Affiliation:
1. University of Warsaw , Warsaw , Poland
Abstract
Abstract
This article presents the results of a comparison of two educational methods – the “Storyline” and the “Associations Pyramid” – in developing language creativity among children. The methods were compared in terms of effectiveness with two post-tests, directly after the end of the experiment and after the next three months. Moreover, the initial level of operational thinking (from the pre-test) was used in a regression model as an independent variable to observe whether it predicts results in the language creativity of children in both groups, in post-test 1. Eighty-three preschoolers took part in the experimental study. The two methods do not differ significantly from each other in effectiveness. Also, the level of operational thinking does not predict an overall level of language creativity either in the “Storyline” group or in the “Associations Pyramid” group. The results are discussed in the light of pedagogical practice.
Reference90 articles.
1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: the ‘genesis’ of creativity thoughts and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14, 201–220. doi: 10.1080/0966976060087992010.1080/09669760600879920
3. Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., & Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299–313. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.03.00110.1016/j.ecresq.2008.03.001
4. Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D. (1996). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher, B. McWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, Ch., Baddelley, A. D., & Leigh, E. (2005). Differential constraints on the working memory and reading abilities of individuals with learning difficulties and typically developing children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 76–99. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.04.00210.1016/j.jecp.2005.04.002