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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.