العوامل التي تعين الإبداع أو تعيقه ٢_a .. كتاب الإبداع وتربية

expansion

During the research of Guilford and his collaborators on the abilities included in planning in 1957, they found another type of ability that they called the ability to expand, Elaboration. Thus, in one of the tests, the examinee was given a simple outline of a subject and asked to expand it and draw its steps that lead to it being practical. Of course the score he was getting was the amount of detail he was giving.

Guilford and his collaborators accepted that the capacities for fluency, flexibility (including originality), and extension are similar, given that all
Its tests require a variety of answers.

This and all of these abilities, as is noticeable, belong to the group of divergent thinking, and that is why the individual must generate his answer or answers, starting with the information provided to him.

Quantity and quality

Many questions arise about the relationship of quantity to quality in the issue of production. There is a hypothesis that says that the manner is born, and it is a hypothesis that deserves discussion and research. It says that if a person produces a greater number of ideas, then it is not greater than the ideas of good quality at a specific time, while there is another hypothesis that says that if a person spends his time giving a large number of ideas, the good ideas among them will be few.

There is another side to this discussion. When a person is prepared to give good answers, he resorts to judgment and evaluation when he proceeds to give answers. It is believed that the critical or evaluative position prevents the flow of ideas, both good and bad. On the other hand, it is believed that the application of evaluation during the process of thinking has a selective effect, which prevents the issuance of bad responses and allows the release of good responses.

The well-known technique called brain storming, attributed to Alex Osborn in 1953 and used by many others, is identical to the first school and its position. One of his alleged advantages, though, is that differentiating between production and evaluation (i.e. suspending judgment and criticism) is an optimal method. Of course, this method has other characteristics that it includes - which it includes. To think in small groups rather than individually.

And (Hyman) in 1960 believes that quantity may generate quality in. Some types of problems and not others. Guilford believes that it is correct to say that the type of evaluation position that the thinker takes is closely related to the quantity and quality of the responses that he produces, and that resorting to evaluation and criticism is useful if the thinker has adopted the good formula for thinking. Finally, Hyman believes that the general critical position can be transferred and benefited from in solving problems.

Group thinking and individual thinking

The question of the value of both group thinking and individual thinking was and still is a subject of concern to scholars, among them Gilford and his group, who say that one of its advantages is that one of the thinking group stimulates the other. In confirmation of this hypothesis, Osborne points out that nearly a third of the ideas produced in the collective “brain rain” are of the type generated by friction between individuals. Thus, one person's idea is based on another person's idea. However, there are results that do not confirm or support this hypothesis. Berry and Block found in 1958 that people who think individually produce a number. More and better than people who think collectively.

Perhaps the truth is that neither the individual method nor the collective method is valid in all circumstances and for individuals. It is possible that both methods are valid if applied properly. Whatever it is, the majority of scholars believe that a highly creative person is usually an independent thinker and that his creativity is a personal matter. Torrance found in 1959 that the highly creative child works most of the time alone. On the other hand, other studies conducted by (Parunes and Meadow) in 1959 indicated that (brain rain) has beneficial results.

creativity context

A question arises whether the same person is equally creative in the fields? Gilford says an answer to this question: Based on our analytical results, we can say that this is possible, but we rarely expect the same person to be equally creative in science, arts, mathematics, management, and music composition. Highly creative individuals in many of these different fields may have excellent qualities in common with each other, but psychological studies also indicate that there are clear differences between them.

In the field of abilities with a differentiated product alone, we find that individuals may be unequal in processing verbal materials, sensory materials, and symbolic materials. The symbolic materials are the materials that the athlete deals with, and we mean numbers. Fluency, flexibility, and breadth in dealing with sensory materials are more important for the inventor of instruments, the painter, and the composer, and the same kind of abilities are necessary for dealing with verbal materials and are important for the creative writer and scientist. In other words, there are parallel abilities to deal with sensory (or visual) materials, symbolic materials, and verbal materials with meaning and letters.

One of Guilford's first hypotheses was that the truly creative person has the ability to sense problems. Thus, someone notices that something is wrong or needs to be fixed, while others do not. Noticing the imperfection pushes the creative person to move towards creativity. The factor analysis validated this hypothesis and the presence of this factor. Edison was urging his collaborators to say that there must be a better way, look for it. As for non-creative people, they are satisfied with half-solutions and stop at it. Middle of the road has been proven.

Another one of Guilford's assumptions about the components of creativity was to say that the invention or the new idea is nothing but a reconsideration of what was known before. But reconsideration is not a clear matter, because it may include a change in the meaning and interpretation or the use of the thing in order to achieve the required innovation. In other words, there must be a transformation or modification. Transformation

There are other abilities outside the group of capabilities with a differentiated product that contribute some contribution to the creative achievements in their own way. We have already seen that one of the discriminatory abilities (the sense of the problem) is involved in making the creator begin his creativity. Also, the evaluation capabilities must have their benefits and uses, whether the trial is suspended or not, in determining whether the creator should finish his task, so he must estimate his output from time to time, just as he must reconsider it if necessary. .

Discrimination (cognition) and memory

So far, we have strictly mentioned three main groups of factors: 1) Capabilities with a differentiated product. 2) Capabilities with a combined output. 3) Assessment, but there are two other basic groups, namely the group of discriminating abilities and the group of memory abilities, which are distinct abilities. Discriminatory abilities are related to discovery, discrimination, and perception of information in its various forms and images. As for memory abilities, it is related to fixing and preserving information.