Lauren Huhta
Creative Outcome 1: B1, C1, D13, E1 and other resources
Research on Creativity
Lauren Huhta
Creative Outcome 1: B1, C1, D13, E1 and other resources
Research on Creativity
Finding and using research to examine the concept of creativity in relation of theory and research was actually
quite challenging for me. I spent many days staring at the computer screen searching for articles and diving into the
course’s main text, Creativity is Forever by Gary Davis (2004). There are so many theories about creativity. Also, there
seems to be a big debate whether intelligence and creativity are truly related. Every time I think I have a grasp on a
theory or aspect of creativity, I read something different that challenges my original thinking. The whole threshold concept
really took me for a spin. The threshold concept “assumes a minimal required level of intelligence”, about 120, above
which there is “little correlation between intelligence and creativity (Davis, 2004, p. 83). Even though creativity and
intelligence are separate “constructs,” they are related (p. 235). Furthermore, Sternberg’s 1988 three-facet model of
creativity includes the factors: cognitive style, personality/motivation, and intelligence (p. 235). Overall, high intelligence is
a good indicator for identifying creative potential, but a highly intelligent person may or may not be highly creative and vice
versa (p. 83). The concept of creativity is complex. There are also environmental factors with the development of
creative capacities. The environmental influence occurs in different spheres: family, work or school environment, and in
the cultural context in which the person evolves; these various environments are “embedded in each other” (Besançon,
2013, p. 152). Interestingly enough, “familial environment provides the cognitive and emotional bases for the
development of creativity” (Besançon, p. 152). Children who lived in families with rigid rules compared to flexible rules
showed lower levels of creative thinking (p. 152). Moreover, the cultural values “transmitted” through social environment
promote or even inhibit creativity; different cultures focus on individualism and/or collectivism (p. 152). With creativity
being a complex subject, it is challenging to wrap it all in one visual presentation/graphic organizer.
My main inspiration for creating this visual presentation/graphic organizer came from an article from the
Educational Leadership issue on Creativity linked on the syllabus. The article by Bryan Goodwin and Kristen Miller titled,
“Research Says Creativity Requires a Mix of Skills” (2003) was my starting point. Within the article the authors
summarized a part of Cropley’s (2006) journal article, “Creativity appears to require a yin and a yang: It involves both
novelty creating new ideas and solutions and analysis to explore the novelty’s potential effectiveness” (Goodwin & Miller,
2003). As I am faced with this challenge to create a visual presentation/graphic organizer using research to examine the
concept of creativity in relation to theory and research, the yin yang symbol is the ideal starting point. I then included key
words on each side: novelty and analysis. Since Sternberg’s three-facet model of creativity includes the factor of
intelligence, I needed to include it in my visual presentation/graphic organizer. Next, I included the factors in the corners
outside of the blue line: personality, motivation, culture, and then intelligence. I wanted to designate certain corners to the
Lauren Huhta
Creative Outcome 1: B1, C1, D13, E1 and other resources
Research on Creativity
sides of the yin yang, but all of those factors influence novelty and analysis along with divergent thinking and convergent
thinking too. Therefore, the location of the factors in the corners does not determine certain aspects of creativity. They
are interdependent of each other. So, I included the arrows facing both directions to demonstrate this.
Then, I branched out with the two types of thinking associated with creativity developed by Hudson (1967):
divergent and convergent. Divergent thinking is essentially the “broad elaboration of ideas prompted by stimulus”
(Atherton, 2013). Divergent thinking is one part of creativity; therefore, if a child achieves a high score in a divergent
thinking task, he or she is not necessarily creative (Besançon, 2013, p. 153). Divergent thinking tests usually include a list
of items while children are asked to think of different uses. On the other hand, convergent thinking involves bringing
material from a variety of sources to “bear” on a problem for a correct answer; standardized intelligence tests can test
convergent thinking as it needs consistency and reliability to truly test (Atherton, 2013). Creativity “requires” convergent
thinking in order to “wean out the best ideas and improve them” (Besançon, 2013, p. 151). Consequently, the newer
Evaluation of Potential for Creativity (EPoC) by Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot (2011) assesses the two modes of thinking
for creativity: divergent-exploratory and convergent-integrative. The divergent-exploratory mode of thinking refers to the
process of “expanding the range of solutions” in creative problem solving: flexibility, divergent thinking, selective encoding
(Besançon, 2013, p. 153). Personality traits like the “openness to new experiences and intrinsic task-oriented motivation
are supported through this mode of thinking (p. 153). On the other hand, convergent-integrative thinking refers to the
“activity of combining elements in new ways” by including associative thinking, selective comparison, and the combination
of synthesis of heterogeneous elements to converge into an original production (p. 153). The “conative factors” such as
the tolerance of ambiguity, perseverance, risk-taking, and achievement motivation are supported through this mode of
thinking (p. 153). This assessment is used to guide and monitor the development of creativity. Knowing how the EPoC
assesses creativity was essential for understanding the concept of creativity in relation of theory and research.
Overall, I completed Research on Creativity (Creative Outcome 1/B1) utilizing the text by Davis, G.A. (2004 ed.)
Creativity is Forever (E1) and other resources as cited in the References section below. I created a visual
presentation/graphic organizer using a yin yang enclosed in a circle along with factors outside of the circle. I examined
the concept of creativity with focusing on the factors of creativity along with convergent and divergent thinking in relation
of theory and research. Because writing is my preferred activity, I also included this description and reflection following
my visual presentation/graphic organizer. Thus, you can easily read my thinking behind examining the concept of
creativity in relation of theory and research.
Lauren Huhta
Creative Outcome 1: B1, C1, D13, E1 and other resources
Research on Creativity
References
Atherton, J.S. (2013). Convergent and divergent learning. Teaching & Learning [Online: UK]. Retrieved July 10, 2015 from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/converge.htm
Besançon, M. m. (2013). Creativity, giftedness and education. Gifted & Talented International, 28(1/2), 149-161.
Davis, G.A. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.) Dubuque: IA: Kendall Hut Publishing Company.
Goodwin, B. & Miller, K. (2013). Research says creativity requires a mix of skills. Educational Leadership: Creativity Now!,
70(5), 80-83.