Creative people are able not only to create works of art, but also to find a way out of seemingly hopeless situations. Their solutions to complex theoretical or design problems are original, and often.

For many hundreds of years, scientists and philosophers have been trying to figure out what is the basis of creativity, what gives a person the opportunity to transform the world to create new, completely unique things. In the 20th century, with the development of psychology, it became clear that for creative people characterized by a special type of thinking. The well-known researcher in the psychology of creativity, Joy Gilford, called it divergent - directed towards different sides.

The same J. Gilford created a whole system of developmental exercises, many of which are currently part of creativity training. As an example, we can offer several options for developing activities.

Making the mind move in different directions

To do this, you can perform exercises to find a variety of original solutions to simple problems.

For example, choose any object familiar to you, for example, a mobile phone. Now take paper and a pen and write down as many uses for this item as you can. First, standard solutions will come to mind. This is normal, remember: a thought moves most easily along a “trodden” path.

But do not stop there, and after a flashlight, an audio player and a photo and video camera, more original options will come to mind. Try to captivate yourself with this task, feel the excitement. To do this, it is better to perform the exercise in a group, competing with colleagues or friends.

Learning to ask questions

There are problems that are difficult to solve, but it is even more difficult to find a problem where others do not see it. We can say that this is the highest aerobatics of creativity. At the heart of any problem is a question, so the ability to ask questions is necessary for the development of divergent thinking.

Practice this. Start with simple exercise. Choose one of the events of the current day and try to formulate a few questions related to it. The more questions you come up with, the better. Write them down, reflect on the list, and choose the most interesting or important question. Perhaps you will understand the need to look for an answer to it.

Playing with associations

The associativity of thinking is very important in creativity, because the thoughts and images that spontaneously arise in our heads can become the basis of an original, or even a brilliant solution. Therefore, you need to learn how to manage the spontaneous process of the birth of associations. Creativity training usually includes associative thinking exercises.

One such exercise is to create an association field. Take a sheet of paper and write any word in the center, then draw 5 arrows from it in different directions and at the end of each write the association word that has arisen in your head. And now, from each association, also draw 5 arrows and write associations for this concept. It will be good if you try to go beyond the semantic field.

For example, the word "leaf" and associations to it: tree, branch, plant, spring, freshness. All words are in the same semantic field. But if we write down such associations for the word “branch”: subway, train, crowd, speed, work, then this will already be a transition to another semantic field. The easier such transitions are made, the more creative thinking is developed.

When developing divergent thinking, it should be remembered that convergent thinking is no less important for mental activity and successful work. Creativity will be most productive when both types of thought process work in interaction.

Divergent (creative) thinking test

Order of conduct:

Conducted in a group, limited in time: 20 minutes for senior grades (4-11 grades), 25 minutes for junior grades (1-3 and kindergarten children). In elementary grades, children can verbally name captions for drawings.

Instruction:

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 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. 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. Creation original name more important than handwriting and spelling. Your title should tell about what is shown in the picture, reveal its meaning.

Data processing:

The described four cognitive factors of divergent thinking 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). The result is five indicators expressed in raw scores:

Fluency (B)

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

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

Mechanical, objective (M) - boat, spaceship, bicycle, car, tool, toy, equipment, furniture, household items, tableware, etc.

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

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

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 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 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 outer 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.

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. Stimulus material for the test is available in Appendix 1.

"E. E. Tunik MODIFIED CREATIVE TESTS OF WILLIAMS SPEECH St. Petersburg PUBLISHING HOUSE BBK 88.8 + 88.3 T 84 Reviewer: L. A. Regush - doctor ... "

E. E. Tunik

MODIFIED

CREATIVE

WILLIAMS TESTS

SPEECH St. Petersburg

PUBLISHING HOUSE

BBK 88.8+88.3

Reviewer:

L. A. Regush - Doctor of Psychology,

professor at the Russian State

Pedagogical University

TUnik E. E.

T 84 Modified creative tests of Williams. - S P b:

Speech, 2003. - 96 p.

I S B N 5-9268-0164-8 prescribed for complex diagnostics and creativity in children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old.

Set of three parts:

Test of divergent (creative) thinking;

Test l and h n s creative characteristics(questionnaire for children) ;

Scales of Williams (questionnaire for parents and teachers).

The tests are standardized, the work contains Russian regulatory data. The book is intended for a wide range of specialists.

I. Yu. Avidon. Head edited by T.V. Tuyaupyev.

Editor-in-Chief M. S. Ruzina. Artistic editor P. V. Borozenets.

Leading editor Director L. V. Yankovsky.

O O O Publishing house "Rech", v. (8 1 2) 323-76-70, (8 1 2) 323-90-63.

Email: [email protected] 199004, St. Petersburg, 3 l and n and I, 6 (l and t. "A").

Licence LP No. 000364 dated 12/29/99.

Signed for publication on December 24, 2002. Format 60x90 "/ 16.

P e h. l. 6.0. Circulation 5000 copies. Order no. 4 H ff.

Printed in the printing house of OOO O "S ZP D".

188350, Leningrad region, Gatchina, st. S o l o d u h i n a, 2.

© E. E. Tunik, 2003 © Rech Publishing House, 2003 I S B N 5-9268-0164-8 © P. V. Borozenets (cover design), 2003 Contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1. Description of the set creative tests(S A R) 7

1.1. What is SAR? 7

1.2. Who is the SAR for? eight

1.3. What does SAR measure? 9

1.4. Williams model. Creative factors 11 Chapter 2. Guidelines for conducting

–  –  –

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 Torrance creative thinking tests are most widely used - 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 evaluating and self-assessment of the characteristics of a creative personality.

Guilford's divergent thinking test is designed primarily for the adult population, the battery of creative tests consists of rapid tests, and Torrance's creative thinking tests 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, they should 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 note one more important aspect.

As you know, the term "creativity" refers to the ability of a special kind - the 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 that the psychodiagnostic tool contains the ability to assess both cognitive and personality-individual creative characteristics.

All of the above requirements are satisfied by the F. Williams Creative Assessment Packet (C A P).

A modified and adapted version of the Williams creative test set (C A R) is intended for children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old. It consists of three parts. The first part, the Divergent Thinking Test, requires 20-25 minutes to complete the twelve suggested drawings. 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 Creative Personality Questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 50 statements, its tasks are closed-type tasks with multiple choice of 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.) Finally, there is the third part of the test suite. This is a Williams rating scale for teachers and parents, aimed at finding out an expert opinion (experts - teachers and parents) about the creative manifestations of a given child (creative factors, the same as in the first and second parts of the test, which the child fills out ). 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 F. Williams' version, normative data for all factors are given for a pooled sample from 8 to 17 years.

The C A R F. Williams 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.

KIT DESCRIPTION

CREATIVE TESTS (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 was conceived and developed to meet this need; it is a system for measuring the eight factors of divergent thinking and personal characteristics according to the Williams model. The Williams model has been widely used in US schools in recent years to explore and develop creativity. Now, using the methods 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.

1.1. 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, the Williams Scale, is designed to be evaluated by parents and teachers in response to open questions, can be analyzed and classified according to the frequency of occurrence among a group of parents and teachers for a given 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 administered by psychologists, as well as by teachers who have studied the test manual and received advice from a psychologist. The time allotted to complete the Divergent Thinking Test is limited so that you can compare the results of the child with the standards - 25 minutes for children in the senior groups of the kindergarten and lower grades of the school and 20 minutes for the upper grades of the school (starting from the 5th grade).

The time to complete the questionnaire of creative personality characteristics is from 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the age level of the sample of children in which it is conducted.

In the US, Williams suggests that elementary school teachers read aloud the statements of the questionnaire to the children, who must select the appropriate answers.

In our adapted version, we consider it appropriate to use this self-assessment questionnaire, starting only from the 5th grade of school (from 10-11 years old).

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 an individual profile sheet, which is attached later in the Guide.

WHAT IS IT FOR?

At present, using these tests, we get the opportunity to assess the totality of the various cognitive and personal qualities of the child. There is a new opportunity for teachers at school and parents at home to evaluate the creative abilities and skills of children on the basis of an integrated approach.

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:

Selecting children whose talents and creativity could not be assessed using previously existing methods;

Selecting children for education using the program for the gifted, with the aim of developing creative abilities;

Identification and inclusion in special groups for classes 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 other facets of children's abilities to be looked at and correlated with the standard measures 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. MODEL V ILYA M S A. CREATIVE FACTORS

CAP makes available an objective assessment of most of the investigated factors related to human creativity, according to the Williams Model.

This test set is intended 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:

MODEL OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR OF A CHILD

–  –  –

The Williams model presented here was developed from a number of scientific studies of creativity.

She offers schools and teachers complete system, including learning strategies - parameter (measurement) 2 through the main content - parameter (measurement) 1 for the development of children's creative indicators - parameter (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 is aimed at stimulating 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 creative potential child on the same eight factors that are used in the first and second tests.

TEST GUIDE.

TESTS

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 test book consists of three separate sheets, standard size A-4, on each sheet of paper there are four squares, inside of which there are stimulus figures.

Under the squares is the number of the figure and a place for the signature.

Working with each of the three techniques is discussed separately below.

–  –  –

Conducted in a group, time limited:

20 minutes for high school (grades 4-11), 25 minutes for junior 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 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 completing each drawing, think of an interesting title and write the title on 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 what is shown in the picture, reveal its meaning.

2.2. TEST OF PERSONAL CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

2.2.1. 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 partly true for you and should be marked with an "X" in the "Partly true" column. Other statements will not suit you at all, they need to 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 the sign "X"

into 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 for the assignments of 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 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 write 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 is group. There is no time limit for completing the questionnaire. It takes about 20-30 minutes, depending on the age of the children.

2.2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual"

1. If I don't know the right answer, then I try to figure it out.

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 a 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.

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 can not be 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 like to take on new things to see what comes of it.

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.

2.2.3. Answer sheet of the questionnaire "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual"

–  –  –

2.3. S H K A L A V I L Y M S A.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS AND TEACHERS

2.3.1. Instruction. Method of carrying out 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. 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, then take average rating several teachers.

This scale consists of eight subsections - indicators that characterize the behavior of creative children. For each indicator, there are six statements on 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 obtain 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.

2.3.2. Answer sheet

WILLIAMS SCALE

Questionnaire for parents and teachers to assess the creativity (creativity) of the child

–  –  –

Name of the person completing the questionnaire Who is the person completing the questionnaire in relation to the child How long has the person completing the questionnaire known the child

Instructions for filling out the questionnaire:

Circle one of the letters on your 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.

At the same time, the letters are the following values:

S - often I - sometimes R - rarely Please do not write anything on the questionnaire, mark your answers only on this answer sheet.

–  –  –

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 that are 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. The child can easily change one focus of vision (on the move) 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 the objects in the room to be located not in the central part, he also prefers asymmetrical 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.

Section IV. DEVELOPMENT

1. The child adds lines, different colors and details to his 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 things he has not experienced.

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. COMPLEXITY

1. The child shows interest in complex things and ideas.

2. The child loves to challenge himself.

3. The child loves to learn things without help.

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 ideas, not paying attention to 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.

–  –  –

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 E T" - why?

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?

PROCESSING OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

3.1. DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) TEST

THOUGHT. 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, which characterizes 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 (D) - originality (O) - elaboration (R) - 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 picture).

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

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

Mechanical, object (M) - a boat, a space ship, 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.

Species, 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 I, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first one.

Examples. Flexibility. Various categories.

–  –  –

Symbolic A World figures King

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

Each square contains a stimulus line or figure 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 section. 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 (see sample 1).

2 points - draw only inside (see sample 2).

3 points - draw both outside and inside (synthesis - see sample 3).

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

–  –  –

12. Libra 6. Buoy on the sea

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

0 points - symmetrically internal and external space (sample 1) 1 point - asymmetrically outside the closed contour (sample 2).

2 points - asymmetrically inside a closed contour (sample 3).

3 points - completely asymmetrical: external details are different on both sides of the contour and the image inside the contour is asymmetrical (sample 4).

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 - name not given 1 point - name consisting of one word without a definition (see example 2 of the completed test notebook: figures 2, 4, 8, 10, 12) 2 points - a phrase, several words that reflect that what is drawn in the picture (see example 1 of the completed test book: figures 5, 9, 11) 3 points - a figurative name that expresses more than what is shown in the picture, i.e. a hidden meaning (see example 1 of the completed test book notebooks: 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.

3.2. AND TOTAL COUNTING

ON THE TEST OF DIVERGENT THOUGHT

(See the scores B - D - O - R - N, given in the sample test on the following pages).

–  –  –

3.3. EXAMPLES

AND PROCESSED TEST BOOK

3.3.1. Example 1 Scores for 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).

–  –  –

The result of the calculation on the main parameters of the test of divergent thinking 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 tools and vocabulary. Three points for each meaningful, witty, expressing hidden meaning 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.

A brief explanation of the processing of this example 1.

Fluency. - The maximum possible number of drawings is 12.

One point per drawing. There are 12 designs available. Rating - 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 preserved in the second picture without changes. In the third picture - 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. Last modified in picture ten per category live (F) gives a change of 6. This category is preserved in pictures 11-12. The total score for flexibility is six points.

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 (No. 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. Drawing 12 gets two points - drawing only inside a closed loop. The total score for originality is 31 points.

Elaboration - where details are placed to obtain an asymmetric image (asymmetry - 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. - Vocabulary is assessed here: 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 titles 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 overall total raw result of 85 was obtained by summing up the scores for all factors B + D + O + P + N = 12 + 6 + 31 + 13 + 23 = 85.

3.3.2. Example 2 Shkut Maxim, 3rd grade, 9 years old B=12 Total score=B+G+O+R+N=12+8+30+20+22=92 G=8 O=30 P=20 N=22

3.4. QUESTIONNAIRE OF CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

PERSONAL 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 (C), 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. 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 not marked on the template. All responses that are on squares that do not fit into holes are worth one (1) point, except for the last column, "Don't know." Answers in this column receive minus one (- 1) points in raw points and you are read from overall assessment. 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 individual question. This questionnaire was designed to assess the extent to which subjects consider themselves risk-taking (R), inquisitive (L), imaginative (C), and complex ideas (C). Of the 50 items, 12 statements relate to curiosity, 12 to imagination, 13 to the ability to take risks, and 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 checkboxes are checked. If the student gives all the answers that are not visible through the holes of the template, then their 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, and able to take risks and figure things out. difficult problems he is; all of the above personal factors closely related to creativity.

Scores can be obtained for each factor of the test (ability to take risks, imagination, etc.) individually, as well as a total score. 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.

3.5. S C A L A V I L I A M S A Data Processing

All eight factors - divergent thinking (4) and personal creative characteristics (4) of the Williams model are included in this scale for evaluation 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 trait (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.

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 the answer yes) and comments x 1 = Number answers in "open" answers, with the answer ^ "no" x 0 = Total bald = the sum of points in the higher rows.

The total scores of students can be ranked from the highest to the lowest ^ initial highest score 100, because 100 points is max1, small bH0 is the possible total raw score.

fishing - Glave 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.

–  –  –

This table was compiled by Williams - as a single, general table for the age range of 8-17 years.

Comparing the data of the child with the data of the table, one can build a structural profile of his creative indicators.

Detailed example data analysis will be given below, using examples of indicators of Russian children.

4.2. 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 the 0.05 significance level).

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 of 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 assess children's creativity.

N O R M A T I V N E DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS

(Russian data)

5.1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The survey involved children aged 5 to 17 living in St. Petersburg, Naryan-Mar, Ryazan and the Leningrad region.

The survey was conducted in 1997-99.

St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region - 2071 children, Naryan-Mar - 326 children, Ryazan - 321 children.

–  –  –

The pooled sample is 2628 children.

5.2. REGULATORY DATA FOR THE TEST

DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING

(Part I of the ATS set) Williams gives normative data in the form of 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, 13-17 years old

–  –  –

5.3. AGE DYNAMICS OF INDICATORS

CREATIVE THOUGHT

Let's analyze age-related changes various measures of creative thinking (see Table 2 and Figure 2-3 for averages, and Table 3 and Figure 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 decrease in the Fluency and Flexibility factors, and a slight increase in indicators with the increase in the age of children in the Originality factor. However, this change can only be considered qualitative; with a strict analysis, the differences between the indicators are unreliable. That is, we can conclude that with an increase in the age of children from 5 to 17 years, the data on the factors Fluency, Flexibility and Originality have approximately the same level, which indicates that there is no Graph of average values ​​for various indicators on the test of creative thinking SAR

–  –  –

age-related changes in the number of ideas, the variety of categories and the image of the picture in different places within a given space, i.e. there is no increase in these indicators with age.

These data, which seem paradoxical at first glance, are in good agreement with the data obtained using the figurative battery of Torrance's Creative Thinking tests, where a similar pattern is observed - indicators for figurative creative thinking factors have approximately the same level characteristics in the age range from 5 to 17 years (there is no growth with increasing age). It should be noted that some factors for evaluating creativity in Torrance and Williams are the same, and some are different.

By development, with increasing age, the average value for this factor increases (Student's t-test, differences are significant at 0.01 significance level).

This indicates that with increasing age, the asymmetry and complexity of children's drawings increase, which is associated with the level of creativity.

By name: the average raw score increases with age, which may indicate the development of the verbal component with age, the development of speech, an increase in vocabulary, the ability to figuratively express the hidden meaning of the picture using words (differences are statistically significant at 0.01 level ).

According to the general total indicator of creative thinking, there is also an increase with age (the differences are statistically significant), i.e., an increase in the total indicator is observed when the age changes from .5 to 17 years (this increase occurs due to development-asymmetry and the name).

5.4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN DATA

In table 2, in addition to Russian data, the last column also presents average values ​​for various factors of creative thinking, and table 3 shows standard deviations for a combined American sample of children aged 8-17.

That is, our children are somewhat superior to American children in the number of drawings, their diversity (changing different categories from drawing to drawing), and in the use of different parts of the space provided for drawings (both inside and outside the stimulus figure). American schoolchildren are significantly superior to ours in the asymmetry of drawings and the creative use of language - a verbal means for displaying the essence of a figurative task.

5.5. REGULATORY DATA FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (I I)

AND THE WILLIAMS SCALE (I I I) Table 4 shows the normative data for the questionnaire of personal creative characteristics (test II САР) and the Williams scale - (for parents and teachers) (test I I I САР).

–  –  –

Consider the data in Table 4. As noted earlier, we recommend conducting a questionnaire of personal creative characteristics (II I) from about the 5th grade of school, i.e. from 10-11 years old.

Scale at Williams (I I I) parents and teachers can fill in for a wider age range - for children from 5-17 years old.

The data in Table 4 for the personality characteristics questionnaire were obtained from a sample of children aged 11 to 16 (N=356 people).

As a rule, both parents and two or three teachers or tutors completed the scale.

Williams provides generalized data for parents and teachers (on the Williams scale). We provide data for parents and teachers separately, since a hypothesis was put forward earlier that these indicators differ from each other, which was confirmed (see Table 4).

Comparing Russian and American data on the personality characteristics questionnaire, it can be noted that for all factors:

Curiosity, Complexity, Risk-taking, and Total Score Russian averages are higher than the American ones, except for the Imagination scores, where the American data are higher (differences are statistically significant, Student's t-test).

Although the differences are significant, but in our opinion, taking into account various types of errors, we can assume that the differences are not so significant in terms of absolute value, and, in general, the self-reported data of Russian and American children are close. However, it should be noted that, according to the table, Russian children rate their creative personal characteristics higher than American children (except for Imagination).

The indicators of standard deviations for all factors are higher for the American sample, which characterizes a greater spread of children's opinions in this sample.

WILLIAMS SCALE

Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviations.

When comparing the opinions of teachers and parents, it should be noted that the average indicators of parents are significantly higher than those of teachers, and the standard deviation of parents is lower than the standard deviation of teachers. This means that, on the whole, parents rate their children's creative abilities higher than teachers, and in their assessment they are more homogeneous, that is, their opinions are less differentiated.

From the data in Table. Figure 4 shows that the indicators of our teachers almost coincide with the American ones combined for parents and teachers (both M and a).

5.6. COMBINED REGULATIONS DATA.

MATRIX OF CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS.

–  –  –

Let's analyze the given examples. In our case, for clarity, these two examples are shown in the same diagram.

The diagram shows the scales for some types of standard scores: z-scores (M = 0, a = 1), T-scores (M = 5 0, a = 10) and percentile ranks. If necessary, the researcher can add other types of standard scores he needs to the scheme. The chart below shows the weighted raw scores for all factors and the total creative test scores. The scheme was compiled in accordance with the normative data obtained for the combined sample of subjects.

As you know, the norm is usually taken as an interval of test indicators from M - 1o to M + 1a, the norm is highlighted in the diagram, in z-scores this interval ranges from -1 to + 1, on the scale of percentile ranks this interval ranges from 16 to 84 .

To analyze the individual data of each child, one should place his indicators on the diagram (the data of each child on a separate diagram - a separate sheet), then connect the dots using segments, as a result, we will obtain an individual structural profile of creative characteristics.

Consider the two examples above.

sso. sss

Example 1. - Shkud S.

(in the diagram, the data are indicated by -).

The structural profile is moderately heterogeneous - there are indicators both in the norm and much above the norm.

Indicators of creative thinking:

Fluency is a moderately high norm, the indicator is above average.

Flexibility - moderately high norm, above average.

Originality is a high standard, above average.

Elaboration is much higher than the norm, this indicator corresponds to the 98 percentile rank, i.e. the child’s indicator is higher than the indicators of 98 percent of the children in the standardization sample.

The title is above normal, the corresponding z-score is 1.25, the percentile rank is 89.

The overall total indicator on the creative thinking test is above the norm, the corresponding z-score is 1.5, the percentile rank is 93, i.e. the child’s indicator is above the general indicators of 93% and below 7% of children in the standardization sample.

In general, according to the test of creative thinking, it can be noted that all indicators are either above the norm or meet a high norm. The highest value is associated with Elaboration, i.e.

asymmetry - the complexity of the pattern, is also very high total score.

Questionnaire of personal characteristics (self-assessment).

The questionnaire is aimed at assessing the level characteristics of the individual associated with creative abilities.

Curiosity is a moderately high norm, above average.

Imagination - above the norm, - 91 percentile rank.

Difficulty - above the norm - 89 percentile rank.

Riskiness above the norm - 93 percentile rank.

The total score on the questionnaire is 87, data above the norm, correspond to z ~ 1.25, percentile rank = 88, i.e. the child's score is higher than 88% of the scores of children in the standardization sample.

Williams scale Parents rate their child's creative abilities very highly - the indicator is much higher than the norm, corresponds to a z-score = + 2, or 98 percentile rank.

The expert assessment of teachers corresponds to upper bound normal, above average, corresponds to a z-score + 1, percentile rank = 84.

Summarizing the above, it can be noted that all Shkud S.'s creative indicators are either above the norm, or within the high norm, all above the average. The overall indicator for the creative thinking test is approximately the same order as the overall indicator for the personal characteristics questionnaire, i.e. they correspond to each other, both the indicators of creative thinking and the child’s personal manifestations mark his high creative potential. The opinion of parents about him is also above the norm, and the expert assessment of the parents exceeds the indicators of the first two tests, i.e., it can be noted that, although in general, parents quite objectively assess the high abilities of the child, their assessment is somewhat overestimated.

The expert assessment of teachers is generally objective - the upper limit of the norm, but, nevertheless, it is somewhat underestimated, the child has a higher creative potential.

Example 2. Julia Ivanova (see.

fig.7) Creative thinking: all factors, except for the Name, correspond to a low standard, below average; the indicator of the Name factor is below the norm, the percentile rank is 11.

All indicators obtained according to the questionnaire of personal creative characteristics correspond to a low norm (23 percentile rank), below the average. These indicators are closely correlated with the indicators of the test of creative thinking and indicate an adequate assessment of their creative abilities by Ivanova Yu.

The expert assessment on the Williams scale by teachers has 31 percentile rank, corresponds to a low standard and is in excellent agreement with the data of the two previous tests, which also indicates an adequate assessment of the girl's creative manifestations by teachers. The expert assessment of the girl's creative manifestations by her parents is in the middle of the norm (50 percentile rank).

In this case, the indicators of all three tests correspond to a low standard (except for the Name indicator, which is below the norm), they are in good agreement with each other, with the exception of the parents' assessment, which is somewhat overestimated, parents overestimate their child's capabilities. The structural profile of Yu. Ivanova's creative characteristics is homogeneous.

I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the analysis of raw data.

It would be more correct to convert raw scores into standard scores for each factor, and only then proceed to obtain an overall standard score.

In this case, we use the calculation algorithm proposed by the author of the test in order to be able to compare the data of children from different countries.

Those who wish can independently make the transition from raw to standard scores for individual and general factors, using the data for M and a given in tables No. 2,3,4.

RELIABILITY. VALIDITY

(Russian data) RELIABILITY Retest reliability was determined on a sample of 101 people (14-16 years old) with an interval of three months - Spearman's rank correlation coefficient 0.75. For the second sample (93 people, 12-15 years old) with an interval of 1 year, the correlation coefficient is 0.70.

The correlation between the data of various expert psychologists evaluating test results is ~ 0.81-0.91.

VALIDITY Consider the correlations obtained on different samples for all three tests included in the Williams creative test set. We will explore how the correlations between various factors within each test, as well as cross-correlations between different tests.

CREATIVE THOUGHT TEST (I)

Intercorrelations between various test factors.

Most often, we calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (sometimes Pearson's moment product coefficients r).

The correlation coefficients between various factors and the total test indicator had the following values: (samples: N=65 people (12-13 years old); N=90 people (13-15 years old);

N = 33 people (15-16 years old); N=100 people (5-7 years old)).

Fluency and total (X) score 0.30-0.70 Flexibility and I 0.31-0.81 Originality i. X 0.57-0.90 Elaboration and E 0.58-0.91 Name and X 0.33-0.80 From the data obtained, we can conclude that a strong correlation is observed between the total indicator and Originality, between X and Elaboration . The lowest - between Fluency and the total indicator (which can be explained by the low discrimination of children's indicators for this factor, since most children manage to draw from 9-11 drawings - the spread of data on this factor is too small) . In general, all correlations are significant, from moderate to strong.

Correlations of various factors (B, D, O, P, N) with each other in pairs range from 0.25 to 0.75.

–  –  –

WILLIAMS SCALE (I I I) On this scale, parents and various teachers assessed the creative manifestations of children.

The correlation between the expert assessments of three different teachers, in pairs: (Spearman's rank correlation N = 85 people, 15-16 years old) was 0.65-0.74.

The correlation between the expert assessments of parents and teachers is 0.41.

Now let's compare the data of three different tests with each other.

The correlation between various factors of test I (creative thinking) and test II (personal characteristics questionnaire) ranges from 0.40-0.58 (i.e., average).

The correlation between the total indicator of the I test (creative thinking) and the expert assessment of parents (Williams a-Sh scale) is 0.41, and with the expert assessment of teachers (Williams a-Sh scale) is 0.53, i.e., the correlation is average in strength.

The correlation between the total indicator of the II test (children's self-assessment of their creative personal qualities and the indicator of the III test - the expert assessment of their creative abilities by their parents) is 0.44, and with the expert assessment of teachers 0.55 (moderate positive correlation).

Possible links of creative indicators with other characteristics were studied.

Correlation between the total indicator of test I (creative thinking) with some personality traits of children, namely:

anxiety, impulsivity and aggressiveness were not significant (100 people, 5-7 years old).

The correlation between the level of creativity (I test), self-assessment of creativity (I test) and indicators of intellectual lability (Kozlova's method) is insignificant (65 people, 12-13 years old).

A hypothesis was put forward about a higher level of creativity in individuals with a pronounced "right hemispheric profile".

On the example of a sample of gymnasium students aged 12-13 years (65 people), a relationship was obtained between the indicators of creativity - the test of creative thinking (I) and self-assessment of creative personal characteristics (I I) with the type of functional interhemispheric asymmetry-correlation turned out to be insignificant. It is possible that in the formation of creativity and creative activity The leading role is played by the pair work of both hemispheres of the brain.

The correlation between the total indicator of the creative thinking test (I) and school success (average school score) is not significant.

The correlation between the total indicator of the CAP creative thinking test and expert assessments of the creative personality traits of children performed by teachers (three teachers) using the Renzulli questionnaire is in the range of 0.41-0.64.

Was also held correlation analysis to study the possible relationships between the factors of the creative thinking test САР (I) and the data of the Cattell Personality Questionnaire (12 factors).

Significant but weak correlations of all creative factors with only three factors of the Cattell test were obtained.

The correlation coefficients were equal:

Creative factors and factor B (high-low intelligence) 0.35;

Creative factors and factor F (cheerfulness, carelessness-concern) 0.30;

Creative factors and factor H (courage-timidity) 0.25;

Correlations with other factors of the Cattell test are insignificant.

CONCLUSION After adaptation, we came to the conclusion that the Williams creative test set is a reliable and valid psychodiagnostic tool aimed at studying various creative characteristics of children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old.

The tests are intended for psychologists, as well as for educators and social workers who can use the test after appropriate training.

Tests do not require a long time for their implementation and processing of results. Allows you to compare the indicators of creative thinking with the self-esteem of children of their own personality traits associated with creativity, as well as with an expert assessment by parents and teachers of the creative manifestations of children.

I would like to express my gratitude to those who participated in the adaptation of these tests: their conscientious and creative approach helped a lot in the work. A huge contribution to the work was made by: Golovchanskaya V.V., Shenberg L.S., Beshkareva O.T., Bokiy T.A., Timofeeva Yu.A., Sklyarova T.V., Sizova O.B., Tsvetova S. A., Sorokina N. V., Sokolova I. N., Mironova I. V., Orlova E. V.

(Ryazan).

APPENDIX

Creative tests of Williams, of course, can be used to assess the creative abilities of adults.

Obtaining the relevant normative data is a matter of the near future. At present, I offer you the opportunity to see and feel how fulfilled creative personalities perform tests. The four test notebooks presented below are filled in by well-known St. Petersburg artists whose works are presented in various art galleries in our country and abroad: Yu. I. Galetsky, T. A. Zakharova, E. M. Gerasimov. Many works by these artists are exhibited in the G. Mikhailov Gallery on Liteiny Prospekt in St. Petersburg. G. Mikhaylov is a well-known person in Russia, a fine connoisseur of painting, a philanthropist, the founder of art galleries in our country and in Germany. For many years he discovered new artists, helped them to realize their creative potential.

The next test book is filled in by V. N. Gruzdev, a well-known artist and writer, art theorist who studies the psychology of visual perception and color theory.

The appendix is ​​completed by tests performed by the well-known artist Alexander Florensky, a member of the Mitki Association of Artists.

I express my deep and sincere gratitude to everyone who took part in the creation of this original and undoubtedly necessary application.

8L; BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Williams F. E. Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP).

D.O.K. Publishers. Inc. buffalo. New York 14214, 1980.

2. Williams F. E. Classrooms ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling. D.O.K. Publishers. buffalo. N.Y., 1969.

3. Williams F. E. Teachers without fear. D.O.K. Publishers. buffalo.

4. Williams F. E. Performance levels of a school program survey.

D.O.K. Publishers. buffalo. N.Y., 1979.

5. Tunick E. E. Johnson Creativity Inventory. SPb.: SPb UPM, 1997.

6. Tunik E. E. Psychodiagnostics of creative thinking. Creative tests. SPb.: SPb UPM, 1997.

A membership-based scientific creative public organization, consisting of ... "

“which block the realization of maternal potential. In the study, infertility is considered as crisis situation in the life of a woman, her ... "

“Protection of the rights of orphans and children left without parental care. Guardianship and custody of minors. As part of the implementation of comprehensive measures to improve the demographic situation in Russia, the Government Russian Federation, organs executive power subjects of Ros...»

Pedagogy and Psychology 8. Napalkov S. V. On the Humanitarian Importance of Web-Quest Technology in Teaching Mathematics // Humanitarian Traditions mathematics education in Russia: Sat. Art. participants of the Sun...»

“General Pedagogy 43 children's self-assessment of their own results, fixing the adequacy of assessing their abilities in the field of choreographic art. To do this, the teacher-choreographer can use personality questionnaires, achievement tests, drawing tests, sociometry. How..."

"MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "KUBAN STATE AGRARIAN UNIVERSITY" LECTURE SUMMARY on discipline (module) Innovative technologies in animal husbandry Code and direction under ... "

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State Pedagogical University"Institute of Pedagogy and Childhood Psychology MATERIALS FOR..."

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State Pedagogical University" Institute of Psychology Department social psychology, conflictol ... "

“PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES UDC 37: 372.8; 37: 01: 001.8 Livshits Rudolf Lvovich Livshits Rudolf Lvovich Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, D.Phil., Professor, Head of the Department of Philosophy Head of the Philosophy and Social and Socio-Political Disciplines and Political Stu..."

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher vocational education"Ural State Pedagogical University" E.V. Pryamikova, N.V. Ershova Theory and practice of studying social science at school Teaching aid Ekaterinburg UDC 372.83 B...»

«UDK 796.425 Fatyanov Igor Aleksandrovich Fatyanov Igor Aleksandrovich Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, PhD in Education Science, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and easy athletics Theory and Methodology of Athlet...»

"MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION MOSCOW STATE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FEDERAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM DISORDERS..." 2003.3. Zimnyaya I. A. Pedagogical psychology / I. A. Zimnyaya. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1997.4. Pedagogy of vocational education: tutorial for stu... "Kokshetau state university them. Sh. Ualikhanov, Republic ... ”a manual for general education. organizations / S. M. Saakyan, V. F. Butuzov. - M. : Education, 2015. - 240 p. : ill. - (... "

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 the social nature of thinking as the highest mental function;

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

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 sessions or no classes 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 - the following methods:

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

P. Torrens test (adapted for research purposes at the Center for 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

Drawing

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.

The total score for elaboration (P) is the sum of scores for 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 game 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: a balloon is used as a ball). Answers were rated 0 points for creativity.

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

Associations obtained through the use of some real signs object while abstracting from its properties that are "exploited" everyday. 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, fragility, 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 uses. 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).

Methods of experimental influence

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. In socio-psychological training, we used various techniques: art therapy, body-oriented approach, drawing, fairy tale therapy, play 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 refers to 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 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 data (method χ 2 Pearson's goodness-of-fit test) showed that there are no significant differences between the experimental and control groups for the studied factor (see Table 1).

Table 1

FLUENCE factor

Group

High level

Average 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

Average 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 processing data 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

Average 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

Average 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

Average 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

High

Average

Short

Number of people

Qty

human

Number of people

experimental

Control

55,6

22,4

In our opinion, given 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 conclusions:

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 it can be noted that there is a tendency for the indicators of the average level to prevail 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 obtained data (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

Average 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 test of agreement) 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

Average 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 for identifying 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: conclusions:

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 worked with some children individually, according to the program plans used in the usual practice of classes in kindergarten.

Classes in the experimental group were held for six weeks, one lesson per week. The training sessions included different kinds psychotechnics (drawing, modeling, art therapy, game therapy, dramatization of stories with finger puppets, writing rhymed 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 factor under study (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 G sign criterion 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 the effective development of the level of flexibility of thinking, since it does not give statistically significant changes in the condition of the participants in the training.

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 unchanged. the same level, 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% (see Fig. 4).

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

Average 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-signs 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 on the factor "flexibility" in the control group using the criterion of signs G did not statistically confirm the fact of changes 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 the overall level of creative thinking in terms of the "flexibility" factor in the subjects of the control group has not changed, although the total number of negative shifts - 8 indicates that almost half of the subjects in this group there were 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% (1st slice - 27.5%, 2nd slice - 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

Average 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 in the studied factor between the experimental and control groups.

Analysis of the test results using the G signs criterion method by 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 among 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, the number of subjects with a high level of development in terms of the "development" factor decreased by almost four times compared to the first measurement (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 test of agreement) 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

Average 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 in terms of the “development” factor using the G sign criterion method (see Tables 18.1., 18.2).

APPENDIX

Attachment 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

Technique: body-oriented approach, drawing.

Target: relieving stress, creating positive images, activating the child's creative potential.

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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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

Technique:

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

Technique: game therapy

Target: development of sensorimotor and cognitive spheres, development of 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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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

Technique: 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 composition 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

Technique: body-oriented approach

Target: development of creative imagination in motion

Game progress: Dancing requires specially selected music. The psychologist says: “Today you and I ended up in Fairyland, whose inhabitants love to dance very much. 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

Technique: 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. Most good decisions 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

Annex 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

Annex 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 on adult assessment

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/p

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")

E. E. tunic

MODIFIED

CREATIVEWILLIAMS TESTS

SPEECH St. Petersburg 2003

Introduction 5

Chapter 1. Description of the creative test suite (sar) 7

What is SAR? 7

Who is the SAR for? eight

What does SAR measure? 9

Williams model. Creative factors 11

Chapter 2. Guidelines for conducting tests. Test items... 16

2.1. Test of divergent (creative) thinking 16

Instruction. Procedure16

Test book18

2.2.Test of personal creative characteristics 21

Instruction. Method of carrying out21

Questionnaire. "Self-assessment of the creative characteristics of the individual" 22

Questionnaire Answer Sheet 24

Key to the questionnaire25

2.3. Williams scale. Questionnaire for parents and teachers. . 26

Instruction. Method of carrying out26

Answer sheet27

Text questionnaire for parents and teachers

by assessing the creativity (creativity) of the child. . 28

Chapter 3. Processing of experimental data 32

3.1. Divergent (creative) thinking test.

Data processing 32

The final score on the divergent thinking test... 40

Examples of a completed and processed test book. 42

Example 1 42

Example 2 47

Questionnaire of creative personality characteristics. Data processing50

Williams scale. Data processing 51

Chapter 4. Regulatory data. Reliability. Validity (according to Williams) 53

Regulatory data. Data interpretation 53

Reliability. Validity 55

Chapter 5. Regulatory data and their analysis. (Russian data). . 56

Sample description 56

Normative data for the divergent (creative) thinking test (part I of the CAP set) 56

Age dynamics of indicators of creative thinking.. 58

Comparative analysis of Russian and American data.. 61

Normative data for the Personality Characteristics Questionnaire (II) and the Williams Scale (III) 63

Consolidated regulatory data. Matrices of creative characteristics 65

Examples of experimental data analysis. Examples of structural profiles 70

Chapter 6. Reliability. Validity. (Russian data) 75

Conclusion 79

Annex 80

References 96

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, Torrance's creative thinking tests are most widely used - an adapted version made by the author of this brochure, a battery of creative tests created on the basis of the Guildford and Torrance tests and an adapted version of the Johnson Creativity Questionnaire aimed at assessing and self-assessing characteristics creative personality.

Guilford's divergent thinking test is intended primarily for the adult population, the creative battery consists of rapid tests, and the Torrens creative thinking tests are very time-consuming to administer and process data.

Therefore, it became necessary 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 note one more important aspect. As you know, the term "creativity" refers to the ability of a special kind - the ability to generate unusual ideas, deviate from traditional patterns in thinking, and quickly resolve problem situations. Creativity covers a certain set of mental and personal qualities that contribute to creative manifestation. It would be desirable that the psychodiagnostic tool contains the ability to assess both cognitive and personality-individual creative characteristics.

All of the above requirements are satisfied by the F. Williams Creative Test Set (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, the Divergent Thinking Test, requires 20-25 minutes to complete the twelve suggested drawings. 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 Creative Personality 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 an expert opinion (experts - teachers and parents) about the creative manifestations of a given child (creative factors, the same as in the first and second parts of the test, which the child fills out). 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 ATS test set is well-known and widely used in various countries of the world.

We hope that in our country it will be recognized and in demand when measuring and evaluating the creative characteristics of children and adolescents.