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

Policy and considerations

17

Teacher education and creativity

24

Teachers beliefs/perceptions and creativity

25
28

Creativity in science education

Creativity in Mathematics
Physics subjects

40

and

Creativity in art education

How to incorporate creativity
Methods and actions

42
into

schools:

Creative Pedagogies
Fostering creativity in schools by technology
and computer applications
Creativity and Engineering Education
Creativity and language learning

67
69
56
77
78

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
2

(1999) concluded that giftedness, measured by high IQ scores, might not

be a good indicator of adult creative achievement, and that the
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
3

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 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
4

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).
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
5

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 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, self-confident, 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 allencompassing 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 problem-finding 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 problemfinding 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 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
7

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 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
8

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 selfexpression; 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; 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
9

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 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
10

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 self-expression. 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.
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, pre-determined
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).
11

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: SpringerVerlag.
Barone, T, & Eisner, E. (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R. Jager
(Ed.), Contemporary methods for research in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 73116). 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 for material culture studies in art education. Studies in Art
Education, 44(3), 246-263.
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.
12

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.
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), 8-11.
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:
13

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 (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.
14

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.
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
15

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.
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.
16

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. 277-299). 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), 57-73.

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

organizational knowledge creation in the

on

school
17

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

Massachusetts

Jonathan

Senator

Stan

C.

Rappaport,

Rosenberg,

and

Oklahoma Education Association vice president Alicia

A. Priest.
Additional essential information from this article
:
Advocates Say Creativity Index May Foster Curriculum Balance
At a time when U.S. political and business leaders are raising concerns
about the need to better nurture creativity and innovative thinking
18

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

"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.
19

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 intelligencetesting and has studied creativity extensively, said he's encouraged by
Oklahoma's interest in developing an innovation index. He said it's
20

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.
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.
21

"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.
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'
22

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.
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
23

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 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
24

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.

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
25

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), 146156.
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 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
26

discussion,

peer

evaluation,

and

feedback

are

important mechanisms underlying this success.

Teachers
creativity

beliefs/perceptions

and

Putwain, D., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W.

(2012). Do creativity self-beliefs predict literacy
achievement and motivation?. Learning &
Individual Differences, 22(4), 370-374.
Previous work has suggested that creativity selfbeliefs 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 selfbeliefs 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

intelligence.

already
These

accounted

findings

for

suggest

by
that

fluid
it

is

important to attend to the multifaceted nature of

27

creative self-beliefs and the full domain range of

extrinsic motivation .

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
teachers conception was considerably limited, but the
28

teachers conceptions of creativity as a whole group

were consistent with the literature. In terms of
teaching

methods

commonly

for

emphasized

creativity,

the

problem-based

teachers

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. 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 self-confidence, 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.
29

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 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
30

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
education

in

science

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

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,
31

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

assessment

of

creative

elements

through
in

an

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

information,

the

processing

construction

of

and

scientific
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.
32

Results indicate that four aspects of the enacted

curriculum

proved

important

to

developing

the

creative solution, including the following: an openended, goal-oriented task; teacher modeling of inquiry
techniques; provision of tools and an environment that
allowed students to move between dual modes of
interaction (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
33

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 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
34

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-of-the-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 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.).
35

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, such as the odd news stories
shared

at

www.yahoo.com/news/odd

and

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 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
36

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.
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
37

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, 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
38

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 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.
39

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

written

biography,

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.

Just as professional scientists introduce experimental errors through the

40

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 teacherdesigned 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.

41

Preparing our students for the future

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, multiple-choice 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_learnin
gstyles/index.htm
* www.schoolfamily.com/school-family-articles/article/836-learning-st ylesquiz
References

42

Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 2006. Education for the knowledge age:
Design-centered 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:

Kendall-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 K-12 handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Guilford,

J.P.

1950.

Creativity.

American

Psychologist

5:

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 between Perception and Practice.
Creative Education, 2(5), 435-445.
Many

countries

programmes

and

are

reviewing

implementing

science
new

education

pedagogical
43

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

dynamic,

and

appreciation
often

of

stochastic,

the

complex,

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 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

knowledge

of

science

other fields to pursue

with

their

and solve

problems with personal relevan ce.

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
activities,

between
they

creative

predictably

and

reproductive

demonstrated

narrow
44

perspectives of school science creativity, while a

few noticed creativity in mere reproductive activities.

Creativity
in
Mathematics
and Physics subjects

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 between
individual and collective mathematical creativity.
Many

studies

characterizing,
mathematical

have

investigated

identifying,
creativity.

ways

and
Haylock

of

promoting
(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
45

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

Province;

while

physics
the

students

sample

in

Nairobi

comprised

763
46

respondents, obtained through stratified and random

sampling

techniques.

Questionnaire

for

Data

Physics

were

collected

Students,

using

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 toys, and

originality.

The

supplementary

study
print

recommends
and

(1)

audiovisual

use

of

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
47

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

state

standards

curriculum

against

document

which

teachers

that

sets

assess

out
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
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 decisionmaking. 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
48

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 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

49

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

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 sociocognitive 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 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

clearer

theoretical

structure.
50

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

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-product into a reflective practitioner stance, in which a
teacher examines not only her practice but also the reasoning behind it.

51

THE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Schn (1983) established the importance of acknowledging 'knowledgeinaction' -- 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 Schn
(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.
(Schn 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 twenty-four students
implemented over a twelve-month period in 2000. The second comprised
52

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

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 coresearchers. 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
53

participants who found coming up with creative ideas for artwork

challenging

appreciated

the

structured

steps

the

model

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 self-regulated 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
54

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'.

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 reflectivepractitioner 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
55

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 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 action56

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, 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
57

will briefly summarise the findings from the action research about the
problem-solving 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 times, they spent hours in the problemsolving 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 teacherresearcher 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
58

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 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.
59

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.

125-130.

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

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.

F.

Accessed
(1953),

Applied

28

March

Imagination,

New

York:

2008.
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.

Schn, 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',

60

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.

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
61

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 sustainabilityfocused 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), 96108.
In A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink proposes that
right brain (creative, non-linear) 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
62

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 webbased technology could be utilized and integrated with
real-life scientific materials to stimulate the creativity
of secondary school students. One certified science
63

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 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.

64

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.

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.
65

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 selfreflection.

The

article

also

provides

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

opportunity

to

affords
enhance

educators
their

an

students'

excellent
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.

66

Boehm, P. (2009). Fostering Creativity While

Nurturing Learners. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 3841.
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
21st-century 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.
67

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 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

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.

68

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.
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
69

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 problemsolving, 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
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).
70

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.
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 studentcreated 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
71

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 onedie 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). 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
72

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 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.

73

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.
74

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 StudentCreated 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.

75

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
76

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?
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.
77

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
78

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 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
situations

of
is

knowledge
what

in

authentic

distinguishes

learning

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 selfselected

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
79

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

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 selfmotivation, 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 education (ITE) programmes at the University
80

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, design approaches, synthesize, and contribute new
understandings,

solutions,

and

products.

The quest to understand and tap into the nature of creativity is, of course,
81

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 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 open-inquiry 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 openinquiry 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
*

Engage

include
and

the
trust

natural

following:
curiosity
82

* "Play around" and build concepts with hands as thinking tools

*

Develop

series

of

related

investigations

* Enrich the working process

CURIOSITY SETS THE STAGE
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 spatially-perceptual 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,
building skills, and activating concrete understandings (Wilson 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
83

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 handson possibilities. From designing and constructing bridges and windgenerated 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
84

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 thinking-centered 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 possibilities and meet your challenge? To support processbased 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 open-inquiry 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. Onthe-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
85

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:
Costa, A. and B. Kallick, eds. Discovering and Exploring Habits of Mind.
Association

for

Supervision

Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow:

and

Curriculum

The Psychology

Development,

2000.

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,

Lemelson

Center's

Invention

2010).

at

Play:

Inventors'

Stories.

http://invention.smithsonian.org/CENTERPIECES/iap/inventors_main.ht
(accessed

February

17,

ml

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 Open-Inquiry Learning." Teacher Librarian 37, no.1 (October 2009):
15-21.
Knodt, J. Sausele. Nine Thousand Straws: Teaching Thinking through OpenInquiry

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
86

(accessed
National

February
Gallery

of

Art.

17,

Claude

Monet:

2010).

The

Series

http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg85/gg85-main1.html
February

Paintings.
(accessed

17,

2010).

"Ted, Ideas Worth Spreading: Tim Brown on Creativity and Play."

http://tinyurl.com/yz59tdq

(accessed

February

17,

2010).

Tishman, S., D. N. Perkins, and E. Jay. The Thinking Classroom. Learning

and

Teaching

in

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.

Creativity and Engineering Education

Genco, N., Hltt-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
87

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
next-generation 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

Creativity
learning

and

language

88

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

creativity

was

learners

measured

of
with

English
a

whose

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
89

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
complexity,

among
and

creativity

lexical

variety

and
was

accuracy,
found.

The

magnitude of the correlations, however, indicates that

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
90

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 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).
91

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 above-described divergent thinking and different
insight abilities comprising
information,

to

compare

the

capacities

disparate

to notice

information,

to

relevant new
find

relevant

connections, and to combine information in a problem-relevant fashion.

High-level

abilities

redefinition,

include

choosing

problem

useful

finding,

problem

problem

definition

or

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 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
92

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
common-place answers.
This factor-analytic investigation led to the formulation of Carroll's (1993)
three-stratum 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 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 threestratum 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
93

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 & Seja-Kaugars, 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 (Barkczi & Ztnyi,
1981).
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 selfdescriptions, 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. Drnyei and Kormos (2000) analyzed how
various components of motivation affected the quantity of talk students
94

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 Drnyei (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 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
95

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 of task performance could contribute to pedagogical
decisions during task implementation and could help the selection of
96

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 task-based
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.
Barkczi, I., & Zetenyi, T. (1981). A kreativits vizsgdlata [The examination
of

creativity].

Budapest:

Orszgos

Pedaggiai

Intezet.

Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk:
Strategies
Cambridge

for

production

and

assessment.
University

Cambridge,

England:
Press.
97

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.

Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of

learners' language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching
Research,

3,

185-214.

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., Drnyei, 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,

355-365.

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.

Drnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P.

Robinson & P. Skehan (Eds.), Individual differences in second language
acquisition

(pp.

137-158).

Amsterdam:

John

Benjamins.

Drnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst

98

Hungarian

EFL

learners.

Language

Testing,

9,

187-206.

Drnyei, 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. 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, 145148.
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. Modern Language Journal, 84, 390-405.
Guilford, J. P (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 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.
99

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.

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, 185195.
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., & Drnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and

psychological variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift
fr

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
Clevedon,

second language acquisition (pp. 77-99).

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

100

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,

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.
101

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,

185-211.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and
processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93120.
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,
Swain,

M.

51,
(1985).

Communicative

677-688.
competence:

Some

roles

of

comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.

Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235253).

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.

102

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

103