Creativity Presentation


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Creativity Presentation

  1. 1. Utilizing Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration to Enhance Creativity and Vocabulary Use for Improving Reading Comprehension in Third through Sixth Grade Students A Dissertation Proposal Defense Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree Union University Megan L. Salemi July 14, 2009
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Achievement gaps among different groups of students have haunted reformers searching for equal educational opportunities for all students (Kozol, 1991; Hilliard, 2000; Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator, & Madaus, 1995). </li></ul><ul><li>These gaps have been documented by researchers in both intelligence and achievement (Hilliard, 2003; Lomax, et al., 1994). </li></ul><ul><li>The No Child Left Behind Act functions as a benchmark to hold public schools accountable for the academic performance of all students (NCLB, 2001, sect. 1001). </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introduction (cont.) <ul><li>Teachers are often faced with a conflict between learners’ needs and state mandated requirements (Brimijoin, 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Research shows that “high-stakes” standardized testing to produce maximum learning at minimum performance standards hinders teachers’ ability to use the best instructional strategies (Hurren, Rutledge, & Garvin, 2006; Caughy & O’Campo, 2006; Hilliard, 2003). </li></ul><ul><li>The complicated nature of learning and the brain and underscores the limited scope of a standardized test at measuring teaching and learning (Chavez-Eakle, Graff- Guerroro, Vaugier, & Cruz-Fuentes, 2007; Douville, 2004; Jitendra, Sczesniak, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005). </li></ul>
  4. 4. Introduction (cont.) <ul><li>Creativity provides a framework that could serve as a way to impact student achievement on a summative assessment while also attending to the learner’s educational needs regardless of race or socioeconomic background (Ford, Moore, & Milner, 2005; Tieso, 2005; Respress & Lutfi, 2006). </li></ul><ul><li>Research also highlights the central role vocabulary plays in high achievement on standardized assessments (Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2006; Barry, Heubsch, & Burhop, 2008; Parcel & Geschwender, 1995). </li></ul><ul><li>The combination of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration have become widely accepted as one way of defining and measuring creativity (Wang & Horng, 2002; Russo, 2004; Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005; Matud, Rodriguez, & Grande, 2007). </li></ul>
  5. 5. Research Questions <ul><li>Question 1. What is the effect of instruction emphasizing fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration on vocabulary achievement and reading comprehension as measured by the Degrees of Word Meaning test and the STAR Reading test? </li></ul>
  6. 6. Research Questions (cont.) <ul><li>Question 2. Will the use of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration in vocabulary instruction have a statistically significant impact on students’ creativity scores as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Research Questions (cont.) <ul><li>Question 3. Is there an effect on how students rate their own creativity as a result of instruction emphasizing fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration as measured by the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory? </li></ul>
  8. 8. Professional Literature <ul><li>Traditional versus Nontraditional Instructional Practices </li></ul><ul><li>The Need for Creativity and Vocabulary Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Creative Thinking Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary Development with Creativity </li></ul>
  9. 9. Traditional versus Nontraditional Instructional Practices <ul><li>Educators desiring more for their students than a proficiency score are viewed as nontraditional thinkers in the current direction of educational policy (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research has shown that using minimum proficiency requirements on a summative state assessment does not benefit students (Mendoza, 2006; Lomax, et al., 1995). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The repercussions associated with not meeting NCLB requirements reinforce instructional practices that increase students’ scores on the yearly summative assessment (Liston, Whitcomb, & Borko, 2007; McMillian, 2003). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Language and discussion reflect a significant portion of student achievement (Vygotsky, 1978; Graves, 2007). </li></ul>
  10. 10. The Need for Creativity and Vocabulary Instruction <ul><li>During instructional time complex ways of understanding are necessary for students’ comprehension (Williamson, Bondy, Langly, & Mayne, 2005; Hurren, et al., 2006). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative production involves fluency, originality, and elaboration of ideas (Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Wu & Chiou, 2008). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of these skills are necessary for vocabulary development and increased communication between students and their peers and teachers (Graves, 2007). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New learning is developed and enhanced when it is applied to a variety of contexts (National Research Council [NRC], 2000, p. 51-78). </li></ul><ul><li>Learning reorganizes neural networks and structure underscoring the educational need for effective vocabulary instruction (NRC, 2000). </li></ul>
  11. 11. Creative Thinking Instruction <ul><li>Neuroscience research has found that creativity is a complex mental process involving many brain areas (Mashal, Faust, Hendler, Jung-Beeman, 2007; Grabner, Fink, Neubauer, 2007; Abraham & Windmann, 2007). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking tests measure creativity using fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration of ideas. They are used as the primary assessment measure for student qualification into gifted and exceptional programs (Torrance, 1974; Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, & Bandalos, 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Martindale’s (1978) findings that creativity is multi-faceted brain activity and not a fixed individual trait (Albrecht, 2002; El-Murad & West, 2004). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Educators and researchers have written guides attempting to increase the quality of instruction for all students through a creative brain-based approach (Treffinger, et al., 2003a; Treffinger, et al., 2003b; Treffinger, et al., 2003c; Tate, 2003). </li></ul>
  12. 12. Creative Thinking Instruction (cont.) <ul><li>It has been difficult for educators to widely, effectively implement creativity instruction in educational settings (Plucker & Runco, 1998). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Narrowly focused studies may have further confounded the understanding of creativity in educational practice (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A neuroscience approach does not explain individual differences in creative productions or answer the question of whether creativity can be taught (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Creative Problem Solving is an instructional method constructed to teach and measure creativity as a problem solving process (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investment theory defines creativity as convergence and interaction of a variety of elements and can be used to enhance creativity (Sternberg, 2007; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Zhang & Sterberg, 2000; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004; Sternberg, 2000). </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration <ul><li>Divergent thinking can be quantified by the total number of responses given (fluency), the total number of responses that are statistically different from a group (originality), and the number of problems found given a context (elaboration) (Osborn, 1963; Treffinger, et al., 2006). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IQ, fluency, and originality components of the TTCT were the best predictors of the quantity and quality of creative production in Torrance’s 40-year longitudinal study (Quantify: fluency R 2 = .63, originality R 2 = .46; Quality: flexibility R 2 = .58) (Cramond, et. al, 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IQ scores accounted for only 9% of the variance in creative achievement (Cramond, et al., 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some researchers deem divergent thinking as an important component of creativity deserving further study (Guilford, 1950; Torrance, 1966; Vartanian, Martindale, & Kwaitkowski, 2003). </li></ul>
  14. 14. Vocabulary Development with Creativity <ul><li>Similar to creativity, vocabulary learning utilizes different parts of the brain (Jincho, et al., 2008; Mills, et al., 2004). </li></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary has been termed as the “middle ground in learning to read” (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, p. 1). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some studies highlight the importance of this vocabulary skill in reading comprehension, especially for struggling readers (Braze, et al., 2007). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Examination of a four-year vocabulary program revealed that poor readers in third through fifth grade increased word recognition skills significantly through comparisons/contrasts of known to unknown words, word analysis, organization of language, and strong word decoding skills (Gaskins, et al., 1988). </li></ul>
  15. 15. Research Methods <ul><li>Quasi-experimental mixed-method study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The study will use a pre- and post-test design to investigate the effects instruction with creativity will have on students’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent variable – vocabulary instruction utilizing fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependent variables – vocabulary scores (Degrees of Word Meaning), reading comprehension (STAR test scores), creativity scores (TTCT), students’ perceptions about their own creativity (Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Research Methods (cont.) <ul><li>Assessment Scores – Quantitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Degrees of Word Meaning Forms A and B </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>STAR Reading computerized pre- and post-test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inventory – Quantitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Structured Interviews with teachers, teacher feedback, and teacher questions – Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative data about the implementation of a creativity program in regular education classrooms </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Research Sample <ul><li>Two small, private urban elementary schools in West Tennessee </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approximately 145 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th , and 6 th grade students will be included. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers of randomly selected classes will be included (8 teachers total). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At least 35% of students in both schools qualify for Title I Free or Reduced Lunch. </li></ul><ul><li>At least 50% of students in these schools are minority students. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Research Procedures <ul><li>First Instrument: Degrees of Word Meaning Test </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Forms A & B will be used as pre- and post-tests. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student confidentiality will be maintained. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Second Instrument: STAR Reading Test </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Up to 5 STAR tests can be taken by computer within one year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student confidentiality will be maintained. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Third Instrument: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both A & B forms of the Verbal and Figural tests will be used to determine a total creativity score. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fourth Instrument: Structured Interviews with teachers, teacher feedback, and teacher questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher confidentiality will be maintained. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers and participating classes will be randomly selected and offered the option to participate or refuse participation. </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Research Timeline <ul><li>Spring 2009: Topic Selection and approval: Committee assignments </li></ul><ul><li>Spring 2009-Fall 2009: Introduction and Literature Review </li></ul><ul><li>May 2009: Submitted draft to Dr. Mayfield, committee chair </li></ul><ul><li>June 2009: Submitted draft to all committee members </li></ul><ul><li>July 2009: Dissertation proposal meeting </li></ul><ul><li>July 2009: Oral comprehensive exams with committee </li></ul><ul><li>August 2009: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval </li></ul><ul><li>August 2009: Formal approval from participating schools </li></ul><ul><li>August/September 2009: Select teachers and classrooms for control and treatment groups & gain permission </li></ul><ul><li>September 2009: Administer all pre-tests (K-T SAM, TTCT, reading and vocabulary), organize all pre-test data, provide weekly CPS lessons, prompt teachers in treatment group each Thursday </li></ul><ul><li>October 2009: Provide weekly CPS lessons, prompt teachers in treatment group each Thursday, treatment teachers complete structured interview </li></ul><ul><li>November 2009: Provide weekly CPS lessons, prompt teachers in treatment group each Thursday </li></ul><ul><li>December 2009: Provide weekly CPS lessons, prompt teachers in treatment group each Thursday, administer all post-tests </li></ul><ul><li>January 2010: Organize and enter all data, begin writing Chapters 4 and 5 </li></ul><ul><li>February 2010: Analyze data, writing and editing Chapters 4 and 5 </li></ul><ul><li>March 2010: Interpret results with Dr. Mayfield, committee chair, submit Chapters 4 and 5 to all committee members </li></ul><ul><li>April 2010: Submit Chapters 1-5 to Union University Education Department for review </li></ul>