2014 4/1 TÜZED Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi Haziran 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1 ISSN 2146-3832 TJGE Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education June 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi Haziran 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education June 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1 TÜZED Hakkında About the TJGE Türk Üstün Zeka ve Eğitim Dergisi (TÜZED), zeka, Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education covers üstün zeka, özel üstün yetenek ve yaratıcılık konula- all aspects of giftedness, talent, and creativity and all rında yayım yapan hakemli bir dergidir. Dergi, konu types of high ability. It provides a scientific platform kapsamı ile ilgili olarak bilimsel araştırmaların, ku- for researchers, practitioners and administrators to ramların, uygulamaların ve fikirlerin tartışıldığı bi- discuss and disseminate scientific research, theories, limsel bir platform sunmayı hedeflemektedir. TÜ- and practices and ideas. The TJGE is a refereed jour- ZED, Türkçe ve İngilizce dillerinde yayım yapmak- nal which publishes original research articles, litera- tadır. Dergiye gönderilen bütün taslak makaleler edi- ture and book reviews in Turkish and English. Arti- törün önincelemesinden sonra en az iki hakeme ince- cles submitted to the TJGE undergo peer review pro- lenmek üzere gönderilir. TÜZED, yılda iki kez çevri- cess. The TJGE is an open-access online journal and miçi olarak yayımlanmaktadır. published twice a year. Editör/Editor in Chief Uğur Sak, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sekreterya/Assistant to Editor Bahadır Ayas Hakem Kurulu/Editorial Review Board Abdulkadir Erdoğan, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Oktay Aydın, Marmara Üniversitesi, Türkiye Ahmed Mohamed, Asyut University, Egypt Oktay Adıgüzel, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Albert Ziegler, Uni of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Omar Muammar, Uni of Dammam, Saudi Arabia Atilla Cavkaytar, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Özgür Soğancı, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Aykut Ceyhan, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Peter Merrotsy, University of New England, Australia Ayşegül Ataman, Gazi Üniversitesi, Türkiye Roza Leikin, University of Haifa, Israel Bahadır Erişti, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Seokhee Cho, St. John's University, USA Cumali Öksüz, A. Menderes Üni, Türkiye Serap Emir, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Türkiye Fatih Karabacak, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Sezgin Vuran, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Gürhan Can, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Sinan Olkun, Ankara Üniversitesi, Türkiye İbrahim H. Diken, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Sivanes Phillipson, Monash University, Australia June Maker, University of Arizona, USA Todd Lubart, Universite Paris Descartes, France Lola Prieto, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Usanee Anuruthwong, Srinakharinwirot Uni,Thailand Murat Demirbaş, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Türkiye Ümit Davaslıgil, Maltepe Üniversitesi, Türkiye Murat Gökdere, Amasya Üniversitesi, Türkiye Yavuz Akbulut, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Türkiye Necate Baykoç Dönmez, Hacettepe Üni, Türkiye Oğuz Serin, International Cyprus University, T. R. of Northern Cyprus Indexing/Abstracting: The TJGE is indexed and abstracted in Akademia Sosyal Bilimler İndeksi (ASOS), Akademik Dizin, Citefactor, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), DRJI (Directory of Research Journals Indexing), eBooks, EBSCOhost Databases, Educational Research Abstracts Online (ERA), Gifted and Talented Abstracts, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus International (IC), Informatics Open J-Gate, NewJour Electronic Journals & Newsletters, ProQuest, Researchbib, Türk Eğitim İndeksi (Turkish Educational Index), Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, WorldCat Yazışma/Editorial correspondence: Ugur Sak, Editor, usak@anadolu.edu.tr; editor@tuzed.org ©2011, Her hakkı saklıdır/All rights reserved. Türk Üstün Zeka ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi Haziran 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education June 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1 İÇİNDEKİLER/CONTENTS Editör Notu/Editorial 1 The Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach: Why are some musicians internationally successful and others not? Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı: Neden Bazı Müzisyenler uluslararası başarılı, diğerleri değil? Albert Ziegler, Sabrina Straßer, Wolfgang Pfeiffer & Catherine Wormald 2 A Cross-National Comparison of School Students’ Perceptions Regarding High Performing Peers Öğrencilerin Üst Düzey Performans Sergileyen Akranlarına Yönelik Algılarının Ülkeler Arası Karşılaştırması Hyerim Oh, Margaret Sutherland, Niamh Stack, Maria del Mar Badia, Sheyla Blumen, Anh-Thu Nguyen Quoc, Catherine Wormald, Julie Maakrun, Barbara Baier, Martha Schmidt & Albert Ziegler 10 Chances and Limitations of Implementing Measures of Differentiation for Gifted Children in Primary Schools: The Teachers’ Part İlkokuldaki Üstün Zekâlı Öğrencilere Yönelik Program Farklılaştırma Uygulamalarındaki Şanslar ve Sınırlılıklar: Öğretmen Kısmı Martina Endepohls-Ulpe & Natascha Thömmes 24 The Associative Basis of Scientific Creativity: A Model Proposal Bilimsel Yaratıcılığın Çağrışımsal Temelleri: Model Önerisi Esra Kanlı 37 Economic Creativity Development Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi Nasseroddin Kazemi Haghighi & Ahmad Reza Kazemi Haghighi 51 An Interview with Buket Yakmaci-Guzel Buket Yakmacı-Güzel ile Röportaj Michael F. Shaughnessy 71 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi Haziran 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education June 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1 Editorial Editör’ün Notu Dear our readers! Welcome to the new issue of Değerli okuyucularımız! Yeni sayımıza hoş gel- the TJGE. I am thankful to our authors for their diniz. Öncelikle dergimize katkıları nedeniyle contributions to the TJGE. yazarlarımıza teşekkür ederim. This issue of the TJGE includes three research Türk Üstün Zeka ve Eğitim Dergisi’nin bu sayı- articles, two literature reviews and an inter- sında üç araştırma makalesi, iki literatür tara- view. In the first article, Ziegler and his col- ması ve bir görüşme yer almaktadır. Birinci ma- leagues discuss the Nuremberg Music-Ecologi- kalede Albert Ziegler ve araştırma ekibi Nürn- cal Approach and test the hypothesis that suc- berg müzik ekolojik yaklaşımını temel alarak cessful professional musicians possess more uluslararası düzeyde üne sahip müzisyenleri Educational Capital as well as more Learning analiz etmişlerdir. Bu yaklaşımda bireyin eylem Capital than their less successful colleagues. In alanında varolan kaynakları temel almışlardır. the second article, Oh and her colleagues exam- İkinci makalede Oh ve araştırma ekibi yedi ine students’ perceptions of high-performing farklı ülkede öğrencilerin üstün akademik per- classmates about their expected intellectual formans gösteren sınıf arkadaşları hakkındaki abilities, positive social qualities and popularity algıları incelenmiştir. Üçüncü makalede Ende- among their peers across seven countries. In the pohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Almaya’da öğretmen- third article, Endepohls-Ulpe and Thömmes an- lerin program farklılaştırılmalarının üstün ze- alyze German primary school teachers’ atti- kalı öğrenciler için beklenen yararları ve öğret- tudes towards different types of differentiations men üzerinde oluşturduğu yükler hakkındaki about expected benefits for gifted students and algılarını ele almışlardır. Dördüncü makalede anticipated work load for teachers. In the fourth Kanlı bilimsel yaratıcılığın çağrışımsal boyutla- article, Kanlı reviews associative bases of scien- rını incelemiş ve bunun üzerine bir model ileri tific creativity and proposes a model to explain sürmüştür. Beşinci makalede Haghighi ve it. In the fifth article, Hagighi and Haghighi dis- Haghighi ekonomik yaratıcılığı tartışarak psi- cuss the concept of economic creativity and ex- kolojik boyutlarını irdelemişlerdir. Dergide yer plain its psychological characteristics. The last alan son çalışma Shaughnessy’nin yapmış ol- study in the issue includes an interview carried duğu bir röportajı içermektedir. out by Shaughnessy with Buket Yakmacı-Guzel on Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Kuzey yarımkürede yaşayanlar için yaz geldi. Yaz tatilinizin en mutlu ve en dinlendirici şe- Summer has come for those who live on the kilde geçmesini diliyorum. Tatil arasında dergi- Northern hemisphere of the Earth. I wish you mizin bu sayısını okumayı ihmal etmeyin. enjoy your summer time and reading this issue! Uğur Sak Editor in Chief 1 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 2-9 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2-9 ______________________________________________________ The Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach: Why are Some Musicians Internationally Successful and Others Not? Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı: Neden Bazı Müzisyenler Uluslararası Başarılı, Diğerleri Değil? Albert Ziegler1, Sabrina Straßer2, Wolfgang Pfeiffer3, & Catherine Wormald4 Abstract Öz Success in music depends on a number of crucial factors with musical talent figuring prominently in gifted research. However, in the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach presented in this paper a different view is taken. Instead of talents and factors, the concept of available resources in an individual´s actiotope (Ziegler, 2005) is put in the center of our analysis. Educational Capital refers to exogenous resources and comprises five different forms of resources: Economic Educational Capital, Cultural Educational Capital, Social Educational Capital, Infrastructural Educational Capital and Didactic Educational Capital. Learning Capital refers to endogenous resources and also comprises five different forms of resources: Organismic Learning Capital, Actional Learning Capital, Telic Learning Capital, Episodic Learning Capital and Attentional Learning Capital. Results of an empirical study are reported which was designed to test the claim that successful professional musicians possess more Educational Capital as well as more Learning Capital than their less successful colleagues. The hypothesis was confirmed with a sample of professional musicians who were successful on a local, regional or international level. Keywords: Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach, educational capital, learning capital Müzik alanında başarı daha çok üstün zeka araştırmalarında baskın yer bulan müzik yeteneği ile birlikte bir takım faktörlere bağlıdır. Bu çalışmada sunulan Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımında ise farklı bir bakış açısı ele alınmıştır. Yetenekler ve faktörler yerine bireyin eylem alanında varolan kaynaklar (Ziegler, 2005) analizin merkezine alınmıştır. Eğitimsel Kapital dışsal kaynakları ifade eder ve beş farklı kaynak türünü kapsar: Ekonomik eğitimsel kapital, kültürel eğitimsel kapital, sosyal eğitimsel kapital, altyapısal eğitimsel kapital ve öğretici/didaktik eğitimsel kapital. Öğrenme Kapitali içsel kaynakları ifade eder ve beş farklı kaynak türünü içermektedir: Biyolojik öğrenme kapitali, eylemsel öğrenme kapitali, öğrenme amaçları kapitali, periyodik öğrenme kapitali ve dikkat kaynakları öğrenme kapitali. Başarılı profesyonel müzisyenlerin eğitim ve öğrenme kapitallerinin daha az başarılı olan meslektaşlarına göre daha sık sergiledikleri hipotezini test etmek amacıyla tasarlanmış olan deneysel bir araştırmanın bulguları rapor edilmiştir. Hipotezler yerel, bölgesel veya uluslararası düzeyde başarılı olan müzisyenlerden oluşan bir örneklem ile doğrulanmıştır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı, eğitim kapitali, öğrenme kapitali Introduction Musical activities are among the most pleasurable human experiences (Juslin & Sloboda, 2001). Indeed, human nature and its evolution seems to be unimaginable without music (McDermott, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany University of Wollongong, Australia Correspondence email: albert.ziegler@fau.de ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1.2.3 4 Ziegler and others Nurnberg Music-Ecological Approach & Hauser, 2005; Patel, 2006). Music is held in high regard in virtually all known human societies (Benzon, 2001; Patel, 2008; Wallin, Merker, & Brown, 2000). This is also true for the country in which the empirical research reported in this paper was conducted. Germany has a flourishing music industry with 133 public and professional symphony orchestras, 83 music theatres as well as a variety of musical educational institutions (cf. Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum, 2011a). Around 7 million amateur musicians live in the country (Reimers, 2010). The government spends approximately 2.5 billion Euro per year on music related activities. This is approximately 30% of the total cultural expenditure (cf. Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum, 2011b). Private funding of musical activities (by donations, foundation means, sponsoring, etc.) adds approximately another 800 million to 2.6 billion Euro (cf. Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum, 2011b). It therefore comes as no surprise that those who perform music professionally, also enjoy a high degree of appreciation. In all countries music is a profession of its own, even though there is no strict definition or profile of a musician. In Germany there are courses in music that can be undertaken at a professional academy or a college of music. However, not all trained musicians can live on their salary. Many of them are forced to take a second job. On the other hand there are also musicians who make their living completely with music although they did not receive a formal musical education. But which factors determine the development of a high level of performance as a professional musician and, which factors are responsible for success in music? From the perspective of gifted research the most common answer is: musical talent (Sternberg & Lubart, 2006; Winner, 1996). However, in this article an alternative explanation is suggested. Based on a systemic approach our basic assumption is that musicians who succeed had more learning resources at their disposal (Ziegler & Baker, 2013). The Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach The Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach postulates that talent development in music takes place in an actiotope which […] includes an individual and the material, social and informational environment with which that individual interacts“ (Ziegler, Vialle, & Wimmer, 2013, p. 3). It is regarded as an active process of self-organization during which individuals gradually adapt to specific environments and the environments are gradually adapted to the growing skill levels of the individuals. The crucial question is what determines successful adaptations? Successful adaptation is equally dependent on exogenous and endogenous resources, the former located in the environmental component of the actiotope, the latter in the individual component of the actiotope. In the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach exogenous resources are termed Educational Capital and endogenous resources are termed Learning Capital. They are the necessary conditions for successful learning and talent development. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 3 Ziegler ve diğerleri Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı Within Educational Capital as well as Learning Capital five different forms can be distinguished, making in all, ten forms of Capital (for a detailed overview see Ziegler & Baker, 2013). In Table 1 these Capitals are defined and illustrated with an example. The examples refer to model learning and its consequences. In doing so it is assumed that a student listens fascinated to the concert performance of a violinist and considers learning to play the violin himself. Table 1: Forms of Educational and Learning Capital, Definitions and Examples Capital Definition Example Exogenous resources: Educational Capital Economic Educational Capital Cultural Educational Capital Social Educational Capital Infrastructural Educational Capital Didactic Educational Capital “Economic Educational Capital includes all those possessions and valuables, which can be used for the initiation or continuation of learning episodes.” (p. 10f.) “Cultural Educational Capital includes values, concepts and ways of thinking, which can promote or impede the development of an effective Action Repertoire.” (p. 11) “Social Educational Capital includes all individuals and social institutions that have direct or indirect impact on the success of learning episodes.” (p. 11) “Infrastructural Educational Capital includes the material and policy options, which can be used in support of learning.” (p. 11) “Didactic Educational Capital is the available knowledge on the design and optimization of pedagogical approaches A fundamental precondition for being able to learn to play the violin is the availability of a violin and that a student can afford violin instruction. If the student’s peer group disapproves of playing a classical musical instrument, the probability that the student pursues the plan to learn to play the violin is reduced. The parents have to support the student’s plans (financially, motivationally), a violin teacher needs to be available. Access to a nearby conservatory or a music school may trigger the implementation of the plan. The didactic quality of his violin teacher helps the student after some setbacks to increase his skill level and overcome some motivational issues. Endogenous resources: Learning Capital Organismic Learning Capital Telic Learning Capital Actional Learning Capital Episodic Learning Capital Attentional Learning Capital 1 4 “Organismic Learning Capital refers to the physiological and constitutive resources of a learner.” (p. 11) “Telic Learning Capital refers to the availability of learning goals.” (p. 11) “Actional Learning Capital includes the complete Action Repertoire of a learner, or of which the learner is basically capable of utilizing.” (p. 11) “Episodic Learning Capital represents the available goal- or situation-related patterns of actions for students.” (p. 12) “Attentional Learning Capital refers to the quantitative and qualitative attention resources available for learning.” (p. 12) Fatigue, a lack of dexterity, hearing impairments etc. might interfere with the student’s learning abilities. If the student sets unrealistic musical goals, disappointments are bound to occur and the student may give up the violin. If the student has more effective learning strategies at his disposal, he will more easily overcome motivational obstacles. After a period of time the student has acquired significant experience on how best to master a difficult piece of music. If the student is involved in further activities besides playing the violin (e.g. football club, friends, computer games) he might not have enough time at his disposal to practice the music instrument sufficiently. Definitions are quotes from Ziegler, Vialle & Wimmer (2013). Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Ziegler and others Nurnberg Music-Ecological Approach It is assumed that more endogenous and more exogenous resources in an actiotope allow for more successful adaptations in the musical domain and hence the development of more effective action repertoires. A straightforward hypothesis would be that professional musicians with more resources become more successful in the long run than their colleagues with less learning resources. We found initial corroboration for the influence of Educational and Learning Capital on achievements in a study with students from China, Germany, and Turkey. Achievements and the amount of Educational and Learning Capital were significantly correlated (Vladut, Liu, Leana-Tscila, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2013). Further evidence was collected in case studies with world class professional athletes such as a world champion or a season´s MVP (most valuable player) of the National Basketball Association (NBA) in the US, undoubtedly the strongest Basketball League in the world. These world stars possessed substantial amounts of Educational and Learning Capital (Trottler, 2013; Ziegler, Vladut, Leavitt, & Speckenheuer, 2012). The Current Study In the current study we were interested to see whether it was possible to explain differences in the professional successes of musicians on the basis of the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach. We hypothesized that a critical period that predetermines future successes of musicians is the time when they made their decisions to pursue a career as a professional musician. Among other things they decided in this phase how high they would aim when applying for a permanent engagement, if a second job would be necessary to make a living, how much time and effort they would be willing to spend on practicing, etc. According to Ziegler and Baker (2013) the availability of exogenous (Educational Capital) and endogenous learning resources (Learning Capital) would be crucial for these decisions. Thus, our general hypothesis was that more successful professional musicians had more learning resources at their disposal than their less successful colleagues. In our research we applied the contrastive paradigm (Chi, 2011), i.e. we compared three levels of experts according to the reach of their success: local, regional (Federal state), or international. Method Participants A total of 80 professional musicians participated in the study of which 38 were female and 42 were male. The average age was M = 32.1 years (SD = 12.29). The musicians started to learn their musical instrument by the age of M = 7.79 (SD = 2.60) and made their decisions to pursue a career as professional musicians by the age of M = 15.78 (SD = 4.69). In retrospect they estimated that when making the decision the daily time spent for deliberate practice amounted to M = 139.05 (SD = 73.15) minutes a day. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 5 Ziegler ve diğerleri Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı According to the level of success the sample was divided into three groups. Professional musicians with success on an international level (N = 7) had engagements in more than just a Federal State and their audience was not limited to the Federal State in which they lived. The N = 21 professional musicians with success on a regional level (all musicians lived either in Bavaria with 12.56 million citizens and Baden-Württemberg with 10.6 million citizens) had engagements in the Federal State where they lived, their music was regularly played on a Federal State-wide radio or TV programs and their audience was not limited to their local region or city. Professional musicians with local successes (N = 52) had predominantly occupations at municipal opera houses or municipal orchestras. Measures In addition to a short biographical questionnaire taken from Gruber and Ziegler (1996) the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) from Vladut et al. (2013) was administered after adapting it to the field of music. In the QELC each of the five forms of either Educational or Learning Capital is assessed by five items. However, all the questions referred to the point in time when the participants made their decision to pursue a professional career in music. Participants were asked to express their degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “I strongly disagree” to 5 “I strongly agree”. Reliabilities of all the scales were satisfactory with all α´s above .68. Results The mean values of the different kinds of Educational Capitals are depicted in Figure 1and are shown according to professional success. With the exception of Economic Educational Capital, the most successful musicians had the most learning resources at their disposal. For statistical purposes we grouped the professional musicians with local or regional successes together. In order to test for mean differences a series of Mann–Whitney U tests using onetailed testing at a .05 level were conducted. The professional musicians with success on an international level had in retrospect more Cultural, Social, Infrastructural and Didactic Educational Capital at their disposal when making the decision to pursue a career as a musician (all p´s < 0.10). Mean differences in Economic Educational Capital were only marginally significant (p < 0.10). 6 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Ziegler and others Nurnberg Music-Ecological Approach Notes: EC = Educational Capital. Min = 1, Max = 5. Figure 1: Mean values of Educational Capital of professional musicians of different success levels. The Mann–Whitney U tests revealed two significant differences concerning the possession of Learning Capital among the professional musicians of different levels of success (see Figure 2). Excellent musicians had on average more Telic and Attentional Learning Capital at their disposal than the combined group of professional musicians (p´s < 0.05). The mean differences in Organismic, Actional and Episodic Learning Capital didn´t reach the set 0.05 level. Notes: LC = Learning Capital. Min = 1, Max = 5. Figure 2. Mean values of Learning Capital of professional musicians of different success levels. Summary In this paper we introduced the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach in order to explain differences in the professional success of musicians. In contrast to talent accounts (e.g. Gagné, Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 7 Ziegler ve diğerleri Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı 2004; Heller, 2004) it is assumed that success in music depends on the coalescence of endogenous and exogenous resources within a person´s actiotope (Ziegler, 2005). A categorization of these resources was offered which were summarized under the labels Educational and Learning Capital. This empirical study investigated whether successful musicians have more of these Capitals at their disposal when they decided to pursue a professional career than their less successful colleagues. With a sample of professional musicians who were successful either on a local, regional and international level the assumption was confirmed. The most successful musicians had, with the exception of Economic Educational Capital more of the Capitals than the other groups of professional musicians. Tests for statistical significance revealed that in seven of the ten Capitals these advantages were statistically significant: Cultural Educational Capital, Social Educational Capital, Infrastructural Educational Capital, Didactic Educational Capital, Telic Learning Capital, and Attentional Learning Capital. In light of the empirical findings it seems promising to use the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach in further studies dedicated to investigating the development of musical expertise. The two next steps should be that, firstly, the questionnaire data should be supplemented with more qualitative studies such as the aforementioned case studies with successful people on a world class level (Trottler, 2013; Ziegler et al., 2012). Secondly, longitudinal data are needed in order to establish the causal link between the Capitals and the skill development of musicians. Given these studies provide further evidence for the Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach, more fine-tuned studies would be appropriate to discover exactly how the Capitals influence skill development and in what way they correlate. References Benzon, W. L. (2001). Beethoven’s anvil: Music in mind and culture. New York: Basic Books. Bundesverband Musikindustrie: Deutscher Musikmarkt zum 1. Halbjahr 2013 leicht im Plus. 2013. [German music market in the first half-year of 2013 lightly in the black] [online] URL: http://www.musikindustrie.de/fileadmin/news/presse/Pressemitteilungen_2013/36_BVMI_Deutscher_Musikmarkt_zum_1._Halbjahr_im_Plus_FINAL.pdf . Retrieval date: 23.08.2013. Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and trends in the study of expertise. In Y. Li (Ed.), Expertise in mathematics instruction: An international perspective (pp. 17-39). New York: Springer. Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum (2011a). Musical Life in Germany – Daten & Fakten zum Musikleben in Deutschland [Musical life in Germany – data & facts to the musical life in Germany]. [online] URL: http://www.miz.org/. Retrieval date: 05.09.2011. Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum (2011b). Musikfinanzierung und–förderung [Music funding and promotion]. [online] URL: http://www.miz.org/kennzahlen.html. Retrieval date: 05.09.2011. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. 8 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Ziegler and others Nurnberg Music-Ecological Approach Gruber, H., Weber, A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Einsatzmöglichkeiten retrospektiver Befragungen bei der Untersuchung des Expertiseerwerbs. In H. Gruber & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Expertiseforschung: Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen [Expertise research: Theoretical and methodological basis] (pp. 169-190). Opladen, Germany: Westdeut scher Verlag. Heller, K.A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46, 302– 323. Juslin, P. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Music and emotion: theory and research. New York: Oxford University Press. McDermott, J., & Hauser, M. D. (2005). The origins of music: Innateness, uniqueness, and evolution. Music Perception, 23, 29-59. Oerter, R. (2008). Begabung, Expertise und Hochleistungen [Talent, expertise and high performance]. In R. Oerter & L. Montada (Eds.): Entwicklungspsychologie (6th ed., pp. 779-802). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Patel, A. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. Oxford University Press. Patel, A. D. (2006). Musical rhythm, linguistic rhythm, and human evolution. Music Perception, 24, 99-104. Reimers, A. (2010). Laienmusizieren [Lay persons playing music]. [online] URL: http://www.miz.org/static_de/themenportale/einfuehrungstexte_pdf/06_. Laienmusizieren/reimers.pdf. Retrieval date: 07.09.2011. Statistisches Bundesamt (2010). Kulturfinanzbericht [Financial cultural report 2010]. [online] URL: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/BildungForschungKultur/Kultur/Kulturfinanzbericht1023002109004.html. Retrieval date: 07.12.2011. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (2006). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York: Cambridge University Press. Trottler, S. (2014). Fallbeispiel Dirk Nowitzki. [Case study of Dirk Nowitzki]. Journal fuer Begabtenfoerderung, 13, 62-66. Vladut, A., Liu, Q., Leana-Tascilar, M., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2013). A cross-cultural validation study of the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) in China, Germany and Turkey. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 462-478. Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., & Brown, S. (2000). The origins of music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411-434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411-434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. & Baker, J. (2013). Talent development as adaption: The role of Educational and Learning Capital. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Exceptionality in EastAsia: Explorations in The Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 18-39). London: Routledge. Ziegler, A., Vialle, W., & Wimmer, B. (2013). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness: A short introduction to some central theoretical assumptions. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in The Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 1-17). London: Routledge. Ziegler, A., Vladut, A., Leavitt, M., & Speckenheuer, R. (2012). Educational and Learning Capital of a world champion. Talent Talks, 3(1), 24-28. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 9 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 10-23 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 10-23 ______________________________________________________ A Cross-National Comparison of School Students’ Perceptions Regarding High Performing Peers Öğrencilerin Üst Düzey Performans Sergileyen Akranlarına Yönelik Algılarının Ülkeler Arası Karşılaştırması Hyerim Oh1, Margaret Sutherland2, Niamh Stack2, Maria del Mar Badia3, Sheyla Blumen4, Anh-Thu Nguyen Quoc1, Catherine Wormald5, Julie Maakrun5, Barbara Baier1, Martha Schmidt1, & Albert Ziegler1 Abstract Öz This cross-national scenario based study examined fourth-grade students’ perceptions of high-performing classmates in terms of their expected intellectual abilities, positive social qualities and popularity among their peers across seven countries. The overall results show that high academic achievements predominantly lead to positive expectations within the peer group. However, pronounced differences were found between the countries. The results indicated that students from Spanish-speaking countries viewed their potential high-performing peers most favorably, followed by students from Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The least favorable expectations, but by no means negative attitude, were exhibited by students from the two East-Asian countries Korea and Vietnam. In contrast, the respondents’ gender and the gender of the hypothetical successful classmates had less influence on student perceptions of high-performers. These findings have implications for the educational provision of high performing students in different crossnational contexts. Keywords: High achieving students, peer perceptions and expectations, cross-national comparisons Çok uluslu ve durum temelli bu çalışmada yedi farklı ülkeden dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin üstün performans sergileyen akranlarının beklenen zihinsel yeteneklerine, olumlu sosyal özelliklerine ve popülaritelerine yönelik algıları araştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar genel olarak yüksek akademik başarının baskın bir şekilde akran grubu çerisinde olumlu beklentilere yol açtığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte ülkeler arasında belirgin farklılıklar da bulunmuştur. Sonuçlara göre yüksek performans potansiyeli olan öğrencilere karşı en olumlu algıya İspanyolca konuşan ülkelerin öğrencilerinin sahip oldukları görülmüş, sıralamanın ise Avustralya, İngiltere ve Almanya şeklinde devam ettiği bulunmuştur. Hiçbir şekilde olumsuz tutum olmamakla birlikte, en az olumlu tutumun doğu Asya ülkeleri olan Kore ve Vietnam öğrencileri tarafından sergilendiği görülmüştür. Buna karşılık, katılımcı öğrencinin cinsiyetinin ve hipotetik olarak oluşturulan başarılı sınıf arkadaşının cinsiyetinin, öğrencilerin üstün akademik başarı gösteren öğrencilere yönelik algıları üzerinde çok az etkisi olmuştur. Bulguların, üstün performans sergileyen öğrenciler için farklı ülkelerdeki eğitsel uygulamalara yönelik doğurguları bulunmaktadır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Üstün başarılı öğrenciler, arkadaş beklentileri, uluslararası karşılaştırma University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom 3University Autonomous of Barcelona, Spain 4Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru 5University of Notre Dame, Australia Correspondence email: albert.ziegler@fau.de ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1 2 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers Introduction A wealth of literature exists demonstrating the influence of both students’ own self-perceptions and peer perceptions on their academic achievement. This includes studies like Chevalier, Gibbons, Thorpe, Snell & Hoskins (2009), they found that high school pupils who held a more positive view of their academic abilities were more likely to expect to continue to higher education even after controlling for measures of ability and personal characteristics. So we know that students’ self-perceptions regarding their academic ability can influence their educational choices. However we also know that the cross-cultural picture is more complex than this. Shen & Tam (2008) in their cross national study examined the relationship between 8thgraders' mathematics and science achievement and their self-perceptions and found that when the measures were aggregated at the country level, there was a negative relationship between self-perceptions and achievement. They argued that one possible explanation for this pattern might be that the findings reflect the high academic standards in high-performing countries and the low academic standards in low-performing countries. So the importance of acknowledging contextual influences is evident. This may be true not only across countries but also within the social contexts and relationships within classrooms. In their longitudinal study, Hughes, Dyer, Luo, & Kwok et al. (2009) found that for children with relatively low literacy skills, peer academic reputation made a unique contribution to a child’s risk for lower academic competence, less effortful engagement, and lower achievement, above the effects of both peer liking and teacher perceptions of ability. It is therefore also clear from the educational literature that students’ perceptions of their peers’ academic abilities may influence their interactions with classmates in ways that impact upon their achievement. In contrast to the above findings relating to students with low literacy skills, the research points to the potential positive effects of being a high-achiever. Some researchers have found a significantly positive correlation between the scholastic performance of high-performing students and their social well-being (Cauce, 1987; Pyryt, & Mendaglio, 1994). Both, gifted and high performing students, have been found to benefit from their academic success in relation to positive self-perception, emotional competence and more positive peer relations compared to their lower performing class mates (Bain & Bell, 2004; Nail & Evans, 1997; Lee, OlszewskiKubilius, & Thomson, 2012; Berlin, 2009; Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988). In some specific school subjects like languages high performers enjoyed a reputation of having positive characters with high intellectuality and a sociable and good personality (Händel et al, 2013; Hannover & Kessels, 2002). In some countries high achievements appear to be especially valued, in particular in East Asian countries (cf. Phillipson, Stoeger, & Ziegler, 2013). Korean and Vietnamese school children in America, for example, always score high in academic rankings. Both cultures share a common cultural denominator: successful academic education is considered a necessity for one’s career and social status in the society Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 11 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar However the picture for high achieving students is complex and contradictory. In fact, a large body of empirical research suggests that students may have a negative image of high-performers. Students with high achievements in North America, as well as in Western Europe, are in danger of being subject to perceived negative social labels such as “nerd” (Händel, Duan, Sutherland, & Ziegler, 2013; Landsheer, Maassen, Bisschop, & Adema, 1998; O’Connor, 2012; Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003). This negative labeling can lead to unpopularity and cause high performing students to suffer social isolation and hold low self-perceptions. Research has shown that the fear alone of being labeled a ‘nerd’ can have a detrimental influence on school achievement (Pelkner, & Boehnke, 2003). However, the negative image of high-performers seems to be restricted to the core academic subjects at school. For example, high-performers in sports are much more popular among peers than high-performers in math, sciences, and foreign languages (Händel, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2013; Ziegler, Fidelman, Reutlinger, Neubauer, & Heilemann, 2011). The importance of context and cultural differences also emerges in the gifted literature and indicates that in some settings high achievements can act as a risk factor. For example, some minority ethnic groups in the U.S. like African American and Puerto Rican students actively disparage academic achievement because they view high academic achievement as a commodity of the upper class that only benefits White Americans (Fordham, & Ogbu, 1986; FloresGonzalez, 1999). This belief may be one of the reasons why some immigrant groups in the U.S. are constantly behind every other cultural subgroup when it comes to graduation (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Sankofa, Hurey, & Allen, 2005). The few students from minority ethnic groups who did perform well, on the other hand, experienced identity problems in trying to resolve their academic identity with their cultural identity (Cauce, 1987; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Sankofa, Hurey, & Allen, 2005; Steel & Aronson, 1995). Aim of the Study The above review of the literature demonstrates that the evidence regarding students’ perceptions of high-performing students and the potential influence of these perceptions is ambiguous. In order to disentangle the evidence a promising first step seems to be to study the stereotype of high-performing students among their peers. To isolate the examination of this stereotype from the interference of other potential confounding variables (such as physical appearance and socio-economic status) this study employed a scenario-based design focusing on the attributes of a fictitious high-performing student rather than a real high-performing student. This study compared the expectations of fourth-grade students. This focus was chosen because this is an age period in which children develop an elaborated concept of their own, as well as their classmates’, abilities (Stipek, 1981; Stipek & Daniels, 1988). Thus, this is just the age at which to expect the possible formation of any potential stereotypes. Having clearly established within the literature review the potentially significant influence of culture (e.g., Händel et al., 2013), this study also incorporates a cross-national design. The 12 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers study includes student cohorts from seven different countries: two East-Asian countries with a collectivistic cultural background (Vietnam, Korea), three Western countries with an individualistic cultural background (Australia, Germany, United Kingdom), two Spanish-speaking countries one with a collectivistic cultural background (Peru) and one with a mixed individualistic-collectivistic cultural background (Spain). Method Participants School students across nine countries are participating in an ongoing international study on this topic. The interim results reported here are a random sample from seven of the nine participating countries which have been balanced for gender within each country cohort Vietnam (N = 100), Korea (N = 106), Peru (N = 100), Spain (N = 100), Australia (N = 100), United Kingdom (N = 100), and Germany (N = 100), respectively. All students who participated in the study are in grade 4 in elementary school with the exception of the UK sample where the equivalent school stage is Primary 6 but all students are within a comparable age range. The mean age of all the students included in this sample was M = 10.94 (SD = .42) and ranged across the countries sampled from M = 10.81 years in Australia to M = 11.13 years in Germany. Materials All participants received an identical questionnaire. The cross-national design of the research means that participants had multiple different first languages consequently all instruments were translated into the first language of each country cohort and re-translated to ensure accuracy in translation. In the questionnaire students were asked to imagine two fictitious new classmates were joining their class. The order of the questionnaire was gender balanced so that half of the students started with a fictitious male classmate, the other half with a fictitious female classmate. The following instructions were provided to participants: For the following statements, we want to know what expectations you have, when a new girl (boy) comes into your class. The only thing you know about her (him) is that she (he) was the best student in her (his) previous school. Read each statement and colour the circle that best describes your feelings about the statement. This design was employed as similar formats have been widely used in studies of impression formation (Heise, 2010; Rossi & Nock, 1982). Previous research has demonstrated that this format successfully enables controlled studies of judgments that would be difficult to study through observation. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 13 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar Students were asked to indicate their expectations of the new classmate in relation to a list of fourteen pre-defined characteristics. The items were to be answered on a 6-point Likert scale (from 1 – “totally disagree” to 6 – “totally agree”) for each hypothetical new female and male student. Similarly to Händel et al. (2012, 2013) the items were categorized into three areas: intellectual abilities (e.g. “…is very intelligent”, “… has many good ideas”), positive social qualities (e.g. “… has a sense of humor”, “…communicates well”) and popularity (e.g. “…will be popular in the class”, “… is carefree and cool”). Cronbach’s α show satisfactory values (>.68) for all scales across the gender of the high-achieving person. Results Three Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) were conducted with country and sex of the participants as independent variables. In the first MANOVA the expected intellectual abilities of a new high-performing girl in class and a new high-performing boy in class were the dependent variables. Significant country differences were detected Wilks = .741, multivariate F(12,1370) = 18.5, p < 0.001, partial η² = .14. In accordance with Cohen (1988) this can be interpreted as a large effect. Two univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) show that the effect holds for both sexes of new students female new student: F(6,686) = 27.83, p < 0.001, partial η² = .20, male new student: F(6,686) = 30.68, p < 0.001, partial η² = .21. Neither the sex differences Wilks = 1.00, multivariate F(2,685) = 0.17, p < 1.0, partial η² = .00 nor the country X sex interaction Wilks = .977, multivariate F(12,1368) = 1.31, p < 1.0, partial η² = .11 reached statistical significance levels. All country means were in the upper half of the scale indicating that high intellectual abilities are considered an attribute of a high-performing student (see Figures 1a and 1b). Figure 1a: Expected intellectual abilities of a high-performing new female student 14 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers Figure 1b: Expected intellectual abilities of a high-performing new male student However, post-hoc conducted namely Fisher's Least Significant Difference Tests (LSD) reveal a number of significant country differences. Interestingly, three clusters of nations seem to emerge. Students from the two East-Asian countries, Vietnam and South Korea, have the lowest expectations concerning intellectual abilities of new high-performing classmates. All differences between these two countries and other participating countries were significant (p < 0.05). This finding is in line with previous research indicating that students from East-Asian countries attribute achievements less to gifts and talents, but rather to diligence and learning (Cheng, & Si. Phillipson, 2013). The highest expectations concerning intellectual abilities of new high-performing classmates were reported by students from the two Spanish speaking countries Peru and Spain. The post-hoc test between these two countries was not statistically significant. However all the other comparisons between the two Spanish speaking countries and the other countries are statistically significant with the exception of the comparison with the United Kingdom students´ concerning expectations towards a new high-performing girl. In contrast, no post-hoc comparisons between Australia, United Kingdom and Germany reached statistical significance. With the exception of the Korean students’ expectations towards a new female high-performing student the expectations concerning positive social qualities of a new high-performing classmate were also in the upper half of the scale. A second MANOVA was conducted this time with the expected positive social qualities of a new high-performing girl in class and a new high-performing boy in class as dependent variables (See Figures 2a and 2b). This analysis identified significant country differences Wilks = .614; multivariate F(12,1370) = 31.51, p < 0.001, partial η² = .22. Again according to Cohen (1988) this can be considered a large effect. Two univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) show that the effect holds for both sexes of new students female new student: F(6,686) = 16.50, p < 0.001, partial η² = .13; male new student: F(6,686) = 61,80, p < 0.001, partial η² = .35. This main effect was qualified by a significant Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 15 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar interaction of country and sex of a small effect size Wilks = .967; multivariate F(12,1370) = 1.95, p < 0.05, partial η²=.02. Two ANOVAs show that the effect only holds when the sex of the new fictitious classmate is male female new student: F(6,686) = .65, p < 1.0, partial η² = .01; male new student: F(6,686) = 2.52, p < 0.05, partial η² = .02. The main effect for sex did not reach statistical significance levels Wilks = 1.0, multivariate F(2,685) =.17, p < 1.0, partial η² = .00. Figure 2a: Expected positive social qualities of a high-performing new female student Figure 2b: Expected positive social qualities of a high-performing new male student Post-hoc tests of mean differences among the students from the seven countries revealed a similar pattern of results as in the previous analysis on participants’ expectations of intellectual abilities. Students from the two Spanish Speaking countries, Spain and Peru, have the highest expectations of positive social qualities in relation to the high achieving student and students from the two East-Asian countries, Vietnam and Korea, have the lowest expectations of new 16 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers high achieving classmate having positive social qualities. However, although the country differences between the two East-Asian countries and the other participating countries were significant, not all of the country differences between the two Spanish speaking countries and the remaining three countries reached statistical significance. No discernible pattern emerges in the analysis of the 2-way-interaction of country and sex regarding expectations of the new male high-performing classmate. Within the three clusters of countries all kind of possibilities could be observed: Lower expectations of girls in Vietnam were reported, but higher expectations of girls in Korea. Similarly, there were lower reported expectations of girls in Peru, but higher expectations of girls in Spain. Within the remaining three countries, there were lower expectations of girls than boys in Australia, and higher expectations of girls in the United Kingdom, but identical expectations of both male and female high achieving students in Germany. The third MANOVA which examined the expected popularity of a new female and a new male high-performing classmate revealed a medium significant main effect for country Wilks = .79, multivariate F(12,1370) = 14.68, p < 0.001, partial η² = .11, but an insignificant main effect for sex Wilks = .996, multivariate F(2,685) = 1.25, p < 1.0, partial η² = .00 and an insignificant interaction of country and sex Wilks = .997 multivariate F(12,1370) = .72, p < 1.0, partial η² = .01. The main effect for country holds irrespective of the hypothesized sex of a new student female new student: F(6,686) = 12.31, p < 0.001, partial η² = .13, male new student: F(6,686) = 7.50, p < 0.001, partial η² = .10. Figure 3a: Expected popularity of a high-performing new female student Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 17 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar Figure 3b: Expected popularity of a high-performing new male student Post-hoc analyses of the mean differences of the expectations concerning the popularity of a new high-performing girl demonstrated similar patterns as were found in the previous country comparisons. The two East Asian countries hold the least positive expectations, whereas the two Spanish-speaking countries hold the highest expectations. The findings from Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany fall in between. However, the situation was very different for the expected popularity of a high-performing new male classmate. This time, students in Germany have the lowest expectations with all other country comparisons with Germany being statistically significant. Next follow the two East-Asian countries. Their means differ significantly from the means of Spain, Australia and the United Kingdom. Discussion As discussed within the introduction there is a concern in the research literature that high academic achievement may lead to peer rejection and social isolation (Feldhusen, & Dai, 1997; Moulton, Moulton, Housewright, & Bailey, 1998). This fear may lead to gifted pupils purposively underachieving or parental concerns about identifying their children’s abilities for fear of the negative social and emotional implications. This fear is substantiated to a degree by the literature evidencing that not all gifted students grow up to be high achieving adults (e.g. Freeman, 2006a, 2006b, 2010). However, the research findings are inconsistent and there is also substantial body of research that argues the opposite position: High-performing students may be especially respected by their peers (e.g., Bain & Bell, 2004; Berlin, 2009; Lee, OlszewskiKubilius, & Thomson, 2012; Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). Research has demonstrated that in some specific academic subjects, like languages, high performers enjoyed a reputation of having a positive character with high intellectuality and a sociable and good personality (Händel et al. 2013). Faced with these contradictory findings this study aimed to add to the research literature in three respects. Firstly, by focusing on pure stereotypes through the use of the fictitious new 18 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers classmate and hopefully isolating this from other potentially confounding variables evident in previous literature. Secondly, by assessing the use of stereotypes by elementary school children in a developmental phase when these stereotypes might just arise. Thirdly, in light of previously reported cross-cultural differences in the existing literature, the cross-national design of the current study allowed comparisons between several countries with diverse cultural backgrounds. A key positive outcome of the current research was the absence of any evidence of a negative stereotype towards high-performing classmates among fourth-graders in any of the countries. Quite the contrary, high-performing students in all countries were predominantly positively perceived with the results scoring in the upper halves of the three scales measuring expected intellectual abilities, social qualities and popularity. Thus, in elementary school at least expectations turned out to be very positive. However, some country and some gender influences were found and merit discussion and further consideration. Students from Vietnam and South Korea reported the lowest expectations concerning the intellectual abilities of a new high-performing classmate. This finding is consistent with the fact that in East-Asian cultures achievements are predominantly attributed to diligence and learning (Phillipson et al., 2013). The expectations of students in Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany sit in the middle of the range of expectations and the highest expectations regarding intellectual abilities of a new high-performing classmate were reported by the students from the two Spanish speaking countries Peru and Spain. This pattern of results reflects nicely the differential degree of importance for the development of extraordinary achievements attributed to gifts in these countries (Blumen, 2013; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). The expectations reported regarding high achieving students’ positive social qualities followed a similar pattern. Students from the two East-Asian countries Vietnam and Korea had the lowest expectation and the two Spanish speaking countries Spain and Peru had the highest expectations towards positive social qualities of a new high achieving classmate. The three other countries fell between. However, it is noteworthy that students from Korea held slightly lower expectations towards a new female high-performing student concerning her positive social qualities, but not significantly below the scale mean. An interesting pattern of results was found for the expectations concerning the high achieving students’ popularity. Expectations towards a new high-performing girl follow the typical pattern of the previous country comparisons, i.e. the two East Asian countries hold the least positive expectations, whereas the two Spanish speaking countries hold the highest expectations. Australia, United Kingdom and Germany fall in between. However, an unexpected pattern emerges with respect to the expected popularity of a high-performing new male classmate. Surprisingly students in Germany hold the lowest expectations and then the two East-Asian countries follow this with expectations slightly above the scale mean. The highest expectations were found among the students from the Spanish-speaking countries who usually hold the Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 19 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar highest positive expectations. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to discern these findings on the basis of the available literature (e.g., Chandler, 2013; VanTassel-Baska, 2013; Phillipson, & McCann, 2007; Ziegler, Stoeger, Harder, & Balestrini, 2013). In conclusion, the most important finding from this research is the students’ favorable expectations regarding the intellectual abilities, positive social qualities and popularity of high-performing classmates across the seven participating countries. It is encouraging that students from these countries do not appear to have negative associations with high achievement. By implication this may mean that they would not fear demonstrating their own abilities. Overall, the students in the Spanish-speaking countries held the most desirable expectations for highperforming classmates, followed by the students from Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The least positive expectations were exhibited by the students of the East-Asian countries these scores were predominantly located slightly above the scale means. However, it is difficult to decide if this really indicates a relative indifference towards high-performing students. An alternative explanation might be that these results might simply indicate that the students had not yet developed a full concept of ability (see Stipek, 1981; Phillipson, 2013). In order to decide this issue further research that covers a wider age range is needed. Limitations of the Study As with all research, the current research has a number of limitations. Firstly, the use of a fictitious scenario to investigate the expectations of students towards high-performing students while a strength, in that the student characteristics are not confounded with other variables and this therefore allowed for an error-free investigation of expectations towards highperforming peers, it is also a limitation. Reality is more complex and different variables may work in interaction to influence peer academic reputations e.g. a student’s physical appearance may mediate peer’s perceptions of their ability (Ziegler et al., 2011). Also because of the scenario based design we cannot see how students’ perceptions turn into actions. We are unable to determine from our data if the expectations students hold about their peers actually influences either their own behaviour or the behaviour of their high-performing peers. A second limitation is that we did not compare interpersonal and intrapersonal expectations with actual achievement data (Beghetto & Baxter, 2012). That is, we do not investigate how high or lowperforming students describe themselves in contrast to a high-performing student. This is important as a student’s own abilities may influence their perceptions and expectations of high achieving peers. Finally, the results of our study do not allow for causal interpretations. As the results are based on scale means of expectations towards high-performing peers assessed via a questionnaire, further qualitative research is needed to investigate their meaning. Such research could also provide further enlightenment on the reasons for the pattern of results found in the current study and help explain what caused the gender by country interactions. 20 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers References Beghetto, R. A., & Baxter, J. A. (2012). Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 942–960. doi: 10.1002/tea.21018. Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student Perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31, 217-223. Blumen, S. (2013). New trends in talent development in Peru. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 346-364. doi:10.1177/0162353213492925. Cauce, A. M. (1987). School and peer competence in early adolescence: A test of domain specific self-perceived competence. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 287-291. Cheng, R. W.-Y., & Phillipson, Si. (2013). Goal orientation and the development of subjective action space in Chinese students. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 114-131). London: Routledge. Chevalier, A., Gibbons, S., Thorpe, A., Snell, M., & Hoskins, S. (2009). Students' academic selfperception Economics of Education Review, 28, 716-727. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev. 2009.06.007. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chandler, K. L. (Guest-Ed.) (2013). Special issue: International perspectives on gifted education and talent development, Part II. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3). Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations, Journal of Advanced Academics, 9(15), 15-20. doi: 10.1177/1932202X9700900103. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the „burden of 'acting white'. The Urban Review, 18, 176-206. Flores-Gonzalez, N. (1999). Puerto Rican high-performers: an example of ethnic and academic identity compatibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(3), 343-362. Freeman, J. (2006a). Emotional problems of the gifted child. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 481-485. Freeman, J. (2006b). Giftedness in the Long Term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 384403. Freeman, J. (2010). Gifted Lives. London: Routledge. Händel, M., Duan, X., Sutherland, M. & Ziegler, A. (2013). Successful in science education and still popular: A pattern that is possible in China rather than in Germany or Russia. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 887-907. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.830232 Händel, M., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2013). Student perceptions of high achieving classmates. High Ability Studies, 24, 99-114. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2002). Challenge the science-stereotype. Der Einfluss von Technik-Freizeitkursen auf das Naturwissenschaften-Stereotyp von Schülerinnen und Schülern. [The influence of leisure activities in technical fields on the science stereotype of students]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45, 341-358. Heise, D. R. (2010). Surveying cultures: Discovering shared conceptions and sentiments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 21 Oh ve diğerleri Öğrenci Algıları: Yüksek Performanslı Akranlar Hughes, J. A., Dyer, N., Luo, W., & Kwok, O. (2009) Effects of Peer Academic Reputation on Achievement in Academically At-Risk Elementary Students, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 182–194. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.008. Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Giftedness in the Euro-American culture. In S. N. Phillipson, & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 377- 413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245–247. Landsheer, H. A., Maassen, G. H., Bisschop, P., & Adema, L. (1998). Can higher grades result in fewer friends? A reexamination of the relation between academic and social competence. Adolescence, 33, 185-191. Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students‘ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships, Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (2), 90104. doi: 10.1177/0016986212442568. Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K. (1998). Gifted & talented: Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21(2), 153-154. Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning, Roeper Review, 20(1), 18-21. doi: 10.1080/02783199709553845. O’Connor, J. (2012). Is it good to be gifted? The social construction of the gifted child. Children & Society, 26(4), 293–303. Pelkner, A.-K., & Boehnke, K. (2003). Streber als Leistungsverweigerer? Projektidee und erstes Datenmaterial einer Studie zu mathematischen Schulleistung [Do Nerds Refuse Achievement? Project idea and first data from a study on mathematical achievement]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6(1), 106-125. Phillipson, S. (2013). Confucianism, learning self-concept and the development of excptionality. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 40-49). London: Routledge. Phillipson, S.N., & McCann, M. (Eds.) (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Phillipson, S., Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (Eds.). Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness. London: Routledge. Pyryt, M. C., & Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 299-305. Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (Eds.) (1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sankofa, B. M., Hurley, E. A, Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (2005). Cultural expression and black students' attitudes toward high-performers. The Journal of Psychology. 139(3), 247259. Shen, C., & Tam, H. P. (2008) The paradoxical relationship between student achievement and self-perception: A cross-national analysis based on three waves of TIMSS data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(1), 87-100. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 26-37. Stipek, D. J. (1981). Children's perceptions of their own and their classmates' ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 404-410. 22 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Oh and others Students’ Perceptions: High Performing Peers Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A consequence of changes in the child or in the educational environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 352–356. VanTassel-Baska, J. (Guest-Ed.) (2013). Special issue: International perspectives on gifted education and talent development, Part II. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1). Ziegler, A., Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M. Neubauer, T. & Heilemann, M. (2011). How desirable are gifted boys for girls and gifted girls for boys? Results of a chatroom study. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 19, 16-20. Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., Harder, B., & Balestrini, D. P. (2013). Gifted education in German speaking Europe. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 384-411. doi: 10.1177/0162353213492247 Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 23 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 24-36 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 24-36 ______________________________________________________ Chances and Limitations of Implementing Measures of Differentiation for Gifted Children in Primary Schools: The Teachers’ Part İlkokuldaki Üstün Zekalı Öğrencilere Yönelik Program Farklılaştırma Uygulamalarındaki Şanslar ve Sınırlılıklar: Öğretmen Kısmı Martina Endepohls-Ulpe¹ & Natascha Thömmes² Abstract Öz The presented study analyzes German primary school teachers’ attitudes towards several measures of internal differentiation with respect to the anticipated benefit for gifted pupils and the anticipated work load for teachers. Besides, correlations of these attitudes with teachers’ statements on the frequency of adopting the measures in their own classes were inspected. One-hundred thirty-seven teachers and teacher students were interviewed with a questionnaire on the assessed consequences and the frequency of the usage of several methods of differentiation. Data analysis was done by analyses of variance and calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients. Results show that teachers, as well as teacher students, mostly assessed the listed measures of internal differentiation to be appropriate for the promotion of gifted pupils, but for teachers there were significant negative correlations between assessed work load and frequency of usage in their own classes. Keywords: measures of internal differentiation, gifted children, primary school teachers Bu araştırmada Almanya’daki ilkokul öğretmenlerinin üstün zekalı öğrencilere yönelik çeşitli program farklılaştırma uygulamalarının beklenen faydaları ve öğretmenler üzerinde yaratabileceği hakkındaki tutumları incelenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, öğretmenlerin tutumları ve belirtilen durumları kendi sınıflarında uyarlama frekansları arasındaki korelasyon da araştırılmıştır. Araştırma 137 öğretmen ve öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılara çeşitli farklılaştırma stratejilerini ne sıklıkta kullandıklarını ve iş yüklerini sorgulayan bir ölçek uygulanmıştır. Verilerin istatistiksel analizinde varyans analizi ve Person korelasyon katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlar göre; hem öğretmenler hem de öğretmen adayları farklılaştırma stratejilerinin üstün zekalı öğrencilerin eğitimini desteklemek için uygun olduklarını bildirmişler, öğretmenlerin iş yükleri ile stratejileri sınıflarında kullanma frekansları arasında ise negatif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Anahtar Sözcükler: program farklılaştırmaları, ilkokul, üstün zekâlılar, ilkokul öğretmenleri Introduction As a consequence of the insight that the principle that “individually differentiated talent prerequisites and learning needs demand differentiated scholastic curricula and instructional strategies” (Heller, 2005, p.193) is not limited to the instruction of children with special needs caused by learning difficulties or cognitive deficits, a lot of programs, curricula and materials have also been developed to meet the needs of extraordinarily bright and talented children Corresponding author, PhD., Institute of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany; endepohl@uni-koblenz.de 2University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany; natasha.thoemmes@web.de ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation during the last decades. Nevertheless, we are still far away from a definite agreement about how special educational strategies and curriculum contents for these children should look like. One of the controversial issues in gifted research and education policy is the question whether or not gifted children should be educated in homogenous or heterogeneous groups. Measures of homogenous grouping or external differentiation are very popular, such as e.g. special schools for gifted children, after school clubs, study groups or pull-out programs, where bright and high achieving students can work on problems or materials at their own pace at least for a limited time of the day or week. Measures of External Differentiation Advocates of grouping argue that increasing homogeneity and the resulting narrow range of variation of cognitive level and academic achievement in a class will produce benefits for learning that are not possible with less homogeneity e.g. an accelerated pace of instruction, avoiding frustrating passages of boredom for gifted children, optimizing methods of instruction to the needs of highly able students, more time for individualized promotion of interests, assignment of teachers specifically trained for this certain group of students, etc. From the teachers’ perspective grouping seems to be a relief from organizational overload (Vock, Preckel & Holling, 2007). Actually, teachers seem to prefer teaching homogeneous groups to teaching heterogeneous classes and there is indeed empirical evidence that ability grouping has benefits for gifted and/or high achieving students. There are studies demonstrating that students in special classes profit in their intellectual development and perform better than gifted students in regular classes (for an overview see Vock et. al, 2007, pp. 44-50). But grouping does not have a positive effect on achievement in general. In their meta-analysis of studies on the effects of different grouping settings, Kulik and Kulik (1992) found out that homogenous grouping does not seem to increase achievement in middle- and low-ability groups. There is a small positive effect in high-ability groups. Crucial conditions for distinct positive effects appear to be that the curriculum is adapted to the learning level of the group, e.g. by compacting, acceleration, and enrichment, and methods of instruction are also tailored to the target group. With respect to academic self-concept, grouping even seems to have detrimental effects for gifted students (e.g. Rindermann & Heller, 2005), though a fact that has to be put into perspective, since the academic self-concept of gifted students in homogenous learning groups is still better than that of average students (e.g. Rost & Hanses, 1994). Arguments against homogeneous grouping often refer to the disadvantages for middle- or low-ability groups e.g. missing learning models or discrimination of children with low SES and/or migratory background in the educational system, or promoting elitist attitudes in the group of gifted children. A second class of arguments is disadvantages for teachers like decreasing motivation to teach in “rest-classes” of low achieving students or work overload Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 25 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma caused by the necessity of providing differentiated and challenging learning materials (see Vock et al., 2007). A fact, which makes thinking about methods of instruction to promote gifted children in heterogeneous classrooms indispensable, is that special measures for gifted students are not always available due to financial and organizational limitations. Thus, for numerous gifted children there simply is no access to a special measure. And finally, gifted children are a very heterogeneous group with respect to both their cognitive and non-cognitive personality profiles (Solzbacher, 2006). Even in a special program children’s profiles of strengths and weaknesses may be very distinct. Hence, it seems naïve to assume that teaching them in homogeneous groups will relieve teachers from the task of differentiation of materials and instructional methods. Measures of Internal Differentiation and Individualized Instruction In contrast to the popularity of special programs for gifted children amongst politicians and teachers mentioned above, several authors cast doubt on the assumption that there is a special gifted-child-pedagogy (Kaplan, 2003; Ladenthin, 2006). Tomlinson (1996) as well as Coleman and Cross (2005) postulate essential commonalities between good instruction in general and instruction for highly-able learners (for an overview see Endepohls-Ulpe, 2009). Indeed, teaching students in heterogeneous classes combined with methods of internal differentiation or individualized instruction seems to have positive effects on the learning outcomes of all ability groups (Vock et. al, 2007). But crucial condition for positive effects for this integrating within class approach definitely is that “… curricular and instructional provisions for the gifted must be carefully maintained lest they disintegrate into a non-program format” (Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell & Goldberg, 1994, p. xviii, cf. Olszewski-Kubilius, 2003). According to Coleman & Cross (2005) differentiation in classroom, which takes the needs of gifted children into account, means accepting and dealing with a wide range of ability, advanced knowledge in areas, a rapid learning rate and intense involvement in some topics. Curriculum compacting is also essential to give space for enrichment activities. Heller & Hany (1996) name individualized level of difficulty of assignments, self-regulated learning, enquirybased learning, and resource rooms as essential aspects of a gifted friendly classroom. Montgomery (1994, p. 320) postulates three principles: 1. “The setting of different tasks at different levels of difficulty suitable for different levels of achievement.” 2) “The setting of common tasks that can be responded to in a positive way by all pupils/students.” 3) “The setting of common tasks to which all pupils/students can contribute their own knowledge and understanding on collaborative activities and so structure their experiences and progress from surface to deep learning and thus be enabled to achieve more advanced learning outcomes.” Hertzog (1998) suggests open-ended activities as such an instrument of providing students with 26 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation tasks they can respond to on their personal level of knowledge and skills. She offers an expanded definition of open-ended activities as activities that “provide learners with choices in the content, process, or product domain”. German authors like Bönsch (2004), Reketat (2001), Schulte zu Berge (2005), and Paradies & Linser (2009), who deal with internal differentiation, frequently do so in the tradition of approaches from progressive education, which have a long history in Germany and have already reflected on the needs also of gifted children nearly 80 years ago. Internal differentiation in this tradition can happen by variation of learning pace (Busse, 2007), aspiration level (Schulte zu Berge, 2005), social form and method (Bönsch, 2004). Furthermore, provision of varying approaches to subjects (visual, auditory, action-oriented, abstract or conceptional) and methods like sharing circle, tutoring systems/cooperation, working with individual weekly schedules, free activity, project work, and enquiry based learning or open learning (self-determined, independent and interest guided) are adopted (for an overview see Schulte zu Berge, 2005). Issue and Conception of the Study In Germany, like in other countries with tracking systems in secondary school, primary school is usually the last stage of schooling where children of all levels of abilities are instructed in one classroom. Especially for younger children special measures for the gifted are rare, existing measures like pull-out programs have limited capacity and measures with a non-public provider are often simply too expensive for parents with limited financial resources. Thus, when aiming to meet the needs of all children, the implementation of measures of internal differentiation seems to be essential. However, with respect to differentiation and individual furtherance, in spite of the already illustrated tradition of progressive pedagogy, German primary school teachers mostly seem to focus on children with learning deficits. Possible reasons may be the above mentioned fear of work overload or simply lack of knowledge about what can be done for gifted children in a heterogeneous classroom. Theories from the field of social psychology like e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action, postulate that the intention to perform a certain behavior, which is correlated with performing the behavior, is amongst others determined by the anticipation of possible outcomes of performing the behavior and by the knowledge of normative expectations in the social environment. Accordingly, the presented study analyzes primary school teachers’ and teacher students’ attitudes against several measures of differentiation with respect to the following questions: 1. How suitable do teachers assess these measures for gifted education? 2. Which amount of effort and time do teachers assess for adopting measures of internal differentiation in their classes? 3. How frequently do teachers adopt these measures in their classes? 4. Is there a correlation for certain measures between assessed eligibility, assessed effort, and frequency of adoption? Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 27 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma 5. Are there differences between the attitudes of teachers and students with and without information on the topic of giftedness? Method Measuring Instrument and Participants A sample of teachers and teacher students were interviewed with a questionnaire comprising amongst others three parts with questions (4-Step-Likert items) on the following aspects: 1. assessed eligibility, 2. assessed expenditure of work and time, and – only for teachers – 3. frequency of the usage of several methods of differentiation in their classes. The questionnaire also contained several questions concerning personal data and in addition to that a question on teachers’ sources of information with respect to gifted education. Item examples: 1. How suitable do you assess the following measure for the promotion of gifted children? Internal differentiation by variation of aspiration level: (1) not suitable (2) less suitable (3) suitable (4) very suitable 2. How do you assess your personal effort of work and time to implement the following methods of promotion of gifted children in your classes? Open learning: (1) low (2) still manageable (3) hardly manageable (4) too high 3. How often do you use the following measures in your classes especially for gifted children? Individual work schedule for every pupil: (1) never (2) sometimes (3) often (4) very often 134 questionnaires were distributed at 14 primary schools and 99 questionnaires were distributed in several advanced courses for teacher students at the University of Koblenz. The return rate for teachers was 48% (N = 60) and 78% for students (N = 77), which can be accepted as sufficient. Data Analysis In order to analyze the differences in the attitudes of the subgroups, 2 (teacher vs. student) x 2 (information vs. no information on giftedness) analyses of variance were conducted with item values on assessed consequences (eligibility for gifted education, work load) as dependent variables. For the subgroup of teachers Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each measure between the degree of assessed work load, the degree of assessed eligibility and the frequency of usage of methods of internal differentiation in their own classes. 28 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation Results Sample The final sample consisted of 137 subjects, N=52 teachers, N=77 teacher students, N=4 teachers on probation and N=4 supply teachers. As the subsamples of teachers on probation and supply teachers were very small, they were not incorporated as subgroups in the ANOVAS. The mean age of the teachers was 41 years and the mean age of the students was 23 years. 91% of the subjects were female, which is consistent with the gender ratio in the total population of primary school teachers in Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2010, p. 134). 79 subjects declared that they had been informed on the subject of giftedness and on gifted education (23 students and 56 teachers). Sources of information for teachers were continuing education for teachers (N=17), teacher training courses (N=20), and various other sources (N=45), like literature, media, etc. Sources of information for students were mainly university courses on the topic of giftedness. Assessed Eligibility of Methods of Differentiation Means of the assessed eligibility of methods of differentiation reveal that teachers, as well as students, estimate most of the listed methods as “suitable” to “very suitable” for the promotion of gifted children (table 1). Differentiation with respect to aspiration level was rated most suitable, followed by enquiry based learning, weekly schedules with additional tasks and individual weekly schedules, open learning, differentiation with respect to approaches to subjects, project work, free activity and resource rooms. Only internal differentiation with respect to handling time for tasks, amount of learning matters and the sharing circle were estimated between “less suitable” and “suitable”. Interestingly, from the listed methods of external differentiation only study groups for gifted students and pull-out programs were rated between “suitable” to “very suitable”. Special parents’ evenings and measures of acceleration – early school enrolment, grade skipping and grade telescoping, were estimated less favorably, between “less suitable” and “suitable”. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 29 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma Table 1. Assessed Eligibility of Methods of Differentiation N M¹ SD …handling time of tasks ....amount of learning matters …aspiration level …approaches to subjects Open learning 133 133 136 132 131 2.62 2.85 3.77 3.36 3.50 .765 .821 .455 .657 .625 Weekly schedule with enrichment offers / special tasks 136 133 134 136 132 135 119 127 130 3.56 3.56 3.15 3.30 3.61 3.08 2.10 3.09 3.54 .568 .678 .710 .648 .519 .820 .694 .591 .573 117 119 2.85 3.33 .847 .702 118 3.16 .613 126 121 128 2.55 2.64 2.88 .733 .644 .742 Internal differentiation with respect to Individual weekly schedules Free activity Project work Enquiry based learning Tutoring system / cooperation Sharing circle Resource rooms Study groups for gifted pupils (e.g. chess, creative writing, astronomy) Special parents‘ evenings (for parents of gifted children) “Discovery Day” (high achieving students gather and work together on one the day of the week) Pull-out-Programs (high achieving students gather and work together for a couple of hours) Early school enrolment Grade skipping Grade telescoping No differences between the subgroups of teachers and students or subjects with and without information on the topic of giftedness could be shown in the analyses of variance. Assessed Effort of Work and Time for Measures of Internal Differentiation There was not a single measure of differentiation where the necessary personal average effort of work and time to implement them in classes was assessed to be “hardly manageable” or “too high” (see table 2). Measures that were rated the most extensive, between “still manageable” and “hardly manageable”, were individual weekly schedules, internal differentiation with respect to approaches to subjects, enquiry based learning and project work. Apparently, individual weekly schedules were the measure, which was estimated to be the most laborious. Internal differentiation with respect to handling time, tutoring system and sharing circle were rated to require rather low effort. 30 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation Table 2. Assessed Effort of Work and Time, ANOVA Results for Subgroups Teachers and Students, Subjects with and Without Information on Giftedness Internal differentiation with respect to …handling time of tasks ... amount of learning matters …aspiration level …approaches to subjects Open learning Weekly schedule with enrichment offers / special tasks Individual weekly schedules Free activity Project work Enquiry based learning Tutoring system / cooperation Sharing circle Resource rooms F occupational category F status of information N M¹ SD 133 1.48 .572 .051 .659 130 133 131 1.85 1.98 2.23 .544 .522 .615 2.034 .012 .987 .525 .010 .262 127 1.97 .603 .457 .049 135 136 134 131 130 135 124 127 1.93 2.85 1.84 2.14 2.15 1.42 1.30 2.04 .521 .739 .560 .565 .586 .553 .598 .635 2.749 3.582* .306 4.743** 1.708 .564 .467 .412 2.258 2.551 .263 2.264 2.080 .092 .012 .010 Notes. ¹(1) low (2) still manageable (3) hardly manageable (4) too high *p<.10; **p<.05 With respect to individual weekly schedules there was a tendency (p=.06) for a significant difference between the ratings of students and teachers. Teachers estimated the effort for creating individual weekly schedules slightly higher (M=2.88; SD=.784) than students did (M=2.84; SD=.694). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction effect between occupational group and status of information on giftedness for this item (F (1,124)=6.989; p<.01). Teachers (M=2.84, SD=.766) and students with information (M=3.05; SD=.575) assessed the effort for this measure as hardly manageable, students without information between still manageable and hardly manageable (M=2.76; SD=.725), whilst teachers without information rated the effort for individual weekly schedules as too high (M=4, SD=0). As the group of teachers without information on giftedness consisted of only two subjects these results have to be interpreted with great caution. For project work as a measure of furtherance there was a significant difference between the ratings of teachers and students. Teachers (M=2.04, SD=.577) rated the required effort lower than students (M=2.21, SD=.552; F (1,119) = 4.743) did. Again there was a significant interaction effect occupational group x status of information (F (1,119) = 4.371; p<.05). Students (M=2.09, SD=.515) and teachers (M=2.06; SD=.592) with information on giftedness assessed the required effort as still manageable, students without information (M=2.26, SD=.552) a little higher, whilst the two teachers without information rated time and effort for project work to be low (M=1, SD=0). Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 31 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma Frequency of Adoption of Measures for Promoting Gifted Students At first, it has to be stated that only one of the measures was used “often” with respect to the frequency teachers adopted the listed measures in their classes. This was the use of tutoring systems or cooperation. Measures of internal differentiation with respect to handling time of tasks, amount of learning matters, aspiration level and free activity were used between “sometimes” and “often” with ratings nearer to the “often” tail, followed by open learning, sharing circle, weekly schedule with additional materials, enquiry based learning, project work, resource rooms and varying approaches to subjects with means above 2.0. Individual weekly schedules were the less frequently used method (“never” to “sometimes”) (see table 3). Table 3. Frequency of Adoption of Measures (Only for Teachers) and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation with Assessed Eligibility and Assessed Work Load N M¹ SD 59 2.81 .861 60 2.97 .758 60 60 2.82 2.05 .770 .622 59 2.49 .796 Assessed eligibility Assessed work (p 2-tailed)² load (p 2-tailed)² Internal differentiation with respect to …handling time of tasks ... amount of learning matters … aspiration level … approaches to subjects Open learning Weekly schedule with enrichment offers / special tasks Individual weekly schedules Free activity Project work Enquiry based learning Tutoring system / cooperation Sharing circle Resource Rooms 60 2.40 1.012 60 58 60 59 1.63 2.52 2.10 2.22 .882 .883 .543 .696 59 51 57 3.00 2.45 2.07 .891 1.119 .678 .363** .222 .137 -.227 .099 -.214 .150 .131 -.337* -.374** .316* -.360* .307* -.499** .381** .233 .157 .324* -.321* -.214 -.472** -.125 .231 .145 -.076 -.192 Notes. ¹ (1) never (2) sometimes (3) often (4) very often *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Pearson correlations of the self-reported frequency of use and the assessed eligibility of the listed measures were altogether consistently positive. This means that an estimated high eligibility for the promotion of gifted children goes together with an increased frequency of use of the measure in instruction. Correlation coefficients were significant for differentiation with respect to handling time of tasks, weekly schedules with enrichment offers, individual weekly schedules, free activity and the use of a tutoring system. 32 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation Inversely, correlation coefficients between self-reported frequency of use and assessed work load for the measures were mostly negative (except for variation in handling time of tasks), indicating that an assessed high amount of work load for a measures goes together with a decline of frequency of adopting the measure in instruction. Significant coefficients were all negative and resulted for differentiation of approaches to subjects, open learning, weekly schedules with enrichment materials, individual weekly schedules, free activity and enquiry based learning. Discussion First of all, it can be stated that German primary school teachers’ as well as teacher students’ attitudes with respect to methods of internal differentiation, as far as their eligibility for the promotion of gifted children in instruction is concerned, seem to be consistently positive. Remarkably, this is especially true for challenging measures, where special materials have to be provided, like e.g. differentiation with respect to aspiration level, enquiry based learning, weekly schedules with additional tasks, individual weekly schedules, and so on. In contrast to studies revealing a general preference of teachers for measures of homogeneous grouping, the results of the presented study support the notion that teachers have a preference for measures which allow gifted children to remain in their age group for schooling. Especially measures of acceleration like early enrolment at school or grade skipping, were judged as less suitable for promoting gifted children (see also Heinbokel, 2008). As far as the amount of anticipated effort of work and time is concerned, teachers judge measures of internal differentiation as “manageable”, or even lower. Values for measures that require additional learning materials, such as individual weekly schedules, internal differentiation with respect to approaches to subjects, enquiry based learning and project work, were slightly higher. Individual weekly schedules were judged to be the most laborious method. But in spite of their positive judgments with respect to eligibility of measures of internal differentiation for the instruction of gifted children and an only moderate amount of anticipated work load, teachers seem to adopt measures of differentiation rarely. Positive correlations of frequency of use with assessed eligibility in combination with negative correlations with assessed work load possibly reveal teachers’ conflict between general knowledge on instructional methods and anticipated personal consequences of adopting them. Solzbacher (2006) assumes that teachers are simply unable to cope with heterogeneity in a school system, which is standardized in every respect, which would mean that the system hinders them to differentiate in general. The results of this study lead to the hypotheses that especially measures that require the provision of special learning materials and/or enhanced monitoring and structuring of children’s individual activities like weekly schedules, enquiry based learning, and open learning or free activities seem to be afflicted in their use by anticipation of too much work. There were only a few significant differences between teachers’ and students’ attitudes. Interestingly, teachers assessed the necessary work load for individual weekly schedules slightly Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 33 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma higher than students did. Students without information assessed project work to be more laborious than teachers and students with information on giftedness. But altogether the attitudes of primary school teachers and teacher students with respect to eligibility of measures and anticipated work load appeared to be very similar. Even the self-reported level of information on giftedness does not seem to make much difference at least for teacher students. A possible reason for the lacking effects of occupational experience or academic instruction and other resources of information on giftedness may be that these experiences do not provide teachers or students with information or skills on adopting methods of differentiation for gifted children. The two teachers who rated themselves as not informed on giftedness were a rather special group and tended to give extremely deviating answers, e.g. that project work requires no effort at all for the teacher. Apparently, these two had some reservations against the topics of giftedness and internal differentiation and expressed their reservations by taking a somewhat extreme position. Conclusion In spite of their positive attitudes towards measures of internal differentiation as means of promoting gifted children at school, teachers as well as teacher students, see difficulties in adopting some very effective methods of differentiation. Information on the topic of giftedness in general does not seem to make a difference concerning this matter. Teachers apparently are in conflict between their knowledge of how instruction should be in the best case and anticipated work load. A very simple, but verisimilar explanation for this situation may be that they just do not know how to implement more challenging methods in their classes. Introducing only one single method of differentiation like e.g. providing above level-materials to advanced learners may require various further alterations in the classroom (Johnsen, Haensly, Ryser & Ford, 2002), a process that just may overstrain teachers who are not trained and supported to use methods of differentiation. Hence, it seems necessary to think about ways of supporting teachers in implementing these methods, e.g. by advanced training or provision of materials. Furthermore, methods of internal differentiation should already be imparted in teacher training at universities. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bönsch, M. (2004). Differenzierung in Schule und Unterricht. Ansprüche – Formen – Strategien [Differentiation in school and instruction]. W. H. Peterßen (Hrsg.). EGS-Texte. Erziehung – Gesellschaft – Schule [EGS-texts. Education – society – school]. München, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart: Oldenbourg. Busse, S. (2007). Integration von hochbegabten Schülerinnen und Schülern in Unterricht und Schulleben der Grundschule [Integration of intellectually gifted students in instruction and every day life of of primary schools]. Berlin: LIT. 34 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Endepohls-Ulpe & Thömmes Measures of Differentiation Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press. Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2009). Teaching gifted and talented children. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin. The new handbook of teachers and teaching. Volume II, 861-875. New York: Springer. Heinbokel, A. (2008). Enrichment or acceleration. In J. Raffan & J. Fôrtíkovâ (Eds). From giftedness in childhood to successful intelligence in adulthood. Proceedings (Selected Research Papers) of the 11th Conference of European Council for High Ability. Prague (81-88). The Centre of Giftedness. Heller, K. A. (2005). Education and counselling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 191-210. Heller, K. A., & Hany, E.A. (1996). Psychologische Modelle der Begabtenförderung. [Psychological models of fostering the gifted]. In F.E. Weinert (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologe, Psychologie des Lernens und der Instruktion, Pädagogische Psychologie, Bd. 2, 477-503, Göttingen: Hogrefe. Hertzog, N. B. (1998). Open ended activities: Differentiation through learner responses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 212-227. Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R., & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 45-63. Kaplan, S. (2003). Is there a gifted-child-pedagogy? Roeper Review, 24(4), 165. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77. Ladenthin, V. (2006). Brauchen Hochbegabte eine eigene Didaktik [Do gifted children need a special didactics]? In C. Fischer & H. Ludwig (Hrsg.), Begabtenförderung als Aufgabe und Herausforderung für die Pädagogik. Münstersche Gespräche zur Pädagogik (Promotion of the gifted as a task and challenge for pedagogy], Heft 22, (46-65). Münster: Aschendorff Verlag. Montgomery, D. (1994). The promotion of high ability and talent through education and instruction. In K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and Responsibility. The third European conference of the European council for high ability held in Munich (Germany), Oct. 11-14, 1992. Vol. 2, Proceedings of the Conference, 319-335. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Gifted education programs and procedures. In W. M. Reynolds & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Vol7, Educational Psychology, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp.487-510. Paradies, L., & Linser, H. J. (2009). Differenzieren im Unterricht [Differentiation in instruction]. (4. Auflage). Berlin: Cornelsen. Reketat, H. (2001). Offener Unterricht – Eine Fördermöglichkeit für hoch begabte Kinder in Regelschulen [Open Learning – A way of promoting gifted children in regular classes]!? Erziehungswissenschaft. Bd. 49. Münster: LIT. Rindermann, H., & Heller, K.A. (2005). The benefit of gifted classes and talent schools for developing students‘competences and enhancing academic self-concept. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 133-136. Rost, D. H., & Hanses, P. (1994). Besonders begabt: Besonders glücklich, besonders zufrieden? Zum Selbstkonzept hoch- und durchschnittlich begabter Kinder. [Extraordinary gifted: Extraordinary happy, extraordinary content? On the self-concept of intellectually gifted children and children of average intelligence.] Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 105, 379-4033. Schulte zu Berge, S. (2005). Hochbegabte Kinder in der Grundschule. Erkennen – Verstehen – Im Unterricht berücksichtigen [Gifted children in primary school. Discovering – understanding – considering in instruction]. Münster: LIT. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 35 Endepohls-Ulpe ve Thömmes Program Farklılaştırma Solzbacher, C. (2006). Begabtenförderung durch Schulentwicklung und Netzwerkbildung [Promotion of gifted children by school deveopment and networking]. In C. Fischer & H. Ludwig (Hrsg.), Begabtenförderung als Aufgabe und Herausforderung für die Pädagogik. Münstersche Gespräche zur Pädagogik (Promotion oft the gifted as a task and challenge for pedagogy], Heft 22, (77-98). Münster: Aschendorff Verlag. Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office]. (Hrsg.). (2010). Statistisches Jahrbuch [Statistical Year book] 2010. Wiesbaden. http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/SharedContent/Oeffentlich/B3/Publikation/Jahrbuch/StatistischesJahrbuch,property=file.pdf (access 30.08.2011) Tomlinson, C.A. (1996). Does gifted education have an instructional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 155-174. Vock, M., Preckel, F., & Holling, H. (2007). Förderung Hochbegabter in der Schule. Evaluationsbefunde und Wirksamkeit von Maßnahmen. [Promotion of gifted children at school. Results of evaluations studies and efficacy of measures]. Göttingen: Hogrefe. 36 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 37-50 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 37-50 ______________________________________________________ The Associative Basis of Scientific Creativity: A Model Proposal Bilimsel Yaratıcılığın Çağrışımsal Temelleri: Model Önerisi Esra Kanlı¹ Abstract Öz Creativity is accepted as an important part of scientific skills. Scientific creativity proceeds from a need or urge to solve a problem, and involves the production of original and useful ideas or products. Existing scientific creativity theories and tests do not feature the very important thinking processes, such as analogical and associative thinking, which can be considered crucial in creative scientific problem solving. Current study’s aim is to provide an alternative model and explicate the associative basis of scientific creativity. Emerging from the reviewed theoretical framework, Scientific Associations Model is proposed. This model claims that, similarity and mediation constitutes the basis of creativity and focuses on three components namely; associative thinking, analogical thinking (analogical reasoning & analogical problem solving) and insight which are considered to be main elements of scientific associative thinking. Key Words: Creativity, scientific creativity, associative theory Yaratıcılığın bilimsel becerilerin önemli bir yönü olduğu kabul edilir. Bilimsel yaratıcılık bir ihtiyaç veya bir problemi çözme isteği durumlarında ortaya çıkar ve özgün ve yararlı fikir veya ürünlerin ortaya konulması sürecini kapsar. Mevcut bilimsel yaratıcılık teorileri ve testleri, fen bilimleri alanında hem alan bilgisi hem de problem çözme, özellikle farklı bakış açılarını kullanarak yani yaratıcı şekilde problem çözmek için çok ciddi önem arz eden analojik ve çağrışımsal düşünme süreçlerine yer vermemektedirler. Mevcut çalışma alternatif bir model önerisi sunmayı amaçlamakta ve bilimsel yaratıcılığı çağrışımsal temelleri üzerinden irdelemektedir. İncelenen kuramsal çerçeveden hareketle oluşturulan Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli, bilimsel yaratıcılığın temelinde benzerlik ve aracılığı içeren çağrışımsal düşünmenin yer aldığını savunmakta ve çağrışımsal düşünme, analojik düşünme (analojik nedenselleme & analojik problem çözme) ve içgörü olmak üzere 3 temel bileşene odaklanmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Yaratıcılık, bilimsel yaratıcılık, çağrışımsal teori Giriş Son yıllarda bir yenilik ve yaratıcılık fırtınasının içerisinde yaşıyoruz. Her yeni gün genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar, cep bilgisayarları, farklı tedavi yöntemleri gibi yeni bir tekniğin yahut makinenin adını duyuyoruz. Hem toplum hem de çeşitli meslek alanlarının, yaratıcılığın önemini vurgulamaya başladığı bir zamandayız, fakat yaratıcılığa olan ilgi sadece günümüze ait değildir. Mesela Plato toplumun yaratıcı bireylere ihtiyaç duyduğundan bahsetmiş ve bu kişilerin gelişimini desteklemek için yollar önermiştir (Cropley, 1999). Başlarda yaratma eyleminin tanrıyla yahut bir başka özel güçle ilişkili olduğu varsayılıyor ve dolayısıyla insanların bu karmaşık fenomene tek başlarına sahip olamayacakları M.A., Research Assisstant, Istanbul University, HAY Faculty of Education, Department of Special Education, Division of Gifted Education, Istanbul, Turkey, esrakanli@gmal.com ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli düşünülüyordu. Fakat zaman geçtikçe ve kültürler değiştikçe, evrim sadece türlerde değil yaratıcılıkla ilgili fikir ve inançlarımızda da gerçekleşti. Siyasiler, ekonomistler, mühendisler, psikologlar, eğitimciler ve daha bir çok meslek grubu yaratıcılığın öneminden bahsetmektedir. Fakat önemi üzerinde bu kadar durulmasına rağmen Sternberg (2003), yaratıcılığın psikolojide hala az çalışılan konular arasında olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Medeniyetin gelişmesinde en fazla role sahip olduğu iddia edilebilecek bu kavramın üzerinde fikir birliğine varılmış açık bir tanımının olmaması da bir başka ilginç noktadır. Her ne kadar uzlaşılmış tekil bir tanım olmasa da, alan yazında bir çok farklı yaratıcılık tanımı bulunmaktadır ve pek çoğu bazı ortak özelliklere sahiptir. Bu özellikler arasında özgünlük, uyarlanabilirlik (Guilford, 1950; McKinnon, 1962; Mednick, 1962; Sternberg, 2003) uzmanlar tarafından kabul gören fikir-ürün ortaya koyma (Vernon, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Amabile,1996) ve yenilik (Sternberg, 2003; Boden, 2004) sayılabilir. Yaratıcılık alanındaki çalışmaların öncülü sayılan ve üzerinde en fazla fikir birliğine erişilen Guilford’un (1950) tanımında ise yaratıcılık, üzerinde çalışılan konuya göre özgün-yeni ve uygun-uyarlanabilir fikirler ve ürünler üretme olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Torrance (1974) ise, Guilford’un fikirlerini geliştirmiş ve yaratıcılığın düşünsel akıcılık, özgünlük ve bilgideki boşluklara duyarlılık gibi bilişsel değişkenleri içerdiğini ifade etmiştir. Belli kavramlar üzerinde anlaşılmış tanımlarda bile yaratıcılığı açıklamaya dönük olan yaklaşımlar farklılaşmaktadır. Yaratıcılıkla ilgili çalışmalarda ilk bilimsel yaklaşım Geştalt psikologları tarafından getirilmiştir. Onlar, yaratıcılığı bir çeşit “içgörü (insight)” olarak tanımlamışlardır (Jo, 2009). Geştalt psikologları problemlerin bir bütün olarak düşünülmesini önemli bulmuşlardır ve düşünmenin üretken ve tekrarlayan olmak üzere sınıflanabileceğini ifade etmişlerdir. Üretken düşünme, problemin içgörü kullanılarak çözülmesini içerir. Kişi bir problemle karşılaştığında bileşenleri arasındaki ilişkileri analiz eder ve bunun sonucunda “keşif anı- (Aha moment)” deneyimini yaşar (Weisberg, 2006). Yaratıcılık son yıllarda disiplinler arası bir bilim dalı olmuştur. Bu değişim yaratıcılık araştırmalarının odak noktalarında ve metodolojilerinde de bir değişime sebebiyet vermiştir (Kaufman, 2009). Son zamanlardaki yaratıcılık araştırmalarındaki önemli eğilimlerden bir tanesi yaratıcı düşünceler, performanslar ve ürünleri etkileyen temel bileşenleri ortaya koymak iken (Amabile, 1996; Lubart, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995); diğeri bilimsel yaratıcılık gibi alana özgü yaratıcılığın bileşenlerini ortaya koymaktır (Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998). Yaratıcılık Genel mi Yoksa Alana Özgü Bir Yetenek midir? Yaratıcılık uzun yıllardır psikologlar tarafından üzerinde çalışılan bir konu olmasına rağmen yaratıcı bilim insanları ve özellikle de belirli bir alan ya da disiplindeki kişilerle ilgili çalışmalar oldukça sınırlıdır (Mansfield & Busse, 1981). Bunun sebeplerinden birisini yaratıcılık kavramının genel mi yoksa alana özgü bir yetenek mi olduğu konusundaki tartışmaların oluşturduğu varsayılabilir. Yaratıcılıkla ilgili yapılan teorik (Csikzentmihalyi, 1988; Feldman, 1994) ve ampirik (Baer, 1991, 1993; Runco, 1989) çalışmalar yaratıcılığın önceden varsayıldığı 38 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model gibi genel bir yetenek olmaktan ziyade alana özgü bir yetenek olduğu yönünde bulgular içermektedir. Yaratıcılığın genel mi yoksa alana özgü bir yetenek mi olduğu tartışması, alana özgü bir yaratıcılık çeşidi olduğu kabul edilen bilimsel yaratıcılığı tanımlamaya çalışan araştırmacılar için çok önemlidir. Guilford’un Zekanın Yapısı Teorisi ile ilintili olarak, Simon (1986) gibi bilim insanları yaratıcılığın genel bir yetenek olduğunu ve bir alanda yaratıcı potansiyel gösteren kişinin başka alanlarda da yaratıcı potansiyele sahip olduğunu savunmuşlardır. Bu düşüncelerin temeli Guilford’un teorisine ve çoğul düşünmeyi yaratıcılığın temeline alan fikirlerine odaklanmaktadır (Kogan, 1994). Bu fikrin karşısında ise Amabile (1996) gibi yaratıcılığın alana özgü olduğunu savunan araştırmacılar vardır. Alana özgü yaratıcılık teorilerinde üzerinde daha çok durulan kavram, bir alandaki yaratıcı düşünme potansiyelinin başka bir alanı kestiremeyeceğidir. Alan yazın irdelendiğinde yaratıcılığın genel mi yoksa alana özgü bir yetenek mi olduğu sorusunun daha çok yaratıcılık ölçüm araçları üzerinden tartışıldığı görülmektedir. Yaratıcılığın ölçülmesi için kullanılan testler çoğunlukla genel bir yetenek olduğu varsayımına dayanmaktadır fakat bu görüş son yıllarda sıklıkla eleştirilmektedir (bkz. Baer,1994, Crammond, 1994). Her iki fikrin sonuçlarını da destekleyen araştırmalar bulunmaktadır. Lakin bu araştırmalar genel bir analize tabi tutulduğunda kullanılan yöntemin sonuçları etkilediği söylenebilir (Plucker, 1998). Performansın gözlenmesi ve ölçülmesine dayalı değerlendirmeler alana özgü olduğuna ilişkin bulgular ortaya koyarken (Baer, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996; Runco, 1989), yaratıcılık gözlem listeleri ve geleneksel ölçüm araçlarının kullanıldığı araştırmalar genel bir yetenek olduğu sonucuna erişmektedirler ( Hocevar, 1979; Plucker, 1999). Yaratıcılık bilgiden bağımsız gerçekleşmemektedir (Weisberg, 2006), bilgi ise ancak belli bir alanı temsil edebilmektedir. Mesela Einstein şiir yazmış olsaydı, soneleri ortaya koyduğu teoriler kadar yaratıcı olacak mıydı, yahut Picasso’nun resimlerinde gördüğümüz yaratıcılığı matematik kuramları üzerinde de sergileyebileceğini iddia edebilir miyiz? Bu bağlamda gerçek anlamda ortaya konulan yaratıcı performansın alana dönük olduğu ifade edilebilir. Bilimsel Yaratıcılığın Kavramsal Temelleri Yaratıcılığın bilimsel becerilerin önemli bir yönü olduğu kabul edilir. Problem çözme, hipotez oluşturma, deney tasarlama ve hipotez test etme, çıkarsama ve öngörme bilime özgü yaratıcılık için gerekli olan bileşenlerdendir (Liang, 2002). Bilim ve teknolojinin hiçbir dalında ezberlenen bilgiler ile başarılı olmak mümkün değildir. Bilimin tüm dallarında daha önceden var olan bilgilerin üzerine yaratım yoluyla eklemeler yapılması söz konusudur. Bilimin ilerleyebilmesi için yaratıcılığa mutlak surette ihtiyaç vardır (Noyanalpan, 1993, aktaran Aktamış, 2007). Dunbar’a (1999) göre bilimsel yaratıcılığın psikologların ilgisini çekmesinin temel nedenlerinden bir tanesi, bilim insanlarının keşifleri ve bu keşif sürecindeki yaratıcılıktan tıpkı şair, yazar ya da ressamlar gibi söz etmeleridir. Diğer sebep ise özellikle A.B.D’de bilimin yüksek derecede değer gören bir alan olmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bilimsel yaratıcılığın Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 39 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli doğasını anlama çabası özellikle A.B.D. ve S.S.C.B arasında var olan yarıştan dolayı siyasilerin, psikologları bu alanda araştırma yapmaya yönlendirmesi neticesinde artış göstermeye başlamış ve uzay çağıyla birlikte de bu artış eksponensiyel olarak sürmeye devam etmiştir. Bilimsel yaratıcılık bir ihtiyaç veya bir problemi çözme isteği durumlarında ortaya çıkar. Bilimsel keşifler aniden olamaz, bilimsel yaratıcılık öncül bilgileri ve alan becerilerini gerektirmektedir (Liang, 2002). Bu nedenle bilimsel yaratıcılığın genel yaratıcılıktan ayırılması ve alana özgü olarak araştırılması gerekmektedir. Sak ve Ayas (2013), yararlılık ve özgünlüğü bilimsel yaratıcılığın iki temel şartı olarak tanımlamış ve bilimsel yaratıcılığın bu iki özelliği taşıyan fikirler ve ürünler üretmek olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Simonton (2004), farklı disiplinlerden pek çok araştırmacının bilimsel yaratıcılığı açıklamaya çalıştığını ve bunun için tartışmalar öne sürdüğünü, bu tartışmaların da “metabilimler (metasciences)” olarak isimlendirildiğini ifade etmiştir. Metabilimlerin en önemlileri arasında bilim tarihi, bilim felsefesi, bilim psikolojisi ve bilim sosyolojisi bulunmaktadır. Bu metabilimlerin her biri kendi bilimsel yaratıcılık yorumuna sahiptir. Simonton’a (2004) göre bu metabilimler arasındaki farklar, bilimsel yaratıcılığın dört önemli bileşeni üzerinden incelenmesine dayanmaktadır. Bu bileşenler mantık, deha, şans ve zeitgeist (zamanın ruhu) olarak ifade edilebilir. Simon’un (1986) bilimsel yaratıcılık ile ilgili görüşlerinden bilim psikolojisi üzerinde çalışan bazı araştırmacılar da etkilenmişlerdir. Simon, bilimsel yaratıcılık sürecini mantıksal bir bakış açısından açıklamaya ve bunu sağlamak için de keşif programları ismini verdiği bilgisayar programlarını kullanmaya çalışmıştır. Bu programlarda bilim insanlarının önemli buluşlarını bilgisayarların temel ampirik verileri ve herustiklerin kullanıldığı mantıklı düşünme adımlarını kullanarak yeniden bulması amaçlanmış ve neticede de bu amaca erişilmiştir. Bu bulguyu değerlendiren Simonton (2004), bir bilim insanı eğer, bilimin mantığı ve belirli bir disiplininin yapısı üzerinde uzmanlaşırsa yaratıcılığın bir anlamda garantileneceğini ifade etmiştir. Beklenmedik olay ve durumların bilimsel yaratıcılığa sebebiyet vermesi ise şans olarak ifade edilmekte ve bu da bilimsel yaratıcılığa bakışta farklı bir perspektif ortaya koymaktadır. Simonton (2004), bu gibi buluşların beklenmedik olduklarını ve bu sebepten ötürü bilim tarihini ciddi şekilde etkilediklerini ifade etmiştir. Beklenmedik buluşların en bilindik örnekleri arasında X-ışınlarının, radyoaktivitenin, tefalin ve penisilinin bulunmasını sayabiliriz. Şans eseri ortaya çıkan beklenmedik buluşları Simonton’da Mednick gibi “rastlantısal keşif” olarak isimlendirmiştir. Fakat yine Mednick gibi Simonton da bilimsel yaratıcılığa şans perspektifinden bakıldığında rastlantısal keşif yapan bilim insanlarının sadece şanslarından dolayı bu bulgulara erişmediklerini ifade etmiştir. Bunu Edison’un sözleriyle açıklayacak olursak şansın hazırlıklı beyinlere yardım ettiğini ifade edebiliriz. Nitekim Simonton da aynı bakış açısına sahiptir ve diğerlerinden daha şanslı gibi görünen bilim insanlarının problemlerin bulunması, 40 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model formülize edilmesi ve çözülmesi aşamalarına diğerlerinden daha çok yoğunlaştıklarını ifade etmektedir (Simonton, 2004). Dunbar (1999) bilimsel yaratıcılığı incelemenin en yaygın yollarının, ya yaratıcı bir bilim insanın hayatını incelemeye ya da bilim insanın bir keşfi ortaya koyma sürecinin incelemesine dayandığını ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışmaların amacı, bilim insanlarının bir keşfi ortaya koyma sürecindeki zihinsel süreçlerini anlamaya ve açıklamaya çalışmaktır. Araştırmacılar bilim insanlarının kullandıkları stratejileri ortaya koymak için otobiyografileri, lab raporlarını ve görüşmeleri kullanmışlardır. Dunbar (1999), kullanılan yöntemlerle toplanan verilerin bilimsel yaratıcılık literatürüne katkısını ifade etmekle birlikte eksik ve yetersiz yanlarını vurgulamış ve konunun kapsamlı bir açıklamasının yapılabilmesi için bilim insanlarının çalıştıkları ortamda gözlenmesi gerektiğini ifade etmiştir. Dunbar (1999) yaptığı araştırmalarda bilimsel bilgi ve becerinin yaratıcılık için yeterli olup olmadığını araştırmış ve neticede bilim insanlarının yaratıcı fikir ve çözümlere birlikte yaptıkları laboratuvar toplantıları neticesinde eriştiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgulaya erişebilmek için 1 yıl boyunca bir moleküler biyoloji laboratuvarının toplantılarını takip etmiştir. Bunların ötesinde Dunbar (1999) yaptığı çalışmalar neticesinde, Simon’un (1986) görüşlerine benzer bir sonuca ulaşmış ve bilim insanlarının zihinlerinde kurguladıkları zihinsel modelleri bir kez anlamayı başarırsak bunu psikoloji laboratuvarlarında gerçek ortamında (in vivo) yapılan çalışmalar olarak deneyebileceğimizi ifade etmiştir. Bilimsel yaratıcılık alanında var olan en önemli eksikliklerden bir tanesi alanyazında kavramı açıklamaya çalışan az sayıda kuramsal modelin bulunmasıdır. Bu durumun ortaya çıkardığı sorunları fark eden araştırmacılar son yıllarda alternatif modeller önermişlerdir. Alanyazında bilimsel yaratıcılık üzerine önemli kavramsal çerçeve oluşturma çalışmalarından biri Hu ve Adey (2002) tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmacılar geliştirdikleri modele Bilimsel Yapı Yaratıcılık Modeli (Scientific Structure Creativity Model) adını vermişlerdir. Bu model, Guilford’un Zekanın Yapısını Modelini ve çoğul düşünmeyi temele almaktadır. Modelde fen ve yaratıcılık alanlarındaki ortak temalar analiz edilmiş ve yaratıcılığın doğası ile ilgili üç boyutlu bir yapı ortaya koyulmuştur. Bunlar; özellikler, süreçler ve ürünlerdir. Akıcılık, esneklik ve özgünlük modeldeki özellikleri, teknik ürünler, fen bilimleri bilgisi, bilimsel fenomenler ve fen bilimleri ile ilgili problemler ürünleri, yaratıcı imgelem ve yaratıcı düşünme ise süreçler boyutunu oluşturmuştur. Önerdikleri modeli temele alarak Hu ve Adey (2002) ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarını ölçmeyi hedefleyen bir test de geliştirmişlerdir. Klahr (2000), bilimsel yaratıcılığın temel bileşenlerini içeren iki boyutlu bir taksanomi önermiştir. Boyutlardan biri alanla ilgili genel ve özel bilgiyi içerirken diğer boyut bilimsel keşifte önemli olan temel süreçleri (hipotez üretme, deney tasarlama, veri değerlendirme) içermektedir. Bir başka kavramsal çerçeve oluşturma çalışmasında Mohamed (2006), Gardner’ın Çoklu Zeka Teorisi, Sternberg’in Triarşik Zeka Kuramı, Piaget’nin Gelişimsel Teorisini Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 41 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli temele almış ve bunları Amabile’in Konsensüs Değerlendirme Tekniği, Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri, Performans Değerlendirme ve Taba’nın Öğretim Stratejileri ile entegre etmeye çalışmıştır. Fakat Mohamed’in çalışmasında dikkat çeken unsur model geliştirmeden ziyade bir ölçme aracı geliştirme amacıdır. Alanda var olan pek çok test gibi sadece Guilford’un fikirlerinden ziyade farklı kuramcıların bakış açılarını bilimsel yaratıcılığı anlamak ve açıklamak için kullanmış olması bu çalışmanın önemli artılarındandır. Fakat bir araya getirmiş olduğu bu teorileri ve yöntemleri nasıl bir kuramsal çerçeve içerisinde kullanıldığı araştırmacı tarafından belirtilmemiş sadece bahsi geçen kaynaklar açıklanarak testin geliştirilme sürecinde onlardan faydalanıldığı belirtilmiştir. Daha sonra testin maddeleri tanıtılırken her bir test maddesinde ölçülmesi hedeflenen beceriler (bilimsel düşünme süreçleri ve yaratıcılık bağlamında) açıklanmıştır. Alandaki bir başka önemli bilimsel yaratıcılık için kavramsal çerçeve ve ölçme aracı geliştirme denemesi ise Ayas ve Sak’ın (2013) çalışmasıdır. Geliştirdikleri Bilimsel Üretkenlik Testinde üç farklı teoriyi merkeze alan araştırmacılar, bilimsel yaratıcılık potansiyelini belirmede temel yaratıcılık becerilerinin belirlenmesi için Guilford’un Tekil ve Çoğul Düşünme Modelini, alana özgü bilgi boyutunun geliştirilmesi için Amabile’nin Bileşensel Yaratıcılık Modelini ve bilimsel yaratıcılığa özgü becerilerin belirlenmesi için de Klahr ve Dunbar’ın Bilimsel Keşifte Çift Arama Modelini sentezlemişlerdir (Özdemir & Sak, 2013). Bilimsel yaratıcılık birçok düşünme ve problem çözme sürecini içinde barındırmaktadır. Bu bağlamda ortaya koyulabilecek olan kavramsal modellerin ve ölçme araçlarının bütünsel bir yapı olan bilimsel yaratıcılık kavramının ancak belirli süreçlerine odaklanabileceği öngörülebilir. Mevcut bilimsel yaratıcılık modelleri, fen bilimleri alanında hem alan bilgisi hem de problem çözme, özellikle farklı bakış açılarını kullanarak yani yaratıcı şekilde problem çözmek için çok ciddi önem arz eden analojik ve çağrışımsal düşünme süreçlerine yer vermemektedirler. Öte yandan, yaratıcılık ile ilgili çok sayıda kuram olduğu halde mevcut bilimsel yaratıcılık testlerinin yalnızca birkaç kuramı temel alarak geliştirilmesi, alandaki çok önemli kuramların uygulamaya hala aktarılamamış olması bilimsel yaratıcılık kavramının anlaşılmasında önemli sorunlar olarak görünmektedir. Alanyazında tespit edilmiş olan bu sınırlılığa alternatif bir model önerisi sunmayı amaçlayan mevcut çalışmada kavramların daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi adına öncelikle yaratıcı sürecin çağrışımsal temellerinin açıklanmasının ve ortaya konan yapının bilimsel yaratıcılık bağlamında yorumlanmasının alana katkı sağlayacağı umulmaktadır. Yaratıcı Sürecin Çağrışımsal Temelleri Yaratıcı süreç Mednick (1962) tarafından şu şekilde tanımlanmaktadır, “Yaratıcılık çağrışımsal elementlerin belirli gereklilikleri karşılayan veya bir şekilde kullanışlı olan yeni kombinasyonlara dönüştürülmesi sürecidir. Yeni kombinasyonun elementleri ne kadar uzaksa süreç veya ortaya konulan ürün de o kadar yaratıcı olacaktır”. Mednick yaratıcı düşünme sürecini, tanımladığı özgün düşünmeden ayırmıştır, zira bir şeyi özgün yaratıcı olarak nitelemek için 42 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model onun faydalı olması gerektiğini ifade etmiştir (Fasko, 1999). Ayrıca yaratıcı süreci çağrışımsal temelleri üzerinden açıklamaya çalıştığı teorisinde Mednick (1962), çağrışımsal teorinin bütün yaratıcı düşünme süreçlerini kapsadığını ifade etmektedir. Mevcut çalışmada ise çağrışımsal teori yaratıcılığın alana özgü bir beceri olduğu kabulü üzerinden modifiye edilmektedir. Mednick’e (1962) göre yaratıcı bir çözüme ulaşmanın üç farklı yolu vardır. Bunlar; beklenmedik şeyleri tesadüfen bulma yeteneği-şans faktörü (serendipity), benzerlik (similiarity) ve aracılık (mediation) olarak isimlendirilir. Şans Faktörü: Bütünsel çevresel bileşenler ya da uyaranlar tarafından bütünlük içeren yapının harekete geçirilmesidir. Benzerlik: Çağrışımsal bileşenler yahut bu çağrışımsal bileşenleri ortaya çıkartan uyarıcılar arasındaki benzerlik nedeniyle gerekli çağrışımsal bileşenlerin bütünlük içerisinde harekete geçirilmesidir. Aracılık: Ortak bileşenlerin aracılığı sayesinde gerekli çağrışımsal bileşenlerin bütünlük içerisinde harekete geçirilmesidir. Mednick (1962), bireylerin sahip oldukları çağrışımsal havuzları ve bu havuzun niteliğini ortaya koymak için çağrışımsal hiyerarşiler kavramını kullanmıştır. Mednick’e (1962) göre sürekli olarak sınırlı cevapları veren kişiler eğik hiyerarşilere sahiptir, fakat belirli bir alanda daha fazla bilgi ve deneyim sahibi olan kimseler bu alanlar veya bağlantılı alanlar ile ilgili fazla sayıda ve uzak elementler barındıran çağrışımlar kurabilirler, bu da onların düz çağrışımsal hiyerarşilere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum; Mednick her ne kadar çağrışımsal teorinin genel yaratıcı süreci açıklamak için oluşturulmuş olduğunu ifade etse de, yapısı itibariyle alana özgü olarak yorumlanmasının daha sağlıklı ve işe koşulabilir sonuçlar verebileceği şeklinde yorumlanabilir (Ochse, 2009). Yaratıcı düşünme sürecini açıklamak için çağrışımsal hiyerarşilerden faydalanan bir başka araştırmacı da Martindale’dir. Martindale (2009), yaratıcılığın biyolojik temellerini tartıştığı çalışmasında yaratma eylemini, öncesinde aralarında var olan çağrışımların görül(e)mediği zihinsel bileşenler arasındaki analojilerin farkına varılması olarak ifade etmektedir. Martindale (2009) yaratıcılık teorileri başlığına birincil süreç bilişi, odaksız dikkat ve çağrışımsal hiyerarşileri dahil etmiştir. Mendelsohn (1976), kişilerin dikkat odaklarındaki farklılıkların yaratıcılıklarını da etkilediğini savunmuştur. Ona göre dikkat kapasitesi ne kadar geniş olursa yaratıcılığın işareti olan tümleşik sıçramanın (combinatorial leap) ortaya çıkma ihtimali de o kadar fazla olur. Yaratıcı bir fikrin farkına varabilmek için kişinin dikkat odağındaki bileşenlerin aynı anda bir arada bulunması ve bir kombinasyon oluşturması gerekir. Kişi aynı anda iki şeye dikkatini verebiliyorsa o anda sadece bir analoji keşfedilebilir, fakat eğer aynı anda 4 şeye dikkatini verebilirse Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 43 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli altı analojinin ortaya çıkma ihtimali vardır. Araştırmalar yaratıcılık düzeyleri sınırlı olan bireylerin daha dar bir odaklı dikkate sahip oldukları yönünde bulgular içermektedir (Martindale, 2009). Çağrışımsal teori yaratıcılığı farklı bir açıdan incelemesi ve pek çok yaratıcı kişiye ait olan biyografilerde (bkz. Poincare, Kekule) yoğun olarak yer alması nedeniyle uzun yıllardır araştırmacıların ilgilisini çekmiştir. Lakin teori ilk ortaya koyulduğu günden bu yana ciddi şekilde revize edilmemiş ve operasyonel tanımı için yeni çalışmalar gerçekleştirilmemiştir. Bu durum geleneksel teorilerin neden yaratıcı kimselerin zihinsel problemlere mükemmel ve yaratıcı çözümler getirebildiklerini ve bunu yaparken birincil düşünme süreçlerini (analojiler, metaforlar ve çağrışımlar) (Ochse, 2009), nasıl kullandıklarını açıklamada yetersiz kaldığını açıklayabilir. Tüm bu süreçler farklı teoriler de göz önünde bulundurularak yeniden tanımlanmaya çalışılmalıdır. Bilimsel Yaratıcılığın Çağrışımsal Temelleri ve Model Önerisi Öğrenmenin temelinin çağrışımlar kurmaya dayalı olduğunu savunan yaklaşımlar Aristo’ya kadar uzanır. Aristo şeylerin benzerlik, karşıtlık (ortak bir bileşene sahip olmaları esasına dayanır), ve bitişiklik (zaman veya uzamsal yakınlık içerek şekilde gerçekleşmeleri esasına dayanır) temellerinde birbirleriyle ilişkilendirildiklerini savunmuştur (Ochse, 2009). An itibariyle yaratıcılığın temellerinde çağrışımsal süreçlerin olduğuna dair kısmi bir fikir birliği olduğundan söz edilebilir. Bu anlamda Nobel ödüllü Japon fizikçi Hideki Yukawa (1973) tarafından yapılan tanım, bilimsel yaratıcılığın temellerini anlamaya çalışan araştırmacılar için önem arz etmektedir. “Bir insanın anlayamadığı bir şey olduğunu varsayın. Daha sonra anlayamadığı şeyle ilgili bir şeyin çok iyi anladığı başka bir şeye bir noktada benzediğini fark ediyor. her ikisini karşılaştırarak o ana kadar farkına varamadığı şeyi kavrayabilir. Ve eğer kavradığı şey o ana kadar başkalarının farkına varmadığı bir şey ise, yaratıcı bir düşünme gerçekleştirdiğini iddia edebilir.” Yukawa’nın tanımının analojik düşünmeyi açıkladığını analiz etmek çok zor değildir. Nitekim özellikle fen bilimleri ile ilgili tarihsel ve modern teorilerde (Spearman, 1931; Dunbar,1995) analoji kurmanın ve analojik düşünmenin bilimsel yaratıcılık bağlamındaki önemine işaret edilmiştir. Dunbar (1995), bilim insanlarını çalıştıkları ortamlarda uzun zaman dilimleri boyunca gözlemlemiş, araştırmalarına katılmış, laboratuvar notlarını ve makalelerini incelemiş ve tüm bunlardan yola çıkarak bilimsel yaratıcılık sürecinde büyük önem arz ettiğini düşündüğü dört fikir ortaya koymuştur. Bunlar; analojiler, beklenmeyen buluşlar, doğrulama yanlılığı ve yayılmış muhakemedir. Uzun yıllardır analojilerin yaratıcı bilişin psikolojik süreçlerinde çok önemli bir rolü olduğu düşünülmektedir ve bu sebepten birçok araştırmacı analojik nedensellemede işe koşulan psikolojik süreçleri açıklamaya çalışan ayrıntılı modeller ortaya koymuşlardır (Holyoak & 44 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model Thagard, 1989, 1995). Analojilerde hedef ve temel (target & base) diye isimlendirilen iki önemli yapı vardır. Hedef bilim insanının çözmek ya da açıklamak istediği kavram ya da problem durumunu ifade ederken, temel bilim insanın hedefi anlamak veya başkalarına açıklamak için kullandığı başka bir bilgi birimidir. Bilim insanının bir analoji kurarken yaptığı şey temelin özelliklerini hedefin özelliklerine eşlemektir. Bu eşleşme yapılırken hedefin yeni özellikleri keşfedilebilir, hedefin özellikleri yeniden düzenlenebilir ve neticede yeni bir kavrama ulaşılabilir yahut araştırmacı diğer kişiler için hedefin bir özelliğine dikkati çekebilir (Dunbar, 1997). (Örn. Rutherford Atom Modeli :: Güneş Sistemi) Dunbar’ın (1995) çalışmasının özellikle analojiler ile ilgili olan kısmı mevcut çalışma için önemli sonuçlara sahiptir. Öncelikle analojilerin hem bilimsel düşünme sürecinde hem de fen öğretimi etkinliklerinde sıklıkla başvurulan düşünme yöntemlerinden biri olduğu hatırlanmalıdır. Buna ek olarak analojiler alanyazında bu çalışmanın temelini oluşturan çağrışımların bir çeşidi olarak kabul edilmektedirler. Bu durumda bilimsel düşünme ve dolayısıyla bilimsel yaratıcılıkla ilgili çalışmaların içerisinde analojilere yer verilmesi kaçınılmazdır. Analojik düşünme analojik nedenselleme ve analojik problem çözme başlıkları altında incelenmektedir (Gick & Holyoak, 1983). Analojik nedenselleme daha basit bir düzeyde A : B :: C : ? şeması ile ifade edilebilir. Burada kişinin problem durumunda belirgin olarak sunulmuş iki yapı arasındaki ilişkileri analiz etmesi ve bunu ikinci duruma aktararak problemin çözümüne ulaşması beklenmektedir. Araştırmacılar yaşamımızda karşılaştığımız problemlerin ise bu kadar yapılandırılmamış olduğunu savunmaktadırlar. Bu sebeple analojik nedensellemenin bir üst basamağı olarak nitelenebilecek olan analojik problem çözmenin öneminden bahsetmektedirler. Burada kişi karşılaştığı yeni bir problemi çözebilmek için, aynı veya farklı bir alandan bir problemi analiz ederek aktarım yapmaktadır (bkz. Radyasyon problemi; Gick & Holyoak, 1983). Araştırmacılar birincil süreç bilişinin içerisinde yer alan ve çağrışımsal düşünme ile bağlantılı olan içgörünün yapısı ve doğasının ne olduğu ile ilgili de uzun yıllardır çalışmalar yapmaktadırlar. Birçok bilimsel buluşun ve bilim insanları tarafından aktarılan anekdotların içerisinde içgörüden sıklıkla bahsedildiği ve bu süreç bilimsel yaratıcılığın bir bileşeni olarak kabul edildiği için bu durumun nedenlerini anlamak zor değildir. Mesela Copernicus’un Dünya’nın değil de Güneş’in güneş sisteminin merkezi olduğunu anlaması, Galileo’nun aynı yükseklikten bırakılan nesnelerin ağırlıklarından bağımsız olarak aynı hızda düşeceklerinin farkına varması, Poincare’in Fuchsian fonksiyonları ile Öklidyen geometri arasında kurduğu bağlantılar ya da Kekule’nin benzen molekülünün yapısını keşfetmesi içgörünün kullanıldığı buluşlara örnek olarak verilebilir. Alanyazında bahsi geçen bu buluşların hepsinin aynı zamanda çağrışımsal düşünmeyi içerdiği de ifade edilmektedir, yani bir bağlamda çağrışımsal düşünme, analojik-metaforik düşünme ve içgörünün birbirini kapsayan kavramlar oldukları iddia edilebilir. Ayrıca çağrışımsal teorinin operasyonel tanımı olan Uzak Çağrışımlar Testinde kişilerin gösterdikleri performansın içgörü problemleri ile korelasyona sahip olması Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 45 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli (Ansburg, 2000; Schooler & Melcher, 1995) önerilen modelde içgörüye yer verilmesi için anlamlı bir zemin oluşturmaktadır. İçgörü ile ilgili klasik görüşler temel olarak iki bakış açısı üzerinden incelenebilir. Bunlardan ilki içgörünün özel bir düşünme süreci olmadığını iddia ederken (Perkins, 1981), diğer görüş bu fikre karşı çıkmaktadır (Sternberg & Davidson, 1995). İçgörünün özel bir düşünme süreci olduğunu savunanlara göre, içgörü sıradan düşünme işlemlemesinden farklıdır. Bu fikri savunanlar içgörü sürecinin içinde bilinçsiz düşünme adımlarının olduğunu, içgörünün hızlandırılmış bir zihinsel işlemleme olduğunu ve sıradan düşünme süreçleri kapsamında yapılan bir çeşit kısa devre olduğunu ifade etmektedirler (Sternberg & Davidson, 1995). İçgörünün özel bir süreç olmadığını savunan teorilere göre, içgörü sıradan algılama, öğrenme ve kavrama sürecinin bir uzantısı olarak işlemlemektedir. Bu fikir daha ziyade Perkins (1981), Langley ve Jones (1988) ve Weisberg (2006) tarafından savunulmuştur. Bu araştırmacılara göre içgörü sıradan düşünme süreçlerinin ürünlerinden ibarettir. Davidson ve Sternberg (1984) içgörü ile ilgili triarşik bir model önermişlerdir. Bu bakış açısına göre ise içgörü birbiriyle ilişki içerisinde olan üç psikolojik süreçten oluşmaktadır. Bunlar seçici kodlama, seçici birleştirme ve seçici karşılaştırmadır. Sternberg, Kaufman ve Grigorenko (2008), ortaya koyulan bu model üzerinden Perkins (1981) ile bir noktaya kadar hemfikir olduklarını ifade etmektedirler. Şöyle ki, onlara göre içgörü sürecinde var olan süreçler sıradan bilişsel süreçlerdir fakat triarşik teoride ortaya koydukları üç adımın rutin bir şekilde işlemlemediğini düşündükleri için, bilginin işlemlenmesi sürecinde içgörü sürecinin sıradan düşünmeden farklılaştığını iddia etmekte ve bu bağlamda Perkins ve benzer görüşler savunanlardan ayrılmaktadırlar. Bilginin işlemlenmesi, transferi, farklı durumlar arasında bağlantılar kurulması gibi farklı bileşenler dikkate alındığında fen bilimlerindeki yaratıcılık potansiyelini çağrışımsal teori üzerinden açıklamaya çalışan bu çalışmada içgörünün önemli bir yere sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Aktarılan alanyazındaki kuramsal çerçeve ve araştırma sonuçları bütünsel bir bakış açısıyla analiz edildiğinde, bilimsel yaratıcı düşünme sürecinin çağrışımsal temellere sahip olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bilimsel yaratıcılık çağrışımsal temelleri üzerinden analiz edildiğinde, alan bilgisi temele alınarak çağrışımsal ve analojik düşünme ile içgörü süreçlerinin yeni ve uygun fikirler ve/ya ürünler ortaya konulması sürecinde birlikte işe koşulması olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu kavramsal yapıyı temele alarak oluşturulan ve bilimsel yaratıcılığın çağrışımsal temeller üzerinden yorumlanmasını hedefleyen model önerisi ise çağrışımsal düşünme, analojik düşünme (analojik nedenselleme & analojik problem çözme) ve içgörü süreçlerini içermektedir. Bahsi geçen bu dört kavramın tamamının zihinsel işlemlemesi sürecinde Mednick tarafından ortaya konulmuş olan aracılık ve benzerlik yoluyla düşünmenin işe koşulduğu düşünülmekte ve bu yapıların birlikte işlemlemesi neticesinde bilimsel yaratıcılığın ortaya çıktığı varsayılmaktadır. Burada vurgulanması önemli olan bir başka husus ise bahsi geçen tüm kavramların fen bilimleri alan bilgisi içinde işlemlenerek bilimsel yaratıcılığı ortaya koyabileceğidir. Önerilen modelin şematik gösterimine aşağıda yer verilmiştir. 46 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli YARATICILIK ANALOJİK DÜŞÜNME = ANALOJİK NEDENSELLEME + ANALOJİK PROBLEM ÇÖZME BİLİMSEL BENZERLİK ARABULUCULUK ÇAĞRIŞIMSAL DÜŞÜNME İÇGÖRÜ Tartışma, Sonuç ve Öneriler Mevcut çalışmada öncelikli olarak yaratıcılığın alana özgü yapısı tartışılmış daha sonra bilimsel yaratıcılığın kavramsal temelleri incelenmiş ve ardından çalışmanın amacını oluşturan model önerisine temel oluşturması bağlamında yaratıcı sürecin çağrışımsal temelleri irdelenmiştir. Yapılan alanyazın incelemeleri ve tartışmaları neticesinde bilimsel yaratıcılığı çağrışımsal temelleri üzerinden inceleyen bir model önerisi ortaya konulmuştur. Bu model önerisinin ilk kabulü alana dönük yaratıcılığın ortaya konulabilmesi için alan bilgisinin gerekli olduğu savıdır. Bundan sebep önerilen bütün düşünsel süreçlerin fen bilimleri alan bilgisi kümesinin içinde işlemlediği varsayılmıştır. Çalışmada Mednick (1962) tarafından ortaya konulan çağrışımsal teori bilimsel yaratıcılık bakış açısı temele alınarak yeniden yorumlanmıştır. Bu yorumlama yapılırken çağrışım kavramı geniş bir perspektiften ele alınmış ve alanyazın incelemesi buna göre gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak çağrışımlar, analojiler ve içgörü süreçlerinin tamamında Mednick’in yaratıcı sonuca ulaşmak için gerekli gördüğü benzerlik ve arabuluculuğa dayalı düşünmenin işe koşulduğu görülmüş ve model bu ilişki temele alınarak kurgulanmıştır. Alanyazında mevcut olan ve bilimsel yaratıcılığa kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmaya çalışan modellerin sayısı oldukça sınırlıdır. Daha önce de tartışıldığı üzere yaratıcılık ve özelinde bilimsel yaratıcılık birkaç model üzerinden açıklanamayacak kadar karmaşık bir kavramdır. Buna bağlı olarak kavramın farklı yüzlerini açıklamaya çalışan kavramsal çerçevelere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Önerilen model, var olan ve ağırlıklı olarak Guilford tarafından ortaya konulmuş olan çoğul düşünmeyi merkeze alan modellerden farklı olarak bilimsel yaratıcılığın temelinde Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 47 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli çağrışımlarla düşünmenin var olduğunu savunmaktadır. Ortaya konulan alternatif bakış açısı sayesinde bilimsel yaratıcılık kavramının daha iyi anlaşılabileceği varsayılmaktadır. Mevcut çalışmada kavramsal bir çerçeve olarak sunulmuş olan Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modelinin geçerliğinin sınanabilmesi için modeli merkeze alarak bir bilimsel yaratıcılık testinin geliştirilmesi ve bu testin psikometrik özelliklerinin araştırılmasının gerekli olduğu düşünülmektedir. Geliştirilebilecek olan bu testin alanda var olan diğer testlerle olan ilişkilerinin irdeleneceği kriter geçerliği çalışmalarının yapılmasının da ayrıca öneme sahip olduğu düşünülmektedir. Kaynakça Aktamış, H. (2007). “Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri Eğitiminin Öğrencilerin Yaratıcılık, Derse Karşı Tutum ve Akademik Başarı Düzeylerine Etkisi”. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir. Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Current Psychology, 19(2), 143-146. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: The Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A Task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-46. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Routledge. Crammond, B. (1994). We can trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 52, 70-71. Cropley, A. (1999). Definitions of creativity. In S. R. Pritzker & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp.511-524). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person. A system view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) The Nature of Creativity (pp.325-339). New York Cambridge University Press Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58-64. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dunbar, K. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In T.B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.) Creative Thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. Dunbar, K. (1999). Science. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, (pp. 525-531). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press. Fasko, D. (1999). Associative theory. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, (pp. 525-531). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press. 48 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kanlı Scientific Associations Model Feldman, D. H. (1994). Beyond universals in cognitive development. (2nd Ed.) Norwood, NJ:Ablex Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454. Hocevar, D. (1979). The unidimensional natüre of creative thinking in fifth-grade children. Child Study Journal, 9, 273-278. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 295-355. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. Jo, S. M. (2009). “A Study of Korean Students’ Creativity in Science Using Structural Equation Modeling”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. Springer Publishing Company, NewYork. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring Science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Kogan, N. (1994). Diverging from divergent thinking. Contemporary Psychology, 39(3), 291-292. Langley, P., & Jones, R. (1988). A computational model of scientific insight. Ed. R.J. Sternberg, The Nature Of Creativity. Contemporary psychological perspectives. (s.177-201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liang, J. (2002). “Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin. Lubart, T. (1999). Componential models. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, (pp. 295-300). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press. MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17(7), 484-495. Mansfield, R. S., & Busse, T. V. (1981). The psychology of creativity and discovery: scientists and their work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Inc. Martindale, C. (2009). Biological Bases of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, 12. Printing. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Mendelsohn, G. A. (1976). Associative and attentional processes in creative performance. Journal of Personality, 44,341-369. Mohamed, A. (2006). “Investigating the scientific creativity of fifth-grade students”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179-182. Plucker, J. A. (1999). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126-137. Runco, M. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-190. Sak, U., & Ayas M. B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A New Measure of Scientific Creativity, Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 315-328. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 49 Kanlı Bilimsel Çağrışımlar Modeli Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, B. T. Ward & R. A. Finke (Eds.) the creative cognition approach (pp. 249-268). Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press. Simon, H. A. (1986). The information processing explanation of Gestalt phenomena. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 241-255 Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. NY: Cambridge University Press. Spearman, C. (1931). The Creative Mind, New York: Appleton. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J.E. (Eds.) (1995). The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity, Synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R., Kaufman, J., & Grigorenko, E. (2008). Applied Intelligence. Cambridge University Press Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press. Ochse, R. (2009). Before the Gates of Exellence: The determinants of creative genius. (3rd Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Edinburgh, UK. Özdemir, N. N. & Sak, U. (2013). Bilimsel yaratıcılıkta cinsiyet farklarının analizi, Türk Üstün Zeka ve Eğitim Dergisi, 3(2), 53-65. Vernon, P. E. (1989), The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp.93-110). New York: Plenum Press. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention and the arts. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley. Yukawa, H. (1973). Creativity and Intuition. New York: Kodanska International. 50 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 51-70 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 51-70 ______________________________________________________ Economic Creativity Development Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi Nasseroddin Kazemi Haghighi1 & Ahmad Reza Kazemi Haghighi2 Abstract Öz As a new concept in the literature, the authors discuss the conception of “Economic Creativity” (EC). The authors explain psychological characteristics of “Economic Creativity”: attitudes, motivation, personality traits, and abilities. They propose a design based on Emotion of Thought Theory (Kazemi, 2007) for Economic Creativity Development (ECD). This theory is an affective-cognitive approach that tries to explain creativity. Emotion of Thought involves “Poyaei” and “Bitabi” (in Persian) meaning Dynamism and Restlessness. According to this theory, ECD relates to connections between emotion and thought. The ECD includes promoting individual readiness, utilization of economic resources, attitude towards economic affairs development, enhancing the utilization of economic experiences, conducting economic activity education, development of economic thinking and development of emotion of thought. Key Words: creativity development, economic creativity, emotion, thought Yazarlar literatürde yeni bir kavram olan Ekonomik Yaratıcılığı (EY) tartışılmışlardır. Yazarlar ekonomik yaratıcılığın psikolojik özelliklerini açıklamışlardır: tutumlar, motivasyon, kişilik özellikleri ve yetenekler. Düşünme Duygusu Teorisini (Kazemi, 2007) temel alan Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi için bir tasarım önermişlerdir. Bu kuram yaratıcılığı açıklayan duyuşsal-bilişsel bir yaklaşımdır. Düşünme duygusu dinamizm ve tez canlılık anlamlarına gelen “Poyaei” ve Bitabi” (Farsça) bileşenlerini kapsamaktadır. Bu teoriye göre Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi duygular ve düşünceler arasındaki bağlantılarla ilgilidir. Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi bireysel hazır bulunuşluluğun desteklenmesi, ekonomik kaynakların kullanımı, ekonomik gelişmenin gidişatına yönelik tutum, ekonomik tecrübelerin kullanımının arttırılması, ekonomik etkinlik eğitiminin verilmesi, ekonomik düşünmenin geliştirilmesi ve düşünme duygusunun geliştirilmesini kapsamaktadır. Anahtar Sözcükler: yaratıcılık gelişimi, ekonomi yaratıcılığı, duygu, düşünce Introduction The author has presented a comprehensive design for creative personality that consists fourteen categories (e.g., total motivation, openness to experience, emotional sensitivity) (Kazemi, 2007&2008) According to author, reviewing of the literature indicates that there is a “hexahedralparadigm” for creativity. Seemingly, this paradigm we consider as a new base for creativity identification and development. This “hexahedral paradigm” comprises individual readiness, resource orientation, attitude, utilization of experiences, active mobility, and special thinking. As far as the author concludes a phenomenon with affective and cognitive nature, he names this phenomenon in Persian, “Hayajan-e-Andisheh” (Emotion of Thought). Emotion of Thought involves “Poyaei” and “Bitabi” (in Persian) that mean Poyaei and Bitabi. There are PhD, Vice-president in Iranian Council Exceptional Children (I.C.E.C.), Iran; nkazemih@gmail.com Faculty of Management and Economics, Semnan University, Iran ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1 2 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık also six components for any eras. “Poyaei" involves motion and movement desire, curiosity, feeling of extra ordinary power, great thought, humor and easily expression of emotions, and tendency for experience. "Bitabi" involves agitation, captivity, somatic expressions of thinking, misgiving, twirling of thought and loneliness sense. Overall, it can be concluded that in next century, firstly understanding of creativity depends on comprehension of relationship between emotion and thinking (especially developmentalemotional examination of creativity), secondly creativity identification concerned with emotional nature of creativity , and finally creativity development relates to connection between affection and cognition (in other words, emotion and thought). Figure 1.The Hexahedral Paradigm of Creative Personality (Kazemi, 2007) Individual Readiness Individual readiness refers to high ability (bio-psych readiness, high intelligence, and aptitude) and self- initiate (self-readiness, individuality, and internal incubation). High ability. Bouchard & Hur (1998) discuss that there is a connection between genetics and personality. Heritability of the continuum of introversion (as a creative personality trait) was 60%.The creativity is a whole brain process related to Walas' four process stages of creativity and the four quadrants of the Whole-Brain Model (Herrmann, 1991). In addition, Dacey (1989) discusses basic concepts of creativity included brain physiology. Seemingly, the creative personalities are more sensitive (Bachtold& Werner 1973). Lang &Ryba (1976) also indicatethat there is higher sensory acuity across sensory modalities in creative persons. Goldsmith (1984) also found that the KAI correlated positively with the sensation seeking. Besides, Parnes (1971) 52 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity discusses sensitivity characterize the thought process of highly actualized individuals (as a creative trait). On the other hand, there is connection between high intelligence and creativity (e.g., Kazemi, 1992; Maker,1993; Runco,1993; Sternberg &Lubart, 1993;Hunsaker&Callahan,1995;Hoffman, 1995; Galbraith &Wentzel,2001;Naglieri & Kaufman,2001). In the vast majority of cases have been showed that linkage creativity and aptitude (e.g., Smith, 1970; Jensen, 1973; Gordon, 1989; Webster, 1990; Kazemi, 1997c; Clapham, 2004). Self-initiate. It is widely accepted that creativity relates to self. Creativity and self-actualization have long been associated together (Bruhn et al., 1969; Ekvall, 1972; Conti &Amabile, 1999; Runco, 1999b). Besides, Parnes (1971) discusses the three S's -sensitivity, synergy and serendipity- characterize the thought process of highly actualized individuals. The various coping behaviors used in facing new problems is especially pertinent to self-actualized persons and mental health. The evidences show creativity and innovation relate to self-image (Smilansky&Halberstadt, 1986), self- concept (Schempp & Cheffers, 1982; Kazemi,1997a,1998), self-esteem (Keller & Holland,1978; Keller,1984;Helson,1999), self-determination (Sheldon,1995b) and self-sufficient (Bachtold& Werner, 1973). Therefore, Sternberg (1988) presents "Mental self government" as a theory of how things fit, and as support to the idea of matching style to task (person-environment fit). Creative processes may be seen as initiating from a general drive toward self-organization through the reduction of chaos (Sternberg &Tardif, 1989). The evidences also show that problem solving and invention relate to field independence (Smilansky&Halberstadt, 1986). OHara & Sternberg (1999) also emphasize field independence. Similarity, Runco (1999a) indicates that the exceptional talents depend on independence and creativity. In addition, Feist (1999) discusses the relationship between autonomous behavior (autonomy and independence) and creative personality traits. He also explains the other related personality traits such as self-confidence, arrogance, and solitude. Likewise, the findings indicated that the committed artists demonstrated autonomy (Dudek& Royer, 1991). It is seemingly autonomous behavior requires uniqueness. Therefore, Skinner (1996) discusses that uniqueness seeking may be a result of innovativeness rather than a personality characteristic. Consequently, Tucker (1991) concentrates on assertiveness and Huitt (1992) discusses relationship between problem solving and decision-making. Furthermore, teachers identify Students’ mannerism such as individuality as important indicators of creative students (Westby & Dawson, 1995). On the other hand, the creativity requires being task-focused (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989).thus, Maddi et al (1982) emphasize upon internal orientation as factor in creativity. According to" the activation personality theory", the extent and unusualness of fantasy production will be greater in persons having both a high customary level of activation and an internal orientation than it will in persons having only one or neither of these characteristics. In the same way, Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 53 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Bachtold (1980) discusses that introversion and high powers of attentiveness are specific trademarks of the creative personality. Equally, Miller (1992) emphasizes upon the introspection. Besides, Stohs (1991) found inner focused personality. It seems that internal orientation involves a period of incubation. As a result, Guilford (1979) overviewed and discussed incubation as a part of creative problem solving and cognitive thinking styles. In addition, Simonton (1999) discusses relationship between creativity and unconscious incubation. Thus, McClelland (1987) suggests characteristics of successful entrepreneurs include initiative. Utilization of Economic Resources Utilization of environmental resources refers to making use of persons or things that means achieving a person-environment fit. In general, Creativity relates to family, educational, ecological, cultural, and socio-economic conditions (MacKinnon, 1975; Khire, 1979; Amabile&Gryskiewicz, 1988; Amabile, 1988; Dacey, 1989; Runco& Albert, 1990; Meyer, 1991; Bull et al., 1995; Kazemi, 1994, 1996; Amabile, 1997; Powers, 1998; Dunbar, 1999; Cramond, 2001; Fonseca, 2002; Md-Yunus, 2007). As self-determination theory describes, the relatedness need desire have been identified as being essential for social development and personal well-being (Ryan &Deci, 2000).In addition, Mudd (1986) reviewed the KAI literature produced between 1976 and 1986. He emphasizes on the environment-styles fit. Moreover, extraverts scored higher on tests measuring verbal flexibility, fluency, and originality (White, 1968). Besides, the author discusses the influences of economic advantages on creativity (Kazemi, 1996) Instead, Jurcoviç&Zelina (1993) explored climate, which may act as barrier to becoming more creative. Besides, Bachtold& Werner (1973) found that creative female authors and artists were more aloof than the general population. Feist (1999) also discusses related personality traits to creativity such as non-conformity, associability, and antisociability. In addition, Sheldon (1999) discusses how external constraints and interpersonal climate can promote conformity, thus influencing creativity in a negative way. Sheldon (1995a) also found those personal goals could create a poor working environment and promote feelings of conflict within the group. In addition, James (1995) investigated the effect that conflict has on an individual's creativity. He found that goal conflict had a positive effect on creativity when task orientation matched up with individual orientation. Thus, the teachers define a creative personality as undesirable (Dettmer, 1981). Above all, Hinton (1971) showed the relationship between certain personality variables and resistance to the effects of frustration on creativity; and there are the combined effects of personality and emotional stress on creative productivity. He collected initially under neutral circumstances and again with a high amount of environmental frustration. Certain personality factors, which are not of primary importance in the determination of creative potential, are definitely important in their interaction with environmental variables, and that these have a significant effect on the determination of creative productivity. 54 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity On the other hand, Puccio&Chimento (2001) suggest a social bias wherein attributing creativity to personality traits and innovation is a valued cultural status; further, that innovators successfully promote themselves as highly creative. Nemiro (1997) also investigated the creative process of actors by examining different aspects of an actor's life. He found social influences that affected an actor's creativity. Results indicated that certain social influences (trust, freedom, respect) enhanced an actor's creativity while other influences (distrust, poor direction) inhibited performance. The individualistic advertising cultures differ in creative personalities, creative process, and use and type of agency philosophy compared to collective cultures (Ewing et al., 2001). The personalized 'space' can demonstrate creativity in the workplace (York, 2000). Besides, the author discusses disadvantages of the formal education for creativity and taking advantage of the creative peer environment (Kazemi, 1994). In addition, Helson" studied the literary works and personalities of women authors. She found non-neurotic relationships with parents. Then in a longitudinal study of these women (over the course of 25 years), she obtained family satisfaction and self esteem effect motivation, (Helson, 1973, 1999). Some evidences emphasize on the effect of group (Street, 1974).Similarly; some evidences focus on the synergy (Parnes, 1971; Kurtzberg&Amabile, 2001). Further, Smith & Knight (1959) showed personalized feedback improved group problem solving efficiency and under certain conditions improved self-insight. Results of researches indicate that the larger the group (up to 12), the larger total productivity in terms of quantity, quality-originality of answers and new categories. As group size increased per person, contribution tended to lessen (Renzulli et al., 1974). Attitude to Economic Affairs Development Attitude refers to cognition (and intuition), idea, and affection (motivation and emotion). Davis (1999) discusses the barriers to creativity and creative attitudes. Cognition and intuition. The author discusses cognitive origins of creativity that inclusive attention, perception and thinking (Kazemi, 1994). The knowledge base contributes to the development of the creative person (Stein, 1983; Feldhusen, 1995; Sternberg &Lubart, 1995). However, knowledge can be a double-edged sword (Sternberg &Lubart, 1993). Feldhusen (1995) also describes the metacognitive processing necessary for creativity to be recognized. On the other hand, the authors emphasizes upon the intuition (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989; Miller, 1992). Besides, Sternberg &Lubart (1995) suggest that the creative person relies upon intuition to guide behaviors. Moreover, Goldsmith (1985) found that intuitive would have a positive correlation with sensation seeking. Hence, Bouchard &Hur (1998) found heritability of sensing/intuition was 40%. As Dudek & Royer (1991) state committed artists demonstrate inspiration. The author emphasizes that developing visual skills and insight can underlie discovering truths about exist and promoting creativity (kazemi, 1996). Idea. Creative individual's believes include try to think of new ideas, and commonly try to add ideas to existing idea (Masten, 1989) idea finding (Renner, & Renner, 1971), ideational Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 55 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık fluency (Isakson, 1977) negative correlation with the dogmatism (Goldsmith, 1984)paranormal belief (Thalbourne, 2000)and masculinity attitudes in among women authors (Helson,1973). Treffinger (2004) proposed courage to explore ideas. A creative person moves into generating ideas or being divergent, and then ends with a convergence on a practical path or idea in which he/she develops a plan of action (Carson, 1999). Meadow &Parnes (1959) examined if adhering to the brainstorming principle would result in significant increments of quality and quantity of ideas. Results suggest that the course produced significant increments on the two measures of idea quantity and three of the five measures of idea quality. Affection Russ (1999) examined the relationship between affect and creativity through a review of the current thinking in the field. She states an integrative model of affect and creativity, which links cognitive abilities, affective processes, and global personality traits. Motivation Results of researches indicate a relationship between motivation and creativity (Halpin&Halpin, 1973; Hurst et al., 1991; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993, 1995; Mehr & Shaver, 1996; Gedo, 1997). The creative motivation includes innovative orientation (Keller & Holland, 1978), questioning, curiosity (Walberg et al., 1979), preference for complexity (Renner & Renner, 1971; Nicholls, 1972), motivation for uniqueness (Skinner, 1996), and aesthetics need desire (Miller, 1992). The creative people need to discover (Kawenski, 1991), clarity (Keller & Holland, 1978), and spontaneity in a performance (Nemiro, 1997), and enjoy the process of creation and innovation (Torrance, 1972; Keller & Holland, 1978; Goldsmith, 1984; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The creative person is presenting an intrinsic motivation or intrinsic task commitment (Nicholls 1972; Sternberg & Tardif, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Amabile, 1997; Stafford, 1998; Conti & Amabile, 1999; Feist, 1999). Hence, Graves, et al (1967) suggests a Motivation Index is as a predictor of supportive value to the creativity score and Torrance (1971) suggests, “Creative Motivation Scale “is valid for its purpose as brief and coarse screening devices for identifying creative individuals. Emotion. Creativity relates to emotional (sensitivity, involvement, and stress), humor, personal conflict, inner freedom, openness, and full expression. Levy (1983) suggests that right hemisphere processes add emotional and humorous overtones important for understanding the full meaning of oral and written communication. The two hemispheres differ in their perceptual roles but both sides are involved in the creation and appreciation of art and music. According to Herr (1981), guided imagery engages the right brain processes such as imagination, emotion, creative, and intuitive activities. It has been suggested that relationship between humor and creativity. Ziv (1984) discussed relationship between humor and creativity, in terms of personality and the creation of humor, as well as the role of humor in divergent thinking and problem solving. The fact that humor can produce 56 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity intense emotional reactions demonstrates how sensitive the individual is to the fundamental meanings of humor (Levine & Redlich, 1955, 1960; Burma, 1946). In addition, Van hook and Tegano (2002) suggest that freedom of expression maybe as an important personality trait in the identification and nurturance of creative potential and problem solving in young children. Moreover, Parnes (1971) offers that a creative person posses full expression. On the other hand, Radford (2004) argues when the creative act challenges the boundaries of sense, a higher level of emotional consonance takes place. The authors emphasize on experiencing deep emotions (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989). In addition, Spotts (1972) states the "hot" divergent cognitive style was a freer, more impulsive response to stimuli involving more emotion. According to Bachtold (1980), the emotional sensitivity is a specific trademark of the creative personality. Likewise, Helson's findings indicate a correlation exists between creativity and emotional involvement (Helson, 1973). Hinton (1971) also showed the relationship between certain personality variables and resistance to the effects of frustration on creativity; and there are the combined effects of personality and emotional stress on creative productivity. Besides, Walker et al (1995) found that the creative group would score higher on the neurotic and depressive factors. In addition, Richards & Kinney (1990) attempted to make connections between creativity and bipolar mood disorders. They suggest that mood states may enhance ones creativity. Hence, the problem-solving therapy (PST) may contribute to a greater degree than problem-focused therapy (PFT), toward a significant decrease in depression (Nezu 1986). Furthermore, Schubert (1977) discusses the relationship between boredom and creativity, through intelligence, thrillseeking personalities, identity diffusion, and the pressure and awareness for creativity. Sternberg & Tardif (1989) state the processes involved in creation requires tension. Nemiro (1997) investigated the creative process of actors by examining three different aspects of an actor's life. A tension often arose between an actor's personal and character identity. The actor achieved balance between their personal and character identities by developing an objective 'third' eye to monitor the tension. Similarly, Hinton (1971) reminds the combined effects of personality and emotional stress on creative productivity. Likewise, Smith & Carlsson (1987) discuss the ability of creative individuals to use stress and anxiety as a motivational driving factor of their creativity. Above all, the investigators found emotional overexcitability (OE) that seemed to be related to creative personality characteristics (Schiever, 1985). Moreover, Diamond (1996) insists the central role of repressed anger and rage in violence and psychopathology connect to creativity. He ascertains that constructiveness and destructiveness have the same source in personality/human potential. Further, Redfearn & Storr (1992) assert that all energy is potentially explosive as well as potentially creative. They offer an historical background of personal conflict in effort to encourage a creative outcome. Gelade (1997) also revealed that commercial creative have considerably higher levels of neuroticism. In review of creativity and disease, Sandblom (1997) discusses the relationship between illness and creativity: illness affects literature, art, and music. He also goes into the psychological side with a look at neuroses, psychosomatic disorder, and mental diseases. Therefore, Bachtold's study (1980) supports the relationship of psychoticism and creativity. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 57 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık On the contrary, People with low levels of anxiety scored higher in creative thinking than those with high levels (White 1968). For this reason, Parnes (1971) offers that a creative person must be have psychologically healthy. A person realizes higher potential for feeling, inner freedom, openness, full expression, and sensitivity. Therefore, it is not surprising that Csikszentmihalyi (1996) lists 10 pairs of opposite traits that creative people possess. Enhancing the Utilization of Economic Experiences Curious individuals need to experience their curiosity. Furthermore, utilization of experiences involves openness to experience, sensation seeking, tolerance to ambiguity, and risk taking. Child (1965) found that Variables of art background correlates with esthetic judgment and preference. The authors emphasize on being open to new experiences (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989). Gelade (1997) conducted a study to determine the personality of the commercial creative. The results revealed that commercially creative people had considerably higher levels of openness to experience than the non-creative did. Similarly, the committed artists demonstrate ability to experiment (Dudek & Royer, 1991). Likewise, Knox &Glover (1978) present a study of the effects of preschool experience on creativity among 60 black and 60 white first grade boys and girls in a rural area. Goldsmith (1985) obtained that intuitive would have a positive correlation with sensation seeking. In addition, Yuk & Cramond (2006) present a Program for Enlightened and Productive Creativity (PEPC). The PEPC describes stages through which a student is guided to solve a problem using increasingly complex observation, inquiry, and experimentation. Moreover, measures of creativity, openness to experience, and sensation seeking intercorrelate among female and male college students. Male creativity correlated most strongly with openness to theoretical and aesthetic experiences and creative thoughts. For females, creativity, openness to inner experiences, and sensation seeking moderately intercorrelate (Schaeffer et al 1976). Above all, Sandblom (1997) discusses how the theme of art depends on experience and one cannot create from nothing. On the other hands, Keller (1984) found high performance in research and development organization concentrate with a tolerance for ambiguity. It is agreed upon, as important to creative giftedness is tolerance of ambiguity (Sternberg &Lubart, 1993; Kazemi, 1997b). Experience often involves risk taking (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989; Sternberg &Lubart, 1993), which relates to special type of personality. Goldsmith (1984) found Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) correlated positively with the risk taking. Conducting Economic Activity Education Active mobility refers to movement, motor, physical skills, impulsiveness, hard work, high activation, and perseverance. Niaz et al (2000) found that the mobility-fixity dimension was the most consistent predictor of academic performance with creativity scores. Niaz et al (1991) also indicated that the most 58 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity mobile students performed best on creativity tests. Moreover, Bloomberg (1971) suggests that horizontal mobility may be essential in creativity. Some of the evidences show that as increase positive attitude toward human movement and motor skill enhance creative thinking. Encouraging children to participate in meaningful decision making will increase positive attitudes toward human movement, enhance creative thinking and self- concept, and improve motor skills (Schempp&Cheffers, 1982). It has been suggested that relationship between movement and creativity (Dodds, 1978; Gowan, 1978; MacKinnon , 1985; Brockmeyer, 1987). Ewing et al (1975) indicated correlation between perceived movement and Creative Thinking. It would appear that improving creativity often caused by movement, motor skills, or hard work. Zachopoulou et al (2006) showed that physical education promotes preschool children's creativity in the early years. Physical education lessons in order to provide children with opportunities to develop their creative thinking using movement elements, motor skills, and movement exploration. The children improved their creative fluency and imagination. Besides, Waelsch (1994) discussed the notion that adversity and hard work might assist a person in achieving acts of creativity. She insisted other people who have had similar experiences where adversity nurtured their creativity. Cramond (1994b) describes the similarities between the behavioral manifestations of ADHD and creativity, some speculations about their common etiology, and some illustrative case studies. In addition, Cramond (1994a) examined the incidence of ADHD among individuals who are highly creative. Besides, Cramond (1995) examines the fact that the defining characteristics of ADHD are also key descriptors in biographies of highly creative individuals. It seems that high activation and perseverance are specific trademarks of the creative person (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989). Bachtold (1980) examined the biographies of women who were eminent in the arts and sciences. Specific trademarks of the creative personality were high activity levels and perseverance. Stokes (1999) obtained in her empirical study to link perseverance with effective creative behavior. Therefore, teachers as important indicators of creative students identify students’ mannerisms such as spontaneity and impulsiveness (Westby & Dawson, 1995). Consequently, Maddi et al (1982) emphasize upon high activation and internal orientation as factors in creativity. Hence, Torrance has provided “Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement scale.” On the other hand, some investigators concentrate on "motor creativity"( Lubin & Sherrill; 1980).The motor creativity is often due to creative movement. Wang (2003) investigated the effects of a creative movement program on the motor creativity of Taiwanese preschool children using Torrance's Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement scale. Results indicated that the experimental group had significantly higher levels of motor creativity than did the control group, suggesting that the creative movement program was essential to the development of the total child. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 59 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Development of Economic Thinking Special thinking consists firstly problem examination, secondly internal freedom to cognitive style and imagination, thirdly inner verbal spontaneity, fourthly divergent thinking, and finally ability to regress more deeply and a greater facility to return to secondary process thought with ease. The author discusses the relationship between problem examination and creativity. Creating and developing of the “problemology” is unavoidable for promoting creativity (Kazemi, 1996). In addition, Reiter-Palmon, et al. (1998) investigated whether problem construction plays a role in how individuals interpret ill-defined, ambiguous problems in a way that fits their personality. Results suggest a positive relationship between problem construction ability and fit of the solution to personality type. Parnes (1971) offers that a creative person posses inner freedom and openness. Treffinger (2004) proposed openness and courage to explore ideas. The innovation correlates negatively with the dogmatism (Goldsmith1984). Forisha (1978, 1983) studied and reviewed the research in creativity, imagery, cognitive styles and their inter relationship. She concludes that imagery and creativity are interrelated with other personality factors and that the relationship between creativity and imagery is central to some subjects and not to others. In addition, relationship between scientific field and imagery has been emphasized (Roe, 1951; kazemi, 1996). Gough (1976) focuses on word association. In addition, the author emphasizes on word fluency, verbal capacity, and writing skill. According to the author, the “problemology” relates to word conceptualization (Kazemi, 1995, 1996). Renner & Renner (1971) found that creativitytraining programs increase verbal fluency and flexibility should influence a person's cognitive style preferences toward complexity. Thurston & Runco (1999) focuses on the importance of flexibility in four areas. Flexibility as a cognitive processes described using divergent thinking models. Flexibility in insight problems shows the importance of not having mental blocks in problem solving. Flexibility in personality theories shows how important it is to flex in being a productive citizen, which leads to the fourth area- the importance of flexibility and human development. Thinking styles is included one of resources that support creativity (Gautschi, 2001).The investigators emphasize upon relationship between divergent thinking and creativity (White, 1968; Nicholls, 1972; Ziv, 1984; Davis, 1989; Kabanoff & Bottger, 1991; Kazemi, 1994, 1997c; Thurston &Runco, 1999; Carson, 1999). It is seemingly that the convergent thinking, abstraction, and deduction jointly can lead to creative thinking (kazemi, 1994). The special thinking involves mannerisms such as spontaneity. Furthermore, the teachers identify spontaneity as important indicator of creative students (Westby & Dawson, 1995).Creative actors place an enormous value on spontaneity in performance (Nemiro, 1997). Treffinger (2004) proposed listening to one's inner voice. As the author describes it, there is an inner verbal spontaneity. 60 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity A creative person moves into generating ideas ,digging into ideas or being divergent, and then ends with a convergence on a practical path or idea in which he/she develops a plan of action (Carson, 1999; Treffinger, 2004). Furthermore, Dudek & Chamberland-Bouhadana, (1984) suggests that mature artists have a greater ability to produce a better creative product because of the greater ability to regress more deeply and a greater facility to return to secondary process thought with ease. Similarly, Sternberg & Lubart (1995) present the creative process from the perspective of the creative person who develops unusual or initially misunderstood solutions to problems. The creative processes involve an active search for gaps in knowledge, problem finding, consciously attempting to break through the existing boundaries and limitations in one s field (Sternberg & Tardif, 1989). Development of Emotion of Thought On his long experiences, the author made an instrument. Analyzing the instrument indicated that there is an integrative paradigm that involves affective and cognitive domains. As far as the author concludes, he names this phenomenon in Persian, “Hayajan-e-Andisheh” (Emotion of Thought). Emotion of Thought involves “Poyaei” and “Bitabi” (in Persian) There are also six components for any eras. Generally, thinking relates to emotion. Lagattuta et al (1997) and Lagattuta& Wellman (2001) found that even 3-year-olds demonstrated knowledge about connections between past events and present emotions. In addition, 4 and 6 years-olds understand the influence of mental activity on emotions. In addition, Gratton (2001) proposes one way of partly meeting them: the application of critical thinking skills to beliefs responsible for emotions. On the other hands, kuo& Paschal (1974) explore the relationship between emotional disturbance in children and the creative thinking factors suggested by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Findings suggest that emotionally disturbed children do not use their creative energy to produce a large number of ideas with words. Besides, Elder (1997) states that we must be understand the relationships between the cognitive function and the affective dimension. Developing critical-thinking skills relates to this understanding. In this regard, Cole & Sarnoff (1980) emphasize the balance between thought and emotion is important for personal effectiveness as well as for creative productivity. Therefore, Vernon (1989) presents a comprehensive curriculum to help youngsters learn positive mental health concepts that contains activities are grouped into five topic areas: (1) self-acceptance; (2) feelings; (3) beliefs and behavior; (4) problem solving and decision-making; and (5) interpersonal relationships. According to “hexahedral paradigm,” the creativity relates to individual readiness, resource orientation, attitude, utilization of experiences, active mobility, and special thinking. “Emotion of thought” gradually integrates the factors .Therefore, emotion of thought is seventh factor to create creativity. In other words, creation of the creativity depends on emotion of thought. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 61 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Encouraging the Poyaei "Poyaei" involves motion and movement desire, curiosity, feeling of extra ordinary power, great thought, humor and easily expression of emotions, and tendency for experience Promotion motion and movement desire means adventurously emotive and thrill motion desire. Encouraging curiosity It refers to: (1) stimulating any ambiguous problem to exploration, (2) pertinacity for adventure risk taking, and (3) inconvenience curiosity thinking. Giving confidence feeling of extra ordinary power Supporting great thought It means thinking about a significant and original action for truth discovery conjugate to express emotion easily. Preparing conditions for humor and easily expression of emotions Encouraging tendency for experience It means sensible disquiet for experiencing information and knowledge. Programming for counseling interventions for Bitabi "Bitabi" involves agitation, captivity, somatic expressions of thinking, misgiving, twirling of thought and loneliness sense. Agitation refers to erosive agitation, continuous worry, body tremor, and less activity. Captivity refers to continuous mental involvement, to be worry about of problem solving, and inner rigorous speech. Somatic expressions of thinking mean thirst and hunger sense, headache, heartthrob, and thirsty sense in mouth. Misgiving means forgetfulness, amazement, and exhaustion. Twirling of thought (and body tremor). Loneliness sense refers to worrying, uneasiness, and feeling of pressure for activity (Kazemi, 2007, 2008). References Amabile, T. M. (1988). From individual creativity to organizational innovation. In KjellGronhaug [KjellGrnhaug]; Geir Kaufmann (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp.136-166). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18-26. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1988). Creative resources in the R&D laboratory: How environment and personality affect innovation. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Handbook for creative and innovative managers (pp. 501-524). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bachtold, L M. (1980). Psychoticism and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14(4), 242-248. Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. (1973). Personality characteristics of creative woman. Perceptual 62 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity and Motor Skills, 36, 311-319. Bloomberg, M. (1971). Creativity as related to field independence and mobility, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118(1), 3-12. Bouchard, T. J., & Hur, Y. M. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on the continuous scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: An analysis of twins reared apart. Journal of Personality, 66(2), 135-149. Brockmeyer, G. A. (1987). Creativity in Movement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6(3), 310-19. Bruhn, J. G., Bunce, H., & Greaser, R. C. (1969).A comparison of 'real' vs ’ideal' self with a selfactualization inventory. Journal of Psychology, 53(3), 159-164. Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college level: A synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 83-89. Burma, J. H. (1946).Humor as a technique in race conflict. American Sociological Review, 11, 710715. Carson, D. K. (1999). Counseling. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 395-402). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Child, I. L. (1965). Personality correlates of esthetic judgment in college students. Journal of Personality, 33, 476-511. Clapham, M. M. (2004). The convergent validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and Creativity Interest Inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 828841. Cole, H. P., & Sarnoff, D. (1980). Creativity and counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59(3), 140-46. Conti, R., & Amabile, T. (1999). Motivation/Drive. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 251-259). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cramond, B. (1994a) The relationship between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity. Cramond, B. (1994b) Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Creativity--What Is the Connection? Journal of Creative Behavior, 28(3), 193-210. Cramond, Bonnie (1995) The coincidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity. Attention Deficit Disorder Research-Based Decision Making Series. Cramond, B. (2001). Interview with E .Paul Torrance on creativity in the last and next millennia. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 116. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) .The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190-212). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Incorporated. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The creative personality. Psychology Today, 29(4), 36 - 41. Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Davis, Gary A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257-274. Davis, Gary A. (1999). Barriers to creativity and creative attitudes. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 165-174). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dettmer, Peggy. (1981). Improving teacher attitudes toward characteristics of the creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(1), 11-16. Diamond, S. A. (1996). Anger, madness, and the demonic: The psychological genesis of violence, evil, and creativity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dodds, P. (1978). Creativity in movement: Models for analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12(4), 265-73. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 63 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Dudek, S. Z., & Chamberland-Bouhadana, G. (1984). Primary process in creative persons. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(3), 239- 247. Dudek, S. Z., & Royer, S. (1991). Personality determinants of the commitment to the profession of art. Creativity Research Journal, 4(4), 367-389. Dunbar, K. (1999). Science. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 525-532). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ekvall, G. (1972). A study of two creativity tests. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Council for Personnel Administration. Elder, Linda. (1997). Critical thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 40-41. Ewing, J. H., Gillis, C. A., Ebert, J. N., & Mathews, H. M. (1975). Profile of perceptual-cognitive traits and personality style of possible relevance to creative productivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40(3), 711-718. Ewing, M. T., Napoli, J., & West, D. C. (2000). Creative personalities, processes, and agency philosophies: Implications for global advertisers. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 161170. Feist, G. J. (1999). Autonomy and independence. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 157-163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(4), 255-268. Fonseca, J. (2002). A study of Mother Teresa's creative problem solving process for social change in the Indian setting. Unpublished masters project, State University of New York College at Buffalo; International Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo, NY. Forisha, Barbara L. (1978). Mental imagery and creativity: Review and speculations. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2(2), 209-238. Forisha, Barbara L. (1983). Relationship between creativity and mental imagery: A question of cognitive style? In S. Annes (Ed.), Imagery: Current theory, research, and application (pp. 310-339). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Galbraith, J., & Wentzel, K. (2001). Sailing on the winds of creativity: Recognizing and supporting social/emotional needs of creatively gifted children. Understanding Our Gifted, 13(4), 3-6. Gautschi, T. (2001). Invest in creativity. Design News, 56(12), 135. Gedo, J. E. (1997). Psychoanalytic theories of creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.). The creativity research handbook, 1, 29-40. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Gelade, G. (1997). Creativity in conflict: The personality of the commercial creative. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158(1), pp. 67-78. Goldsmith, R. E. (1984). Personality characteristics associated with adaption-innovation. Journal of Psychology, 117, 159-165. Goldsmith, R. E. (1985). Sensation seeking and the sensing-intuition scale of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 56(2), 581-582. Gordon, E. E. (1989). Audition, Music learning theory, music aptitude, and creativity. Suncoast Music Education Forum on Creativity, 75-81. Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(3), pp. 348-353. Gowan, J. C. (1978). Creativity and gifted child movement. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12(1), 113. Gratton, Claude. (2001). Critical thinking and emotional well-being. Inquiry: Critical Thinking 64 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity across the Disciplines, 20(3) p39-51. Graves, Grant O.; Ingersoll, Ralph W.; Evans, Lloyd R. (1967). The creative medical student: A descriptive study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(4), 371-382. Guilford, J. P. (1979). Some incubated thoughts on incubation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13(1), pp. 11-8. Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (1973). The effect of motivation on creative thinking abilities. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(1), 51-53. Helson, R. (1973). Heroic and tender modes in women authors of fantasy. Journal of Personality, 41(4), 493-512. Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women [Special issue: Longitudinal studies of creativity]. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 89-101. Herr, K. U. (1981). Guided imagery in the classroom: An enhancement to learning. Herrmann, N. (1991). The creative brain. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 275-295 Hinton, B. L. (1971). Personality factors and resistance to the effects of frustrations on creative problem-solving performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(4), 267-269. Hoffman, W. C. (1995). The dialectics of giftedness: Gifted intellect and creativity. Roeper Review, 17(3), 201-06. Huitt, W. G. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24, 33-44. Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 110-14. Hurst, D. K., Rush, J. C., & White, R. E. (1991). Top management teams and organizational renewal. In Henry, Jane (Ed.), Creative management (pp.232-253). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Isaksen, S. G. (1977). The degree of relatedness of four creative personality factors with ideational fluency of intermediate grade children. Unpublished masters thesis, State University College at Buffalo; Interdisciplinary Center for Creative Studies, Buffalo, NY James, K. (1995). Goal conflict and originality of thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 285290. Jensen, L. R. (1973). The relationships among mathematical creativity, Numerical Aptitude and Mathematical Achievement. Jurcoviç, M., & Zelina, M. (1993). Barriers of personality creativization. Studia Psychologica: The Journal of Basic Research in Psychological Sciences, 35(1), 33-40. Kabanoff, B., & Bottger, P. (1991). Effectiveness of creativity training and its relation to selected personality factors. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 12, 235-248. Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 263266. Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1992). Gifted psychology: an introduction. Exceptional talent, 1(1), 55-85. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1994). Cognitive and environmental origins of creativity. Exceptional talent, 3(2), 119-140. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1995). Influence of learning and self-concept on talent development.Exceptional talent, 4(3), 231-246. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1996). Insight and creativity. Exceptional talent, 5(1), 47-74. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1997a). The gifted psychology and special educational strategies (pp. 39-41). Tehran, Sayehnama Press. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1997b). Talented adolescent: Personality traits. Exceptional talent, 6(1), Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 65 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık 32-41. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1997c). Mathematical talent: Identification and development (pp. 16-17). Tehran, Sayehnama Press. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (1998). Self-concept and talent. Exceptional talent, 6(4), 396-403. (Persian) Kazemi Haghighi, N. (2007). The hexahedral paradigm of creative personality: A review of sixty years of literature for the 21st century. World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, 17th Biennial World Conference. Kazemi Haghighi, N. (2008). Educational directions in the hexahedral paradigm of creativity. The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE): Future Minds and Creativity. 250-268. Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1978). Individual characteristics of innovativeness and communication in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 759-762. Keller, R. T. (1984). A cross-national validation study toward the development of a selection battery for research and development professional employees. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 31(4), 162 - 165. Khire, U. (1979). The three gifted Case studies. Research Bulletin, 9, 31- 39. Knox, B. J., & Glover, J. A. (1978). A note on preschool experience effects on achievement, readiness, and creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 151-2. Kuo, Y., & Paschal, B. J. (1974). Emotional factors in fluent and elaborative thinking child study. Journal Monographs, 1,2,3,4,5,&6, 68-75. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285-294. Lagattuta, K. H., & Wellman, H. M. (2001). Thinking about the Past: Early knowledge about links between prior experience, thinking, and emotion. Child Development, 72, 82-102. Lagattuta, K. H., Wellman, H. M., & Flavell, J. H. (1997). Preschoolers' Understanding of the Link between Thinking and Feeling: Cognitive Cuing and Emotional Change. Child Development, 68, 1081-1104 Lang, R. J., & Ryba, K. A. (1976). The identification of some creative thinking parameters common to the artistic and musical personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 267-279. Levine, J., & Redlich, F. C. (1955). Failure to understand humor. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 24, 560-572. Levine, J., & Redlich, F. C. (1960). Intellectual and emotional factors in appreciation of humor. Journal of psychology, 62, 25-35. Levy, J. (1983). Highlights of research on right and left hemispheres of the brain. Educational Leadership, 40, 68. Lubin, E., & Sherrill, C. (1980). Motor creativity of preschool deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 125(4), 460-66. MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR's contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity. In Irving A. Taylor,& J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 60-89). Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co. Maddi, S. R., Hoover, M., & Kobasa, S. C. (1982). High activation and internal orientation as factors in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 250-255. Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68-77. 66 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity Masten, W. G. (1989). Creative self-perceptions of Mexican American children. Psychological Reports, 64(2), 556-558. McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(3), 219-233. Md-Yunus, S. (2007). How Parents Can Encourage Creativity in Children. Childhood Education, 83(4), 236. Meadow, A., & Parnes, S. J. (1959). Evaluation of training in creative problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 189-194. Mehr, D. G., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Goal structures in creative motivation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(2), 77-104. Meyer, A. (1991). Strategies for stimulating innovation in your organization. In T. Rickards, P. Colemont, P. Groholt, M. Parker, & H. Smeekes (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: Learning from practice (pp. 15-20). Delft, The Netherlands: Innovation Consulting Group TNO. Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comprehensive study of Henri Poincarand Albert Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5(4), 385-418. Mudd, S. (1986). Analytic review of research on Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) [MS no .2775]. Social and Behavioral Sciences Documents, 16(2). Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness and creativity using the PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23, 151-56 Nemiro, J. (1997). Interpretive artists: A qualitative exploration of the creative process of actors [Special issue: Creativity, art, and artists]. Creativity Research Journal, 10(2 & 3), 229-239. Nezu, A. M. (1986). Efficacy of a social problem-solving therapy approach for unipolar depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 196-202. Niaz, M., & De Nunez, G. S. (1991) The relationship of mobility-fixity to creativity, formal reasoning and ıntelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 205-17. Niaz, M., De Nunez, G. S., & De Pineda, I. R. (2000). Academic performance of high school students as a function of mental capacity, cognitive style, mobility-fixity dimension, and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 18-29. Nicholls, J. G. (1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: The concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait. American Psychologist, 27(8), 717-727. OHara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Learning styles. In M. A. Runco; S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 147-153). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Parnes, S. J. (1971). Creativity: Developing human potential. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(1), 19-35. Powers, R. (1998). Psychology, pedagogy, and creative expression in a course on evil [Special Issue: Interdisciplinarity, the psychology of art, and creativity]. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 61-68. Puccio, G. J., & Chimento, M. D. (2001). Implicit theories of creativity: Laypersons' perceptions of the creativity of adaptors and innovators. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(3), 675-681. Radford, M. (2004). Emotion and Creativity. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38, 53-64. Redfearn, J., & Storr, A. (1992). The exploding self: the creative and destructive nucleus of the personality. Wilmette, Illinois: Chiron Publications. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187-197. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 67 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Renner, V., & Renner, J. C. (1971). Effects of a creativity training program on stimulus preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, 872-874. Renzulli, J. S., Owen, S. V., & Callahan, C. M. (1974). Fluency, flexibility, and originality as a function of group size. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 107-113. Richards, R., & Kinney, D. K. (1990). Mood swings and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3(3), 202-217. Roe, A. (1951). A study of imagery in research scientists. Journal of Personality, 19, 459-470. Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 16-22. Runco, M. A. (1999a). A longitudinal study of exceptional giftedness and creativity [Special issue: Longitudinal studies of creativity]. Creativity Research Journal, 12 , 161-164. Runco, M. A. (1999b). Self-Actualization. In M. A. Runco, S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 533-536). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Russ, S. W. (1999). Emotion/Affect. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 659-668). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Sandblom, P. (1997). Creativity and disease: How illness affects literature, art and music. New York: Marionboyars Publishers. Schaeffer, C. E., And Others. (1976). Intercorrelations among measures of creativity, openness to experience and sensation seeking in a college sample. College Student Journal, 10(4), 332-339. Schempp, P. G., & Cheffers, J. T. F. (1982). Influence of decision-making by elementary children on attitudes, creativity, motor skills, and self-concept. ERIC Schiever, S. W. (1985). Creative personality characteristics and dimensions of mental functioning in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 7(1), 223-226. Schubert, D. S. P. (1977). Boredom as an antagonist of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(4), 233-240. Sheldon, K. M. (1995a). Creativity and goal conflict. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 299-306. Sheldon, K. M. (1995b). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 25-36. Sheldon, K. M. (1999). Conformity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 341-346). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Skinner, N. F. (1996). Behavioral implications of adaption-innovation: II .Adaption-innovation and motivation for uniqueness. Social Behavior and Personality, 24(3), 231-234. Smilansky, J., & Halberstadt, N. (1986). Inventors versus problem solvers: An empirical investigation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(3), 183-201. Smith, E. E., & Knight, S. S. (1959). Effects of feedback on insight and problem solving efficiency in training groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 209-211. Smith, G. J. W., & Carlsson, I. (1987). A new creativity test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(1), 714. Smith, I. L. (1970). Associational achievement, aptitude, and creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 4, 999-1000. Spotts, N. R. (1972). Divergent Cognitive Styles in Academic Overachievers. (ED079645) 68 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Kazemi Haghighi and Kazemi Haghighi Economic Creativity Stafford, S P. (1998). Capitalizing on Careabouts to facilitate creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(3), 159-167. Stein, M. I. (1983). The creative process and the synthesis and dissemination of knowledge. In S. A. Ward, L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge, structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 365-396). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Developement, 3(4), 197-221. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993).Creative Giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. In D. J. Treffinger (Ed), Creativity and Giftedness (pp 141-155). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Tardif, T. Z. (1989). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed) The nature of creativity (pp. 429-440). Cambridge University Press. Stohs, J. M. (1991). Young adult predictors and midlife outcomes of "starving artists" career: A longitudinal study of male fine artists. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(2), 92-105. Stokes, P. D. (1999). Learned variability levels: Implications for creativity [Special issue: Creativity and deviance]. Creativity Research Journal, 12(1), 37-45. Street, W. R. (1974). Brainstorming by individuals, co-acting and interacting groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4), 433-436. Thalbourne, M. A. (2000). Transliminality and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(3), 193202. Thurston, B. J., & Runco, M. A. (1999). Flexibility. In M. A. Runco and S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 729-731). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Torrance, E. P. (1971). Some validity studies of two brief screening devices for studying the creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(2), 94-103. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Tendency to produce unusual visual perspective as a predictor of creative achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(3), 911-915. Treffinger, D. J (2004) Creativity and Giftedness. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Tucker, I. F. (1991). Predicting scores on the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule from the MyersBriggs Type Indicator categories. Psychological Reports, 69(2), 571-576. Van Hook, C. W., & Tegano, D. W. (2002).The relationship between creativity and conformity among preschool children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(1), 1-16. Vernon, A. (1998). Thinking, feeling, behaving: An emotional education curriculum for adolescents; Grades 7-12. Waelsch, S. G. (1994). The development of creativity [Special issue: Creativity and discovery in biomedical sciences]. Creativity Research Journal, 7(3 & 4), 249-264. Walberg, H. J., Rasher, S. P., & Parkerson, J. (1979). Childhood and eminence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13(4), 225-231. Walker, A. M., Koestner, R., & Hum, A. (1995). Personality correlates of depressive style in autobiographies of creative achievers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), 75-94. Wang, J. H. (2003). The effects of a creative movement program on motor creativity of children ages three to five. Webster, P. R. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 22-28. Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V.L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), pp. 1-10. White, K. (1968). Anxiety, extraversion-introversion, and divergent thinking ability. Journal of Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 69 Kazemi Haghighi ve Kazemi Haghighi Ekonomik Yaratıcılık Creative Behavior, 2(2), 119-127. York, P. (2000). Space for creativity, Management Today, September, 103. Yuk, K., & Cramond, B. (2006). Program for enlightened and productive creativity illustrated with a moire patterns lesson. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(4), 272-283. Zachopoulou, E., Trevlas, E., & Konstadinidou, E. (2006). The design and implementation of a physical education program to promote children's creativity in the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 279-294. Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and a sense of humor, New York: Springer Publishing. 70 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 71-73 Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, 71-73 ______________________________________________________ An Interview with Buket Yakmaci-Guzel Michael F. Shaughnessy1 MFS: Professor, first of all, could you tell us a bit about what you are currently doing and a bit about your education and experience? BYG: I’m a researcher and teacher educator from Istanbul, Turkey. I’m working at the Department of Secondary School Science and Mathematics Education in Bogazici University in which top 1-3% students are admitted as a result of a very competitive central university entrance examination . I received my B.S. degree on “Teaching Chemistry” from Bogazici University. During my graduate education in “Educational Sciences”, I had studied on giftedness. I carried out a research study on Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. After completing my graduate education, since 1998, I have been working as a chemistry teacher educator. My current research interests are; identifying and improving conceptual understanding in science/chemistry, science/chemistry teacher education, professional development in science/chemistry teaching. During my career, I offered many undergraduate and graduate courses such as Applied Research in Science Education, Text Analysis in Science and Mathematics Education, Teaching Methods in Science and Mathematics, Teaching Methods in Chemistry, Practice Teaching in Chemistry, etc. MFS: Now, what first got you excited in the topic of overexcitables, and the theory of Dabrowski? BYG: I first encountered with the concepts of “OEs” and “TPD” while I was doing my Ph.D. coursework. When I read the article “Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities” by C. M. Ackerman (1997), I was so excited and found it so interesting. Then I read more and more on this “personality theory” and I was influenced with the idea that “conflict and inner suffering were necessary for advanced development”. It was very similar to the ideas from well-known learning theories which emphasize the importance of “conflict” and “disequilibrium” as a prerequisite for further learning. When I was first interested in “OEs”, there was no study carried out in Turkey about the issue, so it was another driving force for me to choose that topic to study further in my dissertation and contribute to the existing literature by collecting and analyzing data from my country. MFS: In your study, you identified students according to the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Why this test? PhD, School of Education, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM 88130, USA. Email: Michael.Shaughnessy@enmu.edu ©Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education ISSN 2146-3832, http://www.tuzed.org 1 Shaughnessy An Interview with Buket Yakmacı-Güzel BYG: I chose this test, because it was easy to administer to a larger sample and easy to score (practicality). It was one of the most widely-known, and valid tests measuring “general intellectual ability” (quality). Also, since it consisted of items with figures (non-verbal), it’s one of the tests free from cultural bias (culture-fair). MFS: You also looked at students with high motivation, high creativity and high leadership scores. What did you find? BYG: I didn’t want only to rely on “general intellectual ability” but also other variables (like motivation, leadership, creativity as suggested by Renzulli (978) and Marland (1972) which might be related to giftedness. I thought that instead of administering some tests to measure these variables, asking teachers rating their students on these might be more practical and more informative. So I wanted home room teachers to evaluate and classify their students in terms of these variables. I explained teachers what I mean by each variable and asked them to group their students accordingly. According to these classifications, I compared different groups of students in terms of their OE scores. As a result of analysis I found that: In all OE dimensions, high intellectual ability students scored higher than low intellectual ability students and in Imaginational and Intellectual OEs these high intellectual ability students scored significantly higher than low intellectual ability students, Imaginational and Intellectual OE scores of students who have labeled as “highly motivated students” by their teachers are significantly higher than the scores of those who labeled as “low motivated students”, Imaginational and Intellectual OE scores of students who are categorized as leaders by their home room teachers are significantly higher than those who are classified as nonleaders. All five types of OE scores (Psychomotor, Sensual, Imaginational, Intellectual, Emotional) of students who have high creativity are significantly greater than those of low creativity. MFS: What did you find in terms of boys and girls in this research? BYG: There is no difference in terms of any OE scores of male and female students according to the analysis of my study. MFS: I have been to Turkey, and am by no means an expert on your culture. But in terms of cultural issues- what are the important issues in this regard? BYG: When intellectual ability is concerned, the elevated OE scores on Imaginational and Intellectual areas are frequently seen for highly intelligent individuals in many research studies in the literature. My findings are very similar to those and so provided additional support to the literature. In my study, when the data were analyzed also in terms of motivation and leadership, it was again observed that Imaginational and Intellectual OE scores of high 72 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 2014, 4/1 Shaughnessy An Interview with Buket Yakmacı-Güzel and low groups differed in favor of high groups. This implies that high intellectual ability group students quite coincide with high motivation and leadership groups in my sample. On the other hand, in the literature, high intellectual ability group is frequently found to display high Emotional OE whereas it was not the case in my study. This is also similar for motivation and leadership variables in my study in terms of Emotional OE score. This shows that Emotional OE doesn’t differentiate high intellectual, highly motivated and leader individuals from their lower counterparts. It was one of the interesting findings of my study and it was difficult to explain. The Emotional OE scores of whole sample in my study was relatively low when compared with Ackerman’s study (1997). This difference shows that Turkish students have either lower Emotional OE or cannot reflect their Emotional OE in their responses to the Overexcitability Questionnaire. A possible explanation for this might be that in Turkish culture, from earlier ages children learn to hide their feelings because exhibiting them might be considered as a sign of weakness. Additionally there is no formal training integrated in school curricula about increasing emotional awareness, making empathic relationships with others or overcoming negative and positive feelings. These might be factors for Turkish population for not being able to express OE in emotional dimension. MFS: What do you see, in retrospect in terms of the importance of your study? BYG: I think, my study was important for being the first study on this issue carried out in Turkey. There were studies comparing OEs of gifted and non-gifted individuals by mainly taking account the intellectual ability factor and sometimes creativity factor. In my study, besides these two factors, I also tried to add the variables of motivation and leadership and I found similar results with intellectual ability factor on OE scores. So, this might imply a positive relationship between high intellectual ability, and motivation and leadership. I know that OEs caught the attention of different researchers from around the world in later years and some comparisons across countries and cultures in terms of OEs were done as well later. MFS: Thank you for your interest in my research. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 2014, 4/1 73 Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi…….Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education Haziran 2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 1 June 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1 Editör Notu/Editorial 1 The Nuremberg Music-Ecological Approach: Why are some musicians internationally successful and others not? Nürnberg Müzik Ekolojik Yaklaşımı: Neden Bazı Müzisyenler uluslararası başarılı, diğerleri değil? Albert Ziegler, Sabrina Straßer, Wolfgang Pfeiffer & Catherine Wormald 2 A Cross-National Comparison of School Students’ Perceptions Regarding High Performing Peers Öğrencilerin Üst Düzey Performans Sergileyen Akranlarına Yönelik Algılarının Ülkeler Arası Karşılaştırması Hyerim Oh, Margaret Sutherland, Niamh Stack, Maria del Mar Badia, Sheyla Blumen, Anh-Thu Nguyen Quoc, Catherine Wormald, Julie Maakrun, Barbara Baier, Martha Schmidt & Albert Ziegler 10 Chances and Limitations of Implementing Measures of Differentiation for Gifted Children in Primary Schools: The Teachers’ Part İlkokuldaki Üstün Zekâlı Öğrencilere Yönelik Program Farklılaştırma Uygulamalarındaki Şanslar ve Sınırlılıklar: Öğretmen Kısmı Martina Endepohls-Ulpe & Natascha Thömmes 24 The Associative Basis of Scientific Creativity: A Model Proposal Bilimsel Yaratıcılığın Çağrışımsal Temelleri: Model Önerisi Esra Kanlı 37 Economic Creativity Development Ekonomik Yaratıcılığın Gelişimi Nasseroddin Kazemi Haghighi & Ahmad Reza Kazemi Haghighi 51 An Interview with Buket Yakmaci-Guzel Buket Yakmacı-Güzel ile Röportaj Michael F. Shaughnessy 71
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
