Research in Science Educatlon,1979,9, 177-182

CREATIVE AND LOGICAL THINKING IN ADOLESCENTS

Denis Goodrum

INTRODUCTION

If you ask a teacher to llst the purposes of schooling, somewhere in the llst will more than likely be the statement "To develop children's thinking." Such an aspiration is no doubt worthy, but it is surprising how little we know about the thinking process and how even less, we know about the way thinking can be developed.

Two I~odes o_~f Thlnkiny,.

Recent evidence suggests thinking can be classified in two distinct modes. One mode, which is believed to be related to the "left hemisphere" of the brain, is predomlnately involved with analytic logical thinking, especially in verbal and mathematical functions. Its mode of operation is primarily linear and sequential. The thinking operations as conceived by Piaget seem to be related to this type of thinking. Such thinking is often perceived as scientific ~llnklng. It is that which is akin to the rational approach to problem solving. This approach is seen in the majority of our school science courses.

Maslow (1962), Bruner (1966), Adams (1974), Koestler (1967), and Orsteln (1972) believe there is another mode of thinking which is also important to the scientist. The other mode, commonly referred as "right hemlsperlc thinking," is more concerned with hollstic activities. Experiments from brain damaged studies, split brain studies and brain studies involving normal subjects, have substantiated the existence of such a thinking mode (Dlmond & Beaumont, 1974). These experiments have also delineated the types of thinking associated with this right hemispheric mode. Such activities are primarily concerned with the visual area llke spaclal relations, spaclal orientation, and the recognition of faces. Some studies also indicate imagination, artistic endeavour, musical aptitude and creatlve-assoclate thinking is right hemispheric in nature. This mode of thinking processes information more diffusely than does that related to the left hemisphere and demands a ready integration of many inputs at once. While the left hemispheric mode is mainly linear and sequential, the right takes a large amount of information and by considering the information as a whole comes to a conclusion.

Creative Thinking.

Creative thinking is commonly associated with right hemispheric thinking though the relationship is not fully understood. In fact, the concept of creativity has proved to be a difficult one to clm~rly delineate and define. Freeman et al. state "there is as yet no unified

178

psychological theory of creativity available to the research worker or the educational practitioner" (Freeman, Butcher & Christie, 1971, p. 2). Despite this lack of clarity regards creativity, the research into the area can be classified into the following three ways:

(a) assessing the creative responses to psychological testing and problem solving. Studies of this type often involve the general theory of human intellect;

(b) identifying and measuring the personality characteristics of individuals and groups considered to be outstandingly creative;

(c) investigating educational methods conducive to the development of creative talent.

The study to be outlined in this paper develops the method used in the first of these areas. Within this method the relationship between creativity and say, general intelligence, is examined by constructing a battery of tests designed to assess creativity and another set to measure intelligence. The correlations within the battery and within the tests are then examined.

Past research has more commonly revealed high correlations between tests of intelligence, low correlations between tests of creativity and correlations between the two kinds of tests that have varied from zero to high. Studies that have suggested a distinct difference between creativity and intelligence include Getzels and Jackson (1962), Wallach and Kogan (1965), Torrance (1960) and Cropley and Maslany (1969). Intelligence in this sense has been mainly viewed in terms of the verbal and mathematical rational mode of thinking as characterized by the left hemisphere.

An interesting theory, first proposed by Torrance, relates to the level of intelligence and creativity. The threshold concept, as it is called, proposes that a minimua level of ability is needed before one can distinguish between creativity and intelligence. Beyond this minimum ability there is little relationship between general ability and the ability to think creatively. Studies by Barker Lunn (1970) and Byrne and Freeman (1971) support this idea.

THE STUDY

The purpose of this paper is to examine a study which investigates the development of creative and rational thinking modes in a n~ber of grade 8, 9 and i0 advanced science classes. This study was part of a much wider study which was involved with determining the nature and relationship of different modes of thinking in adolescents (Goodrum, 1978).

The problem was to see how intelligent science students developed the following types of thinking through the Junior high years:

I. Creative thinking,

2. Right hemispheric thinking,

179

3. Left hemispheric thinking,

4. Piagetlan development.

In the study grade 8, 9 and 10 advanced science students from three senior high schools in Perth were tested with a battery of pencil and paper tests. The tests used are as indicated in Table i.

TABLE I

Tests used in Study

l~

2.

3.

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0.

Thinking type

Verbal Creativity

Non-verbal Creativity

Creativity Sum

Spacial Relations

Spacial Orientation

Right Hemispheric Sum

Number Facility

Reasoning

Left Hemispheric Sum

Piaget Development

Test on which Thinking type is based

Alternate Uses

Making Objects

Sum of 1 and 2

Spacial Relations P.M.A.

Spacial Orientation

Sum of 5 and 6

Number Facility P.M.A.

Reasoning P.M.Ao

Sum of 7 and 8

Burney's Test

The left hemisphere specializes in the thinking processes of reasoning and number facility and these two factors are used as a measure of left hemispheric thinking. Spatial relations and spatial orientation are considered to be dominant in the right hemisphere and were selected as representing right hemispheric thinking. Two measures of creativity were used - a non-verbal measure and a verbal measure.

Piagetian cognitive development was measured by Burney's test (1974) which is an extension of a test devised by Tisher.

The total n~nher of students used in the study was 257 in which 83 students were from school "A", 92 students were from school "B" and 82 students were from school "C". In the statistical analysis which employed the analysis of variance statistic, the three schools were treated as separate populatlons. All raw scores were standardised within each

180

particular school.

RESULTS

Creativity vs. Grade.

From Table 2 one can see there was no significant relationship between the academic grade of the student and creativity. Such data questions the development of creative thinking of the advanced science students in these three schools during their Junior high years.

TABLE 2

Summary of Grades 8, 9 and i0 Standardised Mean Scores "F" ratios

Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade I0 "F"

Creativity A 52.9 A 55.7 A 53.7 .87 Measures B 56.5 B 51.9 B 56.8 1.95

C 51.5 C 55.7 C 58.0 2.63

Right A 49.5 A 58.1 A 60.0 7.35** Hemispheric B 52.8 B 55.0 B 58.0 i. 54 Measures C 52.7 C 53.0 C 59.4 2.5

Left A 49.5 A 52.2 A 66.0 15.54.* Hemispheric B 49.7 B 56.5 B 58.6 4.26* Measures C 49.4 C 59.0 C 57.3 5.02**

Piagetian A 43.7 A 58.4 A 67.1 30.23** Development B 47.6 B 56.6 B 63.5 10.38"* Measures C 47.1 C 59.0 C 60.0 7.25**

** p < .01

* p < .05

Right Hemispheric Thinkin K vs. Grade.

181

The development of right hemispheric thinking abilities during this time seems to be less consistent. For school "~' right hemispheric abilities is related to the academic grade of the student but this is not true for schools "B" and "C"- In examining the standardlsed mean score the variance in school "~' seems due to the difference between the grade 8 scores and scores of the two higher grades at the school. There also seems to be a large difference between the grades regards left hemispheric and Piaget thinking. Such a large difference could indicate that the grade 8 class is of lower ability in general terms. This suspected lower ability may have affected the lower right hemispheric scores.

Left Hemispheric Thinking vs. Grade.

The situation is very different with left hemispheric abilities w h i c h are significantly related to the grade of the student. This result reinforces the view that there is a development of left hemispheric thinking skills during the Junior high years.

PiaKetian Development vs. Grade.

Piagetlan development is related to grade advancement according to this study. Such information again reinforces the developmental aspect of Piaget's theory.

CONCLUSION

In general terms the study indicates for t h e three schools examined the relationship between the academic grade of Junior secondary advanced science students and creative right hemispheric thinking is weak, but the relationship between the student's grade and rational logical thinking is

much stronger.

It may be that such relationships are a natural maturation and not related t o the work done in the school. would feel that the school system has some effect.

consequence of Most educators

If each child is going to reallse one's full thinking potential, it is important that the creative and hollstic modes of thinking be developed. In a future world which will be immersed in rapid change the need for this type of thinking is even more acute.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, L. Conceptual blockbustln~. San Francisco: W.H.

1974.

BARKER LUt~N, J.C. Streaming in the primary school: Research London: National Foundation of Educational Research, 1970.

Freeman,

r e p o r t -

182

BURNEY, G.M. The construction and validation of an objective formal reasoning instrument. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Northern Colorado, 1974.

BYR~, P.S. & FREEMAN, J. Postgraduate training for general practice: An assessment of the aptitudes and abilities of trainee entrants. British Journal of Medical Education, 1971, 5(4), 292.

CROPLEY, A.J. & MASLANY, C.~. ReliaBility and factoral validity of the ~lallach-Kogan creativity test~. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 40, 395-398.

DII{O~, S.J. & BEA~;T, J.G. (Ed.) Hemisphere function in the human Brain. New York: John 1~ley & Sons, 1974.

FRE~AN, J., BUTCHER, H.J. &C}~ISTIE, T. Creativity: a selective review of research, 2nd. FA. London: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1971.

GETZELS, J.W. & JACKSON, P.W. York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962.

Creativity and intelli~enee. New

COODR~I, D. What is right about creative thinking? Science Education Conference, 1978, Western Australian Institute of Technology, Perth, 1978.

KOESTLER, A. The act o@ creation. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

MASLOW, A. Emotional blocks to creativity. In Parnes & ~{arding (Ed.) A source book for creative thinking. New York: Scrlbners~ Iq62.

ORNSTEIN I R.E. The psychology of consciousness. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1972.

TISHER, R.P. A Piagetian questionnaire applied to pupils in a secondary school. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1633-1636.

TORRANCE, E.P. Educational achievement of the highly intelligent and hizhly creative: Eight partial replications of the C~tzels-Jackson's study. Research Memorandum BER-60-1~, Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, SeptemBer, 1960.

WALLACR, M.A. & KOGAN, N. Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Rolt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.