- Email: [email protected]
Enhancing fluent and flexible thinking through the creative drama process
Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
Enhancing fluent and flexible thinking through the creative drama process Sema Karakelle ∗ Istanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, 34459 Beyazit, Istanbul, Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 October 2006 Received in revised form 26 April 2009 Accepted 22 May 2009 Available online 30 May 2009 Keywords: Divergent thinking Fluency Flexibility Creative drama Creativity
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to examine whether flexible and fluent thinking skills, two important elements in divergent thinking, can be enhanced through creative drama process. The research was conducted on 30 subjects, 15 in an experimental group and 15 in a control group. Each group consisted of 9 females and 6 males. All subjects were postgraduate students, and the average age was 25. Flexibility and fluency were assessed through “circle drawing” and “alternate uses of objects” sub-tests. Both groups were given an initial pre-test. Then the experimental group attended a 10-week creative drama course, 3 h a week. A week after drama process was completed, a post-test was applied to both groups. Determining the pre-test and post-test score differences of the two groups, the one-way MANOVA analysis with a 2 × 2 design was applied. The results show that creative drama process can help enhance the two important aspects of divergent thinking, fluency and flexibility, in adult groups. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: fluent thinking, flexible thinking and creativity Creativity is one of the most complex products of the human mind. It is, in general, the ability to produce new, i.e. original, unexpected and high quality thinking associated with the task that the problem involves (Sternberg, 2003). It can also be defined as the ability to think in an unusual way, and create novel solutions to problems. The subject has been of interest since ancient times, and has had numerous explanations over the years. The different approaches adopted for the study of creativity can be classified as mystical, pragmatic, psychodynamic, psychometric, cognitive, social-personal and evolutionary. Each approach has focused on a different aspect of the process of creativity. However, Sternberg points out that many studies have regarded creativity as a process formed by the combination of numerous factors, and thus proposes a confluent approach to explain all aspects of the process (Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001; Sternberg, 2003). Guilford’s studies play an important role in the emergence of the psychometric approach. In the 1950s, Guilford introduced his description of the human intellect, which acted as a basis in explaining creative thinking. Divergent thinking is the main element of creative thinking. It is a process of generating thoughts that involves thinking in multiple directions, seeking changes or investigating (Guilford, 1970). If creative thinking can be analysed according to an intellect model, then ordinary people in everyday life, also, should be used as subjects of study. Such an approach and intellect model have made it possible to develop paper-pencil tests and other various assessment tools to measure creativity or divergent thinking style (Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001). In the 1960s and 1970s, there began a growing interest in designing tests relating to creativity. In the 1980s, however, the emphasis shifted to identifying the assessment criteria of creative or divergent thinking (White, 1990).
∗ Tel.: +90 212 473 70 70x15785; fax: +90 212 351 07 37. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.05.002
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
125
It was actually the attempts to identify assessment criteria of divergent thinking or creativity that gave rise to the concepts of fluency and flexibility in the thinking processes. Fluency in thinking can be defined as the quantity of unconventional and associated ideas generated on a specific issue, or the number of associations generated in response to a stimulant. Individuals with creative characteristics are expected to think fluently and develop a rich chain of associations. Flexible thinking, on the other hand, is generating associations that relate to different fields in response to a stimulant, or re-identifying the same stimulant after considering it from different perspectives. Creative individuals are expected to think in numerous different categories or dimensions. In fact, originality is the ability to create unusual, rare ideas or associations in a given situation or subject. Creative individuals are expected to think differently from others, as well as developing unique ideas and bringing different points of view to matters. These three features – flexibility, fluency and originality – are also used extensively to define the manner in which creative individuals think. Divergent thinking or creativity is assessed using scores of fluency, flexibility and originality on the tests developed (Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Guilford, 1970; Hudson, 1972; Torrance, 1974). Fluency is the number of responses to a stimulant, and flexibility is the number of different categories the given responses fall into. Originality is the number of rarely seen responses in the application range. The three criteria above are regarded as the basis of creative thinking by researchers today, who, by defining creativity as a cognitive function, also acknowledge that it can be assessed in everyday situations (Martindale, 1989; Goncalo & Staw, 2006; Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006; Runco, 1991). 1.1. Enhancing creativity and creative drama Whatever the approach, it is accepted that creativity plays an important role in the development of both individuals and societies. Consensus on the vital role of creativity brings either supporting or contrary points of view and applications with it. The denial of the enhancement of creativity if treated as an innate or mysterious potential has produced grounds for opposition to pragmatic views that merely emphasise its everyday use, ignoring the theoretical aspect of the issue. However, studies on the training and enhancement of creative potential have begun to increase since the 2000s when the process was interpreted as an interaction of cognitive, motivational, personal and social characteristics, and the impact of environmental conditions on potential was brought to light (Nickerson, 1999; Runco, 2003). Some of these studies have examined various techniques of problem solving and thinking, programs that are known to support multi-dimensional thinking and the effects of class environments on creativity and divergent thinking (Coleman & Colbert, 2001; Kurtzberg & Reale, 1999; Ritchie & Edwards, 1996; Nickerson, 1999; Torrance, 1972). All of the research mentioned has studied novel thinking and ways of expressing ideas. The results of these studies point to an increase in the production of divergent thinking. Hence, this study aims to analyse the effects of practising creative drama, which by definition is assumed to support creativity, on fluent and flexible thinking. Creative drama is a reflection process that involves the activation of an individual’s intellectual network through various stimulants words, music, objects, events, poems, etc., and a performance that expresses the associations. In drama, an individual’s relationships are studied through group work, using drama techniques and improvisation. In creative drama, participants perform acts that are based on their thoughts, inventions, knowledge, and experiences, and there is no written text. This process, naturally, allows the individual to restructure his/her past experiences of life (McGregor, Tate, & Robinson, 1988). During the process, the performer, through his/her acts, symbolises and expresses the associations, emotions or thoughts that are aroused by the stimulant presented. The performer’s method of expression may be his/her tone of voice, body language, a movement, a picture, a game or a similar symbolisation. In every case, the method of expression shows the performer’s impressions of the stimulant as well as his/her unique interpretations of it. The power of drama arises from the access to and experience of other roles and worlds it afford. It is direct and immediate, and its medium is the human being (Taylor & Warner, 2006). Participants in creative drama, under the guidance of a leader, are expected to act by using their imagination based on human experiences, but without the intention of showing off, focusing only on the process (Libman, 2001; Woodson, 1999). The leader starts with a specific and defined goal, and selects the game or activities accordingly. The drama process aims to enable the individual to experience a specific occurrence within the framework of a specific purpose, which can vary. Drama can be used in different fields of art for various purposes, such as developing individuals’ creative potential and self-expression, enhancing inter-group relations and encouraging self-awareness. There have been various studies on the skills that drama helps develop within the objectives mentioned above. Surveys have shown that drama is effective on one’s self-reliance and self-esteem (Conard & Asher, 2000; Yassa, 1999); the ability to make friends (Galleger, 2000; Walsh-Bowers & Bassor, 1999; Yassa, 1999); aesthetic sensitivity (Laidlaw, 2001); empathy (Okvuran, 1993); language development, reading, writing and comprehension skills (Anarella, 2000; O’Day, 2001). Most writers agree that practising drama consolidates or supports one’s creativity and imagination. However, there have been few specific studies made on this issue, and the conclusion has only been inferred from the results of many other studies. For instance, the results of some studies have shown that activities in which creative drama methods are used, such as literature, reading and writing, theatre and so on, improve participants’ performance and self-expression, and enable them to put forth original ideas. It has also been concluded that creativity is reinforced (Anarella, 2000; O’Day, 2001; Shawn, 2001; Taggar, 2001). Moreover, in a study conducted by Hui and Lau (2006) it was found that creative drama courses increase the creative performance of elementary school students.
126
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
This current study deals with whether creative drama process has any impact on adults’ creative or divergent thinking skills, within the scope of fluent and flexible thinking. For this reason, it was examined whether or not the fluent and flexible thinking levels differed in any way in the groups that have taken creative drama and those that have not. 2. Method The research was based on a pre- and post-test design with an experimental and a control group. 2.1. Participants The research was conducted on 30 subjects, 15 in the experimental and 15 in the control group. The former consisted of 9 female and 6 male postgraduate students of science and maths education who chose to take a creative drama course. The average age of the students in the group was 25. The control group was also comprised of 9 female and 6 male students, selected randomly from a group of 34 students who were studying in the same field, but not taking the creative drama course. Their average age was 24. According to the results of the pre-test, there was no significant difference between the total fluency and flexibility scores of the groups: for fluent thinking: t (15): 0.83 (P < 0.05); for flexible thinking: t (15): 0.60 (P < 0.05). 2.2. Instruments Many studies on creativity or divergent thinking basically employ one or several of the various sub-tests based on the tasks in the divergent thinking domain of Guilford’s intellect model (Guilford, 1970; Hasan & Butcher, 1966; Hudson, 1970; Karakelle, 1985; Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Reese, Lee, Cohen, & Puckett, 2001; Runco, 2001; Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Torrance, 1974). This study has used two sub-scales – “circle drawing” and “alternate uses of objects” – for the assessment of fluency and flexibility, the basic elements of divergent thinking. These particular sub-tests were chosen because they are more commonly used, and they are also easy to apply and evaluate. The same assessment tools were used as pre- and post-tests. 2.2.1. Circle drawing The task in this test was to draw things using a circle and label them. The test material was a blank A/4 sized sheet with a circle, 1.5 cm in diameter, drawn in the upper left-hand corner. In the same corner, instructions were written: “Draw as many things as you can, using a circle with a diameter of about 1.5 cm, and write down what each one is.” The same instructions were also given verbally. 2.2.2. Alternate uses of objects This sub-test involved the task of finding new usage areas for objects that can be used everyday, but whose everyday usage is somewhat restricted, and then writing them down. The instructions for the test were given under the objects to be used, placed at the top of an A/4 sized blank sheet. The instructions read: “Below are the names of 5 different objects that you can see in everyday life. Think of new and original uses for each one. Write down everything you can think of.” The same instructions were also given verbally. The results of both tests were determined by a calculation of the fluency and flexibility scores. The total number of responses to a stimulant gave the fluency score, while the flexibility score was determined by the number of categories which the responses fell into. The total fluency and flexibility scores of both of the sub-tests were used in the statistical work. 2.3. Procedure The pre-test was administered to both groups – experimental and control – at the same time. The control group was not exposed to any treatment after the pre-test. Actually, the control group have not been subjected to such an intervention, and instead have attended another class they have chosen according to their interests. The experimental group, however, received creative drama for 10 weeks. The treatment was held in a 3-h session once a week, in the afternoons; so, the group was exposed to 30 h (10 sessions) creative drama. There were no intervals in the sessions. Both groups were given a post-test under the same conditions a week after the drama sessions was completed. The creative drama process were organised and run by the researcher who was also the group leader. Considering that a condition in which the researcher was at the same time the group leader could have affected the subjects, pre-test and post-test have been made outside of the creative drama sessions. Pre- and post-tests were administered in the “classroom management” course taken by all the students together and they were administered by the instructor of the course. Preand post-test have been given to the control groups all together and have not been associated with the drama process. The explanation about the aim of the researcher has been made after the completion of the process of collecting data. The sessions were conducted in an empty room with a wooden-floor. The room had no furniture, but pillows on the floor for the participants to sit on. During the sessions, equipment – as required by the plays, such as paper sheets of various sizes, pencils, music and photographs – were used.
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
127
Table 1 Average and deviation values of experimental and control group pre-test and post-test scores. Experimental group (No: 15) Pre-test
Total fluency Total flexibility
Control group (No: 15) Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
32.27 28.73
15.03 13.45
40.93 36.4
14.9 13.89
30.67 26.07
9.24 7.07
27.4 25.27
9.94 8.37
In the earlier sessions, the emphasis of the activities was on supporting group trust on and cohesion. After cohesion had been established in the group (after the 3rd session), the activities focused on those that promoted self-awareness, awareness of others, self-expression and spontaneity. Group or individual plays with instructions were preferred in the earlier sessions, and after the 3rd session, the focus of the games was on improvisation. Each session started with warm-up exercises, continuing with one or two activities that focused on both self awareness and awareness of others or understanding others’ feelings or spontaneity. Participants are then engaged in improvisational role playing. During each session, the leader encouraged the participants to devise and plan a skit, rehearse it with improvised dialogue, evaluate how well the skit worked, and then enact it; the session concluded with a brief group reflection. 3. Results The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether creative drama process would improve the participants’ fluency and flexibility levels in thinking. Thus, a pre-test and post-test design with the experimental and control groups was employed. To find out if there were any significant differences between their fluency and flexibility levels, subjects were given a one-way MANOVA analysis that conformed to a 2 × 2 design. The analysis was based on the pre-test and post-test score differences. Table 1 illustrates the mean and deviation values of the experimental and control groups’ pre-test and post-test scores, and their score differences. The MANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant differing between the fluency (F (1, 28) = 21.739, p < 0.001) and flexibility (F (1, 28) = 18.602, p < 0.001) scores of the experimental and control group. The average vectors of the two groups differed significantly. These results indicate that taking ‘creative drama process’ plays a significant role on fluency and flexibility. 4. Discussion The findings of this research tend to demonstrate that being exposed to a process of creative drama makes a difference on the fluent and flexible thinking level. Thus, it can be concluded that the process of creative drama can enhance the two main aspects of divergent thinking, fluency and flexibility. This section will discuss which characteristics of creative drama can be effective on the two skills above, considering the present approaches and the results of the studies. Creative drama is a reflection process that occurs when individuals express their associations of various stimulants that activate their ideas and emotions words, music, objects, pictures, events, poems, etc., by symbolising them and by means of acting. The individual may express his/her association of a stimulant through his/her tone of voice, body language, words, movements, pictures, games or similar symbolisation, and the method of expression involves his/her impression of the stimulant as well as his/her interpretation of it. In this respect, creative drama is an open-ended process, and thus contains some uncertainty. It is almost impossible to predict how a participant will respond to a stimulant, or what associations or combinations a stimulant will cause a participant to generate. This means that the process cannot be structured completely, and in fact, semi-structurability may be one of the important aspects of the drama process. It is very probable that by being open-ended, semi-structured and uncertain the potential to be creative was stimulated. Many researchers, in fact, have shown that tolerating uncertainty, and even choosing it, is one of the main characteristics of creative people (Amabile, 1983; McKinnon, 1970; Martindale, 1989). Sternberg (2003) points to the necessity of encouraging tolerance for uncertainty for the sake of supporting creative thinking. In regard to this, it can be said that the creative drama process serves to expand individuals’ tolerance for uncertainty and even makes uncertainty enjoyable. It is also possible that the semi-structured feature and uncertainty of creative drama may activate the feeling of curiosity. Kashdan and Fincham (2002) claim that curiosity is the main characteristic that differentiates creative individuals from others. However, they do not mean to say individuals with a high level of curiosity are creative, or those with a low level of curiosity are not creative. They assert that curiosity is a required condition for creativity, but not sufficient in itself. The semi-structured feature and uncertainty feature of drama make it unrepeatable. However, rehearsing in a safe environment gives individuals the chance to repeatedly test themselves in alternative life situations. During a play, the individual has the opportunity to continuously monitor and evaluate himself/herself through the reactions of the other group members and by sharing with them. Researchers considering creativity within their approach to social personality have worked on the impact of selfevaluation as a contextual variable of the creative drama process. Self-evaluation is defined as identifying clear criteria for performance, and having individuals evaluate themselves according to these criteria. Other research has shown that
128
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
high levels of self-evaluation lower individuals’ creative performance (Runco, 1991). However, studies by Silvia and Phillips (2004) have shown that when individuals expect to have the opportunity to revise and re-regulate their performance, there are no negative effects on their creative performance levels. It can be said that through creative drama, which gives the individual the chance to perform continuously and recurrently in safe environments, the opportunity to revise and re-regulate one’s performance increases individuals’ positive expectations of their performance. Therefore, its impact on performance is positive. Drama is also a process that occurs within and by means of a group. An individual starts out with his/her own life experiences but moves on with the group, creating new life experiences with them. Working with a group may have various benefits on an individual’s performance. For instance, an individual, by observing other group members’ performances, can become aware of the different aspects of a single situation or of the variety of solutions to the same situation. Therefore, the individual improves his/her fluency and flexibility in his/her thinking and responses. In other words, the individual can be said to have developed divergent thinking skills. A study conducted by Coskun (2005) showed that divergent thinking exercises, which allow the individual to review different alternatives and categories, increase his/her later production performance. In addition, an individual’s performances, which are original and of variety are reinforced by the group either directly or indirectly. Eisenberg, Armeli, and Pretz (1998) discovered a positive correlation between reward expectancy and creativity. They found that individuals’ divergent thinking production increases if there is a reward involved, promised either earlier or at the time. According to Sternberg (2002), the variable that brings forth one’s creative performance is a decision: an individual becomes creative only when he decides to do so, and takes risks. Individuals’ creativity may vary under different emotional and motivational circumstances either when they work alone or in groups, as they may sometimes have high self-confidence and sometimes low. The decision concept may explain such differences in acting or being creative. It can be said that the process of creative drama may encourage individuals to decide to be creative. As a result, creative drama process can be said to have the following effects: since it is open-ended and semi-structured, it increases tolerance for uncertainty and triggers curiosity. By allowing individuals to perform repeatedly in a safe environment, it provides the opportunity to revise and re-regulate one’s performance. It also helps to increase variety in the range of ideas and responses as it is run in a group. Finally, since it indirectly or clearly encourages the production of multiple and different responses, it can be accepted that creative drama process is effective on fluent and flexible thinking, that is, on divergent thinking. However, as the participants are not observed after the process, it is not possible to come to a conclusion in regard to the permanency of the effect. A study on the long-term effects of the drama process with a longitudinal design may be interesting. Whether the fact that researcher is at the same time the group leader in this study causes an experimenter effect can be considered. It should be taken into notice that it would be more convenient for the researchers who are to conduct out similar studies to prefer the double blind design. However, we must keep in mind that the subjects in the experimental group of this research volunteered to participate in creative drama courses. Although their pre-test scores did not differ significantly from those of the control group, it is evident that they are more open to new experiences in that they agreed to work in an unfamiliar environment and style. They might also be risk-takers as they agreed to take an unfamiliar course. Being open to new experiences and taking risks are personal traits that are known to support creative performance. This might explain why they made the choice. This means that when creativity is studied in the framework of a confluent approach, the interaction and personality characteristics of individuals should be controlled or treated as a variable.
References Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. Anarella, L. (2000). Using creative drama in the writing and reading process. Reading, English and Communication. Conard, F., & Asher, J. W. (2000). Self concept and self esteem through drama: A meta analysis. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 78–84. Coleman, R., & Colbert, J. (2001). Grounding the teaching of design in creativity. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56(2), 4–24. Coskun, H. (2005). The effect of divergent thinking and group composition on idea generation in brain writing. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 20(55), 25–42. Eisenberg, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can promise of reward increase creativity? Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 74(3), 704–714. Galleger, K. (2000). Interrupting “truths”, engaging perspectives, and enlarging the concept “human” in classroom drama. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 13–25. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1963). The highly intelligent and the highly creative adolescent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. Wiley & Sons. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision, 100(1), 96–109. Guilford, J. P. (1970). In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Traits of Creativity, Creativity: Selected Reading. Penguin Books. Hasan, P., & Butcher, H. J. (1966). Creativity and intelligence. Educational Research in Action. Hudson, L. (1970). Frames of mind. Penguin Books. Hudson, L. (1972). Contrary imagination. McGraw Hill Company. Hui, A., & Lau, S. (2006). Drama education: A touch of the creative mind and communicative-expressive ability of elementary school children in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 34–40. Karakelle, S. (1985). Divergent thinking and personality. Unpublished MA thesis, Marmara University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul. Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. American Psychologist, 57(5), 373–376. Kurtzberg, R. L., & Reale, A. (1999). Using Torrance’s problem identification techniques to increase fluency and flexibility in the classroom. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 33(3), 202–207. Laidlaw, L. (2001). Drama and complexity: Teaching at the edge. Youth Theatre Journal, 15, 15–22. Libman, K. (2001). What’s in a name? An exploration of the origins and implications of the terms creative dramatics and creative drama. Youth Theatre Journal, 15, 23–32.
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
129
Martindale, C. (1989). In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Personality, situation, and creativity, in handbook of creativity. New York–London: Plenum Press. McGregor, L., Tate, M., & Robinson, K. (1988). Learning through drama. London: Heinemann. McKinnon, D. W. (1970). In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), The personality correlates of creativity: A study of American architects, in creativity: Selected reading. Penguin Books. Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(4), 382–402. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. O’Day, S. (2001). Bridging the theme: Creative drama through scaffold plays in the language arts classroom. Primary Voice K-6, 19. S:4, S:19–S:22. Okvuran, A. (1993). The effect of creative drama training on empathetic skills. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and nongifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40. S:1, S:159–S:170. Reese, H. W., Lee, L. J., Cohen, S. H, & Puckett, J. M., Jr. (2001). Effects of intellectual variables, age, and gender on divergent thinking in adulthood. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 25(6), 491–500. Ritchie, S. M., & Edwards, J. (1996). Creative thinking instruction for aboriginal children. Learning and Instruction, 6(1), 59–75. Runco, M. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Runco, M. (2001). Identifying and fulfilling creative potential. Understanding Our Gifted, 13(4), 22–23. Runco, M. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324. Shawn, K. (2001). The door to creativity: Rediscovering imagination. Teaching Theatre, 12(2), 8–12. Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2004). Self-awareness, self-evaluation, and creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1009–1017. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist, 56(4). Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence and creativity synthesized. Cambridge Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy and group performance. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 35(4), 261–286. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behaviour, 6(2), 114–143. Taylor, P., & Warner, C. D. (2006). Structure and spontaneity, the process drama of Cecily O’Neill. Trentham Books. Walsh-Bowers, R., & Bassor, R. (1999). Improving early adolescents’ peer relations through classroom creative drama: An integrated approach. Social Work in Education, 21(3), 23–30. White, W. F. (1990). Divergent thinking vs. convergent thinking: AGT anomaly. Education, 111, 208–214. Woodson, S. (1999). (Re)Conceiving ‘creative drama’: An exploration and expansion of American metaphorical paradigms. Research in Drama Education, 4(2), 201–214. Yassa, N. (1999). High school involvement in creative drama. Research in Drama Education, 4(1), 37–49.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
Enhancing fluent and flexible thinking through the creative drama process Sema Karakelle ∗ Istanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, 34459 Beyazit, Istanbul, Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 16 October 2006 Received in revised form 26 April 2009 Accepted 22 May 2009 Available online 30 May 2009 Keywords: Divergent thinking Fluency Flexibility Creative drama Creativity
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to examine whether flexible and fluent thinking skills, two important elements in divergent thinking, can be enhanced through creative drama process. The research was conducted on 30 subjects, 15 in an experimental group and 15 in a control group. Each group consisted of 9 females and 6 males. All subjects were postgraduate students, and the average age was 25. Flexibility and fluency were assessed through “circle drawing” and “alternate uses of objects” sub-tests. Both groups were given an initial pre-test. Then the experimental group attended a 10-week creative drama course, 3 h a week. A week after drama process was completed, a post-test was applied to both groups. Determining the pre-test and post-test score differences of the two groups, the one-way MANOVA analysis with a 2 × 2 design was applied. The results show that creative drama process can help enhance the two important aspects of divergent thinking, fluency and flexibility, in adult groups. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: fluent thinking, flexible thinking and creativity Creativity is one of the most complex products of the human mind. It is, in general, the ability to produce new, i.e. original, unexpected and high quality thinking associated with the task that the problem involves (Sternberg, 2003). It can also be defined as the ability to think in an unusual way, and create novel solutions to problems. The subject has been of interest since ancient times, and has had numerous explanations over the years. The different approaches adopted for the study of creativity can be classified as mystical, pragmatic, psychodynamic, psychometric, cognitive, social-personal and evolutionary. Each approach has focused on a different aspect of the process of creativity. However, Sternberg points out that many studies have regarded creativity as a process formed by the combination of numerous factors, and thus proposes a confluent approach to explain all aspects of the process (Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001; Sternberg, 2003). Guilford’s studies play an important role in the emergence of the psychometric approach. In the 1950s, Guilford introduced his description of the human intellect, which acted as a basis in explaining creative thinking. Divergent thinking is the main element of creative thinking. It is a process of generating thoughts that involves thinking in multiple directions, seeking changes or investigating (Guilford, 1970). If creative thinking can be analysed according to an intellect model, then ordinary people in everyday life, also, should be used as subjects of study. Such an approach and intellect model have made it possible to develop paper-pencil tests and other various assessment tools to measure creativity or divergent thinking style (Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001). In the 1960s and 1970s, there began a growing interest in designing tests relating to creativity. In the 1980s, however, the emphasis shifted to identifying the assessment criteria of creative or divergent thinking (White, 1990).
∗ Tel.: +90 212 473 70 70x15785; fax: +90 212 351 07 37. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.05.002
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
125
It was actually the attempts to identify assessment criteria of divergent thinking or creativity that gave rise to the concepts of fluency and flexibility in the thinking processes. Fluency in thinking can be defined as the quantity of unconventional and associated ideas generated on a specific issue, or the number of associations generated in response to a stimulant. Individuals with creative characteristics are expected to think fluently and develop a rich chain of associations. Flexible thinking, on the other hand, is generating associations that relate to different fields in response to a stimulant, or re-identifying the same stimulant after considering it from different perspectives. Creative individuals are expected to think in numerous different categories or dimensions. In fact, originality is the ability to create unusual, rare ideas or associations in a given situation or subject. Creative individuals are expected to think differently from others, as well as developing unique ideas and bringing different points of view to matters. These three features – flexibility, fluency and originality – are also used extensively to define the manner in which creative individuals think. Divergent thinking or creativity is assessed using scores of fluency, flexibility and originality on the tests developed (Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Guilford, 1970; Hudson, 1972; Torrance, 1974). Fluency is the number of responses to a stimulant, and flexibility is the number of different categories the given responses fall into. Originality is the number of rarely seen responses in the application range. The three criteria above are regarded as the basis of creative thinking by researchers today, who, by defining creativity as a cognitive function, also acknowledge that it can be assessed in everyday situations (Martindale, 1989; Goncalo & Staw, 2006; Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006; Runco, 1991). 1.1. Enhancing creativity and creative drama Whatever the approach, it is accepted that creativity plays an important role in the development of both individuals and societies. Consensus on the vital role of creativity brings either supporting or contrary points of view and applications with it. The denial of the enhancement of creativity if treated as an innate or mysterious potential has produced grounds for opposition to pragmatic views that merely emphasise its everyday use, ignoring the theoretical aspect of the issue. However, studies on the training and enhancement of creative potential have begun to increase since the 2000s when the process was interpreted as an interaction of cognitive, motivational, personal and social characteristics, and the impact of environmental conditions on potential was brought to light (Nickerson, 1999; Runco, 2003). Some of these studies have examined various techniques of problem solving and thinking, programs that are known to support multi-dimensional thinking and the effects of class environments on creativity and divergent thinking (Coleman & Colbert, 2001; Kurtzberg & Reale, 1999; Ritchie & Edwards, 1996; Nickerson, 1999; Torrance, 1972). All of the research mentioned has studied novel thinking and ways of expressing ideas. The results of these studies point to an increase in the production of divergent thinking. Hence, this study aims to analyse the effects of practising creative drama, which by definition is assumed to support creativity, on fluent and flexible thinking. Creative drama is a reflection process that involves the activation of an individual’s intellectual network through various stimulants words, music, objects, events, poems, etc., and a performance that expresses the associations. In drama, an individual’s relationships are studied through group work, using drama techniques and improvisation. In creative drama, participants perform acts that are based on their thoughts, inventions, knowledge, and experiences, and there is no written text. This process, naturally, allows the individual to restructure his/her past experiences of life (McGregor, Tate, & Robinson, 1988). During the process, the performer, through his/her acts, symbolises and expresses the associations, emotions or thoughts that are aroused by the stimulant presented. The performer’s method of expression may be his/her tone of voice, body language, a movement, a picture, a game or a similar symbolisation. In every case, the method of expression shows the performer’s impressions of the stimulant as well as his/her unique interpretations of it. The power of drama arises from the access to and experience of other roles and worlds it afford. It is direct and immediate, and its medium is the human being (Taylor & Warner, 2006). Participants in creative drama, under the guidance of a leader, are expected to act by using their imagination based on human experiences, but without the intention of showing off, focusing only on the process (Libman, 2001; Woodson, 1999). The leader starts with a specific and defined goal, and selects the game or activities accordingly. The drama process aims to enable the individual to experience a specific occurrence within the framework of a specific purpose, which can vary. Drama can be used in different fields of art for various purposes, such as developing individuals’ creative potential and self-expression, enhancing inter-group relations and encouraging self-awareness. There have been various studies on the skills that drama helps develop within the objectives mentioned above. Surveys have shown that drama is effective on one’s self-reliance and self-esteem (Conard & Asher, 2000; Yassa, 1999); the ability to make friends (Galleger, 2000; Walsh-Bowers & Bassor, 1999; Yassa, 1999); aesthetic sensitivity (Laidlaw, 2001); empathy (Okvuran, 1993); language development, reading, writing and comprehension skills (Anarella, 2000; O’Day, 2001). Most writers agree that practising drama consolidates or supports one’s creativity and imagination. However, there have been few specific studies made on this issue, and the conclusion has only been inferred from the results of many other studies. For instance, the results of some studies have shown that activities in which creative drama methods are used, such as literature, reading and writing, theatre and so on, improve participants’ performance and self-expression, and enable them to put forth original ideas. It has also been concluded that creativity is reinforced (Anarella, 2000; O’Day, 2001; Shawn, 2001; Taggar, 2001). Moreover, in a study conducted by Hui and Lau (2006) it was found that creative drama courses increase the creative performance of elementary school students.
126
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
This current study deals with whether creative drama process has any impact on adults’ creative or divergent thinking skills, within the scope of fluent and flexible thinking. For this reason, it was examined whether or not the fluent and flexible thinking levels differed in any way in the groups that have taken creative drama and those that have not. 2. Method The research was based on a pre- and post-test design with an experimental and a control group. 2.1. Participants The research was conducted on 30 subjects, 15 in the experimental and 15 in the control group. The former consisted of 9 female and 6 male postgraduate students of science and maths education who chose to take a creative drama course. The average age of the students in the group was 25. The control group was also comprised of 9 female and 6 male students, selected randomly from a group of 34 students who were studying in the same field, but not taking the creative drama course. Their average age was 24. According to the results of the pre-test, there was no significant difference between the total fluency and flexibility scores of the groups: for fluent thinking: t (15): 0.83 (P < 0.05); for flexible thinking: t (15): 0.60 (P < 0.05). 2.2. Instruments Many studies on creativity or divergent thinking basically employ one or several of the various sub-tests based on the tasks in the divergent thinking domain of Guilford’s intellect model (Guilford, 1970; Hasan & Butcher, 1966; Hudson, 1970; Karakelle, 1985; Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Reese, Lee, Cohen, & Puckett, 2001; Runco, 2001; Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Torrance, 1974). This study has used two sub-scales – “circle drawing” and “alternate uses of objects” – for the assessment of fluency and flexibility, the basic elements of divergent thinking. These particular sub-tests were chosen because they are more commonly used, and they are also easy to apply and evaluate. The same assessment tools were used as pre- and post-tests. 2.2.1. Circle drawing The task in this test was to draw things using a circle and label them. The test material was a blank A/4 sized sheet with a circle, 1.5 cm in diameter, drawn in the upper left-hand corner. In the same corner, instructions were written: “Draw as many things as you can, using a circle with a diameter of about 1.5 cm, and write down what each one is.” The same instructions were also given verbally. 2.2.2. Alternate uses of objects This sub-test involved the task of finding new usage areas for objects that can be used everyday, but whose everyday usage is somewhat restricted, and then writing them down. The instructions for the test were given under the objects to be used, placed at the top of an A/4 sized blank sheet. The instructions read: “Below are the names of 5 different objects that you can see in everyday life. Think of new and original uses for each one. Write down everything you can think of.” The same instructions were also given verbally. The results of both tests were determined by a calculation of the fluency and flexibility scores. The total number of responses to a stimulant gave the fluency score, while the flexibility score was determined by the number of categories which the responses fell into. The total fluency and flexibility scores of both of the sub-tests were used in the statistical work. 2.3. Procedure The pre-test was administered to both groups – experimental and control – at the same time. The control group was not exposed to any treatment after the pre-test. Actually, the control group have not been subjected to such an intervention, and instead have attended another class they have chosen according to their interests. The experimental group, however, received creative drama for 10 weeks. The treatment was held in a 3-h session once a week, in the afternoons; so, the group was exposed to 30 h (10 sessions) creative drama. There were no intervals in the sessions. Both groups were given a post-test under the same conditions a week after the drama sessions was completed. The creative drama process were organised and run by the researcher who was also the group leader. Considering that a condition in which the researcher was at the same time the group leader could have affected the subjects, pre-test and post-test have been made outside of the creative drama sessions. Pre- and post-tests were administered in the “classroom management” course taken by all the students together and they were administered by the instructor of the course. Preand post-test have been given to the control groups all together and have not been associated with the drama process. The explanation about the aim of the researcher has been made after the completion of the process of collecting data. The sessions were conducted in an empty room with a wooden-floor. The room had no furniture, but pillows on the floor for the participants to sit on. During the sessions, equipment – as required by the plays, such as paper sheets of various sizes, pencils, music and photographs – were used.
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
127
Table 1 Average and deviation values of experimental and control group pre-test and post-test scores. Experimental group (No: 15) Pre-test
Total fluency Total flexibility
Control group (No: 15) Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
Ave.
D
32.27 28.73
15.03 13.45
40.93 36.4
14.9 13.89
30.67 26.07
9.24 7.07
27.4 25.27
9.94 8.37
In the earlier sessions, the emphasis of the activities was on supporting group trust on and cohesion. After cohesion had been established in the group (after the 3rd session), the activities focused on those that promoted self-awareness, awareness of others, self-expression and spontaneity. Group or individual plays with instructions were preferred in the earlier sessions, and after the 3rd session, the focus of the games was on improvisation. Each session started with warm-up exercises, continuing with one or two activities that focused on both self awareness and awareness of others or understanding others’ feelings or spontaneity. Participants are then engaged in improvisational role playing. During each session, the leader encouraged the participants to devise and plan a skit, rehearse it with improvised dialogue, evaluate how well the skit worked, and then enact it; the session concluded with a brief group reflection. 3. Results The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether creative drama process would improve the participants’ fluency and flexibility levels in thinking. Thus, a pre-test and post-test design with the experimental and control groups was employed. To find out if there were any significant differences between their fluency and flexibility levels, subjects were given a one-way MANOVA analysis that conformed to a 2 × 2 design. The analysis was based on the pre-test and post-test score differences. Table 1 illustrates the mean and deviation values of the experimental and control groups’ pre-test and post-test scores, and their score differences. The MANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant differing between the fluency (F (1, 28) = 21.739, p < 0.001) and flexibility (F (1, 28) = 18.602, p < 0.001) scores of the experimental and control group. The average vectors of the two groups differed significantly. These results indicate that taking ‘creative drama process’ plays a significant role on fluency and flexibility. 4. Discussion The findings of this research tend to demonstrate that being exposed to a process of creative drama makes a difference on the fluent and flexible thinking level. Thus, it can be concluded that the process of creative drama can enhance the two main aspects of divergent thinking, fluency and flexibility. This section will discuss which characteristics of creative drama can be effective on the two skills above, considering the present approaches and the results of the studies. Creative drama is a reflection process that occurs when individuals express their associations of various stimulants that activate their ideas and emotions words, music, objects, pictures, events, poems, etc., by symbolising them and by means of acting. The individual may express his/her association of a stimulant through his/her tone of voice, body language, words, movements, pictures, games or similar symbolisation, and the method of expression involves his/her impression of the stimulant as well as his/her interpretation of it. In this respect, creative drama is an open-ended process, and thus contains some uncertainty. It is almost impossible to predict how a participant will respond to a stimulant, or what associations or combinations a stimulant will cause a participant to generate. This means that the process cannot be structured completely, and in fact, semi-structurability may be one of the important aspects of the drama process. It is very probable that by being open-ended, semi-structured and uncertain the potential to be creative was stimulated. Many researchers, in fact, have shown that tolerating uncertainty, and even choosing it, is one of the main characteristics of creative people (Amabile, 1983; McKinnon, 1970; Martindale, 1989). Sternberg (2003) points to the necessity of encouraging tolerance for uncertainty for the sake of supporting creative thinking. In regard to this, it can be said that the creative drama process serves to expand individuals’ tolerance for uncertainty and even makes uncertainty enjoyable. It is also possible that the semi-structured feature and uncertainty of creative drama may activate the feeling of curiosity. Kashdan and Fincham (2002) claim that curiosity is the main characteristic that differentiates creative individuals from others. However, they do not mean to say individuals with a high level of curiosity are creative, or those with a low level of curiosity are not creative. They assert that curiosity is a required condition for creativity, but not sufficient in itself. The semi-structured feature and uncertainty feature of drama make it unrepeatable. However, rehearsing in a safe environment gives individuals the chance to repeatedly test themselves in alternative life situations. During a play, the individual has the opportunity to continuously monitor and evaluate himself/herself through the reactions of the other group members and by sharing with them. Researchers considering creativity within their approach to social personality have worked on the impact of selfevaluation as a contextual variable of the creative drama process. Self-evaluation is defined as identifying clear criteria for performance, and having individuals evaluate themselves according to these criteria. Other research has shown that
128
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
high levels of self-evaluation lower individuals’ creative performance (Runco, 1991). However, studies by Silvia and Phillips (2004) have shown that when individuals expect to have the opportunity to revise and re-regulate their performance, there are no negative effects on their creative performance levels. It can be said that through creative drama, which gives the individual the chance to perform continuously and recurrently in safe environments, the opportunity to revise and re-regulate one’s performance increases individuals’ positive expectations of their performance. Therefore, its impact on performance is positive. Drama is also a process that occurs within and by means of a group. An individual starts out with his/her own life experiences but moves on with the group, creating new life experiences with them. Working with a group may have various benefits on an individual’s performance. For instance, an individual, by observing other group members’ performances, can become aware of the different aspects of a single situation or of the variety of solutions to the same situation. Therefore, the individual improves his/her fluency and flexibility in his/her thinking and responses. In other words, the individual can be said to have developed divergent thinking skills. A study conducted by Coskun (2005) showed that divergent thinking exercises, which allow the individual to review different alternatives and categories, increase his/her later production performance. In addition, an individual’s performances, which are original and of variety are reinforced by the group either directly or indirectly. Eisenberg, Armeli, and Pretz (1998) discovered a positive correlation between reward expectancy and creativity. They found that individuals’ divergent thinking production increases if there is a reward involved, promised either earlier or at the time. According to Sternberg (2002), the variable that brings forth one’s creative performance is a decision: an individual becomes creative only when he decides to do so, and takes risks. Individuals’ creativity may vary under different emotional and motivational circumstances either when they work alone or in groups, as they may sometimes have high self-confidence and sometimes low. The decision concept may explain such differences in acting or being creative. It can be said that the process of creative drama may encourage individuals to decide to be creative. As a result, creative drama process can be said to have the following effects: since it is open-ended and semi-structured, it increases tolerance for uncertainty and triggers curiosity. By allowing individuals to perform repeatedly in a safe environment, it provides the opportunity to revise and re-regulate one’s performance. It also helps to increase variety in the range of ideas and responses as it is run in a group. Finally, since it indirectly or clearly encourages the production of multiple and different responses, it can be accepted that creative drama process is effective on fluent and flexible thinking, that is, on divergent thinking. However, as the participants are not observed after the process, it is not possible to come to a conclusion in regard to the permanency of the effect. A study on the long-term effects of the drama process with a longitudinal design may be interesting. Whether the fact that researcher is at the same time the group leader in this study causes an experimenter effect can be considered. It should be taken into notice that it would be more convenient for the researchers who are to conduct out similar studies to prefer the double blind design. However, we must keep in mind that the subjects in the experimental group of this research volunteered to participate in creative drama courses. Although their pre-test scores did not differ significantly from those of the control group, it is evident that they are more open to new experiences in that they agreed to work in an unfamiliar environment and style. They might also be risk-takers as they agreed to take an unfamiliar course. Being open to new experiences and taking risks are personal traits that are known to support creative performance. This might explain why they made the choice. This means that when creativity is studied in the framework of a confluent approach, the interaction and personality characteristics of individuals should be controlled or treated as a variable.
References Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. Anarella, L. (2000). Using creative drama in the writing and reading process. Reading, English and Communication. Conard, F., & Asher, J. W. (2000). Self concept and self esteem through drama: A meta analysis. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 78–84. Coleman, R., & Colbert, J. (2001). Grounding the teaching of design in creativity. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56(2), 4–24. Coskun, H. (2005). The effect of divergent thinking and group composition on idea generation in brain writing. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 20(55), 25–42. Eisenberg, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can promise of reward increase creativity? Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 74(3), 704–714. Galleger, K. (2000). Interrupting “truths”, engaging perspectives, and enlarging the concept “human” in classroom drama. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 13–25. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1963). The highly intelligent and the highly creative adolescent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. Wiley & Sons. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision, 100(1), 96–109. Guilford, J. P. (1970). In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Traits of Creativity, Creativity: Selected Reading. Penguin Books. Hasan, P., & Butcher, H. J. (1966). Creativity and intelligence. Educational Research in Action. Hudson, L. (1970). Frames of mind. Penguin Books. Hudson, L. (1972). Contrary imagination. McGraw Hill Company. Hui, A., & Lau, S. (2006). Drama education: A touch of the creative mind and communicative-expressive ability of elementary school children in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 34–40. Karakelle, S. (1985). Divergent thinking and personality. Unpublished MA thesis, Marmara University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul. Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. American Psychologist, 57(5), 373–376. Kurtzberg, R. L., & Reale, A. (1999). Using Torrance’s problem identification techniques to increase fluency and flexibility in the classroom. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 33(3), 202–207. Laidlaw, L. (2001). Drama and complexity: Teaching at the edge. Youth Theatre Journal, 15, 15–22. Libman, K. (2001). What’s in a name? An exploration of the origins and implications of the terms creative dramatics and creative drama. Youth Theatre Journal, 15, 23–32.
S. Karakelle / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 124–129
129
Martindale, C. (1989). In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Personality, situation, and creativity, in handbook of creativity. New York–London: Plenum Press. McGregor, L., Tate, M., & Robinson, K. (1988). Learning through drama. London: Heinemann. McKinnon, D. W. (1970). In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), The personality correlates of creativity: A study of American architects, in creativity: Selected reading. Penguin Books. Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(4), 382–402. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. O’Day, S. (2001). Bridging the theme: Creative drama through scaffold plays in the language arts classroom. Primary Voice K-6, 19. S:4, S:19–S:22. Okvuran, A. (1993). The effect of creative drama training on empathetic skills. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and nongifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40. S:1, S:159–S:170. Reese, H. W., Lee, L. J., Cohen, S. H, & Puckett, J. M., Jr. (2001). Effects of intellectual variables, age, and gender on divergent thinking in adulthood. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 25(6), 491–500. Ritchie, S. M., & Edwards, J. (1996). Creative thinking instruction for aboriginal children. Learning and Instruction, 6(1), 59–75. Runco, M. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Runco, M. (2001). Identifying and fulfilling creative potential. Understanding Our Gifted, 13(4), 22–23. Runco, M. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324. Shawn, K. (2001). The door to creativity: Rediscovering imagination. Teaching Theatre, 12(2), 8–12. Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2004). Self-awareness, self-evaluation, and creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1009–1017. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist, 56(4). Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence and creativity synthesized. Cambridge Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy and group performance. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 35(4), 261–286. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behaviour, 6(2), 114–143. Taylor, P., & Warner, C. D. (2006). Structure and spontaneity, the process drama of Cecily O’Neill. Trentham Books. Walsh-Bowers, R., & Bassor, R. (1999). Improving early adolescents’ peer relations through classroom creative drama: An integrated approach. Social Work in Education, 21(3), 23–30. White, W. F. (1990). Divergent thinking vs. convergent thinking: AGT anomaly. Education, 111, 208–214. Woodson, S. (1999). (Re)Conceiving ‘creative drama’: An exploration and expansion of American metaphorical paradigms. Research in Drama Education, 4(2), 201–214. Yassa, N. (1999). High school involvement in creative drama. Research in Drama Education, 4(1), 37–49.