La lecture en ligne est gratuite

Gediminas Beresnevičius


Summary of Doctoral Dissertation

Social Sciences, Education (07S)

Šiauliai, 2010 The dissertation was prepared at Šiauliai University in 2006-2010.
In 2007-2009, the work was supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies

Scientific advisor:
Academician of Russian Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences,
member of New York Science Academy, prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Gudonis
(Šiauliai University, Social Sciences, Education – 07 S, Psychology – 06 S).
Dissertation is defended in the Board of Education Science of Šiauliai University:

doc. dr. Rima Bakutytė (Šiauliai University, Social Sciences, Education
Science – 07 S).

prof. habil. dr. Vanda Aramavičiūtė
(Vilnius University, Social Sciences, Education, 07 S);

doc. dr. Rūta Girdzijauskienė
(Klaipėda University, Social Sciences, Education, 07 S);

prof. habil. dr. Leonas Jovaiša
(Vilnius University, Social Sciences, Education, 07 S);

doc. dr. Ala Petrulytė
(Vilnius Pedagogical University, Social Sciences, Psychology, 06 S).
prof. habil. dr. Juozas Uzdila
(Vilnius Pedagogical University, Social Sciences, Education, 07 S);

doc. dr. Daiva Malinauskienė
(Šiauliai University, Social Sciences, Education, 07 S).

Dissertation will be defended in an open meeting of the Board of Education Science field in the
Library auditorium 205 of Šiauliai University at 2 p.m. on 16 April 2010.
(Vytauto str. 84, Šiauliai).

Dissertation abstract was sent out on 16 March 2010.
Dissertation can be accessed at the Library of Šiauliai University.

Reviews are appreciated to be sent at: Science and Art Department, Šiauliai University, Vilnius
str. 88, LT-76285, Šiauliai. Phone: (8-41) 595 821, fax (8-41) 595 809,

Gediminas Beresnevičius


Daktaro disertacijos santrauka

Socialiniai mokslai, edukologija (07S)

Šiauliai, 2010
3 Disertacija rengta 2006–2010 metais Šiaulių universitete.
2007–2009 metais darbą rėmė Lietuvos valstybinis mokslo ir studijų fondas.

Mokslinis vadovas:
Rusijos pedagoginių ir socialinių mokslų akademijos akademikas, Niujorko
mokslo akademijos narys prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Gudonis (Šiaulių
universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija – 07 S, psichologija – 06 S).

Disertacija ginama Šiaulių universiteto Edukologijos mokslo krypties taryboje:

doc. dr. Rima Bakutytė (Šiaulių universitetas, socialiniai mokslai,
edukologija – 07 S).

prof. habil. dr. Vanda Aramavičiūtė
(Vilniaus universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija, 07 S);

doc. dr. Rūta Girdzijauskienė
(Klaipėdos universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija, 07 S);

prof. habil. dr. Leonas Jovaiša
(Vilniaus universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija, 07 S);

doc. dr. Ala Petrulytė
(Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, psichologija, 06 S).

prof. habil. dr. Juozas Uzdila
(Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija, 07 S);

doc. dr. Daiva Malinauskienė
(Šiaulių universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, edukologija, 07 S).

Disertacija bus ginama viešame Edukologijos mokslo krypties tarybos posėdyje 2010 m.
balandţio 16 d. 14 val. Šiaulių universiteto bibliotekoje 205 a. (Vytauto g. 84, Šiauliai).

Disertacijos santrauka išsiuntinėta 2010 m. kovo 16 d.
Disertaciją galima perţiūrėti Šiaulių universiteto bibliotekoje.

Atsiliepimus siųsti adresu:
Mokslo ir meno skyriui, Šiaulių universitetas,
Vilniaus g. 88, LT-76285, Šiauliai.
Tel. (8-41) 595 821, faks. (8-41) 595 809, el. paštas

Creative work, efficient problem solving using various creative thinking
methods and development of creativity are undoubtedly relevant in today„s
post-industrial knowledge and information age. A creative personality is a
great value not only in the area of art, science or technology but also in
business, education, management, politics and elsewhere. Ability to make
creative decisions and adapt to constantly changing conditions are of utmost
importance in rapidly changing society. Increasingly acute competition in the
world, depleting natural resources, recurring economical crises, growing
ecological and other issues raise augmentative challenges to the modern
J. P. Guilford (1968), one of the most distinguished psychologists, noted
that creativity is a key to full-fledged education and solution to the most
important problems of mankind. “Creativity is a driver of innovations and a
decisive factor of personal, professional, entrepreneurship and social skills as
well as the whole societal well-being”, – it is stated in the webpage of
European Creativity and Innovations (European Year of Creativity and
Innovation 2009, 2009).
The year 2009 was announced as the Year of Creativity in the European
Union. This fostered personal and organisational creativity and innovations.
Those countries where creative societies have been formed have the highest
economical and political perspectives (Florida, 2005). Lisbon European
Council meeting in 2000 emphasised that “people are Europe's main asset and
should be the focal point of the Union's policies“ (National Lisbon strategy
implementation programme, 2005).
Dispositions of the Lithuanian State Education Strategy for 2003–2012
(2003, p. 2) affirm that “strengthening Lithuanian position in the Western
area its education has to help foster societal creative powers”. To implement
this disposition scientific research into various manifestations of creative
work are necessary, which would form the foundation in formulating practical
recommendations for teachers who develop learner creativity or create
conditions for children to express their creativity. According to Lee Yuan
Tseh, a Nobel prize winner, the development of creativity still lacks sufficient
attention (Kilgour, 2006).
Creative work, person‟s creative skills, creative personality, creative
solution of difficult problems are rsignificant research areas. What is creative
work? What can be considered a piece of art? Why do people create? What is
a creative personality? What is happening in the brains during the process of
creativity? Thinkers have been concerned with these and similar questions for
5 more than one century. The majority of works analysing creativity and its
thaspects were performed in the 20 century, whereas the most intensive
research into creativity has been evident during the last 50 years.
Researchers whose works have formed the contemporary concept of
creativity and creative thinking are as follows: T. Amabile (1985, 1983, 1996,
2001), R. Cattell (1963, 1965), A. Cropley (1999, 2006), M.
Csikszentmihalyi (1976, 1996), K. Duncker (1935, 1945), J. Guilford (1950,
1959, 1968), J. Hadamard (1954), J. Horn (1967, 1968), K. Jung (1946), A.
Koestler (1964), A. Maslow (2006), A. Newell (1981), T. Ribot (1906), M.
Runco (1995, 2004), D. Simonton (1975, 1988, 1990, 1999), R. Sternberg
(1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006), C. Taylor (1963, 1964,
1988), E. Torrance (1962, 1964, 1986, 1987), L. Vygotsky (1999), G. Wallas
(1926), Я. Пономарев (1960, 1976, 1999, 2006).
Some researchers investigated creativity as a certain quality of intellect
(Cattell, 1963, 1965; Cropley, 1999, 2006; Cropley, D., Cropley, A. 2000;
Duncker, 1935, 1945; Guilford, 1950, 1959, 1968; Horn, 1967, 1968;
Sternberg, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2005, 2006;
Torrance, 1962, 1964, 1986, 1987; Пономарев, 1960, 1976, 1999, 2006).
Others researched creativity as a peculiarity of personality (Jung, 1946;
Koestler, 1964;. Jovaiša, 2007, Maslow, 2006), whereas others created their
own educational systems of developing creative thinking (Altshuller, 1985;
Альтшуллер,1985, 2009; de Bono, 1992a, 1992b, 2008; Gordon, 1961;
Osborn, 1953).
During the past decades creativity has attracted immense scholar attention
(Akinola, Wendy, 2008; Asmus, James, 2005; Austin, 2009; Baer et al, 2008;
Baille, 2002; Beghetto, 2009; Caroff, X., Besancon, M., 2008; Chenfeld,
2002; Cortello, 2005; Dreyfus, 2009; Fodor, Laird, 2004; Goldstein, 2009;
Griskevicius, Cialdini, Kenrick, 2006; Halpern, 2003; Harrison, 2009;
Hemlin, Allwood, Martin, 2008; Hunter et al, 2008; Jalongo, 2003; Jaskyte,
Taylor, Smariga, 2009; Jonathan, Lubinski, Benbow, 2005; Kozak, Weylin,
Viswanathan, Wegner, 2008; Levine, Perlovsky, 2008; Levy, Anderson,
2006; Lubart, 2009; Mann, Baille, Dewulf, 2000; Matthew, 2009; Memmert,
Perl, 2009; Middleton, 2005; Miller, 2001; Moneta, Siu, 2002; Nelson,
Rawlings, 2009; Nijstad, 2006; Oon-Seng, 2006; Patera, Draper, Naef, 2008;
Paul, Elder, 2006; Pretz, Link, 2008; Prigogine, 2006; Renzulli, 2003;
Rumpite, 2008; Sattler, Hoge 2006; Shahrin, et al, 2002; Smith, 2008; Ward,
2008; Wheeler, Waite, Bromfield, 2002 and others).
Creativity was also researched in Lithuania though at a narrower scope
than in the Western countries (Almonaitienė, 1997, 2000; Beresnevičienė,
1995, 1996; Beresnevičienė, Beresnevičius, Bardinskienė, Gumuliauskienė,
6 2007; Biţys, Linkaitytė, Valiuškevičiūtė, 1996; Butkienė, Kepalaitė, 1996;
Grakauskaitė-Karkockienė, 2002, 2006a, 2006b; Gučas, 1959; Jacikevičius,
1995; Jonynienė, 1987; Jovaiša, 2002; 2007; Juodaitytė, 2002; Petrulytė,
2001 and others). Irrespective of immense interest and abundance of
publications the expression of creativity is still an enigmatic phenomenon.
Theoretical relevance of the research
Both in Lithuanian and abroad there is a great lack of scientific research
works devoted to the evaluation of the creativity issue: 1) in education
science, there exists an immense confusion of concepts: ”creative work”,
“creativity”, “creative thinking”, 2) educational dimensions of creativity and
their mutual links have almost been not researched; 3) there is absence of
universally accepted methodologies for creative thinking evaluation, 4) there
is shortage of research into the change in learner and teacher creative thinking
in ontogenesis, 5) the correlation between the peculiarities of creative
thinking and time spent on watching television, playing computer games and
reading books has not been researched in Lithuania.
Practical relevance of the research
The policy of the European Union and contemporary crisis situation in
Lithuania, which is peculiar of rapid political, economic and social changes,
determine the assessment of creativity as the driver of innovations and a
decisive factor in personal, professional, entrepreneurship, social skill
development, solving economic, political and educational problems and a
factor of well-being of the whole human society (European Year of Creativity
and Innovation 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to develop creativity and
teach children to think creatively – this is noted by the world leaders and
heads of education.
At present there has been a disposition in the world policy that those
countries will have the greatest economic potential in the future where
creative employees will make up the larger part of the society (more than
30%) (Florida, 2005). Therefore, educationalists and teachers have to develop
creative personality and create conditions for human creativity to mature.
Implementing the European Community Lisbon programme which aims
at training entrepreneurship based thinking and the main constituent of
which is creative thinking, it is important to research features that foster or
hinder the development of creative thinking. Developing and teaching the
prospective employer (activity leader), it is essential to understand the model
of creative work process and research educational assumptions of prospective
businessman, employer (activity leader) creativity development and self-
development at various developmental stages: foster the needs and forms of
training creative thinking, teaching and learning strategies, means of
7 developing environment, favourable for the leader in lifelong learning by
educating and teaching their educators and developing lifelong learning
measures significant to activity leaders, analysing educational mistakes
prevailing in Lithuania up to now.
In Lithuania, educators, teachers and teacher psychologists, lack
methodologies prepared to assess creating thinking, thus possibilities to
measure the efficiency of the provided creative thinking training suffer. All
participants of education system should be aware of the means and measures
of learner creativity development as well as factors that help or hinder this
Research object: the process of creativity and creative thinking which
proceeds due to psychological, social, physical and other factors.
Research purpose: to identify educational dimensions of creativity and
creative thinking on theoretical and empirical levels.
1. It is expected that originality of creative thinking reaches its maximum
in senior age adolescence (around 18 years of age), then it decreases.
2. It is expected that there exists a positive correlation between the
parameters of creative thinking (abundance of ideas, flexibility, originality)
and personality‟s interest in science and art.
Research objectives:
1. To analyse the concept of creativity and creative thinking, factors
affecting creativity and research into creative thinking.
2. To specify the concept “creativity”.
3. Having analysed the scientific literature to design a component and
dynamic models of a creative process.
4. To analyse the development of creative thinking in its ontogenesis.
5. To compare the parameters of creative thinking (abundance of ideas,
flexibility, originality) in groups according to gender, birth order, place of
residence and learning progress.
6. To identify correlations between the parameters of creative thinking
and other personality creativity dimensions (learner interest in science and art,
self-esteem, psychological well-being, value orientations).
7. To identify correlations between the parameters of creative thinking
(abundance of ideas, flexibility, originality) and self-education needs (time
spent on learner self-education by reading books, watching television,
conferencing with friends on-line and playing computer games), need to
attend creative thinking training clubs, peculiarities of will for independent
work (time spent to prepare homework) and overcoming learning difficulties.
8. To design recommendations to policy makers and teachers on the basis
8 of the theoretical and empirical findings of the dissertation.
Methodological basis of the research.
1. The research is based on a scientific-structural principle of research
methodology: the concept of creativity is defined making a distinction from
semantically close concepts (creative work, creative thinking, creative work
product, and etc.) and, having summarised research literature, theoretical
component and dynamic models of the creative process are designed.
2. The research is based on the educational philosophy conception by L.
Jovaiša (2007) which asserts that “education is human communication which
creates personality in interaction with environment and values of human
culture. Education is the most general category of pedagogy which includes
growing, educating, teaching, training, upbringing, formation” (Jovaiša, 2007,
p. 311), whereas sustainable education is a concept of education philosophy
“reflecting approach to education as a long-term process which starts from
birth and continues throughout life, i.e. includes all stages of life (age
periods) and forms of education and teaching” (Jovaiša, 2007, p. 181)
3. The research is based on the concept interpretation made by L. Jovaiša
asserting that creativity is “a set of personality features, which by productive
work allows to achieve original qualitatively new activity results significant
for the society“ (Jovaiša, 2007, p. 127).
4. The dissertation research is based on the holistic personality structure
theory created by L. Jovaiša (1999, 2001), which merges different
methodological schools (trait and factor theory, personality active
participation theory, cognitive theory and dynamic theories). Holistic
personality structure of the educational theory by L. Jovaiša consists of active
participation block, skill block, character block and motivation block.
5. The research has its foundation in humanistic psychology methodology,
where it is stated that creativity is a trait of personality who aims at self-
realisation and that self-realising personality “attempts to find new ways
rather than following safe pathways well-trodden by others” (Maslow, 2006).
6. The research is based on fully-functioning personality theory (Rogers,
2005). Only a free and creative personality who aims at self-expression and is
open to experience can be a fully functioning personality able to accept
himself and others in the way they actually are. Only taking into account what
is happening “here and now”, it is possible to hear one‟s real needs and
desires, one‟s inner voice and aim at satisfying the needs of one‟s creativity,
self-expression and freedom to learn.
7. The research is also grounded in phenomenological education theory.
C. Rogers (2005) emphasised the uniqueness of an individual and freedom to
choose how to behave; his behaviour is determined neither by his response to
9 the powers of subconsciousness, as stated by Froid, neither by external
stimuli, as stated by behaviourists, but depends on individual‟s perception,
understanding and interpretation of external world. No one in the world can
know our perception but only we ourselves, therefore it is us who are the best
experts. It is the individual‟s perception of the present moment situation, its
interpretation and experience of what we see and feel “here and now” that is
of particular significance.
As claimed by Rogers (2005), human behaviour is determined by person‟s
subjective world, his phenomenological reality is more important than the
physical world. It is how people interpret things that is actual reality,
therefore he calls the concept of self-evaluation – the evaluation of himself -
to be the most important educational dimension of personality.
Research stages:
Stage 1. Analysis of scientific literature and preparation of theoretical
component and dynamic model of creativity process. Definition of the
concepts of ”creativity”, “creative thinking”, “creative work”.
Stage 2. Identification of creativity research parameters. Selection of
creative thinking research methods. Designing of questionnaires for learners
and teachers researching personality traits (self-assessment, interests,
psychological well-being, learning motives, value orientations) and self-
education, participation in non-formal and informal education.
Stage 3. Research into learner and teacher creativity dimensions using a
questionnaire and two tests designed by E. E. Туник (2002) to evaluate
creativity parameters. The research was performed in 2008-2009. 655
th thresearch participants took part in the research: 601 5 -11 form school
learners and 54 teachers from Eišiškės, Kaunas, Panevėţys, Šalčininkai and
Vilnius schools (random sampling).
Stage 4. Statistical analysis of research data. Writing conclusions.
Designing recommendations for teachers and education executives on
creativity development.
Research methods: 1. Scientific literature analysis. 2. Questionnaire
survey. A questionnaire was prepared to research learner and teacher
personality traits (self-esteem, interests, psychological well-being, learning
motives, value orientations) and research participants‟ social-demographic
data. The questionnaire was prepared on the basis of a monograph by D.
Beresnevičienė (1995). 3. Testing. E. E. Туник‟s (2002) test on creative
thinking was used. 4. Statistical analysis was performed by statistical
information processing programme packet SPSS (Statistical Package for the
Social Science) version 14.0.
Scientific novelty and theoretical significance