Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 643 647

6th International Forum on Engineering Education (IFEE 2012)

Effectiveness of Training Creativity on Preschool Students

Parsasirat Zahraa*, Fatimah Yusooff a, Mohd Safar Hasimb
a

School of Psychology and Human Developmen, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Malaysia
c
Institute of West Asian Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Malaysia

Abstract
This study explores the effectiveness of training creativity on preschool students. The study involves creativity training using
experimental and control groups. Each experimental and control group comprised 30 preschool students, with pretest and
posttest done in both experimental and control groups. During the study, 12 sections of training creativity were carried out
using instruments for Brainstorming, Tell Story, Web Link and Role Plays, Checklist and Torrance Training Creativity Test.
Results showed positive significant difference between pretest and posttest experimental group, and strong effect of training
creativity on the preschool students. On the other hand, results found no significant difference between pretest and posttest of
the control group. There are several implications that could be discerned from the study which could be utilized by the
Ministry of Education, school administration , teachers and parents.

2013The
TheAuthors.
Authors.
Published
Elsevier
2013
Published
by by
Elsevier
Ltd.Ltd.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selectionand/or
and/or
peer-review
responsibility
of Mohd.
Zaidi
Yasin, Mohammad
Roszilah Hamid,
Selection
peer-review
underunder
responsibility
of Professor
Dr Mohd.
ZaidiOmar,
Omar, Ruhizan
Associate Mohammad
Professor Dr Ruhizan
Yasin,
Norngainy
Kamaruzaman
Yusoff,
Mohamad
Sattar
Dr
Roszilah Mohd.
Hamid, Tawil,
Dr Norngainy
Mohd. Tawil,
Associate
Professor
DrRasul
Wan Kamal Mujani, Associate Professor Dr Effandi Zakaria.
Keywords: Brainstorming; preschool student; role plays; tell story; training creativity.

1. Introduction
American psychologist JP Guilford pioneered the study on creativity since 1950s and became known as one
of the founders of Psychology of Creativity. Several other researches made further contributions towards
understanding and recognizing creativity as a human capability [1,2]. Guilford developed the Structure of
Intellect (SI) model which identified two distinct forms of thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking.
Divergent thinking is associated with creative thoughts or the ability to access memory to derive unique, multiple,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: z_parsasirat@yahoo.com

1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Professor Dr Mohd. Zaidi Omar, Associate Professor Dr Ruhizan Mohammad Yasin,
Dr Roszilah Hamid, Dr Norngainy Mohd. Tawil, Associate Professor Dr Wan Kamal Mujani, Associate Professor Dr Effandi Zakaria.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.782

644

Parsasirat Zahra et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 643 647

and numerous answers to open-ended questions. While convergent thinking means coming up with one-rightanswer for each questions, commonly associated with IQ tests [3]. Further, creativity was defined as a multilevel
phenomenon [4]. Creativity is best conceptualized not as a personality trait or as a general ability but as a
behavior resulting from particular constellation of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities and social
environment [5]. However, Harrington [6], Schoenfeldt and Jansen [7] say creativity is an interaction between
personality and environment. Gale [8] and Gute et al. [9] believe that creativity is a heritable trait and a child born
with creative potential, can be trained and increase throughout life. While Gale [8] reports that there is stronger
influence between creativity and environment than hereditary. Creativity is so important that Rogers [10] says
we are doomed to annihilation unless we improve our creative abilities.
This study intends to test training creativity as a pathway to increase this skill in the preschool students in the
Region 4 of Tehran, Iran. This study focuses on the following two questions. First, is there any significant
difference between experimental and control group based on Brainstorming, Wet Link, Tell Story and Role Play?
Secondly, is there any significant difference between pretest and posttest in the experimental group based on
Brainstorming, Wet Link, Tell Story and Role Play?
2. Literature Review
Researches on the effectiveness of training creativity reveal that using sufficient education and training
programs can enhance creativity among the students. This is because in the skills of creative thinking practice,
encouragement, and training lead to the enhancement of the degree of creativity [11]. Since the potential of
creativity exists among all people, it can be identified and fostered by training [9].
Cramond [12] believes that primary goal of learning and teaching should be sharpening and refining of the
thinking process and should be a priority in education. Furthermore, if it is expected to train the students as
independent thinkers, effective thinking which is critical and creative, should be taught to them during their
school years. This will make them effective thinkers and will help them during their life after school. In accepting
that Torrence [13] mentions that although critical and creative thinking are significant, teaching children the
creative thinking skills is essential. It will help them to solve problems they face and challenges in the future. Li
[14] opines that since creative thinking can be learnt and taught, creativity can be increased by education and
training [15]. Hence, according to quantitative review on creativity training programs done by Scott et al. [16] on
70 studies, it is shown that creativity training can create divergent thinking and creative performance in the
individual.
Parnes and Noller [17] carried out a creative study projects at Buffalo College State university of New York
involving 350 students who were divided into two groups; the control group and experimental group. They
trained the experimental group in Creative analysis, Creative problem solving and for two years included four
semesters. The control group was not given any creative training. The outcome of the study showed that the
experimental group could solve problems significantly better than those who were not given creative training.
One of the measures used was by testing the ability of students to solve real world problem. The results indicated
statistically high significant difference between the two groups. This study indicated that training can enhance the
creativity of the students.
On the other hand, Zarrin [18] carried out a research on the English language teachers creative behavior at a
secondary school in Malaysia. The results indicated that teachers do not pay attention to teaching strategies which
could enhance the students creativity. This result is similar to the research result by Joseph [2]. His study was on
creative behavior of English teachers and classroom methodology in 20 primary schools in Selangor state in
Malaysia. Results of this study showed that teachers and their method of teaching have significant effect in
increasing the creativity among school students. As a result, it is important to enhance the skills and knowledge
of teachers in creative teaching by providing suitable psychological situation to accelerate and increasing
creativity and imagination of their students. Furthermore, various training and teaching styles can be capitalized

Parsasirat Zahra et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 643 647

on the talent and interests of students in response to global challenges. Diakidoy and Kanari [19], and Chan and
Chan [20] emphasized the role of teachers in facilitating the creativity of students since teachers are believed to
have most important role to identify and develop the students creative potential [21]. Hence, teachers should be
careful in their creativity classes by not marginalizing the students [2].
3. Methods
3.1. Process
Torrance Training Creativity Test was used on the experimental group to measure the students creativity.
Divergent thinking was taught using strategies such as Brainstorming, Tell Story, Wet Link and Role Plays. The
training period was recorded to see creative behaviors of each student in the experimental group. Analysis of the
present study was done using SPSS version 19. Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis were extracted
as descriptive statistics. Apart from the descriptive statistics, Pearson product moment coefficient was used to
determine comparability between pretest of experimental and control groups. In addition, paired-Sample t-test
was used to determine the difference between pretest and posttest in the experimental and control groups.
3.2. Research Design
This study formed four groups of two experimental and two control groups, each group comprising 15
randomly selected preschool students. Creativity training was taught to the two experimental groups. Conversely,
no creative training was given to the control groups. Comparison was done between pretest and posttest of the
experimental group as well as posttest of experimental and control groups of specified influence of creativity
training. To explore influence of every method used (Brainstorming, Tell Story, Wet Link and Role Plays), a
checklist was used to determine if any of the methods transfer more effect in enhancing creativity.
4. Results and Discussion
Current experimental study was based on the main objective of influence of creativity training on preschool
students. Torrance Thinking Creativity Test was used to assess the initial creative ability in the participants
(N=30). Descriptive statistics results of pretest and posttest of Torrance Training Creativity Test showed mean
scores of pretest was 152.30, and mean scores of posttest was 156.63. The pretests skewness (-0.103), posttest
skewness (-0.284), pretests kurtosis (-0.262) and posttests kurtosis (-0.395) were determined. In the control
group mean score of pretest was (152.50) and posttest (151.36) which is approximately equal (see Table 1).

645

646

Parsasirat Zahra et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 643 647

Table 1. Comparison of Pretest and Posttest in Two Separate Groups (Experimental and Control Groups)

Mean

Std.
Deviation

30

152.300

16.039

Post EC

30

156.633

16.011

Pre CG

30

152.500

17.393

Post CG

30

151.366

18,185

Variables

Pre EG

5.827

1.251

df

Sig (2-tailed)

29

0.000**

29

0.221

**=0.05 P value
Pre EG=Pretest of Experimental Group,
Post EC=Posttest of Experimental Group,
Pre CG=Pretest of Control Group,
Post CG= Posttest of Control Group

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of training creativity on the preschool class.
There was statistically significant increase in creativity ability scores from pretest (M=152.300, SD=16.039) and
posttest [M=156.633, SD=16.011, t(29)=5.827, p<0.000] in the experimental group. On the other hand, current
results stated that strong effect of training creativity by increasing creativity in the preschool children.
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in creativity ability scores from pretest (M=152.500,
SD=17.393) and posttest [M=151.366, SD=18.185, t(29)=1.251, p<0.221] in the control group. In addition,
comparison between mean score of posttest in the experimental group (M=156.633) and control group
(M=151.366) showed that training was useful to develop creative children.
Present result supported several earlier studies such as Gute et al. [9] that indicated training can be identified
and fostered creativity among all people. Also Joseph [2] reported enhanced creativity to training and practice by
divergent thinking.
5. Implications
Current study provides implication for the increase of training creativity in the preschool students. It is
anticipated that the findings are important to Ministry Education and school administrations to give more
attention to enhance creativity in students and more attention to training problem solving. In addition, results can
be important for teachers to use different creative methods through training. Furthermore, present results can be
important to parents to enhance creativity in their children.

References
[1] Keller CJ, Lavish LA, Brown C. Creative styles and gender roles in undergraduate students. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3),
273-280. 2007.
[2] Joseph EJ. Effectiveness of Khatena Training Method on the Creativity of Four Students in a Selected School. PhD Thesis . University
of Malaya, Malaysia. 2009.
[3] Measuring creativity. 2013. http://www.allpsychologycreeres.com/topics/measuring -creativity.html. Accessed on 30 March 2013.
[4] Torrance EP. Style of Learning and Thinking: Administrators Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. 1988.
[5]Amabile TM. Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357377. 1983.
[6] Harrington DM. The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective. In Runco MA, Albert RS. (Eds.), Theories of Creativity,
(pp. 143-169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1990.

Parsasirat Zahra et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102 (2013) 643 647

[7] Schoenfeldt LF, Jansen KJ. Methodological requirements for studying creativity in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1),
73-90. 1997.
[8] Gale T. Creativity: Definition, description, common problems, parental concerns, resources. Encyclopedia of childrens health: Infancy
through adolescence. Retrieved October 12, 2005. http://www.health of children. com/C/Creativity.html. 2005.
[9] Gute G, Gute DS, Nakamura, J, Csikszentmihalyi M. The early lives of highly creative persons: The influence of the complex family.
Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 343-357. 2008.
[10] Rogers CP. Towards a theory of creativity. In Parnes SJ, Harding HF. A source book for creative thinking. New York: Scribners. 1962.
[11] Joseph EJ. An investigation into the creative behaviour of English language teachers and classroom methodology. Unpublished master
thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia. 1998.
[12] Cramond, B. 2002. The study of creativity in the future. In Aleinikov AG. (Ed.) The Future of creativity. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing Service, pp. 83-89. 2002.
[13] Torrance EP. Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114-143. 1972.
[14] Li, R. A theory of conceptual intelligence: Thinking, learning, creativity and giftedness. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1996.
[15] Isenberg JP, Jalongo MR. Creative expression and play in early childhood (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
[16] Ginamarie Scott G, Leritz LE, Mumford MD. The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 361
388, 2004.
[17] Parnes SJ. The creative studies project. In SG. Isaksen (Ed.) Frontiers of creativity research (pp.156-188). Buffalo,NY: Bearly Limited.
1987.
[18] Zarrin A. The creative behaviour of English language teachers in a Malaysian secondary school. Unpublished masters thesis,
University of Malaya, Malaysia. 2003.
[19] Diakidoy I-AN, Kanari E. Student teachers beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 225-243. 1999.
[20] Chan W, Chan L. Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 185-195. 1999.
[21] Lee E A, Seo H-A. Understanding of creativity by Korean elementary teachers in gifted education. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2),
237-242. 2006.

647