Fostering
Creativity
in
Schools,
Essential
Research Findings 2008-2012
Compiled by: Mr. Ami Salant
The survey is organized by the following subjects:
Definitions of Creativity
2
Policy and considerations
71
Teacher education and creativity
22
Teachers beliefs/perceptions and creativity
22
Creativity in science education
22
Creativity in Mathematics and Physics subjects
24
Creativity in art education
22
How to incorporate creativity into schools: Methods
and actions
Creative Pedagogies
71
Fostering creativity in schools by technology and
computer applications
Creativity and Engineering Education
27
Creativity and language learning
12
76
11
1
Definitions of Creativity
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the Role of Creativity in Art
Education Theory and Practice. Studies In Art Education, 50(4), 382-399.
Lack of agreement about a common definition of creativity may undermine
consideration of the concept being included in school curricula by practically minded
school administrators (Coleman & Cross, 2001). Many contemporary psychologists
and educators agree that creativity is a complex process that can be viewed as an
interactive system in which relationships among persons, processes, products, and
social and cultural contexts are of paramount importance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Feldman, 1999; Gruber, 1989; Sternberg, 1999). All creative work, according to
Sternberg (1999), happens in one or more domains. People are not creative in a
general sense; they are creative in particular domains such as the visual arts.
Talented individuals fit well in certain domains of knowledge within their own
cultures and are recognized as highly competent by members in their fields of
expertise (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1982; Gardner, 1999; Winner & Martino,
1993). Creative persons, however, often do not fit easily within a domain of
knowledge, and it is only after much time and effort that they may be able to
establish a body of work that comes to be valued. Creativity from this point of view is
an individual characteristic as a person reacts with one or more systems within a
particular social context.
Different conceptions about the relationship between intelligence and creativity,
however, make it difficult for agreement to be reached about a common definition of
creativity. Some researchers assert that to be creative, a person needs intelligence,
but not all intelligent people have high creative potential (Davis & Rimm, 1998;
Renzulli & Reiss, 1985). MacKinnon (1965) argued that a basic level of IQ of about
120 as necessary for creative productivity, although some researchers posit there is
no direct relationship between creativity and intelligence. Sternberg (2001),
however, differentiated between intelligence and creativity and viewed intelligence as
advancing societal norms and creativity as opposing societal norms and proposing
new norms. As a result of case studies of adults who achieved success in the arts
and sciences, Feist (1999) concluded that giftedness, measured by high IQ scores,
might not be a good indicator of adult creative achievement, and that the
2
relationship between creativity and intelligence was small as most creative people do
not conform to conventional ways of knowing.
Many scholars concur that creative achievement is reflected in production of useful,
new ideas or products that result from defining a problem and solving it in a novel
way within a particular cultural context (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995; McPherson,
1997; Mumford, Connely, Baughman, & Marks, 1994; Wakefield, 1992). There is,
however, another source of difficulty about defining creativity in that a number of
scholars distinguish between expert, adult creative acts and those of children. Some
think that children can demonstrate talent in a number of areas, but cannot be
creative because creativity involves changing a domain and ways of thinking within
that domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1999; Winner and Martino, 1993). A
case can be made, on the other hand, for differentiating creativity at an individual
level as a person solves problems in daily life at a societal level that can lead to new
findings, programs, movements, and inventions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Sternberg,
1999).
It would not be productive in art education to adopt the point of view that children
and students cannot be viewed as being creative. Then, there would be no reason to
include any concepts related to creativity and creative behaviors in art education
theory or practice. Some researchers hold a position that nearly everyone has some
creative ability and this potential should be supported in educational settings
(Parkhurst, 1999). From such a point of view, creativity can then be viewed as what
is creative for an individual locally rather than emphasizing changing the society in
which he or she resides.
Assessment of Creative Processes
In educational contexts, interest in practical applications of creative processes have
resulted in development of means to measure creativity even though consensus
about a theoretical basis for defining creativity has not been reached. Although
techniques for measuring creativity are plentiful, each process presents an
incomplete or diverse picture of creative processes (Coleman & Cross, 2001).
Standardized tests, rating scales, checklists, and work-samples have been used for
studying student creativity and creative processes (usually without consideration of
their educational or cultural backgrounds). It is suggested, however, that multiple
measures be used to make decisions for assessing creative processes (Clark &
Zimmerman, 2001a, 2004).
During the 1960s and 1970s, Torrance (1963, 1972), Guilford (1975), Wallach-Kogan
(1965), Rimm and Davis (1976), and others developed what became known as
creativity tests. When originally designed, creativity tests were used to measure
general problem-solving skills and divergent thinking abilities applicable to various
situations and subjects. It was found that some divergent thinking scores on tests
and creative behaviors could be increased with education. It is debatable if these
3
tests could predict creative behaviors and if behaviors on creativity tests can be
directly linked to how creativity is manifest in the real world of adults in a variety of
social settings (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Runco, 1993a, 1993b). Torrance (1963)
found that creative achievements in writing, science, medicine, and leadership were
more easily predicted than creative achievements in music, the visual arts, business,
or industry.
During the 1980s, several researchers developed instruments to measure creativity
in the arts. Kulp and Tartar (1986) developed instruments to identify highly able,
creative visual arts students and a number of educational researchers endorsed
using creativity tests to identify talented students for visual arts programs (Khatena,
1982, 1989; Greenlaw & Macintosh, 1988; Hurwitz, 1983; Parker 1989); others such
as Khatena (1982) claimed visual and performing arts abilities were closely linked
with creativity as a measurable construct. When Clark (Clark & Zimmerman, 2001b,
2004) tested over 1200 third graders in four ethnically diverse communities in the
United States, he found a strong correlation between drawing ability as measured by
Clark's Drawing Abilities Test (CDAT)(FN6), creativity as determined on adapted
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)(FN7), and state-wide achievement tests.
The TTCT and the CDAT, however, appear to measure different sets of abilities.
Clark concluded correlation among the CDAT, TTCT, and achievement test scores
indicated performance on these measures may be affected by another factor, or set
of factors, which may include intelligence and/or general problem solving skills as
well as specific skills acquired through visual arts education. It should be noted that
TTCT, developed in the 1970s, is easy to administer to large groups and there is
debate about the relevance of this measure of creativity for diverse populations
especially when different cultural contexts are considered (Sternberg & Lubart,
1999).
In policy statements, many visual art programs today claim to emphasize creativity
as an outcome but do not have valid means for identifying creativity, constructs for
developing curricula that include creativity, or a research basis upon which to assess
creative outcomes. Creativity tests, such as those developed in the 1960s and 1970s
by Guilford and Torrance, are still common measures used to identify art abilities or
potential in programs for developing art talent. There does however appear to be a
renewed interest in general creativity testing in the area of gifted and talented
education as evidenced by a recently published creativity test, Profile of Creative
Abilities (Ryser, 2007). It is advertised as a new measure for identifying exceptional
creative ability in students ages 5-14. It contains two sub-tests; one is a task where
students draw details to complete incomplete figures and another is a task where
students sort images into categories. Tests, such as this, relate to general creativity
rather than creativity and creative processes specific to art education or to the
students' backgrounds and social contexts. Of interest to art educators is a recent
practice of using a work sample, done under supervised conditions, to assess
processes that creative people undergo when producing products and having local
experts, rather than non-experts, make judgments about their creative performance
(Feldman, 2000).
4
Dispositional Factors Associated with Creative Persons
There have been a number of traits that have been associated with creative
individuals in general, yet there are many different opinions as what these traits
might be and how they are activated in real-life situations. Some of these traits,
viewed as positive characteristics, are being curious, open-minded, energetic,
artistic, and having a keen sense of humor. Other dispositional factors that challenge
teachers' tolerance levels such as questioning rules, disorganization,
absentmindedness, and a tendency to be emotional often are not valued in school
settings (Davis, 1992).
As a subset of creativity, artistic creativity has been defined as a range of
multidimensional processes that includes knowledge of art concepts and traditions in
a culture, highly developed visual thinking skills, and intrinsic motivation (Amabile,
1983). In addition, James (1999-2000) defined artistic creativity as a series of
"decisions and actions that are both purposeful and not predictable ... It is an
individual and a social process during which materials, forms, and cultural
conventions are fused with the artist's personal history and emotions. Something is
created that has never before existed in exactly that form" (p. 115). Dispositional
factors also have been found that differentiate creative art students from those who
are less creative. Those considered less creative produce drawings that are realistic
without much inventiveness, whereas more creative students find problems and
attempt to solve them by producing novel solutions (Getzels & Csikszentmihayli,
1976). Problem-finding and problem-solving, being emotionally involved, and
focusing on personal visions were identified by Dudek and Cote (1994) as relevant to
creative students' successful engagement when making art projects. In a study
about art students at the college level, Stalker (1981) found cognitive complexity
(manifesting many solutions to problems), executive drawing abilities (superior skills
in drawing), and affective intensity (strength of emotional responses and judgments)
as skills and dispositions that define creative visual arts ability. Other individual
creative characteristics, cited by Pariser (1997), include intensity of application and
early mastery of cultural forms, production of a large volume of works over a
sustained period of time, nurturance from family and teachers, and thematically
specialized work.
At Project Zero, the eight Habits of the Mind include many traits that can be aligned
with nurturing creativity in school settings such as developing craft, engaging and
persisting at art tasks, envisioning what cannot be observed directly and imagining
next steps, producing works that convey personal meaning, observing visual contexts
closely, reflecting by communicating about personal and others' art works, and
understanding the world of art locally and in the broader society (Hetland, et. al.,
2007). Costa and Kallick identified 16 Habits of the Mind including one category:
creativity, imagining, and innovating. Others Habits they associated with creative
thinking included taking risks, being empathetic, posing problems, thinking flexibly
5
and interdependently, persisting at a task, and thinking metacognitively.
Feist (1999) conducted an extensive longitudinal literature review to determine
whether personality has an influence on creative achievement in art and science. He
found that personality meaningfully co-varies with artistic and scientific creativity.
Both creative artists and scientists tended to be more open to new experiences, selfconfident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, hostile, impulsive, and less conventional
and conscientious than others in the general population. Artists, however, were
found to be more affective, emotionally unstable, as well as less social and accepting
of group norms than were scientists who were found to be more conscientious. It
also was determined that traits that distinguish creative children and adolescents
tend to be ones that also distinguish creative adults. Traits associated with adult
creativity, therefore, might be ones that are relevant for identifying, creating
curricula, and assessing products produced by creative art students.
Creative adult traits described by Gardner (1999) are tendencies to have high
energy, be extremely demanding and self-promoting, deprecate others, possess
child-like traits, ignore convention, and fascination with their own childhood
experiences. He characterized five kinds of creative activity: (1) solving a well
defined problem; (2) devising an all-encompassing theory; (3) generating work that
is distant in time from when it was produced to a time when it is evaluated; (4)
performing a ritualized work; and (5) performing a series of actions that bring about
some kind of political or social change. Category numbers 3 and 4 are concerned
directly, according to Gardner, with artistic creativity.
Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) and Stokes (2001) challenged the notion that
successful problem-finding and problem-solving are always a means for producing a
body of work that can be considered creative. Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976)
studied young college art students and the relationship between their problemfinding behaviors and the originality of their artworks. They concluded that the
students' methods of discovery, visualization techniques, and ways they sought
productive questions were often far better indicators of creative abilities than were
their solutions to art problems. Stokes (2001) maintained that many creative
individuals, Monet as an example, rather than adopting problem-finding strategies
imposed restrictive task limitations on his own work, such as the constraining motifs
he employed, with outcomes being high levels of variability.
Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues (1996) interviewed over 90 exceptional, creative
men and women from around the world, including artists, who were at least 60 years
old and had made contributions in a major domain in their own culture. Traits they
found associated with creativity were often dichotomous and included: displaying a
great amount of physical energy and a need for quiet times, being wise and childish,
being playful and disciplined, using imagination rooted in reality, being extroverted
and introverted, being humble and proud, displaying a tendency toward being
androgynous, being traditional and rebellious, being passionate yet objective about
6
work, and displaying ability to suffer and enjoy creation for its own sake
(Zimmerman, 1999, 2005, 2006).
As evident, there are many different views of about what sets of dispositional factors
mark a creative person. The arts today, Gardner (1999) conjectured, are ripe for
creative change due to the lack of attention and agreement as to what constitutes
creative dispositions, acts, or products in the arts. This therefore may be an
opportune time to research connections between creativity and theory and practice
in art education.
Cultural Variability and Expression of Creativity
According to Sternberg and Lubart (1999), "Cross-cultural comparisons have
demonstrated cultural variability in the expression of creativity. In cultures that are
traditional, it may take time to achieve new ways of thinking;" moreover, they have
shown "cultures differ simply in the amount they value creative enterprise" (p. 9).
Culture is learned and passed on from one generation to the next and cultures are
dynamic and changing (Lubart, (1999), although the rate of change may differ from
one context to the next. Children and adults alike only can be recognized as creative
in areas that are valued within their own cultures (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1986;
Gallagher, 1985; Greenlaw & McIntosh, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999;
Zimmerman, 2005). In contemporary, industrialized societies, change and creativity
are encouraged with emphasis on producing a product that is both novel and
appropriate within a particular cultural context. Cognitive problem-finding and
problem-solving initiatives are strategies that fit a product-oriented conception of
creativity that has as an emphasis individuality, a strong work ethic, and belief that
progress is always for the betterment of society. Creativity from this viewpoint,
according to Csikszentmihalyi (1996), is more likely to occur in settings where new
ideas take less time to enact and be accepted. In industrialized societies today, the
notion of cultural and artistic creativity involves new ways of thinking, new art forms,
new designs, and new concepts that focus on groups of individuals who play roles as
interdependent members of a creative class (Florida, 2002).
In some cultures, collaboration, cooperation, conformity, and traditions may be
valued more than completely novel solutions to problems. Such views about
creativity, as contrasted to product-oriented ones, often are focused less on final
products than on creative processes (Lubart, 1999). In China, for example, technical
skill in art is viewed as fundamental for development of art ability and expression
(Gardner, 1989). Most Chinese art teachers stress developing skills that are
necessary before students are encouraged to demonstrate creativity. Peat (2000)
suggested that renewing and revitalizing something that already exists should also
be viewed as creative. In traditional societies, creativity also should be viewed as
dynamic and changing. In these societies, focus often is not on novelty alone, rather,
creative acts may be seen as acts of transformation that arise out of respect for a
particular art form. Both industrialized and traditional societies adapt styles from the
past and employ them in contemporary contexts. For example, traditional Navajo
7
weavers have changed both the kinds of materials used and the content of their
weavings in response to local and world events. In respect to intercultural and global
perspectives, contemporary notions about creativity and art talent development in a
variety of contexts needs to be reconsidered to acknowledge a more inclusive
paradigm than the pervasive notion of creative acts only as generation of original
ideas and products made by a few individuals who change cultural domains.
Educational Interventions That Help Foster Creativity
It has been suggested that creativity can be enhanced and teaching strategies can
be developed to stimulate creativity. If it is accepted that creativity becomes
increasingly specialized within a particular domain such as art (Csikszentmihalyi,
1996; Feldman, 1982; Gardner, 1999), teaching for creativity could focus on general
creativity processes when students are young and then domain-specific activities can
be introduced as students mature and commit themselves to a particular field of
interest that involves real-world adult activities.
Problem-finding, problem-solving, divergent and convergent thinking, selfexpression, and adaptability in new situations are all traits commonly associated with
general creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Mumford, et al., 1994; Runco, 1993a,
1993b; Runco & Nemiro, 1993; Starko, 2001; Sternberg 1988, 1997, 1999). There is
research that demonstrates that problem-finding and problem-solving skills can be
taught and students' abilities to be productive thinkers and creative problem-solvers
can be nurtured (Treffinger, Sortore, & Cross, 1993; Hetland, et al., 2007). According
to Feldhusen (1992) and Treffinger, et al. (1993), students can be taught to find
problems, clarify problems, master productive thinking and creative problem solving
tasks, monitor their own learning activities, and seek and test alternative solutions to
problems.
Some educators have suggested a number of strategies for developing curricula in
different subjects that support creativity. Some of these suggestions include having
students practice problem finding as well as problem solving techniques; use
unfamiliar materials that elicit novel thinking and lead to new ideas; experience
convergent (structured) tasks for skill building and open-ended, divergent
(unstructured) tasks for self-expression; rely on both visual and verbal materials; be
exposed to curricula with open-ended outcomes that allow for unforeseen results;
follow their own interests and work in groups as well as independently; choose
environments that support their talents and creativity; and encounter a wide range
of tasks intended to encourage, reinforce, and enhance emerging talents (Clark &
Zimmerman, 2001a, 2004; Feldhusen, 1995; Mumford et al, 1994; Runco, 1993;
Runco & Nemiro 1993; Sternberg & Williams, 1996; Zimmerman, 1999, 2005, 2006).
Educators also might consider factors that hamper creativity and look at ways to
avoid or ameliorate these obstacles. James (1999-2000) focused on students in an
art class described as having blocks to creativity and found that these obstructions
included: cultural blocks in which students were not willing or able to understand art
concepts and processes or the meaning and worth of art in contemporary contexts;
8
cognitive blocks manifested in having difficulty interpreting meanings and metaphors
in artworks; personal blocks that resulted in discomfort with expressing their
emotions in public and confronting ambiguity; social blocks about how their products
would be viewed in public arenas; and instructional blocks about unclear teacher
expectations for students' processes and products. She suggested that supportive
climates be created where students can learn to recognize their blocks to creativity
and find personal meaning. Such an environment would encourage risk-taking and
instructors could focus on differentiating curricula to meet individual student needs
and direct teaching of a repertoire of strategies for working creatively.
Driven by current U.S. federal art education and state curriculum standards,
emphasis often is placed on academic achievement on standardized tests where the
arts often have not been included. In order for creative autonomy to be fostered,
teachers and students need to be able to identify when creativity emerges and know
how it should be nurtured and supported. In an environment where art achievement
is tested nationally, Brown and Thomas (1999) studied high school art students in
Australia and found that when they were becoming ready to make a creative leap to
individual self-expression due to developed skills and maturation, they were expected
by their teachers to produce conventional outcomes as determined by examination
expectations. Individual creative responses, as evidenced in either process or
products, were not encouraged. They found that supporting creativity in art
classrooms involved having art teachers encourage groups of students to share
processes they experienced when creating their artworks and allowing them to make
meaningful choices so that art could become cognitively stimulating and important in
their lives. Art teachers, therefore, can be powerful influences in developing students'
creative art abilities by being knowledgeable about subject matter, communicating
effectively, using directive teaching methods, making classes interesting and
challenging, and helping students become aware of contexts in which art is created
and why they and others have needs to create art.
Conclusions and Recommendations
There are many ways to describe and categorize characteristics of creative visual arts
students and no single set of characteristics has been developed to comprehensively
describe such abilities, yet there are some common understandings among
researchers from various fields about relationships between creativity and art
development. Although the term 'artistic creativity' does not have an agreed upon
meaning in art education literature, its usage in schools should be reconceptualized
and evidence of creativity or potential for creativity should be taken into
consideration when conducting research and developing teaching strategies and
qualitative educational assessments.
In the International Handbook on Creativity, Sternberg (2006) describes creativity as
a topic that recently has received attention in countries around the world. For
example, in China, creativity studies are closely related to research about giftedness
and intelligence; whereas, in Taiwan, a wide variety of methodologies are used to
9
study creativity with a goal of making its population more creative. In Hong Kong,
emphasis is on social influences that contribute to the betterment of society. In
French-speaking countries, research on creativity emphasizes cognition and
imagination, and in German-speaking countries, creative processes have been a
research emphasis. In Israel, focus is on the relationship of creativity to real worlds
problems, and in South Korea research about creativity has addressed creative
processes and constructs related to culture, education, and roles of teachers and
family. In Latin America, creativity is viewed from a multifaceted perspective with
emphasis on practice rather than research, and in Spain topics related to creativity
include study of creative individuals, developing tools for measuring creativity, and
researching characteristics of high ability students.
What are some ways that inquiry about creativity and visual arts education might be
reconsidered in the United Sates and what emphases should be the focus? In the
past, creativity sometimes has been considered as pertaining only to a few
individuals within a specific cultural context. A model of creativity for the visual arts
that is inclusive, rather than exclusive, and views creativity as possessed by all
people, not just an elite, is one that should be encouraged.
This view would infer that all students have ability to be creative. Inquiry in art
education that accepts a normal distribution of creativity could lead to new and
substantially different identification procedures through which all students' creativity
could be recognized and developed.
In the 21st century, it is apparent that students need to be prepared for a new
information age and that educational interventions in art education for all students
that foster creative thinking, imagination, and innovation are important for
generating solutions to real life problems both now and in the future. Creativity in
the visual arts can no longer be aligned only with conceptions about creative selfexpression. Researchers and practitioners need to conceive of creativity as
multidimensional with consideration of how cognitive complexity, affective intensity,
technical skills, and interest and motivation all play major roles.
In the past, validity and reliability of current creativity tests in the visual arts have
been questioned. Conceptual and operational definitions of creativity, as manifest in
the visual arts, need to be reconsidered and inquiry should focus on how new tasks
can be developed to help discover art students who may not be identified as having
high creative abilities through current procedures. Also, in researching and
developing identification procedures, socio-cultural factors including contemporary
art practices, visual and popular culture, and students' personalities, ages, values,
learning styles, motivations, work habits, ethnicity, gender orientations, and local
communities in which they reside all need to be considered if new means of
identification and program development are augmented.
In the past, creativity and art talent often were viewed as being synonymous. Recent
studies have demonstrated that traits associated with creativity are not necessarily
those associated with art talent. More research is needed to determine if and how
exceptionally creative art students differ from those who are considered talented in
art and what implications this may have for art teaching and learning.
10
Artist-based and visual culture approaches to art education present new avenues for
developing conceptions of creativity and creative processes as bases for inquiry and
curriculum development in art education. Creativity in the visual arts often is difficult
to describe with predictable outcomes that are sensitive to students' needs,
processes they experience, or the products they create. In this era of testing and
standards, assessment of students' progress and accomplishments tends to be
concentrated on final products and rubrics that emphasize predictable, predetermined outcomes. A new conception of creativity and the visual arts should
foster research and development that supports art learning in which novel responses
are nurtured and students are encouraged and rewarded to find and solve problems
in unique ways that take into account their creative abilities.
The present Net-generation of students also needs to be prepared for participation in
an intercultural community that uses cyberspace for discourse and emphasizes
collaboration with groups of individuals to produce creative outcomes (Brown &
Duguid, 2000). The notion of play, that incorporates participants being willing to fail
and try again as a means of solving problems, can result in their minds being freed
through play to function creatively (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004).
In a democratic society, all students should be educated to their highest possible
achievement levels so their abilities are recognized and rewarded. Students who will
later become practicing artists should be prepared to think creatively and develop
appropriate skills and abilities in a rapidly changing world in which technological
innovation and novel products and ideas are valued world wide. Differentiated
teaching and learning should be researched and developed for these students so
their creative abilities are recognized and supported.
Peat (2000) suggested that artists need long apprenticeships to practice their crafts,
but everyone can learn techniques to "disrupt persistent habits of thought and free
us for new ways of thinking" (p. 24). That means that each art student has potential
and "psychic energy ... to lead a creative life" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 344). By
reconsidering research and practice in respect to creativity and visual art teaching
and learning, art education can play a major role in our increasingly visually oriented
world by helping all students use their creative skills and developing their
imaginations.
References
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Barone, T, & Eisner, E. (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R. Jager (Ed.),
Contemporary methods for research in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 73-116).
Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
Berube, M. R. (1994). American school reform: Progressive, equity, and excellence
movements, 1883-1993. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Bolin, P. E., & Blandy, D. (2003). Beyond visual culture: Seven statements of support
11
for material culture studies in art education. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 246263.
Brittain, W. L. (Ed.). (1968). Lownenfeld speaks on art and creativity Res ton, VA:
National Art Education Association.
Brown, J. S., Sc Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Brown. N. (2000). Bodies of work and the practice of art making. In Bodies of work
and the practice of art making. Papers: Occasional seminar in art education 9 (pp.
29-41). Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales, College of Pine Arts,
School of Art Education.
Brown, N. C. M., & Thomas, K. (1999, September). Creativity as a collective
misrecognition in the relationship between art students and their teachers. Paper
presented at the Annual World Congress of the International Society for Education
Through Art, Brisbane, Australia. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455
140)
Clark, G., Day, M., & Greer, W.D. (1987). Discipline-based art education: Becoming
students of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 24(2), 129-193.
Clark G., & Zimmerman, E. (2001a). Art talent development, creativity, and
enrichment programs for artistically talented students in grades K-8. In M. D. Lynch
& C. R. Harris (Eds.), Fostering creativity in children, K-8: Theory and practice (pp.
211-226). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2001 b). Identifying artistically talented students in four
rural communities in the United States. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 104-114.
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Teaching talented art students: Principles and
practices. New York: Teachers College Press and Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Cole, N. R. (1940). The arts in the classroom. New York: John Day.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T.L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction
development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX; Prufrock Press.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Habits of mind: A developmental series. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cotter, H. (2001, July 29). Beyond multiculturalism, freedom? The New York Times,
pp. 27-28.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: HarperCollins.
D'Amico, V. (1942). Creative teaching in art. Scranton, PA: International Textbook
Company.
Davenport, M. (2000). Culture and education: Polishing the lenses. Studies in Art
Education, 41(4), 361-375.
Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Davis G. A., & Rimm, S.B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Diaz, C. B., Massialas, B., & Xanthopoulous, J. (1999). Global perspectives for
educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
12
Dobbs, S. (1988). Research readings in discipline-based art education: A journey
beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Dudek, S. Z., & Cote, R. (1994). Problem finding revisited. In M. A. Runco (Ed.),
Problem-finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 130-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Duncum, P. (2002a). Clarifying visual culture art education. Art Education, 55(3), 811.
Duncum, P. (2002b). Editorial: A special issue in visual culture. Visual Arts Research,
28(2), 4-16.
Feist, J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In
R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273-296). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Feldhusen, J, E (1992). Talent identification and development in Education (TIDE).
Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
Feldman, D. H. (1982). Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 169-186). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (2000). Was Mozart at risk? A developmentalist looks at extreme
talent. In R. Friedman & B. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognitive and
developmental frameworks (pp. 251-264). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. (1986). Natures gambit: Child prodigies and the
development of human, potential New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Freedman, K. (2003a). The importance of student artistic production to teaching
visual culture. Art Education, 56(2), 38-43.
Freedman, K. (2003b). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social
life of art. New York: Teachers College Press and Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Freedman, K. (2007). Artmaking/troubling: Creativity, policy, and leadership in art
education. Studies in Art Education, 48(20), 204-217.
Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gardner, H., (1989). To open minds, Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary
education. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences refrained: Mulitple intelligences for the 21st
century. New York: Basic Books.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal
study of problem finding in art. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Greenlaw, M. J., & McIntosh, M.E. (1988). Educating the gifted: A sourcebook
Chicago: American Library Association.
Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. B.
Wallace & H. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work: Twelve cognitive case studies
13
(pp. 3-24). New York: Oxford University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement, and
development. Gifted Child Quarterly. 19, 107-121.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K.M. (2007). Studio thinking: The
real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Instrument uses
and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly 39(2), 110-114.
Hurwirz, A. (1983). The gifted and talented in art: A guide to program planning.
Worcester, MA: Davis.
Karnes, M. B. (1979). Creative art for learning. Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
James, P. (1999-2000). Blocks and bridges: Learning artistic creativity. Arts and
Learning Research Journal, 16(1), 110-133.
Khatena, J. (1982). Educational psychology of the gifted. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Khatena, J. (1989). Intelligence and creativity to multitalent. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 23(2), 93-97.
Kulp, M., & Tartar, B.J. (1986). The creative process rating scale. The Creative Child
and Adult Quarterly 11(3), 166-176.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 159-165.
Lowenfeld, V. (1939). The nature of creative activity. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench,
Trubner.
Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed). New
York: Macmillan.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 339-350). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and realization of creative potential. American
Psychologist, 20, 273-281.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Giftedness and talent in music. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 31(A), 65-77.
Mumford, M. D., Connely, M.S., Baughman, W. A., & Marks, M. A. (1994). Creativity
and problem solving: Cognition, adaptability, and wisdom. Roeper Review, 16(A),
241-246.
National poll reveals need for creativity, imagination in public school curriculum.
(2008, April). NAEA News. 50(2), 7.
Obiakor, F. E., & Ford, B. A. (1995). Restructuring and reforming: "Rat race" for
excellence or failure? Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the
Council for Exceptional Children. Indianapolis, IN, April 5-9, 1995. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 381 980)
Pariser, D. (1997). Conceptions of children's artistic giftedness from modern and
postmodern perspectives. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 31(A), 35-47.
Parker, J. R. (1989). Instructional strategies for teaching the gifted Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
14
Parkhurst, H. B. (1999). Confusion, lack of consensus, and the definition of creativity
as a construct. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 1-21.
Peat, F D. (2000). The black winged night: Creativity in nature and mind Cambridge,
MA: Perseus. Renzulli, J. & Reiss, S. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A
how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
Rimm, S. B., & Davis, G.A. (1976). GIFT: An instrument for identification of
creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178-182.
Runco, M. (1993a). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged
students. Storrs, CT: The National Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Runco, M. (1993b). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child
Quarterly 31, 121-125.
Runco, M., & Nemiro, J. (1993). Problem finding and problem solving. Roeper
Review, 76(4), 235-241.
Ryser, G. (2007). Profile of creative abilities test. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Smith, R.A. (1989). (Ed.). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning and
development. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press
Stalker, M. Z. (1981). Identification of the gifted in art. Studies in Art Education, 22,
49-56.
Starko, A.J. (2001). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (2nd. ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J., (Ed). (1988). The nature of creativity. Contemporary psychological
perspectives. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative
intelligence determine success in life. New York: PLUME.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? American
Psychologist, 56(4), 360-362.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Introduction. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
international handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). Concept of creativity: Prospects and
paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W.M. (1996). How to develop student creativity.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stokes, P. D. (2001). Variability, constraints, and creativity: Shedding light on Claude
Monet. American Psychologist, 56(4), 355-359.
Sullivan, G. (2004). Studio art as research practice. In M. Day & E. Eisner (Eds.),
Handbook for research and policy in art education (pp. 795-828). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
15
Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Szekely, G. (2006). How children make art: Lessons in creativity from home to school
Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative
high school students twelve years later. Gifted Child Quarterly 26(2), 75-88.
Treffinger, D. J., Sortore, M.R., & Cross, J.A. (1993). Programs and strategies for
nurturing creativity. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International
handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 555-567). New
York: Pergamon.
Viola, W. (1942). Child art. Peoria, IL: Charles A. Bennett.
Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem solving skills and the arts
orientation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York:
Holt, Rhinehart, &c Winston.
Wilson, B. (2003). Of diagrams and rhizomes: Visual culture, contemporary art, and
the impossibility of mapping content of art education. Studies in Art Education.
44(3), 214-229.
Winner E., & Martino C. (1993). Giftedness in the visual arts and music. In K. A.
Heller, E. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talent (pp. 253-281). New York: Pergamon.
Zimmerman, E. (1999). What ever happened to creativity? A new focus on the
relationship between creativity and art talent development. In The prospects of art
education in the 21st century: An international symposium in art education (pp. 277299). Taichung, Taiwan: Taiwan Museum of Art and Taiwan Art Education
Association.
Zimmerman, E. (2005). Should creativity be a visual arts orphan? In J. Baer & J.
Kaufman (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work, and act creatively in
diverse domains (pp. 59-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, E. (2006). It takes effort and time to achieve new ways of thinking:
Creativity and art education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(2), 5773.
16
Policy and considerations
Song, J., Uhm, D., & Kim, J. (2012). Creativity and knowledge creation
practices in the school context: The moderating role of task-related job autonomy.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(4), 61-79.
The aim of this research is to investigate the moderating role of task-related job
autonomy to explain the impact of team creativity on organizational knowledge
creation in the school context. From the applied performance improvement
standpoint, this research differs from previous studies in that more behavioral
constructs were considered rather than policy-related issues in the school context.
Hierarchical multiple regression and general linear modeling approaches were utilized
to examine the general relations among the constructs and the moderating role of
task-related job autonomy. Results show that task-related job autonomy was not
found to be a statistically significant moderating construct. This finding is in contrast
to that of most previous studies on the workplace performance improvement field
due to the internal nature of the school system and environment.
Robelen, E. W. (2012). Coming to Schools: Creativity Indexes.
Education Week, 31(19), 1-13.
The article profiles several U.S. states including Massachusetts, California, and
Oklahoma that are developing indexes that rate school districts on their emphasis
on creative skills development and innovation in their curriculum. Research regarding
creative ability in students is discussed and issues related to the development of
such indexes is explored. Comments on the topic are provided by nonprofit director
Jonathan C. Rappaport, Massachusetts Senator Stan Rosenberg, and Oklahoma
Education Association vice president Alicia A. Priest.
Additional essential information from this article :
Advocates Say Creativity Index May Foster Curriculum Balance
17
At a time when U.S. political and business leaders are raising concerns about the
need to better nurture creativity and innovative thinking among young people,
several states are exploring the development of an index that would gauge the
extent to which schools provide opportunities to foster those qualities.
In Massachusetts, a new state commission began meeting last fall to draft
recommendations for such an index for all public schools, in response to a
legislative requirement. Meanwhile, a California Senate panel last month approved a
bill calling for the development of a voluntary Creative and Innovative Education
Index. And Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin recently announced plans for a public-private
partnership to produce the Oklahoma Innovative Index for schools, which she
described as a "public measurement of the opportunities for our students to engage
in innovative work."
Gov. Fallin couched the plan squarely in an economic context to advance the state's
competitiveness and prepare young people for the workforce. The index, the
Republican said, would prove a "very valuable tool to help Oklahoma be a national
leader in innovation, critical thinking, and eritrepreneurship."
Advocates say the idea is to promote a better balance in the curriculum, as well as
campus offerings before and after school, especially in the era of high-stakes testing
in reading and math.
"We're tapping into a very clear need, as expressed particularly by employers, to
reincorporate into the curriculum and school experience many opportunities for
young people to develop creativity-oriented skills," said Massachusetts Sen. Stan
Rosenberg, a Democrat and the lead sponsor of his chamber's 2010 bill calling for
the index
The Massachusetts legislation calls for an index that would "rate every public school
on teaching, encouraging, and fostering creativity in students" and be based "in
part on the creative opportunities in each school."
It cites as examples arts education, debate clubs, science fairs, filmmaking, and
independent research
Many advocates acknowledge the challenges of creating an index that doesn't turn
into a mere checklist or become viewed as punitive.
18
Alicia A. Priest, the vice president of the Oklahoma Education Association, expressed
mixed feelings about the concept.
"We are very interested in the idea, but the devil is in the details," she said. She
noted concerns about using the approach to publicly measure schools, and even
prefers to call the mechanism a "framework" instead of an index.
"If it's going to be something used as punitive, or even the appearance of, 'You're
not good enough,' then that's not OK," Ms. Priest said.
The emerging state efforts to promote creativity and innovation among their
students pick up on a theme that's been gaining steam for some time in American
political, business, and education circles."Building capacity to create and innovate in
our students is central to guaranteeing the nation's competitiveness," declared the
President's Council of Advisers on the Arts and Humanities in a report last year.
In addition, fostering creativity has become a high priority among some of the
United States' top economic competitors. In a recent EducationWeek Commentary,
Byongman Ahn, a former South Korean minister of education, said that "creating the
type of education in which creativity is emphasized over rote learning" is a top
education goal for his government. (See Quality Counts, Jan. 12, 2012.)
Researchers have recently examined the subject of teaching creativity, but experts
are just beginning to determine what makes some students more creative than their
peers and how the classroom environment can nurture, or smother, that capacity.
In fact, some emerging research seems to point to two critical aspects of creativity
that can be hard to teach: the willingness to take risks and learnfrbm failure, and .
the ability to transfer ways of solving problems between seemingly unrelated
situations. (See Education Week, Dec. 14, 2011.)
Robert J. Sternberg, the provost and a professor of psychology and education at
Oklahoma State University, who is an expert in intelligence-testing and has studied
creativity extensively, said he's encouraged by Oklahoma's interest in developing
an innovation index. He said it's important for schools to teach creative thinking,
and developing some form of accountability around that is a good idea
But, in an email, he cautioned that there are risks.
19
For example, "We don't want an index that trivializes creativity, such as by
counting numbers of activities that, on their surface, sound creative rather than
exploring what is actually done in the activities to encourage creativity," he wrote.
Also, "We don't want to encourage quantity over qualit of activities."
The apparent originator, and a leading proponent of the index idea is Daniel J.
Hunter, a playwright and founding partner of a Boston-based public relations firm
who previously served as the director of Iowa's cultural-affairs department.
"This is not an effort to overthrow standardized testing," but rather "to provide
schools with incentives to spend more time and resources" fostering student
creativity, said Mr. Hunter, who also previously. led a Massachusetts advocacy
group for arts and culture that has disbanded.
"If the only public measurement of your school is a standardized test, then schools
have every incentive to teach to the test," he said. The index is a tool to get to what
is happening in the classroom."
The Massachusetts commission has met twice in recent months to explore what's
being called there the Creative Challenge. Index"Our. charge is to figure out what
the index should be and how it would be implemented," said Jonathan C. Rappaport,
a commission member and the executive director of Arts/Learning, a nonprofit group
based in Natick, Mass. "We're only in the beginning stages."
But he and others stressed that the idea is far different from the state's testing
system: The focus of the proposed index is "inputs," not "outputs"
"This is really to measure inputs, to show what opportunities kids have in their
school day," Mr. Rappaport said.
And he said it's not simply about identifying classes or activities, but also the extent
to which they actually encourage creativity.
"Just taking a music class doesn't mean you're going to be creative," he said.
Mr. Rappaport said the state may identify a handful of school districts that want to
experiment with the idea on a pilot basis.
"We have to implement it in stages," he said.
20
He and other commission members say they are keenly aware of the dangers of
crafting an oversimplified index that fails to adequately reflect opportunities for
creativity, or that fosters the wrong incentives.
Susan Y. Wheltle, the director of literacy and humanities for the Massachusetts,
education department, said that at the most recent meeting, commission members
"had a very thoughtful discussion of how [the index] might be helpful in some ways
and damaging in others."
She said: "Certainly, publishing ratings is one way that calls attention to a problem,
but people also knew from their experience in schools how damaging it could be to
say to the community, 'Look, this is somebody who rates very low on the scale.'"
Action to carry out the Massachusetts legislation has been slow, with the deadline for
developing recommendations having been extended twice. But state officials say that
with the commission members now all named -- a joint process involving the
governor and the state Senate and House -- work is getting under way.
Ms. Wheltle and others say it would take further action by lawmakers, however, to
require that an index be implemented.
Paul Toner, the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, said he
welcomes the idea of an index as advancing a "multiple measures" approach to
evaluating schools.
"We see it as a way to get away from focusing on one or two test scores," he said,
to "broaden the focus of what schools should be paying attention to: the whole
child."
'Inspect What We Expect'
In Oklahoma, members have yet to be named to the panel that is to develop the
index.
Susan E. McCalmont, the president of Creative Oklahoma, a nonprofit group helping
to spearhead the undertaking, said a lot of questions remain.
"The work of the task force will be looking at how to set up parameters to measure,"
she said, and how to report that information to the public.
21
She noted that Oklahoma recently rolled out a system of letter grades for schools
based mainly on test scores, and suggested that the results of the innovation index
might be included along with those grades in school report cards, but in a different
fashion.
"We do not want to do a letter grade, and we haven't decided if we're going to do a
number, but it will be something easily understood, so this school is further ahead
in [fostering] creativity and innovation than another," Ms. McCalmont said. "But it's
not a tool intended to be punitive."
"To date," she said, "there's been measurement of everything else, but this was not
on the table."
There already appears to be some division, however, on key aspects of the idea,
including whether the index would be mandatory for public schools. Ms. McCalmont
said she envisions that approach.
Gov. Fallin did not explicitly address the issue in her speech announcing the plan, but
seemed to suggest it would be far-reaching.
"We're going to have an index, we're going to inspect what we expect in our
schools," she said. "Schools will be recognized for their innovation indexes."
Phyllis Hudecki, Oklahoma's secretary of education and a member of the governor's
cabinet, suggested that requiring participation might be a mistake.
"I don't foresee a mandate," she said, arguing that educators already feel burdened
with the "continuous piling-on of requirements, and now we want you also to include
creativity and innovation? They look at you like, 'You've got to be kidding.'"
Also, while the governor described the effort as designed to "measure" what
schools are doing to promote creativity, Ms. Hudecki downplayed that notion.
"'Measuring' may be too strong a word," she said, emphasizing that much remains to
be decided.
"We don't have any meat on the bones yet," she said.
Meanwhile, the California bill, approved Jan. 19 by the Senate appropriations
committee, was slated for full Senate consideration by the end of January. It's similar
22
to the Massachusetts measure, but is explicitly identified as a voluntary index. Gov.
Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed a version without that stipulation, included in a
broader bill, last year.
Joe Landon, the executive director of the California Alliance for Arts Education, a
strong backer of the bill, said he prefers that the index be mandatory, but said that
wouldn't be politically feasible.
"When it's a mandate, then everybody has to respond, but in these economic times,
that's not going to happen," he said. "We need to start somewhere, and this is a
good place to start."
Coverage of "deeper learning" that will prepare students with the skills and
knowledge needed to succeed in a rapidly changing world is supported in part by a
grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, at www.hewlett.org.
"If the only measurement of your school is a standardized test, then schools have
every incentive to teach to the test. The index is a tool to get to what is happening in
the classroom."
Hui, A. N., & Lau, S. (2010). Formulation of Policy and Strategy in
Developing Creativity Education in Four Asian Chinese Societies: A Policy
Analysis. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 44(4), 215-235.
A study compared policies on creativity education in mainland China, Hong
Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Results showed that creativity education was
being implemented in the four societies; that creativity was formally
mandated by legislation in Taiwan and embedded in other educational policies
in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore; and that all policies used a
broad definition of creativity. Further results are presented.
23
Teacher education and creativity
Ogoemeka, O. (2011). Emotional Intelligence and Creativity in Teacher
Education. International Journal Of Social Sciences & Education, 1(4),
591-604.
Emotional intelligence (EI) and creativity have emerged to be crucial
components of emotional adjustment, personal well-being, life success, and
interpersonal relationship in the past decade. This article provides a critical
review of the research field of EI and Creativity in the school context and
analyzes its present and future value in teacher education in the Nigerian
educational system. First, the author examine the debate on educational
policies in different countries (UK, USA, Spain and Nigeria) for providing
children the best start in life and for development of EI and Creative abilities.
Second, theoretical models of EI by Mayer and Salovey (1997), and
Creativity by Edward de Bono (2001) were discussed in detail. Third, the
author summarizes research concerning the relevance of EI and Creativity to
indicators for personal and school success. Some recommendations for
developing EI and Creativity at school and implication for future
educational policies were given.
Yeh, Y., Huang, L., & Yeh, Y. (2011). Knowledge management in
blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity
instruction. Computers & Education, 56(1), 146-156.
The purposes of this study were (1) to develop a teacher training program that
integrates knowledge management (KM) and blended learning and examine its
effects on pre-service teachers' professional development in creativity instruction;
and (2) to explore the mechanisms underlying the success of such KM-based
training. The employed KM model was the SECI, which consists of four modes of
knowledge
conversion:
socialization,
externalization,
combination,
and
internalization. Forty-four pre-service teachers participated in this 17-week
24
experimental instructional program. Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance and
content analysis revealed that the training program designed in this study effectively
improved pre-service teachers' professional knowledge and personal teaching
efficacy in their teaching of creativity. Moreover, this study showed that blended
learning, guided practice, observational learning, group discussion, peer evaluation,
and feedback are important mechanisms underlying this success.
Teachers beliefs/perceptions and creativity
Putwain, D., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W. (2012). Do creativity selfbeliefs predict literacy achievement and motivation?. Learning & Individual
Differences, 22(4), 370-374.
Previous work has suggested that creativity self-beliefs show only small relations
with academic achievement and may only be related to intrinsic, not extrinsic
motivation. We set out to re-examine these relationships accounting for the
multifaceted and process embedded nature of creativity self-beliefs and the full
domain range of extrinsic motivation. One hundred and twenty-two secondary
school pupils completed self-report measures of creativity self-beliefs and
motivation and were administered as test of fluid intelligence.
Creativity self-beliefs were positively related to teacher assessed literacy
attainment, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and also inversely related to
amotivation. Creativity self-beliefs accounted for a significant additional proportion
of variance in both literacy achievement and in motivational measures, beyond that
already accounted for by fluid intelligence. These findings suggest that it is important
to attend to the multifaceted nature of creative self-beliefs and the full domain range
of extrinsic motivation .
25
Kousoulas, F., & Mega, G. (2009). Students' Divergent Thinking and
Teachers' Ratings of Creativity: Does Gender Play a Role?. Journal Of
Creative Behavior, 43(3), 209-222.
A study examined the differences between genders with regard to divergent thinking
and teachers' ratings of students' creativity. Data were gathered from three
previous experimental studies that involved 228 Greek primary school students.
Findings revealed differences in performance, with the exception of the subscale of
originality, in favor of girls who were more inclined to perform better when they were
taught by a male teacher. In addition, teachers' ratings of creativity were found to
be unrelated to students' gender but were associated with teachers' gender.
Hong, M., & Kang, N. (2010). South Korean and the US secondary
school science teachers' conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity.
International Journal Of Science And Mathematics Education, 8(5),
821-843.
This study examined science teachers’ conceptions of creativity in science
education, pedagogical ideas, and contextual factors perceived as constraints on
teaching for creativity and any differences in the conceptions of teachers from
South Korea and the United States. Participants in the study consisted of 44 South
Korean and 21 US secondary science teachers.
Data was collected from open-ended and Likert-type questionnaires. Results
indicated that each individual teacher’s conception was considerably limited, but the
teachers’ conceptions of creativity as a whole group were consistent with the
literature. In terms of teaching methods for creativity, the teachers commonly
emphasized problem-based or project-based inquiry which was consistent with the
literature.
The South Korean teachers tended to consider ethics as a more important criterion
for judging creativity than the US teachers and emphasized providing thinking
opportunity
for
fostering
creativity,
while
the
US
teachers
emphasized
environmental or emotional support. Possible sources of these differences were
discussed. The commonly mentioned constraints included pressure of content
coverage for high-stakes tests, difficulties in assessing creativity, and class size.
26
Suggestions for professional development of teachers and further research questions
were made based on the findings.
Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the
classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153
The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers and students perceptions
about characteristics which either stimulate or inhibit the development of creativity
in the classroom environment. Interviews were conducted with seven Connecticut
public school teachers and 31 students (grades 3 and 4). The findings suggest that
both teachers and students believe that a classroom environment which enhances
creativity provides students with choices, accepts different ideas, boosts selfconfidence, and focuses on students' strengths and interests. On the other hand, in
an environment which inhibits creativity, ideas are ignored, teachers are
controlling, and excessive structure exists.
The aspects of creativity most often highlighted by teachers, students, and experts
were the process of producing something original and making one's own style.
Creativity was not regarded as synonymous with individual internal characteristics,
but as a result of the interaction between person and environment. However, when
asked how they would evaluate students as creative, teachers mentioned
intrapersonal characteristics, rather than creative processes.
Classroom characteristics which inhibit creativity have been identified in the
literature as: the use of one right answer, no mistakes, ignored ideas, competition,
and evaluation. These points as well as competition were also found in this study.
Other inhibiting characteristics mentioned by the teachers in this study, and less
emphasized by other researchers, included strict discipline, drill work, emphasis on
curriculum, and lack of time. Regarding the inhibitors to creativity, teachers' focus
was on aspects of the educational system which contrast with teachers' perceptions
that their own attitudes were responsible for enhancing creativity in the classroom.
On the other hand, the credit for blocking creative expression was attributed to the
educational system, reflecting teachers' perceptions of their inability to make
changes and excusing themselves of any responsibility in this process.
Finally, this was an exploratory qualitative study using convenience sample. This
limits the generalizability of the findings and it does not enable the establishment of
27
cause-and-effect relationships (Huck & Cormier, 1996). Classroom observations
should be included in future research. The interview technique is limited because it
deals only with people's perceptions which, in many cases, can be biased. Another
point that deserves attention is the use of focus-group interviews with young
students. Although this method can provide different perspectives and stimulate
students' thinking, the group can guide individual student ideas. Further research
using individual interviews should be considered. Alternative ways to assess
classroom environment with respect to students' creativity development, such as
observation, use of scales, and students' product assessment should also be included
in another study.
To enhance creativity, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive perspective of
the challenge. To emphasize strategies or activities to be implemented in the
classroom is not enough. The affective interaction between teacher and student
should be considered. It is also important to discuss characteristics of the
educational system that have been pointed out as restrictive of students' and
teachers' creative expression. "Creating a harmonious, meaningful environment in
space and time helps you to become personally creative" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p.
146).
Creativity in science education
Newton, L., & Newton, D. (2010). Creative Thinking and Teaching for
Creativity in Elementary School Science. Gifted & Talented International,
25(2), 111-124.
While it is important to nurture creativity in young children, it is popularly
associated more with the arts than the sciences. This paper reports on a series of
studies designed to explore teachers' conceptions of creative thinking in primary
school science. Study #1 examines pre-service primary teachers' ideas of what
constitutes creativity in science lessons, using a phenomenographic analysis. The
study found that their conceptions tend to be narrow, focusing on practical
investigations of fact and are prone to misconceptions. Although teachers are often
28
encouraged to support creativity, their notions of how to accomplish this within
specific school subjects may be inadequate.
Study #2 involves asking primary school teachers to rate lessons according to the
opportunity offered to children to think creatively in science. This study found that
teachers generally distinguish between creative and reproductive (as in mimetic)
activities, but tend to promote narrow conceptions of creativity in school science,
where fact-finding and practical activities are prominent. Some teachers identify
creativity in reproductive activities as well as on the basis of what simply stimulates
student interest and generates on-task discussion.
Study #3 is designed to check pre-service teachers' conceptions of scientific
creativity through an assessment of creative elements in children's explanations of
simple scientific events. This study found little agreement in teachers' personal
assessments of creativity. Implications of the findings for teacher training are
discussed.
Since teachers' conceptions of creativity may be inadequate, they are unlikely to
recognise significant opportunities for creativity involving, for example, students'
imaginative processing of scientific information, the construction and testing of
explanations, and the assessment of quality solutions. As conceptions may be shaped
by one's experiences of creativity in the arts, it is suggested that teacher trainers
and science educators introduce their students to the broader term of "productive
thought," that is, a combination of creative and critical thought, which is particularly
relevant in science.
Sullivan, F. R. (2011). Serious and Playful Inquiry: Epistemological
Aspects of Collaborative Creativity. Journal Of Educational Technology &
Society, 14(1), 55-65.
This paper presents the results of a micro-genetic analysis of the development of a
creative solution arrived at by students working collaboratively to solve a robotics
problem in a sixth-grade science classroom.
Results indicate that four aspects of the enacted curriculum proved important to
developing the creative solution, including the following: an open-ended, goaloriented task; teacher modeling of inquiry techniques; provision of tools and an
environment that allowed students to move between dual modes of interaction
29
(seriousness and play); and provision of tools and an environment that allowed
students to jointly develop a shared understanding achieved through tool-mediated,
communicative, and cognitive interaction. The findings suggest that play is an
important mode of inquiry if creativity is the learning goal. Implications of this
research for the design of learning spaces as well as directions for future
collaborative creativity research are discussed. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.
Anthony, K., & Frazier, W. (2009). Teaching Students to Create
Undiscovered Ideas. Science Scope, 33(3), 20-27
Activities that teachers can use to promote middle school students' scientific
creativity are provided. Daily activities, exploratory hands-on activities and class
meetings, extended projects, and problem-solving laboratory experiments to
promote creativity are outlined.
Imagine this troubling event: A class of students completes the printed instructions
of their lab assignment, graphs their data, and discusses their conclusions. When
drafting their conclusions students are asked to think of any mistakes made during
the lab. The teacher explains that students need to think about how those mistakes
may have affected their results and what could be done to prevent those mistakes in
the future. The teacher then provides students with a few examples of mistakes she
noticed while facilitating their lab work. In their lab reports, most students list the
same mistakes the teacher provided. Students adequately explain those mistakes,
but
they
are
not
able
to
come
up
with
any
ideas
of
their
own.
While students tend to become adept at high-level thinking skills required for
evaluation, in our own teaching we have often observed students struggling when
asked to be purposeful, realistic, and responsively creative.
What is creativity and how do we facilitate it?
In science, thinking creatively is defined as producing new ideas, insights,
restructurings, and inventions of scientific value and real-world application (Vernon
1989). Researchers have spent decades studying the traits of creative individuals. As
teachers who recognize the enormous role creativity plays in science, we strive to
apply
this
research
to
our
science
teaching.
To foster creativity, students should be supported in their development of science
30
understanding that is fluid, flexible, and complex (Guilford 1950; Sternberg 2006).
Additionally, students should have opportunities to build positive attitudes toward
creativity and risk taking (Bereiter and Scardamalia 2006; Lubart 1994; Sternberg
and Lubart 1991; Sternberg and Williams 1996). Another important way to support
creativity is to encourage students to operate in design mode during class time
(Bereiter and Scardamalia 2006), where students maintain a consistent focus on
purposefully
applying
what
they
learn.
In summary, creativity consists of three parts that we as teachers should target in
our classroom: skills or the ability to think creatively dispositions or believing that it is
important to be creative, and translations in action (Sternberg 2006).
Why is teaching for creativity important?
Creativity is often left to the arts; however, creativity is an essential skill in the
sciences. Einstein himself said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Imaginative scientific minds have always been the ones that create the best science.
It takes imagination to invent the lightbulb or to create a rover that can journey
across Mars. In order to do good science, scientists need a creative mind that can
think
of
what
no
one
else
has
discovered.
Teaching creativity in science can be challenging, especially when you have an
overstuffed science curriculum and high-stakes standardized tests; however,
creativity is a skill that is as essential to a scientist as the ability to read and interpret
a graph. Just like writing, creativity is used differently in science than it is in
language arts, and it is important for our students to learn to be creative scientists as
well as creative writers.
Innovation has always been a key element in the development of scientific
knowledge. Research scientists have to think creatively to develop and interpret their
experiments. For example, mid-Atlantic researchers examine blue crab populations in
the Chesapeake Bay to determine the success of their crab restocking methods.
However, the realities of doing science in the real world necessitate creative, out-ofthe-box ideas to come to fruition. The researchers needed information about the
body size, gender, and breeding status of a large population of crabs; in the
Chesapeake, watermen who rely on the crabs for their livelihood are a good source
of information. A group at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center used
their creative skills to set up a tagging program where watermen would provide this
information on crabs in their catches for a fee; this creative solution provided a very
large data set needed to complete their research on the health of blue crab
31
populations. Other examples of creative scientists abound. Practicing scientists such
as doctors use creativity to diagnose and treat unusual symptoms. For example, a
pediatrician must gather meaningful data about the physical condition of a toddler
who arrives in the office with blue fingernails and flexibly use their medical
knowledge to determine if the child is exhibiting a symptom of a low blood-oxygen
level or was holding a blue piece of paper with moist hands while riding to the
doctor's office. Engineers use creative skills to develop and implement new
technologies in response to demand. For example, engineers have applied
nanotechnology to the design and manufacturing of computer processors to catalytic
converters to batteries. (See www.nanotechproject.org/inventories for inventory lists
of
creative
applications
of
nanotechnology
in
a
variety
of
fields.)
Science curricula often guide us to teach students just the facts, but our students
need to be prepared for life in the 21st century. Technology is developing so fast we
do not know what new technologies, resources, and information our students will be
working with when they complete school. If we want our students to be truly
prepared for life in the 21st century, we need to prepare them to approach the world
with creative scientific skills. (See Figure 1 for a menu of activities we use to ensure
planning for students' development of creativity throughout use of the 5E model
[BSCS 1989] of instruction.).
Daily activities to promote creativity
In this section we share how daily warm-up, cool-down, and homework experiences
can be structured to support students' development of creativity. In our classrooms
we use daily warm-up experiences where students learn about an interesting science
fact. These facts are unusual, but true, connecting to our curricula. Students develop
their ability to be creative when asked to critically reflect on the plausibility of the
"fact" and brainstorm explanations, as well as contradictory alternative explanations.
These facts can be collected by teachers throughout the year as encountered during
their
daily
reading,
www.yahoo.com/news/odd
such
and
as
the
odd
news
stories
shared
at
www.sciencenewsreview.com/category/odd-facts.
Another source is the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh's The Handy Science Answer
Book (2002) and other books in this series that focus on weather, oceans, biology,
geology, and physics. The content-focused books in this series are useful because
you can pick facts specifically related to the unit/skill you are teaching. Students can
also be encouraged to bring in odd science reports that they would like the class to
consider. To maintain the academic integrity of the time spent on warm-up
experiences and to ensure a variety of stories so that this experience does not
32
become routine and less engaging, we maintain and distribute a collection of stories
that align with our curriculum so that students are exposed to a range of stories as
varied
as
the
science
in
the
curriculum
we
teach.
For example, during the unit on weather, students are told that showers of frogs
have been historically reported. Naturally this sparks student interest, and students
discuss how it would be possible for frogs to shower down from the sky, or whether
the report about frogs falling from the sky was accurate. Some students believe the
showering frogs could have been caused by a tornado picking them up from their
pond and dropping them elsewhere. Others comment that perhaps the reports of
frog showers were inaccurate and brainstorm how data might have been reported
inaccurately.
At the end of class, to help them cement their ideas, students cool down by
explaining what they learned during class. The conclusion of class is also an
opportunity to support students' creativity development. Students brainstorm
questions about what they learned that day. For example, after studying the
structure of an atom, some students' questions are very practical, such as, "What are
the charges on the different particles?" However, students also list questions that
demonstrate and build curiosity, such as, "If atoms can't be seen with a microscope,
how do we know what they really look like?" This question shows that our students
are building a curiosity about science, and also presents a creative problem-solving
opportunity. In this instance, students are asked to think about how they can figure
out what an atom "looks like" without getting to see it. We find that this experience
does not become repetitive and boring for students as long as they perceive that
their questions are treated as unique and have a life after they are asked. For
example, we may bring up a particular student's question in class the next day, we
may encourage some students to conduct internet research to find answers to their
questions, or we may email the text of some students' questions to scientists at a
local university so they can respond with an answer that is read to the class. Having
students develop and use a variety of methods to answer their questions helps to
nuture their creative problem-solving skills and prevents their questions from
seeming insignificant or easy to answer.
During the cool-down and warm-up experiences, we are most concerned with
helping students use prior and newly acquired knowledge in fluid, flexible, and
complex ways. Additionally, these experiences support students' positive dispositions
toward purposeful, responsive creativity.
33
Exploratory hands-on activities and class meetings to promote creativity
Relying on best practices in science instruction, exploratory hands-on activities and
class meetings can be used to support students' creative development. Students
need a solid foundation of science understanding and skills in order to be creative in
science. Exploratory activities can be short experiences of five minutes or less where
students physically manipulate and observe a phenomenon fundamental to the topic
of study. For example, as part of their studies on the unique properties of water, our
class discusses how changes in water temperature are connected to changes in
water density, and then make observations about the densities of ice and water
different temperatures. Students fill beakers with clear tap water and place ice cubes
dyed with food coloring in the water. Students observe the colored ice floating and,
as the ice melts, students also observe a stream of very cold colored water melting
off the ice. This cold, colored water then sinks to the bottom of the beaker. As the
water reaches a temperature equilibrium, the dye distributes itself evenly throughout
the beaker. Students draw and describe their observations. Additionally, we
encourage students to generate a list of questions about what they observe.
Next, students meet as a class to discuss how the movement of the dyed, melting ice
water demonstrates the differences in the densities of ice and water with different
temperatures. Class meetings are a social follow-up experience to their hands-on
exploration where students rely on each other and the teacher to answer the
questions they generate and learn additional information described in standards, with
continuous reference back to their hands-on exploration. The questions that students
generated while observing their colored ice cubes melting leads to a discussion
during which students try to describe and explain how water molecules at different
temperatures move and space themselves differently to create changes in density.
Frequently, we will continue with one to three more sets of hands-on exploration and
follow-up class meetings before moving on to application/elaboration experiences.
Through this series of hands-on explorations with follow-up class meetings our
students build conceptual knowledge that is grounded in experience and social
interaction as we strive to develop content knowledge that is fluid, flexible, and
complex.
Extended projects to promote creativity
Extended projects are another opportunity for students to experience first hand the
creative nature of science. While science fair projects and engineering challenges are
popular creativity-enhancing experiences, we find success with other types of
extended projects, too, such as writing a children's book with a science theme,
34
creating a model related to a scientific process and writing a report to explain their
model, and conducting research on scientists. (See Resources for websites that
provide menus of projects that have potential to foster students' creativity.) Students
should be given freedom to explore and select the ways in which they complete
projects. Giving students options encourages them to actively think about which
project they want to choose instead of what they have to do for their projects. To
facilitate their selection, students can use the results from surveys of their preferred
learning styles, multiple intelligences, and/or personal interests. (See Resources for
examples of these surveys.) When students are engaged in developing their own
projects they develop some wonderfully creative ideas and rise to the challenge of
providing creative solutions.
We use a template (see Figure 2) that helps us introduce projects so each project
conveys the importance of thinking about concepts in new ways, provides positive
support for creative risk taking, and permits students to take control of how they
want to tackle the project. The result is that students take ownership of their work,
and we find that students go the extra mile in their work when invited to develop
their own ideas. With this template we include a rubric that makes explicit to
students that creativity is valued, expected, and even assessed in the classroom.
For more on assessment of creativity, see Enger and Yager (2000).
As a culminating project for each science unit studied in a quarter, students are
asked to design and construct a product that can be used to teach others about a
particular topic they studied. For example, upon conclusion of a unit on energy
resources, one student built a model of Niagara Falls to illustrate his understanding
of alternative energy resources. He developed a working model of Niagara Falls,
including a daring person in a barrel, and wrote a lengthy research report describing
how the falls were formed, the history of the falls, and how they are currently used
as an energy resource. Another student created a model of an energy-efficient home
and wrote a report explaining various "green" design decisions in the home's
construction (see opening photo on page 20). Upon conclusion of a space science
unit, a student created a model of a telescope and wrote a report explaining how it
works (see Figure 3). After a unit on weather, a student was very excited by the idea
of writing a science children's book to convey her understanding of different types of
storms and precipitation, and teaching this to others. She created a story about a
family who is able to control the weather, with each family member possessing a
different weather power. The book explained each weather power and provided the
35
reader with scientifically accurate information about weather phenomena. (See
Figure 4 for examples of various children's books created by students.) The result is
a set of projects that encompass the entire Earth science curriculum we study in one
quarter. The classroom is set up like a museum so students can take turns sharing
their
projects.
This
serves
as
their
review
prior
to
the
quarterly
test.
As another way of supporting students' creative development, we have students
create biographies of a scientist with whom they share some traits; students
individually select a scientist of similar heritage or similar life circumstances to their
own. Students are provided with a variety of format suggestions, such as a written
biography, a PowerPoint presentation, or a theatrical presentation where the student
dresses up as the scientist and speaks to the entire class. Regardless of the format
students choose, they are required to present certain information, including the
scientist's place of birth and descriptions of his or her education, family life, greatest
scientific achievements, and traits the student shares with the scientist. Through this
project students experience how the same objective can be met using a variety of
media. We make explicit for students that this experience is an example of how
creativity can be used to design a solution. Additionally, this project potentially
increases their disposition toward creativity through exposure to scientific role
models who creatively used their science understanding to address problems of
importance. We enhance opportunities for students to build a positive disposition to
their own creativity by having them select a successful scientist with whom they
identify on a personal level.
Problem
solving
laboratory
experiments
to
support
creativity
Problem solving always requires creative skills. In order to be successful problem
solvers students need to be able to think of situations from new angles and see
situations in ways that are not immediately visible (Delisle 1997). There are a variety
of ways that problem solving through lab work can be built into the curriculum, but
we usually use it as an elaborative experience for students after they have had
opportunities for hands-on exploration with follow-up class meetings. Having
students take an active role in lab design teaches problem solving. For example,
students perform a pre-lab exercise where they place candy-coated chocolate pieces
in water and observe the shell of the candy shed its color into the water. Students
are asked to brainstorm what factors could potentially slow or speed the rate of color
shed. Next, students design and conduct their own controlled experiments requiring
them to use their prior knowledge and experiences in a novel way. Variables that
students elect to test include the type of liquid the candy pieces are placed in, the
amount
of
liquid
used,
and
the
temperature
of
the
liquid.
36
Just as professional scientists introduce experimental errors through the design
decisions they make, our students encounter similar problems during their
experiments, creating a wonderful learning opportunity. As part of their lab
conclusions, students think of some problems they had during the lab and explain
what they would do to solve those problems. Figuring out what went well in the lab
and what did not go so well can be challenging for some kids, but it helps them to
build new ideas. Students have to creatively think about how they designed their
experiment and what parts of the experiment do not fit into their design.
The difference between this situation and the event we describe in the opening
paragraph of this article is that students view the experiment as theirs. They are not
critiquing some unknown author who designed the lab for a manual; they are
critiquing themselves. This ownership generates a desire in students. They view this
requested creative response as a continuation of their experimental design process.
For example, when students examine the data from their candy experiment, they
decide they do not have a good method for determining how much of the candy's
shell must be shed to be considered fully shed, since some classmates classified the
candy's shell as fully shed when all of the color came off but the white candy coating
underneath remained, while other classmates did not consider the candy's shell
actually shed until the internal chocolate layer was the only piece remaining.
Investing students in achieving meaningful findings motivates them to think about
different ways they can measure the amount of color shed, reach consensus, and
perform their redesigned experiments again. This kind of exercise also demonstrates
to students how creative minds can see many different perspectives on the same
event.
While having students critique more traditional cookbook and teacher-designed
investigations provides an opportunity for learning and some development of
creativity, we find that students' creativity is greatly enhanced by having students
design and test their own experiments. When completing labs with students, we
present them with a question to answer and ask how they can figure it out; many
times we get back responses that are better than what we had planned for our
classes. Sometimes prompting is needed and we use questions to encourage
students' minds down a more productive path. Either way, we are working to engage
students' minds and teach them that out-of-the-box thinking is important so they
develop positive dispositions toward it.
Preparing our students for the future
37
Whenever we are planning instruction for middle school students we need to think
about the skills that will be useful in the future. Currently, our education system
continues to place great emphasis on developing core knowledge that students can
spit out on a multiple-choice test, and lip service is given to development of students'
creativity. However, thinking outside of academia rarely falls into organized, multiplechoice responses. If we want our students to be successful in a world where
scientific knowledge and technology are constantly changing, they will need to be
able to use scientific creativity to solve the problems we have not foreseen.
Online resources
Menus of project ideas
* http://sciencebuddies.com/science-fair-projects/project_ideas.shtml
* www.csiro.au/resources/ps1sv.html
* www.todaysteacher.com/MILearningActivities.htm
Student interest surveys and project ideas
* http://sciencebuddies.com/science-fair-projects/recommender_registe r.php
* www.csiro.au/resources/ps1z1.html
Student multiple-intelligences and learning-style surveys
* http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm
*
www.scholastic.com/familymatters/parentguides/middleschool/quiz_learningstyles/in
dex.htm
* www.schoolfamily.com/school-family-articles/article/836-learning-st yles-quiz
References
Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 2006. Education for the knowledge age: Designcentered models of teaching and instruction. In Handbook of educational psychology,
eds.
P.A.
Alexander
and
P.H.
Winne,
695-713.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). 1989. New designs for elementary
school science and health: A cooperative project of Biological Science Curriculum
Study (BSCS) and International Business Machines (IBM). Dubuque, IA: Kendall38
Hunt.
The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. 2003. The handy science answer book. 2nd ed.
Detroit: Visible Ink Press.
Delisle, R. 1997. How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.
Enger, S.K., and R.E. Yager. 2000. Assessing student understanding in science: A
standards
based
Guilford,
J.P.
K-12
1950.
handbook.
Thousand
Creativity.
American
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin
Psychologist
5:
Press.
444-54.
Lubart, T.I. 1994. Creativity. In Thinking and problem solving, ed. R.J. Sternberg,
290-322.
San
Diego,
CA:
Academic.
Sternberg, R.J. 2006. The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 18 (1):
87-98.
Sternberg, R.J., and T.I. Lubart. 1991. An investment theory of creativity and its
development.
Human
Development
34
(1):
1-31.
Sternberg, R.J., and W.M. Williams. 1996. How to develop student creativity.
Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.
Vernon, P.E. 1989. The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In Handbook of
creativity: Perspectives on individual differences, eds. J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, and
C.R. Reynolds, 93-110. New York: Plenum.
Schmidt, A. (2011). Creativity in Science: Tensions
Perception and Practice. Creative Education, 2(5), 435-445.
between
Many countries are reviewing science education programmes and implementing new
pedagogical paradigms aimed at reversing a trend of declining enrolments. A key
factor in this decline is a public perception that science is not a creative endeavour.
Attempts to reframe public perception tend to focus on primary and secondary
schooling, but do little to address ongoing declines in quality and originality of
intellectual output beyond the high-school environment. To overcome systemic
devaluation of science requires appreciation of the complex, dynamic, and often
stochastic, interplay of sociocultural, psychological and cognitive factors that drive
human creativity. Viewing creativity from this perspective reveals tensions
between perception and practice that limit opportunities for students, science
educators
and
scientists.
Resolving
the
tension
requires
integration
of
39
developmental, psychometric and sociocultural discourses of creativity in ways that
generate opportunities for individuals at all levels of education and practice to: 1)
acquire a high level of domain-specific knowledge; 2) practise application of that
knowledge in developing solutions to problems across a gradient of difficulty and; 3)
be challenged to integrate their knowledge of science with their knowledge of other
fields to pursue and solve problems with personal relevance.
Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2010). What Teachers See as
Creative Incidents in Elementary Science Lessons. International Journal Of
Science Education, 32(15),
The writers examined primary school teachers in England ratings of lesson activities
based on the opportunity the lesson offered children for creative expression in
science. While the teachers were able to distinguish between creative and
reproductive activities, they predictably demonstrated narrow perspectives of school
science creativity, while a few noticed creativity in mere reproductive activities.
Creativity
subjects
in
Mathematics
and
Physics
Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring Collective Mathematical Creativity in
Elementary School. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 215-234.
This study combines theories related to collective learning and theories related to
mathematical creativity to investigate the notion of collective mathematical
creativity in elementary school classrooms. Collective learning takes place when
mathematical ideas and actions, initially stemming from an individual, are built upon
and reworked, producing a solution which is the product of the collective. Referring
to characteristics of individual mathematical creativity, such as fluency, flexibility,
and originality, this paper examines the possibility that collective mathematical
creativity may be similarly characterized. The paper also explores the role of the
teacher in fostering collective mathematical creativity and the possible relationship
40
between individual and collective mathematical creativity. Many studies have
investigated ways of characterizing, identifying, and promoting mathematical
creativity. Haylock (1997), for example, and more recently, Kwon, Park, and Park
(2006) assessed students' mathematical creativity by employing open-ended
problems and measuring divergent thinking skills. Leikin (2009) explored the use of
multiple solution tasks in evaluating a student's mathematical creativity. These
studies focused on an individual's mathematical creativity as it manifests itself in
the solving of various problems. Yet students, acting in a classroom community, do
not necessarily act on their own. Ideas are interchanged, evaluated, and built-upon,
often with the guidance of the teacher. The resultant mathematical creativity of an
individual may be a product of collective community practice. The question which
then arises is: Who is being mathematically creative, the individual or the
community? This study focuses on the collective, not as the aggregation of a few
individuals, but as a unit of study. Although some of the studies mentioned above
acknowledged the effect of classroom culture on the development of mathematical
creativity, and others considered the creative range of a group of students, those
studies did not necessarily investigate mathematical creativity as a collective
process or as the product of participating in a collective endeavor
Rabari, J., Indoshi, F., & Okwach, T. (2011). Correlates of divergent
thinking among secondary school physics students. Educational Research
(2141-5161), 2(3), 982-996.
Recent studies have reported a decline and lack of creativity across many nations,
raising concern about low status of divergent thinking - the basis of creativity. The
purpose of this study was to explore some correlates of divergent thinking that
would be utilized to enhance creativity. Its objective was to determine correlations
between divergent thinking and: project work, creative attitude, critical thinking,
originality, and interaction with toys and science materials. The study employed a
correlation design and targeted a population of 2,236 12th grade secondary school
physics students in Nairobi Province; while the sample comprised 763 respondents,
obtained through stratified and random sampling techniques. Data were collected
using Questionnaire for Physics Students, which was constructed by the researcher
and validated by three experts in psychometric measures from Maseno University.
The instrument had a reliability of .837; and significance of correlations was tested at
p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 levels. Significant correlations were observed between
divergent thinking scores and: creative attitude, critical thinking, extent of play with
41
toys, and originality. The study recommends (1) use of supplementary print and
audiovisual scientific materials in schools to inspire creativity and (2) further
research aimed at establishing causative relationships involving divergent thinking.
Creativity in art education
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the Role of Creativity in Art
Education Theory and Practice. Studies In Art Education, 50(4), 382-399.
Reconceptualizing contemporary notions about creativity in visual arts education
should be an important issue in art education today. Currently, creativity may not
be a primary focus at National Art Education Association conferences or in its
publications. There are recent indications that art education is a site where
creativity can be developed and nurtured for all students with emphasis on both
individual processes and cultural practices. It is advocated that through critical
analysis of concepts related to art education and creativity that research and
practice can be developed to cultivate creative education for all art students. Topics
discussed in this article, related to reconsidering creativity, include the history of
creativity in art education, definitions of creativity, assessment of creative
processes, dispositional factors, and creative individuals, cultural variability and
creativity, and educational interventions that promote student creativity.
Corcoran, K., & Sim, C. (2009). Pedagogical reasoning, creativity and
cooperative learning in the visual art classroom. International Journal Of
Education Through Art, 5(1), 51-6.
This article reports on an action research that combined a process-product approach
to improving learning with reflective practice. In Queensland, the school subject of
Senior Secondary Visual Art is based on a state curriculum document that sets out
standards against which teachers assess each student's creative ability. A pedagogy
that supports the development of creativity is integral to student success therefore.
This action research centered around the explicit teaching of a cooperative learning
42
model that set out to facilitate senior secondary students' creativity in art making.
One of us used action research to examine her teaching for creativity while
implementing a particular model of cooperative learning. Through analysis of the
evidence collected, we identify the process whereby she acknowledged the role her
assumptions about learners and content played in her pedagogical decision-making.
The finding was that learning and teaching for creativity can be achieved
successfully when a teacher understands the nature of their own pedagogical
reasoning.
The process of teaching entails a variety of decisions. In 1987, Shulman published an
influential paper that categorized the informing knowledge base of practitioners.
Among other things he identified the unique amalgam of content and pedagogical
knowledge category that is the distinctive province of the teacher and the complexity
of the thinking underlying practitioner decision-making. Shulman termed this process
pedagogical reasoning. This paper draws on a larger study Corcoran conducted into
the development of creative thinking in young adults in art classrooms. It focuses
mainly on processes of pedagogical reasoning that occurred as she conducted action
research into her knowledge-in-action while striving to enhance her students'
creative thinking and collaboration.
The literature advocating arts education makes many claims. Among them is the
argument that it has the capacity to stimulate creativity and build teamwork and
communication skills (MCEETYA 2008). However these benefits do not occur
automatically just because secondary students participate in Visual Art lessons for
five years. As Eisner and Day (2004: 6) have observed: 'art teaching is relatively
understudied by researchers and scholars'.
The paper begins by explaining the background to the study: then it describes the
context and content of the action research; finally it relates the key findings to
theory of pedagogical reasoning. Young people across the western industrialized
world are strongly influenced by powerful visual technologies, often experiencing
them in isolation rather than as part of communities. For this reason, it is important
that Visual Arts teachers examine the pedagogical reasoning they engage in to
enhance their students' creative thinking and collaboration in classroom settings.
TEACHING FOR CREATIVE THINKING
The concept of 'creativity' is broad in scope and difficult to define. Consequently,
there is no single, clear indication of how it can be enhanced in a learning
43
environment. However, models exist that can be applied in Visual Art classrooms.
While the importance of internal determinants on creativity has been stressed in the
literature, much less emphasis has been placed on external determinants.
Investigations have tended to focus on research into creative persons and there has
been little appreciation of the contextual situations or circumstances that cultivate
creative
behaviour
(Cropley
2001;
Brown
1989).
Recently, social psychologists have endeavoured to understand and explain how
particular social and environmental conditions influence individuals' creative
behaviour. Research by Amabile (1986) strongly indicates that given the right
circumstances, certain strategies can improve creative behaviour and thus
performance.
It
supports
the
argument
that
creativity
can
be
taught.
Csikszentmihalyi (1988) argued that a 'congenial' environment within the social
system of a classroom is essential for learning creativity. Increasingly research into
learning has emphasized the importance of social influences (e.g. Cropley 2006).
Learning in classrooms does not occur in isolation; thus it is important to understand
decisions teachers take to change social activity in classroom settings. Drawing on
this socio-cognitive perspective, Corcoran developed pedagogy to enhance creative
thinking in her own classrooms. The focus of the action research was on improving
her practice in order to develop senior school students' creativity. The intention was
to establish a belief, in all students, of their ability at creative thinking first; once this
has been achieved she hypothesised that the students most at risk of failing in the
subject
area
would
become
more
willing
to
participate
in
art
making.
In role as teacher Corcoran provided her classes with a 'structure' that supported
cooperative learning. In the initial stages of the project she chose to adopt a
'process-product' approach to teaching and apply a creative problem-solving model
developed by Parnes (1967). Her starting point was to question the extent to which
his model provided students with a framework for solving problems at the conceptual
stage of art making. She hypothesized that a structured approach that structured
approach that offers students a concrete process for judging their progress when
developing ideas for art productions would be helpful.
PARNES' CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL
The approach formally known as Creative Problem Solving (CPS) originated five
decades ago in Osborn's work in 1953. It has evolved since then and been applied by
researchers in different contexts. It is commonly used in the field of gifted education
(Treffinger and Isaksen 2005). Distinctively, in the study reported in this paper,
Corcoran was most concerned with engaging students in Senior Visual Art
44
Classrooms who believed they were not academically able and were at risk of
becoming disengaged. She hypothesised that these students in particular would
benefit
from
the
application
of
a
clearer
theoretical
structure.
While acknowledging the evolution of CPS over time (e.g. Isaksen, Dorval and
Treffinger 2000), Corcoran elected to try out an early five-stage linear approach.
Parnes had applied a revised version of Osborn's original framework within a
secondary school context. Further, Cropley (2001) had established that this resulted
in positive outcomes in secondary school students' creative problem solving when it
was embedded within learning. Parnes' model became the focus of Corcoran's action
research into her own practice and the starting point for considering her pedagogical
position.
Parnes understood good ideas as occurring increasingly in the later stages of the
creative thinking process. He stated that:
a non-creative problem-solver gets an idea, sees it as a possible solution to his (sic)
problem, and settles for it without further ado. The creative problem-solver is not
satisfied with (the) first idea.
(Parnes and Harding 1962: 190)
In his view 'delayed' thinking is the key to generating more creative ideas. Corcoran
took on board his suggestion, grounded in research carried out by Osborn (1953),
and Gordon (1971), that avoiding jumping straight in and assuming a first solution is
important.
The following is an outline of the five steps Corcoran implemented in her study:
i.
Fact
finding:
finding
out
more
information
about
the
problem.
ii. Problem finding: the problem has to be clarified, by focusing on subproblems that
add definition to it.
iii. Idea finding: all possible ideas for the problem are listed. A list is created of all
'possible
best'
solutions
through
group
brainstorming.
iv. Solution finding: criteria are developed to evaluate each of the previously
generated
ideas
regarded
as
potentially
valuable.
v. Acceptance finding: involves selling the idea to others and getting them to identify
with
the
solution
as
the
'best
possible'
alternative.
The action research set out to understand the implications of using this theoretical
structure in depth. It is at this point that the pedagogy moved from a process-
45
product into a reflective practitioner stance, in which a teacher examines not only
her practice but also the reasoning behind it.
THE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
Schön (1983) established the importance of acknowledging 'knowledge-inaction' -- in
other words, knowledge that is inherent in professional action. He also argued that it
is possible to recognize 'reflection-in-action' when adjustments to action are made
through direct experience. As Schön (1983) stated:
When someone reflects-in-action, he (sic) becomes a researcher in the practice
context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique,
but constructs a new theory of the unique case. His enquiry is not limited to
deliberation about means, which depends on a prior agreement about ends. He does
not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a
problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from action... His experimenting
is a kind of action; implementation is built into his enquiry.
(Schön 1983: 68)
The nature of Corcoran's project, in which a particular theory guided an exploration
of practice in a local context, aligned well with the action research methodology. The
study took place over a period of three years with two different cohorts of students.
Action research enables teachers to become more analytical about their practice,
view it in a different light and find ways of improving it. The action research
framework was critical for Corcoran, who was fully aware that, as an art educator,
she shaped her students' visual products and thus must ask the question: How am I
controlling my students' creativity? (Wilson 2004).
THE CONTEXT
The participants were fifty students aged between sixteen and eighteen, in two
different schools. An action research spiral is a structural device used to group
together investigation and reflection into a series of cycles of planning, action and
reflection on something the teacher understand's needs to change. There were two
spirals of action research in this study focusing on Corocan's teaching and learning
and her students creativity. The first spiral comprised visual art lessons with twentyfour students implemented over a twelve-month period in 2000. The second
46
comprised of lessons with another fifteen students at the same site (Site 1) in 2001.
The involvement of a further eleven students at a different site (Site 2) finalized this
spiral in 2003. Research into learning and the CPS model provided the theoretical
framework
for
the
study
and
the
data
analysis.
Evidence of change in student learning and teacher practice was recorded in a
teacher field log, through student interviews and during classroom interactions. The
field log included photographs, lesson plans, personal reflections, evidence of
student problem solving and completed artwork. The interviews with students and
colleagues, that sought to determine their views about the strategies implemented
within the study, were audio taped. Written comments about their experiences were
collected from all the students at the end of each cycle. As they used the strategies
designed to enhance their creativity, their classroom interactions were videotaped.
Triangulating student, colleague and teacher researcher views, led to the
identification of conceptual 'themes'. The understandings gained from analysing this
evidence were re-examined during the last cycle at Site 2. Video-stimulated recall
interviews with the students in Site 2, were used to identify how the initial
conceptual 'themes' from Site 1 had formed over time and in a different place (Site
2).
Corcoran included students as co-researchers in this action research. It was their
responses to her teaching that established them as co-researchers. Importantly their
role was understood to contribute to the establishment of a cooperative learning
environment.
STUDENT LEARNERS AS PARTICIPANTS IN ACTION RESEARCH
Action research is particularly suited to situations in which educators commit to
improving active student participation in learning. An action research design requires
participatory activity. As this study setting was the classroom, students were fully
informed about research and acted as critical informants. Consequently, the
interventions responded to student input. In the first spiral in particular, students
suggested
changes
to
the
CPS
model.
It is possible to argue that utilizing Parnes' model makes the process of
conceptualizing art works too structured and does not allow sufficient freedom for
student exploration. However, there was evidence from this study that the steps are
positive for low achievers at least, in offering them concrete guidelines for
developing cognitive thinking. All the student participants who found coming up with
creative ideas for artwork challenging appreciated the structured steps the model
47
offered.
The interview data indicated that they preferred to use cooperative learning in
Parnes' 'fact finding' stage and at the beginning of the 'idea finding' stage. But
reflection on practice indicated this should occur individually in the later phases of
'idea finding'. Cooperative learning was most appreciated in the later stages of
'solution finding'; when students bounced ideas off peers and looked for feedback to
direct them towards their most creative solutions. The stage of 'acceptance finding'
saw students engaging with the teacher-researcher, as well as achieving resolution
individually.
One finding was that the students began to reflect on and take ownership of their
learning processes. As participants in the action research, they assessed the use and
potential of cooperative learning as a strategy for enhancing creativity and to a
certain extent, developed an ability to process their own learning meta-cognitively.
The combination of the problem-solving model with explicit involvement of students
in the action research resulted in the development of self-regulated learning.
There was evidence from the interviews, questionnaires and classroom observations
that the students moved quickly to become what Zimmerman (1989) calls selfregulated learners. This significant outcome suggests that the Parnes model enables
students to assume the autonomy that is necessary to enhance creative ideas.
As they worked with and evaluated the model as co-researchers, the students
informed the teacher-researcher of the need for change when they found it
problematic. Their researcher role seemed to improve their motivation. They were
able to express understanding of how they learned (not just what), actively
participate in their learning processes and achieve personal goals. Through
cooperative learning, they gained confidence planning the problem solving process
and kept on task as they conceptualized ideas. When Andrew, was asked to reflect
on the CPS model during an interview, he stated simply 'it keeps me focused'.
Using action research to apply and evaluate the problem solving strategy meant that
students no longer relied on teacher instructions. A strong inter-relationship between
process and outcome was evident in the questionnaire responses. The CPS model
provided both teacher and students with common ground for discussing creative
thinking and a degree of confidence building emerged that was mutually beneficial,
and assured the teacher her pedagogical decisions were well informed. Observation
of the artwork suggested students felt confident of progress. The questionnaire
responses also suggested that the steps in the model provided a useful reference
point for struggling students suffering from 'artist block' or experiencing 'mental
ruts'.
48
Andrew's story supports this claim. In the past he had struggled in Visual Art.
However when he experienced 'artist block' this time, he retraced his steps using the
CPS model and was able to work autonomously to overcome this. In other words, he
took ownership of the learning. He recognized which part of the problem solving
process he was having difficulty with, and was able to rectify the problem by
searching out answers independently. Andrew became increasingly confident in his
own ability to identify and address problems.
As the students began to understand the steps involved and become competent at
implementing them, they used the CPS model according to personal need so
flexibility became a part of the pedagogy. There was some evidence that their
participation as co-researchers in the action research transformed the pedagogy
from a process-product to a reflective-practitioner approach. Action research enables
teachers to become more analytical about their practice, thus they can view it in a
new light and develop different ways of improving it. The action research design of
this study was critical for Corcoran. Throughout the project she followed Wilson's
(2004) advice that as an art educator she was shaping the visual products, so must
ask
the
question:
How
am
I
controlling
my
students'
creativity?
There was evidence from the study also that flexible use of classroom space in Visual
Art environments is conducive to cooperative learning. Corcoran allowed students to
move around the classroom freely. A finding was that for cooperative learning
environments to be productive, students need room to move around in informal
settings. However, success is dependent on the guidance they receive for becoming
self-regulated learners.
COOPERATIVE
LEARNING:
COLLEGIALITY,
DIVERSITY
AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
In analysing all the evidence, the integral part played by the particular learning
situation could not be ignored. In this study students who had previously
experienced problems developing ideas in the conceptual stage of art making
overcame them by means of specific strategies of cooperative learning. The study
required one of us to adapt the Parnes CPS model to the particular conditions and
contexts of her own classroom. Research by Webb, Nemer, Chizhik and Sugrue
(1998) found that group composition has a major impact on the quality of discussion
and student achievement. The cooperative learning environment in our action
research was characterized by collegiality, diversity and accountability. The most
important first step in the study was to establish a collegial environment that offered
49
a social structure of support and at the same time, motivated students to strive for
academic success. The problem of non-contributors in-group work is well known. In
this study the groups were small, consisting of no more than four learners. Research
has shown that large groups do not work well because successful individuals may
'free ride' and contribute very little (Larey and Paulus 1999; Slavin 1991).
Thus, in Corcoran's study, group formation became a research focus. At first, and
following advice in the literature and from colleagues, she did not seek student input
on how to form the groups. However early on, it became clear that to persist this
way would minimize collegiality, obstruct creativity and would not provide
opportunities to establish links between the cooperative techniques and creative
expression. While she felt uneasy about 'going against' the expressed wisdom of
practitioner colleagues that friendship groups are doomed, Corcoran followed the
action research steps. She examined the data informing her of the students'
concerns, changed her teaching approach and included them as participants.
The finding challenged her initial assumption that cooperative learning is most
successful with learners of this age with groups that are not friendship-based. The
emotions and feelings student express visually in art can be extremely personal.
Indeed in other less supportive settings the self-disclosure might be ridiculed.
Rebecca, spoke honestly about why she felt it was better to work with friends in a
manner that reflects the sensitive nature of such disclosure:
Art is more personal anyway; in sport you're doing the same thing playing the same
game. Art, you are going in different directions. Not like you're all trying to copy and
draw the same thing. In sport you are.
In her teacher-researcher role Corcoran came to the decision to allow friends to form
groups during the first action research -- first action-research cycle. Sharing ideas
and techniques this way was worthwhile because the students appeared less
inhibited and creative ideas emerged more openly. These findings about friendship
groups endorse the claim by Zurmuehlen (1990) that the 'inner self' becomes more
public in Visual Art classrooms. Alexandra for example said she gained 'more
direction' with a friend.
When groups were formed so as to reflect student choice as far as possible, insights
emerged as to how to teach students with diverse artistic abilities. Cooperative
learning offers a more positive environment in which students can motivate and
challenge each other to learn. This study found that learning in cooperative groups,
50
rather than individually, enables low achieving students to develop ideas and solve
problems more creatively.
Evidence gathered from groups with diverse confidence levels suggested that the
cooperative learning experience strongly influenced the creative thinking of
individuals. Students who participated in friendship groups with diverse artistic
abilities produced more creative ideas when brainstorming and their thinking
improved. Milliken, Bartel and Kurtzberg (2003) reported similar findings in their
research.
Despite some disagreements, students worked productively on personally set goals
while seated with peers in groups in collaborative learning environments. In an
interview, Matthew emphasized the importance of this input from peers, commenting
that, '... they talked to you on your level so it was good.' The strength of collegial
learning environments was realized and understood. Importantly, the study
demonstrated that establishing a supportive learning environment reduces classroom
competition and strengthens the quality of learning. Students became motivated to
engage in more productive, creative learning opportunities and were successful as a
result of collegiality, rather than competition.
This result was most obvious after analysing the video taped classroom interactions.
Here the researchers could see that some students engaged with others more readily
and openly than before. Andrew, the low achieving student, recognized the value of
collegial work and realized he 'generated more ideas' from being part of a group.
The cooperative learning environment created a sense of comradeship. At this point,
we will briefly summarise the findings from the action research about the problemsolving model the teacher researcher applied.
CONCLUSIONS
As an experienced teacher, Corcoran was aware that many students in her senior art
classrooms struggled to think creatively and to develop artworks. When they tried to
solve problems during the conceptual stage of art production, they tended to choose
the most obvious, basic solution that came to mind. This led them to underestimate
their abilities and undermined their self-confidence and esteem. The challenge for a
teacher was to identify and change the learning style so as to help them think more
creatively. Too often their lack of confidence to 'take a chance'; 'go out on a limb' or
be radically different obstructed their approach to problem solving; yet at other
51
times, they spent hours in the problem-solving stage but appeared confused and
unable to decide what direction to take.
In this study the combination of the Parnes model and action research produced a
positive, dynamic pedagogical environment. The teacher acting as researcher gained
insight into the learners' reactions to her reasons for implementing the model and
this influenced her decision making along the way. Furthermore, she incorporated
their input into her teaching and discovered they were willing to invest time into
developing their abilities and had the capacity to be interactive and flexible in their
learning.
Cooperative learning was successful not only because a well-researched model was
introduced into the classroom, but also because the teacher-researcher was willing
to reflect-in-action on its implementation. The study provided evidence that
introducing a learning model successfully requires not only time and effort, but also
openness to student input.
Traditionally, teachers have directed students through the learning process and
dictate time frames and outcomes. The process of pedagogical decision-making may
be restricted by concern with teacher control and, as a result, teachers may be
unresponsive to student needs. However in this study students engaged
cooperatively in the creative process, and the teacher made the basis for her
decisions explicit. The study demonstrated that thoughtful, collaborative practice
influences pedagogical reasoning and successfully changes teacher and student
behaviour. It established that the use of a well-structured reflexive approach that
enables input by student groups and in which teachers and students work together,
improves
creativity
and
engagement.
At times Corcoran admitted to feeling anxious the requirements of the Visual Art
senior syllabus might not be met and students might not complete all the essential
tasks. Good time management was vital to ensure the assessment requirements
were met. However, it was clear that this student cohort produced work that was
qualitatively stronger than before.
Cooperative learning requires adjustments in teaching styles and assumptions about
students. Teachers have to come to terms with the idea that students may be
engaged productively without constant direction and that their responsibility is to
provide them with clear structures for working in teams. Moreover, cooperative
learning positions them as active participants in the learning process. In collaboration
52
with a teacher, the students determine the path along which their learning proceeds.
The outcome of this self-study by a teacher who was committed to researching her
practice was a pedagogy that made the theory-practice relationship in art education
explicit to her students.
A strong model of reflective practice has been presented. Analysing evidence
collected during action research enabled one of us to improve her students' creative
thinking. Teachers base pedagogy on assumptions that combined with knowledge of
content, learners and pedagogy inform their decision making on a daily basis. Over
time they may culminate in their adopting a particular pedagogical reasoning for
their practice. In this study, and in an effort to improve her students' creativity,
Corcoran decided to implement a model of cooperative learning and identified a need
to document and evaluate the process. The action research she put into place did
much more than simply examine this process and the consequences of implementing
the model however. It engaged her in an investigation into influences on her
pedagogical decision making.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Brown, R. T. (1989). 'Creativity... what are we to measure?' In J. A. Glover, R. R
Ronning, and C. R. Reynolds (eds), Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum Press,
pp.
3-30.
Cohen, E. (1986), Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous
Classroom,
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2001), Creativity in Education and Learning, London: Kogan Page.
Cropley, A. (2006), 'Creativity: a social approach', Roeper Review, 28: 3, pp. 125130.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988), 'The flow experience and its significance for human
psychology', in M. Csikszentmihalyi and I.S. Csikszentmihalyi (eds), Optimal
Experience,
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
pp.
15-35.
Eisner, E. and Day, M. (eds) (2004), Handbook of Research and Policy in Art
Education,
National
Art
Education
Association
(NAEA),
pp.
299-328.
Gordon, W. J. (1971), The Metaphorical Way, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Porpoise
Books.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B. and Treffinger, D. J. (2000), Creative Approaches to
Problem
Solving,
second
edition,
Dubuque,
IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (1987), Learning Together and Alone, Englewood
53
Cliffs,
N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Larey, T. S. and Paulus, P. B. (1999), 'Group preference and convergent tendencies
in small groups. A content analysis of group brainstorming performances', Creativity
Research
Journal,
12:
3,
pp.
175-184.
Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A. and Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003), 'Diversity and creativity in
work groups', In P. B. Paulus and B. A. Nijstad (eds) Group Creativity, London:
Oxford
University
Press.
Ministerial Council in Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)
(2008),
'National
Education
and
the
Arts
Statement',
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceetya/national_education_and_the_arts_s
tatement,20981.
Osborn,
A.
Accessed
F.
(1953),
28
Applied
March
Imagination,
New
2008.
York:
Scribner.
Parnes, S. J. (1967), Creative Behaviour Guidebook, New York: Scribner.
Parnes, S. J. and Harding, H. F. (eds)(1962), A Source Book for Creative Thinking,
New
York:
Charles
Scribner's
Sons.
Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. (1987), 'Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform',
Harvard
Educational
Review,
57:
Spring
Issue,
pp.
1-22.
Slavin, R. E. (1991), 'Synthesis of research on cooperative learning', Educational
Leadership,
48:
6,
pp.
82-85.
Treffinger, D. J. and Isaksen, S. G. (2005), 'Creative problem solving: The history,
development, and implications for gifted education and talent development', The
Gifted
Child
Quarterly,
49:
4,
pp.
342-353.
Webb, N., Nemer, K., Chizhik, A. and Sugrue, B. (1998), 'Equity issues in
collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance', American
Educational
Research
Journal,
35:
4,
pp.
607-651.
Wilson, B. (2004), 'Child art after modernism: Visual culture and new narratives', In
E. Eisner, E and M. Day (eds), Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education,
The Project of National Art Education Association (NAEA), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence
Elbaum
Assoc.,
pp.
299-328.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989), 'A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning', Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
81
(3),
pp.
329-339.
Zurmuehlen, M. (1990), Studio Art: Praxis, Symbol, Presence, Reston, VA: National
Art Education Association.
54
Source: International Journal of Education through Art, 2009, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p51,
11p
Montana-Hoyos, C., & Lemaitre, F. (2011). Systems thinking, disciplinarity
and critical thinking in relation to creativity within contemporary arts and design
education. Studies In Learning, Evaluation, Innovation & Development, 8(2),
12-25.
Pink (2005) discusses six critical competencies or senses required for the conceptual
age. They are design, story, symphony, empathy, play and meaning. This paper will
focus on mainly on design, within arts and design education, exploring relationships
between systems thinking, multidisciplinarity, critical thinking and creativity from
the perspective of Industrial Design (ID). Initially, the paper presents a brief
historical approach to the evolution of 'systems thinking'. Afterwards,
multidisciplinarity is discussed in relation to design disciplines and examples illustrate
the use of systems thinking in multidisciplinary design projects at different scales.
Subsequently, tangible aspects of interdisciplinary collaboration and systems thinking
in design education are discussed through a case study of an academic transport
design project developed between the 2nd year ID studio of the University of
Canberra (UC) and the ACT planning and land authority (ACTpla).
The main relevant aspects of this collaborative industrial design studio, such as
working with the government and other design disciplines (landscape architecture
and architecture), as well as the systems thinking focus is described and analysed.
Main conclusions propose that 'creativity' in contemporary arts and design
education can be enhanced through systems thinking and interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary collaborative work. Creativity is also complemented by critical
thinking (as an important evaluative and decision-making tool) in today's complex
post-industrial, digital and sustainability-focused society. This within the context of
the 'contribution of the creative class' (Florida, 2002) and a 'new world in which
inventiveness, empathy and meaning predominate' (Pink, 2005).
Brien, D. (2011). Learning the "lessons of the arts": creativity, creative
arts education and creative arts educators today. Studies In Learning,
Evaluation, Innovation & Development, 8(2), 96-108.
55
In A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink proposes that right brain (creative, nonlinear) thinking will be paramount in the coming economic and working reality
of what he terms the new 'Conceptual Age'. Pink's deas follow a recognition
that has been growing since the late 1990s of the contribution of the creative
industries sector in sustaining the growth momentum of advanced economies.
In such an environment, it s perhaps no surprise that employers list
creativity among the attributes they seek in potential employees and that, in
turn, creativity s becoming widely recognised as a valuable personal asset.
In this context, creativity is regularly identified as a skill/attribute that
students will gain during their secondary or tertiary education
. Yet most of the discussion in higher education around creativity focuses on
students, and how teaching can develop and enhance their creativity, with
little about the creative arts educators who will supposedly foster this
attribute. This paper, therefore, investigates creative arts education in terms
of the importance of creativity for students and educators' creativity and
its relationship to academics'' personal job satisfaction.
Fostering creativity in schools by technology
and computer applications
Jang, S. (2009). Exploration of secondary students' creativity by
integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum.
Computers & Education, 52(1), 247-255.
The purpose of the study was to investigate how web-based technology could be
utilized and integrated with real-life scientific materials to stimulate the creativity of
secondary school students. One certified science teacher and 31 seventh graders
participated in this study. Several real-life experience science sessions integrated
with online teaching were used for one semester. The study used an interpretive
methodology, which was qualitative analysis rather than quantitative analysis. The
main data included students' online data, interviews, videotape recordings and the
teacher's journals. The results also showed that this study provided information to
56
enhance students' expression of sensitivity, fluency, flexibility, originality, and
elaboration of scientific creativities. Students' creativity was motivated by the
online interactivities and the teacher's inquiry. The difficulties and limitations of the
teaching and learning environment included strong attraction toward the Internet,
poor ability of students in word processing and discussion online, students'
utilitarianism due to the pressure of entrance examination, and large amount of time
spent on explorative activities.
Mishra, P. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st
Century: Crayons are the Future. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice
To Improve Learning, 56(5), 13-16.
The article identifies some concerns or misunderstandings about the relationship
between creativity and technology in the educational context. It describes a few
myths about technology and creativity, including the claim that technology tools
should drive how people should conceptualize teaching and learning in the 21st
century. It also discusses the ways in which transdisciplinary creativity can address
creativity and technology for learning.
Hamlen, K. R. (2009). Relationships Between Computer and Video
Game Play and Creativity Among Upper Elementary School Students. Journal
Of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 1-21.
This study explored relationships between time spent playing video games in a
typical week and general creativity, as measured by a common assessment. One
hundred eighteen students in 4th and 5th grades answered questions about their
video game play and completed the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance,
Orlow, & Safter, 1990). While significant relationships were found between
creativity and two variables (gender and grade), no significant relationship was
found between time spent playing video games in a typical week and creativity,
when controlling for gender and grade. Additional analyses examined relationships of
creativity with skills used in video games and context in which the games were
typically played and these also did not reveal significant relationships. This study
provides initial evidence that video game play may not, in fact, influence children's
general creativity levels.
57
Tackvic, C. (2012). Digital Storytelling: Using Technology to Spark
Creativity. Educational Forum, 76(4), 426-429.
For any curriculum area that entails writing, digital storytelling could transform
students' perceptions of and their actual abilities to express themselves through the
written word. The use of two Web sites has helped the students of one school go
from staring apprehensively at blank pages to eagerly publishing stories.
Siegle, D. (2012). Using Digital Photography to Enhance Student
Creativity. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 285-289.
The article presents information on how digital photography enhances student
creativity. According to the author, the availability of digital recording devices
provides educators with opportunity to enhance their students' creative thinking and
self-reflection. The article also provides a set of photography assignments that the
gifted students with whom the author worked with found to be interesting and
beneficial in terms of visual expression.
The ubiquitous availability of devices that record digital images affords educators an
excellent opportunity to enhance their students' creative thinking and self-reflection.
If students do not have access to traditional digital cameras, they probably do have
access to a cell phone, iTouch, iPad, or other device that will enable them to record
digital images. These devices can play an important role in developing students'
creativity and communication skills. In this column, I will describe a set of
photography assignments that the gifted students with whom I have worked have
found to be interesting and beneficial. These assignments have worked well with
students in a fourth-grade gifted and talented program as well as with university
honors students. The primary goal of these assignments is less about making
students better photographers, although that is often a by-product, and more about
helping them see the world with new eyes and better visually express what they are
thinking and feeling.
Boehm, P. (2009). Fostering Creativity While Nurturing Learners.
Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 38-41.
58
The writer, a library media specialist at Brighton High School in Brighton, Michigan,
proposes increased use of Web 2.0 tools to promote creativity and nurture 21stcentury learners.
The questions now are: Is our workforce prepared for global collaboration? Are we
fostering global innovation in our shops and offices? Who is monitoring your global
technology needs and developments where you work? Is your global competitiveness
even up for discussion? These are the questions our major corporations are forced to
address
if
they
have
any
hope
of
remaining
viable.
Now, let's ask these same questions of ourselves. Are we preparing our students for
collaboration? Are we fostering innovation? Who is monitoring technology needs and
developments? Is your competitiveness being discussed?
Web 2.0 tools are synonymous with sharing, creating, and collaborating.
They are so very social and friendly, and most of them are free! They are
alternatives for demonstrating what students know; they motivate and
engage students in learning their way.
WORDLE
It was love at first sight with Wordle, the brainchild of Jonathan Feinberg (2008). I
became familiar with it after reading a School Library Media Activities Monthly blog
post by my friend and former colleague, Kristin Fontichiaro (2008). Hers is my "must
read" blog as Kristin is able to bring new tools and original thoughts to her readers,
which challenge me to imagine new possibilities. She cautioned that Wordle is
addictive -- perfect to hook teachers!
Teachers are fascinated with Wordle because it is visual, simple, and creative. When
you paste text into Wordle and click "Go" the words are transported into the
computing cloud of cyberspace only to return as art. Words that appear most
frequently in the text become large and bold; less frequent words diminish into the
background. The layout, font, and color can be personalized to produce original,
creative word clouds (see Figure 1).
When I share Wordle with teachers I use the United States Declaration of
Independence. What emerges are the themes of that historic document -- People *
Laws * Right * States * Government. Such a powerful tool for students! How easily
would students be able to answer, "What are the themes of the Declaration of
Independence?" How engaged would they be if they could use Wordle to discover
the themes instead? As a culmination to a research or writing project, have students
59
create word clouds of their own work. I have been told that students are so proud of
their word clouds, they have them hanging in their lockers! This is an easy sell to
teachers. Consider this -- President Barack Obama's inaugural address: America *
New
Nation.
Now
you
know
what
I
saw!
Take it upon yourself to try a Web 2.0 tool. Reflect upon your use of these tools.
What have you learned? Do you have a favorite? Why? How did it help you as a
learner? How could it help you as a teacher? How could it help your students enjoy
and participate in learning, to take ownership of their learning?.
Play with these tools, become familiar with them, share with a colleague or friend.
Use one with your children, spouse, sisters, brothers, or parents. Get everyone in on
the action. The excitement will be contagious, and you'll soon be telling others what
you're
experiencing.
You
will
be
the
resident
social
learning
expert.
Working with colleagues and friends makes it easy to lead students to the use of
technology for learning. You will be providing them with opportunities to be social
learners using technology tools. Soon they'll be sharing, innovating, and
collaborating in a virtual environment. They will be ready to advance their knowledge
and enter the workforce ready for lifelong learning as an accomplished 21st-century
learner!
BLAIR, N. (2012). TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR THE NEW 21ST
CENTURY LEARNER. Principal, 91(3), 8-13.
The article focuses on the need to integrate technology in the classroom for
students' readiness in the 21st century. According to the Partnership for 21st Century
Skills organization, the most effective way is to develop the four C's such as critical
thinking, creativity, and collaboration and acquiring students in technology-infused
learning environment. It also discusses several related topics including the potential
device, internet search discovery, and creating a multimedia presentation.
Today's students need educators to re-envision the role of technology in the
classroom.
A DRAMATIC SHIFT is sweeping through our schools. The signs are all around us.
Third graders texting on their cell phones. Kindergarteners who can navigate an iPod
Touch better than we can. Middle schoolers who already have an Internet following
on their blog or YouTube channel.
60
These are not the same 21st century learners we came to know over the first decade
of the new millennium. For these students, simply watching videos or images during
class, playing an Internet multiplication game, or even taking turns at an interactive
whiteboard is no longer enough.
These new 21st century learners are highly relational and demand quick access to
new knowledge. More than that, they are capable of engaging in learning at a whole
new level. With the world literally at their fingertips, today's students need teachers
and administrators to re-envision the role of technology in the classroom.
Technology Integration Remixed
The new 21st century learners must master more than the core curriculum to
succeed in secondary and postsecondary institutions, as well as in the workplace.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a national organization advocating for 21st
century readiness for every student, explains the outcomes of this transformation as
fusing the traditional three R's with four C's: critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration.
As students develop the four C's, we have discovered that effective application of
these vital skills in a technology-infused life and workplace requires acquiring them in
a technology-infused learning environment. This environment calls for two elements:
We must increasingly put technology into the hands of students and must trust them
with more progressive technology use.
It is no longer sufficient for students to have less access to technological tools than
the teacher, nor is it enough for any one suite of software to serve as the zenith for
technology mastery. For student performance to approximate student potential,
students need access to a constantly evolving array of technological tools and
activities that demand problem-solving, decision-making, teamwork, and innovation.
The four C's are at the heart of the International Society for Technology in
Education's National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students,
providing a substantial framework for defining the focus of technology objectives for
K-l 2 students. For example, in implementing these standards we have found that
even our youngest 21st century learners are capable of independently creating
digital storybooks, artwork, presentations, and movies.
Shift in Roles
61
Following the joyous moment when educators realize their students are capable,
independent technology users who can create inspiring digital masterpieces, die next
reaction is often a more solemn, "How do we fit it all in?" In fact, the answer to this
question is vital to a successful technology integration transformation.
In the former mindset of teaching with technology, the teacher was the focal point of
the classroom, creating (often time-consuming) interactive and multimedia
presentations to add shock and awe to his or her lessons and capture the attention
of the 21st century child. A new mindset of teaching through technology must
emerge, which depends on a vital shift in teacher/ student roles.
In this configuration, the teacher acts as a learning catalyst, orchestrating and
facilitating activities that spark defining moments for students. The most effective
activities take two forms-discovery and creation-though they often symbiotically work
together. The student then becomes the focal point of the classroom, acting
as explorer (e.g., mathematician, scientist, sociologist) and designer (e.g.,
author, artist, composer).
This is a liberating shift. As teachers spend less time creating presentations and
more time crafting powerful learning activities, they will find that material is covered
with more depth and retention the first time around, saving them time and energy in
the long run. Moreover, by allowing students to be explorers and designers,
educators show that they believe in their students' abilities and validate each
student's contribution to the class.
Discovery and Exploration. In technology-infused discovery activities, Internet
research, virtual manipulatives, and multimedia resources allow students to explore
unanswered questions. For example, instead of beginning a lesson on geometric
transformations by listening to a lecture or looking at examples on the board, a
fourth grader might use the free geometric transformation activities in Utah State
University's National Library of Virtual Manipulatives (nlvm.usu.edu) to answer a
probing question such as "What is a geometric reflection?" Middle schoolers might
take it a step further to discover and develop steps for graphing a reflection on a
coordinate plane. Exploring as a real mathematician would, students try to
understand, analyze, and evaluate their experience to answer the posed question.
Discovery activities give students real-world, problem-solving experience and
ownership over their learning, as well as allow them to bring their observations into
the subsequent lesson, discussion, or creation activity as prior knowledge.
62
Creation and Design. Likewise, creation activities provide students the ability to
develop creativity and problem-solving skills by displaying their mastery in
profound and meaningful ways. Teachers at McKeel Elementary Academy in
Lakeland, Florida, integrate the use of technology for student-created digital media
into all areas of curriculum:
* Kindergarteners create image-based movies on recycling and insects;
* First graders develop PowerPoint presentations for "My Time to Teach" projects to
share with the class;
* Fourth graders prepare for their statewide standardized writing assessment by
developing elaborate digital storybooks on free web 2.0 sites such as Storybird
(www.storybird.com) or StoryJumper (www.storyjumper.com); and
* Fifth graders collaborate to launch a Web Safety Wiki to teach other students
worldwide about digital citizenship (wildcatwebsafety. wikispaces.com).
The projects created are excellent tools for formative and summative assessment.
Yet more than that, through creation activities, students design products that make
them active partners in constructing learning experiences in the classroom and
beyond. In demonstrating their skills and knowledge, they become more confident in
their own abilities and their own voices.
Authentic Audiences
One of the greatest benefits of 21st century technology infusion is also one of the
key mandates for successful technology integration. Traditionally, students have
composed their work for an audience of one-die teacher. By using technological
resources to establish authentic audiences for student work, we tell students that
their work is worth seeing, worth reading, and worth doing.
Authentic audiences come in many forms-class presentations, school news shows,
school websites, film festivals, literary publications, online publishing through blogs
or other web 2.0 tools, contests and competitions, and Skyping widi other classes
around the world.
Two years ago, several students at McKeel entered a Winter Story Competition
sponsored by E2BN, using its Myths and Legends Story Creator (myths.e2bn.org).
63
Having access to a dynamic digital storytelling tool and the promise of an
international audience of students, McKeel students were motivated to write,
enhance, and edit their stories-and it paid off. One +fourth grader won the text-only
competition; another was recognized as runner-up in the illustrated division.
Students from around the world who read these stories shared their feedback and
congratulations through the site's online commenting system. Among others, the
runner-up student received this comment: "I read all the stories in the contest and
yours is the best! Be a writer when you grow up. You will be world wide!"
One comment like that can transform a student's outlook on his or her education. As
an International Story Contest runner-up at age 9, this creative young girl now plans
to be a writer when she grows up.
Worldwide, students and teachers are discovering the benefits of global collaboration
and the power of authentic audiences. For example, students at Lincoln Middle
School in Santa Monica, California, share a collection of student-created math
screencasts at Mathtrain. TV, which has received more than 350,000 views. The
ThinkQuest Project Library (www.thinkquest.org/library/) hosts more than 8,000
student-created websites designed by ThinkQuest competitors.
Through effective use of technology, every new 21st century learner can have the
opportunity to learn from and publish to an eager global audience.
Device for Every Child?
With potential fingertip access to such incredible student opportunities on the line,
principals and teachers have a great responsibility to innovatively harness the power
of technological resources.
Ideally, to maximize these opportunities, every student needs direct access to
technology on a daily basis. This means moving away from the days of visiting the
computer lab toward a one-to-one initiative in the classroom. Unfortunately, with
variable school budgets and technology resources, this often seems like a daunting
task.
Easing the resource strain, affordable netbooks and handheld devices have become
worthy supplements, or even replacements, for more expensive desktops or laptops.
Combine that with the bounty of free educational web 2.0 sites and apps, as well as
64
an increasing number of websites with fees that offer free access to educators and
students (e.g., www.xtranormal.com and www.wikispaces.com), and it becomes
much easier to provide classrooms with rich technological resources.
Moreover, though we should certainly strive for the ideal one-to-one computing
environment, Sugata Mitra, professor of educational technology at Newcastle
University, offers an alternative. Mitra shared on his blog (sugatam.blogspot.com)
that "groups of children can learn to use computers and the Internet to answer
almost any question … All they need is free access and the liberty to work in
unsupervised groups." In his research, in addition to astonishing information on
retention rates, Mitra found the most effective group size to be four to five children
and recommends a 1:4 ratio of computers to students.
This could mean a 75 percent savings in initial costs, especially if combined with
technology centers and rotations in the classroom for independent work. As an
added bonus, this collaborative structure is particularly conducive to transforming
technology use from skill drills to teaching through discovery and creation activities.
A Vision for the Future
Developing a progressive technology-infused campus is not about money; it's about
mindset. To successfully implement such a program, a school must be led by a
proactive leader who:
* Makes the needs of the new 21st century learner a priority;
* Deliberately empowers teachers to innovatively craft digital learning experiences
that promote discovery and creation; and
* Establishes a shared vision and unique plan for their students and teachers.
So how can you start today? First, assemble a team of administrators, technology
specialists, educators, parents, and students who can collaborate to create a shared
vision for 21st century learning. The vision should establish not only ideals for
technology-infusion in the classroom, but also a set of NETS-based progressive
technology objectives that outline what and when technology skills will be
introduced, developed, and mastered by students. Additionally, the vision should
account for the evolution of the program to sufficiently adapt to the emergent needs
of learners.
65
Once you have crafted a common vision, this team can perform a needs assessment.
Do you need to reallocate or obtain more hardware resources for classrooms? Do
your teachers need training in transforming 21st century technology integration? Do
you need to explore the array of web 2.0 resources to determine which are best
suited for your educational environment? One need that is often overlooked is the
support of a designated person, perhaps a technology integration specialist or coach,
to assist teachers as they implement technology uses in their classrooms. The team
can then analyze this information to create a unique plan to address the needs
identified in the assessment.
With the vision and plan in place, enlist a handful of innovative educators to pilot the
use of new technology and methodology in their classrooms. Encourage these early
adopters to create a personal learning network (PLN) through online communities,
such as Classroom 2.0 (www.classroom20.com), The Educator's PLN (edupln.ning.
com), or Twitter's #EdChat discussions, to share and develop their skills and
resources.
In order to propagate the vision to all staff, parents, and students, have these
educators share their experiences and expertise through school events as well as
staff and in-service meetings. Most importantly, proudly broadcast the most valuable
results of these innovators by showcasing student gains, discoveries, and creations.
The new 21st century learners are sitting in your classrooms, ready to explore,
design, and create. If you provide the resources and transform their mindsets,
powerful and effective technology integration will follow.
Principal ONLINE
Access the following Web Resources by visiting Principal magazine online:
www.naesp.org/JanFeb12
Discover resources and tutorials for Technology Integration and Student-Created
Digital Media through the author's blog.
Learn more about implementing the International Society for Technology in
Education's National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students,
Teachers, and Administrators.
66
Listen to Sugata Mitra share more about his research through his TED Talk titled
"The Child-Driven Education."
Gain technology integration tips on the Edutopia website.
McKeel Elementary Academy students produce work for authentic audiences
How to incorporate creativity into schools:
Methods and actions
Hudson, H. (2011). Infuse Creativity in No Time. Principal (Reston,
Va.), 9-12.
The article offers advice for school leaders on how to incorporate creativity and
arts into schools. The article discusses creative activities for schools such as sketch
journals, writing books, and mural painting and describes strategies for school
leaders such as reaching out to at-risk students, completing school wide projects,
providing principal support, and using project-based learning.
What You Can Do in ... 4 Four Years
Imagine where you and your teachers would like to see your school in four years. Do
you see students using art to enrich the study of all subjects? Write down all of the
ideas, big or small, then make a plan for getting there. Here's how:
Assess your current culture. The first step in forming a long-term plan related to the
four C's is to assess your current school culture. What is the state of arts education
in your school? What are the attitudes of administrators, parents, teachers, and kids
toward creativity? How strong and widespread is the goal of integrating the arts
across every subject of the school's curriculum? Meet with stakeholders and plan the
change you would like to see. What steps will you and your faculty take and what
initiatives will you lead to get to the ultimate "dream space" in four years?
67
Embrace project-based learning. If you want to use project-based assessment, map
the progress you would like to see during the next four years. A first goal might be
to offer training for classroom teachers on how to infuse arts across the curriculum.
Next, map out how to get parents involved and help them understand the value of
project-based learning. Consider hosting a project fair or incorporating "family
projects" that help parents to see how much their children learn from these
experiences. You'll also want to plan how projects will eventually make up the
majority of assessments rather than standardized tests.
Name a chief creative officer. Does the title of art teacher still fit when the job has
been expanded to inspire colleagues' creativity? What would it mean if your art
teacher became the "chief creative officer" who manages the infusion of creativity
throughout your school? Think of a job description that includes supporting the
creative endeavors of your faculty as well as students. It often takes years to make
job description and responsibility changes official within school districts, so start now
and map out your plan for this change over the next four years.
Principal Support
"When it comes down to it, [the success of arts education] has an awful lot to do
with sustained leadership," said UCLA professor James S. Catterall, who has
published leading studies on the impact of the arts on children. "Ultimately you need
to have the principal's support for it to last. ... You also need a program that has
visibility and becomes part of the school's conversation about children, teaching and
learning."
Not every idea suggested here will be the right choice for your school. You'll need to
consider your student population, budget, and the internal and external resources
available. Make the best use of time by starting with smaller changes and working up
to the bigger ones. In the end, you'll be amazed at what the four C's can do for your
students' lives now and in the future.
68
Creative Pedagogies
Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2007). Enrichment Clusters
for Developing Creativity and High-End Learning. Gifted & Talented
International, 22(1), 39-46.
Each week all of the students at the Brete Harte Middle School in San Jose California
leave their regular classrooms to participate in interest-based enrichment clusters
designed around a constructivist learning theory that focuses on authentic high-end
learning. Under the guidance of their teacher, David Rapaport, one group of students
is identifying, archiving and preserving documents from the 1800s that were found in
an old suitcase belonging to the first pharmacist in Deadwood, South Dakota.
Another group with strong interests in media, technology, and the graphic arts is
converting the archives into digital format and developing a web site where this and
other student research can be accessed. Others have prepared articles for
publication in a Deadwood magazine.
These cross-grade clusters are scheduled on a rotating basis and usually last for
eight weeks in the Fall of the year with a new series of enrichment clusters
scheduled during the Spring months. Some clusters, such as the one mentioned
above, go on for extended periods of time. Teachers develop the clusters around
their own strengths and interests, sometimes working In teams that may involve
parents and community members. Students make selections based on attractive
descriptions that convey the action-oriented learning model that guides the clusters.
(See insert)
The enrichment cluster concept was developed at Brete Harte Middle School,
and numerous other schools across the nation, to deal with what many educational
leaders believe has become nothing short of a crisis in our schools. As the demands
of standardized testing have increased, teachers and administrators have been under
almost unrelenting pressure to "get the scores up." This focus on "test prep" has had
the effect of squeezing more authentic kinds of high-end learning out of the
curriculum, thereby minimizing the one aspect of American education that has
69
contributed to the innovativeness and creative productivity of our culture, our
economy, and our leadership role in the world. Improved test scores are important,
but a time and a place for the application of knowledge in authentic learning
situations is what distinguishes a progressive education system from the perpetual
memorization and testing that characterize education in third world countries.
Enrichment clusters should be viewed as vehicles through which students can
increase their knowledge base and expand their creative and critical thinking skills,
cooperative group work skills, and task commitment by applying their time and
energy to self-selected problems or areas of study. Authentic learning should be
viewed as the vehicle through which everything, from basic skills to advanced
content and processes, "comes together" in the form of student-developed products
and services. In much the same way that all the separate but interrelated parts of an
automobile come together at an assembly plant, so also, do we consider this form of
learning to be the assembly plant of mind. This kind of learning represents a
synthesis and an application of content, process, and personal involvement. The
student's role is transformed from one of lesson-learner to first-hand inquirer, and
the role of the teacher changes from an instructor and disseminator of knowledge to
a combination of coach, resource procurer, mentor, and guide-on-the-side. Although
products play an important role as vehicles in creating authentic learning situations,
a major goal is the development and application of a wide range of cognitive,
affective, and motivational processes.
Das, S., Dewhurst, Y., & Gray, D. (2011). A Teacher's Repertoire:
Developing Creative Pedagogies. International Journal Of Education & The
Arts, 12(15/16), 1-39.
Promoting creativity in schools involves the development of characteristics such as
self-motivation, confidence, curiosity and flexibility. It can be argued that the
development of the first three of these probably relies on the last, all of which need
to be supported by a "flexible learning context." However, this cannot work without a
structure which can be used as a scaffold (Vygotsky, 1978) either to go beyond and
enhance learning, or to work within a framework, flexible enough to accommodate
individual learning styles. Such pedagogy is intricately related to the curriculum. In
the context of the newly introduced Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland, this paper
discusses the experience of an interdisciplinary approach to pedagogy funded by the
Scottish Arts Council. The approach was developed within the initial teacher
70
education (ITE) programmes at the University of Aberdeen and elaborates on the
relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and creativity.
Knodt, J. (2010). Teaching for Creativity: Building Innovation through
Open-Inquiry Learning. School Library Monthly, 26(6), 41-44.
The writer discusses the word “creativity,” its importance in every
individual's life, and the role of school librarians in teaching creativity via an
open-inquiry learning approach. She reviews the creative thinking processes
of a few artists and innovators, and recommends using the school library as
an open-inquiry learning lab. She contends that this approach will encourage
students of all ages to broaden their thinking, adding that the onus is on
school librarians to set aside a time and place for open inquiry to foster a
creative community.
As I often do, I was talking about creativity, this time with a young man of sixteen -a student who sails through all educational benchmarks, ranks at the highest of
academic standings, and is a gifted writer to boot. My thoughts kept going back to
when my young friend lowered his gaze and said, "I am not creative." Stunned, I
wanted to declare, "How did you develop that view of yourself?" I also thought,
"Your perspective needs to change! Quickly!"
THE CALL FOR INNOVATORS
For many of us, creativity often feels like a gift that others have. Yet, all our lives
depend on creative thinking and doing as we grow, learn, and work. Although
creative, innovative thinking has always moved our culture forward, today this type
of thinking is seen as especially critical. Throughout all learning, both vocational, and
professional, we are, indeed, on the lookout -- and in demand of -- a broad range of
individuals who have a creative spark and are geared to look for possibilities around
every corner. We want these individuals to fluidly generate new ideas, take risks,
visualize
outcomes,
understandings,
design
approaches,
solutions,
synthesize,
and
and
contribute
new
products.
The quest to understand and tap into the nature of creativity is, of course, centuries
old. As school librarians feel the pulse to teach "21st-century skills," especially in the
area of inquiry and innovation, they may find themselves asking a few tried and true
questions: How do I feel connected to creativity and innovation myself? What do I
71
understand about the nature and process of creative thinking? How could the school
library
take
an
active
role
teaching
for
innovation?
In this article I will review a few creative thinking orientations of artists and
innovators and present the school library as an ideal centralized arena for an openinquiry learning lab.
A TIME AND PLACE FOR OPEN-INQUIRY
Much like a museum discovery room, an open-inquiry lab is designed to engage
individuals' natural curiosity through hands-on, self-directed projects. The primary
difference is that the lab time is established as part of a school's schedule, is visited
by all students regularly, and sets a schoolwide thinking-centered agenda. From the
art of questioning to the theory of flow, a variety of instructional directions and
theories are highlighted (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). Parents, school specialists, and
grade level teachers are in-serviced to become co-teachers in the lab. The program
is thereby positioned to act as a unifying pedagogical tool, building inquiry and
critical and creative thinking skills and dispositions in the lab, throughout all
curriculum,
and
into
the
home
(Knodt
1997,
2008,
2009).
After an initial "Focus Theme" circle conversation, a broad inventory of hands-on
projects are engaged as instructional mediums, with students selecting their own
activities for the lab period. With the energy of discovery underway and teaching
objectives well orchestrated, the open-inquiry lab becomes a community of creative
collaborators where students, parents, grade-level teachers, school specialists, and
vocational and professional visitors, together uncover what it takes to put innovative
thinking
into
action
(Knodt
1997,
2008,
2009).
An open-inquiry lab has a feel and investigative spirit similar to an artist's studio, an
engineering or science lab, or a policy think tank. Lab time leads students to think
and do while engaging a few essential orientations of working artists, engineers,
inventors, or other innovators. Some of these orientations include the following:
*
*
*
Engage
"Play
around"
Develop
and
and
trust
build
a
concepts
series
with
of
natural
hands
related
as
curiosity
thinking
tools
investigations
* Enrich the working process
CURIOSITY SETS THE STAGE
72
Creative and innovative thinking is fueled by our natural inquisitive energy and spirit.
We feel its promise as it launches our thinking into new explorations. The general
orientation to be curious -- to wonder, explore, and ask questions -- is a thinking
disposition, or habit of mind. (Costa and Kallick 2000; Knodt 2008, 2009; Tishman,
Jay, and Perkins 1992). Along with other attributes of innovation and creativity, the
habit
to
be
curious
can
be
taught.
It may also be that the most powerful tactic available to any parent or teacher who
hopes to awaken the curiosity of a child, and who seeks to join the child who is
ready
to
learn,
is simply
to head for the hands (Wilson 1998, 296).
Even though students are attracted to lab projects like magnets, a well designed
hands-on manipulative establishes a multi-dimensional tactile and spatiallyperceptual arena in which students build challenges and think through possibilities.
The experience of doing (Dewey 1907) gets well underway, with busy hands
establishing
cognitive
connections,
understandings
building
skills,
and
(Wilson
activating
concrete
1998).
The project as medium (and the focused energy it sets forth) provides a unique
opportunity for educators to interact with students. The result is an apprentice-like
pedagogy through which critical and creative thinking tools can be guided into
concrete practice.
TAKING RISKS AND PLAYING AROUND WITH BIG IDEAS
Creativity and innovation require that we accept change and step out with our ideas.
Doing so can often feel uncomfortable and risky, something to move away from. If
that pattern sets itself, we learn not to trust our ideas, and to perhaps think of
ourselves as "not creative." Engaging individual creativity and building a community
of innovative collaboration is, therefore, all about establishing a culture that actively
affirms
risk-taking,
discovery,
and
exploration.
IDEO, a global design consultancy firm that designs products and services ranging
from ergonomic stride-friendly baby strollers to re-conceptualizing interiors of fuel
efficient automobiles, works toward building a "risk free" innovative thinking and
working environment. IDEO encourages "playful" alternative work spaces, risk
taking, and the inventive process of building quick visual prototypes (Brown 2008).
All the needed hands-on ingredients -- from tape to markers -- are readily available
for individuals and groups to materialize emerging ideas. The act of tinkering with
and putting a budding concept into material form leads individuals to generate more
fluent possibilities, and offers a medium for presenting ideas to others.
Similarly, an open-inquiry lab encourages risk taking and exploring hands-on
73
possibilities. From designing and constructing bridges and wind-generated machines
to creating murals with magnetic shapes or building bones out of clay, students work
with delighted energy to innovate and create. Projects deliberately contain relatively
simple ingredients so that students readily design the technology needed to make
things move into gear. Other projects, such as those underway at the popular
recycled objects invention station, much like at IDEO, might represent prototypes
embodying developed ideas. And since most projects are pursued in small
collaborative groupings, students learn to share ideas and visualize new possibilities
together.
PROCESS AND SERIES-BASED
Innovators and artists tend to employ a series orientation as they develop and build
their ideas. A familiar example is Claude Monet and his painting of the Rouen
Cathedral where, through a process of producing a series of over thirty different
paintings of the cathedral, he was able to build ideas and experiment with much
more than just the image of the cathedral. Monet returned to the source again and
again, and employed the cathedral as a vehicle for focus, to develop his ideas and
different statements about light and color.
With the lab objective of students latching onto a personalized focus and building a
series orientation for their work, they are encouraged to think about their inquiry
projects while away from the lab, and then return with new ideas. Well-intended
instruction, but misdirected for the spirit of the pedagogy, would say, "But you
always go to the Kapla Blocks center to build bridges; you need to try something
new!" Instead, statements and questions aimed at a focused continuum are framed,
saying, "Oh yes, I remember your work with the bridge. What ideas do you have
brewing today? Tell me what you see going on in this example of a suspension
bridge? Any new concepts to explore?"
Much as the designer, architect, engineer, or fine artist would contemplate, students
at the open-inquiry lab are guided to consider how they can enrich their working
process. With the belief that an enriched process brings forth more dynamic
statements or "products," educators probe the action in the lab, strike up thinkingcentered conversations, teach by example, and present a line of questions: What are
the questions here today? What are the different parts of this thinking challenge?
How is the brainstorming going? In what ways could you refine your idea?
What could be other ways to solve this problem? What steps are you taking to find
74
possibilities and meet your challenge? To support process-based learning in the lab,
many of the inquiry projects are ones that are built up, but then pulled back apart
when completed.
CREATIVE CONTRIBUTORS
The school library -- a long cherished haven for investigation, story finding,
information, and community -- is an ideal place in which to build a centralized openinquiry lab. School librarians can imagine the creative interactions and sharing of
ideas
and
expertise
that
can
unfold
there.
Besides establishing itself as a specific time and place for thinking about thinking, the
lab program serves other instructional objectives as well. On-the-spot personalized
connections can be made to the school library's various other resources including the
objectives and curriculum of school specialists and grade-level teachers, experiences
at home, and the many vocations and professions found in the community.
It feels right to follow the instincts of students as they ask and explore, structure
their own challenges, test out their skills, build personalized understandings, and
experience the joy and promise of doing so. It is our instinct as adults to see them
well
prepared
and
set
to
pursue
positive,
productive
lives.
The open-inquiry lab community inspires individuals of all ages to jump into the
action and tell their own stories about what it takes to discover and meet challenges
with inspired minds. I have discussed some of these essential elements in this article,
but others, such as perseverance, clear articulation of ideas, or openness to different
working and thinking personalities, are also part of the program's agenda. Such a
multigenerational shared engagement in the library would certainly set a new
trajectory of promise for our schools and society. As school librarians, we provide a
time and place for open inquiry, engaging individuals in trusting and developing their
own creative lives, while establishing a supportive community to explore, celebrate,
and unleash innovation together.
Jean Sausele Knodt is an artist, Open-Inquiry Learning Consultant and
Presenter, Adjunct Professor of Fine Arts at Marymount University in
Arlington, VA, and author of Nine Thousand Straws: Teaching Thinking
through Open-Inquiry Learning (Teacher Ideas Press, 2008). Email:
inspired.minds@rcn.com
REFERENCES:
75
Costa, A. and B. Kallick, eds. Discovering and Exploring Habits of Mind. Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development,
2000.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. HarperPerennial,
1990.
Dewey, J. The School and Society. University of Chicago Press, 1907. IDEO, A Design
and Innovation Consulting Firm. http://www.ideo.com (accessed February 17, 2010).
Lemelson
Center's
Invention
at
Play:
Inventors'
Stories.
http://invention.smithsonian.org/CENTERPIECES/iap/inventors_main.ht ml (accessed
February
17,
2010).
Florida, R. "America's Looming Creativity Crisis." Harvard Business Review 82, no. 10
(October
2004):
122-4,
126,
128.
Loertscher, D. V., C. Koechlin, and S. Zwaan. The New Learning Commons: Where
Learners
Win!
Hi
Willow
Research
&
Publishing,
2008.
Knodt, J. Sausele. "A Think Tank Cultivates Kids." Educational Leadership 55, no.1
(September
1997):
35-37.
Knodt, J. Sausele. "Cultivating Curious Minds: Teaching for Innovation Rough OpenInquiry
Learning."
Teacher
Librarian
37,
no.1
(October
2009):
15-21.
Knodt, J. Sausele. Nine Thousand Straws: Teaching Thinking through Open-Inquiry
Learning.
Teacher
Ideas
Press,
2008.
Mink, M. "Inventor Jerome Lemelson How He Followed his Passion and Changed the
World."
Investor's
Business
Daily,
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=339768
February
National
(accessed
17,
Gallery
of
Art.
Claude
2010).
Monet:
The
http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg85/gg85-main1.html
Series
Paintings.
(accessed
February
17,
"Ted,
2010).
Ideas
Worth
Spreading:
http://tinyurl.com/yz59tdq
Tim
Brown
(accessed
on
Creativity
February
and
17,
Play."
2010).
Tishman, S., D. N. Perkins, and E. Jay. The Thinking Classroom. Learning and
Teaching
in
a
Culture
of
Thinking.
Allyn
and
Bacon,
1995.
Wilson, Frank R. The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human
Culture. Pantheon Books, 1998.
76
Creativity and Engineering Education
Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., & Seepersad, C. (2012). An Experimental
Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering
Students. Journal Of Engineering Education, 101(1), 60-81.
One of the goals of most undergraduate engineering curricula is to prepare students
to solve open-ended design problems. Solving design problems requires applying
technical knowledge to create original ideas and turn those into practical
applications. However, the impact of engineering curricula on the innovation
capabilities of undergraduate engineers is not well understood. PURPOSE
(HYPOTHESIS) This study seeks to provide insights into the research question of
whether freshman undergraduate engineering students can be more innovative than
seniors. Innovation is measured in terms of the originality of the solutions they
propose for an open-ended design problem, as well as the technical feasibility of
those solutions for practical application.
DESIGN/METHOD Freshman- and senior-level undergraduate engineering
students were tasked with developing solutions to a specific design problem (a nextgeneration alarm clock). Both levels of students used a modified 6-3-5/C-sketch
method for generating concepts. A fraction of both the freshman and the senior
students also received innovation enhancement. Resulting concepts were analyzed
for originality and technical feasibility.
RESULTS Freshman students generated concepts that were significantly more
original than those of seniors, with no significant difference in quality or technical
feasibility of the concepts generated by the two levels of students. CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the study, the findings suggest that freshman engineering
students can be more innovative than their senior-level counterparts. This motivates
the need for additional studies to investigate the effect of factors such as skill
acquisition and design curricula on the innovation capabilities of students
77
Creativity and language learning
Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2011). Creativity and Narrative Task
Performance: An Exploratory Study. Language Learning, 6173-99.
Methods of communicative and task-based language teaching often employ tasks
that require students to use their imagination and to generate new ideas. These
tasks might provide creative learners with more chance to practice and to produce
more comprehensible output, which could lead to greater success in second
language acquisition (SLA) (Swain, 1985). Therefore, creativity, which involves
imagination, unconventionality, risk-taking, flexibility, and creating new classifications
and systematizations of knowledge (Sternberg, 1985a), might be a potential factor
that affects language learning outcomes. Despite its potential relevance, creativity
has been a neglected individual difference variable in the field of SLA. Our study is
the first attempt to examine the role of creativity in second-language oral task
performance. Participants in the study were Hungarian secondary school learners of
English whose creativity was measured with a standardized creativity test and
who performed two versions of a narrative task. We examined the relationships
among three aspects of creativity — originality, flexibility, and creative fluency —
and different measures of task performance, which included the number of words
and narrative clauses, subordination ratio, lexical variety, and accuracy. The findings
suggest that creativity is best hypothesized as a multifaceted trait, as students
scoring high on various components of creativity seemed to complete the same
task in different ways. Students who invented a high number of solutions on a
creativity test were found to engage in more talk; thus, in a foreign language
setting, they might create more opportunities for themselves to use the language.
The learners characterized by a higher level of originality tended to speak less and
created more complex stones in terms of the narrative structure, but at the same
time, they might deprive themselves of the beneficial effects of more output. No
significant relationship among creativity and accuracy, complexity, and lexical
variety was found. The magnitude of the correlations, however, indicates that
78
creativity affects participants' output in narrative tasks only moderately. The results
of the study reveal that in addition to investigating the effects of individual variables
on global measures of foreign language performance, it is also possible to study their
influence on specific tasks. Based on our study, we conclude that different aspects of
creativity might have an effect on the amount of output students produce but not
on the quality of narrative performance. Nevertheless, further research involving
more participants and using different types of tasks would be necessary to be able to
generalize these findings to other contexts.
Additional essential information from this article :
CREATIVITY
When we are trying to define the construct of creativity, the first difficulty we
encounter is that this concept covers a wide range of distinct but related
phenomena: the creative performance or product, the creative person, the creative
situation, the creative process, and creative potential (Brown, 1989; Lubart, 1994).
Therefore, when we attempt to define this concept, one of our first tasks should be
restricting the scope of our investigation and specifying the area or aspect of
creativity that is to be examined. This means that for lack of space, neither theories
of the creative process (see Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Hayes, 1989; Wallas,
1970), nor theories for evaluating creative products (see Finke et al., 1992), will be
discussed here. Similarly, although theories of personality also address the issue of
creativity and evidence suggests that it might be strongly related to the Openness to
Experience factor of the Big Five model of personality (McCrae, 1987), attributes of
the creative personality will not be discussed here either. The present investigation
will focus on creative potential, that is, the cognitive underpinnings of the creative
working of the mind.
Theories of creativity, similarly to the wide range of issues covered by the term
creativity, are numerous. Authors working within the psychodynamic (Freud,
1908/1959; Kris, 1952) and the humanistic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Maslow, 1968;
Rogers, 1954), as well as the sociopsychological (Amabile, 1983, 1996), approaches
have put forward theories in an attempt to account for the phenomenon of creativity.
Although as proponents of recent models of creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1996;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1996) rightly point out, creativity is probably best
hypothesized as a complex interplay of several cognitive, personality, motivational,
and social factors, those proponents also state that intellectual abilities are arguably
among the most important components of creativity (Lubart, 1994). Therefore, the
79
approach chosen in this article, which concentrates purely on the cognitive factors
underlying creativity, seems to be justifiable.
Guilford (1950) was among the first to put forward a list of cognitive processes
involved in creativity. He believed that these processes include sensitivity to
problems, creative fluency of production, ability to come up with novel ideas,
flexibility of mind, synthesizing ability, analyzing ability, reorganization or redefinition
of organized wholes, a high degree of complexity of the conceptual structure, and
evaluation. However, as Guilford (1959) subsequently developed a comprehensive
model of human intellect, he started to focus on divergent thinking, the ability to
produce many different ideas in response to a problem, as the prime cognitive
component of creativity. He suggested that divergent thinking was an operation
complementary to convergent thinking, the ability to find the correct solution to a
problem (the cognitive process that he believed is tapped by the majority of
intelligence tests). Divergent thinking is hypothesized to have four relatively
independent facets: creative fluency, the ability to produce a large number of ideas;
flexibility, the ability to produce a wide variety of ideas; originality, the ability to
produce unusual ideas; and elaboration, the ability to develop or embellish ideas and
to produce many details (Baer, 1993).
Today intellectual abilities considered to be relevant for creativity are usually
grouped into two large categories: basic-level and high-level creativity-relevant
abilities (Lubart, 1994). Basic-level creative abilities consist of two types: the abovedescribed divergent thinking and different insight abilities comprising the capacities
to notice relevant new information, to compare disparate information, to find
relevant connections, and to combine information in a problem-relevant fashion.
High-level abilities include problem finding, problem definition or redefinition,
choosing a useful problem presentation, selecting an appropriate problem-solving
strategy, and evaluating the generated possibilities effectively. It is interesting to
note that some of these processes are hypothesized to be related to language
aptitude within the Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Language Acquisition-Foreign
(CANAL-F) theory, a framework of language aptitude recently developed by
Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000).
The two lists of creativity-relevant intellectual abilities have a number of common
factors, which draws attention to the fact that over the course of almost 50 years,
one thing certainly has not changed: Researchers believe that creativity rests on the
80
same cognitive foundations as other intellectual abilities, such as intelligence. As a
result, the cognitive abilities that form the basis of creativity are usually integrated
into comprehensive theories of intellect (Carroll, 1993; Guilford, 1967; Sternberg,
1985b). Although theories of intellect have relevance for theories of creativity and
provide a general frame of interpretation of the phenomenon, the drawback of this
approach is that creativity becomes difficult to distinguish from other intellectual
abilities in terms of purely cognitive factors.
Current factor-analytic research suggests, however, that factors of creativity-relevant
intellectual abilities tend to load on one common higher-order factor called idea
production, which provides empirical evidence of the autonomous existence of this
ability. Carroll (1993), having reviewed and reanalyzed 121 data sets, found nine
basic factors to be relevant for idea production, which he believes is a basic human
characteristic: ideational fluency, naming facility, associational fluency, expressional
fluency, word fluency, sensitivity to problems, originality/creativity, figural fluency,
and figural flexibility. In the term idea production, the notion of idea is to be taken in
the broadest possible sense: It can be any verbal proposition, but it may also be a
gesture, a drawing, or a musical phrase. Production is meant as a process distinct
from recognition, identification, selection, or comparison. Out of the nine factors,
eight are primarily concerned with the speed of idea production and are
differentiated on the basis of the type of the idea produced, whereas
originality/creativity seems to determine the quality or level of idea production.
Based on Carroll's findings, idea production is usually measured by tasks that prompt
examinees to quickly think of a series of responses. Although this is true for all the
tasks used to measure the nine factors, there is a special requirement when our aim
is to measure originality/creativity. In that case the task itself needs to be difficult or
challenging in order to urge respondents to go beyond the obvious and commonplace answers.
This factor-analytic investigation led to the formulation of Carroll's (1993) threestratum theory of cognitive abilities, in which the concept of idea production is
labeled general retrieval ability, the ability which is "involved in any task or
performance that requires the ready retrieval of concepts or items from long-term
memory" (p. 625). Since it is a fundamental characteristic of factor analysis that the
input data determine the output, that is, the tests and tasks analyzed and the
scoring procedures employed necessarily influence and possibly constrain the
outcome, further research is needed to clarify the structure of the domain of general
retrieval ability. This could probably be accomplished by devising more appropriate
81
and highly reliable measurement procedures. It is also interesting that although
Guilford's (1959) structure of intellect model is not compatible with the results of the
exploratory factor analysis on which the three-stratum theory is founded, still the
domain of general retrieval ability "is chiefly (but not entirely) concerned with
Guilford's
divergent
production
operation"
(Carroll,
1993,
p.
638).
When one is trying to assess a person's creative potentials, usually two different
approaches are taken. One option is measuring several noncognitive aspects of
creativity, such as personality and motivation, in addition to intellectual processes
and intellectual style, as was done by Sternberg and Lubart (1991), who tried to
establish individual creativity in this way. Although this approach is more in line with
current constructs of creativity, it is not feasible in research designs in which
creativity needs to be operationalized as one single variable. The other option,
therefore, is to try to assess divergent thinking, the intellectual ability that is thought
to be most characteristic of the creative process (Guilford, 1967; Torrance, 1962).
Although tests of divergent thinking have been criticized on many counts (Jordan,
1975; Kogan & Pankove, 1974), because of their reported validity and reliability
(Cropley, 1972; Harrington et al., 1983) and their relative ease of use, they are still
widely applied as indicators of individual creativity in research on individual variables
(Ghadirian, Gregoire, & Kosmidis, 2000-2001; Jung, 2000-2001; Russ & SejaKaugars, 2000-2001). As McCrae (1987) pointed out, "although tests like Word
Fluency certainly have limited face validity as measures of creativity, their ability to
identify creative individuals is an empirical matter, and in fact they are reasonably
successful in this" (p. 1258).
The above-described difficulties might partly be held accountable for the fact that
SLA research on individual learner variables has failed to investigate the effects of
creativity, even though the influence of other cognitive variables such as intelligence,
language aptitude, and different learning and thinking styles has been researched
widely (for reviews see Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993;
Skehan, 1989, 1991). We have made an attempt at bridging this gap by carrying out
research on the effects of learner creativity on the performance of oral narrative
tasks. For our purposes, creativity has been defined as a person's ability to come up
with a large number of novel and statistically rare solutions on a given task and has
been operationalized as the total score achieved on a standardized creativity test
(Barkóczi & Zétényi, 1981).
82
THE
EFFECT
OF
INDIVIDUAL
VARIABLES
ON
TASK
PERFORMANCE
Only a few studies have examined the effect of individual variables on the
performance of communicative tasks. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) studied the
influence of anxiety on the quality of self-descriptions in L2. Their results indicated
that anxious L2 learners produced shorter self-descriptions, which were also judged
to be less fluent and less complex. Dewaele and Furnham (2000) investigated how
fluency, accuracy, and formality of vocabulary use were affected by extraversion. In
their study extraverts were found to be more fluent and to use a greater number of
colloquial words than introverts. Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) analyzed how various
components of motivation affected the quantity of talk students produced in an oral
argumentation task. Students with a positive attitude toward the course and toward
the task to be performed spoke considerably more than those who had negative
attitudes. Self-confidence and willingness to communicate in L2 were also positively
related to the quantity of talk. In a recent study Kormos and Dörnyei (in press) found
that students with positive attitude toward the task to be performed produced more
accurate language than those whose attitude was negative. They also established a
negative relationship between anxiety and lexical richness.
THE RELEVANCE OF CREATIVITY FOR LEARNER PERFORMANCE ON TASKS
Having reviewed the literature on creativity and tasks separately, we should now
turn our attention to possible points of interaction between the two. The relevance of
creativity to learner performance on tasks can be examined on two levels. One of
them is the level of specific cognitive mechanisms that are believed to contribute to
creativity. Since the instrument used as a test of creativity in the study presented in
this article aimed at identifying divergent thinkers, why we feel that divergent
thinking might be advantageous for foreign language learners when tackling
language tasks should be pointed out. The other level is the wider context of
language-teaching methodology, more specifically, the use of communicative
methods and more recently task-based instruction; in these approaches the use of
drills is discouraged, and emphasis is placed on conveying meaning. Despite the fact
that these two levels can be considered separate theoretically, we are aware that
they interact to a great extent in practice: In most cases language learning is
mediated by some kind of methodology.
On the basis of our literature review, we hypothesized that since creativity is usually
manifested in production, that is, in creative products, its effects would probably be
more easily detectable in output as opposed to comprehension. We believe that
there are a number of reasons that language tasks, especially open-ended ones like
83
narrative tasks, for which there is no correct solution, but a large number of
solutions are possible, could be better suited than, for example, drills for creative
foreign language learners. Since creative learners are characterized by greater
fluency -- that is, they provide a larger number of solutions in a given amount of
time (Baer, 1993) -- they might be able to talk more during the tasks. As has been
suggested by Swain (1985), producing a greater amount of comprehensible output
has a beneficial effect on language acquisition. Flexibility, the second facet of
creativity measured by divergent-thinking tests, which reflects the ability to produce
a wide variety of ideas (Baer, 1993), might be manifested directly in the way
language is used by the learners: If their language competence is sufficient, they
might in fact use a wider range of vocabulary items in order to express their wide
range of ideas. Similarly, originality, the ability to produce unusual ideas (Baer,
1993), might also prompt learners to employ a wide range of vocabulary in an
attempt to give an account of the interesting ideas they have in mind. Although the
above-mentioned qualities of creative people might be advantageous in any
language task, we feel that narrative tasks, which obviously rely on learners'
imagination, might intensify the effect of creativity on language performance.
Therefore, despite the fact that the imaginativeness or creativity of the stories
themselves cannot be measured, we believed that narrative tasks would be suitable
for conducting exploratory research on the effects of creativity on output.
CONCLUSION
The findings of our research show that differences in creativity can account for
certain differences in learners' performance on oral narrative tasks. The most
important effect of creativity manifests itself in productivity. The study also suggests
that creativity is best hypothesized as a multifaceted trait, as students scoring high
on various components of creativity seemed to complete the same task in different
ways. Students who invented a high number of solutions on a creativity test were
found to engage in more talk; thus, in a foreign language setting, they might create
more opportunities for themselves to use the language.
The learners characterized by a higher level of originality tended to speak less and
created more complex stories in terms of the narrative structure, but at the same
time, they might deprive themselves of the beneficial effects of more output. These
results clearly indicate that besides investigating the effects of individual variables on
global measures of foreign language performance, it is also possible to study their
influence on specific tasks. Gathering data at this level would be desirable, because
information gained about the interplay of individual differences and various aspects
84
of task performance could contribute to pedagogical decisions during task
implementation and could help the selection of language teaching and testing tasks.
It has to be pointed out, however, that in the present study, aspects of creativity
were found to account only for 10-15% of the variance in the students' performance.
The weak correlations might be due to the small number of participants or to the
more important effect of other situational, social, and individual factors; therefore, a
follow-up study with a higher number of participants would be necessary to establish
with more certainty how important the role of creativity is in task performance. In
addition, as one of the reviewers of this article pointed out, the relatively long
planning time given to the participants (5 min) might have also caused creativity not
to significantly influence task performance. Thus, in future research the effect of
creativity could be investigated under different planning conditions. Moreover,
further studies could also explore issues that seem particularly interesting in light of
the present findings. Since it is intuitively appealing that communicative and taskbased methods, books, and tasks require creativity, it might be worthwhile to
analyze the relationship between creativity and achievement in language learning.
Another possible research direction could involve examining possible interactions of
the cognitive complexity of tasks and creativity as an individual variable that
contributes to task difficulty. Although in Robinson's (2001) view, task complexity
and difficulty are independent dimensions, it is also possible that for certain
individual variables, the two might interact. In the case of such an interaction, the
effects of task complexity and task difficulty could no longer be simply summed up,
but they would vary depending on the level of the individual variable, such as
creativity.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer
Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task specific approach. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Barkóczi, I., & Zetenyi, T. (1981). A kreativitás vizsgdlata [The examination of
creativity].
Budapest:
Országos
Pedagógiai
Intezet.
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies
for production and assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R.
Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 1-32). New York:
Plenum
Press.
85
Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners'
language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185214.
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task based language teaching. In C. Candlin & D.
Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies.
Cambridge,
England:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2
instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly,
31,
141-152.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition,
11,
367-383.
Cropley, A. J. (1972). A five-year longitudinal study of the validity of creativity tests.
Developmental
Psychology,
6,
119-124.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary
psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2000). Saisir l'insaisissable? Les mesures de longueur d'enonces en
linguistique appliquee. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 31-47.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied
linguistic
research.
Language
Learning,
49,
509-544.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot
study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355365.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and
non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. In V Cook (Ed.), The effects of
the second language on the first (pp. 120-141). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson
& P. Skehan (Eds.), Individual differences in second language acquisition (pp. 137158).
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL
learners.
Language
Testing,
9,
187-206.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral
task
performance.
Language
Teaching
Research,
4,
275-300.
Dugast, D. (1980). La statistique lexicale. Geneva, Switzerland: Slatkine. Ehrman, M.
86
E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language
learning
success.
Modern
Language
Journal,
79,
67-89.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research
and
applications.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second
language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A
unit
for
all
reasons.
Applied
Linguistics,
21,
354-375.
Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and daydreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 143-153).
London:
Hogarth
Press.
(Original
work
published
1908)
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes
and
motivation.
London:
Edward
Arnold.
Gardner, R. C, & Maclntyre, P. D. (1992). A student's contributions to second
language learning: Part 1. Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211-220.
Gardner, R. C, & Maclntyre, P. D. (1993). A student's contributions to second
language learning: Part 2. Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.
Ghadirian, A. M., Gregoire, P., & Kosmidis, H. (2000-2001). Creativity and the
evolution
of
psychopathologies.
Creativity
Research
Journal,
13,
145-148.
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory based approach
to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal F theory and
test.
Guilford,
Modern
J.
P
Language
(1950).
Creativity.
Journal,
American
84,
Psychologist,
390-405.
5,
444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hargreaves, D. J., & Bolton, H. (1972). Selecting creativity tests for use in research.
British
Journal
of
Psychology,
63,
451-462.
Harrington, D. M., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1983). Predicting creativity in
preadolescence from divergent thinking in early childhood. Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology,
45,
609-623.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning,
& C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 135-145). New York: Plenum
Press.
Hatch, A., & Lazaraton, E. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for
applied
linguistics.
Boston:
Heinle
and
Heinle.
87
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves, and new measures of lexical
diversity.
Language
Testing,
19,
57-84.
Jordan, L. A. (1975). Use of canonical analysis in Cropley's "A Five Year Longitudinal
Study of the Validity of Creativity Tests." Developmental Psychology, 11, 1-3.
Jung, D. I. (2000-2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their
effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185-195.
Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. (1974). Long term predictive validity of divergent thinking
tests: Some negative evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 802-810.
Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and psychological
variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen
Fremdsprachunterricht,
9(2),
1-19.
Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic exploration in art. New York: International Universities
Press.
Labov,
W.
(1972).
Language
in
the
inner
city.
Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction for second language acquisition: Task based
language training. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing
second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for
task. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating
theory
and
practice
(pp.
9-54).
Clevedon,
England:
Multilingual
Matters.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In J. R. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem
solving
(pp.
289-332).
San
Diego,
CA:
Academic
Press.
Maclntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on
cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283-305.
Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A.
Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 58-71). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual
Matters.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
52,
1258-1265.
McKee, G. T, Malvern, D. E., & Richards, B. J. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity
using dedicated software. Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323-337.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
Review,
69,
220-232.
Nemeth, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task performance: The case
of
argumentation.
Language
Teaching
Research,
4,
213-240.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge,
88
England:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Otto, I. (1998). The relationship between individual differences in learner creativity
and
language
learning
success.
TESOL
Quarterly,
32,
763-773.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual
differences.
Annual
Review
of
Applied
Linguistics,
13,
188-205.
Pica, T, Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks
for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks
and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon,
England:
Multilingual
Matters.
Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on
interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:
Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35-56). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Reid, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, B. (1987). Type/token ratios: What do they really tell us? Journal of Child
Language,
14,
201-209.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse.
Language
Learning,
45,
99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring
interaction
in
a
componential
framework.
Applied
Linguistics,
22,
27-57.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics,
11,
249-260.
Russ, S. W., & Seja-Kaugars, A. (2000-2001). Emotion in children's play and creative
problem
solving.
Creativity
Research
Journal,
13,
211-219.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London:
Edward
Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in
Second
Language
Acquisition,
13,
275-298.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction.
Applied
Linguistics,
17,
38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England:
Oxford
University
Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as
influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing
conditions
on
narrative
retellings.
Language
Learning,
49,
93-120.
89
Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
49,
607-627.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
Cambridge,
England:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Sternberg, R. I, & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its
development.
Human
Development,
34,
1-31.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist,
51,
677-688.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking (Research ed.). Princeton,
NJ:
Personnel
Press.
Wallas, G. (1970). The art of thought. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 91-97).
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness raising activities in the language
classroom. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language
teaching (pp. 63-76). London: Heinemann
90