Kam Shau Wan, Sanly 12 August 2006

1. An Examination of the Development of Creativity of Young Children in Four Childcare Centres in Hong Kong Kam Shau Wan, Sanly 12 August 2006

2. Context of the Study In Hong Kong, there is a growing awareness that young children’s learning is enhanced when they are encouraged to express and develop their creativity during the learning process. However, very little research has been done locally with respect to the development of creativity in young children and the relationship between creativity and learning.

3. Education Commission of Hong Kong (2000): Education Blueprint for the 21st Century - Learning for Life Learning through Life “critical and exploratory thinking, innovating and adapting to change to be one of the core elements of the overall aims of education.”

4. Curriculum Development Council of Hong Kong (2006): Guide to the Pre-primary Curriculum “one of the development objectives for young children in the aesthetic development domain, an objective to stimulate children’s creative and imaginative powers, and encourage them to enjoy participating in creative works”

5. Aim of the Research Study • how young children express and develop their creativity, both individually and as a group • how teachers may be trained to adopt the Reggio Emilia Approach to foster creativity in children in Hong Kong • how young children expressed their creativity • the factors that contributed to their creative products and creative performances in Child Care Centre settings in Hong Kong

6. The Fundamental Questions : • In what ways did young children express their creativity? What were the creative practices of young children in Hong Kong in selected child care centres in the study? • 2. How were young children’s creative performances being interpreted and appreciated (or ignored) by their teachers and peers? In what ways did the present programme in the Child Care Centre classroom environment in Hong Kong nurture children’s creativity? • 3.  Were there ways to elicit, stimulate or extend the creative abilities of young children? • 4. What were the difficulties and constraints in fostering creativity in Child Care Centre settings and how do they affect children’s creative expression?

7. 5. What were the teachers’ views with respect to their roles in nurturing creativity in children at the early childhood level? 6. How could teachers stimulate and foster creativity among young children? 7. What kinds of group factors facilitated or inhibited the creative behaviour of young children? 8. In what ways could teachers adopt the Reggio Emilia Approach in the context of Hong Kong? 9. Would the Reggio Emilia Approach (including teaching methods, documentation system, and parents’ involvement) help to foster creativity in children in Hong Kong

8. Research Subjects • 151 children aged 5-6 in 4 selected Child Care Centres • 2 day care centres act as the experimental group, using the Reggio Emilia Approach. The other two centres acted as the control group, using the customary practice of Integrated Approach

9. Overall Methodological Approach Qualitative Methodologies • The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) • In-depth case studies • Interviews of teachers • Child profiling The Quantitative Methodology The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) -- Thinking Creatively with Pictures

10. Quantitative Study Pre-test Collecting quantitative data Post-test Collecting quantitative data Performing Statistical analysis Control Group Drawing conclusions Pre-test Collecting quantitative data Post-test Collecting quantitative data Performing Statistical analysis Experimental Group Sample elections Qualitative Study Collecting qualitative data Performing content analysis The integrity of qualitative and quantitative paradigms of this study

11. The Adopted Reggio Emilia Approach Children have a ‘hundred ways of knowing, of feeling, and understanding’ (Malaguzzi 1996, p.1) They use the utilization of graphic, visual, and performing arts, as an integral part as co-constructor of knowledge, and a researcher, actively seeking to make meaning of the world, often in collaboration with others (Millikan 2003, p33)

12. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Torrance 1962 1. Five Aspects of Children’s Creativity • Fluency • Originality • Elaboration • Abstractness of Titles • Resistance to Premature Closure

13. 2. Thirteen Aspects of Creative Strength • Emotional Expressiveness • Storytelling Articulateness • Movement or Action • Expressiveness of Titles • Synthesis of Incomplete Figures • Synthesis of Lines • Unusual Visualization • Internal Visualization • Extending or Breaking Boundaries • Humor • Richness of Imagery • Colorfulness of Imagery • Fantasy

14. Initial Findings of Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)

15. Table 1: Gender Distribution of Participants in Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

16. Control Experimental Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean Difference t Fluency 88.10 (22.37) 107.83 (16.28) 19.73 6.26* Originality 103.59 (21.47) 125.84 (17.42) 22.25 7.03* Elaboration 88.89 (17.32) 111.12 (16.94) 22.23 7.95* Abstractness of Titles 44.16 (45.21) 45.84 (42.86) 1.68 0.23 Resistance to Premature Closure 58.65 (33.94) 80.35 (21.60) 21.70 4.76* Emotional Expressiveness 0.06 (0.29) 0.26 (0.53) 0.20 2.79* Storytelling Articulateness 0.34 (0.71) 0.51 (0.72) 0.17 1.42 Movement or action 1.50 (0.71) 1.42 (0.65) -0.08 -0.72 Expressiveness of Titles 0.30 (0.58) 0.62 (0.73) 0.32 2.93* Synthesis of Incomplete Figures 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.29) 0.06 1.65 Synthesis of Lines or Circles 0.04 (0.25) 0.25 (0.55) 0.21 2.92* Unusual Visualization 1.34 (0.71) 1.83 (0.42) 0.49 5.22* Internal Visualization 1.49 (0.57) 1.90 (0.35) 0.41 5.42* Extending or Breaking Boundaries 0.94 (0.57) 1.23 (0.71) 0.29 2.75* Humor 0.00 (0.00) 0.17 (0.45) 0.17 3.19* Richness of Imagery 0.04 (0.19) 0.23 (0.52) 0.19 2.97* Colorfulness of Imagery 0.45 (0.67) 0.45 (0.61) 0.00 -0.02 Fantasy 0.09 (0.28) 0.25 (0.50) 0.16 2.39* Creative Strengths 6.60 (3.12) 9.17 (3.94) 2.57 4.40* Creativity Index 82.79 (23.03) 102.99 (20.26) 20.20 5.73* N=82 N=69 *p<.05 (two-tailed tests) Table 2 Comparison of the means of control and experimental groups (posttest) (TTCT)

17. Summary Analysis of the data obtained by using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking indicated that the children in the experimental group manifested a significant improvement in creativity as compared with the children of the control group. Also the adoption of the Reggio Emilia approach appeared to be more advantageous for children’s creativity and learning than the present customary practice in early childhood education in Hong Kong (i.e. the so-called ‘integrated approach’). These results would be beneficial to early childhood staff working in Hong Kong.

18. The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) Amabile 1996 • Creativity Cluster • Technical Cluster • Aesthetic Judgment

19. Initial Findings of Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)

20. Table 1: Gender Distribution of Participants in The Consensual Assessment Technique

21. Control Experimental Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean Difference t Creativity Cluster 2.99 (0.46) 3.38 (0.51) 0.39 4.94* Technical Cluster 2.96 (0.47) 3.34 (0.51) 0.38 4.60* Aesthetic Judgment 2.96 (0.48) 3.28 (0.59) 0.32 3.64* N = 30 *p<.05 (two-tailed tests) Table 3 Comparison of the means of the control and experimental groups (2nd measurement) (CAT)

22. Summary The children in the experimental group manifested a significantly greater improvement in Creativity, including Technical Skills and Aesthetic Judgment, than did the children in the control group. It was therefore concluded that the Reggio Emilia approach was more effective than the existing integrated approach in engendering and nurturing children’s creativity. It also follows naturally and logically from this finding that the holistic development of children must benefit when their creativity, aesthetic and technical abilities are enhanced.

23. The End