الطفل المبدع في المدرسة ٢_a .. كتاب الإبداع وتربية

Its indication is that when the student obtains knowledge through education based on authority (by receiving and directed learning), then the traditional measures of intelligence or competencies are better predictive of achievement, while when the knowledge is received in more creative ways (i.e. by discovery learning), the tests of fluency, originality, etc. are more appreciated. On predicting achievement from IQ, Torrance extracts an important educational rule from all of this, saying:

Children learn best when they are given the opportunity to learn in ways that suit their abilities and motivations, and when teachers change their ways of teaching into meaningful ways, a different team of learners becomes a team of high achievers or stars. We should take care of it in prediction. Perhaps this leads to the recognition that we need multiple meanings and attention to different types of achievement, Torrance 1927.

One of the impressive facts in this regard that sheds light on teaching arithmetic is the following fact: A study conducted by (Yamamoto) in 1963 showed that a mixture of low creativity on the part of the teacher and low creativity on the part of the student gave a higher achievement in arithmetic, while a mixture of low creativity on the part of the teacher And high achievement when the student gave the worst results.

Tolerant school climate

And although it is doubtful that a genius like that of Shakespeare, Michelangelo, or Einstein ever flourished in school, yet no one doubts that at lower levels school can play an important part in the increase or decrease of the discriminatory abilities in the children with whom it attends throughout the day. We all have some originality and the education machine can develop this part and increase its brilliance.

There are two main methods by which the school can increase the children's creative capabilities: The first is that the school provides children with special educational experiences in order to train them in creative thinking or skill in problem-solving, regardless of normal school subjects. Other places in our conversation, such as (Raining the Brain) and (Creative Thinking Program) and others. As for the other way, it is generating (creative spirit) in the school and adopting an experimental, creative and open-ended method of education, in every field. The important thing here is the method of teaching language, mathematics, science, etc., and the attitudes that the teacher adopts before the education process. Now we will take care of it now.

Since the school is only one factor in the development of the child's capabilities, and since the most likely factor is the home factor, the differences between one school and another are small differences. However, (Haddon and Lytton) in 1968 tried to study the effects of different climates in primary school on differentiated abilities, and to show whether these effects are noticeable in the child. They studied two types of school: the traditional mock school, which stresses the importance of collective thinking and education based on authority on the one hand, and on the other hand, the progressive school, which stresses self-education and creative activities. The criteria used to differentiate between the two types of school were the following: interest in achievement, rigor of the school program, dominance of classroom lessons, and control of movement in the school. Two types of opposing primary schools with similar social and economic backgrounds were selected, after consultation with university educationists with knowledge of the area and on the advice of a local educational inspector. A school of each type (model) was located in an urban area whose population belonged to the middle class, while the other school had its children drawn from a more mixed social background in another urban area. The average intelligence quotient for students in mock schools was 101.75, while this average for students in non-simulated schools was 101.14, so that the two opposing teams were similar in the ability to verbal judgment. The tests were applied to (211) children between the ages of 11-13 years. Their capacities range from the lowest to the highest. The tests were applied to them in the last school semester. The results supported the prediction that children in non-mock schools, those schools that encourage educational attitudes associated with differentiation, had higher disparate records than children who learned in mock schools. It should be noted that the study did not compare between (good) and (bad) schools, but rather compared good schools of two different types with two different interests. It should also be noted that the difference between the two types of school was a difference in strictness in the issue of self-learning. One might be able to say that the non-mock schools, in their emphasis on self-learning, changed the personal relationship in the school, because the student in these non-mock schools is relaxed and the atmosphere is a friendly atmosphere in which children move freely, whether in the classroom or in the school as a whole. Perhaps what deserves a special mention is the presence of a library in the school and the freedom of the child to refer to it as he pleases. The mock schools were not hostile, but their atmosphere was strict and the classroom work is correct. where more important.

In addition to that, many studies have shown that the effect of spending the first formative school years in an atmosphere that encourages self-learning and openness is something that lasts beyond childhood. The aforementioned scholars followed the students after four years (in 1971), when the students were fifteen years old at that time, and some of them were determined to leave school and enter practical life. They also mixed with each other during these four years and were exposed to influences. The rules of grouping and segregation were applied to them. The researchers found that the effect of the primary school that the student went to remains after the passage of these four years, and that the middle school that each child went to had little effect compared to the effect of the primary school.

What lies at the basis of this relationship between classroom climate and differentiation ability? We do not have a definitive answer to this question and we can only guess. Perhaps it is the confidence that the teacher gives to the student, the self-confidence that is generated in the student, and the freedom from anxiety that results from self-learning and the attempt to deal with problems in the student's own way. (Torrance) in 1967 suggests the following lines of action if we want to create a school climate suitable for creative attitudes and abilities:

1- Respect the unusual questions.
2- Respect children's unusual ideas.
3- Show children that their ideas have value.
4- Provide opportunities for self-education and its appreciation.
5- Allow unqualified work and learning.

It seems more difficult to establish a link between the school climate and disparate abilities when the secondary school is concerned. Lytton and Cotton failed in 1969 to establish such a relationship, and the researchers say that the failure may be caused by the limited tests, but it is possible It should also be reasoned that the schools in England, where they conducted the experiment, have sections and each section has its own climate, so that there is no general climate (Hudson) in 1968 noticed an important contradiction in distinguishing the groupers and the splitters in the schools, according to the social background. he says:

Either the school's social background or its climate (or both) help in determining the superiority of the groupers or the dispersals in the eyes of the public. The lowest middle social class and the most puritanical school push the collectors forward and leave the dispersed submerged. As for the higher social class and the more tolerant school, they do the opposite.. Is this another curse of poverty?