CREATIVITY - SCHOOLinSITES (PDF)

What We Know About CREATIVITY Part of the 4Cs Research Series  P21, the Partnership for 21st Century Learning, recognizes that all learners need educational experiences in school and beyond, from cradle to career, to build knowledge and skills for success in a globally and digitally interconnected world. Representing over 5 million members of the global workforce, P21 unites business, government and education leaders from the U.S. and abroad to advance evidence-based education policy and practice and to make innovative teaching and learning a reality for every child. ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP FOR 21ST CENTURY LEARNING ABOUT THE RESEARCH SERIES P21, in collaboration with its research partners, produced a series of research briefs and annotated bibliographies on key aspects of conceptualizing, developing, and assessing the 4Cs. The research briefs in this series start with an overview of key conceptual issues related to the 4Cs of Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, and Communication, review research on interventions designed to increase student proficiency within each of the 4Cs, describe recent work on how to assess on the 4Cs, and conclude with major take- away points from the available research. The series is edited by Helen Soulé, Executive Director at P21, and Jonathan Plucker, Neag Endowed Professor of Education at the University of Connecticut. The 4Cs Research Series is dedicated to Dr. Ronald Thorpe, president and CEO of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A friend and visionary we lost too early. AUTHORS Jonathan A. Plucker, Raymond Neag Endowed Professor of Education, University of Connecticut James C. Kaufman, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut Ronald A. Beghetto, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS ‘P21’ is a registered trademark in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Copyright © Partnership for 21st Century Skills. All rights reserved.  Introduction Definitions and Models Interventions Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations References Annotated Bibliography 1 1 4 5 7 9 11 CONTENTS  1 What We Know About Creativity INTRODUCTION Creativity is widely acknowledged to be a key 21st century skill, and it is included in many countries’ lists of desired college and career-ready outcomes for students. Creativity is included in the P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning as one of the Learning and Innovation Skills (www.P21.org/Framework). Also known as the “4Cs,” they include creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. From creating works of art, producing abundant inexpensive water, developing non-invasive health devices or net zero energy homes, finding medical cures, restoring and improving urban infrastructure, generating new energy sources, and preventing nuclear terror, to developing sustainable ways to solve complex geopolitical problems, the ability to produce and implement new, useful ideas is rapidly becoming a critical attribute for leveraging knowledge success and increasing quality of life. The well-documented, shifting global paradigm from manufacturing to knowledge-based to innovation economies makes the ability to solve problems creatively a necessary skill for educational and workforce success. In an age when much of the world’s information can be quickly accessed on a smartphone, a premium is placed on the ability to use that knowledge in creative ways to produce valuable outcomes and solve complex problems. The ability to innovate, both alone and in groups, leads to positive outcomes in the workplace, the playing field, and the family room. But what do we know about creativity? A range of opinions appears to exist in response to this question: Some people think we know very little, with scholars struggling to define even the basic construct; others believe that we know more than enough to guide effective and efficient interventions. The reality probably lies somewhere between these two extremes. The purpose of this research brief is to review the state of the art regarding conceptual, enhancement, and assessment issues regarding creativity and innovation, with an emphasis on educational applications. DEFINITIONS AND MODELS Definitions Although the term “creativity” has only been used for roughly 140 years, humans have been fascinated with the creative process at least as far back as the early Greeks. The large-scale, scientific study of creativity did not emerge until the decade after World War II, due in large part to an increased emphasis on creativity research within psychology and a surge in interest regarding scientific creativity in the post-Sputnik era. The centuries of popular interest in creativity combined with the relatively recent growth in the science of creativity has led to a preponderance of myths and legends about creativity, with one of the most enduring being that no common definition of the term exists. However, creativity has been well-defined, both explicitly and implicitly, for decades. For example, Stein (1953) defined creativity as “a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group in some point in time” (p. 311). Over time, nearly all definitions have included both novelty and usefulness in some form, with the stipulation that creativity involves both characteristics. In other words, producing a different or useful potential solution to a problem is not enough—one must produce solutions that are unique and useful in order to be engaged in creative activity. Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004), in a study of definition use in published creativity research, found that the majority of researchers were not defining creativity explicitly in their work, but that the majority of implicit definitions conformed to the traditional unique-and-useful conceptualization. To more closely align this definition with advances in learning theory, Plucker et al. proposed a new definition: “Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (p. 90). This definition, which has been widely adopted in the literature, broadens yet contextualizes the traditional definition in several ways. First, it emphasizes that judgments of the existence of creativity don’t happen in a vacuum, and that the context in which the behaviors occur strongly influences evaluations of creativity. For example, the same product may be creative in a third grade classroom but not creative in an engineering firm. Second, the definition acknowledges recent research that creativity may be a solitary activity, a group activity, or more likely, both. Some scholars suggest that a creativity product must also be surprising or non-obvious (Amabile, 1996; Boden, 2004; Simonton, 2012). This may be accurate in some settings, such as products evaluated for patent protection,1 but it may not be true in all settings. This additional characteristic would appear to fall under the “social context” requirement in the Plucker et al. definition. 1 See http://bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html  2 What We Know About Creativity Models Countless models have been developed to help us understand and enhance creativity. A detailed review and discussion of these models is beyond the scope of this brief, although this brief reviews a few popular models that have had significant influence on the study and teaching of creativity, but interested readers are referred to several excellent and comprehensive reviews (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010; Runco, 2014; Runco & Pritzker, 2011; Sawyer, 2012). The first major model, which remains in widespread use to this day, is Rhodes’ (1961) Four-P model. The four phases of the model are person, process, product, and press,2 emphasizing that creativity is multi-dimensional and has personality, cognitive, production, and environmental qualities. 2 “Press” because Environment doesn’t start with P. By far the most influential recent model is the Four-C model (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). This model proposes four different levels of creative accomplishment: Big-C, representing eminent creativity; Pro-C creativity of professional-level creators who have not yet attained eminent status; Little-C creativity, that which is involved in daily activities and experiences, and Mini-C creativity involving the novel and personally meaningful insights and interpretations involved in learning and experience. The neurological underpinnings of creativity are also widely researched and modeled. The Facebook- quiz, tried-and-true, left brain/right brain theory of creativity has been largely laid to rest by the scientific community. Imagining technologies overwhelmingly show activation in all areas of the brain during creativity and creative thinking; and the levels of activation We are at a unique place in time where the rapidly changing economy will open unprecedented opportunities for students. Fueled by technology, the status quo in global education and business is being challenged. The ability to design the future and to imagine new ways of combining old with new will be game-changing skills for students. Learning how and when to be creative, how to build cross-cultural teams, how to manage budgets and risk, how to present a compelling proposal, and how to manage a project from beginning to end will provide students with the necessary skills to become the next generation of problem finders and solvers, innovators, cross-cultural collaborators, entrepreneurs, and leaders. Founded in 1982, Destination Imagination (DI), a 501(c) (3) nonprofit, is cause-driven to ready students world- wide for college, career, and life beyond school through opportunities that promote and support creativity, imagination, contextual learning, arts appreciation, STEM-based skills development, and entrepreneurship leading to an engaged and future-ready student population. Research has examined the individual components of the perseverance construct (brain optimization, mindfulness, emotional intelligence, and self- determination) and their positive relationship to creativity and 21st century skill development. The perseverance construct is integral to the DI teaching methodology. Specific research findings from survey assessment prepared and scored by Dr. Mark Runco at the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development at the University of Georgia on DI student perceptions and outcomes include: 89% agreed totally or mostly that “learning can be fun.” 85% agreed that they keep their eyes open for opportunities to use imagination. 93% agreed that it is good to solve problems by considering a variety of perspectives. 85% agreed that it is useful to question assumptions and question the way a problem is presented. More than 90% agreed that originality can be useful even in school. Customized project-based DI challenges ready students for the emerging STEM-C (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, & computer science) related economy by giving them the opportunity to learn and experience the creative process from imagination to innovation. More than 200,000 students worldwide participate annually in DI’s program under the guidance of 38,000 passionate volunteers. Global Finals, DI’s annual international creativity competition, draws more than 17,000 students, supporters, and industry practitioners. Learn more at www.destinationimagination.org Dr. Chuck Cadle Chief Executive Officer Destination Imagination, Inc. CREATIVITY IN PRACTICE: A P21 Member Perspective  3 What We Know About Creativity Laura Numeroff’s famous children’s book series started with If You Gave a Moose a Cookie. The gist of the story is that the Moose, given a cookie, continues to expand his wishes. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but creativity is the cog that drives the wheel. Our school mascot is the Moose, and our Professional Development promotes the educator as a life-long learner. My quest began with research on STEM, especially the technology, and what our school needed to keep ahead of the game. Students need opportunities to use their hands and minds to create. It may mean rethinking the classroom model to embrace creativity. It’s about letting students demonstrate the skills and concepts they have learned in exploratory and adventurous ways. Unleash their creativity. Let them own their learning. So what does creativity look like in K-5? Making a better play dough (Properties of matter – Grade 1) Children mix many batches vary the amounts of salt, water, and flour and determine how each change a property. Children record results of each change. Add an art component by mixing food color to study primary and secondary colors. Survey another class to collect data on favorite color and graph results. Children take dough home and evaluate it. Is it smooth, does it roll out easily, can you make cut outs, does it stick? Design a Bridge with Toothpicks and Gumdrops (All school project on structural engineering of bridges) Can I build a bridge that will cover a 12” span and hold at least 50 pennies? Design/create a prototype. Collaborate, communicate. Build it. Test it. Modify it. Test it. Create! Are students using what they learned to modify? Do they use different shapes? Are they engaged in the task? How do they deal with success and/or frustration? Write a Circle Story (Grade 2 – Language Arts/Writer’s Workshop and Technology) Students write a story that starts with a particular setting, has three episodes, and ends with the original setting. Then they use LEGO and myCreate to build the settings and scenes to tell and illustrate the story. Does the story flow in a circle? Do the LEGO scenes match the story? Does the student demonstrate good use of available techniques in the software? Design an Alarm System (Grade 4 – Science) Students learn how to build a simple circuit, a series circuit, a parallel circuit, and using universal symbols in a schematic diagram. Unit culminates in a visit to the Science Museum and the opportunity to design an alarm system including a buzzer and a light and the needed apparatus to build the circuit at home. 3D Printing Study nutrition and create a food using the 3D printer. Study the pond and create an insect or fish. Study volume and create a net for a 3D figure. Laser Cut Design (Tinkercad and Inkscape), create and cut fraction pieces, tangrams, tessellations, planes, boxes, puzzles and more. Adding technology is not the same as integrating it. It must not be a substitute or an augmentation, but rather, it must be a redesign for a learning goal that allows for greater creative opportunity. Next year we will build a boat for Odysseus! If only we could create time. Dotty Corbiere Teacher of Mathematics, Robotics, and Technology The Meadowbrook School (MA) CREATIVITY IN PRACTICE: A P21 Exemplar Perspective  4 What We Know About Creativity appear to be approximately equal in magnitude (see Sawyer, 2011, for an excellent review). Unfortunately, a model has yet to emerge with enough evidence to gather a general consensus across neuroscientists and creativity researchers (Dietrich & Kanso, 2010). At the moment, the most well-accepted neurological model for creativity is Martindale’s (1999) theory of cognitive disinhibition. According to Martindale, the frontal lobe is responsible for the inhibition of creative behavior, meaning our natural state is a wildly creative one, but our brains wisely intervene and tone our creativity down so that we may function in day-to-day life. This is evidenced as activation in the frontal lobe—although creativity is being decreased, the brain is putting forth an effort—using resources, if you will—to make this happen. In experimental situations, those who are more creative show less activation in the frontal lobes— meaning their brains are doing less to “tone down” the natural creativity. INTERVENTIONS Can we make students more creative? If so, how? The short answer is, yes, creativity can be enhanced. Understanding how requires a bit more explanation. First, it is important to clarify a few assumptions about creativity enhancement. Creativity researchers generally agree that creative potential is a widely distributed human trait (Beghetto, 2013). As such, creative potential is not something only certain students have or something that can be given or taken away from students. However, under certain conditions students’ creative potential is more likely to be developed into creative competence. What are those conditions? The answer to this question, as implied by the definitions reviewed above, comes from recognizing that the development of creative competence results from an interaction between person and environment (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). With respect to the person, creativity researchers have highlighted several interrelated factors, including openness to experience (Feist, 2010), confidence in one’s own creative ability (Bandura, 1997; Beghetto, 2006), task motivation (Amabile, 1996; Hong, Hartzell, & Green, 2009), domain knowledge and expertise (Ericsson et al., 1996), willingness to take sensible risks (Beghetto, 2009; Sternberg, 2010), and resilience in the face of criticism (Simonton, 2010; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). The learning environment also influences the development of students’ creative competence. Creativity researchers have demonstrated that well- designed training programs (i.e., those that focus on developing creative thinking skills in realistic, domain-specific exercises) are most likely to enhance creativity (see Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004, for a review). With respect to the classroom, research suggests that learning environments play at least as great a role in student creativity as students’ personal characteristics (e.g., Niu, 2007; Runco, 2014). Davies et al. (2012) have, for example, identified several features of the learning environment that have been linked with creativity development, including flexible use of the physical environment, balancing structure with freedom so students have an opportunity to engage in self-directed and exploratory learning, and establishing partnerships with outside organizations, businesses, and community agencies. Teachers’ instructional practices also play an influential role. Schacter and his colleagues (2006) have, for instance, outlined several creativity supportive practices, including: explicitly teaching for creative thinking, providing students with choice and exploratory learning, encouraging students’ intrinsic motivation, and providing opportunities for students to use their imagination. Not only are such practices associated with promoting creativity, they can also boost student achievement. Unfortunately, Schacter and his team found that such practices were not frequently used by teachers, particularly if those teachers were assigned to teach in schools serving minority and low-performing students. Although the vast majority of this research has been conducted in K-12 education or business contexts, the findings discussed in this brief should be equally applicable to other contexts, such as early childhood education; afterschool enrichment and tutoring programs; and informal education settings such as summer camps, museums and other cultural institutions, and internships. The research on creativity development and enhancement demonstrates that creativity can be enhanced and points to personal and environmental factors that influence the development of creativity. Although there are no simple recipes or techniques that will instantly lead to creativity, educators can enhance student creativity by establishing learning environments that support key personal factors (e.g., development of domain knowledge, creative confidence, sensible risk-taking) and creativity-supportive environmental conditions (e.g., allowing for flexible use of the physical environment, providing opportunities for exploration, and using creativity-supportive instructional practices).  5 What We Know About Creativity ASSESSMENT The assessment of 21st century skills is currently receiving extensive attention from educators, advocates, and policymakers.3 Assessments for creativity have been developed, used, and evaluated for decades, with a great deal of development and scoring work conducted over the past decade (see Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008; Runco, 2014). The most promising categories of assessments include divergent thinking measures, product ratings (and other assessments that use someone’s judgment), and self-assessments. Divergent Thinking Divergent Thinking (DT) is the most common and the most popular way to measure creativity (Callahan, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, & Bland, 1995). Divergent thinking, first posed by Guilford (1950, 1967) as part of a larger theory of intelligence, is the ability to generate many different possible responses to an open-ended question. It is often paired with convergent thinking, which is being able to select the best response out of many choices. Although many (including Guilford) created measures based on the construct of divergent thinking, the most successful have been the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1966, 1974). These are the longest-running, continually published assessments of DT, most carefully studied, and most widely used in educational settings of all tests of creativity (Kaufman et al., 2008). The TTCT are divided into two sections, Verbal and Figural. The Verbal section is comprised of seven subtests that range from Unusual Uses (in which the participant is asked to come up with many possible uses for a common object, such as a cardboard box) to Just Suppose (in which the participant is asked to come up with many different potential ramifications for an unlikely situation, such as people no longer needing sleep). The Verbal tests are scored along three dimensions: Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality. Fluency is the number of relevant responses (i.e., sheer output); Flexibility is the number of different categories (i.e., different types of answers); and Originality is the statistical infrequency of the responses (i.e., thinking of answers that very few other people have said). The Figural section is comprised of three sections, which ask the participant to modify or expand shapes or drawings and, in the case of the Picture Completion subtest, give a title to the picture. They are also scored 3 These discussions are described differently by different groups (e.g. hard-to-measure skills, soft skills), but they tend to discuss similar constructs. for Fluency and Originality, as well as Elaboration (the amount of detail in a response), Resistance to Premature Closure (keeping an open mind), and Abstractedness of Titles (the degree to which the picture title moves beyond mere labeling). Divergent Thinking tests in general (and specifically the TTCT) have demonstrated evidence of being both reliable and valid in that they often correlate with other measures of creativity (e.g., Plucker, 1999). One particularly appealing feature of these tests is that they are comparatively easy to score and provide a number of different scores. However, their ability to predict future creative behavior has been questioned, as has the narrow range of domains assessed (see Kaufman et al., 2008). A related measure is the Remote Associates Test (RAT) (Mednick, 1962, 1968), based on the idea that creative people can make meaningful connections between seemingly remote ideas. This measure gives three words that are each separately connected by a fourth word. For example, the words might be Sleeping, Bean, and Trash, and the correct answer would be “Bag.” Sleeping bag, bean bag, and trash bag are all common phrases. The RAT is easy to administer and score, which makes it a popular measure. One criticism is that it is strongly reliant on intelligence and academic knowledge (such as vocabulary). Product Ratings/Judgment Another common way to assess creativity is to have teachers or other adults evaluate actual student products (anything from a poem to a collage to a mathematical equation). Amabile (1982, 1996) outlined a methodology called the Consensual Assessment Technique, in which experts review creative products and assign a score based on their own implicit definition of what is creative. They are not given specific instructions or allowed to discuss their ratings with each other. Creative products are compared to each other, as opposed to a specific ideal. The appeal of this methodology (which is more common in research studies than applied settings) is that theoretically any creative work can be assessed and that the expertise of the raters offers a certain type of validity. The downside is that obtaining the ratings can be time consuming (and potentially expensive). Creative products can also be assessed using product rating scales, which ask specific questions about the product. Theoretically, less expertise is needed to rate creative work using these more detailed scales than the more open-ended Consensual Assessment Technique. That said, this class of assessments arguably has had the most extensive application to K-12 education and is particularly well-suited to problem-based learning  6 What We Know About Creativity contexts. For example, the Creative Product Semantic Scale (Besemer & O’Quin, 1993; O’Quin & Besemer, 1989, 2006) allows raters to judge the novelty, problem resolution, and elaboration and synthesis attributes of products, and the Student Product Assessment Form (Reis & Renzulli, 1991), designed to serve as an evaluation instrument in gifted programs, provides ratings of nine product traits (e.g., problem focusing, appropriateness of resources, originality, action orientation, audience). Westberg (1991, 1996) designed an instrument to evaluate student inventions, with analyses producing evidence of originality, technical goodness, and aesthetic appeal factors. Each of these instruments is associated with evidence of reliability, although validity issues remain to be addressed. In the one available comparison of teachers’ and parents’ ability to evaluate children’s ideas, the two groups were similarly successful, with number of children and adult divergent thinking test scores positively and moderately correlated with evaluative skill (Runco & Vega, 1990). Self-assessments Self-assessments are traditionally used for guidance or research purposes; they are generally not used for any type of high-stakes testing because of issues with faking or inaccuracy. Some self-assessments are designed to capture the creative personality. Most of these tests rely heavily on the personality construct of openness to experience. Being open to experience could be demonstrated experientially (such as liking to try new food) or intellectually/artistically (such as enjoying going to museums). These tests traditionally include statements that participants assignratings reflecting their agreement. A typically item might be “I have a good imagination” or “I like thinking deep thoughts.” There is a near-universal finding that openness to experience is associated with creativity (e.g., King, McKee-Walker, & Broyles, 1996). Other self-assessments look at creativity styles (how people choose to use their creativity), creative self- “Bringing colorful wings to the invisible things that live in the hearts and minds of children,” is the Crayola® mantra. Helping parents and educators understand the creative process, how they can nurture children’s creative expression, and why creativity matters, is central to our work. Research we’ve done shows that educators believe creativity is important and they want to do more art- infused teaching. Ninety-three percent of classroom teachers believe that art-integration has a high impact on building students’ creative skills. Nine out of ten elementary school principals place a high priority on integrating art across curricula. In fact, 90 percent of principals report that art-integration increases student engagement and learning across all subject areas. We became curious about how to translate educators’ beliefs into action. We found that more creative experiences happen in schools where the principal articulates this priority to teachers, includes creativity in the school vision statement, and builds teachers’ creative capacity. Half of elementary school principals say, “there is a person, either at the school or at the district level, who is responsible for building both students’ and faculty’s creativity.” Of those who said, “yes,” 6 out of 10 said “that’s our art teacher.” We work to help art teachers and principals build Creative Leadership Teams—colleagues who serve as creative coaches, building teachers’ creative confidence. Working with educators over the past 110 years, we’ve seen a recent shift in attitudes towards art teachers that excites us. Today, principals and teachers believe it is important for art teachers to share their creative expertise with colleagues. In fact, 96 percent of principals report art teachers’ influence and value to their schools increases when they share their expertise with colleagues. To help schools develop innovative creative leadership programs, Crayola® offers Creative Leadership grants. The grant winners’ stories are shared in the Crayola Champion Creatively Alive Children resources—a series of free professional development materials, focused on how art-infused education builds 21st century skills. These materials include videos, handouts, and facilitators’ guides so teacher-leaders can present workshops and have creativity discussions with colleagues. Learn more at www.Crayola.com/educators Cheri Sterman Director, Education and Consumer Relationships Crayola CREATIVITY IN PRACTICE: A P21 Member Perspective  7 What We Know About Creativity efficacy (people’s beliefs in their own creativity), and creative behaviors. One example of a behavioral self-assessment is the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). This instrument asks participants to check off their accomplishments on ten domains that broadly encompass the arts and science. Broadly speaking, divergent thinking and remote associate tests are assessments that can be modified to fit the curriculum and can provide techniques to enhance creativity-relevant skills. Product ratings (or divergent thinking tests) can be used for any high-stakes situation (i.e., for grading, admissions, or giftedness placement). Self-assessments are valuable for student development and guidance. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The extensive research on creativity, reviewed briefly in this report and described in more detail in the accompanying annotated bibliography (starting on pg. 11 of this brief), led to a number of important conclusions and implications for practice, which are provided below. In addition, we refer readers to Table 1, a summary of key actions that can be taken within various educational contexts to enhance student creativity. Conclusion: Creativity, contrary to conventional wisdom, has been carefully defined. Recommendation: A great deal of energy is spent on continually defining and redefining creativity, innovation, and related constructs. In the end, these activities result in definitions that are very similar to those that came before. The field has standard definitions, and these should be used in intervention and assessment efforts. Conclusion: Several helpful models of creativity exist to help guide intervention and assessment efforts. Recommendation: These models complement the major definitions and provide good frameworks to help educators understand what creativity is, what it isn’t, and what it can be across a variety of settings. Conclusion: Regardless of whether creativity is innate, learned, or both, a large body of research suggests that creativity can be enhanced. Recommendation: Nature-nurture debates are inherently interesting, but they are a distraction from efforts to enhance student creativity. We know we can enhance individual and group creativity. Recommendation: Schools should adopt these specific instructional strategies. Conclusion: Context matters when it comes to supporting creativity. Recommendation: School and classroom contexts that expect and reward sensible risk taking and creative expression will increase the likelihood of creative teaching and creative learning. Conclusion: Specific instructional strategies have been shown to increase student creativity, although the strategies are not widely used in schools. Recommendation: Although these strategies are well-documented, their use is often discouraged by the current high-stakes accountability testing environment. Research is needed to determine the extent to which creativity enhancement impacts student achievement test scores. Conclusion: Creativity can (and often does) thrive in constraints. Recommendation: Educational environments contain various constraints (e.g., curricular standards, external accountability mandates, time, and resources). The good news is that constraints don’t necessarily kill creativity. Rather, they provide situations that often necessitate creativity. Educators and instructional leaders who recognize this will be in a better position to respond creatively to the everyday constraints facing schools and classrooms. Conclusion: Numerous, well-developed assessments of creativity exist, but they were developed primarily for use in research and need additional development to be transferred to educational contexts. Recommendation: Assessment strategies for identifying creative potential are well-developed and widely available, as are creative product rating scales and can be used in schools. But assessments for classroom use (such as curriculum-based measures) and high-stakes contexts (state accountability systems, college admissions) are underdeveloped.  8 What We Know About Creativity Education Level Intervention Assessment Evaluation P-12 Classroom Make classroom settings more inviting for creative input and thinking; embed creativity within the classroom culture Promote and incorporate student creativity outcomes in curriculum and instruction Develop and/or use formative, curriculum-based assessments of creativity; regularly assess student’s creative growth and report the results to parents School Embed creativity within the underlying culture of the school and make sure learning spaces support creative output Develop common vision, plan and strategy for incorporating creativity into teaching and learning; build staff capacity and support innovative teaching practices that develop creativity Incorporate creativity into the students’ assessment portfolio; encourage teachers to assess student’s creative growth as regular part of the evaluation and reporting process Out-of- School Evaluate the extent to which programs, activities, services, spaces and culture support creativity; redesign learning/ activity environment as needed Incorporate creativity into programs, activities and support services; support building staff capacity through professional development, etc. Encourage measurement of students’ creative growth as integral part of desired 21st century outcomes School District Determine how resources are used to promote creativity- boosting learning spaces and learning culture; allocate resources as needed Provide professional development and resources to schools regarding creativity intervention practices Develop and support the use of high quality creativity assessments in schools as part of the district’s assessment plan State Support the incorporation of teaching practices and learning environments that promote creativity Develop or make available professional development and curriculum that build capacity for incorporating creativity into teaching and learning Encourage the use of high quality creativity assessments at appropriate levels National Devote resources to support creativity research, interventions, and assessments Fund development, pilot implementation, and evaluation of creativity interventions Support development of high- quality, creativity assessments at all levels TABLE 1: What do we need to do?  9 What We Know About Creativity REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457. Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210-223. Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promises and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1). Special Issue: The Significance of Learning Contexts in Talent Development. doi:10.1080/13598139.2014.90 5247 Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1993). Assessing creative products: Progress and potentials. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 331-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Routledge. Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (Research Monograph No. 95130). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37-50. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2012). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91. Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 822-848. Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to expert performance: Empirical evidence from the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity: The nature and nurture of the creative personality. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 113-130). New York: Cambridge University Press. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-544. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hong, E., Hartzell, S. A., & Greene, M. T. (2009). Fostering creativity in the classroom: Effects of teachers’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, and goal orientation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 192-208. Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 75-101. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-2. doi:10.1037/a0013688 Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. King, L. A., McKee-Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189-203. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20-47). New York: Cambridge University Press. Martindale, C. (1999). Biological basis of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 137-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.  10 What We Know About Creativity Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213-214. Niu, W. (2007). Individual and environmental influences on Chinese student creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 151-175. O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 267- 278. O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the Creative Product Semantic Scale as a metric for results- oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 34-44. Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal study data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103-114. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128- 134. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.). (2011). Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed.). Boston: Academic Press. Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the of children’s ideas. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 439-452. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137-154. Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47-72. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388. Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity in highly eminent individuals. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 174-188). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity research journal, 24(2-3), 97-106. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311-322. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 394-414). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—norms—technical manual research edition— verbal tests, forms A and B—figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn. Westberg, K. L. (1991). The effects of instruction in the inventing process on students’ development of inventions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51. (University Microfilms No. 9107625) Westberg, K. L. (1996). The effects of teaching students how to invent. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 249-267.  11 What We Know About Creativity Creativity is included in the P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning as one of the Learning and Innovation Skills (www.P21.org/Framework). Also known as the “4Cs,” they include creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. The study of creativity has a long and rich history, with clearly delineated definitions, theories, and models; extensive basic and applied research; and a vibrant community of scholars and educators who make creativity and innovation the focus of their work. In this annotated bibliography, an emphasis was placed on resources that are likely to be found online or in most university and many public libraries, that are especially comprehensive, are accessible to the lay reader to the extent possible, and collectively represent the major figures in the field. The creativity bibliography was compiled by Ronald Beghetto, James C. Kaufman, and Jonathan Plucker, faculty members at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education and affiliated faculty at the Center for Educational Innovation. They appreciate the assistance of Lamies Nazzal and the helpful feedback and recommendations provided by the P21 Staff. GLOSSARY Affect – related to emotion and mood. Appropriateness – in the context of creativity, whether a response/idea/product is relevant to the task at hand and useful. Does not necessarily mean socially appropriate. Cognition – mental processes, such as thinking, remembering, or problem-solving. Convergent Thinking – the ability to evaluate many different ideas and select the one that is the most likely to work. An under-rated component of creativity. Crystallized vs. Fluid Intelligence – one well-known theory separates intelligence into (at least) two central factors. Crystallized intelligence is a person’s acquired knowledge (such as vocabulary). Fluid intelligence is a person’s ability to solve new problems (such as detecting patterns). Divergent Thinking – the ability to generate many different ideas in response to an open-ended question. Divergent thinking is a core concept in creativity measurement. Domain-General/Domain-Specific – one of the debates in creativity focuses on the degree to which creativity is domain-specific or domain-general. Domain-specific aspects of creativity are those skills or abilities that are unique to creativity in a particular domain (such as math); these might include content knowledge or particular intellectual or personality factors that are more important for one domain than another (for example, creative scientists need to be conscientious, whereas this trait is less important for creative artists). Domain-general aspects are characteristics that are helpful for any type of creativity. Historiometry – a methodology that studies creative genius by using historical resources (like biographies) to get information about eminent people. Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation – one of the main conceptualizations of motivation is to distinguish between these two types. Intrinsic motivation is being driven by internal needs, such as task enjoyment or a desire to learn. Extrinsic motivation is being driven by external needs, such as praise, money, or grades. Little-c vs. Big-C – a standard distinction between types of creativity. Little-c is everyday creativity that nearly anyone can do. Big-C is genius-level creativity that has a large influence on the world. Personality – the predominant theory of personality is the Five Factor Model, which separates personality into Extraversion (outgoing/sociable), Agreeableness (good-natured/friendly), Conscientiousness (disciplined/ organized), Emotional Stability (calm/even-keeled), and Openness (curious/seeking new experiences). Self-Efficacy – someone’s belief in his/her ability to succeed at a particular task ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY  12 What We Know About Creativity BROAD OVERVIEWS These resources are edited volumes that contain a wide range of theory and research on numerous related to creativity and innovation. Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer. Kaufman offers a primer on recent research in creativity, with an emphasis on individual differences (mental illness, gender and ethnicity, personality, motivation, and intelligence). Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2010). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. This handbook focused both on how creativity was perceived by different areas of study (including recent perspectives such as evolutionary psychology and neuroscience) and on hot topics (such as creativity and mental illness) that are still being debated. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice (2nd Edition). San Diego: Academic Press A textbook, aimed...