Academic Summary Assignment due in 13 hours

THE APPLICATION OF PROJECT BASE CONSTRUCTIVE

PLAY TO ENCOURAGE STUDENT’S ABILITY IN CREATIVE

EXPRESSION AND COMMUNICATION

Helmi, Juntika Nurihsan, Udin Syaefudin Saud

)1

ABSTRACT

This research is conducted based on several findings in TK Sejahtera, Bandung

regarding to its teaching practice and the nature of the children progress. The

application of quasi experiment on the project base play program is aimed to redirect

children desire to play and aggressive energy into schemed creative activity. Children

mostly show their preference as adaptive problem solver in their creative style and

always try to negotiate their idea in communication process. The outcome of the

research shows some progress in children creative and communication abilities in the

test of variance. The experiment shows large effect in creative expression medium

significance in communication ability. It can be conclude that the research have

successful in endorsing children creative and communication ability along with their

various characteristics.

Keyword; Project Base Play, Creative Expression, Communication

A. INTRODUCTION Naturally, children are always wanted to play. Playing is actually an important

part in their daily activity where they were engage within an ease, simple, and fun

activity. However in some occasion, their activity within play does not make a good

impact to their progress when it was gone unmanaged. Sometimes it is creating

certain habit where they yearning more and more actively engage within the games

and fail to meet the expected progress. As Formberg view of play as an expression of

children internal mental structure that come engaged through some physical activities,

(Dockett & Fleer, 1999: p. 18) Teacher need to sustain their educational strategies in

such way to meet the nature of children expression. Some possible aggressive and

any other unproductive behavior supposedly caused by an inappropriate conduct to

their nature. The pedagogical vision of learning by playing, learning by doing, and

learning by stimulating as mentioned by Sujiono (2009: p.9) is truly something to be

considered as the base of application in the early childhood education. These

principles actually found its relevance in facilitating children energy to learn in wide

ranged and enduring program in a well liked form according to their preferences.

Project base play is offering some sort of directed activity to accomplish certain goal

by making a constructive project. “The children are actively involved in no just

making decisions, creating and organizing adjunct but also playing with the concept,

ideas and materials created” (Dockett & Fleer, 1999: p. 248). Based on what is

1 Dosen Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

described above, this research is not only aimed to test the application of Treffingger

model within the framework of the project base play on solving the problem in

children creative and communication abilities but also to explore their creative style

during the process and how significant it was to the overall progress.

Just like all the games people play, it is goes without saying that sometimes

children cannot differs the creation and the play. These circumstances could

somehow broaden the opportunities for teachers to set the variation of their teaching

method in order to enhance the progress of the children. Somehow it is strongly

correlates with the role of art in education where it could have major impact with its

role of application. According to Herawati (1999: p.14-22), it is strongly utilize to the

progress as medium of expression, communication, play, talent development,

sustaining children thinking skill, and earning the aesthetic experiences. It is also

facilitating the creation process within the play that encourages their creative

development through various medium of expression.

Naming creativity will leads to divergent thinking concept that based on

Guilford intellectual model of thinking somehow has a strong foundation in this

study. “Divergent thinking is clearly the backbone of creativity assessment and has

held this key position for many decades.” (Kaufman et al., 2008:p.14). The four main

divergent thinking components such as fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration are

the essential feature in the expansive thinking process. Random possibilities spurring

out in search for appropriate order until reflective convergent thinking system

triggered to filtering out the most appropriate application of an idea. In further

process according to Guilford presumably requires other mental operation such as

cognition, memory, Divergent Production, Convergent Production, and Evaluation

(Barlow, 2000) Those mental processes will somehow correlates with the Jungian

intuition role “…the conscious and unconscious will integrate during individuation

points to the important role for art and its communicative, symbol making aspect.”

(Nutting, 2007: p. 22). The individuation correlates with the self expression that

determining the characteristic of children expressions either in play or in their

artwork that goes along with certain behavioral and personality trait. Along with the

desire of release in Freud intuition concept, their expression not only constructed by

their unconscious base but also the environmental structural system in the class.

Following Read mapping of mental characteristic in creation process their drive will

possibly span from logical system, emotional feeling, perceptual sensation, and

intuitive expression (Thistlewood, 2002: p.8). Guilford thinking model in other

occasion, creating a structural mapping that range the creational aims from main

global component to a uniquely unexpected random quality of expression that rise

from children excessive exploration during their creation process. These presumably

complex processes of creation conducted by simple modification process as the effort

of children ideational concept of application as in the bloom cognitive structure

(Krathwohl, 2002: 214). Those perspectives somehow correlate with Amabile

componential theory of creative thinking that relies upon cognitive flexibility to

express their vision of symbol.

According to Kirton Adaption-Innovation Style (KAI) modified by Treffinger

(Kirton, 1994; Treffinger, 2003: p.322) there are three main structural frame work in

measuring creativity such as, Sufficiency of Originality, which measures a preference

for a few, very good ideas versus generating many ideas. (“Let’s have one good idea

vs Let’s generate many ideas”). Efficiency, which measures a preference for small-

scale, specific ideas versus inclusive, global ideas. (“Attention to follow up details vs

Broard strokes”). Rule conformity, which measure a preference for working within

the rules or ignoring them. (“Let’s go by the book vs Lets ignore the rule”). Within

those three major frameworks contains two different polar traits that representing

children creative style. The group works that is designed in this research making their

expression much more complex and interesting to explore to. Every expression that

comes out of their thought will have to meet the acceptances of their peer, so that

their ego taking a longer route to reach the expected point regarding to their

confluence. In this mater, children not only have to express their creative abilities but

also need to negotiate it with their peers. During the creative and negotiation process

every children encouraged to explore many possibilities to fill the psychological gap

of creation. This vision of creativity is well assembled with Treffinger model of

creative endorsement. According to Munandar (2009: p.172) this model is considered

as the most appropriate form to support the project base play approach that was

constructed by three stage of operation. The 1 st stage mostly builds to encourage

divergent thinking activity regarding to the problem. The 2 nd

stage will allows

children to do some experiment based on their ideas that formed in the earlier stage.

The 3 rd

stage is the actual process where children get engage to the problem and

applies their most appropriate ideas to solve the problem and finish the project.

The measurement of creativity will depends on the perspective vision of

creativity. The psychometric approach to creativity taking major ground base on

Guilford perspective in the concept of thinking and creativity. Within the Guilford

thinking model, divergent thinking concept is the most relevant form of creative

thinking process followed by miscellaneous convergences to filtrate the random

possibilities during the reflective process. “Psychometric theories mainly are the

study of psychological measurement which involves the test such as questionnaires…

They concentrated on divergent thinking as the basis of creativity and devised test

that emphasized the assessment of divergent thinking” (Li, 2010: p.16). The

psychometric approach to creativity making its exploration mostly based on mental

process and its form of creative performance as it known to the operational area of

TTCT. The TTCT itself was recognized as the expansion form that developed from

Guilford concept of divergent thinking. “Building on Guilford’s work, Torrance

(1974) developed the well-known Torrance Test of Creativity Thinking (TTCT)” (Li,

2010: p.28). The following test that used to measure the progress in this research

mostly based on TTCT in figural section. This figural test observing children abilities

in pictures construction or forms assembling, completions, or modifications

(Munandar, 2009: p.65). While on the other occasion, those figures that need to be

constructed adapting some verbal test characteristic like completion or construction

of an odd form. The main indicator for children achievement would be signified by

their capabilities in assembling four different faction of form, ranged from main form,

accessories, additional detail or additional form earn from class environment.

Communication abilities often became major basics of children exploration

and interaction within their environment. Ever since their early ages, a child

intuitively makes various efforts to communicate their feelings. Communication

abilities in this research mostly focused in how they express their ideas and feelings

to others during their creative activity. Not only in expressing it, their ability in

making certain kind of respond is taking the most part of this research. These two

polar reactions are the major group efforts as Day preferred to argue that the

linguistic activity basically made of two different actions such as expressing and

receipting (Day, 1983: p.69). They will expressively communicate their feelings and

each other ideas during the creation process. Rahmat (2009) identify that this kind of

communication process could also applies to a small group conversation. Elaborating

the communication process named by Day, Rahmat categorizing this proses into four

different activities like, confirmation, disconfirmation, questioning, and answering

(Rahmat, 2009: p.170). Children communication effort is also interesting features of

their activity like the study in their creative patterns, during the conversation, children

usually taking different role of action in expressing themselves or receipting others.

These communicational pattern somehow not really depend on their motivation

during the process but rather been a style that applied in their communicational

efforts. Basically, these characteristic are part of their creative performance where

they try to discuss their ideas whit each other, their expression, curiosity, and

flexibility in communicating their ideas are the important part of the action.

B. RESEARCH METHOD The quasi experiment research is actually conducted in TK Sejahtera,

Bandung. The participant of the research is ranged between 5 to 6 years old, which

was grouped, based on some specific similarities to the group developmental

characteristic in creativity and communication abilities by using the quota sampling

system.

The Treffinger model was the main base of program application that

facilitates the framework of project base play approach and constructive play method.

The constructive play and the communication process aimed to support the problem

solving project within the play which taking three staging process like, Exploration,

Experimentation, Project completion. The creative measurement that using TTCT

figural test heavily based on the divergent thinking process so that it will covering the

free flowing creativity within the process that supports the nature of early children

typicality, while the creative style is constructed by adapting some of the KAI and

Read creative self expression concept that comes together through four main creative

style. On the other hand, the communication abilities adapting the Polaris

transactional process within the small group activity that ranged from expression and

receipting activity. This process constructed with some of behavioral pattern that

ranged from confirmation and disconfirmation. Those frameworks are assembled to

construct the instruments that used to observe and collect the data of children

performance.

Table 1. Framework & Instruments Creative

Style Adaptive Problem solver, Unique, Enthusiastic, Inquisitive

Creative

Expressi

on &

Commu

nication

Creative Thinking; Original, Flexible Behavioral & Personality Trait; Curiosity, sensitivity to problem, confidence,

enduring the elaboration, Extraversion-talkative.

Cognition; Application, Abstract thinking

Project base play approach-Treffinger Model-constructive play method; Preparation Stage,

Experimentation Stage, Application Stage.

The research was conducted by following the research design in

nonequivalent Pretest-Posttest Group Design. (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:

p.343). The following treatments to the experiment group during the process are

based on the application of Treffinger Model of creative endorsement within the

framework of the project base play. The analysis on the data that was gathered during

the process is using descriptive and inferential system by using parametric statistical

analyses to analyze the data and making some conclusion.

C. RESULT Based on several data gathered during the research, the significant difference

shows the progress of children creativity and communication abilities. Within some

close observation in the experiment group, children creation tendencies mostly weight

in the 1 st creation type with only one sample that placed in the 4

th group. Differ from

the experiment group, two samples in control group shows more tendencies in 4 th

type creation group with the other two samples placed in the 2 nd

and 4 th

group.

Regarding to those findings, children in the experiment group having most creative

style as adaptive problem solver and inquisitive rather than other. On the other hand,

the control group shows similarity except for the 2 nd

sample that prefer to work on the

tiny and unique creation and the 4 th

sample that shows more inquisitive behavior.

Graph. 1. Creative Style

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CS1

CS2

CS3

CS4

After enduring several treatments, certain progress occurs in children creative

expression and communication ability. Their creative expression ability shows most

progress significances compared to the other group with p= 0.014. The progress also

applies to their communication ability with p= 0.034. The result of the experiment

group in the posttest is ranged above the other characterized group on both dependent

variables.

C.E. F= 26.106 (sig. 0.001) Comm. F= 18.360 (sig. 0.001)

Graph 2. Posttest (Creativity Expression & Communication)

Table 2. Multiple Comparisons (Creative Expression & Communication Ability) (I) Klmpk (J) Klmpk (I-J) Sig. (I-J) Sig.

Pretest Exp. -.44154 * .000 -.57620

* .000

Control -.21742 * .016 -.28045

* .044

Exp. Pretest .44154 * .000 .57620

* .000

Control .22412 * .014 .29575

* .034

Control Pretest .21742 * .016 .28045

* .044

Exp. -.22412 * .014 -.29575

* .034

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Within ANCOVA, the application of the Treffinger Model of Creative

endorsement showing significant effect to the children progress more than the

characteristic of the sample creation style (F= 57.186 within sig. 0. 001, ES=0.92

(51.6%), sR Square=0.8) the applied model currently making large of effect

significance difference between those in experiment and in the control group. The

same effect also applies to the children communication ability within the strength of

38.2 % (F= 3.084 within sig. 0.130, ES=0.333(21.3%), sR Square=0.27) the

significance value strongly affected by the base condition in pretest that shows major

progress within the experiment group. According to Cohen (1988; Becker, 2000) the

effect size scaled in 0.2 shows small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, 0.8 = large effect, so

that the experiment having large effect in the creative expression and medium effect

to the communication ability.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

C. E. Posttest

C. E. Pretest

Comm. Posttest

Comm. Pretest

Table 3. ANCOVA (Creative Expression & Communication Ability) Communication N Mean SE

Experiment 5 0. 955 0. 099

Control 4 0. 652 0. 114

Total 9 0. 804 0. 063

Creative Expression N Mean SE

Experiment 5 0. 938 0.021

Control 4 0. 666 0. 025

Total 9 0.8169 0.014

D. GENERAL DISCUSSION The project base constructive play that implemented in the research mainly

focused on arranging four major components that could be applied during the activity.

The four major components designed to meet their preferences such as, main object,

detail formal accessories, detail color accessories, and other random component.

Children encouraged in constructing the works in such possible way according to

their preferences of creation area. These preferences somehow show children creation

style regarding to their mental preference. Relating to their expression as Read

mentioned about four major mental concept in the creation of art (Thistlewood, 2002:

p.8; Read, 1943; p.145), their creation style mostly weight in the 4 th

and 1 st material

groups. Children mostly prefer to work on the main object and trying to elaborate it in

such way to create some artworks and one sample seems to be more inquisitive and

shows more flexible thinking to explore other possibility during their creation

process. Their creative style engaged within the problem solving process that extends

many possibilities in making better artworks but somehow less innovative. On the

other hand, the manipulation of 4 th

component somehow rarely found during the

research which thought to be the reflection of the integral act of creation. This

manipulation effort requiring children sensitivity not only to the object and their

accessories but also to the potential transformational arrangement regarding to their

environment and their autonomy of expression. In some occasion, children show this

stage of ability only then, they failing the modification of other three components so

that they were not making the good impact in the whole creation process. Other

assumption thought this as a random confluence that accidentally comes out but

failing the elaboration process. Following those findings it reflecting their “I”

construction as an adaptive problem solver and inquisitive person. It wasn’t really an

odd things regarding to the treatment during the experimentation. But on the other

hand, it is shows their lack of autonomy in their creative expression. While the sense

of identity is starting to bloom, their autonomy of expression is something beyond

them even though in Piaget perception of cognitive development, children in their age

were known as an egocentric person. Children base of artistic development which is

thought to start with favoritism (Parson, 1987; Efland, 2002:28) is actually not based

on their personal autonomy of expression. Their preference of expression somehow

builds on act of imitation as Wilson & Wilson though about their artistic

development. “These are forms learned in a social context largely by imitation. In

their view, children are concerned not with representing objects in the real world but

with the production of the visual signs of the culture.” (Wilson & Wilson; Efland,

2002: p.45). While Feldman (1994; Chen, 1997) consider that environmental and

cultural difference being one of the major factors that shaping children characteristic

in their creative expression, Gidens purposing a different perspective regarding to

tradition and the depth of cultural factor. Gidens differentiate the well-structured

tradition and the temporal social influence within the trend that creating certain level

of addiction syndrome that detaches our self (Gidens, 1994; Zaman, 2003: p.33).

Children creative achievement on the other hand shows progress in general

perspectives regarding to applied model of creative project. The Treffinger model of

creative endorsement successfully arranged with the constructive play method so it

was well supporting the children creative development. Along with the model

children aggressive energy is well channeled to work in the creative play base project.

The wide ranging coverage of mental and emotional activity which was emphasized

in this model (Munandar, 2009: p.172) taking major role in directing children activity

during the creative process. The first phase of the model facilitates children desire to

play and exploring various possibilities by activating their divergent thinking ability

within the process. In this moment, children actively engage in such kind of

interesting exploration activity to recognize the environment and the challenge or the

potential possibility in constructing their idea. The next phase of the process is when

they start to focusing their activity in certain possibility of the project. Here they try

to negotiate their idea with their peer in the group and will probably to enrich their

idea and making certain experimentation to determine its possible application.

Children creative expression is well covered in both mental creation regarding to the

works and automate expression when they try to negotiate their idea through some

discussion. Their exploration and expression are not only requiring some experiments

but also the approval of their peers in their team. The last phase of the model is

encouraging children to actually assembling their idea through some concrete

artwork. The appreciation process is actually goes along to meet children perspective

and self-confidences. The actual appreciation process is giving them a concrete

insight to the artwork possibility that created by their peer which supposed to broaden

their perspective in the possibility of constructing the works. The free flowing

creation and discussion within the process will also help them to build their

confidence and communication ability.

The progress shows not only in children creativity but also their

communicative abilities. In general children communication activity bout in,

confirmation, disconfirmation, questioning, and answering (Rahmat, 2009: p.170).

The major polar reactions during the communication activity (Day, 1983: p.69) will

also reflecting the four main communicational efforts as described above. Those

inscriptions also proved in the children activity throughout the creation process.

However some interesting characteristic of their communicative aims shows their

deference in style of communication and how they communicate and discuss their

ideas with their peers. Regarding to their characteristics, three communication styles

were naturally formed in the progress of the project. The three group characteristics

consist of children preferences to explore the matter with questions, negotiate the

situation through some discussion, or just following and acting like an observer or

perhaps putting more focus in creative activity in the project. Children polar reaction

within the process somehow shows good sense of balance. The communication form

however raises an interesting appearance in their activity. They were not just

communicating verbally but also through some complex interaction like gestural

figure and facial expression but then again, verbal expression indicates better

communication ability. Regardless, the communication style doesn’t reflect the

means of behavioral pattern like the creative style. The communication itself is the

actual form that reflecting their cognitive abilities.

The significant difference shows in control group where they were almost

completely unorganized and fail to make a good interaction and tends to be more

defective and remain aggressive. Their activity leaving the project unfinished and fail

to make any performance that show their creative abilities. Although the progress

only ranges in relatively significant rate, the application of the model somehow

focusing the children to the problem and target in the project and it gave some good

contribution to their learning process. Their natural creative expression is well

channeled through the application of Treffinger model. The overall report of the

research is shows that the Treffinger Model in the project base play proven to be

effective in helping children to gain significant progress in their creative expression

and communication abilities. The difference in one of the children grade in the

control group was relatively insignificant either in the pretest or the posttest that

supposedly have been covered by the framework of the research that does not

including the knowledge base factor. The same thing applies to other characteristic of

the children within the coverage of the research framework.

E. SUMMARY Based on the result of close observation, children in the experiment group

having most creative style as adaptive a problem solver and inquisitive rather than

other type. On the other hand, the control group shows similarity except for the 2 nd

sample that prefers to work on the tiny and unique creation. Even though the creation

style thought to be an important part of children development, somehow it does not

causing significant effect compared with the application of the model. While on the

other hand, the effect of the treatment looks strongly significant only in the creative

growth with ES=0.92 (51.6%) and medium significance at ES=0.333 (21.3%) for the

communication ability. After having several experimentations based on the

application of Treffinger model of creative endorsement in the project base play is

proven to be somewhat effective in extending the concept of creative self expression

with most significant progress compared to the other group with p= 0.014. The

progress also applies to their communication ability with p= 0.034. The children

natural conditions as an active and sometimes aggressive figure are carefully directed

to work on the project through somewhat playful circumstances that range to their

various expression characteristic so that it requires further modification in the use of

artistic material and teaching method in order to give them a better stimulation and

covering children various creative expression.

REFERENCES

Barlow, C., M., (2000) Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect.[online] available at;

http://guilford.Pdf [23 March 2013]

Becker, L., A., (2000) Effect Size (ES) .[online] available at; http://www2.jura.uni-

hamburg.de/instkrim/kriminologie/Mitarbeiter/Enzmann/Lehre/StatIIKrim/Effe

ctSizeBecker.pdf

Chen, J. C. (1997), An Examination of Theories of Aesthetic Development with

Implication for Future Research. Taiwan: Journal of Tauwan National Normal

University. [online] available at : http://140.122.100.145/ntnuj/j42/hs42-2.pdf [1

Februari 2011]

Day, B. (1983), Early Childhood Education; Creative learning activities. New York:

Mc Milan Publishing Co.

Docket & Fleer (1999) Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood. Sidney: Harcourt

Australia Pty. Limited.

Efland, A. D. (2002), Art and Cognition; Integrating The Visual Arts in The

Curriculum,[online] available at: http://study-art.free-books.biz/Art-and-

Cognition-Integrating-the-Visual-Arts-in-the-Curriculum-PDF-383.html

[17Oktober 2012]

Herawati, I, S, &Iriaji (1999) Pendidikan Seni Rupa. Jakarta: DEPDIKBUD

Krathwohl, D., R., (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. [online]

available at: http://Krathwohl.pdf [21 July 2014]

Kaufman, J., C., et al., (2008) Essentials of Creativity Assessment. New Jersey, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Li, R., (2010) Visualizing Creativity: An analysis of the relationship between

creativity and visualization through an overview of theories of creativity

visualization technologies. [online] available at; http://LiR.pdf [1 Mei 2015]

McMillan, J., H., & Schumacher, S., (2001) Research in Education; a Conceptual

Introduction (cet.5). New York, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Munandar, U. (2009), Pengembangan Kreativitas Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Rineka

Cipta.

Nutting, C., M., (2007) Concrete Insight; Art, the Unconscious, and Transformative

Spontaneity. [online] available at; http://nutting.pdf [12 November 2013]

Rahmat, J. (2008) Psikologi Komunikasi. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.

Sujiono, Y. N. (2009), Konsep Dasar Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini. Jakarta: Indeks.

Thistlewood, D., (2002), Herbert Read, Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of

Education. [online] available at; http://reade.pdf [12 November 2013]

Treffinger, D., J., et al. (2003) Creativity Styles and Personal Type. [online] available

at; http://Creativity Styles.pdf [1 Mei 2015]

Zaman, A., N., (2003) Anthony Giddens; Masyarakat Post-Traditional, Living in

Post-Traditional Society. Yogyakarta. IRCiSoD