Fostering Creativity in the Classroom: Part 3, Our Schools
Creativity in Schools
In the previous blog post, I introduced the creative process. I continue to investigate what creativity is and if creativity can be developed in the K-16 classroom. This post is Part 3 of my ongoing research into these questions, in which I present what has happened to creativity in schools up to this point.
Critical Thinking
George Land designed a creativity test for NASA to help select innovative engineers and scientists. The assessment worked so well he decided to try it on children at 3 different ages in their lives. The results show that from 5 to 10 years old, performance drops from 98% to 30%, with another drop to 12% at the age of 15. When the same test was given to 280,000 adults, only 2% displayed creative behavior. His conclusion: “non-creative behavior is learned” (Land and Jarman, 1993). If we begin our lives with such access to our creativity, what happens once we enter school? Why is there such a precipitous drop from kindergarten to fourth grade? And can we do anything about it?
Critical thinking is a cognitive process and a mental skill that involves analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, and synthesizing information or ideas to make reasoned judgments and decisions. It’s a way of thinking that goes beyond surface-level understanding and involves actively engaging with information, questioning assumptions, and considering multiple perspectives. Critical thinking is essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding complex issues in a deeper and more meaningful way.
While critical thinking is not the same as creative thinking, they share many of the same characteristics. Critical thinking lays the groundwork for thoughtful and well-reasoned exploration, while creativity offers the potential for originality and innovation. Both skills are vital in today’s complex and rapidly changing world, where the ability to think critically and creatively allows individuals to navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and contribute meaningfully to various fields.
Where does creativity fit in?
I cannot think of 2 more important skills to teach our young people than critical thinking and creative thinking. As a physics teacher, I think that I’ve got critical thinking covered pretty well. In my assessment approach, called the Learning Progression Model (LPM), I have identified 10 practices that I can use in my Physics classes to develop students’ critical thinking skills. Both NGSS’s Science and Engineering Practices and the College Board’s AP Physics 1 Science Practices identify 8 and 7 (respectively) skills that students should demonstrate. While each source uses slightly different language, both include asking questions, justifying claims with evidence, analyzing data to identify patterns or relationships, designing a plan for collecting data to answer a particular scientific question, and applying mathematical routines to quantities that describe natural phenomena, amongst others.
But what about creativity? Neither source mentions it at all.
The modern world is undergoing rapid technological advancements and facing intricate global challenges. This landscape demands individuals with adaptable skills who can tackle problems creatively and innovate. Historically intermittent and irregular presence in the US, creativity is not at the forefront of the educational debate today. The No Child Left Behind Act killed any tendencies in this direction (Smith and Smith, 2010).
Unfortunately, conventional education systems often prioritize producing compliant individuals who can memorize and regurgitate facts, sometimes neglecting those who don’t conform to this mold. This leads to a labeling of such individuals as “special needs” or “troublemakers,” often resulting in segregated classes that limit their potential.
Teachers' views of creativity
Schools claim to prepare children for a future in an imagined “real world.” To teach and reward unquestioning cooperation is to maintain the status quo -- preparation for a hierarchical social order of workers and bosses. By contrast, preparation for social change might instead recognize and celebrate the need for pesky and impassioned dispute.
In a world that thrives on innovation, these non-conformists might hold the key to forging new paths and solving complex problems. Yet teachers, tasked with managing diverse classrooms, can find disobedience and disruption challenging as they strive for undivided attention and adherence to expectations.
Resourceful and imaginative thinking is becoming increasingly vital in this evolving world. By encouraging creativity, teachers develop individuals who are equipped to navigate a dynamic landscape, contribute positively to society, and lead with innovation and imagination. The Framework for 21st Century Education outlines objectives which focus on creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration.
While critical thinking, communication skills, and collaboration have been at the forefront of teacher training for many years, teachers do not necessarily know how to teach or assess creativity. Many teachers associate creativity with the curriculum or program they are required to teach. This might involve specific guidelines, standards, or textbooks that dictate what content and activities should be covered. Teachers often feel that their creativity is constrained by the curriculum, as they believe they must adhere closely to prescribed content and methods. Some teachers view creativity through the lens of the activities they plan for their students. They might believe that creativity is about designing exciting and innovative projects or assignments that encourage students to think differently. Some teachers believe that how they respond to their students’ ideas and input shapes the classroom environment, and their reactions can either encourage or stifle creativity. They may encourage students to explore their unique perspectives, take risks, and embrace failure as part of the creative process. They might believe that employing new and unconventional teaching strategies is a way to foster creativity in the classroom. Teachers’ concepts of creativity (the program they are following, the activities they have students do, how they react to student ideas, or that the teaching method is new and different to that individual teacher) are not correct. These are not at all bad features to include in the classroom, but they are not useful to teach students how to be creative.
Why should we care?
Why should we care about creativity at all? Because, as stated by Sir Ken Robinson, “Creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.” Critical thinking lays the groundwork for thoughtful and well-reasoned exploration, while creativity offers the potential for originality and innovation. Both skills are vital in today’s complex and rapidly changing world, where the ability to think critically and creatively allows individuals to navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and contribute meaningfully to various fields.
In 2015, the NGSS developed eight Science and Engineering Practices. “The practices describe behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world and the key set of engineering practices that engineers use as they design and build models and systems” (NGSS Hub, 2023.) In my discipline, the scientific method and the design process are integrated into every unit of study. Project-based learning, inquiry, open-ended projects, giving students “choice and voice” have been in our teaching repertoire for decades. Yet… nothing has really changed. It is my personal belief that this is due to 3 things: our grading practices, our curricular constraints, and our current social culture. I have done a lifetime of (informal and anecdotal) study on grading practices and curricular constraints, but it is still a gut feeling, and needs more research on my part.
Next week, I will (finally) define creativity. Although we mostly “know it when we see it,” we need a common and shared vision, clearly communicated. I hope that this has been interesting to you so far! Please submit your own observations, methods, and questions in the comments section. I am eager to hear what you think!
References
“21st Century Skills Standards Rubrics.” 2023, OSPI. www.k12.wa.us/file/21stcenturyskillsstandardsrubricdoc. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.
Alabbasi, A. M., Paek, S. H., Kim, D., & Cramond, B. “What do educators need to know about the torrance tests of creative thinking: A comprehensive review.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000385.
Amabile, T. M. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview Press, 1996.
Amabile, T. M. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 2, 1983, pp. 357-376. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357](DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357).
Battelle for Kids. “Battelle for Kids.” 2020, www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources.
Beghetto, R. A. “Creativity in the classroom.” In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 2010, pp. 447–463. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.027.
Boldt G. “Artistic creativity beyond divergent thinking: Analysing sequences in creative subprocesses.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2019;34:100606.
Brookhart, S. M. How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD, 2010.
Brookhart, S. M. “Assessing Creativity”. ASCD, vol. 70, no. 5, 2013. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/assessing-creativity. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Craft, A. Creativity across the Primary Curriculum: Framing and Developing Practice. Routledge, 2000.
Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. “Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 2, 2008, pp. 283-294.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollins, 1996.
Davies, L.M., Newton, L. D. & Newton, D. P. “Creativity as a twenty-first-century competence: an exploratory study of provision and reality.” Education 3-13, vol. 46, no. 7, 2018, pp. 879-891. [DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2017.1385641](DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2017.1385641).
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. The Macmillan Company, 1916.
Dictionary of Creativity: Terms, Concepts, Theories & Findings in Creativity Research / Compiled and edited by Eugene Gorny. Netslova.ru, 2007. https://creativity.netslova.ru/Evolving_systems_approach.html.
Ericsson, K. A. “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance.” In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, 2006, pp. 683-703. Cambridge University Press.
“Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions.” Battelle For Kids, 2019.
Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. Basic Books, 1993.
Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, 1983.
Gibson, J. J. “The Theory of Affordances.” In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, 1977, pp. 67-82. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glăveanu, V. P. “Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 17, no. 1, 2013, pp. 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528.
Grigorenko, Elena L. et al. “Something New in the Garden: Assessing Creativity in Academic Domains.” Psychology Science 50, 2008, pp. 295.
Guilford, J. P. “Creativity.” American Psychologist, vol. 5, no. 9, 1950, pp. 444-454. [DOI: 10.1037/h0063487](DOI: 10.1037/h0063487).
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-12. [DOI: 10.1037/a0013688](DOI: 10.1037/a0013688).
Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Mariner Books, 2000.
Kumar M, Roy S, Bhushan B, Sameer A. “Creative problem solving and facial expressions: A stage based comparison.” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269504.
Land, G. and Jarman, B. Breaking Point and Beyond. San Francisco: HarperBusiness, 1993.
Lubart, TI. “Models of the creative process: Past, present and future.” Creativity Research Journal, 2001;13(3–4):295–308.
Munro, John. “Insights into the creativity process.” 2023, https://students.education.unimelb.edu.au/selage/pub/readings/creativity/UTC_creativity_tasks_.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2023.
Nazzal LJ, Kaufman JC. “The relationship of the quality of creative problem solving stages to overall creativity in engineering students.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2020;38:100734.
“NGSS Hub”. Ngss.Nsta.Org, 2023. Accessed 25 Aug 2023.
Pink, Daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books, 2011.
Punyamishra.Com. https://punyamishra.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Runco-interview-Tech-Trends-2016.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2023.
Rieck, Dean. “Do You Have These 11 Traits Of Highly Creative People?” Copyblogger, 2009. https://copyblogger.com/highly-creative-people/. Accessed 25 Aug 2023.
Rhodes, M. “An Analysis of Creativity.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 42, no. 7, 1961, pp. 305-310.
Robinson, Ken. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” TED, 2006, https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity.
Roth, T., Conradty, C. & Bogner, F.X. “Testing Creativity and Personality to Explore Creative Potentials in the Science Classroom.” Res Sci Educ, vol. 52, 2022, pp. 1293–1312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10005-x.
Runco, M. A. “Creativity.” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 55, 2004, pp. 657-687. [DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502](DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502).
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. “Mini-c and Little-c Creativity.” Psychological Reports, vol. 53, no. 3, 1983, pp. 895-896. [DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.895](DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.895).
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. Encyclopedia of Creativity. Academic Press, 1999.
Sadler-Smith, E. “Wallas’ Four-Stage Model of the Creative Process: More Than Meets the Eye?” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, 2015, pp. 342-352. [DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277](DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277).
Sandor, Nick. “The 5 A’s Of Creativity”. 2014, https://prezi.com/memogu796dat/the-5-as-of-creativity/. Accessed 23 Aug 2023.
Sawyer, RK. “How Artists Create: An empirical study of MFA painting students.” The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 52, no. 2, 2016, pp. 127–41.
Sawyer, R. K. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Shalaby, Carla. Troublemakers: Lessons in Freedom from Young Children at School. The New Press, 2017.
Shively, Candace. “Teachersfirst – Dimensions Of Creativity: A Model To Analyze Student Projects.” 2022, https://www.teachersfirst.com/ISTECRe8/index.cfm. Accessed 2 Jun 2022.
Simonton, D. K. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Simonton, D. K. “Creative Product and Creative Process in Science.” In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity, 1995, pp. 280-296. American Psychological Association.
Simonton, D. K. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. “Educational creativity.” In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 2010, pp. 250–264. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.016.
Sternberg, R. J. Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. Free Press, 1995.
“Teachersfirst – Dimensions Of Creativity: A Model To Analyze Student Projects.” 2023, https://www.teachersfirst.com/ISTECRe8/index.cfm. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Thomas, M’Balia. “The Everyday Creativity of Authentic Classroom Assessments.” 2023, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1304584.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2023.
Torrance E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual (Research Edition). Princeton: Personnel Press, 1966.
Wallas, Graham. “The Art of Thought.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, vol. 23, no. 6, 1926, pp. 145-151. JSTOR.
Wiggins, Grant. “On Assessing for Creativity: Yes You Can, and Yes You Should.” Authentic Education, 3 Feb. 2012, authenticeducation.org/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/.
Wiggins, Grant. Rubric for Creativity. 2023, https://grantwiggins.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/creative.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Weir, Kirsten. “The Science behind Creativity.” Apa.org, 1 Apr. 2022, www.apa.org/monitor/2022/04/cover-science-creativity.
Unsworth, Kerrie. “Unpacking Creativity.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 2, 2001, pp. 286-297. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/3028/1/3028_1.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.
