Search

The "standard" definition of creativity as novel and useful describes creative products, but creativity is constituted by processes. This misalignment contributes to the oft-noted challenges of operationalizing creativity. Here, we distinguish creativity as a process from creativity as an attribute (i.e. "creative-ness"). Operating from a priori premises of creativity theory, we develop a process definition of creativity. Specifically, creativity is defined as internal attention constrained by a generative goal. This definition comprises three criteria: 1) attention is directed internally (toward mental representations); 2) attentional operations (e.g. search, manipulation) are constrained to fit parameters of a to-be-achieved goal state (whether or not a goal is actually achieved); and 3) the goal state is generative (not already precisely held in memory). We illustrate how these three definitional process elements align with insights yielded by creativity neuroscience, clarify ontological distinctions (e.g. from mind-wandering and retrieval), and relate the process definition to process-based models. The process definition provides minimal necessity and sufficiency criteria for whether a process should be considered creativity, but does not exclude the many other perceptual, emotional, etc. elements that can contribute to creativity processes. Researchers should specify whether they are studying creativity-as-process vs. "creative-ness," and consider including process-focused assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report reviews the literature on noncognitive and other background predictors (e.g., personality, attitudes, and interests) as it pertains to graduate education. The first section reviews measures typically used in studies of graduate school outcomes, such as attrition and time to degree. A review of qualities faculty members and administrators say they desire and cultivate in graduate programs is conducted. There appears to be a divergence between the qualities faculty members say are important and the measures researchers typically use in validity studies. The second section reviews three categories of noncognitive variables that might predict outcomes (general personality factors, quasi-cognitive factors, and attitudinal factors) and the definitions, measures, correlates, and the validity of those measures. The role of background factors, both environmental and group, is part of this review.

Academic learning and creativity should be overlapping goals that can be simultaneously pursued in programs of advanced academics. However, efforts aimed at nurturing creativity and academic learning sometimes are represented as two related but separate paths; this separation is unnecessary and can undermine the development of creative and academic potential. The idea that programs of advanced academics have "two paths" (one for creativity and one for academic learning) needs to be replaced with a new metaphor, and appropriate pedagogical strategies need to be developed to support that new metaphor. In order to facilitate this process, educators will need to broaden their traditional conceptions of learning and creativity to include interpretive perspectives on learning and creativity. A new metaphor, "intellectual estuary," illustrates the notion that streams of creative and academic interpretations can converge and thrive when educators in programs of advanced academic simultaneously support learning and creativity. Possible pedagogical strategies that utilize intellectual estuaries include exploratory talk and Socratic seminars.

Empirical studies on the relationship between affect and creativity often produce conflicting results. This inconsistency has led us to believe that the relationship between affect and creativity may be better understood by looking at potential moderators. Our study looked specifically at trait affect and self-perceived creativity. Using the Affect Infusion Model (AIM) theory with problem clarity as the potential moderator, we hypothesized that when individuals are faced with problems that lack clarity, trait affect has greater sway over their self-perceived creativity. Our results provided evidence that problem clarity moderated the relationship between positive trait affect and self-perceived creativity; the positive relationship between positive trait affect and self-perceived creativity is stronger when problem clarity is low and weaker when problem clarity is high. No moderating effect was found in the relationship between negative trait affect and self-perceived creativity.

This paper reviews the relationship between creativity and equitable thinking and the individual differences in personality, demographic, and experiential factors that influence both concepts as they affect each other. Given the nationwide push to increase equity in public schools, interventions beyond teaching about equity are becoming progressively more vital to school improvement. The work suggests that schools may be able to increase equitable thinking and, accordingly, community equity by employing creative thinking strategies in classrooms.

Equity is an important element of educational discourses pertaining to mathematics and science education. Creativity is an aspect of the classroom that is often ignored due to curricular constraints and the burden of testing. However mathematics offers avenues to infuse the regular curricula with activities that are thought provoking and require creativity and these are accessible to learners of all levels. This article reviews creativity strategies that can be embedded in mathematics curricula to increase classroom equity. These strategies will include the strength of presenting open-ended problems, modeling and encouraging risk taking, discussions and debate of mathematical concepts, concept based learning, divergent thinking strategies during problem solving activities, and incorporating cultural awareness and creativity into curricula and classroom environment. The article will focus both on teacher implementation of these strategies and student outcomes regarding creativity and equity.

What are the personal characteristics that distinguish the creative scientist from the less creative scientist? This study used the concept of implicit theory in a four-part study of scientists and graduate students in science. In the first part, we collected 1382 adjective words that describe the personal characteristics of the creative scientist from 354 scientists. In the second part of the study, 542 additional scientists assessed these adjectives. We determined that the personal characteristics of the creative scientist fit into four factors: personality, thinking ability, research ability, and uniqueness. In the third part of the study, we found that the concepts of thinking ability and uniqueness would positively predict 221 graduate students' self-perceived creativity, and research ability would positively predict their creative motivation. The last part of the study involved having 283 creative scientists and 264 less creative scientists from 30 research institutions rated by three colleagues on the above four factors. A logistic regression found that thinking ability was best able to identify creative scientists while personality best predicted less creative scientists.

College admissions decisions have traditionally focused on high school academic performance and standardized test scores. An ongoing debate is the validity of these measures for predicting success in college; part of this debate includes how success is defined. One potential way of defining college success is a student's creative accomplishments. We tested the hypothesis that traditional admissions criteria fail to capture adequately the creativity of applicants by asking 610 college applicants to complete several creativity tasks. These included divergent thinking, caption-writing, an essay, and self-report measures of creativity in numerous domains. Creativity scores were compared to data from the college application, including high school rank, standardized test scores, and admissions interview scores. Results showed that traditional admissions criteria were only weakly related to creativity. Indeed, students who report the highest creative self-efficacy can be perceived as weaker applicants according to traditional criteria. Findings are discussed in light of the goals of higher education to increase diversity of the student body and the abilities of its students.

An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and achievement profiles of students with giftedness and learning disabilities (G&LD) is needed to address their asynchronous development. This study examines the subtests and error factors in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement--Third Edition (KTEA-3) for strength and weakness patterns of students with G&LD in higher and lower level thinking skills by comparing G&LD students (n = 196) with academically gifted (GT; n = 69) and specific learning disability (SLD) students (n = 90). Several one-way MANCOVAs were conducted with subtest error factor scores as dependent variables and grouping variable (G&LD, GT, or SLD) as the independent variable. The G&LD means scores across subtests were in between the two control groups. On many higher level thinking tasks, the G&LD group scored similar to the gifted group. The results support the use of error analysis to gain further understanding into the profile of students with G&LD.

In this response, we commend Sternberg's Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (ACCEL) model yet urge him to consider an ACCEL-S model that more fully incorporates society's integrative role in giftedness. ACCEL-S builds on the highly complex and contextual view of giftedness proposed by Sternberg and transforms it into a participatory framework. Within it, the skills associated with giftedness shape but are also shaped by social context; they generate meaningful forms of collaboration as well as grow out of them. The concept of giftedness itself is transformed from a person-centric one to a distributed model in which being gifted is a relational instead of purely personal achievement. [This article responds to Robert Sternberg's "ACCEL: A New Model for Identifying the Gifted" (EJ1148989).]

Creativity is sexy, but are all creative behaviors equally sexy? We attempted to clarify the role of creativity in mate selection among an ethnically diverse sample of 815 undergraduates. First we assessed the sexual attractiveness of different forms of creativity: ornamental/aesthetic, applied/technological, and everyday/domestic creativity. Both males and females preferred ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity in a prospective sexual partner than applied/technological and everyday/domestic forms of creativity. Secondly, we assessed the simultaneous prediction of general cognitive ability, personality, divergent thinking, self-perceptions of creativity, and creative achievement on preferences for different forms of creativity in a prospective sexual partner. The results were generally consistent with assortative mating. The most robust predictors of a preference for applied/technological forms of creativity in a potential sexual partner were intellectual interests and creative achievement in applied/technological domains. In contrast, the most robust predictor of a preference for ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity was openness to experience. The results suggest that openness to experience and its associated aesthetic, perceptual, and affective aspects are the primary characteristics influencing the sexual attractiveness of a creative display. Further, the results demonstrate the importance of also taking into account individual differences in personality, interests, and creative achievement when considering the sexual attractiveness of different manifestations of creativity.