206 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Let./Vol. 70 (136)
 Št./No. 1/2019
 Str./pp. 206–225
ISSN 0038 0474 Aleksandar Stojanović,  
Jelena Prtljaga,  
and Aleksandra Gojkov-Rajić
Creativity encouragement strategies  
at early age
Abstract: Analysis of prior research on creativity at an early age indicates a lack of data on the efficacy 
of existing, theoretically promoted strategies and procedures applied at older age. There are, however, 
certain findings in favour of these strategies at an early age. In addition to theoretical explication, the 
paper offers arguments for the empirical validation of strategies for creativity encouragement, based 
on broader international research carried out in Serbia and Romania that studied the didactic reaches 
of the Nikola Tesla Centre (NTC) program, intended for encouraging divergent thinking and focusing 
specifically on qualities of thinking, such as fluency, flexibility, and originality. The current study 
investigates what are the effects of a divergent production of tasks, created on the basis of one of the 
strategies of creativity development, saturated with processes of creative imagination and inventiveness, 
on preschool-age children. The experiment in the evaluation study was conducted on a group of respon-
dents, measuring their performance in solving divergent production tasks in initial and final testing. 
The study included children between 6–7 years old from Romania and Serbia: 562 in the initial and 
371 in final testing. The results show that over the course of the NTC learning and teaching program, 
children can be instructed in developing a wider mental structure in the sense of discovering unusual 
and remote relations between stimuli and responses.
Keywords: creativity, strategies for encouraging divergent thinking  
 
UDC: 37.015.3
Scientific paper
Aleksandar Stojanović, PhD., associate professor, University of Belgrade, Teacher Training Faculty, 
Kraljice Natalije 43, 11000 Beograd, Republic of Serbia; e-mail: aleksandar.stojanovic@uf.bg.ac.rs 
Jelena Prtljaga, PhD., assistant professor, Preschool Teacher Training College “Mihailo Palov” Vršac, 
Omladinski trg 1, 26300 Vršac, Republic of Serbia; e-mail: vsvasdirektor@hemo.net 
Aleksandra Gojkov-Rajić, PhD., associate professor, University of Belgrade, Teacher Training Faculty, 
Kraljice Natalije 43, 11000 Beograd, Republic of Serbia; e-mail: rajis@mts.rs

 Stojanović, Prtljaga, Gojkov-Rajić    207
Introduction
Creativity , as one of most appreciated human features, has often been referred 
to as one of the basic upbringing and educational tasks for all ages of children, 
as well as one of the key competencies and factors of emancipator potential in a 
knowledgeable society ( Đurišić-Bojanović 2011).  
Creative work or creativity (Latin creativnus, creation—denoting creation 
of something new, invention, discovery, original work) refers to people’s ability 
to find new solutions, consider problems from new angles, and create new ideas; 
creativity is accepted as something that has social, spiritual, scientific, aesthetic, or 
technological value (Banaji, Perrotta, and Cranmer 2010; Kim 2011; Runco 2007). 
In other words, the basic determinant is novelty and originality in the creation of 
new combinations of already known forms of poetry or music, reorganizations of 
ideas and notions, or theories in science (Kleibeuker, de Dreu, and Crone 2013; 
Kvaščev 1981). 
Torrance et al. (in Gojkov 1995) considered whether creativity corresponds 
to a type of open or divergent thinking (and noticed a great diversity of solutions 
and responses), which is contrary to close or convergent thinking, when one con-
siders problems only according to unique, singular answers (Runco and Acar 2010; 
Khandwalla 1993). Recently, divergent thinking has come to be considered one of 
the specific features of a creative personality (Beghetto and Kaufman 2007). 
Guilford (1968) divided thinking to convergent (logical conclusion, finding 
the right solution) and divergent thinking (finding as many correct solutions as 
possible). The essential feature of divergent thinking is that it is opposite to con-
vergent thinking and cognition is scattered across a variety of possible solutions. 
There are four aspects of divergent thinking: fluency, the skill of creating high 
quality ideas in the linguistic sense; flexibility, the ability to replace the existing 
form of thinking with new ones; originality, the ability to produce rare or new 
ideas; and elaboration, the skill of planning and organizing (ibid.). In more recent 
research (Gralewski et al. 2016), the same elements were attributed to the struc-
ture of observed creativity , or even considered the core elements, but also included 
another element: the motivational, or changes in cognitive development caused 

208 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
by the transition from the preoperational phase to a range of concrete operations 
(Marchand 2012). To test this, the well-known Gilford’s alternative
1
 (1968) uses 
task can be utilized, where creativity is tested by asking respondents to list as 
many possible uses for an item (a brick, for example) in a certain period of time. 
Tests and programs for creativity identification and development of creativity have 
been developed according to Guilford’s guidelines. Most famous are those created 
by Donald J. Treffinger and E. Paul Torrance. Guilford’s conclusion was that cre-
ativity can be practiced, like skills, with more training leading to better effects in 
the sense of creative thinking patterns. 
Many authors believe that the operational structure of creativity consists of 
the following: originality , flexibility , creative fantasy , tolerance to uncertainty , and 
problem development, as well as elements of the motivational and conative fea-
tures of creative thinking (Gralewski et al. 2016). There is, however, no agreement 
regarding the structure of creativity in younger ages (Runco and Acar 2010).
Research within the framework of various scientific disciplines, real life exper-
iences, as well as expert opinions and reflections all indicate that the foundations 
for later development are created in the first years of the child’s life (Skalicky et 
al. 2017). It has been acknowledged in literature that the quality of early education 
has permanent consequences for subsequent processes of learning, education, and 
upbringing, and thus for the future of children’s development (Runco 2007; Sto-
janović and Bogavac 2016; Vartanian, Martindale, and Matthews 2009).  
 
Relevant research on creativity at early age
Up to now , research on creativity involved originality , flexibility , creative fantasy , 
tolerance to uncertainty , openness of experience, creative generalization, fluency of 
ideas, discovery and problem development, and motivational and conative features 
1
 Guilford determines the following factors of divergent thinking: flexibility, fluency, originality 
and elaboration:
1. Flexibility—ability to produce many relevant ideas (Torrance 1981), to find as many solutions 
to a problem as fast as possible. There is: (a) spontaneous flexibility (divergent production of semantic 
classes) and (b) adaptive flexibility (divergent production of figure transformations).
2. Fluency—ability to process information and objects in different ways (Torrance 1981), ability 
to simultaneously consider as many different possibilities and categories as possible. There is: (a) 
word fluency (divergent production of symbolic units), (b) associative fluency (divergent production of 
semantic relations), (c) expressive fluency (divergent production of semantic systems), and (d) fluency 
of ideas (divergent production of semantic units).
3. Originality (divergent production of semantic transformations)—ability to produce rare or 
completely new ideas (Torrance 1981), arriving at ideas differing from other, already familiar ideas. 
 4. Elaboration—ability to elaborate and illuminate ideas with as many details in respon-
ses as possible. There is: (a) figure elaboration (divergent production of figure implications) and  
(b) semantic elaboration (divergent production of semantic implications). Apart from the stated factors, 
there are other factors not classified within divergent ones, but also significant for creativity:
5. Sensitivity to problems (cognition of semantic implications)—ability to notice shortcomings or 
need to change or improve existing things.  
6. Redefinition (cognition of semantic transformations)—ability to abandon the old ways of expla-
ining familiar objects in order to use them for new purposes.  

      209 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
of creative thinking (Đurišić-Bojanović 2011; Kvaščev 1981; Maksić 2006). In the 
creative production of an individual’s abilities, interests and learning styles have 
been found to be most important (Renzulli 1992; Mouchiroud and Lubart 2001). 
In recent work, creativity is mostly observed and described as creative talent, 
creative production, creative activity, and creative contribution (Csiksentmihalyi 
and Wolfe 2014; Snyder et al. 2004; Zahra, Yusoll, and Hasim 2013). Analyzing 
the theories and models of creativity leads to the conclusion that the phenomenon 
of creativity is rather described than explained, so that there is room for further 
research on this subject (Mouchiroud and Lubart 2001). Some authors insist on a 
holistic approach to the phenomenon of creativity and giftedness, which enables 
them to be explained in a comprehensive, scientific way and the development of 
gifted individuals to be simulated effectively in terms of education (Feldman 1999; 
Matijević 2012). There are many theories that attempt to explain the process of 
creation and creativity in general, but none of them provide a single and compre-
hensive interpretation of creative behavior (Runco 2007). The trait-based theor-
etical approach to creativity is believed to be the most comprehensive, because it 
includes personality variables, in a narrow sense, as well as abilities (Zeigler and 
Phillipson 2012).
Research on the creative potential of children at an early age can be success-
fully examined according to the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (measuring 
fluency , flexibility , originality , and elaboration) and/or Valac-Koganov’s battery for 
measuring creativity . Besides, the application of creative thinking by Guilford et al. 
have also proven successful, for example, the “Unusual Uses” or “ Alternative uses 
task,” the “Listing words” test, or the test “Story” (Maksić 2006; Paletz and Peng 
2008), as well as Torrance’s techniques of evaluating and encouraging creativity 
in “Think creatively in action and movement” (Andiliou and Murphy 2010; Sturza 
Milić 2014). The very names of the tasks and tests fairly clearly imply their essence. 
The analysis of previous research on this subject points, however , to a deficiency 
of data on the efficacy of existing, theoretically sustained, strategies and procedures 
that have been applied to older ages, i.e., school (elementary, secondary) rather 
than preschool children (Alfonso-Benlliure and Santos 2016). Data on the efficacy 
of didactic strategies that stimulate creativity in early age are scarce (Gralewski et 
al. 2016). Studies indicate that the creative production of preschool-age children is 
highly pronounced and occurs in various areas, but later, at different the ages, de-
clining tendencies were observed (Alfonso-Benlliure and Santos 2016; Gojkov 1995).
Results of various research have offered argumentation on the non-linear 
development of creative abilities (Barbot, Lubart, and Besancon 2016; Besancon 
and Lubart 2008; Kleibeuker et al. 2013). Their findings have shown an average 
development of creativity between 4–9 years old, according to all the observed cri-
teria, followed by stagnation, along with a modest decrease between 16–19 years 
old, with a subsequent, noticeable increase in creativity . In other words, there is a 
consistent growth of creative abilities, lasting until early maturity , or the so-called 
adolescent crisis in creativity development. Additionally , according to the findings 
of the above-mentioned authors, the growth is equal according to all the observed 
criteria, while the decline during the so-called adolescent crisis has been confirmed 

210 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
in 3 out of 14 criteria. Experts consider that these differences in creative ability 
between age groups can result from other causes, not only from developmental 
changes. Up to now , there is no data regarding preschool-age children, nor lower or 
higher school-age children (Barbot, Lubart, and Besancon 2016). It is significant for 
the present paper that the findings of the mentioned studies are in favour of a linear 
development of creativity at the observed age (4–7 years). On the other hand, the 
finding referring to the older age found in another study (Gralewski and Karwowski 
2013, 2016) is also interesting, since it indicates the importance of encouraging 
creativity development. In the discussion of their findings, these authors (ibid.) 
point out that underestimating student creativity, due to the inability to identify 
creativity by secondary school teachers in Poland, where the research was carried 
out, can cause a crisis of creativity development at early adult age (adolescent 
crisis), which has been noticed in the mentioned study (ibid.). This underscores the 
importance of research on the effects of didactic strategies focusing on creativity 
development. The weak point of this (ibid.) and other studies, as concluded by the 
authors themselves, is their methodological nature, since this is a cross-sectional 
study, and similar ones have been carried out in Germany (Jaarsveld et al. 2012; 
Krampen 2012; Urban 2005). There are currently no reports on the subject in 
longitudinal studies. 
The part of the paper dealing with previous research on the phenomenon offers 
a discussion on understanding creativity, criteria, and ways to identify creativity. 
There is a need for pedagogical work to be more seriously focused on fostering 
the creative manifestation of children by structuring suitable didactic-methodical 
strategies at an early age (Gralewski and Karwowski 2013). Structuring instructions 
adequately starts the process of distancing children from the accustomed testing 
directions (Mouchiroud and Lubart 2001).
Edward de Bono found that people think in two ways—linear thinking and 
lateral thinking (in Gojkov and Stojanović 2011). Linear thinking is developed 
during maturation and it enables logical thinking, problem solving, task solving, etc. 
Lateral thinking (“sideways thinking”), i.e., thinking in images or representations, 
is the foundation of creativity (Forthmann et al. 2016). It opens up possibilities for 
the creation of something new (Runco, Plucker , and Lim 2000). Children’s inherent 
ability to think laterally is, to great extent, suppressed by parents and school, 
teaching children to think rationally , i.e., in a linear way , unconsciously suffocating 
creativity (Alfonso-Benlliure and Santos 2016). Children should be provided with 
the opportunity to develop both linear and lateral thinking, according to suitable 
strategies. 
There is an obvious need to research strategies of creativity encouragement 
at an early age, and to inform the relevant actors in education (preschool teachers, 
teachers, parents) about them so that they can be effectively applied (Wang and 
Hong 2002). 

      211 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
Creativity encouragement strategies
Current research on didactic and teaching methodology strategies for the en-
couragement of creativity has led to the conclusion that there are possibilities for 
application at an early age (Feldman and Benjamin 2006; Forthmann et al. 2016). 
The research focusing on preschool-age children in cross-sectional studies have 
observed an acceleration of creative abilities and concluded that this accelerated 
development starts as early as kindergarten (Gralewski 2016). So, encouragement of 
the development of creative thinking elements should occur as early as preschool age. 
One of the possibilities to encourage creative thinking elements development is 
the implementation of the Osborn’s (1963) strategy - “brainstorming”. It deserves a 
significant place within the well-known systems of creativity development and can 
be applied in different variants and at younger school age. Osborn’s (ibid.) system 
of creativity development is based on the following psychological mechanisms: re-
search and test other possibilities of implementation of ideas; adapt, modify , enlarge, 
reduce, condense, substitute, change the sequence of elements, turn everything 
over, then combine two or more ideas (Kvaščev 1981). 
Torrance was another researcher whose creativity theory has turned out to be 
significant and efficient. His system of creativity development (Torrance 1981) is 
theoretically grounded in the following: in revealing ambiguity , i.e., various layers 
of meanings of the given facts and an increase of value of the given information; 
developing strategies of creative learning through discovery; developing motiva-
tional components of creativity; synthesis of empirical research and theoretical 
generalization; associative basis of discovery; and finding something new according 
to incomplete facts and insufficiently structured material. The function of didactic 
instructions in Torrance’s system of creative abilities development is to synthetize 
material and functional aspects of education; to overcome the imbalance between 
the cumulation of knowledge and the demand for forming of creative personality 
through development of tolerance towards new ideas, encouragement of self-initi-
ated learning, raising provocative questions so that the learners have to interpret, 
apply, analyse, systematize and evaluate information. 
The Nikola Tesla Center’s was established in 2000 within the Department of 
Mensa, Serbia. The purpose of the NTC program is to encourage creative thinking, 
or divergent production, based on didactic strategies, using knowledge gained from 
neurophysiology and cognitive psychology. Exercises in the NTC program offer 
practical procedures that address the issues of integrating intellectual activities 
in more coherent and interconnected acts, demonstrating practically, through ex-
ercises, how basic binding operations can be embedded in representations of the 
depiction and perception of an organization. The NTC’s program for encouraging 
creativity is applied in Italy , the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Romania, Montenegro, 
Croatia, Slovakia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Serbia, it was accredited by the 
Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia for the professional development 
of educators and teachers (Rajović 2012a). It is based on understanding the im-
portance of a child’s intrinsic capacities (for symbolization and representation), 

212 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
and also on Bruner’s insistence on the possibilities of intellectual development of a 
child according to techniques encouraging child’s intellectual development (Gojkov , 
Rajović, and Stojanović 2015; Rajović 2009). Based on the above, which represents 
the theoretical basis for this evaluation study, as well as Osborn and Torrance’s 
strategies of creativity development, didactic instructions were selected in the pro-
gram, the effects of which are presented in the current paper (Rajović 2009, 2012).
The subject of the evaluation study refers to observing the effects of the in-
ternational project called “Smart Children Network,” (SMART) which is based on 
the NTC learning system.
The research problem, or research question is: what are the didactic reaches 
of the NTC program in the sense of divergent production development, meaning 
to what an extent have the tasks saturated by the processes of creative thinking, 
creative imagination, inventiveness, and divergent production influenced liberation 
from conformist thinking, and what have their effects been in divergent production? 
The general research aim is therefore to contribute to discovering more 
effective creativity encouragement strategies at an early age. Apart from theoret-
ical clarifications, the intention is to get to the arguments empirically, validating 
creativity encouragement strategies according to findings arising from of the 
results of a broader international research conducted by authors in Serbia and 
Romania (Rajović et al. 2017) in order to get insights into the didactic reaches of 
the NTC program in creativity development (independent or intervening, predictive  
variable). 
The direct aim is to establish the extent to which the tasks saturated with the 
processes of creative thinking—fluency , flexibility , creative imagination, inventive-
ness, and originality (which are dependent variables)—all affect the development of 
elements of creative thinking or divergent production (which are criteria variables) 
in preschool children, in order to find suitable elements for assessing the efficacy 
of the NTC program.
General hypothesis: As a result of this exercise, the group of preschool age 
children will increase the number of creative solutions to problems in functional 
tasks, i.e., didactic instructions in the NTC system. Demands for divergent thinking 
will induce divergent production in respondents, that is, it will liberate them from 
conformist thinking and provide notable efficacy in divergent production. 
Working hypotheses: 
The research is a kind of explorative evaluation and operational, applied 
study, making several first steps in more fully articulating the poorly-examined 
phenomena of the effects of the NTC program’s didactic instructions, as well as 
one of the commonly-applied strategies of developing creative thinking in older 
children, all in order to encourage creativity in children of younger ages.

      213 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
Method
Sample and organization: A purposive sample included 562 children, 290 
boys and 272 girls. Of the 562 children who participated in the initial test, 371 
took part in the final test (192 boys and 179 girls). They included 368 chil-
dren from Serbia, 194 from Romania, and ranged in age from 6–7. They were 
taught according to national curricula in institutional education and upbringing 
work. The decrease in the sample in the final test was caused by an outbreak of  
chickenpox.
Descriptive method and the method of a one-group experiment were used in 
this research. Descriptive method was applied in data collection, processing, and 
interpretation. The one-group experiment method was used in that work concerning 
the establishment of the effects the NTC system on the development of divergent 
production in preschool children. 
According to Osborn’s standpoint, the didactic program was related to the 
method of introducing creation to associative links, creative generalizations, 
and other forms of mediations, as well as developing flexible, creative thinking 
elements, i.e., the method of exercise, combining the nominal method of group 
discussion and instructions (Gojkov, Gojkov-Rajić, and Stojanović 2014). This is 
all contained in Osborn’s checklist: Explore and try out some other possibilities 
of using ideas. Adapt (is there anything like this, what are the other ideas?), 
Modify (change the meaning, color, motion, sound, shape). Reduce (diminish—
what to take away, make smaller, condense). Substitute (what can be added 
instead of this—other material, other processes, other methods of solving). Re-
arrange the layout of elements. Combine two or more ideas, etc. (Hellriegel and  
Slocum 1989).
Attention was also paid to the use of stimulus words and orientation to-
wards finding remote associations, as well as on the encouragement of remote 
relations as intermediaries between the stimuli and response, as mediators in 
promoting fluency, flexibility, and other elements of creative thinking. This 
forms the structural basis of the program that’s efficacy is analyzed in this  
research.
Characteristics of didactic instructions within the program also included 
stimuli for finding ways to solve problems without strict guidance, but with total 
freedom allowed, stimulating production to the maximum extent, encouraging un-
usual ideas for solving problems, and considering the most suitable ideas through 
discussion (which has its own rules specific to Osborn’s strategy) (Osborn in  
Stojaković 2008). 
The responses were differentiated according to the structure of associations, 
i.e., the level of divergencies: 1. associations according to similarity; 2. direct as-
sociations; 3. accidental associations—practical; 4, distant relations, referring to 
different creative uses of an objects, establishment and strength of associations.
8
 

214 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
The key characteristics of didactic instructions in the analyzed program are 
related to the teaching style in which the development of tolerance towards new 
ideas is recognized; asking challenging questions that should be interpreted, ana-
lyzed, and systematized by children.
Research instruments refer to tests for children: pre-test and post-test, i.e., 
initial and final tests of functional knowledge (FZ-1 and 2)
3
 and divergent production 
tasks (ZDP-1 and 2)
4
. Functional tasks are selected so that it is possible to check 
the effects of creative reactions in solving the problems referring to functional 
knowledge. The same tasks were applied in both initial and final testing. The 
same tasks were used in the final testing in order to determine the effects of the 
2
 Example:
A PEn
Examples of responses 
I
Drawing/writing/coloring... 
Putting make-up/drawing on one’s face 
II
To sharpen it 
If you have an eraser, to erase it 
To tap with it 
To make a hole with it
To poke something with it 
III
To be a meat skewer 
To model dough/plasticine with it
To play music with it, to be a drumstick...
To put it in one’s hair, to curl hair with it 
To be a stick holding a flower 
To measure something with it/ to be a ruler
To hit something with it 
To hammer it on the wall 
To reach something with it 
To ornament it 
To mark a place in a book we are reading 
IV
To construe something with it 
To be a rabbit’s ear 
To be a fence 
To be a mic 
To be a magic stick
To be a conductor stick
To be a weapon in a play (a sword, arrow, gun…)  
3
 An example of a functional task: A man was walking through the woods with his eyes closed, but 
he nevertheless knew it was autmn. How? (Solution: leaves rustling sound effect…) 
4
 The tasks required children to come to as many original and unusual responses as possible. In the 
offered examples, the children were motivated to find/think of as many helpful uses of a ball, a coffee 
cup, a pencil, a piece of paper, and a fork as possible. 

      215 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
program, and the grounds for this was found at the level of results of the initial  
testing. 
The paper will offer only the findings related to the tasks requiring children 
to think of as many original and unusual responses as possible. Each of the stated 
objects has its own common use, and children were supposed to list several other 
(different) possibilities (Snyder et al. 2004). 
Data analysis: for the purpose of this research, the children’s responses were 
classified by competent reviewers—researchers of creativity—in six categories that 
reflect the structure of associations in divergence: associations by similarity , direct 
associations, random associations, remote relations, no answer , and senseless answers.
In presenting the research data, the focus was on responses related to a more 
creative use of items, i.e., those in which divergent elements of thinking are mani-
fested. It was necessary to determine the extent to which respondents, in solving 
problems, predominantly use mediators and establish associations, as well as the 
consistency of association (Mednik in Gojkov 1995).
It was established, according to the calculation of the Cronbach’s alpha 
(0.73), that the scale used to measure the success in problem solving of divergent 
production in the initial and final research showed sound reliability and internal 
consistency for the chosen research sample. Cronbach’s alpha for the test of func-
tional knowledge was 0.78. 
In order to establish the validity of the instrument, i.e., in order to examine 
what the instrument measures, it was necessary to analyze the data collected 
according the instrument, which was a modified version of Guilford’s (1968) cre-
ativity test, directing a subject to state as many possible uses of an object (e.g., a 
brick) as possible for a limited period of time. This was done for a representative 
subsample of subjects. Subsequently, the collected data were analyzed according 
to logical validation of an expert team; content analysis was conducted, as it is a 
common initial procedure for validity check. Condensation of test particles led to 
three latent variables, referring to divergent production, whose construct consists 
of fluency, flexibility, and originality, which is in accordance with the theoretical 
grounds this research is based on.
The initial research was organized in the beginning of 2016 and finalized at 
the end of the same year. Data statistical analysis was conducted in the Statistical 
Package for the Social Science (SPSS program – descriptive statistics, Chi-square 
test of independence for determining the statistical significance of differences).
The predictive variable is the NTC program, that is, didactic instructions that 
encourage creative responses in children, while the criterion variable refers to the 
elements of divergent thinking. Aware of the possibility that numerous factors 
can influence the changes in the quality of creativity in general, and thus in the 
case of the observed children, we adopted the one group experiment due to the fact 
that the project made available a purposive sample, implying more contents. As 
a consequence, there were no possibilities for other approaches. Keeping in mind 
that this is an explorative approach, i.e., the first step in the search for finding 
broader frameworks and more certain hypotheses, an experiment with one group 
was considered acceptable for the present evaluation study. 

216 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
The respondents’ countries, familiarity with the items, knowledge, and ex-
perience as a factor of creativity were the control variables.
Results and discussion 
Effects of didactic instructions contained in Osborn’s strategy of creativity 
development on divergent production
The presentation of data relating to the first hypothesis shows the number 
of changes developing in respondents under the influence of didactic instructions 
contained in Osborn’s strategy of creativity development, i.e., using the NTC pro-
gram. Relations between the initial and final test are shown in Table 1. 
 
0
1
the number of acceptable responses 
t otal
2 3 4
Repeated 
46 59 82 89 90 366
12.6% 16.1% 22.4% 24.3% 24.6% 100.0%
Initial 
 
128 88 78 46 23 363
35.3% 24.2% 21.5% 12.7% 6.3% 100.0%
Table 1: Differences in initial and final measuring of divergent thinking
There is an obvious difference in favour of final measurement in which re-
spondents were providing more creative answers than in the initial measurement, 
meaning their responses contained more elements of creative production, or more 
fluency of ideas about the usability of items that were examined, more flexibility, 
originality, redefinitions, and creative generalizations were given, and there were 
less senseless answers or situations in which the child did not give any answer.
The above finding confirms the first hypothesis that a statistically significant 
difference is expected in favour of the final measurement regarding the elements of 
creative production. This essentially confirms the general assumption that didactic 
instructions in the NTC system affect the development of divergent production in 
preschool children. The application of the above described didactic instructions 
within the NTC program, grounded on the elements of Osborn’s strategy of creativity 
development, lasted from the middle of March 2016 to October 2016 with a break 
during summer holidays (July–August). All in all, children were exposed to these 
didactic instructions for about four months, and if the summer holiday is taken into 
consideration, it is a period of six months. From the angle of maturation, it is not 
to be expected that the factor of time would have been the sole cause of statistically 
significant indicators, having in mind that the observation period was not long. 
Didactic instructions saturated with demands for creative thinking, creative 
imagination, and inventiveness induced divergent production, that is, affected 
the liberation from conformist thinking and led to notable efficacy in divergent 

      217 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
production. This is a confirmation of the first hypothesis, in which the elements of 
creative thinking are criteria variable and the NTC program is a predictive vari-
able. It verifies the possibilities of encouraging creativity at a younger age, that 
is in children 6–7 years old (Gralewski et al. 2016). The data are given in Table 1. 
The second hypothesis, that statistically significant differences in the under-
standing of creative use of objects in the course of solving functional tasks was 
expected, indicating divergent production, was tested using the Chi-square test 
of independence. It was found that there was a statistically significant difference 
(0.01) between efficacy in solving functional tasks and giving creative answers to 
the question about the use of items (pencil, sheet of paper , ball, cup) ( χ
2
 = 66.309, p 
< 0.001) in favor of the final test. A small but statistically significant influence was 
found regarding the efficacy of solving functional tasks with the help of divergent 
functionality of items (V = 0.17). Based on the divergent use of items, respondents 
created new ideas about the possibilities to solve tasks in a new and original way 
and, thus, they were more efficient in solving functional tasks. This relation can 
be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Relation between the efficacy in solving functional tasks and divergent production
The confirmed relation between the elements of divergent thinking and the 
success in solving functional tasks also indicates the possibility of encouraging 
divergent thinking at this age using certain didactic instructions and strategies. 
Based on divergent abilities, respondents demonstrated creative responses and 
came up with new ideas that represented original ways in solving functional tasks, 
which is an essential feature of divergent production (Diakidoy and Phitaka 2002). 
Similar findings were reported by other researchers (Runco and Acar 2010) who 
studied the advantage of using the instruction and evaluation of ideas in problem 
solving. Instructors who led the training facilitated an increase in the number of 
accurate solutions for the given tasks.
It can be noticed that the tasks saturated by the processes of creative thinking 
(fluency , flexibility , creative imagination, inventiveness, and originality) have influ-
enced the development of elements of creative thinking, i.e., divergent production 

218 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
in preschool children, leading to greater production in solving functional tasks and 
providing proof of the efficacy of the NTC program, which is also indicated by the 
statistic indicators discussed below. 
Functional tasks and hierarchical organization of associations
The second hypothesis, that statistically significant differences in the per-
ception of functionality of items used in the test and their creative use in solving 
functional tasks, is also confirmed by the above findings. It is a confirmation of the 
scope of the NTC program, which was aimed at encouraging creative responses in 
children at an early age.
Using the Chi-square test of independence, a statistically significant difference 
was found (0.01) between the efficacy in solving functional tasks and the hierarchical 
organization of associations in answering the question about the use of items (χ
2
 = 
54.348, p < 0.001). A medium, statistically significant influence was found between 
the efficacy in solving functional tasks and the ways of structuring associations (V 
= 0.28). The obtained data indicate that children who are more efficient in solving 
functional tasks (i.e., provide more correct answers) have more associations and 
remote relations as indicators of divergent production (Figure 2).
 
A SSOCIATION BY 
SIMILARITY
DIRECT 
ANALOGIES, 
DIRECT
RANDOM MARRIED 
RELATIVES
MEANINGLESSL 
ANSWERS
NO ANSWER
Funconal tasks and hierarchical organizaon of associaons
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2: Functional tasks and hierarchical organization of associations
In Figure 2, the absence of the correct solution of the task is indicated by 0, 
while the number of correct answers is indicated by 1–4 (1 being the least correct 
and 4 being the most correct). It can be seen that the number of successfully solved 
functional tasks increases as the number of creative elements in conceiving the 
usability of items in the divergence test rises. This is in line with findings of other 
researchers (Runco and Charles 1993) who reported on the significance of the con-
ceptual style of creative production. Style is dependent on originality as an essential 
element of creativity. Analyses of conceptual style (ibid.) found that originality is 
essential for creativity, and divergent production is the effect of remote relations 
and the creation of wider, flexible, original structures, which form hierarchies of 

      219 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
association and specific cognitive structures. The hierarchical structure of associ-
ations makes the basis for the creation of wider cognitive structures (mediators) and 
proved to be a significant factor in solving functional tasks, which in this research 
also confirms the effects of exercising.
Considering the hierarchical organization of associations (Figure 3), a link  can  
be observed between divergent production (remote associations, new , unusual and 
useful combinations, remote relations, etc.) and efficacy in solving functional tasks, 
meaning respondents who base their general mediation responses on relations find 
it easier to break the “flow of thoughts” while solving the problem at hand; they 
search for remote relations in the given task and they are more efficient in finding 
answers and solutions in remote relation to the given task, so that their behavior 
is more flexible and less automatic. It emphasizes of the importance of creative 
generalization as the basic condition for discovering new ways of thinking. This 
finding confirms the importance of flexible control in mediation (Mednik et al. in 
Kvaščev 1981; Gojkov 1995), because respondents who manifested “flexible control” 
in the hierarchical structure of associations were more focused on finding remote 
answers, remote associations, new combinations of different elements of materials, 
and different information, which is related to the efficacy of solving functional tasks.
This finding is important for didactics, as it can be concluded that it is possible 
for children of preschool age to be trained through consistent exercise to develop a 
wider mental structure as a mediator between stimuli and responses, i.e. a creative 
generalization in the sense of discovering unusual and remote relations between 
stimuli and responses. This emphasizes the importance of developing an individual 
learning style and integrating the principles of developing creativity through the 
hierarchy of associations (combining, researching, relating information with dif-
ferent meanings, and remote relations) in early childhood.
Differences in creative production relative to the country from which respondents 
originate
According to the third hypothesis, a statistically significant influence of the 
respondents’ home country was expected as a variable on the way in which chil-
dren solve the tasks. When considering creativity , the influence of the environment 
was also assumed to be important in addition to personality traits, processes, and 
products of children creativity . Other researchers also suggested that the environ-
ment can facilitate or hinder the manifestation of the individual’s creative potential 
(Bodroža et al. 2013; Mooney 1963). Educators in Serbia receive substantial support 
from a well-organized pedagogical and psychological service. This was envisaged 
by the SMART project to help educators in structuring exercises that encourage 
creative responses in children. Educators working with children included in the 
research sample were led by intrinsic motivation, because one of the conditions for 
inclusion in the project was to participate in instruction for the implementation of 
the NTC program. The applicants already participated the seminars in the field of 
implementing strategies for encouraging creativity in younger children, and their 

220 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
expectations were focused on the possibilities for transferring what had already 
been learned. In Romania, educators lack this type of professional assistance in 
their preschool institutions and overall education systems. In addition, the initial 
preparation of educators in preschool institutions is also different, taking into 
consideration the specific circumstances in each country.
The question regarding the role of the respondents’ home country was answered 
by considering the children’s responses, grouped into six categories relative to the 
hierarchical structure of associations (from similarity-based associations—stereo-
typical constructions—through associations related to direct associations—direct 
analogies, random associations—and remote relations—creative generalizations) 
(Figure 3). The following data were obtained: the Chi-square test of independence 
found that there was a statistically significant difference (0.01) in the creative use 
of items among children from Romania (χ
2
 = 37.549, p < 0.001). Children’s home 
country as a variable was found to have a medium influence on the divergent or-
ganization of cognition in children (V = 0.26).
29,1%
6,5%
8,4%
5,1%
0,8%
4,3%
21,1%
14,9%
12,4%
37,1%
0,0%
14,4%
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
25,0%
30,0%
35,0%
40,0%
associaon by
similarity
direct analogies,
direct
random
associaons
married relaves meaninglessl
answers
no answer
Differences in creave producon between respondents 
from Serbia and Romania
Serbia Romania
Figure 3: Differences in creative production between respondents from Serbia and Romania
This confirms the assumption that there are differences when it comes to the 
children’s home country as a variable.
One of the determining factors relates to differences between the countries 
in terms of the style of parental upbringing, which was confirmed in some studies 
(Gojkov 1993). Romania and Serbia are neighbouring countries. Respondents who 
came from geographically close regions, situated along the border might have been 
exposed to different social contexts and educational systems. That seems to be the 
reason why different styles of parental upbringing have been formed, which signi-
ficantly affects the perception of creativity and the ways of supporting it (Đurišić-
Bojanović 2008; Rajović 2012).

      221 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
This is in line with the findings of other studies (Arar and Rački 2003), which 
concluded that the environment in which the individual lives plays a significant role 
in either developing or hindering creativity . Creativity also significantly depends on 
the social context in two aspects: ontological (in which the critical segment of society 
decides what is creative and what is not) and empirical (in which the realization 
of creative ideas depends on the support provided by the social milieu) (ibid.). A 
creative act requires the individual to invest its abilities, skills, and efforts, but this 
act should be noted in the society . Societies differ from each other by the amount of 
attention and time they invest in identifying and recognizing new ideas, as well as 
realizing creativity. Identifying differences in various social environments can be 
considered a confirmation of other research findings on the importance of the core 
factor of realizing creative ideas and evaluating creative products (Andiliou and 
Murphy 2010). In Amabile and Pillamer’s  componential theory of creativity , they 
(Amabile and Pillemer 2012) suggested that creativity is affected by four elements; 
the first three relate to the individual (relevant skills domain, processes relevant for 
creativity and intrinsic motivation), and the fourth (organizational creativity and 
innovation) to the individual’s social environment (ibid.). Creating an open, flexible, 
unconventional environment in which the individual can advance the development 
of personality traits, styles of thinking, knowledge, and skills necessary for creative 
thinking is one of the most important factors for stimulating creative potentials.
 
Conclusions and recommendations
The findings of this study indicate the possibilities for making advancements 
in the divergent thinking of children at an early age using didactic strategies. No-
tions of creativity as a factum, which include exceptional cognitive characteristics 
but also a combination of certain personality traits and motives (Urban 1995), 
and also implies a special model for identification (Sternberg 2006), have found a 
confirmation in the results of this research.
Findings on the advancements of children’s creative production manifested 
in divergent thinking and functional knowledge have shown that the instructions 
contained in Osborn’s strategy encourage children to solve tasks based on their gen-
eral mediation responses on relations
5
 and the wider flexible cognitive structure as 
a mediator between the stimuli and responses, which led to efficacy in task-solving. 
This confirmed the theoretical assumptions of cognitive approach (Csiksentmihalyi 
and Wolfe 2014), according to which creativity results from thinking processes 
(Banaji, Perrotta, and Cranmer 2010; Kim 2011; Runco 2007), since they are directed 
towards internal structures of cognitive processes that lead to creative results and 
interdependence with other aspects (personality traits, intelligence, etc.). This is 
5
 For example, the word “paper” induced the most divergent responses, mainly providing answers 
based on associative elements that can be evoked by touching on the basis of mediation of common 
elements (to draw on it / write / apply color; to cut / split / burn; to sharpen a pencil on it; making 
airplanes / boats / caps / crowns / hats; making a trumpet with it / ball in the game / ice cream basket; 
make a mask from it; fold it as a pancake, etc.

222 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
in accordance with the standpoints of confluent (integrative) theory, according to 
which creativity is influenced by several elements, such as intelligence, knowledge, 
thinking styles, personality traits, motivation, and environment (Sternberg 2006). 
Sternberg’s attitude towards three aspects of intelligence—analytical, creative, and 
practical—does not, however , contradict the notion of the importance of establishing 
wider mental structures as the basis of relations.
The social context is a factor that can affect differences in creative performance 
(Sternberg 2006). Marking the importance of social context in which respondents 
from Serbia and Romania are developing, the findings have also confirmed the 
second approach, where creativity is seen as a potential to be discovered and per-
fected. Sternberg’s view that the utility and value of a creative idea largely depends 
on the individual’s society and culture is well interpreted by the finding regarding 
differences between respondents from Romania and Serbia. This supports the 
socio-psychological approach, which also considers the influence of society, envir-
onment, motivation, and personality traits on creativity.
The main finding of this research is consistent with the well-established opinion 
in the scientific community that creativity can be developed (Csiksentmihalyi and 
Wolfe 2014; Sternberg 2006). These findings indicate that exercises and instructions 
in the NTC learning and teaching program enables children to develop a broader 
mental structure as a mediator between the stimuli and responses in terms of 
discovering unusual and remote relations between them.
There are, however, some interesting questions that largely escaped the 
researchers’ attention: what are the causes of individual differences in creativity 
from the perspective of associative hierarchy? Which didactic factors encourage 
the creation of unusual associations and useful combinations that can indicate 
the mediation mechanism, considered to be the most important association mech-
anism for testing creativity? What didactical instructions provoke mediation, or 
the creation of an associative hierarchy? The findings of further research could 
answer these questions and would be important for preschool didactics, as well as 
the overall research on the nature and ways of encouraging divergent thinking at 
an early age. 
 
References
Alfonso-Benlliure, V ., and Santos, M. R. (2016). Creativity development trajectories in  
Elementary Education: Differences in divergent and evaluative skills. Thinking Skills 
and Creativity, 19, pp. 160-174. 
Amabile, T. M., and Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity. 
Journal of Creative Behavior, 46 issue 1, pp. 3–15.
Andiliou, А., and Murphy, P . K. (2010). Examining Variations among Researchers’ and 
Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Creativity: A Review and Synthesis of Contemporary 
Research. Educational Research Review, 5, issue 3, pp. 201-219.
Arar, L., and Rački, Ž. (2003). Priroda kreativnosti. Psihologijske teme, 12, issue 1, pp. 3-22.
Banaji, S., Perrotta, C., and Cranmer, S. (2010). Creative and Innovative Good Practice in 
Compulsory Education in Europe, Collection and Descriptive Analysis of 10 Good Prac-

      223 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
tices of Creativity and Innovation in Compulsory Education in the EU27. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/
EAP/iceac.html (Accessed on 18
th
 April 2016). 
Beghetto, R. A., and Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A 
Case for “Mini-C“ Creativity . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, issue 
2, pp. 13-79.
Bodroža, B., Maksić, S., and Pavlović, J. (2013). Ispoljavanje i podsticanje kreativnosti u 
osnovnoj školi iz perspektive nastavnika. Beograd: IPI.
Csiksentmihalyi, M., and Wolfe, R. (2014). New Conceptions and Research Aproaches to 
Creativity: Implications of a System Perspective for Creativity in Education. In:  
M. Csiksentmihalyi (ed.). The Systems Model of Creativity The Collected Works of Mihaly 
Csikszentmihalyi. Dodrecht: Springer, pp. 161–184.
Drucker, P . (1995). Managing in a Time of Great Change. Dutton: Truman Talley Books.
Diakidoy, I. A., and Phtiaka, H. (2002). Teachers’ Beliefs about Creativity. Advances in Psy-
chology Research, 15, pp. 173-188.
Đurišić-Bojanović, M. (2008). Multikulturalnost i multiperspektivnost u obrazovanju. In: J. 
Šefer, S. Joksimović, and S. Maksić (eds.). Uvažavanje različitosti i obrazovanje, Beograd: 
Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, pp. 137-142. 
Đurišić-Bojanović, M. (2011). Kreativnost – ključna kompetencija ili emancipatorni potencijal 
u društvu znanja. Vršac: VŠV .
Feldman, D. H., and Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and Education: an American Retro-
spective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, issue 3, pp. 319-336.
Forthmann, B., Gerwig, A., Holling, H., Çelik, P ., Storme, M., and Lubart, T . (2016). The be-
creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency . 
Intelligence, 57, pp. 25–32.
Gojkov, G. (1993). Pedagoški stil porodice u vaspitanju. Pedagoška stvarnost, 29, issue 1/2, 
pp. 23-27.
Gojkov, G. (1995). Kognitivni stil u didaktici. Vršac: VŠV .
Gojkov G., Rajović R., and Stojanović, A. (2015). NTC Learning System and divergent pro-
duction. Available at: http://research.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/10-Gojkov-Rajovic-
Stojanovic-engl.pdf (Accessed on 14. 06. 2016).
Gralewski, J., Gajda, A. Wi śniewska, E., and Jankowska, D. (2016) Slumps and Jumps: Another 
Look at Developmental Changes in Creative Abilities. Creativity, 3, issue 1, pp. 152-177.
Gralewski, J., and Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender 
moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47 
issue 4, pp. 290-304.
Guilford, J. P . (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego: 
Robert Knapp Publisher.
Hellriegel, D., and Slocum, J. W . (1989). Management. Massachusets: Adison-Wewsley.
Khandwalla, P . N. (1993). An exploratory investigation of divergent thinking through protocol 
analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 6, pp. 241–259.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Tor-
rance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, issue 4, pp. 285-295.
Kleibeuker, S. W , de Dreu, C. K. W ., and Crone, E. A. (2013). The development of creative 
cognition across adolescence: Distinct trajectories for insight and divergent thinking. 
Developmental Science, 16, pp. 2-12.

224 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies  
 
Stojanović, Prtljaga,  
Gojkov-Rajić
Kvaščev, R. (1981). Psihologija stvaralaštva. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Maksić, S. (2006). Podsticanje kreativnosti u školi. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Matijević, M. (2012). Daroviti u političkom pluralizmu i novom multimedijskom okruženju. 
In: G. Gojkov, and A. Stojanović (eds.). Zbornik radova Darovitost i moralnost. Vršac: 
VŠV , pp. 583-592.
Mooney , R. L. (1963). A Conceptual Model for Integrating four Approaches to the Identifica-
tion of Creative Talent. In: C. W . Taylor and F . Barron (eds.). Scientific Creativity. New 
York: Wiley, pp. 331-340.
Mouchiroud, C., and Lubart, T . (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examina-
tion of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic 
Psychology, 162, pp. 382–401.
Ozborn, A. (1963). Aplied Imagination. New York: Scribner.
Paletz, S. B. F ., and Peng, K. (2008). Implicit Theories of Creativity across Cultures: Novelty 
and Appropriatness in two Product Domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 
39 issue 3, pp. 286-302.
Rajović, R. (2009). IQ deteta – briga roditelja. Novi Sad: Abeceda.
Rajović, R. (2012). NTC sistem učenja: Metodički priručnik za vaspitače - Kako uspešno 
razvijati IQ deteta kroz igru. Novi Sad: Smart production.
Rajović, R., Gojkov Rajić, A., and Stojanović, A. (2017). Preschool Teacher Assessment of 
the NTC Program Reach: Encouraging Creative Elements of Thinking. Research in 
Pedagogy, 7, issue 2, pp. 265-282. 
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young 
people. In: F . J. Mönks and W . A. M. Peters (eds.). Talent for the future. Maastricht: Van 
Gorcum, pp. 191–202.
Robbins, S. P . (2003). Organisational behaviour. San Diego: Prentice Hall.
Runco, M. A., and Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children’s ideas. Journal of 
Social Behavior and Personality, 5, pp. 439–452.
Runco, M. A., and Charles, R. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predic-
tors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, pp. 537–546.
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., and Lim, W . (2000). Development and psychometric integrity of 
a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, pp. 391–398.
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., and Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriate-
ness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? Journal of Creative 
behavior, 39, pp. 137–148.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. 
New York: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. and Acar, S. (2010). Do tests of divergent thinking have an experiential bias? 
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, pp. 144–148.
Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P ., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T ., and Yurkovich, J. (2011). 
The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency . Creativity Research Journal, 23, 
pp. 376–380.
Skalicky , S., Crossley , S., McNamara, D., and Muldner , K. (2017). Identifying Creativity During 
Problem Solving Using Linguistic Features. Creativity Research Journal, 29, issue 4,  
pp. 343-353.

      225 Creativity encouragement strategies at early age
Snyder, A., Mitchell, D., Bossomaier, T., and Pallier, G. (2004). The creativity quotient, an 
objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16, pp. 415–420. 
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity . Creativity Research Journal, 18, pp. 87–98. 
Stojaković, P . (2008). Psihologija za nasatvnike. Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet.
Stojanović, A., and Bogavac, D. (2016). Metodičke strategije razvoja dečjih potencijala u 
savremenoj predškolskoj ustanovi. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet.
Sturza Milić, N. (2014). The Influence of Motor Expirience on Motor Creativity (Fluency) of 
Preschool Children. Kineziologija, 46, pp. 82-87.
Torrance, E. P . (1981). Kreativnost. Beograd: Pedagogija.
Torrington, D., Hall, L., and Taylor , S. (2004). Menadžment ljudskih resursa. Beograd: DATA 
STATUS.
Urban, K. (1995). Different models In Describing, Exploiting, Explaining and Nurturing 
Creativity in Society. European Journal for High Ability, 6, issue 2, pp. 143-159.
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., and Matthews, J. (2009). Divergent thinking ability is related 
to faster relatedness judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3, 
pp. 99–103.
Zahra, P ., Yusoll, F ., and Hasim, M. (2013). Effectivenes of training creativity on prescholl 
students. Procedia-Social and Bihevioral Sciences, 102, pp. 643–647.
Zeigler , A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Toward a Systemic Theory of Gifted Education. High 
Ability Studies, 23, issue 1, pp. 3-30.
Aleksandar STOJANOVIĆ (Univerza v Beogradu, Srbija)
Jelena PRTLJAGA (Visoka strokovna šola za izobraževanje vzgojiteljev, Vršac, Srbija)
Aleksandra GOJKOV-RAJIĆ (Univerza v Beogradu, Srbija)
STRATEGIJE SPODUJANJA USTVARJALNOSTI V ZGODNJEM OBDOBJU 
Povzetek: Analiza dosedanjih raziskav o ustvarjalnosti v zgodnjem obdobju nakazuje na pomanjkanje 
podatkov o tem, koliko so teoretsko uveljavljene strategije in postopki spodbujanja ustvarjalnosti, ki 
jih uporabljamo s starejšimi otroki, učinkovite tudi pri delu z mlajšimi, čeprav so ugotovitve nekaterih 
raziskav v tem pogledu sicer spodbudne. V prispevku najprej teoretično, nato pa tudi empirično obravna-
vamo strategije spodbujanja ustvarjalnosti; predstavljamo del ugotovitev mednarodne raziskave v Srbiji 
in Romuniji, v kateri smo proučevali didaktične možnosti programa NTC, namenjenega spodbujanju 
divergentnega mišljenja, zlasti miselne fluentnosti, fleksibilnosti in izvirnosti. Raziskovalno vprašanje je 
bilo, kako procesi ustvarjalne imaginacije in inventivnosti v okviru Ozbornove strategije razvoja ustvar-
jalnosti učinkujejo na ustavrjalnost predšolskih otrok. V raziskavo je bila vključena skupina otrok, pri 
katerih smo merili, kako rešujejo ustvarjalne naloge pred implementacijo metode NTC in po njej. Otroci 
iz Romuniije in Srbije so bili stari šest in sedem let; 562 jih je sodelovalo v začetnem, 371 pa v končnem 
testiranju. Rezultati kažejo, da je z uporabo metode NTC mogoče spodbuditi razvoj ustvarjalnosti. 
Ključne besede: ustvarjalnost, metoda NTC, strategije spodbujanja ustvarjalnosti, predšolsko obdobje
E-naslov: aleksandar.stojanovic@uf.bg.ac.rs