Creativity and InnovationJOSS (201-300)

176 Creativity and Innovation
Conclusion
Creativity is important throughout the lifespan, with diferent forms at
diferent ages. Te development of creativity in childhood and adolescence
sets the stage for creative production in a career, solving problems in daily life,
and experiencing joy in creative endeavors. For these reasons, it is essential
that we help all children develop their creative potential. In adulthood, crea-
tive expression and accomplishment in one’s feld become a major focus. In
later life, individuals can return to joyful creative expression in hobbies, con-
tinue to work in their domain if they wish, and meet the challenges of aging
in a creative way.
Recommendations for Additional Resources

Barbot, B. (Ed.). Perspectives on creativity development. Wiley.
Russ, S. W., Hofman, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of
lifespan development of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
References
Baer, J. (2016). Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum. In B. Barbot (Ed.),
Perspectives on creativity development (pp. 9–20). Wiley.
Barbot, B., Lubart, T. I., & Besancon, M. (2016). “Peaks, slumps, and bumps”:
Individual diferences in the development of creativity in children and
adolescents. In B. Barbot (Ed.), Perspectives on creativity development (pp.
33–45). Wiley.
Delvecchio, E., Li, J.-B., Pazzagli, C., Lis, A., & Mazzeschi, C.. (2016).
How do you play? A comparison among children aged 4–10. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01833
Fehr, K., & Russ, S. W. (2016). Pretend play and creativity in preschool-
aged children: Associations and brief intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity and the Arts, 10, 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000054
Gruber, H. (1981). On the relation between “aha experiences” and the
construction of ideas. History of Science, 18, 41–59.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkof, R. (2003). Einstein never used fash cards: How
our children really learn – and why they need to play more and memorize less.
Rodale.
Development of Creativity 177
Hofmann, J., & Hills, E. (in press) Development and enhancement of adolescent
creativity. In S. W. Russ, J. Hofmann, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge
handbook of lifespan development of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Hofmann, J., & Russ, S. W. (2016) Fostering pretend play skills and
creativity in elementary school girls: A group play intervention. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 114–125.
Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Ermoshkina, P. (in press). In S. Russ, J. Hofman,
& J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of lifespan development of
creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, J. & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond big and little: Te four c model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
Kaugars, A. S., & Russ, S. W. (2009). Assessing preschool children’s pretend
play: Preliminary validation of the afect in play scale: Preschool version.
Early Education and Development, 20, 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10409280802545388
Karwowski, M., & Wisniewska, E. (in press). Creativity in adulthood. In S.
W. Russ, J. Hofman, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of
Kleibeuker, S., De Dreu,C., & Crone, E. (2016)Creativity development in
adolescence: Insight from behavior, brain, and training studies. In B.
Barbot (Ed.), Perspectives on creativity development (pp. 73–84). Wiley.
Lee, A., & Russ, S. W. (in press). Development of creativity in school-aged
children. In S. W. Russ, J. Hofman, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge
handbook of lifespan development of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Marcelo, A. K. (2016). Te structure and development of pretend play across
childhood. Dissertation, University of California Riverside.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof really in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s
longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114.
Reiter-Palmer, R., & Dredge, C. (in press). Organizations and creativity. In
S. W. Russ, J. Hofman, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of
Rocke, A. (2010). Image and reality: Kekule, Kopp, and the scientifc imagination.
University of Chicago Press.
Runco, M. (2007). Creativity. Elsevier.
Russ, S. W. (2014). Pretend play in childhood: Foundation of adult creativity.
American Psychological Association.
Russ, S. W., & Schafer, E. (2006). Afect in fantasy play, emotion in memories
and divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 347–354. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_9
Subotnik, R., Olszenski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. (in press). Development
of gifted and talented students’ creativity in school contexts. In S. Russ,
J. Hofman, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of lifespan

development of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). Te creativity conundrum.
Psychology Press.
Tibodeau, R., Gilpin, A., Brown, M., & Meyer, B. (2016). Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jecp.2016.01.001
Tompson, B., & Goldstein, T. (2019). Disentangling pretend play
measurement: Defning the essential elements and developmental
progression of pretense. Developmental Review, 52, 24–41. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.dr.2019.100867
HOT TOPIC 7
Pretend Play and

Creativity
Sandra W. Russ and Alexis W. Lee
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Pretend play is a resource for children’s adaptive development, espe-
cially for creativity, and should be encouraged by parents and teachers
¥¥ Assessment of pretend play would be one way to determine a child’s
creative potential.
¥¥ Educators should encourage pretend play in preschool and early ele-
mentary grades by providing appropriate toys, guidance, time, and
space for play to occur. Play over remote platforms is an option.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-15 179

What do you observe when you watch a young child play? Usually, they
are having fun and enjoying themselves. Tey are playing because they want
to. Tey are making up stories, using LEGO bricks or building blocks to rep-
resent all kinds of objects, role playing diferent characters, and defying logic
(e.g., fying on a magic carpet). Tey are also expressing lots of emotion – both
positive (getting a present they like) or negative (playing cops and robbers,
sword fghting, being chased by a monster). Of course, in play, negative feel-
ings like fear and anger are only pretend – so they are not really so negative.
Children might be having a sword fght, but they are having a good time.
Also, children can regulate feelings in pretend play by going at their own pace.
By self-modulating feelings, they learn to regulate emotions.
Tere are many defnitions of pretend play. Fein (1987) defned play as
a symbolic behavior in which “one thing is treated ‘as if ’ it were something
else” (p. 282). For example, a block becomes a table or a stick becomes a
sword. Fein also thought that the expression of emotion was an integral
part of pretend play. Tis focus on emotion and pretend in play is important
because it recognizes that both cognition and afect are involved in play, as
they are in creativity. In fact, Fein thought that play is a natural form of crea-
tivity in children. Sawyer (1997) expanded on this idea and conceptualized
pretend play as a form of improvisation for children, in that it is unscripted
yet has loose outlines to be followed – as in jazz. Comparing pretend play
to improvisation in jazz is a good analogy, and captures the creativity in the
play activity.
Purpose of Pretend Play

Play is a universal phenomenon (Gaskins et al., 2007). Children in all
cultures engage in play. Play also follows a developmental process. Before the
age of two, children play with objects similarly, no matter what their function.
Around the age of two, children begin to discover that objects have specifc
functions, and they begin to pretend (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkof, 2003). For
example, a block becomes a table or a television. Te child can engage in object
transformation. As children get older, symbolism and narratives combine and
become more complex. Tere are individual diferences in how much imagina-
tion occurs in pretend play, but in most cultures, pretend play is part of child-
hood. Gaskins et al. (2007), after studying play in many cultures, concluded
that the amount of pretend in the play depends upon how much it is valued
in the culture. In complex societies, pretend play occurs more frequently in
childhood than in simpler, work-oriented cultures where play may be a dis-
traction and is curtailed.
Pretend Play and Creativity 181
Many animal researchers and evolutionary scholars have concluded that

play is a form of practice for adult activities (Mitchell, 2007). For humans,
childhood play can prepare for problem-solving in adulthood. Boyd (2009)
represents this view, stating that “Play evolved through the advantages of
fexibility; the amount of play in a species correlates with its fexibility of
action” (p. 14). He thought that play facilitates a fexibility of mind that is
facilitative of creativity, especially in the arts. On the other hand, Smith
(2007) reached a diferent conclusion, and thought that play may be a facili-
tative experience for children, but does not hold a major adaptive role in
child development.
A number of theorists view play as facilitative of child development, and
of creativity in particular. Piaget (1945/1967) thought that play was part of
assimilation and accommodation as the child interacted with the environ-
ment. Vygotsky (1930/1967) theorized that imagination developed from chil-
dren’s play. Trough play, children learn to combine elements of experience
into new situations and behaviors. Singer and Singer (1990) proposed that
pretend play involves divergent thinking, the creation of new ideas, and is
practice with creative thinking. Dansky (1980) thought that the free combina-
tion of objects and ideas that occurs in play is similar to the process involved in
creative thinking. Tese are just a few of the theorists who have grappled with
the association between play and creative problem-solving.
Pretend play is also a place for emotional expression and learning to pro-
cess and modulate emotion (Freud, 1965). Children can think about and
express both negative and positive feelings in a pretend situation and slowly
gain access to and integrate uncomfortable ideation, memories, and associa-
tions. Russ (2014) has emphasized the importance of both afect themes in
the narrative and afect experiences for creative thinking, especially in the
arts. For example, a fction writer who has a rich store of emotional childhood
memories to draw upon will have an advantage in creative writing. From a
variety of theoretical perspectives, pretend play is thought to not only refect
creative thinking, but also to help creative thinking develop. What does the
research say?
What Does the Research Support?

Tere is a robust set of fndings that shows that pretend play is associated
with creativity in children, independent of intelligence. We know that intel-
ligence is a resource for children. Pretend play can also be viewed as a resource
for children, because it relates to creativity and to other developmental cor-
relates that are indicative of adaptive functioning in children.
Most of the research on play and creativity has focused on play and diver-
gent thinking (generation of ideas). A typical item on a divergent thinking test
is “How many uses can you think of for a button?” Tere are a large number of
studies that have found signifcant relationships between diferent measures
of pretend play and divergent thinking (for reviews, see Dansky, 1999; Russ,
2014). For example, in one study, children who had more imagination and
more afect themes in play could think of more uses for objects on a divergent
thinking test than children with less imagination could (Russ & Grossman-
McKee, 1990). Tese correlations were signifcant when there were controls
for intelligence. Both positive and negative themes in play were associated
with divergent thinking (Russ & Schafer, 2006). Longitudinal studies also
support the association between pretend play and creativity. For example, in
the Russ et al. (1999) longitudinal study, imagination and organization in
early play (frst and second grade) predicted divergent thinking four years later
Studies have found relationships between play and other measures of
creativity as well. Kaugars and Russ (2009) found that pretend play in pre-
school children related to teacher ratings of make-believe in children’s daily
play behavior. Hofmann and Russ (2012) found that pretend play related to
creativity in storytelling, independent of verbal ability. Afect in the play also
related to afect in stories. Given the number of studies in the literature in
diferent research programs, with diferent child populations and in diferent
environments, that have found signifcant relations between pretend play and
creativity, with some studies using diferent examiners for the diferent tasks,
there is good evidence for the association between pretend play and creativ-
ity, and that this association is relatively stable over time. Although there are
no longitudinal studies that have followed children into adulthood to assess
prediction of adult creativity from early play, there is research literature that
has found that divergent thinking in children is predictive of adult creativity
(Plucker, 1999).
A key question is whether there is a causal relationship between play and
creativity. Does engaging in play have a facilitative efect on creativity? Tere
is some evidence that play facilitates divergent thinking. In several well-con-
ducted experimental studies, pretend play sessions facilitate divergent think-
ing in preschool and elementary school children (Dansky, 1980; Hofmann &
Russ, 2016).
Tere are diferent opinions about how the results of individual studies
should be interpreted, but there is a consensus that methodologically rigorous
studies with large samples, blinded experimenters, adequate control groups,
and valid measures of play and creativity are needed (Lillard et al., 2013).
Tere is a need for standardized play facilitation protocols that are easy
to carry out in schools and homes, and are empirically based. We have been
developing a protocol that uses story stems and a variety of unstructured

toys. In a pilot study by Russ et al. (2004), frst and second grade children
in an inner city school with a high degree of poverty received fve individual
30-minute play sessions following a standard play intervention protocol. Te
play groups had a variety of toys available and played with the adult facilitator.
Tey were asked to play out specifc story themes that focused on imagination
(have a boy go to the moon) or afect (have a girl be happy at a birthday party).
Te adult played with the child and followed the child’s lead in the story, but
also praised, modeled, and asked questions. We controlled for adult interac-
tion in the control group as well (coloring sheets and puzzles).
Te major result of this study was that the play interventions were efec-
tive in improving play skills Another major fnding was that on the outcome
measure of divergent thinking, there were signifcant efects for group. In a
follow-up study of these children four to eight months later by Moore and
Russ (2008), the imagination group had improved play skills over time.
In a group adaptation of the play intervention, Hofmann and Russ (2016)
found that small group play sessions, when compared with a control group,
resulted in increased imagination and afective expression in play after six ses-
sions. In addition, there was a transfer efect, in that below-average players
increased performance on a divergent thinking task.
Imaginary Friends and Role Play

Many children have imaginary companions. Imaginary companions are
pretend friends with whom children interact in pretend play or in daily life.
Parents often worry that having an imaginary friend is indicative of psy-
chopathology. Te research indicates otherwise. Singer and Singer (1990)
found that children with imaginary friends were more creative and smiled
and laughed more when they played than children without imaginary friends.
Taylor (1999) carried out extensive research in this area, and concluded that
having an imaginary companion was associated with creativity. She conceptu-
alized that interacting with imaginary representations of people was practice
with creative thought. She also found that many creative adults had imaginary
friends in childhood. Hof (2005) also found that the existence of imaginary
friends was associated with creativity, and that the depth of characterization
of the pretend friend was associated with level of creativity.
Role play is one kind of pretend play that children often engage in dur-
ing the preschool and early elementary school years. Role play can foster both
cognitive and afective processes in play, as it provides a space for children to
develop the cognitive skill of taking the perspective of another person, namely
“theory of mind,” and it allows the child a space to freely act out emotion-
laden themes with other characters, perhaps to take the focus of the child by
projecting behaviors and emotions onto another in order to make sense of the
world.
Recent research on imaginary friends has begun to focus not exclusively
on imaginary friends, but on elaborated role play more generally. Elaborated
role play is characterized by engagement in stable kinds of play involving
imaginary friends, personifed objects, and impersonation that children incor-
porate into regular play activities (Taylor et al., 2013). Tere is some evidence
that elaborated role play may play a role in children’s creative and social per-
spective-taking development independent of the benefts associated with typi-
cal developmental pretend play milestones (Taylor et al., 2013; Mottweiler &
Taylor, 2014).
Mottweiler and Taylor (2014) investigated the relationship between
elaborated role play and creativity as measured by performance on two tasks
they believed were appropriate for preschoolers. Children who had imaginary
friends and children who engaged in stable impersonation had more creative
story-stem completions, and children with imaginary friends drew more crea-
tive pictures of made-up people (Mottweiler & Taylor, 2014).
Research supports the assumption that pretend play in general, imagi-
nary companions, and elaborated role play are helpful in providing children
with opportunities to think about the behaviors and emotions of others,
which may place playful children in an advantageous position over their non-
playful peers. Playful children may prove more successful in relating to and
engaging with others in social contexts, a skill that is benefcial throughout
the lifetime.
Pretend Play and Children with

Developmental Disabilities
Play intervention studies with children with developmental disabilities
have been successful in increasing play skills and have shown some trans-
fer to other abilities. For children on the autism spectrum (ASD), who have
particular difculty with imagination and perspective-taking, Kasari et al.
(2006) designed a pretend play intervention for preschoolers diagnosed with
ASD to improve their joint attention (share focus on an object) and symbolic
play skills. Children received 30 hours of intervention per week for six weeks
on a daily basis. Results indicated that following the play intervention, pre-
school children with ASD were able to execute more appropriate joint atten-
tion skills and more diverse symbolic play skills, and the improvements in
these areas generalized when playing and interacting with their care-giver.
Te improvements gained for preschool children with ASD via joint attention
and symbolic play intervention were also predictive of functional language and
cognitive ability use after a fve-year follow-up (Kasari et al., 2012).
In a study by Doernberg et al. (2020), an in-person pretend play inter-
vention was given to school-aged children (aged six to nine years) diagnosed
with high-functioning ASD (HF-ASD), to increase children’s cognitive and
afective play skills, and emotional understanding abilities. Te intervention
consisted of fve weekly sessions of 15–20 minutes each. Te play intervention
was an adaptation of the play intervention used with typical children in the
previous Russ intervention studies. Te play facilitator played with the child,
completing a series of play scenarios that were appropriate for children with
ASD. At post-test, the intervention group signifcantly increased in imagina-
tion in play, which generalized to increased skills in emotional understanding.
Interestingly, the group did not increase in afect expression.
The Potential of Remote Platforms and Telehealth

Recently, we have been using video-based telehealth approaches, where
a play facilitator plays with a child. We have used this approach with a rare
developmental disability – Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). PWS is a congeni-
tal genetic neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterized by intellectual
impairments, intense food preoccupation, and cognitive and behavioral rigid-
ity, among other symptoms. We found that if the play facilitator and child
had the same toy set, and if there had been a face-to-face meeting initially to
explain the process, it was feasible to scafold the child’s play over a remote
platform. Tese children were aged 6–12 years and enjoyed the play inter-
actions. Te results of the feasibility study found good acceptability overall
(Dimitropoulos et al., 2017). Play over a remote platform was also feasible
with preschool children with PWS and their parents (Zyga et al., 2018). Te
results of these telehealth studies suggest that play intervention studies and
interventions can be carried out over remote platforms.
Educational Implications
A major implication for educators is that pretend play, in all its forms,
should be taken seriously. Observing pretend play, either informally or with a
standardized assessment of play, may help identify creative potential in chil-
dren that other assessment measures may not. In pretend play, creative think-
ing can be observed in a way that intelligence tests do not measure. Pretend
play is predictive of creativity over time, and would be a valuable addition to
an assessment battery.
It is important that parents and teachers understand that aggression in

pretend play is normal in children, especially in boys, and is related to creativ-
ity and prosocial behavior. If the aggression is pretend and well integrated into
the story, that bodes well for the child.
Finally, especially in preschool and early elementary years, time and space
for pretend play to occur will help children engage in play, enjoy it, and develop
their imagination. At times, some guidance from an adult, with modeling of
pretend, could be helpful. It is important to have unstructured toys available
that leave room for the child to use their imagination, such as blocks, LEGO
bricks, dolls, action fgures, plastic animals, a play house, etc. Ideally, program
evaluation could determine whether and how pretend play time is facilitative
of creativity and learning.

Lillard, A., Lerner, M., Hopkins, E., Dore, R., Smith, E., & Palmquist, C.
(2013). Te impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of
empirical evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1–34.
Smith, P. (2007). Evolutionary foundations and functions of play: An
overview. In A. Goncu & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development (pp.
21–49). Taylor & Francis.
References
Boyd, B. (2009). On the origin of stories. Harvard University Press.
Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play
and associative fuency. Child Development, 51, 576–579.
Dansky, J. (1999). Play. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (pp. 393–408). Academic Press.
Dimitropoulos, A., Zyga, O., & Russ, S. (2017). Evaluating the feasibility of
a play-based telehealth intervention program for children with Prader-
Willi Symndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(9),
2814–2825.
Doernberg, E., Russ, S., & Dimitropoulos, A. (2020). Believing in make-
believe: Efcacy of a pretend play intervention for school-aged children
with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 51(2), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803
-020-04547-8
Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J.

Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination and play (pp. 281–304). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Freud, A. (1965). Normality and pathology in childhood: Assessments of
development. International Universities Press.
Gaskins, S., Haight, W., & Lancy, D. (2007). Te cultural construction of
play. In A. Goncu & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development (pp. 179–
202). Taylor & Francis.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkof, R. (2003). Einstein never used fash cards: How our
children really learn – and why they need to play more and memorize less. Rodale.
Hof, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in
middle childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 167–181.
Hofmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity, and emotion
regulation in children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2),
175–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026299
Hofmann, J., & Russ, S. (2016). Fostering pretend play skills and creativity in
elementary school girls: A group play intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 10(1), 114-125.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint attention and symbolic
play in young children with autism: A randomized controlled intervention
study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 611–620.
Kasari, C., Gulsrud, A., Freeman, S., Paparella, T., & Hellemann, G. (2012).
Longitudinal follow- up of children with autism receiving targeted
interventions on joint attention and play. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(5), 487–495.
Kaugars, A., & Russ, S. (2009). Assessing preschool children’s pretend play:
Preliminary validation of the Afect in Play Scale-Preschool Version.
Early Education and Development, 20(5), 733–755.
Lillard, A., Russ, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkof, R. (2013). Probing play:
Te research we need. (Guest editors’ afterword). American Journal of Play,
6(1), 161–165.
Mitchell, R. (2007). Pretense in animals: Te continual relevance of children’s
pretense. In A. Goncu & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development:
Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives (pp. 51–75). Taylor
& Francis.
Moore, M., & Russ, S. (2008). Follow-up of a pretend play intervention:
Efects on play, creativity and emotional processes in children. Creativity
Research Journal, 20, 427–436.
Mottweiler, C. M., & Taylor, M. (2014). Elaborated role play and creativity
in preschool age children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
8(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036083
Piaget, J. (1967). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. Norton. (Original

work published in 1945).
Plucker, J. (1999). Is the proof really in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s
longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114.
Russ, S. (2014). Pretend play in childhood: Foundation of adult creativity.
American Psychological Association.
Russ, S., & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Afective expression in children’s
fantasy play, primary process thinking on the Rorschach, and divergent
thinking. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 756–771.
Russ, S. & Schafer, E. (2006) Afect in fantasy play, emotion in memories,
and divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 347–354.
Russ, S., Robins, D., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal
prediction of creativity and afect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 129–139.
Russ, S., Moore, M., & Farber, B. (2004, July). Efects of play training on
play, creativity and emotional well-being. Poster presented at American
Psychological Association, Honolulu.
Sawyer, P. K. (1997). Pretend play as improvisation. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). Te house of make-believe: Children’s play
and the developing imagination. Harvard University Press.
Smith, P. (2007). Evolutionary foundations and functions of play: An
overview. In A. Goncu & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development (pp.
21–49). Taylor & Francis.
Taylor, M.(1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them.
Oxford University Press.
Taylor, M., Sachet, A. B., Maring, B. L., & Mannering, A. M. (2013). Te
assessment of elaborated role-play in young children: Invisible friends,
personifed objects, and pretend identities. Social Development, 22(1), 75–
93. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12011
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Vaobraszeniye i tvorchestvov deskom voraste [Imagination
and creativity in childhood]. Prosvescheniye. (Original work published in
1930).
Zyga, O., Russ, S., & Dimitropoulos, A. (2018) Te PRETEND Program:
Evaluating the feasibility of a remote parent-training intervention for
children with Prader-Willi Syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 123, 574–584.
CHAPTER 8
Investing in Creativity
in Students
The Long and Short
(Term) of It
Amy K. Graefe and Stuart N. Omdal
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Creativity can and should be developed.
¥¥ Teaching creative thinking strategies to students is a long-term invest-
ment upon which they will be able to draw throughout their lives.
¥¥ Although an element of the arts, creative thinking, and action occur in
all areas of human endeavor, including the everyday lives of all people.
¥¥ In the classroom, barriers to teaching creatively may be present, but
they can be overcome through the application of creative thinking.
¥¥ When teachers develop an understanding of creativity, model creative
thinking and behaviors, and teach creatively, a classroom climate can
be established that enhances the teaching and learning experience for
students.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-16 189

Creativity, Teaching, and Learning

Te relationship between creativity and learning is multi-faceted: Teachers
employ creative thinking to plan lessons, which can then be presented crea-
tively to learners who utilize their creative abilities to integrate the new learn-
ing with previously learned content and skills and fnally express what they
have learned in a creative way that is meaningful to them. Tis method of
instruction, with the concomitant goals of developing understanding and cre-
ating personal meaning, is poised to promote deep, long-lasting learning and
knowing and the development of personal creativity. Attainment of this per-
sonal creativity has many potential long-term benefts for the individual (Im
et al., 2015; Davies et al., 2013). For example, adult creative achievement is
more closely tied to creativity, measured by a test of divergent thinking, than
to intelligence test scores in elementary students (Plucker, 1999), and Plucker
& Beghetto (2004) include creativity as a key component of “healthy social
and emotional well-being and scholastic and adult success” (p. 83, 2004). Te
good news is that research in this area indicates that creativity can be system-
atically developed (Im et al., 2015).
Te development of school environments that promote creative teach-
ing and the nurturing of creative thinking and expression can therefore be
considered to be a “long-term investment” in the lives of the students. Tis
investment pays great dividends for the student by enhancing creative think-
ing abilities and creating cognitive connections and understanding, and for
society by preparing citizens who will be better equipped to develop solutions
for problems not yet imagined in this new century (Renzulli, 2012). Tis type
of instruction is in contrast to the “short-term” investment that often takes
place in school systems where the focus and pragmatic necessity is to prepare
students to take high-stakes tests and do well on them.
With schools potentially under the threat of reorganization or being taken
over by state departments of education (Robinson, 2018; Smith & Wright,
2017), and many teachers operating under the weight of having the perfor-
mance of their students determine part of their professional evaluation (and
thus, possibly, the permanence of their employment; National Council for
Teacher Quality, 2019), and with the general public frequently voicing dis-
trust of public schools while demanding accountability, it is of little surprise
that creative teaching and learning are low priorities in many states, districts,
and schools. Once you also factor in the efects of the COVID-19 pandemic
on students’ mental health, school attendance, and academic achievement
(Garcia & Weiss, 2019; Kuhfeld et al., 2020; Sparks, 2020), the lack of a
concerted focus by administrators and teachers on creativity development is
somewhat understandable.
Investing in Creativity in Students 191
However, these seems to be a general lack of comprehension of the afore-

mentioned benefts to students (and educators) of regular inclusion of creativ-
ity development in the classroom. Luckily, even as schools work to mitigate
the negative efects of the pandemic in systems where there are competing
priorities and the pressure to excel on standardized tests remains high, educa-
tors can fnd opportunities to employ creative teaching and learning methods.
Tis chapter explores those ways in which teachers can incorporate creativity
into their classes for the development of creative thinking and expression in
their students, while also acknowledging the very real barriers to creativity in
the classroom.
History of Creativity in Schools

Te rise of interest in creativity in schools in the United States began with
the growing interest in early childhood education in the 19th century, and
particularly with the work of several European educators. Friedrich Froebel
of Germany maintained that education must nurture creativity. Swiss educa-
tor Johann Pestalozzi emphasized the value of play in the inner growth and
development of a child. Tis type of play would have included concepts asso-
ciated with creativity, such as imagination, inventiveness, and improvisation.
Similarly, American psychologist G. Stanley Hall also promoted the value of
childhood play and its role in later adolescent development. John Dewey, a
student of Hall and educational reformer, promoted lessening the restrictive,
rote learning style of teaching and replacing it with direct experience, inquiry,
and play (Sawyer, 2011). Another student of G. Stanley Hall, Arnold Gesell,
studied stages of child development and also promoted creative play in early
childhood. His infuence extended well into the mid-20th century (Feldman
& Benjamin, 2006).
Te focus on creativity within American schools became a priority with
the Russian launching of Sputnik in October 1957. Tis event spurred the
United States federal government to support new education programs in
the sciences with the goal of exceeding the space program of the Russians.
Regarding this thrust, Cropley and Cropley (2000) stated: “Tis perceived
failure of American science and engineering was attributed to lack of crea-
tivity, and judged to be the result of defects in education” (p. 208). E. Paul
Torrance at the University of Minnesota began research on defning, measur-
ing, and developing creativity. Te Torrance Test of Creative Tinking is a
widely used assessment of creative thinking. Calvin Taylor at the University of
Utah organized conferences funded by the US National Science Foundation
on the development of scientifc creativity. He later developed the Multiple
Creative Talent Teaching Approach that infuenced the development of crea-

tive and critical thinking programming in schools.
Infuential during this era was Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development,
which described how logico-mathematical thinking advanced across childhood
and adolescence. His work greatly impacted the development of new methods
of teaching math and science at this time as it reconsidered the capability of
students to comprehend these topics at an earlier age than previously thought.
Eleanor Duckworth, an American early childhood specialist, embraced Piaget’s
work, focusing on the creative and intellectual nature of the young child and his
or her ability to develop understanding and create personal meaning within the
context of his or her own environment (Feldman & Benjamin, 2006).
Troughout the 1960s, social and cultural change had an impact on many
institutions. In education, a movement dissatisfed with the traditional, restric-
tive pedagogy and structure of schools adopted tenets from British “Open
Classroom” schools. Larry Cuban (2004, p. 71) compared it to the “peda-
gogical progressive” movement of the early 20th century and the “neoprogres-
sives” of the late 1980s and early 1990s who favored an integrated curriculum
and forms of authentic assessment. Te characteristics of Open Classroom
(or Open Education) schools included learning by doing, inquiry-oriented
methods, interest centers, and a student-centered/student-directed philosophy
(Hennessey, 2015). Tey were open both in the philosophical sense and in the
architectural; many schools had large open areas the size of several or more
regular classrooms. Te nurturing, development, and promotion of creativity
was at the heart of the Open Classroom approach. Feldman and Benjamin
(2006) stated that in these schools, “creativity in the classroom was the order of
the day” (p. 323). Te implementation of the Open Classroom approach varied
considerably among schools, and those whose faculties did not receive appropri-
ate professional development ultimately failed, built walls between classrooms,
and often went back to more traditional pedagogy. However, it did introduce a
generation of teachers (including one of the authors) to new way of considering
what school could look like, how children could make choices about learning,
and the role that creativity played in the larger picture of education.
Te 1983 report A Nation at Risk by the US National Commission on
Excellence in Education is considered to be the impetus of the standards-based
reform movement. Tis report indicated that the current educational system
was short-changing students and not preparing them for life after high school.
It also highlighted the great diferences in what content was taught from state to
state. A call was made for the development of a common set of expectations for
what content and skills should be taught in each subject at each grade level. Tis
continued through the 1980s and 1990s to a full incarnation in the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001. What happened to creativity in education
amid this movement? With the advent of standards-based educational reform,

creativity was usually an afterthought or relegated as part of gifted education
programming. Interestingly, creativity appeared on virtually every list of 21st-
century skills that students would need in the new millennium.
Barriers to Creativity
Barriers to creativity can be either real or perceived. “Real” barriers are
often external, and may come in the form of governmental or school dis-
trict directives regarding curricular priorities that inhibit creative teaching or
learning activities. “Perceived” barriers may be attitudinal regarding the value
of appropriate expression of creativity or the characteristics/behaviors com-
monly associated with creativity.
Real Barriers: Effects of Federal and

State Legislation on Creativity
High-Stakes Testing
Te No Child Left Behind Act was enacted in 2001 under the leadership
of President George W. Bush (US Department of Education, 2002). Tis Act
served to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and was
ideally designed to provide:
increased accountability for States, school districts, and

schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly
those attending low-performing schools; more fexibility for
States and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of
Federal Education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on read-
ing, especially for our youngest children.
(p. 1)
With the passage of this congressional Act, federal education funding was
directly tied to high-stakes assessments designed to measure student achieve-
ment. In looking back, however, not only did the implementation of NCLB
not have the intended efect of academic profciency for all students, it also
evidenced unintended negative consequences, perhaps the most notable being
that in high-stakes testing environments, the curriculum tends to be narrowed
to only what will be assessed in the tests (Berliner, 2011; Milner, 2014; Schul,
2011), often eliminating “art, music, and such skills as critical thinking, [and]
creativity” (Hlebowitsh, 2007, para. 4).
Additionally, under the guidance of President Barack Obama, the Race

to the Top (RTT) grant was created as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Lohman, 2010). While similar in many respects
to the NCLB requirements, one key diference in RTT was that in order for
states to be eligible to apply for the monies, they had to devise a teacher evalu-
ation system that directly linked students’ standardized test scores to individual
teachers. By 2013, 80 percent of states included student achievement and/or
growth as a signifcant factor in their teacher evaluation systems (Tooley, 2014).
In 2015, the Obama administration passed the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), which again reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). Although the enactment of ESSA provided fexibility
to states in the evaluation of teachers, including how much weight standard-
ized assessments would receive (Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 2015), recent data indicate that 34 states still include student
growth measures as part of their teacher evaluations (National Council on
Teacher Quality, 2019). For example, the Colorado State Model Educator
Evaluation System mandates that fully half of a teacher’s evaluation be based
on student performance (Colorado Department of Education, 2020).
Certainly, past changes to the teacher evaluation systems have been under-
taken with the best of intentions, and student growth must be a priority for
educators; however, in this movement toward greater educator accountability
through the use of high-stakes assessments, teachers’ desire to teach creatively
is often trumped by the need to ensure that students are making adequate pro-
gress toward a testing goal. A potential unintended consequence of this focus
is that teachers with high degrees of creativity may eventually choose other
professions where their creativity will not be stifed, thereby further reducing
the creativity within our schools (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2018).
Further, although this testing focus in K-12 schools has undoubtedly
impacted the creative capabilities of a generation of youth leaving our pub-
lic education system, the detriment may be perpetuated further by young
teachers who were in elementary and secondary school during this era and
who also experienced the focus on testing from the perspective of a stu-
dent within a teacher education program (Hanich & Bray, 2009; Sternberg,
2015; Ukpolo & Strauss, 2005). In other words, if it’s true that we teach
like we were taught, we may have unwittingly produced a generation of
future educators who are predisposed to an approach to teaching that deem-
phasizes or even devalues creativity. As a case in point, universities dur-
ing the NCLB period were encouraged to equip pre-service teachers with
the skills necessary to prepare their K-12 students for standardized testing
(Ukpolo & Strauss, 2005), and these future teachers did indeed report that
through their feld experiences, they became familiar with “narrowing the
curriculum, teaching to the test, and increased test preparation sessions”

(Hanich & Bay, 2009, p. 33).
Not surprisingly, as this generation of future educators has matriculated
into teacher education programs, professors have commented on the need of
many of them for explicit instructions on what the professor wants on particu-
lar assignments: “Tell me exactly what you want.” When one colleague told a
student that what she wanted was for the students to express what they had
learned about the topic in a mode of their choice, the student’s response was:
“Do we have to do this project? Can’t we just take a test?” Tis attitude, while
understandable based on past experiences where a single correct test answer
was the expectation, is a barrier to creativity and indicates that the student has
not had many, or many good, experiences with making choices about student
products designed to nurture creativity (Batchelor, 2012; Shively & Yerrick,
2014). It is likely that many teachers who came of age beginning in the NCLB
era have not had to deeply process or synthesize what they have learned to
attain understanding (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006), and have instead learned to
be content with an external locus of control regarding learning.
Scripted Curriculum
Te NCLB legislation also required that schools and districts implement
research-based instructional strategies within classrooms (US Department of
Education, 2002). Tis condition led to the adoption of many scripted cur-
ricula throughout the nation (Conrad et al., 2015; Duncan-Owens, 2009; Fitz
& Nikolaidis, 2020; Milner, 2014) and often to administrative directives that
teachers adhere to a strict, prescribed daily schedule in the name of fdelity
of implementation. One frst grade teacher reported that her principal said
that he wanted to be able to observe a lesson in the frst classroom, and as he
walked down the hall, hear the next teacher not only conducting the same
lesson, but ideally at the same point in that lesson. Another teacher reported
that she was told by her principal that he wanted a curriculum so “foolproof ”
that he could “pull a bank teller walking the street,” put him in a classroom
with the scripted lessons, and he could successfully teach the class (Gerrard &
Farrell, 2014). Although ESSA (2015) recognizes the need for “comprehen-
sive literacy instruction,” the scripted curriculum was still being widely used
well into 2016 (Cavanagh, 2016), and continues to a degree today.
Lack of Training
Another limitation to incorporating creativity in the classroom is teach-
ers’ lack of self-efcacy in this area due to the absence of targeted training and
support, either in pre-service teacher programs or in professional development
opportunities for practicing teachers. Tis particular type of self-efcacy is

referred to as “creative self-efcacy” (CSE): “CSE refers to a self-judgment of
one’s imaginative ability and perceived competence in generating novel and
adaptive ideas, solutions, and behaviors” (Beghetto et al., 2011). For example,
a young graduate student in a gifted education master’s program who had been
teaching for about fve years was assigned to develop a unit of study on a topic
of personal interest utilizing gifted education pedagogy. Tis assignment was
important to her because she knew she would later teach this unit to a group
of middle and high school students at a summer program for gifted, talented,
and/or creative students. However, even with guidance in place, she felt over-
whelmed by the thought of it, and told her professor, “I’ve never made up a
lesson or unit before. Tey’ve always just been given to me to teach.”
Teachers who have had no opportunities for creative production on school
assignments or opportunities to pursue personal in-depth studies often do not
know how to facilitate these experiences for their students (Batchelor, 2012;
Beghetto, 2006). Tis is exacerbated for teachers who then also do not receive
any formalized training in teaching for creativity (Plucker, Glynn et al.,
2018a). Te combination of going through a school system with a focus on
high-stakes testing, having no required creativity coursework in a pre-service
teaching program, and then teaching in a school district that does not pri-
oritize teaching for creativity establishes a strong likelihood that the succes-
sion of K-12 students who will not experience any manner of creativity in the
school environment will be perpetuated.
Perceived Barriers
Enhancing Creativity
Te question of whether creativity can be enhanced often arises, and is
based on the myth that people are born either creative or un-creative (Plucker
& Dow, 2010). Within this (false) dichotomy, any creativity training or
attempts at creativity development are seen as futile. However, the overwhelm-
ing response in the literature belies these notions (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-
Reynolds, 2005; McGregor & Frodsham, 2019; Perry & Collier, 2018; Piirto,
2011; Plucker, Guo, & Dilley, 2018b; Starko, 2013; Sternberg & Williams,
1996; Yuan et al., 2019). Since J. P. Guilford’s 1950 call for more “systematic,
rigorous, experimental research” on creativity (Feldman & Benjamin, 2006,
p. 325), hundreds of such studies have been conducted, with largely the same
conclusion: Creativity can be enhanced with appropriate support, learning
experiences, and opportunities to use the acquired skills in real-world settings.
One reason why the question of creativity development continually sur-
faces is that a great many people equate creativity with artistic ability and/
or with major inventions, literary works, and world-renowned discoveries

(Newton & Newton, 2009; Runco & Johnson, 2002; Tan, 2000). Beghetto
(2005) challenges this point of view, emphasizing the type of creativity any-
one might exhibit on a daily basis:
However, just because someone’s creative contribution is not

revolutionary doesn’t mean it is not creative. Indeed, the novel
and useful eforts of normal, everyday people are still, by def-
nition, creative. Tis level of creativity, called “pedestrian or
everyday creativity” (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004, p. 158), is
important and representative of what often is hoped for in
school settings. We want our students to be able and willing
to solve problems, create products, and contribute ideas that
are novel and useful in any given situation.
(p. 255)
Researchers and writers in the area of creativity often refer to the distinc-
tion between diferent types of creativity as big-C, which is associated with
those who are legendary or revolutionary (e.g., Ghandi, Margaret Mead, John
Lennon), and little-c, often described as “everyday” creativity (e.g., improvis-
ing when you don’t have the right tool or ingredient, a parent making up a
song to sing to his or her child, solving a problem when a change of plans
occurs; see Beghetto, 2010; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Tese authors also
recognize the creativity involved in gaining creative insights and interpreta-
tions in the learning process. Tis is known as “mini-c.” A fourth designation
of creative action is deemed pro-c, which acknowledges the contributions and
eforts of professionals whose creative work is emerging, but is not yet at the
level of eminence
As one of the authors of this chapter begins a class or professional devel-
opment session for teachers on creativity, he always asks the attendees if they
think they are creative. Usually only 20 percent or so of the hands go up; the
others typically say, “I’m not artistic.” He then talks to them about the con-
cepts of big-C and little-c creativity and shares quotations regarding creativ-
ity, including the quote from Maslow (n.d.): “A frst rate soup is more creative
than a second rate painting.”
Once the concept of little-c creativity sinks in, these teachers are ready
to begin to form a conception of creativity broad enough for them to see
how the aspects of their teaching (and their “everyday” personal lives) are,
indeed, creative (Piirto, 2011). Tey are also ready to begin to recognize the
many ways their students are creative in their “everyday” school lives. Tese
are those moments of mini-c creative insights and interpretations described
by Kaufmann and Beghetto (2009) Tis, coupled with the acquisition of
information about characteristics and behaviors associated with creativity

(including less desirable and more disruptive characteristics such as independ-
ence, non-conformity, and curiosity) and how they may present in students in
their classes, can help teachers reinterpret the behavior of students through
the lens of creativity (Davis, 2004; Paek et al., 2020).
However, for a teacher who is “creativity-neutral” (neither promoting nor
suppressing creativity) or who has a low tolerance for creative behavior, stu-
dents in his or her class who exhibit the behaviors listed above and others
associated with creativity (e.g., internally controlled, grand imagination, risk-
taker) may be seen as a misbehaving rather than a creative student (Beghetto,
2006). In these situations, when students choose to conform in order to meet
the expectations or demands of the teacher, student creativity is hampered
(Paek et al., 2020). Although the manifestations of little-c creativity are not
about changing the whole world, if educators learn to understand and appro-
priate this type of creativity into daily classroom life, it can positively change
the way creative students are considered in their worlds.
Optimism for the Future

Te 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reduced the requirements for mandated testing, hopefully providing teachers
with more opportunities to easily incorporate creative instructional strategies
and to provide students choices regarding the products they create to demon-
strate their learning and understanding, thereby enhancing creativity within the
classroom. However, we still have much room for growth. One positive outcome
of these changes may be that even with all of the barriers, those listed above and
others (e.g., inadequate resources for facilitating creativity, and difculty assess-
ing creativity; Bereczki & Karpati, 2018), there are pre-service and practicing
teachers who continue to value creativity in student learning and in their own
teaching (Katz-Buonincontro et al., 2020). Interestingly, and unfortunately,
however, it seems as though in many cases, as teachers move from pre-service
to practicing teachers, they perceive there to be less support for creativity in the
educational environment (Rubenstein et al., 2018). One recommendation from
this same study is to emphasize to teachers the ability they have to fnd ways to
“support and inspire” creativity within their own classrooms (p. 107).
Supporting Creativity in the Classroom

Recommendations abound regarding methods and strategies for creative
teaching and learning. We will address several that we believe are key for
teachers in getting started in setting up a creative classroom or enhancing

practices already in place. Tese are drawn from the literature and from the
experiences of scores of teacher with whom we have worked.
Understanding Creativity
One can fnd hundreds of books on creativity-enhancing activities for
students. Many are very clever, and focus on divergent thinking through
brainstorming activities. Teachers can use them and see that the students are
actively participating, thinking, and as a side beneft, having fun following
them. What is missing is the growth of teacher understanding of the larger
domain of creativity outside divergent thinking.
Jane Piirto writes extensively on creativity, creative processes, and cre-
ative individuals. She maintains that the study of creativity needs to go
beyond the “learning about” level to a point where individuals really inter-
nalize the concepts and principles of creativity and contemplate the role of
those concepts in their own lives: “I believe one cannot teach people to be
creative without having experienced the creative process in a transforma-
tional way” (Piirto, 2011). Tis “transformational way” would be a diferent
experience for each individual. Davies and colleagues (2013) emphasized
the importance of teachers’ awareness of their personal conceptions of cre-
ativity because of the impact awareness has on the classroom. Tey also
emphasized the importance of teachers “taking on the role of learners to
develop their own creativity” (p. 88). Part of that creativity development
includes learning about theories and defnitions, and exploring the bio-
graphical information of creative people. Trough the acquisition of that
information and the learning activities in which they participate, teachers
are likely to experience a personal transformation regarding their creative
self-efcacy (Piirto, 2011).
Another dimension of understanding creativity is the individual’s attitude
regarding creativity (Plucker & Dow, 2017). Te focus on attitude applies
to both teacher and student. Previous life experiences and teaching/learning
experiences in the classroom contribute to the formation of attitudes about
creativity. Teachers need to refect on past experiences with creative thinking
activities and acknowledge how those have afected their personal attitudes
regarding creativity. Tey are also in the position to develop learning activities
for their students that are at frst guided and low-risk, thus providing them
opportunities to develop positive attitudes regarding creativity. Plucker and
Dow also recommend helping students to identify their abilities, interests, and
preferences in the realm of creative thinking and production and to build on
those attributes while respecting the diferences others may have.
Modeling Creativity
Te modeling of creative attitudes and behaviors by teachers is another
area recommended in the literature (Beghetto, 2017; Davies et al., 2013;
Rubenstein et al., 2018; Yi et al., 2015). Tis includes demonstrating tasks
or projects that require creative thinking, including the aspects of fuency,
fexibility, originality, and elaboration. Modeling the “think aloud” approach
(Hargrove, 2013) is a way to show students how to develop metacognitive
skills through the teacher sharing his or her thinking process aloud. Teachers
can also employ the method of “Artistic Modifcation” (Renzulli et al., 2000),
whereby teachers enhance the curriculum by bringing in teaching resources,
such as personal stories, hobby materials, and collected documents, to use in a
creative way. Tis afords students the opportunity to see a creative aspect of
their teachers’ non-academic lives in an academic context. Tis may enable the
students to creatively connect the stories and objects of their own lives to the
academic contexts they experience in school.
Climate
Te classroom climate encompasses the balance between divergent
and convergent questions and expectations, the number of choices students
can make, and the openness of the teacher to a range of student responses
(Davies et al., 2013; Gajda et al., 2017; Morais et al., 2019; Plucker et al.,
2015). What would an observer see and feel in a creative classroom? When
one of the authors was a doctoral student, he helped implement a thinking
skills program that was part of a university study. As part of this process, he
spent time observing a fourth grade classroom in an urban elementary school.
Te veteran teacher he was observing was not comfortable having someone
watch her teach and not comfortable with a productive thinking exercise at
the beginning of a science unit on birds. She was using a KWL chart (“What
do you Know, What do you Want to learn, What have you Learned?”). She
was hesitant because she realized she did not already know how the students
would answer. She rarely asked divergent or open-ended questions, preferring
instead to ask questions that required convergent thinking – questions that had
just one correct answer. She asked the students, “What do you already know
about birds?” Hands went up, and students told her fairly predictable facts
about birds. Ten she asked, “What do you want to learn about birds?” Several
students had pretty ordinary questions, then LeRoy raised his hand and was
called upon: “I want to know why boy birds and girl birds are diferent.” He
was asking about why the feathers were diferent colors on male and female
birds. Te teacher’s response was immediate and forceful, “Tat is no kind of
question to ask, and you sit down and shut up.” Tere was defnitely a climate
in that room, and it was pretty stormy. No more hands went up. Nobody asked
any more questions. Her response shut down any speculative thinking, and
she was fnished with questions that required divergent thinking.
Climate is the feeling tone of a classroom that is established by the teacher.
It may be one like the classroom described above, or it may be one where open-
ended questions are common and student responses are respectfully addressed.
A positive climate is a safe environment to ask all kinds of questions and know
that all answers will be thoughtfully considered and a safe place to take risks
– academic, intellectual, creative, social, and personal (Claxton et al., 2006;
Cullingford, 2007; Karwowski, 2011; Morais et al., 2019; Piirto, 2011).
One of the key factors in teachers successfully establishing a safe, crea-
tive environment is the types of questions they ask, which reveal their per-
sonal perception of knowledge. If a teacher views his or her job as relaying
information and particular skills to students (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009),
he or she will be asking a majority of questions that only require convergent
thinking. If a teacher views him- or herself as one who is learning with his
or her students, using an inquiry approach to teaching, asking a majority of
open-ended questions that require divergent thinking, and ofering students
some options in how they are assessed via student products, that teacher will
establish a classroom climate that fosters creativity and the creative growth of
students (Beghetto, 2010). An example of one approach that utilizes question-
ing that leads to student understanding is “Synectics” (Aggarwal & Bhatia,
2011; Gordon, 1961; Lambert, 2017). One of the many strategies in Synectics
is metaphorical thinking. After introducing a new topic to students, the teach-
ers asks, “What is this like?” (e.g., “Photosynthesis – What is this like?”). Te
students need to think about the attributes, characteristics, function, process,
and outcomes of photosynthesis and look for relationships or similarities with
other objects, ideas or processes in science (or any other area for that matter). It
is in this examination of the primary concept that the student uses both crea-
tive and evaluative thinking that can lead to deeper understanding.
Teaching Creatively
Another facet of creativity in classrooms is how the teacher teaches. Te
importance of the teaching strategies implemented is refected in the previ-
ous subsection on “Climate,” as it is the choice of teaching strategies that
directly infuences the climate of the classroom. Te literature ofers many
potential teaching strategies associated with the development of student crea-
tivity. In a research study on teacher–student interaction in classrooms that
supported creativity, Gajda et al. (2017) reported: “classrooms supportive of
creative learning seem to be those characterized by patterns of interaction
that provided openings for students to share their ideas and opportunities to
further explore those ideas ….”
A set of strategies from the work of June Maker with the Discover cur-
riculum model (Maker et al., 2008) include several other features of teaching
creatively: (a) active learning, where students listen, ask questions, discuss,
plan, express themselves, experiment, research, create, and/or compose; (b)
access to varied materials (math manipulatives, art supplies, magazines) and a
variety of ways to access information and to express what has been learned; (c)
opportunities to explore topics of interest within the context of the curricu-
lum or other topics of particular interest; (d) problem-fnding and problem-
solving; and (e) self-evaluation, where students learn how to critique their own
work based on self-determined criteria.
Extending the concept of evaluation from self to the evaluation of others
provides the opportunity for students to have a more “real-world” experience.
When students, particularly at the upper elementary through high school lev-
els, have the opportunity to select a real problem or issue they need to address,
they are often in the position of wanting to go beyond merely informing oth-
ers. In order to do so, they need to be schooled with the knowledge of how to
articulate their concern in a creative and deliberate way that will move their
audience of decision-makers to the action hoped for by the student. Plucker
(Hot Topic 13 in this volume) promotes the idea that comprehensive articula-
tion of their issue or concern gives the student the opportunity to apply their
creativity and thus experience what is necessary to bring about change in their
school or community, make improvements to a situation, or change people’s
mind about an issue. Tis is creativity in action.
Te recommendations for developing a classroom climate that supports
creative teaching and learning, questioning strategies for the development of
understanding, and opportunities for choices in content and mode of expres-
sion, coupled with the strategies listed earlier, will support the goal of nurtur-
ing and enhancing creativity in students.
Conclusion
Every teacher has parameters within which he or she must operate,
dictated by federal, state and/or local school district directives. As we have
pointed out, the level of imposed structure varies a great deal. For those with
greater freedom to select content and instructional strategies, these recom-
mendations may be implemented to a greater degree. For those who are in
schools where all content and pedagogy are prescribed, on the surface these
recommendations may appear untenable to even consider. When one of the
authors was talking with a free-thinking friend who was in a very structured
graduate program, the friend said that he was really going to have to think
“outside the box” to survive. Ten he paused and said, “No, I’m going to have
to think harder inside the box.”
For those in a more restrictive setting, the situation is similar. Sawyer
(2011) ofers the concept of looking for the “spaces” in between the elements of
the structured curriculum and asking those open-ended questions, taking the
opportunities to give students a choice in assignments, and/or conducting short
creative thinking exercises. Sawyer calls this “disciplined improvisation.” By
making an efort to gain more understanding of creativity, creating a favorable
climate for students’ creative expressions, and looking for opportunities to think
harder inside the box for those spaces where creative thinking can be inserted,
teachers communicate the value of creativity and how it can be part of everyday
living. It is in these eforts that teachers make deposits in the long-term invest-
ments that will make a positive diference in the lives of their students.
References
Aggarwal, Y., & Bhatia, N. (2011). Creativity and innovation in management:
a fuel for growth. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(5),
288–296.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, A. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of
creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2015). Elementary
and secondary education act: Comparison of the no child left behind act to the
every student succeeds act. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/ASCD/
pdf/siteASCD/policy/ESEA_NCLB_ComparisonChart_2015.pdf
Batchelor, K. (2012). Pre-service teacher education methods courses: From
discipline to democracy. Te Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(6), 243–247.
Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? Te Educational
Forum 69(3), 254–263.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative justice? Te relationship between prospective
teachers’ prior schooling experiences and perceived importance of promoting
student creativity. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(3), 149–162.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In Te Cambridge handbook
of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity in teaching. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P.
Glaveanu, & J. Baer (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of creativity across
domains (pp. 549–564). Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting

learning and creativity in programs of advanced academics. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20(2), 296–324.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). Te relationship among schooling,
learning and creativity: “All Roads Lead to Creativity” or “You Can´t Get
Tere from Here”? In Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp.
316–332). Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected
questions: Exploring the relationship between students’ creative self-
efcacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 5(4), 342.
Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its
nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational
Research Review, 23, 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
Berliner, D. C. (2011). Foreword. In Structure and improvisation in creative
teaching (pp. xiii–xvi). Cambridge University Press.
Cavanagh, S. (2016). Te popularity of the open ed. resource engage N Y, by the
numbers. Retrieved from https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace
-k-12 /the -popularity-of-the -open-ed-resource -engageny-by-the
-numbers/
Claxton, G., Edwards, L., & Scale-Constantinou, V. (2006). Cultivating
creative mentalities: A framework for education. Tinking Skills and
Creativity, 1(1), 57–61.
Colorado Department of Education (2020). State model evaluation system for
teachers. Retrieved January 23, 2020 from https://www.cde.state.co.us/edu
catorefectiveness/smes-teacher
Conrad, B., Moroye, C. M., & Uhrmacher, P. B. (2015). Curriculum
disruption: A vision for new practices in teaching and learning. Current
Issues in Education, 18(3), 1–19.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering
undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207–209. https://doi.org/10
.1080/13598130020001223
Cuban, L. (2004). Te open classroom: Schools without walls became all the
rage during the early 1970s. Were they just another fad? Education Next,
4(2), 68.
Cullingford, C. (2007). Creativity and pupils’ experience of school. Education
3–13, 35(2), 133–142.
Davis, G. A. (2004). Creativity is forever. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A.
(2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic
literature review. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.
Duncan-Owens, D. (2009). Scripted reading programs: Fishing for success.

Principal, 88(3), 26–29.
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. 114–95 § 114, Stat. 1177.
Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An
American retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 319–336.
Fitz, J. A., & Nikolaidis, A. C. (2020). A democratic critique of scripted
curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(2), 195–213. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00220272.2019.1661524
Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Exploring creative
learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach. Tinking Skills and
Creativity, 24, 250–267.
Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and
U.S. education policy. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://
fles.epi.org/pdf/205622.pdf
Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2014). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority
and curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 634–655.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: Te development of creative capacity. Harper
& Row.
Hanich, L. B., & Bray, J. S. (2009). No child left behind: An examination
of preservice teachers’ knowledge and preparation. Pennsylvania Teacher
Education 8, 27–37. Retrieved from https://www.pac-te.org/uploads
/1443198775_Hanich%20and%20Bray%20-%202009.pdf
Hargrove, R. A. (2013). Assessing the long-term impact of a metacognitive
approach to creative skill development. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23(3), 489–517.
Hennessey, B. A. (2015). Assessing schools on creativity: A toolbox for US
teachers and policymakers and a to-do list for researchers worldwide. In
Creativity, culture, and development (pp. 147–160). Springer.
Hlebowtish, P. S. (2007, November 11). First, do no harm. Education
Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/07
/11hlebowitsh.h27.html?r=948080409
Im, H., Hokanson, B., & Johnson, K. K. (2015). Teaching creative thinking
skills: A longitudinal study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33(2),
129–142.
Karwowski, M. (2011). Teacher personality as predictor of perceived climate
for creativity. IJCPS-International Journal of Creativity and Problem
Solving, 21(1), 37.
Katz-Buonincontro, J., Hass, R. W., & Perignat, E. (2020). Measuring beliefs
about teaching for creativity. Teachers College Record, 122(7), 1–15.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: Te four c
model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0013688
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu. J. (2020).
Projecting the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on academic
achievement. (EdWorkingPaper, pp. 20–226). Retrieved from Annenberg
Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/cdrv-yw05
Lambert, P. A. (2017). Understanding creativity. In Creative dimensions of
teaching and learning in the 21st century (pp. 1–21). Brill Sense.
Lohman, J. S. (2010). Comparing no child left behind and race to the top.
Connecticut General Assembly, Ofce of Legislative Research.
Maker, C. J., Jo, S., & Muammar, O. M. (2008). Development of creativity:
Te infuence of varying levels of implementation of the DISCOVER
curriculum model, a non-traditional pedagogical approach. Learning and
Individual Diferences, 18(4), 402–417.
Maslow, A. H. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved November 27, 2015, from
BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes
/a/abrahammas132251.html
McGregor, D., & Frodsham, S. (2019). Epistemic insights: Contemplating
tensions between policy infuences and creativity in school science. British
Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 770–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj
.3525
Milner, H. R. (2014). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban
schools. Urban Education, 49(7), 743–749.
Morais, M. D. F., Viana, F. L., Fleith, D. D. S., & Dias, C. (2019). Climate
scale for creativity in the classroom: Evidence of factorial validity in the
Portuguese context. Trends in Psychology, 27(4), 837–849.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
Te imperative for educational reform. Te Elementary School Journal,
84(2), 113–130.
Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions
of creativity in school science. Research in Science Technological Education,
27(1), 45–60.
Paek, S. H., Sumners, S. E., & Sharpe, D. I. (2020). Teachers’ Beliefs of
Creative Children. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 646–661.
Perry, M., & Collier, D. R. (2018). What counts as creativity in education? An
inquiry into the intersections of public, political, and policy discourses.
Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1), 24–43.
Piirto, J. (2011). Creativity for 21st century skills. Sense Publishers.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958
to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114.
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general,
why it looks domain specifc, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In
R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From

potential to realization (pp. 153–168). American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J. A., & Dow, G. T. (2010). Attitude change as the precursor to
creativity enhancement. In R. Beghetto & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing
creativity in the classroom (pp. 362–379). Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Dow, G. T. (2017). Attitude change as the precursor to
creativity enhancement. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.),
Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd ed.) (pp. 190–211). Cambridge.
Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). What we know
about creativity [P21 research series]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Available at http://www.p21.org/our-work/4cs-research-series/creativity
Plucker, J. A., Glynn, J., Healey, G., & Dettmer, A. (2018a). Equal talents,
unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented
low-income students (2nd ed.). Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved
from http://www.excellencegap.org/.
Plucker, J. A., Guo, J., & Dilley, A. (2018b). Research-guided programs and
strategies for nurturing creativity. In S. I. Pfeifer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick,
& M. Foley Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 387–
397). American Psychological Association.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent
development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.
Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J. H., & Hays, T. S. (2000). Te multiple menu model:
A practical guide for developing diferentiated curriculum. Prufrock Press.
Robinson, K. J. (2018). Restructuring the elementary and secondary education
act’s approach to equity. Minnesota Law Review. Retrieved from https://
www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/6Robinson
_MLR.pdf
Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., & Ehlinger,
J. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that infuence creativity
development: Applying a social cognitive theory perspective. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 70, 100–110.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories
of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research
Journal, 14(3–4), 427–438.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? Te artful balance of
structure and improvisation. Structure and improvisation in creative teaching
(pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press.
Schul, J. E. (2011). Unintended consequences: Fundamental faws that plague
the No Child Left Behind act. JEP: EJournal of Education Policy, 2.
Shively, C. T., & Yerrick, R. (2014). A case for examining pre-service teacher
preparation for inquiry teaching science with technology. Research in
Learning Technology, 22, 1–13.
Smith, N., & Wright, B. (2017). Leveraging ESSA to support quality-school
growth. Tomas B. Fordham Foundation and Institute & Education
Cities. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/pages/State-of-the-States
-2019:-Teacher-and-Principal-Evaluation-Policy
Sparks, S. D. (2020). Children’s mental health emergencies skyrocketed after
COVID-19 hit. What schools can do. Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/childrens-mental-health-emergencies
-skyrocketed-after-covid-19-hit-what-schools-can-do/2020/11
Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight.
Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: Te sounds of silence.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 115.
Sternberg, R., & Kaufman, J. (2018). Societal forces that ERODE creativity.
Teachers College Record, 120(5), 1–18.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity.
ASCD.
Tan, A. (2000). A review on the study of creativity in Singapore. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 34(4), 259–284.
Tooley, M. (2014). A shifting landscape for state teacher evaluation policy.
Retrieved from http://www.edcentral.org/shifting-landscape-state
-teacher-evaluation-policy/
Ukpolo, F. T., & Strauss, J. E. (2005). No child left behind and pre-service
teachers. Journal of Urban Education: Focus on Enrichment, 2(1). Retrieved
from http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jstraus/NCLB&Preservice.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Te no child left behind act of 2001:
Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/
intro/execsumm.html
Yi, X., Plucker, J. A., & Guo, J. (2015). Modeling infuences on divergent
thinking and artistic creativity. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 62–68.
Yuan, Y. H., Wu, M. H., Hu, M. L., & Lin, I. C. (2019). Teacher’s
encouragement on creativity, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: Te
mediating role of creative process engagement. Journal of Creative Behavior,
53(3), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.181
HOT TOPIC 8
Creativity in Groups
Catalyst or Complication?
Melanie S. Meyer and Jonathan A. Plucker
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Much of the work that takes place in businesses and in schools is
done in groups or teams, but those confgurations may not always
create the most conducive environments for creative thinking and
problem-solving.
¥¥ Working on tasks in isolation may also limit an individual’s ability to
think creatively and solve problems.
¥¥ Tere is some evidence that dyads or pairs may be the optimal group
size for creative ideation, production, and problem-solving.
¥¥ Workfow cycles that include group collaboration followed by inde-
pendent investigation, refection, and idea generation may be more
conducive to creative ideation and production.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-17 209

Anyone who has ever been part of a group efort knows that some groups
function better than others. A group on a tight deadline may sacrifce creative
solutions for more practical or timely options. A group with members from
diverse backgrounds may conform to the ideas of the most vocal member for
the sake of getting the job done and minimizing confict along the way. A
group with members who have difering viewpoints may reach an impasse,
prompting one individual to take on the bulk of the workload just to move
the project forward. But at what cost? Some aspects of group work in schools
and in the workplace have the potential to stife creativity and squash attempts
to innovate. Groups can collaborate efectively and accomplish the tasks they
set out to complete, but there is a diference between simply fnishing a task
and developing creative and innovative solutions. Tis hot topic examines the
benefts and limitations of working in groups and suggests methods for col-
laboration that support creative thinking and innovation.
Creativity, Group Creativity, and Innovation

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 defned within a social context” (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90). By
extension, group creativity can be defned as “the extent to which a work group
can generate novel and useful ideas together” (Yuan & Zhou, 2015, p. 993).
Creativity emerges when groups work together to fnd novel solutions to prob-
lems, but innovation requires groups to carefully examine proposed solutions
and overcome “implementation barriers” (De Dreu et al., 2011, p. 82).Te inter-
actions that occur between group members in pursuit of creative and innovative
solutions are impacted by several factors, including individual group member
characteristics (e.g., knowledge and skills, identifcation with the group, per-
sonal motivation), group dynamics (e.g., norms, goals, methods for processing
information), and organizational culture (e.g., time constraints, work climate).
Benefits of Groups
Idea Sharing
In workplaces and classrooms, there has been a shift toward more team-
based approaches that require individuals to work as part of a group (Goncalo
& Staw, 2006; Kuhn, 2015). One beneft of work groups is that they can
facilitate idea sharing. Group synergy can occur when members bring diverse
knowledge and skill sets and when those group members carefully process
task-related information collaboratively (De Dreu et al., 2011; Paulus, 2000;
Creativity in Groups 211
Royston & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Tese collaborations may include disagree-

ments, but engagement with dissenting opinions can stimulate the fow of
ideas and lead to creative solutions (Goncalo & Staw, 2006; Nemeth & Staw,
1989). In Shin and Jang’s (2017) qualitative investigation of creativity train-
ing with elementary problem-solving competition teams, teacher-supported
group interactions helped students develop the capacity to interact with peers
through debate, dissent, and the evaluation of competing ideas. However, the
creative capacity of groups is also enhanced by providing group members with
opportunities to refect individually throughout the process and before major
decisions are made (Lee et al., 2018; Paulus, 2000).
Shared Goals
When group members feel a sense of belonging and identify with their
work group, positive behaviors and group outcomes, including creative pro-
duction, are more likely. However, group creativity is not just impacted by
whether or not members identify with the group, but also the approaches
they take to afrm that identifcation. Some groups may hold a “promotion-
orientation” (Lee et al., 2018, p. 124), which is characterized by attempts to
maximize the positive contributions of the group through creative solutions,
while other groups hold a “prevention-orientation” (p. 124), in which they act
to prevent negative consequences for the organization, often leading to deci-
sions that preserve stability and the status quo.
Limitations of Groups
Pressure to Conform
One criticism of work groups is that they promote conformity at the
expense of creativity, but whether or not group members go along with the
dominant opinions of the group is largely a function of the norms they adopt.
If a group embraces norms that encourage risk-taking, accept mistakes as
part of the process, and require the active participation of all team members,
their creative capacity may be higher than a group with a bottom-line mental-
ity that chooses to short-cut the exchange of ideas and systematic processing
of information (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 2003; De Dreu et al., 2011; Goncalo &
Duguid, 2012; Greenbaum et al., 2020). However, consistently navigating the
divergent and convergent processes required for problem-solving in a group
may be easier said than done.
External Constraints
Group creativity may also be impacted by the task parameters (e.g., project
requirements, deadlines), so when creativity is the goal, individuals have to
carefully navigate those environmental obstacles to arrive at novel and use-

ful solutions (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). A narrow focus on one objective (e.g.,
profts, project completion) can minimize distractions by fltering out compet-
ing priorities, but it can also blind individuals to other relevant concerns that
impact the health and functioning of the organization (e.g., ethics, creativity,
innovation). So the goals of the group and how group members focus their
energy when working toward those goals can impact group creativity. A focus
on the bottom line at the expense of other relevant concerns can impact a group
member’s sense of psychological safety and limit the exchange of ideas required
for creativity (Greenbaum et al., 2020). In addition, completion deadlines may
leave groups with less time to process information, so even though group mem-
bers may have prosocial motives, their creative and innovative potential may be
undermined by the constraints of the deadline (De Dreu et al., 2011).
Group Dynamics
Social and cognitive stimulation are frequently cited as benefts of group
work. Although group interactions do have the potential to enhance the fuency
and originality of ideas generated by a group (De Dreu et al., 2011), in reality,
the cognitive interference and social inhibition efects that are also common
in group exchanges can lead to lower levels of group creativity and innovation
(Paulus, 2000). In school settings, teachers often structure learning tasks to
include group work under the assumption that the idea sharing that takes place
will enhance not only students’ understanding of the content, but also their
ability to collaborate on creative solutions. Unfortunately, this assumption is
not supported by a strong empirical research base (Kuhn, 2015; Plucker et al.,
2015). In Kuhn’s (2015) review of several studies, she noted that “the efective
component of PBL [problem-based learning]” was “learning new concepts in
the context of a problem requiring their application, rather than social collabo-
ration” (p. 48). Group creativity can also be impacted by individual members’
perceptions of power distance (e.g., social status, professional status) within the
group. In turn, these perceptions can constrain divergent thinking processes if
group members self-censor and choose not to share their ideas. As a result, con-
vergent processes, such as idea selection and implementation planning, may also
sufer in the wake of these power distance diferentials (Yuan & Zhou, 2015).
Group Composition
In empirical investigations, demographic diversity (e.g., race, gender, age)
does not appear to be related to group creativity, but diversity of abilities and
perspectives (e.g., functional diversity) does appear to be a factor (Royston &
Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Larger groups with members who are engaged, who
actively consider the ideas of others, and who withhold judgment of ideas may
create atmospheres that support creative ideation through positive competi-
tion (Paulus, 2000). However, larger groups can be difcult to manage, and
may fnd it harder to make decisions that account for the viewpoints of all
members. Recent research has suggested that smaller collaborative groups,
specifcally pairs, may be more conducive to developing creative solutions
(Kuhn, 2015; Shenk, 2014).
Finding a Balance
De Dreu et al. (2008) described group collaboration as a process of “cycling
between individual-level and group-level information processing” that “con-
tinues until a decision is reached, or some judgment is rendered” (p. 82). Tey
noted that group members who are motivated to fnd, process, and share infor-
mation systematically (e.g., high epistemic motivation) and who work toward
collective rather than personal gain (e.g., high prosocial motivation) contrib-
ute to the overall creative potential of the group (De Dreu et al., 2011). In a
cross-cultural study, three-person groups who shared the goal of improving
the organization (e.g., prosocial motivation) and were motivated to engage in
meaningful information processing (e.g., epistemic motivation) demonstrated
higher fuency and generated more original ideas than groups with lower levels
of prosocial and epistemic motivation (Bechtoldt et al., 2010). Tese motiva-
tional factors may provide some insight into characteristics to consider when
forming teams in workplaces and classrooms.
We often use a strategy we call the accordion method, an empirically
supported technique that cycles between group eforts and solitary/paired
arrangements for creative work. In this method, individuals begin the work
with the whole team to set priorities and discuss the goals of the task, then
people go of by themselves or in pairs to do some creative thinking, followed
by bringing everyone back together when the time is right. At this point, the
team can look over the pooled results, talk about next steps, then split into
individuals or pairs again to work. Just as the bellows of an accordion move in
and out to produce music, in this method individuals move in and out of group
settings to design and implement creative solutions.
Tis approach has applications in the workplace and in school settings. For
example, Te Agile Manifesto (2001) is a set of values and guiding principles for
decision-making within the software development process. Tis collaboration
between software industry stakeholders includes a set of fexible approaches
that allow groups of individuals to move in and out of team confgurations as
they navigate the process of creating, troubleshooting, and optimizing their
products (Shead, 2016). Kuhn (2015) describes an intervention to scafold

the development of argumentation skills in adolescent writers that includes
explicitly teaching an “argument–counterargument–rebuttal structure” before
asking students to develop their own arguments, engage with classmates who
hold opposing viewpoints, and reevaluate their positions before interacting
with other students. She notes that “it is not enough simply to put individu-
als in a context that allows for collaboration and expect them to engage in it
efectively. Intellectual collaboration is a skill, learned through engagement
and practice” (Kuhn 2015, p. 51).
Conclusion
Group work confgurations are not always the best way to promote creativ-
ity and innovation, but humans are social creatures and often work with others
by choice or out of necessity. On the other end of the spectrum, always work-
ing in isolation on tasks may not fully support creativity and innovation either.
Te truth about optimal working conditions that support creative thinking and
implementation likely falls somewhere in between. Research on group creativity
in the workplace and in schools provides some guidance about factors to con-
sider when working within an organization that uses a team approach, particu-
larly when those teams are expected to produce creative or innovative solutions.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011).
Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing
perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81–89.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017986
Kuhn, D. (2015). Tinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1),
46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: Te creative potential
of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
49(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013
References
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2010).
Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637. https://doi.org

/10.1037/a0019386
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W.,
Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jefries, R., Kern,
J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland,
J., & Tomas, D. (2001). Te agile manifesto. Agile Alliance. https://
agilemanifesto.org/
Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2003). Te determinants of team based
innovation in organizations: Te role of social infuence. Small Group
Research, 34(4), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403254395
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated
information processing in group judgment and decision-making.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1088868307304092
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011).
Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing
perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81–89.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017986
Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction:
When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does
not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.004
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group
creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1),
96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003
Greenbaum, R. L., Bonner, J. M., Mawritz, M. B., Butts, M. M., & Smith,
M. B. (2020). It is all about the bottom line: Group bottom‐line mentality,
psychological safety, and group creativity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 41(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2445
Kuhn, D. (2015). Tinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1),
46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Paik, Y. (2018). Does shared group identifcation
lead to group creativity? Group regulatory focus as a moderator. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 49(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp
.12569
Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). Te tradeofs of social control and innovation
in small groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 175–210). Academic Press.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: Te creative potential
of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
49(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity
more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and
future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2),
83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Plucker, J. A., Kennedy, C., & Dilley, A. (2015). What we know about
collaboration. Partnership for 21st Century Learning.
Royston, R. P., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Leadership and creativity: What
leaders can do to facilitate creativity in organizations. In J. A. Plucker
(Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Teory, research, and practice (pp. 247–
266). Prufrock Press.
Shead, M. W. (2016, March). What is agile? https://blogs.harvard.edu/
markshead/what-is-agile/
Shenk, J. W. (2014). Powers of two: How relationships drive creativity. Houghton,
Mifin, Harcourt.
Shin, N., & Jang, Y. J. (2017). Group creativity training for children: Lessons
learned from two award‐winning teams. Te Journal of Creative Behavior,
51(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.82
Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2015). Efect of cultural power distance on group
creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36(7), 990–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2022
CHAPTER 9
Teachers and
Creativity
Kristen N. Lamb
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Teachers view creativity more favorably than conventional wisdom
and past research suggest, and have likely evolved over time (in line
with societal values and priorities).
¥¥ Teachers can reshape the classroom environment into one that sup-
ports and encourages creativity.
¥¥ A “creativity gap” persists between the values and priorities of educa-
tional practice and the present-day workforce.
¥¥ Prioritizing creativity in teacher preparation programs and profes-
sional development remains a promising avenue for change.
¥¥ Adopting language that prioritizes creativity in educational policy and
standards is necessary to align with the values and priorities of today’s
society.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-18 217

I am convinced that slight, manageable changes – made at the

informed discretion of teachers themselves – are the best way
to see real progress with respect to creativity in the classroom.
(Ronald Beghetto, 2013, p. xii)
The Emphasis and Value of Creativity

Creativity is regarded as an essential skill by many stakeholders across
a variety of domains (Plucker et al., 2004), and the push for creativity has
become a priority across the globe. However, most job applicants are acutely
unprepared and lack the critical skills necessary for a globalized economy.
In response, many stakeholders have called for reform and a renewed focus
on creativity as a central aspect in education (Casner-Lotto & Barrington,
2006; Florida, 2005; Lamb, 2020b; P21, n.d.; Robinson, 2006). Yet educa-
tional institutions continue to operate under frequently changing policies that
undermine the call for creativity in the classroom. As the need for creative
thinkers continues to increase, concerns linger over the lack of growth in crea-
tive thinking in today’s students.
For teachers, there are many reasons, associated with the neglect and
dismissal of creativity in educational settings. Many teachers understand the
need for creativity, but also acknowledge the limitations, such as insufcient
time and rigid curricula, that prevent them from prioritizing the develop-
ment of creativity in their classrooms (Beghetto, 2009; Olszewski-Kubilius
et al., 2016). Teachers may also mistakenly believe they are developing creativ-
ity through commonly used pedagogical practices, such as recall and evalua-
tion (Rubenstein et al., 2018), when they are actually discouraging creativity
altogether. Other teachers develop students’ creative potential by focusing on
the product aspect of creativity at the end of a learning unit (Kettler et al.,
2018a). In turn, they may neglect other important facets of creativity, such as
the environment or the process. Some teachers feel uncomfortable teaching
creativity, or may even fnd it irresponsible or stressful (Beghetto, 2009; Guo
& Woulfn, 2016), which indicates issues associated with training and educa-
tional accountability standards. Essentially, teachers are tasked with educating
and preparing students within a system that does not refect real-world values
and demands. In this case, they are teaching within a system that was not built
with creativity in mind.
However, many teachers do recognize the benefts and value of creativity,
and thus are more likely to recognize and value creativity in their students
(Kettler et al., 2018b; Rubenstein et al., 2013). Tis raises the question: Where
Teachers and Creativity 219
is the disconnect between the value of creativity and developing creativity

in the classroom? In 2004, Plucker and colleagues stated, “Our knowledge
of creativity – and thinking and learning in general – has advanced over the
past several decades, but our strategies for enhancing creativity have changed
very little” (p. 85). Arguably, almost 20 years later, this sentiment lingers.
Moreover, little has changed in the way of preparing teachers with the nec-
essary tools to develop creativity in their students, nor have we worked to
align educational policies with creativity (Guo & Woulfn, 2016) and create
educational environments that provide teachers with the fexibility needed to
cultivate these skills.
What the Research Says about

Teachers and Creativity
Creativity in the classroom (and any other environment) is the sum of its
parts: person, process, press (environmental factors), and product/performance
(Rhodes, 1961). Amabile (1983) points to this as well, describing it as the con-
stellation of creativity (personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social
environments). In the classroom context, and for the purposes of this chapter,
creativity is best conceptualized and defned as “the interaction among apti-
tude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a
perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defned within a social
context” (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90).
Past research has suggested that teachers fnd creative behaviors undesir-
able in classroom settings. In fact, Westby and Dawson (1995) referred to
teachers’ distaste for creative personality traits as “one of the most consistent
fndings in educational studies on creativity” (p. 1). Tey further surmised that
because teachers recognized the importance of creativity, they might likely
report what they believed was the right answer, or an answer that refected
value for creativity, rather than reporting the real answer, or an answer that
refected their actual values for the classroom. One of the most permeating
fndings from this study reinforced prior research fndings: Teachers held a
negative view of characteristics of creativity (Westby & Dawson). In another
study, researchers conceptually replicated Westby and Dawson’s study and
found similar results. Over 20 years later, teachers still preferred students’
characteristics that ran counter to creativity (Kettler et al., 2018b).
Characteristics of creativity include descriptors such as independent,
impulsive, risk-taking, curious, and nonconformity, whereas characteris-
tics counter to creativity include terms like reliable, sincere, and practical
(Kettler et al., 2018b; Westby & Dawson, 1995). Although it is important to
use caution regarding creativity characteristics and traits as not all will apply
to all creative individuals (Plucker et al., 2004), traits and characteristics of
creativity have been the focus of many studies (e.g., Aljughaiman & Mowrer-
Reynolds, 2005; Dawson et al., 1999; Domino, 1970; MacKinnon, 1963;
Proctor & Burnett, 2004; Rubenstein et al., 2018). Many of these studies
have considered characteristics and traits in the context of teachers’ beliefs and
perceptions of creativity in the classroom (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Chan &
Chan, 1999; Gralewski, 2018; Kettler et al., 2018b; Mullet et al., 2016; Paek
et al., 2019; Scott, 1999; Westby & Dawson, 1995). Te results of these stud-
ies generally agree that: (a) teachers see the value and beneft of creativity, (b)
teachers generally identify positive attributes conducive to classroom environ-
ments as creative characteristics (e.g., independent thinker, cheerful, leader,
curious, artistic), (c) teachers perceive creativity diferently than researchers
do, and (d) inaccurate conceptions of creativity can misguide teachers’ beliefs
and classroom practices (Mullet et al., 2016).
Overall, teachers hold positive views of creativity and believe creativity
can be developed and enhanced (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Cropley et al.,
2019), at least to a point (Mullet et al., 2016). For instance, teachers generally
believe that all students can be creative (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds,
2005; Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018), yet there is a lingering belief that some
are born creative (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). Teachers may also believe that
some students have an innate ability to be more creative than others, which
indicates the lingering existence of stubborn creativity myths (see Plucker
et al., 2004 for more on creativity myths). As a result, teachers may not believe
creativity can be taught or developed to the same degree as in those indi-
viduals who are innately creative (Mullet et al., 2016). Research also indicates
that many teachers still view creativity as “synonymous with the arts” (Mullet
et al., 2016, p. 24) or believe some subject areas are more creative than oth-
ers (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). For example, science and math teachers may
be more likely to hold an arts bias than humanities teachers or those who
teach primary grade levels (Patston et al., 2018). However, in the same study,
Patston and colleagues found that teachers who saw themselves as more crea-
tive were less likely to have an arts bias. Likewise, Cropley et al. (2019) exam-
ined teacher beliefs and creativity through a framework that tailored survey
language to the education feld. Results indicated that teacher participants
in this study did not believe that creativity was synonymous “only with art,
music, or other related activities,” and in general presented “more open, dif-
ferentiated, and nuanced views of creativity in education” (p. 10). Te fndings
of this study in particular imply that teachers’ implicit beliefs may not be as
inaccurate as we once thought. Tese studies collectively indicate a few impor-
tant take-aways: (a) teachers view creativity more favorably than indicated by
earlier/past research, (b) teachers’ views of creativity have likely evolved over
time (with societal values/priorities), (c) research illustrates just how nuanced
teachers’ beliefs about creativity are, and (d) more research is needed to assess
whether (or the level to which) teachers’ beliefs may still be impacted by lin-
gering, prevalent creativity myths.
Educational System and Structure Issues

Generally, traditional classroom environments are not “creativity-fostering
places” (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 84), which may be associated with limitations
and pressures from teachers’ macro-environment (e.g., standardized testing,
the curriculum, and lack of support from school leaders; Rubenstein et al.,
2018). In 2009, Makel pointed to this misalignment between the value of cre-
ativity (or claiming to value creativity) in the “professional world of adults” and
the educational context in which we seem to minimize the development of
creativity in children (p. 38). He further explained reasons why this “creativ-
ity gap” may exist: (a) school lessons are taught within one context yet applied
in another, (b) lack of training, and (c) a system that rewards performance on
standardized testing. In essence, these issues “systematically eliminate” stu-
dents’ creativity in the classroom (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006, p. 321).
Systems of accountability pay little regard for creativity in K-12 educa-
tion, yet they “drive instruction and curriculum” (Plucker & Alanazi, 2019,
p. 502). Current educational policy and funding reinforce accountability and
reward performance on standardized tests (Guo & Woulfn, 2016; Makel,
2009); therefore, much of the focus in the classroom (e.g., rote memorization,
closed-ended responses, right/wrong answers) aligns with these incentives
(e.g., funding). For example, when asked to rank educational objectives (i.e.,
content knowledge and skills, critical thinking, problem-solving, communi-
cation, and creative thinking) in order of importance, teachers ranked the
mastering of content knowledge and skills as the most important, and creative
thinking as least important (Kettler et al., 2018b). In this sense, schools are
practicing what is preached, and that’s accountability, content, and standards.
In a systematic review of existing research, Bereczki and Kárpáti (2018)
noted the following barriers related to teachers’ beliefs toward fostering crea-
tivity in the classroom: (a) lack of time, (b) lack of training, (c) an encumbered
curriculum, (d) lack of resources, (e) standardized testing, and (f) struggle
with creativity assessment. In another study, 76 percent of teacher partici-
pants reported external factors (e.g., standardized testing, time constraints, a
required curriculum, and lack of support from administrators) as the largest
hindrance in teaching students to think creatively (Rubenstein et al., 2018). As
a result, teacher practices often align with the values and priorities determined
by macro-level accountability and reward systems. Classroom environments

(micro-level) merely refect the larger ecosystem of which they are a part.
Traditional Classroom Settings

When it comes to creativity, environment is crucial. Traditional classroom
settings are often driven by “fxed time schedules; segmented subjects or top-
ics; predetermined sets of information and activities, tests, and grades to deter-
mine progress; and a pattern of organization that is largely driven by the need
to acquire and assimilate information and skills that are deemed important by
curriculum developers, textbook publishers, and committees who prepare lists
of standards” (Renzulli, 2012, p. 154). In this context, environmental factors
(e.g., testing, time schedules, school leadership) and whether teachers view
the environment as supportive or not impact teachers’ beliefs that they can (or
cannot) develop creativity (Rubenstein et al., 2018). In this type of learning
environment, teachers are more likely to adopt “teacher-centered practices”
(Beghetto & Plucker, 2006, p. 319) and/or struggle to integrate creativity,
especially in ways that mimic real-world settings. If teachers are expected to
teach creativity in a way that mirrors how students might apply their creativ-
ity in a given feld, then we must consider how to restructure the values and
practices of the educational system to refect a system that values creativity.
Teachers’ behaviors shape classroom environments. In traditional class-
room settings, students’ creativity can be suppressed through IRE (initiate,
respond, evaluate) practices (Beghetto, 2010) and the dismissal of students’
creative micro-moments (i.e., brief classroom interactions and experiences that
are easy to miss; for more on creative micro-moments, see Beghetto, 2009).
In this type of environment, the development of students’ creativity is left to
chance (if developed at all). Suppressing and neglecting students’ creativity
can deter students from taking intellectual risks in the classroom and ulti-
mately, impact students’ creative self-efcacy, or the belief that they can pro-
duce creative outcomes (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006; Tierney & Farmer, 2002).
However, even in the midst of these requirements and constraints, teachers
generally have some autonomy within their classrooms. Making small adjust-
ments in teaching practices can help teachers to adopt and incorporate behav-
iors that orient their classroom environment toward creativity.
Lack of Training
Creativity is malleable and accessible to all, regardless of the domain
or expertise area (Byrge & Tang, 2015; Lamb, 2020a, b; Ritter & Mostert,
2016), and there is substantial support for the development and enhancement
of creativity through creativity training during professional development and
teacher preparation programs (Mullet et al., 2016; Puccio et al., 2018; Scott
et al., 2004). For instance, participation in creativity training has shown to
increase creative self-efcacy, creative outcomes (Byrge & Tang, 2015), crea-
tive ideation (fuency and fexibility; Ritter et al., 2020), and creative solutions
(Puccio et al., 2018). Additionally, participation in creativity training can
align teachers’ conceptions of creativity with researchers’ conceptions (Mullet
et al., 2016), thus improving teachers’ abilities to identify and develop creativ-
ity. In short, creativity training is an avenue worth pursuing.
Many teachers report feeling unprepared to develop creativity in their
students, and have related inadequate preparation to their pre-service time in
university preparation programs (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005;
Mullet et al., 2016). Researchers have consistently pointed to teacher prepara-
tion programs as a promising mechanism for change (Beghetto & Plucker,
2006; Cropley et al., 2019; Makel, 2009; Mullet et al., 2016; Rubenstein et al.,
2018; Snyder et al., 2020). Yet creativity is rarely included as a required course
in teacher preparation programs (Makel, 2009), if it is even ofered at all. Still,
much of the push for creativity in education is centered around the workforce
and preparing students for an unknown future, while less emphasis is given to
the preparation teachers receive in higher education programs and training. If
we prioritize preparing students for an unknown future, then shouldn’t teach-
ers be prepared for the same unknowns?
Where Do We Go from Here?

Teaching programs must include coursework/training in creativity. To
counter inaccurate conceptions and persistent myths of creativity, training
should be grounded in theory and research (Mullet et al., 2016) so that teach-
ers can learn about the essential elements of creativity (Abdulla & Cramond,
2017). Plucker and Dow (2016) propose a model of creativity enhancement
that addresses attitude change, assists people to identify their strengths,
and emphasizes intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with creativity.
Integrating the creativity enhancement model in teacher preparation pro-
grams could debunk (at least to some extent) common creativity myths, cor-
rectly align teachers’ perceptions with theory and research-based conceptions
of creativity, and adequately prepare teachers to develop creativity in their stu-
dents. Additionally, students’ characteristics and behaviors and the learning
environment are essential components of creativity in the classroom; there-
fore, training should address identifcation or recognition of creative char-
acteristics and behaviors and creative environments (Abdulla & Cramond,
2017; Berezcki & Kárpáti, 2018). Creativity training should also address how
creativity skills are measured (Abdulla & Cramond, 2017), as assessment is a

key component in the education system. Finally, teacher programs and profes-
sional development should consider ways to incorporate training into creative
pedagogy (Lin, 2011), or at the very least teaching practices that encour-
age creativity (e.g., authentic learning, collaboration, modeling, etc.; Kettler
et al., 2018a); this will enable teachers to feel prepared and confdent in their
abilities to integrate creative teaching practices to develop students’ creativity
in the classroom. It is also important to mention that creativity training in
teacher preparation programs and professional development should consider
the discipline and teachers’ existing knowledge and implicit beliefs (Cropley
et al., 2019). Establishing creativity training in teacher preparation programs
can provide the support and bolster the efcacy teachers need to identify and
foster creativity at the classroom level.
Teachers see the beneft of developing creativity in their students, but lack
the supports needed to align their practices with their desire to be creative in
the classroom and foster students’ creative potential. If creativity is the aim of
education, then we must support teachers in their endeavor to teach creatively
and teach for creativity. In addition to training and equipping teachers with
the tools necessary to develop creativity in educational settings, change must
happen in educational policy and teaching standards and associated frame-
works to better align with the principles of creativity (Berezcki & Kárpáti,
2018; Guo & Woulfn, 2016; Plucker & Alanazi, 2019) as well as the increas-
ing demand for creativity. If we want to prioritize creativity in education, then
policy must adopt explicit language that provides guidance for school districts
in creative practices and services as well as ways to measure their success: “As
the adage goes, what matters is measured, or better yet, what is measured mat-
ters” (Bernhardt, 2017; Lamb et al., 2019, p. 219). Expressed simply, we must
put our money where our mouth is when it comes to creativity in education.
Te value of creativity is clear, but the central question remains: If creativ-
ity is the aim for education, how do we shift the educational system from one
that values testing and accountability to one that values creativity (both in
theory and in practice)? Tere is no clear answer, and much work lies ahead of
us. In the meantime, it begins with one small creative act at a time.

Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? Te promise and perils of creativity in
the classroom. Information Age Publishing.
Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Beautiful risks: Having the courage to teach and learn
creatively. Rowman & Littlefeld Publishers.
Kettler, T., Lamb, K. N., & Mullet, D. R. (2018). Developing creativity in the
classroom: Learning and innovation for 21st century schools. Prufrock Press.
Sawyer, K. (2019). Te creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st century
learners. Teachers College Press.
References
Abdulla, A. M., & Cramond, B. (2017). After six decades of systematic study
of creativity: What do teachers need to know about what it is and how it
is measured? Roeper Review, 39, 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193
.2016.1247398
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of
creativity and creative students. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1),
17–34.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). Te social psychology of creativity: A componential
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the
micromoments of the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 3(1), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014831
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R.
J. Sternberg (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–461).
Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? Te promise and perils of creativity in
the classroom. Information Age.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). Te relationship among schooling,
learning, and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity
and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). Cambridge University
Press.
Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its
nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational
Research Review, 23, 25–56.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2017). Measuring what we do in schools: How to know if
what we are doing is making a diference. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodies creativity training: Efects on creative
self-efcacy and creative production. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 16,
51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work?
Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants
to the 21st century U.S. workforce. https://www.conference-board.org/pdf

_free/BED-06-Workforce.pdf
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’
perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3
Cropley, D. H., Patston, T., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Essential,
unexceptional, and universal: Teacher implicit beliefs of creativity. Tinking
Skills and Creativity, 34, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100604
Dawson, V. L., D’Andrea, T., Afnito, R., & Westby, E. L. (1999). Predicting
creative behavior: A reexamination of the divergence between traditional
and teacher-defned concepts of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
57–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1201_7
Domino, G. (1970). Identifcation of potentially creative persons from the
adjective check list. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48–
51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5487608/
Florida, R. (2005). Te fight of the creative class: Te new global competition for
talent. Harper Business.
Gralewski, J. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics:
A qualitative study. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 138–155. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.008
Guo, J., & Woulfn, S. (2016). Twenty-frst century creativity: An investigation
of how the Partnership for 21st Century Instructional Framework refects
the principles of creativity. Roeper Review, 38, 153–161. https://doi.org/10
.1080/02783193.2016.1183741
Kettler, T., Lamb, K. N., & Mullet, D. R. (2018a). Developing creativity in the
classroom: Learning and innovation for 21st century schools. Prufrock Press.
Kettler, T., Lamb, K. N., Willerson, A., & Mullet, D. R. (2018b). Teachers’
perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30,
164–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503
Lamb, K. N. (2020a). Creativity. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callhan (Eds.), Critical
issues and practices in gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 137–155). Prufrock Press.
Lamb, K. N. (2020b). Cultivating creative thinking in the classroom. In J.
H. Robins, J. L. Jolly, F. A. Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and
materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 279–297). Prufrock Press.
Lamb, K. N., Boedeker, P., & Kettler, T. (2019). Inequities of enrollment in
gifted education: A statewide application of the 20% equity allowance
formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0016986219830768
Lin, Y. S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education: A conceptual
framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2, 149–155. https://
www.scirp.org/html/6710.html
MacKinnon, D. W. (1963). Te identifcation of creativity. Applied Psychology,

12(1), 25–46.
Makel, M. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 38–42. https://doi.org
/10.1037/a0014919.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining
teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature.
Tinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016
.05.001
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Aiming talent
development toward creative eminence in the 21st century. Roeper Review,
38, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1184497
Paek, S. H., Sumners, S. E., & Sharpe, D. I. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs of
creative children. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 646–661. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jocb.400
Partnership for 21st Century Learning [P21]. (n.d.). Framework for 21st century
learning. http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework
_Brief.pdf
Patston, T. J., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2018).
Teacher implicit beliefs of creativity: Is there an arts bias? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 75, 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08
.001
Plucker, J. A., & Alanazi, R. (2019). Is creativity compatible with educational
accountability? Promise and pitfalls of using assessment to monitor and
enhance a complex construct. In I. Lebuda & V. P. Glǎveanu (Eds.),
Te Palgrave handbook of social creativity research (pp. 501–514). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95498-1_31
Plucker, J. A., & Dow. G. T. (2016). Attitude change as the precursor to
creativity enhancement. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.),
Nurturing creativity in the classroom (p. 362–379). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781629.018
more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and
future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Proctor, R., & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional
characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity Research
Journal, 16, 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534553
Puccio, G. J., Burnett, C., Acar, S., Yudess, J. A., Holinger, M., & Cabra,
J. F. (2018). Creative problem solving in small groups: Te efects of
creativity training on idea generation, solution creativity, and leadership
efectiveness. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 453–471. https://doi.org

/10.1002/jocb.381
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent
development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Te Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–
310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2016). Enhancement of creative thinking
skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive
Enhancement, 1, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3
Ritter, S. M., Gu, X., Crijns, M., & Biekens, P. (2020). Fostering students’
creative thinking skills by means of a one-year creativity training program.
PLoS ONE, 15, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773
Robinson, K. (2006, February). Do schools kill creativity? [Video]. In TED
Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools
_kill_creativity?language=en
Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity
scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that
allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 324–
334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813807
Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., & Ehlinger,
J. (2018). Teachers perceive factors that infuence creativity development:
Applying a social cognitive theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 70, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012
Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers’ biases toward creative children. Creativity
Research Journal, 12, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204
_10
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Te efectiveness of
creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16,
361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
Snyder, H. T., Sowden, P. T., Silvia, P. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). Te creative
self: Do people distinguish creative self-perceptions, efcacy, and personal
identity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Advanced online
publication, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000317
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: Its potential
antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the
classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326934crj0801_1
HOT TOPIC 9
Creativity Assessment
Meihua Qian, Jonathan A. Plucker, and Qianyi Gao
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Creativity can be assessed from four diferent perspectives – creative
product, process, person, and environment.
¥¥ Popular methods of assessing creative products in education, psychol-
ogy, and business range from rater-based techniques to self-reported
measures.
¥¥ Regarding creative process, the Remote Associates Test has been
used to test individuals’ ability to build remote connections among
seemingly unrelated items, and divergent thinking tests such as the
Torrance Tests of Creative Tinking have been widely employed to
examine individuals’ divergent thinking ability.
¥¥ A number of creativity instruments concerning individual characteris-
tics of creators have been developed.
¥¥ Both home and work environment infuence creativity. Existing meas-
ures of creative work environment include KEYS to Creativity and
Innovation and the Creative Environment Perceptions scale.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-19 229

Whenever people mention the word “creativity,” we tend to think creativ-

ity belongs to a group of geniuses like Albert Einstein. But according to the
leading experts on creativity (e.g., Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Plucker &
Beghetto, 2004), everyone can be creative. Creativity is generally defned as
“the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an indi-
vidual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as
defned within a social context” (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90), and it plays an
important role in many aspects of life. Creativity is considered a key 21st-cen-
tury skill for student success, and is heavily emphasized in curricular frame-
works (Qian et al., 2019). Te following examples will illustrate how closely
creativity is related to our daily life, and how creativity can be assessed.
Creative Products and Assessment

In the United States, at the beginning of each semester, undergraduate
and graduate students always rush to the bookstore to buy the required text-
books or shop online in hopes of fnding cheaper versions. Regardless, text-
books are expensive. Now, technology is fundamentally changing the world,
and people can’t survive without access to the internet on a daily basis. It is
extremely common for students to have computers, smartphones, and iPads.
Considering these two factors, publishers have begun to create electronic
versions of textbooks and enthusiastically persuade instructors to adopt the
e-texts. However, e-texts are still not cheap.
Seeing this as an opportunity, two undergraduate students at Illinois
State University, Kasey Gandham and Mike Shannon, started their own
business and founded Packback in 2012. Te essential idea was that stu-
dents could rent a textbook for US$5 per day,1 as their research showed that
students rarely opened their textbooks after buying them. But running a
business is not easy, and they needed investment to turn their creative idea
into a creative product. In order to attract inventors, Gandham and Shannon
appeared on ABC’s Shark Tank, a TV program that allows creators to pre-
sent their ideas or products to a panel of “shark” investors and seek invest-
ment. One of the investors, Mark Cuban, was willing to invest $250,000 in
Packback. A few months later, they raised an additional $750,000 in seed
funding, and Packback had attracted thousands of users from 80 campuses in
the US (Kolodny, 2014).
1 Packback no longer provides textbook rental services and has now become a popular AI-powered
online discussion platform that supports student discussion.
Creativity Assessment 231
Tis example clearly demonstrates how ordinary people without substan-

tive expertise in a feld can be creative, and how creativity is assessed. As long
as an individual or group produces a tangible product that is considered novel
and useful within a social context, then that is called creativity. Renting a
textbook is not a new idea, because several major companies such as Amazon’s
Rentals store ofer textbook rental services. However, they only rent books
or e-texts by semester. Packback instead let students rent an e-book for only
24 hours. In other words, Packback creatively met college students’ unique
needs – easy access to a textbook when needed at a minimum cost.
Te way Packback was evaluated by a group of “shark” investors also
refects how creative products can be measured. Te Consensual Assessment
Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982) is a popular method for measuring creative
products in which expert judges in the domain in question rate actual products
(e.g., poems, collages, drawings, or musical compositions) (e.g., Baer, 1998;
Kaufman et al., 2008). In the example above, all the “shark” investors were
extremely successful entrepreneurs, and they were asked to rate a new business
model as the experts in the domain of business.
A number of researchers (e.g., Baer & McKool, 2009; Kaufman et al.,
2009) have claimed that the CAT is a reliable and valid tool for measuring
creativity, and it has even been called the “gold standard” of creativity assess-
ment (Carson, 2006) because in the CAT, rather than try to measure some
skills that are theoretically linked to creativity, it is the actual creative product
participants have produced that is assessed. One thing to keep in mind is that
experts are people, and they have their own understandings of creativity. Teir
opinions probably change over time, and a diferent group of experts may
rate a creative product very diferently. Tis may partially explain why some
famous artists such as Van Gogh were not recognized for their groundbreak-
ing work until it was too late for them to enjoy their success personally.
An application of product assessments in the classroom setting is teacher
or peer evaluation of students’ creative work (e.g., creative writing, art, music).
For example, Kettler and Bower (2017) designed a writing rubric for teach-
ers to assess creativity in student writing. A sample criterion in the rubric is
shown below:
Although there are diferent views regarding whether teachers possess
the necessary level of expertise to be considered reliable raters, teacher rat-
ing has been playing an increasingly important role in creativity assessment
(Plucker & Makel, 2010). However, it is also worth noting that teacher rating
is often infuenced not only by teachers’ own conceptions of creativity, but
also their perceptions of student characteristics (e.g., intelligence, academic
performance, gender) (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Gralewski
& Karwowski, 2018; Kousoulas & Mega, 2009).
232
Table HT9.1
A criterion in Kettler and Bower (2017)’s writing rubric
Creativity and Innovation
3 2 1 0
Originality A response that is very A response that is somewhat A response that is mostly A response that is plain,
different from other students; different from other students; ordinary and predictable ordinary, and predictable;
characterized as quite novel, characterized as moderately compared to other students; similar to many other
innovative, or original yet novel, innovative, or original yet shows a hint of originality and students; clearly lacks
successful at communicating successful at communicating novelty while successfully originality and novelty; fails to
according to the prompt; very according to the prompt; communicating according to the communicate according to
imaginative. somewhat imaginative prompt the prompt
Self-Reported Creativity Measures

Instead of gathering a group of experts in a domain to judge the crea-
tivity of a product, some researchers (Hocevar, 1981; Hocevar & Bachelor,
1989) have proposed another quick and efective way to measure creativity.
Tey used creative behavior checklists to assess an individual’s past or current
creative accomplishments. Tis approach has become extremely popular due
to its simplicity of administering and scoring. One example is the Creative
Behavior Inventory (CBI; Hocevar, 1979), which has been very widely used
(e.g., Kaufman et al., 2008; Plucker, 1999). Te CBI was originally developed
from the domain-specifc perspective, and was intended to measure partici-
pants’ creative behaviors in six diferent domains: Literature, Music, Crafts,
Art, Performing Arts, and Math/Science (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2008). A few
sample items are as follows:
Wrote and completed a novel. Never 1–2 times 3–4 times More than 5 times
Designed and made a piece of clothing. Never 1–2 times 3–4 times More than 5 times
Cooked an original dish. Never 1–2 times 3–4 times More than 5 times
Painted an original picture. Never 1–2 times 3–4 times More than 5 times
Performed dance in a show or contest. Never 1–2 times 3–4 times More than 5 times
To answer these questions, individuals just need to indicate how many

times they have participated in a list of activities are considered to be creative.
Te more frequently they are engaged in these activities, the more creative
they are.
Another similar measure is the Creative Achievement Questionnaire
(CAQ ; Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005), which assesses people’s signif-
cant and observable creative accomplishments in ten diferent domains: visual
arts, music, dance, architectural design, creative writing, humor, inventions,
scientifc discovery, theater and flm, and culinary arts. Te following items
are used to measure a person’s creativity in the domain of music:
Music
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to next
section).
__1. I play one or more musical instruments profciently.
__2. I have played with a recognized orchestra or band.
__3. I have composed an original piece of music.
__4. My musical talent has been critiqued in a local publication.
__5. My composition has been recorded.
__6. Recordings of my composition have been sold publicly.
*__7. My compositions have been critiqued in a national publication.
Participants need to put a check mark beside each sentence that applies
to them. For the sentence with an asterisk (*), they need to write the number
of times that sentence applies to them. Scoring of the CAQ is straightfor-
ward: a person will receive a score of zero if he/she checks the frst sentence.
Otherwise, the participant will receive the total number of points represented
by the question numbers. For example, a person receives a domain (i.e., music)
score of 1+2+3+4+5+6+(2)*7 = 35 by endorsing items 1–7 and indicating that
his or her compositions have been critiqued in a national publication twice.
One concern regarding creative behavior checklists is that they are created
from domain-specifc perspectives, but empirical studies have supported the
domain generality nature of these assessments (Plucker, 1998; Qian, 2014).
Specifcally, as far as everyday creativity (i.e., those creative actions non-
experts may participate in each day) is concerned, research fndings have sug-
gested that an individual can be creative in multiple domains, although there
is still no consensus as to what constitutes a domain and how many domains
there are (Feist, 2005; Plucker, 1998; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004; Qian, 2014).
Process
Csikszentmihalyi (1999) pointed out that “If creativity is to have a useful
meaning, it must refer to a process that results in an idea or product that is rec-
ognized and adopted by others” (p. 314). Hence, creative process and creative
products are equally important. Creativity researchers have used a few tests to
gain insights into creative process. For example, the Remote Associates Test
is used to examine participants’ ability to fnd similarities among seemingly
disparate words (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2008). Here are a few sample items:
What word is related to these three words?

Item 1: Paint Doll Cat ________
Te answer is “house”: house paint, dollhouse, and house cat.
Item 2: Rocking Wheel High _________
Te answer is “chair”: Rocking chair, wheelchair, and high
chair.
Another approach to process measures is represented by divergent think-

ing (DT) tests, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Tinking (TTCT;
Torrance, 2008) and the Wallach and Kogan (1965) tests. Tese tasks exam-
ine participants’ divergent thinking skills by asking them to provide as many
responses as possible to verbal or fgural prompts such as “List things that have
wheels” (Plucker et al., 2011). Individuals’ responses are generally scored in
terms of fuency (number of responses), originality (the rareness of responses),

and fexibility (number of distinct categories of responses). DT tests are among
the most popular techniques for measuring creativity in educational settings
(Kaufman et al., 2008).
Lubart et al. (2011) created the Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC),
a measurement tool specifcally designed for elementary and middle-school
students. EPoC consists of eight tasks that address two modes of creative
thinking (divergent-exploratory thinking and convergent-integrative think-
ing) and cover two developmentally appropriate domains of expression (verbal
and graphic) (Barbot et al., 2011). Divergent-exploratory tasks ask students
to generate as many ideas as possible in response to a single problem. Sample
tasks include:
1. In 10 minutes, propose as many story endings to a single story begin-
ning as possible.
2. In 10 minutes, generate as many drawings as possible using an abstract
shape as a starting point.
Convergent-integrative tasks ask students to produce an integrated com-

position, which is more elaborated and fnalized. Some sample tasks are:
3. In 15 minutes, produce a complete story based on the story title
provided.
4. In 15 minutes, produce a complete drawing using all the objects
presented in the photo (objects include a suitcase, some fruit, and a
candle).
Students’ responses to the divergent-exploratory tasks are scored for fu-

ency (number of responses) only, and the convergent-integrative tasks are
scored using a seven-point scale (1 = low creativity, 7 = high creativity).
Person
Since creativity involves interaction among aptitude, process, and envi-
ronment, it can be measured from other perspectives, too. Studies of crea-
tive people often emphasize individual characteristics of the creator, including
personality, motivation, intelligence, or knowledge (Sternberg & Lubart,
1995). Many creativity assessments concerning individual characteristics of
creators have been developed. Among them, the Creative Personality Scale
(CPS; Gough, 1979), which measures people’s creative personality profle, is
well known and has been very widely used (e.g., Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Te CPS consists of 18 positive (see sample
items 1–4) and 12 negative items (see sample items 5–8). Positive items rep-
resent creative personality traits, while negative items refer to non-creative
personality traits. Te test taker receives one point for endorsing a positive
item and loses one point for checking a negative item. A higher score suggests
higher creativity.
1. ______ Insightful
2. ______ Original
3. ______ Confdent
4. ______ Humorous
5. ______ Conservative
6. ______ Narrow interests
7. ______ Submissive
8. ______ Commonplace
Another example of assessing creative people involves examining aspects

of a person’s creative self-beliefs, for instance creative self-efcacy, which
focuses on one’s perceived creative ability. It is a promising measure to use
in the classroom because it may better capture students’ emerging creativity
that has not (yet) been expressed in a tangible way and received recognition by
others (Beghetto et al., 2011). Karwowski (2014) developed the Short Scale
of Creative Self, an 11-item scale that measures an individual’s creative self-
efcacy and creative personal identity. Some sample items include:
1. I am good at proposing original solutions to problems.
2. I think I am a creative person.
3. My creativity is important for who I am.
Individuals are asked to respond to each statement using a fve-point scale

(1 = defnitely no, 5 = defnitely yes).
Environment
Researchers have found that both home and work environment have a sig-
nifcant impact on creativity. Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989) identifed eight
aspects of work environment that could stimulate creativity, including sufcient
freedom, challenging tasks, appropriate resources, and so on. On the other hand,
factors like time pressure, frequent evaluation and excessive organizational poli-
tics will harm creativity. With respect to the infuence of home environment on
creativity, studies have shown that the frst-born child is more likely to acquire
power and privilege, and later-born children are more likely to be open-minded,
which is a key creative personality characteristic (e.g., Amabile, 2018). Famous
creators are also more likely to experience other kinds of life events, such as
mental illness and parent loss before age ten (e.g., Sawyer, 2011).
As described earlier, Gandham and Shannon successfully founded
Packpack in the US in 2012, but they could never do it in China because col-
lege students in China pay for their textbooks, but they do not buy them. Te
university decides which books to buy and how much students have to pay at
the beginning of each semester. Hence, creativity only fourishes within a sup-
portive social environment.
A few tools have been created by researchers to measure creative work
environment. Amabile et al. (1996) developed KEYS to Creativity and
Innovation, a 78-item survey to assess the climate for creativity in an organi-
zation. It consists of ten subscales, and targets many dimensions of the work
environment, such as the management practices, resources, pressure, freedom,
and productivity. Several sample items are:
1. I have the freedom to decide how I am going to carry out my projects.
2. I feel little pressure to meet someone else’s specifcations in how I do
my work.
3. I have the freedom to decide what project(s) I am going to do.
4. In my daily work environment, I feel a sense of control over my own
work and my own ideas.
Participants are asked to evaluate their work environment based on a fve-
point Likert Scale (5 = very high, 1 = very low).
Another similar measure is the Creative Environment Perceptions scale
(Mayfeld & Mayfeld, 2010), which has nine items and can be used to measure
three aspects of an organization’s creative environment (i.e., creativity support,
creativity blocks, and work characteristics). However, since the instrument is
so brief, more solid evidence is needed to support its validity.

If you are interested in reading more about creativity assessment, please obtain
a copy of the following books or chapters.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity
assessment. Wiley.
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C.
Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of creativity
(pp. 48–73). Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (2019). Assessment of creativity. In J.
Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd
ed., pp. 44–68). Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (2021). Assessment of creativity.

In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction.
Cambridge University Press.
References
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers' conceptions of
creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Te social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.
Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of
creativity. Routledge.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1989). Te creative environment scales:
Te work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–254.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Te Academy of Management
Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Baer, J. (1998). Te case for domain specifcity of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 11, 173–177.
Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Asssessing creativity using the consensual
assessment. In C. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of assessment technologies,
methods, and applications in higher education. IGI Global.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & I Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the
classroom. Te Open Education Journal, 4(1), 58–66.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected
questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-
efcacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 5(4), 342.
Carson, S. (2006). Creativity and mental illness. Invitational panel discussion
hosted by Yale’s Mind Matters Consortium, New Haven, CT., April 19,
2006.
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.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the
study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.
313–335). Cambridge University Press.
Feist, G. J. (2005). Domain-specifc creativity in the physical science. In J. C.
Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp.
123–137). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2018). Are teachers' implicit theories of
creativity related to the recognition of their students' creativity?. Te
Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(2), 156–167.
Hocevar, D. (1979). Te development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological
Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170350).
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450–464.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements
used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R.
Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). Plenum Press.
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates,
consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: Te four c
model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity
assessment. Wiley.
Kaufman, J. C, Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the
consensual assessment technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(4),
223–233.
Kettler, T., & Bower, J. (2017). Measuring creative capacity in gifted students:
comparing teacher ratings and student products. Gifted Child Quarterly,
61(4), 290–299.
Kolodny, L. (2014, August 12). After shark tank, packback seeded for ‘Pay-
Per-View’ E-textbook rentals. Te Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com
Kousoulas, F., & Mega, G. (2009). Students' divergent thinking and teachers'
ratings of creativity: Does gender play a role? Te Journal of Creative
Behavior, 43(3), 209–222.
Lubart, T. I., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du Potentiel
Créatif (EPoC). (Test psychologique et Manuel). Paris: Editions Hogrefe
France. (English Version: Evaluation of creative potential: Test and Manual)
Mayfeld, M., & Mayfeld, J. (2010). Developing a scale to measure the
creative environments perceptions: A questionnaire for investigating
garden variety creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 162–169.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal
and contextual factors at work. Te Academy of Management Journal, 39,
607–634.
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: Te case for content

generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists:
Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126–137.
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general,
why it looks domain specifc, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In
R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From
potential to realization (pp. 153–168). American Psychological Association.
future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the
beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent
thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 1–22.
Qian, M. (2014). Is creativity domain specifc? Evidence from descriptive and
explanatory item response theory models (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Teses. (Accession Order No. 3612017)
Qian, M., Plucker, J. A., & Yang, X. (2019). Is creativity domain specifc
or domain general? Evidence from multilevel explanatory item response
theory models. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 1–9.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: Te science of human innovation.
Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity
in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). Te torrance tests of creative thinking—norms—technical
manual—fgural (streamlined) forms A and B. Scholastic Testing Service.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A
study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Rinehart and Winston.
HOT TOPIC 10
Failure and Creativity

Ronald A. Beghetto
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Te fear of failure is one of the biggest obstacles in moving forward
with creative work.
¥¥ People need to be supported in anticipating and working through
creative failures.
¥¥ Failures open up broad horizons of creative possibility by indicating
that additional thought and action are needed to move forward.
¥¥ Although creativity is risky, it can be viewed as a beautiful risk because
even if our eforts do not work out, we can still learn from them as we
strive to make a creative contribution.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-20 241

Almost everyone has a fear of failure, and for good reason. Failure can be
quite painful, and even seemingly devastating (Beghetto, 2019; Berns, 2010;
von Tienen et al., 2017). Indeed, when we are in the midst of failure, moti-
vational mottos such as “Learn from your mistakes,” “Get more grit,” and
“Have a growth mindset” feel like hollow slogans that can leave us feeling
further away than ever from our creative aspirations. It is therefore not sur-
prising that when people experience a painful failure or setback, particularly
if it is in front of others, it can impede our creative identity development and
prevent us from pursuing our creative aspirations (Beghetto, 2014; Beghetto
& Dilley, 2016). Fearing, preventing, and avoiding failure therefore all seem
to be rational choices and options.
Te fear of failure is one of the biggest obstacles in moving forward with
creative work (Berns, 2010), resulting in some people being willing to let go
of the possibility of creative outcomes if it means that they can avoid experi-
encing the imagined and real negative reactions that they believe will result
from that failure (von Tienen et al., 2017). If fear of failure is such an impedi-
ment to creative work, then why do we hear so much about the importance of
anticipating and embracing failure when it comes to developing our creative
identities and competence? How is it that creativity researchers (Manalo &
Kapur, 2018; von Tienen et al., 2017) can assert that failure is an expected
and critically important part of the creative process? Te purpose of this Hot
Topic is to explore this seemingly oxymoronic relationship between creativity
and failure.
Risk + Failure = Creative Opportunity

Whenever our typical ways of thinking and acting are no longer working,
we are presented with a creative opening (Beghetto, 2020). Specifcally, we
have an opportunity to think and act in new and meaningful ways (Plucker
et al., 2004). Of course, there are no guarantees that creative thought and
action will lead to creative or even positive outcomes. Consequently, all crea-
tive action is risky. Risks can be thought of as a blend of potential hazards
and potential benefts (Breakwell, 2014). Not all risks are the same. Some are
good risks (i.e., the potential benefts outweigh the potential hazards). Some
are bad risks (i.e., the potential hazards outweigh the potential benefts). And
some risks can be called beautiful risks (Beghetto, 2019). Beautiful risks repre-
sent actions that may not work out, but have the potential to make a positive
contribution to the learning and lives of others.
Creative work can be thought of as a beautiful risk because it has the
potential to make a contribution to others (Beghetto, 2019). Taking creative
Failure and Creativity 243
action, however, is not always a beautiful or even good risk. Indeed, there are
times when creative actions can be bad risks and result in negative and harm-
ful outcomes (Cropley et al., 2010). Conversely, failing to take risks when it is
benefcial to do so is also problematic. Consequently, when we determine that
the potential benefts to ourselves and others outweigh the potential hazards,
taking creative action is not only warranted, it can also be a responsibility.
Risk-taking in the form of taking creative action represents a key step between
creative potential and creative outcomes. Indeed, if we have the potential to
think and act in new ways and have confdence in our ability to do so, but are
unwilling to take the appropriate creative risk, then the realization of the crea-
tive potential will be deferred (Beghetto et al., 2020).
Failure as Actionable Uncertainty

One way to think about how failure can serve as an important resource for
our creative identity development is to recognize that failure can be thought of
as a particularly intense form of encountered uncertainty. Encountered uncer-
tainty refers to a rupture in our experience that provokes a state of doubt
or unknowing (Beghetto, 2020). Failure is an emotionally intense form of
encountered uncertainty, because it is often experienced as a state of doubt
accompanied by feelings of embarrassment, shame, guilt, and various other
self-conscious and often painful emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Although
it is true that we might be able to anticipate failing (“I don’t think this is going
to work out”), when we actually fnd ourselves in the midst of failure we often
experience a state of profound uncertainty (Beghetto, 2020). States of uncer-
tainty serve as signifers that what we are thinking or doing is not working.
Tis provides us with an opportunity for creative thought and action, because
in order to resolve the uncertainty we face, we often need to think and act in
new ways. Indeed, creative thought and action are typically defned as some
combination of novel and appropriate action in a given situation (Plucker et al.,
2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). In this way, failures are not a fnal endpoint,
but represent potential openings for moving us forward in a new, diferent, or
modifed direction.
Perhaps one of the most generative ways of conceptualizing failure is to
view it as a state of inconclusiveness (Corazza, 2016). Along these lines, failure
is recognized as a temporally bound judgment about an outcome, which can
change when viewed from a diferent vantage point. It is not that the emotional
dimensions of failure should be minimized or dismissed (Hofmann et al., 2021;
Tracy & Robins, 2004), but rather that they should be recognized as part of the
work that is needed to resolve the uncertainty experienced in that moment in
time. More specifcally, in the case of creativity, failure opens up broad horizons
of possibility (Glǎveanu, 2021) by indicating that additional thought, action,
and emotional regulation are needed to move forward. Failures, when viewed
in this light, represent an important source of information that can actually
support creative endeavors. Scholars in design-based felds have long recog-
nized the informative potential of failures (Brown & Katz, 2009). Indeed, the
concepts of prototypes and prototyping have a basis in the realization that small
tests of ideas and objects, including “failed prototypes,” represent a willingness
to see such setbacks as not yet arriving at the desired outcome, therefore “crea-
tive work needs to continue” (Von Teinen et al., 2017, p. 2).
In this way, failures represent informative points along the full trajectory
of creative work. Indeed, failure represents an expected part of creative work
and a sign that additional work is necessary. Failures are therefore windows
of opportunity to engage in further learning (Kapur, 2016) and take creative
work in new directions. Figure HT10.1 provides a visual representation of the
process.
As illustrated in Figure HT10.1, failure is part of a broader circuit of crea-
tive work. Any time we are presented with an opportunity to think and act in
new ways, it represents what has been called a creative opening (Beghetto, 2017).
Creative openings refer to encounters with uncertainty (planned or unplanned)
that can lead to creative outcomes. Planned encounters with uncertainty can
include everything from a group of students developing a large-scale project
aimed at creatively solving a complex challenge facing people in their broader
community to an artist approaching a blank canvas. An unplanned encounter
with uncertainty can be anything from a student sharing an unexpected and
potentially creative way of solving a math problem to experiencing a painful
setback in pursuing one’s creative aspirations.
Figure HT10.1 The Circuit of Creative Failure.

Creative openings have the potential to lead to creative outcomes, but

require taking risks in the form of creative action to move from a state of
creative potential toward creative accomplishment. As discussed earlier, when
facing the risks of creative action, we may view the hazards as too great and
avoid taking creative action, or view the benefts as outweighing the hazards
and choose not to act. Deciding to avoid creative action comes with some
secondary hazards (Beghetto, 2019, 2021), including recognizing that it was a
mistake to have not acted when the opportunity presented itself. Avoidance,
viewed from this perspective, is a form of action, in that it too has consequences
and can lead to an experience of failure (as illustrated in Figure HT10.1).
Given that our path from creative potential to creative outcomes is uncer-
tain and often non-linear, we can expect that we may encounter some sur-
prises, including failures and setbacks along the way (von Tienen et al.,
2017). In some cases, those surprises or setbacks will not impede or signif-
cantly stall our progress toward creative outcomes, and our path to creative
outcomes can occur without requiring a substantial change in thought and
action. Tis is illustrated in Figure HT10.1 as moving from creative open-
ing to creative action and on toward creative outcomes. It is, of course, pos-
sible that even when we arrive at a creative outcome there are secondary or
unintended consequences of those outcomes that can serve as new creative
openings (Baert, 1991; Oliver et al., 2020). Tese secondary outcomes are
illustrated in Figure HT10.1 as dotted lines and come in the form of failures,
which can lead to new creative openings.
In other cases, our creative actions can lead more directly to the experi-
ence of setbacks and failures that impede further progress. Tese experiences
can both be painful and stife further progress, and in such cases our crea-
tive endeavors can go into a state of indefnite suspension (Beghetto, 2014;
Beghetto & Dilley, 2016). Tis does not mean that creative outcomes are no
longer attainable. Rather, in order for an experience of failure to serve as a
productive setback (Kapur, 2016), additional learning, refection, and work are
needed. Tis can include learning how to work through and regulate the nega-
tive emotions associated with such setbacks (Hofmann et al., 2021; Rosiek
& Beghetto, 2009). Failure, whether it occurs from taking creative action or
avoiding creative action, can move us into a new window of creative oppor-
tunity. Te key is to view such setbacks as new creative openings requiring
diferent thought and action in order to move us into a place where we can
explore new possibilities and potentially arrive at diferent creative outcomes.
As noted, there are a lot of slogans aimed at reconceptualizing failure
as part of creative work (e.g., “fail forward,” “learn from your mistakes,” and
so on). However, people need to be supported in anticipating and working
through creative failures (Berns, 2010). It is therefore likely that structured
pedagogical work aimed at anticipating, learning from, and sharing narra-

tives of failures may help us move beyond slogans and better equip us to view
failure as a learning opportunity and catalyst for additional creative work.
My Favorite Failure is an example of a pedagogical activity (Beghetto, 2021;
Beghetto & McBain, in preparation), focused on helping to support young
people in reconceptualizing and learning from setbacks, even painful ones.
My Favorite Failure is an activity that involves developing and sharing narra-
tives of learning from failure. Te narratives are structured around the follow-
ing fve questions:
¥¥ Tink about a time you tried something new or important and it didn’t
work out – what happened?

¥¥ How did it feel when it happened?
¥¥ What did you learn about that situation?
¥¥ What did you learn about yourself?
¥¥ Why is this failure a favorite?
When educators work with young people to develop and share narratives
of favorite failures at the outset of creative work, they can help prepare them-
selves and others for reconceptualizing failure as a creative learning opportu-
nity. Such eforts have the goal of helping to both anticipate and productively
work through creative failures on the way to new and more promising creative
outcomes (Manalo & Kapur, 2018; von Tienen et al., 2017).

with creativity. Rowman & Littlefeld
Beghetto, R. A. (2021). My favorite failure: Using digital technology to
facilitate creative learning and reconceptualize failure. Tech Trends, 65,
606–614.
Beghetto, R. A., & McBain, L. (in preparation). My favorite failure. Rowman
& Littlefeld.
Berns, G. (2010). Iconoclast. A neuroscientist reveals how to think diferently.
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms
organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins.
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success,
unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational
Psychologist, 51, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
von Tienen, J., Meinel, M., & Corazza, G. E. (2017). A short theory of
failure. Electronic Colloquium on Design Tinking Research, 17, 1–5.
References
Baert, P. (1991). Unintended consequences: A typology and examples.
International Sociology, 6(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177
/026858091006002006
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortifcation: An initial exploration.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 266–276.
Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creative openings in the social interactions of teaching.
Creativity: Teories-Research-Applications, 3, 261–273.
creatively. Rowman & Littlefeld.
Beghetto, R. A. (2020). Uncertainty. In V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), Te Palgrave
encyclopedia of the possible (pp. 1–7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978
-3-319-98390-5_122-1
Beghetto, R. A. (2021). How times of crisis serve as a catalyst for creative
action: An agentic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 600685. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.600685
Beghetto, R. A. (2021). My favorite failure: Using digital technology to facilitate
creative learning and reconceptualize failure. Tech Trends, 65, 606–614.
Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams?
Toward understanding creative mortifcation in children and adolescents.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 85–95.
Beghetto, R. A., Karwowski, M., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2020). Intellectual
risk taking: A moderating link between creative confdence and creative
behavior? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org
/10.1037/aca0000323
Beghetto, R. A., & McBain, L. (in preparation). My favorite failure. Rowman
& Littlefeld.
Berns, G. (2010). Iconoclast: A neuroscientist reveals how to think diferently.
Harvard Business Press.
Breakwell, G. M. (2014). Te psychology of risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms
organizations and inspires innovation (1st ed.). Harper Business.
Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and efectiveness: Te dynamic
defnition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010).
Te dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Glǎveanu, V. P. (2021). Te possible: A sociocultural theory. Oxford University
Press.
Hofmann, J. D., Ivcevic, Z., & Maliakkal, N. (2021). Emotions, creativity,

and the arts: Evaluating a course for children. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
39(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237420907864
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success,
unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational
Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016
.1155457
Manalo, E., & Kapur, M. (2018). Te role of failure in promoting thinking
skills and creativity: New fndings and insights about how failure can be
benefcial for learning. Tinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 1–6. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.001
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Tinkler, J. (2020). Evaluating unintended
consequences: New insights into solving practical, ethical and political
challenges of evaluation. Evaluation, 26(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1356389019850847
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.
Rosiek, J., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Emotional scafolding: Te emotional
and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning. In P. A. Schutz &
M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 175–194).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_9
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). Te standard defnition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). TARGET ARTICLE: “Putting the self
into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model.” Psychological Inquiry,
15(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01
von Tienen, J., Meinel, M., & Corazza, G. E. (2017). A short theory of
failure. Electronic Colloquium on Design Tinking Research, 17, 1–5.
CHAPTER 10
Why Are We Creative?

Novel and Effective Products
David H. Cropley
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Change – climate, economic, demographic, social – creates new
problems.
¥¥ Creativity is about fnding new solutions to those new problems.
¥¥ Creative solutions – or products – can take many forms (e.g., artifacts
or services).
¥¥ Product creativity can be measured, and what can be measured can be
improved.
¥¥ Products give creativity its purpose.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-21 249

Tere are a number of diferent ways of looking at creativity. If you are a

student of psychology, it would be surprising if you weren’t interested in the
role personality plays in creativity: Who is creative – what personal properties
favor creativity, what feelings are associated with it, and what factors motivate
it? If your interests tend toward the cognitive and neuroscientifc, you might
also be concerned with the thinking processes behind creativity: How are we
creative – what thinking styles, or processes, characterize creativity? If you are
a student of sociology with an interest in groups, or if you have a particular
curiosity about organizations, you might be more interested the places where
creativity occurs: Where are we creative – what aspects of organizations, and
the people within them, help or hinder creativity?
Regardless of the focus you take, and that may include all of the above,
you have probably also realized that creativity is usually embedded in a con-
text: for example, education or business. In other words, we aren’t creative
simply for the sake of being creative. Tis leads to one fnal question: “Why
are we creative?” Te answer to this question lies in the fact that creativity is,
broadly speaking, a process of generating an outcome. A more concise way to say
this is that creativity is concerned with generating products.
Focusing on the product probably sounds like it’s less the business of social
science majors, and more the concern of engineers, and if I tell you I’m a physi-
cist/engineer, working in an engineering school, you may start to wonder why
this chapter is in this book! Te reasons are simple. First, although products are
defnitely at the applications end of creativity, we fnd creative products in every
aspect of our lives, not just in engineering. Te prehistoric stone hand axe, the
wheel, soap, the quill pen, the printing press, the lightbulb, the computer pro-
gram, and gene therapy were all creative products when they were introduced
to the world. Second, the key characteristic of products, whether engineered or
artistic, is creativity, and that comes from people, employing cognitive processes,
within a given setting. In other words, creativity results from the interaction of
person, process, press (the organizational climate, or place), and product.
Having just made the case for a broad systems model of creativity (see
Csikszentmihalyi, 2014), I am going to concentrate on the product, but I
would like you to keep that big picture in mind – a creative product results
from the interaction of the who, the how, and the where. However, before I
start looking in a little more detail at exactly what we mean by a product, I
want to address one other important question: “What is creativity?”
What Is Creativity?
In the discussion so far, I’ve avoided giving you a single, clear defnition of
creativity. I suggested that it results from the interaction of person, process, and
Why Are We Creative? 251
press (or place), and results in a product, but that still hasn’t really pinned down
the details. Te risk of talking about creativity without a clear defnition is that
we drift into some common misconceptions, like the idea that creativity is syn-
onymous only with artistic pursuits, or that creativity is some mystical quality
– a gift from the Gods – that some people are lucky enough to be born with.
Dispelling these myths is especially important in a discussion about products,
because creative products play such a ubiquitous and important role across so
many areas of modern life. I’ll give you two defnitions of creativity that say the
same thing, but in diferent ways – one is more formal, one is more colloquial.
Te frst, formal, defnition of creativity (and one that is now widely
accepted in the feld) neatly captures the systems nature of interacting elements
– the person, process, press, and product – and was spelled out by Plucker et al.
(2004). It says that creativity is “the interaction among aptitude [i.e., person],
process and environment [i.e., press] by which an individual or group produces a
perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defned within a social context”
(Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90). Tis defnition highlights one element we have
not yet mentioned, but that is critical to the discussion of creative products.
Te authors note that products, in a discussion of creativity, must be both
novel and useful. I said earlier that we aren’t creative simply for the sake of
being creative, and these qualities of a creative product – novelty and useful-
ness – help to explain why. If creativity was simply dreaming up crazy ideas
or scribbling on a notepad, then creativity might be an end in itself. But it
isn’t! Creativity is about solving problems and satisfying needs by developing
novel and useful solutions: in other words, creativity is all about the attitudes
and dispositions, the processes, and the environmental factors that help us
to generate new and useful products – whether those products are pieces of
music that satisfy an aesthetic need or new electronic components that enable
engineers to build new kinds of computers. Te second, simple, defnition of
creativity is therefore that creativity is concerned with the generation of efective
novelty (Cropley & Cropley, 2012). Tis is very similar to what is called the
standard defnition of creativity (Runco & Jaeger, 2012).
What Do We Mean by a Product?

Having explained that creativity is a systems phenomenon – the interac-
tion of person, process, and press, resulting in novel and useful products – the
next thing we need to do is talk about what we mean by products are and where
we fnd them. I alluded to this in the previous section when I talked about
pieces of music and electronic components. Can we formalize what we mean
by a product so that we can talk about creativity in any application domain
using a common language?
Creative – that is, novel and useful – products occur in every domain, from
art and music to science and engineering, and I gave some examples in the
introduction. Tey don’t have to be physical objects, but they do have to solve
a problem or meet some sort of need (otherwise they wouldn’t be useful), and
they must be new (which you may also see referred to as original or surprising).
I classify products as one of the following four options:
¥¥ Artifacts: Tese are tangible objects – things you can touch – and
include things like hammers, cell phones, and scissors.

¥¥ Processes: Tese are methods of doing or producing something.
Processes include the production line used in a factory, or a sequence

of actions that results in a particular outcome (e.g., the way a customer
complaint in processed).
¥¥ Systems: Tese are complex combinations of interacting elements
(which may be hardware and/or software) that form a unitary whole

– things like a commercial airliner or a business information system.
¥¥ Services: Tese are organized systems of labor and material aids used
to satisfy defned needs – for example, bank accounts or retirement

plans, or even home pizza delivery.
So you can see that a painting, for example, is a tangible artifact, and if it
is novel and useful, then it can be regarded as a creative product, just the same
as a toothbrush or a steam engine. Tese defnitions of products are not lim-
ited by the domain of interest – art or engineering – because they focus on the
same underpinning qualities of the product: novelty and usefulness. It’s true
that we might argue over exactly what makes something new and/or useful
in a particular domain, but the underlying indicators are the same. Terefore,
when we discuss creative products, in any domain, we are talking about novel
and useful artifacts, processes, systems, and/or services.
Why Are Creative Products Important?

Creativity is a curious topic, in that it crops up in a variety of diferent
application domains, as I’ve already indicated. Not only that, but creativity
also has a place in conversations about education, from early childhood learn-
ing right through to higher education, and indeed, as a component of lifelong
learning. In fact, creativity has become an important topic in discussions about
the so-called “future of work.”1 It is also a topic of discussion in business, and
even, to the extent that creativity is a driver of innovation, in politics and
1 Te World Economic Forum has a number of highly relevant reports about the “skills,” including cre-
ativity, that will be vital for employment in the future. See: www.weforum.org/projects/future-of-work
discussions of national economic policy. Tis pervasive character of creativ-

ity is undoubtedly also tied to its systems nature and the fact that creativity
involves the interaction of person, process, press, and product – the so-called
4P’s (Rhodes, 1961).
One way to think of creativity, therefore, is as an enabler – it is a catalyst
that helps other things to take place or to work more efectively. Although this
might be reasonably self-evident in some areas of activity, like education, it is
sometimes harder to identify the value or beneft creativity brings in relation
to products. In simple terms, why are creative products, in the sense already
defned, important? What value do the components of a creative product –
novelty and usefulness – bring to application domains? Why, for example,
would a manufacturer of paperclips be interested in making her product more
creative?
Creative products are important because they represent society’s response
to change. We see change occurring all around us in various forms:
¥¥ Social change: COVID-19 has given rise to rapid changes in how
and where people work, and the technologies they use to support their
work.
¥¥ Demographic change: Tis includes people migrating away from
politically or economically unstable countries.

¥¥ Climate change: Whether you believe it is caused by natural pro-
cesses or human intervention, there seems little doubt that the Earth’s
climate is changing, leading to more frequent extreme weather events
like droughts and hurricanes.
¥¥ Economic change: Te global fnancial crisis of 2008–2009 is hard to
overlook, as is the economic impact of COVID-19.

¥¥ Health change: Tis includes epidemics of diseases such as Ebola,
and of course the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rise of conditions

such as diabetes.
Tese changes are critical because they are the sources of problems. How
we react to those problems – in broad terms, the solutions (i.e., the products) we
develop – reveals the importance of creativity.
Every change of the types mentioned above results not just in a problem
that needs to be solved, but a new problem. Even where a change resembles
a previous change – for example, we might look at the fnancial impact of
COVID-19 in 2020–2021 as something similar to the crash of 1929 – it is
always unique in some respect. Te particular set of conditions surrounding
the outbreak of COVID-19 in China late in 2019, and its subsequent spread
across the globe, is not the same as the set of conditions that surrounded the
Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918–1920. Diferent populations were involved,
with diferent preexisting characteristics. For this reason, the problems aris-
ing from change can never be solved simply be reapplying an old solution. Of
course, there may be elements of an old solution that are relevant to the new
problem situation, but each new problem will always have characteristics that
are unique, unprecedented, and that therefore require … new solutions. An
obvious example of this is the need for a new vaccine! Tis is why creativity
is a vital, necessary component of products. Products – in the sense of arti-
facts, services, systems, and processes – represent society’s reaction to change.
Products are solutions to problems. If we hope to solve the constant stream
of new problems that arise from change, then the products we create must
be new – in other words, novel – as well as useful, otherwise they will fail to
solve the problems we face. Novel and useful mean that these solutions must
therefore be creative.
Tere are, of course, situations – old problems – for which old solutions are
perfectly adequate. Tese solutions must still be useful, but they do not require
the novelty that is inherent in creative products. Tese tried-and-tested solu-
tions fulfll an important role in society, and it is important to acknowledge
that not everything has to be creative. However, for a great many problems
– in particular, those stimulated by change – creativity ofers the only viable
pathway to tackling the problem. Te solution to lowering emissions of green-
house gases is not, for example, to build more coal-fred power stations! Trying
to solve a new problem with an old solution is like trying to open a locked door
with the wrong key (or trying to cure COVID-19 with a Spanish Flu vaccine).
No matter how many times you try, that door isn’t going to open!
Before I move on to discuss more about what it takes to generate the efec-
tive novelty that is a creative product, I want to return briefy to a question I
posed at the start of this section – Why would a manufacturer of paperclips be
interested in making her product more creative? It’s tempting to think of this as an
example of an old solution solving an old problem and doing a serviceable job
of meeting a need. Why would creativity be important in this example? Surely
all that matters is that the paperclip does its job – is useful – and novelty isn’t
important? Surely the design of the basic paperclip was perfected decades ago?
If I was to tell you that, even as recently as the 1990s, new paperclip patents
were being fled in the US, you might begin to get a sense that there was still
some room for novelty, even in the design of something as apparently simple
as the humble paperclip.
Remember that it is change that drives creativity in products. Te paper-
clip illustrates the fact that change can stimulate the need for wholly new solu-
tions – a kind of paradigm-breaking change – but it can also stimulate the
need for incrementally new solutions: in other words, making existing solutions
better, faster, or cheaper. What might cause that sort of change? Competition!
Our paperclip manufacturer may have been in the business for years, when
suddenly a new player enters the market – one that makes existing paperclips a
little cheaper than everyone else. Tis changed marketplace provides a stimu-
lus to fnd ways to respond to that competition: Can we fnd a way to make
our paperclips 10 percent cheaper? Or can we improve our paperclip design,
making it more efective (e.g., stop it slipping of the paper), so that people will
still buy it even though there are cheaper alternatives? In both cases, novelty
is required – new manufacturing methods, or new materials, or new ways to
carry out the function of clipping paper – and this means that product creativ-
ity still plays a central role in how we respond to change.2
What Do We Know about

Producing Creative Products?
At the start of this chapter, I noted that there are diferent ways to study
creativity – the diferent areas that comprise the 4P’s. Te general thrust was
that psychological elements of the person combine with the cognitive pro-
cesses they employ, under some set of environmental conditions, to produce an
outcome – the product. Tat description, while entirely accurate and the basis
of modern defnitions of creativity, masks the detail of how those elements
actually come together in practice. Te diference here is a matter of shifting
from talking about creativity to talking about creative problem-solving. How do
people in the real world go about responding to change by developing novel
and useful products?
Te big change in thinking that we make in this section is to go from a
static representation of creativity to a dynamic representation of creative prob-
lem-solving. Another good way to make this shift in thinking is to talk about
design. When we produce a creative product (i.e., when we respond to the new
problems stimulated by change), we are designing a solution. Tis concept has
a long history in disciplines like engineering, which recognize that design
requires us “to pull together something new or to arrange existing things in a
new way to satisfy a recognized need of society” (Blumrich, 1970, in Dieter &
Schmidt, 2012, p. 1), but may be less familiar in other application domains.
However, the growth in popularity of Design Tinking (see Brenner &
2 In fact, there are at least six things about paperclips that are still open to improvement, and therefore
creativity. Paperclips only go on one way, and sometimes have to be turned around before they can be
used. Tey have to be spread apart a little in order to slide them onto papers. Tey can get snagged on
things and fall of. Tey can tear the paper they are holding. Tey twist or fall of if the stack of paper
is too large. Tey bulk up the papers they are holding, taking up additional space. Each of these is an
opportunity for creativity in paperclip design.
Uebernickel, 2016) as a creative problem-solving methodology demonstrates

that this mental model resonates across a wide range of domains.
Perhaps the most important consequence of a dynamic view of creative
problem-solving is that it introduces the idea of stages, or steps, in the process
of designing creative products. Tat also then suggests that there is an inter-
action between the 4P’s and each stage in the design of a creative product.
If person, process, and press interact to deliver the creative product, do they
interact in the same way in each stage of design?
What we know about producing creative products – to answer the previous
question – is that there are diferent requirements for person, process, and press
depending on what stage of the design process we are currently engaged in. To
illustrate this, let me pick out two key stages of the design process. Diferent
models of design may call these stages by diferent names, so I’m going to go back
to basics and use terminology that J. P. Guilford (1959) used. Why Guilford? He
is the person we can probably regard as the father of the modern creativity era,
and his 1950 address to the American Psychological Association, in his capacity
as president, is widely regarded as the stimulus for modern research into creativ-
ity (Guilford, 1950). He identifed two key stages of creative problem-solving
(i.e., design), namely idea generation and idea evaluation.
In the frst of these two stages – idea generation – we know that the key
cognitive process is divergent thinking. Tis is such a key to creativity that it is
the basis of many of the tests that are used to assess a person’s creative think-
ing (for example, the Torrance Tests of Creativity include activities such as the
Alternate Uses Test, in which respondents generate as many diferent ideas
as they can for using a given object). So it seems reasonable to say that if you
want to produce creative products, what we know is that you need to be good
at divergent thinking.
In the second of the two stages – idea evaluation – things are somewhat
diferent. Here, we now have a set of alternative ideas, or solutions. Te ques-
tion now is not how do we generate these alternatives, but which one of them
is the best solution to the given problem? Te key to this stage, therefore, is the
ability to think analytically. We need to be able to formulate a set of evaluation
criteria and then examine each alternative against these in order to fnd the
single best solution to the problem. Not surprisingly, this kind of thinking is
quite diferent from the thinking we employ to generate lots of ideas, and we
refer to this as convergent thinking. Te critical point is to recognize that pro-
ducing a creative product is not simply a matter of generating ideas – divergent
thinking – and it is not only a question of evaluating alternatives – convergent
thinking. It is a combination of both!
It turns out that each of the core elements of creativity – person, process,
press – needed to deliver a creative product is subject to the same paradox. At
diferent stages of the creative problem-solving process, the same parameter

(e.g., a given cognitive process) can be either good for creativity or bad for it.
When you are generating ideas, you need to be thinking divergently, and if
you are thinking convergently, the process of producing a creative product will
actually be impeded. Creativity is therefore a matter of doing the right things
at the right time across elements of attitudes and dispositions, process, and
environmental factors.
How Do We Assess Creative Products?

We have seen that creative products are the outcome of a complex interac-
tion between person, process, and press. We also noted that there are two key,
defning characteristics of creative products: novelty and usefulness. How do
we measure these characteristics, and indeed, is that all that matters?
Tere are two issues to address in this section, and they can be character-
ized in the following way. First, what are the right things to measure in assessing
creative products, and second, how do we measure things right? Te former is a
matter of identifying the appropriate indicators of creativity in products, 3 and
the latter is a question of the methods we employ to express the creativity of a
product in some more objective (usually numerical) form and their accuracy.
Te defnition I used earlier represents the general consensus in creativity
research. Te right things to measure in assessing creative products are, frst
and foremost, novelty and usefulness – novelty because, without it, products
remain shackled to old conditions and cannot address the new problems that
are stimulated by change; usefulness because any solution to a problem must,
frst and foremost, achieve a desired outcome. A product that is novel but use-
less is regarded as an example of pseudocreativity (e.g., Heinelt, 1974). It may
be unusual, or unconventional, and it may be very tempting to think of it as
creative, but because it does not solve a problem, it cannot be regarded as a
creative product. Similarly, a product that is useful, but not novel is also not
creative, even though it may serve an important purpose. To be regarded as
creative, and to be capable of tackling the novel problems brought about by
change, products must combine novelty and usefulness.
Creativity researchers have also proposed, and investigated, other quali-
ties of products that may contribute to, or enhance, creativity. For example,
the elegance of a product – how complete, well-made, and pleasing it is – may
3 Note that a more formal discussion of this issue concerns the validity of measuring instruments, and
spans content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity.
be important in characterizing the creativity (Cropley & Cropley, 2008). In

engineering, we often say that a good solution usually looks like a good solu-
tion, capturing the notion that there is something inherently recognizable,
and aesthetically pleasing, about useful (i.e., efective) solutions. Insofar as
usefulness is a prerequisite for creativity, then anything that contributes to,
and enhances, that usefulness must also play a role in creativity.
Along similar lines, genesis is a quality of creative products that captures
what we can think of as higher-order aspects of novelty. If novelty means that
a product is new in the sense of solving the problem at hand, genesis examines
the degree to which a solution may be transferable to other unforeseen situa-
tions. A simple example is the mousetrap – although invented for the purpose
of catching mice, it can also be used to store energy (in the spring), which can
then be used to power a toy car (by attaching a string to the spring and wind-
ing that around the car’s axle). As a solution, the mousetrap ofers a kind of
two-for-one deal, and creative solutions often possess this quality of being able
to solve more than just the obvious problem.
We assess creative products, therefore, by measuring their novelty and
usefulness in the frst instance, and we may be able to enhance these measures
by adding further criteria such as elegance and genesis. Although the frst two
indicators are widely recognized in creativity literature, the latter two are more
experimental in nature, and have been the subject of studies seeking to improve
the way product creativity is measured (e.g., Cropley & Kaufman, 2012).
Te second issue in assessing product creativity – measuring things right
– concerns the methods and tools of measurement. How do we employ the
indicators identifed previously to deliver an accurate measure of product crea-
tivity? An important part of this question is the issue of reliability (i.e., accu-
racy). Regardless of the method used to assess product creativity, we want
it to deliver values that properly refect the true value of the creativity of the
product. It goes without saying that like all measures used in research, we
would like our assessments of product creativity to be stable over time and to
be consistent. However, I’m going to treat that as a given, and focus here on two
fundamentally diferent ways that we use the indicators to generate assess-
ments of product creativity.
Te frst method that is frequently used to assess product creativity is
founded on the simple principle that if you want to know how creative some-
thing is, then ask people who know! Tis is not as haphazard as it seems, and
has a solid empirical foundation in the form of the Consensual Assessment
Technique (CAT), frst discussed by Amabile (1982). It has been used quite
widely in creativity research, and is able to deliver assessments that seem to be
stable and consistent and refect the thing we are interested in, namely creativ-
ity. In other words, at least when it comes to novelty and usefulness, domain
experts – for example, art teachers – are able to form good judgments of the
creativity of artistic products.
One weakness of the CAT, however, is the very fact that it relies on the
judgments of experts. Imagine if, every time you wanted to know the tempera-
ture outside, you had to ring a meteorologist to fnd out! Tis very fact makes
these assessments harder to access, and may make them harder to explain.
Although this may not be important in some situations – think of a competi-
tion in which “no further correspondence will be entered into” – it will be an
issue in one very important and common context where creativity is desired –
education. Part of the purpose in assessing product creativity is that it enables
us to refect on it, improve it, and do more of the things that enhance it. If
we can’t explain why something is creative, in addition to simply saying how
much creativity it has, then it is difcult to use measures of product creativity
to educate and make decisions.
Imagine a teacher who is encouraging her class to come up with crea-
tive ideas for an essay. Each child gives her a draft of his or her essay so
that she can give them some feedback. If all she did was to say, “No, this
isn’t creative” or “Yes, this is creative,” then there would be little for the
child to learn and nothing he or she could do to change his or her creativ-
ity. Even giving feedback that the essay “lacks novelty” or is “very efective,
but not very original” probably isn’t enough to drive specifc changes and
actions that develop the student’s creativity. What the teacher needs is a
rating scale that not only addresses the indicators we know are important
– novelty, usefulness, and probably elegance and genesis – but also allows
the teacher to rate these in such a way that the student can see the degree
of novelty, or the degree of usefulness, and not just a binary, all-or-nothing
indication of these qualities.
Rating scales for product creativity have a solid foundation in creativity
research, starting with Taylor’s (1975) Creative Product Inventory, and include
more recent examples like the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS)
developed by Cropley et al. (2011). You can fnd a number of examples of the
CSDS applied to inventions across history, by both male and female inven-
tors, in Cropley (2019, 2020). Tese rating scales, and others, share a common
foundation around novelty and usefulness, and incorporate other criteria, in
varying levels of detail. All of them move the assessment of product creativ-
ity away from a reliance on the more subjective judgments of experts to a
more accessible, objective, and traceable quantifcation of specifc indicators of
product creativity. Not only that, but the detail and objectivity serve as a tool
for explaining not only how much creativity a product has, but also why it is
creative. Indeed, the CSDS has been developed into a classroom assessment
tool (see Cropley & Cropley, 2016).
Can You Be Creative Without a Product?

I touched on this question earlier in the chapter when I suggested that
we aren’t creative simply for the sake of it. A systems model of creativity tells
us that creativity emerges from the interaction of the 4P’s – the person, the
process, and the press (place) interact to deliver a product. It follows that if we
remove any of these contributing elements, then we no longer have creativity.
It stands to reason, therefore, that if there is no product, there is no creativity.
Tere is no doubt that a person who is open to experiences, fexible, and
courageous can engage in divergent thinking and can do so most efectively in
a setting that encourages this sort of activity. However, it is hard to see what
purpose this would serve if there was no novel and useful product that resulted
from the efort. Divergent thinking, on its own, is fantasy. Tere’s nothing
wrong with that, but we must recognize it for what it is, and label it accord-
ingly. Personal qualities, like openness, are attitudes or dispositions, waiting
to be employed to some end. A favorable press – an organizational or social
climate that supports creativity – is a necessary, but not sufcient, condition
for creativity. It’s only when these elements interact as a system that the whole
becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Being creative is the end result of
the interaction of these four elements. It is not simply the divergent thinking
on its own, or the development of a useful, but not novel, product.
Tere is one obvious consequence of the preceding discussion for educa-
tors. If no product means no creativity, then it follows that if we wish to develop
creativity in students – of whatever level – we must give them the opportunity
to practice developing … creative products! I argued earlier that creativity
arises in response to change, and creative solutions – novel and efective prod-
ucts – are how we solve the problems we face in society. Most of us would
be reluctant to visit a dentist who had never actually flled a tooth before,
no matter how good his or her rapport with patients or how deep his or her
knowledge of anatomy and physiology is. So it is with creativity. Te best way
to make a habit of fnding and implementing novel solutions to problems is to
practice fnding and implementing novel solutions to problems! For this rea-
son, and whatever the subject and level of education, students must be given
appropriate and authentic opportunities to develop creative products in a set-
ting that understands and values this problem-based approach to learning.
What about Artificial Creativity?

As we move deeper into the 21st century, a key question that is driv-
ing discussions of the future or work, and the skills needed to thrive in this
context, is whether or not artifcial systems – in other words, artifcial intel-

ligence (AI) – can be creative. Te basis of the arguments about creativity as a
21st-century skill is that AI is good at routine, algorithmic tasks, but humans
are good at things like creativity. If AI can’t be creative, then this is why we
should focus on developing creativity as a key skill for the future. Conversely,
if AI can be creative, then where does this leave us? What jobs will humans
do in the future if AI can do everything from bookkeeping to designing new
solutions to new problems?
Te debate about this topic – computational creativity – continues to
develop, but is sometimes muddied by vague and imprecise defnitions of what
creativity really is. A common argument in the computational camp (Wiggins,
2006, p. 210) is that creativity is “behaviour [emphasis added] exhibited by
natural and artifcial systems, which would be deemed creative if exhibited
by humans.” Tis defnes creativity only in terms of the cognitive process (i.e.,
divergent thinking) and ignores the elements of person (e.g., attitudes, dis-
positions) and press (e.g. culture, teamwork) that are necessary components
of creativity. More importantly, this computational defnition of creativity
ignores the creative – i.e., novel and efective – product as the foundation of
creativity! To be creative, an AI needs to be able to generate novel and efective
solutions (i.e., products) in response to new problems resulting from change.
Computational defnitions of creativity also frequently confuse “creat-
ing” with “creativity.” Tere is no doubt that software, whether artifcially
intelligent or not, can create in the sense of “bringing something into being.”
However, our defnition of a creative product has made it clear that it is not
enough simply to bring something into being. Te thing created has to be
creative – in other words, whatever is brought into being must be novel and
efective if it is to be called creative (recall the standard defnition mentioned
earlier). For this reason, it is not enough that an AI can be trained to paint a
picture in the style of Jackson Pollock or compose a piece of music that is a
variation on themes by Mozart. At best, these compositions are sophisticated
mimicry (and therefore lack novelty), no matter how much they satisfy the
listener or viewer.
Even if artifcial systems can, either now or in the future, generate true
efective novelty, they remain constrained in one critical way. Tey cannot
determine for themselves what problem to solve. Te software designed to
mimic Mozart therefore cannot suddenly decide to start painting pictures in a
style all of its own. Because artifcial systems ultimately lack autonomy (Lamb
et al., 2018), they can only ever do what their human programmer tells them
to do. In short, while it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of artifcial
creativity ever happening, we are a very long way from seeing autonomous
artifcial systems that are able to generate novel and efective solutions to new
problems arising from change. Tat will continue to be the business of creative
humans for a long time to come.
Concluding Thoughts
To close, I would like to leave you with some questions that are based
on the material covered in this chapter. Creativity sometimes sufers from
the fact that a number of common myths are repeated without question: for
example, there is the myth that creativity is ill-defned and poorly understood.
Te more you think about these questions, challenge them, and look for solid
answers, the more the myths are debunked, and that’s how knowledge devel-
ops and expands.
I said that we aren’t creative simply for the sake of being creative, but is
that right? Why can’t creativity be just fantasy? Most defnitions of creativity
seem to accept that usefulness is a key, but does usefulness mean only “solv-
ing a problem”? I like to think of products as one of four things: artifacts,
processes, systems, or services. Where does something like a piece of music
ft into that scheme? Creativity is important because it helps us to generate
new solutions to the new problems that arise from change. What happens
when an old solution is applied to a new problem? Te process of developing
a creative product consists of more than one step. Is it sufcient to think of
a step of idea generation, followed by a step of idea evaluation, or are there
more steps surrounding these? Tere are a number of ways that have been
devised to measure product creativity. But who, or what, decides on the
ground truth? What do we compare these against to know if we are measur-
ing the true value of the creativity of the product? Finally, systems models of
creativity are based on the idea that a number of interacting elements com-
bine to deliver something the individual elements cannot deliver on their
own. Is this valid for creativity? If we take away one of the 4P’s, can we still
speak of creativity?

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2015). Te psychology of innovation in
organizations. Cambridge University Press.
Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity:
Non-expert raters and the creative solution diagnosis scale. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 46, 119–137.
Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2010). Organizational creativity: A systems

approach. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Te Cambridge
handbook of creativity (pp. 145–173). Cambridge University Press.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
Blumrich, J. F. (1970). Design. Science, 168, 1551–1554.
Brenner, W., & Uebernickel, F. (2016). Design thinking for innovation: Research
and practice. Springer.
Cropley, D. H. (2019). Homo Problematis Solvendis: Problem-solving Man: A
History of Human Creativity. Springer.
Cropley, D. H. (2020). Femina Problematis Solvendis - Problem Solving Woman:
A History of the Creativity of Women. Springer Nature.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Elements of a universal aesthetic of
creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 155–161.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of
organizational innovation: resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research
Journal, 24(1), 29–40.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2016). Promoting creativity through
assessment: A formative CAA tool for teachers. Educational Technology
Magazine, 56(6), 17–24.
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity
for innovation management. Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation, 6(3), 13–30.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Te systems model of creativity: Te collected works
of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer.
Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). McGraw-
Hill Higher Education.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity
and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). Harper.
Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer/kreative Schüler [Creative Teachers/Creative
Students]. Herder.
Lamb, C., Brown, D. G., & Clarke, C. L. (2018). Evaluating computational
creativity: An interdisciplinary tutorial. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
51(2), 1–34.
future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2),

83–96.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Te Phi Delta Kappan, 42,
305–310.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). Te standard defnition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor & J.
W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–325). Aldine.
Wiggins, G. A. (2006). Searching for computational creativity. New Generation
Computing, 24(3), 209–222.
HOT TOPIC 11
Makerspaces
Supporting Creativity and
Innovation by Design
Kylie Peppler
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Makerspaces are sites for experimentation around ideas at the inter-
section of creative production and next-generation tools.
¥¥ Te physical design of makerspaces encourages creativity by embrac-
ing key principles of mobility, diversity, and openness.
¥¥ Tinkering, a central practice cultivated in makerspaces, helps makers
to better adapt to the needs of the 21st century by prizing creativity
over optimization in the iterative design process.
¥¥ Making is a unique confuence of high- and low-tech tools and mate-
rials, resulting in new domains of creativity ripe for future study.
¥¥ Maker culture contains several examples of toolkits developed to
expand creative maker possibilities, and of makerspaces used to create
new economies of products and ideas.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-22 265

Making and Makerspaces: What Are They,

and Why Are They Popping Up?
Creative ideas, open experimentation, and interest-driven pursuits are
but some of the core principles of today’s Maker Movement. Made popu-
lar in the early 2000s through Make magazine, online communities like
Instructables and Etsy, and public events like Maker Faires, this grass-
roots movement inspires do-it-yourself (DIY) production across a host of
domains, ranging from advanced robotics to woodworking, and cooking to
textile crafts (Dougherty, 2013). Te popularity of the Maker Movement as
a cultural phenomenon is fueled by its unique mixing of high- and low-tech
tools and materials (e.g., cutting-edge technologies like 3D printers, laser
cutters, and Arduino robotics, and traditional tools and materials), and the
old and new (e.g., mid-century American DIY culture and future-forward
creative products). Tese traits, alongside the rise of the internet making
the sourcing of materials and sharing of ideas widespread, have created an
expansive environment where peer-to-peer learning can turn DIY creative
production into social connection, self-sufciency, and future entrepreneur-
ial opportunity.
Over the last decade, the Maker Movement has taken the education land-
scape by storm (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Makerspaces and FabLabs are crop-
ping up in schools, universities, community centers, and libraries, with each
of these spaces fnding their own ways of incorporating making into curricula.
As with any educational innovation, questions arise around the pedagogical
benefts of making as a discipline, with many educators looking to research to
provide answers about how makerspaces aford diferent learning possibilities
from previous conceptions of hands-on learning and other similar lab-based
experiences. While much of the discussion around the Maker Movement’s
potential for education concerns how it can be leveraged to inspire innovation
and interest in STEM, there are reasons to further investigate the kinds of
creative production that transpire in makerspaces to better understand mak-
ing as a new domain unto itself and studied in its own right.
Current research on creativity and innovation within the Maker Movement
can be classifed into three categories: (1) understanding makerspaces as cre-
ative communities, both as physical spaces and online communities aimed
to encourage creativity, (2) understanding making as a unique confuence of
innovation between high- and low-tech tools and production, resulting in new
domains of creativity, and (3) exploring entrepreneurship as part of the creative
process in many communities of makers. Tis Hot Topic seeks to introduce
the larger Maker Movement to readers interested in creativity, innovation, and
entrepreneurship, and highlight areas for future research.
Makerspaces 267
Makerspaces: Designing to Encourage

Creativity and Innovation
Often situated in physical spaces such as schools, museums, libraries, com-
munity centers, and church basements, makerspaces provide users with pro-
fessional-grade tools and community expertise for the purposes of pursuing
interest-driven projects. Some makerspaces are free to use, while others require
paid membership. While the notion of a makerspace may be new, the spaces
themselves recall home economics or shop classes of the past, featuring work-
benches, soldering irons, screwdrivers, and sewing machines. Situated among
these traditional workspaces, however, are a range of cutting-edge technolo-
gies, such as 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) mills, Arduino
electronics, and Raspberry Pi, that augment traditional work products in previ-
ously unimaginable ways. Makerspaces are designed to encourage exploration,
invention, and whimsical experimentation. As such, users feel that a maker-
space is an environment in which seemingly anything can be created. Trough
the combination of interest-driven exploration, just-in-time support, next-gen-
eration tools, and an emphasis on creativity and experimentation, makerspaces
represent for many an opportunity to re-envision our learning environments,
often seen as the sole domain of schools, in bold and future-forward ways.
Te design of physical space (e.g., the designed aspects of makerspaces
that lead to better creative outcomes, how people can seek to recreate these
outcomes in their own spaces) plays a large role in the creative possibilities of
each makerspace. A survey of makerspaces across the United States encour-
ages us to think about how makerspaces are purposefully designed to inspire
creativity (Peppler et al., 2018). At least three key principles for encouraging
creativity in makerspaces have been identifed, including openness, mobility,
and diversity. Standing in stark contrast to the ways in which traditional sci-
ence labs are created (e.g., the predominance of closed and locked cabinets to
store potentially harmful tools and materials), makerspaces are designed to
be open and to have nearly all tools and materials within view. Along these
lines, open cupboards without doors, pegboards, and glass walls are frequently
found in makerspaces. As many educators and makerspace administrators will
attest, being able to see the full range of possible tools and materials leads to
greater creativity and innovation in these spaces. In short, if you can’t see it,
how can you possibly imagine how to use it?
Second, makerspaces are designed to provide diversity in the tools and
materials ofered to users. In doing so, makerspaces invite individuals from
a range of cultures, backgrounds, and demographics to design and innovate.
Seeing tools, materials, and sample projects that refect an individual’s identity
and background is a way to communicate belonging. Tis stands in contrast
to high-tech digital fabrication centers that focus solely on having access to

cutting-edge industrial tools, which tacitly communicate upper-class, white
males as the intended users of the space. Lastly, makerspaces embrace a spirit of
mobility to encourage both the development of the space over time and acces-
sibility for a wide range of makers with a variety of needs, including wheelchair
access and standing desks. Tis is similarly important to embracing divergence
of perspective and insight in the creative outcomes of the makerspaces.
Furthermore, it’s not just how these spaces are designed that makes mak-
erspaces ripe for encouraging creativity – the secret also lies in the unique
processes for design encouraged in these spaces. Scholars and practitioners
have centered on cultivating a process of “tinkering” as embodying work to
illuminate unique processes for creativity that makerspaces seek to encour-
age. Tinkering is “characterized by a playful, experimental, iterative style of
engagement, in which makers are continually reassessing their goals, exploring
new paths, and imagining new possibilities” (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013, p.
164). While undervalued in traditional educational settings, tinkering stands
in opposition to planning and other step-by-step approaches to design more
commonly seen in approaches to planning writing, solving mathematical
equations, or in engineering construction (e.g., in LEGO instructions or in
design challenges that have an explicit goal, such as a bridge designed to hold
5 pounds). Instead, tinkering starts without a goal and is seen as a bottom-up
and unplanned approach to experimenting with materials. Tinkerers explore
and try new things, whereas planners are dependent on calculations and rules.
In this way, tinkering prizes creativity over optimization in the design process
that arguably helps makers to better adapt to the changing needs of the 21st
century through iterative adaptation.
Making and Sharing in Online Communities

Making extends far beyond the boundaries of a physical space, given that
making and sharing are integrally linked activities in the Maker Movement.
Online communities of makers exist to share both their products and more
frequently the processes used to make things. Popular online communities,
like Instructables or Ravelry, serve both to showcase the work of exceptional
makers around the world as well as extend their processes to others in the form
of user-generated tutorials. Such online communities, centered around peer-
to-peer learning and shared interests, provide new makers with the know-how
to make practically anything.
Importantly for research on creativity, these online communities play a
role in how new domains emerge and evolve, where novices and experts assess
Makerspaces 269
creative works based on their previous experiences and preferences. While

traditionally creative domains have been guarded by a select few (i.e., experts
in the feld, such as curators, publishers, or critics), the creation of a “sharing
economy” (Shore, 2014) around making democratizes the curatorial aspects
of creative domains by enabling any maker to be an active voice of the feld,
infuencing the exposure of certain makes, innovations, and learning oppor-
tunities through comments, shares, and rating systems (Phonethibsavads
et al., 2020). Tese online eforts focused on sharing assets or inspirations in
order to enable production, rather than consumption, set apart online maker
communities from other similar afnity spaces fueled by similar social media
mechanisms.
In this way, assessing creativity in today’s Maker Movement can be
understood using a sociocultural lens, where makers build upon cultur-
ally valued practices and designs to introduce variations into the domain
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Variations deemed valuable by the feld then
become part of the domain’s evolving conventions. As such, the mutual infu-
ence between creators and audiences (who are, in most cases, fellow mak-
ers) entails that colleagues and domain norms are essential to the realization
of individual creativity. Such a view emphasizes the dialogue that transpires
between makers and their audience (in the form of instructional writing, e.g.,
tutorials or the online “Instructables”) and the feedback they receive from fel-
low makers in order to communicate an appreciation of the constraints they
are augmenting or violating while producing a creative contribution. Toward
this end, as social media changes the landscape of how ideas spread and are
appropriated within a feld – a tricky concept in online maker communities,
as much of the content online is designed for the audience to recreate what
is being shown – what constitutes creativity is also in fux. Te expansion of
making from a solitary act of production completed within a discrete space to
a more entwined interplay between tutorial creator, maker, online audience,
and (if the project is in service of a larger entrepreneurial venture) customer
fundamentally changes the nature of how we view and assess creativity, call-
ing into question who constitutes the feld, and expanding the methodologies
we can use to investigate creativity.
E-Textiles and Making Other New

Domains of Creativity
Another avenue in which to pursue new creative possibilities of making lies
in the frequent cross-pollination between high- and low-tech tools and mate-
rials in maker culture. Makerspaces typically situate high-tech innovations
alongside traditional fabrication tools in addition to a varied collection of

crafting supplies, including yarn, cotton balls, and fabrics. More than simply
engendering hybridized practices through the fabrication of mixed-material
projects, this assemblage of materials, and their histories of use, have been
shown to have a tremendous impact on who feels invited to invent in today’s
makerspaces, thus opening the door to new types of projects, perspectives, and
creative domains.
One prominent example of this intersection of high- and low-tech is
e-textiles, programmable garments that employ wearable microcontrollers,
conductive thread, and a range of sensors and actuators to create interactive
garments, assistive devices embedded in clothing, health monitoring devices,
and more (Buechley, 2006). E-textiles garnered attention within education
research through the invention of the LilyPad Arduino, a powerful electronic
microcontroller toolkit that made the making of e-textiles more accessible
to a general audience (Buechley et al., 2008). Trough this innovation and
the entrepreneurial success of this toolkit via a popular online vendor of new
materials, SparkFun, a new domain quickly arose. Tis domain is arguably
the frst high-tech domain to be dominated by female producers and designers
(Buechley et al., 2013). Furthermore, research demonstrates that this engage-
ment with this new domain reformulates a variety of learning outcomes,
including conceptual understanding of basic circuitry concepts such as current
fow, polarity, and connections, as well as artistic outcomes of expression and
design, operating fundamentally diferently from how technology-rich and
crafting felds operate (Peppler, 2016). Tus, such new tools and materials cre-
ated in makerspaces open up new creative domains with tremendous implica-
tions for creativity and society.
While e-textiles and the commercial success of the LilyPad Arduino
represent just one avenue where the Maker Movement has led to new crea-
tive domains, there are a growing number of similar cycles of creativity,
innovation, and entrepreneurship similar to what Dino describes in the
larger Value-Adding Ecosystem model (2015). Tese examples include
other commercial successes like Squishy Circuits (i.e., a circuitry toolkit that
merges electronics and Play-Doh), Chibitronics (a paper and sticker-based
circuitry kit), and LittleBits (a kit of modular electronics that snap together
with magnets), among many other start-ups that have spun out of the Maker
Movement, and in return supply maker culture with new tools and materials
for creativity and innovation. In short, as we introduce materials, we intro-
duce new creative domains. As new domains emerge, this raises questions
around the nature of creativity in these domains, and subsequently, how
such new creative domains compare to historic domains in the arts or other
areas.
Makerspaces 271
Making, Entrepreneurship and

the Future of Work
Tere are many instances of making and entrepreneurship that extend
beyond new start-ups to selling the creative products, whether it be on popu-
lar online marketplaces like Etsy or local marketplaces like farmers’ markets.
However, the most exciting examples show that when making is done right, it
not only builds an object, it builds a community. One example from Madison,
Wisconsin includes DreamBikes, which strengthens the local community by
recycling bikes. DreamBikes serves the historically Black community on the
north side by collecting used bicycles, refurbishing them, and reselling them.
Tis nonproft organization is stafed by teens, who get paid to learn essential
small business skills (like sales and staf management) in addition to technical
skills like bicycle construction and maintenance. DreamBikes teaches youth
that building and engineering are not just decontextualized skills that one
uses to work for someone else; rather, developing engineering skills enables
them to give back to their community.
Given the ties between making and entrepreneurship, the feld is ripe
with opportunity for employers, researchers, and policymakers to leverage this
potential as on-ramps into entrepreneurship, as well as a host of technology-
focused careers, in which women and people of color remain underrepresented.
Conclusion
Te introduction of makerspaces into schools and community settings
a decade ago produced a number of promises about the future of creativity,
innovation, and entrepreneurship. Makerspaces themselves serve as a model
for the design of both creative spaces and creative communities with natural
ties to innovation and entrepreneurship through their dedication to tinkering,
making, sharing, and iterating upon creative products. Te emphasis on hav-
ing access to a wide array of physical tools and materials and a communal space
for design seems to be a key driver of creativity in these spaces. Furthermore,
these spaces move away from planned activities with specifc design goals
toward more open tinkering, experimentation with materials, that hints at
new design processes that can be embraced to promote creativity in other set-
tings as well. Researchers interested in creativity also have a dizzying array
of new creative domains and stances toward entrepreneurship to explore in
these settings. In sum, makerspaces serve as excellent incubators for teaching
and learning. Along the way, they provide us with opportunities to form new
understandings of the creative process, as well as inspiring the designs of other

innovation-rich settings, programs, and approaches to the workplace.

Dougherty, D. (2013). Te maker mindset. In M. Honey (Ed.), Design, make,
play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). Routledge.
Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one
project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.
Phonethibsavads, A., Dahn, M., Peppler, K., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y.
B. (2020). Consensual assessment in the new domain of e-textiles:
Comparing insights from expert, quasi-expert, and novice judges.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M.
Honey (Ed.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM
innovators (pp. 163–181). Routledge.
References
Buechley, L. (2006, October). A construction kit for electronic textiles. In
2006 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp.
83–90). IEEE.
Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008, April). Te
LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement,
aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
423–432).
Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Yasmin, K. (2013). Textile Messages:
Dispatches from the World of E-Textiles and Education. New Literacies and
Digital Epistemologies (Vol. 62). Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of
structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology,
6(2), 159–176.
Dino, R. N. (2015). Crossing boundaries: Toward integrating creativity,
innovation, and entrepreneurship research through practice. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 139–146.
Dougherty, D. (2013). Te maker mindset. In M. Honey (Ed.), Design, make,
play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). Routledge.
Makerspaces 273
Peppler, K. (2016). A review of e-textiles in education and society. In B.

Guzzetti & M. Lesley (Eds.), Handbook of research on the societal impact of
digital media (pp. 219–241). IGI Global.
Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one
project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.
Peppler, K., Keune, A., & Whiting, J. (2018). Mobility, diversity, and openness:
Design principles for equitable makerspaces. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.),
Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the Learning Sciences count
(Vol. 3, pp. 1519–1520). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Phonethibsavads, A., Dahn, M., Peppler, K., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y.
B. (2020). Consensual assessment in the new domain of e-textiles:
Comparing insights from expert, quasi-expert, and novice judges.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M.
Honey (Ed.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM
innovators (pp. 163–181). Routledge.
Schor, J. (2014). Debating the sharing economy, great transition initiative.
http://w w w.greattransition .org /publication /debating-the-sharing
-economy.
HOT TOPIC 12
Creative Articulation
Jonathan A. Plucker
Key Take-Aways
¥¥ Creative articulation attempts to describe how creators select potential
audiences for their creative work and use communication and persua-
sion to maximize the value of their creative work in the eyes of those
audiences.
¥¥ Creative articulation can and should be taught in a variety of educa-
tional settings.
¥¥ Most strategies for fostering articulation are straightforward and can
be incorporated into many existing programs and units.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-23 275

Creativity and InnovationJOSS (201-300)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativity and InnovationJOSS (201-300)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

176 Creativity and Innovation

Recommendations for Additional Resources

J. Hofman, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Te Cambridge handbook of lifespan

Pretend Play and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-15 179

Purpose of Pretend Play

Many animal researchers and evolutionary scholars have concluded that

What Does the Research Support?

developing a protocol that uses story stems and a variety of unstructured

Imaginary Friends and Role Play

Pretend Play and Children with

The Potential of Remote Platforms and Telehealth

It is important that parents and teachers understand that aggression in

Recommendations for Additional Resources

Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J.

Piaget, J. (1967). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. Norton. (Original

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-16 189

Creativity, Teaching, and Learning

However, these seems to be a general lack of comprehension of the afore-

History of Creativity in Schools

Creative Talent Teaching Approach that infuenced the development of crea-

amid this movement? With the advent of standards-based educational reform,

Real Barriers: Effects of Federal and

increased accountability for States, school districts, and

Additionally, under the guidance of President Barack Obama, the Race

curriculum, teaching to the test, and increased test preparation sessions”

opportunities for practicing teachers. Tis particular type of self-efcacy is

or with major inventions, literary works, and world-renowned discoveries

However, just because someone’s creative contribution is not

information about characteristics and behaviors associated with creativity

Optimism for the Future

Supporting Creativity in the Classroom

teachers in getting started in setting up a creative classroom or enhancing

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting

Duncan-Owens, D. (2009). Scripted reading programs: Fishing for success.

R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-17 209

Creativity, Group Creativity, and Innovation

Royston & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Tese collaborations may include disagree-

carefully navigate those environmental obstacles to arrive at novel and use-

products (Shead, 2016). Kuhn (2015) describes an intervention to scafold

Recommendations for Additional Resources

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637. https://doi.org

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-18 217

I am convinced that slight, manageable changes – made at the

The Emphasis and Value of Creativity

is the disconnect between the value of creativity and developing creativity

What the Research Says about

Educational System and Structure Issues

by macro-level accountability and reward systems. Classroom environments

Traditional Classroom Settings

Where Do We Go from Here?

creativity skills are measured (Abdulla & Cramond, 2017), as assessment is a

Recommendations for Additional Resources

to the 21st century U.S. workforce. https://www.conference-board.org/pdf

MacKinnon, D. W. (1963). Te identifcation of creativity. Applied Psychology,

efectiveness. Te Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 453–471. https://doi.org

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233923-19 229

Whenever people mention the word “creativity,” we tend to think creativ-

Creative Products and Assessment

Tis example clearly demonstrates how ordinary people without substan-

Self-Reported Creativity Measures

To answer these questions, individuals just need to indicate how many