Fostering Creativity in the Classroom: Part 4, Defining Creativity

Defining Creativity

If you are just joining me, this is the fourth installment in my inquiry into Creativity. Over the previous posts, I provided my rationale, introduced the creative process, and outlined how creativity is thought about in school settings. In this next piece, I am finally defining the word creativity, fleshing out its components and highlighting the most significant qualities.

Defining Creativity: Unveiling the Essence of Innovation

What is creativity? You might wonder why I waited until Chapter 3 to define it overtly. That is because most of us actually “know it when we see it.” However, this is inadequate when used in an educational context. We must have a common understanding when we use the word. Hundreds of articles outline the progression of creativity research across the century. I will highlight only a few definitions and structures that really struck me as relevant to the educational context. This is not comprehensive in the least, but serves to present the general direction of inquiry.

Divergent Thinking: Beyond Convergent Solutions

First, some clarifications: Divergent thinking, a pivotal aspect of creativity, contrasts with convergent thinking. Convergent thinking seeks the “correct” solution, while divergent thinking engenders novel ideas and solutions. Divergent thinking encompasses problem-finding, which might eclipse problem-solving in significance (Runco, 2016). As Steve Jobs once said, “If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.” The American Psychological Association distinguishes between ideation, divergent thinking, and creativity, highlighting their distinct roles in the creative landscape. Ideation generates ideas, divergent thinking fosters diverse ideas, and creativity produces original work or solutions.

Novelty and Value: Pillars of Creative Expression​

In the research landscape, the examination of creativity is a multidimensional endeavor, encompassing several core elements. A common thread across most definitions of creativity is the incorporation of specific structural elements that underlie this phenomenon. As discussed by Runco and Albert (1990), Runco and Pritzke (1999), and Sternberg (1999), these elements encompass novelty and value. This foundational perspective is endorsed by Sternberg and Lubart (1999) in the Handbook of Creativity, who emphasize that creativity involves the production of work that is both novel and appropriate concerning task constraints. This view is echoed by other researchers, such as Gruber and Wallace (1999) and Martindale (1999), who contend that creative products should demonstrate newness and value.

The Four P's Model: Unveiling Creativity's Dimensions

Creativity research delves beyond individual attributes, encompassing dimensions that extend its impact. The Four P’s model, developed by Guilford and refined by Rhodes in 1961, encapsulates different facets of creativity: Product, Process, Person, and Places. Simonton’s addition of the Persuasion dimension expands the model, underlining the importance of communication and acceptance in the creative process (Simonton, 1995). This perspective demonstrates that creativity’s implications reverberate beyond the creator, shaping society’s reception of creative endeavors. In the classroom, Persons are the teachers and students, where we capitalize on strengths and ameliorate weaknesses. Products are tangible evidence of student effort.

The Five A's Framework: Embracing Social and Material Influences

“The Five A’s” framework is an adaptation of the Four P’s model of creativity (Glaveanu, 2013). It extends the model by splitting the “Environment” dimension into two separate components: Audience (Environment 1), Actors (Persons), Actions (Process), Artifacts (Product), and Affordances (Environment 2). The Five A’s framework provides a comprehensive perspective on the role of the environment in creativity, highlighting the interplay between social and material factors in shaping the creative process and its outcomes. 

This in particular may have particular relevance in a classroom setting.  The addition of the social aspect of creativity highlights the need to present the product or artifact to the audience. In addition, one must examine the resulting work in the context of Glaveanu’s affordances, which describes the relationship between an organism and its surroundings. Our students are influenced not only by the setting that is provided at school, but also by that outside of the classroom. 

Mini-C to Big-C: A Developmental Journey of Creativity

Kaufman and Beghetto’s framework introduces a nuanced portrayal of creativity, charting a developmental trajectory through Mini-C, Little-c, Pro-C, and Big-C stages. Mini-C represents creativity that is personally meaningful to the creator but may not have a broad impact. Little-c, or everyday creativity, involves creative acts that contribute to one’s personal growth and satisfaction. Pro-C refers to the level of creativity achieved by professionals who engage in deliberate practice, honing their skills and knowledge over years of focused training and effort. Big-C creativity refers to the accomplishments of creative geniuses that have a significant and enduring impact on their fields. Recognition of Big-C creativity often occurs posthumously. 

This progression elucidates how creativity evolves across domains, reflecting distinct levels of personal meaning and professional achievement. Acknowledging that various types of creativity can coexist within an individual, or emerge at different stages of life, it emphasizes the dynamic nature of creative growth (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). In the classroom, mini-C is the most dominant and relevant to educators because it is everyday creativity. In general, students do not have the expertise to work up to Pro-C, forget about Big-C. In K-12 (and even most undergraduate) schools, teachers can only develop mini-c and little-c creativity.  Since the purpose of pre-professional schooling is to create generalists, children will be introduced to a wide range of topics and have low to moderate skills across a broad spectrum of practices. Mini-c and little-c is the “new to me” aspect of the definition of creativity that educators will probably work with.

Guilford's FFOE: Building Blocks of Creative Thinking

At the heart of creativity research lies Guilford’s seminal contribution: the Structure of Intellect Model introduced in 1950. This model, which predates and informs all of the others, is characterized by four fundamental skills—fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. It provides a comprehensive framework for understanding creative thinking processes. These skills, delineated by Guilford, constitute the building blocks that underpin various stages of creative development. Crucially, these skills transcend disciplinary boundaries and extend their influence into problem-solving, innovation, and decision-making, highlighting their universality (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).  

Fluency involves generating numerous ideas, promoting extensive exploration. Flexibility facilitates the exploration of diverse angles and viewpoints. Originality, the pinnacle of creativity, entails producing ideas or products that are unprecedented and distinct. Elaboration complements creativity, adding depth and detail to concepts (Guilford, 1950). This has intriguing potential for educational applications, since the components are clearly delineated. The significance of Guilford’s FFOE framework lies in its applicability across various domains and contexts. These skills are not only integral to creative endeavors in fields like arts and sciences but also find relevance in problem-solving, innovation, and decision-making across disciplines. 

Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach

These four distinct qualities – fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration – provide a robust foundation for understanding, fostering, and evaluating creative thinking. This framework has gained prominence in educational practices, offering educators and learners a structured approach to enhancing creative thought processes. Guilford’s skills can be seen as foundational building blocks that support the processes and attributes described in later theories. 

Creativity: A Practice, Not an Inherent Trait

Creativity is seen not as an innate characteristic, but as one that can be practiced. I think that this is a way of engaging with content.  If the goal is to overtly encourage and develop creativity, then we acknowledge that creativity requires flexible thinking, originality, fluency with concepts, and elaboration. Teachers need education in this area, as well as clear objectives and assessment criteria. 

The criteria for assessing creativity should align with the expectations inherent in creative endeavors: originality and high quality (Brookhart, 2013). Creative students would acknowledge the significance of possessing a robust knowledge foundation and consistently strive to acquire new insights. They would exhibit receptiveness to novel concepts and actively engage in seeking out innovative ideas. They would adeptly draw from a diverse array of sources encompassing various media, individuals, and events. Skillfully structuring and restructuring ideas, they would be categorizing and combining them in different ways, followed by critical evaluation to determine if the outcomes are intriguing, fresh, or beneficial. They would apply a trial-and-error approach in situations of uncertainty, perceiving failure as an occasion for learning and growth (Brookhart, 2010). 

Assessing Creativity: Recognizing Originality and Quality

How do people generate novel and valuable ideas? That’s what I will discuss next time.

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.