INSTITUTE OF SPECIAL PEDAGOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

COMPLEX PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS

TRAINING REPORT #1

psychological and pedagogical diagnostics in educational institutions

On the topic: "features of creative thinking"

St. Petersburg

Introduction

Relevance:

It is now clear to all that it is necessary to prepare students for creative activity. In this regard, the role of the school in the education of active, enterprising, creative thinking people. The development of students' creative abilities is important at all stages schooling, but the formation of creative thinking in primary school age is of particular importance. Object of study: 23 children of grade 3, aged 8 to 10 years Subject of study: features of creative thinking Purpose: to investigate the level of development of creative thinking

Research objectives: 1. To identify the levels of development of creative thinking.

Reveal the level of fluency of thinking

Reveal the level of flexibility of thinking

Reveal the level of development of thinking

Reveal the level of originality of thinking

Reveal Level vocabulary child.

Reveal gender differences in the development of creative thinking. Hypothesis: Factor of gender difference in the development of creative thinking

Research methods:

Observation

Testing

Research methods:

1.Creative (divergent) thinking test

2.Williams scale. Questionnaire for teachers and parents.

Practice base:

State budgetary educational institution secondary school No. 57 of the Primorsky district of St. Petersburg methodologist - Chaplygina Olga Alexandrovna Practice dates: 10/14/13-11/10/13

1. Organization and research methods

The survey was conducted on younger schoolchildren, students of the 3rd grade (8-10 years old).

The work was carried out in a group.

Almost all the children were interested in the survey, they were interested in each technique.

The survey was conducted in the morning.

Classes lasted 40-45 minutes.

NAME - Test of divergent (creative) thinking

FUNCTION - Test divergent thinking is aimed at diagnosing a combination of verbal left hemispheric indicators and right hemispheric visual-perceptual indicators. Used for children from 5 to 17 years old.

STIMULUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT - For a single examination of one person, a test book is required, which consists of three separate sheets, standard A4 format, each sheet of paper shows four squares, inside of which there are stimulus figures. Under the squares is the number of the figure and a place for the signature.

INSTRUCTIONS - "This task will help you find out how capable you are of creative expression with the help of drawings. 12 drawings are offered. Work fast. Try to draw such an unusual picture that no one else can come up with. You will be given 20(25) minutes to draw your drawings. Work in the squares in order, do not jump from one square to another. When creating a picture, use a line or shape inside each square to make it part of your picture. You can draw anywhere within the square, depending on what you want to represent. Can be used different colors so that the drawings are interesting and unusual. After completing each drawing, think about interesting name and write down the name in the line below the picture. Don't worry about correct spelling. Creating an original name is more important than handwriting and spelling. Your title should tell about what is shown in the picture, reveal its meaning.

EXAMINATION PROCEDURE - Testing is carried out in a group form. It is desirable that during testing, children sit at a table or desk one at a time.

For kindergarten children, testing should be carried out in small groups of 5-10 people.

The instruction is reproduced, after the psychologist is convinced that the children understand the instructions, distributes stimulus material and the children begin work.

PROCESSING, REGISTERED MEASUREMENTS - The following four cognitive factors of divergent thinking are closely correlated with creative expression personality (right hemisphere, visual, synthetic style of thinking). They are assessed together with the fifth factor characterizing the ability for vocabulary synthesis (left hemisphere, verbal style of thinking). As a result, we get five indicators, expressed in raw points:

1.fluency (B)

2.flexibility (G)

.originality (O)

.development (P)

Title (H)

1. Fluency - productivity, is determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content. Rationale: creative personalities work productively, more developed fluency of thinking is associated with this. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing). 2. Flexibility is the number of drawing category changes, counting from the first drawing. Four possible categories:

1.living (F) - a person, a person, a flower, a tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.

2.mechanical, object (M) - a boat, a spaceship, a bicycle, a car, a tool, a toy, equipment, furniture, household items, dishes, etc.

.symbolic (C) - letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc.

.specific, genre (B) - city, highway, house, yard, park, space, mountains, etc. (see illustrations on the next page).

Rationale: Creative individuals often prefer to change things rather than sticking inertly to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile. The range of possible points is from 1 to 11, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one. 3. Originality - the location (inside - outside relative to the stimulus figure) where the drawing is performed. Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside the given stimulus figure.

Rationale: less creative individuals usually ignore the closed stimulus figure and draw outside of it, i.e. the drawing will only be outside. More creative people will work inside the closed part. Highly creative people will synthesize, combine, and will not be constrained by any closed circuit, i.e. the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure.

· 1 point - draw only outside.

· 2 points - draw only inside.

· 3 points - draw both outside and inside.

Total Raw Originality Score (O) is equal to the sum points for this factor in all figures. 4. Elaboration-symmetry-asymmetry, where the details are located that make the pattern asymmetric.

· 0 points - symmetrically internal and external space.

· 1 point - asymmetrically outside the closed contour.

· 2 points - asymmetrically inside the closed contour.

· 3 points - completely asymmetrical: different external details on both sides of the contour and asymmetrical image inside the contour.

The total raw score for elaboration (P) is the sum of scores for the elaboration factor for all drawings.

5. Title - the richness of the vocabulary (the number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence of what is depicted in the figures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext).

· 0 points - no name given

· 1 point - a name consisting of one word without a definition.

· 2 points - a phrase, a few words that reflect what is drawn in the picture.

· 3 points - a figurative name that expresses more than what is shown in the picture, i.e. a hidden meaning.

The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the scores for this factor received for each figure.

FINAL SCORE ON THE DIVERGENT THINKING TEST

FLUENCE The total number of drawings completed. Possible max 12 points (1 point for each drawing).

FLEXIBILITY The number of category changes counting from the first picture. Possible max 11 points (1 point for each category change).

ORIGINALITY Where the drawing is made:

• (scores for this factor are summed up for all drawn pictures). Perhaps max 36 points.
• DEVELOPMENT Where complementary details create image asymmetry:

TITLE

• name not given - 0 points
• multi-word title - 2 points

Figurative name expressing more than shown in the picture - 3 points

(scores for this factor for all drawn pictures are summed up). Perhaps max 36 points. The result of the calculation for the main parameters of the divergent thinking test

Fluency - the student works quickly, with great productivity. Drawn 12 pictures. Evaluation - one point for each picture. The highest possible raw score is 12.

Flexibility - the student is able to put forward different ideas, change his position and look at things in a new way. One point for each category change, counting from the first change (there are four possible categories). The maximum possible total raw score is 11.

Originality - the student is not constrained by closed contours, he moves outside and inside the contour to make the stimulus figure part of the whole picture. Three points for each original picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

Elaboration - the student adds detail to a closed contour, prefers asymmetry and complexity in the image. Three points for each asymmetrical inside and outside picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

Name - the student skillfully and witty uses language means and vocabulary. Three points for each meaningful, witty, expressive caption to the picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

The highest possible total score (in raw scores) for the entire test is 131.

Information psychodiagnostic card

NAME - Williams scale. Questionnaire for parents and teachers

SOURCE OF DESCRIPTION - E. E. Tunik Workshop on psychodiagnostics "Modified creative tests of Williams", St. Petersburg, Rech, 2003

PURPOSE - The Williams Scale is a questionnaire that measures eight factors of creativity through observation. The questionnaire contains 6 characteristics for each of the eight factors on which parents and teachers are asked to evaluate the child. There are also 4 questions open type for independent characteristics of the child by parents and teachers.

STIMULUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT - For a single examination of one person, a list of answers is required, which consists of eight subsections - indicators characterizing the behavior of creative children. For each indicator, six statements are given, according to which the teacher and parents must evaluate the child in such a way that the best way characterize it.

INSTRUCTIONS - Circle one of the letters on the answer sheet to the right of the number of the corresponding statement. The meaning of the letter chosen should best describe the behavior of the child. In this case, the letters have the following meanings:

H - often I - sometimes R - rarely

Please do not write anything on the questionnaire, mark your answers only on this answer sheet.

SURVEY PROCEDURE - The Williams Scale - a questionnaire for parents and teachers to assess the creativity (creativity) of a child - is carried out individually, time is not limited.

Distributed by teachers at school to the parents of those children who were tested according to one or two previous methods. Parents usually complete the scale in 30 minutes or less. Teachers can fill in the scale where it suits them. For more objective evaluation we consider it expedient for two or three teachers to complete the scale (if possible). In this case, then take average rating several teachers.

PROCESSING, REGISTERED PERFORMANCES - All eight factors - divergent thinking (4) and personal creative characteristics (4) of the Williams model are included in this scale for assessment by parents and teachers. For each factor, 6 statements are presented, for each statement a choice of 3 possible types of behavior is given: "often", "sometimes" and "rarely".

1. The 48-item scale is followed by an additional page of open-ended questions to be completed by parents and/or teachers. The score calculation consists of the following procedures: Count the number of responses marked in the "often" column and multiply this number by two (2). These are double-weighted responses that receive two (2) points each.
2. Count the number of responses marked in the "sometimes" column. These answers will receive one (1) point each.
3. Count the number of responses in the "rarely" column. These answers will receive zero (0) points each.
4. The four open-ended questions at the end of the scale will receive one (1) point each if the answer is "yes" followed by arguments or comments.

This is a quantitative calculation of the available data. Evaluation of notes and comments can help those who write programs for creative students by ranking the frequency of occurrence of the same or similar comments. For example, if the largest number experts give the following comment: "a child is creatively gifted because he is artistic", then this trait (artistic talent) will have the highest rank for this group of children. Similar ranks for a number of creative manifestations of the personality will characterize the presence and qualitative features of the creative features of various children.

9. FINAL CALCULATION ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS AND PARENTS. WILLIAMS SCALE.

Number of responses in the "often" column x 2 =

Number of answers in the "sometimes" column x 1 =

Number of responses in the "rarely" column x 0 =

Number of responses to "open" questions,

with "yes" answer and comments x 1 =

Number of responses in "open" responses,

with the answer "no" x 0 =

Total score = sum of scores in higher rows.

The total scores of students can be ranked from highest to lowest, starting with highest score 100, because 100 points is the maximum possible total raw score.

OBSERVATION MAP

BOYS

Name, age Behavior in the lesson (activity) Personal characteristics Vyacheslav B., 8 years old Moderately active, afraid to make a mistake, but not afraid to clarify the correct spelling of the word with the teacher. Don't be afraid to answer in class. Periodically distracted from assignments, fidgeting in his chair Often withdraws into himself, studies well, worries about grades, treats his studies responsibly Egor B. 8 years Very often distracted, sits sideways, sometimes does not respond to comments. some subjects are difficult. Positive, sociable. Timur Z., 9 years old. can start a fight for no reason, just because he is in a bad mood. Artem K. 9 years old Quiet, sits quietly, does not ask questions. "Dark horse", can set up, bully, envious. if something does not work out, he refuses to complete the assignment, becomes hysterical, tears up the notebook. He is tearful, always believes that only he is right, if something is not according to him, immediately into tears, hysteria, can offend an adult (teacher) and not think about This should be the focus of attention Dmitry K. 9 years old Diligent. Inflated self-esteem, spoiled, if something doesn’t suit him, he can swear. Daniil M. 9 years old Does not want to answer in class. Yabida, can do something from under difficult, sociable, can swear. Daniil P. 9 years old Diligent, study x Ok, inquisitive. Sociable Maxim P., 9 years old, studies poorly, but tries. Responsible, worries about grades, positive, tries to be noticed, sociable Konstantin, 9 years old. , constantly distracted, fidgeting. Daniil R., 9 years old, studies well, understands everything the first time, always ready to answer. Very well-mannered, treats everyone with respect, calm, does not like a raised voice, gentle, caring, vulnerable. studies well, understands everything from the first time, always ready to answer. Responsible, sociable, positive, kind. Alexander 9 years old Does not study badly, quiet. Responsible, independent. Adlan Sh. 9 years old Constantly distracted and distracts others, wants to be in the spotlight, every 5 minutes, you have to pull him up. He doesn’t put anyone in anything, he constantly lies, he can take Dmitry Ya. For 10 years, he studies well, does not attract attention to himself in the lesson. Positive, quiet.

OBSERVATION MAP

Name, age Behavior in the lesson (activity) Personality characteristics Sophia A. 8 years old She studies well, is quiet during the lesson, but sometimes gets distracted. She stands out from the class with her knowledge, sometimes turns up her nose, very developed. . tasks. Communicates only with boys, talks to them. Polina D., 9 years old, studies well, disciplined. Z., 9 years old, studies well, understands everything from the first time, always ready to answer. Sociable, kind, caring. Marina N., 9 years old, studies not badly, can come without a home. tasks, constantly fidgeting, distracted. "Devil in a skirt", hooligan, constantly injured, sociable, positive, independent, not responsible. bad, tries, asks the task a lot. Quiet, responsible, friendly. Results of diagnostics of the development of creative thinking in young children school age(according to the test method of divergent (creative) thinking)

student creative thinking psychodiagnostic

?)B (+)O (+)G (+)R (+)N (+)B (+)O (+)G (+)R (+)N (+)Group 112824.736.1315.801.33.815.593 .07Group 211.883.2523.753.7516.880.351.832.552.312.31

Symbols: B - Creative thinking fluency; O - originality of creative thinking; G - flexibility of creative thinking; P - development of creative thinking; N is the title.

Creative Thinking Fluency:

Creative individuals work productively, and more fluent thinking is associated with this. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing).

Originality of creative thinking:

Where is the drawing done?

· outside the stimulus figure - 1 point

· inside the stimulus figure - 2 points

· inside and outside the stimulus figure - 3 points

(scores for this factor are summed up for all drawn pictures). Perhaps max 36 points.

Flexibility of creative thinking:

The number of category changes, counting from the first picture. Possible max 11 points (1 point for each category change).

Development of creative thinking:

Where complementary details create image asymmetry:

· symmetrical throughout - 0 points

· asymmetrically outside the stimulus figure - 1 point

· asymmetrically inside the stimulus figure - 2 points

· asymmetrically inside and outside - 3 points

(scores for this factor for all drawn pictures are summed up). Perhaps max 36 points.

Name:

Vocabulary and figurative, creative use of language:

· name not given - 0 points

· one-word title - 1 point

· multi-word title - 2 points

A figurative name that expresses more than what is shown in the picture - 3 points (scores for this factor for all drawn pictures are summed up). Perhaps max 36 points.

The results of the table show that the development of all components of creative thinking in all subjects correspond to the norm and there are no visible gender differences.

The results of diagnostics of the development of creative thinking in children of primary school age (according to the method of the Williams Scale. Questionnaire for teachers and parents)

Average group values ​​X (sr) Standard deviation ( ?)Group 145.0714.72 Group 246.3810.03

Legend: The results of the parents' responses to assess the creativity (creativity) of the child.

Description of the results presented in the table.

From the results presented in the table, it can be seen that the figurative representations of the world around the group as a whole correspond to the average values. But at the same time, a strong scatter in the indicators of the entire group can be noted. This is due to the fact that half of the children from the group showed a very high and high level of awareness of the world around them and the possibility of verbalization. And the other half have an average and low level of development. Ilya and Yaroslava showed the lowest results. So, for Yaroslava, it was very difficult to verbalize her answers, she answered many things correctly, but did not have time to explain how it should really be. Ilya didn't say anything at all. Comparing the results of 2 subgroups, it can be seen that awareness of the world around us corresponds to age standards. Children from group 2 showed a higher level of awareness than in group 1.

№ (n / n) ImyaVozrastBeglostGibkostOriginalnostRazrabotannostNazvanie1Sofya A.8IIIIIIIIII2Vyacheslav B.9IIIIIIIIII3Egor B.9IIIIIIIIII4Ekaterina B.8IIIIIIIII5Polina D.9IIIIIIIII6Diana E.9IIIIIII7Angelina Z.9IIIIIIIII8Timur Z.9IIIIIIIIIII9Artem K.9IIIIIIIIIIIIII10Anatoly K.9IIIIIIIIII11Dmitry K.9IIIIIIIIII12Daniil M.9IIIIIII13Marina N.9IIIIIIIII14Diana P.9IIIIIIIII15Daniil P .9IIIIIIIIII16Maxim P.9IIIIIIIIIIII17Konstantin R.9IIIIIIIIII18Daniil R.9IIIIIIIII19Arseniy S.9IIIIIIIII20Elizabeth F.9IIIIIIIIIIII21Alexander Ts.9IIIIIIIIII22Adlan Sh.9IIIIIIIIII23Dmitry Ya.10IIIIIII

Description of the results presented in the table. From the results presented in the table, it can be seen that mental operations and general ideas about the world around, which determine the success cognitive activity preschoolers and the level of development in general, formed at the average level. High Abilities to the generalization of concepts, analytical and synthetic activity, the allocation of essential features at the figurative level, the construction of consistent inferences, the understanding of the relationships of events (causal and spatio-temporal), as well as a high level of awareness of the world around is demonstrated by one quarter of the surveyed preschool children. For about the same number of children, cognitive activity required a lot of effort. These children, despite a fairly high degree of concept formation, the ability to generalize and analytical and synthetic activity, had difficulty understanding the connections of events, highlighting essential features, and also showed a low level of awareness about the world around them and everyday situations.

Conclusion

As a result of the study, we found that there are no significant gender differences in the characteristics of creative thinking. Both in boys and girls, the development of creative thinking is the same and corresponds to the norm.

Municipal state-financed organization additional education of the city of Torzhok "Children's School of Arts"

Experimental work on the topic:

Study of the development of creative thinking in older preschoolers in the process of socio-psychological training

Teacher Komova Olga Viktorovna

Torzhok 2014

Organization of the study

Objective: to study the possibilities of developing creative thinking in older preschoolers with the help of a specially designed socio-psychological training.

Tasks:

to study the degree of development of creative thinking and creativity in older children preschool age;

develop socio-psychological methods for the development of creative thinking, based on social character thinking as the highest mental function;

conduct developmental classes with the experimental group using the developed complex of socio-psychological training;

to measure the level of development of creative thinking in the experimental group of older preschoolers after the classes and compare the results with the data of the control group, with which developmental classes were not conducted.

Research hypothesis: there are opportunities for the development of creative thinking in the senior preschool age (sensitive period) with the help of group socio-psychological classes. If a child participates in socio-psychological training, then the level of development of his creative thinking will be higher than that of children with whom individual classes are held or classes are not held at all.

Subject of study: creative thinking and features of its development in the process of group socio-psychological training.

Object of study: children of preschool age. The subjects - 30 people, older preschoolers aged 5 - 6 years. All subjects were divided into two groups - experimental and control. Experimental group - 12 people, including 8 girls and 4 boys; control - 18 people; of them 12 girls and 6 boys.

Research methods:

Formative experiment. The independent variable is the presence or absence of group developmental activities. The dependent variable is the creative thinking of older preschoolers.

Testing

Observation

Methods of mathematical statistics:

1) χ 2 method (Pearson's goodness-of-fit test);

2) sign criterion G .

Organization of the study.

At the first stage of the study, we tested the level of creative thinking of two groups - experimental and control - using the following methods:

Methodology "Test of divergent (creative) thinking of Williams"

P. Torrens test (adapted for research purposes in the center "Creative Giftedness" by N.B. Shumakova, E.I. Shcheblanova with the participation of I.S. Averina, E.N. Zadorina, E.V. Tatarinskaya and E.L. Yakovleva). As a subtest, we took one of the tasks: the task "Unusual ways of using" (cardboard boxes).

At the next stage, in order to develop the creative thinking of older preschoolers, we developed a group socio-psychological training, which included the following games and activities:

writing fairy tales;

Fairy-tale performances using finger puppets;

Body-oriented techniques: immersion in various elements, depiction of plants, etc.;

Travel activities;

Games with objects: buttons, matches;

Communication games: "Group Sculpture", "My Palm", etc.;

Technique of rhyming, word creation.

modeling

Painting

Dancing

Plans for conducting training sessions are given in the Appendix (see Appendix 1).

The third stage of our study was to retest the subjects using the same methods that were used in the first stage of the study.

In conclusion, based on the results of the study, we analyzed and interpreted the data obtained before and after the socio-psychological training aimed at developing the creative thinking of older preschoolers.

The results obtained were processed using the methods of mathematical statistics, and in particular:

Pearson's goodness-of-fit test (χ 2 method)

sign criterion G

Research Methods

Diagnostic methods.

Williams divergent (creative) thinking test. The form of the methodology is given in the Appendix.

The subjects were offered 12 drawings with the task to try to draw an unusual picture, one that no one else could come up with, and then name it. You were given 20 minutes to complete the task.

The data obtained as a result of the test allows you to assess the level of creative thinking by five factors:

FLUENCY- productivity, is determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content.

Rationale: creative individuals work productively, more developed fluency of thinking is associated with this. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one for each drawing).

FLEXIBILITY - the number of changes to the drawing category, counting from the first drawing.

Four possible categories:

Living (F) - a person, face, flower, tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.

Mechanical, object (M) - a boat, a spaceship, a bicycle, a car, a tool, a toy, equipment, furniture, household items, dishes, etc.

Symbolic (S) - letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc.

Species, genre (B) - city, highway, house, yard, park, space, etc.

Rationale: creative people often prefer to change something, instead of inertly sticking to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile. The range of possible points is from 1 to 11, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one.

ORIGINALITY - the location (inside-outside relative to the stimulus figure) where the drawing is being done. Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside the given stimulus figure.

Rationale: less creative individuals usually ignore the stimulus figure and draw it outside, i.e. The drawing will only be outside. More creative people will be inside the closed part. Highly creative people will synthesize, combine, and will not be held back by any closed circuit, i.e. the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure itself.

1 point- drawing only outside

2 points- drawing only inside

3 points- drawing both outside and inside (synthesis).

The total raw score for originality (O) is equal to the sum of the scores for this factor for all drawings.

DEVELOPMENT- symmetry-asymmetry, where the details are located that make the pattern asymmetric.

0 points - symmetrically internal and external space

1 point– asymmetrically outside the closed contour

2 points– asymmetrically inside a closed loop

3 points– completely asymmetrical: different external details on both sides of the contour and asymmetrical image inside the contour.

Total score by elaboration (P) - the sum of points by the elaboration factor for all drawings.

TITLE - the richness of the vocabulary (the number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence and depicted in the figures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext).

0 points - name not given

1 point- a name consisting of one word without a definition

2 points- a phrase, a few words that reflect what is shown in the picture

3 points- a figurative name that expresses more than what is shown in the picture, i.e. hidden meaning.

The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the scores for this factor received for each figure.

Methodology for identifying the level of creativity V.N. Druzhinina

As a result of this technique, we identified two indicators of creativity:

1. a productivity indicator that reflects the creative value of the products of the activity, and

2. motivational-personal indicator, reflecting the motivational basis of creative behavior.

The diagnostics of creativity took place during the game and concerned two types of game actions - invented game events and the use of substitute objects. The creative value of a game action was determined by assigning each invented game event to one of the following types:

An event-statement of a problem that involves a plurality of solutions, giving impetus to the further development of the game.

An event that represents an unexpected resolution to a problem.

An event that is an obvious continuation of the plot.

Each type of gaming event was evaluated by the corresponding number of points for creativity: 2 points each for invented events of the first and second types, and 1 point for a invented event of the third type.

The features of the use of objects in the game were also evaluated. All possible associations caused by the object (ideas about its possible use in the game) were divided into 3 groups:

Reproducing - the generally accepted meanings of the subject or semantically close to them. (Example: balloon used as a ball). Answers were rated 0 points for creativity.

Semantically torn off from the generally accepted meaning, having no common features with the real object. (Example: balloon - crocodile). Also 0 points.

Associations obtained through the use of some real features of an object while abstracting from its properties that are "exploited" on a daily basis. Firstly, the use of "obvious" (perceptual) features of the object - color, shape, weight, dimensions - was also evaluated. (Example: balloon - sun) - 1 point for creativity. Secondly, the use of "hidden" (non-perceptual) features, including structural features, brittleness, etc. (Example: balloon - sail) - 2 points for creativity.

The productive component of creativity was calculated as the ratio of the sum of points received during the game to the entire time of the game.

The motivational-personal component was assessed by taking into account such manifestations as statements on understanding the game problem, desire or unwillingness to play. The emotional dependence of the child on the assessment of the adult was also taken into account (as the number of requests by the child for approval from the adult). Each manifestation of motivational behavior was estimated at one point.

The results of the observation were recorded in a special protocol (see Appendix 5, Tab. 1, Tab. 2).

3. P. Torrens test(adapted for research purposes at the Center "Creative Giftedness" by N.B. Shumakova, E.I. Shcheblanova with the participation of I.S. Averina, E.N. Zadorina, E.V. Tatarinskaya and E.L. Yakovleva) . As a subtest, we took one of the tasks: the task "Unusual uses" (cardboard boxes).

With the help of this technique, we revealed the creativity of thinking by the factor "generation of ideas". The subjects were asked to come up with as many uses for the cardboard box as possible: “Most people throw away empty boxes, but these boxes can have thousands of interesting and unusual ways use. Come up with as many interesting and unusual uses as you can. Don't limit yourself to just the uses you've seen or heard."

Testing was carried out individually. The responses of the subjects were recorded in the protocol form. Evaluated: well-known method of use - 1 point; original way- 2 points. The results of the study are summarized in a table (see Appendix 8, 9).

Techniques experimental exposure

In order to develop the creative thinking of older preschoolers, we have specially developed a socio-psychological training on collective development creative thinking. The lesson plans are given in the Appendix (see Appendix 1). Classes were held in the experimental group once a week. The duration of the lessons is from 30 to 35 minutes. Various techniques were used in the socio-psychological training: art therapy, body-oriented approach, drawing, fairy tale therapy, game therapy, dramatization of stories with finger puppets, construction, communication games, writing rhyming poems, modeling from plasticine, etc.

Mathematical Methods

χ method 2 (Pearson goodness-of-fit test) . Using this method, we were able to conclude the existence (or absence) of significant differences in the studied factors between the studied groups.

Sign criterion method G . This criterion is non-parametric and is used for dependent samples. It makes it possible to establish how unidirectionally the values ​​of a feature change when a connected, homogeneous sample is re-measured. This method allowed us to identify a statistically significant trend in the shift (shift) of indicators of the level of creative thinking in the subjects of the experimental group.

Research results

As a result of the study of the type of creative thinking in Williams' method "Test of divergent (creative) thinking", we came to the following conclusions:

83% of the subjects of the experimental and 78% of the control groups have a high level of development of creative thinking according to the factor " fluency»; 17% of the experimental and 22% of the control groups have an average level of development. A low level of development for this factor was not found in any of the subjects.

Statistical analysis of the data (χ 2 Pearson's test of agreement) showed that there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the studied factor (see Table 1).

Table 1

FLUENCE factor

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp.= 1.99 χ 2 cr.= 5.99 α= 0.05 df = 2

We found that 25% of the subjects of the experimental and 22.2% of the control groups showed an average level of development of creative thinking according to the factor " flexibility"; 41.7% of the experimental and 66.7% of the control have an average level; 33.3% experimental and 11.1% control - low.

Statistical analysis of the data showed that there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the “flexibility” factor (see Table 2). The level of creative thinking on this factor in the experimental group is lower than in the control group.

table 2

Factor "FLEXIBILITY"

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp.= 10.99 χ2 cr.= 5.99 α= 0.05 df = 2

Studies of creative thinking by the factor " originality» showed that 25% of the subjects of the experimental and 27.2% of the control group have high rates for this factor; 33.3% of the experimental and 44.4% of the control groups are average; 41.7% and 33.4% low, respectively in the experimental and control groups.

Statistical data processing showed that there are no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the studied factor (see Table 3).

Table 3

Factor "ORIGINALITY"

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp.= 0.41 χ 2 cr.= 5.9 α= 0.05 df = 2

According to the factor development» we obtained the following data: in the experimental group, 25% of the subjects have a high level of development of creative thinking, in the control group - 22.2% of the subjects; average level - in the experimental group - 25% of the subjects, in the control - 33.3%; low level - in the experimental group - 50% of the subjects, in the control - 44.4%.

Statistical analysis of the data allowed us to conclude that there are differences in the level of creative thinking for the studied factor in the experimental and control groups: in the experimental group, this indicator is lower than in the control group (see Table 4).

Table 4

Factor "DEVELOPMENT"

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp.= 12.07 χ 2 cr.= 5.99 α= 0.05 df = 2

According to the factor title» the following indicators were revealed: 25% of the subjects of the experimental and 22.2% of the control group have a high level; medium - 41.7% experimental and 61.1% control; low - 33.3% of the subjects of the experimental and 16.7% of the control groups.

Statistical analysis of the data allowed us to conclude that there are no significant differences in the studied factor between the experimental and control groups (see Table 5).

Table 5

Factor "TITLE"

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp.= 1.0087 χ 2 cr.= 5.99 α= 0.05 df = 2

In general, according to the test results, we can conclude that 25% of the subjects of the experimental group and 22% of the control group have a high level of development of creative thinking; 33% experimental and 55.6% control - medium; 42% experimental and 22.4% control - low. Statistical data processing showed that there are no significant differences in the level of creative thinking between the studied groups (χ 2 emp. = 3.306; χ 2 cr. = 5.99; α=0.05; df = 2) (see Table 6 ).

Table 6

Level of creative thinking

Group

Level of creative thinking

Tall

Average

Short

Number of people

Qty

Human

Number of people

experimental

Control

55,6

22,4

In our opinion, this fact can be explained by the fact that classes in groups are conducted according to one methodological program, and, therefore, social conditions development in both groups is the same.

Thus, based on the results obtained in the course of this technique, we can make the following findings:

The subjects of the experimental and control groups differ in the level of creative thinking on such factors as: "name" and "originality". In the experimental group, lower indicators for these factors were revealed than in the control group.

No differences were found in the factors: "development", "flexibility", "fluency".

There is no difference in the level of creative thinking between the subjects of the studied groups, although one can note a tendency for the prevalence of indicators for the average level in the subjects of the control group and for the low level in the subjects of the experimental group (33% - 55.6%; 42 - 22.4%, respectively).

Conducting a test to identify the level of creativity in V.N. Druzhinin's method revealed the following results:

on productive component creativity: 25% of the experimental group and 22.2% of the control group have high rates; 33% of the experimental and 61.1% of the control are medium; 42% of the experimental and 16.7% of the control are low (see Fig. 1).

Rice. 1 Indicators of the level of creativity by the productive component (in %)

Statistical analysis of the data obtained (method χ 2 Pearson's test of agreement) showed that there are no significant differences between the control and experimental groups in terms of productivity (see Table 7), although there is a tendency for the average level of creativity to prevail in the control group compared to the experimental and low level of creativity in the experimental compared to the control group. This confirms the results obtained during the Williams technique "Test of divergent (creative) thinking".

Table 7

Productive component of creative thinking

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

Sum

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp \u003d 2.86 χ 2 cr. \u003d 5.99 α \u003d 0.05 df \u003d 2

2 . on motivational component creativity : 25% experimental and 22.2% of the control groups have high rates; 42% experimental and 50% control - average; 33% of the experimental and 27.8% of the control are low (see Fig. 2).

1 - high level of creativity

2 - average level of creativity

3 - low level of creativity

Rice. 2 Indicators of the level of creativity by the motivational component

(in %)

Statistical analysis of the obtained data (method χ 2 Pearson's goodness-of-fit test) showed that there are no significant differences between the control and experimental groups in terms of the motivational component of creativity (see Table 8).

Table 8

Motivational component of creative thinking

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

Sum

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp \u003d 0.2 χ 2 cr. \u003d 5.99 α \u003d 0.05 df \u003d 2

Based on this, we can do conclusion, that the results of V.N. Druzhinin’s methodology “Test to identify the level of creativity” fully confirmed the results of the previous methodology. Thus, the experimental and control groups do not differ in the level of creative thinking, both in terms of the productive component and the motivational one.

Processing of the results obtained during the methods of P. Torrens "Unusual ways of using"(cardboard boxes) showed that in inventing new, unusual ways of using and using a cardboard box, children showed considerable ingenuity, performing this task with interest, with enthusiasm, but at the same time, data on the distribution of the level of creative thinking within groups and between groups confirm the results of previous methods. Thus, according to the results of the method of P. Torrens, a high level of creative thinking was revealed in 25% of the experimental and 22.2% of the subjects in the control group; in 42% of the experimental and 55.6% of the control - medium; in 33% of the experimental and 22.2% of the control - low (see Fig. 3).

1 - high level of creative thinking

2 - average level of creative thinking

3 - low level of creative thinking

Rice. 3 Indicators of the level of development of creative thinking (in %)

Statistical processing of the data did not reveal significant differences between the groups on the trait under study (χ 2 emp = 3.306; χ 2 cr. = 5.99 α = 0.05 df = 2).

Based on the results obtained during the first part of the study, prior to the socio-psychological training, we can do the following: findings:

the subjects of the control and experimental groups do not differ in the level of development of creative thinking;

there is a tendency for the average level of development of creative thinking to prevail in the control group compared to the experimental group and a low level in the experimental group compared to the control group.

The second part of our study consisted in conducting a group socio-psychological training with older preschoolers in the experimental group. It should be noted that for experimental purposes, group classes with children of the second - control group were not carried out at all, although kindergarten methodologists were engaged with some children individually, according to the program plans used in common practice classes in kindergarten.

Classes in the experimental group were held for six weeks, one lesson per week. The training sessions included various types of psychotechnics (drawing, modeling, art therapy, game therapy, dramatization of stories with finger puppets, writing rhyming poems, etc.) and were aimed at developing various structural components of creative thinking. Plans for group training sessions are given in the Appendix (see Appendix 1).

We also consider it necessary to note that the vast majority of children who participated in the group socio-psychological training showed great interest and desire to study.

Thus, after six weeks, we again made measurements using three methods that were carried out at the first stage of the study (“Divergent (creative) thinking test” by Williams, V.N. consumption" (cardboard boxes)).

Based on the results obtained during the retesting of Williams' method "Test of divergent (creative) thinking", we were able to draw the following conclusions:

83% of the subjects of the experimental and 78% of the control groups have a high level of development of creative thinking by the factor"fluency"; 17% of the experimental and 22% of the control groups have an average level of development. A low level of development for this factor was not found in any of the subjects.

Thus, in percentage terms, the level of development in terms of the “fluency” factor in the subjects of both groups remained the same, i.e. the same as at the beginning of the study, before the training.

Statistical analysis of the data (method χ 2 Pearson's test of agreement) showed that there are no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the studied factor (χ 2 emp. = 1.99 χ 2 cr. = 5.99

α = 0.05 df = 2) .

Processing of data from the study of the level of creative thinking on the factor "fluency" in the experimental group using the criterion of signs G also did not statistically confirm the fact of a change in this factor (see Tables 9.1. and 9.2.).

Table 9.1.

FLUENCE factor

Experimental group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 5

Typical shifts - 5 (+)

Atypical shifts - 2 (-)

Table 9.2.

Experimental group

0,05

0,01

Thus, we can conclude that the predominance of the typical positive shear direction in this experiment is random. There are no significant differences in the level of fluency of thinking of the subjects of the experimental group before and after the training. According to the criterion of signs, the method of training used by us is unsatisfactory for effective development the level of flexibility of thinking, as it does not give statistically significant changes in the state of the training participants.

Analysis of the test results using the G sign criterion method for the "fluency" factor in the control group also showed no changes in the level of flexibility of thinking of the study participants. Along with this, it can be noted that among the subjects with whom group socio-psychological training was not conducted, the majority showed lower results for this factor compared to the results of the first measurement (see Tables 10.1. and 10.2.).

Table 10.1.

FLUENCE factor

Control group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 11

Typical shifts - 5 (-)

Atypical shifts - 2 (+)

Table 10.2.

Table of significance of differences by the factor "FLUENCE"

Control group

0,05

0,01

Analysis of the results of the study of the level of creative thinking by the factor "flexibility" in the experimental group revealed that 25% of the subjects showed a high level of development of creative thinking on this factor, 66.7% - medium and 8.3% low. Compared with the results of the previous measurement, the number of subjects who showed a high level remained the same, the number of subjects with an average level of development of creative thinking in terms of the “flexibility” factor increased by 25%, and the number of subjects with a low level of creativity in this factor decreased by 24.7%. factor (see Fig. 4).

Rice. 4 Distribution of the subjects of the experimental group according to the factor "flexibility" before and after the training (results of 1 and 2 measurements) (in%)

In the control group, the following indicators were obtained: 5.6% of the subjects have a high level of development of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor, which is 16.4% less than in the first measurement. The number of subjects who, according to the results of the second measurement, found the average level of development for this factor, remained at the same level and amounted to 66.7%. By 16.6% compared with the first measurement, the number of subjects with a low level of the “flexibility” factor increased (see Fig. 5).

Rice. 5 Distribution of subjects in the control group according to the “flexibility” factor based on the results of 1st and 2nd measurements (in%)

At this stage of our study, we carried out statistical data processing using the methods of mathematical statistics, namely the χ 2 Pearson goodness of fit method. Statistical analysis of the data showed that there are significant differences in the "flexibility" factor between the control and experimental groups (see Table 11).

Table 11

Factor "FLEXIBILITY"

2 froze

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp \u003d 7.03 χ 2 cr. \u003d 5.99 α \u003d 0.05 df \u003d 2

On this basis, we can state that the level of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor in the experimental group is higher than in the control group. Comparing the results obtained during the first measurement and the second measurement, it can be argued that the level of flexibility of thinking in the subjects of the experimental group became higher compared to the subjects in the control group. At the first stage of the study, according to the results of the first measurement, the relationship was inverse, i.e. the level of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor in the experimental group was lower than in the control group.

Analysis of the test results using the G sign criterion method for the "flexibility" factor statistically confirmed the presence of changes in the level of flexibility of thinking in the subjects of the experimental group (see Tables 12.1. and 12.2.).

Table 12.1.

Factor "FLEXIBILITY"

Experimental group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 4

Typical shifts - 8 (+)

Atypical shifts - 0 (-)

Table 12.2.

Experimental group

0,05

0,01

Thus, we reliably established differences in the level of flexibility of thinking of the subjects of the experimental group, namely: group socio-psychological training made it possible to increase this component of creative thinking. Lessons developed by us positive effect. This statement is true for n=8 and P=0.01.

Processing of data from the study of the level of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor in the control group using the G signs criterion did not statistically confirm the fact of a change in this factor (see Tables 13.1. and 13.2.).

Table 13.1.

Factor "FLEXIBILITY"

Control group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 7

Typical shifts - 8 (-)

Atypical shifts - 3 (+)

Table 13.2.

Table of significance of differences by the factor "FLEXIBILITY"

Control group

0,05

0,01

Thus, based on statistical data processing, we can conclude that general level creative thinking on the factor "flexibility" in the subjects of the control group has not changed, although total number negative shifts - 8 indicates that almost half of the subjects in this group experienced negative changes in this factor.

Comparing the results of the second measurement with the results of the first, we can state that group training sessions had a positive effect on the participants in the experimental group: if before the training the level of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor was lower than in the control group, then after the social psychological training, on the contrary, became higher.

Consideration of the results of the study of the next structural component of creative thinking - the factor "originality", allowed us to draw the following conclusions: in the experimental group of subjects with a high level of flexibility of thinking, the same number remained as in the first measurement, i.e. before the training - 25%. The number of participants in the experiment with an average level for this factor doubled (it was 33.3%, it became 66.7%). The number of subjects with a low level of originality of thinking decreased by 33.4% (41.7% and 8.3%, respectively, in the first and second measurements) (see Fig. 6).

Rice. 6 Distribution of subjects of the experimental group according to the factor "originality" before and after the training (results of 1 and 2 measurements) (in%)

In the control group, there was also a change in the ratio of the distribution of levels by the factor "originality" in comparison of the first and second sections. The number of subjects with a high level of originality decreased by more than 20% (slice 1 - 27.5%, slice 2 - 5.6%), the number of subjects with an average level of the "originality" factor was halved (44.4% - 1 cut, 22.2% - 2 cut). The proportion of subjects who showed a low level of creative thinking on this factor more than doubled (1st cut - 33.4%, 2nd cut - 72.2%) (see Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 Distribution of subjects in the control group by the factor "originality" based on the results of 1 and 2 measurements (in%)

Statistical processing of data from the results of the second cut using the methods of mathematical statistics confirmed that there are significant differences in the "originality" factor between the control and experimental groups (see Table 14).

Table 14

Factor "ORIGINALITY"

2 froze

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp \u003d 65.52 χ 2 cr. \u003d 5.99 α \u003d 0.05 df \u003d 2

Based on the statistical processing of data using the methods of mathematical statistics (method χ 2 Pearson's test of agreement), we can conclude that the level of creative thinking in terms of the "originality" factor in the experimental group became significantly higher than in the control group. At the first stage of the study (the results of the first measurement), there were no significant significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the studied factor.

Analysis of the test results using the G sign criterion method for the "originality" factor statistically confirmed the presence of changes in the level of originality of thinking in the subjects of the experimental group (see Tables 15.1. and 15.2.).

Table 15.1.

Factor "ORIGINALITY"

Experimental group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 2

Typical shifts - 9 (+)

Atypical shifts - 1 (-)

Table 15.2.

Experimental group

0,05

0,01

Thus, we can conclude that the predominance of a typical positive shift direction in this experiment is not accidental, which means that there are significant differences in the level of creative thinking in terms of the "originality" factor in the subjects of the experimental group before and after the training. According to the criterion of signs, the psychotechnical techniques and training methods used by us are satisfactory for the effective development of the level of originality of creative thinking.

Analysis of the test results using the G sign criterion method for the "originality" factor in the control group showed no changes in this factor. At the same time, we should note that among the subjects with whom individual lessons were conducted according to the program plans used in the usual practice of classes in kindergarten or classes were not held at all, the majority of the subjects showed lower results for this factor compared to the results of the first section (see See Tables 16.1 and 16.2).

Table 16.1.

Factor "ORIGINALITY"

Control group

No. of examinees p / p

Results of 1 measurement

Results 2 measurements

Zero shifts - 6

Typical shifts - 10 (-)

Atypical shifts - 2 (+)

Table 16.2.

Table of significance of differences by the factor "ORIGINALITY"

Control group

0,05

0,01

Thus, based on the statistical processing of data using the methods of mathematical statistics (criterion of signs G), we can conclude that the general level of creative thinking of the subjects of the control group in terms of the "originality" factor has not changed.

Comparing the results of the second measurement with the results of the first measurement, we can state that group training sessions had a positive effect on the participants in the experimental group: there were significant differences between the groups in this factor, while they did not exist during the first measurement. The differences between the first and second sections in the experimental group are statistically significant, which means that the participation of older preschoolers in group socio-psychological training is effective for the development of such an indicator (factor) of creative thinking as originality.

The reason for the absence of significant differences in the “originality” factor in the control group, in our opinion, can be explained by the fact that two positive shifts that occur in the second cut and led to the absence of significant differences are insignificant in terms of increase (by one point), while while positive shifts in the experimental group range from 1 to 5.

Consideration of research results by factor "development" made it possible to draw the following conclusions: the number of subjects in the experimental group with a high level of development of creative thinking on this factor increased (1 slice - 25%, 2 slice - 33%), the number of subjects with an average level of development more than doubled (1 slice - 25%, 2nd slice - 52%), and the number of subjects who showed a low level of development of creative thinking in terms of the “development” factor decreased by more than three times (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8 Distribution of the subjects of the experimental group according to the “development” factor before and after the training (results of 1 2 measurements) (in %)

Thus, we can say that changes in the level of creative thinking by the factor "development" tend to change in a positive direction.

Changes also occurred in the control group, but the trend is reversed - negative. According to the results of the second measurement, in comparison with the first measurement, the number of subjects with a high level of development in terms of the "development" factor decreased by almost four times (1 measurement - 22%, 2 measurement - 5.6%). An even greater change in the average level for this factor was in the subjects of the control group (1st cut - 33.3%, 2nd cut - 5.6%). Based on the results of the second measurement, the number of subjects with a low level in terms of the “development” factor doubled (1 measurement - 44.4%, 2 measurement - 88.8%) (see Fig. 9).

Rice. 9 Distribution of subjects in the control group according to the “development” factor based on the results of 1st and 2nd measurements (in %)

Statistical processing of the results of the second section using the methods of mathematical statistics (method χ 2 Pearson's goodness-of-fit test) confirmed the existence of significant differences in the "development" factor between the control and experimental groups (see Table 17).

Table 17

Factor "DEVELOPMENT"

2 froze

Group

High level

Middle level

Low level

experimental

Control

χ 2 emp \u003d 15.69 χ 2 cr. \u003d 5.99 α \u003d 0.05 df \u003d 2

Thus, we found that the level of creative thinking in terms of the “development” factor in the experimental group, according to the results of the second cut, is significantly higher than in the first study. Recall that at the first stage, significant differences between the control and experimental groups in terms of the studied factor were statistically confirmed, but the ratio and direction of this ratio were directly opposite - in the experimental group this indicator was lower than in the control group.

Similar results were obtained by us in the study of the effectiveness of group training sessions on changing the level of flexibility of thinking by the factor "development" using the G sign criterion method (see Tables 18.1., 18.2).

APPENDIX

Appendix 1

Socio-psychological training aimed at developing the creative thinking of older preschoolers

Lesson Plans

Lesson one

1. The game "Image of plants" 15 minutes

Technics: body-oriented approach, drawing.

Target: stress relief, creation positive images, activation in the child of creative potency.

Game progress: Children sit on their haunches. The host says: “In a magical forest, in a reserved place, where not everyone could enter, the Good Sorceress planted Magic Flowers. Time passed, and small buds appeared (children put their hands over their heads, depicting buds). The sun warmed them, and the Good Sorceress watered the flowers with living water. And one day the Magic Flowers blossomed. Their beauty was amazing (children stand up, open their arms). All the inhabitants of the magical forest came to see the Magic Flowers. After all, the Good Sorceress endowed Flowers with amazing power. There was so much goodness and beauty in them that they could give joy to anyone who looked at them. Flowers became more beautiful, and their strength increased. So, beautiful Magic Flowers appeared in the magical forest, which gave joy and kindness to everyone who could come to this reserved place.

After that, the children are invited to draw their “magic flower” on the album sheet.

2. The game "Continuation of the fairy tale" 15 minutes

Technics: fairy tale therapy, writing fairy tales.

Target: development of creative imagination.

Game progress: The psychologist reads to the children a fairy tale known to them - "Turnip". Then each of the participants in the game comes up with its continuation and tells all the other children.

Lesson two

Lesson duration 30 minutes

1. The game "Make musical instruments» 20 minutes

Technics: art therapy

Purpose of the game: development of creative thinking based on the manufacture of new items.

Game progress: Children are invited to make musical instruments from improvised material (empty plastic bottles, peas, rags, drums without sticks, metal vases, boxes, shells, etc.). Children can use not only the objects offered to them, but also everything that they themselves can find in the playroom. Adults are allowed to help organize the "technical" side of creating these tools: for example, tie something with a rope, etc.

2. The game "Funny dancing" 10 minutes

Technics:

Target: development of motor creativity

Game progress: A competition among children for the best dancer of the peoples of the world is announced. The group splits in half. Half of the participants dress up in "costumes". These can be various rags, "grandmother's" skirts, dresses, tulle curtains, etc. The other half of the participants becomes a musical orchestra accompanying the dance competition. Then the groups change their "duties" and the competition begins anew. The winner is the one who had the most interesting costume and the most interesting dance.

Lesson three

Duration 30 minutes

1. Game "Fishing" 10 minutes

Technics: game therapy

Target: development of sensorimotor and cognitive spheres, the development of the imagination

Game progress: Children are offered the situation “We are fishermen. We go fishing in the "button sea". Our hands will help us catch the buttonfish. Dip your hands in the "button sea" and catch the "fish". The child can take any button. The psychologist asks the children in turn:

What kind of fish did you catch: big or small; smooth or rough; round or square?

What color is your fish?

Is she heavy or light?

Warm or cold?

What sea did she swim in?

Who were her friends?

How did she get into our river? Etc.

After all the children tell the story of their fish, they release them back into the "river" (a box with other buttons). Then, closing your eyes, and if it doesn’t work out by touch, then, with open eyes, the child is looking for his fish.

2. The game "I'll tell you about the trip" 20 minutes

Technics: dramatization of stories with finger puppets

Target: development of creative imagination

Game progress: The psychologist brings finger puppets to class: animals, people, plants, etc. Children are invited to choose one or two heroes and tell about the journey they dream about. These can be, for example, stories of carrots and beets that ran away from the garden and went to the sea, or any other story. In the course of telling his story, the child shows it in the form of a performance, speaking on behalf of his characters and on behalf of the author.

Lesson four

Duration 30 minutes

1. The game "Mosaic of matches" 15 minutes

Technics: construction

Target: development of creativity on the example of design

Game progress: children are invited to make various patterns on the table: winter snowflakes, mosaic patterns, etc.

2. The game "Sculptor and clay" 15 minutes

Technics: communication games

Target: developing the ability to create with others

Game progress: Children are divided into groups of three. Two of them are "sculptors", and one is "clay". "Sculptors" jointly mold "something" out of clay, then give their creation a name. Then the "clay" changes places with one of the "sculptors". Combinations are also possible: two of the participants will be "clay" and one "sculptor".

Lesson five

Duration 35 minutes

1. The game "We compose poetry" 15 minutes

Technics: writing rhyming verses

Target: development of verbal creativity

Game progress: Children are offered the first quatrain and given the task to compose the second. For example:

On the hill, on the hill

There are two buckets

…………………..

Who goes up the hill

He will find buckets.

Examples for rhyming can also be taken from famous poems. But the participants in the lesson are invited to continue the poem, inventing their own continuation. For example:

We cooked soup, soup

From pearl barley, cereals

………………………….

And the titmouse have arrived

And they ate all our soup.

There may be another version of "composing poems." The first line is offered by the children themselves, and the continuation is composed by the psychologist, or also by the children.

2. "My fairy-tale heroes" 20 minutes

Technics: modeling from plasticine

Target: development of creativity in working with plasticine

Game progress: Children, sitting at the table, sculpt fairy-tale characters from plasticine, but not those that are known to everyone, but invented by themselves, give them names. After the end of the lesson, all fairy-tale characters "go" to the exhibition.

Lesson six

Lesson duration 35 minutes

1. The game "Composing a fairy tale together" 10 minutes

Technics: fairy tale therapy

Target: development of creative imagination in the process collective creativity

Game progress: Children sit in a circle. The psychologist offers the children a topic for composing a fairy tale. The writing of a fairy tale story proceeds as follows: the psychologist begins the narration, then the next participant continues the story he has begun, and so on in a circle. The fairy tale can end on any of the participants, then the next task is to continue the fairy tale, turning the plot of the end to the further course of events.

2. The game "Dancing" 12 minutes

Technics: body-oriented approach

Target: development of creative imagination in motion

Game progress: Dancing requires specially selected music. The psychologist says: “Today we got into fairyland, whose inhabitants are very fond of dancing. They speak very little: they communicate with each other not by words, but only by dancing. Imagine how they say hello, show how it happens (children show how to say hello in a dance). And now we are turning into residents of this fabulous dance country and starting to dance.”

The music turns on. The psychologist gives the children various tasks.

Now we are dancing because we are having a lot of fun, we are having fun.

And now we're dancing like we're sad.

And now we are very angry about something and are dancing, as if we are very angry, angry.

Anger has passed, and we dance joyfully.

And now we've been given a magical balloon, and we stretch and take off after him.

And now we are dancing, as if we really want to go to the toilet.

And now we dance freely and easily.

And now we are dancing like the sun's rays in a forest clearing.

And now we're dancing like a gentle breeze.

Here we turn into a stream and dance like little streams.

Children can be given various emotional and figurative tasks.

3. The game "Amazing leaf" 13 minutes

Technics: inventing new ways

Target: development of creative thinking

Game progress: The children are given sheets of paper and are encouraged to come up with all sorts of ways to use this sheet. The most successful decisions are supported by the psychologist's praise.

Annex 2

(Williams method)

1 measurement

1 group (experimental)

No. p / p

F A C T O R S

Sum of points

Fluency

Flexibility

Originality

Elaboration

Name

meaning

by group

10,5

20,7

10,5

Appendix 3

Divergent (creative) thinking test results

(Williams method)

1 measurement

group 2 (control)

No. p / p

F A C T O R S

Sum of points

Fluency

Flexibility

Originality

Elaboration

Name

meaning

by group

10,8

10,9

10,3

Appendix 4

Table 1

Indicators of maximum and average (for preschoolers 5-7 years old) values ​​according to the test of divergent (creative) thinking (Williams method).

Measured indicators

Maximum value

Average values ​​for children 5 - 7 years old

Fluency

11,7

Flexibility

Originality

25,3

Elaboration

Name

13,9

table 2

Divergent (creative) thinking test results

Group averages

Group

Estimated indicators / average values ​​/

Fluency

Flexibility

Originality

Elaboration

Name

experimental

10,05

20,7

10,5

Control

10,08

20,9

10,3

Appendix 5

Table 1

Observation Protocol Form

Productive component of creative behavior

No. p / p

Types of game actions

Sum

Invented game events

The use of substitute items

Plurality of decisions that give impetus to the further development of the game

An event that represents an unexpected resolution to a problem

The obvious continuation of the plot

Reproducing, generally accepted meanings of the subject

Semantically divorced from the generally accepted meaning of the subject

Associated Item Values

table 2

Observation Protocol Form

Motivational component of creative behavior

No. p / p

Evaluation parameters

Statements on understanding the game problem

Wanting/not wanting to play

Emotional dependency from the assessment of an adult

Appendix 6

Experimental group

No. p / p

productive component

Motivational component

0,93

0,92

1,27

0,95

1,25

1,22

0,72

0,64

0,81

0,75

0,76

0,76

Group average

0,92

9,67

Annex 7

Indicators of the level of development of creative thinking (productive and motivational components)

Control group

No. p / p

productive component

Motivational component

0,94

0,91

0,93

0,98

0,93

1,25

0,92

0,73

0,75

0,74

0,73

1,23

0,72

0,69

1,23

16

16

0,73

8

17

0,88

5

18

1,25

12

Group average

0,99

9,6

Annex 8

Experimental group

№ p/n

Number of points

1

15

2

16

3

22

4

14

5

20

6

25

7

11

8

13

9

12

10

13

11

13

12

10

Annex 9

Indicators of the development of the level of creative thinking (according to the method of P. Torrens "Unusual ways of using")

transcript

2 E. E. Tunik MODIFIED CREATIVE TESTS OF WILLIAMS SPEECH PUBLISHING HOUSE 2003 St. Petersburg

3 LBC T 84 Reviewer: L. A. Regush Dr. psychological sciences, professor of the Russian State Pedagogical University TUnik EE T 84 Williams' modified creative tests. St. Petersburg: Speech, p. ISBN The manual presents a modified version of the F. Williams tests, designed for a comprehensive diagnosis of creativity in children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old. The set consists of three parts: divergent (creative) thinking test; test of personal creative characteristics (questionnaire for children); Williams scales (questionnaire for parents and teachers). The tests are standardized, Russian regulatory data are given in the work. The book is intended for a wide range specialists. Chief Editor I. Yu. Avidon. Head edited by T.V. Tuyaupyev. Leading editor M. S. Ruzina. Art editor P. V. Borozenets. Director L. V. Yankovsky. LLC Publishing house "Rech", t. (812), (812), St. Petersburg, 3 line, 6 (lit. "A"). License LP from Signed for printing Format 60x90 "/16. Printed sheet 6.0. Circulation 5000 copies Order 4 H ff. Printed at the printing house of SZPD LLC, Leningrad region, Gatchina, Solodukhina street, 2 ISBN E. E. Tunik, 2003 Rech Publishing House, 2003 P. V. Borozenets (cover design), 2003

4 Contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1. Description of the Creative Test Suite (CTS) What is CTS? Who is the SAR for? What does SAR measure? Williams model. Creative factors 11 Chapter 2. Guidelines for conducting tests. Test tasks Divergent (creative) thinking test Instruction. Procedure Test book Test of personal creative characteristics Instruction. Method of carrying out the Questionnaire. "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual" Questionnaire answer sheet Key to the questionnaire Williams Scale. Questionnaire for parents and teachers Instruction. Method of carrying out Answer sheet.< Текст опросник для родителей и учителей по оценке креативности (творческого начала) ребенка.. 28 Глава 3. Обработка экспериментальных данных Тест дивергентного (творческого) мышления. Обработка данных Итоговый подсчет по тесту дивергентного мышления Примеры заполненной и обработанной тестовой тетради Пример Пример Опросник творческих характеристик личности. Обработка данных Шкала Вильямса. Обработка данных 51 3

5 Chapter 4. Regulatory data. Reliability. Validity (by Williams) Normative data. Data interpretation Reliability. Validity 55 Chapter 5. Normative data and their analysis. (Russian data) Sample description Normative data for the divergent (creative) thinking test (part I of the CAP set) Age dynamics of creative thinking indicators Comparative analysis of Russian and American data Normative data for the Questionnaire personal characteristics(II) and Williams Scales (III) Combined normative data. Matrices of creative characteristics Examples of experimental data analysis. Examples of structural profiles 70 Chapter 6. Reliability. Validity. (Russian data) 75 Conclusion 79 Appendix 80 References 96

6 INTRODUCTION This paper presents an adapted version of a set of creative tests by F. Williams. Currently, to assess the level of creativity in our country, the most widely used tests are Torrance's creative thinking tests, an adapted version made by the author of this brochure, a battery of creative tests created on the basis of the Guilford and Torrance tests, and an adapted version of the Johnson Creativity Questionnaire, aimed at assessing and self-assessing the characteristics of creative personality. Guilford's divergent thinking test is intended primarily for the adult population, the battery of creative tests consists of rapid tests, and the Torrance tests of creative thinking are very time-consuming to conduct and process data. Therefore, there was a need to develop creative tests designed for a wide age range of children and adolescents. They should be tests in the strict sense of the word, that is, be a reliable, valid tool with certain national standards and should not require a lot of time and effort to conduct and process data. I would like to mention one more important aspect. As you know, the term "creativity" refers to the ability of a special kind of ability to generate unusual ideas, deviate in thinking from traditional patterns, quickly resolve problem situations. Creativity covers a certain set of mental and personal qualities facilitating creative expression. It would be desirable if the psychodiagnostic tool contained the possibility of evaluating

7 ki both cognitive and personal-individual creative characteristics. All of the above requirements are satisfied by the Creative Assessment Packet CAP (Creativity Assessment Packet CAP). A modified and adapted version of the Williams Creative Test Set (CTS) is intended for children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old. It consists of three parts. The first part of the Divergent Thinking Test, completing the twelve suggested drawings, takes minutes to complete. The method of conducting a group test (this test is aimed at measuring the cognitive component associated with creativity). The second part of the CAP test suite is the Personal Creative Characteristics Questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 50 statements; its tasks are closed-type tasks with multiple choice answers. The questionnaire is aimed at self-assessment of those personality traits that are closely related to creativity. Children fill it out on their own. (We recommend taking this part of the test starting in 5th grade.) And finally, there is the third part of the test suite. This is a Williams rating scale for teachers and parents, aimed at finding out expert opinion(expert teachers and parents) about creative manifestations this child(creative factors, the same as in the first and second parts of the test, which the child fills in himself). This allows a comparative analysis of the results of all three parts of the CAP test suite. The set of tests is designed so that it does not take much time and effort to conduct it and process the data. The tests have been adapted by us for three and a half years on a large sample of subjects. Normative data were obtained for individual ages in the range from 5 to 17 years. It should be noted that in the F. Williams version, the normative data for all factors are given for a pooled sample from 8 to 17 years. The F. Williams SAR test set is well-known and widely used in various countries peace. We hope that in our country it will be recognized and in demand when measuring and evaluating the creative characteristics of children and adolescents.

8 Chapter 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CREATIVE TEST SET (CTS) Much work has been done to develop a method for diagnosing cognitive and personality factors associated with the manifestation of children's creativity, a method that could be used by both psychologists and teachers. Among the many abilities that are most important for a child's growth and development, the area of ​​creativity remains the least supported by valid assessment methods. This Psychodiagnostic Toolkit has been conceived and developed to meet this need; it is a system for measuring eight factors of divergent thinking and personality characteristics according to the Williams model. The Williams model has been widely used in US schools for recent years for the study and development of creative abilities. Now, using the techniques from this set, it is possible not only to identify and diagnose the creative characteristics of students, but also to acquaint teachers and parents with those factors of divergent thinking and those personal manifestations that are most important for the creative process. The following are suggested methods for assessing creativity. WHAT IS ATS? CAP is a set of tests consisting of two methods for children: the Test of divergent (creative) thinking and the Test of creative personality characteristics. The third method is the Williams Scale, intended for evaluation by parents and teachers 7

11 in answers to open-ended questions can be analyzed and classified according to the frequency of occurrence among a group of parents and teachers for this group of children. This scale shows at what level, in the opinion of parents and teachers, the creative characteristics of the observed child are. HOW SHOULD ATS BE USED? The first two tests, intended for children, can be conducted by psychologists, as well as teachers who have studied the test manual and received advice from a psychologist. The time allotted for the Divergent Thinking Test is limited so that you can compare the results of the child with the standards of 25 minutes for children in senior kindergarten and lower grades of school and 20 minutes for senior grades of school (starting from grade 5). The time for filling out the questionnaire of creative personality characteristics is from 20 to 30 minutes, depending on age level the sample of children in which it is carried out. In the US, Williams suggests that elementary school teachers read aloud the statements of the questionnaire to children, who must select the appropriate answers. In our adapted version, we consider it expedient to use this self-assessment questionnaire, starting only from the 5th grade of school (from the age). Scoring can be done after reading the manual. Data processing for both tests for a class of 25 children will take approximately an hour or less. The Williams scale for parents and teachers should be delivered to the parents in an envelope with a request to take part in studying the level of the child's creative abilities. Or instructions can be clarified at designated times for teacher-parent meetings. Teachers can complete the Scale at school. For each child, the results should be calculated both according to the teacher and according to the parents; the results obtained from teachers and parents can be compared with the results of tests of creative thinking and personal creative characteristics. All results related to the eight divergent factors can be recorded on the individual profile sheet, which is attached later in the Guide. ten

12 WHAT IS ATS FOR? At present, using these tests, we get the opportunity to assess the totality of the various cognitive and personal qualities of the child. Appears new opportunity for teachers at school and parents at home on the basis of an integrated approach to assess the creative abilities and skills of children. Until now, assessment has been limited mainly to cognitive convergent abilities. These tests make it possible to assess the cognitive and affective-personal divergent qualities of children for: selection of children whose talents and creative abilities could not be assessed using previously existing methods; selection of children for education using the program for the gifted, in order to develop creative abilities; identification and inclusion in special groups to study in special or individual programs or to teach in regular classes those children who were previously considered incapable due to low academic achievement or low IQ scores. The use of these tests allows us to look at other facets of children's abilities and establish their relationship with the standard measurements used in the past. Thanks to such a diagnosis and assessment of various abilities, the development of a holistic and versatile person becomes more real. h 1.4. WILLIAMS MODEL. CREATIVE FACTORS SAR makes available an objective assessment of most of the studied factors related to human creativity, according to the Williams Model. This test suite is designed to be an efficient, practical, and economical method for assessing the four cognitive divergent and four personality divergent factors of this model. They are shown and described in general terms below: 11

13 MODEL OF CREATIVE CHILD BEHAVIOR creative factors Meaning COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE CREATIVE FACTORS Thinking fluency Come up with as many ideas as possible... Thinking flexibility Use different approaches... Originality of thinking Unique or new ways of thinking... Elaborate thinking Add to... Generating a large number of ideas Fluency of thought Not one, but a few pertinent answers Variety of types of ideas Ability to move from one category to another Direct thought in detours Unusual responses Original, non-standard ideas Departure from the obvious, generally accepted Refine the idea Embellish a simple idea or an answer to make it more interesting, deep Expand, add something to the main idea ^PERSONALLY-INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE.FACTORS (AFFECTIVE-SENSUAL) Ability to take risks Have courage... Complexity (complexity) Explore the unknown (Be prepared.. .) Take criticism constructively, anticipate the possibility of failure Attempt to speculate, make guesses Operate in unstructured conditions Defend own ideas Finding many alternatives Seeing the difference between what is and what could be Arranging the messy Understanding difficult problems Doubt the only right decision 12

14 Curiosity Be prepared... Have desire... Imagination Have strength... Be curious and interested Play with ideas Find a way out of confusing situations; Show interest in riddles, puzzles Reflect on the hidden meaning of phenomena Follow a premonition, just see what will happen Visualize and build mental images Imagine what has never been Trust your intuition Go beyond the boundaries of the real world The Williams model presented here was developed from a series of scientific research creative abilities. It offers schools and teachers a complete system, including learning strategies Dimension (Measurement) 2 through the main content Dimension (Measurement) 1 to develop children's creative performance Dimension (Measurement) 3, closely related to creative process and creative personality. Using the tests included in the CAP set, it is possible to assess creativity in terms of eight factors of dimension 3, and it is also possible to assess the changes that have occurred after the activities that develop creative abilities. Thus, the presented system now exists, together with valid procedures for assessing and measuring creative factors, and aims to stimulate the creative abilities of all students. In addition to the first two tests in this set of tests, which can be used to measure the level values ​​of the child's creative cognitive-personal characteristics, there is a third tool. This is a rating scale by which parents and teachers, through observation, can evaluate the child's creativity on the same eight factors that are used in the first and second tests. thirteen

17 Chapter 2 TEST GUIDE. TEST TASKS Testing is carried out in a group form. It is desirable that during testing, children sit at a table or desk one at a time. For kindergarten children, testing should be carried out in small groups of 5-10 people. The following are the blank test book forms required for testing. The test book consists of three separate sheets, standard A-4 format, each sheet of paper shows four squares, inside of which there are stimulus figures. Under the squares is the number of the figure and a place for the signature. Work with each of the three techniques is discussed separately below DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST Instruction. Procedure Conducted in a group, limited in time: 20 minutes for senior grades (grades 4-11), 25 minutes for junior grades (grades 1-3 and kindergarten children). In elementary grades, children can verbally name captions for drawings. And teachers or assistants can write them down. Instructions Before starting testing, you need to read the instructions for the Divergent Thinking Test: “This task will help you find out how capable you are of creative self-expression using drawings. 12 drawings are offered. Work fast. Try- 16

18 Draw a picture so unusual that no one else can come up with. You will be given 20 (25) minutes to draw your drawings. Work the squares in order, don't randomly jump from one square to another. When creating a picture, use a line or shape inside each square to make it part of your picture. You can draw anywhere within the square, depending on what you want to represent. You can use different colors to make the drawings interesting and unusual. After completing each drawing, think of an interesting title and write the title in the line below the picture. Don't worry about correct spelling. Creating an original name is more important than handwriting and spelling. Your title should tell about what is shown in the picture, reveal its meaning. 17

19 18

21 20

22 2.2. TEST OF PERSONAL CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS Instruction. How to do it Instructions This activity will help you find out how creative you think you are. Among the following short sentences, you will find some that definitely suit you better than others. They should be marked with an "X" in the "Mostly true" column. Some sentences are only partially true for you, they should be marked with an "X" in the "Somewhat true" column. Other statements will not suit you at all, they should be marked with an "X" in the "Mostly false" column. Those statements about which you cannot decide should be marked with an "X" in the "Can't decide" column. Take notes for each sentence and do not think for a long time. There are no right or wrong answers here. Note the first thing that comes to mind when you read a sentence. This task has no time limit, but work as quickly as possible. Remember that as you answer each sentence, you should note how you really feel about yourself. Put an "X" in the column that best suits you. For each question, select only one answer. You have been given a test book containing all the statements and a sheet of answers. Please mark your answers only on the answer sheet, do not write anything in the test book. The numbers of the tasks in the test book correspond to the numbers on the answer sheet. Method of carrying out As already noted, we recommend conducting this stage of testing for children starting from the 5th grade of the school. In this case, such a method is possible. The child is given a test book containing instructions and questions of the questionnaire. An answer sheet is also issued on which the child marks their answers. Children should be warned that they can only put their answers on the answer sheet. You can't write anything in the test notebook. Moreover, it is optimal when the psychologist reads the statements of the questionnaire aloud, and the child reads them to himself and independently notes his answer. The form of testing group. There is no time limit for completing the questionnaire. It takes about minutes, depending on the age of the children. 21

23 QUESTIONNAIRE "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual" 1. If I do not know the correct answer, then I try to guess about it. 2. I like to examine the subject carefully and in detail, to discover details that I have not seen before. 3. I usually ask questions if I don't know something. 4. I don't like to plan ahead. 5. Before playing new game I have to make sure I can win. 6. I like to imagine what I need to know or do. 7. If something fails me the first time, I will work until I do it. 8. I will never choose a game that others are not familiar with. 9. I'd rather do things as usual than look for new ways. 10. I like to find out if everything is really so. 11. I like to do something new. 12. I love making new friends. 13. I like to think about things that have never happened to me. 14. I don't usually waste time dreaming that someday I'll be a famous artist, musician, or poet. 15. Some of my ideas capture me so much that I forget about everything in the world. 16. I would rather live and work on space station than here on earth. 17. I get nervous if I don't know what's going to happen next. 18. I love what is unusual. 19. I often try to imagine what other people are thinking. 20. I like stories or TV shows about events that happened in the past. 21. I like to discuss my ideas with friends. 22. I usually remain calm when I do something wrong or make a mistake. 23. When I grow up, I would like to do or accomplish something that no one has been able to do before me. 24. I choose friends who always do things the usual way. 25. Many existing rules usually do not suit me. 22

24 26. I like to solve even a problem that does not have a correct answer. 27. There are many things that I would like to experiment with. 28. If I once found an answer to a question, I will stick to it and not look for other answers. 29. I don't like speaking in front of a class. 30. When I read or watch TV, I imagine myself as one of the characters. 31. I like to imagine how people lived 200 years ago. 32. I don't like it when my friends are indecisive. 33. I like to explore old suitcases and boxes just to see what they might contain. 34. I would like my parents and teachers to do everything as usual and not change. 35. I trust my feelings, forebodings. 36. It is interesting to guess something and check if I am right. 37. It is interesting to take on puzzles and games in which you need to calculate your further moves. 38. I am interested in mechanisms, curious to see what they have inside and how they work. 39. My best friends don't like stupid ideas. 40. I love to invent something new, even if it is impossible to put into practice. 41. I like it when all things are in their places. 42. I would be interested in finding answers to questions that will arise in the future. 43. I love trying new things to see what happens. 44. I'm more interested in playing my favorite games just for fun, and not for the sake of winning. 45. I like to think about something interesting, about something that no one else has thought of. 46. ​​When I see a picture of someone I don't know, I'm interested to know who it is. 47. I love flipping through books and magazines just to see what's in them. 48. I think that most questions have one correct answer. 49. I like to ask questions about things that other people don't think about. 50. I have many interesting things to do at school and at home. 23

25 Full name Answer sheet of the questionnaire "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual" Date of the year Grade school age questions Mostly true (YES) Partly true (maybe) Can't decide (don't know) Mostly wrong (NO) questions Mostly true (YES) Partly true (maybe) mostly false (NO) Can't decide (don't know)

Questions Mostly true (YES) Somewhat true (maybe) Can't decide (don't know) Mostly wrong (NO) questions Mostly true (YES) Partly true (maybe) Q mostly wrong (NO) Can't decide (don't know) 1 O R 26 O C 2 O L 27 O l 3 O L 28 O l 4 0 S 29 O R 5 0 R 30 O R 6 O R 31 O R 7 O s 32 OR 8 0 r 33 ol 9 0 s 34 OR 10 o s 35 o r 11 o l 36 o r 12 o l 37 o l 13 o 38 ol 14 o o 39 o o 15 o o 40 o in 16 O in 41 O s 17 O s 42 o s 18 O s 43 o r 19 O l 44 o r 20 O V 45 o in 21 O r 46 o in 22 O r 47 o l 23 O in 48 O s 24 O s 49 o l 25 O r 50 o s h 25

27 2.3. WILLIAMS SCALE. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS AND TEACHER Instructions. How to conduct the Williams Scale, a questionnaire for parents and teachers to assess the creativity (creativity) of the child is carried out individually, time is not limited. Distributed by teachers at school to the parents of those children who were tested according to one or two previous methods. Parents usually complete the scale in 30 minutes or less. Teachers can fill in the scale where it suits them. In order to obtain a more objective assessment, we consider it expedient for two or three teachers to complete the scale (if possible). In this case, the average score of several teachers is then taken. This scale consists of eight subsections of indicators characterizing the behavior of creative children. For each indicator, six statements are given, according to which the teacher and parents should evaluate the child in such a way as to best characterize him. When choosing between the answers "often", "sometimes" and "rarely", you should mark with an X the answer that most accurately characterizes the type of behavior that the child most often demonstrates. At the end of the Scale, there are four questions that must be answered in order to receive additional information about the child. After completing the Scale, it must be returned to the person who requested this information for further calculation of the results. 26

28 Answer sheet WILLIAMS SCALE Questionnaire for parents and teachers to assess the creativity (creativity) of the child Name of the child Date of the survey: years Grade school Age Name of the person filling out the questionnaire Who is the filling questionnaire in relation to the child How long has the filler known the child Instructions for filling out the questionnaire: Circle one from the letters on the answer sheet to the right of the number of the corresponding statement. The meaning of the letter chosen should best describe the behavior of the child. The letters have the following meanings: H often AND sometimes R rarely Please do not write anything on the questionnaire, mark your answers only on this answer sheet. Section I Section II Section III Section D/ 1. C&R 1. C&R 1. C&R 1. C&R 2. C&R 2. C&R 2. C&R 2. C&R 3 N I R 3. N I 4 R 3. N I R 3. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 6. N I R 6. N I R 6. N I R 6. N I R Section V Section VI Section VII Section VIII 1. N I R 1. N I R 1. N I R 1. N I R 2. N I R 2. N I R 2. N I R 2. N I R 3. N I R 3. N I R 3. N I R 3. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 4. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 5. N I R 6. N I R 6. N I R 6. C&R 6. C&R 27

29 Williams scale. Questionnaire for parents and teachers to assess the creativity (creativity) of the child. Section I. FLUENESS 1. The child gives several answers when asked a question. 2. The child draws several pictures when asked to draw one. 3. The child has several thoughts (ideas) about something instead of one. 4. The child asks a lot of questions. 5. The child uses a large number of words, expressing his thoughts. 6. The child works quickly and productively. Section II. FLEXIBILITY 1. The child offers several ways to use the object, different from the usual way. 2. The child expresses many thoughts, ideas about a picture, story, poem or problem. 3. The child can bear meaning one object to another object. 4. A child can easily change one focus of vision (approach) to a possible other. 5. The child comes up with a lot of ideas and explores them. 6. The child thinks about different ways problem solving. Section III. ORIGINALITY 1. The child likes that the objects in the room are located not in the central part, he also prefers asymmetric patterns and images. 2. The child is not satisfied with one correct answer and is looking for other possible answers. 3. The child thinks in an unusual and original way (out of the box). 4. The child enjoys unusual ways of doing things and dislikes the usual ways. 5. After the child has read or heard about the problem, he begins to come up with unusual solutions. 6. The child explores common methods and comes up with new methods for solving a problem. 28

30 Section IV. DEVELOPMENT 1. The child adds lines, various colors and details in your drawing. 2. The child understands the deep, hidden meaning of answers or solutions and offers the deepest meaning. 3. The child refuses someone else's idea and changes it in some way. 4. The child wants to embellish or complement other people's work or idea. 5. The child shows little interest in ordinary objects, he adds details to improve them. 6. The child changes the rules of the game. Section V. CURIOSITY 1. The child asks everyone and everything. 2. The child likes to study the structure of mechanical things. 3. The child is constantly looking for new ways (ways) of thinking. 4. The child loves to explore new things and ideas. 5. The child is looking for different ways to solve the problem. 6. The child studies books, games, cards, pictures, etc. to learn as much as possible. Section VI. IMAGINATION 1. The child makes up stories about places he has never seen. 2. The child imagines how others will solve the problem that he solves himself. 3. The child dreams about different places and things. 4. The child likes to think about phenomena that he has not encountered. 5. The child sees what is depicted in the pictures and drawings in an unusual way, not like others. 6. The child is often surprised by various ideas and events. Section VII. Difficulty 1. The child shows interest in difficult things and ideas. 2. The child loves to challenge himself. 3. The child loves to learn things without help. 29

31 4. The child likes difficult tasks. 5. The child is persistent in order to achieve his goal. 6. The child offers too difficult paths problem solving than seems necessary. Section VIII. RISK ABILITY 1. The child will defend his own ideas, regardless of the reaction of others. 2. The child sets himself a very lofty goals and will try to implement them. 3. The child allows for the possibility of mistakes and failures. 4. The child loves to learn new things or ideas and is not influenced by others. 5. The child is not overly concerned when classmates, teachers or parents express their disapproval to him. 6. The child will not miss the chance to take risks to find out what will come of it. The next four questions will give you the opportunity to express your opinion about the child and about the program at the school for creative children. Answer briefly but clearly. 1. Do you think that the child is gifted or can become one? YES NO Explain why 2. Do you think that the child is creative or can he become creative? YES NO Note: if “YES”, briefly describe how his creativity manifests itself; if "NO" why? thirty

32 3. What do you expect from the school program for creative children? 4. What changes would you like to see in your child as a result of participation in the program for creative children?

33 Looking 3 EXPERIMENTAL DATA PROCESSING 3.1. DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST. DATA PROCESSING The four cognitive factors of divergent thinking described below are closely correlated with the creative manifestation of the personality (right-brain, visual, synthetic thinking style). They are assessed together with the fifth factor characterizing the ability for vocabulary synthesis (left hemisphere, verbal style of thinking). As a result, we obtain five indicators expressed in raw scores: fluency (B) flexibility (d) originality (o) elaboration (P) name (N) 1. Fluency productivity is determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content. Rationale: Creative individuals work productively, and more fluency is associated with this. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing). 2. Flexibility The number of drawing category changes counting from the first drawing. Four possible categories: living (F) person, face, flower, tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc. mechanical, subject (M) boat, spaceship, bicycle, car, tool, toy, equipment, furniture, household items, dishes, etc. 32

34 symbolic (C) letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc. specific, genre (B) city, highway, house, yard, park, space, mountains, etc. (see illustrations on next page). Rationale: Creative individuals often prefer to change things rather than sticking inertly to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile. The range of possible points is from 1 to I, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one. 33

35 Examples. Flexibility. Various categories. Live (F) Face Ears Caterpillar with: 1 with Bus Species (V) Boat Washing machine Japanese flag Bass clef What day is it today Symbolic (Q B open space Railway Bridge over Lake 34

36 Living Cactus in the desert Eye Mechanical (Object) Candle with a bow Candy bowl on the table Species Sea Morning in the mountains Symbolic King A The world of figures

37 3. Originality the location (inside-outside relative to the stimulus figure) where the drawing is performed. Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside the given stimulus figure. Rationale: less creative individuals usually ignore the closed stimulus figure and draw outside of it, i.e. the drawing will only be outside. More creative people will work inside the closed part. Highly creative people will synthesize, combine, and will not be constrained by any closed circuit, i.e. the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure. 1 point is drawn only on the outside (see sample 1). 2 points draw only inside (see sample 2). 3 points draw both outside and inside (for synthesis, see sample 3). The total raw score for originality (O) is equal to the sum of the scores for this factor for all drawings. 2. Funny clown 5. Child's cube 4. Solar SAMPLE 1 1 point (outside loop) SAMPLE 2 2 points (inside loop) desert island SAMPLE 3 3 points (synthesis: outside and inside loop) 36

38 Sample 1 1 point 6. Traffic light in the rain 8. Ant festival Sample 2 2 points 6. Aquarium 12. Footprint on the moon Sample 3 3 points 12. Libra 6. Buoy on the sea

39 4. Development of symmetry-asymmetry, where are the details that make the pattern asymmetric. 0 points symmetrically inside and outside (sample 1) 1 point asymmetrically outside the closed contour (sample 2). 2 points asymmetrically inside a closed contour (sample 3). 3 points completely asymmetrical: different external details on both sides of the contour and asymmetrical image inside the contour (sample 4). The total raw score for elaboration (P) is the sum of scores for the elaboration factor for all drawings. 6. Multi-colored lollipop SAMPLE 1 O points symmetrical (not developed) 2. My favorite chocolate ice cream SAMPLE 2 1 point asymmetrical (outside hand and fingers) 6. Duel SAMPLE 3 2 points asymmetrical (inside twist) 10. Ball flowing SAMPLE 4 3 points asymmetrical (both inside and outside) 38

40 5. Name wealth of vocabulary (the number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence of what is depicted in the figures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext). 0 points name not given 1 point name consisting of one word without definition (see example 2 of the completed test book: figures 2, 4, 8, 10, 12) 2 points phrase, several words that reflect what is drawn in the picture (see example 1 of the completed test book: figures 5, 9, 11) 3 points figurative name expressing more than shown in the picture, i.e. hidden meaning (see example 1 of the completed test book: figures 1, 3, 6 , 7) The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the scores for this factor received for each figure. 39

41 3.2. FINAL SCORE ON THE DIVERGENT THINKING TEST (see BGORN's scores in the sample test on the following pages). FLUENCE The total number of drawings completed. Possible max 12 points (1 point for each drawing). FLEXIBILITY The number of category changes counting from the first picture. Possible max 11 points (1 point for each category change). ORIGINALITY Where the drawing is performed: outside the stimulus figure 1 point inside the stimulus figure 2 points inside and outside the stimulus figure 3 points (scores for this factor for all drawn pictures are summed up). Perhaps max 36 points. Elaboration Where complementary details create image asymmetry: symmetrically everywhere 0 points asymmetrically outside the stimulus figure 1 point asymmetrically inside the stimulus figure 2 points asymmetrically inside and outside 3 points (scores for this factor are summed for all drawn pictures). Perhaps max 36 points. 40

42 TITLE Vocabulary and figurative, creative use of language: no title given 0 points one-word name 1 point several-word name 2 points figurative name that expresses more than shown in the picture 3 points (scores for this factor are summed for all drawn pictures ). Perhaps max 36 points. 41

43 3.3. EXAMPLES OF A COMPLETED AND PROCESSED TEST BOOK Example 1 Scores for the five factors that assess creativity are given to the left of the figure, next to the corresponding letter (the first letter of the factor name). 3. Stairway leading 4. Summer to the sky 42

44 43

46 Summary of the calculation of the main parameters of the test of divergent thinking Fluency The student works quickly, with great productivity. Drawn 12 pictures. Score one point for each picture. The maximum possible raw score is 12. Flexibility The student is able to come up with different ideas, change his position and look at things in a new way. One point for each category change, counting from the first change (there are four possible categories). The maximum possible total raw score is 11. The student's originality is not constrained by closed contours, he moves outside and inside the contour to make the stimulus figure part of the whole picture. Three points for each original picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36. Elaboration the student adds detail to a closed contour, prefers asymmetry and complexity in the image. Three points for each asymmetrical inside and outside picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36. Name The student uses language and vocabulary skillfully and witty. Three points for each meaningful, witty, expressive caption to the picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36. The maximum possible total score (in raw scores) for the entire test is 131. Brief explanation processing this example 1. Fluency. The maximum possible number of drawings is 12. One point per drawing. There are 12 designs available. Score 12 points. Flexibility. The maximum possible number of changes is 11, counting from the first category change, one point for each change. The category of the first picture live (L) is saved in the second picture without changes. On the third picture - 45

47 ke mechanical (M), change 1, in the fourth picture view (B), change 2. There are no changes until the sixth picture, in which the symbol (C) is change 3. Then the change in the eighth picture is view (B), change 4. Change again to symbol (C) in picture nine change 5. The last change in picture ten to category live (G) gives change 6. This category is preserved in the pictures. Total score six points for flexibility. Originality where the student draws. The highest score (three points) for drawing inside and outside the stimulus figure. Nine drawings with images inside and outside the stimulus line (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11) receive three points. Drawings three and seven receive only one point each drawing only outside the stimulus figure. Figure 12 gets two points for drawing only inside a closed loop. The total score for originality is 31 points. Design where details are placed to obtain an asymmetric image (asymmetry is the absence of specularity about any imaginary axes). The highest score (three) is awarded for pattern asymmetry both inside and outside the stimulus line or shape. Only one pattern 8 is asymmetrical both inside and out and gets three points. Figures 3, 9, 11, 12 are symmetrical inside and out and receive zero points for elaborateness. Figures 1, 2 and 5 are asymmetric within a closed contour and give two points. Figures 4, 6, 7 and 10 have asymmetry outside the closed contour and receive one point for elaborateness. The total score for elaboration is 13 points. Name. Here the vocabulary is evaluated: the number of words used, the complexity and figurativeness of the name. The highest number of points (three) for a figurative name expressing something non-obvious in the picture. Figures 1, 3, 6 and 7 have a figurative title and receive three points each. Figures 2,4, 8, 10 and 12 have a one-word title and receive one point each. The names of all other figures (5, 9 and 11) are descriptive phrases and receive two points. The total score of titles for all figures is 23 points. The total total raw result of 85 was obtained by summing up the scores for all factors B + D + O + R + N = =

48 Example 2 Maxim Shkut, 3rd grade, 9 years old 47

49 48

50 B=12 Total score=b+r+o+r+n==92 D=8 O=30 R=20 N=22 49

51 3.4. QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERSONALITY CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS. DATA PROCESSING When evaluating the data of the questionnaire, four factors are used that are closely correlated with the creative manifestations of the individual. They include: Curiosity (L), Imagination (C), Complexity (C) and Risk Taking (R). We get four raw scores for each factor, as well as a total score. When processing data, a template is used that can be superimposed on the test answer sheet. The holes in the template show responses corresponding to a score of two (2) points, and codes for the four factors scored on the test are also marked on the template. All responses that are on squares that do not fit into holes receive one (1) point, except for the last "Don't know" column. Responses in this column receive minus one (1) point in raw scores and are subtracted from the total score. The use of this column gives the right to “punish” an insufficiently creative, indecisive person. The fourth column factor code on the template is used to indicate which of the four factors applies to each. separate issue. This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which risk-taking (R), inquisitive (L), imaginative (C) and complex idea (C) subjects consider themselves to be. Of the 50 items, 12 statements relate to curiosity, 12 to imagination, 13 to the ability to take risks, 13 statements to the complexity factor. If all answers match the pattern key holes, then the total raw score can be 100 points unless the Don't Know boxes are checked. If the student gives all the answers that are not visible in the holes of the template, then his raw score can be 50 points, if no item is marked "Don't know". The higher the raw score of a person who has positive feelings about himself, the more creative, inquisitive, imaginative, risk-taking and problem-solving he is; All of the above personality factors are closely related to creativity. Estimates can be obtained for each test factor (ability to take risks, imagination, etc.) separately, as well as sum.

52 marks. The factor scores and the total raw score better demonstrate the child's strengths (high raw score) and weaknesses (low raw score). The individual factor score and the total raw score can then be converted to standard scores and noted on the student's individual profile. WILLIAMS SCALE Data processing All eight factors of divergent thinking (4) and personal creative characteristics (4) of the Williams model are included in this scale for assessment by parents and teachers . For each factor, 6 statements are presented, for each statement a choice of 3 possible types of behavior is given: "often", "sometimes" and "rarely". 1. The 48-item scale is followed by an additional page of open-ended questions to be completed by parents and/or teachers. The score calculation consists of the following procedures: 2. Count the number of responses marked in the "often" column and multiply this number by two (2). These are double-weighted responses that receive two (2) points each. 3. Count the number of answers marked in the "sometimes" column. These answers will receive one (1) point each. 4. Count the number of responses in the "rarely" column. These answers will receive zero (0) points each. The four open-ended questions at the end of the scale will receive one (1) point each if the “yes” answer is accompanied by arguments or comments. * This is a quantitative estimate of the available data. Evaluation of notes and comments can help those who write programs for creative students by ranking the frequency of occurrence of the same or similar comments. For example, if the largest number of experts give such a comment: “a child is creatively gifted because he is artistic,” then this feature (artistic talent) will have the highest rank for this group of children. Such ranks in a number of creative manifestations of the personality will characterize the presence and qualitative features of the creative features of various children. 51

53 Number of answers in the COLUMN “often” x 2 = Number of answers in the COLUMN “sometimes” x 1 = Number of answers in the COLUMN “rarely” x 0 = Number of answers in the “open” questions, with answers<<да)>and comments x 1 = Number of answers in "open" answers, with the answer ^ "no" x 0 = Total score = sum of scores in the higher rows. The students' total scores can be ranked from highest to lowest^ starting with the highest score of 100, since 100 points is the maximum, lowest possible total raw score. fishing

54 Chapter 4 REGULATORY DATA. RELIABILITY. VALIDITY (according to Williams) 4.1. REGULATORY DATA. DATA INTERPRETATION Table 1 presents the normative data obtained by Williams for all three methods from the CAP test set. Table 1. Regulatory data. Divergent thinking test General Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration Title Mean M 84.4 9.4 6.7 23.4 15.7 24.2 Standard deviation O 22.7 1.3 2.0 6.8 9.4 5.2 Questionnaire of creative personality characteristics General 62.1 18.0 Curiosity Imagination Complexity Riskiness 16.4 16.0 14.8 15.3 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.2 Williams Scale General 47.9 21.5 This table compiled by Williams as a single, general table for the age range of 8-17 years. 53

56 Comparing the data of the child with the data of the table, it is possible to build a structural profile of his creative indicators. A detailed example of data analysis will be given below, using examples of indicators of Russian children. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY (according to Williams) Retest reliability was determined for a mixed sample of students from grades 3 to 12 (N = 256 people). The Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.60 was calculated; it is statistically significant and characterizes the average strength correlation. The correlation between the divergent thinking test and the creative characteristics questionnaire was ~0.71 (statistically significant at a significance level >0.05). The correlation between divergent thinking test data and parental assessment was ~0.59, and between test data and teacher assessment was 0.67 (both coefficients are statistically significant at a significance level >0.05). The combined score on the first two tests correlated with the combined parent/teacher score at ~0.74, proving that parents and teachers can reliably rate creative possibilities children.

57 Chapter 5 REGULATORY DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS (Russian data) 5.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE The survey involved children aged 5 to 17 living in St. Petersburg, Naryan-Mar, Ryazan and the Leningrad Region. The survey was carried out in years. St. Petersburg and Leningrad region 2071 children, Naryan-Mar 326 children, Ryazan 321 children. 910 children from 5 to 7 years old, 1225 children from 8 to 12 years old, 493 children from 13 to 17 years old. The pooled sample is 2628 children NORMATIVE DATA FOR THE DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST (part I of the CAP set) Williams gives normative data in the form of an arithmetic mean and standard deviation for a generalized sample of 8 to 17 years old, without age distinction. We decided to make age distinctions and bring age gradations. Normative data were obtained for the following age groups: 5-7 years old, 8-12 years old, 56 years old

59 Table 2. Mean (M) Creative Thinking Test (CAP) Measured scores 5 to 7 years old 8 to 12 years old Average 13 to 17 years old 5 to 17 years old (M) 8 to 17 years old American students , 8-17 years 1 FLUENCE 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.2 11.1 9.4 2 FLEXIBILITY 7.6 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.1 6.7 3 ORIGINALITY 25.3 25.6 25.7 25.5 25.6 23.4 4 DEVELOPMENT 5.4 9.7 11.4 8.5 10.2 15.7 5 NAME 13.9 15.8 17.1 15.4 16 ,2 24.2 SUM 63.7 69.6 71.6 67.9 70.2 84.4 years years years years years 8-17 years B 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.3 D 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 O 5, 6 6.0 7.2 6.1 6.4 6.8 R 4.6 5.5 6.3 5.9 5.8 9.4 N 3.8 4.9 6.7 5D 5.5 5 ,2 Z 11.7 14.1 20.2 15.0 16.1 22, AGE DYNAMICS OF INDICATORS OF CREATIVE THINKING age-related changes various indicators creative thinking (see table 2 and fig. 2 3 for average values, as well as table 3 and fig. 4 for standard deviations). Significance of differences was assessed using Student's t-test. Considering the data obtained, it can be noted that there is a slight drop in the factors Fluency and Flexibility, 58

WILLIAMS CREATIVITY TEST DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST It is necessary to avoid the use of the words “test”, “exam”, “test” in all explanations and instructions. If the need arises,

Increasing diversity and complexity of processes arising in modern world, determines the need for training, education and development of people, their creative thinking and ability to non-standard

QUESTIONNAIRE OF CREATIVITY REZULLI TEST FROM ALL SIDES

Municipal budgetary preschool educational institution child development center kindergarten 7 of the municipality Timashevsk district BANK of methods for studying the level of development of independent

PERSONAL CREATIVITY IN THE STRUCTURE OF ADOLESCENTS' COMMUNICATION INclinations Gerbachevskaya N.V. Ph.D. Modern society with a variety of interpersonal communications, increasing competition requires

Diagnostics of non-verbal creativity (method of E. Torrens, adapted by A.N. Voronin, 1994) The Torrance test "Incomplete figures" is designed to search and identify creativity children. Test

E. Torrens figure test is intended for adults, schoolchildren and children from 5 years old, diagnostics of creative thinking The test consists of three tasks. Answers to all tasks are given in the form of figures and signatures.

Methodology for diagnosing the direction of learning motivation T. D. Dubovitskaya, Candidate of Psychological Sciences In today's constantly changing, dynamic world, not just student learning

Determining the level of affiliation motivation (A. Mehrabian) Theoretical Foundations Description of the technique The technique of A. Mekhrabian is intended for the diagnosis of two generalized stable motives of the personality, included

L. T. Baranskaya, O. S. Chalikova FEATURES OF PSYCHODIAGNOSIS OF INTELLIGENCE WITH THE HELP OF THE D. VEKSLER SCALE IN DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS D. Veksler’s intellectual scale still remains

DIARY OF A PARTICIPANT OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION “My future. We research and design” LEVEL: INTRODUCTORY Moscow, 2017 1 Dear friend! You started classes in the additional group

Department of Education of the Yaroslavl Region All-Russian Olympiad schoolchildren 2016/2017 academic year French, municipal stage 9 11 classes Content block of the Olympiad in French

Teacher psychologist: M.V. Abrosimova One of the approaches to the development of creative thinking in children of senior preschool age. The study of the problems of children's creativity is becoming one of the central destinations scientific

Guilford test (modified) for the study of creative thinking This test aims to study creativity, creative thinking for children age group from 5 to 15 years old. Researched factors: 1)

TEXTBOOK PAGE NUMBERS TOPIC Continued NUMBER OF HOURS 68, 69 Pages for the Curious Additional tasks creative and exploratory nature: tasks-calculations; definition of "true" or "false"

METHOD OF EXAMINATION OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD aged 6-7 Lyubimova M.M. 1. FOLD (cut picture) The task is aimed at identifying the level of development of interest in cognitive tasks, establishing

2.2 Formative stage psychological experiment on the development of creativity of preschoolers in art therapy classes using the Zendudling method pilot study a formative

SELF-CONCEPT OF ADOLESCENTS WITH DIFFERENT LEVEL OF CREATIVITY AND COGNITIVE ACTIVITY E. D. BESPANSKAYA

24 3 x 8 4 x 6 6 x 4 8 x 3 Nature of Multiplication A.V. Shevyakova A.V. Shevyakova - “Home School” Textbook + workbook for children 7-10 years old Introduction. Dear Parents! We bring to your attention the textbook

The work of a teacher of additional education with the results of psychological and pedagogical diagnostics of students to identify and develop various types of giftedness Vasilyeva E.A., teacher-psychologist MBOU DO "Rodnik"

A gifted child in a modern school Teacher-psychologist GBOU secondary school 376 of the Moskovsky district Zhironkina Nadezhda Mikhailovna Regulatory framework Federal target program "Children of Russia", in its

APPENDIX to additional general development programs MBOU DOD CVO "Creativity" g.o. Samara" METHODS FOR DIAGNOSING THE CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS Methodical materials organizing and conducting

Torrens creativity test. Diagnostics of creative thinking. There are a huge number of different methods of psychodiagnostics of a person's creative abilities. The most popular of these is the Torrens test.

DIAGNOSTICS METHOD FOR SCHOOL ANXIETY PHILLIPS The purpose of the methodology (questionnaire) is to study the level and nature of anxiety associated with school in children of primary and secondary school age.

Motivational readiness. The concept of motivational readiness includes the attitude of a preschooler to future learning. We are talking about the positive attitude of the child to school, about his mood for serious

Kokareva M. V. Consistency between students' perception of works of modern painting and their creative characteristics // Gifted children: problems, prospects, development: materials of the All-Russian

GOU TsPMSS "Personality" teacher-speech therapist Dyagileva E.A Development of coherent speech of younger schoolchildren with ONR and ZPR. Coherent speech is not just a sequence of related thoughts that are expressed in precise terms.

INTELLIGENCE TEST (CFIT), or How to find the only right solution in a difficult situation 1 Proposed by R. Cattell in 1958 The abbreviation CFIT stands for Culture Free Intellect Test. English

SENSITIVE SPHERE OF STUDENT PERSONALITY AS A FACTOR OF SELF-ORGANIZATION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE OF THE UNIFIED STATE EXAM SB Leshchinskaya Tomsk State University S.А. Bogomaz Doctor of Psychology

Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "SARATOV NATIONAL RESEARCH STATE UNIVERSITY

Psychological preparation students for exams (USE) Consultation for students of grade 11 GROUP CONSULTATION Peculiarities of the USE The most significant psychological qualities Exam preparation strategy

MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVE MOTIVATION /Rakovich N. K. - Minsk, 2002] Modification of A. Mekhrabian's test-questionnaire for measuring achievement motivation (TMD), proposed by M.Sh. Magomed-Eminov. TMD is intended for

1 Activities in the primary GEF school in terms of content In connection with the transition to the second generation GEF teacher primary school it will be necessary to change the methods of working with the class and each student in

DIAGNOSTICS OF LEARNING MOTIVATION AND EMOTIONAL ATTITUDE TO LEARNING IN THE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL APPENDIX 5 The proposed method for diagnosing learning motivation and emotional attitude to learning

O. A. Ivashova E. E. Ostanina Learning to calculate Out-of-table multiplication and division Workbook in mathematics, a student of a school class Moscow LLC "Cyril and Methodius" 2007 UDC 373.167.1:51 BBK 74.262 I 24 Edition

Is the child ready for school? Practical questionnaire for educators and parents We will present a simplified questionnaire (questionnaire) designed specifically for educators and parents. It can be used to target

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Omsk State University UDC 37.022 BBK 74.24 Z 14

Common Mistakes when filling out the answer forms of the Unified state exam Recall that the processing of the USE answer forms is carried out on computers. Forms are scanned, inscriptions and marks from them are recognized,

Topic 13. Testing in the study of control systems 13.1. The Essence of Testing in Systems Research 13.2. Practical aspects testing in systems research 13.3. Specificity of testing methods.

MOU "Ochkurovsky School" Speech at the Pedagogical Council Diagnostics of the research skills of students The speech was prepared by a primary school teacher Tomilenko V.P. Ochkurovka 2017 Research Diagnostics

162 METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LESSONS Summary of the lesson on the topic “Solving text problems” Topic: Solving problems for finding the fourth proportional (part 1: p. 46) Targets: subject: to introduce

Methodology for diagnosing the level of school anxiety Phillips The purpose of the methodology (questionnaire) is to study the level and nature of anxiety associated with school in children of primary and secondary school age.

Appendix 1 CHILDREN'S VARIANT SCALE (CMAS) 1. Brief information about the methodology The Children's Form of Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) is designed to identify

Parenting advice cognitive interests and curiosity in preschoolers. It will not be long before five-year-old children become schoolchildren. What will bring them school life? Will

PHILLIPS SCHOOL ANXIETY TEST The purpose of the study was to study the level and nature of anxiety associated with school in children of primary and secondary school age. The test consists of 58 questions that can

Conversation with a child. Purpose: to reveal the general awareness of the child, to establish emotional contact. Questions: 1) Give your last name, first name (1 point), patronymic (2 points) 2) When were you born? How old are you

Typical mistakes when filling out the answer forms of the Unified State Examination Error 1. The registration area is filled out, but the labels of part A and the answers of part B are not entered in the answer form. First, you need

S. A. Illarionova, Diagnosis of giftedness in preschool children. MBDOU Kindergarten 53 Belovo, Kemerovo region This article addresses the issue of identifying the giftedness of preschool children. The article is intended

Shashina M.S. Role mental processes in the development of research skills and abilities of junior students of the AltSPU (Barnaul) Research activities should be considered as a special kind of intellectual and creative

(jathumbnail off) Along with the statistical norm - percentile is used - this is percentage individuals from the standardization sample whose results are equal to or below the percentile.

A. Mekhrabian's test-questionnaire modification for measuring achievement motivation (AMD), proposed by M.Sh. Magomed-Eminov. TMD is designed to diagnose two generalized stable personality motives: the motive

UDC 159.9.072.43 EXPERIENCE OF RESEARCH OF CREATIVE TALENTED IN CHILDREN OF MIDDLE SCHOOL AGE 2017 Ya. T. Zhakupova Cand. psychol. Sciences, Associate Professor, Head. organization department scientific work and international cooperation

As already mentioned above, the assessment of the formation labor functions students during the practice were conducted by school teachers with the help of a questionnaire specially designed for the project. It must be said that such

Diagnostic work for 4th grade students: assessment of meta-subject results 1. Introduction In the framework of developments related to the introduction of second-generation standards, one of the leading

Methodology for diagnosing self-esteem Dembo-Rubinshtein. IIST modification. Standard instruction (Dembo-Rubinshtein version) Any person evaluates his own abilities, etc. The level of development of each quality,

Municipal budgetary educational institution Secondary school 28 REPORT on the topic "SYSTEM OF WORK OF THE CLASS TEACHER WITH UNSUCCESSFUL STUDENTS" Kl.ruk. 5-in class. Bondarenko A.M.

The Williams test is intended for a comprehensive diagnosis of creativity in children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old and evaluates both the characteristics associated with creative thinking and personal-individual creative characteristics.
The test consists of three parts:

· divergent (creative) thinking test;
· test of personal creative characteristics (questionnaire for children)
· Williams scale (questionnaire for parents and teachers).

The Williams Creative Test Battery is one of the best psychodiagnostic tools for diagnosing creativity, as the Williams tests are reliable, valid, easy to use and designed for a wide age group, reflecting various creative characteristics.

The test can be used for research creative talent children from preschool age (5-6 years old) to the final grades of school (17-18 years old). The subjects must give answers to the tasks of these tests in the form of drawings and captions to them. If the children cannot write or write very slowly, the experimenter or his assistants should help them label the drawings. In this case, it is necessary to follow the child's plan exactly.

DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST

Before presenting the test, the experimenter should read the instructions completely and carefully consider all aspects of the work. Tests do not allow any changes and additions, as this changes the reliability and validity of test indicators.

The use of the words "test", "exam", "check" in all explanations and instructions should be avoided. If the need arises, it is recommended to use words: exercises, drawings, pictures, etc. During testing, it is unacceptable to create an anxious and tense environment for an exam, test, or rivalry. On the contrary, one should strive to create a friendly and calm atmosphere of warmth, comfort, trust, encourage the imagination and curiosity of children, stimulate the search for alternative answers. Testing should be in the form exciting game. This is very important for the reliability of the results.

It is necessary to provide all students with test items, pencils or pens. Everything superfluous must be removed. The experimenter needs to have instructions, a test sample, as well as a clock or stopwatch.

Simultaneous testing should not be carried out in large groups of students. Optimal size groups are 15-35 people, i.e. no more than one class.

For younger children, the group size should be reduced to 5-10 people, and for preschoolers, individual testing is preferable. During testing, the child should sit at the table alone or with the experimenter's assistant.

The test run time is 25 minutes.

Before distributing the worksheets, the experimenter should explain to the children what they will do, arouse their interest in the tasks and create motivation to complete them. For this you can use next text, allowing various modifications depending on specific conditions:

“There are unfinished figures drawn on these pages. If you add additional lines to them, you can get interesting objects or stories. Try to draw pictures that no one but you could come up with. Make each picture detailed and interesting by adding different details to it. Come up with an interesting title for each picture and write it at the bottom. You have 25 minutes to complete the task. Try to work quickly, but without too much haste. If you have any questions, ask them now. Start working on your drawings.

TEST BOOK

FULL NAME________________________________

The date ________________________________

Age______________________________

Class________________________________

School_______________________________

City________________________________

Dough Processing

The four cognitive factors of divergent thinking described below are closely correlated with the creative manifestation of the personality (right hemispheric, visual, synthetic style of thinking). They are assessed together with the fifth factor characterizing the ability for vocabulary synthesis (left hemisphere, verbal style of thinking). As a result, we get five indicators, expressed in raw points:

Fluency (B)

Flexibility (G)

Originality (O)

Development (P)

Title (H)

1. Fluency- productivity, determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content.

Rationale: Creative individuals work productively, and more fluency is associated with this. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing).

2. Flexibility- number of drawing category changes, counting from the first drawing.

- live (F)- person, person, flower, tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.

- mechanical, subject (M)- boat, spaceship, bicycle, car, tool, toy, equipment, furniture, household items, utensils, etc.

- symbolic (C)- letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc. d.

- specific, genre (B)- city, highway, house, yard, park, space, mountains, etc. (see illustrations on the next page).

Rationale: Creative individuals often prefer to change things rather than sticking inertly to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile. The range of possible points is from 1 to 11, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one.

3. Originality- location (inside - outside relative to the stimulus figure) where the drawing is performed.

Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside the given stimulus figure.

Rationale: less creative individuals usually ignore the closed stimulus figure and draw outside of it, i.e. the drawing will only be outside. More creative people will work inside the closed part. Highly creative people will synthesize, combine, and will not be constrained by any closed circuit, i.e. the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure.

1 point - draw only outside.

2 points - draw only inside.

3 points - draw both outside and inside.

The total raw score for originality (O) is equal to the sum of the scores for this factor for all drawings.

4. Elaboration- symmetry-asymmetry, where the details are located that make the pattern asymmetric.

0 points - symmetrically internal and external space.

1 point - asymmetrically outside the closed contour.

2 points - asymmetrically inside the closed contour.

3 points - completely asymmetrical: different external details on both sides of the contour and asymmetrical image inside the contour.

The total raw score for elaboration (P) is the sum of scores for the elaboration factor for all drawings.

5. Title- the richness of the vocabulary (the number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence of what is depicted in the figures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext).

0 points - no name given

1 point - a name consisting of one word without a definition.

2 points - a phrase, a few words that reflect what is drawn in the picture.

3 points - figurative name, expressing more than shown in the picture, i.e. hidden meaning.

The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the scores for this factor received for each figure.

Method 5. “CAP creative test suite

(Modified Williams Creative Tests)"

The CAP is a set of tests consisting of two methods for children: the (Divergent) Creative Thinking Test and the Creative Personality Test.

The divergent thinking test can be used for children from 5 to 17 years old. Test of personal creative characteristics (self-assessment) - for children from 5th to 11th grades.

DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING TEST

Order of conduct.

Testing is carried out in group or individual form. It is desirable that during testing, children sit at their desks one at a time.

The student completes the task in the test book (Appendix 1). The test book consists of three separate sheets, standard A-4 format, each sheet of paper shows 4 squares, inside of which there are stimulus figures. Under the squares is the number of the figure and a place for the signature.

Task completion time: for grades 4-11 - 20 minutes; for 1-3 cells. and preschool children – 25 min.

Instruction:

“This activity will help you find out how capable you are of creative self-expression through drawings. 12 drawings are offered. Work fast. Try to draw such an unusual picture that no one else can come up with. You will be given 20 (25) minutes to draw your drawings. Work the squares in order, don't randomly jump from one square to another. When creating a picture, use a line or shape inside each square to make it part of your picture. You can draw anywhere within the square, depending on what you want to represent. You can use different colors to make the drawings interesting and unusual. After finishing work on each picture, think of an interesting title and write the title in the line below the picture. Don't worry about correct spelling. Creating an original name is more important than handwriting and spelling. Your title should tell about what is shown in the picture, reveal its meaning.

Note: children of elementary grades can verbally name captions for drawings, and the experimenter writes them down

TEST BOOK

Creative Thinking Test

FULL NAME______________________________________________________

Date_________________ Age ______________________________

Grade ________________ School __________ City _____________

__________________________

1. ___________________________ 2. _____________________________

3. ____________________________ 4._____________________________

__________________________

5. ___________________________ 6. _____________________________

7. ____________________________ 8._____________________________

__________________________

9. __________________________ 10. _____________________________

11. __________________________ 12._____________________________

Data processing.

The four cognitive factors of divergent thinking described below are closely correlated with the creative manifestation of the personality (right hemispheric, visual, synthetic style of thinking). They are assessed together with the fifth factor characterizing the ability for vocabulary synthesis (left hemisphere, verbal style of thinking). As a result, we get five factors, expressed in raw scores:

Fluency (B)

Flexibility (G)

Originality (O)

Development (P)

Name (H)

1. Fluency- productivity, is determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content.

Rationale: creative individuals work productively, this is due to more developed fluency of thinking.

The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing).

2. Flexibility is the number of changes to the drawing categories, counting from the first drawing.

Living (F) - a person, face, flower, tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.

Mechanical, object (M) - a boat, a spaceship, a bicycle, a car, a tool, a toy, equipment, furniture, household items, dishes, etc.

Symbolic (S) - letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc.

Species, genre (B) - city, highway, house, yard, park, space, mountains, etc.

Rationale: creative people often prefer to change something, instead of sticking inertly to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile.

The range of possible points is from 1 to 11, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one.

3. Originality- the location (inside-outside relative to the stimulus figure) where the drawing is performed.

Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside the stimulus figure.

Rationale: less creative people usually ignore the closed stimulus figure and draw outside of it, i.e. The drawing will only be outside. More creative people will work inside the closed part. Highly creative people will synthesize, unite and will not be held back by any closed circuit, i.e. the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure.

1 point - draw only outside,

2 points - draw only inside,

3 points - draw both outside and inside.

The total raw score for originality (O) is equal to the sum of the scores for this factor for all drawings. Maximum amount- 36 points.

4. Elaboration- symmetry-asymmetry, where the details are located that make the pattern asymmetric. Creative people add details to a closed contour, prefer asymmetry and complexity in the image.

0 points - symmetrically internal and external space (everywhere),

1 point - asymmetrically outside the stimulus figure,

2 points - asymmetrically inside the stimulus figure,

3 points - completely asymmetric: different external details on both sides of the stimulus figure, both inside and outside,

The total raw score for development (P) is the sum of the scores for the “development” factor for all drawings. The maximum number is 36 points.

5. Title- the richness of the vocabulary (the number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence of what is depicted in the figures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext).

0 points - no name given

1 point - a name consisting of one word without a definition

2 points - a phrase, a few words that reflect what is drawn in the picture.

3 points - figurative name, expressing more than shown in the picture, i.e. hidden meaning.

The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the scores for this factor received for each figure. The maximum number is 36 points.

REGULATORY DATA

Mean scores (M) on the Creative Thinking Test (CAP)