This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 05 October 2014, At: 05:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

A Tale of Two Generations: Creativity Growth andGender Differences Over a Period of Education andCurriculum ReformsPing Chung Cheung a & Sing Lau ba The Chinese University of Hong Kong , Hong Kongb Hong Kong Baptist University , Hong KongPublished online: 14 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Ping Chung Cheung & Sing Lau (2013) A Tale of Two Generations: Creativity Growth and GenderDifferences Over a Period of Education and Curriculum Reforms, Creativity Research Journal, 25:4, 463-471, DOI:10.1080/10400419.2013.843916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCH NOTE

A Tale of Two Generations: Creativity Growth andGender Differences Over a Period of Education and

Curriculum Reforms

Ping Chung Cheung

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Sing Lau

Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

The Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests were translated into Chinese and later fullycomputerized for research in Hong Kong. The normative data of two cohorts (1994and 2002) of school children were employed to test the hypothesis that growth in cre-ative thinking occurs in a society or culture during a period of education and curriculumreforms that emphasize creative thinking. Results of multivariate analysis of varianceand subsequent univariate analysis of variance supported the hypothesis. Moreover,some interesting gender differences in creativity growth were observed, underlining thefact that boys and girls should be treated differentially to obtain a desirable creativitygrowth for them.

Creativity is generally regarded as a basic element forthe growth of a society. Thus, enhancement of creativityhas been a central focus in recent education and curricu-lum reforms in various parts of the world (see Burnard,2006; Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009; Hui & Lau, 2010;Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006; Le Metais, 2003). Yet, howwell is the development of children’s creativity in asociety or culture understood? Is there a substantialgrowth in creativity in a society as a result of concertedeffort to promote creativity for a prolonged period?

Despite the emphasis on creativity enhancement, verylittle about the overall creativity growth in a society orculture is known. Lau and Cheung (2010b) pointedout the importance of having a large sample with a wideage range to depict a full picture of the developmentaltrends of creativity. This can avoid overlooking thewood for the trees, a common phenomenon in small-scale studies with a narrow age range. However, it isdifficult and costly to obtain large-scale normative crea-tivity data for analysis.

The study of change of creativity scores in a societyor culture over a certain period calls for comparing nor-mative data of different cohorts. Although rare in thecreativity literature, Torrance and Safter (1986) andKim (2011) made use of the normative data of theTorrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance,1966) to compare the creative thinking scores of differ-ent cohorts of Americans. About a quarter of a centuryago, Torrance and Safter compared the scores of theverbal TTCT of two cohorts (1976 vs. 1982) of childrenand adults in the United States. For children of Grade 1to junior high school, a clear picture showed that the

Financial support from the Research Grants Council (RGC) and

Quality Education Fund (QEF) is acknowledged. The authors thank

Michael Wallach and Nathan Kogan for their kind permission in the

Chinese translation and electronic development of their Wallach–

Kogan Creativity Tests.

The normative samples for the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests

from a RGC project and a QEF project were combined for analysis

in this comparative study. The authors were co-principal investigators

of the RGC project and co-project leaders of the QEF project.Correspondence should be sent to Ping Chung Cheung, Depart-

ment of Educational Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong,

Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. E-mail: pccheung@cuhk.edu.hk

CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 25(4), 463–471, 2013

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online

DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.843916

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

1982 cohort was more creative in terms of fluencyscores, flexibility scores, and originality scores of theverbal TTCT. The gain in creativity scores was attri-buted to increase in creative problem-solving in thecurriculum and emphasis in discovery learning in themethod of teaching.

More recently, Kim (2011) traced the changes inAmerican creative thinking scores from kindergartnersto high school students and adults over several long per-iods. She made use of six normative data of the figuralTTCT collected in 1966, 1974, 1984, 1990, 1998, and2008. She found that despite significant increase from1974 to 1990, creative thinking scores since 1990remained static or decreased. Specifically, fluency scoresdecreased from 1966 to 1974, increased from 1974 to1990, but decreased from 1990 to 2008. Originalityscores increased from 1966 to 1974 and from 1984 to1990, but decreased from 1990 to 1998 and then slightlyincreased from 1998 to 2008. According to Kim (2011),the decrease in creative thinking in the past 20 to 30years was due to decreased psychological safety andfreedom in the home and school environments, over-scheduling of structured activities and academic-focusedprograms, increased interaction with electronic enter-tainment devices rather than human beings, andincreased emphasis on standardized testing.

The verbal TTCT and figural TTCT normative datain the studies of Torrance and Safter (1986) and Kim(2011) indicate an increase in creative thinking scoresof American school children from mid-1970 to early-1980. During this period, Torrance and Safter notedthe positive impact of the emphasis placed on creativityin the American school curriculum and teaching. Does itmean that similar growth in creativity also occurs inanother culture during a period of education and cur-riculum reforms that emphasize creative thinking?

In Hong Kong, an emphasis on creative thinkingaccompanies the sequential stages in gifted educationexperimentation, and subsequent education and curricu-lum reforms. As creativity is a key element of gifted edu-cation, it is understandable that creativity enhancementgoes hand in hand with the development of gifted edu-cation. The development of gifted education in HongKong has taken a 3-tier operation mode. At Level 1,the core elements advocated in gifted education (i.e.,creativity, high-order thinking skills, and personal-socialcompetence) are immersed in the school curriculum forall students. Teaching in regular classrooms is differen-tiated through appropriate grouping of students to meettheir different needs with enrichment across all subjects.At Level 2, school-based pull-out programs of genericnature (e.g., creativity training, leadership training,etc.) or in specific subject areas (e.g., music, mathemat-ics, etc.) are conducted outside the regular classroomfor students with outstanding performance in certain

generic abilities or specific subject areas. At Level 3,the government cooperates with or commissions tertiaryinstitutions or educational organizations to providechallenging off-site enrichment and extension learningopportunities for exceptionally gifted students nomi-nated by schools. In 1994, the Education Departmentof the Hong Kong Government launched a large-scale3-year gifted program for primary schools entitled‘‘Pilot School-Based Programs for Academically GiftedChildren.’’ In 2000, a large-scale 2-year gifted programfor primary and secondary schools entitled ‘‘ClusterSchool Project’’ was also launched. In 2001, the SupportMeasures for Exceptionally Gifted Students waslaunched to provide off-site enrichment and extensionlearning programs jointly planned by the governmentand tertiary institutions or educational organizations.The recent education reform in Hong Kong formallystarted when the Chief Executive endorsed the recom-mendations by the Education Commission in his PolicyAddress 2000. As stated in the Reform Proposal for theEducation System in Hong Kong (Education Commis-sion, 2000), the four aims of education for the 21stcentury are to enable Hong Kong students to enjoylearning, to enhance their effectiveness in communi-cation, and to develop their creativity and sense of com-mitment. In the subsequent curriculum reform thattakes a learning-to-learn approach, creativity is amongthe three most important skills to be developed in allstudents (see Curriculum Development Council, 2001).As a result of gifted education experimentation and edu-cation and curriculum reforms in Hong Kong during theperiod 1994 to 2002, an increase in the creativity scoresof primary and secondary students is therefore expected.

In 1994, normative data of the Chinese version of theWallach–Kogan Creativity Tests (WKCT; Wallach &Kogan, 1965) for Hong Kong school children were col-lected (see Cheung et al., 2004; Lau, Cheung, Chan, Wu,& Kwong, 1998). In 2002, the Chinese version of theWKCT was fully computerized and normative data ofthis electronic version for Hong Kong school childrenwere collected (see Cheung & Lau, 2010; Lau & Cheung,2010b). Recently Lau and Cheung (2010a) administeredboth versions of the WKCT in a study and found thatthe electronic WKCT was comparable to the paper-and-pencil WKCT. Therefore, a comparative study of twocohorts (1994 vs. 2002) of Hong Kong school childrencan test the expected growth in creative thinking scoresfrom 1994 to 2002.

Do boys and girls differ in the development of cre-ative thinking? So far, comprehensive reviews of creativethinking and divergent thinking (e.g., Baer, 1999; Baer& Kaufman, 2008; Runco, Cramond, & Pagnani,2010) have revealed that no consistent pattern in genderdifferences in creativity test scores has emerged. A recentstudy of Lau and Cheung (2010a) with normative data

464 CHEUNG AND LAU

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

of a cohort of children in Hong Kong has found thatboys and girls took different twists of turn in creativitydevelopment at different grade levels. Thus, a single-shot normative study can help clear up some mist inthe developmental picture of boys and girls in a society.Further understanding of the developmental issue canbe achieved by a comparative study with multiple shotsfor different cohorts. However, previous creativity stu-dies with normative data of multiple cohorts (e.g.,Kim, 2011; Torrance & Safter, 1986) have not examinedthe growth in creative thinking for the two sexes separ-ately. A purpose of this study is to fill this void.

Gender differences in creativity may be due to mul-tiple factors, such as the cultural effect (Reis, 1999)and the environmental effect (Baer & Kaufman, 2008).For example, Cheung and Lau (2010) explained genderdifferences in creativity scores in terms of a change inthe school environment and education policy in HongKong to stress for equal opportunity for the two sexesin contrast to the demand of Chinese culture for girlsto be polite and restrained. Runco et al. (2010) dis-tinguished between creative potential (e.g., divergentthinking) and creative performance (e.g., creative writ-ing). They asserted that whether or not individuals ofboth genders can translate creative potentials into actualcreative achievements depends on key factors such asopportunities, personal and social resources, and inter-and intrapersonal expectations. Regarding the key fac-tor of expectations, Baer’s (1997) experimental studyshowed that although the announcement of evaluationof an assigned creative writing task had little impactupon boys, it caused girls to exhibit significantly lowercreative production. In classic psychoanalytic theory,access to primary process thought has been hypothe-sized to relate to creative thinking because associationsare fluid and primitive images and ideas can be accessedand used. From a psychoanalytic point of view, Russ(2002) speculated that in the US culture, boys are freerthan are girls to express primary process thinking inplay, and they thereby learn to use it more effectivelyin adaptive pursuits. Can the speculation of Russ beapplied to the Hong Kong culture?

In sum, this study has a two-fold purpose. First, theoverall growth in creative thinking of Hong Kong pri-mary and secondary students in the period 1994 to2002 was examined. This served as a test to the hypoth-esis that growth in creative thinking occurs in asociety or culture during a period of education and cur-riculum reforms that emphasize creative thinking.Second, the growth in creative thinking for boys andgirls was examined separately to explore possiblegender differences. This study was probably the firstattempt to track the growth in creative thinking forboys and girls in a society with normative data ofmultiple cohorts.

METHOD: DATA

The corresponding data sets for the normative samplescollected in two periods in Hong Kong were used forcomparison. In 1994, 956 school children (486 boysand 470 girls) from Grade 4 to Grade 9 were adminis-tered the paper-and-pencil Chinese version of theWKCT.In 2002, 2,476 school children (1,222 boys and 1,254girls) from Grade 4 to Grade 9 were administered theelectronic Chinese version of the WKCT. Detaileddescriptions of the whole 1994 data set can be foundin Lau et al. (1998) and Cheung, Lau, Chan, and Wu(2004). A detailed description of the whole 2002 dataset can be found in Cheung and Lau (2010) and Lauand Cheung (2010b). Details of the development andadministration of the electronic and paper-and-pencilChinese versions of the WKCT, as well as the scoringfor the eight dimensions (verbal fluency, verbal flexi-bility, verbal uniqueness, verbal unusualness, figuralfluency, figural flexibility, figural uniqueness, and figuralunusualness) can be found in the four referencespreviously mentioned.

RESULTS

MANOVA was used to compare the 1994 and 2002cohorts on multiple measures of creativity in differentgrades. This avoided an inflated Type I error rate. Sub-sequently, ANOVA was conducted for individual mea-sures only if the F value of MANOVA was significant.In view of the large number of ANOVA performed, aconservative statistical criterion (p< .001) was used toprotect against Type I error. Moreover, percentagegains were calculated to indicate the amount of increaseor decrease of the scores; Cohen’s d-values were calcu-lated for these effect sizes. This allowed comparison ofthe results of this study and those of previous studies(Kim, 2011; Torrance & Safter, 1986) that reportedeither percentage gains or Cohen’s d-values.

Are School Children Becoming More Creative?

The cohort effect in MANOVA was statistically signifi-cant in all the six grades: for Grade 4, F(8,731)¼ 32.01,p< .001, g2¼ .26; for Grade 5, F(8,498)¼ 44.95, p<.001, g2¼ .42; for Grade 6, F(8,485)¼ 44.00, p< .001,g2¼ .42; for Grade 7, F(8,624)¼ 98.92, p< .001, g2¼.56; for Grade 8, F(8,564)¼ 50.65, p< .001, g2¼ .42;for Grade 9, F(8,476)¼ 65.32, p< .001, g2¼ .52. Therewas substantial increase in fluency, flexibility, unique-ness, and unusualness elicited by figural stimuli in allthe six grades. These results are presented in Tables 1to 4. The percentage gain in performance on fluency,flexibility, uniqueness, and unusualness over 8 years

CREATIVITY GROWTH AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 465

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

(2002 vs. 1994) was large. Overall, the growth rateranged from 25.83% to 72.86%. For fluency, the percent-age gain ranged from 32.35% to 62.13%. For flexibility,it ranged from 25.83% to 48.80%. For uniqueness, it ran-ged from 42.86% to 72.86%. For unusualness, it rangedfrom 27.30% to 55.54%. In comparison, the magnitudeof percentage gain in descending order was as follows:uniqueness, fluency, unusualness, and flexibility.

The trend of growth rate in creativity measures(fluency, flexibility, uniqueness, and unusualness) waslike this: It was relatively high in Grade 4 and Grade5; then a drop in Grades 6, 7, and 8; and a resurgencein Grade 9.

Unlike responses elicited by figural stimuli, responseselicited by verbal stimuli did not give a consistent pat-tern for the percentage gain in creativity measures in

all the six grades. Among the four creativity measures,only uniqueness had a substantial increase for all thesubjects in all the six grades. For uniqueness, thepercentage gain or growth rate ranged from 35.91% to92.87%. For unusualness, it ranged from 14.44%to 58.90%. For flexibility, it ranged from �2.61% to25.94%. For fluency, it ranged from �23.33% to17.17%. Overall, it ranged from �23.33% to 92.87%.

According to Cohen (1988, 1992), d-values of 0.20,0.50, and 0.80 or above represent small, moderate, andlarge effect sizes, respectively. An inspection of thed-values for all the subjects in different grades inTable 1 to Table 4 reveals the following picture abouteffect sizes. In general, the magnitude of effect sizesmatched with the magnitude of growth rates. Fluencyelicited by verbal stimuli had small to moderate effect

TABLE 1

Summary of Comparisons of 1994 and 2002 Student Performances on Fluency in the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests

Level Subjects N1 M1 N2 M2 F p g2 % Gain Cohen’s d

Fluency elicited by verbal stimuli

4 All 163 39.31 577 46.06 11.28 .001 .02 17.17 0.33

Male 81 40.11 306 46.87 5.48 — — 16.85 0.32

Female 82 38.52 271 45.14 5.62 — — 17.19 0.33

5 All 162 50.78 345 56.57 6.65 — — 11.40 0.26

Male 86 46.26 181 57.41 14.12 .001 .05 24.10 0.52

Female 76 55.91 164 55.65 0.01 — — �0.47 �0.01

6 All 160 54.24 334 52.75 0.44 — — �0.03 �0.06

Male 74 55.05 155 54.23 0.06 — — �1.49 �0.03

Female 86 53.53 179 51.47 0.48 — — �3.85 �0.09

7 All 162 57.78 471 44.30 56.35 .001 .08 �23.33 �0.67

Male 88 55.98 225 43.35 26.39 .001 .08 �22.56 �0.64

Female 74 59.93 246 45.17 31.42 .001 .09 �24.63 �0.72

8 All 159 59.63 414 50.08 18.16 .001 .03 �16.02 �0.36

Male 75 57.96 184 47.93 8.81 — — �17.31 �0.38

Female 84 61.12 230 51.80 9.75 — — �15.25 �0.35

9 All 150 61.65 335 59.79 0.57 — — �0.03 �0.07

Male 82 62.18 171 58.30 1.31 — — �6.24 �0.15

Female 68 61.00 164 61.34 0.01 — — 0.56 0.01

Fluency elicited by figural stimuli

4 All 163 24.99 577 39.12 72.08 .001 .09 56.54 0.81

Male 81 24.91 306 38.46 31.79 .001 .08 54.40 0.74

Female 82 25.06 271 39.87 41.29 .001 .11 59.10 0.89

5 All 162 30.71 345 49.79 74.08 .001 .13 62.13 0.86

Male 86 28.30 181 49.53 45.21 .001 .15 75.02 0.93

Female 76 33.43 164 50.07 28.89 .001 .11 49.78 0.79

6 All 160 32.89 334 43.53 24.62 .001 .05 32.35 0.48

Male 74 30.08 155 43.93 17.03 .001 .07 46.04 0.59

Female 86 35.30 179 43.18 8.21 — — 22.32 0.38

7 All 162 26.36 471 35.82 28.45 .001 .04 35.89 0.50

Male 88 24.31 225 32.45 7.91 — — 33.48 0.42

Female 74 27.62 246 38.91 21.53 .001 .06 40.88

8 All 159 32.36 414 42.92 17.24 .001 .03 32.36 0.39

Male 75 30.25 184 38.55 4.66 — — 27.44 0.31

Female 84 34.24 230 46.42 13.23 .001 .04 35.57 0.45

9 All 150 30.23 335 48.64 72.00 .001 .13 60.90 0.84

Male 82 28.98 171 47.46 35.88 .001 .13 63.77 0.83

Female 68 31.75 164 49.86 35.51 .001 .13 57.04 0.84

Note. N1¼ 1994 data. N2¼ 2002 data.

466 CHEUNG AND LAU

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

sizes, but fluency elicited by figural stimuli hadmoderate to large effect sizes. Flexibility elicited byverbal stimuli had small to moderate effect sizes, butflexibility elicited by figural stimuli had moderate tolarge effect sizes. Uniqueness and unusualness elicitedby both verbal and figural stimuli had small to moderateeffect sizes,

How Do Boys and Girls Fare in Their Growth inCreativity?

The cohort effect in MANOVA was statistically signifi-cant in all the six grades for boys: for Grade 4,F(8,378)¼ 17.53, p< .001, g2¼ .27; for Grade 5, F(8,258)¼ 23.96, p< .001, g2¼ .43; for Grade 6, F(8,220)¼20.99, p< .001, g2¼ .43; for Grade 7, F(8,304)¼ 62.12,

p< .001, g2¼ .62; for Grade 8, F(8,250)¼ 21.48,p< .001, g2¼ .41; for Grade 9, F(8,244)¼ 38.07, p<.001, g2¼ .56. Likewise, the cohort effect in MANOVAwas statistically significant in all the six grades for girls:for Grade 4, F(8,344)¼ 16.10, p< .001, g2¼ .27; forGrade 5, F(8,231)¼ 26.20, p< .001, g2¼ .48; forGrade 6, F(8,256)¼ 23.87, p< .001, g2¼ .43; for Grade7, F(8,311)¼ 43.12, p< .001, g2¼ .53; for Grade 8,F(8,305)¼ 29.64, p< .001, g2¼ .44; for Grade 9,F(8,223)¼ 27.33, p< .001, g2¼ .50. There was substan-tial increase over 8 years (2002 vs. 1994) in fluency, flexi-bility, uniqueness, and unusualness elicited by figuralstimuli for both boys and girls in all the six grades.These results are presented in Tables 1 to 4. The greatmajority (45 of 48) of the cohort comparison resultsfor individual gender were statistically significant at

TABLE 2

Summary of Comparisons of 1994 and 2002 Student Performances on Flexibility in the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests

Level Subjects N1 M1 N2 M2 F p g2 % Gain Cohen’s d

Flexibility elicited by verbal stimuli

4 All 163 24.13 577 30.39 32.06 .001 .04 25.94 0.54

Male 81 23.25 306 30.56 21.11 .001 .05 31.44 0.63

Female 82 25.00 271 30.20 11.46 .001 .03 20.80 0.46

5 All 162 30.32 345 37.80 36.39 .001 .07 24.67 0.64

Male 86 26.74 181 37.64 47.87 .001 .15 40.76 0.94

Female 76 34.37 164 37.98 3.59 — — 10.50 0.27

6 All 160 32.69 334 36.54 8.20 — — 11.78 0.28

Male 74 31.20 155 36.95 8.35 — — 18.43 0.40

Female 86 33.97 179 36.18 1.47 — — 6.51 0.16

7 All 162 32.92 471 32.06 0.56 — — �2.61 �0.07

Male 88 30.93 225 30.92 0.00 — — �0.32 �0.00

Female 74 35.28 246 33.11 1.70 — — �6.15 �0.17

8 All 159 36.28 414 35.96 0.06 — — �0.88 �0.02

Male 75 35.68 184 33.59 1.02 — — �5.86 �0.13

Female 84 36.82 230 37.85 0.32 — — 2.80 0.07

9 All 150 38.19 335 41.02 3.13 — — 7.41 0.17

Male 82 36.77 171 39.36 1.53 — — 7.04 0.17

Female 68 39.91 164 42.75 1.37 — — 7.12 0.16

Flexibility elicited by figural stimuli

4 All 163 21.36 577 30.86 76.22 .001 .09 44.48 0.79

Male 81 20.89 306 30.29 34.15 .001 .08 45.00 0.74

Female 82 21.82 271 31.51 44.01 .001 .11 44.41 0.87

5 All 162 25.33 345 37.69 79.25 .001 .14 48.80 0.87

Male 86 23.20 181 37.03 52.29 .001 .17 59.61 0.96

Female 76 27.74 164 38.43 28.31 .001 .11 38.54 0.76

6 All 160 27.41 334 34.49 22.39 .001 .04 25.83 0.45

Male 74 24.69 155 34.68 18.54 .001 .08 40.46 0.61

Female 86 29.74 179 34.33 5.62 — — 15.43 0.31

7 All 162 22.60 471 29.18 26.36 .001 .04 29.12 0.47

Male 88 21.41 225 26.51 7.73 — — 23.82 0.36

Female 74 24.03 246 31.61 18.92 .001 .06 31.54 0.57

8 All 159 27.00 414 34.74 18.42 .001 .03 28.67 0.40

Male 75 25.65 184 31.25 4.09 — — 21.83 0.28

Female 84 28.20 230 37.54 16.05 .001 .05 33.12 0.50

9 All 150 26.51 335 38.94 62.20 .001 .11 46.89 0.76

Male 82 25.46 171 38.15 32.25 .001 .11 49.84 0.76

Female 68 27.76 164 39.77 29.19 .001 .11 43.26 0.73

Note. N1¼ 1994 data. N2¼ 2002 data.

CREATIVITY GROWTH AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

the .001 level. The percentage gain in performance onfluency, flexibility, uniqueness, and unusualness over 8years (2002 vs. 1994) was large in magnitude and fluctu-ation. Overall, the growth rate ranged from 21.83% to83.91% for boys and from 14.34% to 66.04% for girls.For fluency, it ranged from 27.44% to 75.02% for boysand from 22.32% to 59.10% for girls. For flexibility, itranged from 21.83% to 59.61% for boys and from15.43% to 44.41% for girls. For uniqueness, it rangedfrom 38.87% to 83.91% for boys and from 26.76% to66.04% for girls. For unusualness, it ranged from28.91% to 68.30% for boys and from 14.34% to 53.02%for girls.

Although the growth rate in creativity was alwayspositive, the trend was different for the two genders.

For boys, the growth rate was relatively high inGrade 4 and Grade 5; then a slow-down in Grades 6,7, and 8; and finally a resurgence in Grade 9. For girls,it was relatively high in Grade 4 and Grade 5; then aslow-down in Grades 6, 7, 8 and 9; with the lowest pointin Grade 6.

In comparison, responses elicited by figural stimulirevealed that boys had higher percentage gain inperformance in Grades 4, 5, 6, and 9 whereas girls hadhigher percentage gain in performance in Grades 7and 8.

On the other hand, responses elicited by verbal stim-uli did not give a consistent pattern for boys and girls inall the six grades as did the responses elicited by figuralstimuli. Negative growth rate occurred for boys and

TABLE 3

Summary of Comparisons of 1994 and 2002 Student Performances on Uniqueness in the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests

Level Gender N1 M1 N2 M2 F p g2 % Gain Cohen’s d

Uniqueness elicited by verbal stimuli

4 All 163 7.71 577 14.87 40.34 .001 .05 92.87 0.66

Male 81 7.17 306 15.37 25.81 .001 .06 114.37 0.74

Female 82 8.24 271 14.31 14.84 .001 .04 73.67 0.57

5 All 162 10.09 345 16.36 36.30 .001 .07 62.14 0.61

Male 86 8.48 181 17.22 38.94 .001 .13 103.07 0.88

Female 76 11.91 164 15.42 5.20 — — 29.47 0.33

6 All 160 10.83 334 16.08 24.57 .001 .05 48.48 0.49

Male 74 10.86 155 16.79 13.63 .001 .06 54.60 0.52

Female 86 10.80 179 15.47 10.98 .001 .04 43.24 0.47

7 All 162 10.51 471 14.88 21.04 .001 .03 41.58 0.44

Male 88 9.40 225 14.91 18.14 .001 .06 58.62 0.56

Female 74 11.84 246 14.86 4.61 — — 25.51 0.30

8 All 159 12.53 414 17.03 17.63 .001 .03 35.91 0.39

Male 75 11.87 184 16.40 7.95 — — 38.16 0.39

Female 84 13.12 230 17.54 9.40 — — 33.69 0.39

9 All 150 13.83 335 19.39 19.47 .001 .04 40.20 0.45

Male 82 13.28 171 18.66 11.46 .001 .04 40.51 0.47

Female 68 14.50 164 20.15 8.02 — — 38.97 0.43

Uniqueness elicited by figural stimuli

4 All 163 9.58 577 16.56 44.26 .001 .06 72.86 0.64

Male 81 9.12 306 16.45 23.68 .001 .06 80.37 0.65

Female 82 10.04 271 16.67 20.67 .001 .06 66.04 0.62

5 All 162 11.56 345 18.64 35.52 .001 .07 61.25 0.60

Male 86 10.38 181 19.09 26.04 .001 .09 83.91 0.71

Female 76 12.88 164 18.13 10.26 — — 40.76 0.46

6 All 160 12.81 334 18.30 18.22 .001 .04 42.86 0.43

Male 74 11.20 155 18.65 13.69 .001 .06 66.52 0.55

Female 86 14.20 179 18.00 5.31 — — 26.76 0.32

7 All 162 11.93 471 17.37 20.95 .001 .03 45.60 0.44

Male 88 11.25 225 15.87 7.40 — — 41.07 0.36

Female 74 12.74 246 18.74 13.13 .001 .04 47.10 0.49

8 All 159 14.78 414 21.53 12.69 .001 .02 45.67 0.35

Male 75 13.79 184 19.15 3.57 — — 38.87 0.28

Female 84 15.67 230 23.43 9.41 — — 49.52 0.40

9 All 150 15.07 335 21.03 18.91 .001 .04 39.55 0.44

Male 82 14.21 171 20.89 11.24 .001 .04 47.01 0.47

Female 68 16.10 164 21.17 7.36 — — 31.49 0.38

Note. N1¼ 1994 data. N2¼ 2002 data.

468 CHEUNG AND LAU

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

girls in some grades in fluency and flexibility. Overall,the growth rate ranged from �22.56% to 114.37% forboys and from �24.63% to 73.67% for girls. For fluency,it ranged from �22.56% to 24.10% for boys and from�24.63% to 17.19% for girls. For flexibility, it rangedfrom �5.86% to 40.76% for boys and from �6.15% to20.80% for girls. For uniqueness, it ranged from 38.16%to 114.37% for boys and from 25.51% to 73.67% for girls.For unusualness, it ranged from 17.03% to 68.44% forboys and from 4.41% to 49.39% for girls.

Although there were some minor variations amongd-values for boys and girls, each group did seem to fol-low a similar pattern to the whole class, even in differentgrades, as described in the previous section. The pictureof eta-squared values was consistent with that ofd-values.

DISCUSSION

Substantial increase was found in fluency, flexibility,uniqueness, and unusualness elicited by figural stimulifor all the subjects in all the six grades (Grade 4 toGrade 9). The 2002 cohort outperformed the 1994cohort in the creativity tasks of the WKCT. Such resultscan be attributed to the concerted effort in promotingthe creativity of school children in Hong Kong in theperiod concerned. Thus, findings of this study have lentsupport to the hypothesis that growth in creativethinking occurs in a society or culture during a periodof education and curriculum reforms that emphasizecreative thinking.

As noted by Cheung and Lau (2010), the WKCTshould be compared with the verbal form of the TTCT

TABLE 4

Summary of Comparisons of 1994 and 2002 Student Performances on Unusualness in the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests

Level Gender N1 M1 N2 M2 F p g2 % Gain Cohen’s d

Unusualness elicited by verbal stimuli

4 All 163 38.42 577 61.05 30.68 .001 .04 58.90 0.56

Male 81 37.32 306 62.86 19.24 .001 .05 68.44 0.62

Female 82 39.50 271 59.01 11.55 .001 .03 49.39 0.49

5 All 162 49.81 345 68.26 22.24 .001 .04 37.04 0.47

Male 86 42.91 181 71.79 30.67 .001 .10 67.30 0.78

Female 76 57.62 164 64.35 1.34 — — 11.68 0.17

6 All 160 53.79 334 65.96 9.59 — — 22.63 0.30

Male 74 53.58 155 68.67 6.31 — — 28.16 0.35

Female 86 53.97 179 63.61 3.47 — — 17.86 0.26

7 All 162 52.61 471 61.24 6.33 — — 16.40 0.23

Male 88 47.83 225 61.63 8.67 — — 28.85 0.38

Female 74 58.30 246 60.87 0.26 — — 4.41 0.07

8 All 159 59.50 414 68.09 4.62 — — 14.44 0.19

Male 75 56.25 184 65.83 2.64 — — 17.03 0.22

Female 84 62.39 230 69.90 1.91 — — 12.04 0.16

9 All 150 62.25 335 80.19 15.37 .001 .03 28.82 0.39

Male 82 61.43 171 78.03 7.90 — — 27.02 0.38

Female 68 63.25 164 82.44 7.27 — — 30.34 0.40

Unusualness elicited by figural stimuli

4 All 163 42.53 577 66.15 40.51 .001 .05 55.54 0.61

Male 81 41.54 306 65.76 20.84 .001 .05 58.31 0.61

Female 82 43.51 271 66.58 19.71 .001 .05 53.02 0.61

5 All 162 52.09 345 77.58 31.36 .001 .06 48.93 0.56

Male 86 47.38 181 79.74 23.98 .001 .08 68.30 0.67

Female 76 57.42 164 75.20 8.26 — — 30.96 0.42

6 All 160 57.88 334 73.68 11.33 .001 .02 27.30 0.33

Male 74 51.62 155 75.24 10.43 .001 .04 45.76 0.47

Female 86 63.27 179 72.34 2.25 — — 14.34 0.20

7 All 162 50.23 471 67.67 17.73 .001 .03 34.72 0.40

Male 88 47.73 225 61.53 5.42 — — 28.91 0.31

Female 74 53.22 246 73.28 12.23 .001 .04 37.69 0.47

8 All 159 60.42 414 82.32 11.53 .001 .02 36.25 0.33

Male 75 56.33 184 73.40 3.11 — — 30.30 0.26

Female 84 64.07 230 89.46 8.73 — — 39.63 0.38

9 All 150 60.33 335 83.51 22.57 .001 .05 38.42 0.47

Male 82 57.22 171 82.38 12.71 .001 .05 43.97 0.50

Female 68 64.07 164 84.68 9.46 — — 32.17 0.43

Note. N1¼ 1994 data. N2¼ 2002 data.

CREATIVITY GROWTH AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

because both require verbal responses. Therefore, thesefindings are compared with those of Torrance and Safter(1986). In this study, the magnitude of percentage gainin descending order was as follows: uniqueness, fluency,unusualness, and flexibility. Torrance and Safter foundthat the magnitude of percentage gain in descendingorder was as follows: originality, fluency, and flexibility.As uniqueness and originality are two most comparablemeasures, these findings in the overall growth rate increativity measured by the WKCT can replicate, to someextent, the findings of Torrance and Safter by using theTTCT.

In this study, the trend of growth rate in creativitymeasures (fluency, flexibility, uniqueness, and unusual-ness) was as follows: It was relatively high in Grade 4and Grade 5; then a drop in Grades 6, 7, and 8; and aresurgence in Grade 9. This result resembles the resultfor Form A but not Form B of the TTCT verbal testsreported by Torrance and Safter (1986). As Grades 7,8, and 9 were grouped together in their study, the trendfor junior high school was unknown. A more detailedcomparison between the types of creativity tasks con-tained in the WKCT and the TTCT may shed light onthe resemblance between findings in this study and thoseof Torrance and Safter (1986).

Unlike responses elicited by figural stimuli, responseselicited by verbal stimuli did not give a consistent pat-tern for the percentage gain in creativity measures inall the six grades. Why was it so? Runco and Albert(1985) reported that the figural WKCT were morereliable and valid than the verbal tests. They attributedthe verbal versus figural differences to the familiarityof the verbal but not the figural stimuli. Owing to theunfamiliarity of the figural stimuli, the figural testsmight stimulate more effortful ideational strategies;whereas the familiarity of the verbal stimuli could stimu-late only more rote ideation. This explanation of Runcoand Albert is in line with Mednick’s (1962) assertion ofthe reciprocal relationship between familiarity withgiven materials and likelihood of attaining a creativesolution using these materials. Another explanation forthe verbal versus figural differences lies in the linkbetween creative thinking and primary process thinking.According to Russ (2002), primary process could be amode of thinking dominant in processing stimuli thatare below the level of awareness. Now it is obvious thatfigural stimuli have lower level of awareness than verbalstimuli. Therefore, figural stimuli can effectively triggerprimary process thinking which, in turn, facilitates cre-ative thinking.

Another focus of the present study involved genderdifferences in creativity growth. In the findings concern-ing responses elicited by figural stimuli, some dissimilarpatterns of creativity growth of the two sexes werefound. The trend of growth rate was different for boys

and girls. For boys, the growth rate was relatively highin Grade 4 and Grade 5; then a slow-down in Grades6, 7, and 8; and finally a resurgence in Grade 9. For girls,it was relatively high in Grade 4 and Grade 5; then aslow-down in Grades 6, 7, 8 and 9; with the lowest pointin Grade 6. Compared with girls, boys had relatively fas-ter growth rate and the growth fluctuated in a slightlyhigher level. The latter finding seems to match withthe speculation of Russ (2002) for boys in the US cul-ture. This is not surprising, in view of the fact that HongKong is a metropolitan city whose residents are wester-nized in some extent. An interesting reversed trend ingender differences occurred in Grade 6 and Grade 7.In Grade 6, only boys had significant growth in fluency,flexibility, uniqueness, and unusualness, whereas onlygirls had significant growth in the same four measuresof creativity in Grade 7. Was this due to some changesin the physical or social school environments? Previousstudies (Cheung & Lau, 2010; Lau & Cheung, 2010b)on the 2002 cohort pointed out that the girls in Grade7 were released from their inhibition (due to constraintsby cultural demands) in responding freely to a creativitytask because of their own personal experience in a newlyenacted sex-fair practice of secondary school placement.

In the findings concerning responses elicited by verbalstimuli, some gender differences are worth mentioning.For boys but not girls in Grade 5, significant growthin fluency, flexibility, uniqueness, and unusualness werefound. Is this related to the differential development ofprimary process thinking and language for the twosexes? Or is it due to the negative effects of anticipatedevaluation of which girls, rather than boys, were foundvictims in Baer’s (1997) experimental study. Furtherinvestigation may answer the questions and enable moreappropriate treatment plans. The gender differencesfound in the responses elicited by both verbal and figuralstimuli in this study remind us that boys and girls shouldbe treated differentially to obtain a desirable creativitygrowth for them.

Kim (2006) made a sound argument for the trust-worthiness of creativity tests in reviewing the TTCT.Two longitudinal studies of the TTCT (Cramond,Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005; Runco,Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010) showed that the TTCTcould predict creative achievement and personalachievement 40 years and 50 years after its administra-tion. A recent study with normative data of the TTCT(Kim, 2011) suggested that there might be a creativitycrisis in the United States of America. What lessonscan be learned from the decreased creative thinkingscores of Americans in the past 20 years, despite anincrease of scores in the early years with emphasis inpromoting creativity in the American curricula andschools? In the recent education and curriculum reformsin Hong Kong, the American education system has been

470 CHEUNG AND LAU

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

modeled in one way or another because of its previoussuccess. Now people in Hong Kong are warned thatthey should not follow the same declining path in crea-tivity development paved by the Americans. As recom-mended by Kim (2011), care should be taken to avoiddecreased psychological safety and freedom in the homeand school environments, overscheduling of structuredactivities and academic-focused programs, increasedinteraction with electronic entertainment devices ratherthan human beings, and increased emphasis on standar-dized testing. On the contrary, more opportunitiesshould be provided for students and teachers to thinkflexibly, critically, and creatively. Parents and teachersshould encourage and support children to take part inall sorts of creative and critical thinking activities appro-priate for their age. Had Kim’s (2011) research reportbeen done and published a decade ago, the Americans’decline in creative thinking scores would not have lastedfor so long a period. One possible reason for the delay inproblem finding is the slow progress in the computeriza-tion of creative thinking instruments. Fortunately, therecent success in the development of the electronic ver-sion of the WKCT (Cheung & Lau, 2010; Lau &Cheung, 2010b) and a fully computerized internationalcreativity battery (Lau, Cheung, Lubart, Tong, & Chu,in press) may be the twilight in this endeavor.

REFERENCES

Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evalu-

ation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.

Baer, J. (1999). Gender differences. In M. Runco & S. Fritzker (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 753–758). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105.

Burnard, P. (2006). Reflecting on the creativity agenda in education.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 313–318.

Cheung, P. C., & Lau, S. (2010). Gender differences in the creativity of

Hong Kong school children: Comparison by using the new

electronic Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests. Creativity Research

Journal, 22, 194–199.

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, 69–78.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005).

A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 49, 283–291.

Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The

way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Curriculum

Development Council.

Education Commission. (2000). Reform proposal for the education

system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Author.

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity

in education and training in the EU member States: Fostering

creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. Luxembourg,

Luxembourg: European Communities.

Hui, A. N. N., & Lau, S. (2010). Formulation of policy and strategy

in developing creativity education in Hong Kong: A practitioner’s

perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 215–235.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international

handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

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.

Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative think-

ing scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity

Research Journal, 23, 285–295.

Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010a). Creativity assessment: Com-

parability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the

Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5,

101–107.

Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010b). Developmental trends of creativity:

What twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades?

Creativity Research Journal, 22, 329–336.

Lau, S., Cheung, P. C., Chan, D. W., Wu, W. Y. H., & Kwong, J. M.

L. (1998). Creativity of school children: The Use of the Wallach–

Kogan Creativity Tests in Hong Kong. Unpublished report submitted

to Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

Lau, S., Cheung, P. C., Lubart, T., Tong, T. M. Y., & Chu, D. H. W.

(2013). Bicultural effects on the creative potential of Chinese and

French children. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 109–118.

Le Metais, J. (2003). International trends in curriculum frameworks.

Educational Forum, 67, 235–247.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis for the creative process.

Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.

Reis, S. M. (1999). Women and creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 699–708). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of

ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically

gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 45, 483–501.

Runco, M. A., Cramond, B., & Pagnani, A. R. (2010). Sex differences

in creative potential and creative performance. In D. Mc Creary

(Ed.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 343–

357). New York, NY: Springer.

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance

Tests of Creative Thinking as predictors of personal and public

achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal,

22, 361–368.

Russ, S. (2002). Primary process thinking and creativity. In R. F.

Bornstein & J. M. Masling (Eds.), The psychodynamics of

gender and gender role (pp. 53–80). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). 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.

Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming more

creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 1–13.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young

children. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

CREATIVITY GROWTH AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 05:

28 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014