The relationship between logo and creativity

Abstract

This research was conducted to determine whether a correlation exists between the ability of students to program in LOGO computer language and their ability to utilize the creative process by comparing two indices of creativity, intelligence, and style of learning with a researcher-designed measure of LOGO learning. The subjects were 27 nine-to-twelve-year olds enrolled in two summer LOGO courses offered through community schools. Predictor variables for the study were defined as scores achieved by the subjects on the following tests: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural and Verbal, Form B (Torrance, 1974); Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test (Otis & Lennon, 1967); and A Children's Form of Your Style of Learning and Thinking (Reynolds, Kaltsounis, & Torrance, 1979). Criterion variables were scores achieved on the LOGO Ability Test, Graphics section; the LOGO Ability Test, List Processing section; and the LOGO Ability Test, Total Performance. The following null hypotheses were formulated based on these two groups of variables: (1) There will be no significant relationship between LOGO Graphics and the predictor variables, singly or in combination. (2) There will be no significant relationship between LOGO List Processing and the predictor variables, singly or in combination. (3) There will be no significant relationship between Total LOGO Performance and the predictor variables, singly or in combination. All three hypotheses were rejected because the correlations of IQ with the three criterion variables were significant (p < .05). In addition, significance (p < .05) was found between Verbal Creativity and List Processing. The failure of this study to provide support for previous work (which showed that use of LOGO could increase divergent thinking skills as measured by the Torrance Tests) may be due to any of several possible factors: (1) The sample size was small. (2) The LOGO Ability Test was essentially a paper-and-pencil instrument on which most items were convergent in nature; that is, there was one right answer. (3) The period of time covered by the sessions (three weeks) may have been too short an interval for the desired effects to appear. It is possible, therefore, that a stronger relationship exists between LOGO and creativity than is supported by the results of this study. Further attempts should be made to confirm the similarities which are implied in the literature, but which are as yet unsubstantiated by controlled research.