REsouuCE REvrEw

C reativity is some-

times seen as irrel-evant to educationalpractice. With anincreased focus onstandardized testscores, creative

teachers and those who encourage creativ-ity in the classroom often are accused ofbeing idealists or missing the big picture.

But we believe instead that creativitybrings valuable benefits to the class-room. In this Resource Review, we pro-vide answers drawn from the literatureto the four questions most often askedabout creativity.

Scholarly work on creativity first wasstimulated in 1950 when J. PaulGuilford used his presidential address atthe American Psychological Association(APA) to call for more research on thetopic. Since then, research in this areahas blossomed, and several recent booksprovide a solid overview of the field.

One of us (Steinberg) published theHandbook of Creativity in 1999 contain-ing essays on the subject from a widevariety of scholars. In UnderstandingCreativity (2004), Jane A. Piirto createsa model of what she calls the seven I's ofcreativity-inspiration, imagery, imagi-nation, intuition, insight, incubationand improvisation. R. Keith Sawyer'sExplaining Creativity (2006) takes a so-cio-cultural focus, arguing that creativ-ity can be understood only in the socialand cultural contexts in which it occurs.Mark A. Runco's Creativity: Theories

James C. Kaufman is an associate professorof psychology and director of the LearningResearch Institute at California State

University, San Bernardino. Robert J.Sternberg is a professor of psychology anddean of the School ofArts and Sciences

at Tufts University.

CHANGE - JULY/AUGUST 2007

.. ......................... ........................

CREATIVITY

By JAMES C. KAUFMAN AND ROBERT J. STERNBERG

and Theme (2006) is designed to be atextbook for the field.

QUESTION ONE: WHAT IS IT?

Most definitions of creative ideascomprise three components. First, thoseideas must represent something differ-ent, new, or innovative. Second, theyneed to be of high quality. Third, creativeideas must also be appropriate to the taskat hand. Thus, a creative response to aproblem is new, good, and relevant.

But the word can be applied not justto ideas: a person can be creative and socan a classroom or a piece of music. Oneway to organize research on creativityis by using the "four P's" model, whichdistinguishes among the creative person,process, product, and press (i.e., envi-ronment). Studies of the creative personmay look at the personality, motivation,or intelligence of a creator. For example,in Sternberg and Todd I. Lubart's Defy-ing the Crowd (1995), the writers pro-pose the theory that creative thinkers arelike good investors-they buy low andsell high, with ideas as the currency.

Other lines of research examinewhether creativity is a generalized con-struct. In other words, is it more sen-sible to talk about the creative person ingeneral or to talk about creative poets,mathematicians, and architects in par-ticular? Essays that discuss this ques-tion can be found in Creativity AcrossDomains (2005), published by JamesC. Kaufman and John Baer, and in

Creativity: From Potential to Realiza-tion (2004), by Stemnberg, Elena L.Grigorenko, and Jerome L. Singer. Intheir 2005 work, Kaufman and Baer usedeciding to go to an amusement parkas a metaphor for being creative. Themodel begins with initial requirements(conditions necessary for any type ofcreative act) and moves down to micro-domains (conditions necessary for writ-ing short stories versus writing plays,for example). Just as one needs money,transportation, and the desire to go to anamusement park, so too does one needa (very) basic amount of intelligence,environmental support, and motivationto be creative.

One way of capturing the experienceof being creative is through the conceptof flow, which refers to the sensationsand feelings that come when an indi-vidual is intensely engaged in an activ-ity. Flow can be experienced in anythingfrom rock climbing to playing the piano,as long as the individual's abilities are amatch for the challenges of the situation.Much of the work on flow was doneby Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi; his bookCreativity (1996) is based on interviewswith creative individuals about theirexperiences. Susan K. Perry's Writing inFlow (1999) focuses on the flow experi-ence in creative writing.

Another way of consideringthe creative process is found in the"geneplore" model originally proposedby Ronald A. Finke, Thomas B.Ward,

55

and Steven M. Smith and described intheir book Creative Cognition (1996).The creative act, in their view, has twophases-generative and exploratory.During generation, the creator picturesa set of novel solutions to a problem.In the exploration phase, the creatorevaluates the options and chooses thebest one (or ones). There may be sev-eral cycles of creation and generationbefore a product is created.

Those products are themselvesthe focus of some creativity research.Sternberg, Kaufman, and Jean E. Pretzpropose what they call the "propulsionmodel" of creativity in The CreativityConundrum (2002), which outlines eighttypes of possible creative contributions.

The first four stay within the frame-work of an existing paradigm in a field;for example, in forward incrementation(such as a modification to an existingscientific theory), a product movesthe field forward a bit. The final fourtypes replace the current paradigm. Inreinitiation, for example, the creatortries to move the field to a new startingpoint-as, for example, James Joyce inUlysses.

Scholars have attempted to measurecreativity in a number of ways. In herbook Creativity in Context (1996), forexample, Teresa M. Amabile discussesher consensual assessment technique, amethod by which appropriate experts as-sign ratings to creative products (such as

a poem or a collage). These experts tendto agree on what is creative.

The most common measures of cre-ativity are divergent-thinking tests-for instance, the Torrance Tests ofCreative Thinking-which are basedon the early works of pioneers in thefield, such as J. Paul Guilford and E.Paul Torrance. Creativity Assessment(1999), a collection of readings ed-ited by Gerard J. Puccio and Mary C.Murdock, includes republished origi-nal work by these giants. Measuresof divergent production, usually ineither verbal or figural format, elicitresponses to questions with no singlecorrect answer. Respondents mightbe asked about what different uses

0-Resoure Box

PUBLICATIONS

0 Amnabile, Teresa M. (1996). Creativ-ity in Context: Update to the SocialPsychoilogy of Creativity. Boulder, CO:Westview.N Baer, John, & Kaufman, James C.(2006). Creativity in English-speak-ing countries. In James C. Kaufman &Robert J. Sternberg (Eds.), Internati on-al Haqndbook of Creativity' . Cambridge:Carmbridge University Press.* Csikszentrnihalyi, Mihalyi. (1996).Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.* Dorfmnan, Leonid. Locher, Paul, &Martindale, Colin. (Eds.) (2006). NewDirections in Aesthetics, Creativity, andthe A rts (Foundations and Frontiers inAesthetics). Amiityville, NY: BaywoodPress.N Feinstein, Jonathan S. (2006). TheNature of Creative Development. PaloAlto, CA: Stanford University Press.* Finke, Ronald A., Ward, Thomas B.,* Smith, Steven M. (1996). CreativeCognition: Theory, Research, and Ap-plications (New Ed). Boston, MA: MITPress.0 Kaufman, James C., & Baer, John(Eds). (2005). Creativity, Across Do-maiins: Faces of'the Muse. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.N Kaufman, James C., & Baer, John(Eds). (2006). Creativity, and Reasonin Coagnitive Development. Cambridge:Camnbridge University Press.0 Perry, Susan K. (1999). Writing in

Flow. Cincinnati, OH: Writer's DigestBooks.0 Piirto, Jane A. (2004). Understand-ing Creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: GreatPotential Press.* Puccio, Gerard J., & Murdock,Mary C. (1999). Cre ativityvAssessmnent:Readings and Resources. Buffalo, NY:Creative Education Foundation.0 Puccio, Gerard J., Murdock, MaryC., & Mance. Marie. (2006). CreativeLeadership: Skills that Drive Change.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.E Runco, Mark A. (2006). Creativ-ity: Theories and Themes: Research,Development, and Practice. San Diego:Academic Press.* Sawyer, R. Keith. (2006). Explain-ing Creativity: The Science of HumanInnovation. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.* Sawyer, R. Keith. John-Steiner, Vera,Moran, Seana, Sternberg, Robert J.,Feldman, David Henry, Csikszentmih~alyi,Mihalyi & Nakamura, Jeanne. (2003).Creativity and Development. Oxford:Oxford University Press.0 Schank, Roger (1988). The CreativeAttitude. New York: Scribner.0 Simonton, Dean Keith. (1994).Greatness. New York: Guilford.0 Simonton, Dean Keith. (2004).Creativity' in Science: Chance, Logic,Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.E Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed.) (1999).Hlandbook o?f Creativity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.0 Sternberg, Robert J. (2003). WICS:Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity,Synthesized. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.E Sternberg, Robert J., Kaufman,James C., & Grigorenko, Elena L.(Forthcoming). Applied Intelligence.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.E Sternberg, Robert J., Kaufman,Jamnes C., & Pretz, Jean E. (2002). TheCreativity Conundrum. Philadelphia:Psychology Press.• Sternberg, Robert J., & Lubart, ToddI. (1995). Defying the Crowd. NewYork: Free Press.0 Sternberg, Robert J., Grigorenko,Elena L., & Singer, Jerome L. (2004).Creativity: From Potential to Realiza-tion. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.E Sternberg, Robert J., & The Rain-bow Project Collaborators (2006). TheRainbow Project: Enhancing the SATthrough assessments of analytical,practical and creative skills. Intelli-gence, 34 (4), 321-350.N Sternberg, Robert J., & Williams,Wendy M. (1996). "How to DevelopStudent Creativity." Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Cur-riculum Development.E Weisberg, Robert W. (2006). Cre-ativity: Understanding Innovation inProblem Solving, Science, Invention,and the Arts. New York: Wiley. (,

56

CHANGE * JULY/AUGUST 2007

CHANGE * JuLY/AuGUST 200756

one could make of a Q-TipTM or beasked to finish an incomplete drawing.Those responses are scored for fluency(how many different responses wereproduced), flexibility (how many cat-egories of responses were produced),originality (how novel and unique theresponses were), and elaboration (howdetailed and developed they were).These and other measurements of cre-ativity are discussed on the CreativityTests Web site at (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ebobweb/Handout/cretv_6.html).

Finally, studies of the creative press(or environment) are designed to deter-mine how a context enables people tobe more creative. One theory that fo-cuses on the relationship of a creator tothe environment is Csikszentmihalyi'ssystems model (1996). He consid-ers creativity to be a byproduct of theinteractions among the domain (e.g.,mathematics), the field (e.g., gatekeep-ers such as editors and critics), and theperson. Other studies, though, stress theinternal conditions of the creator. Forexample, Amabile (1996) considers theimportance of intrinsic motivation, orbeing driven by a passion for the activ-ity. Also important are domain-relevantskills (such as knowledge and special-ized talent) and creativity-relevantskills (such as tolerance for ambiguityand appropriate risk-taking).

QUESTION Two: Is CREATIVITYJUST FOR GENIUSES?

Most investigations of creativitytend to go in one of two directions. Thefirst is a focus on creativity in eminentpeople, or what is sometimes called"Big-C" creativity. Examples of "Big-C" creativity might be the novels ofToni Morrison or the scientific theoriesof Charles Darwin. The goals of thisscholarly work are often to learn aboutcreative genius and to discuss whichcreative works are likely to last andwhy. Dean Keith Simonton's workexplores Big-C creativity through his-toriometric research (which involvesstudying eminent people's lives, amongother things). His books Greatness(1994) and Creativity in Science (2004)are highly recommended.

The other approach looks at every-day, or "little-c," creativity. The focusof little-c researchers is typically on thethinking and work of ordinary people,

CHANGE * JULY/AUGUST 2007

such as problem-solving, storytelling, oruttering witticisms. Robert W. Weisberg,in his 2006 Creativity, argues that thethinking processes used by the averageperson when being creative are the sameas those used by geniuses. Even if thefinal product may not be rememberedfor generations, we are all capable ofcreative thought.

The book Creativity and Develop-ment (2003) -a roundtable discussionby Sawyer, Steinberg, Vera John-Steiner,Seana Moran, David Henry Feldman,Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, and JeanneNakamura-offers multiple perspectiveson the development of little-c creativ-

hee ilmportan

work is bentyh

ity. Jonathan S. Feinstein's Nature ofCreative Development (2006) uses casestudies of creative individuals to analyzethat development. Essays in Kaufmanand Baer's Creativity and Reason inCognitive Development (2006) discuss

how creativity and reason can worktogether (or can be at odds) in cogni-tive development. This volume includesessays by noted scholars who focus oncreativity in the schools, such as RonaldBeghetto and APA Division 10 presidentJonathan Plucker. APA's Division 10represents psychologists interested increativity, aesthetics, and the arts, andit publishes a journal, Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. (Formore information on APA Division 10,see: http://www.apa.org/divisions/divlO/homepage.html).

QUESTION THREE: ISCREATIVITY AN OBJECT OFSTUDY ONLY IN PSYCHOLOGY?

Much of the work discussed so farhas been generated by psychologists,but the study of creativity has infiltratedother fields. It is often analyzed in thecontext of education, and especially theeducation of the gifted (see, for example,the Web sites of the National Associa-tion for Gifted Children's CreativityDivision at http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1419 and the Center for Cre-ative Learning at http://www.creative-leaming.comlDearSchool.htm).

Of course the fields of aesthetics andthe arts often deal with the topic as well.Leonid Dorfman, Paul Locher, and ColinMartindale's New Directions in Aesthet-ics, Creativity, and the Arts (2006) is acollection of essays that offers evidenceof scholarship across these areas, as doesthe Web site for the International As-sociation of Empirical Aesthetics (http://www.science-of-aesthetics.org/).

Creativity has been studied in suchdiverse fields as economics, literature,and neuroscience. Creativity is alsostudied in the world of business andorganizations. Puccio, Murdock, andMarie Mance, in their Creative Leader-ship (2006), are among the many whostudy creativity, innovation, and leader-ship. The master's degree in creativityoffered at the International Center forStudies in Creativity at Buffalo StateCollege (see http://www.buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/) is focusedon organizations.

QUESTION FOUR: Is THESTUDY OF CREATIVITY JUSTA WESTERN PHENOMENON?

Creativity is a burgeoning topic ofinterest across the globe. In addition tothe research that has been discussedhere, important work is being done inother countries, including India, Korea,Germany, and Spain. Kaufman andSteinberg's International Handbook ofCreativity (2006) offers collected essaysfrom international scholars in 15 differ-ent countries, including work by suchwell-known cross-cultural researchersas Todd Lubart, Elena Grigorenko, and

57

Weihua Niu. Much of the research andmany of the theories discussed in thatvolume have never been published be-fore in English.

Conceptions of creativity vary acrosscultures. Many Eastern cultures, forexample, consider moral goodness andcontributions to society as key require-ments for creative work. In many cul-tures, creative work is anonymous and isbelieved to belong to the community.

CREATIVITY: DESPITEPROBLEMS, A KEY TOEDUCATION

In a nation in which standardizedtests are omnipresent, it may seemodd to seek recognition and reward forsomething as seemingly ineffable ascreativity. But the models discussed hereconstitute multiple ways of conceptu-alizing, analyzing, and implementingcreativity. Far from having too littleinformation about it, we may be at thestage where the many approaches to thephenomenon can be daunting to some-one not steeped in the literature.

We hope that this Resource Reviewhas described and categorized the exten-sive research in a user-friendly manner.Further, we hope we have addressed a

common misconception about creativ-ity, which is the assumption that it isreserved for a special few. In fact, it isrelevant to the lives of us all. Althoughthe genius of a Mozart or Shakespeareis indeed stirring, it is perhaps just asheartening to see the spark of creativityin a child writing his first poem or solv-ing her first algebraic proof.

Although one cannot directly teachcreativity, one can teachfor creativ-ity. This involves, first and foremost,encouraging students to be creative andrewarding creative behavior when it oc-curs. In the absence of encouragementand reward, creativity withers. For a fullerdiscussion of teaching for creativity,see Steinberg and Wendy M. Williams'(1996) "How to Develop StudentCreativity.'

Secondly, teaching for creativity re-quires the recognition that creativity is,in large part, an attitude toward life-atake on the topic that is explored inRoger Shrank's 1988 book, TheCreative Attitude.

People are creative by virtue of theirattitude toward the problems they face.First, creative people are willing to selltheir creative ideas, understanding thatthere will be resistance to them. Sec-ond, creative people are willing to takesensible risks; they recognize that manycreative ideas fail. Third, they realizethat creativity is not something one doesonce but something to develop through-out a lifetime. Rather than living off thegreat idea they once had, people with acreative attitude toward life continue tomove forward, constantly challengingthemselves to do better and to see thingsin new ways.

It is possible to integrate creativityinto large-scale assessments and admis-sions. With the support of Sternberg,dean of the School of Arts and Sciences,Tufts now invites applicants for admis-sion to submit evidence of creativity,although it is not required. This develop-ment is part of a theory-based approachto assessment, utilizing Sternberg's 2003WICS: Wisdom, Intelligence, and Cre-ativity, Synthesized model, as well as hismodel of "successful" intelligence. (SeeSteinberg, Kaufmnan, &-Grigorenko'sApplied Intelligence [forthcoming], fora review of the theories and practice be-hind this program.) Such tests can bothimprove our predictions of college suc-cess and raise the overall caliber of the

58

L'--li

pool of applicants: SAT scores of appli-cants are up in the first year of the Tuftsprogram (Steinberg and the RainbowProject Collaborators, 2006).

An additional benefit of such assess-

ments is the possibility of compensatingfor the ethnic differences that we seeboth in ability and achievement testing.

Despite gender differences on most quan-titative standardized tests (males scorehigher), creativity scores show no differ-ences. And despite the traditional patternon IQ and achievement tests that showEuropean Americans and Asian Ameri-cans outpeeforming African Americans

and Hispanic Americans, initial studies ofcreativity assessments have shown no dif-ferences across race and ethnicity. Testingfor creativity, in other words, can improvestudent selection and assessment. Fordiscussion of these findings, see Baer and

Kaufman's 2006 essay, "Creativity inEnglish-Speaking Countries."

There are many obstacles left totackle-from definitional specificity andagreement to better methods of assess-ment but the potential positive outcomesare worth the effort. We hope that with theadvances made nationally and internation-ally and with the exciting developmentssuch as the Tufts admission policy, the nextdecades will bring creativity to the fore-front of research and practice. Fo

CHANGE K JULYnAUGUST 2007

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: CreativitySOURCE: Change 39 no4 Jl/Ag 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.heldref.org/