Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tsc

Fostering children’s creative thinking skills with the 5-I training

T
program
Xiaojing Gu , Ap Dijksterhuis, Simone M. Ritter
⁎

Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Creative thinking is an important 21st century skill. To prepare children for our complex and fast-
Creativity changing world, it is essential to cultivate their creative thinking skills. The objective of the
Divergent thinking current study was to develop and examine the effectiveness of a brief, domain-unspecific crea-
Training tivity training program: the 5-I training program. Children (N = 172) aged 7–12 years partici-
4Ps theory
pated in the training, which consisted of eight creativity exercises performed in a training session
5-I training program
of two hours. The effectiveness of the training on stimulating children’s creative thinking skills
was assessed by means of a pretest and posttest comparison using three creativity tasks
(Alternative Uses Task, drawing task and guessing task). For each task several measures of
creative performance were examined (e.g., fluency, flexibility, infrequency, elaboration).
Following the creativity training, improvements were observed on the three creativity tasks. The
effectiveness of the 5-I training program was found for all measures of creative performance,
except for flexibility. Implications for educational settings are discussed.

1. Introduction

1.1. Importance of creativity

Creativity is generally defined as the ability to generate novel and useful ideas or products (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Sternberg &
Lubart, 1995). In a time of rapid change and increasing competition, creativity is important in various domains. On a societal level,
creativity has become the driving force for artistic creation, technical innovation and scientific discovery (Hennessey & Amabile,
2010). On a personal level, we frequently engage in creative activities to cope with everyday problems and challenges (Collard &
Looney, 2014; Newton, 2014; Nussbaum, 2011). Organizations regard creativity as a crucial resource to be innovative and com-
petitive in the global market (Caniëls & Rietzschel, 2015; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In
schools, students need a creative and flexible mind for learning and integrating new knowledge (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Overall,
it is essential that we cultivate young learners’ creative capacity in order to be well-prepared for study, work and personal life.

1.2. Divergent thinking and convergent thinking

Teachers more and more acknowledge the importance of fostering students’ creative thinking. There are two ways of creative
thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking is the ability to find many possible

⁎
Corresponding author at: Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (X. Gu).

[Link]
Received 31 October 2018; Received in revised form 11 March 2019; Accepted 3 May 2019
Available online 07 May 2019
1871-1871/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

solutions by searching from different directions (Guilford, 1967), whereas convergent thinking is the capacity to look in all directions
to come up with a single correct solution (Simonton, 2003). Both divergent thinking and convergent thinking are important for
creative solutions to emerge. However, when it comes to the classroom, it seems that divergent thinking is seen as less important. In
many classrooms, the class norms remain structured and people focus on the standardized tests (Beghetto, 2007, 2010; Runco, 1993).
As a result, students are generally taught to find the single correct solution to a problem, instead of being challenged to explore freely
and think creatively (Beghetto, 2007; Kennedy, 2005).

1.3. The 4 Ps theory of creativity

Most researchers agree that creativity has a multifaceted nature (e.g., Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013; Rhodes, 1961; Runco,
2004; Snow, 1994; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). One influential theory was the 4 Ps theory proposed by Rhodes (1961). According to
the 4 Ps theory, creativity consists of four aspects: Person, Process, Press and Product. Person refers to the personal characteristics or
dispositions. Research has shown that personality traits such as openness to experience (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997; Silvia et al.,
2008) and tolerance of ambiguity (e.g., Wiseman, Watt, Gilhooly, & Georgiou, 2011) positively correlate with creativity. Process
refers to the cognitive process involved in the creative behavior. When solving creative problems, one has to perform certain cog-
nitive operations in order to generate many potential solutions. De Bono developed the CoRT (cognitive research trust) training
program to teach different aspects of thinking, and one was creative thinking (De Bono, 1983). The CoRT consisted of a series of
lessons, and employed mainly a perceptual (cognitive) approach. The CoRT has been widely used across age groups and in different
countries, and has been proved to be an effective tool to develop students’ creative thinking (e.g., De Bono, 1983; Daher, Tabaja-
Kidan, & Gierdien, 2017; Barak & Doppelt, 1999). Press means influence from the environment. There were many studies suggesting
that environmental factors such as culture (Baer, 2003), organizational setting (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) or educational
setting (Besançon, Fenouillet, & Shankland, 2015; Thomas & Berk, 1981), has a significant influence on individual’s creative per-
formance. Finally, Product refers to the creative outcome.
As Rhodes (1961) argued, there is a high interdependency among the four aspects. Usually the product is forced by a specific
situation (press) where a person solves problems by going through a series of mental processes, whereas the product, in turn, affects
the evaluation of the creative person and the creative process. Hence, a person’s creative capacity is a combination and interaction of
these four aspects, and individual differences on these aspects will influence their creative performance. In that sense, it is necessary
to foster individual’s creative potential on all these aspects, that is, from a comprehensive approach.

1.4. Creativity trainings based on the 4 Ps theory

Substantial evidence has been provided for the effectiveness of single “P” programs (for reviews, see Ma, 2006; Scott, Leritz, &
Mumford, 2004a, 2004b). For example, using a “person” approach, participants showed significant improvement on divergent
thinking after recognizing a group of ambiguous figures, which improved their tolerance of ambiguity (Wu, Gu, & Zhang, 2016).
Ritter and Mostert (2017) employed a “process” approach to train students’ domain-unspecific, creative thinking skills. In their study,
participants who learnt cognitive-oriented techniques (e.g., SCAMPER), showed significant improvement in their creative perfor-
mance. Other studies focusing on the “press” aspect have shown that students’ creativity benefited from learning in alternative
schools such as Montessori and Freinet schools in which students are exposed to various creative activities, have greater freedom, and
have more opportunities to express themselves (Besançon & Lubart, 2008; Besançon et al., 2015; Thomas & Berk, 1981). Yet other
studies showed that the selection and evaluation of new products can be facilitated using a set of criteria with the particular context
(e.g., how to develop new eco-tourism services in Amazonian region) taken into account (Gabriel, Camargo, Monticolo, Boly, &
Bourgault, 2016).
Although these findings have shown positive effects of single “P” approaches in enhancing creativity, there are shortcomings in
each training approach. As suggested by the meta-analyses from Scott et al. (2004a), a “person” approach might entail too much
personal exploration and thus fail to provide clear strategies or techniques, whereas a “process” approach focuses too much on
domain-specific knowledge and makes it challenging to transfer creative techniques to other domains (Baer, 1994, 2010; Kaufman,
Beghetto, & Baer, 2010). With regard to the “press” interventions, the findings were inconclusive (Scott et al., 2004b) as there are
many uncontrollable factors involved in the environment. Besides, the training effectiveness varied depending on what type of
creativity (e.g., divergent thinking, convergent thinking) was measured (e.g., Blanco-Herrera, 2017; Ritter & Ferguson, 2017).
An extensive literature search using PsychoInfo1 revealed that no previous studies related to creativity training have taken the
person, process, press and product aspects into account. In the current study, we developed a creativity-training program that
incorporated the 4 Ps of creativity in one creativity training, and moreover, creative inspiration was added.

1.5. A description of the 5-I training program

The training developed in the current project is called the 5-I training, and consisted of five components: Inclination, Ideation,

1
No articles were found using these search terms : (creativ*)—Title AND (intervention* or foster* or teach* or train* or promot* or enhanc* or
stimulat* or develop* or facilitat* or support* or encourag* or advanc* or climate or environment or curriculum or condition) —Title AND {4P /
(person and process and press and product)}—All fields.

93
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration. Inclination focuses on the person aspect. It aims to develop the personality traits that facilitate
creative thinking such as openness to experiences, flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. Ideation focuses on the process aspect. It aims
to stimulate creative cognition such as a flexible thinking style, taking multiple perspectives and making remote associations.
Interaction focuses on the press aspect. It aims to make use of the physical and interpersonal contexts for implementing creative
endeavor. Identification focuses on the product aspect. It aims to train children not only how to generate creative ideas, but also to
evaluate and recognize creative ideas. Inspiration aims to evoke the motivation to be creative, for example, by observing others’
creations. Creative inspiration is considered as a motivational resource that supports the creative process (Oleynick, Thrash, LeFew,
Moldovan, & Kieffaber, 2014; Thrash, Maruskin, Cassidy, Fryer, & Ryan, 2010). When providing children with a creativity training,
it’s necessary to inspire them and hereby motivate their creative thinking. By now, there are only a couple of studies that investigated
the relationship between creativity and inspiration, but how to trigger creative inspiration has remained unexplored.
The training was designed in a brief and single session, using a variety of exercises adapted to children. The exercises were
carefully selected as a means to foster creative thinking. Finally, eight exercises were used, each with a specific focus on one or two
components of the 5-I. Each exercise is explained in detail in the “Procedure” section.

1.6. Purpose of the current study

The purpose of the current study was to develop a creativity training program from a comprehensive approach, and to scienti-
fically test the effectiveness of the training program. Specifically, the current training program focused on children’s divergent
thinking skills, that is, the ability to generate ideas from different perspectives (Guilford, 1967). Three divergent thinking tasks (i.e.,
Alternative Uses Task, drawing task, guessing task) were used to measure children’s creative performance by means of a pretest and
posttest comparison. We hypothesized that the current creativity training program improves children’s creative performance from
pretest to posttest.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

To determine the sample size required for the current study, we conducted a power analysis using Shiny Web applications. The
effect size used was based on the study conducted by Garaigordobil (2006), as this study is comparable with regard to age of the
participants and the study design. Power analysis revealed that a minimum sample size of 95 participants would be required to
identify the training effects (statistical power = .80 with p = .05).
The current study included 172 children from two primary schools in the Netherlands. The sample consisted of 77 boys and 95
girls, ranging in age from 7–12 years old (M = 9.62, SD = 1.34). The training took place on October 25 and 26, 2017 at Radboud
University. Children took part in one of the three training sessions: a morning session on October 25, a morning session on October
26, and an afternoon session on October 26. Each session had four training groups with about 15 children in each group. Parents
provided written informed consent prior to the training.
The current study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Radboud University (approval code: ECSW-2017−014R1), and the
hypothesis, methods, and data analysis plan of this study were preregistered on Open Science Framework (see [Link]
register/5730e99a9ad5a102c5745a8a).

2.2. Measures

Three creativity tasks were used to measure children’s divergent thinking abilities before and after the training: The Alternative
Uses Task, a drawing task, and a guessing task. All of these tasks are widely used in studies with children, and the reliability and
validity of the tasks have been shown by various studies (see e.g., Runco, 1991; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Torrance, 1974). To
prevent any repetition and order effects, two versions (version A and version B) of each task were used and counterbalanced among
participants in the pretest and posttest. All the tasks were tested in a paper and pencil form. The creativity measures for each task
were chosen based on the test manual and earlier studies (see e.g., Garaigordobil, 2006; Guilford, 1967; Lubart, Pacteau, Jacquet, &
Caroff, 2010; Torrance, 1974).

2.2.1. Alternative Uses Task

The Alternative Uses Task asked participants to think of as many different uses of a common object as possible. This task was
adapted from Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, 1967). One difference was that we used daily objects that are familiar to
children: in version A the object was a water bottle, and in version B the object chosen was a shoe box. The time limit to generate and
list ideas was 4 min. Participants’ responses were assessed on four creativity measures: (i) Fluency, the total number of ideas listed.
Only complete and clearly described ideas were included. (ii) Infrequency, the statistical infrequency score of an idea. A score of 2
was assigned if fewer than 2% of the participants generated the idea; a score of 1 was assigned if 2–5% generated the idea; and a score
of 0 was assigned if more than 5% generated the idea (see also Lubart et al., 2010). An overall score on infrequency was calculated for
each participant. (iii) Flexibility, the total number of different categories that a participant’s ideas could be assigned to. Therefore, a
predefined list of idea categories was developed, and each idea was assigned to one of the predefined categories. (iv) Creativity, how
creative an idea was. Each idea was assigned a creativity score on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (very creative). One

94
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

rater scored all the ideas, and a second rater scored 30% of the generated ideas. The interrater reliability analysis (two-way random,
interrater consistency) showed that the intraclass coefficient (ICC) was excellent, ICC = .87. For each participant, an average
creativity score was calculated based on all the ideas generated by this participant.

2.2.2. Drawing task

The drawing task was adapted from the “lines/circles” task in the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974). In
version A, participants were asked to make as many drawings as possible on a paper with circles, and in version B they were asked to
make as many drawings as possible on a paper with diamonds. The time limit was 4 min. Participants’ drawings were assessed on five
creativity measures: (i) Fluency, (ii) Infrequency and (iii) Flexibility were calculated using the same criteria as the Alternative Uses
Task. (iv) Elaboration, the total number of details added to each drawing (see also Garaigordobil, 2006). 0–3 point(s) was/were
assigned based on how many additional details were drawn beyond what is necessary to express the basic idea. For instance, for a
drawing “face”, a score of 0 was assigned if no additional details were drawn except the basic features of a face; a score of 1 was
assigned if 1 additional detail was added to the face (e.g., with glasses); a score of 2 was assigned if 2 additional details were added to
the face (e.g., with glasses and a hat); and a score of 3 was assigned if 3 or more additional details were added to the face (e.g., with
glasses, a hat and earrings). An overall score on elaboration was calculated for each participant. (v) Resistance to premature
closure, the degree of participants’ openness when making drawings (see also Garaigordobil, 2006). 0–3 point(s) was/were assigned
based on how a participant finished the drawing. A score of 0 was assigned if a participant made no drawings/connections outside the
circle/diamond; a score of 1 was assigned if a participant made simple drawing(s) (e.g., lines, dots, faces, squares) or connections
outside the circle/diamond; a score of 2 was assigned if a participant made complex drawing(s) (e.g., a house and an animal) or
connections (e.g., connect several circles/diamonds) outside the circle/diamond; a score of 3 was assigned if a participant made both
complex drawing(s) and connections outside the circle/diamond. An overall score on resistance to premature closure was calculated
for each participant.

2.2.3. Guessing task

The guessing task asked participants to think of as many different reasons as possible of a situation depicted in a picture. This task
was also adapted from TTCT (Torrance, 1974). In version A, participants were presented with a picture of a happy boy, and in version
B with a picture of a scared boy. Participants’ responses were assessed on three creativity measures: (i) Fluency, (ii) Infrequency and
(iii) Flexibility that followed the same scoring criteria as the Alternative Uses Task and the drawing task. The time limit was 4 min.

2.3. Procedure

A pre-posttest within-subjects design was used in this study. The pretest was performed individually and took about 15 min. After
the pretest, children started the 2-h training. In each training group, there were two trainers, one working as the main trainer and the
other assisted. All the trainers had been trained on the theoretical knowledge and the exercise instructions of the 5-I training
program. When providing the training, the trainers were required to follow the same protocol. The eight exercises were arranged in a
logical order that allowed children to progressively go through the training, from simple and passive exercises to more complex and
active ones. Following the training, children performed the posttest individually; the posttest lasted about 15 min.

2.4. Training exercises

The description of each training exercise is listed below, and an overview is provided in Appendix A.

2.4.1. Exercise 1: inspirational video

This video clip consisted of two inventions made by children: a bowl-shaped baby bib and detachable heels (taken from an
episode of TV program Ellen Show; DeGeneres, Hurwitz, & Leifer, 2011). This exercise aimed to inspire children by watching in-
ventions made by other children.

2.4.2. Exercises 2: finding differences

In this exercise, children were presented with five items: a book, skates, a tricycle, a sledge and a train. They were asked to find
the item that differed from the others. Actually, each of the item can be considered different from the other four items: 1) a book is the
only item you cannot use for locomotion; 2) you need two skates to be able to play; 3) a tricycle is the only item generally used by
children; 4) the sledge is the only item that may be used on snow; 5) the train is the only thing that needs electricity. This exercise was
taken from a study of Meyer (2011). To solve this problem, children had to view the five objects on different perspectives such as the
function, size and shape, and they used flexible thinking. Meanwhile, from this exercise children realized that there could be more
than one “correct” answer to some questions.

2.4.3. Exercises 3: figure arrangement

In this exercise, children were asked to make drawings by using a square and a triangle. No additional rules were provided and
children could decide by themselves what and how to draw. In this way, children could become as imaginative as they could. For
example, they could make drawings with several squares or triangles, or by maximizing or minimizing the shapes. This exercise was
adapted from TTCT (Torrance, Ball, & Safter, 1966), but it was different from the drawing test in the current study.

95
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

2.4.4. Exercise 4: think out of box

In this exercise, we used a paper box that a child could comfortably sit in, and placed it in the middle of the training room. Each
time one child was invited to site either inside or outside the box, and to explain how he/she feels (e.g., are you comfortable? Do you
feel safe? What is better for your creative thinking, sit inside or outside?). This exercise was adapted from a study by Leung et al.
(2012), which found that sitting outside the box was beneficial to creative thinking compared with sitting inside the box. Different
from their study, here we didn’t mean to give children the idea that sitting outside is better; rather, the goal of this exercise was to
have children reflecting on what kind of environment favors their creative thinking. For example, some children might prefer staying
alone when thinking about questions while others would like to collaborate with others.

2.4.5. Exercise 5: ambiguous figures

An ambiguous figure is a picture that can be interpreted from two or more perspectives. Research has shown that successful
recognition of ambiguous figures is a good predictor of divergent thinking skills (e.g., Wu et al., 2016). In this exercise, children were
presented with several ambiguous figures, and were asked to guess the objects in each figure. If children had difficulty in perceiving
the figures, they were allowed to move and view the figures from different angles. This exercise aimed to train children to become
tolerant of challenging or ambiguous problems, and to realize that things may look differently if they see it from another perspective.

2.4.6. Exercise 6: perspective taking

Perspective taking refers to the ability to perceive and see things from a different viewpoint (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White,
2008; Shaffer, 2008). Research has shown that exposure to others’ ideas helps to establish broader semantic associations and thus
leads to more creative ideas (Fink et al., 2012). One study has shown that children who practiced perspective taking in daily activities
performed better in divergent thinking tasks (Doron, 2017). In the current exercise, a riding-stick horse was hidden inside a box.
Without any clue, children were asked to put one hand into the box (see Appendix B). Every child touched a different part of the
riding-stick horse. Later children were asked to guess what is inside the box by combining the information that different children had
provided. This exercise allowed children to take other children’s viewpoint into account when solving a problem, as well as ex-
perience and realize the importance of teamwork. This exercise was inspired by the story six blind and one elephant (Goldstein, 2010).

2.4.7. Exercise 7: SCAMPER

SCAMPER, originally invented by Osborn (1953), relies on a couple of techniques: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another
use, eliminate, and rearrange. In this exercise, children were asked to improve a teaspoon. Trainers asked questions about the teaspoon
to guide children to go through the seven techniques. For example, to practice substitute: “Do you know any other materials that does
not get hot easily?” which would encourage children to think of a wooden or a plastic teaspoon. The goal of this exercise was to
provide children with instructed creative thinking techniques for creative problem solving. Moreover, the teaspoon exercise was used
to teach children creative idea evaluation and selection, and to practice these skills. Creativity not only requires the generation of
creative ideas, but also the ability to recognize and select the most creative ones from a pool of available options (de Buisonjé, Ritter,
de Bruin, ter Horst, & Meeldijk, 2017; Ritter & Rietzschel, 2017; Zhu, Ritter, Müller, & Dijksterhuis, 2017).

2.4.8. Exercise 8: random connection

Random connection requires generating solutions by connecting a target object randomly with an unrelated object (see Ritter &
Mostert, 2017). In this exercise, children were asked to design a new type of sun cream by associating it with a random object in the
room. In the current exercise, the trainer guided the children to use a ballpoint pen. First, children were asked to list as many
characteristics as possible of the ballpoint pen (e.g., writing, color, roller). After that, children were encouraged to think about how
these characteristics could be applied to a sun cream. For example, they could design a roll-on sun cream, or a colored sun cream
whose color disappears into skin. In this exercise, children learnt to solve problems by making associations.

3. Results

3.1. Data cleaning

There were 6 children who didn’t take the pre/posttest seriously and made scratches elsewhere on the paper, 2 children who were
not able to write, and 2 children who didn’t understand the task. These children were not included in the data analysis. One
additional child was excluded from the guessing task because the paper-version of that task was missing. This resulted in a dataset of
162 participants for the Alternative Uses Task and the drawing task, and a dataset of 161 participants for the guessing task.

3.2. Data analysis

In the preregistration, it was stated that paired sample t-test would be used to test the hypothesized increase in children’s
creativity from pretest to posttest. One precondition for using a paired t-test is that the dependent variables between the two related
groups should be approximately normally distributed. However, examination of distribution of paired mean difference showed non-
normal distributions for most of the variables, which violated the assumption of paired t-test (see Table 1).
Therefore, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (Helsel & Hirsch, 2002) were carried out to compare the difference of
children's creative performance on these variables between pretest and posttest.

96
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

Table 1
Mean difference, standard deviation, range, skewness and kurtosis values for each variable.
Variables M SD Range Skewness (abs) Kurtosis (abs)
(Post-Pre)

Alternative Uses Task (N = 162)

Fluency .494 2.72 −8.00 e10.0 1.30 3.07
Infrequency .611 3.98 −14.0 e15.0 0.70 5.56
Flexibility .185 2.22 −5.00 e7.00 .539 .860
Creativity .113 .689 −1.75 e2.25 1.28 0.72

Drawing task (N = 162)

Fluency 1.73 .333 −15.0 e15.0 −1.76 8.45
Infrequency .765 .270 −7.00 e13.0 4.37 3.20
Flexibility −.086 .177 −7.00 e6.00 −1.03 1.78
Elaboration .463 .178 −4.00 e14.0 7.52 19.5
Resistance to premature closure .722 .250 −7.00 e16.0 8.16 15.6

Guessing task (N = 161)

Fluency .385 2.29 −6.00 e8.00 1.36 2.03
Infrequency 1.07 4.21 −11.0 e14.0 2.00 2.31
Flexibility .224 2.20 –7.00 e5.00 −2.47 1.66

Note: abs = absolute z-value. According to Field (2009), the sample distribution is considered non-normal if the absolute z-value of either skewness
or kurtosis is larger than 1.96.

3.2.1. Alternative Uses Task

As can be seen in Table 2, there was a significant increase on children’s fluency, z = −2.29, p = .022, indicating that children
produced more ideas from pretest to posttest. Moreover, marginally significant increase was found on infrequency, z = −1.91, p =
.056 and on creativity, z = −1.80, p = .072, suggesting that children tended to produce more novel and uncommon ideas after the
training. In the posttest, no difference was found on flexibility, z = −1.12, p = .261, that is, children didn’t come up with ideas from
more diverse categories.

3.2.2. Drawing task

The results revealed a significant improvement of children’s performance on fluency, z = −5.68, p = .000, indicating that
children made more drawings after the training. Second, the training revealed a significant improvement on infrequency, z = −2.57,
p = .010, suggesting that the training program improved children’s capacity to generate more novel and uncommon drawings. Third,
there was a significant improvement on elaboration, z = −2.57, p = .010, meaning that children added more details to the drawings

Table 2
Wilcoxon signed ranks test results for each variable between pretest and posttesta.
Variables Pretest Posttest Wilcoxon signed ranks test results Effect size

M ± SD M ± SD Z p r

Alternative Uses Task (N = 162)

Fluency 6.07 ± 2.76 6.56 ± 3.33 −2.29 .022 .127
Infrequency 4.06 ± 3.58 4.67 ± 3.85 −1.91 .056 .106
Flexibility 5.03 ± 1.91 5.22 ± 2.31 −1.12 .261 .062
Creativity 2.08 ± .594 2.20 ± .688 −1.80 .072 .100

Drawing task (N = 162)

Fluency 6.90 ± 3.99 8.63 ± 4.64 −5.68 .000 .316
Infrequency 2.06 ± 2.18 2.83 ± 3.22 −2.19 .028 .122
Flexibility 3.76 ± 1.97 3.67 ± 1.89 −.370 .712 .021
Elaboration 1.48 ± 1.42 1.94 ± 2.01 −2.57 .010 .143
Resistance to premature closure 1.96 ± 2.27 2.68 ± 3.14 −2.55 .011 .142

Guessing task (N = 161)

Fluency 5.49 ± 2.17 5.88 ± 2.45 −2.09 .037 .116
Infrequency 5.93 ± 3.27 6.99 ± 4.37 −2.91 .004 .163
Flexibility 4.61 ± 1.89 4.84 ± 2.05 −1.61 .107 .090

Note: effect sizes: r = 0.1 for small effect, r = 0.3 for medium effect, r = 0.5 for large effect (Cohen, 1988).
a
When checking the skewness and kurtosis values as well as boxplots, all the variables contained outliers with cases that were more than 1.5 box
lengths from the lower or upper hinge. Although it was reasonable to attribute these extreme values to the training effect, we conducted a second
statistical analyses without outliers to examine whether the findings would change. Paired sample t-tests revealed nearly identical findings as
described above, except that (1) in the Alternative Uses Task, comparison of infrequency became statistically significant, t(157) = 2.14, p = .034; in
the drawing task, infrequency became non-significant, t(148) = 1.47, p = .143, but the mean score of posttest was still higher than that of pretest;
(3) in the guessing task, flexibility showed marginal significance from pretest to posttest, t(159) = 1.93, p = .056.

97
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

in the posttest. Moreover, there was a significant improvement for resistance to premature closure, z = −2.55, p = .011, which
indicated that children completed the drawings with more connections and by using complex lines. While the number of drawing
categories (flexibility) generated by children remained non-significant, z = −.370, p = .712.

3.2.3. Guessing task

After the training, children came up with more answers to the picture, with significant improvement on fluency, z = −2.09, p =
.037. The results also showed that children improved significantly on infrequency, z = −2.91, p = .004, suggesting that children
produced more novel and uncommon answers in the posttest. However, as in the other two tasks, no significant increase on flexibility
was found, z = −1.61, p = .107.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of the findings

In the current study, we developed the 5-I creativity training program which consisted of five components (Inclination, Ideation,
Interaction, Identification, and Inspiration) with eight exercises employed to train children’s creative thinking skills. The effectiveness
of the training program in fostering children’s creative thinking skills, specifically their divergent thinking skills, was scientifically
examined. The results showed significant improvements on all of the measures (i.e., fluency, infrequency, creativity, elaboration and
resistance to premature closure) in the posttest compared to the pretest, except for flexibility. The current findings confirmed our
hypotheses that a 2 -h training program improves children’s divergent thinking abilities.
The 5-I training program has several benefits. In all the tasks, fluency was significantly increased after the training. Following the
training, children seemed to become more open and explorative, and thus generated more ideas and drawings. Importantly, besides
the increase on the number of ideas, the training improved the idea quality. In the Alternative Uses Task, marginal improvements on
creativity and on infrequency were observed. In the guessing task, children made significant improvement on infrequency, and came
up with more novel answers based on the pictures. Similarly, in the drawing task the significant improvement on infrequency was
also found. Children’s drawings generated in the posttest were evaluated as more novel and unique. Moreover, the drawings were
elaborated with more details such as circles, lines or figures. In addition, children drew more connections and complex lines outside
the given circles or diamonds, and thus led to the improvement on resistance to premature closure.
No improvement was observed on flexibility. This is in line with earlier creativity training studies among children (e.g.,
Dziedziewicz, Oledzka, & Karwowski, 2013; Garaigordobil, 2006). One reason could be that the cognitive flexibility only increases
after a longer training period, while in the current study the training was only a one session, 2-h training. Another explanation might
be related to the topic breadth. People are more likely to think from different perspectives or categories when provided with a broad
topic, whereas tended to generate ideas more within the same category when the topic is narrow (Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, &
Baas, 2010). In our study, all the creative tasks were based on objects, shapes or events that are familiar to children, which could
somehow constrain children to associate with remote and “out of category” ideas.

4.2. Limitations

We employed a pretest and posttest within-subjects design, without a control group. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility
that the observed effects can be ascribed to the learning effects. However, this is unlikely as two different versions of each task were
used and counterbalanced between the pretest and posttest. Another confounding variable is motivation. One may argue that children
noticed that they were tested, and therefore displayed higher motivation in the posttest than in the pretest. While in a creativity
training study with training and control conditions, a decrease in the control group was observed from pretest to posttest (Hoffmann
& Russ, 2016). In addition, rather than being motivated, there was a possibility of depletion given that no break was taken in-between
the training and the posttest. Thus, children were likely to become exhausted after 2 h’ training. In that case, one could also expect
that children’s creative performance became lower in the posttest. But still, as shown by the current findings, children’s creative
performance was improved after the training. Besides, future research is needed to investigate the long-term effect of the training
program. For example, a third measurement could be employed to test children’s creativity after a few weeks or months. If the
training effect remains significant compared to the pretest, then it indicates that a short training is effective in enhancing children’s
creative thinking skills.

4.3. Conclusions

Taken as a whole, the current findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the 5-I training program in the development of children’s
creativity. Future research could consider investigating the long-term effect of the 5-I training program. The current study might have
implications for educational settings. This brief and single session training is neither very time consuming nor very costly, which
provides the possibility to train children’s creativity in school settings.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

98
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

Declarations of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gillis Altman, Lieke van den Boom, Rebecca Kahmann, Michiel Kiggen, Lisanne van der Kruis, Luise
Schlindwein, Iris Verpaalen and Anne Vlaanderen for their help with providing the creativity training. We would like to thank
Madelon Gerrits and Marjo Mierlo for typing children’s handwritten responses into digital format. Finally, we would like to thank the
children who participated in the training.

Appendix A. The theoretical underpinnings of exercises in the 5-I training program

Inclination Ideation Interaction Identification Inspiration

Inspirational videos * **
Finding differences ** *
Figure arrangement * **
Think out of box **
Ambiguous figures **
Perspective taking ** *
SCAMPER ** **
Random connection ** **

Note: In each exercise, ** means a strong focus on a specific component while * means a less strong focus.

Appendix B. Training exercise: perspective taking

99
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

References

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Colorado: Westview Press.

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35–46.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Programme for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 139–151.
Baer, J. (2003). Double dividends: Cross-cultural creativity studies teach us about both creativity and cultures. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 22(3),
37–39.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. The Cambridge handbook of creativity. 447–463.
Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and
Individual Differences, 18, 381–389.
Besançon, M., Fenouillet, F., & Shankland, R. (2015). Influence of school environment on adolescents’ creative potential, motivation and well-being. Learning and
Individual Differences, 43, 178–184.
Blanco-Herrera, J. A. (2017). Mining creativity: Video game creativity learning effects. Graduate Theses and Dissertations15263. [Link]
Caniëls, M. C., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2015). Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 184–196.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates.
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348–364.
Daher, W., Tabaja-Kidan, A., & Gierdien, F. (2017). Educating Grade 6 students for higher-order thinking and its influence on creativity. Pythagoras, 38(1), 1–12.
de Buisonjé, D. R., Ritter, S. M., de Bruin, S., ter Horst, J. M. L., & Meeldijk, A. (2017). Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation.
promotion focus and positive affect Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 174–181.
De Bono, E. (1983). The cognitive research trust (CoRT) thinking program. Thinking: The expanding frontier, 115–127.
DeGeneres, E., Hurwitz, M., & Leifer, C. (2011). 3 kid inventions and a baby. In E. DeGeneres (Ed.). The Ellen Show. California, CA: Columbia Broadcasting System.
Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 23, 150–160.
Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4-to 6-year-old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 9, 85–95.
Field, A. (2009). Correlation. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE166–196.
Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Ischebeck, A., Weiss, E. M., et al. (2012). Stimulating creativity via the exposure to other people’s ideas. Human
brain mapping, 33(11), 2603–2610.
Gabriel, A., Camargo, M., Monticolo, D., Boly, V., & Bourgault, M. (2016). Improving the idea selection process in creative workshops through contextualisation.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1503–1513.
Galinsky, A., Maddux, W., Gilin, D., & White, J. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384. [Link]
1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x.
Garaigordobil, M. (2006). Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years: Impact of a play program on verbal and graphic–figural creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 18(3), 329–345.
Goldstein, E. B. (Vol. Ed.), (2010). Encyclopedia of perception: Vol. 1. London: SAGE.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14. [Link]
Helsel, D. R., & Hirsch, R. M. (2002). Statistical methods in water resources. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. [Link]
Hoffmann, J. D., & Russ, S. W. (2016). Fostering pretend play skills and creativity in elementary school girls: A group play intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 10(1), 114.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010). Finding young Paul Robesons: Exploring the question of creative polymathy. Innovations in Educational Psychology,
141.
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leung, A. K. Y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., et al. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”. Psychological science, 23(5), 502–509.
Lubart, T., Pacteau, C., Jacquet, A. Y., & Caroff, X. (2010). Children’s creative potential: An empirical study of measurement issues. Learning and Individual Differences,
20(4), 388–392.
Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41–51.
Ma, H. H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4),
435–446.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509.
Meyer, J. U. (2011). Das Edison-Prinzip. In C. Koop, & O. Steenbuck (Eds.). Kreativität – Zufall oder harte Arbeit? Karg-Hefte: Beiträge zur Begabtenförderung und
Begabungsforschung (pp. 41–44). Berlin: Karg-Stiftung.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.
Newton, D. P. (2014). Thinking with feeling: Fostering productive thought in the classroom. London: Routledge.
Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. [Link]
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2014). The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: Challenges and
opportunities. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 436.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribners.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42(7), 305–310.
Ritter, S. M., & Ferguson, S. (2017). Happy creativity: Listening to happy music facilitates divergent thinking. PLoS One, 12(9), e0182210. [Link]
[Link].0182210.
Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243–253.
Ritter, S. M., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2017). Lay theories of creativity. The science of Lay theories. Cham: Springer95–126.
Runco, M. A. (1993). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged students. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of
Connecticut.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.). Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149–179.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004b). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.
Shaffer, D. R. (2008). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30(6), 933–958.

100
X. Gu, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 32 (2019) 92–101

Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the
reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.
Snow, R. (1994). A person-situation interaction theory of intelligence in outline. In A. Demetriou, & A. Efklides (Eds.). Intelligence, mind, and reasoning: Structure and
development (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Elveiser Science.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, N. G., & Berk, L. E. (1981). Effects of school environments on the development of young children’s creativity. Child Development, 52(4), 1153–1162.
Thrash, T. M., Maruskin, L. A., Cassidy, S. E., Fryer, J. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mediating between the muse and the masses: Inspiration and the actualization of
creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 469. [Link]
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Gilhooly, K., & Georgiou, G. (2011). Creativity and ease of ambiguous figural reversal. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 615–622.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.
Wu, X., Gu, X., & Zhang, H. (2016). The facilitative effects of ambiguous figures on creative solution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1–8. [Link]
jocb.161.
Zhu, Y., Ritter, S. M., Müller, B. C., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2017). Creativity: Intuitive processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 180–188.

101