Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
CONVERGENT VS. DIVERGENT
THINKING AND PRODUCTION
of the workshop, and documenting statistically
significant gains in ability to produce original
ideas. This view provides a strong argument for
encouraging talented individuals to accelerate
in schools and thus increasing their chances for
continued development.
Guilford (1959, 1967, 1968) discerned convergent
production aimed at a single, correct solution
and divergent production involving generation
of multiple creative answers. Divergent think-
ing, mediated by the frontal lobe of the cortex, is
not considered a synonym of creative ability; yet
divergent thinking tests are used as estimates of
creative potential. According to Runco (1986),
divergent thinking seems to be stronger associated
to creative performance in gifted children. As the
convergent thinking is the capacity to direct one's
attention on the expected target, intelligence of
the student helps him to quickly see the teacher's
point; as the divergent thinking dashes off to the
unknown and comes up with the unexpected and
the original, creativity helps the student to see
beyond the teacher's point (Hammer, 1984), and
generate some unique ideas. Teachers often regard
divergent thinking in children distracting, and most
teachers prefer the high IQ to the high creativity
in children (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Getzels &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1970, 1976). Programs for the
bright, good students are designed to accelerate
those who manifest convergent thinking, and many
times are producing people capable of learning
anything easily, except how to think for themselves
(Hammer, 1984). On the contrary, teachers-artists
might assist students to break their creativity loose
from their intelligence. Creativity is considered to
be a process, not a product, a process of formulat-
ing and testing hypotheses and communicating
results. According to Torrance (1962) training and
stimulation are capable of increasing the quality
of creative thinking of young people and adults:
although no teaching would guarantee creativ-
ity, some conditions increase the probability that
creative thinking will occur. Torrance provided
empirical evidence for creativity stimulating effect
of some teaching procedures by administering
alternative forms of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (1974, 1990) at the beginning and end
CRITICAL THINKING AND
CREATIVE THINKING
In accord with widely held positions critical
thinking skills entail logical thinking and rea-
soning that include skills such as comparison,
classification, sequencing, cause/effect, pattern-
ing, webbing, analogies, deductive and inductive
reasoning, forecasting, planning, hypothesizing,
and critiquing. Critical thinking, which tradition-
ally has been ascribed to left-brain reasoning, is
typified as analytic, convergent, verbal, linear,
objective, judgmental, focused on a subject, and
probability of its change. Scientific thinking is used
in investigating processes and events, acquiring
new information, and integrating previous scien-
tific knowledge. However, research on scientific
thinking (Dunbar 1997) revealed that much of the
scientists' reasoning and over 50% of the findings
resulted from interpreting unexpected findings that
were very different from the hypotheses based
on literature. It was also found that scientists use
analogies from similar domains in proposing new
hypotheses.
In some languages, one may notice a distinc-
tion between the act of creation from nothing
(by the Creator, as described in the Bible) and
the act of creation from something (by an artist)
(Tatarkiewicz, 1999). If an artwork is a product
of imagery, one may ask whether human imagery
can create something non-existing in nature, or if
an artist draws exclusively from natural sources. It
is hard to indicate purely fantastic forms with no
relation to natural forms. It is nature that arouses
one's admiration and delight, thus inspiring art.
Biological or physical forms, whether seen in a
