30 Creativity in Teaching

Ronald A. Beghetto
University of Connecticut

Abstract
Creative teaching, like all forms of teaching, is a polymorphous act. It can
take multiple forms and have different pedagogical aims. The purpose of
this chapter is to describe creativity in the domain of teaching and clarify
three forms of creative teaching: teaching about creativity, teaching for
creativity, and teaching with creativity. The chapter will describe each of
these types of creative teaching, including their different aims, previous
work on each type, and the knowledge base necessary for each type of
creative teaching. Directions for future research will also be discussed.

It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and
knowledge.
Albert Einstein

Introduction
How might researchers think about creativity in the domain of teaching?
An important first step is to recognize that creative teaching, like all forms of teaching,
is a polymorphous act (Hirst, 1971). Researchers, therefore, need to distinguish
between different forms of creative teaching based on differing pedagogical aims.
Elsewhere (Beghetto, 2013a), I have outlined three different but interrelated forms of
creative teaching: teaching about creativity, teaching for creativity, and teaching
with creativity. These different forms of creative teaching have different pedagogical
aims.
Whereas teaching about creativity is aimed at increasing knowledge about crea-
tivity and the field of creativity studies, teaching for creativity is aimed at cultivating
creative thinking and creative actions in students. Finally, teaching with creativity is
aimed at teaching any subject matter (be it biology, mathematics, or even creativity
itself) creatively. In addition to having different aims, each of these forms of creative
teaching also draws from a different knowledge base.1 Consequently, just because
1
Three decades ago, Lee Shulman (1987) stressed the importance of recognizing distinct yet interrelated
types of knowledge necessary for knowing how to teach academic subject-matter. In the intervening
decades, scholars from various fields of study (e.g., technology, engineering) have elaborated on
Shulman’s ideas. Following along these same lines, the field of creativity studies might benefit from
elaborating on Shulman’s pioneering work and applying it to creative teaching. I therefore introduce
three types of knowledge necessary for creative teaching: Pedagogical Creative-Domain Knowledge
(PCdK), Pedagogical Creativity Enhancement Knowledge (PCeK), and Creative Pedagogical Domain
Knowledge (CPDK). My hope is that introducing these different types of pedagogical knowledge can

549

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 550 ronald a. beghetto

someone knows how to teach about creativity or even teach for creativity, it does not
mean that person would know how to teach creatively. Indeed, Simonton (2012),
who has taught courses on creativity for more than two decades, notes that teaching
creativity creatively is “a far more difficult goal to achieve” (p. 220).
The purpose of this chapter is to explore creativity in the domain of teaching by
describing three different forms of creative teaching. This includes highlighting the
different aims, the knowledge base necessary for each form of creative teaching,
previous work on each form, and directions for future research.

Three Forms of Creative Teaching

As already noted, creative teaching can take at least three different forms:
teaching about creativity, teaching for creativity, and teaching with creativity.
Table 30.1 provides a summary of these three forms of creative teaching.
As displayed in Table 30.1, each of the three forms of creative teaching is
differentiated by its pedagogical aim and specific knowledge base. In the sections
that follow, I elaborate on each of the three forms of creative teaching.

Teaching About Creativity

Teaching about creativity refers to teaching students about creative phe-
nomena, including the individual and contextual factors that influence the develop-
ment and expression of creativity. This starts with helping students understand how
creativity is defined (e.g., Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004) and also helping
students understand different ways it can be expressed (Rhodes, 1961; Glăveanu,
2013; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002), what it looks like in various domains
(Kaufman, Beghetto, Baer, & Ivcevic, 2010), how it develops (Beghetto & Dilley,
2016; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), what environmen-
tal factors influence creativity (Amabile, 1996; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014;
Hennessey, 2010), and understanding key theories (e.g., Kozbelt, Beghetto, &
Runco, 2010), research findings (Kaufman, 2016; Runco, 2007), and controversies
in the field (Simonton, 2012). In short, teaching about creativity has the aim of
promoting students’ understanding of creative phenomena in its many manifesta-
tions by introducing students to findings and insights from the field of creativity
studies.
Prior Work on “Teaching About Creativity.” There are a small but growing
number of scholarly works on how to teach about creativity (Beghetto, 2013a;
Plucker & Dow, 2010; Simonton, 2012). Some of this work (e.g., Beghetto,
2013a) has focused on how to teach about creativity in the context of other academic
subject areas (e.g., math, science, history, and literature). Some examples include:

clarify the knowledge necessary for creative teaching and, in turn, help researchers start empirically
examining how such knowledge develops and the impact that this knowledge has on creative teaching,
student learning, and even student creativity.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 551

Table 30.1 Three forms of creative teaching

Form of teaching Pedagogical aim Knowledge necessary Examples of prior work

Teaching about Develop students’ awareness of Pedagogical Creative- Beghetto (2013a);

creativity creativity by introducing them Domain Knowledge Beghetto & Kaufman (2010);
to key theories and findings in (PCdK) Plucker & Dow (2010);
the creativity studies literature Simonton (2012)
and helping them develop and
understand creative phenomena
in its many manifestations. This
can occur in the context of
subject matter teaching (e.g.,
teaching about creativity in
a writing class or a class
devoted specifically to
creativity).
Teaching for Nurturing students’ creativity in Pedagogical Creativity Baer & Garrett (2010);
creativity the context of specific subject Enhancement Beghetto (2013a, 2016a, 2016b);
areas (e.g., creative expression Knowledge (PCeK) Beghetto et al. (2015);
in science) or nurturing Craft et al. (2013);
creativity itself in training Grohman & Szmidt (2013);
programs (e.g., develop creative Halpern (2010) Isaksen &
problem-solving skills, Treffinger (2004);
promoting positive self-beliefs, Nickerson (1999);
attitudes, and behaviors about Scott et al. (2004);
creativity). Sternberg (2010)
Teaching with Teaching creatively by Creative Pedagogical Beghetto (2013a, 2013b);
creativity applying principles and Domain Knowledge Gregerson et. al (2013);
techniques of creativity to (CPDK) Jeffrey & Craft (2004);
subject matter teaching Sawyer (2004)
(e.g., creatively teaching math,
creatively teaching educational
psychology) or the teaching of
creativity itself (e.g., teaching
creativity creatively).

(a) Identifying and discussing domain-specific examples of everyday and highly

accomplished creators (e.g., Who has made creative contributions in this
domain? Who were some of the key progenitors of the ideas, concepts, events
and accomplishments we are studying about in this course?);
(b) Exploring specific kinds of creative accomplishments in the domain (e.g.,
What are some of the legendary or key contributions that have been made in

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 552 ronald a. beghetto

this domain? What kinds of creative contributions are still being made in
this domain? What additional contributions are needed or might be on the
horizon?),
(c) Learning about the kinds of domain-specific and domain-general creative pro-
cesses involved in making contributions in subject area (e.g., What role does the
creative imagination play in mathematical thinking and reasoning? How do
poets use language and grammar in new and highly original ways? How do
engineers find problems to address, develop designs, and test out and refine
those designs? How are creative processes similar or different in this domain as
compared to others?), and
(d) Discussing circumstances that support and impede accomplishments in the
domain (e.g., Who decides what counts as a creative contribution in this
domain? How are accomplishments recognized in this domain? How do
some creative accomplishments in this domain stand the test of time,
whereas others fade away? What types of chance opportunities, access to
resources, and socio-cultural and historical supports allowed for these
accomplishments? What kinds of setbacks did creators face and how did
they overcome such setbacks? How many years of sustained effort are, on
average, needed to make a contribution to this domain? Who historically has
had the access and opportunities to make contributions in this domain? Who
has been excluded? Has this changed in recent years? If so, how? If not,
why not and what can be done about it?)
In addition to work that has focused on teaching about creativity in the context of
other academic topics, there is also a line of work that has focused on standalone
creativity courses (Plucker & Dow, 2010; Simonton, 2012). This work tends to focus
on college-level courses, although this trend may be changing (see Zhao, 2012).
When teaching standalone creativity courses, instructors can use standard peda-
gogical techniques to teach students about the topic of creativity. Indeed, as
Simonton (2012) has explained, “teaching creativity is not different than teaching
any other subject in psychology” (p. 220). Given that the topic is creativity, however,
instructors often recognize that there is a tacit (if not explicit) expectation to try to
approach the topic somewhat creatively. Indeed, it is easy to imagine such courses
being criticized on course evaluations as being ironically uncreative. Such
a criticism, however, fails to recognize that teaching about creativity is very different
from teaching creativity creatively. Still, there are opportunities for the creative
teaching of creativity.
Plucker and Dow (2010), for instance, describe several creative teaching activities
that they have used to help students learn about creativity and have also helped
students develop more positive attitudes about creativity. Simonton (2012) has also
described such opportunities, such as when teaching students about divergent
thinking tests. In such cases, the instructor and students can complete sample test
items together (e.g., unusual uses for a brick or paper clip) and thereby experience
the double benefit of introducing students to “measurement issues in the context of
a direct experience that [they] all share” (Simonton, 2012, p. 220). In this way,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 553

teaching about creativity can (and sometimes does) involve teaching with and for
creativity. As will be discussed in later sections, however, teaching with and for
creativity requires more than having students try out a few sample items on
a divergent thinking test. Still, such an example does illustrate how these three
forms of teaching can be interrelated.
Pedagogical Knowledge Necessary for “Teaching About Creativity.” It is easy
to assume that teaching about a topic, like creativity, simply requires knowing
something about it. Such an assumption oversimplifies the act of teaching.
Although it is true that domain knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the key concepts,
theories, and research about creativity) is necessary, it is not sufficient. A simple
reflection on one’s own experiences learning from top experts in a particular domain
(e.g., physics, mathematics, philosophy, literature) can make this readily evident.
Although you may have been fortunate enough to learn from a brilliant scholar who
was also a brilliant teacher, chances are you have also experienced subpar instruction
from top scholars in their field.
Scholars of teaching have endeavored to document, over the past thirty years, that
teaching any subject matter requires more than just having deep domain knowledge.
Lee Shulman (1987), for instance, highlighted three types of knowledge necessary
for successful instruction in any domain: content knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the
subject matter you are teaching), pedagogical knowledge (i.e., general knowledge of
teaching, including general strategies and techniques), and pedagogical content
knowledge (i.e., more specific knowledge of how to teach particular subject matter
topics to a particular set of students in a particular context).
With respect to teaching about creativity, these three forms of knowledge can be
combined into what I call Pedagogical Creative-Domain Knowledge (PCdK). PCdK
refers to a combination of creative domain knowledge (i.e., knowledge of key
creativity concepts, theories, and studies from the field) and the pedagogical knowl-
edge (i.e., knowing how to teach a particular population of students about creativity
in a particular context). The importance of PCdK can be illustrated by considering
what one would need to know if teaching an introductory undergraduate creativity
course to undergraduates versus teaching sixth graders about creativity in the
context of their science class. The former would require knowledge of creativity
and knowledge of how to make the subject matter relevant and accessible to under-
graduate students. The latter would also require knowledge about the domain of
creativity, but also knowledge of how it is represented in the domain of science and
knowledge of how to make it accessible for young students. Recognizing, assessing,
and developing this unique type of pedagogical knowledge is an area of research that
has gone largely unnoticed by creativity researchers. As such, subsequent work
aimed at understanding this form of pedagogical knowledge serves as a potentially
fruitful line of future research for scholars interested in creative teaching.
How Teaching About Creativity Can Be Measured. Given that teaching about
creativity treats creativity as a subject-matter topic or focus of a course, researchers
interested in studying the impact of teaching about creativity would need to use (or
develop) measures that focus on potential changes in students’ knowledge, attitudes,
and beliefs about creativity. This would include more traditional measures used by

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 554 ronald a. beghetto

instructors, such as student performance on assignments, exams, projects, and

course grades. It could also include measures that pertain more directly to the
aims of a particular course (e.g., changes in beliefs and attitudes about creativity,
see Plucker & Dow, 2004).
Research on teaching about creativity is a small but promising area of inquiry for
creativity researchers. Indeed, as more courses focus on or include teaching
about creativity, researchers will have opportunities to explore how pedagogical
creativity-domain knowledge impacts instructors’ ability to teach about creativity
more effectively and perhaps even how it influences instructors’ ability to teach for
and with creativity.

Teaching for Creativity

Teaching for creativity refers to efforts aimed at enhancing students’
creativity. As with teaching about creativity, teaching for creativity can occur in
the context of other academic subject areas (Beghetto, 2013a; 2015; Beghetto,
Kaufman, & Baer, 2015; Halpern, 2010). Teaching for creativity can also focus
more directly on nurturing or training creativity itself, most commonly in creativity
training programs (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Nickerson, 1999; Scott et al., 2004).
Prior Work on “Teaching for Creativity.” With respect to teaching for creativ-
ity in the context of other subject-areas, prior work has highlighted how instructors
can blend students’ original ideas, examples, and insights within the context of pre-
existing academic subject-matter constraints. Some researchers have highlighted
how teaching for creativity in the context of academic learning can simultaneously
promote student learning and students’ creative capacity (see Craft et al. 2013;
Beghetto, 2013a, 2016a; Niu & Zhou, 2010). Others have focused on developing
habits of creative thinking in the context of teaching other academic subject areas
(e.g., Sternberg, 2010). Still others have focused on teaching for creativity in the
context of external content standards and accountability mandates (e.g., Baer &
Garret, 2010; Beghetto et al. 2015). In all cases, this line of work has attempted to
demonstrate how creativity can not only co-exist, but thrive, in the context of
academic subject-matter constraints.
Consider, for example, teaching for creativity within the context of teaching
elements of a narrative (adapted from Beghetto et al. 2015). In such a case, the
teacher might list out the various required elements for students on the top of
a matrix, including setting, main characters, conflict, and point of view. Next, the
teacher would invite students to offer several examples under each column repre-
senting a particular element of narrative (e.g., setting = remote island, abandoned
building; main characters = group of friends, group of teachers; conflict = zombie
apocalypse, mistaken identity; and point of view = third person; naïve narrator).
Finally, in an effort to provide students with an opportunity to express their creativity
in the context of a narrative, the teacher could have students randomly select examples
from each category and then write a unique story based on those elements. In this way,
students are being encouraged to develop and express their creativity in the context of

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 555

learning about specific academic subject matter. Doing so meets the typical definition of
creativity (Beghetto, 2016c; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014; Simonton & Damian, 2013):
Creativity (C) = Originality (O) x Meeting Task Constraints (TC) as defined within
a particular context). In the case of this particular example, a creative narrative (C) =
students’ unique examples of narrative (O) x meeting the criteria of each narrative
element (TC) as defined within the context of this particular lesson.
In addition to teaching for creativity in the context of academic subject-matter
learning, there are also standalone creativity training programs aimed at promoting
skills and strategies of creative thinking and problem solving (for reviews see
Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Nickerson, 1999; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004).
Although programs that focus on promoting “general creativity” or “instant crea-
tivity” have long been criticized for being nothing more than a bag of decontextua-
lized tricks and tips (Baron, 1969; Baer & Garrett, 2010), researchers have identified
several features of creativity-enhancement programs that seem to lead to positive
outcomes (e.g., Scott et al., 2004).
More specifically, programs that have demonstrated the most promising results
tend to be lengthy, challenging, and engage participants in cognitive activities
related to creativity. Moreover, they include examples of how principles and strate-
gies that are taught to participants can be applied to the relevant domain of interest
and also provide ample opportunities to apply those strategies in realistic contexts
(Scott et al., 2004).
There are several longstanding and well-developed training programs that include
features found to be successful for promoting gains in creative thinking and problem
solving. One example is the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) programs described by
Isaksen and Treffinger (2004). CPS (and programs like CPS) teach participants how
to solve realistic and ill-defined problems using a combination of strategies and
thinking skills aimed at generating (e.g., problem finding, using analogies and
metaphors) and evaluating ideas (e.g., idea evaluation, solution monitoring, con-
vergent and critical thinking).
In sum, teaching people key principles and practices of creative thinking and
problem solving, as documented in the creative studies literature, can help them
develop their capacity to more creatively address the kinds of ill-defined problems
and complex real-world challenges they face in their personal and professional lives
(see Cropley & Cropley, 2010; Beghetto, 2016d; Sawyer, 2012).
Teaching for creativity (as compared to teaching about and teaching with crea-
tivity) has received the most attention in the scholarly literature. Still, much work is
needed in this area. Historically, a key hurdle in this line of work has been finding
teachers who actually know how to teach for creativity (Schacter, Thum, & Zifkin,
2006; Torrance & Safter, 1986). With increased interest in promoting creativity in
K12 and higher-education settings, there likely will be more opportunities for
researchers to explore what instructional factors are most supportive of student
creativity in and across various academic domains.
Understanding how creative thinking and problem solving differs across domains
will go a long way in helping clarify principles of how to best nurture creativity in
specific academic subject areas. Such work may yield insights that can help

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 556 ronald a. beghetto

instructors move away from reaching for general or “ready-made” techniques that
lack relevance for a particular problem or situation (e.g., come up with a hundred
uses for a pencil) and move toward understanding the principles of creative thinking
and problem solving that can be used to development more effective “tailor-made”
approaches (e.g., come up with novel and meaningful solutions to ill-defined
domain-specific problems).
Pedagogical Knowledge Necessary for “Teaching for Creativity.” Knowing
how to teach for creativity requires a blend of creativity-domain knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge about how to enhance creativity. I call this specialized
form of pedagogical knowledge Pedagogical Creativity-Enhancement
Knowledge (PCeK). PCeK refers to knowing how to enhance students’ creative
attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and actions in the context of other academic subject
areas or in standalone creativity enhancement trainings or workshops. As with
pedagogical creativity-domain knowledge, the importance of recognizing that
specialized pedagogical knowledge is necessary to teach for creativity is often
overlooked by instructors and scholars. However, anyone who has attempted to
enhance creativity – either in a standalone seminar or in the context of another
academic domain – recognizes that there is more to teaching for creativity than
knowing an array of creativity techniques, activities, or tricks (Beghetto, 2010,
2013a). Knowledge of one’s audience, potential barriers, affordances, and con-
straints, and how creativity can be applied in specific contexts, are also critically
important.
At present, this knowledge has only been indirectly recognized by virtue of
identifying features of more or less “successful” creativity training programs
(Scott et al., 2004; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004) and other instructional practices
believed to be linked with supporting creativity (e.g., Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014;
Schacter et al. 2006). Much additional work is needed to explore how PCeK can be
developed, assessed, and applied in efforts aimed at enhancing creativity both in
standalone trainings and in the context of other subject areas (e.g., teaching for
creativity in the context of a mathematics classroom).
How Teaching for Creativity Can Be Measured. There are various ways that
teaching for creativity can be measured. When teaching for creativity in the context
of other academic subject areas, researchers have described methods for simulta-
neously assessing students’ subject matter learning and ability to think creatively in
specific subject areas (Beghetto, 2013a; Grigorenko, Jarvin, Tan, & Sternberg,
2008). This includes developing and using rubrics that can help assess growing
levels of academic and creative competence within specific subject areas (see
Beghetto, 2013a; Beghetto et al. 2015 for examples).
With respect to assessing the effectiveness of creativity enhancement, researchers
can also draw on the full array of existing creativity measures (see Kaufman,
Plucker, & Baer, 2008 for an overview). Examples of such measures include every-
thing from more subjective measures of self-beliefs (e.g., Beghetto & Karwowski,
2017) to performance on divergent thinking tests (e.g., Torrance, 1966) and
the assessment of actual creative products (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Besemer &
O’Quinn, 1989).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 557

Although existing measures are useful, there is also need for the development of
more nuanced and dynamic assessments of teaching for creativity (see Beghetto,
2016; Beghetto & Tanggard, 2015). Developing more sensitive and dynamic meth-
ods for measuring teaching for creativity (e.g., simultaneously assessing the con-
fluence of teacher, student, and environmental factors on domain-specific creativity
enhancement) is an important and much needed area of future inquiry for researchers
interested in understanding how teachers might support students’ creative thinking
and action.

Teaching with Creativity

Teaching with creativity refers to approaching teaching creatively. It is
therefore most readily signified by the terms “creative teaching” or “teaching
creatively.” Teaching with creativity locates creativity in the act of teaching itself,
rather than positioning it as the subject matter (i.e., teaching about creativity) or an
instructional outcome (i.e., teaching for creativity). Teaching creatively can also
occur when teaching for or about creativity. Consequently, teaching with creativity
can occur in the context of teaching almost any subject matter in an effort to promote
almost any instructional goal.
Pedagogical Knowledge Necessary for “Teaching with Creativity.” Knowing
how to teach creatively requires a blend of creativity-domain knowledge and
creative pedagogical knowledge. I call this specialized form of pedagogical knowl-
edge Creative Pedagogical Domain Knowledge (CPDK). CPDK refers to the knowl-
edge necessary for creatively teaching specific subject matter (e.g., mathematics,
science, and even creativity itself) to a particular population of students.
Consequently, just because someone might know how to creatively teach 8th
grade students mathematics does not mean they would know how to creatively
teach 1st grade students mathematics or how to creatively teach 8th grade students
social studies. CPDK is specialized knowledge that varies across subject-matter
topics, populations of students, and contexts.
Prior Work on Teaching with Creativity. In the creativity studies literature,
teaching creatively is typically described in the context of teaching for creativity
(e.g., Beghetto, 2013a; Gregerson, Snyder, & Kaufman, 2013; Jeffrey & Craft,
2004). One reason is because researchers who have focused on teaching for crea-
tivity often highlight how teaching creatively can establish a classroom context
conducive to supporting student creativity. Lilly & Bramwell-Rejskind (2004) have,
for instance, asserted that creative teaching “provides a safe climate where students
can [take intellectual risks] and push boundaries” (p. 104).
Central to the claim of the influence that creative teaching has on student
creativity is the phenomenon of social-behavioral modeling. Specifically, the key
assertion is: If teachers model behaviors associated with creativity, then they can
help establish classroom conditions whereby students feel encouraged and sup-
ported in exhibiting the similar behaviors (Bandura, 1997; Beghetto, 2016c;
Jeffery & Craft, 2004). More specifically, teaching with creativity is thought to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 558 ronald a. beghetto

model key behaviors such as the willingness to: take risks (such as trying to learn or
do something new); learn from (rather than avoid) mistakes; accept uncertainty; seek
out complexity; approach teaching and learning with flexible thinking and open-
mindedness; seek out and explore diverse ideas, perspectives, and experiences; and
demonstrate a deep commitment to and enjoyment of one’s own learning process
(Beghetto, 2013a; Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; Lilly & Bramwell-Rejskind, 2004).
Although the link between teaching with creativity and teaching for creativity
makes sense conceptually, it can obscure what exactly is involved in teaching
creatively. Indeed, beyond describing creative teaching as using behaviors asso-
ciated with creativity more generally (e.g., openness, flexibility, risk-taking), there
has been scant theoretical, conceptual, and thereby empirical work focused on
clarifying what exactly teaching creatively entails, how it develops, and what impact
it can have on teachers and students.
One way creativity researchers have conceptualized creative teaching is by using
the metaphor of “disciplined improvisation” (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2011; Sawyer,
2004), likening it to a performance that blends specific knowledge and skills with
more emergent actions and behaviors. Such a view recognizes that creative teaching
includes more than a set of ready-made strategies and techniques and, instead, has its
basis in knowing how to approach instructional planning and the actual moment-to-
moment decision making of teaching (Beghetto, 2013a, 2013b). In short, there is
a knowledge base of teaching creatively. Unfortunately, only a few creativity
researchers have attempted to understand and document this knowledge base
(e.g., Niu & Zhou, 2010; Sawyer, 2011). As such, much additional work is needed
to clarify what exactly teaching creatively entails, outcomes of doing so, and how it
can be developed. This includes exploring the relationship between creative teach-
ing and what educators might describe as successful teaching (or simply teaching
well).
How Can Teaching with Creativity Be Measured? Given that teaching
creatively has received little attention in the literature, there are few studies or
descriptions of how it might be measured (e.g., Beghetto, 2016a; Beghetto &
Tanggard, 2015; Niu & Zhou, 2010; Sawyer, 2011). One of the difficulties in
measuring teaching creatively is that it is a dynamic act or performance. As such,
traditional survey methods, checklists, and other static outcomes measures are not
sufficiently dynamic to capture the act of teaching creatively. Fortunately, creativity
researchers have started using and developing more dynamic techniques that might
be adapted for measuring teaching with creativity, including experience sampling
(Silvia, Beaty, Nusbaum, Eddington, Levin-Aspenson, & Kwapil, 2014),
Consensual Assessment Technique (Kaufman & Baer, 2012), and trajectory map-
ping (Beghetto, 2017; Gajda, Beghetto, & Karwowski, 2016; Tanggaard &
Beghetto, 2015 ).
In addition to such methods, researchers will need to modify or develop methods
that allow them to zoom-in on idiosyncratic and micro-dynamic features of creative
teaching (e.g., moment-to-moment instructional moves used when teaching in
particular contexts) and zoom-out to identify features of creative teaching that
may generalize across domains and contexts (Beghetto, 2014). Doing so likely

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 559

will yield new insights into how creative teaching influences (and is influenced by)
students’ emerging creative ideations and actions. This is a fertile ground for
additional research. Indeed, there is a great need for researchers to carefully consider
how to best measure teaching for creativity. This includes developing new methods
and measures and also exploring whether and how existing methods and measures
used in other domains might be adapted for educational settings (see Reiter-Palmon,
Beghetto, & Kaufman, 2014, and other chapters in this volume).

Conclusion and Future Directions

In this chapter, I attempted to provide an introduction to what I see as key
themes in research on creativity in the domain of teaching. This is an emerging and
exciting line of inquiry for current and future creativity researchers. Indeed, there are
numerous promising directions for research on creative teaching. As has been
discussed, the vast majority of previous work has focused on the impact of creativity
training (or teaching for creativity). Although this work is important, it represents
a narrow slice of the full domain of creative teaching.
Given that there are at least three ways to classify creative teaching, including
numerous aims, knowledge bases, and processes and outcomes that can be explored,
there is a need to broaden the scope of research on creative teaching. Moreover, with
increased interest and attention being paid to creativity in K12 and higher education
settings, there is a growing need to understand how teachers and instructors can
teach for, with, and about creativity. In what follows, I close by highlighting a few
promising areas for future research on creative teaching.

Measures of Creative Pedagogical Knowledge

The types of pedagogical knowledge introduced herein (e.g., pedagogical creativity-
domain knowledge, pedagogical creativity-enhancement knowledge, and creative
pedagogical domain knowledge) require further theoretical elaboration and empiri-
cal exploration. Specifically, measures and methods for assessing these forms of
knowledge need to be developed. Doing so will go a long way to understanding how
these specific forms of pedagogical knowledge influence creative teaching.
Moreover, such work can also provide a window into how these specific forms of
creative teaching knowledge might be systematically developed in K12 teachers and
college-level instructors.
Creative teaching, like all teaching, is an embodied activity. As such, the kinds of
methods and measures for assessing the knowledge necessary for creative teaching
would require the development of measures that take into account both the espoused
situational knowledge of teaching (e.g., knowing how to plan and deliver lessons
based on particular situations, with specific instructional aims, and with particular
populations of students) and the more dynamic-enacted knowledge (i.e., actual
teaching behaviors and instructional moves used when teaching for and with
creativity).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 560 ronald a. beghetto

Curriculum-Based Measures of Creativity

Given that teaching about, for, and with creativity can occur in the context of
a course on any topic or subject matter (including creativity itself), the development
of curriculum-based measures are necessary to assess the impact of different forms
of creative teaching on domain-specific student outcomes. The typical kinds of
measures used by creativity researchers to assess the impact of instruction on
creativity (e.g., divergent thinking tasks) and learning (course grades, GPA), likely
lack the sensitivity to detect potentially meaningful changes resulting from creative
teaching (Gajda, Karwowski, Beghetto, 2016). Consequently, more sensitive and
multifaceted measures are needed. Such measures would need to be sensitive
enough to assess changes in the target content being taught (e.g., knowledge about
creativity, mathematical reasoning, understanding of scientific concepts, and so on),
creative expression situated in that particular subject matter (e.g., creative expres-
sion in mathematics versus science or some other domain), and the targeted area of
learning and engagement in particular populations of students (e.g., creative expres-
sion in 4th grade mathematics versus 8th grade math or college calculus).
Developing such curriculum-based measures is an ambitious undertaking.
The vast array of measures that could be developed is overwhelming (and likely
one reason why we tend to reach for existing, albeit far less sensitive measures).
However, if researchers start by focusing on a few specific subject areas and
populations, then the work becomes more manageable. There are examples of
such work being done to help teachers and researchers assess creativity in the
context of academic domains (e.g., Beghetto, 2013a; Beghetto et al. 2015;
Grigorenko et al, 2008), but additional efforts are needed. Researchers who put
the time and effort into this work will likely yield benefits by way of greater
understanding of how creative teaching influences student creativity and student
learning.

Classroom-Situated and Multidisciplinary Efforts

Developing more than a cursory understanding of creative teaching will require
more detailed and in-depth studies in classrooms representing different age levels
and different domains. Although the field of creativity studies has a history of
research situated in classrooms (e.g., Torrance, 1959), such work is scant. One
reason why there are not more classroom-based research projects is because such
research is resource intensive – especially with respect to time invested (e.g.,
establishing school contacts, obtaining permissions, time spent traveling to and
from school sites, observing classrooms, and so on). It is therefore not surprising
that so few researchers have engaged in more intensive, classroom-based studies of
creative teaching.
With the availability of various free and effective digital video, communications,
and research technologies, it seems like a good time for researchers to revisit how
such technology might make such projects more feasible. Working in teams, along-
side teachers, creativity researchers can make important and much needed

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 561

contributions to the literature on the various forms and outcomes of creative teach-
ing. Such efforts would benefit from cross-cultural and interdisciplinary approaches
to studying creativity (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Reiter-Palmon et al, 2014;
Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006; Sawyer, 2012; Tan, 2007).

Curating Cases of Creative Teaching

Creative teaching tends to be an ephemeral phenomenon. That is, once a lesson has
been taught there is no record of it other than fragments of the teacher’s planning
notes and possible students’ in-class notes. Whatever “wisdom of practice”
(Shulman, 1987) that can be learned from highly skilled creative teachers is lost.
Although it is true that there are outlets, such as edited volumes and books that focus
on teaching for and with creativity (e.g., Beghetto, 2013a; Beghetto & Kaufman,
2010; Gregerson et al. 2013; Tan, 2007), there is no repository of frequently updated
and detailed cases of creative teaching (providing lessons, materials, videos, and
reflections).
Such repositories of academic subject matter teaching do exist for K12 teachers
and college-level teachers2 and may serve as a good model for developing creativity-
specific versions. As such, a promising area of future work would be to develop ways
to curate and share detailed case-based examples of teaching for, with, and about
creativity across domains and grade levels. These data not only could help improve
the practice of creative teaching, but serve as a data warehouse for researchers
interested in exploring the processes and outcomes of creative teaching.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and
accountability. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in
the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013a). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the
classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013b). Expect the unexpected: Teaching for creativity in the micromo-
ments. In M. Gregerson, J. C. Kaufman, & H. Snyder (Eds.), Teaching creatively
and teaching creativity. New York: Springer Science.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Is the sky falling or expanding? A promising turning point in the
psychology of creativity. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 1, 206–212.

2
Examples include www.learner.org; http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 562 ronald a. beghetto

Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Teaching creative thinking. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking.
New York: Routledge.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016a). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 15, 6–23.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016b). Learning as a creative act. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum for
gifted and advanced academic students. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016c). Big wins, small steps: How to lead for and with creativity. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016d). Creative openings in the social interactions of teaching. Creativity:
Theories-Research-Applications, 3, 261–273.
Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams? Toward
understanding creative mortification in children and adolescents. In B. Barbot
(Ed.), Perspectives on creativity development. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 151, 79–89.
Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Toward untangling creative self-beliefs.
In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-
efficacy, mindsets, and identity (pp. 4–22). London: Academic Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the
classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the
classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvi-
sation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014) Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability
Studies, 25, 53–69.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common core
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor Creative Product Analysis
Matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.
Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., Dragovic, T., & Chappell, K. (2013). Possibility thinking:
Culminative studies of an evidence-based concept driving creativity? Education
3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary, and Early Years of Education,
41, 538–556.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2010), Functional creativity: Products and the generation of
effective novelty. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook
of creativity (pp. 301–320). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (in press). Exploring creative learning in the
classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creativity and school achievement:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 269–299.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review
of General Psychology, 17, 69–81.
Gregerson M., Kaufman J. C., & Snyder H. (Eds.). (2013). Teaching creatively and teaching
creativity. New York: Springer Science.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 Creativity in Teaching 563

Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., Tan, M., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Something new in the
garden: Assessing creativity in academic domains. Psychology Science Quarterly,
50, 295–307.
Grohman, M. G., & Szmidt, K. J. (2013). Teaching for creativity: How to shape creative
attitudes in teachers and in students. In M. B. Gregerson, H. T. Snyder, &
J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. New York:
Springer.
Halpern, D. F. (2010). Creativity in the college classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman
(Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Hennessey, B. A. (2010). Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom: Have we come
full circle? In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the
classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hirst, P. H. (1971). What is teaching? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3, 5–18.
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.
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions
and relationships. Educational Studies, 30, 77–87.
Lilly, F. R., & Bramwell-Rejskind, G. (2004). The dynamics of creative teaching. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 38, 102–124
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J. & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creative polymathy: What
Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning & Individual
Difference, 20, 380–387.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of creativity.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Plucker, J., 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.
Plucker, J. A., & Dow, G. T. (2010). Attitude change as the precursor to creativity enhance-
ment. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the
classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human
creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Niu, W., & Zhou, Z. (2010). Creativity in mathematics teaching: A Chinese perspective.
In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Looking at creativity through
a business-psychology-education (BPE) lens: The challenge and benefits of listen-
ing to each other. In E. Shiu (Ed.), Creativity research: An interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary research handbook. New York: Routledge.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
 564 ronald a. beghetto

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined
improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33, 12–20.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd edn.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance
elementary school students’ achievement? The 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.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., Eddington, K. M., Levin-Aspenson, H., & Kwapil,
T. R. (2014). Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of
“little c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2),
183–188.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Teaching creativity: Current findings, trends, and controversies in
the psychology of creativity. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 217–222.
Simonton, D. K., & Damian, R. I. (2013). Creativity. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook
of cognitive psychology (pp. 795–807). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tanggaard, L., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Ideational pathways: Toward a new approach for
studying the life of ideas. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 2, 129–144.
Tan, A. G. (Ed.). (2007). Creativity: A handbook for teachers. Singapore: World Scientific.
Torrance, E. P. (1959). Current research on the nature of creative talent. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 6, 309–316.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual.
Princeton, NJ: Personnel.
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming more creative? Journal of
Creative Behavior, 20, 1–13.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Education creative and entrepreneurial students.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 02 Jan 2018 at 12:00:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030