Role of the Dual-State Model of Creative Cognition for Evaluating Creativity in English Language Classrooms at the Primary Level
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study is an attempt to measure creativity in English-language classrooms through the dual-state model of creative cognition. Creativity may be assessed in Pakistani English-language classrooms because it is usually hindered in schools at the primary level. The model used was the dual-state model of creative cognition, i.e., generative and non-generative stages. The outline of the model proposes that individuals may benefit from both stages, but at individual stages, they benefit from one stage rather than both stages. Two abilities were tested. There is the ability to think logically and analytically, as well as make associations. The tests used were the Remote Associate Test (RAT) and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT verbal part). The RAT test consisted of 30 items. A few items were selected from an online source, and a few were made manually. The TTCT test consists of nine statements to get feedback about teaching and learning practices. The tests were processed through statistical measures. The students were enrolled in a private school in Faisalabad. The sample of the study was class 7th and 8th of Al-Faisal Grammar High School, Faisalabad. The results proved the hypothesis correct: the model suggests that students would get more benefit from one stage than from two.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Terms
All articles published by MARS Publishers are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. This means:
- everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published in MARS Publishers' journals;
- everyone is free to re-use the published material if proper accreditation/citation of the original publication is given.
References
Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment techniques and students’ higher-order thinking skills. International Journal of Secondary Education, 4(1), pp. 1-11.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & I Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4(1).
Beghetto, R. A. (2020). Assessment that supports classroom creativity. Assessing creativity: A Pallete of possibilities. LEGO Foundation.
Carbonell-Carrera, C., Saorin, J. L., Melian-Diaz, D., & De la Torre-Cantero, J. (2019). Enhancing creative thinking in STEM with 3D CAD modelling. Sustainability, 11(21), 6036.
Falconer, E. G., Cropley, D. H., & Dollard, M. F. (2018). An exploration of creativity in primary school children. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 28(2), pp. 7-25.
Fürst, G., & Grin, F. (2018). A comprehensive method for the measurement of everyday creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, pp. 84-97.
Guo, J. (2019). Web-based creativity assessment system that collects both verbal and figural responses: Its problems and potentials. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(1), pp. 27-34.
Gamanik, N. M., Sanjaya, Y., & Rusyati, L. (2019). Role-Play Simulation for Assessing Students' Creative Skill and Concept Mastery. Journal of Science Learning, 2(3), pp. 71-78.
Hänninen, L. I., Byrge, C., Gómez, P. N., Tang, C., Brøndum, K., DIngli, S., & Xerxen, S. P. (2020). Testing the effects of digital gamified creativity training. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation, 6, pp. 5-17.
Insani, S. U., & Akbar, P. (2019, October). Development of Open-Ended Based Mathematics Problem to Measure High-Level Thinking Ability. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1315(1), p. 012047. IOP Publishing.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), p. 302.
Kadriu, L. L., Ceka, A., & Bajrami, T. J. (2016). Assessment of Teachers in Terms of Encouraging and Manifestation of the Creativity in Creativie Teaching. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(33), pp. 199-206.
Lucchiari, C., Sala, P. M., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2019). The effects of a cognitive pathway to promote class creative thinking. An experimental study on Italian primary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, pp. 156-166.
Long, H., Kerr, B. A., Emler, T. E., & Birdnow, M. (2022). A Critical Review of Assessments of Creativity in Education. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), pp. 288-323.
Liao, Y. H., Chen, Y. L., Chen, H. C., & Chang, Y. L. (2018). Infusing creative pedagogy into an English as a foreign language classroom: Learning performance, creativity, and motivation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, pp. 213-223.
Mullen, C. A. (2020). Canada Case: Revealing Creativity and 4-C Responses. In Revealing Creativity, pp. 121-156. Springer, Cham
Merta Dhewa, K., Rosidin, U., Abdurrahman, A., & Suyatna, A. (2017). The development of Higher Order Thinking Skill (Hots) instrument assessment in physics study. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 7(1), pp. 26-32.
Nurhasanah, A. Y., & Simare-Mare, A. (2020). The Analysis of Children Creativity Development in Paud Darul Fathonah Medan Marelan Sub-District. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 3(1), pp. 260-269.
Ozkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), pp. 95-116.
Rubenstein, L. D., Thomas, J., Finch, W. H., & Ridgley, L. M. (2022). Exploring creativity's complex relationship with learning in early elementary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101030.
Rafner, J. (2021). Creativity assessment games and crowdsourcing. In Creativity and Cognition, pp. 1-5.
Shively, K., Stith, K. M., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), pp. 149-158.