Creativity as Educational Objectives: From a Meta-theoretical Heuristic to Domain-specific Creative Behaviours

Open access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore the education expert and non-expert consensually rated nature of creativity operationalized as observable behaviour. When operationalized as observable behaviour akin to concrete educational objectives accessible to being taught, is creativity a construct valid both internationally and over time, and what are its distinguishing features? A representative sample of concretely stated behaviours descriptive of creativity displayed by children and adolescents was evaluated with high convergent validity by educational psychologists, specialists in gifted education, university students of teacher studies, and mathematics teachers (N = 208) on the level of creativity, and ten additional behaviour features. The results of the canonical correlation analysis suggest internationally and temporally stable and an educationally viable bridge between general creativity construct operationalization and measurement on the one hand, and the domain-specificity of creative behaviours and their features on the other. By viewing the general creativity construct as a meta-theoretical heuristic, and focusing on one group of domain-specific consensually rated creative behaviours and their progressive nature as educational objectives, the findings of this study are discussed in the context of general and gifted education.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Amabile T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "The Social Psychology of Creativity." Boulder CO US: Westview Press Inc.

  • American Psychological Association Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK-12 teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf

  • Anderson L. W. & Krathwohl D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York USA: Addison-Wesley Longman.

  • Angleitner A. & Demtröder A. I. (1988). Acts and dispositions: A reconsideration of the Act frequency approach. European Journal of Personality 2 121-141. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Baer J. (1998). The case for domain-specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 11 173-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7

  • Baer J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior 46(1) 16-29. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Baer J. (2013). Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking Intrinsic Motivation and Evaluation. In M. B. Gregerson J. C. Kaufman & H. T. Snyder (Eds.) Teaching Creatively and Teaching Creativity (pp. 175-181). New York: Springer.

  • Baer J. Kaufman J. C. & Gentile C. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal 16(1) 113-117. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Beghetto R. A. & Plucker J. A. (2016). Revisiting the relationship among schooling learning and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.) Creativity and reasoning in cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals Handbook 1 Cognitive domain (Ed.). London: Longmans Green and Co Ltd.

  • Buss D. M. & Craik K. H. (1983). The Act Frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review 90(2) 105-126. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Carson S. Peterson J. B. & Higgins D. M. (2005). Reliability validity and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal 17(1) 37-50. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Conti R. Coon H. & Amabile T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal 9(4) 385-389. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cropley A. J. (1994). Creative intelligence: A concept of "true" giftedness. European Journal for High Ability 5(1) 6-23. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Csikszentmihalyi M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

  • Funder D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin 101(1) 75-90. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Gajda A. Karwowski M. & Beghetto R. A. (2016 August 18). Creativity and Academic Achievement: A meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133

  • Glăveanu V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework. Review of General Psychology 17(1) 69-81. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Glăveanu V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories - Research - Applications 1 10-32. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Han K. (2003). Domain-specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior 37(2) 117-142. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ivcevic Z. (2007). Artistic and everyday creativity: An act-frequency approach. Journal of Creative Behavior 41 271-290. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ivcevic Z. (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 3(1) 17-21. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ivcevic Z. & Brackett M. A. (2015). Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 9(4) 480-487. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Jussim L. Eccles J. & Madon S. (1996). Social perception social stereotypes and teacher expectations: accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in experimental social psychology 29 281-388. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Jussim L. Harber K. D. Crawford J. T. Cain T. R. & Cohen F. (2005). Social reality makes the social mind: Self-fullling prophecy stereotypes bias and accuracy. Interaction Studies 6(1) 85-102. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Karwowski M. (2015). Notes on Creative Potential and Its Measurement. Creativity. Theories - Research - Applications 2(1) 4-16. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Karwowski M. Kaufman J. C. Lebuda I. Szumski G. & Firkowska-Mankiewicz A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence 64 36-44. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kaufman J. C. (2012). Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scales (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 6(4) 298-308. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kaufman J. C. & Baer J. (2004). Sure I’m Creative-But Not in Mathematics!: Self-Reported Creativity in Diverse Domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts 22(2) 143-155. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kaufman J. C. Plucker J. A. & Russell C. M. (2012). Identifying and asessing creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1) 60-73. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kim K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior 42(2) 106-130. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Lindqvist G. (2003). Vygotsky's theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 15(2&3) 245-251. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Milgram R. M. (2003). Challenging out-of-school activities as a predictor of creative accomplishments in art drama dance and social leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47(3) 305-315. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Milgram R. M. & Livne N. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In J.C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.) Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Mumford M. D. & Norris D. G. (1999). Heuristics. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity Vol. 1 (pp. 807-813). San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Plucker J. Beghetto R. A. & Dow G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials pitfalls and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist 39 83-96. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Rački Ž. (2015a). Domain Gender and Age Differences in the Creative Behavior of Children. Društvena istraživanja 24(4) 467-485. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Rački Ž. (2015b). Effects of the educationists' implicit theories of creativity on its evaluation by means of the Idiosyncratic Creativity Contents Constellations. Suvremena psihologija 18(2) 145-158.

  • Rački Ž. Bakota L. & Flegar Ž. (2015). Word knowledge as predictive of linguistic creative behaviors. Review of psychology 22(1-2) 11-18.

  • Renzulli J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan 60(3) 180-184 261. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Renzulli J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Root-Bernstein R. S. & Root-Bernstein M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127-151). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Runco M. A. (2015). A Commentary on the Social Perspective on Creativity. Creativity. Theories - Research - Applications 2(1) 21-31. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Runco M. A. & Bahleda M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic scientific and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 20(2) 93-98. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Runco M. A. & Jaeger G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1) 92-96. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Russ S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Russ S. W. (2003). Play and creativity: developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47(3) 291-303. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Russ S. W. (2013). Pretend play in childhood: Foundation of adult creativity. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Silvia P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences 4 1012-1021. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Silvia P. J. Kaufman J. C. & Pretz J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 3(3) 139-148. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Simonton D. K. (2000). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical test. Developmental Review 20 283-318. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Simonton D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product person and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 129(4) 475-494. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Sriraman B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 17(1) 20-36. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Sternberg R. J. (2001). Giftedness as Developing Expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies 12(2) 159-179. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Sternberg R. J. & O'Hara L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Subotnik R. F. Olszewski-Kubilius P. & Worrell F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12(1) 3-54. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Subotnik R. F. & Jarvin L. (2005). Beyond expertise: conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed. pp. 343-357). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Torrance E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned rejected ridiculed ignored. Educational Psychology Review 7(3) 313-. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Vygotsky L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology [English translation] 42(1) 7-97.

  • Wai J. (2014). Experts are born then made: Combining prospective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cognitive ability matters. Intelligence 45 74-80. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Wai J. & Rindermann H. (2017). What goes into high educational and occupational achievement? Education brains hard work networks and other factors. High Ability Studies 28(1) 127-145. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Wai J. Lubinski D. & Benbow C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(3) 484-492. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Weisberg R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Winner E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist 55(1) 159-169. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ziegler A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed. pp. 411-436). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ziegler A. & Heller K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness: A meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller F. J. Mönks R. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed. pp. 3-22). Oxford England: Pergamon.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 448 215 4
PDF Downloads 129 81 4