
creative thinking skills was assessed by means of a pretest and posttest comparison using
three creativity tasks (Alternative Uses Task, drawing task and guessing task). For each task
several measures of creative performance were examined (e.g., fluency, flexibility,
infrequency, elaboration). Following the creativity training, improvements were observed on
the three creativity tasks. The effectiveness of the 5-I training program was found for all
measures of creative performance, except for flexibility. Implications for educational settings
are discussed.
Keywords: Creativity, divergent thinking, training, 4Ps theory, 5-I training program
Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking Skills with the 5-I Training Program
1. Introduction
1.1 Importance of creativity
Creativity is generally defined as the ability to generate novel and useful ideas or
products (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). In a time of rapid change and
increasing competition, creativity is important in various domains. On a societal level,
creativity has become the driving force for artistic creation, technical innovation and scientific
discovery (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). On a personal level, we frequently engage in
creative activities to cope with everyday problems and challenges (Collard & Looney, 2014;
Newton, 2014; Nussbaum, 2011). Organizations regard creativity as a crucial resource to be
innovative and competitive in the global market (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015; Mueller,
Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In schools, students need a
creative and flexible mind for learning and integrating new knowledge (Sternberg & Lubart,
1996). Overall, it is essential that we cultivate young learners’ creative capacity in order to be
well-prepared for study, work and personal life.
1.2 Divergent thinking and convergent thinking
Teachers more and more acknowledge the importance of fostering students’ creative
thinking. There are two ways of creative thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking
(Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking is the ability to find many possible solutions by
searching from different directions (Guilford, 1967), whereas convergent thinking is the
capacity to look in all directions to come up with a single correct solution (Simonton, 2003).
Both divergent thinking and convergent thinking are important for creative solutions to
emerge. However, when it comes to the classroom, it seems that divergent thinking is seen as
less important. In many classrooms, the class norms remain structured and people focus on
the standardized tests (Beghetto, 2007, 2010; Runco, 1993). As a result, students are generally
3
taught to find the single correct solution to a problem, instead of being challenged to explore
freely and think creatively (Beghetto, 2007; Kennedy, 2005).
1.3 The 4Ps theory of creativity
Most researchers agree that creativity has a multifaceted nature (e.g., Lubart, Zenasni, &
Barbot, 2013; Rhodes, 1961; Runco, 2004; Snow, 1994; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). One
influential theory was the 4Ps theory proposed by Rhodes (1961). According to the 4Ps
theory, creativity consists of four aspects: Person, Process, Press and Product. Person refers
to the personal characteristics or dispositions. Research has shown that personality traits such
as openness to experience (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997; Silvia et al., 2008) and tolerance of
ambiguity (e.g., Wiseman et al., 2011) positively correlate with creativity. Process refers to
the cognitive process involved in the creative behavior. When solving creative problems, one
has to perform certain cognitive operations in order to generate many potential solutions. De
Bono developed the CoRT (cognitive research trust) training program to teach different
aspects of thinking, and one was creative thinking (De Bono, 1983). The CoRT consisted of a
series of lessons, and employed mainly a perceptual (cognitive) approach. The CoRT has been
widely used across age groups and in different countries, and has been proved to be an
effective tool to develop students’ creative thinking (e.g., Daher, Tabaja-Kidan, & Gierdien,
2017; Barak & Doppelt, 1999). Press means influence from the environment. There were
many studies suggesting that environmental factors such as culture (Baer, 2003),
organizational setting (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) or educational setting
(Besançon, Fenouillet, & Shankland, 2015; Thomas & Berk, 1981), has a significant influence
on individual’s creative performance. Finally, Product refers to the creative outcome.
As Rhodes (1961) argued, there is a high interdependency among the four aspects.
Usually the product is forced by a specific situation (press) where a person solves problems
by going through a series of mental processes, whereas the product, in turn, affects the
4
evaluation of the creative person and the creative process. Hence, a person’s creative capacity
is a combination and interaction of these four aspects, and individual differences on these
aspects will influence their creative performance. In that sense, it is necessary to foster
individual’s creative potential on all these aspects, that is, from a comprehensive approach.
1.4 Creativity trainings based on the 4Ps theory
Substantial evidence has been provided for the effectiveness of single “P” programs (for
reviews, see Ma, 2006; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004a, 2004b). For example, using a
“person” approach, participants showed significant improvement on divergent thinking after
recognizing a group of ambiguous figures, which improved their tolerance of ambiguity (Wu,
Gu, & Zhang, 2016). Ritter and Mostert (2016) employed a “process” approach to train
students’ domain-unspecific, creative thinking skills. In their study, participants who learnt
cognitive-oriented techniques (e.g., SCAMPER), showed significant improvement in their
creative performance. Other studies focusing on the “press” aspect have shown that students’
creativity benefited from learning in alternative schools such as Montessori and Freinet
schools in which students are exposed to various creative activities, have greater freedom, and
have more opportunities to express themselves (Besançon, Fenouillet, & Shankland, 2015;
Besançon & Lubart, 2008; Thomas & Berk, 1981). Yet other studies showed that the selection
and evaluation of new products can be facilitated using a set of criteria with the particular
context (e.g., how to develop new eco-tourism services in Amazonian region) taken into
account (Gabriel, Camargo, Monticolo, Boly, & Bourgault, 2016).
Although these findings have shown positive effects of single “P” approaches in
enhancing creativity, there are shortcomings in each training approach. As suggested by the
meta-analyses from Scott et al. (2004b), a “person” approach might entail too much personal
exploration and thus fail to provide clear strategies or techniques, whereas a “process”
approach focuses too much on domain-specific knowledge and makes it challenging to
5
transfer creative techniques to other domains (Baer, 1994, 2010; Kaufman, Beghetto, & Baer,
2010). With regard to the “press” interventions, the findings were inconclusive (Scott et al.,
2004a) as there are many uncontrollable factors involved in the environment. Besides, the
training effectiveness varied depending on what type of creativity (e.g., divergent thinking,
convergent thinking) was measured (e.g., Blanco-Herrera, 2017; Ritter & Ferguson, 2017).
An extensive literature search using PsychoInfo1 revealed that no previous studies related
to creativity training have taken the person, process, press and product aspects into account. In
the current study, we developed a creativity-training program that incorporated the 4Ps of
creativity in one creativity training, and moreover, creative inspiration was added.
1.5 A description of the 5-I training program
The training developed in the current project is called the 5-I training, and consisted of
five components: Inclination, Ideation, Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration. Inclination
focuses on the person aspect. It aims to develop the personality traits that facilitate creative
thinking such as openness to experiences, flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. Ideation
focuses on the process aspect. It aims to stimulate creative cognition such as a flexible
thinking style, taking multiple perspectives and making remote associations. Interaction
focuses on the press aspect. It aims to make use of the physical and interpersonal contexts for
implementing creative endeavor. Identification focuses on the product aspect. It aims to train
children not only how to generate creative ideas, but also to evaluate and recognize creative
ideas. Inspiration aims to evoke the motivation to be creative, for example, by observing
others’ creations. Creative inspiration is considered as a motivational resource that supports
the creative process (Oleynick, Thrash, LeFew, Moldovan, & Kieffaber, 2014; Thrash,
Maruskin, Cassidy, Fryer, & Ryan, 2010). When providing children with a creativity training,
1
No articles were found using these search terms : (creativ*)—Title AND (intervention* or
foster* or teach* or train* or promot* or enhanc* or stimulat* or develop* or facilitat* or
support* or encourag* or advanc* or climate or environment or curriculum or condition) —
Title AND {4P / (person and process and press and product)}—All fields
6
it’s necessary to inspire them and hereby motivate their creative thinking. By now, there are
only a couple of studies that investigated the relationship between creativity and inspiration,
but how to trigger creative inspiration has remained unexplored.
The training was designed in a brief and single session, using a variety of exercises
adapted to children. The exercises were carefully selected as a means to foster creative
thinking. Finally, eight exercises were used, each with a specific focus on one or two
components of the 5-I. Each exercise is explained in detail in the “Procedure” section.
1.6 Purpose of the current study
The purpose of the current study was to develop a creativity training program from a
comprehensive approach, and to scientifically test the effectiveness of the training program.
Specifically, the current training program focused on children’s divergent thinking skills, that
is, the ability to generate ideas from different perspectives (Guildford, 1967). Three divergent
thinking tasks (i.e., Alternative Uses Task, drawing task, guessing task) were used to measure
children’s creative performance by means of a pretest and posttest comparison. We
hypothesized that the current creativity training program increases children’s creative
performance from pretest to posttest.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
To determine the sample size required for the current study, we conducted a power
analysis using Shiny Web applications. The effect size used was based on the study conducted
by Garaigordobil (2006), as this study is comparable with regard to age of the participants and
the study design. Power analysis revealed that a minimum sample size of 95 participants
would be required to identify the training effects (statistical power = .80 with p = .05).
7
The current study included 172 children from two primary schools in the Netherlands.
The sample consisted of 77 boys and 95 girls, ranging in age from 7 to 12 years old (M =
9.62, SD =1.34). The training took place on October 25 and 26, 2017 at Radboud University.
Children took part in one of the three training sessions: a morning session on October 25, a
morning session on October 26, and an afternoon session on October 26. Each session had
four training groups with about 15 children in each group. Parents provided written informed
consent prior to the training.
The current study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Radboud University
(approval code: ECSW-2017-014R1), and the hypothesis, methods, and data analysis plan of
this study were preregistered on Open Science Framework (see
https://osf.io/g9fb7/register/5730e99a9ad5a102c5745a8a).
2.2 Measures
Three creativity tasks were used to measure children’s divergent thinking abilities before
and after the training: The Alternative Uses Task, a drawing task, and a guessing task. All of
these tasks are widely used in studies with children, and the reliability and validity of the tasks
have been shown by various studies (see e.g., Runco, 1991; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999;
Torrance, 1974). To prevent any repetition and order effects, two versions (version A and
version B) of each task were used and counterbalanced among participants in the pretest and
posttest. All the tasks were tested in a paper and pencil form. The creativity measures for each
task were chosen based on the test manual and earlier studies (see e.g., Garaigordobil, 2006;
Guilford, 1967; Lubart et al., 2010; Torrance, 1974).
Alternative Uses Task
The Alternative Uses Task asked participants to think of as many different uses of a
common object as possible. This task was adapted from Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task
(Guilford, 1967). One difference was that we used daily objects that are familiar to children:
8
in version A the object was a water bottle, and in version B the object chosen was a shoe box.
The time limit to generate and list ideas was 4 minutes. Participants’ responses were assessed
on four creativity measures: (i) Fluency, the total number of ideas listed. Only complete and
clearly described ideas were included. (ii) Infrequency, the statistical infrequency score of an
idea. A score of 2 was assigned if fewer than 2% of the participants generated the idea; a
score of 1 was assigned if 2–5% generated the idea; and a score of 0 was assigned if more
than 5% generated the idea (see also Lubart, Pacteau, Jacquet, & Caroff, 2010). An overall
score on infrequency was calculated for each participant. (iii) Flexibility, the total number of
different categories that a participant’s ideas could be assigned to. Therefore, a predefined list
of idea categories was developed, and each idea was assigned to one of the predefined
categories. (iv) Creativity, how creative an idea was. Each idea was assigned a creativity
score on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (very creative). One rater scored all
the ideas, and a second rater scored 30% of the generated ideas. The interrater reliability
analysis (two-way random, interrater consistency) showed that the intraclass coefficient (ICC)
was excellent, ICC = .87. For each participant, the average creativity score was calculated
based on all the ideas generated by this child.
Drawing task
The drawing task was adapted from the “lines/circles” task in the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974). In version A, participants were asked to make as
many drawings as possible on a paper with circles, and in version B they were asked to make
as many drawings as possible on a paper with diamonds. The time limit was 4 minutes.
Participants’ drawings were assessed on five creativity measures: (i) Fluency, (ii)
Infrequency and (iii) Flexibility were calculated using the same criteria as the Alternative
Uses Task. (iv) Elaboration, the total number of details added to each drawing (see also
Garaigordobil, 2006). 0-3 point(s) was/were assigned based on how many additional details
9
were drawn beyond what is necessary to express the basic idea. For instance, for a drawing
“face”, a score of 0 was assigned if no additional details were drawn except the basic features
of a face; a score of 1 was assigned if 1 additional detail was added to the face (e.g., with
glasses); a score of 2 was assigned if 2 additional details were added to the face (e.g., with
glasses and a hat); and a score of 3 was assigned if 3 or more additional details were added to
the face (e.g., with glasses, a hat and earrings). An overall score on elaboration was calculated
for each participant. (v) Resistance to premature closure, the degree of participants’
openness when making drawings (see also Garaigordobil, 2006). 0-3 point(s) was/were
assigned based on how a participant finished the drawing. A score of 0 was assigned if a
participant made no drawings/connections outside the circle/diamond; a score of 1 was
assigned if a participant made simple drawing(s) (e.g., lines, dots, faces, squares) or
connections outside the circle/diamond; a score of 2 was assigned if a participant made
complex drawing(s) (e.g., a house and an animal) or connections (e.g., connect several
circles/diamonds) outside the circle/diamond; a score of 3 was assigned if a participant made
both complex drawing(s) and connections outside the circle/diamond. An overall score on
resistance to premature closure was calculated for each participant.
Guessing task
The guessing task asked participants to think of as many different reasons as possible of a
situation depicted in a picture. This task was also adapted from TTCT (Torrance, 1974). In
version A, participants were presented with a picture of a happy boy, and in version B with a
picture of a scared boy. Participants’ responses were assessed on three creativity measures: (i)
Fluency, (ii) Infrequency and (iii) Flexibility that followed the same scoring criteria as the
Alternative Uses Task and the drawing task.
2.3 Procedure
10
A pre-posttest within-subjects design was used in this study. The pretest was performed
individually and took about 15 minutes. After the pretest, children started the 2-hour training.
In each training group, there were two trainers, one working as the main trainer and the other
assisted. All the trainers had been trained on the theoretical knowledge and the exercise
instructions of the 5-I training program. When providing the training, the trainers were
required to follow the same protocol. The eight exercises were arranged in a logical order that
allowed children to progressively go through the training, from simple and passive exercises
to more complex and active ones. Following the training, children performed the posttest
individually; the posttest lasted about 15 minutes.
2.4 Training exercises
The description of each training exercise is listed below, and an overview is provided in
Appendix A.
Exercise 1: Inspirational video
This video clip consisted of two inventions made by children: a bowl-shaped baby bib
and detachable heels (taken from an episode of TV program Ellen Show; DeGeneres, Hurwitz,
& Leifer, 2011). This exercise aimed to inspire children by watching inventions made by
other children.
Exercises 2: Finding differences
In this exercise, children were presented with five items: a book, skates, a tricycle, a
sledge and a train. They were asked to find the item that differed from the others. Actually,
each of the item can be considered different from the other four items: 1) a book is the only
item you cannot use for locomotion; 2) you need two skaters to be able to skate; 3) a tricycle
is the only item generally used by children; 4) the sledge is the only item that may be used on
snow; 5) the train is the only thing that needs electricity. This exercise was taken from a study
of Meyer (2011). To solve this problem, children had to view the five objects on different
11
perspectives such as the function, size and shape, and they used flexible thinking. Meanwhile,
from this exercise children realized that there could be more than one “correct” answer to
some questions.
Exercises 3: Figure arrangement
In this exercise, children were asked to make drawings by using a square and a triangle.
No additional rules were provided and children could decide by themselves what and how to
draw. In this way, children could become as imaginative as they could. For example, they
could make drawings with several squares or triangles, or by maximizing or minimizing the
shapes. This exercise was adapted from TTCT (Torrance, Ball & Safter, 1966), but it was
different from the drawing test in the current study.
Exercise 4: Think out of box
In this exercise, we used a paper box that a child could comfortably sit in, and placed it in
the middle of the training room. Each time one child was invited to site either inside or
outside the box, and to explain how he/she feels (e.g., are you comfortable? Do you feel safe?
What is better for your creative thinking, sit inside or outside?). This exercise was adapted
from a study by Leung et al. (2012), which found that sitting outside the box was beneficial to
creative thinking compared with sitting inside the box. Different from their study, here we
didn’t mean to give children the idea that sitting outside is better; rather, the goal of this
exercise was to have children reflecting on what kind of environment favors their creative
thinking. For example, some children might prefer staying alone when thinking about
questions while others would like to collaborate with others.
Exercise 5: Ambiguous figures
An ambiguous figure is a picture that can be interpreted from two or more perspectives.
Research has shown that successful recognition of ambiguous figures is a good predictor of
divergent thinking skills (e.g., Wu, Gu, & Zhang, 2016). In this exercise, children were
12
presented with several ambiguous figures, and were asked to guess the objects in each figure.
If children had difficulty in perceiving the figures, they were allowed to move and view the
figures from different angles. This exercise aimed to train children to become tolerant of
challenging or ambiguous problems, and to realize that things may look differently if they see
it from another perspective.
Exercise 6: Perspective taking
Perspective taking refers to the ability to perceive and see things from a different
viewpoint (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Shaffer, 2008). Research has shown that
exposure to others’ ideas helps to establish broader semantic associations and thus leads to
more creative ideas (Fink et al., 2012). One study has shown that children who practiced
perspective taking in daily activities performed better in divergent thinking tasks (Doron,
2017). In the current exercise, a riding-stick horse was hidden inside a box. Without any clue,
children were asked to put one hand into the box (see Appendix B). Every child touched a
different part of the riding-stick horse. Later children were asked to guess what is inside the
box by combining the information that different children had provided. This exercise allowed
children to take other children’s viewpoint into account when solving a problem, as well as
experience and realize the importance of teamwork. This exercise was inspired by the story
six blind and one elephant (Goldstein, 2010).
Exercise 7: SCAMPER
SCAMPER, originally invented by Osborn (1953), relies on a couple of techniques:
substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate, and rearrange. In this
exercise, children were asked to improve a teaspoon. Trainers asked questions about the
teaspoon to guide children to go through the seven techniques. For example, to practice
substitute: “Do you know any other materials that does not get hot easily?” which would
encourage children to think of a wooden or a plastic teaspoon. The goal of this exercise was to
13
provide children with instructed creative thinking techniques for creative problem solving.
Moreover, the teaspoon exercise was used to teach children creative idea evaluation and
selection, and to practice these skills. Creativity not only requires the generation of creative
ideas, but also the ability to recognize and select the most creative ones from a pool of
available options (de Buisonjé, Ritter, de Bruin, ter Horst, & Meeldijk, 2017; Zhu, Ritter,
Müller, & Dijksterhuis, 2017; Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017).
Exercise 8: Random connection
Random connection requires generating solutions by connecting a target object randomly
with an unrelated object (see Ritter & Mostert, 2016). In this exercise, children were asked to
design a new type of sun cream by associating it with a random object in the room. In the
current exercise, the trainer guided the children to use a ballpoint pen. First, children were
asked to list as many characteristics as possible of the ballpoint pen (e.g., writing, color,
roller). After that, children were encouraged to think about how these characteristics could be
applied to a sun cream. For example, they could design a roll-on sun cream, or a colored sun
cream whose color disappears into skin. In this exercise, children learnt to solve problems by
making associations.
3. Results
3.1 Data cleaning
There were 6 children who didn’t take the pre/posttest seriously and made scratches
elsewhere on the paper, 2 children who were not able to write, and 2 children who didn’t
understand the task. These children were not included in the data analysis. One additional
child was excluded from the guessing task because the paper-version of that task was missing.
This resulted in a dataset of 162 participants for the Alternative Uses Task and the drawing
task, and a dataset of 161 participants for the guessing task.
14
3.2 Data analysis
In the preregistration, it was stated that paired sample t-test would be used to test the
hypothesized increase in children’s creativity from pretest to posttest. One precondition for
using a paired t-test is that the dependent variables between the two related groups should be
approximately normally distributed. However, examination of distribution of paired mean
difference showed non-normal distributions for most of the variables, which violated the
assumption of paired t-test (see Table 1).
Table 1.
Mean difference, standard deviation, range, skewness and kurtosis values for each variable
M SD Range Skewness Kurtosis
Variables
(Post-Pre) (abs) (abs)
Alternative Uses Task (N =162)
Fluency .494 2.72 -8.00 ─ 10.0 1.30 3.07
Infrequency .611 3.98 -14.0 ─ 15.0 0.70 5.56
Flexibility .185 2.22 -5.00 ─ 7.00 .539 .860
Creativity .113 .689 -1.75 ─ 2.25 1.28 0.72
Drawing task (N =162)
Fluency 1.73 .333 -15.0 ─ 15.0 -1.76 8.45
Infrequency .765 .270 -7.00 ─ 13.0 4.37 3.20
Flexibility -.086 .177 -7.00 ─ 6.00 -1.03 1.78
Elaboration .463 .178 -4.00 ─ 14.0 7.52 19.5
Resistance to premature
.722 .250 -7.00 ─ 16.0 8.16 15.6
closure
Guessing task (N =161)
Fluency .385 2.29 -6.00 ─ 8.00 1.36 2.03
Infrequency 1.07 4.21 -11.0 ─ 14.0 2.00 2.31
Flexibility .224 2.20 -7.00 ─ 5.00 -2.47 1.66
15
Note: abs = absolute z-value. According to Field (2009), the sample distribution is considered
non-normal if the absolute z-value of either skewness or kurtosis is larger than 1.96.
Therefore, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (Helsel & Hirsch, 2002) were
carried out to compare the difference of children´s creative performance on these variables
between pretest and posttest.
Alternative Uses Task
As can be seen in Table 2, there was a significant increase on children’s fluency, z = -
2.29, p = .022, indicating that children produced more ideas from pretest to posttest.
Moreover, marginally significant increase was found on infrequency, z = -1.91, p = .056 and
on creativity, z = -1.80, p = .072, suggesting that children tended to produce more novel and
uncommon ideas after the training. In the posttest, no difference was found on flexibility, z = -
1.12, p = .261, that is, children didn’t come up with ideas from more diverse categories.
Drawing task
The results revealed a significant improvement of children’s performance on fluency, z =
-5.68, p = .000, indicating that children made more drawings after the training. Second, the
training revealed a significant improvement on infrequency, z = -2.57, p = .010, suggesting
that the training program improved children’s capacity to generate more novel and uncommon
drawings. Third, there was a significant improvement on elaboration, z = -2.57, p = .010,
meaning that children added more details to the drawings in the posttest. Moreover, there was
a significant improvement for resistance to premature closure, z = -2.55, p = .011, which
indicated that children completed the drawings with more connections and by using complex
lines. While the number of drawing categories (flexibility) generated by children remained
non-significant, z = -.370, p = .712.
Guessing task
16
After the training, children came up with more answers to the picture, with significant
improvement on fluency, z = -2.09, p = .037. The results also showed that children improved
significantly on infrequency, z = -2.91, p = .004, suggesting that children produced more
novel and uncommon answers in the posttest. However, as in the other two tasks, no
significant increase on flexibility was found, z = -1.61, p = .107.
Table 2.
Wilcoxon signed ranks test results for each variable between pretest and posttest2
Wilcoxon signed ranks Effect
Variables Pretest Posttest test results size
M±SD M±SD Z p r
Alternative Uses Task (N=162)
Fluency 6.07±2.76 6.56±3.33 -2.29 .022 .127
Infrequency 4.06±3.58 4.67±3.85 -1.91 .056 .106
Flexibility 5.03±1.91 5.22±2.31 -1.12 .261 .062
Creativity 2.08±.594 2.20±.688 -1.80 .072 .100
Drawing task (N=162)
Fluency 6.90±3.99 8.63±4.64 -5.68 .000 .316
Infrequency 2.06±2.18 2.83±3.22 -2.19 .028 .122
Flexibility 3.76±1.97 3.67±1.89 -.370 .712 .021
Elaboration 1.48±1.42 1.94±2.01 -2.57 .010 .143
Resistance to premature 1.96±2.27 2.68±3.14 -2.55 .011 .142
2
When checking the skewness and kurtosis values as well as boxplots, all the variables
contained outliers with cases that were more than 1.5 box lengths from the lower or upper
hinge. Although it was reasonable to attribute these extreme values to the training effect, we
conducted a second statistical analyses without outliers to examine whether the findings
would change.
Paired sample t-tests revealed nearly identical findings as described above, except that (1) in
the Alternative Uses Task, comparison of infrequency became statistically significant, t(157)
= 2.14, p = .034; in the drawing task, infrequency became non-significant, t(148) = 1.47, p =
.143, but the mean score of posttest was still higher than that of pretest; (3) in the guessing
task, flexibility showed marginal significance from pretest to posttest, t(159) = 1.93, p = .056.
17
closure
Guessing task (N=161)
Fluency 5.49±2.17 5.88±2.45 -2.09 .037 .116
Infrequency 5.93±3.27 6.99±4.37 -2.91 .004 .163
Flexibility 4.61±1.89 4.84±2.05 -1.61 .107 .090
Note: effect sizes: r = 0.1 for small effect, r = 0.3 for medium effect, r = 0.5 for large effect
(Cohen, 1988).
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary of the findings
In the current study, we developed the 5-I creativity training program which consisted of
five components (Inclination, Ideation, Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration) with eight
exercises employed to train children’s creative thinking skills. The effectiveness of the
training program in fostering children’s creative thinking skills, specifically their divergent
thinking skills, was scientifically examined. The results showed significant improvements on
all of the measures (i.e., fluency, infrequency, creativity, elaboration and resistance to
premature closure) in the posttest compared to the pretest, except for flexibility. The current
findings confirmed our hypotheses that a 2-hour training program improves children’s
divergent thinking abilities.
The 5-I training program has several benefits. In all the tasks, fluency was significantly
increased after the training. Following the training, children seemed to become more open and
explorative, and thus generated more ideas and drawings. Importantly, besides the increase on
the number of ideas, the training improved the idea quality. In the Alternative Uses Task,
marginal improvements on creativity and on infrequency were observed. In the guessing task,
children made significant improvement on infrequency, and came up with more novel
answers based on the pictures. Similarly, in the drawing task the significant improvement on
18
infrequency was also found. Children’s drawings generated in the posttest were evaluated as
more novel and unique. Moreover, the drawings were elaborated with more details such as
circles, lines or figures. In addition, children drew more connections and complex lines
outside the given circles or diamonds, and thus led to the improvement on resistance to
premature closure.
No improvement was observed on flexibility. This is in line with earlier creativity
training studies among children (e.g., Garaigordobil, 2006; Dziedziewicz, Oledzka, &
Karwowski, 2013). One reason could be that the cognitive flexibility only increases after a
longer training period, while in the current study the training was only a one session, 2-hour
training. Another explanation might be related to the topic breadth. People are more likely to
think from different perspectives or categories when provided with a broad topic, whereas
tended to generate ideas more within the same category when the topic is narrow (Nijstad, De
Dreu, Rietzschel & Baas, 2010). In our study, all the creative tasks were based on objects,
shapes or events that are familiar to children, which could somehow constrain children to
associate with remote and “out of category” ideas.
4.2 Limitations
We employed a pretest and posttest within-subjects design, without a control group.
Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the observed effects can be ascribed to the
learning effects. However, this is unlikely as two different versions of each task were used
and counterbalanced between the pretest and posttest. Another confounding variable is
motivation. One may argue that children noticed that they were tested, and therefore displayed
higher motivation in the posttest than in the pretest. While in a creativity training study with
training and control conditions, a decrease in the control group was observed from pretest to
posttest (Hoffmann, 2016). In addition, rather than being motivated, there was a possibility of
depletion given that no break was taken in-between the training and the posttest. Thus,
19
children were likely to become exhausted after 2 hours’ training. In that case, one could also
expect that children´s creative performance became lower in the posttest. But still, as shown
by the current findings, children’s creative performance was improved after the training.
Besides, future research is needed to investigate the long-term effect of the training program.
For example, a third measurement could be employed to test children’s creativity after a few
weeks or months. If the training effect remains significant compared to the pretest, then it
indicates that a short training is effective in enhancing children’s creative thinking skills.
4.3 Conclusions
Taken as a whole, the current findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the 5-I training
program in the development of children’s creativity. Future research could consider
investigating the long-term effect of the 5-I training program. The current study might have
implications for educational settings. This brief and single session training is neither very time
consuming nor very costly, which provides the possibility to train children’s creativity in
school settings.
20
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gillis Altman, Lieke van den Boom, Rebecca Kahmann, Michiel
Kiggen, Lisanne van der Kruis, Luise Schlindwein, Iris Verpaalen and Anne Vlaanderen for
their help with providing the creativity training. We would like to thank Madelon Gerrits and
Marjo Mierlo for typing children’s handwritten responses into digital format. Finally, we
would like to thank the children who participated in the training.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
21
Appendix A.
The theoretical underpinnings of exercises in the 5-I training program
Inclination Ideation Interaction Identification Inspiration

Inspirational videos * **
Finding differences ** *
Figure arrangement * **
Think out of box **
Ambiguous figures **
Perspective taking ** *
SCAMPER ** **
Random connection ** **
Note: In each exercise, ** means a strong focus on a specific component while * means a less strong
focus.
Appendix B.
Training exercise: Perspective taking
22
References
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Colorado: Westview Press.
Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment.
Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-46.
Baer, J. (2003). Double dividends: cross-cultural creativity studies teach us about both
creativity and cultures. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 22(3), 37-39.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321-341). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT)
Programme for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research
in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 139–151.
Blanco-Herrera, J. A. (2017). Mining Creativity: Video Game Creativity Learning Effects.
Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 15263. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15263
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective
teachers’ response preferences. Thinking skills and creativity, 2(1), 1-9.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. The Cambridge handbook of creativity,
447-463.
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.
Besançon, M., Fenouillet, F., & Shankland, R. (2015). Influence of school environment on
adolescents' creative potential, motivation and well-being. Learning and Individual
Differences, 43, 178-184.
23
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum
and Associates.
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of
Education, 49(3), 348-364.
Caniëls, M. C., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2015). Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation
under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 184-196.
Daher, W., Tabaja-Kidan, A., & Gierdien, F. (2017). Educating Grade 6 students for higher-
order thinking and its influence on creativity. Pythagoras, 38(1), 1–12.
De Bono, E. (1983). The cognitive research trust (CoRT) thinking program. Thinking: The
expanding frontier, 115–127.
de Buisonjé, D. R., Ritter, S. M., de Bruin, S., ter Horst, J. M. L., & Meeldijk, A. (2017).
Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation,
promotion focus and positive affect. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 174-181.
DeGeneres, E., Hurwitz, M., & Leifer, C. (2011). 3 Kid Inventions and a Baby. In
DeGeneres, E., The Ellen Show. California, CA: Columbia Broadcasting System.
Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and
visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
23, 150-160.
Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4-to 6-year-old
children's figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 9, 85-95.
Field, A. (2009). Correlation. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 166-196. London: SAGE.
Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Ischebeck, A., Weiss, E. M., & Ebner,
F. (2012). Stimulating creativity via the exposure to other people's ideas. Human brain
mapping, 33(11), 2603-2610.
24
Gabriel, A., Camargo, M., Monticolo, D., Boly, V., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Improving the
idea selection process in creative workshops through contextualisation. Journal of
cleaner production, 135, 1503-1513.
Galinsky, A., Maddux, W., Gilin, D., & White, J. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head
of your opponent. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
Garaigordobil, M. (2006). Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years:
Impact of a play program on verbal and graphic–figural creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 18(3), 329-345.
Goldstein, E. B. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of perception (Vol. 1). London: SAGE.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1(1), 3-14. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967. tb00002.x.
Helsel, D. R., & Hirsch, R. M. (2002). Statistical methods in water resources. Reston, VA:
US Geological Survey.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
569-598. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Hoffmann, J. D., & Russ, S. W. (2016). Fostering pretend play skills and creativity in
elementary school girls: A group play intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 10(1), 114.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010). Finding young Paul Robesons: Exploring
the question of creative polymathy. Innovations in educational psychology, 141.
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Leung, A. K. Y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks,
J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”. Psychological science, 23(5), 502-
25
509.
Lubart, T., Pacteau, C., Jacquet, A. Y., & Caroff, X. (2010). Children's creative potential: An
empirical study of measurement issues. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4),
388-392.
Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement.
International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41-51.
Ma, H. H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and
packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 435-446.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
Meyer, J. U. (2011). Das Edison-Prinzip. In: C. Koop & O. Steenbuck (Hrsg.), Kreativität –
Zufall oder harte Arbeit? Karg-Hefte: Beiträge zur Begabtenförderung und
Begabungsforschung, 41-44. Berlin: Karg-Stiftung.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, A. (2012). The Bias against Creativity: Why People
Desire but Reject Creative Ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13-17.
Newton, D. P. (2014). Thinking with feeling: Fostering productive thought in the classroom.
London: Routledge.
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to
creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34-77. DOI:
10.1080/10463281003765323
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2014).
The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: challenges and
26
opportunities. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 436.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-
solving. New York: Scribners.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42(7), 305-310.
Ritter, S. M., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2017). Lay theories of creativity. In The Science of Lay
Theories (pp. 95-126). Springer, Cham.
Ritter, S. M., & Ferguson, S. (2017). Happy creativity: Listening to happy music facilitates
divergent thinking. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0182210.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182210
Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-
based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243-253.
Runco, M. A. (1993). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged students.
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, &
J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21-30). Washington,
DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches
and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149-179.
Shaffer, D. R. (2008). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of management,
27
30(6), 933-958.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al.
(2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability
and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 2, 68-85.
Snow, R. (1994). A person-situation interaction theory of intelligence in outline. In A.
Demetriou, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Intelligence, Mind, and Reasoning: Structure and
Development (pp. 11-28). Amsterdam: Elveiser Science.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture
of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American psychologist, 51(7),
677.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, N. G., & Berk, L. E. (1981). Effects of school environments on the development of
young children's creativity. Child Development, 52(4), 1153-1162.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking.
Scholastic Testing Service.
Thrash, T. M., Maruskin, L. A., Cassidy, S. E., Fryer, J. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mediating
between the muse and the masses: inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(3), 469. doi: 10.1037/a0017907
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Gilhooly, K., & Georgiou, G. (2011). Creativity and ease of
28
ambiguous figural reversal. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 615-622.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
Wu, X., Gu, X., & Zhang, H. (2016). The facilitative effects of ambiguous figures on creative
solution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1-8. doi:10.1002/jocb.161
Zhu, Y., Ritter, S. M., Müller, B. C., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2017). Creativity: Intuitive
processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 180-188.
29

Thinking Skills and Creativity: Show More

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

Thinking Skills and Creativity: Show More

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

09/03/2023, 11:22 Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training program - ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training

The current study included 172 children from two…

Summary of the findings

for download under the CC BY 4.0 licence ↗

View dataset on Mendeley Data ↗

Further information on research data ↗

C.E. Shalley et al.

Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response

View more references

The inﬂuence of digital educational games on preschool Children's creative thinking

Fostering creativity as a problem-solving competence through design: Think-Create-Learn, a

View all citing articles on Scopus

Recommended articles (6)

Using a creativity framework to promote teacher learning in lesson study

Evaluating The Imagineerium: The Trowsdale Indices of Confidence in Competence, Creativity

Effectiveness of Training Creativity on Preschool Students

View full text

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

Fostering Children’s Creative Thinking Skills with the 5-I Training

Xiaojing Gua*, Ap Dijksterhuisa, & Simone M. Rittera

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:

Xiaojing Gu, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

E-mail address: x.gu@bsi.ru.nl

Declarations of interest: none

several measures of creative performance were examined (e.g., fluency, flexibility,

infrequency, elaboration). Following the creativity training, improvements were observed on

1.1 Importance of creativity

increasing competition, creativity is important in various domains. On a societal level,

discovery (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). On a personal level, we frequently engage in

Newton, 2014; Nussbaum, 2011). Organizations regard creativity as a crucial resource to be

well-prepared for study, work and personal life.

1.2 Divergent thinking and convergent thinking

freely and think creatively (Beghetto, 2007; Kennedy, 2005).

1.3 The 4Ps theory of creativity

on individual’s creative performance. Finally, Product refers to the creative outcome.

1.4 Creativity trainings based on the 4Ps theory

“person” approach, participants showed significant improvement on divergent thinking after

cognitive-oriented techniques (e.g., SCAMPER), showed significant improvement in their

account (Gabriel, Camargo, Monticolo, Boly, & Bourgault, 2016).

approach focuses too much on domain-specific knowledge and makes it challenging to

1.5 A description of the 5-I training program

five components: Inclination, Ideation, Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration. Inclination

thinking such as openness to experiences, flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. Ideation

others’ creations. Creative inspiration is considered as a motivational resource that supports

but how to trigger creative inspiration has remained unexplored.

1.6 Purpose of the current study

children’s creative performance by means of a pretest and posttest comparison. We

performance from pretest to posttest.

consent prior to the training.

this study were preregistered on Open Science Framework (see

Guilford, 1967; Lubart et al., 2010; Torrance, 1974).

Alternative Uses Task

based on all the ideas generated by this child.

participant made no drawings/connections outside the circle/diamond; a score of 1 was

connections outside the circle/diamond; a score of 2 was assigned if a participant made

circles/diamonds) outside the circle/diamond; a score of 3 was assigned if a participant made

resistance to premature closure was calculated for each participant.

Alternative Uses Task and the drawing task.

individually; the posttest lasted about 15 minutes.