This study investigated the effects of a creative problem solving curriculum on students of varying ability. Subjects were 267 middle school students in six schools who had previously been designated as gifted, honors, or average. To assess problem solving, treatment and companson students responded to a hypothetical problem before and after the treatment, with results scored by two independent judges for problem fluency, solution fluency, flexibility, originatity, and use of criteria. Teachers rated the creativity, ability to work in groups, and potential giftedness of all students before and-after the treatment.
Treatment students showed significant gains in problem-solving ability compared with comparisons, with no significant differences among ability levels. Teacher ratings for gifted comparison students increased compared to those for gifted treatment students; ratings for treatment honors students generally increased. Teacher ratings for average students did not change, despite signficant increases in their problem-solving ability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
2.
Colangelo, N., & Davis. G.A. (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Needham Heights. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Cramond, B., Martin, C.E., & Slaw. E.L. (1990). Generalizability of creative problem solving procedures to real-life problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.13(2), 141-155.
4.
Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Eberle, B. & Stanish, B. (1980). CPS for kids. Buffalo, NYD.O.K.Feldhusen, J.F., & Clinkenbeard , P.R. (1986). Creativity instructional materials: A review of research. Journal of Creative Behavior.20(3). 153-182.
6.
Feuerstein, R., Miller. R., & Jensen. M.R. (1981). Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change?Journa of Special Education.15(2). 201-219.
Gear, G.H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20. 478-490.
9.
Gear, G.H. (1978). Effects of training on teachers' accuracy in the identification of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly , 22, 90-97.
10.
Germann, P.J. (1989). Directed-inquiry approach to learning science process skills: Treatment effects and aptitude-treatment interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 237-250.
11.
Hoge, R.D., & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2). 181-196.
12.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin. M.J. (1988). Cooperative Cbi: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research.4(4). 413-424.
13.
Isaksen, S.G., & Treffinger, D.J. (1985). Creative problem solving: The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
14.
Maker, C.J. (1982a). Curriculum development for the giftedRockville, MD: Aspen.
15.
Maker, C.J. (1982b). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
16.
Mitchell, B.M. (1988). The latest national assessment of gifted education . Roeper Review, 10(4), 239-240.
17.
Oakes. J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Parker. J.P. (1989). Instructional strategies for teaching the gifted . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
Parnes. S.J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.). Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
20.
Parnes. S.J., & Brunelle, E.A. (1967). The literature of creativity (part 1). Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 52-109.
21.
Peterson, P.L., Janicki, T.C. & Swing, S.R. (1981). Ability x treatment interaction effects on children's learning in large-group and small-group approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 453-473.
22.
Renzulli, J.S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center. CT: Creative Learning Press.
25.
Rose, L.H., & Lin, H. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11-22.
26.
Schack, G.D., & Starko. A.J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 346-363.
27.
Sisk. D. (1987). Creative teaching of the gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill. Speece, D.L. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interactions: Bad rap or bad idea? The Journal of Special Education.24(2), 139-149.
28.
Swing. S.R. & Peterson, P.L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2). 259-274.
Torrance. E.P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(1), 114-143.
31.
Torrance, E.P. (1987). Recent trends in teaching children and adults to think creatively. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 204-215). Buffalo. NY: Bearly Limited.
32.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
