This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 27 October 2014, At: 04:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Different types of thinking ofseven‐year‐old children and theirachievements in schoolJanina Uszyńska‐Jarmoc a

a University of Bialystok , PolandPublished online: 25 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Janina Uszyńska‐Jarmoc (2005) Different types of thinking of seven‐year‐oldchildren and their achievements in school, Early Child Development and Care, 175:7-8, 671-680,DOI: 10.1080/0300443042000302627

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443042000302627

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

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

Early Child Development and CareVol. 175, Nos 7&8, November 2005, pp. 671–680

ISSN 0300-4430 (print)/ISSN 1476-8275 (online)/05/070671–10© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI: 10.1080/0300443042000302627

Different types of thinking of seven-year-old children and their achievements in schoolJanina Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc*University of Bialystok, PolandTaylor and Francis LtdGECD41073.sgm

(Received 2 September 2004)10.1080/0300443042000302627Early Childhood Development and Care0000-0000 (print)/0000-0000 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Group Ltd0000000002005JaninaUszy[nacute]ska-JarmocUniversity of BialystokFaculty of Pedagogy and Psychology, Department of Early Education20 Swierkowa Stroße15–328BialystokPolandjaninus@interia.pl

The theoretical basis of the research was the conception of human intelligence of Sternberg. Theaims of the study were: ● to determine the level of analytical thinking, creative thinking and practical thinking of seven-

year-old children;● to determine the relations between the level of analytical, practical and creative thinking and

pupil’s success in school;● to determine the association between the level of different kinds of thinking and their success as

students; and● to explore the impact of teacher’s perception of level of children’s thinking on their achievements

in school.The research was carried out on a group of 167 seven-year-old children selected at random fromurban schools and their teachers. This paper discusses how learning programmes foster andpromote the development of different forms of thinking.

Keywords: Early education; Forms of thinking; School achievements; Successful intelligence

Introduction

This article will present the results of research into the intellectual functioning ofseven-year-old children. The level of cognitive thinking is determined on the basis ofindividual differences in the performance of tasks requiring the application of differ-ent thinking types. The theoretical basis of the research is provided by Sternberg’s

*University of Bialystok, Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology, Department of Early Education, 20Swierkowa Stroße, 15–328 Bialystok, Poland. Email: janinus@interia.pl

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

672 J. Uszynska-Jarmoc

(1996) intelligence theory, in which the author discerns three types of abilities:creative, analytical and practical.

The main reason for undertaking the research was the need to introduce changesin the early education of children. It has been observed that teachers tend to assessstudents’ achievement mainly on the basis of the manner in which students solve tasksthat require convergent (analytical) thinking, which is frequently identified with thetraditionally understood academic intelligence. Closed type academic tasks, on thebasis of which both children’s intelligence as well as their school success are assessed,require such characteristics as high speed of processing information, high speed ofretrieving information from long-term memory, good memory span and multi-taskingability. It has also been observed that the enhancement of these qualities is usuallytreated as an educational goal in children’s early education. It can be thereforeassumed that, as a result, teachers concentrate mainly on stimulating children’sanalytical thinking skills and appreciate and promote only the effects of this particularthinking type. Thus students who perform best in traditional psychometric intelli-gence tests are also much more favourably evaluated in terms of school success thantheir peers who may be equally talented but who represent different thinking styles.Moreover, in educational practice only analytically oriented students are consideredto be intellectually endowed individuals.

Sternberg (1997) criticises the definition of intellectual giftedness for focusing ona single ability, contending instead that giftedness comprises three abilities: analyticskills, synthetic (creative) skills and the application of one’s thinking skills to practicalproblems. He states that ‘an important part of giftedness lies in being able to coordi-nate these three aspects of abilities, and in knowing when to use each one’ (Sternberg,1997, p. 44). He contends that IQ tests tap analytic skills reasonably well but omitthe other two forms. The result is an underidentification of people who are giftedcreatively, who Sternberg says are independent thinkers and who, therefore, might bemore successful than conventional, analytic thinkers. In this statement, we see mainresources rationale for early education.

Intelligence is a multifaceted ability. The three types of thinking—creative, analyticaland practical—are distinct and mutually independent (Sternberg & Spear-Swerling,2003). Analytical abilities are used to examine, analyse, evaluate, judge, compare andcontrast. This type of thinking mainly refers to memorised information, and it thushelps individuals to write ‘good’ school essays, to solve typical school mathematicalproblems and enables them to make drawings that faithfully reproduce surroundingreality. Those students who prefer the analytical thinking type are skillful at performingtasks that require of them finding differences and similarities, analysing and synthe-sising, evaluating and criticising, searching for, explaining and then evaluating hypoth-eses. Whereas pupils who think creatively are good at solving tasks that require applyingnew concepts in a new context (imagining things, discovering things, unconventionalassociation of distant notions and facts, designing or creating new and original things).Those pupils who prefer practical thinking function well in situations that require prac-tical implication of acquired knowledge and abilities (Sternberg & Spear-Swearling,2003, p. 59). Practical abilities are used to apply, utilise, implement and activate. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Different types of thinking 673

type of thinking is particularly important in solving real-world problems—problemsthat are practical, natural and familiar to the child. It should be emphasised that real-world problems are those that are perceived as difficult situations that enforce thenecessity of finding a solution because solving them is a necessary condition of furthergood functioning in everyday life. It is worth mentioning that practical thinking isextremely important as real-life problems are an inseparable element of human func-tioning, and solving such problems is a basic constituent of human activity.

Sternberg emphasises that intelligence is a function of balance between analytical,practical and creative strategy of information processing. That is why a proper assess-ment of intelligence requires not only an examination of a child’s efficiency as far asautomatic data processing (analytical thinking) is concerned, but also of their abilityof adapting the right behaviour in a given environment (practical thinking) as well asof their competence in dealing with new problems (creative thinking). All the threeaforementioned types of thinking are underpinned by the same elementary abilities,but the effects of thinking may differ, depending on the kind of task and personal pref-erence in the choice of information processing strategy. According to Sternberg(1999) individual differences in the level of thinking primarily depend on the choiceof the correct strategy, on the flexibility with which the strategy is changed—ifrequired—and on the sociocultural context. Successfully intelligent individualssucceed in part because they achieve a functional balance among a ‘triarchy’ of abil-ities: analytical, creative and practical.

Method

It is inter-personal and intra-personal differences of the aforementioned thinking skillsthat can account for the differences in children’s school success. They can also be thebasis for a prognosis of children’s further achievement. Therefore the aim of theresearch has been to determine the level of thinking of seven-year-old children, todescribe intra-individual, intra-group and inter-group differences relating to the afore-mentioned types of thinking and to establish the correlations between the results of thethree tests examining the different thinking types and students’ school achievements.

In the research into creative thinking we have referred to the model created byUrban (1996). It has been assumed that creativity is a specific category of activity orkind of action that leads to obtaining a material or symbolic product that is originaland new (Torrance, 1962; Healy, 1994; N[eogon ] cka, 2001; Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc, 2003).Creative activity means individual searching and discovering and then combiningfamiliar elements into new ideas. It has also been assumed that the effects of chil-dren’s creativity are gradable.

In the measurement of the level of analytical thinking this paper refers to thepost-Piaget trend in research into cognitive functioning. It has been assumed thatthe efficiency of operational thinking is a significant indicator of analytical thinking.Operational thinking is characterised by mental operations reversibility, thanks towhich quick, fluent and repeated change of the direction of thinking is possible.Which, in turn, permits the coordination of different points of view. The tasks used

e n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

674 J. Uszynska-Jarmoc

to measure this type of thinking require the ability to order and range informationas well as the ability to reason by analogy.

In the research on practical thinking it has been assumed with Sternberg that thisthinking type manifests itself in the ability to behave in a way that is proper to the socio-cultural context. It has been assumed that a child possessing good practical abilitiesdoes well in everyday situations and has so-called commonsense and streetwisdom.

Instruments

Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP), versions A and B, preparedby Urban and Jellen (Matczak et al., 2000). This test is used in screening tests thatserve to identify highly creative people (Urban & Jellen, 1986). The research tool isan A4 size piece of paper with a square frame drawn on it Inside the frame there arefive figures: a semi-circle, a point, two lines meeting at a 90-degree angle, a wavy lineand a dashed line consisting of three sections. The sixth element (a figure resemblinga square without one side) is drawn outside the frame. The test has two versions: Aand B Version B is rotated by 180° in relation to version A The authors emphasisethat each version can be treated as an alternative form of the test, but they can alsobe used jointly in order to increase the reliability of the obtained results. Both versionsof the test have been used in the described studies. The children’s task was tocomplete the drawings (version A and version B) in any way of their choice and,optionally, to give them titles. The assessment of the drawings has been based onan analysis involving 13 criteria. The maximum score for each version of the test is72 points. (Matczak et al., 2000).

The test ‘Diagnoza Mo[zdot ] liwo[sacute] ci Intelektualnych—DMI-2KM’ (Diagnosis of a Child’sIntellectual Capacity) (Matczak, 2001). The theoretical basis for the test is providedby Piagetian cognitive development and his concept of intellectual operations. Thetest measures mental competences, which are an indicator of analytical thinking(academic intelligence). The DMI-2M test highly correlates (r = 0.70) with the scoresof Raven’s Matrix Test and, according to Matczak (2001), may be applied instead.The DMI-2M version is designed for individual tests among children aged from 6 to10. The DMI-2M test consists of 76 tasks and is divided into two subtests: Classes(DMI-2KM) and Relations (DMI-2RM) The DMI-2KM tests includes 38 tasks. Thetasks vary according to material (pictorial, geometrical, numeral or verbal) and wayof structuring. General scores obtained in the tests fall between 0 and 114 points. Thetests were administered individually.

‘The Scale of Solving Practical Problems’ (Uszy[nacute] ska-Jar moc, 2004b). The question-naire employs a five-point scale. The scaling technique involves the determination bythe teacher of the child’s abilities (resourcefulness and efficiency) in solving everydayproblems. Practical problems concern physical appearance, social contacts at school,relations within the family, ways of spending free time and health problems.

z s

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Different types of thinking 675

‘The Scale of School Success’ (Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc, 2004a). It has been assumed thatschool success is reflected mainly in good grades in mathematics and Polish.Teacher’s opinions have been accepted as reliable and objective assessment of achild’s school success. A scale from 1 (very low school achievement) to 5 (very highachievement) has been employed.

Participants

The tests were administered to a total of 167 children aged seven, including 79 girls(47.3%) and 88 boys (52.6%) from seven randomly chosen classes of primary schoolsin urban surroundings. The average age of children was 7.6 (7.5 among girls, 7.7among boys). The tests were administered individually (DMI Test) and in groups(TCI-DP Test). The teachers, using the specially constructed scales, evaluated thesubjects’ school success and their level of practical thinking.

Results

The analysis of the results of the particular tests concerns mainly inter-individual(both intra-group and inter-group) and intra-individual differences. Intra-individualdifferences are understood here as intra-personal variability in the level of intensity ofspecific traits, distinguished within a general characteristic (Matczak, 1992, p. 83).The approach to the description of intra-individual differences is defined bySternberg’s theory of thinking types Intra-individual differences manifest themselvesin various degrees of efficiency of the particular thinking types that serve differentfunctions in a problem-solving situation.

After an analysis of the results presented in Table 1 it can be said that:

● The level of analytical thinking of seven-year-old children is average. In all thetested groups general scores fall between 4 and 7 stens. None of the tested groupshad low to very low scores or high to very high scores. In all the groups somestudents achieved very high scores (sten 10—from 106 to 114 points). It can be

n

˙Table 1. Comparison of analytical thinking measurement results

Group n Mean SD v Rmin–Rmax. Dispersion Sten

A 20 97.5 12.2 12.5 58–113 55 7B 26 91.2 8.6 9.4 78–112 34 6C 27 93.7 9.5 10.1 74–112 38 7D 20 91.5 15.9 17.4 34–111 77 6E 25 95.6 11.5 12.0 58–108 50 7F 25 96.4 8.9 9.2 72–109 37 7G 24 88.4 10.7 12.1 62–108 46 6Total 167 93.4 11.2 12.0 34–113 79 7

Note: n number of examined children; SD., standard deviation; v, coefficient of variability; R max, the highest result received in a group; R min, the slightest (smallest) result received in a group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

676 J. Uszynska-Jarmoc

seen from the range of results that low scores were also noted in all groups (sten2—from 58 to 64 points) and only one group had several very low scores.

● There is little inter-group variability of analytical thinking level. The differencebetween ‘the best’ and ‘the weakest’ group is 9.1 points.

● There is very little intra-group variability in all the tested groups and it is similar tointer-group variability in terms of figures.

An analysis of the results presented in Table 2 (Test TCT-DP version A) andTable 3 (Test TCT-DP version B) shows that:

● In all the groups, general creative thinking scores are average (the mean score isover 19 points) or high (the mean is over 29 points). Inter-group variability ofcreative thinking scores is not considerable (the difference between the highest andlowest class scores is 10.2 points for version A). In the case of version B of the test,the recorded general score variability is slightly lower—the difference between thehighest and the lowest mean scores is 9.7 points.

● Intra-group variability in particular classes is high or very high. Except for twoclasses (class D for version A of the test and class F for version B), the variabilitycoefficient for all the tested groups is over 30%. The high intra-group variability isalso confirmed by an analysis of the range of results. In all the groups childrenachieved both very high and very low scores in creative thinking measurements.

Table 2. Comparison of creative thinking measurement results: Test TCT-DP—version A

Group n Mean SD v Rmin–Rmax. Dispersion

A 20 28.1 11.4 40.6 15–49 34B 26 20.1 6.3 31.3 13–36 23C 27 25.4 7.9 31.1 9–37 28D 20 24.8 7.4 29.8 15–41 26E 25 20.4 8.2 40.2 8–33 25F 25 29.5 9.2 31.2 8–49 41G 24 19.3 7.4 38.3 8–35 27Total 167 23.8 8.9 37.4 8–49 41

Table 3. Comparison of creative thinking measurement results: Test TCT-DP—version B

Group n Mean SD v Rmin–Rmax. Dispersion

A 20 29.8 9.7 32.5 13–50 37B 26 24.8 7.5 30.2 13–40 27C 27 25.9 8.9 34.4 15–46 31D 20 28.7 9.7 33.8 18–53 35E 25 21.1 8.9 42.2 9–38 29F 25 30.8 8.9 28.9 12–52 40G 24 21.6 9.0 41.7 7–37 30Total 167 25.9 9.5 36.7 7–53 46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Different types of thinking 677

Practical thinking measurement results presented in Table 4 indicate that:

● According to the teachers, the level of practical thinking among seven-year-olds ishigh (the mean score for all the examined students is 3.9—students achieved 76%of the total score)

● Inter-group differences in the level of practical thinking are more apparent than inthe case of analytical thinking, but not as conspicuous as in the level of creativethinking.

● Intra-group variation of practical thinking results is not great and, with the excep-tion of one class (D), does not exceed normal variation limits.

These analyses concern the evaluation of the extent of inter-individual (inter-groupand intra-group) differences, whereas the extent of intra-individual differences isreflected in the correlation coefficients between the results of creative, analytical andpractical thinking measurements. Low coefficients will be interpreted as evidence ofrelatively high frequency of intra-individual differences. These differences arerecorded when high thinking level of one type is accompanied by low thinking levelof another type. Table 5 compares the results obtained in the study of the correla-tions between the levels of the three thinking types

Correlation coefficients presented in Table 5 demonstrate:

Table 5. Comparison of three thinking types measurement correlations

Variables r p

Creative thinking (test A) and analytical thinking 0.17 0.025*Creative thinking (test B) and analytical thinking 0.19 0.000**Creative thinking (test A) and practical thinking 0.16 0.044*Creative thinking (test B) and practical thinking 0.21 0.005**Practical thinking and analytical thinking 0.32 0.000**Creative thinking (test A) and creative thinking (test B) 0.58 0.000**

*Correlation coefficient significant at level 0.05.**Correlation coefficient significant at level 0.01.

Table 4. Comparison of practical thinking measurement results

Group n Mean SD v

A 20 3.9 1.2 30.8B 26 3.8 1.0 26.3C 27 3.7 0.8 21.6D 20 3.4 1.6 47.1E 25 4.1 1.1 26.8F 25 4.4 0.9 20.5G 24 3.6 0.9 25.0Total 167 3.8 1.1 28.9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

678 J. Uszynska-Jarmoc

● A lack of clear connection between analytical thinking results and creative thinkingresults (particularly in version B) as well as between practical thinking results andcreative thinking results (particularly in version A)

● An average correlation of analytical and practical thinking measurement results.● A clear connection between the results of both versions of the Urban–Jellen Test,

(the correlation coefficient is statistically significant) in spite of the fact that the corre-lation coefficient indicates slight intra-individual differences between the results.

Comparative values of the correlation coefficient between the results of both versionsof the creativity test (0.56 and 0.58) were obtained in a study conducted by the authorsof a textbook accompanying the Polish version of the test (Matczak et al., 2000).

Correlation coefficient values presented in Table 5 indicate that creative thinkingmeasurement results (TCT-DP test) indeed correlate—although not very highly—with practical thinking measurement results and do not correlate with analyticalthinking measurement results (DMI-2KM test). The latter result corresponds withthe results of studies by Matczak et al. (2000), which confirm a lack of clear connec-tion between the TCT-DP test and Raven’s Matrix Test among both pre-schoolchildren (r = 0.07) and primary school children. It can be generally stated that theobtained results confirm the distinctiveness of the three thinking types in question.It should be emphasised that particularly creative ability is independent of intelli-gence as it is traditionally understood; that is, of the ability of logical, analytical andoperational thinking.

It can be seen from Table 6 that the correlation coefficients between creative think-ing scores obtained in the study and seven-year-olds’ school success correspond withthe expected results. As presumed, children’s school success is determined to agreater extent by analytical thinking than by creative thinking, which proved to bequite high in the tested groups

Discussion

The data from the studies clearly demonstrate a high degree of distinctiveness andmutual independence of analytical, creative and practical thinking types. This alsofinds confirmation in numerous publications. For instance, in research among eight-year-old children by Matczak (1992) concerning the relation between convergentthinking ability (measured by intelligence tests—Raven’s Matrix Test) and divergent

Table 6. Comparison of the correlations between thinking type and school achievement

Variables n r p

Creative thinking (Test A) and school achievement 167 0.08 0.299Creative thinking (Test B) and school achievement 167 0.12 0.130Analytical thinking and school achievement 167 0.74 0.000**Practical thinking and school achievement 167 0.45 0.000**

**Correlation coefficient significant at level 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Different types of thinking 679

thinking (measured by creativity tests), the correlation coefficients were 0.16 and0.20. According to Matczak (2001) one type of ability evidently dominated overanother in almost 40% of pupils.

The empirical verification of the assumption that there exists a connection betweenthe level of analytical thinking skills and children’s school success has been proved bycorrelation coefficients. Similar results were obtained in research conducted by Matc-zak (2001) in several second classes of primary school (n = 277). The correlationbetween the DMI-2M test results and school grades in Polish was average (correla-tion coefficient, 0.46). A slightly higher correlation (0.53) was found between analyt-ical thinking and school grades in mathematics (p = 0.05).

Individual differences in creative thinking in the tested groups can be explained bythe influence of sociocultural factors, with family environment factors prevailing overschool environment factors. The analysis of study results makes it possible toconclude that children’s creative dispositions are not appreciated by teachers and arenot taken into consideration in the assessment of school success. It can be presumedthat teachers do not notice children’s creative potential, do not attempt to enhance itand, consequently, do not take it into account when giving marks. As a result, creativestudents’ school careers frequently suffer. School takes insufficient care of facilitatingthe development of those students who are highly gifted but who represent other thananalytical strategies of processing information.

Conclusions for educational practice can be formulated as follows:

● Teachers should be able to investigate their students’ abilities and preferences interms of different ways of processing information about the world. They shouldthen define the development profiles of particular children’s learning styles andeducational needs.

● Teachers should select methods of supporting children’s educational activity inaccordance with their development profile and educational needs. This can bedone by constructing alternative tasks requiring the three different types of think-ing that have been discussed here. Students should be able to choose such tasksthat best suit their preferences as far as information processing strategy isconcerned.

● School grades should be determined by tasks that require thinking capacity that isunderstood as a function of analytical, practical and creative thinking.

Acknowledgement

This research work was financed by Komitet Bada[nacute] Naukowych in the 2003–2006 asresearch project 2H01F05724, ‘Creativity, Self-Image, and Child’s Auto-CreativeDisposition’.

References

Healy, J. M. (1994) Testing for creativity requires a clear definition of what it is (letter), BrownUniversity Child and Adolescent Behaviour, 10, 2.

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4

680 J. Uszynska-Jarmoc

Matczak, A. (1992) Z bada[nacute] nad ró[zdot ] nicami intraindywidualnymi w zakresie zdolno[sacute] ci, in:J. Strelau, W. Ciarkowska & E. N[eogon ] cka (Eds) Ró[zdot ] nice indywidualne. mo[zdot ] liwo[sacute] ci i preferencje(Wroc[lstrok] aw–Warszawa–Kraków, Wyd PAN), 83–98.

Matczak, A. (2001) Testy operacyjno[sacute] ci my[sacute] lenia: diagnoza mozliwo[sacute] ci intelektualnych, Podr[eogon ] cznik(Warszawa, Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicz-nego).

Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A. & Sta[nacute] czak, J. (2000) Rysunkowy Test Twórczego My[sacute] lenia K.K.Urbana i H.G. Jellena, Podr[eogon ] cznik (Warszawa, Pracownia Testów PsychologicznychPolskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego).

N[eogon ] cka, E. (2001) Psychologia twórczo[sacute] ci (Gda[nacute] sk, Gda[nacute] skie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne).Sternberg, R. J. (1996) Successful intelligence (New York, Simon & Schuster).Sternberg, R. J. (1997) A triarchic view of giftedness: theory and practice, in: N. Colangelo & G.

A. Davis (Eds) Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn) (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).Sternberg, R. J. (1999) The theory of sduccessful intelligence, Review of General Psychology, 3,

292–316.Sternberg, R. J. & Spear-Swerling, L. (2003) Jak nauczy[cacute] dzieci my[sacute] lenia (Gda[nacute] sk, Gda[nacute] skie

Towarzystwo Psychologiczne).Torrance, E. P. (1962) Guiding creative talent (New York, Prentice Hall).Urban, K. K. (1996) Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP) by Klaus K. Urban

and Hans G. Jellen. Manual (Frankfurt, Swets and Zeitlinger).Urban, K. K. & Jellen, H. G. (1986) Assessing creative potential via drawing production: the Test

for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP), in: A. J. Cropley (Ed.) Giftedness: acontinuing worldwide challenge (New York, Prentice Hall).

Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc, J. (2003) Twórcza aktywno[sacute] [cacute] dziecka, Teoria—rzeczywisto[sacute] [cacute] —perspektywy rozwoju(Bia[lstrok] ystok, Wyd. Trans Humana).

Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc, J. (2004a) The scale of school success. Unpublished research instrument (avail-able from author).

Uszy[nacute] ska-Jarmoc, J. (2004b) The scale of solving practical problems. Unpublished researchinstrument (available from author).

n z se z z s

l/s s s e

n se

e s n n

c s n n

n sc scl/

n

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:22

27

Oct

ober

201

4