Мирјана М. Јапунџа-Милисављевић, Универзитет у Београду, Факултет за специјалну едукацију и рехабилитацију, Београд, Србија
Биљана З. Милановић-Доброта, Универзитет у Београду, Факултет за специјалну едукацију и рехабилитацију, Београд, Србија
Иновације у настави, XXXVI, 2023/3, стр. 57–70

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2303057J

Резиме: Развој креативности представља значајан сегмент васпитно-образовног процеса. Циљ истраживања је идентификовање факторске структуре Теста креативног мишљења – графичка продукција примењеног на узорку ученика с интелектуалном ометеношћу. Узорком је обухваћено 76 ученика, календарског узраста од 9 до 14 година, (АС=11,54; СД=1,75), оба пола (53,3% дечака и 46,7% девојчица), без неуролошких и вишеструких сметњи. Креативни потенцијал ученика с интелектуалном ометеношћу процењен је Тестом креативног мишљења – графичка продукција. Анализом добијених резултата издвојена су два фактора који објашњавају укупно 67,6% варијансе. Први фактор има четири главне факторске тежине (прекидање граница које зависи од фрагмената, прекидање граница које не зависи од фрагмената, хумор и нови елементи). Други фактор обухвата повезивање помоћу линија, настављање, допуњавање и повезивање које доприноси теми. Неконвенционална манипулација материјалом као и употреба апстрактних елемената имају најмање факторске тежине. Двофакторски модел показао је прихватљиве индексе подобности и сугерише важност конвенционалног и неконвенционалног начина размишљања за креативни процес ученика с интелектуалном ометеношћу.

Кључне речи: креативни потенцијал, факторске тежине, ученици с интелектуалном ометеношћу

Summary: Development of creativity is an important segment of educational process. The goal of this research is to identify the factor structure of the Creative Thinking Test – Graphic Production of the applied on the sample of students with intelectual difficulties. The sample consisted of 76 students, age 9-14 (АS=11,54; SD=1,75), of both genders (53,3% boys and 46,7% girls), without neurological or multiple impediments. The creative potential of these students was tested using the Creative Thinking Test – Graphic Production. By analyzing the obtained resutls we identified two factors which explain the total of 67,6% of the variance. The first factor has four main factor weights (fragment-dependent boundary breaking, fragment-independent boundary breaking, humour, and new elements). The second factor includes linking by drawing lines, continuation, addition, and linking that contributes to the topic. Unconventional material manipulation as well as the use of abstract elements have the least factor weights. The two-factor model showed acceptable suitability indices and suggests the importance of conventional and unconventional ways of thinking for the creative process of students with intellectual difficulties.

Кeywords: creative potential, factor weights, students with intelectual difficulties

Литература

• American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Fifh Edition.
• Bognar, L. (2012). Kreativnost u nastavi. Napredak: Časopis za interdisciplinarna istraživanja u odgoju i obrazovanje. 153 (1), 9‒20.
• Caroff, X. and Lubart, I. (2012). Multidimensional approach to detecting creative potential in managers. Creativity Research Journal. 24 (1), 13‒20.
• Carson, S., Peterson, B. and Higgins, M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. 17, 37–50. https://doi.org/doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
• Chen, H., Chen, C. and Roberts, M. (2019). Why humor enhances creativity from theoretical explanations to an empirical humor training program: Effective “ha-ha” helps people to “a-ha”. In: Creativity and humor (83‒108). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813802-1.00004-1
• Cropley, H. and Marrone, L. (2022). Automated scoring of figural creativity using a convolutional neural network. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000510
• Desmet, O., Weerdenburg, M., Poelman, M., Hoogeveen, L. and Yang, Y. (2021). Validity and Utility of the Test of Creative Thinking Drawing Production for Dutch Adolescents. Journal of Advenced Academics. 33 (3), 267‒290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X21990099
• Gagić, S., Japundža-Milisavljević, M. and Đurić-Zdravković, A. (2015). Examples from Visual Surroundings as an Incentive for Children with Mild Intellectual Disability to Express their Creativity in the Art Domain. Croatian Journal of Education. 17 (3), 41‒64. https://doi.org/ 10.15516/cje.v17i0.1073
• Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis ‒ A Global Perspective. New Jersey: Pearsib.
• He, J. and Wong, C. (2022). Middle School Students from China’s Rice Area Show More Adaptive Creativity but Less Innovative and Boundary-Breaking Creativity. Frontiers in Psychology. 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749229
• Hu, W. and Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education. 24 (4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
• Ibérico Nogueira, S., Almeida, L. and Souza Lima, T. (2019). A structural model of the test for creative thinking-drawing production (TCT-DP) in adults – revised. Psychological Applications and Trends. https://doi.org/doi: 10.36315/2019inpact069
• Ibérico Nogueira, S., Almeida, L. and Souza Lima, T. (2017). Two Tracks of Thought: A Structural Model of the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Creativity Research Journal. 29 (2), 206‒211. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1303312
• Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T. and Leeuwen, V. (2012). Creative reasoning across developmental levels: Convergence and divergence in problem creation. Intelligence. 40 (2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.002
• Jellen, G. and Urban, K. (1989). Assessing creative potential world-wide: The first cross-cultural application of the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Gifted Education International. 6(2), 78–86.
• Jeon, N., Moon, M. and French, B. (2011). Differential effects of divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and interest on creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research Journal. 23, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545750
• Kadum, S. (2018). Divergentno mišljenje u procesu suvremenoga odgoja i obrazovanja. Metodički ogledi. 26 (1) 1, 81–98.
• Kaiser, F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39 (1), 31‒36.
• Kālis, E., Roķe, L. and Krūmiņa, I. (2016). Investigation of psychometric properties of the Test for Creative Thinking ‒ Drawing Production: Evidence from study in Latvia. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 50 (1), 47‒63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.68
• Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I. and Wiśniewska, E. (2018). Measuring creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving. 28 (1), 45–57.
• Kaufman, C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (KDOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 6 (4), 298‒308.
• Kim, H. (2006). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal. 18 (3), 251–259. https://doi.org/doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_2
• Kurnoga Živadinović, N. (2004). Defining the basic product attributes using the factor analysis. Ekonomski pregled. 55 (11‒12), 952‒966.
• Lubart, T., Zenasni, F. and Barbot, B. (2013). Creative Potential and its Measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity. 1 (2), 41‒50.
• Maksić, S. i Đurišić-Bojanović, M. (2003). Measurement of children’s creativity by tests. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja. 35, 45‒62.
• Мaksić, S. (2021). Istine i zablude o kreativnom učenju. Inovacije u nastavi, 34 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije2101001M
• Manko, A. (2020). Vrijednosno-kreativne mogućnosti obrazovne inkluzije. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu. 23 (1), 134‒150. https://doi.org/10.46352/23036990.2020.134
• McAleer, T., Bowler, L., Bowler, C. and Schoemann, M. (2020). Implicit and explicit creativity: Further evidence of the integrative model. Personality and Individual Differences. 154, 109643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109643
• Mellou, E. (1996). Can Creativity be Nurtured in Young Children? Early Child Development and Care. 119(1), 119‒130. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1080/0300443961190109
• Prtljaga, S., Stojanović, A. i Blagdanić, S. (2018). Dometi project metode u podsticanju kreativnosti učenika u nastavi prirode i društva. Inovacije u nastavi. 31 (3), 37‒48. https://doi.org/doi: 10.5937/inovacije1803037P
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan. 42 (7), 305‒310.
• Rosen, Y., Stoeffler, K. and Simmering, V. (2020). Imagine: Design for creative thinking, learning, and assessment in schools. Journal of Intelligence. 8 (2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8020016
• Runco, A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 47 (3), 317‒324.
• Ružić, M., Vidanović, S. and Stojiljković, S. (2015). Kreativnost, inteligencija i anksioznost učenika različitog školskog uspeha. Nastava i vaspitanje. 64 (4), 715‒734. https://doi.org/ 10.5937/nasvas1504715R
• Şahin, F. (2022). A study on developing creative thinking skills in students with intellectual disabilities using creative drama. Creativity Research Journal. 34 (1), 85‒92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1997177
• Sayed, M. and Mohamed, H. (2013). Gender differences in divergent thinking: Use of the test of creative thinking-drawing production on an Egyptian sample. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2, 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783760
• Smajović, A. (2021). Kultivisanje kreativnosti kao osnova održivog obrazovanja budućnosti. Obrazovanje odraslih ‒ Časopis za obrazovanje odraslih i kulturu. 21 (2), 131‒135.
• Steinbüchel, N., Meeuwsen, M., Poinstingl, H. and Kiese-Himmel, C. (2018). The Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production Test in Preschool Children with Predominantly Migration Background ‒ Psychometrics of the German TCT-DP. Creativity Research Journal. 30 (2), 195–204.
• Steinbüchel, N., Meeuwsen, M., Poinstingl, H. and Kiese-Himmel, C. (2018). The test for creative thinking– drawing production test in preschool children with predominantly migration background ‒ psychometrics of the German TCT-DP. Creativity Research Journal. 30 (2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.201 8.1446742
• Tan, A. G. and Perleth, C. (2015). An Introduction to the Volume of Creativity, Culture and Development. Creativity, Culture, and Development. 1‒9.
• Theurer, C., Berner, E. and Lipowsky, F. (2016). Assessing creative potential as student outcome: On the applicability of the TCT-DP in repeated measures. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 20, 74‒82.
• Urban, K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal. 4 (2), 177‒191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534384
• Urban, K. and Jellen, H. (1993). Test for creative thinking ‒ rawing production (TCT-DP). Manual, Hanover: Universitu of Hanover.
• Vujačić, М. (2006). Problemi i perspektive dece sa posebnim potrebama. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja. 38 (1), 190‒204. https://doi.org/ 10.2298/ZIPI0601190V
• Watkins, W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology. 44 (3), 219‒246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807