The development of creativity in senior primary school students: Gender differences and the role of school support

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01057

Abstract

Abstract:

Creativity has been emphasized as a key competence for adolescents to achieve success in the rapidly changing world. Although developmental psychologists have put tremendous efforts into identifying the developmental trajectory of creativity, no consensus has yet been reached. Researchers have found many factors that potentially affect the development of creativity, including individual differences (such as gender differences) and the influence of the classroom environment. Besides, previous studies have not examined the creativity trajectory taking both the initial level and the growth speed into consideration. To address these flaws, the present study adopted a longitudinal design to explore the creativity development of senior primary school students through the between-person comparisons of different gender groups and school supports (the support from teachers and peers) as well as the within-person changes in response to the changing supports from schools.
Two hundred and three Grade-4 primary school students (109 boys and 94 girls, mean age = 10.43 years, SD = 0.62 years, during the first phase of the test, T1) from three elementary schools participated in the three years’ longitudinal study and were assessed for three times (T1, T2, T3). Runco Creativity Assessment Battery (figural divergent thinking tests from rCAB) and Perceived School Climate Scale were used to measure creativity and school support, respectively. The study project was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shandong Normal University and obtained the informed consent of parents of the participants. The data were managed and analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and HLM 6.08 software. A series of analyses, including descriptive, correlation, and multilevel analyses, were conducted to explore the developmental trajectory of creativity and the potential relationship between the school support and creativity.
The results of the study were as follows: (1) The fluency of creativity of senior primary school students from grade 4 to 6 showed a linear growth trend, while the flexibility and originality of creativity showed a non-linear growth trend. In addition, the initial level of creativity was positively correlated with its growth speed. (2) Individual differences existed not only in the initial levels of fluency, flexibility, and originality but also in the growth speed of fluency and originality. (3) Senior primary school girls performed significantly higher at initial levels of flexibility and originality than their male counterparts. (4) On the between-person level, the interaction between teacher support and gender significantly predicted the initial level of flexibility; teacher support significantly positively predicted the initial level of fluency; teacher support significantly positively predicted the growth speed of originality. (5) On the within-person level, time-varying teacher support significantly positively predicted time-varying fluency.
The current study is, to our knowledge, the first exploration to describe the developmental trajectory of senior primary school students’ creativity in Mainland China using a longitudinal design. These findings will deepen the understanding of developmental rules of creativity and provide implications for the cultivation of creativity among senior primary school students.

Key words: creativity, school support, gender difference, longitudinal study, senior primary school students

ZHANG Jinghuan, FU Mengmeng, XIN Yuwen, CHEN Peipei, SHA Sha. (2020). The development of creativity in senior primary school students: Gender differences and the role of school support. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(9), 1057-1070.

Figures/Tables 5

References 50

[1]	Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2019). Divergent thinking: New methods, recent research, and extended theory. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 153-158. doi: 10.1037/aca0000231 URL
[2]	Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social psychology of creativity”. Bouler, CO: Westview Press.
[3]	Bai, X. W., & Chen, Y. W. (2004). Measurement equivalence: Conception and test conditions. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(2), 231-239.
[4]	Camp, G. C. (1994). A longitudinal study of correlates of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 125-144. doi: 10.1080/10400419409534519 URL
[5]	Charles, R. E., & Runco, M. A. (2001). Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 417-437. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_19 URL
[6]	Chen, J. J. L. (2008). Grade-level differences: Relations of parental, teacher and peer support to academic engagement and achievement among Hong Kong students. School Psychology International, 29(2), 183-198. doi: 10.1177/0143034308090059 URL
[7]	Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Chan, D. W., & Wu, W. Y. H. (2004). Creative potential of school children in Hong Kong: Norms of the Wallach-Kogan creativity tests and their implications. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 69-78. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1601_7 URL
[8]	Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2-3), 187-199. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452 URL
[9]	Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 327-335.
[10]	Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2020). Gay-Straight alliances, inclusive policy, and school climate: LGBTQ youths’ experiences of social support and bullying. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 418-430. doi: 10.1111/jora.v30.s2 URL
[11]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 URL
[12]	Dietrich, A. (2018). Types of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 1-12. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1517-7 URL pmid: 30128937
[13]	Fan, X. H., Fang, X. Y., Liu, Y., Lin, X. Y., & Yuan, X. J. (2012). The effect of social support and social identity on the relationship between perceived discrimination and socio-cultural adjustment among Chinese migrant children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(5), 647-663.
[14]	Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
[15]	Galla, B. M., Wood, J. J., Tsukayama, E., Har, K., Chiu, A. W., & Langer, D. A. (2014). A longitudinal multilevel model analysis of the within-person and between-person effect of effortful engagement and academic self-efficacy on academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 52(3), 295-308. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.04.001 URL pmid: 24930821
[16]	Guo, J., Li, M., Wang, X., Ma, S., & Ma, J. (2020). Being bullied and depressive symptoms in Chinese high school students: The role of social support. Psychiatry Research, 284, 112676. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112676 URL pmid: 31727440
[17]	Han, Q., Hu, W. P., & Jia, X. J. (2013). The influence of the group member construction of peer interaction on the primary school students’ creative problem finding. Journal of Psychological Science, 36(2), 417-423.
[18]	Hu, W. P., Wan, X. T., & Yu, L. (2011). The development of technological creativity of children and adolescents. Psychological Research, 4(2), 24-28.
[19]	Jia, Y., Way, N., Ling, G., Yoshikawa, H., Chen, X., Hughes, D., ... Lu, Z. (2009). The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development, 80(5), 1514-1530. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01348.x URL pmid: 19765015
[20]	Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental trends of creativity: What twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 329-336. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.503543 URL
[21]	Li, J. Z., Wang, W. Z., & Shi, J. N. (2004). Children’s creativity development and the effect of family environment. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(6), 732-737.
[22]	Liang, L., Yang, J., & Yao, S. (2019). Measurement equivalence of the SDQ in Chinese adolescents: A horizontal and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Affective Disorders, 257, 439-444. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.049 URL pmid: 31306994
[23]	Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 URL
[24]	Liu, Y. Y., & Zhang, D. J. (2005). An experimental research on the relationship between young children's exploratory behaviors and teachers’ attitudes. Psychological Development and Education,(3), 94-98.
[25]	Lucia, K., Tomotaka, U., & Petr, M. (2017). Roles of attachment relationships in emerging adults’ career decision-making process: A two-year longitudinal research design. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 119-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.006 URL
[26]	Ma, H. H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 30-42. doi: 10.1080/10400410802633400 URL
[27]	Maker, C. J., Jo, S., & Muammar, O. M. (2008). Development of creativity: The influence of varying levels of implementation of the discover curriculum model, a non-traditional pedagogical approach. Learning & Individual Differences, 18(4), 402-417.
[28]	Man, D. H., Li, Y. J., & Zhang, J. H. (2015). Relationship between parental control, self-esteem and primary school student’s social creativity. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(1), 81-86.
[29]	McArdle, J. J., Grimm, K. J., Hamagami, F., Bowles, R. P., & Meredith, W. (2009). Modeling life-span growth curves of cognition using longitudinal data with multiple samples and changing scales of measurement. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 126-149. doi: 10.1037/a0015857 URL pmid: 19485625
[30]	Nęcka, E. (2011). Memory & Creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 88-93). San Diego: Academic Press.
[31]	Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 URL
[32]	Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144-152. doi: 10.1037/aca0000227 URL
[33]	Ren, F. F., Li, Y. J., & Zhang, J. H. (2017). Perceived parental control and Chinese middle school adolescents’ creativity: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 34-42. doi: 10.1037/aca0000078 URL
[34]	Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[35]	Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T., & Yurkovich, J. M. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 376-380. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.621859 URL
[36]	Shan, M. X., Gao, Y., Li, W. F., Xu, F. F., & Li, G. Y. (2019). Relationship between parenting style and creativity thinking: The moderation role of gender. China Journal of Health Psychology, 27(9), 1430-1435.
[37]	Shen, W. B., Liu, C., Shi, C. H., & Yuan, Y. (2015). Gender differences in creative thinking. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(8), 1380-1389. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01380 URL
[38]	Shi, B. G., Wang, L. J., Xu, L., & Liu, X. (2016). Effects of teacher-student relationships on students’ creativity: A moderated mediation model. Psychological Development and Education, 32(2), 175-182.
[39]	Shi, J. N., Xu, F., Zhou, L., & Zha, Z. X. (1999). Gender differences from the result of cross-cultural study on technical creativity of children from China and Germany. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 31(4), 428-434.
[40]	Smith, G. J., & Carlsson, I. M. (1990) The creative process: A functional model based on empirical studies from early childhood to middle age. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
[41]	Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12(4), 195-199. doi: 10.1177/001698626801200401 URL
[42]	Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead, & Company.
[43]	Wo, J. Z., Wang, Y. H., Liu, C. M., & Lin, C. D. (2009). Development of creativity: The evidence from Chinese adolescents. Journal of Psychological Science, 32(3), 535-539.
[44]	Xu, Z. Y. (1994). The relationship between the child’s development of language and cognition (thought). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 26(4), 347-353.
[45]	Zhang, J., Han, X., Si, S., & Zhang, S. (2018). The interaction of TPH1 A779C polymorphism and maternal authoritarianism on creative potential. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2106-2113. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02106 URL pmid: 30450068
[46]	Zhang, J., Liu, X., Ren, F., Sun, X., & Yu, Q. (2016). The effects of group diversity and organizational support on group creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(12), 1551-1560. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01551 URL
[47]	Zhang, J., & Zhang, S. (2020). The association of TPH genes with creative insight performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 87-93. doi: 10.1037/aca0000202 URL
[48]	Zhang, L., Lei, L., & Guo, B. L. (2003). Applied multilevel data analysis. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.
[49]	Zheng, R. C., & Xiao, B. L. (1983). A study on the creativity of high school students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 15(4), 445-452.
[50]	Zhu, Z. X., & Lin, C. D. (2002). Thinking development psychology. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publishing House.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1 T1 Fluency	1
2 T1 Flexibility	0.76^**	1
3 T1 Originality	0.81^**	0.73^**	1
4 T2 Fluency	0.57^**	0.42^**	0.49^**	1
5 T2 Flexibility	0.42^**	0.38^**	0.36^**	0.78^**	1
6 T2 Originality	0.45^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	0.82^**	0.74^**	1
7 T3 Fluency	0.46^**	0.40^**	0.45^**	0.59^**	0.55^**	0.53^**	1
8 T3 Flexibility	0.37^**	0.39^**	0.36^**	0.47^**	0.45^**	0.35^**	0.73^**	1
9 T3 Originality	0.37^**	0.30^**	0.37^**	0.48^**	0.47^**	0.46^**	0.91^**	0.55^**	1
10 T1 Teacher support	0.17^*	0.16^*	0.17^*	0.13	0.15^*	0.12	0.21^**	0.14	0.20^**	1
11 T2 Teacher support	0.08	0.14^*	-0.01	0.15^*	0.24^**	0.11	0.19^*	0.10	0.20^**	0.52^**	1
12 T3 Teacher support	0.14	0.19^*	0.08	0.14	0.24^**	0.09	0.25^**	0.27^**	0.26^**	0.30^**	0.54^**	1
13 T1Peer support	0.04	0.01	0.04	0.11	0.17^*	0.11	0.22^**	0.15^*	0.19^**	0.51^**	0.39^**	0.26^**	1
14 T2 Peer support	0.04	0.03	-0.02	0.11	0.17^*	0.10	0.18^**	0.10	0.17^*	0.43^**	0.63^**	0.38^**	0.62^**	1
15 T3 Peer support	0.12	0.13	0.05	0.23^**	0.25^**	0.14	0.18^*	0.23^**	0.15^*	0.24^**	0.40^**	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.56^**	1
16 Gender	-0.09	-0.12	-0.09	-0.15^*	-0.20^*	-0.18^*	-0.10	0.01	-0.07	0.03	-0.01	-0.02	-0.15^*	-0.17^*	-0.14	1
17 SES	0.06	0.08	0.11	0.04	-0.02	0.03	0.09	0.09	0.08	0.08	-0.06	-0.07	-0.01	-0.03	-0.06	-0.04	1
M	11.25	5.10	3.68	12.10	4.63	3.95	13.65	6.02	7.03	3.31	3.21	3.08	3.10	3.08	3.05	0.54	0.00
SD	4.55	1.37	2.27	5.55	1.29	2.45	6.63	1.76	4.95	0.54	0.61	0.65	0.62	0.58	0.54	0.50	1.12

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1 T1 Fluency	1
2 T1 Flexibility	0.76^**	1
3 T1 Originality	0.81^**	0.73^**	1
4 T2 Fluency	0.57^**	0.42^**	0.49^**	1
5 T2 Flexibility	0.42^**	0.38^**	0.36^**	0.78^**	1
6 T2 Originality	0.45^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	0.82^**	0.74^**	1
7 T3 Fluency	0.46^**	0.40^**	0.45^**	0.59^**	0.55^**	0.53^**	1
8 T3 Flexibility	0.37^**	0.39^**	0.36^**	0.47^**	0.45^**	0.35^**	0.73^**	1
9 T3 Originality	0.37^**	0.30^**	0.37^**	0.48^**	0.47^**	0.46^**	0.91^**	0.55^**	1
10 T1 Teacher support	0.17^*	0.16^*	0.17^*	0.13	0.15^*	0.12	0.21^**	0.14	0.20^**	1
11 T2 Teacher support	0.08	0.14^*	-0.01	0.15^*	0.24^**	0.11	0.19^*	0.10	0.20^**	0.52^**	1
12 T3 Teacher support	0.14	0.19^*	0.08	0.14	0.24^**	0.09	0.25^**	0.27^**	0.26^**	0.30^**	0.54^**	1
13 T1Peer support	0.04	0.01	0.04	0.11	0.17^*	0.11	0.22^**	0.15^*	0.19^**	0.51^**	0.39^**	0.26^**	1
14 T2 Peer support	0.04	0.03	-0.02	0.11	0.17^*	0.10	0.18^**	0.10	0.17^*	0.43^**	0.63^**	0.38^**	0.62^**	1
15 T3 Peer support	0.12	0.13	0.05	0.23^**	0.25^**	0.14	0.18^*	0.23^**	0.15^*	0.24^**	0.40^**	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.56^**	1
16 Gender	-0.09	-0.12	-0.09	-0.15^*	-0.20^*	-0.18^*	-0.10	0.01	-0.07	0.03	-0.01	-0.02	-0.15^*	-0.17^*	-0.14	1
17 SES	0.06	0.08	0.11	0.04	-0.02	0.03	0.09	0.09	0.08	0.08	-0.06	-0.07	-0.01	-0.03	-0.06	-0.04	1
M	11.25	5.10	3.68	12.10	4.63	3.95	13.65	6.02	7.03	3.31	3.21	3.08	3.10	3.08	3.05	0.54	0.00
SD	4.55	1.37	2.27	5.55	1.29	2.45	6.63	1.76	4.95	0.54	0.61	0.65	0.62	0.58	0.54	0.50	1.12

Models	Teacher support						Peer support
Models	χ²(df)	CFI	RMSEA	Δχ²(Δdf)	p	ΔCFI	χ²(df)	CFI	RMSEA	Δχ²(Δdf)	p	ΔCFI
Model 1	22.537 (15)	0.992	0.050	—	—	—	19.991 (15)	0.981	0.040	—	—	—
Model 2	25.350 (19)	0.993	0.041	2.813 (4)	0.590	0.001	22.851 (19)	0.985	0.032	2.860 (4)	0.582	0.004
Model 3	57.786 (25)	0.965	0.80	32.436 (6)	0.000	0.028	38.304 (25)	0.949	0.051	15.453 (6)	0.017	0.036

Models	Teacher support						Peer support
Models	χ²(df)	CFI	RMSEA	Δχ²(Δdf)	p	ΔCFI	χ²(df)	CFI	RMSEA	Δχ²(Δdf)	p	ΔCFI
Model 1	22.537 (15)	0.992	0.050	—	—	—	19.991 (15)	0.981	0.040	—	—	—
Model 2	25.350 (19)	0.993	0.041	2.813 (4)	0.590	0.001	22.851 (19)	0.985	0.032	2.860 (4)	0.582	0.004
Model 3	57.786 (25)	0.965	0.80	32.436 (6)	0.000	0.028	38.304 (25)	0.949	0.051	15.453 (6)	0.017	0.036

Variables	Fluency			Flexibility			Originality
Variables	Null model	Model 1	Model 2	Null Model	Model 1	Model 2	Null model	Model 1	Model 2
Fixed effect
Intercept (β₀₀)	12.21^***	11.15^***	11.25^***	5.21^***	4.81^***	5.10^***	4.78^***	3.25^***	3.68^***
Time (β₁₀)	—	1.12^***	0.44	—	0.42^***	-1.40^***	—	1.58^***	-1.13^***
Time² (β₂₀)	—	—	0.35	—	—	0.92^***	—	—	1.38^***
Random effect
Var (μ_0i)	16.06^***	10.68^***	10.98^***	0.72^***	0.38^*	0.87^***	2.95^***	0.31	2.26^***
Var (μ_1i)	—	3.22^***	9.09	—	0.08	0.52	—	2.70^***	3.12
Var (μ_2i)	—	—	3.34*	—	—	0.19	—	—	3.07^***
Var (e_ti)	16.10	11.83	9.71	1.76	1.52	0.99	10.60	5.53	2.89
Model deviance	3523.36	3456.44	3449.872	2130.42	2079.88	1994.86	3128.73	2916.68	2810.13