J Guilford's cubic model of intelligence. Guilford's model of the structure of intelligence. Conducted according to three indicators

5. On naive and cultural creativity, Marina Isaevna Fidelman, who recently defended her dissertation under my supervision, conducted a very interesting experiment. Subjects (this is what they call those who agreed - only of their own free will, it cannot be otherwise -

Formula of creativity: c = me2 The formula of creativity will work for you when you understand what it is and literally feel its components. But they are not complicated. Formula of creativity: c = me2; wherec – creativity;m – mass of what you know (mass);e –

What gets in the way of creativity Barriers to creativity can prevent us from realizing the creative potential that we are all endowed with and capable of. Knowing about such barriers should prepare you to recognize them when they come your way.

Myths about Creativity Myths about creativity, as I have said many times before, can act as barriers to creativity because of their power to shape everyday behavior.? Creative potential is a mystical, magical and incomprehensible phenomenon.? Only true ones

Connecting to Creativity In a world full of creative potential, it is dangerous to assume that all the good ideas are on the surface. However, we have seen this sentiment expressed in many international corporations: 5th level managers plan their

The concept of creativity as a universal creative ability gained popularity after the work of J. Guilford. The basis of this concept was his cube-shaped model of the structure of intelligence: “material ´ operations ´ results” (SOI - Structure of the Intellect).

J. Guilford pointed out the fundamental difference between two types of mental operations: convergence and divergence. Convergent thinking (convergence) is actualized in the case when a person solving a problem needs to find the only correct solution based on many conditions. In principle, there may be several specific solutions (many roots of the equation), but this set is always limited. There cannot be another solution that could be an element of this set. Accordingly, J. Guilford identified the ability for convergent thinking with test intelligence, that is, intelligence measured by high-speed IQ tests.

Divergent thinking is defined as “a type of thinking that goes in different directions” (J. Guilford). This thinking allows for varying ways to solve a problem and leads to unexpected conclusions and results.

J. Guilford identified four main parameters of creativity: 1) originality - the ability to produce distant associations, unusual answers; 2) semantic flexibility - the ability to highlight the function of an object and suggest its new use; 3) figurative adaptive flexibility - the ability to change the shape of a stimulus in such a way as to see in it new signs and opportunities for use; 4) semantic spontaneous flexibility - the ability to produce a variety of ideas in an unregulated situation. General intelligence is not included in the structure of creativity. Later, J. Guilford mentions six parameters of creativity: 1) the ability to detect and pose problems; 2) the ability to generate a large number of ideas; 3) flexibility - the ability to produce a variety of ideas; 4) originality - the ability to respond to stimuli in a non-standard way; 5) the ability to improve an object by adding details; 6) the ability to solve problems, i.e. the ability to analyze and synthesize.

The first person to make creative thinking the subject of his study was John Paul Guilford (1897-1987). The dawn of his activity came in the 40-50s.

He believed that creative thinking is inherent in every person at one level, it simply needs to be developed. You can be a creative janitor, a hooligan, etc. Not only artists belong to the creative sphere.

Introduced the concepts of convergent and divergent thinking.

Convergent

Engaged in solving problems that have a definite, only correct answer.

It is this that is developed at school, for which Guilford reproached the school.

Divergent

Works with problems where there is no single correct solution. It is necessary to offer several solutions.

Guilford called him creative. I believed that without a good convergent there would be no good divergent one.

4 main abilities that enable divergent thinking to work:

Fluency of thinking

Flexibility of thinking

Originality

Ability to complement and refine the situation

Fluency of thinking:

It is characterized by the breadth of the associative field in which thought runs in search of the material it needs to make a decision.

Guilford's testing method: inventing synonyms for words for a while.

Flexibility thinking:

It is characterized by the number of essential properties of the object being studied that thought is able to find in it.

A very significant characteristic. Characterizes activity, liveliness, purposeful intensity of thinking.

Originality:

Ability to find non-trivial solutions.

Methods: presenting some unreal stories (for example, how the world will change if it rains for 365 days).

Ability to improve the situation:

Very often you need to add to a situation something that is missing. In general, the ability to make candy out of shit.

These abilities are partly determined by nature, but in addition to good genetics, you need to have good teachers.

Ticket 15.

Language and speech. Functions of speech. Types of speech.

(according to the dictionary)

Language- a system of signs of any physical nature, serving as a means of human communication and thinking; in its own sense, the language of words is a socio-psychological phenomenon, socially necessary and historically conditioned. One of the direct manifestations of speech is speech as sound-verbal communication.

Speech-a historically established form of communication between people through language. Speech communication is carried out according to the laws of a given language, which is a system of phonetic, lexical, grammatical and stylistic means and rules of communication. R and language form a complex dialectical unity. R is carried out according to the rules of the language, and together with it, under the influence of a number of factors (requirements, social practice, the development of science, mutual influences, languages, etc.) it changes and improves the language.

R and the language of modern man is the result of historical development. The child acquires language in the process of communicating with adults and learns to use it in R.

Thanks to R (especially in its written form), the historical continuity of people’s experience is achieved. Being a means of expressing people's thoughts in the process of their communication, P becomes the main mechanism of their thinking.

Higher abstract conceptual thinking is impossible without R. Speech activity is essential for the development of other forms of thinking (visual and visual). P is closely connected with all other mental processes. By being involved in the process of perception, it makes it more generalized and differentiated; verbalization of memorized material contributes to the meaningfulness of memorization and reproduction; The role of P is significant in the imagination, in realizing one’s emotions, in regulating one’s behavior, etc.

The act of verbal communication includes interconnected processes - the pronunciation of speech, its perception and understanding. R. differentiation into several types is accepted: oral, written, internal (see. Autonomous speech,Types of speech,Inner speech,Impressive speech,Mimic-gestural speech,Written speech,Oral speech,Egocentric speech,Expressive speech).

SPEECH FUNCTIONS(English) speech functions) - the role of speech in the social and individual mental life of a person. There are 2 main R. f., closely related to each other. 1st - implementation of the process communication between people ( communicative function).2nd function speech acts as a means of expressing thoughts, their formation and development ( smart function).

In the communicative function, in turn, it is customary to distinguish (although these distinctions are not very precise) the function messages and function incentives to action.When reporting, a person can point to someone. item ( index,or indicative,function) and express your judgments on k.-l. question ( predicative function, or function statements).In addition to the message about K.-L. events, phenomena, speech is very often aimed at causing certain actions in the interlocutor, as well as thoughts, feelings, desires (function incentives to action). Speech encourages you to think about something, to have a definite attitude towards this or that event, to experience feelings of regret, indignation, joy, etc. The motivating power of speech depends on its expressiveness, expressiveness(sometimes specially distinguished emotionally expressive R. f.). In turn, the expressiveness of speech depends on the structure of the construction of sentences and the selection of words (liveness, imagery of language, accessibility for understanding are important), on speech intonation and accompanying speech expressive movements(changes in posture, facial expressions, gestures).

Speech becomes a means, a form of expression of thoughts due to the fact that it denotes certain objects, phenomena, actions, qualities, etc. In this regard, they talk about semantic(or significative) R. f. However, the role of speech in the thinking process is not limited to this. Assimilating language as a socially fixed sign system, a person masters the logical forms and operations inextricably linked with him thinking. Speech becomes a means analysis And synthesis, comparison and generalization of objects and phenomena of reality.

TYPES OF SPEECH(English) kinds of speech) - designations accepted in psychology for various acts of speech communication or their components. Speech They are divided into types for different reasons and thanks to this they emphasize different aspects of speech activity. Depending on the identification of speech activity externally, a distinction is made between external and inner speech. External speech, loudly pronounced and perceived by ear, is called oral speech. It is contrasted (also external) written speech, a historically more recent method of verbal communication in which a verbal utterance is denoted (encoded) using graphic symbols ( graphemes).

External speech, oral and written, is in turn divided into productive, active, expressive speech and receptive, passive, impressive speech. Productive speech is speaking (speech production), description; receptive speech - listening, reading. The division of speech into productive (active) and receptive (passive) is very arbitrary. Speech perception (listening, reading), its understanding - an active process that includes hidden pronunciation, fragmentary or expanded (depending on the degree of difficulty of its understanding), meaningful processing (recoding) of what is perceived.

In research children's speech development at least 2 more peculiar V. rivers are being studied. - autonomous speech And egocentric speech little children.

In addition, V. r. depending on which of the analyzers is leading in a given speech act (for example, audible, spoken and visible speech). Similarly with this, maybe. Tactile speech is also indicated, that is, speech perceived by the blind or deaf-blind when reading in Braille or feeling the hand of another person speaking using dactyl speech (see. Dactylology). Visible speech, in addition to ordinary written speech, should also include methods of communication through visually perceived codes, including communication through signals that represent the transformation of audio speech signals into optical ones. Special cases of visible speech are facial speech deaf people, fingerprint speech and lip reading.

Inner speech

silent speech, hidden verbalization that arises, for example, in the process thinking. It is a derivative form of external (sound) speech, specially adapted to perform mental operations in the mind. It is presented in the most clear form when solving various tasks in the mind, carefully listening to the speech of other people, reading to oneself, mental planning, memorization and recall. Through V. r. there is a logical processing of sensory data, their awareness and understanding in a certain system concepts, self-instructions are given when performing arbitrary actions, self-analysis and self-esteem their actions and experiences. All this is done by V. r. a very important and universal mechanism of mental activity and consciousness person. In a narrower, psycholinguistic sense, V. r. - the initial moment of generation of a speech utterance, its “internal programming” before its implementation in oral or written speech.

Genesis V. r. insufficiently studied. By assumption L.WITH.Vygotsky(1932, 1934), it arises from egocentric speech - a child talking to himself out loud while games and other classes, which gradually becomes silent and syntactically reduced, becomes more and more abbreviated, idiomatic and predicative, with a predominance of verb forms and, in the end, on the threshold of school age turns into V. r. - speech “to oneself and for oneself”, and its awareness and improvement occurs under the influence of written speech, which develops already at school age. By assumption P.P.Blonsky(1935), V. r. arises simultaneously with external speech as a result of the child’s silent repetition of the words of adults addressed to him, which is observed already at the end of the 1st year of life.

Logical and grammatical structure of developed forms of V. r. m.b. very different depending on the content thoughts and the situation that gives rise to it. Usually in V. r. thought is expressed in a very general way in the form of semantic complexes consisting of fragments of words and phrases, to which various visual images and conventional signs can be added, transforming V. p. in an individual code, different from spoken and written language. However, at the moment of mental difficulties V. r. becomes more detailed, approaching internal monologues, and can turn into whispered and even loud speech, which allows you to more accurately analyze the objects of thought and control your mental activity.

Psychophysiological studies of V. r. very difficult due to the hidden nature of all its processes. Its speech motor component is the most studied - the rudimentary articulation words, accompanied by micromovements of the speech organs (tongue, lips, larynx) or an increase in the tone of their muscles (see. Speech organs). According to electromyographic studies (see. Electromyography), During mental activity, 2 types of speech-motor reactions are identified: tonic(low amplitude) and phasic(high-amplitude with short-term bursts of speech motor potentials). The former, apparently, are associated with the general activation of the speech motor analyzer, the latter with micromovements of the speech organs during the hidden articulation of words. The intensity and duration of speech motor reactions is very unstable and depends on many factors: the difficulty and novelty of the tasks being solved, the degree of automation of mental operations, inclusion in the mental activity of certain images, individual characteristics of memory and thinking. When repeating the same mental actions speech motor impulses decrease or completely stop, resuming only at the moment of transition from one mental action to another. During the hidden articulation of words, the maximum EEG activation of the brain is observed in the left sensorimotor region on the border between the frontal and temporal speech centers. These studies suggest that the main physiological function of latent articulation during mental activity is speech motor (proprioceptive) activation of the brain and the formation of speech motor dominants in its speech departments, integrating impulses from other brain analyzers into a single one. functional system, which can be voluntarily regulated through kinesthesia V. r. (cm. Speech kinesthesia) - and in this way carry out the analysis of information entering the brain, its selection, recording, generalization and other thinking operations.

WRITTEN SPEECH(English) writing,written speech) - speech realized in a form accessible to visual perception. This definition also fits facial speech(see also Amer.sign language). In contrast, R. is fixed in the form of a written text, that is, it allows a gap in time and space between its generation and perception and allows the perceiver (reader) to use any strategy of perception, return to what has already been read, etc. Dr. in words, the message in R. p. has, psychologically, b O a greater number of degrees of freedom (for the perceiver) than a message in oral or gestural-facial forms of speech. The same applies to the generation of speech: in contrast to oral, especially dialogical, speech, it allows for a conscious selection and evaluation of options for the content and linguistic design of the message.

From view means used in R.P., it has specificity at 3 levels: a) it uses graphic code(writing); b) there are differences in the linguistic organization of R. etc., for example in oral speech, intonation is used to highlight meaning, express emotionality, etc., and in speech, the same functions are performed using vocabulary (choosing a combination of words), grammar, and punctuation marks; c) there are linguistic forms accepted in speech, but not required in oral speech. The graphic code used may be alphabetic, or alphabetical(as in Russian or English writing), syllabic(as in the writings of the peoples of India), verbal(as in Chinese writing, where 1 character, a character, is used for a whole word or the stem of a word).

If a child masters oral speech already in the 2nd year of life, then oral speech is formed in the senior preschool or junior school age, usually as a result of targeted training. However, R.P. skills are fully formed no earlier than high school age. Cm. Children's speech development. (A. A. Leontyev.)

ORAL SPEECH(English) oral speech) - external, pronounced and perceived in hearing speech. RU. m.b. dialogical and monological.

Dialogical, or colloquial, speech is usually not fully developed, because it is situational, much of it is not expressed, but is implied due to the context that is understandable to those speaking. In dialogical speech, the intonation with which this or that statement is pronounced, as well as the facial expressions and facial expressions accompanying the speech, are of great importance. pantomime speaker. These expressive means make speech clearer to others and increase the power of its impact on them.

Monologue speech- this is the speech of one person, not interrupted by remarks from other people (the speech of a lecturer, speaker, orator, or any person who talks in detail about the events of his own life, about a book he has read, etc.). Monologue speech is much more developed and grammatically designed than dialogical speech, and usually requires preliminary preparation. An essential feature of monologue speech is the logical coherence of the thoughts expressed and the systematic presentation, subordinate to a specific plan. Designed for a specific audience, it is, however, not always accompanied by a direct reaction from those listening (this reaction remains unknown, for example, for speakers on radio or television). A skilled speaker or lecturer always takes into account the slightest reactions of the audience (facial expressions of the listeners, their individual remarks) and, in accordance with this, changes the course of his presentation, preserving its main content (introduces or omits details in the presentation, enhances its logical evidence, introduces elements of entertainment, etc.). P.). Monologue speech becomes clearer and more convincing thanks to a number of specific intonation means, which include pauses, stress, slowing down or speeding up the pace of speech, and special emphasis on individual words or phrases. There are special designs that are typical only for R. at. (repetitions or paraphrasing of individual statements, questions addressed to the audience, changing the sequence of words in a phrase in order to give individual words special significance). Cm. Expressive speech. (A. A. Leontyev.)

American researcher J. Guilford developed the concept of the structure of intelligence. This model formed the basis of many psychological and pedagogical concepts for diagnosing, predicting the learning and development of gifted children in foreign psychological theory and practice. It is considered one of the most famous models of intelligence ever proposed. Naturally, it is also one of the most criticized.

This model offers, according to the author’s half-joking statement, about 120 “ways to be smart,” which in turn is an excellent basis for developing programs for both diagnosing thinking and specifying what is subject to targeted development. This model has been used for many years as a base model in a number of American schools and kindergartens, primarily for gifted children. The property of this model is that it is comprehensive, contains a description of different types of cognitive abilities, and allows teachers to use a wide variety of methods that go far beyond the scope of conventional curricula to stimulate the educational process.

Teachers working with gifted children received a toolkit of theoretical and practical tools that help enliven lessons, stimulate cognitive activity and independent search activity.

J. Guilford finds several common fundamental bases for numerous real manifestations (factors) of intelligence and on this basis classifies them, identifying three fundamental ways of combining intellectual factors of the first block (“operations”) - identifying the main types of intellectual processes and operations performed. This hike allows you to combine five large groups of intellectual abilities:

cognition – perception and understanding of the presented material;

memory – remembering and reproducing information;

convergent thinking - logical, sequential, unidirectional thinking, manifested in tasks that have a single correct answer;

divergent thinking - alternative, deviating from logic, manifests itself in tasks that allow the existence of many correct answers;

assessment – ​​a judgment about the correctness of a given situation.

The second method of classifying intellectual factors, according to J. Guilford, corresponds to the type of material or content included in it, which can be presented as follows: figurative; symbolic; semantic; behavioral.

The processed information can take the form of one of the final products: units, classes, systems, relationships, transformations and implications.

These three types of classification are presented by J. Guilford in the form of a cube model, each dimension of which represents one of the ways to measure factors: in one dimension various types of operations are located; in another dimension – there are different types of final mental product; in the third dimension there are different types of content.

It is especially important that despite the rather deep elaboration, this model remains an open system. The author himself points to this, noting that more than 120 can be added to the existing 50 factors (during the development of this model). Currently, more than 150 of them have been identified.

J. Guilford made a great contribution to the theory of giftedness. He identified the parameters of individual creativity. Developed the components of divergent thinking (speed, originality, flexibility, accuracy). All this made it possible to make new modifications of practical activities in the development, training and education of gifted schoolchildren.

57. Monometric (one-dimensional) approach to intelligence is characteristic of the concept G.Yu.Eysenka . He talks about the presence of "biological intelligence", "psychometric intelligence" and "social intelligence". The main parameter that Eysenck proposes to consider as an indicator of the level of intelligence is the individual speed of information processing, i.e. reaction time for choosing from many alternatives. According to other researchers, the level of intelligence is characterized not just by the speed of mental operations, but also by the ability to work with many alternatives. Biological intelligence - These are innate, predetermined information processing abilities associated with the structures and functions of the cerebral cortex. This is the basic, most fundamental aspect of intelligence. It serves as the genetic, physiological, neurological, biochemical and hormonal basis of cognitive behavior, i.e. associated mainly with the structures and functions of the cerebral cortex. Without them, no meaningful behavior is possible. Psychometric intelligence - This is a kind of connecting link between biological intelligence and social intelligence. Social intelligence - this is the intellect of an individual, formed during his socialization, under the influence of the conditions of a certain social environment.

58. Creativity- (from Lat. creatio-creative, creative) - the creative abilities of an individual, characterized by a readiness to accept and create fundamentally new ideas that deviate from traditional or accepted patterns of thinking and are included in the structure of giftedness as an independent factor, as well as the ability to solve problems that arise within static systems According to the American psychologist Abraham Maslow, this is a creative orientation that is innately characteristic of everyone, but is lost by the majority under the influence of the existing system of upbringing, education and social practice. 6 hypothetical intellectual abilities that characterize creativity.

Fluency of thought (number of ideas arising per unit of time);

Flexibility of thought (the ability to switch from one idea to another);

Originality (the ability to produce ideas that differ from generally accepted views);

Curiosity (sensitivity to problems in the world around you);

Ability to develop a hypothesis, irrelevance (logical independence of the reaction from the stimulus);

Fantastic (complete isolation of the response from reality in the presence of a logical connection between stimulus and response).

59. There is a non-linear relationship between intelligence and creativity: an increase in the level of intelligence entails an increase in creativity only to a certain limit. When a certain critical level of intelligence is exceeded (according to various sources - from 120 to 127 points), its connections with creativity either disappear or become negative, then with a further increase in intelligence, creativity begins to decline.

The concept of creativity as a universal cognitive creative ability gained popularity after the works of J. Guilford. The basis of this concept was his cube-shaped model of the structure of intelligence: material X operations X results - SOI(structure of the intellect).

J. Guilford pointed out the fundamental difference between two types of mental operations: convergence and divergence. Convergent thinking (convergence) is actualized in the case when a person solving a problem needs to find the only correct solution based on many conditions. In principle, there may be several specific solutions (many roots of the equation), but this set is always limited. There cannot be another solution that could be an element of this set.

Accordingly, J. Guilford identified the ability for convergent thinking with test intelligence, i.e. intelligence as measured by high-speed IQ tests.

Divergent thinking is defined as “a type of thinking that goes in different directions” (J. Guilford). This thinking allows for varying ways to solve a problem and leads to unexpected conclusions and results.

J. Guilford considered the operation of divergence, along with the operations of transformation and implication, to be the basis of creativity as a general creative ability. Intelligence researchers have long come to the conclusion that creativity is weakly related to learning abilities and intelligence. L. Thurstone was one of the first to draw attention to the difference between creativity and intelligence. He noted that in creative activity an important role is played by factors such as temperament, the ability to quickly assimilate and generate ideas (and not be critical of them), that creative solutions come at the moment of relaxation, dispersion of attention, and not at the moment of concentration on the decision problems.

Subsequently, advances in the field of creativity research and testing are associated with the work of psychologists at the University of Southern California, although the full range of creativity research is not limited to their activities.

J. Guilford identified four main parameters of creativity: 1) originality - the ability to produce distant associations, unusual answers; 2) semantic flexibility - the ability to highlight the function of an object and suggest its new use; 3) figurative adaptive flexibility - the ability to change the shape of a stimulus in such a way as to see in it new signs and opportunities for use; 4) semantic spontaneous flexibility - the ability to produce a variety of ideas in an unregulated situation. General intelligence is not included in the structure of creativity. Later, J. Guilford mentions six parameters of creativity: 1) the ability to detect and pose problems; 2) the ability to generate a large number of ideas; 3) flexibility - the ability to produce a variety of ideas; 4) originality - the ability to respond to stimuli in a non-standard way; 5) the ability to improve an object by adding details; 6) ability to solve problems, i.e. ability to analyze and synthesize.

Based on these theoretical premises, J. Guilford and his associates developed the Aptitude Research Program (ARP) tests, which test primarily divergent productivity.

Let's give examples of tests.

1. Ease of word usage test: “Write words containing the indicated letter” (for example, “o”).

2. Item Use Test: “List as many uses as possible for each item (for example, a tin can).

3. Composing images. "Draw the given objects using the following set of shapes: circle, rectangle, triangle, trapezoid. Each shape can be used repeatedly, changing its size, but you cannot add other shapes or extra ones."

And so on. In total, there are 14 subtests in the J. Guilford test battery, of which 10 are for verbal creativity and 4 are for non-verbal creativity. The tests are intended for high school students and people with a higher level of education. The reliability of J. Guilford's tests ranges from 0.6 to 0.9. Their indicators are in good agreement with each other (A. Anastasi). Test execution time is limited.

A further development of this program was the research of E.P. Torrance. E.P. Torrance developed his tests in the course of educational and methodological work on the development of children's creative abilities. His program included several stages. At the first stage, the subject was offered anagram problems. He had to identify the only correct hypothesis and formulate a rule leading to a solution to the problem. Thus, convergent thinking according to Guilford was trained.

At the next stage, the subject was offered pictures. He had to develop all the probable and improbable circumstances that led to the situation depicted in the picture and predict its possible consequences.

Then the subject was offered various objects. He was asked to list possible ways of using them. According to Torrance, this approach to ability training allows a person to free himself from externally imposed frameworks, and he begins to think creatively and outside the box. By creativity E.P. Torrance understands the ability to heightened perception of shortcomings, gaps in knowledge, disharmony, etc. He believes that the creative act is divided into the perception of a problem, the search for a solution, the emergence and formulation of hypotheses, the testing of hypotheses, their modification and finding a result. The ideal test, according to Torrance, should test the progress of all these operations, but in reality Torrance limited himself to adapting and reworking the methods of the University of Southern California for his own purposes.

Torrance argued that he did not seek to create a factor-pure test, so individual test scores reflected one, two, or more of Guilford's factors (ease, flexibility, originality, accuracy).

The Torrance battery includes 12 tests, grouped into three parts: verbal, visual and audio, diagnosing, respectively, verbal creative thinking, visual creative thinking and verbal-audio creative thinking.

1. The verbal scale includes 7 tasks. In the first 3 tasks, the subject must ask and guess the content of mysterious images. The subject must write down all the questions to which he would like to receive an answer, lists all the possible causes of the situations that have arisen, and lists all the consequences of these situations. In the 4th task, ways to use the toy when playing are recorded. The 5th task lists possible ways of using ordinary objects in unusual ways. In the 6th task, questions are asked about the same items, and in the 7th task, the test taker must talk about everything that can happen if any implausible situation arises. The ease, flexibility and originality of the answer are assessed.

2. The visual scale consists of 3 tasks. The first task is that the subject must draw a picture on a white sheet of paper using a given figure. In the second task, the subject is asked to complete several lines to create drawings. In the third task, the subject is asked to make as many pictures as possible using a pair of parallel lines or circles. Lightness, flexibility, originality, accuracy are assessed.

3. The verbal-sound scale consists of two tasks. Assignments are carried out using tape recording. The Sounds and Sights test uses familiar and unfamiliar sounds as stimuli. The second test, “Onomatopoeia and Imagery,” uses onomatopoeic words that imitate the sounds inherent in an object. The test taker must write down what these sounds are like. The originality of the answer is assessed.

Unlike the Guilford tests, the Torrance tests are designed for a wider range of ages, from preschoolers to adults.

Factor analysis of Torrance tests revealed factors corresponding to the specifics of tasks, and not to the parameters of ease, flexibility, accuracy and originality. Correlations of indicators from one test are higher than correlations of similar indicators from different tests.

Let's consider the characteristics of the main parameters of creativity proposed by E.P. Torrance. Ease is assessed as the speed of completing test tasks, and, therefore, test norms are obtained similar to the norms of tests of speed intelligence. Flexibility is measured as the number of switches from one class of objects to another during the course of responses. The problem lies in dividing the test taker's responses into classes. The number and characteristics of classes are determined by the experimenter, which creates arbitrariness. Originality is assessed as the minimum frequency of a given response to a homogeneous group. The following model is adopted in the Torrance tests. If the subject's answer occurs in less than 1% of the subjects' cases, then it is scored 4 points, if the answer occurs in less than 1-2% of cases, the subject receives 3 points, and so on. 0 points are assigned when the answer occurs in more than 6% of cases.

Thus, originality assessments are “tied” to the response frequencies given by the standardization sample. Experience in using Torrance tests shows that the influence of the characteristics of the group on which the norms were obtained is very large, and transferring norms from a standardization sample to another (even similar) sample produces large errors and is often simply impossible.

Accuracy in Torrance tests is assessed by analogy with intelligence tests. Research conducted by E.G. Aliyeva showed that originality and fluency are closely correlated: the more answers, the more original they are and vice versa.

Speed ​​mental qualities determine the success of these tests, and critics rightly point to the influence of speed intelligence when solving tests that diagnose creativity (according to their developers). The main criticism of the works of J. Guilford, E. P. Torrance and their followers was given by M. Wallach and N. Kogan. In the studies of E. Torrance and J. Guilford, a relationship was found between the level of IQ and the level of creativity. The higher the level of intelligence, the more likely it is that the test taker will score high on creativity tests, although low creativity scores may occur with high intelligence. Meanwhile, with a low IQ, high divergent productivity is never detected. E. Torrance even proposed the theory of the intellectual threshold. He believes that with an IQ below 115-120 points (average plus standard deviation), intelligence and creativity are indistinguishable and form a single factor. With an IQ above 120, creativity and intelligence become independent factors.

Creativity, like intelligence, is diagnosed by the material used in the task. At the same time, the correlations between creativity and intelligence are higher if the tests use similar material (verbal, numerical, spatial, etc.) and lower if the material of the intelligence and creativity tests is different.

At first glance, these results support the hypothesis of partial creativity. Perhaps there is no creativity as a general property, but it is defined in relation to this or that material, and, contrary to the opinion of E.P. Torrance, it is based not on general intelligence, but on “partial” intellectual factors, such as spatial intelligence, verbal intelligence , mathematical intelligence, etc. (according to L. Thurstone).

M. Wallach and N. Kogan believe that the transfer by J. Guilford, E. P. Torrance and their followers of test models for measuring intelligence to measuring creativity led to the fact that creativity tests simply diagnose IQ, like ordinary intelligence tests (adjusted for "noise" created by a specific experimental procedure). These authors speak out against strict time limits, an atmosphere of competition and the only criterion for the correctness of the answer, that is, they reject such a criterion of creativity as accuracy. In this position, they are closer to J. Guilford’s original thought about the difference between divergent and convergent thinking than the author himself. According to M. Wallach and N. Kogan, as well as such authors as P. Vernon, J. Hargreaves, creativity requires a relaxed, free environment. It is desirable that research and testing of creative abilities be carried out in ordinary life situations, when the subject can have free access to additional information on the subject of the task.

Many studies have shown that achievement motivation, competitive motivation, and social approval motivation block the self-actualization of an individual and make it difficult to demonstrate his creative potential.

M. Wallach and N. Kogan in their work changed the system of conducting creativity tests. First, they gave subjects as much time as they needed to solve a problem or formulate an answer to a question. Testing was carried out during the game, while competition between participants was kept to a minimum, and the experimenter accepted any answer from the subject.

If these conditions are met, then the correlation between creativity and test intelligence will be close to zero.

The approach of Wollach and Kogan allowed us to take a different look at the problem of the connection between creativity and intelligence. The mentioned researchers, testing the intelligence and creativity of 11-12 year old students, identified four groups of children with different levels of intelligence and creativity, differing in their ways of adapting to external conditions and solving life problems.

Children with a high level of intelligence and high creativity were confident in their abilities and had an adequate level of self-esteem. They had inner freedom and, at the same time, high self-control. At the same time, they may seem like small children, and after a while, if the situation requires it, they behave like an adult. Showing great interest in everything new and unusual, they have great initiative, but at the same time successfully adapt to the requirements of their social environment, maintaining personal independence of judgment and action.

Children with high levels of intelligence and low levels of creativity strive for school success, which should be expressed in the form of an excellent grade. They perceive failure extremely hard; we can say that they are dominated not by the hope of success, but by the fear of failure. They avoid risks and do not like to express their thoughts publicly. They are reserved, secretive and distance themselves from their classmates. They have very few close friends. They do not like to be left to their own devices and suffer without external adequate assessment of their actions, the results of their studies or activities.

Children with a low level of intelligence but a high level of creativity often find themselves in the position of “outcasts”. They have difficulty adapting to school requirements, often have “outside” interests (activities in clubs, hobbies, etc.), where they can show their creativity in a free environment. They are the most anxious and suffer from a lack of self-confidence and an “inferiority complex.” Teachers often characterize them as dull and inattentive because they are reluctant to complete routine tasks and cannot concentrate.

Children with a low level of intelligence and creative abilities outwardly adapt well, stay in the “middle class” and are satisfied with their position. They have adequate self-esteem, the low level of subject abilities is compensated by the development of social intelligence, sociability, and passivity in learning.

Table 1.- Personal characteristics of a schoolchild with different levels of intelligence and creative abilities according to M. Wallach and N. Kogan

Creativity and intelligence are interconnected not only at the level of personality traits, but also at the level of the holistic cognitive process. The study by E.L. Grigorenko revealed the complementarity of these abilities when solving cognitive problems.

E.L. Grigorenko used in her research the D. Wechsler and R. Amthauer tests, the E. Torrance test and a number of tests to determine cognitive styles. The subjects were schoolchildren in grades 9-10. It turned out that the number of hypotheses put forward when solving mental problems correlates with creativity according to Torrance (for the verbal part r = 0.43, for the non-verbal part - r = 0.52). Moreover, the originality of hypotheses before solving the problem had a higher correlation with creativity according to Torrance (for the verbal part of the test r = 0.57, for the non-verbal part - r = 0.38), the number of hypotheses during solving correlates with IQ according to G. Amthauer (0.46) and originality during time to solve the test - with IQ according to G. Amthauer (0.50).

From this, the author concludes that in the early stages of solving a problem, divergent thinking is actualized in the subjects, and convergent thinking is actualized in the later stages. All these results were obtained using creativity tests based on the theory of divergent thinking. A slightly different concept underlies the RAT test (remote association test) developed by S. Mednik.

Let us present several diagrams for clarification.

The process of divergent thinking goes as follows: there is a problem, and the mental search follows, as it were, in different directions of the semantic space, starting from the content of the problem. Divergent thinking is like lateral, peripheral thinking, thinking “around the problem.”

Rice. 1.

Convergent thinking links all elements of the semantic space related to the problem together and finds the only correct composition of these elements.

Rice. 2.

S. Mednik believes that in the process of creativity there is both a convergent and divergent component; more precisely, dividing the cognitive act into these components does not adequately describe it.

According to S. Mednik, the more distant the elements of the problem are taken from, the more creative the solution process is. Thus, divergence is replaced by the actualization of distant zones of semantic space. But, at the same time, the synthesis of elements can be uncreative and stereotypical, for example: how the combination of the features of a horse and a man actualizes the image of a centaur, and not the image of a man with a horse’s head.

The creative solution deviates from the stereotypical: the essence of creativity, according to S. Mednik, is not in the particularity of the operation, but in the ability to overcome stereotypes at the final stage of mental synthesis and, as noted earlier, in the breadth of the field of associations.

Fig.3.

In accordance with this model, in the remote association test, the test subject is offered words from the most distant associative areas. The subject must offer a word that is related in meaning to all three words. Moreover, the test is structured so that every three stimulus words have a stereotypical word that goes with them. Accordingly, the originality of the answer will be determined by the deviation from the stereotype. The original words can be transformed grammatically, prepositions can be used.

So, the RAT test is based on the following assumptions by S. Mednik:

1. People who are “native speakers” of a language get used to using words in a certain associative connection with other words. These habits are unique in every culture and every era.

2. The creative thought process is the formation of new associations in meaning.

3. The distance between the subject’s associations and the stereotype measures his creativity.

4. Each culture has its own stereotypes, so template and original answers are determined for each sample.

5. The uniqueness of the RAT test is determined by associative fluency (measured by the number of associations per stimulus), the organization of individual associations (measured by the number of associative responses), and the features of the selective process (selection of original associations from the total number of connections). Fluency in hypothesis generation and verbal fluency play an important role.

6. The mechanism for solving the RAT test is similar to solving any other mental problems.

Revalidation of the RAT on a domestic sample was carried out by T.V. Galkina and L.G. Khusnutdinova, members of the Laboratory of Abilities Psychology at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

For validation, the contrast group method was used (comparing the verbal and mental creativity of students at a technical university and the M. Gorky Literary Institute); expert assessment of schoolchildren’s creativity by psychologists and teachers; comparison of RAT data with the results of using the E. Torrance “Drawing a Triangle” technique. The test has two modifications for children and adults.

The following indices are used in the test of verbal and mental creativity (RMC):

1) the ratio of the number of answers to the number of tasks;

2) originality index - the sum of the originality indices of individual answers divided by the total number of answers (the originality index of an individual answer is the reciprocal of the frequency of occurrence of the answer in the sample);

3) the index of uniqueness of answers is equal to the ratio of the number of unique answers to the total number of answers;

4) The procedure for obtaining the index of the selective process is as follows: responses to each stimulus obtained from the sample are offered to the subject, who must choose the most original answer; The subject's choice is compared with the choice of experts and the ratio of the number of matches to the number of tasks is calculated.

During validation, the study was carried out under test conditions with a time limit and without a time limit. The results were higher in the first case both in the group of highly creative and in the group of low-creative subjects. Moreover, the effect of the absence of a time limit on highly creative people was significantly greater. Consequently, removing the time limit does not so much allow low-creative people to show creativity, but rather creates adequate conditions for the manifestation of creativity as such.

This is an extremely important finding because it contradicts the assumption that all people are potentially creative and that the external conditions for creativity must only be created. Creative ability must be formed and only then receive opportunities for its manifestation.

The data of N. Mendelson were confirmed: original solutions do not come at the first stages of solving creative problems, but in the process of reasoning.

On the other hand, stimulating verbal and mental creativity by creating a mindset in subjects for a creative, original response, on the contrary, has a greater impact on the productivity of low-creative children.

Children studying in the computer group and children studying in regular classes were examined. Children who completed a computer training course showed lower verbal and mental creativity than ordinary children. But under the influence of another instruction with a focus on a creative response, their indices of originality and the number of associations increased more significantly than those of ordinary children.

On the one hand, it is clear that the algorithmization of mental activity when teaching programming blocks the development of verbal and mental creativity.

On the other hand, it can be noted that the key to actualizing creative abilities is a change in motivation and attitude towards the test task. The primary is the motivation of creativity, and the secondary is its operational component. Environmental conditions only create opportunities for the manifestation of creative abilities (if any). The most curious thing is that the manifestation of creativity (at a high level of its development) is relatively independent of the focus on creativity in the test instructions.

Thus, the more creative children are, the less influence stimulation by instructions has on their level of creative productivity. The higher the creativity of children, the greater the influence of removing time and other regulations, and the less the influence of instructions that stimulate the motivation of creativity.

Consequently, in children with a high level of creativity, the motivation for creativity has become an “internal” motivation, the actualization of which does not depend on the influence of another subject (in this case, the experimenter).

A study by T.V. Galkina and L.G. Khusnutdinova revealed a relationship between the level of intelligence (according to Ya.A. Ponomarev - the development of the ability to act in the mind) and creativity, confirming the theory of the intellectual threshold of E.P. Torrance: the manifestation of a high level of creativity is possible only with a high level of ability to act in the mind. At the same time, among low-creative subjects there was a connection between the level of creativity and school performance (r=0.70).

With regard to these results, one can put forward the same criticism that Kogan and Wallach put forward in relation to J. Guilford and E. P. Torrance: the imposition of the task, the test situation, the activation of the inclusion of convergent thinking turns the RAT test (RMK) into an analogue of intelligence tests (despite exclusion of the time factor).

The original answer can be interpreted by the subject as “correct” and therefore instructions with an emphasis on originality activate intelligence, not creativity. Thus, the weak influence of the attitude to give an original answer on creatives becomes clear.

The RMK test is the creativity test most adapted to our conditions. In subsequent surveys, the indexes of originality and uniqueness of the answer turned out to be the most informative. Further validation of the RMC test was carried out by A.N. Voronin (laboratory of psychology of abilities, Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences).

However, the same complaints about the RAT test (RMK) remain as about the Torrance tests: the testing situation is set from the outside, there is no freedom to choose the material, and most importantly, the very approach to assessing creativity through assessing the originality and uniqueness of products is questionable.

Let us recall that originality, according to Mednik, Torrance, Guilford and others, is a relative characteristic and is defined as the reciprocal of the frequency of occurrence of a given answer among a group of test takers or in a standardization sample, which does not change the essence of the matter. The same answer in relation to the totality of response frequencies of one sample can be assessed as original, and in relation to another as standard, which was repeatedly encountered in our studies.

The original answers and the most rarely found answers do not always coincide (a fact discovered by E.P. Torrance). An unreasonable shift in the meaning of concepts occurs: creativity is identified with non-standardism, non-standardism with originality, and the latter with a rare answer in this group of subjects.

Non-standard is a broader concept than originality. Manifestations of creativity (if we use the criterion of non-standardity) can include any deviation: from accentuations to manifestations of autistic thinking.

A problem arises: how to separate productive manifestations of creativity from deviant behavior?

There is an opinion that the criterion may be the presence of meaningfulness, which can be perceived by others. This criterion is similar to the famous ruling of one American court: “A work of art is an object that is recognized as a work of art by at least one person other than the author.” S. Mednik also implicitly accepts the criterion of potential intelligibility when he writes that a statement like “2*2=49” is not considered original.

The semantic criterion allows, in contrast to the frequency criterion, to distinguish between productive creative and unproductive (deviant) manifestations of human activity.

Thus, the semantic criterion allows us to divide the behavioral manifestations of the test subject during testing into reproducing (stereotypical), original (creative) and meaningless (deviant). The main operation that “works” during the creative process is the operation of comparison, establishing a semantic connection between elements, and this connection can be established on the basis of 1) reproduction, 2) semantic synthesis, 3) random connection without finding semantic connections.

For example, to the question “What (who) will represent a round balloon in our game?” children give different answers: “ball”, “ball”, “sun”, “drum”, “sail”, bag of gold”, “head”, “snake”, “crocodile”.

“Balloon” and “ball” are reproducing responses; they reflect the stereotypical meaning of the “balloon” stimulus, while the responses “snake” and “crocodile” are not semantically related to the content of the stimulus object and are meaningless responses.

Original answers are obtained by abstracting (isolating) some aspects of the subject and abstracting from other aspects. The identification of latent, non-obvious features changes the semantic hierarchy of their significance, and the subject appears in a new light. This creates the effect of surprise and originality.

For example: the answer “drum” is associated with isolating such signs of a balloon as a tightly stretched shell, “emptiness”, and ignoring signs of lightness, roundness, etc.

It follows that the original association is not the most distant from the stimulus word in the semantic space; rather, it is characterized by moderate distance.

It can potentially be included in semantic connections with the stimulus. The further the association is from the stimulus, the weaker its semantic connection with the context and features of the stimulus.

Data from other studies (V.N. Druzhinin, N.V. Khazratova) indicate that the number of reproducing answers is very large, but the variability of such answers is low.

The variability of responses that are semantically unrelated to the stimulus is very large, since there are no semantic restrictions, and the number of such responses is small.

The original answers seem to occupy an intermediate position.

Fig.4.

The location of the responses received in a hypothetical test situation based on the semantic distance of the response from the stimulus; two parameters are taken into account: the hierarchy of features that determines the content of the stimulus (x-axis); semantic context of the stimulus (y-axis).

This model was adopted by N.V. Khazratova when developing a methodology for diagnosing the creativity of children 3-5 years old. Traditional creativity tests were not suitable for these children, so spontaneous play was chosen as a test situation model. Children at this age do not speak well enough, their drawing skills are undeveloped, they have difficulty understanding the content of tasks, etc.

To measure creativity, ideas related to: 1) the use of substitute objects, 2) the actions of the character with whom the child is identified, that is, modifications of the plot, were considered.

When making a diagnosis, the experimenter must: 1) prepare the room, 2) bring “non-specialized” objects of various shapes, colors, and physical properties (for example, a spring, a smooth wooden stick, a rope, a banana, a candle, etc.). During the game, the experimenter should not demonstrate detachment towards the child, not demand anything from the child, taking for granted everything that he does. A certain tactic of playing the game and an observation card are used, which records the behavior of the subjects (no more than 4 - 7).

The originality of the use of an item in the game is assessed based on the semantic model proposed above.

Creative responses can arise when the vision of an object is transformed or when the context in which the object is included is transformed. Children 3-5 years old very rarely transform the context (semantic connections have not yet been formed), so transformations of the vision of the object were assessed mainly.

The criteria for an association to be considered creative rather than deviant or standard were: 1) the presence of at least one feature of the stimulus object from which the subject abstracted; 2) the presence of at least one feature common to the subject of the stimulus and the subject of the association.

The features of an object can be ranked according to the degree of ease of abstraction from them: it is more difficult to abstract from features associated with perceptual-motor activity (overt) and easier from “hidden”, latent ones. Shape, color, weight, size obviously refer to physical, “open” characteristics. A creative association on an “open” basis was assessed with 1 point, and on a “hidden” basis - 2 points.

Fig.5. Classification of associations on the scale of semantic remoteness

Fig.6. Gradation of creative associations according to the criterion of the presence of “open” (perceptual) or “hidden” common features with the stimulus object.

The overall creativity score is equal to the sum of the creative association scores in relation to the time the game continues.

Kpr =--------

The assessment of the creativity of changes in the plot of the game is carried out according to a similar criterion, that is, changes in the plot that are connected in meaning with previous events of the game are taken into account. N.L. Khazratova suggested that:

1) the greatest creative significance are plot modifications that contain a certain problem, and its resolution can develop the plot;

2) creative, original and unexpected modifications of the plot that allow you to get out of a problematic situation;

3) modifications of the plot, which are an obvious continuation of previous events, are not creative.

Accordingly, modifications “obvious continuation” are scored 0 points for creativity, modifications “unexpected solution” - 1 point and modifications “statement of the problem” - 2 points.

For the convenience of analyzing the event side of the game, a graphical diagram is used in which events are indicated by points connected by horizontal and vertical segments. The horizontal "course of events" corresponds to modifications that have no creative value; vertical segments correspond to creative plot modifications.

All intellectual tests and creativity tests can be conditionally ranked on a scale of “regulation - freedom” of the test subject’s behavior during testing. Obviously, group tests of speed intelligence with a closed answer will be at the extreme of regulation. In these tests, the time for completing the test, the number of tasks, methods of completing them, communication with the experimenter, the many possible answers and their assessment are strictly limited. A less stringent option is individual intelligence tests, such as the D. Wechsler scale. In these tests (in a number of subtests), the set of answers is not fixed, although the decision is categorized as true or false. In verbal tests, time is not regulated; a freer relationship with the experimenter is possible.

In the tests of D. Guilford and E. P. Torrance, there are time limits and fixed types of operations, but, on the other hand, communication with the researcher is “softened” (in the Torrance tests) - the study is carried out in the form of a game, and, finally, an unlimited number of Subject's answers: any original answer is accepted.

Finally, in the Kogan-Wollach version there is no time limit, a game situation is introduced, and the motivation for achievement and social approval is excluded.

According to the conditions of the study, the Kogan-Wollach approach is close to the approach of D.N. Bogoyavlenskaya - the “Creative Field” technique.

The extreme option - complete freedom - is creative activity in a free situation. According to J. Piaget's definition, intelligence is the ability to adapt to difficult conditions (including new ones). Consequently, intelligence is activated to the extent that testing conditions are as stringent as possible in terms of adaptation requirements.

Creativity is manifested to the extent that the situation is less “tough” in terms of restrictive requirements for the subject’s activities.

Consequently, the correlations of speed intelligence tests with creativity tests will be determined by the similarities and differences of testing situations. The more free the test activity of the subject, the higher the correlation of the test with the “ideal” test of creativity, and the more regulated the activity of the subject, the greater the correlation of this test with the “ideal” test of intelligence.

By “ideal” we mean a test that is as valid as possible with respect to the property being measured. Let's present these theoretical dependencies on a graph.

Fig.7.

1 - speed intelligence tests (DAT, GABT, D. Raven test, etc.)

2 - D. Wexler test

3 - Torrance, Guilford, Mednik tests

4 - Wallach-Kogan approach

5 - “Creative field” by D. Bogoyavlenskaya, method by N. Khazratova

According to D. Rush's model, the probability of solving a problem is a multiplicative function of the ease of the task and the level of the test subject's abilities. It can be assumed that this model is valid only for intelligence tests, but not for creativity tests.

A subject who has not solved the problem most likely has low intelligence, since intelligence is the ability to adapt, that is, by definition. On the other hand, sometimes a problem can be solved by chance, but in general, the reliability of identifying the level of intelligence under these conditions is equal to the reliability of the test.

With creativity, the situation is different: free conditions only create opportunities for the manifestation of creativity. Therefore, a person who gives an original, creative answer obviously has creativity. But if a person does not give a creative answer in a free situation, this is not evidence of his lack of creativity.

Using creativity tests, we can identify creatives, but we cannot accurately identify non-creatives. The reason for this is the spontaneity of manifestations of creativity and the non-subjection of their manifestations to external and internal regulation.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1. Bodalev A.A. On the directions and tasks of scientific development of the problem of abilities // Questions of psychology. 1984. N 1.

2. Rubinshtein S.L. Principles and ways of development of psychology. M., 1959.

3. Teplov B.M. Problems of individual differences. M., 1961.

4. Shadrikov V.D. Abilities, giftedness, talent // Development and diagnostics of abilities. Rep. ed. Druzhinin V.N., Shadrikov V.D. M.: Nauka, 1991. P. 11.

5. Zavalishina D.N. Psychological structure of abilities // Development and diagnostics of abilities. M.: Nauka, 1991.

6. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M.: Nauka, 1984.

CONTROL TASKS

Find methods for studying creativity in psychological and pedagogical literature or on the Internet.

Choose a subject from among the students in your group. Carry out a methodology for determining creativity with him, analyze and interpret the results obtained. Write a report on the results of your research.

Related information.