Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Creativity and divergent thinking are components of learning in childhood that often go unmeasured in favor of standardized subject assessments. To better understand the ways in which creativity develops and is related to environmental and cross-cultural factors, this study reports on the scores obtained by 8-year-old students living in differently sized communities in Norway and Canada measured using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Results of multivariate analyses indicate statistically significant differences between Norwegian and Canadian children on several Torrance Test subscales as well as surprising relationships between the size of the community in which the children lived and the scores they obtained. Results and discussion are framed in reference to the ways in which culture and communities potentially shape the development of divergent thinking skills and open up questions about the ways in which social environments can influence the development of creativity in childhood.

Keywords

creativity Torrance Test of Creative Thinking cross-cultural research divergent thinking

It is evident that learning and the workforce are undergoing change, and we can see a cultural shift toward “knowledge work” and the automation of rote processes (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The ability to demonstrate creative thinking skills is becoming increasingly necessary. As the school learning environment evolves in reaction to cultural changes and actively works to promote the development of skills related to creativity (Conference Board of Canada, 2010; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012), it is useful to gain a better understanding of the ways and conditions in which children demonstrate the ability to think and act in a creative manner. Moreover, not enough is known about the nature of how and what external factors may contribute to the development of creative tendencies in the public education system. The purpose of this article is to use the broad lens of culture to illuminate the nature of creativity as a socially constructed personal trait at a systems level (Martinsen, 2011). By comparing two groups of learners in comparable cultures, one in Norway and one in Canada in three different sized communities, we are able to capture a sense of how creativity differs between groups and within different specific contexts (Florida, 2012). This also allows us to explore and hypothesize how cultural and community environments may influence the development of creative tendencies.

Creativity

It has been shown that creative people demonstrate a number of specific attributes, and creative behaviors are facilitated by a set of variables tied to personality, motivation, and divergent thinking (Martinsen, 2011; Sternberg, 2006). Creative individuals are also better able to find solutions to ill-defined problems (Runco, 2007) and often report better health (Cloninger, 2004). Creativity and, in particular, divergent thinking skills in childhood are important predictors of both personal and public achievement in later life (Runco, Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2009). Moreover, the ability to act in creative and innovative ways is almost always cited as one of the most important “21st Century Skills” or competencies for learning humans need to thrive in modern society, regardless of nationality, owing to the ubiquity of technology, fast communication, and collaborative social networks (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; European Parliament, 2006; Kay, 2010; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Skills tied to creativity and innovation, such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and multimodal literacies, are required to keep up with technology and an increasingly connected world (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). These skills support learners in their life and career, help them acquire knowledge, and provide them with the flexibility to adapt and learn in shifting workspaces. For these reasons, it is more important now than ever to gauge to what degree students are able to demonstrate creative thinking skills and examine the ways in which these talents and skills are demonstrated cross-nationally.

Western definitions of creativity have been fairly consistent since the early 1930s. Stein (1953) developed the first bipartite definition of creativity, including the statement that creativity requires both originality and effectiveness. Other requirements, including “intention of novelty” and “surprise,” have also been debated (Klausen, 2010; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). According to Klausen (2010), there can be three “bearers of creativity”: the person, the process, and the product (p. 350). He argues that the primary bearer of creativity is the product, specifying that also “self-development or enlightenment . . . can be considered ‘products’ in the appropriate sense of the word; they are outcomes or results of a process” (Klausen, 2010, p. 351). In this article, we use this notion of creativity as a part of self-development in a broader sense in terms of “human capital.”

Human capital refers to the specific skills and knowledge which enter into the productive process, including all of the competencies and commitment of individuals within an organization (Schultz, 1961). Human capital is directly related to the concept of “social capital,” which takes the perspective that the lives and behaviors of individuals are tied to the culture and the social systems that exist where they live. Bordieu (1977) described this dialectic understanding of the relationship between the individual and society, which is referenced in his notions of field and habitus. It is the interaction between the individual, cultural, and social systems that bring about transformation to society, and it is the sociocultural environment that influences what and how ideas are expressed (Rudowicz, 2003). Within the study of creativity, this perspective allows us to better conceptualize the myriad ways the environment can influence how creativity is experienced and expressed.

Creativity and Culture

Vygotsky’s early work on creativity and imagination is considered to have laid the foundation for a cultural psychology of creativity (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). He identified the nature of learning through contextually situated reciprocal interactions and reinforced the essentially social nature of cultural acquisition. It has been argued that group learning, social interaction, and societal norms influence individual problem-solving and cognitive patterns determining behavior (Moran, 2010; Sternberg & Williams, 2010). Throughout this process, we use symbols and tools to produce cultural artifacts, many of which are created to solve problems and shape the course of future activity (Garrison, 1995). Creativity is then shaped culturally and socially, through interactions between the mind and behavior in a cultural space.

Values are sometimes tied to cultural, religious, and geographical traditions (Runco, 2004, 2007). Thus, skills and traits that are valued may be nurtured out of necessity or because they are seen as useful. As Aristotle once wrote, “What is honoured in a culture will be cultivated there” (as cited in Torrance, 2003, p. 277). Cultural traditions that hold value then play a role in developing talents and skills in particular domains. Culture in this sense, including our languages, belief systems, perceptions, and social-cognitive systems of organization, penetrates the ways in which we reason, solve problems, categorize, judge, and predict future events (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). A range of research works have been conducted examining the role that creativity and ingenuity have played in different cultural contexts. Much of this can be narrowed to fit what Florida (2002) referred to as the three Ts—tolerance, talent, and technology, which he used to explain global differences in innovation and invention. Among these three elements, tolerance for creativity is a critical environmental factor that provides permission for and allows creativity to happen. Creativity often appears as unconventional ideas, solutions, or ways of looking at problems. Intolerance for ideas that are perceived to fall outside the norm is indicative of a culture that does not value creativity.

Earlier research has shown that culture influences the ways in which creativity is defined, and also how it is conceptualized (Klausen, 2010). Countries that have adopted a Western, individualistic social framework tend to place emphasis on creative products and use novelty and appropriateness as criteria for judging creative work (Runco, 2007). This definition is supported by Hennessey and Amabile (2010) as well as Sternberg (2005). A tangible example of this is demonstrated in the recent European Commission report on the impact of culture on creativity (KEA European Affairs, 2009). This report concludes with a proposal to create an index of 32 creative product indicators to be used to determine the weight of creative outputs of a nation. In contrast, Eastern cultures, which tend toward collectivism, often value creativity as an aspect of personal fulfillment, with guidance and reverence for authority and traditions in the past (Rudowicz, 2003; Runco, 2007). It may be debated if this really is a cultural difference in the definition of creativity, or the case rather is that collectivist conceptions of creativity are actually conceptions of something else (Klausen, 2010).

Cross-cultural research that has examined creativity has found a number of distinct patterns. In a study examining creativity and reasoning with college students in Hong Kong and the United States, Niu, Zhang, and Yang (2006) found that American students scored significantly higher than the Hong Kong Chinese students on a measure of creative production (writing titles for jokes). This difference is attributed to cultural factors which influence how individuals think and solve problems. Although no explanation for this difference was provided, Nisbett et al. (2001) argued that cultural differences represent unique systems of thought and cognition. Their study found that East Asians were more likely to pay attention to the “big picture,” whereas Westerners were more often focused on the details. This largely mirrors widely accepted sociocultural conceptions of individualism and collectivism as a social structure (Lau, 1992), but points to inherent differences in cognitive style and approach largely tied to the impact of culture on ways of thinking.

Research conducted by Rudowicz, Lok, and Kitto (1995) also examined evidence of cross-cultural creativity through an investigation using the Figural Version of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to measure the divergent thinking skills of 10-year-old children from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, the United States, and Germany. The researchers found that children in Hong Kong generally obtained higher scores than children in Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States but lower than the German children. The authors explain these results as reflective of the cultural perceptions of the value of creativity and creative expression (see also Lubart, 1990), but are at a loss to explain what specific variables in the cultures lead these differences to exist. Later work by Rudowicz (2003) suggests the existence of an interactive model of reciprocal interaction between culture and creativity, in that creativity is not only influenced by culture, it in itself influences how a culture evolves and receives creative products and ideas. Lubart (1990) and Csikszentmihalyi (2005) similarly illustrated the ways in which creativity exists as a complex interaction between a person, a field, and a culture. Individual creativity is then strongly influenced by personal experiences and genetic personality variables, and can be expressed when it is permitted within a social organization or domain, within a culture that is supportive. The person influences the domain and the culture in a reciprocal and dynamic pattern. To better understand creativity as a concept, researchers must look at the individual, the domain (field), and the culture. Csikszentmihalyi (2005) argued that the only way to establish an understanding of creativity is through comparison, evaluation, and interpretation within and among cultures. Cross-cultural studies are important in adding to a growing understanding of differences and similarities between education systems in different countries (Larsen, 2010).

Although Guilford’s seminal American Psychological Association (APA) address which called for researchers to explore and better understand the psychological factors related to creativity happened more than half a century ago (Guilford, 1950), few have chosen to explore differences and similarities among Western cultures. Most previous work, as has been demonstrated, examines cultures that have a long history of differences in social structure, politics, and economies. It is now well established that holistic and analytic (collectivist and individualistic) worldviews shape the ways that creative products are produced (Klausen, 2010; Lau, 1992; Lau, Hui, & Ng, 2004; Niu et al., 2006; Rudowicz, 2003), and yet to the best of our knowledge, no research has yet examined two relatively similar Western cultures with a particular emphasis on creativity. Such a study avoids the pitfall of comparing creativity with something else entirely, as suggested by Klausen (2010). This analysis will then serve to extract more nuanced information, to provide greater insight with regard to the ways cultural environments influence the development of creativity.

Canada and Norway are examples of countries with small populations with different geographical sizes and have many similarities with regard to culture, language, and schooling. Both countries recognize more than one official language, have Indigenous native populations, and have been shaped by immigration and trade in their abundant natural resources. The education systems in Norway are similar in size and scope to the systems present in individual Canadian provinces. Each is responsible for its own educational ministries. Teachers follow a common curriculum, and most students are enrolled in public education. Students in Ontario have 194 school days in a calendar year, whereas Norwegian students have 190 (Government of Ontario, 2012; Ministry of Education and Research, 1998).

Although a nuanced discussion of the similarities and differences of the two systems is beyond the scope of this article, the significant similarities between Norwegian and Canadian culture and education systems provide a meaningful opportunity to investigate what Glăveanu (2010) referred to as the cultural psychology of creativity. Within his essay, Glăveanu argues that for too long, research has focused on investigating the creative products of a single person. It is argued that this perspective ignores the true social-cultural influences on the group, instead of favoring the social influence on the individual. Glăveanu implored researchers to examine creativity as a group phenomenon, within the bounds of culture, community, political, and social environments. This he refers to as the “We-Paradigm” (Glăveanu, 2010, p. 7), which is a way of examining both individuals and societal structures, representing both the field and the domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). From this perspective, researchers are better able to represent the nature of creativity as embedded within a “social and historical milieu” (Glăveanu, 2010, p. 7), providing a context for the measurement of creativity in vast systems of complexity.

With this understanding of the complexity of systems and environments, it is expected that a sample of schoolchildren of the same age in both Canada and Norway provide an ideal starting point to examine smaller cultural differences in creativity, while holding larger scale cultural determinants, such as a tendency toward individualism or collectivism, political ideology, and educational environment constant. Within these different countries, meaningful complexities are able to emerge at a more discernible level. Furthermore, to make smaller cultural differences visible, we need to look beyond “the dominant culture” in the two countries.

Creativity and Community Size

Florida (2012) emphasized the importance of the place for creativity within a relatively similar dominant culture. He based his discussion on literature from economical geography, human capital theory, his own, and others’ research on environments in the United States. Throughout the text, he separates between large cities and smaller communities. He presents three main points on the link between place and creativity. First, he states that

cities are the key economic and social organizing units to the creative age. They give raise to the clustering, density and interaction of daily life and thus accelerate the combinations and recombinations that spur innovation, business formation, job creation and economic growth. (pp. 393-394).

Second, he reinforces the notion that bigger is better, by pointing out that creative people tend to migrate to where other creative people are, explaining why in some smaller regions, such as college towns like Gainesville and East Lansing, there are a relatively large number of creative people. Third, Florida suggests that small communities may not stimulate creativity in a way that a city could. This difference between community sizes in relation to creativity makes for a possible entry point for a further study. Although Florida (2012) discussed how creative people tend to concentrate together, there is very little empirical evidence to support the idea that a person’s community may play a role in the development of his or her personal tendencies or abilities. Florida’s text addresses this only briefly in relation to community size, and of interest to this investigation, he restates and attempts to confirm Park’s statement that

the small community often tolerates eccentricity. The city, on the contrary, rewards it. Neither the criminal, the defective, nor the genius has the same opportunity to develop his innate disposition in a small town that he invariably finds in a great city. (Florida, 2012, p. 200; Park, 1915, p. 609)

A cross-cultural study of two similar countries such as Canada and Norway, organized to generate data from different community sizes, could therefore be useful in re-forming our modern understanding of community size and its tolerance of creative behavior a century later.

Community size itself is a categorization fraught with some contention and rival definitions (Stanley, Comello, Edwards, & Marquart, 2008). Statistics Canada (2011a) defines three different types of population centers, denoted as small, medium, and large. Small population centers have a population of between 1,000 and 29,999 inhabitants, medium population centers have between 30,000 and 99,999 inhabitants, and large urban population centers consist of 100,000 or more inhabitants (Statistics Canada, 2011b). These classifications allow a better understanding of population density and tie directly to census data collected by the Canadian government. Norway, a country with only 5 million inhabitants compared with Canada’s 30 million, groups urban settlement size into four groups—very small: 200 to 1,999 inhabitants, small: 2,000 to 19,999 inhabitants, medium: 20,000 to 99,999 inhabitants, and large: 100,000 inhabitants (Statistics Norway, 2012). For the purposes of clarity and effective comparison, this article will make use of the following definitions: small communities: 200 to 5,000 inhabitants which will be referred to as “Rural,” medium-sized communities: 10,000 to 30,000 inhabitants which will be referred to as “Town,” and large communities have more than 80,000 inhabitants which carry the label of “Urban.” This accurately captures the size of the communities in our samples while maintaining similarities to both Canadian and Norwegian statistical definitions.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were 256 eight-year-old children (167 Canadian, 89 Norwegian) attending elementary schools in Canada and Norway. Sites were located approximately 200 km away from the largest city in both countries, in this case Toronto (population: 2,503,281) in Canada and Oslo (population: 586,860) in Norway. Schools in the geographical regions were selected randomly for participation. Pupils from each of three geographic regions (rural/town/urban) were tested in each country and were 8 years of age at the time of testing.

Eight years of age appear to represent a milestone in terms of cognitive development (Case, 1992; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Torrance, 1974). It is at this age children’s cognitive processes begin to take on a high level of abstract thought. Processes such as perspective taking and metacognition emerge with details, making it a critical juncture to investigate the ways educators promote or inhibit creative thinking. It was around this age that Torrance (1967) also reported what he referred to as a “fourth grade slump” wherein children began to surrender their creativity. He attributes this to numerous factors, including a greater desire to conform, increasing pressure to read, and a move away from a play-based discovery curriculum to one tied to increased academic pressure. This slump was originally reported in a large-scale cross-cultural study of creative development in children in the United States, Western Samoa, Germany, Norway, Australia, India and New Delhi (Torrance, 1967) and has been repeatedly identified in later cross-cultural work (Al-Sulaiman, 1998; Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009). By selecting children for this study currently in Grade 3, at 8 years of age, it was expected that the results of the Torrance Test would be more consistent, and less likely to be influenced by the decline in scores seen in Grade 4 students.

Instrument

Originally designed to help teachers tailor instructions to students based on test scores, The TTCT is now widely used for assessment and identification of talented and creatively gifted children. It remains one of the most widely used and studied creativity tests today (Davis, 1997; Kim, 2006; Lissitz & Willhoft, 1985; Swartz, 1988; Treffinger, 1985). The TTCT: Figural (Form A) consists of three activities: picture completion, picture construction, and repeated figures of lines. A duration of 10 min is required to complete each activity (Kim, 2006; Torrance, 1990). The figural test is appropriate for use from kindergarten to adult when administered in small groups or individually (Treffinger, Torrance, & Ball, 1987). Because the test is of an open-ended nature, participants are able to express their own interests, knowledge, and emotions while completing an activity that most children enjoy (Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005). Although the construct validity of the measure has been questioned (see Kim, 2006), there is a substantial body of supporting evidence which indicates long-term longitudinal stability of test-takers performance (Cramond, 1993; Cramond et al., 2005; Kogan, 1983; Rudowicz et al., 1995). Several longitudinal studies have found that the test was a better measure for predicting creative achievements than traditional intelligence, achievement in high school, and peer assessment (Runco et al., 2010).

Torrance based his scoring model on the factors of divergent thinking originally found in Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect Model (Baer, 1997). The six factors (dimensions) in the test have remained the same since 1966 and consist of the following: Fluency, the total number of relevant responses; Originality, the statistical infrequency of a particular response; Abstractness of Titles (Titles), consisting of the degree to which the participant synthesized and described the information in the picture; Elaboration, the amount of detail and imagination shown in the picture; and Resistance to Premature Closure (Closure), which is scored based on one’s ability to keep an “open mind” and delay completion of the picture long enough to allow for the infusion of originality (Kim, 2006; Torrance, 2008). In addition to these five dimensions, the average of the responses is the sixth factor scored.

Procedure

Tests were administered as in-school exercises in the native language of each school, according to the directions specified in the directions manual and scoring guide. Although instructions are printed in English, children in both countries were told in their native language that this was to be a fun drawing activity, and that “they should try and think of something no one else would think of.” Titles that the Norwegian children gave to their drawings were translated into English verbatim by fluent bilingual members of the research team and cross-checked by native English speakers before booklets were collected and sent to Scholastic Testing Service (STS) for independent scoring. The TTCT-Figural Manual indicates the interrater reliability among the scorers for STS to be greater than .90 (Torrance, 1990).

Selection of the classroom(s) which participated in the exercise was done by the school principal or administrator based on the availability of students and teachers. No compensation was provided for participation; however, most children stated that they found the exercise to be a pleasant diversion from regular classroom work. Further demographic details about the students, communities, and identified gender of participating students are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Community Size, Number, and Gender of Participants.

	Small (M/F)	Town (M/F)	Urban (M/F)	Total
	Pop: 200-5,000	Pop: 10,000-30,000	Pop: >80,000	Total
Country
Canada	59 (25/34)	40 (26/14)	68 (9/12)	167 (60/60)
Norway	30 (15/15)	29 (15/14)	30 (12/18)	89 (42/47)

Note. M = male; F = female, Pop = population.

To complete the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), it is recommended that at least 20 cases be present per group to achieve minimal levels of statistical power (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013). For the sample to represent the region and not only a single school, participants were chosen from several schools. In the Canadian sample, this was done by including several full groups from two different schools located in each designated community (rural, town, urban). In the Norwegian sample, the rural sample came from only one school (as the community only had one school), the town sample was put together from two schools, and in the urban sample participants came from three schools. Before analysis of group variances was completed, average standard score by individual school was analyzed using t tests as appropriate to permit group comparisons. Subscale and average standard scores reported in individual rural, town, and urban schools in both Norway and Canada were determined to show no significant differences and were then classified into considerably robust community size groups; hence, group differences could be explored.

Results

Between-Country Comparisons

Average standard scores returned by STS were analyzed using SPSS software. An initial two-way MANOVA examining TTCT subscale scores revealed a significant multivariate main effect for Community Size, F(12, 490) = 4.39, p = .000; Wilks’s λ = .815, partial η² = .097, and an interaction effect of Community Size × Country, F(12, 490) = 4.49, p = .000; Wilks’s λ = .812, partial η² = .099. Main effects for Country approached significance: F(6, 490) = 2.11, p = .053; Wilks’s λ = .951, partial η² = .049. Observed power was 1.00 for both Community Size and the interaction effect Country × Community Size, confirming significant differences between community size scores in each country, with medium–large effect size using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines.

Although community size was shown to have a significant main effect, it is the interaction effect that is most important, given the research question and investigation of how scores on the TTCT are related to community size in each country. Figure 1 shows the interaction between Community Size and Country plotted using participants’ average standard score. Mean plots for all of the subfactors are included in the appendix. When interpreting in the interaction plot, it is evident that there are visible differences between the average standard score of the children attending urban and rural schools in Canada, and an opposite, but less significant difference between children attending urban and rural schools in Norway. This also explains a lack of significance that was found when pairwise comparisons were examined using the dependent variables. There is a clear leveling effect of community size, and the variation in the performance across differently sized communities is diminished.

Figure 1.

Interaction plot of Community Size × Country measuring average standard score.

Community Size Comparisons

As visible in Figure 1, there is appearance of an averaging effect given the diversity shown by the average score obtained by students from the different communities. Further analyses were conducted to investigate the ways in which participants’ scores fluctuated between community size groups. It was found that significant differences existed between student creativity scores in Norway and Canada in relation to community size. The results of the comparisons are presented in detail in Table 2. These post hoc comparisons of children’s scores obtained in each community size in both Norway and Canada present a number of significant differences. Notably, Canadian children in rural areas had, on average, higher scores on the TTCT than their Norwegian counterparts, while children living in urban areas of Norway scored significantly better than the Canadian children in similar urban areas. Average standard score and subscale differences were not found between urban and rural children in the town samples across countries, providing some theoretical support to suggest a leveling effect of community size on TTCT performance which occurs differently in both countries.

Table 2.

Mean Differences Between Community Size Groups, Significance, and Effect Size.

	Norway		Canada		t-test	p	D
	M	SD	M	SD	t-test	p	D
Rural					t(87)
Fluency	100.90	18.41	118.97	17.70	−4.491	.000	−1.00
Originality	88.10	19.45	112.51	16.38	−6.167	.000	−1.35
Titles	87.67	23.21	87.36	17.49	0.071	.94	0.02
Elaboration	95.60	14.84	95.42	13.65	0.056	.96	0.01
Closure	98.33	19.12	99.46	14.21	−0.313	.76	−0.07
Average	94.13	11.89	102.69	9.81	−3.624	.000	0.78
Town					t(67)
Fluency	103.90	20.80	94.90	20.74	1.78	.080	0.43
Originality	97.64	18.57	91.98	16.05	1.28	.20	0.33
Titles	84.62	22.41	96.38	19.45	−0.35	.73	−0.56
Elaboration	96.00	13.39	100.05	13.05	−1.26	.21	−0.31
Closure	96.69	13.85	98.93	18.57	−0.55	.59	−0.14
Average	95.72	12.71	94.43	12.91	0.42	.68	0.10
Urban					t(96)
Fluency	99.57	23.24	89.19	20.56	2.21	.03	0.45
Originality	92.63	17.34	88.40	22.88	0.92	.36	0.21
Titles	94.90	21.02	91.97	21.44	2.77	.01	0.14
Elaboration	106.10	16.43	100.00	15.02	1.80	.08	0.39
Closure	100.60	19.59	95.13	19.13	1.30	.20	0.28
Average	98.63	14.78	90.97	14.07	2.45	.02	0.53

Within-country comparisons showed some differences between children living in Norway and children living in Canada. Specifically, Canadian children living in rural areas scored significantly higher on the TTCT than their urban peers, t(125) = 5.36, p = .000, d = 0.97, and children living in the town sample scored significantly below their rural peers, t(97) = 3.62, p = .000, d = 0.72; however, differences between urban and town peers were not significant, t(106) = 1.27, p = .21, d = 0.26. Although there was a visibly similar pattern of results in the Norwegian data, there were no significant differences between groups found within community size groups. These findings are interesting and are currently being explored by the authors using a sociocultural investigative framework which extends beyond the scope of this exploratory investigation.

An independent samples t test was conducted to examine whether there was a difference between scores obtained by boys and girls. No differences were found, t(254) = −1.64, p = .103, suggesting that participant gender in this sample was not an important variable affecting children’s responses on the TTCT. This finding replicates and extends the findings of Rudowicz et al. (1995).

Discussion

The differences between urban and rural participants in Norway and Canada were unexpected both in the way they differed and in the strength of the difference. The results indicate that Canadian and Norwegian children of the same age and relatively similar community size groupings provide evidence of divergent thinking, and in ways that have not yet been investigated in the literature. Previous research has proven that the development of creative tendencies in children is a reciprocal process involving interactions between an individual, the environment, society, and biological potentiality (Arieti, 1976; Bourdieu, 1977; Glăveanu, 2010; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Creative ideas and actions are generated in reference to the needs and the press of the surrounding environment in a way that is encouraged, valued, and supported by the community in which a creator lives. Starting in childhood, our cognitions, expectations, and neural patterns are shaped by the social contexts in which we are raised. These include, but are not limited to the lessons learned in the home, what we are taught in schools and in cultural community groups such as religious institutions. All of these environments and social relationships provide us with a context and a place from which we can cognitively construct and learn to understand the world in which we live. By better understanding the nature of the characteristics students demonstrate cross-culturally, we begin to gain a better sense of the ways in which individuals are similar or different. In this particular study, we are able to see evidence of subtle, yet significant differences which emerge only when we begin to look beyond the dominant culture in Norway and Canada.

Looking at the context, in this case the communities to which students belong, we see patterns that emerge which indicate a relationship between responses and community size, particularly in Canada. As discussed earlier, perhaps this pattern has been allowed to emerge as the relatively large cultural differences between countries that are typically compared have been stripped away. By comparing two relatively similar cultural groups, such as Canada and Norway, we are confident in suggesting that there is a need to better understand the qualities of the community environments. Some work has been undertaken on the nature of rural communities (Hargreaves, Kvalsund, & Galton, 2009; Kvalsund & Hargreaves, 2009), which suggests that individuals living in rural communities may have differing perspectives on education than their urban peers, and that the needs and resources of rural communities may offer unique opportunities for noninstitutionalized forms of learning. Although community size is only a rough proxy for what ideals these children and their parents hold, and the types of specific environments these children may inhabit, the results of this study show that there is something unique about urban and rural environments that become apparent when contrasting the scores of Canadian and Norwegian children.

Limitations

This testing process is useful in determining large-scale differences between groups with different community sizes, both between and within countries, but is not powerful enough to show the differences between students on any qualities beyond those that the test measures. Although we have an idea of what creative skills the children demonstrated in this study, this glimpse of children’s behavior at one point in time does not provide a complete understanding of the broader global context of creativity, what it means to be creative, and how, and in what ways the environment in which they live fosters or hinders creative thoughts, actions, and cognitions. With that, it is important to acknowledge that we use the TTCT as a proxy for creativity, though it may give us a hint of the later creative productivity of these children as adults (Runco et al., 2010).

Methodological limitations of this study concern mainly the selection criteria of the participants and our own questions regarding whether or not the chosen samples of children provide the necessary representation of the population as a whole. Even though standard procedures published in the TTCT administration manual were followed, all types of research based on empirical sampling face this issue.

Future Directions

At this point, we can only speculate about what may cause these differences, and what experiences these children may have had that then led to measurable differences in their TTCT scores. This study does provide us with a body of evidence which justifies further ethnographic study and in-depth investigation of the lives of these children and their families. What is it exactly in the rural Canadian environment and the urban Norwegian environment that leads children living in these places to have higher creativity scores than their peers? To better understand the nature of creativity in a truer sense, we argue that research should go beyond paper and pencil testing to qualitatively assess the perspectives and experiences of children as they exist in their natural and constructed environments. It is recommended that detailed observations, interviews, and fieldwork be done in both cultures to provide us with a better understanding of why our populations appeared to differ based on the community size in which the children live. By more directly understanding the lived experiences of the children at home, at school, and at play, we may be able to discover what elements of the environment nurture the creative tendencies of children. Such a new qualitative study may also address the possible methodological issue of the sampling, by controlling if the results in such a study support the differences in perspective in the community sizes in Norway and Canada found here.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biographies

Catharine Dishke Hondzel is the coordinator,Research and Learning Support at Huron University College. Her research examines the nature of learning environments,creativity,and experiential learning. She is the coordinator of the Human Ingenuity Research Group (HIRG) at Western University in London,Ontario,Canada.

Marte Sørebø Gulliksen is a professor at Telemark University College. Her research examines education,culture,and creativity as well as teacher education in design,art and craft. She leads the Embodied Making and Learning Research Group (EMAL).

References

Al-Sulaiman

N. I.

(1998). Creative thinking abilities and specific characteristics of the classroom environment of female high school students in Saudi Arabia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Arieti

(1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Baer

(1997). Creative teachers, creative students. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bellanca

Brandt

(2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bourdieu

(1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Case

(1992). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thoughts and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cloninger

C. R.

(2004). Feeling good: The science of well-being. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conference Board of Canada. (2010). Employability skills 2000+. Retrieved from www.conferenceboard.ca/education

10.

Cramond

(1993). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229-254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

11.

Cramond

Matthews-Morgan

Bandalos

Zuo

(2005). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283-291.

12.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2005). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

14.

Davis

G. A.

(1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269-281). Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.

15.

European Parliament. (2006). Proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning (ID:2006/962/EC). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006H0962

16.

Florida

(2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

17.

Florida

(2012). The rise of the creative class—Revisited (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

18.

Garrison

(1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 716-740.

19.

Glăveanu

V.-P.

(2010). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology, 16, 147-163.

20.

Government of Ontario. (2012). Ontario Ministry of Education: Elementary education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/elementary.html

21.

Guilford

J. P.

(1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

22.

Hargreaves

Kvalsund

Galton

(2009). Reviews of research on rural schools and their communities in British and Nordic countries: Analytical perspectives and cultural meaning. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 80-88. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.001

23.

Hennessey

B. A.

Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.

24.

Inhelder

Piaget

(1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.

25.

Kay

(2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. In Bellanca

Brandt

(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. xiii-xxxi). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

26.

KEA European Affairs. (2009). The impact of culture on creativity. Brussels, Belgium: Author.

27.

Kim

K. H.

(2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3-14.

28.

Klausen

S. H.

(2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philosophical perspective on creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 347-360.

29.

Kogan

(1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In Mussen

P. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (4th ed., pp. 628-706). New York, NY: Wiley.

30.

Kvalsund

Hargreaves

(2009). Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: Analytical perspectives and a new agenda. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 140-149. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.002

31.

Larsen

M. A.

(Ed.). (2010). New thinking in comparative education: Honouring Robert Cowen. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

32.

Lau

(1992). Collectivism’s individualism: Value preference, personal control, and the desire for freedom among Chinese in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 361-366.

33.

Lau

Hui

A. N. N.

G. Y. C.

(Eds.). (2004). Creativity: When East meets West. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

34.

Lissitz

R. W.

Willhoft

J. L.

(1985). A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 1-111.

35.

Lubart

T. I.

(1990). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 39-59.

36.

Martinsen

Ø. L

. (2011). The creative personality: A synthesis and development of the creative person profile. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 185-202.

37.

Meyers

L. S.

Gamst

Guarino

A. J.

(2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

38.

Ministry of Education and Research. (1998). Act of 17 July 1998 no. 61 relating to Primary and Secondary Education and Training (the Education Act). Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnskole/Education_Act_Norway_30_September_2010.pdf

39.

Moran

(2010). Creativity in school. In Littleton

Wood

Staarman

J. K.

(Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 319-359). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

40.

Moran

John-Steiner

(2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of creativity and development. In Sawyer

K. R.

John-Steiner

Moran

Sternberg

R. J.

Feldman

D. H.

Nakamura

Csikszentmihalyi

(Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 61-90). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

41.

Nisbett

R. E.

Peng

Choi

Norenzayan

(2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.

42.

Niu

Zhang

Yang

(2006). Does culture always matter: For creativity, yes, for deductive reasoning, No! In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 282-296). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Park

R. E.

(1915). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. American Journal of Sociology, 20, 577-612.

44.

Pellegrino

J. W.

Hilton

M. L.

(2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

45.

Rudowicz

(2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273-290.

46.

Rudowicz

Lok

Kitto

(1995). Use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in an exploratory study of creativity in Hong Kong primary school children: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 417-430.

47.

Runco

M. A.

(2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.

48.

Runco

M. A.

(2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

49.

Runco

M. A.

Jaeger

G. J.

(2012). The standard definition of creativity [Comments and Correction]. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96.

50.

Runco

M. A.

Millar

Acar

Cramond

(2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty year follow up. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 361-368.

51.

Sanacore

Palumbo

(2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of view. The Educational forum, 73, 67-74.

52.

Schultz

T. W.

(1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51, 1-17.

53.

Stanley

L. R.

Comello

M. L. G.

Edwards

R. W.

Marquart

B. S.

(2008). School adjustment in rural and urban communities. Do students from “Timbuktu” differ from their “City Slicker” peers? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 225-238.

54.

Statistics Canada. (2011a). Census of population. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm

55.

Statistics Canada. (2011b). From urban areas to population centres. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/standard-norme/sgc-cgt/notice-avis/sgc-cgt-06-eng.htm

56.

Statistics Norway. (2012). Activity in centre zones, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/arealsentrum/aar/2012-09-13

57.

Stein

M. I.

(1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 31-322.

58.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2005). Introduction. In Kaufman

J. C.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 1-9). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87-98.

60.

Sternberg

R. J.

Jarvin

Grigorenko

(2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

61.

Sternberg

R. J.

Williams

W. M.

(2010). Educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

62.

Swartz

J. D.

(1988). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In Keyser

D. J.

Sweetland

R. C.

(Eds.), Test critique (Vol. 7, pp. 619-622). Kansas, MO: Test Corporation of America.

63.

Torrance

E. P.

(1967). Creativity: Its educational implications. New York, NY: Wiley.

64.

Torrance

E. P.

(1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Research edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B—Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

65.

Torrance

E. P.

(1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms—Technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

66.

Torrance

E. P.

(2003). Reflection on emerging insights on the educational psychology of creativity. In Houtz

(Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 273-286). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

67.

Torrance

E. P.

(2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Interpretive manual. Bensenville IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

68.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In Mitchell

J. V.

Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1632-1634). Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

69.

Treffinger

D. J.

Torrance

E. R.

Ball

O. E.

(1987). Guidelines for administration and scoring/comments on using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

70.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.