Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j o ur na l ho me pag e: h t tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

Developing children’s intercultural competenceand creativity

Dorota Dziedziewicz, Aleksandra Gajda, Maciej Karwowski ∗

Creative Education Lab, Department of Educational Studies, Academy of Special Education, Szczesliwicka St., 40, 02-353 Warsaw, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 September 2013Received in revised form 11 January 2014Accepted 27 February 2014Available online 19 March 2014

Keywords:Creativity development programsDivergent thinkingCreative imaginationIntercultural sensitivity

a b s t r a c t

An intervention study examined the effectiveness of the Creativity Compass program, whichaimed to develop intercultural competences and creativity in children. One hundred andtwenty-two children aged 8–12 years old took part in the intervention. The results indi-cated that the program was highly effective in stimulating creative abilities and moderatelyeffective in developing intercultural skills. These results provide evidence that effectivestimulation and development of both creative abilities and intercultural skills is possibleand may provide a way of preparing children for life in a globalized and multicultural world.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Both intercultural competence and creativity are crucial in the contemporary world. Multicultural communities existacross the world due to global growth in immigration, emigration and migration of populations (Berry, 1990). It is thereforeimportant to enhance the skills of teachers and educators in these areas so they can instill an attitude of respect andsensitivity in children and develop their understanding of cultural diversity (Ponciano & Shabazian, 2012). There is also aneed for educational programs that help teachers to teach difficult issues related to cultural diversity, multiculturalism andanti-discrimination (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006).

Contact with people from other cultures makes it possible to develop outside-the-box behaviors and break habits whichare inhibiting creativity (Maddux, Leung, Chiu, & Galinsky, 2009). Intercultural and multicultural experiences may also playa role in developing personality traits that are important for creativity. However although there is a need for interven-tions to promote cultural sensitivity and creativity, only few programs which aim to develop these skills in children exist(Subramaniam et al., 2009). This article addresses this gap, presenting an investigation of the effectiveness of a new programcalled Creativity Compass, which aims jointly to develop children’s cultural sensitivity and knowledge, as well as creativity.The program’s effectiveness in children between 8 and 12 years old is examined. To date there have been few studies devoted

to studying cultural competences and creativity in children (DoBroka, 2012; Orly & Maureen, 2008) so the results presentedbelow may contribute to our understanding of the effectiveness of such educational interventions.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 600456102.E-mail addresses: maciek.karwowski@gmail.com, mackar@aps.edu.pl (M. Karwowski).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.0061871-1871/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

ditas‘bs(

tieaid

acct(

(apAnmb2

1

cGtotp

nwia

taiti

gat

D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42 33

.1. Education for intercultural experience

Intercultural competence is defined here as the skills needed to function effectively in interactions with people whoiffer from an individual linguistically or culturally. In describing these competences several other terms are used, such as

ntercultural communicative competence, transcultural communication, cross-cultural adaptation, and intercultural sensi-ivity (Fantini, 2000). Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman (2003) highlighted the differences between intercultural competencend intercultural sensitivity, the latter being associated with perception of and respect for cultural diversity. Interculturalensitivity is often treated as a synonym for communicative competence or intercultural awareness (Chen & Starosta, 2000).Competence in intercultural communication’ is the inclusive term for cognitive intercultural awareness, cross-culturalehavioral skills (intercultural adroitness), and affective intercultural sensitivity (Chen & Starosta, 2000). Intercultural sen-itivity is defined as the desire or motivation to understand, appreciate, and accept the differences between diverse culturesChen & Starosta, 1998).

Aside from intercultural sensitivity, intercultural competences include sense of national identity: the sense of belongingo a particular nationality, which is shared with a group of people and is independent of citizenship status. Sense of nationaldentity is not an innate characteristic, it is based on knowledge about one’s own country gained in everyday life andducation. This knowledge includes awareness of national symbols and colors, language, the country’s history, nationalwareness, blood ties and culture (Smith, 1993). Cultural self-awareness is an essential component of intercultural learning;f students do not have an understanding of their own culture as a reference point, it is difficult for them to recognize andeal with cultural differences.

The development of intercultural competence in childhood is based on increasing awareness of the diversity of culturesnd encountering interculturalism in everyday situations (Kim, Greif Green, & Klein, 2006). Even conversations about cross-ultural differences strengthen children’s ability to identify situations where they can behave with more sensitivity to otherultures (DoBroka, 2012). Based on an analysis of similarities and differences between peers in early childhood it was reportedhat the appearance of appropriate remarks about racial and gender differences provides the foundation of stable identityPonciano & Shabazian, 2012).

Intercultural education is based on the concept of social equality regardless of race, social class, language, or cultureBoutte, 1999). Literature, history, and books on intercultural topics are frequently used to develop children’s interculturalwareness and sensitivity. Subramaniam and colleagues (2009) used reading of books in foreign languages to strengthenreschool children’s cultural sensitivity and demonstrated an increase in interest in and positive attitudes to other cultures.

series of lessons on intercultural subjects in Bedouin schools in Israel (Orly & Maureen, 2008) resulted in a decline inegative stereotyping, indicating that this type of education, in the form of discussions about daily life situations or readingulticultural books and stories, may strengthen intercultural sensitivity. Such programs should target young children,

ecause stereotypes are shaped during childhood and reinforced during adolescence (Powlishta, Serbin, Doyle, & White,004).

.2. Multiculturalism in Poland

The cultural diversity of contemporary Poland differs significantly from historical levels. Between the 15th and 17thenturies Poland was inhabited by diverse nationalities and ethnic groups, including Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews andermans. During the pre-Second World War period numerous ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural groups lived Polish

erritory. Only after the Second World War, with the reorganization of Polish borders and the resettlement, did this previ-usly diverse country become nationally and culturally almost completely homogenous (Davies, 1986). The socio-politicalransition period after 1989 saw a revival of multiculturalism (Mucha, 1996). Entry to the European Union reinforced thisrocess and enhanced Polish ethnic consciousness (Iglicka, 2004).

The 2011 National Census of Population and Housing showed that the population of Poland is predominantly a homoge-eous group of Polish nationals (91.6%). About 2.17% of respondents declared joint Polish and other national-ethnic identities,hilst 1.44% declared non-Polish identity. Larger cities, especially Warsaw, are the most common destination for foreign

mmigrants: 86% of Chinese immigrants living permanently in Poland, 73% of Vietnamese, 30% of Ukrainians and Russiansre resident in Warsaw and its surroundings.

Foreigners living in Poland are a small but diverse group and their number is gradually increasing. Immigrants comingo Poland include people coming for education or work who do not wish to settle permanently, returning Polish nationals,sylum-seekers and temporary political or religious refugees, transit immigrants and people wishing to permanently settlen Poland. The study ‘Immigrants in Poland’, interviewed more than 10,000 immigrants from 131 countries and showed thathe percentage of people living in Poland temporarily but wishing to settle permanently increases with the duration of stayn the country (Information of Research on Immigration Resources, 2008).

A constantly increasing number of foreign residents, necessitates well-trained staff who can deliver integration pro-rams, as Poles do not possess sufficient knowledge about the foreigners (Kasowicz & Maciejko, 2007). Such educationalctivities would be expected to take place mainly in large cities, where most foreigners settle. These considerations led tohe development of the Creativity Compass program which was delivered in the Polish capital, Warsaw.

34 D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

1.3. Culture and creativity

In contemporary cultural psychology of creativity (Glaveanu, 2010a, 2010b) culture and creativity are inseparably asso-ciated. Drawing on classic works of Vygotsky (1930/2004) and Winnicott (1971) cultural psychologists assume that not onlydoes culture have a positive or negative influence on creativity – an idea strongly rooted in early social psychology of creativ-ity (e.g. Simonton, 1975) – but also that there is a dynamic association between the two phenomena. Cultural psychology ofcreativity currently involves a more dynamic, emic, qualitative and transactional analysis of creativity and culture, drawingon systemic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and socio-cultural (Sawyer, 2006) rather than socio-cognitive theories of creativity.

We base our account of the relationship between creativity and intercultural competences – the two main variablesinvestigated in this study – on a growing body of social and socio-cognitive psychological research. Specifically, our hypoth-esis is based on work showing cognitive and creative benefits from contact with other cultures. It was demonstrated thatactive use of the imagination to create images with counter-stereotypical content (e.g. imagining “a strong women”) ledto decreases in the strength of implicit stereotypes (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001; Sassenberg & Moskowitz, 2005) and recentstudies have demonstrated that this effect also strengthens creative thinking (Gocłowska & Crisp, 2013; Gocłowska, Crisp, &Labuschange, 2013;). Thus, from cognitive point of view, contact with (or even imagining of) a different culture activates acreative mindset,1 widening the borders of typical cognitive categories and widening the scope of concepts and associationsthus leading to more creative solutions (similar processes have been described by cultural psychologists; see Wagoner, 2014).Several studies confirmed that both direct and imagined intercultural contact can enhance creative thinking and creativelearning (Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009) and this led to the development of several educationalinterventions based on the assumption that multicultural experiences would stimulate creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky,& Chiu, 2008).

1.4. Supporting divergent thinking and imagination

Creativity is usually defined as activity leading to products that are both original and useful (Amabile, 1983). Processesrelated to creativity include divergent thinking (DT) and creative imagination (Karwowski, 2008a, 2008b); certain personalitycharacteristics have also been confirmed to be important: openness to experience (Feist, 1998), independence (Batey &Furnham, 2006) and creative self-efficacy (Karwowski, 2011, 2012).

DT is one of the operations specified in the Structure of Intellect Model (Guilford, 1967) as being crucial to creativity. Itsmost important features are: (1) fluency: the ability to come up with many ideas in a period of short time; (2) flexibility:the ability to develop qualitatively different solutions; (3) originality: the ability to produce rare and unusual ideas; and (4)elaboration: the ability to develop ideas. DT is useful for resolving open problems i.e. problems with no single recognized solu-tion. According to Guilford, DT is a major component of creativity. Boden (2004) associated DT with personal-psychologicalcreativity, in which the subjective nature of the activity is important. Other researchers emphasized the importance of thesubjective nature of creativity. For example, Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) advocated recognizing different levels or types ofcreativity: ordinary people may transform their environment through small-scale actions (little-c creativity); their work maybe purely cognitive in nature (mini-c); on the other hand, professional (pro-c) and eminent (Big-C) products are character-istic of those whose achievements are of higher cultural value. Runco and Charles (1997) advocated recognition of creativityin children’s work according to the criteria of originality and usefulness, defined in relation to individual children’s output.Children’s creativity is considered to be manifested in cognitive curiosity (Karwowski, 2012), fantasizing, vivid imagination,artistic (spontaneous, new or surprising; Glaveanu, 2011), creations and involvement in a variety of themed play. Children’screativity may therefore be considered to fulfill the criteria of originality and value (see Chomsky’s Description of LinguisticWork, 2002) applied to adults; however, these are person-centered criteria, related to individual children’s abilities anddevelopment.

According to Vygotsky (1930/2004) imagination helps children to understand the world around them. Operation of theimagination depends on the quantity and diversity of experience, so adults’ imagination is usually more developed thanchildren’s imagination. In childhood imagination is developed through symbolic play. Physical objects that the child usesduring play may be replaced with fantasies after a time and thus the child not only reproduces previous experiences butalso, with the help of combinatorial imagination, creates new situations and behaviors. The development of the imaginationis one aspect of cultural, social and intellectual growth.

Children’s creative abilities (creative thinking and creative imagination) can be enhanced by educational programs andmethods (Mellou, 1996). A typical approach to promoting creative activities involves training programs for children ofdifferent age groups, in pre-school (Cliatt, Shaw, & Sherwood, 1980) and elementary school (Castillo, 1998). Most programs

are based on a similar set of assumptions and aim to stimulate divergent thinking. A study of pre-school children showedthat it is possible to stimulate creativity in young children through regular participation in activities involving DT (Cliattet al., 1980). Programs such as the doodle-book also have a positive impact on the development of DT and imagination in

1 While using the term ‘creative mindset’ we do not mean the beliefs about fixed versus malleable nature of creativity, as was recently proposed (e.g.Karwowski, 2014), but rather the state of openness and inspiration induced experimentally.

D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42 35

tu

1

o(sp

trttdb

(ecssaamE

dtd

Fig. 1. A theoretical model of the program.

his age group: one study found an increase in fluency, flexibility, and originality of thought in children aged 4–6 years whosed doodle-book (Dziedziewicz, Oledzka, & Karwowski, 2013).

.5. Creativity Compass: a description of the program

According to Stephan and Stephan (2013), the design of training programs for intercultural education should be basedn a six-stage model of action: (1) selection of culture or group to be involved in the program; (2) definition of the program;3) selection of an appropriate theoretical framework; (4) theory-driven selection of target psychological processes; (5)election of techniques and exercises which activate the selected processes and (6) evaluation of the effectiveness of therogram. These recommendations guided the development of the program presented below.

Creativity Compass is designed for use by teachers and educators working with children aged 6–12 years – especiallyeachers who are interested in the development of creativity and looking for practical tools to support the discussion of issueselated to multiculturalism. The program aims to: (1) stimulate the development of creative abilities and creative attitudeshat enhance the ability to cope with new situations in which there is no single ‘solution’ and (2) help students learn abouthe cultural diversity of the world and encourage the development of cultural sensitivity, cultural self-awareness, and aesire to explore other cultures. These two goals are targeted simultaneously in recognition of the dynamic relationshipetween creativity and intercultural tasks in the program activities (see Fig. 1).

The main theme of the classes is travel to different countries. Each scenario in the program has a three-stage structure:1) interest, (2) searching and (3) exploration. The aim of the first stage is to focus children’s attention on the topic andncourage them to engage in creative activity. This stage usually takes the form of an open-ended question, which buildsuriosity and encourages children to form their own opinions and theories. This stage also acts as a creative warm-up,timulating the fluency, flexibility, and originality of thought. The creative warm-up is then followed by the ‘searching’tage. This involves a series of exercises to develop basic operations associated with creative thought: abstraction, deduction,nalogy, transformations, metaphors (Necka, 1992), imagination, and elements of creative attitude. Sessions are organizedround nine main themes: the history of the country, myth and legend, culture, traditions and customs, national symbols,onuments and tourist attractions, famous personalities, regional cuisine, climate and the environment, and national sports.

ach session ends with a ‘exploration stage: a reflective summary of the knowledge gained during the session.The program is based on active teaching. Each scenario deals with a single country; supporting materials comprise a

escription of the area (varied according to the age of the participants) as well as photographs and auxiliary plastic cards

hat can be used in the classroom. Materials for the teacher include theoretical and methodological guidelines as well as aescription of the main themes.

36 D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

2. The present study

The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the Creativity Compass program in promoting the developmentof characteristics important for creativity: DT, creative imagination, intercultural sensitivity and cultural self-awareness.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The intervention was conducted in three primary schools in Warsaw – the capital of Poland – and its surroundings. Thestudy included 122 children, 44 boys (36%) and 78 girls (64%) aged 8–12 years old (28 eight-year olds, 61 nine-year olds and33 twelve-year olds). The experimental group consisted of 66 students and the control group consisted of 56 students. Classsizes ranged from 13 to 21 students in the experimental group and 10–17 students in the control group.

Schools and experimental classes were randomly selected. For each of the experimental groups, a control group wasselected in a way to ensure that it was similar in terms of number, gender, and age distribution to the correspondingexperimental group.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Intercultural sensitivity and cultural self-awarenessA new instrument was developed to test the intercultural competence, intercultural sensitivity and cultural self-

awareness of the participants. The decision to create a new instrument was taken because we were unable to find aninstrument suitable for use in children and adult instruments did not capture variance in the variables of interest in oursample (Peng, 2006). The instrument we developed measures sensitivity to other cultures and knowledge of one’s owncountry, which are important factors in the development of intercultural competences. The test sheet shows drawings oftwo children, a dark-skinned boy and a girl with Asian features. Students are instructed to: “Imagine that from now on yourclass will have two new pupils, a boy and a girl, who recently moved to Poland. Read the questions and answer them.”Below the drawing are two questions: (1) “What do you think may be difficult for them?” (2) “What could/would you tellthem about your country?” There was no time limit for the test and the average completion time was about 15 min. Twoindependent coders blind to experimental condition and the hypotheses assessed participants’ responses using a five-pointscale with 1 = very low intercultural sensitivity/knowledge about one’s own country and 5 = very high level of intercultural sen-sitivity/knowledge about the country. The reliability of the instrument was acceptable: for cultural sensitivity = .73; forknowledge about one’s own country = .71.

3.2.2. Divergent thinkingThe circle test from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974) was used to measure DT. The test

consists of 20 empty circles arranged in 5 rows of 4 on the test sheet. The task is to create interesting drawings in them, tryingto use all the circles within 10 min. The total number of circles used minus the number used for recurring themes providesan index of fluency (range: 0–20 points). This index is generally considered to be absolutely reliable because it relies onmechanical counting. Flexibility is indexed by the number of categories of themes considered; originality is indexed by theinverse of the frequency of occurrence of each concept in the whole sample-unique ideas score highest- and total originalityscore is the sum of the originality score for each circle response generated by the participant (see Plucker, Qian, & Wang, 2011and Silvia et al., 2008 for advantages and limitations of different originality scoring methods). The reliability of the flexibilityand originality scales was calculated as one-year test–retest reliability for the control group. We calculated Cronbach’salphas and intra-class correlations (ICC); the latter being a more suitable measure in this case. The reliability of the flexibilityscale was satisfactory considering the long test–retest period ( = .764, ICC = .73, p < .001). The originality scale was similarlyreliable: = .757, ICC = .74, p < .001.

3.2.3. Creative imaginationThe creative imagination of the children was tested using the Franck Drawing Completion Test (FDCT) (Dziedziewicz

et al., 2013). The FDCT, originally designed as a tool to study the degree of projection acceptance of the role of gender (Franck& Rosen, 1949) is currently used successfully for the assessment creative imagination (alternative creative imagination testsare generally developed for older participants: see Karwowski, 2008a, 2008b). The test sheet consists of 12 figures containedin the output frame. The task is to complete the figures to produce an interesting drawing. Each figure was assessed on

a three-point scale (0–2), giving a maximum score of 24 points. A drawing with a rich, free and unconventional multi-sectional form, not based rigidly on the starting figure scored 2 points; a drawing characterized in part by originality andunconventional form scored 1 point; poor execution of conventional forms or omission of the figure scored 0. There was notime limit for completion of the test. The internal consistency of the FDCT in this study was high, = .93.

D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42 37

Table 1Stage 1 of the example scenario “Cats from the Isle of Man”.

Activity • Creative warm-up.Children sitting in a circle answer a question: Why do cats need tails?

Instructions for the teacher 1. Encourage children to come up with numerous solutions.2. Encourage children to connect, develop and improve the ideas.3. If the children’s ideas are all similar, you can stimulate their creative thinking by asking targeted questions.4. The assessments of the resulting solutions are best left for the end. Criticism during the process can blockcreativity.

Aims • Stimulating curiosity of the child.Development of fluency, flexibility and originality of thinking.

Table 2Stage 2 of the example scenario “Cats from the Isle of Man”.

Activity • Exercise “Cats from the Isle of Man”The teacher shows a picture of a cat from the Isle of Man and asks an open question: Why do cats on the Isle of Mando not have tails? encouraging children to come up with different reasons for this.• Exercise “Fantasy cats’ tails”Children are asked to design fantasy tails for cats from the Isle of Man. The function these tails perform has tofacilitate the cats’ lives. Then the children come up with names for a fantasy cat breed.

Instructions for the teacher 1. Plastic cards need to be prepared.2. Encourage children to use drawing techniques such as pen drawing, collage and printing as well as coloringwith crayons.

Aim • Development of creative imagination.• Development creative artistic activity.Development creative linguistic activity.

Table 3Stage 3 of the example scenario “Cats from the Isle of Man”.

Activity • Exercise “The owner’s problems”.Children present their work, answering the following questions: In what situations could cats use the tails?; Whatare the benefits and problems for the owners of cats with these tails? Finally, the teacher tells the children about thebreed of cats living on the Isle of Man, including the legend which explains why they do not have tails.

Instructions for the teacher 1. On the Isle of Man there are cats, medium sized, whose front paws are shorter than the rear ones, so they take aposition somewhat similar to a rabbit. A characteristic feature of the breed is the lack of a tail. The legend aboutcats from the Isle of Man says that the cats were created on Noah’s Ark. Because they arrived at the last minute, asNoah was closing the door, he accidentally pinched their tails. And so their offspring were deprived of tails.

3

Ap

fisaagc

atodd

s

c

Aims • Knowledge of cat breeds living on the Isle of Man.• Knowledge of legends about cats on the Isle of Man.

.3. Procedure

All of the participants were treated in accordance with the ethical principles laid down by the American Psychologicalssociation (APA, 2009). Written permission from the parents of the children participating in the intervention was obtainedrior to data collection. Participating children were informed about the study and could end their participation at any time.

This intervention study included a control group and used a traditional design: pretest, intervention, and posttest. Therst and third stages were similar and involved assessments of DT, imagination and intercultural competences. During theecond stage the experimental groups took part in extra-curricular activities based on the Creativity Compass program once

week for nine months. Each class lasted approximately 45 min. During the 30 sessions various topics were covered inccordance with a prepared plan. Teachers trained in the implementation of the program supervised the four experimentalroups. In addition, during the course of the intervention, teachers participated in e-learning training on the developmentreativity and intercultural competence in children.

The intervention was based on the nine thematic areas of the Creativity Compass. The first session was introductorynd concerned travel. The following sessions were devoted to culture and societies of selected countries: Poland, France,he United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, India, China, Tanzania and Australia. Activities were chosen to cover different aspectsf culture and national identity, including a country’s history, culture, traditions and customs, and national symbols, andelivered so as to encourage a range of creative activities, such as language, fine arts, and physical activity. Below is a briefescription of an example scenario from the intervention entitled “Cats of the Isle of Man.”

Stage 1: Interest. The main objective of this stage is to focus attention and encourage creative activity (Table 1).Stage 2: Searching. The main objective of this stage is to develop the basic operations of creative thinking, cultural

ensitivity, and cultural self-awareness (Table 2).

Stage 3: Exploration. The main objective of this stage is to summarize and reflect on the knowledge gained (Table 3).All the intervention sessions includes all of these stages. As a result, every session provided an opportunity to exercise

reative abilities and consider the diversity of other countries and but also their similarity to the participant’s own country.

38 D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

Table 4Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between the variables used in the study.

Variables Pretest M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Intercultural competencies1 Intercultural sensitivity 4.79 (3.22) 1 .21* .42*** .05 .16 .132 Cultural self-awareness (knowledge) 3.67 (3.72) .31** 1 −.01 −.04 .13 .17

Creativity3 Creative imagination 7.29 (3.75) .17 .07 1 .12 .24** .24**4 Fluency 10.19 (6.21) .12 .07 .17 1 .27** .23**5 Flexibility 3.53 (2.75) .28** .11 .28** 1 .83***6 Originality 48.26 (41.73) .28** .11 .37*** .50*** .85*** 1

Posttest M (SD) 5.94 (3.85) 5.95 (4.82) 9.17 (3.11) 13.22 (5.24) 6.53 (3.09) 80.51 (42.45)

Note. Correlations between the variables at pretest are placed above the diagonal. Correlations at posttest are under the diagonal.

It was assumed that exposing only the differences might reinforce the perception of otherness and increase hostile behaviortowards foreigners.

4. Results

The results were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with repeated measures, with DT (fluency, flexibility,originality), creative imagination, intercultural sensitivity and cultural self-awareness as dependent variables; time andgroup served as the within- and between-group factors respectively, and age was included as a covariate. Controlling for ageeffects was necessary because a preliminary analysis of the pretest data showed that there were large, statistically significantdifferences between the age groups in intercultural sensitivity (eight-year olds: M = 3.34, SD = 2.30, nine-year olds: M = 4.45,SD = 3.00, twelve-year olds: M = 6.64, SD = 3.49; F(2, 121) = 9.89; p < .001; �2 = .14) and in cultural self-awareness (eight-yearolds: M = 1.87, SD = 2.45, nine-year olds: M = 3.11, SD = 3.23, twelve-year olds: M = 5.83, SD = 4.23; F(2, 108) = 10.44; p < .001;�2 = .17). There were no age-related differences in the pretest by the level of creative imagination (F(2, 121) = .84; p = .44),2

fluency (F(2, 104) = .02; p = .98), flexibility (F(2, 104) = 1.76; p = .18), or originality of ideas (F(2, 104) = 2.67; p = .11).Descriptive statistics for all variables used in the study and separate pretest and posttest correlations between them are

presented in Table 4.The variables measuring cultural dispositions were moderately correlated in both the pretest and posttest; the same was

true for the indices of creativity. Only the association between flexibility and originality was significant. Pretest interculturalsensitivity was associated with creative imagination and posttest intercultural sensitivity was associated with flexibility andoriginality. ANCOVA showed that for all six analyzed variables (two related to intercultural competences and four relatedto creativity) the Time × Group interaction was statistically significant (Table 5); however after Bonferroni correction formultiple comparisons the interaction effects for intercultural sensitivity and awareness disappeared.

For intercultural sensitivity the Time × Group interaction was statistically significant with a moderate effect size(F(1, 95) = 4.53, p = .036, �2 = .045). The experimental group and the control group did not differ at pretest, but there wasan increase between pre- and post-test in the experimental group. Age was a significant covariate, strongly associatedwith the intercultural sensitivity (F(1, 95) = 29.02; p < .001, �2 = .23), but there were no interactions between Age and Time,indicating that the program was similarly effective in students of all ages.

Cultural self-awareness clearly increased only in the experimental group. There was also a significant interaction ofmoderate size (F(1, 103) = 6.57; p = .01; �2 = .06), and no main effects of Group or Time. At pretest measurement the groupsdid not differ; at posttest the experimental group obtained clearly better results. Age of participants also was also an importantfactor (main effect: F(1, 103) = 22.45; p < .001, �2 = .18), but there was no interaction between Age and the other variables ofinterest.

Creative imagination increased in the experimental group. The observed interaction effect was moderate in strength(F(1, 106) = 8.41; p = 005, �2 = .073). The experimental group and the control group did not differ at pretest or posttest, butthe experimental group showed a statistically significant increase over Time. At pretest the experimental group showedslightly (non-significantly) lower creative imagination than in the control group and this situation was reversed at posttest:creative imagination scores in the experimental group were non-significantly higher than in the control group. Age was notassociated with differences in the level of creative imagination.

Similar results were obtained for fluency of thinking. The scores of the experimental and control groups were similar atpretest. This situation had changed by the posttest: the control group scores did not change, whereas in the experimental

group a statistically significant improvement was observed. This interaction was statistically significant (F(1, 89) = 8.17;p = .005; �2 = .08) and the effect size was large. Age was not associated with differences in fluency; it was also irrelevant inunderstanding the effectiveness of the intervention.

2 Due to missing data the total sample size was reduced; thus for all further analysis we provide the appropriate number of degrees of freedom.

D.

Dziedziew

icz et

al. /

Thinking Skills

and Creativity

13 (2014)

32–42

39

Table 5Estimated means (SE in parentheses) for the variables used in the study in the control group and experimental in both measurements. The results of analysis of covariance with age as a covariate.

Variables Time 1 Time 2 Main effects Interaction Covariate

EG M (SE) CG M (SE) EG M (SE) CG M (SE) Time Group Time × Group Age Time × Age

Intercultural competenciesIntercultural sensitivity 4.74 (0.38) a 5.12 (0.42) a 6.59 (0.49) b 4.76 (0.54) a ns ns p = .036ˆ p < .001 nsCultural self-awareness (knowledge) 3.61 (0.49) a 3.57 (0.49) a 6.48 (0.65) b 4.17 (0.72) a b ns ns p = .01ˆ p < .001 nsCreativityCreative imagination 6.86 (0.49) a 7.87 (0.53) a b 9.66 (0.40) b 8.58 (0.54) a b ns ns p = .005 ns nsFluency 9.38 (0.90) a 11.81 (0.94) a 14.50 (0.74) b 12.66 (0.81) a b ns ns p = .005 ns nsFlexibility 2.90 (0.40) a 4.04 (0.42) a 7.87 (0.41) b 5.23 (0.43) c ns ns p < .001 ns p = .04Originality 41.17 (6.10) a 53.61 (6.37) a 99.75 (5.72) b 66.67 (5.98) c ns ns p < .001 ns p = .02

Note. Means with different letters are significantly different at p < .05 or higher (comparison in rows with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons). EG: experimental group, CG: control group; ns – the effectis nonsignificant, ˆ – the interaction effects is nonsignificant when Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison is applied (critical p < .05/6 = .008).

40 D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

An interesting relationship between flexibility and intervention effectiveness was observed. There was no Group differ-ence in flexibility of thinking at pretest, both experimental and control groups showed an increase over Time, and at posttestflexibility of thinking was higher in the experimental group. This interaction was statistically significant and very strong(F(1, 89) = 42.10; p < .001; �2 = .32). Although the main effect of Age was not statistically significant, the Time × Age interac-tion was significant (F(1, 89) = 4.39; p = .04; �2 = .047). This suggests that the pattern of changes may be different in childrenof different ages. To test this possibility, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) using a 2 × 2 × 3 design (Time(pretest, posttest) × Group (experimental, control) × Age (8, 9, 12 years old)) was performed. This interaction effect was notsignificant (F(2, 86) = 2.19, p = .12), so there is no reason to believe that age moderates the effectiveness of the program.

The similar relationship was observed with respect to originality of thinking. At pretest there was no Group differ-ence in originality; at posttest the experimental group obtained higher scores than the control group. Interestingly, therewas an increase in originality of thinking in both groups. There was a significant and very strong Time × Group interaction(F(1, 89) = 34.84; p < .001; �2 = .28) and a significant weak Time × Age interaction (F(1, 89) = 5.51; p = .02; �2 = .06). Repeatedmeasures ANOVA using a 2 × 2 × 3 design (Time × Group × Age) failed to show a significant three-way Time × Group × Ageinteraction, (F(2, 86) = 2.01; p = .14), so there is no reason to conclude that age moderates the effectiveness of the programin promoting original thinking.

5. Discussion

Creativity Compass was developed to stimulate and enhance children’s cultural competences and creativity. The resultspresented above showed that the program had a generally positive, even if weak influence on children’s intercultural sen-sitivity (this effect was however too small to hold after correction for multiple comparisons). These findings correspondclosely with previous results (DoBroka, 2012). Similar results were found in for cultural self-awareness, operationalizedas knowledge about one’s own country. Participants’ age was positively associated cultural self-awareness; but in spite ofthis the program was equally effective in younger and older participants. This supports the suggestion that interculturaland multicultural educational initiatives could be introduced even for the young children (Kim et al., 2006; Ponciano &Shabazian, 2012). Early development of these skills not only enhances children’s identity and knowledge about cultures,but also stimulates the development of openness and sensitivity to others. These are important benefits as stereotypes andprejudices are observed even in very young children (Powlishta et al., 2004).

Creativity Compass was especially effective in promoting children’s creative abilities – creative imagination and creativethinking. This effectiveness was high and similar to other interventions used in children of a similar age (Garaigordobil,2006). The intervention was effective among younger (i.e. eight-year olds) and older children, so it might be argued thatCreativity Compass is appropriate for use with a wide range of age groups: in elementary school and in further education.

5.1. Limitations and future research

Interpretation of the results of this study should take into account its limitations. Specifically, the experimental procedure,especially the so-called creative warm-up, was closely related to the DT tasks used (both TTCT and FDCT). This may haveincreased the susceptibility of participants to the experimental procedure and thus limit the external validity of the study.The second limitation lies in the imperfect measurement of intercultural skills: the measures used had only moderatereliability and their validity has to be fully established. Hence future research should not only use more elaborated measuresof cultural competencies, but also be oriented toward a more in-depth, qualitative inquiry, showing how children build therepresentations of other cultures and how it changes during the program. Probably the most persuasive test of the validityof the Creativity Compass program, as well as other similar interventions lies in the exploration of the real contact with the“Others” and benefits the program bring into the real cooperation with people from different cultures.

5.2. Conclusion and implications for practice

Creativity Compass includes lesson plans using active teaching methods so it can be useful both at school and in informaleducational settings. Exercise cards included in the program are a practical addition to facilitate its implementation. Theeffects of interventions were positive, making Creativity Compass a useful tool for developing intercultural competence aswell as children’s creativity. Equipping children with appropriate knowledge and abilities through intercultural educationseems necessary as positive experiences at the earliest stages of education provide the foundation for the process of learningto accept others (Kim et al., 2006). In conclusion, while designing and implementing programs developing multiculturalcompetences and creativity, it should be remembered about three important elements. First, such programs should promote

these attitudes and behaviors, that are common for both multiculturalism and national identity. Second, they should developinterpersonal skills which are essential for the interaction with the members of any culture–including other cultures. Third,such programs should be especially oriented toward development of openness on experience: probably the most importantelement of both intercultural competences and creativity.

A

R

AAB

B

B

BBCCCCC

C

DD

D

D

F

FFG

GGGG

GGH

I

I

K

K

K

K

KKKK

L

M

M

M

MMNNO

P

D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42 41

cknowledgement

The study was supported by a grant from National Science Center, Poland for the first author (UMO 2011/03/N/HS6/05153).

eferences

mabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.merican Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychology Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.atey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology

Monographs, 132, 355–429.erry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Cross-cultural research and

methodology series (Vol. 14) (pp. 232–253). London: Sage.lair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 81(5), 828–841.oden, M. (2004). The creative mind (3rd ed.). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.outte, G. (1999). Multicultural education: Raising consciousness. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.astillo, L. C. (1998). The effect of analogy instruction on young children’s metaphor comprehension. Roeper Review, 21, 27–31.hen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.hen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1–15.homsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.liatt, M. J., Shaw, J. M., & Sherwood, J. M. (1980). Effects of training on the divergent thinking abilities of kindergarten children. Child Development, 51,

1061–1064.sikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. Contemporary

psychological perspectives (pp. 325–340). New York: Cambridge University Press.avies, N. (1986). Poland’s multicultural heritage. Acta Slavica Iaponica, 4, 79–87.erman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. G. (2006). What if all the kids are white? Anti-bias multicultural education with young children and families. New York: Teachers

College Press.oBroka, C. C. (2012). Teaching to develop children’s intercultural sensitivity: A multicultural literature lesson on The Sandwich Swap. Ohio Journal of

English Language Arts, 52, 53–57.ziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4- to 6-year-old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills

and Creativity, 9, 85–95.antini, A. E. (2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. SIT occasional papers series. Retrieved from:.

http://www.adam-europe.eu/prj/2935/prd/8/1/develop-I-com.pdfeist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.ranck, K., & Rosen, E. (1949). A projective test of masculinity-femininity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 247–256.araigordobil, M. (2006). Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years: Impact of a play program on verbal and graphic–figural creativity.

Creativity Research Journal, 18, 329–345.laveanu, V. P. (2011). Children and creativity: A most (un)likely pair? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 122–131.laveanu, V. P. (2010a). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 79–93.laveanu, V. P. (2010b). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture and Psychology, 16, 147–163.ocłowska, M. A., & Crisp, R. J. (2013). On counter-stereotypes and creative cognition: When interventions for reducing prejudice can boost divergent

thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 72–79.ocłowska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Labuschagne, K. (2013). Can counter-sterotypes boost flexible thinking? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 217–231.uilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.ammer, M. R., Bennet, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.glicka, K. (2004). The revival of ethnic consciousness: the case of Poland. In A. Górny, & P. Ruspini (Eds.), Migration in new Europe (pp. 131–159). London:

Palgrave Macmillan.nformation of Research on Immigration Resources in Poland (2008). GUS, Warsaw: Department of Demographic Research. Available online:

http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/lud infor o badan zasob imigr pl w 2008.pdfarwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034898 (Online first publication, December 23, 2013)arwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal

of Psychology, 8, 547–558.arwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask . . . but sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154–164.arwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI): Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative

potential. New Educational Review, 14, 44–54.arwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI): Part 2. On validity of the TCI. New Educational Review, 14, 216–232.asowicz, A., & Maciejko, A. (2007). Integration of immigrants in Poland in numbers. Warsaw: Polish Migration Forum.aufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.im, B. S. K., Greif Green, J. L., & Klein, W. F. (2006). Using storybooks to promote multicultural sensitivity in elementary school children. Journal of

Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 223–234.eung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63,

169–181.addux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). When in Rome . . . learn why the Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences

facilitate creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 731–741.addux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1047–1061.addux, W. W., Leung, A., Chiu, K., & Galinsky, C. A. (2009). Toward a more complete understanding of the link between multicultural experience and

creativity. American Psychologist, 64(2), 156–158.ellou, E. (1996). Can creativity be nurtured in young children? Early Child Development and Care, 119, 119–130.ucha, J. (1996). Cultural minorities and the dominant group in Poland. Polish Sociological Review, 114, 127–135.

ational Census of Population and Housing (2011). Warsaw: GUS. Available online: http://www.stat.gov.pl/gusecka, E. (1992). Creativity training: A guidebook for psychologists, educators and teachers. Krakow: TAiWPN Universitas.rly, M., & Maureen, R. (2008). Perceptions of ‘the other’ in children’s drawings: an intercultural project among Bedouin and Jewish children. Journal of

Peace Education, 6, 69–86.onciano, L., & Shabazian, A. (2012). Interculturalism: Addressing diversity in early childhood. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 40, 23–30.

42 D. Dziedziewicz et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014) 32–42

Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., Doyle, A., & White, D. R. (2004). Gender, ethnic, and body type biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood. DevelopmentalPsychology, 30, 526–536.

Peng, S. Y. (2006). A comparative perspective of intercultural sensitivity between college students and multinational employees in china. MulticulturalPerspectives, 8, 38–45.

Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent thinking.Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 1–22.

Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. (1997). Developmental trends in creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity Research Handbook (Vol. 1) (pp. 113–150). Cresskill,NJ: Hampton Press.

Sassenberg, K., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 41, 506–514.

Sawyer, K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human motivation. New York: Oxford University Press.Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. Y., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the

reliability and validity of new subjective scoring method. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,

1119–1133.Smith, A. D. (1993). National identity (ethnonationalism in comparative perspective). Nevada: University of Nevada Press.Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2013). Designing intercultural education and training programs: An evidence-based approach. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 37, 277–286.Subramaniam, V., Abd Rahim, N., Affendi, N. R. N., Sujud, A., Dani, N. A., & Hamzah, M. S. G. (2009). The English picture books on intercultural awareness of

Malaysian kindergarteners. The International Journal of Learning, 16, 441–449.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.Wagoner, B. (2014). Creativity as symbolic transformation. In V. P. Glaveanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from cultural

psychology. London: Routledge (in press)Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42, 7–97.