Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru//
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru//
Introduction
Conclusion
References
Introduction
Intelligence is the ability to carry out the process of cognition and to effectively solve problems, in particular when mastering a new range of life tasks. There are general abilities associated with more general conditions of the leading forms of human activity and special ones that are associated with individual types of activity.
General abilities include, first of all, the properties of the mind, and therefore general abilities are often called general mental abilities or intelligence. There are many definitions of intelligence, but there is still no generally accepted formula.
In the psychological literature there are at least three meanings of the concept “intelligence”:
1) general ability to cognition and problem solving, which determines the success of any activity and underlies other abilities;
2) the system of all cognitive abilities of an individual (from sensation to thinking);
3) the ability to solve problems without external trial and error, the opposite of the ability to intuitive knowledge.
The main criterion for identifying intelligence as an independent reality is its function in regulating behavior. When they talk about intelligence as a certain ability, they primarily rely on its adaptive significance for humans.
According to the second point of view, intelligence is associated with the speed of perception or response to external stimuli.
Today, many psychologists view intelligence as an individual's ability to adapt to the environment.
Understanding intelligence in a broad sense as the mental abilities and skills necessary for the effective operation of these mechanisms, we can say that it is a tool with the help of which consciousness performs a cognitive function. The most important intellectual ability, without which it is impossible to consciously solve cognitive problems, is the ability of thinking - mind, reason.
Productivity of thinking depends not only on genetically determined characteristics of intelligence, but also on erudition, competence, erudition, mastery of methods and skills of mental work. Intelligence is not just a natural gift, but the result of assimilation of culture, mastery of spiritual values created by humanity.
Intelligence is one of the most studied concepts, and there is much debate surrounding it. Some psychologists believe that intelligence is determined by a single ability or skill, while others believe that it is a whole set of diverse individual abilities.
Chapter 1. Research on intellectual and creative abilities
1.1 General characteristics of intellectual abilities
Intelligence (from Latin intellectus - understanding, cognition) - in a broad sense, the totality of all cognitive functions of an individual. In a narrower sense - thinking, the highest cognitive process. Abroad, intelligence is often equated with giftedness.
The main criterion for identifying intelligence as an independent reality is its function in regulating behavior. When they talk about intelligence as a certain ability, they primarily rely on its adaptive significance for humans and higher animals. Intelligence, as V. Stern believed, is a certain general ability to adapt to new living conditions. An adaptive act (according to Stern) is the solution of a life task carried out through action with a mental (“mental”) equivalent of an object, through “action in the mind.” Thanks to this, the subject solves a certain problem here and now without external behavioral tests, correctly and one-time: tests, hypothesis testing are carried out in the “internal plan of action.”
According to L. Polanyi, intelligence refers to one of the ways of acquiring knowledge. But, in the opinion of most other authors, the acquisition of knowledge (assimilation, according to J. Piaget) is only a side aspect of the process of applying knowledge in solving life problems. It is important that the task is truly new, or at least has a component of novelty.
According to M.K. Akimova, the basis of intelligence is precisely mental activity, while self-regulation only provides the level of activity necessary to solve a problem. This point of view is supported by E.A. Golubeva, who believes that activity and self-regulation are the basic factors of intellectual productivity, and adds efficiency to them.
During an intellectual act, consciousness dominates and regulates the decision process, while the subconscious acts as an object of regulation, that is, in a subdominant position.
Social intelligence as an important component of complex intellectual abilities is the ability to identify the essential characteristics of a communicative situation and the ability to outline possible ways of consciously indirectly influencing the communicative intentions of other people in order to achieve one’s own or general objective or communicative goals.
The development of ideas about the structure of intelligence and the increase in the capabilities of statistical and mathematical methods have led to a polarization of points of view. Further research into social intelligence and discussions about its nature took place against the backdrop of the development of multifactorial models of intelligence. These discussions have heightened the availability of empirical evidence showing that impaired formal logical abilities (due to developmental delay or injury) can be combined with well-developed or intact social intelligence. Let us dwell in more detail on the polar points of view.
According to the first model, the knowledge of social and physical realities is based on the same intellectual mechanism. The specificity of social cognition is determined not by special cognitive operations, but by the use of these operations in the process of interaction with “special” objects, i.e. subjects endowed with their own mental activity, whose position one can take.
The basis of social cognition is the ability to causally connect externally observable behavior and various mental states of people. Any objects given in the external material plane (visual signs of physical objects or obvious consequences of actions) are cognized at an earlier age, and objects that cannot be directly perceived (internal forms of mental activity or hidden properties of physical objects) - at a later age.
According to the second model, a single abstract intelligence is responsible for knowledge about social and physical reality that can be generalized at the conceptual level. It distinguishes different levels. It has been suggested that the difference between academic intelligence and social intelligence is not that they are different types of intelligence, but that the same intelligence manifests itself differently in solving two different types of problems.
The third model is essentially an attempt to describe multiple forms of intelligence and a departure from the traditional single-factor understanding of intelligence. Related to this is the identification of various forms of non-academic intelligence - practical, emotional, the level of development of which may not correlate with verbal intelligence. The authors believe that social intelligence is a completely special ability, although it is part of the general structure of intelligence. Therefore, social intelligence can be considered as a separate type of intelligence.
L.S. Vygotsky pointed out that in addition to verbal-logical (abstract), there are other forms of intelligence: emotional (evaluation), practical, or visual-effective, etc. Theoretical intelligence is based on verbal-logical conceptual forms. Practical intelligence - the ability to act intelligently in relation to inanimate and animate objects on the basis of visual-effective thinking - may be in inverse relation to theoretical intelligence.
The fourth model, which considers the social intelligence ratio as the optimal level of development of general intelligence in combination with certain personality traits, deserves special attention.
Intelligence can be defined through the procedure for measuring it, as the ability to solve test problems designed in a certain way.
1.2 Basic approaches to solving the problem of intellectual abilities and creativity
There are at least three main approaches to the problem of creativity. They can be formulated as follows.
1. There are no creative abilities as such. Intellectual talent acts as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the creative activity of an individual. The main role in determining creative behavior is played by motivations, values, and personality traits (A. Tannenbaum, A. Olokh, D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya, A. Maslow and others). These researchers include cognitive talent, sensitivity to problems, and independence in uncertain and difficult situations as the main traits of a creative personality.
2. Creative ability (creativity) is an independent factor, independent of intelligence. In a “softer” version, this theory states that there is a slight correlation between the level of intelligence and the level of creativity.
3. A high level of intelligence development implies a high level of creative abilities and vice versa. There is no creative process as a specific form of mental activity. This point of view was and is shared by almost all specialists in the field of intelligence (D. Wexler, R. Weisberg, G. Eysenck, L. Theremin, R. Sternberg and others).
Eysenck, based on significant (but still low) correlations between IQ and Guilford tests for divergent thinking, expressed the opinion that creativity is a component of general mental talent. Weisberg argues that creative thinking is diagnosed by the quality of the product, not by how it is produced. Every cognitive process, from his point of view, is based on past knowledge and entails its transformation in accordance with the requirements of the task.
Recently, Sternberg's concept has become widespread. According to Sternberg, intelligence is involved both in solving new problems and in automating actions. In relation to the external world, intellectual behavior can be expressed in adaptation, choice of the type of external environment or its transformation. If a person implements the third type of relationship, then he will exhibit creative behavior.
The lack of a clear connection between intelligence and creativity has become the basis of two research approaches that are alternative to the reductionist one. They can be designated as personal-motivational and psychometric.
Chapter 2. Abilities of intelligence and creativity
2.1 Methods for diagnosing intelligence and creativity
To identify the level of development of intelligence and creativity, the following methods are used.
Methodology 1. Diagnosis of personal creativity (E.E. Tunik)
Appointment of the test.
This technique allows you to determine four features of a creative personality: curiosity (L); imagination (B); complexity (C) and risk appetite (R). Despite its address to adolescence, it does not lose its predictive power in adulthood.
Interpretation.
Main criterion manifestations of the studied factors:
Curiosity. A subject with pronounced curiosity most often asks everyone and about everything, he likes to study the structure of mechanical things, he is constantly looking for new ways (methods) of thinking, he likes to study new things and ideas, he looks for different possibilities for solving problems, he studies books, games, maps, paintings etc. to learn as much as possible.
Imagination. Imaginative subject: makes up stories about places he has never seen; imagines how others will solve a problem that he solves himself. Dreams about different places and things; likes to think about phenomena that he has not encountered; sees what is depicted in paintings and drawings in an unusual way, not like others; often feels surprised by different ideas and events.
Complexity. A subject focused on understanding complex phenomena shows interest in complex things and ideas; likes to set himself difficult tasks; likes to study something without outside help; shows persistence to achieve his goal; offers too complex solutions to the problem than seems necessary; he likes challenging tasks.
Risk appetite. It manifests itself in the fact that the subject will defend his ideas, not paying attention to the reaction of others; sets high goals for himself and will try to achieve them; allows for the possibility of mistakes and failures; loves to learn new things or ideas and does not give in to other people's opinions; is not overly concerned when classmates, teachers, or parents express their disapproval; prefers to have a chance to take risks to see what happens.
Method 2. Intelligence test by G. Eysenck (IQ test).
Appointment of the test. The technique is intended to assess intellectual abilities and determine the extent to which the subject has non-standard thinking. For the study of people from 18 to 50 years old with at least secondary education.
Instructions for the test. You have exactly 30 minutes to complete the test. Don't stay too long on one task. Perhaps you are on the wrong path and it is better to move on to the next task. But don't give up too easily either; Most tasks can be solved if you show a little persistence. Continue to think about the task or give up trying and move on to the next one - common sense will tell you. Remember that towards the end of the series the tasks generally become more difficult. Any person is able to solve part of the proposed tasks, but no one is able to cope with all the tasks in half an hour.
2.2 Development of intelligence and creativity
The structure of the intellect includes a complex of heterogeneous factors; its requests are diverse and ambiguous. This is a prerequisite for various approaches to understanding intelligence and its factors.
The essence of intelligence is seen in the effectiveness of adaptation and behavior in the mental sphere. For a long period, intelligence tests served as a medium for measuring what was supposed to be some psychological reality, the essence of which was very vague. The reduction of intellectual differences to IQ stemmed from the idea of intelligence as a general, innate ability that underlies all our achievements and is measured by tests. These ideas were confirmed by the relative stability of IQ, established during repeated tests of the same groups of individuals over a certain period of time.
In its most general form, the concept of creativity includes the past, concomitant and subsequent characteristics of the process as a result of which a person or group of people creates something that did not exist before.
The main factors of creativity are recognized as: originality, semantic flexibility, figurative adaptive flexibility, semantic spontaneous flexibility, the ability to acutely perceive shortcomings, in harmony, etc.
Diagnosis of intelligence as a general “mental ability” that determines achievement in many areas of activity.
From the point of view of diagnosing creativity, existing approaches and methods can be presented in the structure of another classification, the basis of which is the regulation or unregulated activity of the subject when performing a test aimed at identifying the level of development of creative abilities.
Conclusion
Intelligence (from Latin intellectus - knowledge, understanding, reason) - the ability of thinking, rational knowledge.
Scientists of various specializations have long been studying intelligence and human intellectual capabilities, because intelligence and creativity (non-standard solutions) acquire special value in our age of universal high-speed computerization.
In Russian psychology, the problem of integrating intellectual abilities and creativity occurred, but it was not expressed as clearly as in American or Western European science. The main reason was the abandonment of the theory and practice of testing using the IQ system and the study of intellectual abilities mainly by the method of problem situations, which, as is known, directly oriented the researcher towards the interpretation of intelligence (primarily thinking) as a complex characteristic that considers creativity as necessary component.
Psychological diagnostics today has a large arsenal of various techniques that allow us to establish individual differences between people according to certain psychological characteristics. Methods for diagnosing intelligence and creativity occupy a special place among them, since their use has far-reaching social consequences.
Currently, ability tests are complex. Creativity is considered as a function of an integral personality that cannot be reduced to intelligence, depending on a whole complex of its psychological characteristics. Accordingly, the central direction in the study of creativity is the identification of personal qualities with which it is associated. Activities that result in the creation of new material and spiritual values.
References
1. Eysenck G.Yu. Test your intellectual abilities. - Republic, 2002. - 250 p.
2. Akimova M.K., Kozlova V.T. Diagnostics of mental development of children. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006. - 240 p.
3. Ananyev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. M.: Nauka, 2006. - 550 p.
4. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Intellectual activity as a problem of creativity. Rostov-on-Don "Phoenix", 2003. - 375 p.
5. Bodalev A.A. On the directions and tasks of scientific development of the problem of abilities // Questions of psychology. 1984. - No. 1. - P. 5-7.
6. Golubeva E.A. Abilities and personality. M.: Prometheus, 2003.
7. Druzhinin V.N. Psychology of general abilities. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. - 368 p.
8. Craig G., Bokum D. Developmental psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005. - 940 p.
9. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M.: Nauka, 2004. - 450 p.
10. Maslow A. Self-actualizing personality // Personality Psychology. Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, A.A. Blisters. M. Education, 2005. - 375 p.
11. Palani L. Personal knowledge. M.: Nauka, 2006. - 420 p.
12. Frankl V. Man in search of meaning. M.: Education, 2005. - 470 p.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The essence of social intelligence is the ability to focus on the essential characteristics of a communicative situation. The problem of the relationship between mental and creative principles. Experimental identification of the level of intellectual abilities and creativity.
course work, added 08/09/2010
A general idea of creative abilities, methods of studying them. Basic concepts of creativity. Factors influencing the intensity of creativity. Components of human creative potential. Methods for diagnosing nonverbal and verbal creativity.
course work, added 12/06/2011
Psychology of creativity, definition of imagination, predisposition to creativity. Basic concepts of creativity research, the concept of creativity as a universal cognitive creative ability. Methods for diagnosing creative abilities.
course work, added 03/06/2010
The history of the formation of the concept of emotional intelligence in foreign and domestic psychology, its main features and components. Study of manifestations of emotional intelligence and methods for its diagnosis, based on the proposed models.
course work, added 12/15/2013
The phenomenon of the concept of creativity in the works of foreign and domestic psychologists. Levels and options for the relationship between creativity and flexibility. Analysis of the results of diagnosing the level of creativity or creative abilities using the technique of E. Torrance.
course work, added 09/11/2014
Individual's creative abilities: the problem of testing and diagnosing creativity and divergent productivity. Parameters of creative talent and creativity, a specialized Torrance test to assess their fluency, originality and elaboration.
presentation, added 10/21/2016
The current state of the problem of creativity, its biological prerequisites. Schizotypal personality manifestations. Research on the connection between schizotypal personality manifestations and creativity. Analysis of the relationship between creativity and personality traits in girls and boys.
thesis, added 05/04/2015
The concept of emotional intelligence and the main approaches to its study in modern psychology. Self-awareness, self-control and relationship management. Four methods for diagnosing emotional intelligence and its connection with adaptation. Questionnaire "EmIn" D.V. Lucina.
course work, added 03/18/2013
Theoretical approaches to the concept of creativity, characteristics of this process. An empirical study of creativity and temperament: Procedure and techniques. A study of the characteristics of nonverbal creativity in students with different types of temperament.
test, added 07/12/2016
The problem of studying intellectual abilities and mental development in psychology. Psychodiagnostics as an applied science. Approaches to understanding the essence of intelligence. The use of intellectual tests in foreign psychology at the present stage.
Page 36 of 42
Creativity and its diagnosis.
Along with intelligence in Anglo-American psychology in the mid-50s. the study of special intellectual abilities, called creativity(from lat. сreatio - creation, creation). Creative tests– tests to diagnose a person’s creative abilities. The impetus for highlighting creativity was data on the lack of connection between traditional intelligence tests and the success of solving problem situations.
It was recognized that the latter (creativity) depends on the ability to use information given in tasks in different ways at a fast pace. This ability was called creativity and began to be studied independently of intelligence - as an ability that reflects an individual’s ability to create new concepts and develop new skills. Creativity is associated with the creative achievements of an individual.
The study of creativity is carried out mainly in two directions. One deals with the question of whether creativity depends on intelligence and focuses on measuring cognitive processes in relation to creativity. Another direction is exploring whether personality and its psychological characteristics are an essential aspect of creativity, and is characterized by attention to personality and motivational traits.
Attempts to define creativity through cognitive variables are aimed at assessing unusual intellectual factors and cognitive styles. Since 1954, J. Guilford and his colleagues have identified 16 hypothetical intellectual abilities that characterize creativity.
Among them are: fluency of thought (the number of ideas arising per unit of time), flexibility of thought (the ability to switch from one idea to another), originality (the ability to produce ideas that differ from generally accepted views), curiosity (sensitivity to problems in the world), the ability to develop a hypothesis, irrelevance (logical independence of the reaction from the stimulus), fantasticality (complete isolation of the response from reality in the presence of a logical connection between the stimulus and the reaction). Guilford combined these factors under the general name “divergent thinking” , which appears when the problem has yet to be defined or disclosed and when there is no predetermined, established path to solution (as opposed to “convergent thinking”, which focuses on a known or “appropriate” solution to the problem).
In examining various types of abilities that represent intelligence, as measured by traditional intelligence tests, and creativity, also measured by special tests, scientists have found conflicting results. It is impossible to give a clear answer to the question of whether intelligence and creativity are related based on these results.
If, instead of measuring by tests, another method of assessing creativity was used - by the level of creative achievements in the type of activity in which the subjects were engaged, then unambiguous results were obtained, indicating the separation of creativity and intelligence. Some scientists view creativity as an aspect of intelligence that is not measured by traditional intelligence tests. They are based on research results showing the dependence of creativity assessments on past experience, the nature of acquired knowledge and skills, and environmental features. In all countries, children belonging to the privileged class scored higher on creativity tests than their peers from the middle and lower classes.
The dependence of creativity assessments on the environment allows, by influencing the latter, to form creativity and develop it. From what environmental indicators can we first expect developmental action? As research shows, the environment should be characterized by a wealth of information and great freedom, a free atmosphere.
Research shows the important role of personality traits in the development of creativity. The personal approach to the study of creativity is characterized by special attention to the emotional and motivational factors included in this property. With regard to personality traits associated with creativity, the results of different researchers are similar. Some personality traits (arrogance, aggressiveness, complacency, non-recognition of social restrictions and other people's opinions) that distinguish creative individuals from non-creative ones are identified. According to some psychologists, this indicates the existence of a general type of creative personality, as opposed to a non-creative personality type. Interestingly, studies conducted on children and youth have shown that the personality traits of young and adult creative individuals are the same. This means that it appears that creativity can be predicted by the expression of personality traits at a fairly early age.
There is a point of view according to which creative achievements are associated with neuroses. But there are researchers who, on the contrary, note in highly creative individuals greater fortitude, resistance to environmental interference, and to various kinds of conflicts.
There is also no consensus regarding the motivational characteristics of creativity. According to one point of view, a creative individual tries to realize himself in the best possible way, to best meet his capabilities, to perform new, unusual types of activities, to apply new methods of activity. According to another point of view, the motivation of creative children is based on the desire to take risks, to test the limits of their capabilities.
To summarize the above, we note that a special type of intellectual ability, called creativity, is currently widely studied by psychologists. The connection between creativity and the creative achievements of the individual is recognized, but the essence of this property has not yet been fully clarified. It is not yet possible to separate it with complete confidence from intelligence in the traditional sense. No reliable methods have been found to measure creativity.
The first creativity tests were created by J. Guilford and his employees in the 50s. These techniques, known as Southern California tests, measured the characteristics of one of the types of thinking, called divergent by Guilford. 14 tests were developed. In the first 10 tests, the subject was required to give a verbal answer, and in the last 4 tests, he was required to compose an answer based on the visual content.
The Guilford tests are aimed at adults and high school students. Their standardization was carried out on small samples, and data on reliability and validity vary markedly from test to test and are not satisfactory. According to psychologists, the reasons for the low effectiveness of Guilford tests in assessing creative abilities are the focus on the speed of completing tasks and not taking into account personal characteristics.
In addition, the tasks in them do not require a certain number of answers, which prevents the objective calculation of their indicators. For this reason, according to some psychodiagnosticians, for creativity tests it is necessary to establish the reliability of the specialists assessing their performance.
Currently better known and most widely used creativity tests by E.P. Torrance. Despite Torrance’s declared goal to construct test tasks as a model of the creative process and reflect in them not the result, but the process of creativity, in reality his tests (especially verbal) are essentially similar to the Southern California Guilford tests, and sometimes are their adaptation. Their formal characteristics (reliability, validity) are slightly better than those of Guilford, but still insufficient.
Torrance developed three types of techniques for diagnosing creativity. verbal test, developed in 1966, intended for children from 5 years of age and adults. It consists of 7 subtests. The test is group and has two parallel forms A and B. The main indicators for the test are fluency, flexibility, originality and thoroughness in the development of tasks.
This test has been translated into Russian, but there is no data on its testing for reliability and validity, as well as on standardization on a domestic sample. Therefore, the Torrance verbal test in our country can only be used for research purposes.
Figure test Torrens also appeared in 1966. Its translation, adaptation and restandardization for domestic subjects were carried out by N.B. Shumakova, E.I. Shcheblanova and N.P. Shcherba. It is intended for subjects from 5 to 18 years of age. This test consists of three subtests. Answers to all tasks are given in the form of drawings and captions.
Another one, the most recent in time of creation, creativity test, manifested in action and movement, for preschoolers was developed by Torrance in 1980. The tasks of this test are designed in such a way as to give the child the opportunity to demonstrate his creative abilities in the process of free movement in any room. The same 4 creativity indicators are recorded as in other Torrance tests.
Despite the desire of psychologists to contrast creative thinking with reproductive thinking, in practice, creativity tests were built on the same principles as intelligence tests, that is, they were high-speed methods with strictly defined content. Researchers believe that their main drawback is the lack of consideration of motivation and other personal characteristics of individuals, qualities that are essential aspects of creative abilities. Many psychologists believe that it is impossible to measure creativity using tests. Creative achievements in science, technology, art and other areas of human activity require a complex combination of various abilities (including intellectual and special) and personality traits. Currently available creativity tests focus on individual elements of creative ability, but this is not sufficient to predict creative achievement. Some psychologists believe that creativity can only be measured by analyzing individual acts of creativity.
In Russian psychology, much attention is paid to revealing the essence of creativity, clarifying the mechanisms of creative activity and the nature of creative abilities. As for diagnosing creativity, it should be noted that there is almost no work in this direction. There is only a study conducted by D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya (1983).
Bogoyavlenskaya identified a unit of measurement of creative abilities called “intellectual initiative.” She views it as a synthesis of mental abilities and the motivational structure of the individual, manifested in “the continuation of mental activity beyond the limits of what is required, beyond the solution of the problem that is set before the person.” In accordance with the hypothesis, D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya proposed the creative field method , allowing the subject, without the influence of an external stimulus, to move from carrying out a given activity to a theoretical generalization and analysis of a given situation. Within the framework of this method, several techniques were constructed and tested for validity. The author experienced significant difficulties in finding an external criterion. Creative success was determined by the method of expert assessments, which has a number of disadvantages.
To diagnose creativity, the Guilford and Torrance tests and the verbal and mental creativity test (RMK, or RAT, Mednik) are widely used. According to V.N. Druzhinin, the first two tests have shortcomings due to the fact that instructions with a focus on originality activate not creativity, but intelligence, and the very approach to assessing creativity through assessing originality is questionable.
The fact is, writes V.N. Druzhinin, that “the same answer in relation to the totality of frequencies of answers from one sample can be assessed as original, and in relation to another – as standard, which has been repeatedly encountered in our studies. Original answers and answers that are most rarely found do not always coincide (a fact discovered by Torrance)... Non-standardism is a broader concept than originality. Manifestations of creativity (if we use the criterion of non-standardity) can include any deviation: from accentuations to manifestations of autistic thinking” (p. 199–200).
In order to separate any deviation from originality as a criterion of creativity, V.N. Druzhinin and N.V. Khazratova, following Mednik, used the criterion of meaningfulness, which makes it possible to distinguish between productive creative and unproductive (deviant) manifestations of human activity. They divided all behavioral manifestations of the subject during testing into reproducing (stereotypical), original (creative) and meaningless (deviant).
For example, to the question: “What will the yellow balloon represent in our game?” children give different answers: “ball”, “ball” (reproducing answers), “sun”, “drum”, “sail”, “bag of gold”, “head” (creative answers), “snake” and “crocodile” (uninformed, deviant answers).
V.N. Druzhinin believes that a person who gives an original, creative answer obviously has creativity. But if a person does not give a creative response in a free situation, this does not yet indicate that he lacks creativity. Creativity tests can identify creatives, but cannot accurately identify non-creatives. The reason for this is the spontaneity of manifestations of creativity and the inability of these manifestations to be subject to external and internal regulation.
Defining flexibility by classifying responses also poses a problem. The number and characteristics of classes are determined by the experimenter, which creates randomness.
M. Wallach and N. Kogan believe that the transfer by Guilford, Torrance and their followers of test models for measuring intelligence to measuring creativity led to the fact that creativity tests simply diagnose IQ, like ordinary intelligence tests (adjusted for the “noise” created by specific experimental procedure). These authors speak out against strict time limits, an atmosphere of competition and the only criterion for the correctness of the answer, i.e. they reject such a criterion of creativity as accuracy... According to M. Wollach and N. Kogan, as well as such authors as P. Vernon and D. Hargreaves, creativity requires a relaxed, free environment. It is desirable that research and testing of creative abilities be carried out in ordinary life situations, when the subject can have free access to additional information on the subject of the task.
Druzhinin V.N., 1999, p. 188.
The results of testing the level of creativity (divergent thinking) largely depend on the conditions of the diagnostic procedure.
Thus, in the studies of V.N. Druzhinin’s colleagues (T.V. Galkina, L.G. Khusnutdinova) the role of the experimenter’s attitude towards achieving original answers is shown: when such an attitude is given, creativity increases, and to a greater extent among low-creative people. Individual testing without a time limit reveals higher creativity than group testing with a time limit. The experience of using Torrance tests has shown that the influence of the characteristics of the group in which the norms were obtained is very large and the transfer of norms from a standardization sample to another (even similar) sample produces large errors, and is often simply impossible, writes V. N. Druzhinin.
Existing methods for diagnosing creativity in most cases involve strictly regulated test procedures (tests of verbal and non-verbal creativity), which, as a rule, do not allow us to present a sufficiently complete picture of the creative capabilities of the individuals being examined. The studies of G. V. Ozhiganova (1999, 2001, 2005) present a new approach to the identification and development of children’s creativity, focused on taking into account real creative achievements in a natural life situation in which a sample of creative behavior is presented. Within the framework of this approach, a method of prolonged diagnostics and formation of creativity has been developed, which is aimed at identifying and developing creativity in children of primary school age. Creativity is understood as a general creative ability, including such characteristics as creative motivation, creative imagination and a sense of form, manifested in creative behavior. Creative behavior is activity aimed at creating a creative product.
Kholodnaya M.A., 2007, p. 32.
Obviously, the level of creativity may depend on the test used. Thus, in the work of S. A. Kornilov (2008), creativity was measured using two tasks: writing a creative story on a given topic and coming up with creative titles for comics. It turned out that there was no correlation between creativity in both cases. Consequently, on one test a subject may turn out to be creative, but on another - not.
Finally, among creativity tests, the indicator of originality stands out. Not only does it not correlate, according to some data, with other indicators of creativity, but it can also manifest itself differently depending on what it may be manifested in. For example, in one study (Chechik N. E., 2008) it was found that among 7th grade schoolchildren, originality is more associated with imagination and fantasy, among eighth-graders - with non-standard use of objects, among ninth-graders - with speech and vocabulary, and for 11th grade schoolchildren - with expressing their ideas and composing new proposals.
The task of diagnosing creativity, although of great theoretical and practical importance, remains not fully resolved. Well-known diagnostic methods, primarily the E. Torrance test, are subject to scientific criticism in the works of D. B. Bogoyavlenskaya (2002), M. A. Kholodnaya (2002), R. Sternberg (Sternberg, 1998), etc. The following are questionable: 1) the idea of creativity as divergent thinking, on the basis of which principles for constructing diagnostic techniques are developed; 2) identifying creativity with originality (the main criterion for assessing the level of creativity is the rarity of answers); 3) non-systemic element-by-element analysis of the products of creative activity; 4) low correlations of test scores with objective creative achievements.
Kyshtymova I. M., 2008, p. 56.
Based on his investment theory of creativity (see next chapter), Sternberg suggests, instead of psychometric measures of creativity, assessing creative output (oral and written stories, drawings, etc.) using experts. They evaluate originality (this parameter includes not only the frequency distribution of answers, but also the presence of social interactions of characters in a written story), complexity, humor, emotionality and relevance to the task. Grading rules are developed for each assignment and grades are assigned by independent experts who go through a consensus process.
A similar approach for diagnosing verbal creativity is proposed by I. M. Kyshtymova (2008a, b). However, the psychosemiotic methodology she developed (based on the analysis of school essays, taking into account such indicators as composition, integrity, imagery, meaning), contrary to the author’s statement about its simplicity, did not seem so to me; In addition, its use requires psycholinguistic training or the availability of a special computer program.
In addition, the author’s original understanding of creativity as realization of personal meaning by means of culture, is questionable as to what is ultimately determined by the test she developed. For example, I. M. Kyshtymova writes that “diagnosis of creativity through semiotic text analysis allows us to study with a sufficient degree of completeness the expression of personal meaning in the structure of a verbal text” (p. 64). So what is revealed - creativity or personal meaning? Or is it the same thing for the author? If yes, then on what basis? Only because personal meaning as a person’s relationship to the world and himself (A. N. Leontiev) is present in the act of creativity?
The psychosemiotic indicators of analysis of the text of essays proposed by I. M. Kyshtymova had significant correlations with Torrance’s indicator of general verbal creativity. But if this is so, then why is the proposed method of diagnosing creativity better than the criticized Torrance method? We can agree that the text of the essays reflects the creativity of its author, however, from the description of the psychosemiotic technique it is not clear what its advantage is over other methods for diagnosing creativity.
The Challenges of Creativity Testing
Due to the impossibility of adapting known physical units to measure creativity, its manifestations are quantified using hypothetical indicators. Only empirically established characteristics of an object can be measured. Therefore, through the prism of the measurement approach, creativity is seen as an attribute (of thinking, product, personality). The limited capabilities of the psychometric approach forced the adoption of tests to measure creativity that capture only the external manifestations of divergence - a key point in evolution. Called divergent tests by Guilford, these tests encourage thinking "around" in different directions, as opposed to convergent tests, which require one answer. But the clarity of the dichotomy “one – many” answers does not provide access to experimental study of the essence of divergence. Therefore, the correct researcher Guilford does not have it, but there is divergent productivity, which, in the absence of actual mental processes, relies solely on memory and works by trial and error, revealing the random nature of the search. In tests of divergent productivity, answers are regulated by given properties that define the desired object, or by the inclusion of known properties of a given object in unusual situations. In divergent productivity, according to Guilford, there is neither generation nor divergence. To assess the degree of manifestation of signs, psychometricians rely on empirically established normative indicators. Measuring creativity as a response to an evaluative stimulus based on the standards of a given society makes it unattainable to establish an individual’s own capabilities. An attempt to combine the statistical idea of creativity as a normally distributed mass phenomenon, implying that the ideal average provides optimal adaptation, with a testological interpretation of it as the creation of a rare atypical product reveals the inconsistency of this metaphysical approach.
Susokolova I. A., 2007, p. 221.
A. V. Assovskaya and co-authors (1997) give several recommendations for studying the creativity of children (primary schoolchildren). It is better to conduct creativity tests not in a row, but at delayed intervals. Since at 8–9 years old drawing is still the predominant way of expressing oneself, it is better to use drawing projective methods. However, drawing, like any type of creativity, requires a certain attitude. In a state of emotional upsurge or decline, drawings on the same topic can be very different from each other. This is especially true for creative children. It is necessary to create an atmosphere conducive to creativity (change the environment, class, seat the children differently).
Don't lose it. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.
How do you know how creative you are? Researchers of the nature of creativity and creativity processes have developed many diagnostic techniques that can be used to find out whether you are a creative person and to what extent. Let's look at how you can test how creative you are.
Scientific approaches to the problem of diagnosing creative abilities
What is included in the concept of “creativity” and how to evaluate it? - this is the uniqueness of personality characteristics that allow her to master different types of activities and improve in them. Creativity involve a positive transformation of the surrounding world through the creation of original, unique, new spiritual or material values. When starting to assess the level of development of creative abilities, you need to consider them through the prism of the development of individual elements. This is due to the fact that creative thinking alone does not fully reflect all the components of creative activity. It is important to evaluate perception, imagination, fantasy, originality, and much more.
All studies of creativity and creativity can be divided into two groups:
- – a universal cognitive creative ability based on the interaction of intelligence, cognitive abilities and real achievements. Representatives of this direction: S. Mednik, A. Ponomarev, S. Taylor, E. Torrence. Their scientific achievements consist of studying the influence of intelligence on the ability to generate new ideas.
- A creative personality is a complex of unique individual creative characteristics. Research in this direction is devoted to the search for a description of the characteristics of the “portrait of a creative personality,” motives and sociocultural factors of creativity (F. Barron, D. Bogoyavlenskaya, ).
Criteria for assessing creativity
Joy Guilford was one of the first to interpret the essence of creative thinking as a synthesis of originality, novelty and flexibility of proposed ideas. Subsequent theories of creative thinking were essentially copies and variations of Guilford's thinking. Therefore, the first diagnostic methods for determining the level of development of creative abilities were based on the following criteria:
- how quickly and easily creative abilities will manifest themselves when performing a specific task (what is important here is the number of answers or options for solving the problem in a certain period of time)
- How flexible are the answers (number of switches from one type of object to another)
- how original the answers are (frequency of a certain answer in a homogeneous group).
An easy way to test your creativity is a test Alice Paul Torrance. It consists of three parts, each of which characterizes verbal, visual and sound creativity. The test is carried out over a specified period of time, and its results are assessed in accordance with the following criteria:
- Fluency(speed) – the number of responses in a certain period of time.
- Flexibility(variety of answers).
- Originality(rareness of ideas).
- Development of ideas(detail).
The results of various scientific studies have made it possible to identify general indicators that can be relied on when assessing the level of development of creative abilities:
- attentiveness(ability to see and identify a creative problem)
- versatility(the ability to notice more aspects and connections in a given task)
- flexibility(rejection of the standard point of view)
- originality(template abandoned)
- variability(ability to regroup ideas and connections)
- specificity(ability to deeply analyze the task at hand)
- abstractness(ability to synthesize)
- harmony(generation of ideas based on organizational harmony and ideological integrity)
- independence(non-acceptance of judgments and assessments under the influence of others’ opinions)
- openness of perception(sensitivity to the new, unusual).
Principles of the methodology for diagnosing creative abilities
When selecting or developing a methodology for diagnosing creative abilities, you need to pay attention to ensure that the methodology is reliable, and therefore covers different characteristics of creativity. It is important to pay attention to the age of the subjects, as well as the diagnostic environment (whether you set a time limit or not, how you communicate the testing conditions, etc.).
Basic principles for diagnosing creative abilities:
- Tests measuring intelligence are not suitable for diagnosing creativity, since their goal is the speed and accuracy of finding the only correct solution from several proposed ones.
- When exploring creativity, you need to study its figurative (non-verbal, artistic) and verbal (verbal) sides.
- Diagnostic techniques should measure indicators of patterned and stereotypical thinking (which is reflected in the use of words and images in a certain associative connection). An indicator of creativity is distance from stereotypes (established connections).
- When diagnosing, you need to measure productivity (the ratio of the number of answers to the number of tasks).
- Originality is defined as the reciprocal of the frequency of occurrence of nonstandard responses.
- Uniqueness is measured in terms of the number of previously unseen ideas relative to the total number of responses.
“Just a note. Low diagnostic results do not at all mean that a person is incapable of creativity: one must take into account that creative manifestations can be spontaneous and not subject to regulation.”
All methods for diagnosing creative abilities are not an absolute indicator of the formation of creativity. The disadvantage of test methods is that they evaluate creative manifestations as a whole, and not as applied to any specific situation. Another drawback is the ambiguity of interpretation. These two factors reduce the level of objectivity of diagnosis. Despite the shortcomings, test methods for studying the level of development of creative abilities are used by many scientists, psychologists, teachers, and creativity trainers: by combining several test options, it is possible to study creativity from various angles.
Try to determine your overall level of creativity using a simple questionnaire. With its help, you will at least find out how committed you are to creative, constructive activity.
Questionnaire for determining the level of creativity
Instructions. You are presented with a series of statements. Mark your agreement or disagreement next to the statement number with the “+” or “-” signs, respectively.
- I don't like work in which everything is clearly defined.
- I like abstract painting, I understand it
- I don't like doing regulated work.
- I don't like going to museums: they are all the same.
- I love to indulge in fantasies.
- Hobbies enrich a person's life.
- I can watch the same performance many times: each time there is a different performance by the actors, a new interpretation.
- I think it is better to be a cutter than a tailor.
- I value the process of work more than its final result.
- I even approach ordinary things creatively.
- I often doubt what is quite obvious to others.
- Abstract painting gives food for thought.
- I would not like to subordinate my life to any particular system.
- I like the work of designers.
- I don't like walking the same road.
Analysis. Calculate the amount of “+”: 0-5 points corresponds to a low level of creativity, 6-9 points - average, 10-15 points - high
What is your result?
1.7. Psychodiagnostics of creativity
Creativity or creative ability, began to be actively studied after the publication of Guilford’s works, his cube-shaped model of the structure of intelligence, when he identified: 1) convergent thinking, which follows a certain path and finds one solution and 2) divergent thinking (or creative thinking), which allows for variable ways of solving problems , leads to unexpected results.
In people of “average intelligence,” intelligence and creativity are usually closely related to each other. A person with normal intelligence usually also has normal creative abilities. Only from a certain level the paths of intellect and creativity diverge. This level lies in the area of IQ (intelligence quotient) equal to 120. Intelligence quotient can be measured by tests. Currently, the Stanford-Binet test and Wechsler scales are most often used to assess intelligence. With an IQ above 120, the correlation between creative and intellectual activity disappears, since creative thinking has its own distinctive features and is not identical to intelligence.
Creative thinking:
plastic, i.e. creative people offer many solutions in cases where an ordinary person can find only one or two;
flexible, that is, for creative thinking it is not difficult to move from one aspect of the problem to another, without being limited to one single point of view;
original, it gives rise to unexpected, non-banal, unusual solutions.
A creator, just like an intellectual, is not born. It all depends on what opportunities the environment will provide to realize the potential that is inherent in each of us to varying degrees.
As Ferguson notes, “Creativity is not created, but released.” Therefore, game and problem-based teaching methods help to “free up” the creative potential of students, increase their intellectual level and professional skills.
However, since the level of abilities and creative output do not always correlate, the need arose to determine both intellectual talent and productivity, on the one hand, and creative talent and productivity, on the other. This last concept is called the creativity quotient (Cr). It turned out that these concepts are not always interconnected. In 1960, Goetzels and Jackson published evidence that there was no correlation between measures of intelligence and creativity.
Creative talent and creative productivity are characterized by slightly different parameters:
wealth of thought (the number of new ideas per unit of time);
flexibility of thought (speed of switching from one task to another);
originality;
curiosity;
ability to develop a hypothesis;
irrelevance - logical independence of the reaction from the stimulus;
fantasticality - isolation of the response from reality in the presence of a certain logical connection between stimulus and response.
Guilford notes 6 dimensions of creativity.
Ability to identify and pose problems.
Ability to generate a large number of ideas.
Semantic spontaneous flexibility is the ability to produce a variety of ideas.
Originality - the ability to produce distant associations, unusual answers, non-standard solutions.
The ability to improve an object by adding details.
The ability to solve non-standard problems, showing semantic flexibility - to see new features in an object, to find new uses.
Guilford developed a battery of tests for diagnosing creativity (10 tests for verbal creativity, 4 for non-verbal creativity). Here are examples of some creativity tasks: “ease of word usage” test (write as many words as possible that contain the letter “o”); test of “fluency of ideas” (write as many words as possible denoting objects, phenomena that may be white); test for “flexibility of ideas, flexibility of using objects” (indicate as many different ways of using a tin can as possible); test for “composing images” (compose as many different images as possible using a set of shapes: triangle, square, circle, trapezoid).
Torrance continued research on creativity, but he also introduced a new shade of understanding creativity as the ability to heightened perception of shortcomings, gaps in knowledge, and sensitivity to disharmony. Torrance developed a series of creativity tests “from preschoolers to adults” and developed a program for developing children’s creative abilities: at the first stage, subjects were offered anagram tasks (searching for a word from a rearranged meaningless sequence of letters) to train convergent thinking. Then, using the pictures, the subject must develop all the probable and improbable circumstances that led to the situation depicted in the picture and predict its possible consequences. Later, the subject was presented with various objects and asked to list all the different ways they could be used. According to Torrance, this approach to ability training allows a person to free himself from externally imposed frameworks, and he begins to think creatively and outside the box. The Torrance battery includes 12 tests diagnosing three areas of creativity: verbal creative thinking, visual creative thinking and verbal-sound creative thinking.
Torrance used the following indicators to assess the level of creativity:
Ease - speed of task completion.
Flexibility - the number of switches from one object class to another object class during the course of responses.
Originality is assessed as the minimum frequency of a given answer among the answers of a homogeneous group of subjects. If this answer occurs less than 1% of the time (i.e. 1 person out of 100 gave such an answer), then originality is assessed as maximum - 4 points, if less than 2% - then originality is assessed as 3 points), if the answer occurs more than 6 % (6-7 people out of 100 gave the same answer), then there is no originality, 0 points.
Different methods can be used to diagnose the level of creativity.
Many researchers believe that when diagnosing creativity, one should abandon strict time limits for completing a task. M. Wallach and K. Kogan provided the subjects with as much time as they needed to solve the problem, testing was carried out in the form of a game, any answer was accepted. Under these testing conditions, the correlation between creativity and the level of intelligence was close to zero, i.e., the property of creativity reveals its complete independence from intelligence. Wallach and Kogan identified 4 groups of children with different levels of intelligence and creativity, differing in their ways of adapting to external conditions and solving problems.
Children with a high level of intelligence and creativity are confident in their abilities, have adequate self-esteem, show great initiative, personal independence of judgment and action, are highly successful, show talent, and are socially adaptable.
Children with a low level of creativity, but high intelligence, strive for school success, but experience failures extremely hard, are afraid to express their opinions, take risks, are afraid of a blow to their pride, and distance themselves from their classmates.
Children with a low level of intelligence and a high level of creativity (third group) often fall into the category of “outcasts”, do not adapt well to school requirements, often have hobbies and interests on the side, “strange dreamers”, they are not understood by either teachers or peers.
The fourth group of children with a low level of intelligence and creative abilities outwardly adapt well, stay in the “average” category, have adequate self-esteem, the low level of subject abilities is compensated by the development of social intelligence and sociability.
Gifted children are characterized by a high energy level, short sleep duration, increased cognitive activity, intellectual initiative - a tendency to set themselves new complex tasks, which, according to D. B. Bogoyavlenskaya, is an integral sign of talent.
The creative field technique was developed by D. B. Bogoyavlenskaya and is an alternative test for creativity.
The peculiarities of this technique are the following principles:
rejection of external incentives and prevention of the emergence of internal evaluative stimuli;
absence of a ceiling (the difference is that in this case the proposed problem should provide the possibility of a solution at several levels - from the particular to the general, using universal laws). This condition is necessary to achieve the space of the second creative layer - going beyond the given limits;
the experiment cannot be short-term. In this case, the speed of mental processes recedes into the background.
According to these principles, D. B. Bogoyavlenskaya used several types of specific tasks in her research. To study, for example, children of primary school age, the “Sea Battle” technique was used - a task that can be solved both by trial and error and by identifying patterns. The “Coordinate System” technique involves working with formulas. But the most fully illustrating method of the creative field is the “Fairytale Chess” technique - chess problems on a board of an unconventional shape - cylindrical - “rolled into a tube” (the left vertical borders on the right). At the same time, studies have shown that previous chess experience does not provide advantages when solving.
The experiment methodology consists of two stages: preliminary training, during which the subjects learn general rules and some techniques for solving this type of problem, and the experiment itself: solving 12 problems, which takes about an hour. The table indicates the techniques used by the subject in solving the problem according to the following rules:
techniques that depend on the number of solved problems are ranked higher;
techniques that are more likely to be used in a given task are lower;
techniques with a large circle of generalization are higher.
The criterion of intellectual activity has many transitional forms and is presented on a continuum, but ultimately the subjects are classified into three categories according to the level of intellectual activity.
1) Stimulus-productive level of intellectual activity: solving problems using hypotheses and findings. The subject is assigned to the stimulus-productive level if, with conscientious and energetic work, he remains within the framework of the initially found solution. This level is characterized by a lack of “cognitive interest” and initiative. As will be seen from the following, intellectual activity depends on personal qualities, regardless of the intellectual base. Therefore, high scientific and technical training without corresponding moral development leads to pragmatism and professional narrowness.
2) Heuristic level of intellectual activity: discovering patterns empirically. Having a reliable method of solution, the subject analyzes the composition and structure of his activity, which leads to the discovery of new, original methods of solution. This is assessed by the subject himself as “his own way” and allows him to better cope with the following tasks in the future.
3) Creative level of intellectual activity, level of theoretical discoveries: creating a theory and posing a new problem. The discovered pattern becomes an independent problem, for the sake of which the subject is even ready to stop the activity proposed to him during the experiment. At the same time, subjects often reached a creative level after solving just a few problems - a characteristic feature of theoretical thinking is the ability to reveal the essential by analyzing a single object. An important feature of this level is self-sufficiency and indifference to external assessment.
Primary school children who reached a creative level during the experiment were most often characterized by teachers as “always having their own opinion.” Success in professional activity does not always indicate a creative level of intellectual activity. Many famous scientists had a heuristic level of activity. For example, Roentgen discovered X-rays, Boyle discovered the inverse proportionality of volume and pressure in a gas, and these phenomena were named after them, but their theoretical understanding belongs to other scientists.
