Publications
Contact Ron to request a full text .pdf of any items of interest below.
Beghetto, R. A., Ross, W., Karwowski, M., Glăveanu, V. P. (in press). Partnering with AI for instrument development: Possibilities and pitfalls. New Ideas in Psychology.
Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), provide new possibilities for researchers to partner with AI when developing and refining psychological instruments. In this paper we demonstrate
how LLMs, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4 model, might be used to support the development of new psychometric scales. Partnering with AI for the purpose of developing and refining instruments, however, comes with its share of potential pitfalls. We thereby discuss throughout the paper that instrument development and refinement start and end with human judgment and expertise. We open with two use-cases that describe how we used LLMs in the development and refinement of two new psychological instruments. Next, we discuss possibilities for where and how researchers can use LLMs in the process of instrument development more broadly, including considerations for maximizing the benefits of LLMs and addressing the potential ptifalls when working with LLMs. Finally, we close by offering initial suggestions for psychology researchers interested in partnering with LLMs in this capacity.
Beghetto, R. A., & Zamana, F. (in press). A principled approach to human creativity x AI in education. In G. Corazza (Ed.) Cyber-creativity process: how humans co-create with artificial intelligence. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Advances in Generative AI (GenAI) have the potential to transform education. In this chapter, we explore both promising possibilities for transforming creative teaching and learning and potential pitfalls. We also discuss how ignoring, underutilizing, and misusing GenAI can undermine the co-creative process and offer insights for mitigating these risks while maximizing GenAI’s potential benefits in Human x AI co-creative processes in education. More specifically, we introduce principles that can guide educators and researchers in understanding how humans can use GenAI tools to provoke creative inquiry and facilitate the co-creation of new ideas, possibilities, and products in educational contexts. We then offer conceptual case-studies illustrating how GenAI tools might be used to transform creative teaching and learning through question-based feedback. We conclude with implications for theory, research, and practice.
Beghetto, R. A., & Avarzamani, F. (submitted). Augmenting creative lesson design with generative artificial intelligence. In B. Lucas, P. Sowden, E. Spencer, & M. Seymour (Eds.). Handbook of creativity in Schools. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Will the rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, augment or undermine teachers' ability to design creative lessons for classroom teaching? The purpose of this chapter is to explore this question. The chapter opens with a discussion on the importance of teacher agency in creative lesson design. This is followed by an introduction to the CHOICE method, designed to assist teachers in making informed decisions about using GenAI in their classrooms. Next, the application of the CHOICE method for designing creative lessons is demonstrated through two applied examples. Limitations and future directions for classroom practice and research are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2024). Teaching for Transformative Creativity: Fostering a Principled Approach to Creative Action. In R.J. Sternberg & S. Karami (Eds). Handbook of transformational creativity: Learning for a better future. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_3
For many years, educators and researchers in the field of creativity studies have sought ways to provide young people with more opportunities to exercise their creative agency. However, a growing recognition that creativity is not inherently positive, and can sometimes lead to harmful consequences, has prompted an evolution in this objective. Now, the focus is not just on fostering creative abilities in young people but also on teaching them how to use their creativity in a more principled and transformative manner. This chapter explores the evolved objective of guiding young people towards principled and transformative creative action. It opens with a discussion of creative agentic action, including the kinds of experiences that activate our creative agency, what goes into our decision to take creative action, and possible consequences that follow from those actions. The focus then shifts to discussing how researchers can help educators teach students to take a more principled approach when making decisions about whether to exercise their creative agency. The overarching goal is to inspire young people to engage in transformative creativity. The chapter concludes by exploring the implications of this approach for educational practice.
Glăveanu, V. P., Karwowski, M., Ross, W., & Beghetto, R. A. (2024). Possibility Thinking Scale: An initial psychometric exploration. Possibility Studies & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241241827
Although there has been longstanding work on possibility thinking (PT), there is no current scale that researchers can use to measure and study this important action-based orientation. In this paper, we report on four studies with English and Polish speaking participants (N > 1,500) focused on developing and providing an initial evaluation of the Possibility Thinking Scale (PTS). Across the four studies, we examined the factor structure of the PTS by comparing one- and three-factor models and tested the links between PT and relevant correlates: divergent thinking, creative agency factors, and facets of Openness and Extraversion. After a series of replications presented in Studies 1 to 3, Study 4 (N = 491) explored revisions to the scale, using new items developed with input from Large Language Models. Taken together, our results indicate that the final version of PTS reflects three factors of one’s orientation to the possible (i.e. awareness, excitement, and exploration). Our results also indicate that the factors were associated with, but sufficiently distinct from related constructs. We close by discussing strengths and weaknesses of PTS and propose future directions for research.
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). What do creativity researchers owe the future of education? In J. Katz-Buonincontro & T. Kettler (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Creativity and Education. Oxford University Press.
What do creativity researchers owe the future of education? This question serves as a call for creativity researchers to take stock of how creativity research has typically been conducted in educational settings. It also serves as a challenge for creativity researchers to consider new possibilities and responsibilities for how creativity research might contribute to creative and educational futures. As will be discussed in this chapter, a typical approach of creativity researchers is to use education as a site for exploring conceptions and manifestations of creative thought and action. This approach can be thought of as ‘research about creativity in education’. Another common approach has been to view education as a site to develop and testing out ways to enhance student and teacher creativity. This approach represents ‘research for creativity in education.’ A third approach is introduced called ‘creativity research with education.’ Research with education is aimed at broadening the horizon of what is possible for creativity researchers and educational practice. The benefits, implications, challenges, and responsibilities inherent in these three approaches are also discussed.
Possibility thinking (PT) can be described as an imaginative and action- oriented process that drives movement from what is to what could be. The promise of PT is most fully realized in collaboration with others. With recent advances in AI, it can be argued that natural language models (e.g., OpenAI’s GPT models) represent a possible ‘other’ for such collaborations. This article aims to illustrate, through conceptual case study, how Human x AI collaboration can support PT. The article opens with a brief overview of the basic principles of PT and how those principles can be applied in Human x AI collaboration. Next, a conceptual case study will be presented, which reports on six examples of Human x AI collaborations used for PT. The article closes with a brief discussion of implications and future directions, including the importance of developing a principled approach when using AI for PT. This article likely will be of interest to broad audiences within and across domains, including readers focused on human-centered AI collaborations and anyone interested in learning more about new and emerging ways to generate possibilities in their learning, work, and lives.
Beghetto, R. A., & van Geffen, B. (in press). Creativity assessment in schools and classrooms. In S. Acar & M.A. Runco (Eds.). Handbook of creativity assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Approaches aimed at assessing creativity in educational contexts have expanded in line with increasing national and international emphasis placed on the importance of identifying, cultivating, and assessing the creative potential of young people. To understand how creativity is and can be assessed in contemporary schools and classrooms, scholars and educators first need to clarify the different aims and approaches for using those assessments in educational settings. In this chapter, we describe the different goals, types, and uses of creativity assessment in schools and classrooms. We open by discussing two overarching aims of creativity assessment in schools and classrooms: assessment of creativity and assessment for creativity. We also highlight the different types of approaches and measures that have been used and can be developed to fulfill those aims. We close by discussing the importance and need for researchers and educators to develop, implement, and refine assessments for creativity to complement assessments ofcreativity.
Beghetto, R. A. (2023). Broadening horizons of the possible in education. Possibility Studies & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231182014 (click for access).
The social project of education always and already has a future orientation, which is filled with unrealized possibilities. In this way, educational settings serve as sites of promise and hope. This promise and hope, however, is riddled with a paradox: If the future is unknowable—and education can only occur in the known present—then how can the social project of education fulfill the promise and hope of preparing young people to realize the possibilities of an unknowable future? The purpose of this paper is to explore how educators have attempted to resolve this educating for unknown futures paradox (EUF-paradox) and push beyond it by considering whether a more expansive approach to education can broaden the horizon of what is possible in education.
Anderson, R. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Glăveanu, V.P., Basu, M. (2023). Is curiosity killed by the CAT? A divergent, open-ended and generative (DOG) approach to creativity assessment. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2157588
The consensual assessment technique (CAT) represents one of the most popular evaluation techniques used by researchers to assess creative artifacts. In this paper we discuss how the prototypical use of the CAT, while useful for identifying unambiguous examples of creative artifacts, can inadvertently kill the curiosity of researchers interested in interpreting and understanding more ambiguous, contested, and divergent examples of creative expression. More specifically, we open the article by briefly describing the CAT and how it can simultaneously help and hinder researchers in making judgments about the creativity of artifacts in and across domains. We then introduce a methodological elaboration on the CAT, called the Divergent, Open-Ended, and Generative (DOG) approach to interpreting creative artifacts. Next, we present a secondary analysis of CAT data to illustrate the DOG approach and how it can extend insights about creativity when used in conjunction with the CAT. We close with a discussion of implications for creativity theory and research.
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Creative agency in crisis. In Z. Pringle, R. Reiter-Palmon, M. Grohman, & L. Tang (Eds.). Crises, Creativity, and Innovation
When we face a crisis, we find ourselves at a crossroads. We can exercise our creative agency to try to resolve the crisis we face or differ our agency to others for guidance on how we should proceed. The decision of whether to exercise our creative agency during a crisis is more complex and nuanced that it may initially seem. There are various individual, social, and environmental factors that come into play when deciding whether to take agentic action and these factors can take on added emphasis during a crisis. Consequently, it is important that researchers and practitioners understand the nature of creative agency under crisis and the various factors that influence our agentic decision-making process. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the nature of creative agency in states of crisis by way of addressing ten critical questions to help researchers, practitioners and just anyone understand this important human trait and the implications for creativity, innovation, and possible futures of humanity itself.
Beghetto, R. A. & Mangion, M. (2023). Beyond ‘cold’ creative metacognition: Toward a more integrated framework. Physics of Life Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2023.10.021
In this commentary, we discuss Lebuda and Benedek’s systematic framework of creative metacognition (CMC). We recognize that their framework offers a potential important step forward in advancing theory and research in the field of creativity studies. We also highlight how their framework can be strengthened by more directly incorporating CMC beliefs in their model and recognizing CMC as a form of situated cognition.
Kaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2022). Where is the when of creativity?
Specifying the temporal dimension of the Four Cs of creativity. Review of General Psychology. DOI: 10.1177/10892680221142803
Creativity researchers typically focus on the who, what, why, where, and how of creativity. A noticeable omission is when. The when is not completely ignored in the field; it surfaces in developmental and evolutionary perspectives, the study of eminent creators, and other avenues of scholarship. In this paper, we assert that for the concept of when to be fully addressed re- searchers need to more actively consider the past, present, and future and how they interact. More specifically, we propose an expanded way of thinking about the when of creativity by introducing a temporal dimension to the definition of creativity. Our definition offers a broader lens for researchers to consider the temporal dimensions of originality, meaningfulness, and impact of creativity. After introducing our definition and describing its unique features, we discuss how researchers can use our definition to trace creative phenomena across a full temporal trajectory and thereby provide more nuanced and dynamic representation of how the features of creativity change across time and contexts. Finally, we apply this temporal definition to the Four Cs Model of Creativity to illustrate how considering the when can help resolve lingering questions about this perspective.
Beghetto, R. A. (2022). Engaging uncertainty: Principles and provocations for promoting creative learning futures. In D. Henriksen & P. Mishra (Eds.). Creative provocations: Speculations on the future of creativity, technology & learning. Switzerland: Springer.
How we might think about the future of creativity, learning and technol- ogy? There are, of course, numerous ways to approach this question. One way would be to systematically work through the three concepts and consider possible futures for each. Another approach would be to work within some combination of the relationship among these concepts in relation to a future orientation. Any of these approaches have the potential to result in interesting conjectures for considering the future possibilities for creativity, technology, and learning. Regardless of the approach one takes, however, it is important to recognize that uncertainty plays a central role in any discussion of the future. The purpose of this chapter is to explore how we might move toward creative learning in the context of uncertain futures and consider the potential role that technologies play in these futures. More specifically, I discuss key principles of creative learning under uncertainty and invite researchers and practitioners to consider how existing and new technologies might help or further impede efforts aimed at promoting creative learning in and beyond the walls of schools and classrooms. I organize the discussion in this chapter around a set of provocations aimed at considering the role technology might play in supporting each phase of creative learning now and into the future.
Brandon, L., Reis, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Beghetto, R. A. (2022). Examining teachers’ perspectives of school-based opportunities and support for student creativity with the ICI index. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2110416
In this mixed-methods study we examined 220 teachers’ responses from a new instrument, the Imagination, Creativity, and Innovation (ICI) Index. ICI Index scores represented teachers’ predictions of how students would rate their school’s support for student creativity, which was assumed to represent the teachers’ perspective of the actual support for student creativity at the school. Teachers of grades 6–8 (n = 55) had significantly lower ICI Index scores than teachers of grades 3–5 (n = 155; p = .03, g = .35). Regular classroom teachers (n = 151) did not differ significantly from gifted and talented teachers (n = 49) on their ICI scores (p = .065). Qualitative analysis found that, when asked to give examples of products, performances, and services produced by students that were points of pride, most teachers discussed their own creative teaching practices rather than student-initiated projects. Most major content areas were represented, and many responses were interdisciplinary. The most common audience was the school community. Time, including scheduled special periods, was commonly discussed as a support for creativity. Teachers with high ICI Index scores usually wrote about how the school community collaborated to provide creative opportunities to all students, whereas teachers with low ICI Index scores reported that support for student creativity was absent or limited to specific groups.
Beghetto, R. A., & Madison, E. (2022). Accepting the challenge: Helping schools get smarter about supporting students’ creative collaboration and communication in a changing world. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040080
Although the purpose of schools can be (and has been) debated, one common goal that most people agree upon is that schools can and should play a role in preparing young people for the complexities of the future. In this concept paper, we assert that schools can (and need to) get smarter about the kinds of educational experiences that students engage with if we are to prepare them for addressing the uncertainty of complex problems that they face now and into the future. More specifically, we introduce a collaborative creative curricular experience called Journalistic Legacy Challenges (JLC). JLCs can support students in learning how to identify, address, document and communicate about complex problems that can make a difference in their communities and in their own and others’ lives. The experiences offered by JLCs differ from prototypical learning experiences because they require young people to identify problems that matter to them, collaborate with skilled others to address those problems, develop their creative confidence, and learn how to use journalistic learning to document and communicate about their work to broader audiences.
Glăveanu, V.P., Beghetto, R.A. (2022). Pedagogies of the Possible. In V.P. Glăveanu (Ed.). The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_112-1
Pedagogies are directly linked to the possible, because they aim to open new and varied trajectories for learning and life. In this brief entry, we express confidence and hope that these new pedagogies are not only possible, they are mandatory. What we need is a better understanding of how we can bring them about; in other words, how we can turn general principles into new practices. We start here from a discussion of the possible and its relation to difference, then continue by focusing on the nature of creative experience and end with some old and new themes that are important for designing for possibility in and outside the classroom.
Beghetto, R. A. & Karwowski, M. (in press). Creative self-beliefs from creative potential to creative action. In R. Reiter-Palmon & S. Hunter (Eds.). Handbook of Organizational Creativity. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
In this chapter, we discuss the role creative-self beliefs play in serving as a bridge between creative potential and creative action. Creative self-beliefs refer to constellations of self-beliefs that comprise one’s creativity identity, which represent a core agentic component of creative action as well as creative confidence and creative self-awareness beliefs—factors that make agentic engagement into creativity more likely. We open the chapter by discussing the constellation of creative self-beliefs that creative researchers have specified as potentially important in converting potential into action and ultimately creative and innovative outcomes. We then discuss the different ways creativity researchers can and might study people’s creative self-beliefs and the implications of these approaches for advancing creativity theory, research, and practice in organizations.
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Uncertainty as a lever for change and innovation. In D. D. Preiss, M. Singer & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). Innovation, creativity, and change across cultures. London, Palgrave.
What motivates change and innovation? The purpose of this chapter is to address this question. More specifically, in this chapter I describe different types of uncertainty, including those that are resolvable (e.g., everyday, critical, and impending uncertainties) and those that are not (e.g., metaphysical uncertainties). Next, I discuss how uncertainty serves as a lever for innovation and change. I then discuss possible personal changes and social innovations that can result from engaging with uncertainty, including potentially negative and unintended consequences. The chapter concludes with a brief summary and directions for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. & Schmidt, A. C. (in press). Creative curricular experiences. Navigating uncertainties and emotions toward creative learning. In Zorana Ivcevic, J. D. Hoffmann, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
How might young people be supported in pursuing pathways of learning and growth when experiencing emotionally laden encounters with uncertainty and setbacks? The aim of this chapter is to address this question. Specifically, this chapter outlines how creative curricular experiences can serve as a vehicle for students to learn how to navigate uncertainty and setbacks toward creative expression and development. In particular, we introduce a process model that can help researchers and educators conceptualize the roles creative self-beliefs and emotions play in shaping different pathways that students can take when they encounter uncertainties and setbacks.
Beghetto, R.A., Glăveanu, V.P. (2022). The Beautiful Risk of Moving Toward Pedagogies of the Possible. In: Sternberg, R.J., Ambrose, D., Karami, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Transformational Giftedness for Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-3_2
In this chapter we outline how schools can move from transactional pedagogies toward pedagogies of the possible, which provide young people with opportunities to creatively contribute to the learning and lives of others. We introduce and outline new possibilities for designing pedagogical experiences that enable teachers and students to make a positive and sustainable difference in their schools, communities, and world. The chapter opens with a discussion of how pedagogies of the possible represent a transformative alternative to the prototypical transactional pedagogies and curricula in schools and classrooms. We also discuss the nature of creative learning experiences – how such experiences might be designed and developed in educational settings. We close with a discussion of possibilities for transformation and provocations to help move thought, policy action away from transactional learning approaches and toward transformative creative learning experiences.
Beghetto, R. A., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Democratizing Creative Educational Experiences. Review of Research in Education, 46, vii–xv.
Democratizing CEEs involves ensuring that all students have opportunities to develop and demonstrate their capacity to successfully navigate uncertainty and to productively respond to the challenges, problems, and issues of a changing world. Democratizing CEEs requires rethinking and reimagining the nature, spaces, and opportunities of CEEs, including recognizing the premise that students and teachers always and already have the potential to think and act creatively (rather than viewing creativity as a hidden “gift” of particular students that needs to be “identified” and nurtured). Democratizing CEEs also includes ensuring that opportunities for all students to participate in CEEs are infused throughout the everyday curriculum and introduced in professional development for practicing teachers and teacher preparation programs for prospective teachers.
The purpose of this article is to introduce an action-oriented approach aimed at clarifying and promoting a principled creativity in education. A principled approach to creativity refers to the design and implementation of positive creative educational endeavors, which are guided by a set of agreed-upon commitments aimed at making a positive contribution to the learning and lives of others. We open by discussing how our conception of a principled approach to creativity connects to positive creativity and how this approach can guide creative educational endeavors. More specifically, we discuss the opportunities and responsibilities associated with a principled approach to creativity, including how educators, students, and researchers can re-conceptualize creative opportunities, creative risk-taking, creative action, and the intended and unintended outcomes that result from promoting creative thought and action in and beyond the walls of schools and classrooms.
Having confidence in one’s creative ability seems necessary for creative behavior. The relationship, however, may not be as direct as creativity researchers have initially posited. Previous research on the relationship between creative confidence (CC) and creative behavior (CB) has yielded mixed findings. Moreover, emerging theoretical and empirical work suggests that the CC-CB relationship is moderated by other beliefs. In this exploratory study we examined the relationship among intellectual risk taking (IRT), creative confidence and creative behavior. Specifically, we tested two theoretical propositions. The first involved examining the posited relationship between creative confidence and creative behaviors. Consistent with our expectations, our preliminary results indicate positive, albeit somewhat modest correlations between creative confidence and creative achievements (r = .33), creative achievements in the arts (r = .17), creative achievements in science (r = .27), and participation in creative activities (r = .35). The second proposition involved examining whether IRT moderates the relationship between CC and CB. Our results indicate that IRT did serve as a moderator in the relationship between CC and CB. Specifically, our preliminary results indicate that willingness to take intellectual risks enhances the relationship between creative confidence and creative behavior. Moreover, our findings also indicate that at very low levels of IRT, there is no relationship between CC and CB. In sum, our results suggest that even if people have high levels of confidence in their creativity, they may also need to be willing to take the creative risks in order for creative confidence to develop into creative behavior. Theoretical and research implications of these findings are also discussed.
This article is an edited version of a Keynote Address. The talk opens with the following question: What role does our experience with uncertainty play in our creative thoughts and actions? The remainder of the talk is focused on addressing this question, starting with the assertion that there is no creativity without uncertainty and several other operating assumptions aimed at establishing a basis for this assertion. Next, a model of creativity under uncertainty is introduced. The model outlines how encounters with uncertainty in a particular socio-cultural and historical moment can be experienced as epistemologically and ontologically destabilizing, and thereby, result in a state of genuine doubt. This state of doubt, when perceived as actionable, can open-up a horizon of new possibilities for creative activity. The model further outlines how taking creative action in the face of uncertainty can (temporarily) resolve our state of doubt and re-stabilize our experiences. Implications for inviting uncertainty into educational learning environments are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A., & Vasquez, A. M. (in press). Creative learning: A pedagogical perspective. In L. J. Ball & F. Vallee-Tourangeau (Eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Creative Cognition. New York: Routledge
The aim of this chapter is to discuss creative learning from a pedagogical perspective. More specifically, creative learning refers here to a blend of intrapsychological and interpsychological processes that result in new and personally meaningful learning for oneself and others. As will be discussed, the conception of creative learning presented in this chapter represents an expansive, socio-psychological case of creative cognition, which affords new theoretical, practical, and empirical insights when considered from a pedagogical vantage point. We open the chapter by providing an overview of key elements and characteristics of creative learning. We then discuss how creative learning represents an emergent event and conclude with an extended discussion on the instructional and research implications of creative learning events when viewed from a pedagogical perspective.
Creative learning in schools represents a specific form of learning that involves creative expression in the context of academic learning. Opportunities for students to engage in creative learning can range from smaller scale curricular experiences that benefit their own and others’ learning to larger scale initiatives that can make positive and lasting contributions to the learning and lives of people in and beyond the walls of classrooms and schools. In this way, efforts aimed at supporting creative learning represent an important form of positive education. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and discuss the co-constitutive factors involved in creative learning. The chapter opens by clarifying the nature of creative learning and then discusses interrelated roles played by students, teachers, academic subject matter, uncertainty, and context in creative learning. The chapter closes by outlining future directions for research on creative learning and positive education.
The human experience is punctuated by times of crisis. Some crises are experienced at a personal level (e.g., the diagnosis of a life-threatening disease), organizational level (e.g., a business facing bankruptcy), and still others are experienced on a societal or global level (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic). Although crises can be deeply troubling and anxiety provoking, they can also serve as an important catalyst for creative action and innovative outcomes. This is because during times of crisis our typical forms of reasoning and action may no longer serve us. It is precisely during such times that new ways of thought, action and leadership are needed. A key question for researchers to consider is: Why and how times of crisis serve as an impetus for creative actions and outcomes? The purpose of this paper is to address this question. I open by briefly discussing the features of a crisis. I then introduce an empirically testable, process model that outlines various pathways, factors, and outcomes associated with different ways people and groups respond during times of crisis. I close by briefly outlining future directions for theory and research.
How might technology mediate the transition from primary creative expression to secondary creative contributions? In this paper, we address this question by expanding upon recent conceptualizations of primary and secondary creativity (Runco & Beghetto, 2019) and offer a new way to understand how technology can sup- port creative learning and creative expression. We open by providing a conceptual overview of how technology can serve as a mediator between primary and secondary creativity. We then provide a concrete example of how material artifacts of students’ creative expression (primary creativity) were digitized into artifacts, and in turn, transformed again into material creative contributions in the form of illustrated books (secondary creativity). We also discuss how technology can be used to mediate continuous creative contributions beyond primary and secondary creativity and how creativity researchers can (re)conceptualize the role technology can play in supporting indefinite cycles of creative learning and expression from material to digital and back again.
Beghetto R.A. (2020) Uncertainty. In Glăveanu V. (ed.) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_122-1 (click to download).
Uncertainty is a gateway to the possible. Although the concept of uncertainty often connotes a negative or potentially hazardous state of being, scholars have long recognized that uncertainty also serves as a stimulus for new thought, beliefs and actions. In this way, uncertainty can serve as an opening to the possible. The aim of this entry is to discuss how uncertainty has been conceptualized in the literature, including different types of uncertainty that people experience and how those experiences can propel us into the possible. Considerations for drawing connections among uncertainty, the possible, and related areas of inquiry are also discussed.
Glăveanu, V.P., & Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Pedagogies of the possible. In V. P. Glăveanu The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible. London, Palgrave.
In this brief entry, we express confidence and hope that these new pedagogies are not only possible, they are mandatory. What we need is a better understanding of how we can bring them about; in other words, how we can turn general principles into new practices. We start here from a discussion of the possible and its relation to difference, then continue by focusing on the nature of creative experience and end with some old and new themes that are important for designing for possibility in and outside the classroom.
In this paper, we propose a working definition of creative experience that involves principled engagement with the unfamiliar and a willingness to approach the familiar in unfamiliar ways. In other words, a creative experience can be defined as novel person–world encounters grounded in meaningful actions and interactions, which are marked by the principles of: open-endedness, nonlinearity, pluri-perspectives and future-orientation. Our definition shares some similarities with the standard definition offered by Runco and Jaeger in that it still recognizes the importance of novelty and meaningfulness but goes beyond that definition by asserting that novelty and meaningfulness are not sufficient for characterizing creative experiences. Indeed, as we will discuss, creative experiences are marked by a set of principles that we argue inhere in all creative experiences.
Do schools support or suppress creativity? Almost everyone has an opinion about this question. These opinions are informed, in part, from our prior schooling experiences as well as representations of school in the media and internet. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the question of whether schools support or suppress creativity and highlight how addressing this question is much more nuanced than a simple “yes” or “no” answer. The chapter also outlines when, how, and under what conditions teachers and students can be creative in K-12 schools and classrooms.
How might digital technologies (DTs) support creative expression and, in the process, reframe failure as a productive feature of creative learning endeavors? The purpose of this conceptual article is to provide a way of approaching this question. More specifically, the article opens with a brief discussion highlighting how DTs have the potential to support creative learning and adaptive conceptions of failure. The discussion focuses on the importance of recognizing how educators and students use technologies is more important than what particular technologies are used in support of creative endeavors. Next, the article provides an example of a particular creative curricular experience, called My Favorite Failure, which serves as a context for how educators and students can experience the positive reframing of their own and other’s failures through digitally supported narratives. Considerations for how educators and students might use digital technologies to support this particular type of creative experience as well as creative learning more generally are also discussed. The article closes by outlining next steps for educators, students, and researchers.
This brief (two page) protocol is used to generate and test out possibilities when working with teams and groups. It includes assumptions flips. The possibility thinking protocol is from Taking beautiful risks in education (Beghetto, 2018, Ed Leadership, 76, 18-24) and the assumption flips are adapted from, Big Wins, Small Steps (Beghetto, 2016, Corwin). Source material referenced in the handout.
Vasquez, A. M., Koro, M., Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Creative talent as emergent event: A neurodiversity perspective. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.). Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Purpose, values and talents in education. Boston, MA: Brill.
How might teachers support creative talent in learning environments? Typically, creative talent is conceptualized as a trait possessed by a few, select people. According to the traditional mindset, schools serve as sites whereby educators attempt to identify and nurture the creative talent of the gifted few who possess it. In this chapter, we use a speculative approach to explore, wonder and consider possibilities for an alternative perspective to the creative-talent-as-possession mindset. Specifically, we introduce the concept of creative talent as emergent event (CTEE). We define CTEE as dynamic manifestations of diverse strengths, interests, and happenings recognized by oneself and others in the on-going interactions, processes and artifacts of social situations and contexts. We discuss how we derived this definition based on recent perspectives on neurodiversity, which recognizes the multiplicity and dynamic capabilities of all people through limitless modes of interrelating in lived experience. Although our perspective represents a somewhat radical shift from how creative talent is typically conceptualized and approached by scholars and educators, it offers new directions for thinking about how teachers can help realize the creative potential that inheres in teaching and learning practices. We close the chapter by speculating further on possibilities for how educators might move away from a creative-talent-as-possession mindset toward a more inclusive CTEE mindset in and beyond the classroom.
This article describes the development of a formative assessment instrument for educators to assess opportunities and support for student imagination, creativity, and innovation in schools. We also report on an initial comparisons using the instrument, using a sample of n=5020 students and n=268 teachers (n=161 classes of students nested within teachers). Implications for subsequent research and practice using this instrument are also discussed.
It is understandable why people are placing emphasis on creative thinking, given the amount of uncertainty we face with rapid global and technological changes. In order to understand the educational implications of this emphasis and the role that creative thinking can play in learning, it is important to first clarify several core questions, including what exactly is creative thinking? Do students always need to be thinking creatively? Is creative thinking yet another curricular add-on that needs to be taught and tested? Should schools bring in creativity specialists to work with teachers and students? How can educators support creative thinking in young people? The purpose of this paper is to explore these and related issues
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Creative learning in education. To appear in M. Kern & M. Wehmeyer (Eds.). The international handbook on positive education. London, Palgrave.
Creative learning in schools represents a specific form of learning that involves creative expression in the context of academic learning. Opportunities for students to engage in creative learning can range from smaller scale curricular experienes that benefit their own and others learning to larger scale intiatives that can make a positive and lasting contributions to the learning and lives of people in and beyond the walls of schools and classrooms. In this way, efforts aimed at supporting creative learning represent an important form of positive education. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and discuss the co-constitutive factors involved in creative learning. The chapter opens by clarifying the nature of creative learning and then discusses interrelated roles played by students, teachers, academic subject matter, uncertainty, and context in creative learning. The chapter closes by outlining future directions for research on creative learning and positive education.
In this invited essay (which is part of a larger collection of essays in the LEGO foundation publication, Assessing creativity: A palette of possibilities), I discuss how assessment in the classroom can be used to support student creativity.
Creative learning serves as a vehicle for the possible. Creative learning moves people from what is currently known to new ways of thinking and acting. More specifically, creative learning refers to a process that results in new and personally meaningful understandings for oneself and others. The purpose of this entry is to provide an overview of the theoretical concept of creative learning and its posited relationship to the possible. Research and theoretical implications are also discussed.
Outside of the home environment, classrooms represent one of the most persistent and frequented settings where young people spend their time. Classrooms thereby hold much potential for creative identity development. Creative identity development refers here to the crystallization of creative interests and aspirations into more stable beliefs about one’s broader identity and sense of self. Although school and classroom settings hold much potential for creative identity development, this potential can sometimes go unrealized. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of factors related to creative identity development in classrooms. The chapter is organized into two sections. The first section provides an overview of the nature of creative identity development and basic requirements for supporting this development in and across classroom settings. The second section provides an overview of unique features of specific settings from early childhood to higher education. The chapter closes with a discussion of directions for future research.
van der Zanden PJAC, Meijer PC, Beghetto RA. (in press). A review study about creativity in adolescence: Where is the social context?, Thinking Skills and Creativity, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100702
Although adolescent creativity development is a promising area of research in the field, there is still much to be known with respect to the factors involved in adolescent creativity development and the role played by the social context. The purpose of this systematic review study was to identify and summarize factors associated with enhancing or inhibiting adolescent creativity in a sample of 65 published studies. We classified supportive and inhibiting factors into four categories: individual factors, parental factors, educational factors, and social contextual factors. Individual factors supportive of adolescent creativity development included: openness to experience, intrinsic motivation, creative self-efficacy, attributing adversity to external factors, and academic achievement. State and trait anxiety were associated with inhibitory factors. Supportive parental factors included parental support and autonomous motivation with maternal involvement. Educational factors supportive of adolescent creativity development included: balancing freedom and necessary guidance; flexible, open-ended activities with clear learning expectations; openness to and encouragement of student ideas; atmosphere of trust and respect; and varied learning resources. Finally, supportive social contextual factors included providing interactions that encourage expression or challenging of ideas; and encouraging adolescents to view issues from multiple global and temporal perspectives. Inhibitory social contextual factors included increased pressures placed on teachers to prepare students to perform well on assessments; and increased emphasis placed on standardized curricula and related assessments. We also noted that the vast majority of studies in our sample (n= 61, 94%) did not take into account the role played by social contextual factors. We conclude by discussing implications for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Creative self-efficacy. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity (3rd. Ed.). Elsevier.
Within the field of creativity studies, work on the concept of creative self-efficacy (CSE) has rapidly developed. Although CSE represents a relatively recent area of study in the field, work on this concept represents one of the most active areas of scholarly work by creativity researchers interested in understanding the creative self. This entry will provide an overview of creative self-efficacy starting with a brief discussion of how the construct has beendefined, how work on CSE evolved in the field of creativity studies, and current conceptualizations and measurement approaches. The entry concludes with recommendations for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. & Schuh, K. L. (in press). Exploring the connection between imagination and creativity in academic learning. To appear in Creativity and the Wandering Mind, Elsevier
In this chapter, we introduce a model of imagination and creativity in academic learning (ICAL), which builds on and directly connects to a previously introduced model of creative learning (Beghetto, 2016) and a previously introduced model of knowledge construction (Schuh, 2017). The ICAL model therefore represents a synthesis of the core components and assertions of the two previous models and has the primary aim of positing how imagination and creativity work together in the context of academic learning.
Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Education and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity (3rd. Ed.). Elsevier.
One way to understand the variable and, at times, paradoxical role that creativity plays in educational environments is to recognize that schools and classrooms, like all contexts, place constraints on creativity. Consequently, the role creativity plays in any given educational environment will, in large part, be determined by how it is conceptualized in that particular setting. The purpose of this entry is to provide an overview of various ways creativity has been conceptualized in educational environments, discuss implications for creative expression, and briefly highlight directions for research and practice.
Creative expression is not always welcome in educational settings. However, when encouraged, it can open up new possibilities for positive change. This chapter aims to discuss how a particular form of creative expression called creative learning can serve as a vehicle for more meaningful and equitable learning practices in the classroom. Creative learning refers to the interrelated processes of developing new and personally meaningful understandings of academic subject matter, and how young people’s personally meaningful understandings can contribute to the learning and lives of others. We discuss how creative learning thrives in difference, not sameness, and thereby benefits from drawing on students’ and teachers’ diverse cultural, socio-historical and linguistic experiences. Our discussion focuses on how translanguaging, a dynamic process of communication using one’s entire cultural and linguistic repertoire, can play a central role in creative learning. We conclude by highlighting future directions and considerations for researchers and educators.
Karwowski, M, Jankowska, D. M., Brzeski, A., Czerwonka, M. Gajda, A., Lebuda, I. & Beghetto, R. A. (2020) Delving into Creativity and Learning, Creativity Research Journal DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2020.1712165
For decades, creativity scholars have been interested in exploring the relationship between creativity and learning. Much of the empirical work in this area has focused on examining correlational links between domain general outcomes of creativity tests and results in school achievement tests. The results of such work have been somewhat variable, but generally suggests a positive albeit modest relationship between creativity and learning. Few studies have examined the relationship between creativity and learning using a more tailored and domain-specific assessment. This paper proposes a new approach to studying creativity and learning using a newly developed Creativity and Learning in School Achievement Test (CLISAT). The first wave of a large cross-sequential study (N = 2,372), which uses the CLISAT is reported. More specifically, a continuum for conceptualizing the assessment of creativity and learning is introduced, the CLISAT validity and reliability are reported, and its relationship with intelligence and divergent thinking is explored. The CLISAT scores are also used to examine a variety of nuanced relation- ships between academic achievement and creativity in two academic domains (math and language). Implications for theory development and future research are discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2020). On the creative potential of uncertainty. In F. K. Reisman (Ed.). 70 years of research into creativity: J.P. Guilford’s role and today’s focus. London: KIE Conference Publications
Although uncertainty is an uncomfortable state of being, it can also serve as a catalyst and condition for creative expression. In this chapter, I briefly share my reflections on the creative potential of uncertainty in light of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Enterprise (KIE) virtual conference and published volume celebrating the 70th anniversary of Guilford’s (1950) American Psychological Associations presidential address.
Glaveanu, V. P., Beghetto, R. A., Benvenuti, M., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Chaudet, C., Chirico, A., Corazza, G. E., de Saint Laurent, C., Dysthe, O., Essonnier, N., Gaggioli, A., Kynigos, C., Mazzoni, E., Ness, I. J., & Trgalova, J. (in press). Creative learning in digital and virtual environments during COVID-19 and beyond. In V. P. Glaveanu, Ness, I. J., de Saint Laurent, C. (Eds). Creative learning in digital and virtual environments. New York: Routledge.
In this chapter, we engage in a conversation specifically about digital and virtual environments. The conversation format, we believe, adds a dialogical and emerging element to what is nowadays a highly debated topic. The focus is twofold: on the one hand, on theoretical notions that help us understand the current situation and, on the other, on practical advice that can guide those interested in technology-enhanced learning and creativity, now and in the future
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Large scale assessments, personalized learning, and creativity: Paradoxes and possibilities. ECNU Review of Education, 2, 311 - 327 DOI: 10.1177/2096531119878963 [available online]
This article, based on an invited talk, aims to explore the relationship among large-scale assessments, creativity and personalized learning. This article addresses the drawbacks of current large-scale assessments and explores possibilities for combining assessment with creativity and personalized learning. A logic model illustrating variations necessary for creative learning and considerations and cautions for designing large-scale assessments are also provided.
Karwowski, M., Han, M.H., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Toward dynamizing the measurement of creative confidence beliefs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000229
Creativity researchers have typically assessed creative confidence beliefs (i.e., confidence to think and act creatively) using static, domain-general measures. In this article, we report on two studies that illustrate how more dynamic, task-specific, and microlongitudinal approaches can offer new insights into the nature of these beliefs. More specifically, Study 1 demonstrates how using dynamic and task-specific measures can help researchers clarify predictors of creative confidence, test mediational models, and identify factors associated with different categories in the accuracy of creative confidence beliefs. Study 2 provides an example of how researchers can use a microlongitudinal approach to assess changes in creative confidence and related variables (e.g., emotions) across different time intervals of a creative task, which includes exploring patterns of cross-lagged effects. We close by discussing how the use of more dynamic approaches to studying creative confidence beliefs can be used by creativity scholars to advance theory and research.
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in classrooms. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press: New York
Classrooms are places where students and teachers can be creative. Indeed, creativity scholars have long recognized that classrooms represent ideal settings for expressing and developing creative thought and action. Many of these same scholars have also noted that classrooms pose serious challenges to creative expression. How then might we understand creativity in classrooms? One way is to become familiar with opportunities and constraints that teachers and students face in classrooms. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an updated overview of creativity in K-12 classrooms. The chapter opens with a brief discussion of what makes classrooms unique with respect to creative thought and action. Next, I discuss the ways that teachers and students can be creative in the context of classrooms, including the kinds of constraints and opportunities that teachers and students face in classroom settings. The chapter closes with a brief discussion of future directions for research.
Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190
This article introduces and empirically explores a theoretical model of creative behavior as agentic action (CBAA). According to this model, transforming creative potential into creative behavior results from a decision informed by one’s creative confidence and perceived value of creativity. More specifically, the model posits that the link between creative potential and creative behavior is mediated by creative confidence and moderated by perceived value of creativity. We tested the model in two cross-sectional studies and in one longitudinal study. Across all three studies, we found evidence in support of the CBAA model. Implications for subsequent theory development and research are discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and uncertainty. In C. Mullen (Ed.). Creativity Under Duress in Education? Resistive Theories, Practices, and Actions. Switzerland: Springer
Creativity is often associated with slogans like “think outside the box,” which imply that creativity dwells outside of constraints. Given that schools and classrooms are filled with constraints, it makes sense that people may come to believe that creativity is under duress, in a state of crisis, or that “schools kill creativity.” In this chapter, I offer an alternative perspective. More specifically, I discuss how creative expression emerges from structured experiences with uncertainty. Rather than viewing constraints as stifling creativity, I argue that they actually serve as a supportive structure for creative thought and action in educational settings.
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Taking beautiful risks in education. Educational Leadership, 76, 18 - 24.
Creativity is risky because it requires doing things differently. And whenever we try to do something new or different, we make ourselves vulnerable to making mistakes, appearing foolish, and even being ridiculed. Put simply, creative endeavors don't always work out. Creative expression, like all risks, has costs and benefits. But not all risks are the same. Some are good, some bad, and some are beautiful. This article describes these three types of risks and the implications for education.
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Abductive reasoning and the genesis of new ideas: Charles S. Peirce. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.). The creativity Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
In this chapter I provide commentary on selections from Charles Sanders Peirce’s Collected Papers as they pertain to creative reasoning. More specifically, I provide commentary on Peirce’s concept of abductive reasoning and discuss how it comprises a larger process of creative inquiry. In order to support this effort, I introduce a model of creative reasoning that I hope can serve as a bridge between Peirce’s ideas and concepts relevant to contemporary creativity theorists and researchers.
Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Unfreezing creativity: A dynamic, micro-longitudinal approach. In R. A. Beghetto & G. Corazza (Eds.). Dynamic perspectives on creativity. Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_2
Creativity researchers have conceptualized and studied creativity in a variety of ways. One common approach is to treat creative thought and action as if they are static phenomena that can be assessed using fixed measures. In this chapter, we argue for a more dynamic, micro-longitudinal approach to studying creativity in classrooms. We open with a brief discussion of our operating assumptions about creative thought and action, which serve as the basis for our argument. We then discuss examples of how researchers might move from a more static to more dynamic approach. More specifically, we discuss how researchers can study creative phenomena (such as creative confidence beliefs) using more dynamic, micro-longitudinal designs. We also discuss various promising options for analyzing data collected from such designs, including latent growth curve modeling, network-based analysis, and qualitative interpretations of visual displays. We close with a brief discussion of implications for future research and practice
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creative self-beliefs. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.021
Creative self-beliefs refer to constellation of interrelated beliefs that make-up the creative identity, including: creative-self efficacy, creative self-concept, creative metacognition, and creative mindsets. The purpose of this chapter is to review contemporary theoretical perspectives and empirical findings related to the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of creative self-beliefs. We also highlight future theoretical, methodological, and empirical directions for creativity researchers interested in studying creative self-beliefs.
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in the classroom: Quick insights for leaders. In A. Middlebrooks, S. J. Allen, M. McNutt, & J. Morrison (Eds.). Discovering Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
What do leaders need to know about creativity in the classroom? This entry provide a brief overview of classroom creativity for educational leaders, including common and problematic beliefs and what educational leaders can do to support creativity in their own leadership practices.
Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Do we choose our scholarly paths or do they choose us? In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.). The Nature of Human Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
How much of our scholarly path do we choose versus how much of our path is chosen for us by our prior, formative experiences? In addressing this question, I would argue that the journey of a scholar is a sustained creative endeavor. And like any sustained creative endeavor, it represents a developmental teleology . The journey is not driven by a predetermined end. Rather, it is aimed at resolving unsettling questions and experiences with ends that take shape and change along the way. Our past experiences, therefore, help form the choices we make and the scholarly paths we take. And, at the same time, our paths have an emergent feature to them with surprising twists and turns along the way. In this chapter I reflect on my journey in the field of creativity studies by way of a few key experiences that have influenced the trajectory of my work. I also discuss how the choices I made resulted in new questions and directions for to pursue.
Classroom settings serve as key sites for studying the social aspects of creative expression. Conducting creativity research in classrooms, however, is challenging. This challenge stems from the recognition that classrooms are complex, multifaceted, and often mercurial social settings. One way researches have responded to this challenge is to reduce the complexity of classrooms by relying on static approaches. Such approaches are typically aimed at isolating and examining specific features of students and teachers thought to be associated with creativity. In this reflection, I discuss how I (and others) are attempting to move from more static to more dynamic conceptions of creative expression in classrooms.
Runco, M. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Primary and secondary creativity. Behavioral Sciences, 27, 7 -10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.011
Who decides what counts as creative? Although most creativity researchers would acknowledge that both individuals and broader social audiences can offer interpretations about creativity, the way in which researchers tend to conceptualize and study creativity typically focuses on either an individual or a social perspective. Those who focus on individual interpretations may treat the social superficially (if at all), whereas those who focus on social judgments risk minimizing or erasing the role of the individual. Consequently, the question of ‘Creativity for whom?’ too often divides creativity research. In this article, we briefly review recent work in the field of creativity studies that falls along the lines of personal and social judgments of creativity. We introduce an integrative framework that endeavors to reconcile the divide between the personal and the social. Specifically, we introduce a model of Primary and Secondary Creativity, which illustrates how the one process of creativity can explain both personal and social judgments of creativity.
Although there are conceptual and empirical links between creativity and humor, there is no guarantee that a teacher who uses humor as an instructional strategy will support students’ creative expression. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the role that humor can play in teaching for creativity. I introduce a process model of teaching for creativity that posits how a teacher’s humor style can have a differential impact on students’ creative expression. More specifically the model asserts that students will be more likely to take the risks necessary for creative expression if they perceive their teacher’s humor style as affiliative (positive) and, in turn, will view the classroom as conducive to subsequent creative expression if teachers and peers respond to creative risk taking in a supportive rather than aggressive fashion. I discuss the various pathways of the process model and close with a brief discussion of directions for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. & Karwowski, M. (2018). Educational consequences of creativity: A creative learning approach. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 5, 146 - 154. DOI: 10.1515/ctra-2018-0011
How can creativity be encouraged in schools and what are the educational consequences of doing so? We address this question from a creative learning perspective. Specifically, we open by discussing how this question can be approached from at least two different perspectives: one that positions creativity and academic learning as competing goals and another that conceptualizes these goals as compatible. We discuss how a creative learning perspective helps to reframe this question and clarify the educational consequences of doing so. We close by briefly outlining five considerations for promoting favorable outcomes with respect to encouraging creativity in schools and classrooms.
Creativity, uncertainty, and beautiful risks: A conversation with Ronald Beghetto. (Henriksen, Mishra, & the Deep-Play Research Group, 2018). {available online}
Discussion of recent work exploring creativity, uncertainty, and risk-taking.
What if instead of trying to eliminate uncertainty, we welcomed it into our classrooms? Doing so requires a shift in how we think about uncertainty and its place in fostering problem solving. This article describes five strategies can help us make that shift.
Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity in teaching. In J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer, V.P. Glaveanu (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.030
Creative teaching, like all forms of teaching, is a polymorphous act. It can take multiple forms and have different pedagogical aims. The purpose of this chapter is to describe creativity in the domain of teaching and clarify three forms of creative teaching: teaching about creativity, teaching for creativity, and teaching with creativity. The chapter will describe each of these types of creative teaching, including their different aims, previous work on each type, and the knowledge base necessary for each type of creative teaching. Directions for future research will also be discussed.
Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Toward untangling creative self-beliefs. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.). The creative self. Cambridge MA: Academic Press.
In this chapter, we argue that the way researchers (including ourselves) have conceptualized and measured creative self-beliefs may blur important distinctions amongst these beliefs. We focus our discussion on three key self-beliefs: creative self-efficacy, creative metacognition, and creative self-concept. More specifically, we aim to clarify how these beliefs are conceptually distinct, highlight key areas of conceptual overlap, and offer our recommendations how researchers might revise or developing new measures that are more aligned with these conceptualizations. Implications for theory and research are also discussed.
Gajda, A., R. A. Beghetto, & M. Karwowski. (2017). Exploring creative learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity
How might researchers better understand the variations in creative learning in and across classrooms? This article addresses this question. In this paper we report on a study that used a multi-method approach to explore the dynamic features of creative learning in ten elementary classrooms. The ten classrooms were first classified into one of three groups (positive, negative, and null), based on the relationship between students’ (N = 204) measured creativity and academic achievement (average positive r = 0.52; average negative r = −0.23; and average null r = 0.02). Next, we analyzed observed teacher and student behaviors in each classroom. We found different patterns of behavior based on classroom classifications. Finally, used a micro-level interactional analysis to visually illustrate patterns of interactions between teachers and students in three different classroom classifications. We found more extended and exploratory interactions in the positive association classroom, whereas the negative association classroom was characterized by more directive and rapidly closing patterns of interaction and the null association classroom tended to have patterns of interaction that left students’ ideas suspended and lacked exploration, development or refinement of ideas.
How might teachers transform routine tasks into non-routine ones? The purpose of this article is to address this question. The article opens with a discussion of why non-routine problems require creative and original thought. Specifically, I discuss how non-routine problems require students to confront uncertainty and how uncertainty can serve as a catalyst for creative thought and action. Next, I discuss how the logic of routine tasks can impede original and creative thought. I then introduce the concept of lesson unplanning and explain how it can be used to convert routine tasks into non-routine problems. I also discuss how non-routine problems can range from more modest in-classroom assignments to more ambitious efforts. The paper closes with a brief discussion of directions for future research and practice.
What propels creativity in learning? In this chapter, we discuss a long- standing—yet often overlooked—form of reasoning that helps address this question. That form of reasoning is called abductive reasoning (introduced by the early American Pragmatist, Charles Sanders Peirce). Abductive reasoning represents a special form of creative reasoning that is triggered by states of genuine doubt. Genuine doubt occurs whenever our everyday habits and beliefs fall short in making sense of a situation. In the context of learning, genuine doubt occurs anytime a learner is unable to inductively or deductively reason through an academic task or situation. As we will discuss, these states of doubt represent opportunities for creative learning. Specifically, our aim in this chapter is to demonstrate, by way of example, how abduction and creativity work together in every day learning. We will also discuss how understanding this link will help clarify efforts aimed at support- ing creativity in the classroom, expand current conceptions of creativity, and pro- vide directions for research on creativity in educational settings.
In this chapter, we argue that the way researchers (including ourselves) have conceptualized and measured creative self-beliefs may blur important distinctions amongst these beliefs. We focus our discussion on three key self-beliefs: creative self-efficacy, creative metacognition, and creative self-concept. More specifically, we aim to clarify how these beliefs are conceptually distinct, highlight key areas of conceptual overlap, and offer our recommendations how researchers might revise or developing new measures that are more aligned with these conceptualizations. Implications for theory and research are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Legacy projects: Helping young people respond productively to the challenges of a changing world. Roeper Review - special issue: Wisdom in a changing world.
How might educators help young people respond to current and future challenges of a changing world? In this brief article I describe how educators can design Legacy Projects to provide young people with opportunities to make positive and lasting differences in their lives, schools, communities, and beyond.
Our purpose in this chapter is to reexamine, and in some cases reinforce, conceptions of creativity that can support educators in nurturing student creativity and, at the same time, allow them to fulfill curricular requirements.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133
This article reports on a meta-analysis of 120 studies examining the relationship between creativity and academic achievement in research conducted since the 1960s. Average correlation between creativity and academic achievement was r = .22, 95% CI [.19, .24]. An analysis of moderators revealed that this relationship was constant across time but stronger when creativity was measured using creativity tests compared to self-report measures and when academic achievement was measured using standardized tests rather than grade point average. Moreover, verbal tests of creativity yielded significantly stronger relationships with academic achievement than figural tests. Theoretical and practical consequences are discussed.
That creativity can play a role in learning seems clear. Creativity researchers and educational scholars have long asserted that theories of learning need to be broadened to include creative cognition. What is less clear, however, is the specific nature of that role. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new model of creative learning. The article opens with a brief discussion of previous work on learning and creativity. Next a model of creative learning is introduced, specific assertions based on the model are discussed, and an example of how the model might be applied to classroom learning is presented. The article closes with a discussion of implications for future research on creative learning.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative openings in the social interactions of teaching. Creativity: Theory-Research-Applications. {available online}
What role does creativity play in the social interactions of teaching? The purpose of this article is to address this question by introducing the concept of creative openings. Creative openings refer to unexpected breaks in otherwise planned teaching interactions that result in new and meaningful insights, perspectives, and understandings. The concept of creative openings builds on recent work that has endeavored to explore how creative thought and action can emerge in the socio-psychological and material interactions of practice. The article opens by briefly introducing creative openings, highlights three key moments (interactional ruptures, interactional responses, and interactional outcomes) that researchers can use to examine the trajectory of creative openings, and closes with a brief example that illustrates these key moments and how they might be represented diagrammatically. Directions for future research are also discussed.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the paradoxical relationship between creativity and conformity by explaining how creativity can emerge from the combination of originality and conformity.
People tend to associate creative leaders with monumental accomplishments. In this brief provocation, I assert that creative leaders define themselves in the micromoments of everyday leadership. Also highlighted are three corollaries derived from the assertion that offer a new way of thinking about creative leadership.
What experiences influence the development of creativity in children and adolescents? One experience is the mortification of creative aspirations. Creative mortification (CM) refers to the loss of one’s willingness to pursue a particular creative aspiration following a negative performance outcome. The purpose of this article is to introduce an empirically testable model of CM. Specifically, the model highlights how CM can result from interpreting a negative performance outcome through the lens of internal attributions, fixed ability beliefs, and the experience of shame. The model further posits that young people’s level of aspirational commitment, the feedback they receive, and their sociocultural context can moderate their interpretations and experiences of negative performance outcomes and CM.
Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Learning as a creative act. To appear in T. Kettler (Ed.). Modern Curriculum for Gifted and Advanced Learners. New York: Routledge.
It has been said that learning is a creative act. Indeed some of the earliest creativity researchers have acknowledged the central role that creativity plays in academic learning. Curriculum designers, however, sometimes view creativity and academic learning as important, but separate curricular goals . Why might this be the case? What is at the heart of this inconsistency? Can we really say that learning is a creative act? If so, what would the implications be for the design of modern curricula? The purpose of this chapter is to address these questions.
What type of difference is favorable for creative action in classroom settings? The purpose of this chapter is to explore this question. More specifically, we attempt to highlight and untangle the role that difference plays in both creativity and education. We also highlight key tensions and contradictions that can support (or inadvertently undermine) students’ and teachers’ ability to creatively act on the difference afforded to them in the day-to-day classroom. We close with a brief discussion of future directions for research and practice.
Theories are like containers. They help us organize the way we think about complex topics, like creativity. Many theories try to answer core questions about creativity, such as "Who is creative?", "How are we creative?", "Why are we creative?" and "What is creative?" In this chapter we highlight a few theories that can help address these questions. We all discuss how these theories can be helpful in thinking about creativity and the potential pitfalls in rigidly relying on any one theory.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2016). Revisiting the relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer, The Cambridge Companion to Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[This Chapter is an updated version of Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006) . The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can't get there from here”? In J. C. Kaufman and J. Bear (Eds.).Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.]
Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Leveraging micro-opportunities to address Macro-Problmes Toward an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Creative Intelligence in the 21st Century (pp. 159 - 174). Sense Publishers.
The kinds of 21st Century Macroproblems facing current and future generations of teachers and students can be quite daunting if not downright demoralizing. What, if anything, can be done to help young people develop the capacity to manage the rapid depletion of natural resources, repair widespread environmental devastation, address increasingly severe inequalities, reverse the erosion of democracy, disrupt dangerous dogmatisms, and address yet to be discovered Macroproblems? One way to address this question is to seek out radical changes. According to this logic, big problems require big solutions. The purpose of this chapter is to challenge such a view and, instead, outline an argument for the importance of capitalizing on micro-opportunities presented in the everyday classroom. On such opportunity is to use academic subject matter as a vehicle for cultivating an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking (UPT) in students and teachers. UPT represents a motivational orientation towards problem solving that allows people to think and act in ways necessary for addressing complex and ill-defined problems. As will be discussed students who approach problems with an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking are in a much better position to break through the crust of the Macroproblems they face and move toward more hopeful futures.
Cotter, K., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creativity in the classroom: Advice for best practices. In T. Lubart, M. Botella, X. Caroff, C. Mouchiroud, J. Nelson & F. Zenasni (Eds), Homo Creativus: The 7 C's of human creativity. New York: Springer.
The aim of this chapter is to address how creativity can be nurtured in the classroom, including ways in which it may emerge or be stifled. Through the examination of several topics directly related to creativity and the classroom environment, we hope to instill a more thorough understanding of the psychological science behind the umbrella topic of creativity, and how to maximize development of student creativity in the classroom environment. We will close with a few recommendations for how creativity could be actively supported in the classroom. Broadening educators’ understanding of environmental influences on creativity in the education system has potential to foster classroom environments more welcoming to creative expression.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Understanding creativity in the schools. In A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Springer Science.
In this chapter we will review definitions and conceptions of creativity. We highlight what conceptions are most appropriate for K12 settings, noting approaches that can help in assessing and fostering creativity. Specifically, we discuss the Four C Model of creativity and implications for this model. We close by summarizing key insights and providing a list of resources for educators interested in cultivating students’ creative potential in the classroom.
There has been a broad consensus on the definition of creativity for more than 60 years, with most researchers agreeing that creativity represents to some degree of a combination of two core elements. The first is newness, novelty, or originality. The second is task appro- priateness, usefulness, or meaningfulness. In this chapter we use the Four-C model to frame our discussion of how these core elements of creativity are determined by a particular sociocultural and historical context. In short, we attempt to illustrate that creativity, culture and context are inextricably connecte.
Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Teaching creative thinking. In The Routledge International Handbook of Teaching Thinking. New York: Routledge.
What is worth teaching? This is a timeworn and contested question. Teaching students to think creatively has long been viewed as one of the best ways to prepare students for an uncertain future. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of theory and research on the teaching of creative thinking in K12 settings. The chapter opens by providing a brief historical context of teaching for creativity – discussing how creativity has long been viewed as a key educational goal that is compatible with academic learning, but has been impeded by several challenges. Those challenges include lack of clarity of what is meant by creativity, inertia in the educational system, and a too narrowly focused curriculum. Trends in contemporary research on teaching creative thinking are also discussed. The chapter closes with a summary of promising and needed directions for scholars interested in pursuing this line of research.
What, if any, benefit might there be to applying creativity research to cooking? The purpose of this paper was to address this question. Specifically, we draw on concepts and theories from creativity research to help clarify what is meant by creative cooking. This includes exploring creative cooking through the lens of the 4-C and Propulsion models of creativity. We close with a brief discussion of why applying creativity research to cooking is both beneficial and an area in need of further work.
Interview conducted by Suzanna Henshon for Roeper Review
What is the life of an idea? How do some ideas result in creative outcomes? People interested in creativity often want to know the answers to these questions. Although there are numerous methods and measures for assessing creative persons and products, there is little by way of methods for documenting and analysing the trajectories of ideas. The purpose of this paper is to address this need by introducing a new approach for tracing and analysing ideational pathways. Ideational pathways refer to the trajectory of ideas in temporal and spatial dimensions. That is, how ideas travel through time and space and whether those ideas end up resulting in creative outcomes. We open the paper by providing a theoretical and conceptual background for ideational pathways. We then introduce an emerging approach for tracing these pathways and apply it to two examples. We close by discussing implications and directions for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Promises and pitfalls in differentiating amongst the C’s of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 1 - 2.
In a recent CRJ Comment, Runco (2014) outlined several problems with dichotomous representations of creativity, specifically the Big C/little c distinction. He also extended this concern to sub-distinctions such as Pro-c and mini-c. We are sympathetic with features of his argument. Indeed, we have made similar arguments about the problems associated with the Big C/little-c dichotomy. Where we disagree with Runco is his claim that such labels and distinctions about creativity lack value. We briefly outline why we feel the additional distinctions presented in our Four-C model have value in thinking about and studying creativity.
Beghetto, R. A. (2015). What can creativity researchers learn from the Grey Parrot. In A. B. Kaufman, & J.C. Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). Animal creativity and innovation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Why do creativity researchers often fail to acknowledge non-human creativity? One reason has to do with the way we categorize our beliefs about creativity. We often view non-human creativity as a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree. I explore these differences in light of Pepperberg's chapter (Creativity and Innovation in the Grey Parrot). I then briefly discuss the implications of these different views and what it might mean to creativity research if we expanded our work to include non-human examples of creativity.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2015). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394 - 399.
Creative metacognition (CMC) refers to a combination of self- and contextual-knowledge used to make decisions about one's own creative efforts and accomplishments. This article reports on an exploratory study that examined whether elementary students' domain specific mini-c and little-c self-ratings aligned with external ratings of creativity. Students (N = 242) completed three performance tasks (i.e., a visual, verbal, and scientific task). Immediately following each task, students were asked to judge whether their resulting product was creative at the mini-c level (i.e., creative to the self, but not others) and little-c level (i.e., recognized as creative by others). External raters also scored the creativity of each completed task. Results indicate that students were able to differentiate their performance on different creative domains (i.e., visual, verbal, scientific) and across levels of quality (i.e., mini-c and little-c). In addition, their self-ratings were significant (albeit modest) predictors of creativity scores as assigned by expert raters.
Is the psychology of creativity in a state of crisis? I explore this question and argue that the field of creativity studies faces an important turning point, which signifies a promising expansion and maturity of the field. I then discuss, by way of example, how integrative models can serve as an important vehicle for moving the field forward. I close with a brief discussion of how integrative models allow creativity researchers to capitalize on opportunities presented by the expansive growth occurring in the psychology of creativity.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative Mortification: An Initial Exploration. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity And The Arts, 8, 266 - 276.
Most people have experienced some form of creative suppression – sharing a unique and personally meaningful idea, insight, or product only to have it dismissed, ignored, or misunderstood. Some forms of creative suppression are more profound and can result in what is herein called “creative mortification.” Creative mortification refers to the loss of one’s willingness to pursue a particular creative aspiration following a negative performance outcome. This article reports on a two-part exploratory study that first examined factors associated with creative mortification and then identified factors that differentiate between mortifying versus motivating experiences in a sample of prospective teachers. In Part 1, participants (N = 99) were randomly assigned to one of two hypothetical negative feedback conditions (person-focused versus process-focused) in which they were asked to imagine how they would respond to a negative performance outcome. Results of Part 1 indicate that experiencing negative self-conscious emotions, shame in particular, and attributing negative outcomes to one’s fixed creative ability served as unique, significant predictors of creative mortification. In Part 2, participants (N = 99) were again randomly assigned to two sets of conditions, one aimed at eliciting descriptions of prior motivating experiences the other aimed at eliciting mortifying experiences. Results of Part 2 indicate that mortifying experiences were associated with a younger age of occurrence, negative self-conscious emotions, a desire to avoid reoccurrence of the experience, and fixed ability beliefs. Conversely, motivating experiences were associated with an older age of occurrence, a feeling of being wronged, a desire to confute, and a belief that improvement was possible.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Looking At Creativity Through A Business-Psychology-Education (BPE) Lens: The Challenge And Benefits Of Listening To Each Other. (Pp. 9 - 30). In Shiu, E. (Ed.). Creativity Research: An Interdisciplinary And Multidisciplinary Research Handbook. New York: Routledge.
There is great potential in viewing creativity through a more integrated business-education-psychology (BPE) lens. Realizing this cross-disciplinary potential will, however, require a realistic understanding of several core issues and tensions that have maintained the trifurcation among these areas. In this chapter we focus on one of those issues – what we call “the consequence question” -- and discuss how this issue presents not only a challenge for creativity researchers, but can also serve as opportunity for bringing together the three strands of BPE oriented creativity research.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Creativity and classroom management. In W. G. Scarlett (Ed.), Classroom management: An a-to-z guide. Thousand Oaks California: Sage.
How does one think about creativity and classroom management? One common way is to view creativity and classroom management as contradictory: Creativity is often viewed as thriving only in settings that have limited or no constraints (e.g., requiring thought that goes “outside of the box”), whereas classroom management is typically viewed as establishing clear and consistent constraints that govern student behavior (e.g., behavior expectations, classroom rules, approaches to discipline). Moreover, there is evidence (both anecdotal and empirical) that highly creative students sometimes struggle in school and can be viewed by their teachers as troublesome and disruptive. But where does such a contradictory view leave teachers who value both creativity and a well-managed classroom? We address these questions and demonstrate how creativity and classroom management are complimentary goals.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Toward avoiding an empirical march to nowhere. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 18 -20.
As social scientists we want to make contributions that can help us better understand and possibly change the world, even if in small ways. We endeavor—in our field of psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts—to understand and contribute insights into fundamental and complex aspects of the human experience. In this commentary, I respond to Matthew Makel's lead article -- offering my suggestions for how we as researchers, journal editors, and reviewers might work toward strengthening our scholarly efforts in the field of Creativity Studies.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). The exhibit as planned versus the exhibit as experienced. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57, 1 - 4.
Is it even possible to design museum exhibits that have an above average chance of engaging visitors in meaningful experiences? Museum-based researchers and designers, working over the past several decades, have endeavored to address this and other questions. Recently, a promising Ideas-People- Objects (IPO) model of the visitor experience, subsequently elaborated on to include Physical (IPOP) has been used in the design and subsequent study of visitors’ museum experiences. Here I briefly describe the model and introduce three papers featured in this issue of Curator: The Museum Journal that offer new insights and perspectives for understanding the theory behind the model, as well as features of the IPOP model that have been used in the design and interpretation of exhibitions, and a comparison of analytic techniques that produce results that can be used in IPOP-related research.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies.
Various factors influence the development of creative potential, including everything from individual differences to the kinds of experiences and opportunities that creators experience throughout the lifespan. When it comes to nurturing creativity in the classroom, the learning environment is one of the most important factors - determining, in large part, whether creative potential will be supported (or suppressed). In short, classroom context matters. It is one thing to recognize that the classroom environment impacts the development of creative potential, it is quite another to understand just what it takes to develop an optimally supportive creative learning environment. This is because many of the features of optimal learning environments are quite subtle and even counter-intuitive. In this paper we discuss insights from the research on how teachers might establish a creativity supportive learning environment in their classroom.
Baxter, J. A., Ruzicka, A. R., Beghetto, R. A., & LIvelybrooks, D. (2014). Professional development strategically connecting mathematics and science: The impact on teachers' confidence and practice. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 102 - 113. {link}
This article reports on a professional development project designed to help elementary teachers improve their teaching of mathematics and science. Participating teachers, in both math and science, reported feeling more confident in their ability to engage students in learning, to assess students’ understanding, to facilitate classroom discussions and to help students meet the requirements of state work samples. In addition to changes in confidence, participating teachers reported changes in their instruction resulting from their participating in the professional development project. These changes included, creating more opportunities for students to share their thinking; allowing more time for students to explain their strategies for both solving problems and investigating questions in science; and creating more opportunities for students to share their thinking. Implications for similar professional development efforts and directions for future research are also discussed.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creativity in Schools: Renewed interest and promising new directions. In Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools (2nd Ed.). Routledge
[This chapter is an updated version of Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: A rapidly developing area of positive psychology. For the second Edition of In Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S., & Furlong, M.J. Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Routledge.]
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Expect the unexpected: Teaching for creativity in the micromoments. In M. Gregerson, J. C. Kaufman, & H. Snyder (Eds.). Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. New York: Springer Science. [request pdf]
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss ways creativity researchers and teacher educators might increase prospective teachers’ awareness and confidence in teaching for creativity in the fleeting curricular micromoments that emerge anytime a planned lesson takes an unexpected turn. The chapter opens with a description of why and how it is important to develop in-the-moment awareness of opportunities for supporting creativity when teaching. This is followed by a detailed overview of a simulation that has been used to help prospective teachers become more confident and competent in responding to unexpected curricular moments. The chapter closes by briefly highlighting future directions for how to help practicing and prospective teachers support student creativity in the micromoments of their classroom.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Creativity: Development and enhancement. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd. Ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. [request pdf]
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introductory summary of research on creativity development and enhancement that keeps an eye firmly fixed on how the research applies to educational settings. To this end, this chapter opens by briefly defining common terms used in the research, highlights major questions addressed by the research, the kinds of conclusions that can (and cannot) be drawn from the research, and closes by highlighting practical implications and key references that might provide additional guidance for understanding creativity development and enhancement in educational settings.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Creativity. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.). Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. {link}
Creativity is a complex and compelling psychological phenomenon. To understand creativity is to understand the varied individual, social, cultural, and historical factors that impinge on creativity. This resource provides researchers and students with an overview of creativity in psychology, which includes over 100 annotated citations. Topics covered include: classic works, key concepts, theoretical perspectives, and recent develops.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Nurturing creativity in the micromoments of the classroom. In K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, B. Sriramen, & L. Skidmore (Eds.). Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students: Research, theory, and practice. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [request pdf]
Surprising, everyday moments of the classroom represent defining moments when it comes to nurturing student creativity. What teachers do in these moments has important implications for whether opportunities for nurturing student creativity will be addressed or missed. In this chapter, I describe how teachers often find themselves choosing between attempting to be understood versus attempting to understand when confronted with unexpected micromoments. The chapter closes with suggestions for how teachers might make slight adjustments in the ways they typically respond during these micromoments and, thereby, better support the development of students' creative potential.
Beghetto, R. A., Barbee, B., Brooks, S., Franklin-Phipps, A., Fukuda, E., Gardner-Allers, N. L., Hood, D., Raza, N., Uusitalo, N., White Eyes, C. (2013). Light bulbs, Bill Evans, and cat hair: Exploring representations of creativity and education in images, videos, and blogs. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 188 – 206. {link}
This article reports on the findings from three studies that explored the question of: How is creativity and education represented in online images, videos, and blogs? Insights into this question are of particular importance given that educators and parents interested in learning more about the nature of creativity are likely to turn to the Internet as a primary source of information. Results of Study 1 indicate that product-based images and images that metaphorically “point to” creativity were most prevalent, potentially reinforcing product-bias and conceptually fuzzy conceptions of creativity. Results of Study 2 indicate that videos most frequently focused on teaching with creativity (as opposed to teaching for or about creativity) and were educationally based. Results of regression analysis indicate that the videos with the most “views” focused on producing creative behaviors, demonstration of techniques, environments that suppress creativity, and appeared earlier in the search results. Finally, the results of Study 3 indicate that blogs were equally likely to be written from the perspective of a teacher as from the perspective of a non-teacher, tended not to define creativity, and tended not to include citations. Interestingly, however, results of regression analysis indicated that the most “liked” blogs were those written from the perspective of a teacher and defined creativity. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A., & Breslow, J. Z. (2013). A commanding survey of the creativity studies landscape: A review of Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 417 - 418. [request pdf]
Review of the book, Explaining Creativity (2nd Ed.), edited by R. Keith Sawyer. In this book, Sawyer set out to “present the most comprehensive overview of what scientists have learned about creativity.” What Sawyer has accomplished in his second edition is no mean feat. Anyone attempting to map out such a vast and expanding landscape faces serious challenges and nontrivial responsibilities. The challenges inhere in attempting to clarify what is already known about creativity, debunking timeworn and widely held misconceptions, and documenting new discoveries. The responsibilities involve acknowledging the subjective aspects involved in attempting to develop an objective and comprehensive survey of the field and an acceptance of the consequential impact that such a work can have on readers who turn to it as a guide. Sawyer’s earnest attempt to address these challenges and meet these responsibilities provides students of creativity with a solid basis for further theoretical and empirical engagement.
Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Fundamentals of creativity Educational Leadership, 70, 10 - 15. {full text link}
Creativity has become a hot topic in education. Increasingly, business leaders, major media outlets, government officials, and educational policy makers have started advocating for the development students’ creative potential as part of the 21st Century curriculum. Renewed interest in creativity may signal new hope to educators and researchers who have long been emphasizing the importance of creativity in schools and classrooms. However, without a clear understanding of the nature of creativity itself, such well-meaning advocacy has the potential to do more harm than good. It is easy to stress the importance of adding creativity to the curriculum. It is much harder to offer guidelines and support for the additional pressure and guilt placed on teachers to somehow add yet another thing to an already overwhelming set of curricular demands. The purpose of this article is to highlight five fundamental insights every educator should know about creativity.
Despite creativity’s many benefits and positive outcomes, there are still both explicit and implicit teacher biases against creative students. We argue that teachers do not dislike creativity, but rather dislike inappropriate creativity that can come from students at poorly chosen times. After reviewing the literature on metacognition and creativity, we propose the adapted construct of creative metacognition (CMC), a combination of self knowledge (knowing one’s own creative strengths and limitations) and contextual knowledge (knowing when, where, how, and why to be creative). We end with ways that teachers can raise students’ CMC.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the Four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 229 - 236. {link}
Researchers examine implicit beliefs about creativity to understand what laypeople think. Past work has looked at cultural differences, characteristics associated with creativity, and the positive or negative valence that people feel toward creativity. In this study, we focused on the Four C Model of Creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) to discover if laypeople perceive nuances in different levels of accomplishment. We found that although Pro-c and little-c merged into one factor, Big-C, mini-c, and Not-C (not creative) were distinguishable. Personality (particularly agreeableness and openness) predicted how participants rated different levels of creativity.
Beghetto, R. A., & Baxter, J. (2012). Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 942 - 960
This study had the goal of investigating the association among elementary students’ (N = 276) science and math beliefs and the relationship of those beliefs with teachers’ ratings of mathematical and science understanding. Results of structural path analysis indicate that in science, intellectual risk-taking (the willingness to share tentative ideas, ask questions, attempting to do and learn new things) was positively related to teachers’ ratings of science understanding, while creative self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., students’ confidence in their ability to generate ideas and solutions in science) were indirectly related (working through intellectual risk-taking). Results also indicate that students’ scientific certainty beliefs (i.e., the belief that science knowledge is stable, fixed and represented by correct answers) were negatively related to teachers’ ratings of science understanding. With respect to math, results indicate that students’ creative self-efficacy beliefs were positively related to teachers’ ratings of math understanding; whereas students’ mathematical source beliefs (i.e., believing that math knowledge originates from external sources) were negatively related.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., Hegarty, B., Hammond, H., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2012). Cultivating creativity, play and leisure in early childhood education: A 4 C perspective. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.). Contemporary perspectives on Creativity in Early Childhood Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. [request pdf]
Most parents and early childhood educators readily recognize the value of unstructured, imaginative play; many also feel the pressure to spend more time preparing young children for academic learning and performance expectations they will encounter in K-12 schooling and beyond. Almost everywhere parents and early childhood educators turn they are bombarded by messages promoting structured and direct academic preparation at ever-younger ages (from womb to cradle to classroom). In this chapter we argue that placing too great an emphasis on structured learning in early childhood education can stifle the development of learning and creativity. We hope to demonstrate that a more balanced approach to early childhood education – informed by a broader conception of creativity –will better prepare students for life-wide learning and creativity. We open the chapter by briefly discussing the nature of creativity. We then introduce the Four C model of creativity and discuss how the broader conception of creativity represented in the Four C model provides a new way of thinking about how early childhood educational experiences can serve as a foundation for cultivating meaningful learning and creativity.
Beghetto, R. A. (2011). Toward replacing fear of unknown educational futures with creative possibilities: A review of Creativity and Education Futures. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
Review of the book, Creativity and Education Futures by Anna Craft . We, as humans, generally fear the unknown. This fear is amplified by any hint of danger. It should therefore come as no surprise that parents and educators might harbor fears about children participating in the ever changing and somewhat unknown digital landscapes of social media, wiki’s, on-line gaming and other electronically mediated experiences. Such fears are underwritten by legitimate digital pitfalls and dangers (e.g., Will children be misinformed, duped, endlessly distracted, cyber-bullied or worse?). Still, even in light of such concerns, parents and educators want to do all they can to prepare children for the future -- one of the greatest unknowns of human existence -- and many recognize that digitally mediated learning experiences offer youngsters a ticket on the express train toward a vast array of exciting and important future possibilities. Anna Craft invites readers into the very heart of this issue and challenges us -- as parents, educators, concerned global citizens -- to actively engage with the educational possibilities of the digital age so that youngsters can more wisely and creatively participate in shaping their own futures.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teachers often worry that inviting creativity into the classroom will result in curricular chaos. At the same time most teachers generally value student creativity and worry that too great a focus on covering content can turn the act of teaching into little more than series of scripted monologues, delivered to a room full of passive students. The seemingly conflicting concerns and commitments result in the teaching paradox; teachers find themselves balancing two inverse tensions: (1) teaching requisite academic subject matter while still wanting to foster student creativity and (2) wanting to allow for creativity yet fearing curricular chaos. In this chapter, we address these tensions and discuss how teachers can, through disciplined improvisation, address the teaching paradox. We show how teachers can have enough structure for academic work to be productive, and at the same time allow for the improvisation necessary to encourage student creativity. We open the chapter by arguing that the teaching paradox results from the gap between the curriculum-as-planned and curriculum-as-lived. We then introduce our elaboration on the concept of disciplined improvisation and discuss how this concept can help address the teaching paradox.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts.
Two studies explored the relationship between elementary students’ creative self-efficacy (CSE) beliefs (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) and teachers’ ratings of students’ creativity. In Study 1, elementary students’ (N = 595) CSE beliefs in science predicted teachers’ ratings of students’ creative expression in science, accounting for a significant, but small (3.4%), proportion of variation in teachers’ ratings. Results of Study 1 also indicate that students’ CSE beliefs tended to decline by grade level. Teacher ratings did not vary by grade level, but teachers tended to rate females and White students as more creative. In Study 2, elementary students’ (N = 306) CSE beliefs in science and math predicted teachers’ ratings of creative expression in math and science, again accounting for a significant, but small (2.1% in science; 4.2% in math), proportion of variation in teachers’ ratings. Also similar to Study 1, results indicate students’ CSE beliefs declined by grade level. Results of Study 2 indicate that students tended to underestimate their creative ability and tended to differentiate between creative ability in science and math (whereas their teachers did not). Implications for creativity research are discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. & Samek, L. (2011). Sowing the seeds of multi-institutional collaborative research. In H. Rosselli, M. Girod, & M. Brodsky (Eds.). Connecting teaching and learning: History, evolution and case studies of teacher work sample methodology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
In chapter we provide a brief introduction and overview of the genesis and development of a collaborative research initiative comprised of researchers and teachers educators representing nearly a dozen public and private teacher education institutions. Specifically, we describe the historical context out of which this collaborative research initiativeemerged – highlighting how the process was seeded and grew into what developed into a set of three robust, interrelated studies. We then highlight the goals of each project and close with a brief discussion of key supports and challenges in attempting to develop and sustain this type of project.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Pourjalali, S. (2011). Criatividade na sala de aula:Uma perspectiva internacional (Creativity in the classroom: An international perspective). In S. M. Wechsler & V. L. Trevisan (Eds.), Criatividade e aprendizagem: caminhos e perspectivas internacionais (Creativity and learning: International paths and perspectives) (p. 53-72). Brazil: Edicoes Loyola.
In this chapter, we present the creativity in the classroom from an international perspective. We hope to highlight how creativity has been conceptualized in countries around the world. We will first define how creativity is perceived across cultures. Next we discuss that, although creativity is often valued across cultures, there are several obstacles that stand in the way it is stimulated in the classroom. Finally, we discuss the conditions necessary to promote student's creativity and finish by addressing the importance of developing broader conceptions of creativity on the part of educators.
Kaufman, J. C., Davis, C. D., & Beghetto, R. A. (2011). Why creativity should matter, why it doesn’t and what we can do. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York: Routledge.
In this chapter, we discuss why creativity should matter in educational settings, why it often doesn't seem to, and what concerned educators, parents and researches might do to ensure that creativity finds a meaningful role in the curriculum. We present an overview of research highlighting this issue and offer practical suggestions for how creativity might take a more meaningful place in the learning and lives of students and teachers.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [download]
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the conflicted nature of creativity in the classroom. The chapter opens with a brief discussion of creativity as a mainstream curricular goal. Next, a variety of common barriers to creativity in the classroom are discussed along with considerations for how creativity researchers might help address these barriers. The chapter closes by highlighting key directions for future research.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Prospective Teachers' Prior Experiences with Creativity Suppression.International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 20, 29 - 36.
The purpose of this study was to provide an initial exploration of prospective teachers' personal experiences with intellectual hide-and-seek during their prior K-12 schooling experience. Intellectual hide-and-seek (IHS) refers to an instructional practice in which students learn to suppress their own unique insights and ideas in favor of providing responses and ideas that they think their teachers expect and want to hear. Results indicated that all but one prospective teacher reported having had experienced IHS in their prior K-12 schooling experience and the elementary grades (1 st – 5 th ) were disproportionately selected as the first time prospective teachers experienced IHS. Implications of these results, along with prospective teachers' descriptions of their experiences with IHS, are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). How open are we to the challenges of everyday creativity? A review of Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3, 127 - 129.
Review of thebook, Everyday creativity and new views of human nature, edited by Ruth Richards . In this book, Richards and her contributors both invite and challenge readers to explore the multifaceted opportunities and transformative potential of everyday creativity. Contributors to the volume represent a surprisingly broad range of disciplines, traditions, units of analysis, and perspectives. The volume opens with an essay by Richards that effectively introduces the concept of everyday creativity and the focus of the book. After the introduction, contributors to Part 1 of the book challenge readers to be open to the potential for creativity in our everyday experiences. The contributors to the second part of Richards’s volume offer arguments, speculations, and challenges to rethink the possibilities (and responsibilities) of social and global creativity. Taken together, the essays not only underscore the elegance and transformative power of the concept of everyday creativity but also directly challenge readers to rethink their own conceptions of creativity.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Educators committed to creativity often wonder: Is it really possible to infuse creativity in an already overpacked curriculum and still adhere to the curricular standards and constraints? In this chapter we address this question by discussing how a broader conception of creativity can support educators in nurturing student creativity and, at the same time, allow them to fulfill curricular requirements.
Kaufman, J.C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom coda: 20 key points and other insights. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
In this coda we offer a summery of key themes and insights found in our edited book Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. Theses themes and insights about how to better support creativity in the classroom include: the importance of broadening our own conceptions of creativity; the power of classroom ideas from other cultures; the necessity of being aware of limiting myths and misconceptions; the urgency of supporting creativity in students from traditionally underserved and marginalized groups; the need to understand the role of motivation, domain-specific knowledge, technology, context and constraints; and the multiple ways to teach, learn about, and support creativity in the classroom.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J. & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creative polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning & Individual Difference, 20, 380 - 387.
[Note: This article is adapted from the book chapter: Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010). Finding young Paul Robesons: Exploring the question of creative polymathy. In Preiss, D. D., & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development. New York: Springer.] Creative polymathy at the very highest levels is rare, but this is largely the result of the long period of training usually necessary to become proficient in any field. We explain why creative polymathy is not ruled out by arguments for the domain specificity of creativity and argue that considerations of multiple levels of creativity (Big-C, Pro-c, little-c, and mini-c) lead to the conclusion that creative polymathy may actually be fairly common. We use a hierarchical model of creativity (the APT Model) to help understand some constraints on and possibilities for creative polymathy, suggest different ways creative polymathy may be expressed and offer guidelines for recognizing and nurturing creative polymathy in students.
This chapter provides a comparative review of major contemporary theories of creativity. The chapter is organized into two major sections. The first section presents a discussion of how the theories will be classified and compared, highlighting key challenges, considerations, and limitations involved in such an endeavor. The second part of the chapter presents an overview of ten categories of contemporary creativity theories, highlighting the underlying assertions, key concepts, major studies, and contemporary exemplars associated with each theoretical category. The chapter closes with a brief discussion of future directions and considerations for the future development of theories of creativity.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010). Finding young Paul Robesons: Exploring the question of creative polymath. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Press (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 141 - 162). New York: Springer.
Paul Robeson attained high levels of creative accomplishment in many areas (academics, athletics, acting, music, and social justice). People who excel creatively in so many different areas stand out because of their rarity. We will in this chapter that the scarcity of large numbers of multi-domain geniuses does not necessarily mean that creative polymathy (i.e., being creative in more than one domain) is impossible, or even highly unlikely, and we will make some tentative suggestions of ways we might identify and nurture the multi-creative abilities of students.
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210 - 223.
This study had the goal of exploring factors associated with elementary students' (N = 585) reports of intellectual risk taking in science. Intellectual risk taking (IRT) was defined as engaging in adaptive learning behaviors (e.g., sharing tentative ideas, asking questions, attempting to do and learn new things) that placed the learner at risk of making mistakes or appearing less competent than others . Results of hierarchical regression indicate that students' reports of IRT declined by grade-level , but were positively related to interest in science, creative self-efficacy, and perceptions of teacher support. Of all the factors considered, interest in science was found to have the strongest unique and positive relationship with students' reports of intellectual risk taking in science.
Beghetto, R.A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts, 3, 2 - 5.
This article explores how micro-moments of the classroom -- brief, easy to miss interactions between teachers and students -- can play a large role in determining whether students' creative potential is supported or undermined. One particular micro-moment, which occurs when students' unexpected ideas are dismissed by teachers, is examined. Potential reasons why teachers might routinely dismiss student ideas, consequences of such dismissals for students, and considerations for addressing this problem are also discussed.
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Everyday creativity. In Kerr, B. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent. Thousand Oaks California: Sage.
Discussions of creativity often invoke images of artistic masterpieces, trend setting musical accomplishments and scientific and technological breakthroughs. Yet, such images can cast a shadow on everyday expressions of creativity. This entry highlights the nature and transformative potential of everyday creativity – considering how it might be nurtured in schools, classrooms, and daily life.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Do we all have multicretaive potential? ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 39 - 44.
Are only certain people destined to be multicreative – capable of unique and meaningful contributions across unrelated domains? In this article, we argue that all students have multicreative potential. We consider this argument in light of different conceptions of creativity and assert that the likelihood of expressing muticreative potential varies across levels of creativity (most likely at individual and everyday levels of creativity; least likely at professional and eminent levels of creativity). We close by offering considerations for how math educators might nurture the multicreative potential of their students.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting learning and creativity in programs of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 296 - 324.
Efforts aimed at nurturing creativity and academic learning sometimes are represented as two related but separate paths. We argue that this separation is unnecessary and can undermine the development of creative and academic potential. In this paper, we consider this split in light of interpretive conceptions of creativity (i.e., “mini-c”) and learning (i.e., socio-cultural perspectives) to demonstrate the connection between creativity and academic learning. Finally, we close by offering the metaphor of Intellectual Estuaries for describing how programs of advanced academics can simultaneously support student learning and creativity.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1 - 12.
Most investigations of creativity tend to take one of two directions: everyday creativity (also called “little-c”) and eminent creativity (also called “Big-C”). In this paper, we propose a Four C model of creativity, in which we add the idea of “mini-c,” creativity inherent in the learning process, and Pro-c, the developmental and effortful progression beyond little-c that represents professional-level expertise in any creative area. We then discuss advantages and examples of the Four C Model.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: A rapidly developing area of positive psychology. In Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S., & Furlong, M.J. Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Routledge.
Often creativity in the schools is seen as a footnote, afterthought, or as an extra-curricular activity. In this chapter, we explore how a new idea that we have been developing, called “mini-c” creativity is important for broadening educators' conceptions of creativity and its role in schools and classrooms. We then discuss the conditions necessary for nurturing students' development of creativity; including: issues surrounding the assessment of creativity and the types of educational environments conducive to nurturing creative development and expression.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Exploring the Four-C model of creativity: Implications for giftedness. To appear in N. L. Hafenstein, & B. Crammond. (Eds.). Perspectives in Gifted Education: Creativity. Denver, CO.: University of Denver.
When most people think of creatively gifted individuals, images of eminent trend setters and innovative pioneers typically come to mind. Many people also recognize that creativity can occur in the everyday settings of schools and classrooms. In this chapter, we discuss the Four-C model of creativity, which expands this dichotomy. We explore the significance of this model for gifted education.
Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., Beghetto, R. A., Burgess, S. A., & Persson, R. S. (2009). Creative giftedness: Beginnings, developments, and future promises (pp. 585 - 598). I L. Shavinina (Ed.),International Handbook of Giftedness. New York: Springer.
In this chapter we highlight how creative giftedness research has differentiated itself from intelligence. Next, we will describe five recent theories of intelligence that involve a creative component and discuss recent advances in creativity research that have implications for creative giftedness such as the concepts of “mini c,” intelligent testing, and dynamic assessment.
Rosiek, J., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Emotional scaffolding: The emotional and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas. (Eds.). Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers' lives. New York: Springer.
In this chapter we consider the emotional and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning, how these dimensions often are neglected, and how the concept of “emotional scaffolding” offers a way for teachers (and researchers) to consider how to more positively incorporate emotion and imagination in classroom teaching and learning. We close by discussing case-studies of teachers who have successfully used emotional scaffolding to engage their students' imagination, support positive student emotions and enrich student learning.
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective Teachers' Beliefs about Imaginative Thinking in K-12 Schooling.Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 134 - 142.
This study examined prospective teachers' (N = 176) beliefs about the role that memorization and imaginative thinking play in K-12 schooling. Results indicate that a significantly disproportionate number of prospective teachers selected the elementary grades (and 1 st grade in particular) as the time when students should be encouraged to focus more on memorization. Results of logistic regression analysis indicate that prospective teachers who viewed unexpected student responses as ideal were significantly more likely to believe that it was never appropriate to place more emphasis on memorization. Prospective teachers' justifications for their beliefs and implications for future research are also discussed.
Beghetto, R.A. (2008). Creativity in schools and classrooms: An introduction to the special issue.International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving.
Creativity occupies somewhat of a paradoxical position in schools and classrooms; while most educators see the value of creativity, uncertainty about how to support it -- in light of external curricular pressures, constraints, and commitments -- may result in lost opportunities to nurture it Contributors to this special issue focus on addressing various issues related to the topic of creativity in schools and classroom.
Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Creativity. In N. J. Salkin Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology.Thousand Oaks California: Sage.
The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the nature of creativity discuss implications of creativity scholarship for educational psychologists. We argue that educational psychologists have a unique opportunity to bridge complementary programs of research such that existing knowledge can be brought to bear on the advancement of what is known regarding the relationship between human learning and creative expression.
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Exploring “mini-c:” Creativity across cultures. In R. L. DeHaan & K. M. Narayan (Eds.). Education for Innovation in India , China and America. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
In this chapter we explore creativity across different cultures. We start by examining what is meant by “creativity”—highlighting a false dichotomy between eminent and everyday creativity that is found across many cultures. We then discuss how cross-cultural approaches to creativity are more complex than simply being individualist vs. collectivist. Finally, we then discuss how new conceptions of creativity (i.e., mini-c creativity) can impact negative teacher perceptions of creativity that have been found across cultures around the world.
Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2007). Darwinian creativity in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 19, 375-379.
The present article considers the debate between Darwinian and non-Darwinian accounts of creativity from the perspective of little-c (or everyday) creativity. Specifically, the basic arguments found in both positions are highlighted by juxtaposing Simonton's empirical analysis of Picasso's Guernica sketches with Weisberg's and Hass' analysis. Unresolved issues in this debate are identified and discussed. The body of the article is focused on developing an argument for how these lingering issues might be addressed by expanding empirical studies of Big C (eminent) creative processes to include little-c (or everyday) levels of creative magnitude.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Factors associated with middle and secondary students' perceived science competence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 800 - 814.
The aim of the present study was to gain a better understanding of students' perceived science competence by examining potentially related beliefs and perceptions in a diverse sample of middle and secondary students ( N = 1289). Results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that students' perceived science competence was related to: (a) students' age, gender, and ethnicity; (b) students' mastery and performance-approach goals; (c) students' self-perceptions of their ability to generate creative ideas (i.e., creative self-efficacy); and (d) students' perceptions of teacher support and press (i.e., challenging academic demands). Of all these factors, creative self-efficacy was found to have the strongest positive relationship with students' perceived science competence. Implications for subsequent research are discussed.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the expert-performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18, 59 - 61.
Creativity scholarship generally focuses on one two forms of creative performance: eminent creativity (Big-C) or everyday creativity (little-c). Recent work on a new construct, mini-c, has taken a developmental perspective. The expert-performance framework is consistent with such trajectory-like views of creative performance, which argue that Big-C is more likely influenced by intense deliberate practice within a particular domain than some special, genetic endowment of a few individuals. The necessity of some gatekeeper subjective judgment is also noted.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Prospective teachers' beliefs about students' goal orientations: A carry-over effect of prior schooling experiences? Social Psychology of Education, 10, 171 - 191.
This study examined the relationship between prospective teachers' ( N = 166) retrospective perceptions of their own past achievement goals and their current beliefs about students' goal orientations and achievement behaviors. Results of hierarchical regression analysis provide correlation evidence in support of a “carry-over effect” of prospective teachers' past goal orientations on their current beliefs about students. Specifically, prospective teachers' were found to believe that their future students will pursue goal orientations analogous to their own past goal orientations. In addition, prospective teachers' explanations for why students might engage in or avoid achievement-directed behaviors were examined. Regardless of past goal orientation, “internal motives” (e.g., improvement and self-satisfaction) represented the most frequent explanation offered by prospective teachers for why students engage in achievement behaviors. Prospective teachers with past performance-approach goals were significantly more likely to view avoidance as a sign of “laziness,” whereas those with past performance-avoidant goals were more likely to view avoidance as resulting from a “lack of confidence and support.” Implications for subsequent research are discussed.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1 , 73-79.
In this paper we argue that a new category of creativity, called “mini-c” creativity, is needed to advance creativity theory and research. Mini-c creativity differs from little-c (everyday) or Big-C (eminent) creativity as it refers to the creative processes involved in the construction of personal knowledge and understanding. We discuss how the category of mini-c creativity addresses gaps in current conceptions of creativity, offers researchers a new and important unit of analysis, and helps to better frame the domain question in creativity research. Implications for creativity research are also discussed.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). IDEATIONAL CODE-SWITCHING: WALKING THE TALK ABOUT SUPPORTING STUDENT CREATIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM. ROEPER REVIEW, 29, 265 - 270.
Why is it that so many teachers espouse a value for creativity, yet do not actively support the expression of creativity in their own classroom? The present article offers considerations for how teachers can begin to reconcile their value for creativity with a pedagogy that supports it. First, teachers' experience of finding themselves caught in the middle between valuing creativity and helping students conform to the constraints of the classroom is considered. Next, the role that constraints play in creativity is discussed. Finally, a new way of thinking about creative expression, called ideational code-switching, is proposed. Ideational code-switching represents the ability to move between intrapersonal creative interpretations and interpersonal creative expression. The article closes with considerations for how teachers might support students' ideational code switching and thereby encourage creative expression in their classroom.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). DOES CREATIVITY HAVE A PLACE IN CLASSROOM DISCUSSIONS? PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS' RESPONSE PREFERENCES. THINKING SKILLS AND CREATIVITY, 2, 1 - 9.
The purpose of this study was to examine prospective middle and secondary teachers' preferences for unique versus relevant student responses during classroom discussions. Results indicate that, on average, prospective teachers ( N = 70) preferred relevance to uniqueness in student responses. In addition, results of regression analysis indicate that prospective teachers' preference for unique responses varied as a function of grade level and academic subject area. Finally, analysis of written explanations revealed nuanced reasons for prospective teachers' preferences ranging from viewing unique responses as potentially distracting to viewing any response as acceptable because of a desire to encourage student participation. Implications for future research and teacher education are discussed.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CREATIVITY ENHANCEMENT. IN J. A. PLUCKER & C. M. CALLAHAN (EDS.). CRITICAL ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN GIFTED EDUCATION: WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ( PP. 139 - 154). WACO, TX: PRUFROCK PRESS.
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of what is known about creativity enhancement. The chapter is organized into seven sections. First, key definitions and major questions addressed by research on creativity enhancement are discussed. Next, conclusions that can be drawn from creativity enhancement research are summarized. Then, limitations and practical implications of creativity enhancement research are discussed. The chapter closes with a summary of what is known about creativity enhancement and a list of research-based sources.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). CREATIVITY RESEARCH AND THE CLASSROOM: FROM PITFALLS TO POTENTIAL. IN A. G. TAN (ED.).CREATIVITY: A HANDBOOK FOR TEACHERS (PP. 101 – 116). SINGAPORE: WORLD SCIENTIFIC.
In this chapter I draw on contemporary creativity scholarship to examine common conceptual pitfalls in creativity research and practice. I then offer considerations for how these pitfalls might be addressed by teachers and researchers so that teachers will be in a better position to maximize students' creative potential in the classroom.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2007). MOTIVATION IN THE CLASSROOM. IN C. R. REYNOLDS & E. FLETCHER-JANZEN (EDS.).ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPECIAL EDUCATION (3 RD ED.). HOBOKEN, NJ: WILEY
Not all students have a positive schooling experience. Some students are skeptical about the value of school, feel marginalized, disengaged, and sometimes even attempt to disrupt the classroom learning process. Students who are disaffected with schooling are a great concern for educators. This entry highlights insights and considerations for motivating students in classroom settings.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2006). CREATIVE SELF-EFFICACY: CORRELATES IN MIDDLE AND SECONDARY STUDENTS. CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 18, 447 - 457.
This study examined correlates of creative self-efficacy (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) in middle and secondary students ( N = 1322). Results indicate that students' mastery and performance-approach beliefs and teacher feedback on creative ability were positively related to students' creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy was also linked to student reports of their teachers not listen to them and sometimes feeling that their teachers had given up on them. Students with higher levels of creative self-efficacy were significantly more likely to hold more positive beliefs about their academic abilities in all subject areas and were significantly more likely to indicate that they planned to attend college than students with lower levels of creative self-efficacy. Finally, students with higher levels of creative self-efficacy were significantly more likely to report higher levels of participation in after school academics and after school group activities. Implications for creativity research and practice are discussed.
BEGHETTO, R. A., & PLUCKER, J. A. (2006) . THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG SCHOOLING, LEARNING, AND CREATIVITY: “ALL ROADS LEAD TO CREATIVITY” OR “YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE”? IN J. C. KAUFMAN AND J. BEAR (EDS.).CREATIVITY AND REASON IN COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT. CAMBRIDGE, UK: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
The experience of schooling sometimes leaves little room for student imagination and curiosity. To the extent that formal schooling homogenizes student knowledge and behavior, educators interested in promoting creativity have reason to worry. But does purposeful, school-based learning necessarily come at the cost of student creativity? The purpose of this chapter is to examine this question. In this chapter we explore the relationship between knowledge, creativity, and schooling. We highlight potential sources of marginalization and present a case for the relationship between creativity and learning and the need for educators to focus on supporting student creativity.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2006). CULTIVATING A LEARNING-FOCUSED COMMUNITY IN SCHOOLS. IN S. C. SMITH AND P. K. PIELE (EDS.). SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: HANDBOOK FOR EXCELLENCE (4TH. ED.). CORWIN PRESS.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide insight into how instructional leaders can meet the challenge of cultivating and sustaining a learning-focused school community. The chapter starts with a definition of learning-focused communities and highlights challenges inherent in cultivating these communities. The next section addresses the question of why students engage in or avoid achievement-directed behavior. Then follows a discussion of how the school community influences student and teacher outcomes. The chapter closes with considerations for cultivating a school wide focus on student learning.
BEGHETTO, R. A., & ALONZO, J. A. (2006). SUPPORTING THE LEARNING PROCESS. IN S. C. SMITH AND P. K. PIELE (EDS.). SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: HANDBOOK FOR EXCELLENCE (4TH. ED.). CORWIN PRESS.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the importance of clarifying student learning goals and offer considerations for selecting strategies that promote the attainment of those goals. We begin the chapter with a brief discussion of what learning means and highlight various perspectives of learning. We then explain the nature of school learning and discuss how instructional leaders can support teachers in promoting the learning process. Next, we clarify three types of learning goals: cognitive, behavioral, and motivational. We close the chapter by offering considerations for selecting research-based instructional strategies to ensure the successful attainment of student learning goals.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2006). CREATIVE JUSTICE? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS' PRIOR SCHOOLING EXPERIENCES AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTING STUDENT CREATIVITY. JOURNAL OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR, 40, 149 - 162.
Prospective teachers ( N = 117) enrolled in an introductory educational psychology course completed questions measuring their perceptions of past schooling experiences, current views regarding the importance of promoting student creativity, and their perceived ability to promote creativity. Statistically significant differences were found between the low importance and high importance groups. Prospective teachers who viewed promoting creativity of students as highly important were significantly less likely to indicate that they enjoyed school. In addition, prospective teachers in the high importance group indicated significantly lower levels of experiencing belongingness (relatedness) and significantly lower self-judgments of their past ability to be successful in school (competence). Judgments regarding the choices afforded in school (autonomy) were mixed, but favored prospective teachers who placed less importance on promoting student creativity. Finally, prospective teachers who viewed promoting student creativity as highly important were significantly more likely to indicate that they had the ability to promote student creativity. A creative-justice hypothesis was derived from these results. This hypothesis posits that individuals committed to promoting creativity are driven by their own past experiences with creativity diminishing environments. These individuals then seek out opportunities to transform the experiences of new inhabitants in similar environments.
Beghetto, R. A., & Ketterlin Geller, L. (2006). Ensuring learning through progress monitoring. In S. C. Smith and P. K. Piele (Eds ). School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence (4th. Ed.). Corwin Press.
In this chapter, we provide an overview of progress monitoring and offer considerations for how to manage this process. The first two sections define progress monitoring and highlight the importance of using multiple sources of information. We then discuss how instructional leaders can improve the interpretation and use of information generated by this process. We also comment on the importance of communicating progress. The final section provides an example of a school district that used progress monitoring to help meet learning goals.
BEGHETTO, R. A., & PARKER, A. (2005). LEARNING TO SEE BEYOND THE SELF: ACCELERATING PRESERVICE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COLLABORATION. NORTHWEST PASSAGE : JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES, 4, 9-16.
A culture of isolation pervades the practice and preparation of teachers. Consequently, the development of teachers can be delayed and result in a focus on self-concerns rather than promoting student learning. Teacher educators have a unique opportunity to address this problem by creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration amongst pre-service teachers, supervisors, and faculty. The purpose of this article is to describe our experiences with an on-going collaborative teacher development project aimed at helping pre-service teachers to see beyond their personal concerns and work collaboratively toward promoting their own, their colleagues, and their students' learning. The body of the article is devoted to a description of the genesis of the project and an overview of the project's activities. We close the article with a description of our own and our students' experiences with the first attempt at integrating this project into our graduate elementary teacher education program.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2005). DOES ASSESSMENT KILL STUDENT CREATIVITY? THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM, 69, 254-263.
Does assessment kill creativity? In this article, creativity is defined and discussed and an overview of creativity and motivational research is provided to describe how assessment practices can influence students' creativity. Recommendations for protecting creativity when assessing students also are provided.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2005). PRE -SERVICE TEACHERS' SELF-JUDGMENTS OF TEST TAKING. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 95, 376 – 380.
This study examined potential differences between preservice teachers who held positive self-judgments of their test taking ability (positive self-judgers) and preservice teachers who held negative self-judgment of their test-taking ability (negative self-judgers). Preservice teachers (N = 87) enrolled in an introductory evaluation-for-decision-making course completed questions that measured views of testing. Significant differences in past experiences with testing, current views of testing, and future use of tests existed between positive and negative self-judgers. Positive self-judgers held significantly more favorable views regarding how accurately classroom and statewide assessments had measured their knowledge. On average, negative self-judgers attributed their poor test-taking performance to "bad tests," whereas positive self-judgers attributed their poor performance to a lack of preparation. Positive self-judgers were significantly more likely to agree that tests in general provide useful information. Negative self-judgers were significantly more likely to question the accuracy of information from statewide achievement tests and the fairness of classroom tests. Positive self-judgers intended to use tests in their classroom and to trust the results of classroom tests that they administered to a significantly greater degree than did negative self-judgers.
PLUCKER, J. A., & BEGHETTO, R. A. (2004) . WHY CREATIVITY IS DOMAIN GENERAL, WHY IT LOOKS DOMAIN SPECIFIC, AND WHY THE DISTINCTION DOESN'T MATTER. IN R. J. STERNBERG, E. L. GRIGORENKO AND J. L. SINGER (EDS.).CREATIVITY: FROM POTENTIAL TO REALIZATION. WASHINGTON , D.C. : AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.
The question of whether creativity is domain general or domain specific is one of the most enduring controversies in the field. Strong opinions are regularly shared in support of both positions, which has led to a polarization of the debate. The dominant perspective currently appears to be that of domain specificity, probably due in large part to the pendulum swing toward situated cognition in the social sciences in general. However, considerable evidence supports the idea that creativity has both specific and general components, and that the level of specificity-generality changes with the social context and as one develops through childhood into adulthood. The authors present their position that creativity is a developmental construct that can be viewed as exhibiting both domain-specific and domain-general characteristics. Furthermore, they argue that from an educational perspective, these distinctions simply are not very important. In this chapter, they present their conception of creativity, describe why creativity can (and should) be viewed as both context-free and context-dependent, and review the theoretical, empirical, and educational implications of this conceptualization using a preliminary model drawn from their analysis.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2004). TOWARD A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF STUDENT LEARNING: ASSESSING STUDENTS' MOTIVATIONAL BELIEFS. PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH & EVALUATION , VOL. 9.
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the assessment of students' motivational beliefs. The body of the article is focused on a particular type of motivational belief, namely, beliefs involving achievement goal orientations. I explain why these beliefs are an important aspect of academic learning, and suggest how teachers can incorporate assessments of them within existing classroom routines.
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, 83-97.
The construct of creativity has a great deal to offer educational psychology. Creativity appears to be an important component of problem-solving and other cognitive abilities, healthy social and emotional well-being, and scholastic and adult success. Yet the study of creativity is not nearly as robust as one would expect, due in part to the preponderance of myths and stereotypes about creativity that collectively strangle most research efforts in this area. The root cause of these stereotypes is the lack of adequate precision in the definition of creativity. The body of the article is devoted to specific suggestions for conceptualizing and defining creativity to maximize its potential contributions to educational psychology.
PLUCKER, J. A., & BEGHETTO, R. A. (2003). WHY NOT BE CREATIVE WHEN WE ENHANCE CREATIVITY? IN J. H. BORLAND (ED.). RETHINKING GIFTED EDUCATION. NEW YORK : TEACHERS COLLEGE PRESS.
In this chapter we discuss persistent issues limiting creativity enhancement efforts in schools. We outline and discuss these issues, highlight promising new directions for promoting creativity, and close with considerations for how these practices can be incorporated into school settings.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2002) . THINKING ABOUT THE OUTSIDE OF THE BOX: A PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT CREATIVITY. INQUIRY: CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES, 21, 30-39.
Post-secondary students in the applied professions (e.g., business, education, psychology) often see the value of creativity to their future work, but have never had the opportunity to critically examine their assumptions about creativity. A more critically examined and substantiated understanding of creativity can go a long way in helping pre-professional students consider how creativity might be best applied and cultivated in their future professional work. The purpose of this article is to discuss how principles of critical thinking can be brought to bear on understanding creativity. First, a discussion of the importance of critically examining the basic assumptions surrounding creativity will be presented. Then, a pedagogical framework for incorporating critical thinking into the examination of creativity will follow. Finally, an example of how the model might be used with post-secondary students will be presented, followed by a brief conclusion.
MAKINSTER , J. G., BEGHETTO, R. A., & PLUCKER, J. A. (2002). WHY CAN'T I FIND NEWTON 'S THIRD LAW ?: CASE STUDIES OF STUDENTS USING OF THE WEB AS A SCIENCE RESOURCE. JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY, 11 ,2 , 155-172.
Students are increasingly using the World Wide Web (Web) as a science resource, especially to gather information on a variety of topics. The abundance of information on the Web makes it an especially tantalizing source of information, but not one without considerable risks due to its size and the inability of most Web search engines to organize and prioritize their search results. The purpose of this study was to examine searching patterns of students using the Web as a science information resource. We present cases of both successful and unsuccessful student experiences. Previous research demonstrates that domain knowledge and search expertise are particularly important in terms of students finding information on the Web. In light of these findings, we attempted to (a) provide detailed accounts of how students use the Web as a science resource, (b) illuminate how the different levels of domain knowledge, search expertise, and situational interest impact students' ability to find useful and relevant information on the Web, and (c) draw inferences about the types of tools and scaffolding needed by students when using the Web as a science resource. Detailed case descriptions of students' experiences facilitate discussion of how educators may integrate this popular information source more efficiently and effectively in their classrooms.
BEGHETTO, R. A. , MAKINSTER, J., & PLUCKER, J. A. (2001). WHO STUDIES CREATIVITY AND HOW DO WE KNOW? CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 13, 3&4, 349 - 355.
This study examined author trends in creativity scholarship through examining authors and articles in the Journal of Creative Behavior during the period 1968-1998. 1,159 articles were examined concerning identification of highly productive authors, 1st-time authors, possible trends in the research topics of 1-time authors. Results show that the field of creativity is similar to other scientific fields in respect to its author contribution distribution. There was a positive trend in 1-time contributors. The 16 prolific contributors contributing 6+ articles to the journal are no longer active.
BEGHETTO, R. A. (2001) . VIRTUALLY IN THE MIDDLE: ALTERNATIVE AVENUES FOR PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN MIDDLE LEVEL SCHOOLS . THE CLEARING HOUSE, 75, 1, 21-26.
In this article I discuss the importance of parental involvement at the middle level and present an alternative avenue for parental involvement—the use of virtual communities. More specifically, I outline how virtual communities can promote positive parental involvement,and I consider the benefits and limitations of implementing such technologies.
PLUCKER, J. A. & BEGHETTO, R. A. (2000) . NEEDLES IN HAYSTACKS OR FIELDS OF PLENTY? A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF POPULAR CREATIVITY TEXTS FOR EDUCATORS. GIFTED CHILD QUARTERLY, 44, 135-138.
In this article we analyzed the content of popular creativity texts. Data were gathered from nine books in an effort to aid text-selection for college-level creativity courses. Results revealed that all the texts were well-written and compelling. Although each author promoted his or her own perspective, most made an effort to provide additional breadth of coverage. A brief overview of the nine books, with a focus on each text's strengths with respect to use in a college-level creativity course, is provided.