Shannon Minton
Final Essay
June 27, 2011
CI 5310 Creativity
Dr. Susan Waite
2
Researchers and theorists have arrived at a consensus that creative thinking can be defined as
being original and appropriate (Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000; Georgsdottir, Lubart, & Getz, 2003;
Smith, 2003; Paulus & Brown, 2003; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004; Starko, 2005; Sternberg, 2010;
Fairweather & Cramond, 2010). According to Starko, there are different levels of creativity and
described these as “’Creativity, with a big C’ that changes disciplines and ‘creativity with a little c,’ the
more commonplace innovations of everyday life” (Starko, 2005). In addition, Starko claims that problem
solving is at the base of “all types of creativity” (Starko, 2005). Therefore, divergent production is
considered to be a vital component of the creative process (Baer & Garrett, 2010). Consequently,
various models of creativity have emerged through the extensive research on creative thinking.
One model of creativity was proposed by Wallas in 1926 and has four distinct stages:
preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification (Georgsdottir, Lubart, & Getz, 2003; Starko,
2005). In the Wallas Model, the preparation stage involves gathering information, processing the
problem, and deciding on a strategy to solve it. The incubation stage involves stepping away from the
problem and doing something completely different in an effort for the brain to think about it
subconsciously. The illumination stage is where the epiphany occurs or the “A-ha” moment happens.
The verification stage is where the solution to the problem is validated and confirmed to be an
appropriate solution. Another model of creativity was proposed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called the
Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000). In this model, there are three major
components: domain, field, and person. The domain is considered to be any and all existing knowledge;
the person is the individual or group of people with a creative idea. The field is considered to be the
group of individuals who must weigh the originality and appropriateness of the creative idea to be
accepted as new information into the domain.
Sternberg posed the following: “Why is creativity even important? It is important because the
world is changing at a far greater pace than it ever has before, and people need constantly to cope with
3
novel kinds of tasks and situations” (Sternberg, 2010). Given current research and theory on creativity,
several factors can enhance creative thinking and creative production. One method includes
brainstorming. Baer and Garrett state that four rules should be followed during brainstorming: “defer
judgment, avoid ownership of ideas, feel free to ‘hitchhike’ on other ideas, and wild ideas are
encouraged” (Baer & Garrett, 2010). These rules allow for high fluency of ideas, the flexibility to “think
outside the box”, the opportunity to elaborate on other’s ideas, and to strive for originality in the
creative thinking and divergent production (Georgsdottir, Lubart, & Getz, 2003; Paulus & Brown, 2003;
Plucker & Beghetto, 2004; Baer & Garrett, 2010; Fairweather & Cramond, 2010). Another factor that
enhances creative thinking is the notion of incubation. Theorists and researchers have observed that
when individuals step away from a problem or situation and do something unrelated, it allows the brain
to subconsciously work on the problem weighing different aspects of a potential solution (Smith, 2003;
Paulus & Brown, 2003; Starko, 2005). Rituals have the potential to enhance the creative process as it
allows the individual to free the mind of distractions by “getting into the zone” or achieving flow of
creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000; Tharp, 2003). Dissent has the potential to be beneficial to
the creative process when the minority disagrees with the majority and a consensus cannot be reached.
This opens the door to consider ideas that may be less popular nonetheless worth considering (Nemeth
& Nemeth-Brown, 2003). Failure seems to be an oxymoron when it is associated with the creativity
process; however, it is through failure of an idea that perpetuates the creativity of another idea that
may be successful on the next attempt (Tharp, 2003; Lehrer, 2009).
This course has been insightful in the information that was presented in addition to the method
in which it was delivered. I found our daily divergent activities in this course to be fun, engaging, and
liberating. Therefore, I have a new-found desire to incorporate divergent thinking activities in my high
school math class to promote creativity and freedom to think outside the box in problem-solving. While
I may not have used the term “incubation”, it is a strategy I often use personally and encourage my
4
students to do when they seem to be stuck in solving a problem. I am a firm believer that incubation is a
valuable tool in creativity and in the problem-solving process. I have also learned that despite my lack of
talent for being a creative or artistic drawer, I do possess a creative thought process and am inspired to
discover a potentially deeper creative reserve within myself. Through this process, I hope to be a more
creative individual who is willing to escape the comfort of my entrenched methods of instruction
(Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).
In response to Sternberg’s thoughts on the necessity of creativity, it is of utmost importance to
inspire students to be creative in a day and age where technology is making exponential strides
(Sternberg, 2010). Students need to be offered creative opportunities in the classroom by allowing
them to brainstorm ideas fluently and flexibly. Students should be encouraged to incubate when they
have reached a wall in their problem-solving process. Students should be inspired by their failures to
continue their efforts not to fall victim to the failure itself. Students should consider all potential ideas
to problem-solving even if they seem wild and silly or if they go against the popular vote. If teachers
foster this type of atmosphere in the classroom – the little ‘c’, then today’s students will be tomorrow’s
inventors, creators, and problem-solvers (Starko, 2005).
5
References
Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In
R.A. Beghetto & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 6-23). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity:
Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J.
Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik, (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp.
81-94). New York: Elsevier.
Fairweather, E., & Cramond, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum
together. In R.A. Beghetto & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 113141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Georgsdottir, A. S., Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (2003). The role of flexibility in innovation. In L. V. Shavinina
(Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 180-190). New York: Elsevier Science.
Lehrer, J. (2009, December 21). Accept defeat: The neuroscience of screwing up. Wired. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and
diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity (pp. 63-84).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on
brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity (pp. 110-136). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific,
and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.),
Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-168). Washington, D.C: American Psychological
Association.
Smith, S. M. (2003). The constraining effect of initial ideas. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group
creativity (pp. 15-31). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R.A. Beghetto & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing
creativity in the classroom (pp.394-414). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tharp, T. (2003). The creative habit: Learn it and use it for life. New York: Simon & Schuster.