(Advances in Creativity and Giftedness 5) K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman

Creatively Gifted Students are not like
Other Gifted Students

ADVANCES IN CREATIVITY AND GIFTEDNESS
Volume 4
Advances in Creativity and Gifted Education (ADVA) is the first internationally

established book series that focuses exclusively on the constructs of creativity and
giftedness as pertaining to the psychology, philosophy, pedagogy and ecology of
talent development across the milieus of family, school, institutions and society.
ADVA strives to synthesize both domain specific and domain general efforts at
developing creativity, giftedness and talent. The books in the series are international
in scope and include the efforts of researchers, clinicians and practitioners across
the globe.
Series Editor:
Bharath Sriraman, The University of Montana
International Advisory Panel:

Don Ambrose, Rider University, USA
David Chan, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Anna Craft, University of Exeter, UK
Stephen Hegedus, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
Kristina Juter, Kristianstad University College, Sweden
James C. Kaufman, California State University at San Bernardino
Kyeonghwa Lee, Seoul National University, Korea
Roza Leikin, University of Haifa, Israel
Peter Liljedahl, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Northwestern University, USA
Larisa Shavinina, University of Quebec, Canada
Editorial Assistant:
Claire Payne
FORTHCOMING BOOK IN THE SERIES: VOLUME 5.
The Roeper School - A Model for Holistic Development of High Ability
Edited by
Bharath Sriraman, The University of Montana
Don Ambrose, Rider University
Tracy L. Cross, College of William & Mary
This book focuses on various facets of The Roeper School in Michigan which make
it a unique school for the development of high ability. The contributions in this book
emphasize the history and philosophy of the school, its programming and curricula,
and its holistic approach to talent development by attending to the whole child. The
school has a number of distinctive positive attributes, which include the ways in
which it values and emphasizes the following:
1. an atmosphere of caring and respect with a balance between individual and
community needs, and a balance between individual rights and responsibilities;
students generally feel emotionally, physically, socially, and intellectually safe.
2. diversity in points of view, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion.
3. equity and justice, ethics and altruism; service to, and integration with, the
community and the world.
4. attention to the whole child; integration of the cognitive, social, emotional,
motivational, and physical aspects of the student.
5. special attention to the social and emotional development of students.
6. a collaborative, democratic approach to governance and innovation; a
collaborative spirit among faculty, staff, and administration; curriculum
development and delivery of instruction influenced by relationship-based
partnerships among students and teachers.
7. intrapersonal intelligence: learning ones own strengths, weaknesses, and
motivations and then using that self-knowledge to guide ones own future
development; students individual interests as driving forces for motivation and
learning.
8. engagement of families in the learning process.
9. lifelong learning.
10. low student-faculty ratio.
11. faculty autonomy in curriculum design, to the extent possible.
12. a prominent place for the arts in the curriculum
13. inquiry-based and lab-based approaches to science teaching.
14. a balance between product and process emphases in curriculum and instruction.
Contributors to this book include researchers in gifted education, current and former
editorial board members of The Roeper Review, in addition to school personnel
collaborating as coauthors and/or as field-based partners in empirical projects.
Creatively Gifted Students are not like
Other Gifted Students
Research, Theory, and Practice
Edited by
Kyung Hee Kim
College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA
James C. Kaufman
California State University, San Bernardino, USA
John Baer
Rider University, New Jersey, USA
and
Bharath Sriraman
The University of Montana, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6209-234-1 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6209-148-1 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6209-149-8 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved 2013 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclu sive use by the purchaser of the work.
DEDICATION
To my dear friends, Jim Weiner and Chip Goldstein- KHK
For Jack Naglieri, who has been a childhood babysitter, mentor, groomsman,
collaborator, and a beloved, trusted friend JCK
For Sylvia JB
To my father Capt. S.R. Sriraman on his 75th birthday [10-08-2012]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements xi
Introduction to Creatively Gifted Students are not like Other

Gifted Students: Research, Theory, and Practice 1
K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman
Nurturing Creativity in the Micro-moments of the Classroom 3

R. A. Beghetto
Incorporating Technology and Web Tools in Creativity Instruction 17

E. Hong and C. Ditzler
Aligning Program Goals, Student Selection, and Program Activities 39

J. Baer
Helping Children Develop Pretend Play Skills: Implications for

Gifted and Talented Programs 49
S. W. Russ, K. K. Fehr, and J. A. Hoffmann
Imaging Creativity 69
R. E. Jung and S. G. Ryman
Outside the Lines: Visual Thinking, Imagination, and the Creatively Gifted 89
S. Daniels
Nurturing Talent, Creativity, and Productive Giftedness:

A New Mastery Model 101
S. J. Paik
Connecting Student Engagement to the Academic and

Social Needs of Gifted and Talented Students 121
K. M. McCormick and J. A. Plucker
Career Development for Creatively Gifted Students: What Parents,

Teachers, and Counselors Need to Know 137
B. Kerr and M. A. Vuyk
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Grounding Creative Giftedness in the Body 153

K. J. Eskine and S. B. Kaufman
The Genetics of Giftedness: What Does It Mean to Have Creative Talent? 167
D. K. Simonton
Intelligence and Creativity: Their Relationship, with Special

Attention to Reasoning Ability and Divergent Thinking.
Implications for Giftedness Research and Education. 181
T. G. Baudson and F. Preckel
But Isnt Everyone Creative? 213

J. Piirto
Creativity from a Talent Development Perspective: How It Can Be

Cultivated in the Schools 231
S. I. Pfeiffer and T. L. Thompson
Conclusions 257
K. H. Kim, J. Baer and J. C. Kaufman
Author Affiliations 263
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Lauren Skidmore, Jim Weiner, and Chip
Goldstein for editorial assistance this project.
xi
KYUNG HEE KIM, JAMES C. KAUFMAN, JOHN BAER AND
BHARATH SRIRAMAN
INTRODUCTION TO CREATIVELY
GIFTED STUDENTS ARE NOT LIKE
OTHER GIFTED STUDENTS
Research, theory, and practice.
This book focuses on the needs of creatively gifted students and how schools can
meet those needs. Creatively gifted students show exceptional levels of creativity.
These students may or may not have developed other talents and abilities, yet. Even
when their abilities and talents are apparent, the needs of creatively gifted students
may not be recognized by current gifted education programs. Regardless of whether
a creatively gifted student is included in these programs, schools often inadvertently
ignore their special needs. The goal of this book is to share the newest research about
the attributes and needs of creatively gifted students and the kinds of programs that
best address those special needs.
Most gifted education programs have the promotion of creativity as one of their
goals, and many include creativity in their screening process. Regardless, a large
and often overlooked gap remains between the way gifted education programs treat
creatively gifted students, and the needs of those students. Exhibiting creativity may
help a student in the selection process and creative-thinking activities may be part of
the program itself, but the special and important needs of creatively gifted students
are neglected. The result of this gap is creative underachievement by individual
students, and a collective diminishment in world achievement by virtue of what
these potential creators never do.
Students in a gifted education program with extreme math or science or language
abilities will be given opportunities to accelerate math or science and language arts
studies. Students with outstanding music or artistic abilities will have opportunities to
develop the domain-specific skills and acquire the domain-specific knowledge in those
areas of special talent. Rarely is any program or provision made for a student who is
extremely creative, who has yet to achieve high accomplishment in any particular area.
This book addresses the following topics:
social needs of creatively gifted students and the importance of engagement as a
key component of student academic success (see, e.g., McCormick and Pluckers
chapter on Connecting Student Engagement to the Academic and Social Needs
of Creatively Gifted Students)
K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students

are not like Other Gifted Students: Research, Theory, and Practice, 12.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
K. H. KIM, J. C. KAUFMAN, J. BAER AND B. SRIRAMAN
assessment for student selection (see, e.g., Piirtos chapter, But Isnt Everyone
Creative?)
ways to nurture creativity in teachable micromoments in the classroom (see, e.g.,
Beghettos chapter, Nurturing Creativity in the Micro-moments of the Classroom)
aligning program goals with selection procedures (see, e.g., Baers chapter on
Aligning Program Goals, Student Selection, and Program Activities)
applying a dual process (conscious/unconscious vs. explicit/implicit) model to
understanding creative giftedness (see Eskine and Kaufmans chapter, Grounding
Creative Giftedness in the Body)
importance of early experiences and implications of making giftedness productive
for talented students (see, e.g., Paiks chapter: Nurturing Talent, Creativity, and
Productive Giftedness: A New Mastery Model)
applying visual teaching and learning strategies along with principles of design to
foster creative development within and across curricular areas (see, e.g., Danielss
chapter, Picture This: Integrating Visual Thinking, Design, and Creativity Across
the Curriculum)
career development for creatively gifted students (see Kerr and Vuyks chapter on
Career Development for Creatively Gifted Students What Parents, Teachers,
and Counselors Need to Know)
use of neuroimaging techniques to highlight the neuroplasticity of childrens
brains vis--vis the development of creativity (see Jung and Ryman chapter on
Imaging Creativity)
relationships between intelligence and creativity and between reasoning ability
and divergent thinking (see, e.g., Baudson and Preckels chapter on Intelligence
and Creativity: Their Relationship with Special Attention to Reasoning Ability
and Divergent Thinking. Implications for Giftedness Research and Education)
use of technology in nurturing creativity (see, e.g., Hong and Ditzers chapter,
Incorporating Technology and Web Tools in Creativity Instruction)
role of genetics in creative talent (see Simontons chapter on The Genetics of
Giftedness: What Does It Mean to Have Creative Talent)
techniques that increase and utilize creativity in play (see, e.g., Russ, Fehr,
and Hoffmanns chapter on Helping Children Develop Pretend Play Skills:
Implications for Gifted and Talented Programs)
how to improve the critical and evaluative thinking skills of creatively gifted
students in ways that enhance both idea generation and selection in the writing
process (see, e.g., Pfeiffer and Thompsons chapter on Creativity from a Talent
Development Perspective: How It Can Be Cultivated in the Schools)
The overarching goal of this book is to share with scholars, educators, and practitioners
the latest research on creatively gifted students and the kinds of programs that best
meet the unique needs of these students. Through the knowledge and experiences
shared here, we hope to help close the gap between what these children need and
what they are getting.
2
RONALD A. BEGHETTO
NURTURING CREATIVITY IN THE MICRO-MOMENTS

OF THE CLASSROOM
I vividly recall, as a new classroom teacher, trying to find ways to incorporate

creative learning activities into my teaching. I tried everything, including: mock-
trials, simulations, skits, student presentations, and alternative ways for students to
represent their knowledge (e.g., drawings, animations). I transformed various spaces
throughout the school into venues for creative expression (e.g., auditorium stage,
cafeteria, computer lab, classroom hallways) and used all the newest technological
tools available (Hypercard, computerized painting programs, and rudimentary video-
game generators). These creative learning activities provided opportunities for my
students to express themselves in ways that were absent from my everyday classroom
and let their creative talents shine. I felt then, as I do now, that such activities served
as a vehicle for encouraging students creative expression uncovering otherwise
hidden creative talent and potential.
Although I did my best to incorporate such activities in my teaching, I quickly
realized that I simply didnt have the time, curricular freedom, or energy to
incorporate these creative activities in my teaching with a high level of frequency
let alone make space for such activities in my everyday classroom. I also started
to question whether the amount of the time spent on creative learning activities
could be justified worrying that these creative learning activities were coming
at the expense of more direct academic subject matter teaching and learning. I was
confronted with a seemingly unsolvable dilemma: How can I continue to support
student creativity when it is so resource intensive and seems to come at the cost of
academic subject matter learning?
Now, with the benefit of insights gleaned from my research and work with creativity
in the classroom, I recognize that what was most problematic about this situation was
that I was equating product with process. I believed that the only way to support
creative potential was through creative learning activities. Although such activities
served as important opportunities for allowing students to produce their learning
creatively, I failed to realize that these activities were not sufficient for nurturing
creative potential. By viewing the development of creative potential as separate from
the academic curriculum I was actually missing opportunities to support students
creative potential in the process of the everyday moments of my classroom.
In this chapter I hope to demonstrate that everyday moments of the classroom
represent defining moments when it comes to nurturing student creativity. What

R. A. BEGHETTO
teachers do in these moments has important implications for whether opportunities

for nurturing student creativity will be addressed or missed. More specifically,
I open the chapter by discussing how creativity enhancement efforts are typically
conceptualized as extracurricular (i.e., separate from the everyday teaching of
academic subject matter). I then discuss the creative potential of unexpected
micromoments and the nature of such moments in the classroom. Next, I discuss
how teachers often find themselves choosing between attempting to be understood
versus attempting to understand when confronted with unexpected micromoments.
I close with a discussion of the slight adjustments that all teachers can make to better
support creativity in the micromoments of their everyday classroom.
CREATIVITY ENHANCEMENT EVERYDAY OR EXTRACURRICULAR?
Teachers commonly view creativity enhancement efforts as extra-curricular

(Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005) and separate from the everyday teaching
of academic subject matter. This may, in part, be due to the way the identification
and enhancement of creativity became systematized in U.S. public schools following
Sidney Marlands (1972) report to the U.S. Congress on the education of gifted and
talented students. Marlands report represents a watershed moment for creativity
enhancement in public schools. His report noted that creative and productive
thinking was one of six possible indicators of giftedness. Most importantly, for the
present discussion, the report provided a strong argument for a specialized or separate
education for students who demonstrated high-levels of potential or achievement.
The idea that creativity should be separate from the general education curriculum
was codified in the report and, in many cases, has been enacted in K12 schooling
ever since. Consequently, sustained efforts to nurture student creativity have largely
fallen on the shoulders of gifted education teachers and have become separate from
the mainstream academic curriculum.
Aside from the occasional creative teaching and learning activities used by general
education teachers, it has been gifted education teachers who have consistently
played the important and, in some cases, solitary role in keeping creativity in
the consciousness and curriculum of K-12 schools1. Placing the responsibility to
develop students creative potential in gifted education programs is problematic
on several levels. First, the development of creative potential needs to be a shared
responsibility of all educators. When teachers in gifted and talented programs are
given the primary responsibility of developing student creativity it can reinforce the
common (mis)conception that creativity is a trait limited to an elect few (Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004) namely those who make the cut for gifted education
rather than a capacity of all students.
Moreover, limiting creativity enhancement efforts to specialized curricula
can reinforce a belief on the part of general education teachers that aside from
occasional creative learning activities and helping to identify students for gifted
education programs nurturing creativity is not a part of their everyday curricular
4
CREATIVITY IN THE MICROMOMENTS
responsibility. The belief that creativity should be separated from academic subject
matter learning is not limited to general education teachers. Gifted educators have
also conceptualized creativity as important but separate from academic learning
(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009). For instance, Callahan and Miller (2005) have
described interrelated academic and innovative paths in their Child-Responsive
Model of Giftedness. Similarly, Renzulli (2005) has described two types of
giftedness: schoolhouse giftedness and creative-productive giftedness.
Finally, and of most relevance to the present chapter, focusing on creativity
development during pre-specified times and in pre-specified spaces reinforces the
belief that creativity is something that can be switched on and off with the ring of a
school bell. When teachers hold this belief, creativity enhancement efforts are limited
to a predetermined creativity time that can, if time permits, be scheduled around
academic learning. The problem with this belief, as illustrated in the opening vignette,
is that creativity time inevitably starts to compete with academic learning time.
Moreover, and most problematically, the notion of a separate creativity time sets the
conditions by which teachers will miss opportunities for developing creativity during
the unexpected, non-routine, and off-script moments of the everyday classroom.
None of this is to say that extracurricular creativity enhancement efforts are
unimportant or have no value. Teachers can and do use predetermined times and
spaces for creativity related activities (e.g., scheduled performances, displays of
work, discussions on strategies and techniques used for convergent and divergent
thinking). Moreover, there is research to suggest that structured creativity
enhancement efforts can support the development of creative performance outcomes
(see Beghetto, 2007a; Nickerson, 1999; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Isaksen &
Treffinger, 2004). What I am arguing for here is simply that extracurricular efforts
not be viewed as sufficient for developing students creative potential.
In addition to extracurricular creative activities and performances, the full
development of students creative potential requires that teachers recognize
opportunities to support creativity in their everyday teaching and learning of
academic subject matter. Everyday moments of the classroom serve as a crucible for
creativity that, in part, determines whether students will develop healthy self-beliefs
in their creative ability (Bandura, 1996; Beghetto, 2006); learn when, why, and how
creative expression is warranted (Kaufman & Beghetto, in press); and how creative
ideation is related to developing a deeper understanding of what they are learning
(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009). Developing an understanding of the creative potential
of everyday micromoments is a necessary first step in ensuring that opportunities to
support creative potential are recognized rather than overlooked.
Creative Micromoments
Creative micromoments are brief, surprising moments of creative potential that

emerge in everyday routines, habits, and planned experiences (Beghetto, 2009).
Micromoments occur anytime someone finds oneself having gone off-script, playing
5
R. A. BEGHETTO
a wrong note, drifting away from the plan, or otherwise entering uncertain territory.
The surprising unscripted nature of micromoments opens windows of creative
opportunity that, in turn, determine whether creative potential will be recognized
and developed.
Creative professionals (e.g., artists, musicians, improvisational actors,
photographers, scientists) recognize and capitalize on the creative potential of
micromoments. Professional photographer Bill Lockhart (2012), for instance, has
noted that his most cherished photographs of the tens of thousands he has taken
are those in which he was able to capture specific fleeting moments of time yielding
images of surprising beauty (e.g., sunlight breaking over tree tops and creating a
brief fiery halo of light).
Improvisational performers also recognize and rely on the creative potential
of micromoments. For instance, one of the first techniques that improvisational
comedians learn is the Yes, and technique (Halpern, Close, & Johnson, 1994).
The Yes, and technique helps performers welcome and build on surprising ideas,
actions, and utterances of their improvisational teammates. For accomplished
improvisational performers, it is probably fair to say that Yes, and is more of a
disposition than a technique allowing them to develop and explore unexpected
creative directions in their performances.
Classroom Micromoments
In the classroom context, creative micromoments emerge anytime the curriculum-as-

planned meets the curriculum-as-lived (Aoki, 2005; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2011). This
meeting of the planned versus lived curriculum creates an unexpected and momentary
opportunity for new possibilities; a generative curricular space for students and
teachers to explore, learn, and experience something new, unscripted, and unplanned.
Curriculum theorist Ted Aoki (2004) has described this this opening as a space of
generative interplay between the planned and lived curriculuma site wherein the
interplay is the creative production of newness, where newness can come into being
an inspirited site of being and becoming (p. 420). One of the most common, yet
subtle, classroom micromoments which has implications for the development of
students creative potential occurs whenever a student shares an unexpected idea.
When students respond in unexpected ways to known answer questions, teachers are
confronted with a micromoment decision. Although there are a variety of ways teachers
can respond, many of these responses can be represented in the following two options:
Option A: Attempt to understand. When teachers choose this option, they attempt
to understand the potential relevance of students unexpected ideas. This requires
that teachers are willing to spend class time exploring ideas that may take them
off-course and result in curricular uncertainty.
Option B: Attempt to be understood. When teachers choose this option they try
to get students to understand the response that they, as teachers, expected to hear.
6
This typically involves attempting to redirect unexpected student responses in

order to get the class back on track. Doing so may result in potential creative
ideas going unnoticed.
There are costs and benefits inherent in choosing between these options and it is often
difficult to discern whether a particular students unexpected response represents
potential confusion, willful intent to be disruptive, or expression of creative ideation.
Consequently, teachers typically rely more on habitual patterns of classroom talk
(Cazden, 2001) in choosing between these options and, as a result, frequently
redirect, rather than explore, unexpected ideas (Beghetto, 2010; Kennedy, 2005).
By developing a better understanding of the potential costs and benefits of these
options, teachers will be in a better position to respond more purposefully when
confronted with this micromoment decision.
TO UNDERSTAND OR BE UNDERSTOOD
Attempting to understand a students unexpected response, in the context of a

class discussion, requires the willingness of the classroom teacher to take the
curricular risk of expending precious class time exploring an off-script idea.
Although there are legitimate curricular concerns involved in exploring unexpected
ideas (e.g., drifting into curricular chaos, wasting precious class time, generating
confusion amongst students), unexpected student comments warrant some level
of recognition and exploration by teachers. This is because, in the context of the
classroom, a potentially creative idea may first appear as an unexpected idea
(Beghetto, 2009).
Unexpectedness or novelty is one of the most readily recognizable traits of
creative ideation (Plucker et al., 2004). Of course, an unexpected idea is not
necessarily a creative idea. As any teacher knows, following an unexpected idea can
take the teacher and the entire class down a confusing and muddled curricular rabbit-
hole. In order for an idea to be creative it requires a combination of unexpectedness
or novelty and meaningfulness, usefulness, or appropriateness as defined within a
particular context or set of task constraints (Plucker et al, 2004; Kaufman, 2009;
Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002). In this way, unexpected ideas can be thought
of as potential signifiers of creativity. However, in order to determine whether
an unexpected idea is a creative idea, teachers often need to draw out a students
unexpected idea to help assess whether and how the idea is meaningful and thereby
creative in the context of the class discussion.
An example might help illustrate. Consider, for instance, a first grade teacher
who wants to quickly review a few basic math facts prior to introducing a more
complex math activity. During the review, a student utters an unexpected response,
as portrayed in the following hypothetical classroom dialogue2:
Teacher: Lets quickly review some of our math facts. What does two plus two
equal?
7
R. A. BEGHETTO
Multiple Students: Four!

Teacher: Correct. Two plus two equals four. Sophia, youre raising your
hand, do you have a question?
Sophia: Well, I think that two plus two can sometimes equal two
Teacher: Hmm. Okay, Sophia, can you give us an example of when two plus
two can equal two?
Sophia: Yes. If you have two hungry cats and two fat mice, you end up with
two fed cats.
Teacher: Yes, I suppose in that case two plus two would equal two. Can anyone
else think of an instance when two plus two equals something other than four?
In the above vignette, the micromoment occurs in turn four of the dialogue. Sophias
unexpected response that two plus two can sometimes equal two represents
a momentary rupture in the curriculum-as-planned. Instead of quickly reviewing
math facts as the teacher intended, Sophia introduced a moment of uncertainty
into the teachers sequence of asking a known answer question. As mentioned,
micromoments, such as the one illustrated in the above example, serve as a decision
point for teachers. They are decision points because in that moment the teacher
needs to make a split-second decision (e.g., Do I spend class time attempting to
understand Sophias unexpected comment to this known answer question? or Do I
quickly correct Sophia helping her understand the known answer so as not to
waste class time and create additional confusion?).
Taking the time to explore a students unexpected comment can, as the above
vignette attempts to illustrate, reveal creative insights that can take a lesson in a new
and generative direction for students and the teacher. Although the two-plus-two
example may seem a bit trivial, there are examples that demonstrate how exploring
unexpected ideations can lead to real-world creative contributions that go beyond
the walls of the classroom.
One example (as reported by Lofing, 2009) is that of Gabriel Leal, a 6th grade
student and son of an entomology professor at UC Davis, who had the unexpected
insight that pistachios might serve as a better bait (than a commonly used almond
mixture) to trap and control navel orangeworms (a major pest of almond and pistachio
growers). Gabriels insight was based on his personal experience (preferring the
taste of pistachios over almonds). Given that Gabriels insight ran counter to prior
research and the practice of growers, his idea was unexpected and could have been
easily dismissed by his teacher (e.g., Gabriel, there is already a known solution
to this problem, please find another problem for your project). Instead of being
redirected, he was encouraged and allowed to test his idea in a controlled experiment
(using his fathers UC Davis Lab, under the voluntary supervision of one of his
dads colleagues). The results of the experiment confirmed Gabriels insight and
have subsequently been reported at a professional conference contributing new
8
knowledge to the science and practice of pest control for almond and pistachio
growers.
As these examples illustrate, encouraging and exploring unexpected ideas can
lead to the development and expression of creative potential. However, doing so
requires that teachers suspend curricular certainty and, instead, engage in a form of
open-ended dialogic pedagogy (Matusov, 2009) in which teachers are willing to
explore responses that may lead to uncertain outcomes. This is easier said than done.
ASKING KNOWN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND OTHER PATTERNS OF

TEACHER TALK
Given that the act of teaching often involves helping youngsters develop an
understanding of existing subject matter knowledge, the role of the teacher frequently
involves asking known answer questions (Matusov, 2009). This conceptualization of
the role of the teacher and the expectations that come along with it serve to create
an easily recognizable pattern of classroom talk: teachers ask questions, students
respond, and teachers evaluate the correctness of those responses. This pattern of talk
has been called the IRE pattern (Mehan, 1979), which stands for Initiate (teacher
asks a known answer question and students raise their hands), Respond (teacher calls
on one student and the student shares his or her response, typically trying to match
what the teacher expects to hear) and Evaluate (teacher informs the class whether the
students response is appropriate, correct or acceptable).
Of course, not all teachers adhere to the IRE pattern of classroom talk and even
when they do, it is not always or necessarily detrimental (Cazden, 2001). However,
it can become detrimental when used habitually and inflexibly. When this happens
students learn that the goal of a class discussion is not to try to work out their own
interpretation or understanding, but rather attempt to puzzle-out or guess the answer
expected by the teacher (Black & Wiliam, 1998). This form of tacit learning seems to
occur early and frequently in the K-12 schooling experience of students (see Beghetto,
2010b) and can be observed in the subsequent participation patterns of students during
class discussions (e.g., a teacher asks a question and the only students to raise their
hands are those who feel confident that they know what the teacher wants to hear).
Consequently, classroom discussions become more like intellectual hide-n-
seek (Beghetto, 2007b) than opportunities for students to express and develop
their own personally meaningful understandings. This is not to suggest that teachers
intend their class discussions to turn into guessing games. However, this game of
intellectual hide-n-seek is one of the unintended consequences that can occur when
teachers habitually redirect unexpected student ideas to avoid curricular chaos.
AVOIDING CURRICULAR CHAOS
Although encouraging and exploring unexpected student ideas provide opportunities

for creativity to emerge, doing so can be an unsettling prospect for teachers.
9
R. A. BEGHETTO
Kennedy (2005), for instance, found that elementary classroom teachers frequently
expressed a desire to avoid going off-task from the curriculum-as-planned. Kennedy
noted that some teachers frequently mentioned a fear of chaos, others a need to
stick with the plan, others a personal need for order (p. 264). Even prospective
teachers (those preparing to teach) seem to harbor concerns about unexpected
responses taking them off-task. Findings from a recent study of prospective middle
and secondary teachers (Beghetto, 2007c), for instance, indicate that unexpected
student comments were generally viewed as less preferable than more expected
or relevant comments and also more likely to turn into potential distractions (e.g.,
Comments of this type may be intended to distract from the discussion; As a new
teacher, I fear getting manipulated to get off task).
The fear of drifting off-task can result in teachers viewing unexpected student
responses as signifiers that their lesson is in danger of slipping into curricular chaos.
When this happens, the primary goal becomes one of restoring structure and order.
Consequently, instead of taking the time to explore and understand an unexpected
student idea, teachers, like most people, focus more on the negative possibilities
(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001) viewing unexpected ideas
as presenting too great a risk (Blair & Mumford, 2007) and thereby become more
inclined to dismiss rather than explore unexpected ideas.
DISMISSING UNEXPECTED IDEAS: AVOIDING CHAOS AND CREATIVITY
Dismissing unexpected ideas is an effective way to avoid curricular chaos. However,

doing so comes at a cost. Just like exploring unexpected ideas involve risking chaos,
habitual dismissal of unexpected ideas also involves risk including everything
from missing opportunities to recognize and develop students creative potential to
shaming students such that they are no longer willing to share their ideas or other
forms of creative expression.
As mentioned, one particularly effective and common way to dismiss a students
unexpected idea is to redirect the student to get back on track. Doing so represents
a soft dismissal (Beghetto, 2009) in that the teacher attempts to gently, yet
effectively eliminate uncertainty and regain control of the dialogue directing
students back to the expected outcome. Kennedy (2005), for instance, has reported
that the elementary teachers she observed used this type of dismissal strategy by
responding to students off-script comments with statements such as, Well talk
about this later (p. 120). Teachers often use this type of dismissal to both appease
the student and keep the lesson moving along (Kennedy, 2005). The problem is
not in the occasional need to redirect ideas or in suggesting to students that an
unexpected idea needs to be revisited at a later time, but rather when teachers, for
whatever reason, fail to revisit those dismissed ideas. When this happens the soft
dismissal particularly if it occurs with frequency isnt likely to be experienced by
the student as gentle or benign. Rather, such dismissals can be experienced as a form
of devaluative feedback (Bandura, 1997) that can undermine students confidence
10
in their ideas and serve to dissuade them from being willing to share their ideas in
the future.
Moreover, not all dismissals are delivered so softly. In some instances, students
experience micromoment dismissals as a quite harsh or even shaming. This, in turn,
can result in the experience of creative mortification (Beghetto, 2011) in which
subsequent creative expression is indefinitely suspended. A student who aspires to
be a poet, for instance, may stop writing poetry after having received particularly
harsh and shaming evaluative feedback from a teacher. Examples of creative
mortification extend beyond the walls of the classroom including a variety of
creative performance domains such as dance, writing, singing, and sports (Beghetto,
2011). It is therefore important that teachers are aware of not only how and when
they are providing evaluative feedback but also how youngsters experience that
feedback.
DUAL RESPONSIBILITY: SUPPORTING LEARNING & CREATIVITY
Teachers, who are committed to supporting creative potential, take on the dual
responsibility of ensuring that students are learning academic subject matter and,
at the same time, developing their creative potential. Indeed, the most effective
teachers balance curricular fluidity with the curricular structure (see Sawyer, 2011).
This involves providing students with opportunities to express their unique and
personally meaningful ideas what has elsewhere been called mini-c creativity
(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007) and also helping students recognize whether and
how those ideas fit within the academic conventions and constraints of a particular
classroom discussion (Beghetto, 2007b). In this way, teachers can help students
develop their creative confidence or creative self-efficacy (Beghetto, 2006;
Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and their creative metacognition (Kaufman & Beghetto,
in press).
Creative self-efficacy, like other forms of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1996), is the
confidence in ones ability to be creative in a particular context and is influenced by
prior experiences at successfully expressing ones creative ideation and receiving
supportive evaluative feedback. Creative self-efficacy determines, in part, whether
students will be willing to express their creativity when given the opportunity (see
Bandura, 1996; Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baxter, 2011). Creative metacognition,
as defined by Kaufman and Beghetto (in press), refers to a combination of self-
knowledge (knowing ones own creative strengths and limitations) and the contextual
knowledge (knowing when and how creative expression might be appropriate).
Metacognitive skills are thought to be essential to successful creative performance
and expression (Davidson & Sternberg, 1998; Feldhusen, 1995) and serve as key
area of focus for developing the creative potential of youngsters (Kaufman &
Beghetto, in press).
Classroom micromoments provide opportunities to help students develop both
their creative self-efficacy and creative metacognition by providing opportunities
11
R. A. BEGHETTO
for students to express their creative ideas and receive feedback on those ideas. The
good news for teachers is doing so doesnt require a radical shift in ones curriculum
but rather a slight adjustment to what many teachers do already.
SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS FOR REALIZING THE CREATIVE POTENTIAL

OF MICROMOMENTS
As has been discussed, nurturing creative potential requires that teachers recognize
how classroom micromoments present opportunities for students to express and
receive supportive feedback on their creative ideation. Although there are a variety
of ways that teachers can make meaningful strides in attempting to nurture students
creative potential in the micromoments of their classroom, the following suggestions
summarize key themes highlighted in this chapter:
Hold your lesson plans lightly. Be prepared for unexpected ruptures in the planned
curriculum. Recognize that these micromoments frequently occur and are not
necessarily signs of impending curricular chaos. Keep in mind that unscripted
micromoments often serve as defining moments when it comes to identifying
and supporting creative potential. Rather than attempt to plan-away or quickly
dismiss unexpected moments, prepare for them to occur and practice dwelling
in those moments in an effort to recognize the creative potential of unexpected
student ideas. This involves being willing to make in the moment adjustments
to planned lessons to better accommodate new curricular possibilities that may
emerge.
Explore first then evaluate. The typical pattern of classroom talk involves
teachers immediately evaluating the correctness of a students responses. Instead
of immediately evaluating the correctness of an unexpected student idea, try
approaching those ideas with a sense of curiosity and willingness to explore
them (e.g., I wasnt expecting thatcan you help us understand how that idea
fits with our discussion? Can you provide an example of what you mean?).
This involves encouraging students to share their own ideas and interpretations,
carefully listening to the ideas that they do share, and letting students know when
their ideas do not seem to fit or make sense given the constraints and conventions
of the subject being discussed.
Provide balanced feedback and opportunities to revisit ideas. Provide the kind
of evaluative feedback that not only attempts to build students confidence in
their ideas, but also helps students develop the self and contextual knowledge
necessary to know when and how their ideas fit given the academic learning
constraints, conventions, and standards of the particular activity or task. This
involves providing students with multiple opportunities to revisit or resubmit their
ideas in relation to the academic subject matter being taught (e.g., establishing a
virtual or actual idea dropbox to allow students to elaborate on or resubmit
ideas; using a portion of the chalkboard as an idea parking lot for ideas that
12
are not fully developed but can be revisited, and a class notebook that includes
an idea garden for new ideas and even an idea grave yard for ideas that have
been put to rest in light of subsequent learning and insights).
CONCLUSION
Many teachers experience the same dilemma described in the opening vignette of
this chapter: Wanting to incorporate creative learning activities into the classroom but
feeling that doing so comes at the cost of students academic subject matter learning.
The goal of this chapter was to highlight ways that teachers might rethink and work
towards resolving this dilemma by recognizing that nurturing creative potential
can also occur in the micromoments of the everyday classroom. Although it is not
always easy to take the time to explore the potential of these moments, doing so does
not require radical changes to the existing academic curriculum. Instead, it requires
an in the moment mindfulness to explore and provide meaningful feedback to
students unexpected ideas. In this way, teachers can better ensure that opportunities
for nurturing students creative potential are realized rather than missed.
NOTES
1
This is not to say that general education teachers do not teach with and for creativity. There are
numerous examples of creativity enhancement efforts intended for and delivered by general education
teachers (see Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010). Still, even with these efforts, systematic creativity
enhancement efforts are more typically found in gifted education programs and curricula.
2
This hypothetical dialogue is based on an actual exchange with first graders reported in Matusov
(2009).
REFERENCES
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers conceptions of creativity and creative
students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1734.
Aoki, T. T. (2004). Spinning inspirited images. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.). Curriculum in a
new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 413 225). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review
of General Psychology, 5, 323370.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity
Research Journal, 18, 447457.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007a). 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. 139154). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007b). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity
in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29, 265 - 270.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007c). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers
response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 19.
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the micromoments of the
classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 25.
13
R. A. BEGHETTO
Beghetto, R. A. (2010a). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge
Handbook of Creativity (pp. 447466). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010b). Prospective teachers prior experiences with creativity suppression. International
Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 20, 2936.
Beghetto, R. A. (2011, August). Creative mortification: An empirical exploration of profound creative
suppression. Paper session presented at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
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, 7379.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting learning and creativity in
programs of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 296324.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds). (2010a). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation.
In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
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, 5, 342349.
Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? Journal
of Creative Behavior, 41, 197222.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139148.
Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 3850). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps.
In D. J. Hacker, A. C. Graesser, & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and
practice (pp. 4769). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality
factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 255268.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2007). Looking in classrooms (10th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Halpern, C., Close, D., & Johnson, K. (1994). Truth in comedy: The manual of improvisation. Colorado
Springs, CO: Meriwether Publishing.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative
problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 75101.
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (in press). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the
importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review.
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lockhart, B. (2012). A specific and fleeting moment of time. Retrieved from http://www.bill.lockharts.
com/blog/a-specific-and-fleeting-moment-of-time/
Lofing, N. (2009, January 10). Davis sixth-graders science experiment breaks new ground. Sacramento
Bee (Sacramento, CA). Retrieved from
http://www.sacbee.com/education/v-print/story/1530953.html.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by
the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity
(pp. 392430). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isnt creativity more important to educational
psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist,
39, 8397.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting
creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.,
pp. 217245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361388.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia: Psychology
Press.
15
EUNSOOK HONG AND CHRISTINE DITZLER
INCORPORATING TECHNOLOGY AND WEB TOOLS

IN CREATIVITY INSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The Global world is constantly transforming, with new technologies changing the
way we learn, communicate, and collaborate. The ways of working and learning
change with emerging innovations through the World Wide Web and Web 2.0, and
3.0 tools, a trend expected to continue (PEW Internet & American Life Project,
2010). The Digital Native Generation adopts the changes easily, whereas the
Digital Immigrant Generation greets the changes with hesitancy and skepticism
(Prensky, 2001).
Technology in the modern age has changed the way we retrieve and share
information. This statement describes well the technology trend of the past two
decades, but the latest advancements in technologies make it even more apparent.
Of the changes we have seen in the way information is utilized, students approach
to learning has leaped into a new era; students are creating their own knowledge
from the vast Web information at their fingertips (Siemens, 2006a; Prensky, 2001).
Although instructional designers, educational researchers as well as educators in
general have applied new technologies in the interest of enhancing student motivation
and learning (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Bell & Akroyd,
2006), with the advent of new Web tools, Facebook, and smart phones available to
virtually anyone with access to the Internet, the field of education requires a giant
shift in teaching in order to incorporate ways students learn (Greenhow, Robelia, &
Huges, 2009). This trend applies to students of all ages and all levels and types of
achievers such as students with learning difficulties as well as regular, intellectually
gifted, and creatively talented students.
With the advancement of these technologies and the proliferation of unvalidated
Web information and applications, however, complexities arise and enter the teaching
and learning arena. The knowledge students create is often an unguided mix of facts
that may or may not be correct. The knowledge scattered throughout the World Wide
Web is not organized for optimal learning. This phenomenon requires students to
improve skills to help themselves regulate their Web learning behaviors to maximize
learning and creativity in academic as well as in non-academic activities (Greenhow
et al., 2009). Teachers not only need to be aware of what students are encountering in

E. HONG AND C. DITZLER
the Internet world but also have to learn new technologies to take advantage of this
development in teaching students to be creative users of information. To be creative
users and creators of their own knowledge and skills, students need to be analytical
and critical thinkers as well as innovative, divergent, and creative thinkers.
Although e-learning, distance learning, Web-based learning, and virtual schools
are increasing (Allen & Seaman, 2007; U. S. Department of Education, 2010b;
Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2010), most students at the time of writing
the chapter continue to learn in classrooms. Classroom teachers have opportunities
to use their classroom instruction to promote creative thinking in students by using
tools already familiar to students. However, for teachers to promote creativity in the
classroom, creativity needs to be recognized and valued and changes in educational
processes should occur, beginning with innovation in curricula to encompass
creativity (Shaheen, 2010; Turner-Bisset, 2007; Wilson, 2009). Preservice and
inservice teachers, especially regular classroom teachers, need to be educated on
creativity in order to demystify the creative process (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) and help them learn characteristics of creative students
and facilitate creative thinking and creative performance (Cropley, 2006; Hong,
Greene, & Hartzell, 2011; Hong & Milgram, 2008). This is particularly important
because teachers often have misconceptions about creativity and creative students
classroom behaviors (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Fleith, 2000; Runco,
Johnson, & Bear, 1993). Numerous studies have demonstrated that teachers tend to
carry negative attitudes toward creative students (Dawson, 1997; Torrance, 1963),
underscoring the need to examine whether classroom teachers are equipped to guide
and facilitate creativity in the classroom, especially in the e-learning environment.
In this chapter, we discuss creative learning and teaching in the Internet era with
WWW and advanced Web tools. We begin with the characteristics of students and
technology in the 21st century. We then discuss creativity in education in the 21st
century, and creativity in the classroom, followed by conclusions.
Students in the 21st Century: Digital Natives
The generation of youth today is often referred to as digital natives (Prensky, 2001)
or n-gen (Downes, 2005) who have interacted with digital technology from an
early age (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin 2008; Jones & Shao, 2011). They have grown
up in an environment of computer technology that shapes how information is
developed and shared and how knowledge is gained and created. The introduction of
the Apple Macintosh in January 1984 was a pivotal moment in modern technology.
Within months, over 50,000 were sold (Long, 2008) and the digital native generation
was born. The parents who provided the computer and technology to their children
are the digital immigrants. They were not born to the digital age, but have grown to
use the tools. The digital immigrant, including many current teachers, are often less
eager to embrace emerging technologies and see students as they were in the past
when new technologies were yet to emerge (Prensky, 2001). The digital natives, on
18
CREATIVITY, TECHNOLOGY, AND INSTRUCTION
the other hand, embrace new technologies quickly, and as Prensky (2001) stipulates,
they are not likely to change back to older technologies. They take the open source
technologies and use them as intended by builders, but they also frequently create
new uses. They play, manipulate, re-create, and share what they discover (Downes,
2005; Siemens, 2006a).
However, unguided learning is hardly optimal whether the learning takes place
in or out of the classroom. In addition, the vast information on the Internet can be
damaging to education and decision making, as reported in articles in popular media
such as, Does Google makes us stupid? (Anderson & Rainie, 2010) and I cant
think, a recent Newsweek article (Begley, 2011) included in the cover story, Brain
freeze: How the deluge of information paralyzes our ability to make good decisions.
If the educator is a digital immigrant, the difficulties that the vast information on the
WWW brings to students may not be on her or his radar, for example, in relationship
to the importance of giving critical thought to how information may be used for
school projects. Further, there is less chance that Web tools will be used for academic
purposes, as educators of the digital immigrant generation speak a different language
from the digital native (Prensky, 2001), rendering a gap between teaching and
learning.
TECHNOLOGY AS A LEARNING TOOL IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Thomas Friedman (2005) famously described how spreading globalization, increased

by the rapid development of technology, not only made the world smaller but led to
competition among nations in areas of innovation. Nations can either adjust to the
change or fall behind. This applies especially to business, driven by science and
technology (Britt, 2010). The years since Friedman made his flat world declaration
have only increased the speed of innovation and technical growth. According to
Friedman, collaboration is the key to staying ahead in the flattening world. The World
Wide Web is where this collaboration can most effectively grow, using the tools
and technologies available and emerging. Technology can provide an independent
learning environment and such an environment operates with a high degree of
collaboration. Thus, the learning environment of today, with the Internet available
virtually everywhere, while not considered to provide individualized experiences,
does provide a climate for collaboration through shared use (Wilson, Liber, Johnson,
Beauvoir, Sharples, & Milligan, 2010). Combining the creative skills of the digital
native with the instructional objectives of classroom education is the challenge that
educators face (Greenhow et al., 2009). In this section, we examine in more depth
how technologies can be utilized in education as a learning tool.
Web-based tools and technology in learning and creativity. Learners today are
engaging tools and technologies in their personal lives (Prensky, 2001). Ozkan (2010)
asserts that the relationship between education and innovations in communication
technology is inevitable since the Internet system has encircled the world. Learning
spaces have changed and there are more choices for learning in all environments
19
from private to public, home, and school (Greenhow et al., 2009). Internet use and
access among teens is rapidly approaching 100%. According to the Pew Internet and
American Life Project, 93% of teens and young adults were online in 2009, along
with 81% and 70% of adults of 30 to 49 and 50 to 64 years of ages, respectively
(Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010).
Activities on the Internet include social media and Web 2.0 tools for gathering,
compiling, and sharing information (Downes, 2005). Youth today are more
creative and interactive through Web 2.0 technologies and believe that use of these
technologies in school would make them better prepared and engaged (Greenhow
et al., 2009). They are collecting information, taking it apart, and recreating what
is meaningful and useful to them (Siemens, 2006a). The Millennial Generation,
born between 1980 and1995, is technology savvy, but motivated by a flexibility and
resourcefulness (Schorn, 2009). This generation uses gadgets and tech toys naturally
and is motivated and creative in their use (Prensky, 2001). They are connected to
people locally, nationally, and internationally.
Personal learning environments and connectivism. Learners today build
personal learning environments (PLEs) to collect information and build knowledge
(Attwell, 2007). PLEs are a network of connections to tools, data sources, social
networks, and online collaborations on the Internet. The PLE is where information
is gathered and circulated, and gives access to a variety of educational resources
(van Harmelen, 2006). Digital natives can use the sources and tools consciously
in PLEs. Savvy Internet users are able to filter the information they find, although
the information mostly is not geared toward academic goals at present, unless they
are directed to link the information with academic goals by classroom teachers. It
is in the PLE that information is created and recreated. Further, PLEs are where
youth are forming personal identities to share with others, presenting profiles of
themselves through blogs, Wikis, Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook (Greenhow
et al., 2009). In addition, a PLE is not limited to a single discipline; it is multi-
disciplinary covering any range of subjects pertinent to the learner (Downes, 2006).
Figure 1 is an example of a basic PLE, demonstrating how learners connect to the
world around them. The importance of the PLE is gaining interest in education
and is viewed as an emergent technology by 2014/2015 (Johnson, Adams, &
Haywood, 2011).
Creating knowledge: Connecting information. Connectivism is referred
to as a learning theory for the digital age (Siemens, 2006a), and PLEs reflect
connectivism. According to Siemens (2006a), the Internet is changing the nature
and use of knowledge. The new cyclic, evaluative knowledge process includes:
(a) co-creationbuilding on the innovations of others; (b) dissemination
analyze, evaluate, and filter; (c) communication of key ideasshared through
a social network; (d) personalizationbased on experiences and reflection; and
(e) implementationacting on the new knowledge. The connections to new
information drive the knowledge process, thus, there is always more to learn as the
vast array of information at hand is unlimited.
20
Wikis Music editing Photo sharing

Online News sources
Blogs Web 2.0 tools

Shared Documents
Art composition tools
Personal Learning Environment (PLE)

Construction of knowledge Information Sites Wikis
Blogs
You Tube
Facebook Social Network Creation of Self
Google
Blog News
Ning Networks You Tube
You Tube
Ning Network
Flickr
Wikis
Figure 1. An example of a basic Personal Learning Environment (PLE)
Siemens (2006a) also points out that while knowledge is information, the reverse
is not necessarily true. Evaluation, filtering, and personalization of information are
critical. The role of a teacher in the creative use of the vast information is critical as
they can guide students through the morass of information to make the information
meaningful, valuable, and useful in the classroom setting. Knowledge formation
is a transitory process. New information changes current knowledge as it is also
disseminated into the experience of the knower (Siemens, 2006a). Knowledge,
according to Connectivism, is in the connections among the information; that is,
the connections create new knowledge. Nodes of information are connected to
other nodes of information, creating a personal learning center (Siemens, 2006b).
This process leads to innovation and creativity as there is a sense of openness and
experimentation rather than acquisition of structured content.
The theory of Connectivism defines creativity as the ability to see new associations
in the connections formed. That is, the process of creativity involves connecting,
then making sense, followed by creating and re-creating (Siemens, 2006a). Many
approaches to understanding creativity have involved connection, association, or
combination of two or more ideas. Mednick (1962) proposed associative theory of
creativity, defining creative thinking as the process of forming associative elements
into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or are in some
way useful (p. 221). Guilford (1959), before Mednick, also proposed that remote
associations result in originality from divergent thinking. Adopting Guilford and
Mednicks views of creativity as associative process, Wallach and Kogan (1965) also
defined the creative process as producing multiple and unique associative contents.
That is, remote associations represent original or unique relationships among
associative elements that result in creative ideas. Thus, based on these perspectives
and Siemens Connectivism, it can be viewed that the creation of knowledge
21
is a process of network formation comprised of making meaningful networks,

connecting those networks, and linking the pieces of knowledge (Siemens, 2006b).
To digital natives, creating arts, knowledge, and ideas, finding novel solutions to
problems, and even generating original products can be conceived and conducted
through the networking process. To digital immigrants, this notion may be viewed as
impossible or too far out. However, the reality is that whether we are ready to accept
it or not, the Internet, the rapid growth of technology tools, as well as the arrival of
the digital native generation, have pushed us forward on this path. In this modern age,
creative persons, creative processes, and creative products are perceived differently.
Further, the place where creativity flourishes is beyond where individuals physically
dwell; the space for creative activities is now virtually unlimited. Creative processes
and activities now include individuals working in virtual space and collaborations
with peers and any othersknown and unknown to the individualsnationally and
internationally, making connections (MacCrimmon & Wagner, 1994; Pew Internet
& American Life Project, 2010; Siemens, 2006b). Cross-disciplinary creative
endeavors are more naturally and easily achieved in the Web environment, where
sharing and acceptance of creative endeavors play a vital role in the learning of
creators from various domains and all levels of creativity, especially mini-c (novel,
subjective, and personally meaningful interpretation of experiences), little-c
(everyday expressions of novel experiences), and Pro-c (professional and expert
expressions of novel experiences) who has not yet attained Big-c level (legendary
novel accomplishments) (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman, Beghetto, Baer, &
Ivcevic, 2010; Simonton, 2000).
Fostering creativity with Web-based tools. The PLE serves another important
purpose in fostering creativity. The social network allows creators to share their
products and ideas with others at a single click of a button. They can gain acceptance
of their products which not only encourages creativity, but also strengthens creative
self-efficacy. That is, the sharing of creative works is an important component for
fostering creativity. Being creative and creating new knowledge and creative ideas
and products are important but not sufficient as it is necessary to have the recognition
of peers for creative endeavors (Coler, 1968; Simonton, 1992, 2000). Recognition in
a specific field is required for creativity to be meaning and useful (Csikszentmihalyi,
1999) as well as the understanding and adhering to the rules of that field (Coler,
1968). PLEs create an environment where implicit rules and values that can be
used to distinguish merely interesting ideas from creative ideas are developed and
evolve in rapid procession. Social media connections in a PLE open the way for
their members to quickly share ideas and products. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube,
Wikimedia, eBay, and Etsy are among the social networks used to get creative ideas
and products to others in the field, known and unknown. Additional technologies
for creativity and innovation are mobile devices, game-based learning, and cloud
computing (Johnson et al., 2011). Those active in social networks, in general, are
faster in sharing and gathering information (Kratzer & Lettl, 2009), affording more
opportunities to have their creative ideas be recognized.
22
The meaning of learning has changed with the advent of Web 2.0 tools (Greenhow
et al., 2009). Web 2.0 tools encourage artistic risk-taking and creativity in general
(Zhang, 2009). The concept of classroom teaching needs to be expanded and teachers
need to adapt to this change by incorporating these tools for creative use. Teachers
should recognize the methods students use to communicate and share information
within their network for personal connections (Levin & Arafeh, 2010). Contrary to
assumptions, students are engaged in intellectual activity within networks; 60% of
students report that they use their social networks for school activities (Greenhow et
al., 2009). Although it is not easy for classroom teachers to learn new technologies as
quickly as their students, teachers should be open to adopt new ways of learning and
teaching, joining the growing ranks of creative users of new technologies.
Various software products are now available on the Web that meet the needs of
learners who aspire to be artists, scientists, and those interested in other domains.
Many creative talents in various areas are being discovered through the Internet
such as talent discovered on YouTube. Aspiring singers and musicians play new and
unique music, dancers demonstrate their dance skills, and stories, poems, and essays
are published in blogs. One can find any information even for seeming ordinary skills
such as how to cut your own hair in a creative way through the Internet. This is
happening because individual members in PLEs willingly share their information for
others to learn and create more original ideas. Web tools are available for individual
and collaborative creative endeavors and are invaluable for fostering creativity.
They can be integrated in the academic environment for individual and team
creative projects that can be easily and efficiently shared by classmates, teachers,
and the world, opening up for further opportunities for creative collaborations with
individuals with different domain competences and creative strengths.
Web-based tools for the classroom. Web tools provide new opportunities for
students to learn skills of communication, collaboration, and creativity (Solomon &
Schrum, 2010). There are, quite literally, thousands of tools available.
Web-based tools can help overcome environmental and cultural barriers to
creativity (Victor & Vidal, 2009). Wetpaint is a Wiki tool specifically designed for
educational purposes. Wikis are neither time nor place based. Thus, students can
create study groups, discussions, and collaborative wikis any time and any place.
Group collaboration can include local participants or international participants.
Critical and creative thinking skills can be fostered by addressing ill-formed questions
with like-aged students in another culture. Class-to-class relationships with different
countries are not new, but rapid exchange of ideas through a wiki enables students to
think divergently. Wikis can also act as the disseminator of creative products such as
essays, poetry, and digital arts. Blogs also serve this purpose.
Art can be used to foster creative talent. Art Education 2.0 is a social networking
website specifically for artistic creativity. The mission for this tool is to provide a
global community of art educators with a site to explore uses of new technology
(Art Education 2.0, 2011). Educators share ideas for increasing art with digital
media. They share examples of student work and lesson plans. Some examples
23
include: (a) One Day on Earth is for documentary filmmakers, students, and inspired
citizens who record the human experience over a 24-hour period; by participating in
this historic event, individuals capture the diversity of life and culture on this planet;
(b) Trade help teachers participate in a portrait swap with another school or host a
Portrait Party in the classroom, and (c) The Student Creative is a new collaborative
project with the goal of promoting how creativity is being taught in schools. The
goal of Art Education 2.0 is to foster creativity in both teaching and learning.
Creative thinking can also be taught with Web 2.0 tools. Bubbl.us is an individual
tool that enables students to create concept, or mind, maps. Figure 1 above (the
original was in color) was created using this tool. Students can print, save, or share
their maps with others. A part of creative thinking is seeing the connections between
ideas. Bubbl allows students to create, modify, and re-create connections between
concepts. Brainstorming can be visually displayed in a concept map of ideas and
connections.
Students are often tasked with creating Powerpoint presentations. These are linear
slides of information. Prezi.com has a presentation tool that allows the presenter to
offer non-linear information to the audience. The presentation can go any direction
or full circle. Learning to present information in a non-linear format also contributes
to enhancing critical and creative thinking.
The implementation of modern Web-based technologies in the classroom is
essential in todays world. Fostering creativity through these technologies is the most
crucial element of such a program. It is time for a reconsideration of views on the
purpose technology serves in education (Greenhow et al., 2009). Todays students
are already engaged with technology, they are creative, and they are connected.
Quite frequently they are ahead of their teachers in the uses of technology. To make
the best use of the full range of Web-based tools for learning in todays global
environment, teachers need to embrace creativity, learn new skills, and facilitate
learning and creative thinking in their classrooms. The next section examines a
critical component of needed facilitations, that is, facilitating self-regulated learning
in technology-integrated learning environments.
Technology-integrated learning environment: Facilitating self-regulated
learning. Technology-integrated educational programs have been developed by
educational researchers through the application of various learning theories and
pedagogical approaches to the design of Internet-based or stand-alone computer-
based instructional materials. Technology-integrated learning tools, such as gStudy
(Leacock & Nesbit, 2006), provides good examples of such endeavors. These
programs demonstrate how metacognitive knowledge, learning through inquiry,
and technologies can be incorporated to foster student engagement in collaborative
inquiry and reflective learning. Learners today encounter vast information on
the Internet, requiring self-regulation in connecting, learning, and creating
knowledge.
As e-learning and distance education become a major part of the modern-day
instructional format (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; Tallent-Runnels
24
et al., 2006), students ability to self-regulate their learning is critical. Teachers in

typical classrooms meet students face-to-face and are able to structure the class and
provide assistance for learning activities in person. However, learning on the Web
and any other forms of online learning require students to be autonomous and use
self-regulated approach to learning (Jung, 2001; Kearsley, 2000; Keegan, 1996;
Peters, 1998). Students taking online courses need to control their own academic
progress by planning and monitoring learning process and essentially becoming a
responsible, disciplined, and independent learner (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Dabbagh
& Bannan-Ritland, 2005; Moore & Kearsley, 2005). That is, students need to self-
regulate their own learning, regulating their cognition, metacognition, motivation
when engaged in e-learning.
The effects of self-regulated learning (SRL) on academic achievement have been
supported by empirical evidence in traditional learning environments (Pintrich, 2004;
Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005; Zimmerman, 2008). Empirical findings of
SRL effects on academic learning in online environments provide some evidence
of positive impacts on academic performance (Bell & Akroyd, 2006; Joo, Bong,
& Choi, 2000; Lynch & Dembo, 2004; Wang & Newlin, 2002). However, research
studies examining the relationship between self-regulation and creativity are scarce
(Hargrove, 2007; Hong, Peng, & Wu, 2010).
Technology-integrated instruction that incorporates strategies for promoting
students self-regulated learning has been demonstrated as effective in student
learning. For example, Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2005) found that different elements
of Web-based pedagogical tools (WBPT) (e.g., collaborative and communication
tools, content creation and delivery tools) support various self-regulated learning
processes (e.g., self-monitoring) and that the tool is highly effective in activating
the use of self-regulatory skills necessary to support specific types of learning tasks.
In a Web-based technology course, students reported using various self-regulatory
strategies, planning, organizing, monitoring, help seeking, and record-keeping
(Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004). Cognitive tools for self-regulated e-learning, such as
gStudy (Leacock & Nesbit, 2006), were developed to help students become better
self-regulated learners in e-learning environments, showing positive influences on
students approaches to learning. Technology-integrated online learning environments
afford differentiated guidance and support of student activities. Adaptive approaches
such as different types and amounts of guidance for student self-regulation during
online learning activities can be provided by, for example, prompting students to
self-reflect to monitor their understanding or to facilitate progression toward task
completion by reminding students of deadlines (Davis & Linn 2000; Liu, Bonk,
Magjuka, Lee, & Su, 2005).
Likewise, self-regulated leaners tend to have higher motivation manifested by their
persistence when they encounter learning difficulties, understanding the usefulness
of tasks, enjoying tasks, and demonstrating high self-efficacy (Eccles & Wigfield,
1995; Schunk, 2005). Students motivational beliefs about learning and their effects
on the use of self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement evidenced
25
in the traditional classroom environment have also been evidenced to be as effective

for online learning (Artino & Stephens, 2009; Hsu, 1997; Joo et al., 2000; Whipp &
Chiareli, 2004). Not surprisingly, technology, or Internet, self-efficacy contributes
to the effective use of technology (Peng, Tsai, & Wu, 2006) and is important for
success in online learning (Joo et al., 2000; Schrum & Hong, 2002; Wang & Newlin,
2002). These findings indicate that ensuring all learners become competent with the
Internet and technology tools is an important aspect for successful online learning.
Digital Natives would have no or less resistance to learning new technologies
necessary for online learning.
Goal-setting by e-learners positively affects their performance (Curry, Haderlie,
& Ku, 1999; Schrum & Hong, 2002; Whipp & Chiarelli, 2001) and self-regulated
learning (Azevedo, Ragan, Cromley, & Pritchett, 2003). When teacher-set goals and
learner-generated goals in instructional conditions were compared in their effects on
self-regulation, students in the latter condition were significantly better at regulating
their learning by planning and monitoring their learning and by creating sub-goals,
activating prior knowledge, and engaging in adaptive help-seeking (Azevedo et
al., 2003). These findings indicate that learner control afforded by a technology-
integrated learning environment enhances self-regulated learning as well as
motivation. It has also been observed that learners have difficulties deploying self-
regulatory skills while learning complex topics in technology-integrated learning
environments (e.g., complex science topics in hypermedia environment). Azevedo
(2005) illustrates how self-regulated learning can be used as a guiding theoretical
framework to examine learning with hypermedia and proposed several methods for
facilitating students self-regulated learning of complex and challenging science
topics.
Technology-integrated educational programs can enhance students regulation
of motivation to learn by prompting them to persist when encountering learning
difficulties, to set realistic goals, and by promoting self-efficacy through the
provision of timely feedback (Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990). Barak (2010)
advocates that self-regulated learning should be integrated in technology education,
highlighting the interrelationships among cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational
aspects of problem-solving and creativity. Online problem-based learning activities
can help student see the relevance of task, increasing the perceived value of what
they are learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Liu, 2004; Woo & Reeves,
2007).
Although the utilization of these instructional strategies have been encouraged
for online learning (Bangert, 2004; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004; Wang & Lin,
2007), we have not seen yet the programs that fully implement these strategies. In
addition, research studies that investigate the effect of Web-based technology on
student creativity are rather scarce. For example, Jang (2009) explored secondary
students creativity in a science curriculum by integrating Web-based technology.
With real-life scientific materials used to stimulate creativity in the Web-learning
environment, students scientific creativity was enhanced. Although there are
26
pockets of researchers who tested the effects of technology-integrated self-regulated

learning, what is currently lacking is the integrated approach to the design and
development of curricular and instructional materials on a large scale. As Web tools
have become more wide-spread and many schools and universities have begun to
make institutional transitions to online learning, instructional developers should
attempt to create online-based materials that incorporate evidence-based learning
and motivation theories.
CREATIVITY EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Creativity in education is lacking in the United States. Kaos (2011) essay, Are we
still an innovation nation? indicates that the U.S. capacity for innovation is eroding
while other countries such as Sweden, China, Australia, Canada, and Singapore,
are ramping up innovation efforts and spending enormous amounts of money to
provide new incentives and to nurture talent for supporting innovation initiatives.
While there has been research on creativity in the field for decades in the U.S., it
has not been embraced in the classroom as well as in various work domains. There
are, however, promising signs that creativity in education is gaining attention and
value. The Creativity Crisis described in the July 19, 2010 issue of Newsweek
(Bronson & Merryman, 2010) attracted massive attention to the long-ignored issue
of creativity (Kim, 2011).
The educational and research focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) has led to many school hours being assigned to these subject
areas (Britt, 2010). Unfortunately, there is the perception that creativity may not
play a role in teaching and learning STEM subjects. In fact, innovation and STEM
education are closely tied to the economic success of the country (Britt, 2010).
President Obama launched his Educate to Innovate campaign on November 23,
2009 as a partnership with organizations to increase the focus on STEM education in
innovation (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). The Race to the Top and Investing
in Innovation (i3) initiatives sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, are
designed to increase creative thinking in the classroom in support of the presidents
call for greater emphasis on innovation in schools (Robelen, 2011). The Race to the
Top program signed by President Obama February 17, 2009, offers, in part, high-
dollar grants to schools willing to bring creativity to the classroom, especially in
STEM subject areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b, 2010a). Unfortunately,
the area gaining the most attention has been test scores and how scores are used
for educational policy. Koretz (2009) indicated that the emphasis on test-based
accountability is a weakness in the American education system. Eventually, the U.S.
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, testified to Congress in March 2011 that 80%
of schools in the U.S. cannot meet the goals of test-based accountability (Usher,
2011).
The U.S. Department of Education launched the second phase of the i3 program
in early June 2011, making $650 million in grant funding available for innovative
27
programs in American schools (Brenchley, 2011). The goals of these programs are
tied closely to technological innovation and to developing future talents. Investing
in innovation is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to
support local schools to introduce, or further develop, innovative programs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009b). These programs are dedicated to school reform,
innovation being a large part of that reform. It is good news for U.S. schools that
the country is now taking note of the importance of creativity and is supporting
creativity and innovation with funding. The increasing focus on creativity and
innovation was also evidenced by the efforts of states in moving away from the test-
based accountability. Early August 2011, Arne Duncan announced that states may
request waivers to the No Child Left Behind Act to afford schools more flexibility
in reaching higher performance levels in education (Bruce, 2011). As of September
1, 2011, four states have been approved for waivers, four states have submitted
requests, and sixteen states have indicated they will do so (Center on Education
Policy, 2011). Only two months later, as of November 18, 2011, the number of letters
of intent to file had grown to 39 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico (Center
on Education Policy, 2011).
Other nations have not been as slow to catch on to the need for creativity in
the classroom. There have been a number of initiatives worth mentioning. A good
example is the European Union Year of Creativity 2009, which was introduced for
the economic, social, and personal well-being of the citizens of the European Union
(EU) (European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009, 2009). The EU published
The Manifesto which includes Provision 1, Nurture creativity in a lifelong process
where theory and practice go hand in hand and Provision 2, Make schools and
universities places where students and teachers engage in creative thinking and
learning by doing (European Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation, 2009,
p. 2). The target audience was young people and educators, with the long-term goal
of developing lifelong learning in the European community. Education, formal and
informal, is included in the program, as well as artistic and non-artistic creativity. The
goals covered all these areas, culminating in an international conference dedicated
to these goals. The programs were for 2009, but they continue to carry over into
subsequent years (European Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation, 2009).
For example, the Association for Teacher Education in Europe carried forward the
theme of the 2009 European Year in their 2011 Spring Conference. The agenda was
dedicated to examining current education policies in light of creativity and problem
solving (ATEE, 2011).
Another example is the national program to bring creativity to schools in the
United Kingdom (UK) (Thompson, 2009), which was a predecessor to the EU
program. Economic concerns have been a driving force for the national program for
creativity in schools in the UK. The UK implemented a national program to bring
creativity into the classroom beginning in 2002, with emphasis on investment in
human capital. Fears of economic decline on a national scale provided the impetus,
simply put, creativity is identified as a key disposition for learners operating in
28
the knowledge economy (Thompson, 2009, p. 39). The Creative Partnerships

program introduced in 2003 in the UK was one approach to foster creativity in the
everyday classroom. Recognized artists, from a number of fields, were hired to work
with students (Hall, Thomson, & Russell, 2007). Art (portraits), writing, and dance
were included in the elementary schools under the guidance of artists, not educators.
The teacher was present but allowed the artist to be responsible for the pedagogy.
Hall and her colleagues (2007) found that the most effective strategy is a partnership
with the teacher and the artist, finding that the program helped students explore
talents and self-expression.
As individuals and various cultures use the open source of Web knowledge and
the tools of the Internet to develop and share creative ideas and products, it is rather
natural to recommend the utilization of technologies and tools to enable creativity
in school as well as out of school. The point is that these are the very tools used by
todays students in their non-academic lives anyway. If students are not encouraged
to be creative and are not taught creative thinking skills, they can easily fall behind in
this age. It is about time that schools utilize Web tools and technology for instruction
and learning.
CREATIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM
Incorporating creativity in school curricula is essential for students life success.

The economy demands creativity, which creates a wealthier society, which, in turn,
creates individual assets (Craft, 2003). Maslow (1970) suggested that creativity is
not only for a few people whose creative talent will reach a profound level, such as
Einstein, but is manifested in the everyday activities of everyday people. Maslows
a more widespread kind of creativeness (p. 159) now can be further encouraged
in this age as the Internet and Web tools make it possible for everyday people and
everyday activities, in classrooms and out-of-classrooms to process their creative
thoughts and to publish their creative products.
As we have seen, students today tend to be creative in their non-academic lives.
They are using technology, are creating, and are sharing (Greenhow et al., 2009;
Prensky, 2001; Siemens, 2006a). Students are on line, interactive, and engaged with
each other and with the world at an ever increasing level (Levin & Arafeh, 2010).
One may suppose that it would be an easy transition to bring these skills into the
classroom; yet, this has not been the case in regard to utilizing the technologies
for creative purposes. Teachers level of technology knowledge and skills is one
obstacle to realizing this transition, and the demand to cover the curriculum is
another. Teachers in typical schools seem more oriented towards avoiding the
potential invalid or irrelevant knowledge gathered online (Anderson & Rainie,
2010) rather than towards facilitating creative engagment with the Internet and
the variety of Web tools. Although the concern of teachers is understood, the more
pertinent reason for under-utilized creative technology tools may be that there is a
digital disconnect between the student and the teacher that needs to be overcome
29
(Greenhow et al., 2009). Learning, rather than simple information gathering, comes
from the interaction of the student with an instructor and others that should be
embedded in the learning environment (Downes, 2006).
Educators are responsible to bring creativity in the classroom. Foremost, they
should realize that most students are already using the tools of technology to be
creative, although these are not utilized for learning and may not be necessarily
beneficial to learning (Greenhow et al., 2009). Some research indicates that the
use of technology among adolescents is not as sophisticated as is assumed, and
there is a wide spectrum of use, with the social networking tools being utilized the
most; however, there is a growing group of young Internet users who do innovate
and create with the Web 2.0 tools easily access (Bennett & Maton, 2010). It is an
opportune time to conduct research into young peoples use of technology and how
it fits into education rather than focus on what the digital native is doing in their free
time (Bennett & Maton, 2010) in an effort to determine how educators can bring
the activities of the digital native into the classroom for creative uses to increase
students creative thinking and creativity and achieve academic goals. Combining
Web technologies with learning and creative activities, providing individual and
collaborative learning environments, seem logical as well as creative for students as
they prepare to achieve their educational and professional goals over their lifetimes.
CONCLUSIONS
Connectivism is a new learning theory for the digital age (Siemens, 2006a).
Connections between student and information, student and student, and student
and teacher are all part of the learning process. Research on the implementation of
connections to the World Wide Web in the classroom is needed as we continue to
help the digital native learn and create. New Web tools are created daily and students
are learning as quickly as new tools appear and are put to use in creative endeavors.
It is important for teachers to learn and utilize the tools in class, but it is also very
important that research studies be conducted to determine useful tools and effective
ways of using these tools for what subjects and under what circumstances.
The role and responsibility of teachers in the e-learning environment are not the
same as those of traditional classrooms where teachers have face-to-face interactions
and student behaviors are directly observable. Although teachers are expected to
assume additional responsibilities, many of them are likely not ready to perform
them. Whereas more students are beginning to learn through distance education,
teacher training is not sufficient for teachers to fulfill their responsibilities in such
learning environments. Clark and Zane (2005) indicates that whereas about 50%
of teachers had technology training for use in the classroom in 2005, only 1% of
teachers were trained for online teaching. Furthermore, teachers now have classroom
full of digital natives who learn and create knowledge by using Web tools and hand-
held gadgets. At the same time, students in general are found to be uncritical users
of Web information, requiring guidelines so that students can become critical users
30
of Web resources (Zhang & Duke, 2011). Teacher training is sorely needed to update
teachers with new knowledge and skills that students are very familiar with, so they
can supervise and facilitate student learning through the vastly available information
and tools in the Internet world. Even teaching in the area of design and technology
requires modernization, as it faces the problem of old teachers, old workshops, and
outdated projects (Dyson, 2011).
The good news is that some educational researchers are aware of the issues and
have been focusing on developing the needed technological pedagogical content
knowledge framework (Abbitt, 2011; Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010). However, beyond
studying the technological content knowledge, teachers and teacher candidates
must be trained actively in technology skills and applications (Martinez, 2010).
The problem is that creativity is taking a backseat in these efforts. In school
cultures where students creative behaviors are seen negatively by most teachers
(Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005), where classroom teachers qualification
to enhance creativity have been doubted (Slabbert, 1994; Torrance & Safter, 1986),
and where teachers understanding of their own implicit theories of creativity is
in need (Rutland & Barlex, 2008), it may be that the training of teachers should
begin with the topic of creativity, along with technology integration in enhancing
creativity. Teachers need to be creative to provide students with a creative ethos for
enabling and fostering creativity in their classroom (Craft & Jeffrey, 2004), requiring
teachers reconceptualization of instructional strategies.
The increasing relevance and importance of creativity and innovation has been
recognized as a key characteristic of the global economy, where creativity is viewed
as a source for survival in the global competition of economic advancement (Florida,
2004, 2007; Hippel, 2005). Today, the World Wide Web and Web tools provide
individuals and groups with space for creative power to grow, share, and advance.
As discussed in this chapter, the availability of Web information and tools has been
changing the way students learn and create knowledge, although extensive research
studies are needed to provide stronger evidence of the relevance of Web information
and tools to classroom learning. What the education field (current academic
environment) needs at this point in time of rapid growth of information technology
is consideration and reconsideration of the vision and mission of curriculum and
instruction. Students are learning and creating without proper guidelines that could
enhance learning and make their learning more relevant and useful. It is time that
the reality of technology advancement that is influencing learning and creative
processes be a factor for how teaching and learning should be viewed and organized.
Any educational agencies that have not responded to this trend should take action
before they fall further behind and become irrelevant.
A word of caution. The blind conformism to the existence of social networks
occupied by business conglomerates, along with the proprietary hardware, create
what has been called cognitive capitalism (Pasquinelli, 2010), or creative
capitalism, pushing people to be creative for corporate profit, but not for other
reasons. Yes, creativity plays a crucial role in the economy for creating jobs and
31
prosperity among the worlds nations (Burnard, 2006). No, schools and teachers
should not be agents that stifle creativity. As we advocate creativity and the use
of technologies to enhance creative thinking and creativity, our children should be
helped to create their own goals that are meaningful for their own future; who other
than educators, beyond parents, are best positioned to handle this responsibility?
Educators can help students actualize their potentials, lead their lives with aesthetic
appreciation for creative work, and put forth effort to enhance freedom and human
dignity.
REFERENCES
Abbitt, J. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher
education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 43, 281300.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers conceptions of creativity and creative
students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1734.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Retrieved
August 4, 2011, from http://k20.internet2.edu/files/userfiles/108-online_nation.pdf
Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2010, February 19). Does Google make us stupid? Retrieved June 7, 2011,
from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-
say-no
Art Education 2.0. (2011). Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://arted20.ning.com/
Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis
of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 146151.
ATEE. (2011, May). ATEE Spring Conference 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2011, from ATEE Association
for Teacher Education in Europe: http://www.atee1.org/conferences_and_seminars/19/atee_spring_
conference_2011#algemeen
Attwell, G. (2007, January). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? Retrieved June
7, 2011, from http://www.elearningpapers.eu
Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role
of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199209.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students
learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523535.
Azevedo, R., Ragan, S., Cromley, J. C., & Pritchett, S. (2003, April). Do different goal-setting conditions
facilitate students ability to regulate their learning of complex science topics with riverweb? Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating online teaching.
Internet and Higher Education, 7, 217232.
Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 20, 381401.
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, 7379.
Begley, S. (2011, March 7). I cant think. Newsweek, 2833.
Bell, P. D., & Akroyd, D. (2006). Can factors related to self-regulated learning predict learning achievement
in undergraduate asynchronous Web-based courses? International Journal of Instructional Technology
and Distance Learning, 3(10), 516.
Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the digital natives debate: Towards a more nuanced
understanding of students technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,
321331.
32
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775786
Brenchley, C. (2011, June 3). Launching the FY2011 Investing in Innovation (i3) Competition. Retrieved
June 13, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/06/launching-the-fy2011-investing-in-innovation-
i3-competition/
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Britt, G. (2010, March 1). Investing In Innovation. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.forbes.
com/2010/03/01/science-technology-education-thought-leaders-britt_2.html
Bronson, P. O., & Merryman, A. (2010, July 19). The creativity crisis. Newsweek, 4450.
Bruce, M. (2011, August 8). Obama to Offer States a Break from No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
September 2, 2011, from abc News : http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/obama-to-offer-
states-a-break-from-no-child-left-behind/
Burnard, P. (2006). Reflecting on the creativity agenda in education. Cambridge Journal of Education,
36, 313318.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). NCLB Waiver Watch. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from Center on
Education Policy: http://www.cep-dc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=21
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers development of technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology and Society,
13, 6373.
Clark, T., & Zane, B. (2005). Academic, Economic, and Technological A. 21st Annual Conference on
Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 15). Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System.
Coler, M. A. (1968). Creativity in Technology and the Arts. Leonardo, 1, 265272.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 51, 113127.
Craft, A., & Jeffrey, B. (2004). Creative practice and practice which fosters creativity. In L. Miller &
J. Devereux (Eds.), Supporting childrens learning in the early years (pp.105112). London: David
Fulton in association with The Open University.
Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A social approach. Roeper Review, 28, 125130.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity (pp. 313338). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Curry, J., Haderlie, S., & Ku, T. (1999). Specified learning goals and their effect on learners representations
of a hypertext reading environment. International Journal of Instructional Media 26(1), 4351.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered Web-based learning
environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 4047.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using Web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self- regulated
learning. Instructional Science, 33, 513540.
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students knowledge integration: Prompt for reflection in
KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819837.
Dawson, V. (1997). In search of the wild Bohemian: Challenges in the identification of the creatively
gifted. Roeper Review, 19, 148152.
Downes, S. (2005, October 17). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved June 24, 2011, from http://www.elearnmag.
org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Downes, S. (2006, October 16). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved June 26, 2011,
from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html
Dyson, J. (2011). Link between creativity and practicality. Times Education Supplement, Issue 4936,
2425.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents achievement
task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215225.
33
European Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation. (2009). Creativity and Innovation European
Year 2009 Manifesto. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.create2009.europa.eu/fileadmin/
Content/Downloads/PDF/Manifesto/manifesto.en.pdf
European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009. (2009). Europa: Imagine, Create, Innovate. Retrieved
April 23, 2011, from http://www.create2009.europa.eu/
Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper
Review, 22, 148153.
Florida, R. L. (2004). The rise of the creative class: And how its transforming work, leisure, community
and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Florida, R. L. (2007). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York:
HarperCollins.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson
(Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 161168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital
age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38,
246259.
Hall, C., Thomson, P., & Russell, L. (2007). Teaching like an artist: The pedagogic identities and practices
of artists in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, 605619.
Hargrove, R. A. (2007). Creating creativity in the design studio: Assessing the impact of metacognitive
skill development on creative abilities. UMI Microform 3329259. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Hippel, E. V. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hong, E., Greene, M. T., & Hartzell, S. (2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of elementary
teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55,
250264.
Hong, E., Hartzell, S., & Greene, M. T. (2009). Fostering creativity in the classroom: Effects of teachers
epistemological beliefs, motivation, and goal orientation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 192208.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2008). Preventing talent loss. New York: Routeldge.
Hong, E., Peng, Y., & Wu, J. (2010, August). Effects of explicit instruction, metacognition, and motivation
on creative performance. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, San Diego, CA.
Hsu, J. T. (1997). Value, expectancy, metacognition, resourced management, and academic achievement:
A structural model of self-regulated learning in a distance education context. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(5), 1458. (UMI No. 9835152)
Jang, S. (2009). Exploration of secondary students creativity by integrating Web-based technology into
an innovative science curriculum. Computer and Education, 52, 247255.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Haywood, K., (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin,
Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: implications for higher education.
York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and
Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,
48(2), 517.
Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 525 534.
Long, T. (2008, January 24). Jan. 24, 1984: Birth of the Cool. Retrieved April 22, 2011, from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0124
Kao, J. (2011, June). Are we still an innovation nation? Retrieved August 8, 2011, from http://
globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/are-we-still-an-innovation-nation/
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy: What Benjamin
Franklin can teach your kindergartender. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 358364.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
34
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285295.
Koretz, D. (2009, November 6). Moving Past No Child Left Behind. Science, 326, 803804.
Kratzer, J., & Lettl, C. (2009). Distinctive roles of lead users and opinion leaders in the social networks
of schoolchildren. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 646659.
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 567605.
Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2006). Cognitive tools for self-regulated e-learning. In M. Bullen & D. P.
Janes (Eds.). Making the Transition to E-learning: Strategies and Issues (pp. 300317). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010, February). Social Media & Mobil Internet Use
Among Teens and Young Adults. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/
Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf
Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2010, August 14). The digital disconnect. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from
http://www.pewinternet.org
Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-
based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 357379.
Liu, X., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Lee, S., & Su, B. (2005). Exploring four dimensions of online
instructor roles: A program level case study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(4), 2948.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a
blended learning context [Electronic version]. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 5(2).
MacCrimmon, K. K., & Wagner, C. (1994). Stimulating ideas through creativity software. Management
Science, 40, 15141532.
Martinez, M. (2010). Teacher education cant ignore technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 7475.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Robelen, E. (2011, January). Obama Emphasizes STEM Education in the State of the Union. Downloaded
August 28, 2011, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/01/obama_laments_quality_
of_us_ma.html
Office of the Press Secretary. (2009, November 23). President Obama Launches Educate to Innovate
Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (Stem) Education. Retrieved
June 26, 2011, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-
innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en
Ozkan, H. H. (2010). Cooperative learning technique through Internet based education: A model
proposal. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_3_130/ai_
n52943094/?tag=mantle_skin;content
Pasquinelli, M. (2010). Digital neofeudalism: Crisis of network politics and the new topology of rent.
Retrieved August 8, 2011, from http://matteopasquinelli.com/docs/Pasquinelli_Digital_neofeudalism.pdf
Peng, H., Tsai, C., & Wu, Y. (2006). University students self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the
internet: The role of students perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32, 7386.
Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education: Analyses and interpretations from an
international perspective. London: Kogan Page.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2010, July 2). The Future of Online Socializing. Retrieved June 4,
2011, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1652/social-relations-online-experts-predict-future
Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self regulated learning in
college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385407.
psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychology,
39, 8396.
35
Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://
www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20
-%20part1.pdf
Runco, M., Johnson, D., & Bear, P. (1993). Parents and teachers implicit theories of childrens creativity.
Child Study Journal, 23, 91113.
Rutland, M., & Barlex, D. (2008). Perspectives on pupil creativity in design and technology in the lower
secondary curriculum in England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18,
139165.
Schorn, D. (2009, February 11). The Millennials Are Coming. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBo
dy
Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: Voices from experienced
educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1). Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.
org/sites/default/files/v6n1_schrum_1.pdf
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational
Psychologist, 40, 8594.
Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1, 166169.
Siemens, G. (2006a). Knowing Knowledge. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.elearnspace.org/
KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf
Siemens, G. (2006b, November 12). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused?
Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Connectivism_response.doc
Simonton, D. K. (1992). The social context of career success and course for 2026 scientists and inventors.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 452463.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American
Slabbert, J. A. (1994). Creative in education revisited: Reflection aid of progression. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 28, 6069.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2010). Web 2.0 How-to for Educators. Eugene, OR: International Society
for Technology in Education.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The Concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 315). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006).
Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93135.
Thompson, R. (2009). Creativity, Knowledge and Curriculum in further education: A Bernsteinian
Perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57, 3754.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). The creative personality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College Record, 65,
220226.
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, J. T. (1986). Are children becoming more creative? Journal of Creative Behavior,
20, 113.
Turner-Bisset, R. (2007). Performanativity by stealth: A critique of recent initiatives on creativity.
Education, 313, 35, 193203.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009b, October 6). U.S. Secretary of Education Announces National
Competition to Invest in Innovation. Retrieved June 23, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/news/
pressreleases/2009/10/10062009a.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a, August 24). Nine States and the District of Columbia Win Second
Round Race to the Top Grants. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from ED.gov: http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/nine-states-and-district-columbia-win-second-round-race-top-grants
U.S. Department of Education (2010b, September). Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policity Development. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from: http://www2.
ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
36
Usher, A. (2011). Update with 200910 Data and Five-Year Trends: How Many Schools Have Not Made
Adequate Yearly Progress? Center on Education Policy.
van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal Learning Environments. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 12). IEEE Computer Society.
Victor, R., & Vidal, V. (2009). Creativity for problem solvers. AI & Society, 23, 409432.
Wang, S., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). The application of social cognitive theory to Web-based learning through
NetPorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 600612.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of Web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy
and reasons for taking an online class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 151163.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online
Learning: Reports and Graphics for Download. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.kpk12.com/
cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-based course: A case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 522.
Wilson, A. (2009). (2nd ed.). Creativity in primary education. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2010, August 22). Personal
Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Retrieved June
25, 2011, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.3816&rep=rep1&
type=pdf
Wolters, C., Pintrich, P., & Karabenick, S. (2005). Assessing academic self-regulated learning.
In K. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring
indicators of positive development (pp. 251270). New York, NY: Springer.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist
interpretation. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 1525.
Zhang, J. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Toward a Creative Social Web for
Learners and Teachers. Educational Researcher, 38, 274276.
Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2011). The impact of instruction in the WWWDOT framework on students
disposition and ability to evaluate Web sites as sources of information. Elementary School Journal,
112, 132154.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45,
166183.
37
JOHN BAER
ALIGNING PROGRAM GOALS, STUDENT

SELECTION, AND PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW AND BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
Gifted programs have many different goals, and the selection process a program
uses should match those goals. Wide-range academic ability and achievement tests
may be appropriate for programs that have no specific focus, but many programs
have clearly delimited goals, such as nurturing creative writing skills or developing
future scientists, for which general assessments may be inappropriate. As a recent
Association for Psychological Science task force recently argued, implications for
the field [of recent research in giftedness]. . . include a shift toward identification
of talent within domains [and] the creation of identification processes based on
the developmental trajectories of talent domains (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius,
& Worrell, 2011, p.4). The Consensual Assessment Technique is a powerful tool
for assessing creativity in specific areas and can be adapted to work in almost any
domain.
Once the goals of the program have been determined, it is important to teach
content and thinking skills, and to provide activities, that fit that program. For
example, both divergent and critical thinking skills are widely taught and practiced
in gifted/talented programs, but unfortunately teachers often act as if the specific
content of those activities doesnt matter. Research shows thats not true; in fact,
creative and critical thinking skills arent generic skills that transfer readily across
domains (Baer, 2010; Owens et all, 2010; Willingham, 2007). If the goal is to
develop creative and/or critical thinking skills across a wide variety of domains,
the content of the critical and divergent thinking training and practice activities
should span many diverse domains (because a program in which most of the training
focuses on one particular kind of content or skill is unlikely to succeed in improving
critical and/or creative thinking in many domains). If, on the other hand, the goal of
a program is to improve creative and/or critical thinking in a specific domain, then
the content of the exercises should focus on that domain.
Matching program goals, student selection, and program activities is especially
critical when students are selected based on their creative abilities (as opposed to
selection based on academic achievement).

J. BAER
MATCHING PROGRAM GOALS, STUDENT SELECTION, AND

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Programs for gifted and talented students are a diverse lot. They target different
kinds of students with different ranges of abilities, and they provide activities of
many different kinds ranging from divergent thinking training to explicit instruction
in the knowledge base of particular domains. Not all gifted and talented programs
are alike, just as not all gifted and talented students are alike. This diversity is surely
a good thing, but it does make matching program goals, student selection, and
program activities challenging.
Programs for gifted and talented students involve a special kind of homogeneous
grouping. Grouping students for instruction based on abilities and levels of
achievement has a long (and sometimes troubled) history (see, e.g. Loveless, 1999).
Although meta-analyses of homogeneous grouping (Allen 1991; Kulik & Kulik,
1982, 1984; Slavin 1986, 1990) show that overall students benefit academically from
homogeneous grouping for instructionand high-achieving students benefit the
most from such groupingthe ways students are grouped (based on some measures
of current levels of achievement and abilities) and the kinds of programs they are then
offered once grouped make huge differences in the success of such programs.
One common problem with homogeneous grouping is using one set of indicators
for student selection and then providing instruction geared to a different set of
competencies. This is one reason why comprehensive full-day grouping for instruction
is less effective than re-grouping students for each subject (Allen, 1991). Students
may (and often do) achieve at different levels in different subjects. Grouping students
based on mathematics achievement may work well for mathematics instruction, but
using the same grouping for language arts instruction may be ineffective (and vice
versa, of course). Even using a combined measuresome summing of measures of
mathematics and reading and writing achievement, for exampleis less effective
than grouping students based on achievement in particular subject areas (Allen,
1991; Loveless, 1999).
A second, distinct (albeit related) problem that is shared by many gifted and
talented programs focuses on a different kind of mismatch between student selection
and program activities. Students may be selected based on creative-thinking abilities
and then placed in a program focusing on accelerated content, or (perhaps more
commonly) vice versastudents may be selected based on academic accomplishment
as defined by test scores and grades and then placed in a program that focuses on
creative-thinking skills like divergent thinking.
There is perhaps little harm in this latter scenario. Teaching divergent thinking can
be useful for everyone, and therefore training students in these skills can be helpful,
even if creativity is not part of a programs selection process. Such a program does
run two significant risks, however:
Students in gifted and talented programs who have been chosen based on
significantly advanced academic achievements may expect those advanced
40
BAER: ALIGNING GOALS AND ACTIVITIES
achievements will be further accelerated by the program, but this is unlikely to

occur if the programs focus is on enhancing creative-thinking skills. This can
lead to dissatisfaction with a gifted and talented program among its primary
audience: gifted and talented students (and their parents).
Gifted and talented programs that select students based on academic
achievement but provide mainly activities that could be useful to everyone
(and who would not benefit from instruction and activities geared to improving
their creative-thinking skills?) are easy targets for a general criticism of such
programs: Why not just provide the program for everyone? If the divergent
thinking or other creativity-relevant activities of a program of this kind are
ones that any student could do and any student could benefit from, why have
a gifted and talented program at all? The students in such a program were in
all likelihood not chosen because of their creative-thinking skills and they are
not uniquely able to benefit from the programs offerings. Why not just have
creativity-enhancement exercises as part of every students curriculum and not
bother having a gifted/talented program?
This is a problematic scenario, but in this chapter my focus will not be on this rather
common selection process-program activity mismatch. My concern is closer to the
opposite problem: providing an academically oriented program for students whose
talents are primarily in the area of creative thinking. This might take either of two
forms:
Students may be selected exclusively based on perceived creativitythat is

to say, creativity may be the only selection criterionand then subjected to
a program with a strong academic acceleration component (a conceivable,
although probably uncommon, mismatch that is rather the opposite of the
more common problem discussed above of selecting students based only on
academic achievement and then placing them in a program that focuses only
on creativity) or
Students with exceptional creativity-related abilities but more average
academic achievement may be included in a program that looks at multiple
indicators that include both high academic ability and creative talent and then
placed in a program that emphasizes (and requires) only academic acceleration
or enrichment. Students might gain entry to a program based on their creativity
even though the actual program focuses exclusively on knowledge and skill
acquisition but not on creativity.
This is not meant to suggest that creativity does not require a great deal of domain-
specific knowledge and skill of the kind that might be acquired in an academically
focused gifted and talented program. Students with great creative-thinking potential
need domain-based skills and knowledge, and to acquire these they will need
instruction. But if that is all they receiveif there are no activities aimed at nurturing
41
J. BAER
the creativity of students with great creative potential in the here-and-nowit can be
an inappropriate mismatch of selection procedures and program activities, one that is
both unfair to creatively gifted students and might even do them harm.
SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING

CREATIVELY GIFTED STUDENTS
There is much controversy regarding the degree to which creativity is domain specific
and how good domain-general creativity tests can be. The former question (domain
specificity-generality) was the subject of the only Point-Counterpoint debate in
the history of the Creativity Research Journal (Baer, 1998; Plucker, 1998), and it
continues to be a question about which experts have a wide range of opinions (Baer,
2010; Kaufman & Baer, 2005). Regarding the latter question (and especially the
validity of divergent thinking tests), two of the co-editors of this volume squared off
in the first of what has now become an annual debate in the group in the American
Psychological Association that studies creativity in the arts with this as our topic
(Baer, 2009, 2011; Kim, 2009, 2011).
It is not the goal of this chapter to try to settle these issues. Identifying creatively
gifted students and nurturing their creativity would be much simpler if creativity
were domain general and domain-general creativity tests were valid. In this section
and the next I will offer suggestions based on both domain generality and domain
specificity. Readers who are convinced one way or the other with respect to these
debates might choose to follow those suggestions that best match their preferred
theory, whereas other readers might prefer to use of a combination of selection
methods and program activities based on both theories1.
If one assumes that creativity is largely domain general and that the most widely
used domain-general creativity tests are valid, then one method of identifying
creatively gifted students is both obvious and readily available: domain-general
creativity tests like the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance,
1972, 1974a, 1974b, 1981, 1987, 1998; Torrance & Ball, 1984), which has long
been the leading test of its kind (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008). That does leave
open the question of which scores to use, because although the Torrance Tests do
provide an overall score, Torrance himself discouraged their use. As Kim (2006)
put it:
The test may yield a composite score (the Creativity Index), but Torrance
discouraged interpretation of scores as a static measure of a persons ability
and, instead, argued for using the profile of strengths as a means to understand
and nurture a persons creativity. (p. 5)
Torrance also showed that the two forms of the testfigural and verbalmeasured
very different sets of abilities:
Reponses to the verbal and figural forms of the TTCT are not only expressed
in two different modalities . . . but they are also measures of different cognitive
42
abilities. In fact, Torrance (1990) found very little correlation (r = .06) between
performance on the verbal and figural tests. (Cramond, Matthews-Morgan,
Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005, pp. 283284)
Amabiles (1982, 1983, 1998) Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a
very different approach to creativity assessment. The CAT doesnt measure skills
theorized to be related to creativity; it measures actual creative performance on real
tasks like writing stories or poems or creating collages or other artifacts. Judges are
experts in the domain in question. As Kaufman, Plucker, and Baer (2008) explained:
The CAT is based on this idea that the best measure of the creativity of a
work of art, a theory, or any other artifact is the combined assessment of
experts in that field. Whether one is selecting a poem for a prestigious award
or judging the creativity of a fifth graders collage, one doesnt score it by
following some checklist or applying a general creativity-assessment rubric.
The best judgments of the creativity of such artifacts that can be produced
imperfect though these may be are the combined opinions of experts in the
field. Thats what most prize committees do (which is why only the opinions
of a few experts matter when choosing, say, the winner of the Fields Medal
in mathematicsthe opinions of the rest of us just dont count). The CAT
uses essentially the same procedure to judge the creativity of more everyday
creations. (pp. 5455)
But what kinds of artifacts should students create and judges rate for creativity?
Here the question of domain specificity comes into play. If one assumes domain
specificity, then one would want to use a task from an appropriate domain related to
the programs specific goals. If a gifted and talented program has a focus on creative
writing, then the tasks should be ones that involve creative writing, whereas if a
program has a focus on art or science, then tasks that involve art or science would
be more appropriate. If one assumes domain generality (so that creativity in any
area implies creativity across the board), then the tasks one chooses really shouldnt
matter. (One could therefore argue that one might as well assume domain specificity
in this case, because that way the results will be equally valid regardless which
theory is correct; see Footnote 1 for a more complete explanation of this idea.)
Many programs are interested in students creativity but may not emphasize
any one kind of creativity in their selection of students. If the program will include
activities covering a wide range of activities, then using several CAT assessments
from different domains might work best. Students who show either extremely high
levels of creativity in one area or fairly high levels of creativity in several areas might
be chosen for participation. If the program is more individualized and the students
can all go somewhat their own directions in terms of the domains in which they will
do most of their work, one might also use different CAT assessments in different
domains, but in this case rather than look for evidence of creativity in several areas
the focus should be on looking for evidence of creative talent in any one area.
43
J. BAER
Some students might be selected for creativity in writing, other for creativity in art,
and still others for creativity in mathematics, etc. Programs that emphasize activities
like Type III enrichment activities in Renzullis Enrichment Triad Model, in which
students who become interested in pursuing intensive work in a self-selected area are
given both freedom and guidance to study and produce work in a specific, limited
area (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997), might best use this kind of CAT
assessment in looking for students with creative talent. In this case what is important
is evidence of creativity in a single field, but the fields of interest might vary from
student to student.
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE FOR

CREATIVELY GIFTED STUDENTS
Once students have been identified as creatively gifted, what kinds of activities
should they be assigned or invited to engage in? Students can of course be both
academically gifted and creatively gifted, but they can just as easily be one and not
the other. For students with the kinds of abilities that lead to exceptional performance
on measure of academic achievement, one kind of activity or program organization
might be appropriate (e.g., acceleration, compacting, or certain kinds of enrichment
that require advance domain knowledge or skills). These kinds of activities or
program structure might not be appropriate, however, for students who are creatively
gifted but who do not evidence particular academic gifts or achievement.
One-size-fits-all programs often fit very few students, and the needs of creatively
gifted students are rarely, if ever, served by such programs because creatively
gifted students needs are diverse, not uniform Just as selecting students for reading
achievement and then putting them in an accelerated mathematics program (or vice
versa) is unlikely to meet the needs of those students, selecting students for creativity
and then putting them in a program that is all about academic acceleration and not at
all about creativity is doomed to failure.
Less obvious is the fact that not all creatively gifted students are creatively gifted
in the same ways or in the same domains. Just as it is important to match the domains
of academic achievement with programs that accelerate or enrich the curriculum in
those same domains, it is important to design program activities that target creatively
gifted students in their areas of special talent. In their recent Psychological Science
in the Public Interest monograph Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education:
A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science, Subotnik,
Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011) explain why:
Domain-specific ability and achievement become increasingly important as

individuals develop and increase their knowledge base in a field. This implies
that domain-specific achievement should be emphasized and cultivated, and
increasingly expected as children age. . . . Our focus is on understanding
the nature of these domain-specific developmental trajectories from early
44
childhood into adulthood so that appropriate talent-development opportunities

can be provided to students with potential and demonstrated interest and talent.
(p. 39)
There is nothing wrong with some brainstorming practice (or other divergent
thinking exercises) in a wide variety of domains, but the soul of the program for
a student who is creatively gifted in Domain X should be to provide opportunities
to explore and to do work in Domain X. There is no single best way to do this.
A group of creatively gifted writers might benefit from working together (by
critiquing one anothers writing, for example) and a group of students with special
talent in sculpture might be provided group-based learning activities related to
sculpture, whereas a program that has students with a variety of gifts might do
better using what Renzulli has called Type III activities: first-hand investigations, by
individuals or small groups with similar interests, of real problems (Renzulli, 1977;
Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997).
This is true not only with the kinds of assignments students are given, but also
with the kinds of thinking skills they might be asked to practice. Even with such
seemingly basic skills as divergent thinking, research has shown that the content
matters. Baer (1996) trained a group of 79 middle-school students using divergent
thinking exercises related to poetry. The content of the divergent thinking training
exercises included such things as:
finding words that sound like a given word (rhyme and assonance)
finding words that have the same initial sound as a given word (alliteration)
finding words that could stand for or in some way represent a given thing or idea
(metaphor)
inventing words or descriptions of things that are richly suggestive of other things
(images) (Baer, 1996, p. 184).
A matched group of students received unrelated training. Later both groups were
asked to write both a poem and a short story. The students who had received poetry-
relevant divergent thinking training wrote poems that were judged by experts to
be significantly more creative than those written by students who did not receive
this poetry-specific divergent thinking training, but their short stories were no more
creative than those of students who did not received the poetry-specific divergent
thinking training.
Both creative and critical thinking skills are highly domain specific and linked to
domain-based content. As Willingham (2007) put it:
After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement,
maybe its time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually
be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not
really. People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that
it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it,
you can apply it in any situation. Research from cognitive science shows that
45
J. BAER
thinking is not that sort of skill. The processes of thinking are intertwined with
the content of thought (that is, domain knowledge). (Willingham, 2007, p. 8.)
The kinds of thinking skills we want to help students develop are often highly domain
specific, even though the names we give them may seem very generic (Baer, 1993,
2010, 2012; Kaufman & Baer, 2005). Critical thinking is something valued in most
if not all domains, but the critical thinking skills that help one dissect a sonnet are
of little use when dissecting a logical argument, or a polygon, or a frog. They arent
even of that much use in analyzing a haiku, although there is probably some overlap
in that case. It is important that creatively gifted students in poetry study one kind
of dissecting skill, those whose talents are in mathematics practice a very different
kind of dissecting skill, those who are studying philosophy or debating work on yet
another very different kind of dissecting skill, and those with gifts in the natural
science area practice still other, once again very different, kinds of dissecting skills.
The important thing is to try to match students creative gifts and the kinds of
activities in which they extend, enrich, and/or accelerate the curriculum (just as one
should match assessment procedures with the goals of the program, as explained
in the previous section). This is important for some obvious reasons (e.g., it makes
no sense to have students whose special area of creativity is in music spend a great
deal of time study advanced painting techniques), but there is a less obvious benefit
in the area of motivation. Although there is much debate about the precise impact
of rewards and evaluation on creativity and on how such influences might work
(Amabile, 1983, 1996; Baer, 1998; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Eisenberger
& Shanock, 2003; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001), there is no doubt that intrinsic
motivation is something that educators would like to encourage (and not discourage)
in the domains in which students show special talent. By providing students with
opportunities (a) to learn skills important in those domains, (b) to meet and work
with experts in those domains, and (c) to produce original work in those domains,
students intrinsic motivation is likely to be enhanced.
NOTE
1
I have argued elsewhere (see, e.g., Baer, 1997; Baer & Kaufman, in press) that assuming domain
generality poses significant risks that creativity training may be ineffective if domain generality
is wrong, whereas assuming its opposite (domain specificity) poses no risk at all, even if domain
specificity were completely mistaken.
I wont repeat that argument here in detail, but heres the gist: If one were to spend time practicing
any truly domain-general creative thinking skill, then it would not matter the content one used for such
practice because if one assumes that creativity is domain general, then whatever creativity-relevant
skills one acquires doing any activity should influence creative performance in any and all domains.
Because the content of the practice would not matter under domain generality, even if one (let us
assume mistakenly) assumes domain specificity (and bases ones training on domain specificity,
which would argue that the content of the activities should match the kind of creativity one wishes
to enhance), it would be no loss if it turned out that creativity were entirely domain specific. The
exercises would be just as good and work just as well because domain generality argues that any
increase in creative-thinking skills could be applied equally well in any domain.
46
But if one assumes domain generality (and bases ones training on domain generality, which would
argue that the content of the activities used doesnt matter) and it turns out that creativity is domain
specific, then the training may not have the expected results at all. If the activities were all of, say, the
unusual uses of an X variety, that would not enhance creativity in science, math, poetry, story-telling,
art, music, etc. So if domain specificity is true (and to the extent that it is true), the content of the
exercises does matter, and assuming domain generality would result in wasted effort, whereas even if
domain generality were entirely true, assuming domain specificity would not result in any loss at all.
REFERENCES
Allan, S. D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted?
Educational Leadership, 48 (6), 1116.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 9971013.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior,
30, 183187.
Baer. J. (1997). Creative teachers, creative students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Baer, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 32, 1837.
Baer, J. (2009). Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century?. Invited Address, presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge
handbook of creativity (pp. 321341). Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st
century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309313.
Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity of creativity: Implications for early childhood education. In Saracho,
O, & Spodek, B. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood
education, 4360. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (in press). Being creative inside and outside the classroom. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of
the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283291.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or Myth? American
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity: A Case Study of
Conceptual and Methodological Isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121130.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81, 728741.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 314.
Kim, K. H. (2009). Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century?. Invited Address, presented at
the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA., August 2009.
Kim, K. H. (in press). The American Psychological Association 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance
tests still relevant in the 21st century? Importance of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Will
Be Continued. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. doi: 10.1037/a0021917
47
J. BAER
Kulik, C.-L., & J. A. Kulik. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-
analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal 19: 415428.
Kulik, C.-L., &J. A. Kulik. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A meta-
analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,
Canada (ERIC No. ED 255 329).
Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R, Dajani, S., Burns, A. S.,
Howard, R. J., & Ballard, C. G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775778.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the
gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for
educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational
excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence
synthesis. (Rep. No. 1). Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary
and Middle Schools.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence
Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 60, 3: 471499.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P, & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted
education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 12(1), 354.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide.
Figural test booklet A (rev. ed.). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1974a). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide.
Verbal test booklet A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1974b). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensonville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Guidelines for administration and scoring/comments on using the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual Figural
(Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined administration
and scoring manual (rev. ed.). Bensonville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, Summer,
819.
48
SANDRA W. RUSS, KARLA K. FEHR, AND JESSICA A. HOFFMANN
HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP PRETEND PLAY

SKILLS
Implications for Gifted and Talented Programs
How can experiences with pretend play facilitate development in gifted and
talented children? That broad question is the focus of this chapter. Increasingly,
gifted and talented children are being viewed from a developmental perspective
(Dweck, 2009). The definition of giftedness and talented has evolved in the field
and is no longer focused on IQ alone. Other characteristics and variables are
involved as well. Environmental influences are important as is the specific domain
of interest (Horowitz, 2009). Many gifted and talented children have the potential
to be creative. The potential for creative achievement depends upon a number of
processes that can be nurtured and facilitated. Runco (2004) has called for a focus
on developing creative potential in children. Horowitz (2009) has stressed the need
to help individuals who are at promise for giftedness to develop their potential
(p.16). Involvement in pretend play is one way to facilitate development of ones
unique creative potential and could have an important role in programs for gifted
and talented students.
PRETEND PLAY AND CREATIVITY
A positive relationship between pretend play and creativity has been found repeatedly
in the research literature. Pretend play involves the use of fantasy and make-believe
and the use of symbolism. Fein (1987) stated that pretend play is a symbolic behavior
in which one thing is playfully treated as if it were something else (p. 282). Fein
also thought that pretense is charged with feelings and emotional intensity, so that
affect is intertwined with pretend play.
Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff (2003) concluded that around the age of two, children
begin to discover pretend play. For example, they can pretend to talk on a telephone.
Pretend play becomes more evident by the third and fourth year. Children are able
to think symbolically, use objects to represent different things, and consider worlds
outside their own. Play follows developmental stages in which a child moves from
reacting to characteristics of objects to exploring objects to symbolically using
objects (Belsky & Most, 1981).
Creativity involves the generation of a product that is determined to be creative
because it is original, of good quality, and appropriate to the task (Sternberg,

S. W. RUSS, K. K. FEHR, AND J. A. HOFFMANN
Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002). There are a number of processes that occur within the
individual that are involved in a creative act. Many of the cognitive and affective
processes that occur in pretend play also occur during the creative process. After
reviewing the literature, Russ (2004) identified the following cognitive processes as
occurring in play:
Fantasy/make-believe. The ability to engage in as if play behavior. Pretending
to be in a different time and space. Role playing different characters.
Symbolism. The ability to transform ordinary objects (blocks, Legos) into
representations of other objects (e.g., a block becomes a telephone).
Organization. The ability to tell a story with a logical time sequence, plot, and
indications of cause and effect. Narratives can vary in elaboration of detail and
complexity.
Divergent thinking. The ability to generate a number of different ideas, story
themes, and symbols.
Affective processes identified by Russ were:
Expression of emotion. The ability to express affect states in a pretend play
situation. Both positive and negative emotions are expressed. For example, the
doll expresses aggression by angrily yelling at another doll I dont like you.
Expression of affect themes. The ability to express affect-laden images and content
themes in play. For example, the child builds a fortress with guns to prepare for
battle. This is aggressive ideation, even though no fighting has occurred.
Enjoyment of play. The ability to get lost in the play experience and to
experience pleasure and joy.
Cognitive integration, emotion regulation and modulation of affect. The ability to
process emotion and to integrate affect into a cognitive context.
These cognitive and affective processes in pretend play relate to creative functioning
in children. There is a large body of research that links pretend play and creativity. In
general, children who have better pretend play skills are more creative, independent
of intelligence. A number of cognitive processes have been found to be involved
in and unique to creative problem solving. Two major creative cognitive processes
are divergent thinking and transformation abilities, identified by Guilford (1968).
Divergent thinking is the generation of a variety of ideas. This kind of thinking
goes off in different directions, in contrast to convergent thinking which focuses
in on a specific solution. Divergent thinking involves following associations and
having a breadth of attention to internal cues (Kogan, 1983). Wallach (1970) stated
that divergent thinking is dependent on the flow of ideas and fluidity in generating
cognitive units (p. 1240). Divergent thinking has been found to be relatively
independent of intelligence (Runco, 1991). Transformation ability is the capacity
to break out of a set or a fixed way of thinking and to see a new solution or new
configuration of a pattern. Flexibility of thought is involved in this ability to follow
different paths in problem solving.
50
HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP PRETEND PLAY SKILLS
Other cognitive processes that are important, but not unique, to creative thinking
are insight and synthesizing abilities (Sternberg, 1988), sensitivity to problems and
problem finding (Runco, 1994); having a wide breadth of knowledge (Barron &
Harrington, 1981); and evaluative ability (Guilford, 1950).
Affective processes are also involved in creativity. Joy and love of the work is
important and can result in the flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) in which the
person gets lost in the task. Openness to affect laden images and memories
is involved in artistic production as well as divergent thinking itself. The ability
to be open to affect in fantasy and not repress has been associated with creativity.
A positive emotional state has also been related to creativity. For a review of the
research and theoretical literature on cognitive and affective processes involved in
creativity, see Russ (1993; 2004).
It makes theoretical sense that pretend play would relate to creativity because so
many of the cognitive and affective processes involved in creativity occur in play.
Much of the research has focused on the play and divergent thinking relationship.
Theoretically, play should be related to divergent thinking because in play children
generate a variety of ideas and recombine ideas and symbols. Singer and Singer
(1990) think of play as actual practice with divergent thinking. Russ (1993) has
stressed the importance of affect in divergent thinking. The involvement of emotion
in play should increase access to emotional memories and broaden the associative
network. In addition, Fein (1987) proposed that children use play to develop and
manipulate an affective symbol system. Fein conceptualized this affective symbol
system as representing real or imagined experience at a general level. These affective
units constitute affect-binding representational templates which store information
about affect-laden events. The units are manipulated, interpreted, coordinated
and elaborated in a way that makes affective sense to the players (p. 292). These
affective units are a key part of pretend play and of creative thinking. She thought
that activities that involved divergent thinking like daydreaming, pretend play, and
drawing activated the affective symbol system. Fein concluded that the creative
processes could not be studied independently of an affective symbol system.
A large number of studies have found a relationship between play and divergent
thinking (Johnson, 1976; Pepler & Ross, 1981: Singer & Rummo, 1973). Russ and
Grossman-McKee (1990) found that both cognitive and affective processes in play
related to divergent thinking, independent of intelligence. Lieberman (1977) found
a relationship between playfulness and joy and divergent thinking in kindergarten
children. Both positive and negative affect in play relates to divergent thinking.
Russ and Schafer (2006) found a relationship between negative affect in fantasy
play and divergent thinking. Children who could express negative themes in play,
such as aggression or fear, generated more uses for objects and more original uses
for objects, than children who expressed less negative affect. Kaugars and Russ
(2009) also found a relationship between affect expression in pretend play and
divergent thinking in preschool children. In a recent study, pretend play was related
to divergent thinking and creative storytelling ability (Hoffmann & Russ, 2012).
51
In addition, divergent thinking and creative storytelling were related, suggesting that
processes involved in both play and divergent thinking could be involved in real-
world creativity.
In a longitudinal study, Russ, Robins, and Christiano (1999) found that
imagination and organization of fantasy in play in first and second graders was
associated with divergent thinking in the fifth and sixth grades. As in many other
studies, this relationship was independent of intelligence. The relationship between
play and divergent thinking was stable over a four-year period.
Much of the research on play and divergent thinking has been correlational and
cannot imply a causal relationship. However, there have been some experimental
studies in the literature. In two important studies, play facilitated divergent thinking
in preschool children (Dansky & Silverman, 1973; Dansky, 1980). These two studies
are important in that they show a direct effect of play on divergent thinking. Smith and
Whitney (1987) have criticized many play and divergent thinking studies because of
experimenter bias. However, a number of studies did control for experimenter bias
and found facilitative effects for play (Dansky, 1999). In a meta-analysis of 46 play
studies, Fisher (1992) found the largest effect sizes for relationships between play
and divergent thinking and for perspective-taking.
Pretend play has also been found to facilitate insight in problems solving tasks.
Vandenberg (1980), in a review of insight and pretend play studies, concluded that
all of these studies had the consistent finding that play facilitated insightful tool use
and enhanced motivated task activity. Vandenberg pointed to the similarity between
play and creativity. In both play and creativity, one is creating novelty from the
commonplace and has a disregard for the familiar.
Russ (2004) concluded that, over time, engaging in pretend play helps the child
become more creative in the following ways:
Practice with the free flow of associations that is part of divergent thinking.
Practice with symbol substitution, recombining of ideas, and manipulation of
object representations. These processes are part of transformation ability and
insight ability.
Express and experience positive affect. Positive affect is important in creativity. In
addition, positive affect in play could be the precursor of the passion and joy that
people take in the creative act. Children who can get lost in play could also get lost
in the creative act. Getting lost in play could be the childs form of the flow state
identified by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) as experienced during creative activities.
Express and think about affect themes and images. Learn to code and manipulate
the affective symbols that Fein proposed. Emotion-laden content is permitted to
surface and be expressed through play. Over time, the child develops access to a
variety of memories, associations, and affective and non-affective cognition. This
broad repertoire of associations helps with creative problem solving.
Given these findings that link play and creativity, an important question is whether
programs can be developed that facilitate creativity through pretend play experiences?
52
IMPROVING PRETEND PLAY SKILLS
Pretend play skill interventions have been tested since the late 1960s (e.g., Smilansky,
1968). These interventions have largely been tested with groups of children with
documented play deficits, such as children from disadvantaged backgrounds or
children diagnosed with Developmental Disabilities or Autism Spectrum Disorders.
A drawback of this approach is that an intervention developed for a specific
population may not generalize to be useful with another group of children. One
exception to this approach has been the work of Russ and colleagues, who have
developed a play intervention designed to be used with typically developing children.
This intervention approach is likely most applicable for gifted children, as it assumes
typical cognitive development and allows for individualization based on the specific
childs play skills. However, as this protocol developed out of the previous work,
a brief review of the interventions with other populations is warranted. For a more
complete review, see Russ and Fehr (in press).
Research has demonstrated that adult-led interventions aimed at improving
pretend play do improve childrens play skills and theoretically related skills, such as
divergent thinking and problem solving. For example, Smilansky (1968) examined
the play skills of children from disadvantaged backgrounds enrolled in one of four
types of kindergarten and nursery school classrooms in Israel: those with enriched
experiences and adult-led discussions about their experiences, those with an adult
who taught sociodramatic play, those with both the discussions and sociodramatic
play, or those in control classrooms. The experimental groups included a total of 12
classrooms including 420 children. Ten classrooms with 362 children comprised the
control group from the same socioeconomic background and an additional control
group with children from advantaged backgrounds consisted of 12 classrooms
with 427 children. Following the nine-week intervention, children in either of the
experimental groups that included the adult-led play intervention had significantly
improved play skills relative to the control group. In addition to improving play
skills, Rosen (1974) found that problem solving skills also improved following 40
classroom-wide, hour-long play skills intervention sessions for African American
children enrolled in two kindergarten and two daycare classrooms primarily for
children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, Hartmann and Rollett (1994)
found that a classroom-wide intervention implemented by teachers in Austria for
four hours weekly over the course of the year improved divergent thinking ability.
Further, children in the intervention classrooms were happier in school than children
in control classrooms.
Following early success by these general play interventions, Dansky (1980)
examined the effect of the adult by assigning preschoolers to a play skills
intervention, free play sessions, or non-play tutoring. Though Danskys intervention
was only three weeks in length, children in the play intervention group improved
in both frequency and quality of pretend play, indicating that the attempts of the
adult to improve the childs play, and not merely the play or the adult presence
53
was instrumental in improving the childrens play. Although the majority of the
studies to date have not examined the specific adult behaviors independently to
determine which are most effective, two reviews of the literature have identified the
elements most commonly used in play interventions for children with developmental
disabilities (Lang et al., 2009; Trawick-Smith, 1998). Both reviews emphasized
adults engaging in the childs play, following the childs lead, and using techniques
such as asking questions, prompting, modeling, reinforcing, or giving suggestions
to enrich the play. In addition, Trawick-Smith (1998) added the importance of adults
withdrawing from the childs play over time and encouraging the child to continue
playing without their direction. There do not seem to be similar reviews of adult
techniques that are likely to be effective for typically developing children. However,
some studies have begun to examine the effectiveness of specific adult techniques
during play interventions. For example, Nielsen and Christie (2008) found that
imitated and novel pretend play increased following approximately five minutes of
adult modeling in a dollhouse for children two and three years of age.
Shmukler and Naveh (19841985) examined the effect of the type of stories used
in the play sessions by examining the play skills of 116 preschool-aged children
assigned to: a play intervention where stories were unstructured (children only
given a general theme), a play intervention where stories were structured (children
played out familiar fairy tales), an attention control (children played active games
or structured activities with an adult such as completing puzzles or art projects), or
a no-contact control (children only met with researchers for baseline and outcome
assessments). The results of this study indicated that the type of stories played out in
the intervention is not important, as children in either of the play intervention groups
displayed significantly higher imagination, affect expression, and focus during the
play after 12 sessions than children in either of the control groups.
In addition to efforts to improve general pretend play, some researchers have
examined the impact of targeting only imagination during intervention groups.
However, these studies have found that positive affect, focus during play, and
cooperation with peers during social play improved for children involved in the
group intervention play sessions in addition to improving imagination, as compared
to those in active control groups that played with puzzles and building toys (Freyberg,
1973; Udwin, 1983). These two studies are also of note in that they were much
less time-intensive than the previous studies discussed. Although Smilansky (1968)
required children in the sociodramatic groups to receive play intervention for 90
minutes each day for 5 days a week over 9 weeks, Freybergs (1973) intervention
involved only eight 20-minute sessions and, similarly, Udwins (1983) intervention
included ten 30-minute sessions over a five-week period.
Although not the focus of this chapter, it is important to note that Barton and
Wolery (2008) and Lang et al. (2009) reviewed the literature of play interventions
for children diagnosed with developmental disabilities or autism and likewise found
that targeted play interventions were effective at improving play skills. However, the
54
play intervention approaches for children diagnosed with developmental disabilities,

autism spectrum disorders, or cognitive deficits are typically much more time-
intensive than the interventions for typically developing children (e.g., Kasari,
Freeman, & Paparella, 2006; Nevile & Bachor, 2002; Stahmer, 1995; Thomas &
Smith, 2004; Thorp, Stahmer, & Schreibman, 1995).
The results of the studies examining play interventions are encouraging, as they
provide evidence that even brief play interventions led by adults can be effective
at improving pretend play and theoretically related skills. Dansky (1999) pointed
out that brief play interventions can have long-term implications for a childs
development and play skills as children enjoy playing and are likely to incorporate
improvements into their own play, which provides further opportunities to enhance
their skills. With this literature in mind, Russ and colleagues have tested a series
of interventions designed to improve pretend play skills in typically developing
children. These strategies may be helpful for gifted children also as the interventions
are aimed at facilitating both pretend play and creativity.
DEVELOPMENT OF A BRIEF PLAY INTERVENTION
In a pilot study, Russ, Moore, and Farber (2004) developed a play intervention that
attempted to facilitate specific cognitive and affective processes in pretend play.
The researchers investigated whether cognitive and affective processes could be
differentially affected by different types of play intervention techniques. The pilot
study included a control group that controlled for time and interaction with an
interested adult. This study also developed a play intervention protocol that could be
replicated in other studies and be used as a manual in play intervention programs.
In developing the play intervention, Russ et al. followed guidelines from previous
studies.
In this pilot study, specific play intervention techniques were clearly spelled
out and were based upon common techniques used by play therapists. Russ (1998)
outlined a number of techniques used by play therapists, such as labeling and
reflection of feelings, empathy, and articulation of cause and effect (i.e., she is
feeling sad because she lost her toy). These techniques were the foundation of the
intervention. Previous play interventions have used such techniques as modeling
(J. Singer & D. Singer, 1999; Knell, 1993), positive reinforcement, (Knell, 1993;
Bodiford-McNeil, Hembree-Kigen, & Eyberg, 1996) reflection, and imitation
(Bodiford-McNeil et al., 1996). Russ et al.s study utilized these methods as well,
through the use of standardized prompts.
The pilot study investigated the effectiveness of two different play interventions
on play skills in comparison with a control group in a school-based population.
One play intervention script focused on improving imagination and organization
of the narrative. The other play intervention script focused on increasing affective
expression in play. In addition, outcome measures of creativity, coping, life
55
satisfaction, and classroom behavior were administered to explore the association

of play with adaptive functioning. It was hypothesized that both play interventions
would result in improvements on all play skills when compared with the control
group. Of particular interest was whether or not affect expression techniques would
be effective at improving affect play skills and imagination expression techniques
would be effective at improving imagination in play. In addition, it was expected that
both play intervention groups would have higher scores on the outcome measures of
adaptive functioning than the control group.
Fifty children participated in the study, ranging from six to eight years of age in the
first and second grades at an urban Midwestern elementary school. This population
included children who were all in mainstream classrooms. The composition of the
school is 99% African American. The school reports that 92% of the families are at
or below poverty level.
Children received a baseline measure of affect and fantasy expressed in play, the
Affect in Play Scale (APS; Russ, 1993, 2004). The administrator of the APS was not
involved in the intervention for that child. Next, children were randomly assigned
to one of three groups: imagination play intervention, affect play intervention,
or control. There were 19 children in the imagination group, 17 children in the
affect group, and 14 children in the control group. Each child participated in five,
30-minute individual sessions that usually occurred over a period of three to five
weeks. Specific instructions and stories were used for each group, and the toys,
storylines, and prompts were standardized. In all cases the same play trainer carried
out all five sessions with the child. There were four play trainers in the study. The
trainers instructed each child to play out approximately four stories per session, and
the children were instructed to make up their own story one time each session. The
trainers attempted to limit discussion that did not follow the standardized prompts
during the sessions. All trainers filled out session checklists at the end of each
session indicating stories used, prompts used, and the childs reactions to the stories
and prompts. Within three weeks of completing the intervention, outcome measures
were given in order to assess a variety of cognitive and affective outcomes. Measures
were given by a different investigator than the one who conducted the five sessions
with the participant and who was blind to group assignment. First, the child again
received the APS. In addition, each child received, in the following order, measures
of divergent thinking, self-report coping, and life satisfaction.
Imagination Group. Children in the imagination group were presented with a set
of toys including human-like dolls, blocks, plastic animals, Legos, and cars. They
were asked to play out stories with high fantasy content (e.g. someone who lives on
the moon) and high story organization (e.g. what someone needs to do to get ready
for school). Children were encouraged to explore alternate endings for their stories
and they were reinforced for being creative and engaging in object transformations.
During the 30-minute sessions, the trainer was active with standardized prompts to:
have a beginning, middle, and end; show details; have the characters talk; pretend
56
something is there (use a Lego to be a milk bottle); make up different endings; ask
what happens next. The trainer used reinforcement, modeling, and praise.
Affect Group. Children in the affect group played with the same toys as the children
in the imagination group. The instructions, stories, and prompts were different
from the imagination play group. Instead of focusing on fantasy and organization,
children were encouraged to express feelings and were asked to play out stories with
affective content. For example, a child might have played out a story about someone
who was happy because she was going to a birthday party or sad because he had
lost his favorite toy. The trainers used modeling, reinforcement, and reflection of
feeling states to encourage affective experimentation. Standardized prompts were:
reflect/label feelings; ask how the dolls are feeling; have the dolls talk to each other
about how they are feeling; state they are feeling this way because; and ask what
happens next.
Control Group. Children in the control group spent their sessions putting together
puzzles and coloring on coloring sheets. The puzzles and coloring sheets were
of neutral scenes such as a farm puzzle and pictures of flowers and butterflies.
Experimenter interaction was controlled for by using standardized prompts and
encouragement unrelated to affect or imagination. For example, children putting
a puzzle together might have been asked about the colors in the picture, the
content of the picture, or how many puzzle pieces there were. Toy choice (i.e.
being able to pick what toys to use, as in the intervention groups) was controlled
for by allowing the child to choose whether he/ she wanted to start by doing a
puzzle or by coloring. The child had the option of changing activities at his/her
discretion.
The prompts were to ask: what is in the picture; what piece is that; what color is
that; how many pieces are there. Examiners were also active in praising children for
their effort and helping them with the puzzles.
Fidelity was difficult to establish in this particular sample because of limitations
set forth by the school. The baseline and outcome play measures were able to be
videotaped, but not the 5 intervention sessions. However, the stories and prompts
were standardized and a session checklist was developed to monitor the stories and
prompts used in each session. The affect play group had a different set of instructions
and prompts used by the trainer than the imagination play group. Also, a totally
different set of stories was used for the affect play group than for the imagination
play group. Each trainer followed a script for the particular intervention group.
An evaluation of the checklists for the intervention groups revealed that 86% of
the time the prompt guideline was followed and 89% of the time the story/ feeling
guideline was followed. No significant differences were found on the number of
prompts given by the play trainers across the groups. As an additional exploration
of intervention fidelity, mean differences between play trainers on the APS
were investigated and no significant differences were found on childrens play
scores.
57
The major result of this study was that the play interventions were effective in
improving play skills. The affect play condition was most effective in that, after
baseline play was controlled for, the affect play group had significantly higher
play scores on all play processes. These children had more affect in their play
(both positive affect and negative affect), a greater variety of affect content, and
better imagination and organization of the story than did the control group. The
imagination play group also had significantly more positive affect and variety of
affect than the control group. Another major finding was that, on the outcome
measure of divergent thinking, there was a significant effect for group. Although
the individual contrast comparisons did not reach significance, inspection of the
profile plots indicate that the play groups had higher scores on the divergent
thinking measure.
The affect play intervention was the most effective intervention in improving
play skills. By having children play out stories involving emotion, both positive and
negative, Russ et al. were able to improve play skills as measured by the APS. It is
worth noting that the APS play measure was quite different from the play intervention
situation in that there were only a few props (2 puppets and a few blocks) whereas
the intervention used a variety of toys. Also, the instructions for the APS are very
unstructured (play any way you like) whereas the play intervention was quite
structured and the child was directed to make-up stories with specific themes. Thus,
the finding that play changed on the unstructured outcome play measure suggests
that the effect of the play intervention would generalize to a natural play situation.
Future research should investigate this question.
The finding that the affect play group increased both affective expression in play
and cognitive abilities of imagination and organization of the story suggests that
involvement of affect also influences processes of imagination and fantasy. In order
to express emotion, the child called on storytelling and imagination. Developing a
narrative around the emotion may be a powerful process for children. The imagination
play group was significantly better than the control in frequency of positive affect
and variety of affect. Similar results were found by previous researchers attempting
to improve only imagination in play (Freyberg, 1973; Udwin, 1983). That the
imagination play group improved positive affect and had a wider range of affect
expression suggests that using ones imagination involves positive affect. This
finding is consistent with results from the creativity research in which positive affect
facilitates creativity and imagination (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). Another
possible explanation for the overall greater improvement in the affect play group is
that the instructions and prompts that were used in the affect play group were better
in facilitating affect in play than the instructions and prompts in the imagination
group were in facilitating fantasy and imagination. Perhaps if Russ et al. had used
other techniques or stories, they would have been more effective. Future research
should explore this possibility.
The finding that both play groups increased their positive affect in play is
important. Pretend play is fun for most children and may stimulate positive affect
58
themes such as stories about having fun, being happy, and caring about others. This
result could have implications for mood regulation in children.
In a follow-up study of these children by Moore and Russ (2008) 48 months
later, the imagination group had improved play skills over time. The affect group did
not maintain the play changes over this period. It may be that an increase in affect
expression from a play intervention is temporary whereas focus on imagination and
pretend in play could be longer lasting.
Given the promising results from this pilot study, a second pretend play
intervention study for elementary school children was designed (Russ, Dillon,
Fiorelli, & Burck, 2010). This study aimed to replicate the successful findings from
the original intervention and incorporated several important modifications to the
protocol. First, since both the affect play group and the imagination play group from
the Russ, Moore and Farber (2004) study had yielded positive results, the two play
intervention groups were combined into one play intervention group targeting both
imagination and affect expression. Second, the number of sessions was reduced
from five sessions to four making the intervention briefer in length.
This play intervention study took place at a private school for girls and enrolled
57 participants between the ages of five- and ten-years-old, in the kindergarten
through fourth grades. Participants met individually with a researcher for four
sessions, each 2530 minutes long in which the children practiced making up
stories and acting them out with toys. Children enrolled in the control group also
met with examiners for an equal number of sessions but completed puzzles and
coloring sheets. This control group was designed to control for one-on-one time
with a researcher, but without the fantasy and emotional content included in the
intervention sessions.
From the previous intervention study, a play intervention manual was developed
so that all researchers administer the play intervention in a standardized way. The
assortment of toys available for the children to play with always include: human
figurines, both predator and prey animals, blocks for building, vehicles (toy cars,
snowboards, skateboards, jet skis), and props for the figurines (hats, shoes, books,
instruments). During each play intervention session, researchers aim to have the
child create 45 stories, each approximately 5 minutes long. Story stems are provided
in the manual that pull for both emotional and fantastical content. For example,
children are asked to tell a story about a girl who lives in a city underwater or
a sad story about a girl who loses her favorite toy. Over the course of the four
sessions, story stems pull for more complex imaginative content. For example, a
story stem from session one might be a girl who goes to school, while session
four might include a girl who has super powers. Thus, as children progress across
sessions they are asked to expand their abilities to incorporate fantasy and emotional
content into their stories.
The manual also outlines the types of intervention strategies to be used by
the researchers facilitating the play sessions. Children are given praise and
positive reinforcement for their use of creative ideas including plot twists, adding
59
characters, and transformation of objects. In addition children are praised for

expression of a variety of emotions and the ways in which they express these
emotions through the dolls. Modeling is also used to help teach children ways
of showing emotions or acting out ideas through the characters. Prompting and
questioning are used to encourage children to think about what could happen
next in their story or to think up alternate endings. Labeling of feelings and
summarizing of events are used to emphasize the organization of the story and
the cause and effect sequences that took place. Most children show clear strengths
and weaknesses regarding their organization, imagination, ability to incorporate
affect-laden themes, or comfort engaging in play. As the four intervention sessions
progress, the researchers keep notes and can target sessions to meet the individual
needs of each child.
In this second play intervention study, children were given a variety of measures
to assess their fantasy play skills, creative thinking, storytelling ability and coping
before and after engaging in the four-session intervention or control group sessions.
Childrens pretend play skills after the intervention sessions were assessed using the
APS to determine whether the intervention had successfully improved childrens
pretend play abilities. In this particular sample, a majority of the children had already
displayed excellent pretend play skills before the intervention, making it difficult
to show an effect. However, when just the children who had shown poor pretend
play skills at baseline (those children who had obtained the lowest scores before the
intervention) were examined, significant results were found for improvement in both
the organization and imagination of their stories at outcome.
The results of this study indicate that play interventions can successfully augment
childrens pretend play skills. Additionally, the findings support the feasibility of
short-term, school-based play interventions for improving childrens fantasy play.
The results of this study leave open many possibilities for future play intervention
research. It may be that by improving pretend play skills, one can also facilitate the
development of other areas of adaptive functioning, such as creativity, storytelling or
school well-being. Play interventions may also be used to help identify and support
young children who show early difficulties in coping or well-being, allowing schools
to take a preventative approach in addressing early childhood difficulties.
A GROUP INTERVENTION FORMAT
Most recently, a group play intervention study has been launched in a school in
which the play intervention sessions are conducted in a group format consisting
of four students, and two co-facilitators, one teacher and one psychology graduate
student (Hoffmann & Russ, 2012). In this study, 40 female students were given the
APS to determine their baseline levels of fantasy play. The children were then placed
into groups of four based on both their age and their baseline play ability, so that each
group contained two children who were above average players and two children
who scored below average on the APS all within one year of age of each other.
60
Groups were then randomly assigned to the intervention or control protocols. The
intervention groups meet for six, 30-minute sessions and work together to make up
stories using a similar set of dolls and toys as that used in the individual interventions
described above. The group format leverages the use of peer-modeling in which the
children who are already strong players can act as models for those children showing
more difficulty engaging in fantasy play. As each member of the group brings her
own strengths and weaknesses to the intervention sessions, each participants play
skills are stretched and enhanced by their peers ideas. Facilitators continue to serve
a similar role as in the individual intervention, offering positive reinforcement,
prompting for children to expand their repertoire of play skills and modeling of skills
when necessary. Children in the control groups also meet with their group for six
sessions where they construct puzzles, complete coloring sheets and make necklaces
out of beads. These activities are meant to control for group social interaction and
special time away from the classroom to work as a team on a project, without the
fantasy or affective content that is included in the intervention groups work.
As research with play interventions continues, there may be different advantages
to working with children individually or in small groups. Conducting interventions
with groups allows for more children to be included in an intervention in less
time; however, each child receives less individualized attention than can be given
during individual play intervention sessions. Further research discussed below also
examines the use of similar play interventions for preschool-aged children.
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAY INTERVENTION FOR

PRESCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN
Given the importance of the preschool years for development and the fact that
pretend play peaks during this same developmental period, there is a need to adapt
interventions to target play skills during this time. Interventions implemented during
this key developmental period may have an even greater impact on childrens
development than those implemented later in childhood. Therefore, the intervention
methods of the school-aged play intervention were adapted for use with preschool-
aged children. A pilot study was conducted at a childrens museum setting with
promising results (Christian, Fehr, & Russ, 2011), and a randomized controlled trial
with a larger sample is currently underway.
When adapting the intervention protocol for preschool-aged children, it was
thought that the most effective way to improve their play would be to teach their
parents the intervention techniques as parents frequently play with their children
at this young age. Therefore, the pilot preschool play intervention included only
three weekly 2030 minute sessions with the play facilitator. During these sessions,
however, parents observed the play facilitator and were asked to conduct two
10-minute play sessions at home in between each play session with the facilitator.
All other procedures described in the play intervention manual for the school-aged
children were followed (e.g., types of toys, number and types of story stems per
61
session, alternating stories targeting imagination and affect expression, behaviors

of play facilitator), although adaptations for developmental level have resulted in
changes within the session interactions. For example, one main task of the play
facilitator is to follow the childs lead. When implementing the play intervention
task with school-aged children, a child may be prompted to put an ending on a story
if they change topic abruptly. However, with the preschool-aged children, following
the childs lead means allowing children to have stories with loosely related events
while still encouraging an overall organization (e.g., first the characters go to the
moon, then a monsters eats them all up, and then they go home!). In this example,
encouraging the child to come up with an ending after the monster eats everyone
allows them to come back to the original theme of going to the moon. In contrast,
having the monster eat everyone might be considered the end of a school-age childs
story, or it may be seen as a change in the topic altogether if the monster is not on
the moon. Being sensitive to normal development in preschoolers play allows the
play facilitator to maintain the difficult balance between encouraging improvements
in play while also following the childs lead, even if the theme is not completely
apparent to the adult facilitating the session.
With these changes, this approach was piloted with 17 four to six year-old
children who had not yet entered the first grade. Children and their parents were
recruited from a local childrens museum and they were randomly assigned to be a
part of the play skill intervention or an active control that colored and played with
puzzles or a building toy. Parents in both groups observed sessions and were asked
to conduct play sessions at home modeled after the ones they observed. A handout
was given to parents in both groups describing suggestions for toys to use and ways
they could interact with their child consistent with the group they were in. Parents
in the intervention group were encouraged to play out stories with their children
and reinforce, model, or provide suggestions to enhance their childs play skills.
Parents in the control group were encouraged to play with puzzles, build, or color
with their children and praise their child for effort and ask questions about what they
are doing (e.g., what color is this or which piece will go next). Following the third
play session, the childrens play skills were evaluated with the Affect in Play Scale-
Preschool version (APS-P; Kaugars & Russ, 2009). Given the small sample size,
effect sizes were focused on in analyses and preliminary results are that play skills
improved for children in the play intervention group relative to those in the control
group and effect sizes were medium to large. More detailed scoring and analyses to
examine group differences are currently being conducted (Fehr, Christian, & Russ,
2012).
Following these encouraging results, an additional examination of this protocol
was developed with a larger sample size. Based on lessons learned during the pilot
study, a number of changes were proposed for use in this second examination of the
intervention. First, it became apparent during the pilot intervention that children
interacted with the play facilitator differently when their parent was in the room.
Many children became very shy or would defer to their parents when prompted
62
during play sessions, even when their parents were out of view or provided
encouragement. In addition, parents were inconsistent in their approach to the play
sessions at home both in terms of whether or not they set aside time to conduct the
sessions and in terms of the content of the play sessions. Therefore, it was decided
the intervention should first be tested with children without their parents present.
Second, it was decided to conduct the intervention at a school rather than in the
community to minimize difficulties in consistent scheduling of sessions. Third,
based on the experience with the pilot children, a standard set of play stories was
established for use with every child in an increasingly difficult order. Although play
facilitators are encouraged to follow this order of stories that seemed to work best
with the pilot children, they are allowed to deviate from the suggested order if the
child rejects a story and requests an alternate story stem or if the play facilitator
thinks that a particular story does not reflect the childs play development (e.g.,
a child who struggles to make up a story with familiar content will not be given a
more unstructured story with a theme that requires a high use of fantasy next). These
changes have been added to the preschool play intervention manual and are currently
being tested with a larger sample. The researchers are hopeful that the results of
this study will provide evidence that the approach is effective so they can begin to
develop ways of disseminating these techniques to parents or teachers.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMS FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN
Assessment of pretend play may add another dimension to identifying gifted and
talented children. This is consistent with the recommendation of Gottfried, Gottfried,
and Guerin (2009) that programs use multiple criteria to assess giftedness. Assessment
of intelligence alone is not sufficient. Pretend play taps into a childs ability to use
imagination, generate ideas, make-up stories, use symbols, and to express and
manipulate affect themes. Affect expression is often overlooked in assessment, but
is especially important in the arts such as in creative writing, drama, or some visual
arts. One example of a possible instrument is the APS that assesses both cognitive
and affective processes in a five-minute sample of pretend play. There are different
versions of the play task for children from 45 and from 610. The validity studies
with this measure have found that play relates to different measures of creativity
independent of intelligence. Thus it adds predictive value to the assessment.
Assessment of pretend play abilities could also be used as an early indicator of
giftedness. Although more research in this area is needed, longitudinal research
has found that at very early ages, the pretend play abilities of gifted children are
advanced. For example, Morelock, Brown, and Morrissey (2003) found that gifted
children, identified at age 45, displayed advanced pretend play skills at 1617
months of age, compared to typically developing children and children with hearing
impairments. This preliminary research suggests that a pretend play assessment
could be useful as an early indicator of cognitive development. In addition, young
children are often more comfortable in a pretend play situation than in a more formal
63
testing experience (Short, Noeder, Gorovoy, Manos, & Lewis, 2011). In addition,
play performance could be more culture-free than IQ tests.
Include play experiences into programs for gifted and talented children. Pretend
play experiences would be relatively easy to integrate into the classroom. This is
especially true for preschool and kindergarten children, but also for first and second
grade children. The empirically-based play intervention that we are developing is
easily administered and is brief. This play intervention focuses on developing both
imagination skills and comfort with expressing emotion. Emotion is an important
component of developing creativity in children and is often overlooked.
Although classroom time spent on content knowledge may be reduced if play
experiences are included, the benefits for developing creativity are important to
consider. A variety of classroom experiences are necessary for development of
processes that could result in creative production in adults. Baer and Garett (2010)
have stressed that teaching for creativity and content knowledge are not incompatible.
They identify a number of ways in which creativity training can be incorporated into
the classroom and could enhance academic performance as well as creative thinking.
Play-based learning would be especially helpful for young children. For example,
Bellin and Singer (2006) used a video-based program for parents and other caretakers
of preschool children. Children watch pretend play games on the video and then play
the game. Key literacy skills improved after the program was instituted. In addition,
the majority of the children continued to play the make-believe games on their own
without adult intervention and teach the games to other children.
Parents and caregivers can act as play intervention specialists. Parents know their
individual child the best and can tailor their approach to play both to fit their childs
interests and in response to their childs pretend play development. Research has
suggested that gifted children may respond quicker to parental scaffolding of play
abilities, thus displaying a higher rate of improvement in pretend play (Morelock
et al., 2003; Morrissey & Brown, 2009). This may explain why parents of gifted
children have been found to encourage and model a wider range of pretend play
abilities that includes more advanced skills, even at 16 months of age (Morelock
et al., 2003). In addition to proving prompts and examples to encourage childrens
pretend play, Morrissey and Brown (2009) emphasize the need for parents to provide
support and encourage more complex play skills initially, but then to gradually
transfer responsibility of the play to the child. Parents and other caregivers working
with gifted children can be confident that pretend play does relate to important
areas of development. The suggestions within this chapter can be used as a guide to
increase pretend play and creativity in their children.
Although the impact of play intervention programs for children over the long-
term on increasing creative production in adulthood can not be known without
longitudinal studies, findings in the creativity area are relevant. There is some
stability of divergent thinking ability and creative ability over time. For example in
the classic Harrington, Block, & Block (1987) study, there was a correlation of .33
between preschool creative potential and young adolescent creative potential. In the
64
Russ, et.al. (1999) study, early imagination in play was associated with divergent
thinking 4 years later. Ideally, programs for gifted and talented children would focus
on developing all process important for adult creativity, and then follow the children
into adulthood.
REFERENCES
Baer, J. & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability.
In R. Baghetto & J. Kaufman (Eds.). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. (pp. 623). Cambridge
University Press.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. Rosenzweig &
L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 439476). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Barton, E., & Wolery, M. (2008). Teaching pretend play to children with disabilities: A review of the
literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 109125.
Bellin, H., & Singer, D. (2006). My Magic Story Car: Video-based play intervention to strengthen
emergent literacy of at-risk preschoolers. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.),
Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances childrens cognitive and social-emotional growth
(pp. 101123). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Belsky, J., & Most, R. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional study of infant free-play
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17, 630639.
Bodiford-McNeil, C., Hembree-Kigin, T. L., & Eyberg, S. (1996). Short-term play therapy for disruptive
children. King of Prussia, PA: The Center for Applied Psychology.
Christian, K., Fehr, K., & Russ, S. (2011, August). Effects of a play intervention on play skills in preschool
children: A pilot study. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Csikszentmilhalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative fluency.
Child Development, 51, 576579.
Dansky, J. (1999). Play. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 393408). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dansky, J., & Silverman, F. (1973). Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged children.
Developmental Psychology, 9, 3843.
Dweck, C. (2009). Forward. In F. Horowitz, R. Subotnik, & D. Mathews (Eds.) The development of
giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. xi-xiv). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fehr, K., Christian, K., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play in preschool children: Relationships with
creativity and effects of a pilot play intervention. Manuscript in preparation.
Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity,
imagination, and play (pp. 281304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fisher, E. (1992). The impact of play on development: A meta-analysis. Play and Culture, 5, 159181.
Freyberg, J. (1973). Increasing the imaginative play of urban disadvantaged kindergarten children
through systematic training. In J. Singer (Ed.), The childs world of make-believe (pp.129154). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2009). Issues in early prediction and identification
of intellectual giftedness. In F. Horowitz, R. Subotnik & D. Matthews (Eds.). The development of
giftedness and talent across the life span. (pp. 4356). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444454.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA:
Knapp.
65
Harrington, D. M., Block, J. W., & Block, J. (1987) Testing aspects of Carl Rogers theory of creative
environments: Childrearing antecedents of creative environments in young adolescents. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851856.
Hartmann, W., & Rollett, B. (1994). Play: Positive intervention in the elementary school curriculum.
In J. Hellendoorn, R. van der Kooij, & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Play and intervention (pp. 195202).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. (2003). Einstein never used flash cards: How our children really learn
and why they need to play more and memorize less. New York, NY: Rodale.
Hoffmann, J., Fiorelli, J., & Russ, S. (2012, March). Changes in play processes as a result of a
play intervention. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality
Assessment. Chicago, IL.
Hoffmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity and emotion regulation in children. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 6, 175184.
Hoffmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). [A pretend play group intervention for elementary school girls.]
Unpublished raw data.
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The development of giftedness and
talent across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Isen, A., & Daubman, K., & Nowicki, G. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11221131.
Johnson, J. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial
make-believe play of preschool children. Child Development, 47, 12001203.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint attention and symbolic play in young children with
autism: A randomized controlled intervention study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47,
611620.
Kaugars, A., & Russ, S. W. (2009). Assessing preschool childrens play: Preliminary validation of the
affect in play scale preschool version. Early Education and Development, 20, 733755.
Knell, S. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral play therapy. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive
styles. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 631706). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Lang, R., OReilly, M., Rispoli, M., Shogren, K., Machalicek, W., Sigafoos, J., et al. (2009). Review
of interventions to increase functional and symbolic play in children with autism. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 481492.
Lieberman, J. N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Moore, M., & Russ, S. (2008). Follow-up of a pretend play intervention: Effects on play, creativity, and
emotional processes in children. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 427436.
Morelock, M., Brown, M., & Morrissey, A. (2003). Pretend play and maternal scaffolding: Comparisons
of toddlers with advanced development, typical development, and hearing impairment. Roeper
Review, 26, 4151.
Morrissey, A., & Brown, M. (2009). Mother and toddler activity in the Zone of Proximal Development for
pretend play as a predictor of higher child IQ. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 106120.
Nevile, M., & Bachor, D. (2002). A script-based symbolic play intervention for children with
developmental delay. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 30, 140172.
Nielsen, M., & Christie, T. (2008). Adult modeling facilitates young childrens generation of novel
pretend acts. Infant and Child Development, 17, 151162.
Pepler, D., & Ross, H. (1981). The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child
Development, 52, 12021210.
Rosen, C.E. (1974). The effects of sociodramatic play on problem-solving behavior among culturally
disadvantaged preschool children. Child Development, 45, 920927.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A. (1994). Creative sequelae of tension and disequilibrium. In M. Shaw & M. Runco (Eds.),
Creativity and affect (pp. 102123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
66
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, &

J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 2130). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russ, S. W. (1998). Psychodynamically based therapies. In T.Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychopathology, (3rd ed., pp. 537556). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Russ, S. W. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward empirically
supported practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russ, S., Dillon, J., Fiorelli, J., & Burck, A. (2010). [Pretend play intervention with primary school girls.]
Unpublished raw data.
Russ, S. & Fehr, K. (in press). The role of pretend play in child psychotherapy. In M. Taylor (Ed.) The
Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Russ, S., & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in childrens fantasy play, primary process
thinking on the Rorschach, and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 756771.
Russ, S. W., Moore, M., & Farber, B. (2004, July). Effects of play training on play, creativity and
emotional processes. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Honolulu, HI.
Russ, S., Robins, D., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction of creativity and
affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 129139.
Russ, S. W., & Schafer, E. (2006). Affect in fantasy play, emotion in memories and divergent thinking.
Creativity Research Journal, 18, 347354.
Shmukler, D., & Naveh, I. (19841985). Structured vs. unstructured play training with economically
disadvantaged preschoolers. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 4, 293304.
Short, E. J., Noeder, M., Gorovoy, S., Manos, M. J., & Lewis, B. (2011). The importance of play in both
the assessment and treatment of young children. In S. Russ & L. Niec (Eds.), Play in clinical practice:
Evidence-based approaches. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Childrens play and the developing
imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Singer, D. L., & Rummo, J. (1973). Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten age children.
Developmental Psychology, 8, 154161.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Smith, P. K., & Whitney, S. (1987). Play and associative fluency: Experimenter effects may be responsible
for positive results. Developmental Psychology, 23, 4953.
Stahmer, A. (1995). Teaching symbolic play skills to children with Autism using pivotal response training.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 123141.
Sternberg, R. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity
(pp. 125147). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions
applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 75101.
Thomas, N., & Smith, C. (2004). Developing play skills in children with autistic spectrum disorders.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 20, 195206.
Thorp, D., Stahmer, A., & Schreibman, L. (1995). Effects of sociodramatic play training on children with
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 265282.
Trawick-Smith, J. (1998). Why play training works: An integrated model for play intervention. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 12, 117129.
Udwin, O. (1983). Imaginative play training as an intervention method with institutionalized preschool
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 3239.
Vandenberg, B. (1980). Play, problem-solving, and creativity. New Directions for Child Development,
9, 4968.
Wallach, M. (1970). Creativity. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels manual of child psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 12111272). New York, NY: Wiley.
67
REX E. JUNG AND SEPHIRA G. RYMAN
IMAGING CREATIVITY
Graham Wallas first introduced a model of creative process in his work Art of Thought
(1926) where he began to elucidate the process by which an individual cultivates
creative thought. In the following decades, psychologists attempted to develop
psychometric measures that could tap an individuals creative capacity via specific
cognitive domains, such as divergent and convergent thinking. Now, as neuroscience
opens avenues to analyze which brain networks underlie such creative processes,
we are beginning to discern differential patterns of brain-behavior relationships
associated with specific cognitive domains, as well as how these domains differ in
relation to more or less creative individuals. While creativity neuroscience is in its
nascent stage, the evidence thus far has demonstrated that creative individuals both
utilize different brain networks during creative cognition and have variation in the
structure of their brains when compared with their less creative counterparts (Arden
et al., 2010).
Creativity spans the works of such vastly disparate activities as those undertaken
by painters, musicians, engineers, dancers, architects, and inventors: how do we
capture such a broad construct with psychometric instruments or neuroimaging
techniques? The most broadly accepted definition proposes that creativity is the
production of something both novel and useful (Sternberg, 2005), although others
have added the notion that the novelty and usefulness should be viewed within a
given social context (Flaherty, 2005). To be creative, an individual must be able to
1) take in external stimuli and social cues and acknowledge, either consciously or
unconsciously, the problem or area to be improved, 2) reference previous experiences,
memories, and the resources at hand, and 3) produce an innovative, unique response.
This response is then either accepted or rejected in a stochastic, combinatorial
process resembling evolutionary selection principles (Simonton, 2003). In this way,
the brain functions in a Darwinian manner, taking inputs, processing, and selecting
the best output for replication and extension. Neuroscientists are interested in which
areas of the brain are the processors utilized by creative thought and behavior.
To determine which brain networks are involved in creative cognition, it is
necessary to appropriate the most reliable and valid measures to quantify such a
complicated cognitive construct. Here, psychological measures are used to determine
whether creativity is related to the structural or functional attributes of specific brain
regions related to individuals that are higher or lower in particular domains related
to creativity. We describe a method of parsing creativity and the associated tests
of creative cognition to be illustrated by Wallas model of creative process. This is

R. E. JUNG AND S. G. RYMAN
not the only method to parse creativity, but we find it to be useful (if not particularly
novel). Of note, Wallas steps involve both processing and selection of ideas
that result in the production of a novel and useful response, which conforms to the
operational definition. The following paragraphs attempt to link particular measures
of creativity to Wallass model as a means of a brief overview of the current
literature, and to provide a methodological framework for thinking about creative
cognition. From there, we discuss what has been learned about the brain from recent
neuroimaging research.
MEASURING CREATIVITY
Wallas defined five stages of creativity: preparation, incubation, intimation,

illumination, and verification. His model has since been reduced to four stages as
intimation has become accepted as a sub-stage of illumination. The initial stage that
Wallas defines is preparation: the time in which an individual focuses his attention on
the problem and begins to explore the dimensions of it. This involves the acquisition
of knowledge for subsequent implementation. With classic definitions of intelligence
including to learn quickly and to learn from experience (Neisser et al., 1996),
we believe that the construct of intelligence is brought to bear when individuals
acquire the knowledge necessary to prepare to be creative. This utilization of
intelligence during a creative process brings about the potential overlap and/
or independence between the two constructs of creativity and intelligence,
encapsulated by the so-called threshold theory, which postulates that creativity and
intelligence are correlated with one another up to a threshold of about 120, but
not thereafter (Torrance, 1974). Evidence is mixed for such a threshold, with some
studies demonstrating a threshold (Lee, Cho, Nijenhuis, van Vianen, & Kim, 2010),
while a recent meta-analysis found little support across multiple behavioral studies
(Kim, 2005).
To discuss the differences between creativity and intelligence further, it is
necessary to first understand intelligence and how we define such a construct. At the
turn of the 20th century, there was a pervasive belief that individuals did not differ
in their intellectual abilities. Even Charles Darwin was a firm believer that men do
not differ in intellect, only in zeal and hard work (Galton, 1908, p. 290). However,
beliefs began to change as individuals such as Francis Galton, James McKeen Cattell,
and Alfred Binet began to advocate for the existence of differences in intelligence,
as well as the means for measuring intellect (Sternberg, 2005). Binet developed
an intelligence test for the French school system to help identify intellectually
deficient children that would benefit from special-education programs (Binet,
Simon, & Kite, 1916). His tests primarily asked children to perform basic tasks, such
as touching their nose, determining the difference between morning and afternoon,
etc. He believed that by testing multiple independent faculties, one could determine
a childs intelligence by how well they perform given their age level. Those who
performed at a level higher than their chronological age had high IQs, and vice versa.
70
IMAGING CREATIVITY
This test was later adapted into the Stanford-Binet, which is currently used. Other
tests of intellectual functioning include the Ravens Progressive Matrices, a
nonverbal test of analytic intelligence (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990; Raven, 2000),
and the Wechsler Scales, which quantify an individuals intellectual functioning
in specified cognitive areas such as verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning,
working memory, and processing speed (Wechsler, 1981). Intelligence tests are some
of the most highly reliable and valid measures of human behavior, with reliability of
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III being .98 and convergent validity (with
Stanford-Binet) being .88 for the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient.
The second stage of Wallas process of creativity, incubation, occurs when
the problem is internalized and the brain is working through numerous potential
solutions. There are several ways to approach quantifying this process, all of which
can typically account for only discrete elements of the whole. In his 1950 American
Psychological Association presidential address, J.P.Guilford called researchers to
investigate this aspect of creativity by way of divergent thinking. Divergent thinking,
defined as the ability to generate multiple solutions to an open-ended problem
(Guilford, 1984), subsequently became the primary means by which researchers
measured creativity in the ensuing decades. A good measure of divergent thinking
will measure four central characteristics: Fluency the number of items generated,
Flexibility the number of different conceptual categories generated, Originality
the number of unique ideas generated, and Elaboration the amount of detail
used. Guilfords Alternative Uses Task (AUT) is one iconic example of a divergent
thinking task in which subjects are asked to list as many possible uses for a common
household item, such as a brick, as possible within a given time limit (Guilford,
1967). Inter-rater reliability of Originality measures on the AUT range between
0.62 and 0.95; for validity, loadings of 0.51 and 0.52 have been reported on the
factor of spontaneous flexibility (Domino & Domino, 2006). While the addition
of such psychometric measures of divergent thinking has significantly advanced
research in creativity, the field has been hindered by over-reliance upon divergent
thinking measures as proxies for creativity at the expense of other cognitive domains
(Dietrich, 2007).
As a brief interlude, we note that recent research has found personality variables
to be strongly related to creativity, specifically the Big Five trait Openness to
Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Many tests of divergent thinking, including
the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) are consistently associated with ratings of openness to experience (Dollinger,
Urban, & James, 2004; King, McKee Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987). The
personality variable Openness measures such traits as active imagination, aesthetic
sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual
curiosity (Digman, 1990). Why these measures are related, and how Openness
might play a role in creativity is largely theoretical. Latent Inhibition (LI) is a prime
physiological candidate, as it has been inversely related to measures of both Openness
(Peterson & Carson, 2000; Peterson, Smith, & Carson, 2002) and creativity (Carson,
71
Peterson, & Higgins, 2003). LI is a term used in classical conditioning to describe

how an individual, when presented with a stimulus that has not had any significance
in the past, will learn new associations with that particular stimulus significantly
slower than if the stimulus is novel (Lubow, 2010). Thus, an individual with lower
LI is less able to screen out irrelevant stimuli; in the presence of lower intelligence
this is often associated with psychopathology (Meyer, Schwendener, Feldon, & Yee,
2006), while at higher levels of intelligence it has been associated with increased
creative achievement (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003).
Wallas third stage, illumination, occurs when the creative idea bursts forth from
its subconscious processing into conscious awareness. Often referred to as insight,
or the aha! moment (Kounios & Beeman, 2009) this is the point at which a creative
individual has emerged from the incubation process (i.e., divergent thinking) and has
a stroke of insight that clearly indicates the best solution. Others have described
this process as moving ideas from the implicit (or unconscious) to the explicit
(or conscious) cognitive workspace (Dietrich & Audiffren), and there is research
evidence to support this interplay between implicit and explicit cognitive domains
(Haider & Rose, 2007; Rose, Haider, & Buchel, 2005). The Remote Associations
Task (RAT) is the prototypical measure designed to assess illumination (Mednick,
1962). It presents three words and asks the subject to come up with one word that
associates the three together (e.g., food, catcher, hot = dog: dog food, dog catcher,
hot dog). The cognitive process involved in solving this type of problem is described
as not involving trial and error, but rather coming to the subject all at once in an
Aha! moment (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). The Spearman-Brown reliability
of the RAT was .92 in one sample (289 females) and .91 in another (215 men)
(Mednick, 1962). These items have been used often in neuroimaging experiments,
and are now considered to be the prototypical measure of insight in the field (Jung-
Beeman et al., 2004b)
Lastly, verification follows, as an individual must attend to the external
environment and gain support and acknowledgement for their idea. Donald Campbell
proposed a means by which an individual verifies his ideas likening creativity to
the Darwinian notion of blind-variation-and-selective-retention (Campbell, 1960).
More recently, Dean Keith Simonton, has revitalized this notion discussing it
within the more developed understanding of genetics. Just as biological evolution
progresses through random or blind genetic recombination and mutation, creative
thought is conceptualized as producing numerous unique ideas. As the process of
natural selection determines the variations that are best adapted to the environment
in biological evolution, similar environmental forces (i.e., social judgments) are seen
to determine the utility of the creative idea. By progressing first from the cognitive
selection process, there is also a sociocultural selection that will identify ideas to be
adaptive or not (Simonton, 1999). Two main measures have been developed which
fit broadly into this verification realm. The Consensual Assessment Technique
(CAT) is a method by which judges, usually experts in a given creative field, rate
the creative output of the creator (Amabile, 1982). High inter-rater reliability is
72
IMAGING CREATIVITY
commonly found in these judgments, whether they be in the arts or for originality
measures (Jung et al., 2010). Second, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire
(CAQ), is a self-report measure that assesses achievement across 10 creative
domains: visual arts, music, dance, architecture, writing, humor, invention, science,
theater, and culinary arts (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). The CAQ has a test
retest reliability of 0.81, a predictive ability on judged Creative Evaluation in
making a collage of r = 0.59, and convergent validity with the personality variable
Openness to Experience of r = 0.33.
CREATIVE BRAINS
There are a great number of iconic creative giants seen throughout history (e.g.,
Beethoven, Da Vinci, Curie, etc.), whose creative genius is so singular, that it would
be challenging to study even if we had access to their brains. It is very likely that
these creative genius brains differ in neural processes that more typical creative
individuals, and we have at least one specimen (Einstein) for whom several
morphologic differences have been identified (Colombo, Reisin, Miguel-Hidalgo,
& Rajkowska, 2006; Diamond, Scheibel, Murphy, & Harvey, 1985; Seitz, 1999;
Witelson, Kigar, & Harvey, 1999). For these reasons, we must specify that the
creativity we discuss throughout is the little c as opposed to big C creativity,
which encompasses the creative processes undertaken by the other 99% of the
distribution of creativity, separate from but contiguous with these iconic figures.
These studies are undertaken, largely, in samples of college undergraduates: the
modern lab rat, and convenient sample, of the typical neuroscientist.
The discussion above presents various psychometric measures that quantify
different cognitive aspects of creativity. Thus, the difficulties researchers face
when imaging creativity in the brain should be clear. There is no straight-forward
measure to get at creativity in the brain; rather numerous measures, when taken in
combination are more likely to weave together the variegated tapestry of creativity.
For this reason, current neuroimaging research is facing the problem of interpreting
results both within and across different imaging and psychometric modalities. Studies
relating one aspect of creativity (e.g., divergent thinking) to brain measures (e.g,.
morphology) are compared with studies that look at another aspect of creativity (e.g,.
insight) using different methodologies (e.g., functional imaging) and are obtaining
wildly differing results (Arden et al., 2010; Dietrich & Kanso, 2010). Fortunately,
as more attention is given to the concept of creativity, neuroimaging research is
progressing to develop standardized psychometric assessment of different facets of
creative abilities as well as experimental tasks that reliably quantify creative thinking
(Fink, Benedek, Grabner, Staudt, & Neubauer, 2007).
We begin our discussion of the current research by addressing findings that involve
the structural aspects of the brain to determine which areas of the brain differ in
individuals who demonstrate high creativity, examples include: structural Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (sMRI); Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI); Proton Magnetic
73
Resonance Spectroscopy (1H-MRS). Next, we discuss Functional Imaging, that is,

while an individuals brain activity is monitored in some fashion, they are asked to
conduct creative tasks. Examples of such imaging include: Electroencephalography
(EEG) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).
STRUCTURAL IMAGING
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a technique that produces remarkably

detailed images of the body and brain. It was developed by Paul Lauterbur and Peter
Mansfield in 1973, following decades of developmental progress in computation
and other related technologies, and resulted in the awarding of the Nobel Prize in
Medicine in 2003. It is fortunate that humans are made up of mostly water molecules
(70% by weight), and these molecules are made up of hydrogen atoms (i.e., protons)
which act as a tiny gryomagnetic compass. In the presence of a strong magnetic
field (i.e., an MRI magnet) the vast majority of protons align themselves either
with or against the magnetic field, like a compass. A very small number of these
protons, however (less than 1/10th of 1%) do not align with the strong magnetic field:
only these protons are visible to all of the MRI techniques we will be discussing,
including sMRI, DTI, fMRI, and 1H-MRS. In order to image this small number
of protons, radiofrequency pulses are transmitted within the scanner to perturb the
equilibrium of the spinning hydrogen nuclei. The spin returns to equilibrium, and
this relaxation time allows researchers to measure signal intensity and therefore
obtain contrast based on the amount of water (with 2 hydrogen atoms) in a given
sample. This only scratches the surface of MRI physics, and Lauterbaurs genius
was in using magnetic field gradients to tag signals from protons, allowing for
identification of their spatial location and imaging of biological tissue (Gossuin,
Hocq, Gillis, & Vuong).
Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (sMRI)
sMRI refers to the scan produced by the MRI when an individual is not engaged in a
particular cognitive activity or task. From this scan, several analytic techniques have
enabled scientists to look at the accurate measurement of cortical and subcortical
tissue volumes, thickness, and density and how it relates to measures of creativity.
The rapid adoption of voxel based morphometry (VBM) has been extended to
analysis techniques which allow for detailed measurement of the cortical mantle
[e.g., FreeSurfer (surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)]. VBM is a method by which standard
MRI T1 images are automatically segmented into different tissue compartments
(i.e., gray matter, white matter, cerebrospinal fluid) using measures of voxel
intensity at the millimeter level of resolution (Ashburner & Friston 1997). Images
from individual subjects are imported into a freely available analysis program (i.e.,
Statistical Parametric Mapping, or FMRIB Software Library), spatially normalized in
stereotactic space (i.e., Montreal Neurological Institute), segmented and smoothed,
74
IMAGING CREATIVITY
and subjected to voxel-wise statistical comparisons with either a comparison group

or an external variable using a general linear model (Ashburner & Friston 2000).
Good et al. (2002) established that VBM is validly detecting atrophy in Alzheimers
disease and semantic dementia when compared to the experts quantification (Good
et al., 2002).
With regard to creativity, Takeuchi (2010) found positive correlations between
grey matter volume and measures of divergent thinking in regions of the right
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, lateral striata, and areas of the midbrain that include
the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area. These authors interpret their findings
as suggesting that creativity is associated with the dopaminergic system a rather
broad generalization, which does not distinguish creative cognition from attention
or working memory. Although a preliminary investigation, they do note however,
that their results also suggest that the gray matter correlates of creativity are at least
partly distinct from gray matter correlates of general intelligence, which include
lateral frontal and cingulate brain regions (Jung & Haier, 2007). They draw linkages
between the dopaminergic pathways elicited in their creative cognition findings and
dopaminergic abmormalities found in overt psychopathology (e.g., schizophrenia)
and subclinical disorders (e.g., schizotypy). Overall, this is the first structural
study to elicit subcortical structures in service of creative cognition, although
these findings were found in a sample comprised largely of young men (42 males,
13 females).
FreeSurfer is a suite of largely automated tools designed to facilitate
reconstruction of the brains cortical surface obtained from T1 images, providing
surface reconstruction (Dale, Fischl, & Sereno, 1999; Fischl, Sereno, & Dale, 1999)
and parcellation (Desikan et al., 2006; Fischl, van der Kouwe, et al., 2004), cortical
thickness (Fischl & Dale, 2000; Han et al., 2006) and volumetric measurement
(Fischl et al., 2002; Fischl, Salat, et al., 2004), as well as the ability to correlate
such measures with externally derived behavioral or clinical measures such as
neuroticism and extraversion (Wright et al., 2006). In our laboratory, we have used
FreeSurfer to correlate cortical thickness with measures as diverse as divergent
thinking, intelligence, and creative achievement, controlling for demographic
factors such as age, sex, and handedness, making this a good tool to explore cortical
underpinnings of individual differences across a diverse human cohort. Figure 1
depicts the results of our investigations regarding the relationship between measure
of divergent thinking, the Composite Creativity Index (CCI) and cortical thickness
(Jung et al., 2009). As indicated in in Figure 1, there were several regions where
inverse relationships were seen between creative cognition and cortical thickness:
that is, the higher the creativity, the thinner the cortical mantle. We interpreted
these results as reflecting efficient information flow among brain areaswithin
frontal and (certain) posterior cortical regions, requiring higher functional activation
to initiate cognitive control. Indeed, efficient information flow, involving both
excitatory and inhibitory processes, can be seen as common keys to creativity in
both this and the previous VBM findings.
75
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1. Statistical maps (P < 0.01) of significant clusters from MonteCarlo simulations of
the CCI cortical thickness correlation overlaid on the FreeSurfer average subject.
White indicates a negative correlation (decreased cortical thickness correlates with
the CCI) and black indicates a positive correlation (increased cortical thickness
correlates with the CCI). (a) Medial left hemisphere; (b) lateral right hemisphere;
(c) medial right hemisphere.
Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)
The contribution of white matter to higher cognitive functioning has remained

relatively understudied compared to gray matter research linking particular cortical
regions to performance. However, several lines of inquiry would suggest that the
integrity of myelinated axons plays a critical role in intellectual and cognitive
attainment (Filley, 2001; Miller, 1994). For example, myelin thickness is correlated
to axonal size (Bishop & Smith, 1964; Friede & Samorajski, 1967), and larger
axonal diameter is associated with increased nerve conduction speed (Aboitiz,
1992). The simultaneous increases in myelination and axonal diameter have been
hypothesized to play a critical role in cognitive development (Paus et al., 1999).
Diffusion Tensor Imaging is particularly useful to investigate the relationship
of white matter to cognition. One strategy used in our laboratory investigates the
differences in Fractional Anisotropy (FA), defined as a measure of white matter
fiber coherence (i.e., directional organization), in the major fiber tracts in the brain
(Mascalchi et al., 2005). One recent technique, tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS),
enables researchers to compare white matter integrity to behavioral measures (e.g.,
intelligence, creativity, openness), while accounting for various covariates (e.g., age,
sex, intelligence)(Smith et al., 2006).
Our recent study (Jung et al., 2010) investigated the relationship between FA a
measure of overall white matter health and measures of divergent thinking as well
as the personality measure Openness to Experience, a personality variable highly
correlated with creativity. The results suggest an interesting overlap between our
composite creativity index (CCI) and Openness, with both measures being related to
the fidelity of the white matter connections linking the thalamus to the frontal lobe
(anterior thalamic radiation). However, the most interesting aspect of this finding
was the inverse relationship between both CCI and Openness with FA in the ATR:
76
IMAGING CREATIVITY
that is, the lower the FA (axonal integrity measure) the higher the CCI and Openness
respectively (Figure 2). Additional analyses demonstrated that radial diffusivity
(RD), a measure related to myelination or, more likely in this health sample, large
number of small crossing fibres, was driving this relationship. Thus, the presence
of more axonal fibres linking multiple cortical networks (one interpretation of our
results), was associated with increased creative capacity in our young, healthy
cohort.
Figure 2. Significant clusters where CCI (white; upper panel) and Openness
(black; lower panel) were inversely related to FA.
1
H-Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Finally, Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), informs us about the

concentrations of metabolites in the brain. By applying specific sequences of
radiofrequencies, again in an MRI, MRS allows for the assay of neurochemistry
in vivo. MRS produces spectra in which the peaks correspond to metabolites from
which we can make inferences regarding the biochemical makeup of the creative
brain. Of the metabolites visible in the spectra, important to creativity research is
N-acetylaspartate (NAA), a marker of neuronal integrity. Greater NAA concentration
has been found to predict higher cognitive function in both normal and patient
populations (Ross & Sachdev, 2004). In our study we found that NAA in bilateral
anterior gray matter predicted CCI in different ways: higher right hemisphere gray
matter NAA (in subjects with IQs above 116) and lower right hemisphere gray
77
matter NAA (in subjects with Verbal IQ below 116) each significantly predicted
higher levels of creative potential as measured by divergent thinking tests. These
results suggest that the threshold effect has neurobiological support. Moreover, it
suggests that subjects with higher or more average verbal intelligence are accessing
or inhibiting access to semantic networks in different ways, via the anterior cingulate
cortex, to facilitate creative cognition. This interplay between excitatory and
inhibitory processes in service of creative cognition would appear to be a vibrant
area of future research, given the various findings suggesting disinhibition of frontal
lobe networks, across both structural and lesion studies.
INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
These structural studies suggest to us that less can be more with regard to creative
cognition as measured by divergent thinking measures, particularly within fronto-
subcortical networks hypothesized to be central to creativity by several independent
threads of thought (Dietrich, 2004; Flaherty, 2005; Heilman, Nadeau, & Beversdorf,
2003). The brain networks involved are likely disinhibitory in nature (Eysenck,
1995), with lesions and/or network degradation (i.e., cortical thinning, lower white
matter coherence) located within a specific network, producing increased behavioral
output. Central aspects of the network appear to include the frontal and temporal
lobes, with cortical tone being modulated via interactions between the frontal lobes
and basal ganglia (part of the dopamine system) through white matter pathways as
well as the anterior cingulate gyrus.
This model relies on techniques, both within the neuroimaging community
and creativity research with high reliability and validity. Indeed, the structural
techniques have all been demonstrated to have extremely high levels of reliability as
measured with interclass correlations, with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy
of NAA being .98 (Gasparovic et al., In Press), diffusion tensor imaging being
.80 (Danielian, Iwata, Thomasson, & Floeter), and structural magnetic resonance
imaging (sMRI) being .96 (Wonderlick et al., 2009); a major review of functional
techniques (reviewed below) revealed only modest reliability of .50 (Bennett &
Miller, 2010). Similarly, our methods focus exclusively on measures of divergent
thinking, such as the multiple uses test, which have both high reliability and validity
(Domino & Domino, 2006).
In contrast, many of the measures used in functional creativity studies are home
grown, extraordinarily diverse, and consisted of measures with unknown (and
unknowable) reliability and/or validity, such as: (1) composing a piece of music
mentally (Petsche, 1996), (2) imagining a new design for a pen (Kowatari et al.,
2009a), or (3) developing hypotheses about variations in quail eggs (Jin, Kwon,
Jeong, Kwon, & Shin, 2006), to name a few. The use of standardized measures
of divergent thinking (i.e., multiple uses test, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking),
combined with lesion analysis and/or reliable imaging methodology (e.g., MRS,
DTI, sMRI, and even fMRI), will help advance the field.
78
IMAGING CREATIVITY
FUNCTIONAL IMAGING
Electroencephalography (EEG)
Electroencephalography (EEG) is a technique that records the electrical activity

along the scalp. As neurons in the brain transmit signals to one another, there is a
voltage fluctuation that the EEG is able to detect through multiple electrodes placed
on a subjects scalp. There have been dozens of studies utilizing EEG to study
creativity published in the last 25 years. Few conclusions can be made thus far;
however, divergent thinking measures as well as measures of insight have (largely)
been related to changes in the alpha band (the range of 812Hz). Some studies have
reported increases, while others have reported decreases in alpha band synchrony
associated with divergent thinking. When Dietrich and Kanso (2010) reviewed those
studies that used measures of divergent thinking, slightly more studies reported
lower alpha than increased alpha (Fink, Grabner, Benedek, & Neubauer, 2006;
Fink & Neubauer, 2006; Grabner, Fink, & Neubauer, 2007; ; Razumnikova, 2007;
Razumnikova, Volf, & Tarasova, 2009). When Dietrich and Kanso reviewed EEG
studies of insight, interestingly, there was a consistent decrease in alpha power in
frontal, parietal and temporal sites across studies. Three studies using the Remote
Associates Test consistently localized alpha power changes to the right posterior
brain regions (Arden et al., 2010). No researcher would claim that these alpha
changes are specific to creativity. Importantly, we are unaware of studies showing the
reliability of EEG studies of alpha power across such measures of higher cognitive
functioning.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) enables researchers to investigate

which areas of the brain are activated during a task or in response to a stimulus.
By utilizing the same principles as an MRI, fMRI exploits the increase in blood
flow to the local cerebral vasculature that accompanies neural activity. When an
individual performs a task, the blood in the areas of the brain utilized during the
task will become deoxygenated. The deoxygenated hemoglobin is paramagnetic and
therefore detectable by the MRI scanner. It is referred to as the blood oxygen level-
dependent (BOLD) signal. BOLD signal increases or decreases are noted in response
to tasks by comparing time points across groups to determine which areas of the
brain were active during a specific task. There are critical issues of task validity
and reliability which plague the use of fMRI in creativity research. For example, of
the seven fMRI studies we reviewed, no two studies used the same measure to assess
creative cognition (Arden, et al., 2010). Therefore, each study potentially represents
activations that are related as much to task differences as they are to any systematic
effects of creative cognition. Figure 3 represents the findings from all of the studies
reviewed by Arden et. al (2010), with each of the shapes corresponding to an area of
significance found in one of the studies. As can be seen, there is no lobe of the brain
79
for which fMRI studies did not find significant activations; moreover, there is little
(if any) overlap between studies that would suggest regional or network localization
of creative cognition, as is generally observed in standard neuroimaging paradigms
(Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000).
Figure 3. Each of the shapes in the figure above represents general areas of significant
activation for each of the seven fMRI studies reviewed (Arden, et al., 2010).
Cross-(Fink et al., 2009a); circle-(Asari et al., 2008); large x-(Jung-Beeman et al.,
2004a); square - (Goel & Vartanian, 2005); triangle- (Kowatari et al., 2009b); diamond-
(Mashal, Faust, Hendler, & Jung-Beeman, 2007); inverse triangle (Howard-Jones,
Blakemore, Samuel, Summers, & Claxton, 2005).
SPECULATION
So do we have a locus of creativity within the brain? Not quite yet. What we do
have, is some good solid theory (Dietrich, 2004; Flaherty, 2005; Heilman, et al.,
2003), ongoing work disentangling behavioral constructs of creativity, intelligence,
and personality (Miller & Tal, 2007), and several brand new (and creative) studies
80
IMAGING CREATIVITY
in top neuroimaging journals (Asari et al., In Press; Fink et al., 2009b). We can
envision a review in the not too distant future, perhaps in Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, in which researchers are able to articulate and discuss a straw man
network localizing creativity in the brain: where it overlaps and intersects regions
associated with intelligence (and other cognitive constructs such as attention,
working memory, etc.), and where there are regions unique to the creative process
in both common (c) and exceptional (C) manifestations. One brain region that
appears to be an early candidate important to the creative process appears to be
the temporal pole, based on our own data (Jung, Segall, Bockholt, et al., 2010)
the neurological literature (Miller, Boone, Cummings, Read, & Mishkin, 2000; B.
L. Miller et al., 1998; Anterion, Honore-Masson, Dirson, & Laurent, 2002), and
even very recent additions to the functional neuroimaging literature (Asari, et al.,
In Press). Whether this relationship between the temporal poles and the rest of the
brain is inhibitory, excitatory, or in some sort of dynamic imbalance with another
brain region (such as the right posterior neocortex) remains to be determined
(Drago et al., 2006).
PITFALLS
Studies in intelligence research show that not all brains work the same way (Haier,
White, & Alkire, 2003), an observation which is likely important for studies
of creativity and the creative process, especially when potential strategies are
considered for enhancing creativity. Another potential pitfall is over-generalization
from small samples, especially if age and sex differences are not studied. A final
pitfall is to study measures of creativity without concurrent measures of intelligence
so that the two constructs are confounded in neuroimaging research designs. Several
examples in which significant relationships between fMRI results and intelligence
include cognitive set shifting (Graham et al., 2010), working memory (n-back)(Tang
et al., 2010), analogical reasoning (Preusse, van der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, &
Wartenburger, 2011), and even the so-called REST or default mode network (Wang,
Song, Jiang, Zhang, & Yu, 2011). Even with the power of neuroimaging techniques
to identify brain areas relevant to a construct like creativity, how those brain areas
work together at the neurotransmitter and neuron levels will require new kinds of
investigations and complex statistical and analysis algorithms using data fusion
techniques (Michael et al.).
What we do advocate is the simultaneous undertaking of studies designed to
determine brain traits (determined with structural neuroimaging), brain states
(determined with functional neuroimaging), and behavioral correlates of creative
processes writ large within the vast expanse of cognitive domains including
intellectual, personality, demographic (e.g., age, gender), psychopathology (e.g.,
schizotypy, substance abuse), and other relevant factors that could help unlock this
important human capacity. While any attempt to break down the creative process
into component parts will be fundamentally flawed whether it be parsed by virtue
81
of insight, divergent, convergent, rest, or other monikers (to these we add

innumerable others from the cognitive neuroscience, such as attention, working
memory, etc.) this is an important first step, and a far better one than to equate
creativity with divergent thinking. We advocate the measurement of psychometrically
sound behavioral qualities of the creative process in tandem with detailed measures
taken from the brain structure (e.g., traits) and function (e.g., states), in relatively
large (>50) cohorts of subjects possessing a given characteristic (e.g. visual artists,
architects, scientists), by which we might hope to discern whether creativity is
something common, or unique, or even something that resides in the brain at all
(Sternberg, 2007).
The greatest pitfall is to do nothing: to be paralyzed by doubt about proper
definitions, the paucity of measures, the enormity of the problem. But we would ask
that: 1) we do our studies in large enough samples that subgoups of interest can be
discerned (e.g., sex, high versus average IQ), and 2) use measures (both behavioral
and brain) with established reliability and validity indices (or measure and report
them in your study), and to 3) allow reasonable inferences to be made to groups that
look like populations of some sort or another. While the Big C studies are of keen
interest (i.e., the 1 in 10,000 high math genius, or the 1 in 100,000 novelist, or the 1 in
1,000,000 Steve Jobs), the scientific discourse, and indeed the scientific foundation
upon which nomothetic generalizations are made would benefit immensely from
greater focus on little c creativity.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
There is no neuroimaging tool or technique that will ever replace the careful
application of the human mind towards the scientific problem of how creative
ability is manifested in the human brain. These tools represent different ways to
assist us in unlocking the enormous puzzle which appears to distinguish humans
from most other earthly inhabitants. However, the pretty pictures which these
techniques provide are only beneficial to the extent that they are reliable, valid, and
interpreted with caution. Once the creativity network of the brain is discovered,
will it be unique from other cognitive networks, or look suspiciously similar to
the fronto-temporal networks implicated in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder?
Will the network be isomorphic with the ubiquitous fronto-parietal network that
underlies attention, working memory, and even intelligence? Will some have
larger or more active nodes of the network and smaller or less active nodes
elsewhere associated with more specific creative ability (say improvisation versus
invention)? Is creativity one thing (neurologically speaking) spanning such disparate
disciplines ranging from jazz musicians to architecture, or will we have specific
modules in our heads for each of these? Can we enhance creativity by chemically
or electrically stimulating these nodes once known? There are more questions than
answers at this point; however, what an exciting time to be involved in creativity
research.
82
IMAGING CREATIVITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Dr. Jung
entitled The Neuroscience of Creativity.
REFERENCES
Aboitiz, F. (1992). The origin of the mammalian brain as a case of evolutionary irreversibility. Med
Hypotheses, 38(4), 301304.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 9971013.
Arden, R., Chavez, R. S., Grazioplene, R., & Jung, R. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: A psychometric
view. Behavioural Brain Research, 214(2), 143156.
Asari, T., Konishi, S., Jimura, K., Chikazoe, J., Nakamura, N., & Miyashita, Y. (2008). Right temporopolar
activation associated with unique perception. Neuroimage, 41(1), 145152.
Bennett, C. M., & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance
imaging? Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1191, 133155.
Binet, A., Simon, T., & Kite, E. S. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (The Binet-Simon
Scale). Baltimore, MD, US: Williams & Wilkins Co.
Bishop, G. H., & Smith, J. M. (1964). The Size of Nerve Fibers Supplying Cerebral Cortex. Exp Neurol,
9, 483501.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate
problems. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput, 35(4), 634639.
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI
studies. J Cogn Neurosci, 12(1), 147.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge
processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380400.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical
account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97(3),
404431.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With
Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(3), 499506.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the
Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 3750.
Colombo, J. A., Reisin, H. D., Miguel-Hidalgo, J. J., & Rajkowska, G. (2006). Cerebral cortex astroglia
and the brain of a genius: a propos of A. Einsteins. Brain Res Rev, 52(2), 257263.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999). Cortical surface-based analysis. I. Segmentation and
surface reconstruction. Neuroimage, 9(2), 179194.
Danielian, L. E., Iwata, N. K., Thomasson, D. M., & Floeter, M. K. Reliability of fiber tracking
measurements in diffusion tensor imaging for longitudinal study. Neuroimage, 49(2), 15721580.
Desikan, R. S., Segonne, F., Fischl, B., Quinn, B. T., Dickerson, B. C., Blacker, D., et al. (2006). An
automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based
regions of interest. Neuroimage, 31(3), 968980.
Diamond, M. C., Scheibel, A. B., Murphy, G. M., Jr., & Harvey, T. (1985). On the brain of a scientist:
Albert Einstein. Exp Neurol, 88(1), 198204.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychon Bull Rev, 11(6), 10111026.
Dietrich, A. (2007). Whos afraid of a cognitive neuroscience of creativity? Methods, 42, 2227.
Dietrich, A., & Audiffren, M. The reticular-activating hypofrontality (RAH) model of acute exercise.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 35(6), 13051325.
83
Dietrich, A., & Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and
insight. Psychol Bull, 136(5), 822848.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417440.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and Openness: Further Validation of Two
Creative Product Measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 3547.
Domino, G., & Domino, M. L. (2006). Psychological Testing (Vol. 2nd Edition). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Drago, V., Foster, P. S., Trifiletti, D., FitzGerald, D. B., Kluger, B. M., Crucian, G. P., et al. (2006).
Whats inside the art? The influence of frontotemporal dementia in art production. Neurology, 67(7),
12851287.
Eysenck, H. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Filley, C. M. (2001). The behavioral neurology of white matter. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Creativity meets
neuroscience: Experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods, 42(1),
6876.
Fink, A., Grabner, R. H., Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2006). Divergent thinking training is
related to frontal electroencephalogram alpha synchronization. European Journal of Neuroscience,
23(8), 2241.
Fink, A., Grabner, R. H., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Hauswirth, V., Fally, M., et al. (2009). The creative
brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and fMRI.
Human Brain Mapping, 30, 734748.
Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2006). EEG alpha oscillations during the performance of verbal creativity
tasks: Differential effects of sex and verbal intelligence. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
62(1), 4653.
Fischl, B., & Dale, A. M. (2000). Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic
resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97(20), 1105011055.
Fischl, B., Salat, D. H., Busa, E., Albert, M., Dieterich, M., Haselgrove, C., et al. (2002). Whole brain
segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron, 33(3),
341355.
Fischl, B., Salat, D. H., van der Kouwe, A. J., Makris, N., Segonne, F., Quinn, B. T., et al. (2004).
Sequence-independent segmentation of magnetic resonance images. Neuroimage, 23 Suppl 1, S6984.
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., & Dale, A. M. (1999). Cortical surface-based analysis. II: Inflation, flattening,
and a surface-based coordinate system. Neuroimage, 9(2), 195207.
Fischl, B., van der Kouwe, A., Destrieux, C., Halgren, E., Segonne, F., Salat, D. H., et al. (2004).
Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex, 14(1), 1122.
Flaherty, A. W. (2005). Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. J
Comp Neurol, 493(1), 147153.
Friede, R. L., & Samorajski, T. (1967). Relation between the number of myelin lamellae and axon
circumference in fibers of vagus and sciatic nerves of mice. J Comp Neurol, 130(3), 223231.
Gasparovic, C., Bedrick, E., Mayer, A. R., Yeo, R. A., Calhoun, V. C., & Jung, R. E. (In Press). Test-retest
reliability of short-echo-time spectroscopic imaging data from human brain at 3T. Magn Reson Med.
Goel, V., & Vartanian, O. (2005). Dissociating the Roles of Right Ventral Lateral and Dorsal Lateral
Prefrontal Cortex in Generation and Maintenance of Hypotheses in Set-shift Problems. Cerebral
Cortex, 15(8), 11701177.
Good, C. D., Scahill, R. I., Fox, N. C., Ashburner, J., Friston, K. J., Chan, D., et al. (2002). Automatic
Differentiation of Anatomical Patterns in the Human Brain: Validation with Studies of Degenerative
Dementias. Neuroimage, 17(1), 2946.
Gossuin, Y., Hocq, A., Gillis, P., & Vuong, Q. L. Physics of magnetic resonance imaging: from spin to
pixel. [Review]. Journal of Physics D-Applied Physics, 43(21), 15.
Grabner, R. H., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Brain correlates of self-rated originality of ideas:
Evidence from event-related power and phase-locking changes in the EEG. Behavioral neuroscience,
121(1), 224.
84
IMAGING CREATIVITY
Graham, S., Jiang, J. Y., Manning, V., Nejad, A. B., Zhisheng, K., Salleh, S. R., et al. (2010). IQ-Related
fMRI Differences during Cognitive Set Shifting. [Article]. Cerebral Cortex, 20(3), 641649.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 110.
Haider, H., & Rose, M. (2007). How to investigate insight: a proposal. Methods, 42(1), 4957.
Haier, R. J., White, N. S., & Alkire, M. T. (2003). Individual differences in general intelligence correlate
with brain function during nonreasoning tasks. Intelligence, 31(5), 429441.
Han, X., Jovicich, J., Salat, D., van der Kouwe, A., Quinn, B., Czanner, S., et al. (2006). Reliability of
MRI-derived measurements of human cerebral cortical thickness: the effects of field strength, scanner
upgrade and manufacturer. Neuroimage, 32(1), 180194.
Heilman, K. M., Nadeau, S. E., & Beversdorf, D. O. (2003). Creative innovation: possible brain
mechanisms. Neurocase, 9(5), 369379.
Howard-Jones, P. A., Blakemore, S. J., Samuel, E. A., Summers, I. R., & Claxton, G. (2005). Semantic
divergence and creative story generation: An fMRI investigation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1),
240250.
Jauovec, N., & Jauovec, K. (2000). EEG activity during the performance of complex mental problems.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 36(1), 7388.
Jin, S. H., Kwon, Y. J., Jeong, J. S., Kwon, S. W., & Shin, D. H. (2006). Differences in brain information
transmission between gifted and normal children during scientific hypothesis generation. Brain Cogn,
62(3), 191197.
Jung, R. E., Grazioplene, R., Caprihan, A., Chavez, R. S., & Haier, R. J. (2010). White matter integrity,
creativity, and psychopathology: disentangling constructs with diffusion tensor imaging. PloS One,
5(3), e9818-e9818.
Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence:
Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(02), 135154.
Jung, R. E., Segall, J. M., Grazioplene, R. G., Qualls, C., Sibbitt, W. L., & Roldan, C. A. (2010). Cortical
thickness and subcortical gray matter reductions in neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus.
[Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. PLoS ONE, 5(3), e9302.
Jung, R. E., Segall, J. M., Jeremy Bockholt, H., Flores, R. A., Smith, S. M., Chavez, R. S., et al. (2010).
Neuroanatomy of creativity. Hum Brain Mapp, 31(3), 398409.
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., et
al. (2004a). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4),
500510.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
2/3(Winter/Spring), 5766.
King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of
Research in Personality, 30(2), 189203.
Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! Moment: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210216.
Kowatari, Y., Lee, S. H., Yamamura, H., Nagamori, Y., Levy, P., Yamane, S., et al. (2009a). Neural
networks involved in artistic creativity. Hum Brain Mapp, 30(5), 16781690.
Lee, K. H., Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., van Vianen, A. E. M., & Kim, H. B. (2010). The Relationship
Between Diverse Components of Intelligence and Creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(2),
125137.
Lubow, R. E. (2010). Latent Inhibition The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mascalchi, M., Filippi, M., Floris, R., Fonda, C., Gasparotti, R., & Villari, N. (2005). Diffusion-weighted
MR of the brain: methodology and clinical application. Radiol Med (Torino), 109(3), 155197.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural
correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100(2),
115126.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52(6), 12581265.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220232.
85
Meyer, U., Schwendener, S., Feldon, J., & Yee, B. K. (2006). Prenatal and postnatal maternal contributions
in the infection model of schizophrenia. Exp Brain Res, 173(2), 243257.
Michael, A. M., Baum, S. A., White, T., Demirci, O., Andreasen, N. C., Segall, J. M., et al. Does function
follow form?: Methods to fuse structural and functional brain images show decreased linkage in
schizophrenia. [Article]. Neuroimage, 49(3), 26262637.
Miller, B. L., Boone, K., Cummings, J. L., Read, S. L., & Mishkin, F. (2000). Functional correlates of
musical and visual ability in frontotemporal dementia. Br J Psychiatry, 176, 458463.
Miller, B. L., Cummings, J., Mishkin, F., Boone, K., Prince, F., Ponton, M., et al. (1998). Emergence of
artistic talent in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology, 51(4), 978982.
Miller, E. M. (1994). Intelligence and brain myelination - A hypothesis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17(6), 803832.
Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity.
Schizophrenia Research, 93, 317324.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence:
Knowns and unknowns. [Review]. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77101.
Paus, T., Zijdenbos, A., Worsley, K., Collins, D. L., Blumenthal, J., Giedd, J. N., et al. (1999). Structural
maturation of neural pathways in children and adolescents: in vivo study. Science, 283(5409),
19081911.
Peterson, J. B., & Carson, S. (2000). Latent Inhibition and Openness to Experience in a high-achieving
student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 323332.
Peterson, J. B., Smith, K. W., & Carson, S. (2002). Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced
latent inhibition: replication and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 11371147.
Petsche, H. (1996). Approaches to verbal, visual and musical creativity by EEG coherence analysis.
Int J Psychophysiol, 24(12), 145159.
Preusse, F., van der Meer, E., Deshpande, G., Krueger, F., & Wartenburger, I. (2011). Fluid intelligence
allows flexible recruitment of the parieto-frontal network in analogical reasoning. [Article]. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 5, 14.
Raven, J. (2000). The Ravens Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time.
Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 148.
Razumnikova, O. M. (2007). Creativity related cortex activity in the remote associates task. Brain
research bulletin, 73(13), 96102.
Razumnikova, O. M., Volf, N. V., & Tarasova, I. V. (2009). Strategy and results: Sex differences in
electrographic correlates of verbal and figural creativity. Human Physiology, 35(3), 285294.
Rose, M., Haider, H., & Buchel, C. (2005). Unconscious detection of implicit expectancies. J Cogn
Neurosci, 17(6), 918927.
Ross, A. J., & Sachdev, P. S. (2004). Magnetic resonance spectroscopy in cognitive research. Brain
Research Reviews, 44(23), 83102.
Seitz, J. A. (1999). Albert Einsteins brain. Lancet, 354(9192), 18221823.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process
Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309328.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of
product, person, and process perspectives. Psychol Bull, 129(4), 475494.
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Johansen-Berg, H., Rueckert, D., Nichols, T. E., Mackay, C. E., et al. (2006).
Tract-based spatial statistics: voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data. Neuroimage, 31(4),
14871505.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Right answer to the wrong question: A reply to Jung and Haier. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 30(2), 170171.
Tang, C. Y., Eaves, E. L., Ng, J. C., Carpenter, D. M., Mai, X., Schroeder, D. H., et al. (2010). Brain
networks for working memory and factors of intelligence assessed in males and females with fMRI
and DTI. [Article]. Intelligence, 38(3), 293303.
Thomas Anterion, C., Honore-Masson, S., Dirson, S., & Laurent, B. (2002). Lonely cowboys thoughts.
Neurology, 59(18121813).
86
IMAGING CREATIVITY
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual. Princeton,

NJ: Personnel Press/Ginn.
Wang, L. Q., Song, M., Jiang, T. Z., Zhang, Y. T., & Yu, C. S. (2011). Regional homogeneity of the
resting-state brain activity correlates with individual intelligence. [Article]. Neuroscience Letters,
488(3), 275278.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Rev. ed.).
Witelson, S. F., Kigar, D. L., & Harvey, T. (1999). The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein. Lancet, 353,
21492153.
Wonderlick, J. S., Ziegler, D. A., Hosseini-Varnamkhasti, P., Locascio, J. J., Bakkour, A., van der Kouwe,
A., et al. (2009). Reliability of MRI-derived cortical and subcortical morphometric measures: effects
of pulse sequence, voxel geometry, and parallel imaging. Neuroimage, 44(4), 13241333.
Wright, C. I., Williams, D., Feczko, E., Barrett, L. F., Dickerson, B. C., Schwartz, C. E., et al. (2006).
Neuroanatomical correlates of extraversion and neuroticism. Cereb Cortex, 16(12), 18091819.
87
SUSAN DANIELS
OUTSIDE THE LINES

Visual Thinking, Imagination, and the Creatively Gifted
Kims Summary: Daniels discusses the need for visual thinking opportunities to
develop creativity in all students including the gifted. Daniels argues that providing
opportunities of visual modes of learning and expression is not the sole domain of
the arts. Further, she argues that students do not need to have high artistic abilities to
benefit from these opportunities. Thus, she suggests that visual modes of learning and
expression be integrated in the curriculum and instruction within all subjects as well as
all classrooms including gifted class. Finally, Daniels provides various resources for
teachers to incorporate visual thinking strategies, activities, and projects in classrooms.
Imagination is a special feature or form of human thought characterized by the
ability of the individual to reproduce images or concepts originally derived
from the basic senses but now reflected in ones consciousness as memories,
fantasies, or future plans. These sensory-derived images pictures in the
minds eye can be reshaped and recombined into new images or possible
future creative works of art, literature, or science.
(Singer & Salovey, 1999, pp. 1314)
Visual thinking, imagery, and imagination have long been recognized as key aspects
of creative thinking, creative productivity, and creative giftedness in both the arts
and the sciences (Eisner, 2002; Greene, 2000; McKim, 1980; Miller, 1996). Visual
thinking and visual imagery are essential to imagination, design, invention, and the
development of creativity. The connection becomes ever clearer when one considers
that the word imagination emerges from the Latin imaginari which means to
picture mentally.
The processes of constructing, taking apart, rearranging, and transforming mental
images are reported in numerous accounts of the lives and works of the eminently
creative (Miller, 1996) and everyday creatives alike (Richards, 2007).
For example, Georgia OKeeffe said of her flower paintings:
Nobody sees a flower, really, it is so small. We havent time - and to see takes
time like to have a friend takes time.
If I could paint the flower exactly as I see it no one would see what I see
because I would paint it small like the flower is small. So I said to myself - Ill

S. DANIELS
paint what I see - what the flower is to me but Ill paint it big and they will be
surprised into taking time to look at it - I will make even busy New Yorkers
take time to see what I see of flowers....Well, I made you take time to look at
what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower you hung all
your own associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my
flower as if I think and see what you think and see of the flower - and I dont.
I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldnt say in any other
way things that I had no words for. (www.georgiaokeeffe.net)
The composer Beethoven said:

I carry my thoughts about with me for a long time, often for a very long
time before writing them down. I canbe sure thatI shall not forget
[a theme] even years later. I change many things, discard others, and try
again and again until I am satisfied; then, in my head, I begin to elaborate
the workthe underlying idea never deserts me. It rises; it grows. I hear and
see the image in front of me from every angle. (Hamburger & Hamburger,
1952, p. 194)
The writer Marcel Proust likened recalled images to crumpled pieces of paper which,
when placed in water, unfold into all manner of colors and shapes.
And once I had recognized the taste of the crumb of madeline soaked in her
decoction of lime-flowers which my aunt used to give meimmediately the
old grey house upon the street, where her room was, rose up like the scenery
of a theater and with the house the town all the flowers in our garden
90
OUTSIDE THE LINES
and in M. Swanns park, and the water lilies on the Vivonne and the good
folks of the village and their little dwellings and the parish church and the
whole of [the town] and its surroundings, taking their proper shapes and
growing solid, sprang into being, town and gardens alike, from my cup of tea.
(Kosslyn, 1983, p. 93)
Proust claimed that to him, recalled images were often more vivid than the original
experience, having been intensified by an emotional overlay. Such images formed
the basis of much of his writing.
Einstein is purported to have thought almost entirely in images:
The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to
play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which
seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear
images which can be voluntarily reproduced and combined. (Ghiselin,
1952, p. 43)
VISUAL THINKING AND CREATIVELY GIFTED CHILDREN
Visual thinking and imagination are not only associated with eminent creativity,
such as that referred to in the examples above. Creative teachers, students, designers,
engineers, actors, theatrical directors, scientists, inventors, artists, bakers, dancers,
musicians, and others apply visual thinking to creative work on a daily basis, and
current research suggests that everyday creativity contributes to greater health and
well being (Richards, 2007). Teachers and parents report that they recognize the
value of imagination and creativity (Runco & Johnson, 2002). Yet the educational
programs of most schools still undervalue creativity, and opportunities for
91
S. DANIELS
imaginative thinking are all but absent in the imagination learning of school aged
children. For the most part, curriculum is still organized for delivery primarily in the
verbal mode. In our increasingly visual world, and for our creatively gifted children,
this is simply unacceptable.
Lets consider the cases of two extraordinarily gifted children for whom visual
thinking is as integral for them, well, as perhaps, breathing. First, Alexandra
Nechita, a prodigious young artist, whose family immigrated from Romania
when she was just one year old, by age ten had produced over 300 paintings,
and received critical acclaim, being judged by prominent art critics as painting in
the vein of the cubists and most comparable to Picasso and Kandinsky. Second
Stephen Smith a gifted young science student who views the world in patterns
and envisioned the Fibonacci series in a multitude of ways in the environment
surrounding him.
In Outside the Lines: Paintings by Alexandra Nechita (Bell, 1996), Alexandras
parents reported that as early as age two, she was more absorbed in coloring books
than playing with friends, dolls or toys. So, in concern for her broader development,
they took the coloring books away from her, but they reported that, It was like we
took the oxygen out of her (Bell, 1996, p. vi). Her mother began bringing home
about a ream of scrap computer paper each month, and Alexandra developed her
own designs, drawing Picasso-esque faces and cubist designs. She would also design
her own coloring books with thick black lines that she then worked on to complete.
By age four she had moved on to watercolors and gouache, after which she started
asking for larger surfaces and canvases to work on. Her family, by no means wealthy
struggled to keep her in art supplies. By age eight, her third grade teacher was
astounded to come for a home visit and enter an apartment completely filled with
canvases of varying designs; all of them rich in social themes and emotional content:
Peace Is in Our Hands, Soldiers Never Die, and Forgotten Values as just a few
examples. Her parents were torn. They saw her love and passion for art as positive,
but they were concerned that when she would paint for the entire day and produce
more than one canvas, she barely took time to eat, much less play or converse. She
was so immersed.
It wasnt until the summer after third grade that Alexandra took any art classes,
and her teacher was astounded at her ability to master new techniques without
repetition. She had her first gallery showing in fourth grade, and a CBS producer
took notice, inviting her to appear on CBS Sunday Morning. After that her art
became internationally sought after.
Stephen Smith (Smith is a pseudonym.), on the other hand, was most interested
in math and science. He specially enjoyed designing blueprints and schematics
for inventions and designs he envisioned and developed himself. Patterns in
the environment were easy for him to discern, at a very young age during the
preschool years and his ability to transform the patterns in his surroundings
to a new invention of his own design were quite remarkable. Stephen also
92
OUTSIDE THE LINES
loved the ocean and had vast knowledge about its inhabitants, ocean currents,
various types of ships, whale migration routes, and the nuances of life in the
ocean depths (Lovecky, 2004).
While Stephen did not receive critical acclaim at a young age for his advanced
academic abilities, imagination, visual thinking and insights, he did apply
these skills and heightened visual awareness to his studies and his own creative
development. In 5th grade, he submitted a project to the school science fair that
emerged from his love of the sea and his love of numbers. Stephen studied the
pattern of the chambered nautilus, and he created a project titled Mathematics of
the Chambered Nautilus. He studied how this sea creature evolves in a pattern
based on the Fibonacci series. Each turn of the spiral created as the animal grows is
a factor of 1.618 from the center, a logarithmic spiral ubiquitous in nature. Stephen
also researched widely during this project and included information on cows, bees,
and rabbits that related to the Fibonacci series, as well as illustrating by hand how
many plants exhibit Fibonacci sequences in leaf distribution, seed-head growth,
and flower petal arrangement. CBS did not cover Stephens advanced and complex
work, as with Alexandras prodigious art. However, he did win first in his schools
science fair.
Clearly, these two students, one working with prodigious creativity in the arts and
one working with prodigious ability and creativity in math and science, employ a
wide range of visual thinking skills in their everyday thought processes as well as
in the development of their creative products. Clearly also, these students bring their
creative thinking with them throughout their day, and they need opportunities to
learn, work, and express themselves through visual modalities each day (Litterst &
Eyo, 1993).
VISUAL THINKING, IMAGINATION AND SOUND PEDAGOGY
Unfortunately, visual thinking and imagination are typically not incorporated in

regular classroom instruction and are considered primarily the domain of the arts. To
engage creative students potential for imagination and to foster creative development
across curricular domains, visual thinking, imagery, and active imagination must be
valued as a viable way to learn and to express ones learning as a regular part of
classroom curriculum and instruction.
Eckhoff and Urbach (2008) acknowledge the central role of imagination and
visual thinking in creative development and learning and ask, what if imagination
is itself the very font of thought? What if the imagination is what permits thought
to work by providing it with the images and metaphors that give it direction?
(p. 179). If imagination, imagery and metaphor were given adequate value in learning,
presumably our educational foci would then be very different, and imagination and
creativity would be recognized as gifts and assets rather than perceived as distractions
from covering the content and teaching to the test.
93
S. DANIELS
Lev Vygotsky, a prominent 20th century developmental psychologist, provided

a theoretical framework built on just these concepts, and he posited imagination as
a lifelong cognitive and affective endeavor that underscores all creative processes
(Eckhoff & Urbach, 2008). While some view imagination as just fantasy play,
Vygotskys views extended well beyond fantasy. Vygotsky viewed imagination as
an extremely complex process. In his view, acts of creative imagination begin with
both internal and external perceptions.
The childs external experiences and internal processing of those experiences
provide the foundation for imaginative elaboration and creative development.
The child takes information from personal experience, social interaction, and
environmental elements and begins the process of active deconstruction and
reconstruction. Through the deconstructive process the child can begin to disassemble
and disassociate, modify and change elements of perception and social reality.
This process is then followed by associative construction, a process that brings
together elements not previously associated. Through this process of deconstruction,
reconstruction, and association between non-naturally occurring elements, creative
thoughts emerge that may then be selected for further elaboration and refinement
and potentially a final product as a piece of art, literature, or invention may
result.
Further, the role of visual thinking and imagination have been called upon by
innovative and progressive contemporary educators as essential to learning in our times
and to the development of creativity (Eisner, 2002; Greene, 2000). Yet imagination and
creativity still hold an unsure place in todays educational climate. Runco and Johnson
(2002) found that teachers and parents in the United States overall view creative
traits, including imagination, as favorable, and a recent poll by the Lake Research
Partners (The Imagine Nation, 2008) found that 89% of respondents indicated that
imaginative thinking is important to success in 21st century learning, education, and
economic development. Yet, many teachers, employed in the constrained period
of No Child Left Behind, with its heavy emphasis on rote learning and test results,
are hesitant as to how best to incorporate imagination and visual thinking in the
curriculum.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (www.p21.org), is a national organization,
comprised of business, education, publishing, and technology leaders, that
advocates for 21st century readiness by building upon the traditional 3Rs
reading writing and arithmetic with the 4Cs Critical thinking and problem
solving, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity and Innovation. Design-
based learning is a foundational aspect of this model of learning for the 21st century
(Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Design-based learning is a method that is grounded in a
real world problem or hands-on application that require the design of a new, novel
and useful approach to solve the problem at hand. For example, a group of teens
from across the globe including the United States, Malaysia, the Netherlands,
Cairo, connected for a ThinkQuest (www.thinkquest.org/competition/) challenge to
create an innovative and informative website on a social problem of their choosing.
94
OUTSIDE THE LINES
Van, the leader of the group, chose SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)
as their topic as the initial outbreak was increasingly geometrically at that time.
The global team of students had to do all the work involved in producing an
engaging Web site: researching the topic, interviewing experts, writing the text,
designing and creating the look and feel of the site (the layout of text, images,
illustrations, animations, and videos), and programming the sites interface,
navigation, interactive games, and quizzes (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p. 46). The team
did all of the work and had a teacher-sponsor to turn to for mentoring and advice
at critical junctures. Working with teams in design-based learning puts the teacher
in the role of facilitator rather than dispenser of knowledge. The teacher provides
lessons on key skills of research and design as needed also known as just in
time teaching but the majority of the work is organized, designed, and completed
by the students themselves.
APPLICATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM
When I teach a graduate course on Creativity, Thinking, and Problem Solving,

and I let my adult students know that we will be using concept maps and visual
journals as part of the learning process for the course, inevitably there is a collective
groan and more than one teacher will say something to the effect that I cant draw
a straight line or I dont have a creative bone in my body. To lessen the stress,
I begin with simple and engaging visual activities in our workshops, and I avoid the
d-word draw and replace it with another d-word doodle. I emphasize that
one does not need to draw as in render an exact likeness to utilize the processes
of visual thinking, but that doodling and very simple iconic representations can go
a long way to express complex ideas. Creating concept maps about themselves with
simple icons provides these graduate students with a personal starting point; I ask
that they design a concept map expressing key concepts of which they are using text
and the simplest design and basic shapes possible. Inevitably, by the end of the 10-
week class, the teachers are far more comfortable expressing themselves visually,
they have created much more elaborate concept maps based on their readings for the
course, and they have experienced ways that they can incorporate visual thinking
and visual representation in their classrooms to foster greater originality in their
students thinking.
SEE/IMAGINE/DRAW
While working with the students in my graduate class, and Everyone can doodle!
becomes our slogan, we incorporate the work of McKim (1980) who provided a
conceptual model of how visual thinking and visual expression are based on a See/
Imagine/Draw cycle. His book Thinking Visually: A Strategy Manual for Problem
Solving has been a go-to manual for over three decades for students of art,
95
S. DANIELS
architecture, design, and more since its original publication in 1980. As McKim
states in the introduction: This book contains two ways to improve your ability to think
visually:
1. An experiential skills approach designed to help you acquire skills in visual
thinking by performing numerous short exercises.
2. A strategy approach designed to help you use your newly experienced visual
thinking skills to solve actual problems.
McKim goes on to say: At the heart of the experiential skills approach are
exercises, puzzles, and thinking challenges designed to illustrate and elicit specific
kinds of visual thinking. The first purpose of this approach is to enable you to
experience ideas about your own thinking. Its second purpose is to provide a
means to exercise your [visual] thinking skills. No skill, whether it is skill in
basketball, in playing the cello, or in thinking, can be acquired by passive reading;
skills can be acquired only by active and informed practice (p. ix).
Three key concepts and processes that McKim refers back to again and again are
outlined early in his text:
Visual thinking is carried out by three kinds of visual imagery:
1. The kind we see: People see images, not things.
2. The kind that we imagine in our minds eye, as when we dream.
3. The kind we draw, doodle, sketch, or paint. (p. 7)
Although visual thinking can occur in the context of just seeing, just imagining, or
just drawing, it is hard to isolate one from another, and strong visual thinkers find
that seeing, imagining, and drawing work interactively and work at their best as
integrated processes.
96
OUTSIDE THE LINES
McKim goes on to say that visual thinking is found throughout human activity,
from the abstract and theoretical to the down-to-earth and everyday (McKim,
1980, p. 7). An astronomer looks closely at an ever-changing cosmic display; a
driver navigates Los Angeles freeways; a teacher attempts to make order out of the
collection of art and artifacts on her desk; a child makes a pop up card for her beloved
teacher. All are using various forms of visual thinking, incidentally, as they move
through their day. Yet, as McKim asserts, while visual thinking is a skill we come
by innately, it is also one that can be consciously and deliberately elaborated and
improved.
So, on that note, I provide my graduate students with a number of visual
thinking and visual learning resources to support them to both increase their
own visual literacy and repertoire of visual skills as well as to support their use
of visual thinking strategies with their own students. Two more key resources are:
First, Mapping Inner Space: Learning and Teaching Visual Mapping (Margulies
& Maal, 2001) emphasizes expressing thought in a personal and creative way
through simple visual design elements and words; second The Private Eye (5X)
Looking by Analogy: A Guide to Developing the Interdisciplinary Mind: Hands-On
Thinking Skills, Creativity, Literacy and Scientific Literacy (Ruef, 2003) emphasizes
seeing, drawing, and imagining as productive avenues for learning and invention.
These are two resources that assist in the development of the adult students visual
thinking, imagination, and visual expression skills as well as providing materials
that may be adapted to use with any grade level, Kindergarten through graduate
school.
CONCEPT MAPS
The use of concept maps to integrate visual and verbal modalities for learning and
organizing thought processes is detailed in Ritchart, Turner, and Hadars (2009). The
authors describe using concept maps as a method of uncovering students thinking
about thinking and integrating critical and creative thinking processes as well.
Specifically, their meta-strategic knowledge is explored within an ongoing, multi-
year project to utilize concept maps as an explicit strategy designed to promote the
students self-awareness of their own thinking preferences and thinking dispositions.
The development of a concept-map instrument that classroom teachers can use and
an analytical framework for interpreting students responses is presented. Concept
maps from 239 students in Grades 3 through 11 were analyzed. Results suggested
that students conceptions of thinking and their visual, verbal, critical, and creative
thinking skills were supported through the use of concept maps. The concept map
itself proved to be a robust instrument for supporting students thinking about their
own thinking and their reflections on both creative and critical thinking skills and
applications. Findings indicate that concept maps are a natural fit for the creatively
gifted learning preferences and support expanded creative and critical thinking in all
students.
97
S. DANIELS
THE PRIVATE EYE: OBSERVING AND THINKING BY ANALOGY
One resource Ive used successfully with children as young as five and in workshops
with K-12 teachers and college students all the way up through graduate school is
Ruefs (2003) book.
The projects in the book are based on using a jewelers loupe to look closely at
objects and aspects of the environment and replicating what you see with paper and
pencil. Next, this process is layered with two analogical questions, What does this
look like? and What else does this remind me of? The first observation is done
with ones own thumbprint: looking carefully and visually representing just what
one sees, not a representation of how we think our thumbprints look. In this way the
pressure of drawing is removed, and the emphasis is on representing or recreating
what is observed in a succession of lines and curves almost like a topographical
map of the surface of ones thumb. Giving the direction to look for visual anchors,
such as whorls, triangles, scars, or other distinctive landmarks, provides the
students with a starting place and reference point as they work to progressively add
to and build up their visual design.
This activity is quite the adventure in observation. Without exception, participants
in this process are astounded at the sculpture that is their thumbprint. Afterward,
when weve explored the two analogies What does this look like? and What
else does this remind me of? responses have included: whorls at the ocean, an
onion, rings on a tree trunk, ripples in the sand, a maze, vanilla fudge twirl ice cream,
Aurora Borealis, and zebra fur. Follow up to this readily includes writing a poem or
98
OUTSIDE THE LINES
short story, writing a personal reflection on the seeing/analogy process, or moving

onto the next close observation of an artifact or piece of realia from the environment.
Teachers and students are encouraged to develop a mini-museum in the classroom
and at home that may include rocks, seashells, bugs, dried plants or plant parts, small
gears, samples of different weaving styles, pieces of baskets, and the like. Looking
closely becomes a habit, and as one student said, You realize that everything in the
world has its own fingerprint!
Other questions to help children foster greater awareness and enhance creativity
by analogy include:
1. What else does this remind you of?
2. What are the qualities of _______ ?
3. What are all of its parts and features?
4. What can this be used for?
CONCLUSION
My ninth grade [English] teacher had us learn 500 words in nine weeks
by using index cards. On the front of the card, we wrote the vocabulary word.
On the back of the card, we drew any picture that reminded us of the word.
Our artistic skills didnt count! To this day, more than 20 years later (!) I still
remember almost all of those words. A couple of examples follow: for the
word superfluous, which means needless, I drew a needle as my illustration.
For the word enervate, which means to weaken, I drew a rock with water
pounding on it. (Silverman, 2002, p. 277)
This chapter has been written to highlight the need for visual thinking opportunities
to support the creative growth and learning of creatively gifted students. A number
of resources have been cited throughout the chapter, which provide resources for
99
S. DANIELS
teachers to incorporate visual thinking strategies, activities, and projects within the
regular classroom and across curricular areas. For teachers who wish to support their
creatively gifted students, it is recommended that these visual modes of learning and
expression be integrated in the curriculum and instruction within the regular classroom.
Visual expression is not the sole domain of the arts, and one does not need to have high
level artistic abilities to benefit from participating and responding to learning activities
through visual modes of expression; recall the doodling versus drawing discussion
earlier in the chapter. For the benefit of your creatively gifted students, and to support
your own creative growth, explore a variety of visual modes, and provide opportunities
for visual expression, on a regular basis. The results are sure to be illuminating!
REFERENCES
Bell, S. C. (1996) Outside the lines: Alexandra Nechita. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood: Sociocultural
conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood Edcuation, 36, 179185.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ghiselin, B. (Ed.) (1952). The creative process. New York, NY: Mentor.
Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts and social change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hamburger, M., & Hamburger, M. (1952). Beethoven: Letters, journals, and conversations. New York,
NY: Thames and Hudson.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1983). Ghosts in the minds machine: Creating and using images in the brain. New York,
NY: Norton.
Lake Research Partners, The Imagine Nation: Findings from a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters,
2008, Retrieved January 14, 2012, from www.theimaginenation.net/
Litterst, J., & Eyo, B. (1993). Developing classroom imagination: Shaping and energizing a suitable
climate for growth, discovery, and vision. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 270282.
Lovecky, D. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome, and other
learning deficits. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Margulies, N., & Maal, N. (2001). Mapping inner space: Learning and teaching visual mapping. Chicago,
IL: Zephyr Press.
McKim, R. H. (1980) Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving. Belmont, CA: Lifetime
Learning Publications.
Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Richards, R. (Ed.) (2007). Everyday creativity and new views on human nature: Psychological, social,
and spiritual perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ritchart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar. L. (2009). Uncovering students thinking about thinking using concept
maps. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 145159.
Ruef, K. (2003). The private eye (5X) Looking by analogy A guide to developing the interdisciplinary
mind: Hands-on thinking skills, creativity, literacy & scientific literacy. Lyle, WA: The Private Eye Project.
Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. J., (2002). Parents and teachers implicit theories of childrens creativity:
A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427438.
Silverman, L. K., (2002) Upside down brilliance: The visual spatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon Publishing.
Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1999). At play in the fields of consciousness: Essays in honor of Jerome L.
Singer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Authors note: I wish to express appreciation for the illustrations provided by my graduate student, and
expert concept map developer, Karen Pollitt.
100
SUSAN J. PAIK
NURTURING TALENT, CREATIVITY, AND

PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS
A New Mastery Model
Action is the foundational key to all success.

Pablo Picasso
Pablo Picasso (18811973) is considered one of the greatest painters in the history
of Western painting. The Spanish-born French painter, sculptor, and artist is also
considered one of the most productive artists, having created over 50,000 works.
Considering his lifespan of 92 years, it can be estimated that he produced one and a
half works a day not including vacation or time off from his work (Encyclopedia of
World Biography, 2011).
Picassos father, also a painter and an art professor, had great influence on the
young Picasso. Since his father saw Picassos talent at a very young age, he rented a
small room for his son (at age 13) to encourage Picasso to be diligent in his painting.
It appears that much of his self-discipline and passion started when he was young.
As Picasso grew older even after becoming rich and famous, he continued to work
every day often late into the evenings.
As the above quote illustrates, Picasso is an example of a creatively gifted
individual who was extremely productive throughout his career. Other creatively
gifted individuals, such as Thomas Edison (18471931), an American inventor,
scientist, and businessman received 1,093 lifetime U.S. patents (About.com, 2011),
and German composer, musician, and organist Johann Sebastian Bach (16851750)
composed an average of 20 pages per day (Robinson, 2010). While creativity can
vary widely, these three had something in common. Not only were they creative, they
were productive. While there is no formula to determine how one becomes eminent
in their field, it is important to understand the lives of accomplished individuals, their
commitment to their chosen professions, and how talent comes to fruition. While we
cannot all become Picassos, Edisons, or Bachs, there is an important message here
about developing ones talent and creativity. Pure talent alone will not help one stay
the course. Even Picasso did not wait around for something to happen; he worked
hard to master his skills. His dogged mastery led him to eventually develop cubism
(an abstract form of art), which was a major accomplishment in twentieth-century

S. J. PAIK
art. Picassos productivity, or what has been referred to as productive giftedness,

was indeed notable (Paik, 2012; Walberg & Paik, 2005).
When we identify talent or creativity, we naturally expect these individuals to
excel in school and life. However, many individuals do not fulfill their promise in
life. One of the major issues in this field is why so few talented children become
creative producers. Many young people lose interest and do not commit to their
own talent realization. In the case of Picasso, he developed his creative talent over
a lifespan of 92 years. Why did he stay the course? What helped him to become so
accomplished in his field? Why was he so driven to produce more than 50,000 works
of art? How much bearing did his early experiences have on him including influence
from his father, mother, or other adults? How can schools or classrooms help
support or develop more Picassos? These are some questions that psychologists and
educators ask today in understanding the lives of accomplished individuals. More
research is needed in understanding creative behavior and productive giftedness,
especially in the early years.
The purpose of this chapter is to 1) discuss the importance of creativity and
productive giftedness in the early and later years, 2) employ a productive giftedness
model to delineate and discuss key environmental and psychosocial factors, 3)
understand how home and school learning environments and experiences including
the value of time are key alterable factors, 4) briefly discuss the psychosocial
characteristics of creative accomplished individuals, such as motivation and
perseverance, 5) conclude with practice and policy recommendations on how parents,
teachers, and mentors can encourage productive giftedness. Helping children to
develop and realize their potential is an important goal for all stakeholders.
CREATIVITY AND PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS
Creatively gifted individuals usually develop the most important contributions to

society (Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011). Creative producers have developed
products, services, or inventions leading to medical breakthroughs, cutting edge
science, social or educational programs. Other helpful inventions in the recent past,
for example in technology, have been the Internet, smart phones, and laptops. If we
look around us, many of the products that we use were developed with originality and
novelty. While creativity ranges on multiple levels and domains, solving problems in
creative ways are important for school, work, society, and even the economy. Creative
productivity can help provide real solutions from simple to more complex problems.
Creativity involves mastery and expertise from ones field (Paik, 2012; Walberg
& Paik, 2005). Creativity occurs in the interaction between a person and their
environment (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), where creatively gifted
individuals know how to be novel with new and appropriate ideas (Cassandro
& Simonton, 2002; Walberg, Williams, & Zeiser, 2003). While there are several
definitions and models of creativity ranging from little c to big C creativity or other
variations of creativity such as the Four-C model (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009),
102
NURTURING TALENT, CREATIVITY, AND PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS
creative productivity is the most important predictor of the creators reputation and
influence (Cassandro & Simonton, 2002).
Many researchers have agreed with the importance of productivity in this field.
Research on productivity started as early as 1835 when Adolph Quetelet (1796
1874) first quantitatively studied the creative productivity of French and English
playwrights (Encyclopedia.com, 2011). Many researchers have since studied the
importance of productivity in almost every field. Sternberg et al (2011) describe
several criteria in giftedness including the Productivity Criterion as the
dimension(s) along which the individual is evaluated as superior must lead to, or
potentially lead to, productivity (p. 4). Sternberg further states that the label of
being called gifted has no bearing if there is no product to accompany it (p. 5).
While there are many conceptions and terms for giftedness (Davidson &
Sternberg, 2005), any form of giftedness, excellence, or expertise is best understood
when made productive (Walberg & Paik, 2005). Specifically, productive giftedness
can be defined as achievement, accomplishment, or eminence, not just potential. In
discussing creativity and productive giftedness, some researchers have made clear
distinctions between schoolhouse giftedness (IQ or high intelligence) and creative-
productive giftedness as the development of original material and products with a
target audience in mind (Renzulli & Reis, 2000). As defined by the author, productive
giftedness is inclusive of both high-achieving (i.e., generally intelligence/IQ) and
high-ability (i.e., creativity, other domain-specific areas) individuals. While high
achievement is common among gifted individuals, it is not necessary and can be seen
as distinctive from creativity or other domains (Gardner, 1993). For the purposes of
this chapter, while children can vary in domain-specific skills, this chapter will focus
on creative accomplishment and eminence in discussing productive giftedness.
While the argument on nature versus nurture continues to exist, Matthews and
Foster (2006) present it differently as mystery vs. mastery. This chapter is not about
a traditional mystery model that tries to understand the child prodigy, but one that
advocates a mastery model that talent and creativity can be nurtured (Matthews
& Foster, 2006; Paik, in press). In some ways, the term, productive giftedness
appears to be an oxymoron as it reflects both effort and ability respectively.
In different parts of the world, the two ideas represent contradictory views; and
they are valued differently. If we were to consider the reverse, unproductive
giftedness might be understood as ability without any action or effort. In taking this
perspective, the terms, productive and giftedness can be understood as ability
made actionable as in the case of Picasso himself. Whether one is born with talent or
not, psychologists and educators need to take the perspective that all children have
the ability to develop their own potential. Children can achieve and accomplish great
things when nurtured and provided with opportunity, support, resources, and time
(Paik & Walberg, 2007). Opportunity and their own sense of commitment are also
necessary in the success equation.
Although higher forms of accomplishment can lead to eminence in ones field,
it is important to help children understand the value of productive giftedness or
103
S. J. PAIK
sense of accomplishment early on as they work on small to great endeavors. While

children need to eventually take responsibility for themselves, parents, teachers, and
other adults can provide guidance and support by engaging them constructively,
supporting their development, and helping them to develop key skills and
characteristics, especially in the early years.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS MODEL
Building on Walbergs educational productivity model (1984) and other seminal

research in this field, this chapter presents a theoretical lens to delineate and discuss
key factors related to productive giftedness. Since all of the factors in the model
contribute to learning as a whole, they are briefly defined in this section. However,
for the purposes of this chapter, much of the remaining discussion will be on the
factors related to motivation, time, home and school learning environments since
they are considered the most influential in talent development (Bloom, 1985;
Walberg & Paik, 1997). Parents, teachers, and mentors will also be discussed since
they are a significant influence in learning environments. Studies have confirmed
that psychological traits, how time is spent, and learning environments are significant
and alterable factors (Bloom, 1985; Walberg et al, 2003).
Productivity Model as Context
Walbergs (1984) empirically based-model was selected as a basis for the current
model for several reasons. Compared to other models, the productivity model was
empirically developed based on a meta-analysis of roughly 3,000 studies. In addition,
research has found that a multiple-factor approach is needed to comprehensively
explain individual differences. Many studies (including the authors own work)
have shown the model to be generalizable in regards to aptitude, instruction, and
family and school learning environments (Coleman, 1988; Ibe, 1994; Paik, 2001;
2008; Walberg, 1984). The nine-factor model shows how alterable factors can
impact learning (affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes). While Walbergs
model does provide a comprehensive approach, as with all models, none are without
limitations. The following proposed model builds upon it in order to provide some
new considerations to productivity (See below).
From Potential to Productive Giftedness: A New Mastery Model
The Productive Giftedness Model includes ten factors. While many of the factors
share similar terms, the underlying concepts and definitions have been adapted to the
new model. Several new terms and concepts have also been included (i.e., mentoring,
extracurricular time, school climate, school factors, productive outcomes, etc.).
Walbergs model was originally intended as a school-learning model, however, this
model has been revised to be inclusive of talent development for early and later success.
104
While the model is largely psychological, it provides an interdisciplinary lens (i.e.,

education, economics, sociology, etc). From an economic viewpoint, an investment
in the early school years can provide promising results later in life (Paik, in press). In
addition, school factors and experiences provide important educational implications.
Inclusive of other disciplines, such as sociology, environmental influences and
social interactions are also important factors in understanding outcomes. Overall, the
model is comprehensive and systematic illustrating how different stakeholders and
disciplines can work together to support and develop productive outcomes. Although
the model advocates that a comprehensive approach is likely the best approach, all
factors need not be present. Learning is based on multiple factors, but some factors
may compensate for each other (Paik, in press). Given the complexity of all learners,
experiences, processes, and rates of learning differ for all students.
Since the Productive Giftedness Model offers a practical approach in understanding
individual differences, the model is accessible and can be generally applied to all
students. Based on the authors previous work, as well as Walbergs earlier work, the
model is generalizable across diverse characteristics such as socio-economic status,
gender, age, race, cultural groups, etc. (i.e., East Asia or other countries, diverse groups
in U.S., etc.) (Paik, 2001; 2008; Paik, in press; Walberg, 1984; Walberg & Paik, 2005).
INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE
1. Ability
2.Development
3.Motivation
SCHOOL FACTORS PRODUCTIVE OUTCOMES

4. Quality of Instruction *Achievement
5. Quantity of Instruction *Accomplishment
6. School Climate *Eminence
ENVIRONMENT
7. Home
8. Mentoring
9. Peers
10. Extracurricular Time
Figure 1 Productive Giftedness Model
Productive Outcomes
As described earlier, productive giftedness is inclusive of both high-achieving and

high-ability individuals. Productive Outcomes are operationalized as Achievement
(generally IQ/ intelligence), Accomplishment (creativity, other domain-specific
areas), and Eminence (all domains or areas of expertise). Since school learning
105
S. J. PAIK
is a key component in the model, learning as measured by achievement is still an

important factor, especially in the early years. While high achievement is common
among the gifted, it can also be seen as distinctive from accomplishment. For
example, creatively gifted individuals can be highly accomplished and may become
eminent, but may not have the classical high achievement or IQ (Gardner, 1993).
Children can generally strive towards achievement and/or accomplishment during
the school years, and can later achieve eminence as adults. While later eminence
is rare, higher forms of achievement and accomplishment can lead to eminence
in ones field. Many high-achieving or accomplished individuals are also leaders
in their field. Leadership is another productive outcome that has been linked to
early experiences (Reichard & Paik, 2011). For the purposes of this chapter, while
there are many productive outcomes, the model will be used to illustrate creative
accomplishment and eminence when discussing productive giftedness.
Individual Aptitude
Development. Development is continuous, and has been defined as age or stage of

maturation. Moreover, this factor in the new model can be helpful in studying early
and later success in assessing talent development at different stages. Depending
on the population age and research inquiry, the model can support prospective or
retrospective studies for childhood, adolescent, or adult success.
Ability. Although Ability has been typically measured and defined by standardized
achievement tests, the definition has been expanded in the new model to incorporate
achievement and other ability tests (if applicable) depending on the domain-specific
area. Other measurable outcomes can also be incorporated for this factor (i.e., grades,
awards, achievements, other accomplishments depending on field of expertise, etc).
In general, the new model has been broadened to be inclusive of other talent or
creative domains.
Motivation. Although motivation has been generally measured by motivation and
some personality tests, moreover, this factor is central to understanding productive
behavior. Motivation, perseverance, mindsets, personality traits, and other relevant
factors can impact productive outcomes. Specifically, Focused Motivation is
defined as undeterred, intentional perseverance with an end goal or product in
mind. Focused motivation can be both intrinsic and/or extrinsic depending on the
goal or product. The end goal or product encapsulates a vision of their work and can
come in many forms. The new term and concept as part of the new model applies a
more focused, directional emphasis that helps one stay the course (Paik, in press).
School Factors
Quality and Quantity of Instruction. These two factors refer to school or

classroom learning. The Quality of Instruction refers to teachers, teaching,
curriculum, subject matter, assessment, student projects, peer learning, and any other
106
relevant information that adds to the quality of the school or classroom experience.
The Quantity of Instruction is the amount of time spent on learning or schooling.
Information on schooling years and degrees can also be helpful in understanding
educational experiences.
School Climate. Although the original factor was defined as peers or social
climate in the classroom, the term has been expanded to any school or classroom
experiences or characteristics that affect the morale of the school environment.
Research shows that the school (or classroom) climate can impact learning. Type
of school, community, neighborhood, and other relevant information can be also be
helpful in understanding the socio-cultural context of school learning environments.
Other Environmental Factors
Home. The curriculum of the home is a critical factor in learning, accomplishment,

and eminence. Many researchers have found that parental involvement, practices, and
any other home-related information are central to productive behavior. Demographic
factors, such as race, culture, socio-economic status, language, parents education,
etc. are also important factors in understanding the socio-cultural context of the home
environment. Any related information can be helpful in understanding students
backgrounds, family experiences, and the role of opportunity for some students.
Mentoring. Mentoring can involve a formal or informal role, coaching, expertise,
other, etc. Any form of guidance, instruction, knowledge, or skill-building in any
domain-specific area can be helpful at different stages in life. Mentoring can also
include programs, institutions, or other supportive opportunities for further growth.
It appears to be a key factor in talent development and life in general, and can be
especially helpful to less represented communities including women and minorities
in certain fields.
Peers. Research shows that peers can play a significant role in shaping attitudes,
beliefs, and experiences. Peer groups can be influential at any age, but particularly
during adolescence. Peer groups at different stages of learning or talent development
can also provide valuable information.
Extracurricular Time. Extracurricular Time is broadly defined as time spent on
extracurricular activities mainly outside of school (i.e., domain-specific, academic,
recreational activities, participation in faith-based organizations, programs, hobbies,
sports, work, computers, etc.). Time allocation and usage are important as we
consider different goals and activities. While allocated time varies per individual,
any form of technology can also impact our time. Mass media and television viewing
(Walbergs original factor) can be included here, but should also be inclusive of
current technologies, such as Internet usage, electronic communications (i.e., email,
chatting, tweeting, texting, Skype, blogging, etc), as well as gaming as they are
considered time-consuming activities. As we consider productive giftedness across
domains, time allocations of different activities can make large differences for
students.
107
S. J. PAIK
Alterable and Contextual Factors
The ten-factor model is considered largely alterable. When optimized or altered,

the factors can influence productive outcomes. While socioeconomic status,
ethnicity, gender, and some contextual factors are less direct and alterable, most of
the factors are alterable to some degree by adults or students themselves (Paik, 2008;
Walberg, 1984). Alterable factors are practices that can be constructively changed,
especially in the home or school learning environments. Some examples of alterable
practices might be study time, homework or other practices, exposure to creative
opportunities or skill-building, goal-setting, self-regulation, attitudes, productive
behavior, creative behavior, reading more, finishing school projects, etc. To teach
habits, attitudes, or behavior associated with productive giftedness, parents, teachers,
and other adults can make the necessary adjustments in the home and classroom.
While contextual factors are generally less direct and alterable, the context
(other than the immediate home and school environments) also provides helpful
information in understanding alterable factors and productive outcomes. Some
examples include social, cultural, historical, situational, political, economic, or other
factors. In addition to productivity, expertise should also be gauged within a given
context (Sternberg, et al, 2011). Different socio-cultural contexts and resources can
also provide different conceptions to creativity or giftedness (Sternberg, 1999).
These contexts also inform the role of opportunity for many students. Given the
complexity of human behavior, cultures, and societies, multiple perspectives should
be taken into consideration. Although contextual factors play a significant role, for
the purposes of this chapter, the remaining sections will focus on what teachers,
parents, and students can do in the home and school.
EARLY PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS: THE VALUE OF TIME
Giftedness, talent, or creativity involves a process. Loehle (1994) found that products
are part of a long step-by-step process. For example, when we consider a scientific
discovery, it usually requires multiple steps that can take a long time, such as asking
the right question, developing a research plan, applying for funding, training research
assistants, collecting and analyzing data, writing a paper, and publishing it, etc.
Based on Loehles findings, while each step has a high success rate in itself, when
we consider the overall multiplicative product until its finished, it was estimated
that the success rate was roughly twelve percent. The low completion rate may help
explain why productive giftedness or eminence may be rare for scientists or other
fields.
In a similar vein, talent development takes time. When we consider the use of
time, international comparisons might provide some insight on the investment of
time. The National Commission (1983) reported that East Asian students do well
academically due to their motivation and study time inside and outside of school.
The Program of International Student Achievement (PISA) 2009 results reported that
108
China, although it was their first time participating in an international achievement

competition, they were the top performers out of 65 countries (National Center for
Educational Statistics, n.d.). Many studies have found a correlation between time
and productive outcomes. For example, it was found that East Asian countries as
the top performers had 100 percent more total study hours during their school years
(Paik, 2001; Paik, Wang, & Walberg, 2002).
Known as Matthew Effects, those who start in their early years will have more
opportunities. Early productive giftedness can help build expertise over time. Taken
from the book of Matthew in the Bible, Whoever has will be given more, and he
will have an abundance (Merton, 1968; Simonton, 1984; Walberg & Tsai, 1984).
Accomplishing goals early in life will yield a higher rate of creative productivity,
and a long career into old age as in the case of Picasso. Studies have also found the
early experiences of Nobel Laureates in science allowed more growth and impact
over time in their careers. Some of these findings included stimulating learning
environments, academic preparation, early exposure to great scientists, mentoring,
early discoveries that led to early publishing, etc. (Walberg, 1969; Walberg &
Tsai, 1984). Similarly, academic careers are more advantageous when publishing,
obtaining grants, or receiving mentoring from distinguished faculty early in ones
career.
DEVELOPING CHARACTERISTICS OF PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS
Many researchers note the importance of personality and motivation factors over
ability (Olszewski-Kublius, 2010; Winner, 1996). Creative accomplished individuals
share some common characteristics or what some researchers call psychosocial
factors. Psychosocial factors can be defined generally as psychological or social
factors that influence creativity or talent development; it can include a broad set
of internal and external variables, such as engagement, motivation, and mindsets;
effort, practice, and perseverance; personal agency; peer relationships; and social
milieu (Matthews, 2009, p. 98). Many have written on motivation, persistence,
drive, hard work, and determination needed to stay the course (Subotnik, 2009;
Winner & Martino, 2000). Perseverance, motivation, mastery, and overcoming
obstacles were common characteristics among the gifted (Walberg & Paik, 2005).
While there are numerous strategies to help one become productive, this section
briefly describes two common strategies: practice and goal setting.
Focused Motivation, Perseverance, and Hard Work
Studies have found three common traits across creative accomplished individuals:
intelligence, perseverance, and hard work (Filippelli & Walberg, 1997; Walberg et
al., 2003). Although intelligence or high ability is a common trait, researchers, such
as Terman (1925) found high IQ during the childhood years was not predictive of
eminence or creative productivity. Some of the key factors that appear to make a
109
S. J. PAIK
difference for creative accomplished individuals are motivation, perseverance, and

hard work (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007; Olszewski-
Kublius, 2010; Sosniak, 1985; Walberg, 1982).
As described earlier, focused motivation is undeterred, intentional perseverance
with an end goal or product in mind. Locke & Latham (2002) also note the
importance of motivation and goal-setting in ones endeavors. Similarly, Renzulli
(2002) emphasizes that creative productivity must involve task commitment and
perseverance. Amabile (1983) found intrinsically motivated individuals also
commonly persevered. Perseverance and hard work were also common traits for
those who had a growth mindset where they attributed their success or failure to
effort (Dweck, 2006). Those individuals who had a fixed mindset attributed their
fear of failure to ability. Creative productivity can be maximized when students
develop a growth mindset where they feel they can grow if they continue to work
hard and stay the course.
In 1874, Alexander Graham Bell proposed the idea that speaking on a telephone
would be better than writing an old-fashioned letter. During those days, the idea
was absurd and rejected from the U.S. Post Office and Western Union. In 1877, the
determined Alexander Bell developed what became known as the Bell Telephone
Company (About.com, 2011). Almost 140 years later, we now have email, Skype,
texting, etc., and other technological advancements (i.e., innovative pc or mac products)
due to the creativity and productive giftedness of technological gurus, such as Bill
Gates or Steve Jobs (19552011). Resistant to the status quo, creative accomplished
individuals have a focused motivation. They are clearly focused with a vision,
product, or end goal in mind. They also have the ability to cope with tension and
marginality over time (Gardner, 1994). Studies have also found common traits among
creative accomplished individuals, such as confidence, strong-will, independence,
originality, and creativity (Filippelli & Walberg, 1997). Young artists and scientists
were found to be confident of their own creativity and intelligence, meticulous, and
worked harder than their peers persevering through difficulty (Walberg, 1969; 1971).
Eysenck (1993) also found nonconformity and confidence as common traits among
the creatively gifted. Sosniak (2003) found that those who persisted on substantive and
appropriate tasks over time eventually found significant accomplishment.
Mastery Practice and Goal Setting
Developing expertise requires at least a decade of preparation and commitment

(Kaufman & Kaufman, 2007; Walberg, 1982). When asked about developing his
mastery, Sir Isaac Newton (17771855) replied, By always thinking about them
(Sir Isaac Newton, n.d.). Karl Friedrich Gauss (16431727) said, If others would
but reflect on mathematical truths as deeply and continuously as I have, they would
make my discoveries (Karl Friedrich Gauss, n.d.). Mastery practice not only
requires mindfulness in a specific domain, but intensive practice and preparation
that can lead to discovery. Many creative accomplished individuals have perfected
110
their skills through what has been called deliberate practice. This form of practice
is more specifically targeted at developing areas of weaknesses, not strengths
(Ericsson & Charness, 1994). Although Pablo Picasso (18911973) and Claude
Monet (18401926) were masters in their field, they were committed and deliberate
about perfecting their skills over a lifelong career.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 1950), an Irish playwright who wrote more than 60
plays once said, I bought supplies of white paper...and condemned myself to fill five
pages of it a day, rain or shine, dull or impressed. Shaws goal of writing five pages
every day no matter what was happening allowed him to write five novels in roughly
five years (George Bernard Shaw, n.d.). Research shows setting specific and
challenging goals improves task performance than setting easy or no goals (Locke,
Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Locke and Latham (2002) describe the four reasons
why goal-setting is important: 1) specific goals affect performance, 2) higher goals
can lead to greater effort, 3) goals affect persistence, and 4) goals affect our action
plan. Many studies have found that clear goals can be helpful in task completion. In
the case of Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), he started his day by asking himself
at 5am every morning What good shall I do today?, and ended each day at 10pm
asking, What good have I done today? (Fleming, 2003). Creative producers are
not only hard working and goal-oriented, many are also well-organized. Thomas
Jefferson (1743 1826) was not only a two-term U.S. President and an ambassador
to France, he was also a farmer and architect. However, he still found time to write
books, pamphlets, and letters on a variety of subjects. To organize his schedule,
Jefferson carried a variety of tools (i.e., scales, compass, drawing instruments,
thermometer, etc.). He also invented time-savers such a rotating desk, a manuscript
copying mechanism, and other helpful inventions (The Jefferson Monticello, n.d.).
ENHANCING PRODUCTIVE GIFTEDNESS: ALTERABLE

ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES
Psychologists and educators have long been interested in understanding how early
experiences enhance learning, achievement, and productive giftedness. This section
discusses the importance of alterable factors in the home and school environment
(Coleman, 1988; Ibe, 1994; Paik, 2008; Walberg, 1984). The curriculum of the home
is similar to a school curriculum, where quality, quantity, and experiences do matter.
Parents and teachers can monitor quality time and curriculum, provide helpful
feedback and guidance, expose and engage children in constructive activities, and
encourage a supportive learning environment for social, emotional, academic, and
creative learning.
The Importance of Parents and Teachers
Many studies note the importance and influence of parental involvement on talent
development, well-being, and creative productivity (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and
111
S. J. PAIK
Whalen, 1993; Olszewski-Kublius, 2010). International researchers studying over

45 countries have also noted the importance confirming that the home environment
is strongly related to learning (IEA, 1996). In the U.S. alone, several past and current
national reforms have emphasized the importance of parental involvement, as well
as the value of time for all students. They have identified parents as childrens first
and foremost influential teachers emphasizing the home environment as their initial
classroom. Research has long shown the beneficial effects of optimizing the home
environment, where it has been found that the curriculum of the home can account
for three times more learning variance than socio-economic status (Walberg, 1984).
Parental involvement is also highly correlated with motivation and learning (Iverson
& Walberg, 1982; Walberg, 1984).
Although parents play an important role, teachers also have significant influence
on children. Current teacher reform initiatives at local, state, and national levels are
also supported by billions of dollars not only in the U.S., but globally. Teachers can
also make for large differences, especially when home environments may not be
as conducive for childrens learning. The quality of instruction and the classroom
experience can motivate, inspire, and encourage students to be engaged in their own
learning process. Parents and teachers can provide supportive learning environments,
but can also teach the value of hard work and perseverance. Parents should be
supportive and invested in their childs education, while teachers can help with high
expectations in their classroom, offer rigorous courses or opportunities to challenge
creatively gifted students, and assign appropriate and well-designed homework.
Supportive Parents, Teachers, and Mentors
Accomplishment and creativity cannot be fully developed without large amounts of

deliberate practice, parental support, and expert instruction. Bloom (1985) studied
the talent development of concert pianists, mathematicians, sculptors, neurologists,
tennis champions, and Olympic swimmers. He studied how parents, teachers, and
experts were involved in the developmental process. One of the findings showed
that once parents discovered their child had talent, parents took a more active role
in getting involved, and oftentimes would find coaches, experts, programs, or other
resources to maximize early giftedness. Sosniak (2003) describes communities of
practice as those who share a willingness to invest their interests, time and effort in
a specialized area. Mentors, experts, and specialized programs are helpful in building
expert knowledge and skills (Clasen & Clasen, 2003; Ericsson et al., 2007; Jacobi,
1991). A mentorship can be a productive and meaningful experience for both
mentor and mentee, offering the potential of a successful, long-term relationship
(Clasen & Clasen, 2003, p. 254). At some point, the talented young person may
need specialized instruction beyond parents and teachers to provide the appropriate
knowledge and necessary skills. In some cases, homes or classroom environments
may be lacking in support, where a mentor can make a tremendous difference in
shaping the individual (Arnold & Subotnik, 1995). A mentorship (whether formal or
112
not) involves learning from a more experienced, successful master to help build the
knowledge, skills, and expertise needed in a certain domain (Bloom, 1985; Clasen
& Clasen, 2003). Mentors play a special role and may be critical at different stages
of skill-building and accomplishment (Subotnik, 2009). In addition to mentoring,
research shows early exposure to eminent individuals in ones field was also not
uncommon for many of the creative accomplished individuals (Walberg, 1982).
Sosniak (1985) found that these communities were critical every point along the
way to excellence during the early, middle, and later years. Every student worked
closely with parents, teachers, or mentors. Given early identification of talent or
creativity, parents and teachers will first naturally provide encouragement. The
specific means and practices may vary from field to field, but the general factors,
such as parental, teacher, and mentoring encouragement are similar. Research
findings show that clear parental expectations and encouragement by teachers and
mentors were important to their development (Bloom, 1985; Walberg, 1982). Other
common experiences showed that creatively gifted children were also encouraged
and provided with direct teaching by parents, teachers, mentors, and other adults
(Filippeli & Walberg, 1997; Walberg et al., 1993).
Altering the Home and School Curriculum
Since learning environments can be altered, parents and teachers should recognize the
importance of their influence on early talent development. Research has found that
stimulating home and school conditions and experiences during childhood were strong
indicators of later eminence (Bloom, 1985; Walberg, 1982). Simonton (2009) states that
family background and developmental experiences serves as the cradle of eminence
(Simonton, 1994). Such differences in a home environment may go a long way in
contributing to their productive giftedness. The first six formative years of life and
the curriculum of the home are powerful, alterable influences on learning (Bloom,
1985; Walberg, 1984; National Commission, 1983; IEA, 1996). In the first 18 years of
life, the home environment accounts for 92% of the childrens time, and the remaining
8% is influenced mainly by schools (Walberg & Paik, 1997). Time investments, parent
involvement, and teacher encouragement vary from home to home, and classroom to
classroom, and undoubtedly have tremendous impact on children.
In considering specific alterable factors in the home, Redding (2003) describes
the curriculum of the home as patterns of family life that contribute to a childs
ability to learn in school (p.7) Redding defines it further as 1) parent-child
relationships, 2) routine of family life, and 3) family expectations and supervision.
The curriculum of the home can involve anything from physical resources to family
stability, parental involvement and support, expectations, discipline and effort,
extra lessons and other monitored time, family discussion of books and television
programs, family field trips, a daily routine, parent-child conversations about school
or peer activities, encouragement of leisure reading, engaging their creativity or
high ability through interactive projects, deferral of immediate gratification to help
113
S. J. PAIK
individuals accomplish long-term goals, supporting habits that may be constructively

challenged (Redding, 2003; Walberg, 1984).
Benjamin Bloom (1985) once said, What we found were exceptional conditions,
not exceptional kids. Bloom describes the home environment as a place where
one develops a strong work ethic. Bloom found that the gifted individuals not only
developed their values, but they were encouraged and supported informally and
formally before they were identified. Upon identification, they were provided with more
support, encouragement, and expert training. Sosniak (2003) describes the exceptional
conditions to include time, task, and context. It was found that appropriate exposure
and experience to domain-specific skills were critical to their development in the early
stages. While each gifted individual had a long road to excellence, early experiences,
families, and parenting were critical to their success (Sosniak, 2003).
In addition to supportive home environments, children need attentive teachers at
school. School or classroom environments need the flexibility to support creativity
and talent. While creatively gifted individuals range in their social, emotional,
academic or domain-specific learning, the commonality is that they all need some
sense of differentiated instruction. Many of the conditions and expectations that apply
in the home environment also apply in the classroom. Teachers, like parents also
have great influence on their students. Teachers have a significant presence in their
classroom from the relationships and teacher-student interactions to the curriculum
and quality of instruction. Teachers can model creativity in their classroom and
provide the necessary support needed for individual growth (Sternberg & Williams,
n.d.). Teachers should provide opportunities to engage students to explore their areas
of interest by exposing them to various topics, disciplines, occupations, hobbies, etc.
Providing projects that investigate real problems can also help engage students in
creative problem-solving (Renzulli & Reis, 2002).
Research has shown that engaging or partnering with parents is also helpful to
maximize learning opportunities for students (Renzulli & Reis, 2002). Teachers can
involve parents in the classroom, curriculum, projects, and even homework. Sharing
the same goals not only enhances learning, but also provides accountability for
any child (Goodlad, 2004). Family-school partnerships are also helpful to maintain
consistent communication regarding the childs social, emotional, academic, and
creative learning (Patrikakou, Weisberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005; Olszewski-
Kublius, 2010). In summary, some examples of alterable factors where teachers can
make a difference include teaching methods, well-designed homework, projects, or
programs that enhance creativity or other skills, exposure to different disciplines
or occupations, group work, working closely with parents, developing partnerships
with families to provide more accountability and growth for the children, etc.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Productive Giftedness Model offers a theoretical lens for understanding how
multiple factors can help produce achievement, accomplishment, or eminence. Matthews
114
and Foster (2006) presented the mystery vs. mastery paradigm, and challenged the
mystery approach with a mastery approach. A new ten-factor mastery model shows
how productive giftedness can be nurtured. Multiple factors including psychosocial
and environmental factors can influence productive outcomes. The review of literature
shows that motivation, use of time, home and school practices, and supportive
parents, teachers, mentors, and other adults can enhance learning opportunities. The
alterable factors in this study show how constructive changes can help optimize talent,
creativity, and productive giftedness. Many researchers show that focused motivation,
perseverance, and expended time can make significant accomplishment possible. While
high achievement may or may not be present, the research suggests that psychological
traits weigh more heavily than conventionally-measured intelligence. Focused
motivation, perseverance, and other positive characteristics of creative accomplished
individuals are powerful beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that will inevitably set the
creative producers apart from others with potential.
When we consider the first 18 years of life, the two most important institutions
are families (06 years) and schools (618 years) (Walberg & Paik, 1997). How
time is spent in these formative years can make for large differences. In considering
the advantages of Matthew Effects, early identification can help optimize childrens
development, learning, and talent. Targeting early ages is key for optimal growth,
especially in developing their interests and skills in specialized domains. Early
intervention is essential for students at home, especially in the first six years.
Both parents and teachers need to provide supportive environments. Parents and
teachers can collaborate and develop partnerships to provide more accountability
and opportunities for children in both the classroom and home. While parents and
teachers are indeed significant, talented or creatively gifted students may require the
attention of specialized instruction or extra guidance. Working closely with experts or
mentors provides an extra measure of support and accountability for further growth
in any domain. Parents, teachers, mentors, and others including peers can encourage
and model creative or productive behavior. These communities of practice can
provide helpful resources, opportunities, and advantages. Sosniak (1985) reminds us
that individuals and communities can provide the necessary support to grow talent
not only individually, but even on a larger scale. The Productive Giftedness Model
suggests that accomplishment is possible for even larger numbers of youth.
Creativity plays an important role every day, and it adds great value to society
at large. However, its not enough to be creative. Creativity and talent can be most
helpful when students have realized their own potential. Creatively gifted students
or any student for that matter cannot flourish without the full support of parents,
teachers, and even mentors. Focused motivation, perseverance, and hard work are
common characteristics of all greatness. In conclusion, some research, practice, and
policy recommendations are offered in the context of this chapter:
1. Develop and instill the importance of productive giftedness in creative and

talented individuals, especially in the early years. Early investments can impact
115
S. J. PAIK
early and later success. Nurture talent and creativity, but spend time developing
the importance of productive giftedness.
2. Productive giftedness is not based on one factor, but multiple factors. A productive
giftedness model may help guide and support key environmental and psychosocial
factors. Focus on key alterable factors in homes and schools, but understand the
contextual factors of students.
3. Many factors (including time) can be altered or optimized within the individual,
home, or school. Provide constructive learning environments that can help shape
attitudes and behaviors, which can impact achievement, accomplishment, or
eminence later in life.
4. Teach and practice focused motivation, perseverance, and other positive
characteristics of creative accomplished individuals. They are powerful beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors that will inevitably separate those with potential and
those who accomplish their endeavors.
5. Student commitment is essential for growth, but parents, teachers, and mentors
need to guide, support, and provide opportunities for the overall well-being and
success of all children. Talent and creativity can best be expressed as productive
giftedness when stakeholders work together to support all students.
REFERENCES
About.com (2011). Thomas Edison (n.d.). Retrieved on Sept 1, 2011, from http://inventors.about.com/
library/inventors/bledison.htm
About.com (2011). Alexander Graham Bell (n.d.) Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://inventors.about.
com/library/inventors/bltelephone2.htm
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Arnold, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (1995). Mentoring the gifted: A differentiated model. Educational
Horizons, 73, 118123.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B.S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent
in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Cassandro, V. J., & Simonton, D. K. (2002). Creativity and genius. In C.L.M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.),
Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 163183). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R.E. (2003). Mentoring the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 254267). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94, 94120.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.C. (1992). Motivation and creativity. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence
(pp. 1933). New York: Pergamon Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.C. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.C., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success
and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Encyclopedia of World Biography (2011). Pablo Picasso (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2011, from http://
www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Picasso-Pablo.html
Encyclopedia.com (2011). Adolphe Quetelet (n.d.). Retrieved on Sept 5, 2011, from http://www.
encyclopedia.com/topic/Adolphe_Quetelet.aspx
116
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert/ar/1
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4,
147148.
Fleming, C. (2003). Ben Franklins almanac: Being a true account of the good gentlemans life. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1994). The fruits of asynchrony: A psychological examination of creativity. In D. H. Felman,
M. C. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of
creativity (pp. 4768). Westport, CA: Praeger
George Bernard Shaw (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved on Sept 15, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw
Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Filippelli, L. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Childhood traits and conditions of eminent women scientists.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 37 - 46.
Ibe, R.E. (April 1994). The enduring effects of productivity factors on eighth grade students mathematical
outcome. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (1996). Mathematics
achievement in the middle school years: IEAs Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). (No. 96-71251). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston
College: IEA.
Iverson, B. K., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Home environment and learning: A quantitative synthesis.
Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 144151.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success. A literature review. Review of
Karl Friedrich Gauss (n.d.) Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.gap.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/
Quotations/Gauss.html
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review
of General Psychology, 13, 112.
Kaufman, S. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Ten years to expertise, many more to greatness: An investigation
to writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 114124.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705717.
Locke E. A., Saari L. M., Shaw K. N., & Latham G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:
19691980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 12552.
Loehle, C. (1994). A critical path analysis of scientific productivity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18,
3347.
Matthews, D. (2009). Developmental transitions in giftedness and talent: Childhood into adolescence. In
F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent
across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education.
Roeper Review, 28, 6469.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 5663.
National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.). PISA 2009 Results. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for school
reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Olszewski-Kublius, P. (2010). Psychological factors in the development of adulthood giftedness from
childhood talent [Electronic version]. Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University.
Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/resources/displayArticle/?id=125
117
S. J. PAIK
Paik, S. J. (2001). Educational productivity in South Korea and the United States. Research monograph:
International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 535607.
Paik, S. J. (2008). Altering the curriculum of the home: Learning environments for Korean and U.S.
students. Marriage and Family Review, 43, 289307. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Paik, S. J. (2012). From dogmatic mastery to creative productivity. In D. Ambrose & R. Sternberg (Eds.)
How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York: Routledge.
Paik, S. J. (In Press). Educational Productivity: Achieving Excellence. In J. D. Wright (Ed.) International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd.
Paik, S. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2007). Narrowing the achievement gap: Strategies for educating
Latino, Black, and Asian students. New York: Springer.
Paik, S. J., Wang, D., & Walberg, H. J. (2002). Timely improvements in learning. Educational Horizons,
80, 6971.
Patrikakou, E. N., Weisberg, R. P., Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2005). School- family
partnerships for childrens success. New York: Teachers College Press.
Redding, S. (2003). Parents and learning. Educational Practices Series-2. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Academy of Education.
Reichard, R. J., & Paik, S. J. (2011). Developing the next generation of leaders: Research, policy, and
practice. In S. E. Murphy & R. J. Reichard (Eds.) Early development and leadership: Building the next
generation of leaders (pp. 309328). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Renzulli , J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to
promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 3358.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. (2000). The schoolwide enrichment model. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg,
& R. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 184 - 203). Danvers, MA:
Elsevier Science.
Robinson, A. (2010). Perspiration, inspiration, and the 10-year. The Lancet 376 (9751), 14581459
[Electronic version]. Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/
article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61982- 4/fulltext
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific
disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441452.
Sir Isaac Newton (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Fenn28.html
Sosniak, L. (2003). Developing talent: time, task, and context. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (pp. 254267). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Sosniak, L. (1985). A long-term commitment to learning. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in
young people (pp. 477506). New York: Ballantine Books.
Subotnik, R. F. (2009). Developmental transitions in giftedness and talent: Adolescence into adulthood.
In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent
across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292316.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1985). Cognitive development in gifted and talented. In F.D. Horowitz
& M. OBrien (Eds.), The gifted and talented. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.
Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.) (2002), International handbook of gifted education. Danvers,
MA: Elsevier Science.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (n. d). Teaching for creativity: Two dozen tips. Center for Development
and Learning. Retrieved on September 15, 2011, from http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/
teaching_creativity.php
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
118
The Jefferson Monticello (n.d.). Thomas Jefferson. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://www.monticello.
org/
U.S. Department of Education (1996). National Center for Educational Statistics, Pursuing excellence,
NCES 97198, by Lois Peak. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walberg, H. J. (1969). A portrait of the artist and scientist as young men. Exceptional Children, 36, 511.
Walberg, H. J. (1971). Varieties of creativity and the high school environment. Exceptional Children, 38,
111116.
Walberg, H. J. (1982). Childhood traits and environmental conditions of highly eminent adults. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 25, 103107.
Walberg, H. J. (1984) Improving the productivity of Americas schools. Educational Leadership, 41,
1927.
Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (1997). Home environments for learning. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel
(Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 356 368). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2005). Making giftedness productive. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson
(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 395410). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1984). Matthew effects in education. American Educational Research
Journal, 20, 359374.
Walberg, H., Williams, D., & Zeiser, S. (2003). Talent, accomplishment, and eminence. In N. Colangelo
& G. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Walberg, H.W., Zhang, G., Haller, E., Sares, T., Stariha, W., Wallace, T., Zeiser, S.F. (1993). Early
educative influences: The Terman data revisited. In N. Colangelo, S.G., Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson
(Eds), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National
Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 195214). Dayton, Ohio: Ohio Psychology Press
Winner, E., & Martino, G. (2000). Giftedness in non-academic domains: The case of the visual arts and
music. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 95110). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
119
KIMBERLY M. MCCORMICK AND JONATHAN A. PLUCKER
CONNECTING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT TO THE

ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF GIFTED AND
TALENTED STUDENTS
ABSTRACT
Over the past 20 years, student engagement has become an increasingly popular
construct within the world of education. Recent research provides considerable
evidence that engagement is a key component of student academic success, yet the
role of engagement with gifted and talented students has received much less attention.
By broadly examining how the different components of student engagement connect
to the academic and social needs of gifted and talented students, we identify a
number of practical, research-based strategies for increasing the engagement of
gifted underachievers. This chapter discusses the importance of increasing gifted
and talented student engagement and how this can be done in the current educational
system.
In todays schools, considerable focus is placed on achievement and accountability
levels. With this in mind, research is expanding into a Whole Child Initiative to
examine what is needed so that students can be healthy, safe, engaged, supported,
and challenged in school. This philosophy for education is based on research that
provides evidence that learning happens best when every student has these five needs
met (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007; Brown, 2008;
Scherer, 2009). The Obama Administration is supportive of the efforts of the whole
child movement, specifically efforts being made to improve the support systems for
students in schools (Wolfe & Brodie, 2009).
When the term every student is used it should include the entire ability level
continuum, including gifted and talented students. Within the current state of
education in America, much of the focus is being placed on the students who are
not achieving (Farkas & Duffett, 2008). Resources, research, and policy changes are
all connected to trying to get the students who are academically struggling to have
more success in school. However, high achieving students can often be overlooked,
in part because many people feel these students will be successful without special
services (Moon, 2009). Yet a considerable body of research suggests that many
bright students do not reach their potential, with educational disengagement being
a potential cause of this underachievement (Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010;
Reis & McCoach, 2000; Schultz, 2002). Examining how student engagement relates

K. M. MCCORMICK AND J. A. PLUCKER
to the academic and social needs of talented students could bring benefits to all
gifted students and especially gifted underachievers.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, DISENGAGEMENT, AND ACHIEVEMENT
Over the last 20 years the term student engagement has re-emerged in the world
of education (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Engagement has been
found to be a key component to student success in school, and it has been identified
as a predictor of academic achievement and behavior (Goodenow, 1993; Marks,
2000). In early studies regarding student engagement, the concept was limited
to the idea of student engagement being synonymous with student participation.
In other words, engagement was whatever could be physically seen doing in a
classroom. For example, in two studies conducted by Finn (1993), the connection
between participation and engagement in school to student achievement was
examined, with results suggesting a strong relationship between participation and
achievement. Students were divided into three categories: successful, passing, and
unsuccessful, and the students who were defined as successful attended class, arrived
on time, were prepared, participated actively , completed homework, and were more
involved in extracurricular activities. It was found that levels of school participation
predicted the differences in reading and math achievement scores of the at-risk
students.
Researchers have also found that low student engagement is predictive of
disruptive behavior and skipping school (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995; Finn
& Rock, 1997). These findings have particular relevance to discussions of high
school reform, given that engagement appears to decrease as students progress
through school (Marks, 2000; McDermott, Mordell, & Stoltzfus, 2001). Indeed,
lower levels of dropping out exist when students can identify with their school,
feel a sense of belongingness, and have positive relationships with their teachers
(Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Mahoney & Cairns,
1997).
Expanding Models of Student Engagement
Many different definitions and models of student engagement have been created.
Typically, researchers have focused on a two-component view that includes a
behavioral component associated with positive behavior, effort, and participation
and an affective component that includes interest, identification, belonging with
school, as well as a positive attitude about learning (Finn, 1989; Marks, 2000;
Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; Willms, 2003). Over the past few years,
conceptions of student engagement have evolved to include a third, cognitive
component (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif,
2003; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003) which includes self-regulation, learning goals,
and students investment in their learning.
122
CONNECTING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT TO THE ACADEMIC
All three components are connected to student learning and achievement.

Behavioral engagement is what can easily be observed inside the classroom, for
example, students actively participating in classroom activities, assignments, and
projects. This type of engagement has a student taking an active role in their school
both inside the classroom and across all school areas (Fredricks et al., 2004; Munns
& Woodward, 2006). Cognitive engagement is connected to a student being truly
invested in the actual learning process. A cognitively engaged student masters the
full meaning of the material and takes a position more similar to an expert than a
novice (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Munns & Woodward, 2006). Motivational/
emotional engagement is when students see the value of what they are doing in
school. Students are not just going through the motions of the academic experience,
but self-reflect and connect to their learning (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Munns
& Woodward, 2006).
This three-component model of student engagement has continued to be built
upon by Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong (2006, 2008), who have split the
behavioral component of engagement into academic engagement (i.e., time on task,
credit hours, and homework completion) and behavioral engagement (attendance,
voluntary classroom participation, and extra-curricular participation). The expansion
of the model now includes the varying contexts that influence student engagement
like family, peers, and school. This model also includes the academic, social, and
emotional outcomes that high student engagement has for students. The most current
model of student engagement from Appleton et al. also looks at the effects of student
engagement in regards to the student interactions within his/her social context and
how that determines how the student perceives the school environment to meet his
or her fundamental needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. (Appleton,
Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Appleton et al., 2008). The expansion of student
engagement models are summarized in Table 1.
The Student-Teacher Relationship
Reagrding engagement in schools, the individual student is not the only actor. The
relationship between a student and teacher is also an important element. When there
is a strong and supportive teacher and student relationship, this can ultimately lead
to a better sense of engagement in the classroom (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair,
& Lehr, 2004). When asked the question, What is a good teacher? both teachers
and students believe that good teachers have close relationships with their students
that are built on trust (Beishuizen, Hof, van Putten, Bouwmeester, & Asscher, 2001).
Teacher support plays an important part in student engagment. One study found that
as teacher support increases, this in turn leads to increases in student engagment
ultimately leading to a positive effect on student performance in school. Teacher
support has been defined by three factors: (1) students felt that their teacher cared for
them, (2) expectations were set by teachers that were clearly explained to students
and were at the appropriate high level, and (3) there was an overall sense of fairness
123
Table 1. Models of Student Engagement
(Finn, 1989;
Affective
Marks, 2000;
Two Behavioral (interest,
Newmann,
Component (positive behavior, effort, identification,
Wehlage, &
View participation) belonging, positive
Lamborn, 1992;
attitude)
Willms, 2003)
(Fredericks,
Blumenfeld,
& Paris, 2004; Cognitive
Three
Jimerson, (self regulation,
Component Behavioral Affective
Campos, & goals, investment in
View
Grief, 2003; learning)
Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2003)
(Appleton,
Behavioral Academic
Christenson,
Four (attendance, (time on
Kim, & Reschly,
Component voluntary task, credits, Affective Cognitive
2006; Appleton,
View participation, homework
Christenson, &
extra-curriculars) completion)
Furlong, 2008)
felt by students from their teachers; when these three factors were present in the
classroom, students were more likely to be engaged in school and, in turn, had higher
attendance levels and higher achievement scores (Klem & Connell, 2004).
Teacher attachment has been found to contribute to academic motivation and
more learning strategies for students, and it also been found to be an especially
strong predictor of classroom behavior (Learner & Kruger, 1997). When students
feel cared for they try harder and pay more attention (Wentzel, 1997). Student
and teacher rapport has also been found to be beneficial for creating high student
engagement. When a student is in an environment that that is trusting, warm, and
friendly, engagement and achievement are higher (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Voelkl,
1995). Teacher communication that is not only motivating but also makes a personal
connection to students adds to the high engaging classroom (Dolezal, Welsh,
Pressley, & Vincent, 2003).
Student Engagement and Classroom Instruction
Just as teacher relationships are linked to school engagement, teacher instructional

strategies have implications for increasing engagement. In a study of third grade
teachers, Dolezal et al. (2003) found that high student engagement took place when
instruction was highly interactive and numerous teaching strategies were in place.
The activities of the classroom ranged from basic knowledge, to applications, and
124
then demonstrations of evaluation of the material. These are the classrooms where
the teacher is not just standing in the front of the students, who are sitting in neat
rows at their desks - it is a learning environment where the goal for students is not
just to master standards but rather to show improvement. The learning that takes
place is both horizontal and vertical. In another teacher instruction study conducted
by Marks (2000), the findings revealed that instruction that was authentic, required
higher order thinking, produced meaningful student dialogue, and connected to the
outside world resulted in higher academic achievement (Marks, 2000).
In addition, how students feel about schoolwork is connected back to student/
teacher relationships and student engagement. When students feel supported and
have secure relationships with their teacher, they will have greater interest in the
material and overall be more engaged. These ideas of student engagement also
connect to achievement and grades (Osterman, 2000). In a study specifically
looking at math instruction, Eccles et al. (1993) found that poor teacher and
student relationships were connected to students not valuing what they were
learning.
Student Ideas of Student Engagement
Much of the recent research that has been conducted on student engagement has
used teachers perceptions and definitions. For example, Bishop and Pflaum (2005)
asked middle school students about what was needed for a student to be engaged
and connected to their school. The findings revealed three essential factors: First,
students want to take an active role in what is expected of them in school. When they
feel their voice and opinions are being heard, this effects their engagement. Second,
when teachers are planning curriculum and lessons, it is also critical that they keep
the social and emotional concerns of their students in mind. Teachers must know and
understand who is being taught and then connect this to instruction. Finally, the pace
of instruction is key to high engagement. Students do not always want to be tied to
keeping up with their peers; working at a pace that is their own can be conducive to
engagement.
Why Gifted and Talented Student Engagement is Unique
Many researchers and educators assume that when a student demonstrates high
abilities in school, she or he is deeply engaged in their school experience. For gifted
and talented students, this results in an educational experience that is altered to
allow for content material that matches their advanced abilities; however, not a great
deal more is done. These learners are a very diverse group, and this alone will not
help them reach their full potential. Research has shown that gifted learners have a
unique set of factors that must be addressed when planning and implementing their
learning (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Plucker & McIntire, 1996; Reis
& Renzulli, 2004; Renzulli, 2002; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).
125
Supporting the Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted and Talented Students
Throughout the research of the social and emotional development of gifted and talented
learners, it has been found that these individuals are generally at least as well adjusted
as any other group of learners. High-ability students are not facing any more social and
emotional problems than their non-gifted peers. The important aspect is that while they
are as well adjusted as their peers, when they do experience situations that surround
their social and emotional development they are at risk. Research indicates that as IQ
increases there is an increased difference between an individuals chronological age
and mental abilities (Silverman, 2002). They will mask their true abilities in order to
fit in with their peers (Neihart et al., 2002). In fact, in a study of gifted and talented
adolescents, the students reported a more than a three to one ratio in favor of being
placed in homogenous high-ability groups over heterogeneous mixed-ability groups
(Adams-Byers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004). In addition, perfectionism is prevalent
among high-ability individuals. This can culminate in unhealthy behaviors such as:
extreme frustration, avoidance, anxiety, and failure (Schuler, 2002). Interestingly,
with all of this research it might appear that gifted individuals might be at greater
risk for psychological problems. However, a gifted individuals high problem-solving,
social, and reasoning skills act as coping factors for them. The idea that suicide is
more common among gifted teenagers than non-gifted teenagers is not supported
in the research (Neihart et al., 2002). Overall, a gifted and talented students affect
development is vital because it allows them to develop other talents. When this
development does not take place, their full potential might not be able to be obtained
(Levy & Plucker, 2008; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Plucker et al., 2004;
Reis & Renzulli, 2004). These reasons are what make it so important that students with
high abilities are supported on both the academic and emotional levels.
Supporting the Intellectual Differences of Gifted and Talented Students
Brain research has shown that the gifted brain is highly efficient (Singh & OBoyle,
2004), can absorb and process data more quickly (Baker, Vernon, & Ho, 1991), and
can maneuver more quickly between hemispheres of the brain (Jausovec, 2000). In
addition, individuals who are mathematically gifted have been found to have enhanced
brain connectivity (Prescott, Gavrilescu, Cunnington, OBoyle, & Egan, 2010). For
example, cognitive abilities and overall brain usage has been found to be unique to
gifted students. Studies have shown that gifted students are able to process more
information than their normal intelligence peers, can solve problems more quickly and
more efficiently, have a more efficient memory, have an enhanced array of strategies
to process information, have a strong foundation for knowledge, and have a better
understanding of metacognition (Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995; Baker,
Vernon, & Ho, 1991; Carr & Alexander, 1996; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998;
Singh & OBoyle, 2004). Also, a gifted individual has a broad working memory and a
good attention span. Operations can be completed more quickly, with more efficiency,
126
and more creatively (Jausovec, 2000; Jensen, 2006). Research has found that gifted
individuals cannot only process through material more quickly and efficiently, but
have a better control of their attention and are able to focus it more (Brumback, Low,
Gratton, & Fabiani, 2004). All of this connects to how important it is that schools and
programs match the academic needs of gifted and talented students. Several options
are available for working with this population of students: magnet schools, self-
contained classrooms, cluster grouping, advanced placement classes, grade skipping,
honors classes, or early entrance/graduation (Coleman & Cross, 2001).
LOOKING CLOSELY AT TWO SPECIAL POPULATIONS OF GIFTED AND

TALENTED STUDENTS
Gifted Underachievers
Underachievement is another issue widely connected to gifted and talented

individuals. In fact, 50 percent of high ability students do not achieve to their
best ability (Hoffman, Wasson, & Christianson, 1985; Rimm, 1987, 1997). An
underachiever is a student who has high intellectual ability, but does not perform to
match this ability. It can also be defined as a failure to develop or use the potential
that they have (Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982). Underachievement has been connected
to two factors: environmental and personal. Environmental can be things like
the school they attend or the peer group that they are a part of. Personal factors
include having the appropriate coping skills, low self-confidence, or a lack of goals
(Gallagher, Harradine, & Coleman, 1997; Rimm, 1987)
Students do not turn in assignments, do not participate in class, and can have truancy
issues. This can result because the students are placed in an unchallenging school
environment, feel pressure from their peers because they are different, feel isolated
from their intellectual peers, or have a family who is unsupportive of their unique
gifts. One of the biggest problems that surrounds this issue is that it is hard to change
in students and can ultimately follow them into adulthood (Reis & McCoach, 2002)
What needs to happen in schools is that teachers need to determine what a gifted
and talented students strength. These students need programming that is appropriate
and challenging. Instructional inventions have focused on helping create a more
favorable environment for the student and creating programming that allows for more
freedom and control for the student (Butler-Por, 1987). Another key component to
the educational environment of a gifted and talented student who is underachieving
is that they have both adults and teachers who set high expectations for the student
(Emerick, 1992).
Gifted Dropouts
The ultimate sign of underachieving for a gifted and talented individual is dropping
out completely from school. A gifted dropout has been defined as someone who has
127
withdrawn from his or her academic setting without graduating for any reason other
than death, illness, or transfer (French, 1969). It has been estimated that between 18
and 25% of gifted and talented students drop out of school (Robertson, 1991). Many
withdraw from school because they feel that their needs and feelings are not being
addressed. They feel that their talent is not supported by the school they attend. They
have also been characterized as not being interested in their school experiences and
feeling that the education that they are getting is not relevant to what they want in
life (Betts & Neihart, 1986).
Renzulli and Parks (2000) offered five recommendations for schools to ensure
that gifted and talented individuals do not drop out of school. The school needs to
understand that characteristics of gifted and talented dropouts. Then the culture of
the school needs to change to meet the academic and social needs of the students,
which involves curriculum that is accurate and challenging. It also needs to support
students interest and learning profile. A third recommendation from Renzulli and
Parks study is that more extracurricular activities need to be provided so that
gifted and talented students can participate in their school. These activities provide
an opportunity for students to connect with their peers and find another avenue of
school where they can become engaged. Counseling services should also be provided
for gifted and talented students. A last recommendation is that a strong home and
school connection is made with parents. It is through these five recommendations
that gifted and talented students can be supported in their schools and will not reach
a level where they feel that they need to drop out of school.
CONNECTING EXISTING ENGAGEMENT RESEARCH TO WORKING WITH

GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS
Success and achievement in school comes not from just one source, but it is more
a combination of several important elements. Classes, instruction, pedagogy,
teachers, relationships, and the social and emotional issues surrounding students are
all factors that ultimately play a hand in a particular students success in school.
In recent years, education research is finding evidence that students will achieve
at higher levels if student engagement and school connectedness are heightened
(Blum, 2005; McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002; Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2009; Resnick et al., 1997). These ideas have also been found when
looking specifically at gifted students. Research has found that gifted high school
disengagement and underachievement is connected to students disliking and being
disconnected from their school (Renzulli & Park, 2000). Disengagement happens
when they feel that their needs are not being addressed, school is not relevant to
them, and they are not getting the support that they need (Betts & Neihart, 1988).
Existing research has shown that instruction needs to be interactive and varied
(Dolezal et al., 2003). Students are seeking critical thinking, dialogue, and relevance
in the material that is being presented to them (Marks, 2000). Attention levels will be
higher and students will persist more (Wentzel, 1997). Close, trusting relationships
128
are wanted and needed for students (Beishuizen, Hof, van Putten, Bouwmeester,
& Asscher, 2001; Croninger & Lee, 2001). This type of relationship increases the
engagement level of a student in school which in turn helps increase achievement
(Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004; Klem & Connell, 2004). When
these strategies are in place student will connect, care, and value what they are doing
in school (Eccles, Early, Fraser, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; Osterman, 2000).
When looking at gifted elementary students, findings support that high engagement
is achieved when students feel a sense of control and choice in their learning.
Curriculum and instruction must be challenging and complex. In addition, students
must feel cared for by the adults in their schools (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003).
RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR GIFTED AND

TALENTED EDUCATION
Gifted students need advanced curriculum in their core subject areas (Colangelo,
Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Daurio, 1979) and should be grouped together using
acceleration of the material (Kulik, 1993). In keeping with gifted and talented best
practices, teachers should use curriculum and instruction that is differentiated to
fit the learning needs of the students (Tomlinson, 1996). It should be carefully
planned and infused with higher level thinking models. In addition, existing gifted
research has highlighted that the motivation and engagement of students should also
be supported by the curriculum. This can help lead to greater learning gains for
students. With this in mind, learning opportunities in the classroom should be student
centered and should focus on issues or problems that are connected to the students
world (VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). In addition, there is a general need for
more teacher professional development on how giftedness can be manifested and
how it can and should be supported in schools (Speirs-Neumeister, Adams, Pierce,
Cassady, & Dixon, 2007).
These measures will not only help the majority of gifted and talented students,
but they should also positively impact unique populations of gifted learners, such
as underachievers and creatively gifted students. These efforts will help engage
and connect them more effectively to the school experience than currently occurs.
These students especially need programming that is appropriate, challenging, and
supportive of students interests and learning profiles. Although the work by Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009) concludes that there is not adequate evidence
to justify incorporating learning style assessments in general educational practice,
other bodies of work provide evidence for support of this concept. Specifically,
research in the area of differentiation of curriculum and instruction as a response
to students learning profile has been found to improve overall achievement gains
when student intelligence or thinking preferences are matched with instructional
practices (Sternberg, 1997, Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998). In addition, a
school culture that understands their academic and social needs should be fostered.
Having close relationships with adults in the school building helps ensure that high
129
expectations are set for student behavior and attitudes (Emerick, 1992; Renzulli &
Park, 2000).
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING GIFTED AND TALENTED

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Formative Assessment
One way to support behavioral and cognitive engagement in the classroom is

through formative assessment strategies. Students do want to be passive participants
in their learning. Formative assessment provides the ideal opportunity for students
to participate in their learning by understanding why they are learning, how to make
progress, and become ultimately become independent learners (Bates & Munday,
2005). In addition, it was also important that instruction be carefully connected to
their ability level. Also keeping in mind that it can be difficult for teachers to assess
if students are cognitively engaged in the learning process, this shows how crucial
formative assessment can be in the gifted and talented classroom. Everything a
student does in the classroom from talking in groups, working on a project, turning
in assignments, or even simply looking confused can be used by the teacher to
analyze and makes instructional decisions. Hinge point questions, response cards,
and exit tickets are just a few examples of formative assessment activities that could
be utilized in the gifted and talented elementary classroom (Leahy, Lyon, Thompson,
& William, 2005). Formative assessment is a two-fold solution to supporting
engagement. One the one hand the physical act of having students participate in
the activities keeps them interacting and participating in the learning, an ideal
way to support students cognitive engagement. Data collected through formative
assessment gives the teacher valuable information to use to differentiate the learning
which also is essential to supporting student engagement.
Pre-assessment and Summative Assessment
Student engagement can also be supported with gifted and talented students through
other assessment practices. If students perceive that they already know information
or have already mastered the material, this causes them to be disengaged in the
learning process. However, what can often be the case is that students think they
have mastered the material, when they truly have not. Or teachers can assume that a
subject is new to a group of students and they have no prior knowledge of the material
(Stanley, 2000). Pre-assessment and summative assessment can be a powerful way
to support engagement with gifted and talented students. Here is a group of learners
who have the cognitive capability to take the data from a math pre-test and truly
comprehend what one does or does not know. When planning for instruction with
students, pre-assessment data provides the best route on how to get to the final
learning destination (Callahan, 2006). In addition, pre-assessment data can allow
130
for research-supported, curriculum compacting to be done. With this data in hand,

teachers can determine students who have already mastered the objectives and move
them on to more challenging material that interests them (Reis & Renzulli, 1992;
Reis et al., 1993; Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982). By creating a learning environment
where pre-assessment and summative assessment data is shared with students, they
will have a better understanding of their progress, which will increase both student
engagement and ownership of their learning.
Interaction
A peek inside a gifted elementary classroom should not reveal students quietly
working at their desks. To the contrary, learning must be an interactive process in
the gifted and talented classroom, which in turn facilitates behavioral engagement. A
verbal component provides the student with the opportunity to discuss the ideas and
material of interest. This can be a whole class discussion where teachers are asking
questions that prompt students to think and share, a small group conversation amongst
peers working in a group on a project, or simply the freedom for a student to have a
dialogue with oneself as they are working through a math problem. Dialogue does
not always have to be spoken; there are times when it can come in the form of written
correspondence. For example, a dialogue journal is a notebook that is kept jointly by a
student and a teacher. Each writes entries as messages to the other (Armstrong, 1994).
Gifted and talented students are a verbal group and need to have an environment
where this is allowed. Interaction is the physical component of engagement. Students
need to be involved in their learning. Whether that is through having the independence
to come up with their own way to demonstrate their knowledge of a novel he/she just
read or getting their hands dirty with rocks and minerals in a science lab. A gifted
classroom is not static, but one that is filled with interaction.
Advanced Organizers
Loss of cognitive engagement is a typical issue with gifted and talented elementary
students. What is so hard about supporting a students cognitive engagement is that
this is the piece that can go unnoticed by adults. What could assist students and their
cognitive engagement is for teachers to utilize advanced organizers in their teaching.
This can heighten their metacognitive skills and assist in sustaining their cognitive
engagement while they are learning. In a study working with graduate students
in gifted education, researchers found that using advanced organizers assisted in
having an understanding of students cognitive development and understanding. In
addition, the organizers provided motivation to students about demonstrating what
they already know about a given subject (Diket & Abel, 2001). These same ideas
could be utilized in the elementary classroom and also connect back to the earlier
discussion about the importance of formative assessment for gifted and talented
students.
131
CONCLUSION
With a better understanding of what it means to be an engaged elementary gifted

and talented student, the ideas behind the whole child initiative can truly be
actualized in todays classrooms. Gifted and talented students have unique academic
and social needs, as do specific groups of gifted students such as underachievers
and creatively gifted students. Through understanding and supporting these needs,
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement can be increased. By supporting
and continuing the strategies and recommendations suggested by current research,
educators can maximized the chances that high ability students will have educational
experiences that allow them to reach their fullest potential.
REFERENCES
Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students perceptions of the academic
and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly,
48(1), 7.
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted
children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15(1), 137.
Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & connect: The
importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology,
42(2), 95113.
Armstrong, D. C. (1994). A gifted childs education requires real dialogue: The use of interactive writing
for collaborative education. Gifted Child Quartely, 38(3), 136145.
Appleton, J. A., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical
conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369386.
Appleton, J. A., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2007). The whole child initiative. Retrieved
March 30, 2010, from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/
Baker, L. A., Vernon, P. A., & Ho, H.-Z. (1991). The genetic correlation between intelligence and speed
of information processing. Behavior Genetics, 21(4), 351367.
Bates, J., & Munday, S. (2005). Able, gifted, and talented. New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Beishuizen, J. J., Hof, E., van Putten, C. M., Bouwmeester, S., & Asscher, J. J. (2001). Students and
teachers cognitions about good teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 185201.
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248253.
Bishop, P. A., & Pflaum, S. W. (2005). Student perceptions of action, relevance, and pace. Middle School
Journal, 36(4), 412.
Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 1620.
Brown, J. L. (2008). Educating the whole child. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Brumback, C. R., Low, K. A., Gratton, G., & Fabiani, M. C. A. (2004). Sensory ERPs predict differences
in working memory span and fluid intelligence. Neuroreport, 15(2), 373376.
Butler-Por, N. (1987). Underachievers in school. New York: Wiley.
Callahan, C. (2006). Assessment in the classroom: The key to good instruction. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press,
Inc.
Carr, M., & Alexander, J. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks.
Roeper Review, 18(3), 212.
132
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing
protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions,
and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 3639.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How school should back Americas
brightest students (Vol. I and II). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance,
and teaching. Waco: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk
students of teachers support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 548.
Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In George,
W. C., Cohn, S. J., & Stanley, J. C. (Eds.), Educating the gifted, acceleration and enrichment. (pp.
1353). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Diket, R. M., & Abel, T. H. (2001). Metacognitive instrument for tracking graduate student learning in
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 2434.
Dolezal, S. E., Welsh, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M. M. (2003). How nine third-grade teachers
motivate student academic engagement. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 239267.
Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Review and implications.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 179184.
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Fraser, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection,
regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research,
12(2), 263286.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993).
Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents
experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90101.
Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students perceptions of factors
that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140146.
Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). Results from a national teacher survey. In High achieving students in
the era of NCLB (pp. 4982). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and
achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 421434.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221234.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59109.
French, J. L. (1969). Characteristics of high Ability dropouts. NASSP Bulletin, 53, 6779.
Gallagher, J., Harradine, C., & Coleman, M. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students views on
their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132136.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation
and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 2143.
Hoffman, J. L., Wasson, F. R., & Christianson, B. P. (1985). Personal development for the gifted
underachiever. Gifted Child Today, 8, 1214.
Jausovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average
individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28(3), 213237.
Jensen, E. (2006). Enriching the brain: How to maximize every learners potential. San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures
of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 727.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the
honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 2028.
133
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement
and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262273.
Kulik, J. A. (1993). Meta analytic findings on groping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 7377.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day
by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 1824.
Learner, D. G., & Kruger, L. J. (1997). Attachment, self-concept, and academic motivation in high-school
students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(3), 485492.
Levy, J. L., & Plucker, J. A. (2008, January 31). A multicultural competence model for counseling gifted
and talented children. Journal of School Counseling, 6(4). Retrieved from www.jsc.montana.edu/
articles/v6n4.pdf
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and
learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19,
119137.
Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout?
Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 241253.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle,
and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153184.
McDermott, P. A., Mordell, M., & Stoltzfus, J. C. (2001). The organization of student performance in
American schools: Discipline, motivation, verbal learning, nonverbal learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 6576.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: evidence
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4),
138146.
Moon, S. M. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students dont face problems and challenges. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 174276.
Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: The REAL
framework. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 13(2), 193.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional development
of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student
engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagment and achievement in american secondary
schools (pp. 1139). New York: Teachers College Press.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational
Research, 70(3), 323367.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105119.
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! Bloomington, IN: Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy.
Plucker, J., & McIntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high potential, middle school students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 714.
Plucker, J. A., Robinson, N. M., Greenspon, T. S., Feldhusen, J., McCoach, D. B., & Subotnik, R. (2004).
Its not how the pond makes you feel, but rather how high you can jump. American Psychologist, 59,
268269.
Prescott, J., Gavrilescu, M., Cunnington, R., OBoyle, M., & Egan, G. (2010). Enhanced brain connectivity
in math-gifted adolescents: An fMRI study using mental rotation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(4), 277
288.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and
where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152170.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average.
Educational Leadership, 50(2), 5157.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Pucell, J. H., Roger, J. B.,
& Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum
compacting study. Monograph of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 93106.
134
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis,
N. M. Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What
do we know? (pp. 8191). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted
and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119130.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for
working with gifted students. The Elementary School Journal, 82(3), 185194.
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century.
Exceptionality, 10(2), 6775.
Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(4),
261271.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997).
Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health.
JAMA, 278(10), 823832.
Robertson, E. (1991). Neglected dropouts: The gifted and talented. Equity and Excellence, 25, 6274.
Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49(1), 117139.
Scherer, M. (Ed.). (2009). Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning, teaching,
and leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schuler, P. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M.
Robinson & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we
know? (pp. 7177). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Schultz, R.A. (2002). Understanding giftedness and underachievement: At the edge of possibility. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 46(3), 193208.
Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson &
S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?
(pp. 3137). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Singh, H., & W. OBoyle, M. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in
mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neuropsychology,
18(2), 371377.
Speirs-Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-
grade teachers perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted
students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479499.
Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they dont already know. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 6(1), 216222.
Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 55(7), 2024.
Sternberg, R., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American
Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional
identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 155174.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of
curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342359.
Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental
Education, 63(2), 127138.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411419.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
Wolfe, F., & Brodie, J. M. (July 24, 2009). Whole child movement. Experts: Student-teacher bond affects
achievement. Education Daily, p. 2.
135
BARBARA KERR AND M. ALEXANDRA VUYK
CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR CREATIVELY

GIFTED STUDENTS
What Parents, Teachers, and Counselors Need to Know
ABSTRACT
For adolescents who want creative work, the way is unclear and the barriers are
many. How does one become a video game designer, an inventor, or an installation
artist? This chapter describes a new strategy of profiling, in which we compared
the profiles of adolescents to those of eminent people in the arts, sciences, and
healing professions when they were sixteen years old. Next, we created research-
based interventions using both rational and intuitive techniques, combining
goal-setting with visualizations and flow state experiences. The next step was to
contact high schools in the state with the opportunity to profile and send teams
of up to 12 students for a comprehensive day of assessment, individual guidance,
group career development, and goal-setting. We have now counseled 600 gifted
adolescents, and learned much that can be helpful to parents, teachers and
counselors.
Creativity and innovation drive the economy. To win the future, America needs
to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world, said Barack Obama
in his State of the Union address (2011). In his book The Rise of the Creative Class,
Florida (2002) suggested that the global society is built on creativity and innovation.
Similarly, in his book Five Minds for the Future, Gardner (2006) proposed the
creating mind as one of the five crucial minds we will have to develop further if we
want to live in a viable world. National science institutions have a high interest in
fostering innovation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields. Creating minds include artists as well as scientists and includes people in
design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is to
create new ideas, new technology and/or creative content (Florida, 2002, p. 8).
As such, we have to expand our understanding of creativity and our refine our
identification mechanisms in order to assure that we are finding, guiding, and
mentoring a new generation of innovators.
Identification of creative individuals is an ongoing challenge since there is no one-
size-fits-all method. Most procedures are often costly and complicated while having
many shortcomings such as the narrow scope of identified students according to the

B. KERR AND M. A. VUYK
domain; the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (1974) are geared towards potential
gifted program participants, portfolios are mostly used for admission to selective
arts programs, and projects are selection tools for invention programs. Additionally,
efforts in recruitment for STEM fields mostly focus on populations traditionally
underrepresented such as women or minorities while creative individuals continue to
be overlooked (Kerr& McKay, in press). Potential for highly creative achievements
is wanted in STEM, and creative students will need career counseling to explore all
their available options. Finding creative students for career development programs is
still a pending task, yet profiling) might be an efficient solution for these problems,
given that teachers have been found to be effective in identifying creative students
who match the achievement, personality, and behavior profiles of creative eminent
individuals (Kerr& McKay, in press).
Creatively gifted students face career challenges mostly unknown by their peers.
While academically gifted students tend to go into well-established and respected
fields, creative students are left to find their own way. Frequently, family, teachers
and peers are not supportive of their choices, pushing them to switch to some
mainstream field in which they will be able to make a living or to a field that
provides a sense of career security. In other cases students have the support they
need to pursue the nonconventional field they love, yet do not know how or what
to do to achieve their goals and do not know who to turn to for help. Each creative
profession has its own ups and downs, its own inside codesand these are not easy
to crack.
CREATIVE PERSONALITY
The creative personality is not a myth but a reality. The Big Five personality
factors, which encompass openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism, are nowadays frequently used to study personality as
they proved strong across studies (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to experience
is usually the greatest predictor of creativity. Feist (1998) conducted a meta-analysis
on personality traits among creative people in the arts and sciences, finding that the
overwhelming majority showed high levels of openness to experience; this means
they are open to revisit traditional ideas and values, are highly curious, enjoy trying
out new activities, like to travel, relish in new tastes and flavors, tend to have intense
imagination and fantasy, appreciate aesthetics and value emotional experiences
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Creative individuals also displayed low agreeableness;
they will not conform to the majority to be liked by others, they tend to have less
empathy and to place relatively low importance on social harmony and cooperation
if it means to accommodate to other peoples desires (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Their
low conscientiousness means they are generally more laid-back, less focused on
success, and more disorganized (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Other traits displayed by
creative individuals that were higher than the regular population were self-acceptance,
self-confidence, dominance, hostility, ambition and impulsivity (Feist, 1998).
138
CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR CREATIVELY GIFTED STUDENTS
These traits persisted regardless of scientific or artistic creativity, although there

were also a few traits that distinguished artists from scientists, including higher
consciousness for scientists and hostility for artists. Creative individuals are here to
explore the world and to have all the experiences they can; they are not here to make
other people happy or to do jobs that require careful attention. Do not be mistaken;
they have no problems with attention, but they just choose where to direct it.
Creative personalities appear more frequently in certain domains of giftedness.
Gifted students in the Social Science, Art, and Science areas scored significantly
higher ion tests of creative personality characteristicsthan gifted students in Music
and Foreign Language groups (Halpin, Payne, & Ellett, 1974).
Creative individuals have a high ability to enter flow, a state of consciousness
characterized by intense absorption and involvement with a challenging task; during
this flow state they show high levels of intrinsic motivation to accomplish it, even
losing track of time (Csikzentmihalyi, 1996). In his study, Csikzentmihalyi (1996)
studied one hundred eminent individuals with creative accomplishment, discovering
their great ability to enter flow states and also their high ability to reconcile opposites
and live with paradoxes.
Based on personality traits, emotion, motivation, cognition, social expression
and self-regulation, Ivcevic and Mayer (2008) identified four unique clusters of
creativity in adults; conventional people, everyday creative people, artists, and
scholars. Creative people thought of themselves as having a creative role in their
lives and had high levels of openness to experience, persistence and intellectual
curiosity; they also showed trait hypomania, the power to work intensely and
vigorously on something specific during a prolonged time. Scholars showed high
divergent thinking, intrinsic motivation and risk taking. Their results lendsupport
the hypothesis of creativity being domain-specific rather than an underlying tgeneral
ability applicable to any domain.
VOCATIONAL INTERESTS IN CREATIVE PEOPLE
Among a myriad of vocational personality traits, six defined interest clusters

can be found; these are Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and
Conventional (RIASEC, Holland, 1985). These six interests are sometimes referred
to as the RIASEC model or as Basic Interest Scales as they are called in the Strong
Interest Inventory.
Individuals with realistic interests are doers and typically prefer working with
things such as tools and machines, mostly enjoy physical tasks, and are practical.
Sample occupations include mechanics, engineers, and drivers. Investigative
people are thinkers and prefer to work with ideas and theories; they are drawn
to sciences and the analytic world. Typical jobs comprise university professors,
mathematicians, and researchers of all disciplines. Artistic individuals are creators
and are highly independent, attracted to the arts, nonconformist, and original.
They have low need for order and organization. Sample careers include actors,
139
dancers, and graphic designers. Social interests indicate helpers, people who
enjoy working with others and guiding, nurturing them. They prefer cooperation
over competition. Examples are teachers, therapists, and nurses. Individuals with
enterprising interests are persuaders and like to compete and dominate. These are
self-starters who enjoy projects. Frequently, they enjoy careers in sales, marketing,
law, politics, or are business owners. Conventional people are organizers and keep
things under control in impeccable order. They pay attention to details and enjoy
routines. Characteristic professions for them may be accountants, bankers, copy
editors, and secretaries. These interest scales are widely used in career counseling as
a means of finding potential occupations that will match with the persons interests
(Holland, 1996).
Several researchers believe that these vocational interests correspond to certain
personality traits. A meta-analysis by Larson, Rottinghaus, and Borgen (2002)
brought together all studies conducted on Hollands six Basic Interest Scales and
the Big Five personality traits. They discovered that the stereotypical creative
person is artistically oriented and their most salient personality trait is openness to
experience; a moderate positive correlation of r = .48 among artistic interests and
openness to experience is therefore not a surprise (Larson, et al, 2002). However, art
is merely one domain of creativity, which explains why the correlation is not higher.
Plus, not all people showing artistic interests are creative. Enterprising interests
and extraversion correlated positively as well with r = .41; frequently, successful
entrepreneurs are people-oriented and have good social skills. Another moderate
positive correlation exists among social interests and extraversion, r = .31; low,
positive correlations exist between investigative interests and openness to experience,
r = .28, and social interests and agreeableness, r = .19 (Larson, Rottinghaus, &
Borgen, 2002).
Similar correlations appeared in a study with gifted adolescents (Larson & Borgen,
2002); this sample might include more creative people than the general population
since some identification strategies for gifted programs in schools include creativity
tests. Openness to experience and artistic interests showed a correlation of r = .62,
which is notoriously higher than previous correlations found in other studies. Other
correlations that were higher in this study include extraversion and social interests with
r = .38, agreeableness and social interests which correlated at r = .33, and openness to
experience and investigative interests r = .27. Extraversion and enterprising interests
correlated at r = .29, which is lower than in previous studies. Larson and Borgen
(2002) also correlated personality facet scales to interest scales, shedding light on
underlying relationships between personality and vocational interests. Warmth and
positive emotions, two facets of extraversion, correlated at r = .45 and r = .36 with
social interests. Agreeableness facets of trust, altruism and tender-mindedness had
the largest correlations of the trait facets with social interests, with r = .33, r = .35 and
r = .31 respectively; we can therefore infer that those are the main reasons that draw
those high in agreeableness to the helping professions. Artistic interests correlated
with facets of openness to experience such as aesthetics (r = .69), fantasy (r = .36),
140
feelings (r = .38) and ideas (r = 36). Similarly, artistic interests showed an interesting
negative correlation of r = .17 with self-discipline, a facet of conscientiousness;
although low, it indicates a tendency. Investigative interests showed a relationship of
r = .47 with ideas, a facet of openness to experience.
CREATIVE PROFILES
Given how people with different personality traits can be found among the six
interests in Hollands Basic Interest Scales, it makes sense to believe people might
similarly show differing personality traits in different creativity domains which
could fit certain profiles. A profiling approach could therefore serve as a low-cost,
efficient alternative to previous identification methods. Such an approach has
proven effective in other programs in the past. Kerr and Kurpius (2005) created
personality profiles of successful women scientists as an identification tool for their
ten year study of girls with math and science talent. Achievement scores and grades
complemented the profiles in their selection process. The girls who participated
in the program had similar personalities and vocational interests as the women
scientists whose characteristics were used as criterion, indicating the helpfulness of
the profiling method.
Based on the profiles of distinguished creative people in five domains, we created
one general and five specific profiles which comprise interest, personality, and
achievement. The creativity domains included linguistic, mathematical/scientific,
interpersonal/emotional, music and dance, and visual/spatial.
The Counseling Laboratory for the Exploration of Optimal States (Project
CLEOS) at the University of Kansas seeks to provide career counseling to creatively
gifted adolescents, whose career paths are not as well defined as more traditional
ones; they have unknown barriers to overcome to find their ideal life situation.
Participants were recruited through letters sent to directors of gifted programs all
over the state of Kansas, with the following general profile description:
Core creativity characteristics. Creatively gifted students may be spontaneous,
expressive, intuitive, and perceptive, with evidence of intellectual sophistication and
childlike playfulness. They are very likely to be curious, open to new experiences,
and innovative in many areas of their lives. They may express originality in thoughts,
and are probably unafraid of what others might think of their ideas. Most likely, these
students have a wide range of interests and abilities, and may be comfortable with
ambiguity and disorder. Likely to be unconventional, creatively gifted students are
imaginative, and may challenge the status quo. By late adolescence, truly creative
individuals usually have significant creative accomplishments that have earned them
recognition by experts in their domain. Most important, many of these students may
not have qualified for gifted education programs because of their concentration on
their areas of interest rather than being well-rounded students.
Sources: Amabile (1983); Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel & Hansen (2004);
Csikzentmihalyi (1996); Torrance (1984); Simonton (1999); and Runco (2004).
141
The last sentence was incorporated after the first group of students came,
to emphasize the fact that the selected students did not have to be a part of their
respective gifted programs at school.
Profiles, and the sources of the descriptors, are as follows:
Language; verbal/linguistic creativity; potential writers, journalists,
translators, and linguists. The student is likely to be a precocious and avid
reader with an extensive knowledge of literature; a sophisticated writer; may have
advanced ability to learn other languages. The student should have outstanding
verbal accomplishments. He/she may be witty and expressive. Verbal precocity may
get him or her in trouble. The student is likely to have excellent grades in Language
Arts/English/Foreign language when interested, and have high scores on verbal
achievement tests. May have mood swings, ranging from expansive, energetic,
optimism when he or she works day and night with intensity on a project, to periods
of self-doubt, low energy, and cynicism.
Sources: Jamison (1989); Andreason (1987); Piirto (2002); Valds (2003);
VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, and Boyce (1996); Barron (1969); Kaufman (2001,
2002).
Mathematical and scientific inventiveness. The student may be a natural
mathematician with an ability to perform complex computations in his or her head or
who possesses an advanced understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts.
The student loves science, experimentation, and new technology. In addition, the
student enjoys manipulating materials and information, tinkering, adjusting the
designs of objects, apparel, hardware and software. Intense curiosity and fascination
with enigmas and unsolved problems leads this student to read widely and in
depth. If challenged, the student has good grades in math, science, and laboratory
classes; if not, the student may expend little effort. Most scientists and inventors
had significant accomplishments such as winning regional or national math and
science competitions, or having patentable inventions or designs that are income-
producing. These students are usually well-adjusted, but are likely to have just a few
like-minded friends.
Sources: Innamorato (1998); Simonton (1988); Park, Park, and Choe (2005);
Sriraman (2005), Subotnik, Maurer, and Steiner (2001); Assouline and Lupkowski-
Shoplik (2005).
Interpersonal/emotional creativity. These students are characterized by
emotional intelligence, meaning they have the ability to understand and manage
their own emotions and those of others. The student may be a natural mimic, able
to do impressions, absorb accents, and get inside anothers skin. The student may
be the kind of helper that other students seek out for help and or a natural leader
who is usually selected by peers to lead in both formal and informal situations.
They are extraverted and people-oriented, able to form relationships across cultures
and age groups; agreeable and friendly toward all. They thrive on connection, and
experience deep empathy. They may have excellent grades in social sciences, debate,
142
rhetoric, and leadership courses, as well as recognition for performance, leadership,

or volunteerism.
Sources: Salovey and Grewal (2005); Bolton and Thompson (2004); Hogan,
Curphy, and Hogan (1994); Daloz, Keen, Keen, and Parks (1996); Simonton (2008).
Musical and dance creativity. The student has the ability to sing or play
instruments usually multiple instruments- or to dance with technical expertise and
imagination. She or he may have an intuitive understanding of music or movement,
and often has perfect pitch, excellent rhythm, and musical memory. The student
can compose or choreograph; his or her own creations have won the recognition of
experts. The student dances, sings, and performs as often as possible but may be
defensive, anxious, or perfectionistic, sometimes leading to denial of coveted roles
while in school. These students possess excellent musical knowledge in one or more
genres, such as hip hop, jazz, pop, or classical, and may have sought out rare and
little known pieces for inspiration. Although more introverted than extraverted, the
student is likely to be transformed on stage into an expressive, creative performer,
entering a flow state that conquers shyness or anxiety.
Sources: Sloboda (1988, 2005); Van Rossum (2001); Oreck, Owen, and Baum
(2003).
Spatial visual creativity. The student has a powerful ability to visualize designs,
colors, and to manipulate 3D images in mind and an ability to draw models and
designs with technical skill. The student is imaginative and original in thinking,
conversation, and attire. He or she creates cartoons, websites, paintings, graphic art,
sculpture, photography, video, or architecture that has already earned the recognition
of experts. The student may have excellent grades in art, photography, shop,
drawing, or other course emphasizing spatial/visual ability, but may underperform
in other classes. Like writers, artists are likely to have mood swings, but those
students who lean more toward design and architecture may be more stable in mood.
The student is more introverted than extroverted, reflective, and easily enters flow
states.
Sources: Kay (2000); MacKinnon (1961); Pariser and Zimmerman (2004); Stohs
(1992); Barron (1972); Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1971); Dudek and Hall (1991).
CLEOS profiles. Surprisingly, factor and cluster analyses did not support
the aforementioned creativity domains as having different personalities. In our
analyses, one cluster was formed by students with verbal, mathematic/scientific,
musical/dance and spatial visual together as a group with shared personality
characteristics. This group displayed the core creativity characteristics identified
by many researchers, yet the other groups did not. Two groups with interpersonal/
emotional interests appeared, helpers and leaders; as well as one encompassing
realistic, practical introverts with high levels of conscientiousness (Kerr & McKay,
2010). The latter three groups do not represent the stereotypical views of the
creative person, which makes them likely to be overlooked in the search for creative
potential.
143
Creative Scholars Creative Leaders

Artistic and Investigative interests Enterprising and Social interests
Prefer occupations that deal with Prefer occupations that deal with people
creating, whether in the arts or sciences in which they hold power or autonomy
High openness to experience, sentience, High extraversion, exhibition, dominance,
understanding, absorption affiliation and aggression
Low conscientiousness
Are sociable and outgoing
Take pleasure in their sensorial Relish the company of others
experiences Enjoy being the center of attention
Show a never-ending intellectual Like to direct and influence others
curiosity May get easily angry
Prefer variety and change; loathe
routines
Have an active imagination
Can easily enter flow states and be
absorbed
Are laid-back and somewhat
disorganized
Creative Helpers Inventors
Social interests Realistic interests
Prefer occupations that deal with people Prefer occupations that deal with things,
in a nurturing manner mechanics, machines
High agreeableness, conscientiousness, High conscientiousness, achievement,
nurturance and affiliation endurance and cognitive structure
Low neuroticism, dominance and aggression Low extraversion
Are friendly and generous Are masters of practicality and structure
Enjoy the company of others Set difficult goals and high standards for
Comfort others when in need, feel themselves
naturally drawn to do so Work hard and for long periods of time
Feel empathy towards others with great persistence
Strive to keep harmony Make careful plans and leave nothing to
Cooperate and collaborate luck
Stay calm and emotionally stable Maintain order and organization
Think carefully before they act Do not work well with uncertainty
Maintain order and organization Prefer the company of a few select ones
Dislike positions of high power rather than big crowds
Keep to themselves
Source: Kerr & McKay (2010)
TRILATERAL MODEL OF ADAPTIVE CAREER DECISION MAKING
Making career decisions is, for many people, not an easy task. What information do
we have available to evaluate and then decide? Which factors are most important?
144
How should we proceed? Acknowledging these difficulties in a fast changing world

where the job market is not as secure as it once was, Krieshok, Black, and McKay
(2009) developed the trilateral model of adaptive career decision making. Focusing
on the adaptability of the worker as the most important trait in todays world of work,
this model includes rational, intuitive and behavioral inputs as three interwoven
essential parts of the decision-making process.
Career development literature relied excessively on rational assessments and
interpretations as decision making tools for a long time; however, the world of work
has changed and as such career counseling practices must change as well, if they are
to remain helpful to clients (Savickas, 2000). To find alternatives, studying the vast
decision-making literature in other areas to import those to career realms seems only
natural. In other fields, many decision making models focus on the interplay among
rational and intuitive, unconscious factors. Neuroscience studies support the latter
model, showing decision making processes are largely outside of our conscious
awareness (Krieshok et al., 2009). Occupational engagement implies one stays
active in the world; this leaves possibilities open, allowing people to try new skills
and activities that may later relate, or not, to the world of work. Being open to new
experiences that can feed our intuition gives our unconscious more chances to like
or dislike an activity without the need for rationalization. In turn, this makes people
further attuned to their personal career goals; also, they become more interested in
pursuing enrichment activities and explore potential alternatives (Krieshok et al.,
2009).
The trilateral model considers rational tools one part of the equation and not
the entire truth. Interpreting career assessments of creative people, who frequently
display paradoxical traits (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) can be a difficult task for a
counselor. However, rational inputs are still a crucial decision-making and therefore
should not be ignored. Entering interventions that target the intuitive side seems
then particularly suited to these individuals, who are usually more tuned in to
their intuition than most people and generally rely on their intuition and insight
to make decisions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Since creative occupations do not
follow common career ladders, staying engaged may prove crucial for our future
innovators as it can provide them with possibilities and opportunities they may not
find otherwise (Kerr, McKay, & Krieshok, in press).
CAREER INTERVENTIONS IN CLEOS
Project CLEOS welcomes creative students in the morning, and a discussion of

their flow experiences follows. What makes them feel passionate and lose track of
time while at the same time being challenged to the maximum of their abilities?
Students and counselors tell their experiences while drawing among the common
theme of flow, to make these experiences universal yet at the same time unique to
each person. The underlying message for these students is to convince them that
something that is such a source of passion should not be abandoned. This activity
145
is highly intuitive as it refers to emotional memories, without the need for elaborate
cortical rationalizations.
Then, students fill out several interests and personality assessments. Throughout
the years in CLEOS we have administered diverse tests, yet each battery always
comprises a vocational interest inventory, a personality style test and an additional
inventory. Some tests used include the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
(MDQ), the Six Factor Personality Questionnaire (SFPQ), the NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R), the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI), the
VIA Survey of Character Strengths, the Tellegen Absorption Scale and the BEE
Perfectionism Inventory.
In individual career counseling sessions, students see their assessment results and
have the opportunity to discuss them with a counselor. Typically, career assessments
are the quintessential rational interventions. CLEOS counselors are trained and
experienced in interpreting career assessments, both in the traditional way, as well
as finding out the stories the student has to tell and how they weave their relationship
with work and career choices. Mixing traditional assessment reports and postmodern
narrative theories such as Savickas (2000) stories approach, students are able to see
their real selves in those assessment results instead of standardized profiles. They are
able to take the best part out of it and understand the parts that may seem puzzling.
Students also engage in what we call Future Perfect Day, a visual imagery
activity in which they imagine themselves ten years into the future living a perfect
work day. This activity once again engages intuitive, non-conscious processes.
Imagery activities are non-verbal, demanding less involvement from more rational
parts of the brain. The person may feel as if he or she is actually experiencing the
activity and this allows for raw emotional responses. Plus, visual imagery activities
are safe; there is no need to talk about it or share it with anyone else, which may
appeal to more introvert types.
When time permits, students have the experience to see their brain on flow. Usually,
this elicits powerful reactions from students, who are amazed to see that flow
is real! One student will be connected to a heart rate variability monitor or to an
electroencephalograph while the group watches his or her reactions. First, students
are told to ask Trivial Pursuit-like questions to the one connected to the machines;
that way, they see the intense brain activity that comes with a busy mind. Then, the
student is told to take deep breaths and try to relax with eyes closed; the group receives
the same instructions to help the model student achieve a relaxation state. Once they
see the change in brain waves, we tell the student to visualize a state of flow and to
mentally travel to that moment. Sooner or later, the student will feel flow and the
monitor shows a marked change in amplitude and frequency of brain waves. When
the student in question opens his or her eyes, usually we can hear the whole story of
the visualization and relate it to specific peaks or slowing down of brain waves.
The day ends with a goal-setting session, another rational tool, which helps
students visualize step by step what they could do to make their dream come true
in the future; in other words, what they need to do to stay engaged. Starting with a
146
small step to take today, tomorrow, next month, in the next six months, and in the
next year, this potential future they saw for themselves in the Future Perfect Day
fantasy seems more attainable and within reach.
DOES CLEOS WORK?
The ultimate outcome of the CLEOS experience for students is to discover career
options that respect and honor their creativity and interests, and to design a path in
which they can accomplish their dream. A practical way of measuring this abstract
goal is to increase students occupational engagement, a crucial part in the Trilateral
Model of Career Decision Making (Krieshok et al., 2009); this means, to find ways
to get out in the world and get involved with what they love.
Creative students increased their scores in global occupational engagement and in
the three dimensions of attunement, enrichment and exploration after attending one
day at CLEOS compared to a waitlist control group. This increase in occupational
engagement also held during time. In a qualitative follow-up six months later, 32 of
33 (97%) CLEOS participants reported having engaged in specific behaviors related
to career exploration and feeling positive about the steps taken. These behaviors
related to all three dimensions of occupational engagement. Attunement was
demonstrated as students understood the purpose of the assessments, remembered
their results and knew how to make decisions that fit their interests, personality and
values; this led to reaffirming their identity (I am a creative businesswoman and
I should view myself as having more potential), choices (reaffirmed my career
choice in engineering) and peers (I learned that there are other people like me out
there who dont really know what they want to do). Enrichment activities expanded
their overall knowledge and life experiences; students signed up for art classes,
entered writing competitions, and created films. Exploration manifested in active
career development pursuits; some examples include research about colleges that
would suit their needs, job shadowing, informational interviews with people in the
desired field, part time jobs, museum visits, and required examinations for college
admissions. Participants attributed this occupational engagement to their experience
in the CLEOS workshops (Kerr et al., in press).
The Real CLEOS Experience
What better way of knowing what CLEOS means for all the people involved
than to listen to their voices?
The overall message
Today I changed a lot. I learned about so many new possibilities because I
talked to someone who knows a lot (Male CLEOS participant)
We are providing vision, clarity, to what is already inside them and they cant
see. (Jeff, CLEOS counselor)
147
It is an opportunity to connect the dots for them, to say that it gets better.
(Heath, CLEOS counselor)
I loved how in-depth it was; how we explored the impacts it has in my life.
(Male CLEOS participant)
You wont always have to do what people tell you to do. (Jessica, CLEOS
counselor)
The brain thing was really neat; it was the coolest part of the entire day
During the Future Perfect Day imagery activity
I liked the visualizing thing, I never thought about myself when I would be
older and now I could see myself. (Female CLEOS participant)
I would like to hire someone to do this with me! (Female CLEOS participant)
During the individual counseling sessions
Ill think of things I dont normally think about, such as the philosophy of true
happiness. It continues to validate my opinions on the use of strengths to do
what you love. (Sean, CLEOS counselor)
The sessions focused on how WE thought about it [test results and careers]
You see their true personality emerge and that is fascinating. Its a unique
thing for me to go beyond the surface level and see these kids, more than just
their faces. (Zeb, CLEOS counselor)
We saw career choices and how they related to each other and my personality
was reflected in them (Female CLEOS participant)
I liked the self-exploration you can get while youre doing the assessments
and then the individual session. (Male CLEOS participant)
It was awesome. It really helped me; even though I am still a freshman we
still need to think about careers. (Male CLEOS participant)
SOME PRACTICAL TIPS
High school counselors and university career centers can set up similar career
counseling interventions. The website www.cleoslab.org explains the rationale for
Project CLEOS and features special sections for students, parents and teachers. The
website www.cleosdata.org contains practical information for groups accepted for
participation such as the CLEOS day schedule, information on how to arrive to
the KU campus and the clinic where the workshop will take place, the paperwork
parents need to sign and information requested to the teacher.
148
Here is what you can do to create a similar intervention:

1. First, identify potential recipients of the interventions by using the profiles of
eminent creative people when they were adolescents, which were described
earlier in this chapter.
2. Choose a specific day for the experience in which a group of 810 students will
be able to attend; particularly, the conversation about flow works better in group
settings since students have the opportunity to listen to others describe their flow
experiences.
3. Essential assessments include vocational inventories and personality inventories.
Also, having a values inventory such as the VIA helps students identify their
innermost beliefs so as to use them as guides for their life plan.
4. Counselors should be trained to interpret assessments beyond a simple description
of results. They need to be able to see the big picture to connect the assessments,
the students career ideas and life stories into an integrated whole.
5. The Future Perfect Day guided imagery activity requires a quiet and comfortable
setting. This activity follows a script in which the facilitator should be careful to
provide adequate timing.
6. At the end of the experience, allow students to talk about their impressions;
then use goal-setting activities to make sure students have a coherent plan to
follow. In this way, they will be more likely to understand that the future begins
today and that tomorrows actions could be small steps towards that ideal
future.
We wish you the best of luck to help your creative adolescents findor affirm
their future career paths based on their true passion!
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Psychology, 45, 357376.
Andreason, N. (1987). Creativity and mental illness: Prevalence rates in writers and their first-degree
relatives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 12881292.
Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2005). Developing math talent: A guide for educating gifted
and advanced learners in math. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Barron, F. (1969). The psychology of the creative writer. Explorations in creativity. 43(12), 6974.
Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York: Seminar Press.
Bolton, B., & Thompson, J. (2004). Entrepreneurs: Talent, temperament, technique. Boston: Elsevier.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
Harper-Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative
products: a study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 4752.
Daloz, L. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common fire: Lives of commitment in a
complex world. Boston: Beacon.
Dudek, S. Z., & Hall, W. (1991). Personality consistency: Eminent architects 25 years later. Creativity
149
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity.
Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290309.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: How its transforming work, leisure, community and
everyday life. New York: Perseus Book Group.
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Goertzel, M., Goertzel, V., Goertzel, T., & Hansen, A. (2004). Cradles of eminence. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Halpin, W. G., Payne, D. A., & Ellett, C. D. (1974). In search of the creative personality among gifted
groups. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18, 3133.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership. American Psychologist,
49, 493504.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Vocational Preference Inventory-Manual-1985 edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Innamorato, G. (1998). Creativity in the development of scientific giftedness: educational implications.
Roeper Review, 21(1), 5459.
Jamison, K. (1989). Mood disorders and seasonal patterns in British writers and artists. Psychiatry, 52,
125134.
Kaufman, J. C. (2001). The Sylvia Plath effect: Mental illness in eminent creative writers. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 35, 3750.
Kaufman, J. C. (2002). Dissecting the golden goose: Components of studying creative writers. Creativity
Kay, S. I. (2000). On the nature of expertise in visual art. In R.C. Friedman and B.M. Shore (Eds.) Talents
unfolding: Cognition and development (pp.217232). Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Kerr, B. A., & Kurpius, S. R. (Eds.) (2005). Counseling girls and women: Ten years of NSF Gender
Equity Studies. Volume 2, Talent Development. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Kerr, B., McKay, R., & Lim, K. Psychology of creative adolescents. Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada. August 8, 2009.
Kerr, B. A., & McKay, R. A. (in press). Searching for tomorrows innovators: Profiling creative
adolescents. Creativity Research Journal.
Kerr, B.A., McKay, R. A., & Krieshok, T. (in press). Career development of creative students: Increasing
engagement in innovative domains. Journal of Career Development.
Krieshok, T. S., Black, M. D., & McKay, R. A. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of rationality
and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 275290.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.006
Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Convergence of vocational interests and personality: Examples
in an adolescent gifted sample. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 91112. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.
1821
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big
Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217239. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.
1854
MacKinnon, D. W. (1961). Creativity in architects, In: D.W. MacKinnon (Ed.), The creative person,
Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of California, 291320.
Obama, B. (2011, January). Remarks by the President in state of union address. Washington, D.C.:
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-
union-address
Oreck, B, Owen, S, & Baum, S. (2003). Validity, reliability and equity issues in an observational
talent assessment process in the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(1),
6294.
Park, S. K., Park, K. H., & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and scientific
giftedness in Korea. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2/3), 8797.
Piirto, J. (2002). My teeming brain: Understanding creative writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657687.
150
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 614.
Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century. In A. Collin &
R.A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 5368). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.
Psychological Methods, 4, 425451.
Simonton, D.K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic
endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 2846.
Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.) (1988). Generative processes in music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sriraman, B. (2005). Are mathematical giftedness and mathematical creativity synonyms? A theoretical
analysis of constructs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 2036.
Stohs, J. H. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and sustained art activity among male fine and applied artists.
Subotnik, R. F., Maurer, K., & Steiner, C. L. (2001). Tracking the next generation of the scientific elite.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 3343.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms and technical manual. Bensenville,
IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 28, 153156.
Valds, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant
communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Rossum, J. A. (2001). Talented in dance: the Bloom stage model revisited in the personal histories of
dance students. High Ability Studies, 12, 181197.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Boyce, L., (Eds.). (1996).Developing verbal talent: Ideas and
strategies for teachers of elementary and middle school students. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
151
KENDALL J. ESKINE AND SCOTT BARRY KAUFMAN
GROUNDING CREATIVE GIFTEDNESS IN THE BODY
Many definitions of giftedness exist (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007; 2008). While
these theories differ in important ways, such as their dimensionality, their emphasis
on creativity, or their focus on developmental and environmental factors, they all
emphasize the importance of conscious, deliberate learning and the assessment of
giftedness using tests that require explicit thought.
This emphasis is curious, considering the advances in cognitive science over the
past 25 years that suggests humans have multiple modes of thought (Kaufman, 2011;
Epstein, 2003; Evans, 2008, Evans & Frankish, 2009; Stanovich & West, 2002).
Indeed, dual-process theories of cognition are becoming increasingly necessary for
explaining a wide variety of cognitive, personality, social, developmental, and cross-
cultural phenomenon (Evans & Frankish, 2009).
Dual-process theories of cognition typically differentiate between Type 1
processes and Type 2 processes (Evans, 2008). Type 1 processes are faster (relative
to Type 2 processes), more influenced by context, biology, and past experience, and
aid humans in mapping and assimilating newly acquired information into preexisting
knowledge structures. An advantage of Type 1 processes over Type 2 processes is
that the former require little conscious cognitive effort and free attentional resources
for computationally complex Type 2 reasoning. The advantage of Type 1 processes
can also become disadvantagous under certain circumstances. When thinking is
dominated by Type 1 processes, task representations are highly contextualized. This
contextualization can lead erroneous judgment and rash decision making.
Type 2 processes have traditionally played an important role in theories of
giftedness, particularly theories that include general intelligence as a key component
to intellectual giftedness. Indeed, Stanovich (2009) links Type 2 processes to
psychometric intelligence. In contrast to Type 1 processes, Type 2 processes involve
deliberately controlled, effortful, and intentional cognition. Theories of giftedness
have most likely emphasized Type 2 processes because individual differences in
Type 2 processes are more easily observed and measured (although see Kaufman
et al., 2009 for the existence of individual differences in implicit learning). The
hallmark of Type 2 processes is the ability to decontextualize task representations
(Stanovich & West, 1997), that is to say, it enables agents to transfer and apply even
specific cognitive skills to a variety of task domains.
While no dual-process theory of giftedness currently exists, there are a few theories of
intelligence that emphasize the dual-process nature of human cognition (Anderson, 2005;

K. J. ESKINE AND S. B. KAUFMAN
Kaufman, 2011). According to Andersons (2005) theory of the minimal cognitive

architecture underlying intelligence and development, knowledge is acquired through
two different processing routes, with central processes (Route 1) being tied to
individual differences and input modules being tied to cognitive development (Route
2). Route 1 is constrained by the speed of basic processing mechanisms, and explains
why domain specific abilities are correlated, producing a general intelligence factor.
Route 2 is tied to dedicated information-processing modules, such as perception of
three-dimensional space, syntactic parsing, phonological encoding, and theory of mind.
This route is tied to cognitive development as these modules undergo developmental
changes in cognitive competence across the lifespan.
A more recent theory of intelligence The Dual-Process (DP) Theory of Human
Intelligenceintegrates research on psychometric intelligence with modern dual-
process theory and the latest experimental research on the cognitive unconscious
(Kaufman, 2011). According to the theory, both controlled and spontaneous thought
processes are important contributors to human intelligent behaviors. Controlled
cognitions are goal directed and consume limited central executive resources,
whereas spontaneous cognitions arent constrained by the same limited pool
of attentional resources. An assumption of the theory is that both controlled and
spontaneous cognitive processes to some degree jointly determine all intelligent
behaviors, although in varying degrees. Spontaneous forms of thinking can involve
insight, imaginative play, daydreaming, implicit learning, and reduced latent
inhibition. According to the theory, intelligence is defined as the ability to flexibly
switch between modes of cognition depending on the task demands.
These dual-process theories of intelligence have important implications for the
identification and nurturance of giftedness. Since current methods of identifying
giftedness have focused on the explicit route to cognition, many implicit gifts may
remain unidentified. Further, if individual differences are more evident in Type 1
processes compared to Type 2 processes, then more people may be worthy of the
label gifted if they are able to express more Type 1 processes. In fact, the whole
idea of giftedness may lose much of its meaning if it is found that all people have
a lot more potential than is being demonstrated by current methods of identification.
We contend that spontaneous processes provide a critical foundation for creative
giftedness more generally and that these processes draw from ones everyday
sensoriperceptual experiences more than traditionally thought.
If it is true that spontaneous processes play a constitutive role in the creative
process, then how might they be identified? Many approaches to such unconscious
creative processes are referred to as types of incubation, a preconscious process that
enables agents to process information and problem solve while taking a break and
attending to other stimuli (Dodds, Smith, & Ward, 2002). However, the incubation
process is still quite murky, and it remains somewhat mysterious exactly how its
automatic processes operate (Olton, 1979; Smith & Blankenship, 1991). One strategy
for adding clarity to this discussion is to consider what types of information people
process while they are thinking creatively. Are they thinking in purely symbolic terms
154
or are they thinking with perceptually rich information like images? While it is both
academically and intellectually very interesting to explore the automaticity underlying
ones biologically endowed input modules and the domain-general and domain-
specific processes on which they operate, deeper consideration should be given to the
manner in which concepts are represented and processed during creative cognition.
Put simply, to what extent are these representations being carried by propositional,
symbolic, and amodal information as opposed to the sensorimotor and perceptual
analogues that are carried by the brains modality-specific patterns of activation? For
example, as Watson and Crick were exploring genetics on barroom napkins, were they
thinking in pictures, words, propositions, textures, etc.? Borrowing from Gdels logic
(Byers, 2007), it seems unlikely that creative cognition is simply a set of symbolic
algorithmic computations but instead a complex product that is often the result of
hidden, and perhaps random, cognitive patterns. What is at stake here is whether
bodily, perceptual information plays a significant role in such kinds of cognition.
Information can be represented and processed at both conscious and preconscious
levels, so an analysis at this level of operation may offer a useful starting point
for understanding the utility of spontaneous processing. Recent research in
grounded cognition, an approach that focuses on the sensoriperceptual nature of
ones cognitive architecture, has shown that ones everyday embodied1 experiences
play fundamental roles in the representation and processing of various concepts.
According to this view, nearly all of ones conceptual representations are made of
sensorimotor experiences that are stored in ones cognitive system in the form of
perceptual symbols (Barsalou, 1999, 2008, 2010).
Later, when individuals represent and process information about a concept, the most
relevant stored perceptual symbols are retrieved and re-activated so that the initial
experience is (somewhat) simulated, at least from the brains perspective. Quite literally,
representation involves a re-presentation of those same embodied experiences that have
co-occurred with the target concepts; however, the manner in which this perceptually-
rich information is activated depends on a variety of factors such as contextual features,
current task demands, situatedness, real-time embodiment, expertise, etc. Other
cognitive scientists have advocated for similar views, but from disciplines ranging
from linguistics to developmental science and philosophy to cognitive psychology
(Clark, 1997; Glenberg, 1997; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Prinz, 2002; Thelen & Smith,
1994). Grounded cognition researchers maintain that these perceptual simulations are
what form the core of ones representational system, and many of these simulation-
based processes occur spontaneously and beneath conscious awareness.
What is most important and relevant to the present discussion is the fact that
people are often unaware of these effects- that is to say, they do not realize that
they are incorporating their rich sensoriperceptual experiences into their cognitions.
For example, in social cognition research, Williams and Bargh (2008) showed
that participants who experienced physical warmth (holding a warm vs. iced cup
of coffee) were more likely to judge unknown target individuals as more caring,
generous, etc. than participants who experienced physical coldness. Literal warm
155
feelings engendered figurative warm feelings. In moral psychology, Eskine, Kacinik,

and Prinz (2011) found that participants made harsher moral judgments when they
were induced with gustatory disgust (a bitter beverage) relative to gustatory delight
(a sweet beverage) or a control condition (water), and similar effects have been
shown in other sensory modalities like vision and olfaction (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, &
Jordan, 2008). In language processing research, Stanfield and Zwann (2001) showed
that participants processed pictures faster when they had the same orientation as the
sentences they previously read. Therefore, after reading that John put the pencil in
the cup, participants were faster to respond to vertical rather than horizontal pictures
indicating the action.
These results suggest that spontaneous, implicit perceptual simulations prime
participants to recognize vertical orientations over horizontal orientations. Finally,
research in neuropsychology revealed that verbal labels automatically activate
corresponding sensoriperceptual states. Hauk, Johnsrude, and Pulvermller (2004)
conducted an fMRI study to investigate whether simply reading action words
referring to the face, arms, and legs (lick, pick, or kick) would similarly excite the
corresponding regions in the motor cortex unique to each body part responsible
for those actions. Their results did indeed demonstrate somatotopic activation in
the motor and premotor cortex and suggest that sensoriperceptual information is a
critical ingredient in these linguistic representations.
A comprehensive review of all of the evidence for grounded cognition would outstrip
this discussion, but suffice it to say that there are convergent findings from various
psychological sub-disciplines supporting this view. The critical point here is that much
of cognition occurs in a Type 1, automatic format. From an evolutionary perspective,
this is an economical use of ones cognitive resources and frees up more space for the
Type 2 processes that have traditionally been used to explain giftedness. Although
it is a reasonable approach to assume that only higher-order cognitive processes are
involved in creativity, there is also lots of evidence to suggest just the opposite- namely,
that the dynamic interplay between numerous lower-level perceptual symbols can
help explain the creative mind (Kaufman, 2011). We now turn to some of the literature
supporting the view that Type 1 processes play a crucial role in helping us understand
creative giftedness and how it applies to educational contexts.
A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE: EXPLORING EMBODIED EDUCATION
If our representational structures are supported (at least in part) by sensorimotor

and perceptual experiences, then educational pedagogies that add experiential
components should facilitate creativity, help identify giftedness, and encourage
learning more generally. This approach gives students additional tools to help them
understand concepts and potentially expand upon, or combine, them creatively.
Acting out while reading. In order to determine the effects of bodily experience
on learning in the classroom, Glenberg, Gutierrez, Levin, Japuntich, and Kaschak
(2004) explored whether object manipulation facilitated reading comprehension in
156
first- and second-graders. All participants received the same three scenarios (a farm
scene, a house scene, and a garage scene), which included five short texts of seven
to nine sentences each. Participants were assigned to three conditions: manipulation,
read-only, or no-practice control. In the manipulation condition, participants were
asked to manipulate toys specific to each scene (a car for the garage scene) at key
points in the text. The read-only participants were able to look at the toys but did not
manipulate them. Finally, the control participants simply read the passage and had
no access to the toys.
Over several sessions, Glenberg et al. (2004) tested each participant individually
using both free- and cued-recall tests to determine reading comprehension. Results
showed that the manipulation group significantly outperformed both the read-only
and control groups in their recall of the stories. In fact, these trends were found
even when participants imagined manipulating the toys. In a separate experiment,
similar effects were revealed when children read in groups of three (Glenberg,
Brown, & Levin, 2007). In the experimental condition, children (ages ranging from
six to eight) took turns reading a passage while manipulating compatible toys,
whereas control participants simply reread the passage. Following the readings, all
participants were given a 10-item forced choice (Yes vs. No) test that determined
their comprehension and memory for the texts action sequences, temporal order of
events, and spatial information in the story. As predicted, children who manipulated
toys outperformed those who only read.
The objection could be raised that these effects are unique to students with normal
language abilities. Perhaps sensorimotor perceptual states simply add an extra layer
of information to the linguistic information already provided by the text. This
view suggests that the text provides the foundation for comprehension on which
perceptual symbols are merely hinged. However, for those with academic learning
difficulties, the relationship between the text and their own bodily movements might
be unclear, particularly if their text comprehension is tenuous. A stronger test for
the significance of perceptual information in language comprehension would target
students with learning disabilities. If students with text comprehension difficulties
still benefit from embodied experiences, then it suggests that perceptual information
carries more meaning than traditionally thought. Using a similar methodology
employing manipulation, visual-only, and control conditions, Marley, Levin, and
Glenberg (2007) tested elementary level Native Americans with documented
academic learning difficulties. Their results were even stronger than those found
in similar previous studies. Here, both the manipulation and visual-only groups
significantly outperformed the control group in free- and cued-recall tasks. Taken
together, this research indicates that accessing perceptual information facilitates
reading comprehension and memory in students.
Although these findings spotlight the importance of perceptual symbols in
cognition, they do not show indubitably that Type 1 processes are responsible for
enhancing their cognitive abilities. In these cases, their perceptual states are taught,
focused, and enacted quite deliberately. To demonstrate that Type 1 processes play a
157
role in creative cognition, evidence for implicit perceptual states are needed that is
to say, those states that naturally occur without any conscious awareness.
A helping hand: The ubiquity of gestures. Gestures are not only unintentional,
automatic, and spontaneous, they are also extremely difficult to suppress and control.
Telling a story without gestures can be nearly impossible for many, and they seem to
facilitate and direct the flow of conversation in a natural way. Given their ubiquity
and automatic nature, gestures seem like an obvious result of Type 1 processes. But
do they affect the educational experience? Although gestures clearly play a role in
everyday discourse, research suggests that they can aid in education as well, even for
abstract concepts like mathematics.
In order to show that gesturing can produce changes in thought, Goldin-Meadow,
Cook, and Mitchell (2009) taught children gestures to help them learn how to solve
a mathematical equation. Roughly half of the students were taught specific gestures
to help them arrive at the answer, whereas the other half simply received verbal
instructions. The teacher then delivered a lecture (without gestures) describing how
to solve the equations. Students who received previous gesture training were asked
to gesture while they listened to their teachers lecture, while the other students
who received previous verbal instructions were as to produce the words again. All
students then took the same test on the newly learned equations, and their results
revealed that the students who gestured while listening to the lecture performed
significantly better than those who only gave verbal reports.
In a similar vein, Broaders, Cook, Mitchell, and Goldin-Meadow (2007) directed
one group of children to gesture while explaining how they solved a math problem,
whereas the other group was explicitly told not to. After a lesson and test of similar
material, the gesturing group significantly outperformed the non-gesturing group.
More interestingly, students also employed gestures that they had not encountered
before, which expressed correct, yet unlearned, procedures for solving the equations.
The researchers argued that gesturing helps activate implicit knowledge in learners.
Thus, on the one hand, gestures provide a glimpse into the hidden cognitive
happenings of ones mind, and, on the other hand, might also be useful for helping
instantiate new, creative cognitions.
Problem solving often goes hand-in-hand with creativity simply because
challenging problems often require creative solutions. People often speak of seeing
the answer, seeing what another means, or looking for the solution. In this
sense, visual imagery seems tied to creative problem solving. To test this relationship,
Chu and Kita (2011) explored the extent to which gesturing facilitated problem
solving in a spatial task. Using Shepard and Metzlers (1971) three-dimensional
objects, participants were unknowingly video recorded while they attempted to
mentally rotate the objects. The gestures were counted, and the results indicated that
participants gestured significantly more during difficult mental rotations relative to
simpler mental rotations. In another experiment, participants were asked to solve
similar mental rotation problems, but they were assigned into one of three conditions:
gesture-encouraged, gesture-prevented, and gesture-allowed. During the first block
158
of trials, participants performed according to their designated condition. However, to

determine whether the gestures became internalized practice, the subsequent blocks
prevented gesturing in all groups. Results showed that the gesture-encouraged group
outperformed both of the other groups during the first block and in the subsequent
blocks, indicating that with practice ones sensorimotor experiences with gesture can
become internalized to facilitate future spatial problem solving. In their last experiment,
Chu and Kita (2011) compared the gesture-encouraged and gesture-allowed groups in
three different spatial tasks (object rotation, paper folding, and visual patterns), with
the gesture-encouraged group outperforming the gesture-allowed group overall.
Together, these results not only suggest that cognitive information can be
offloaded onto ones body, but that embodied experiences can be stored and later
activated as a result of task demands, which is consistent with Barsalous (1999)
theory of perceptual symbol systems. Therefore, complex problems can be made
more tractable when embodied cues are both used and stored so that they become
part of the representational state associated with the target problem.
Thus far we have reviewed empirical findings showing how embodied states can
influence cognitive processing. By simply manipulating objects, childrens reading
comprehension and thinking skills can be significantly improved, especially for
those with learning difficulties. However, the nature and training involved with those
experiments seem committed to Type 2 processes. On the other hand, gesture research
focuses on the utility of one of our most implicit, Type 1 embodied processes. Although
we described only a small portion of the extant literature on gesture, the results clearly
show how automatic processes can affect abstract conceptual development, promote
new ideas, and aid in problem solving. But what about creative problem solving? As
described earlier, traditional views of creativity spotlight controlled, deliberate thought
as the creativitys central cognitive component. However, recent research suggests that
automatic and preconscious processes play an influential role here as well.
Thinking outside the box, literally. In a clever series of experiments, Leung
et al. (2012) directed participants to embody various creativity metaphors to
determine the effects of preconscious processes on creative cognition. Their first
study borrowed from the common metaphor on the one hand, then on the other
hand, which focuses on thinking about a problem from the left-right bilateral
orientation as opposed to front-back. Noting that bilateral hemispheric activation
was found to increase creativity in previous research (Shobe, Ross, & Fleck, 2009),
participants were either asked to gesture with both hands (experimental condition)
or only one hand (control condition) while generating novel uses for a university
building complex. In order to facilitate gesturing in a natural way, participants faced
a wall and were told that this study was investigating public speaking. Hence, they
would be asked to use their hands in specific ways as one might do while talking to
a group from a stage. In the experimental condition, task questions were attached to
the wall on both sides of the participant, and they were directed to read and answer
the task questions on their right side while holding their hand toward the wall, palm
facing upward and then repeat the same procedure on their left side using their
159
left hand. In the control condition, participants read and answered only from their
right side. Two measures of divergent thinking were used (fluency- number of ideas
generated and flexibility- number of unique categories generated), and the results
showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group
on both measures of divergent thinking, thus confirming the researchers hypothesis
that using the other hand increases creativity.
In their next study, Leung et al. explored the creativity metaphor, putting two and
two together, which suggests that creativity is the result of recombination- an idea that
will be reviewed in more detail later. Disguised as a study testing the effects of task
repetition on problem solving, participants were assigned to one of two groups. In the
recombination (experimental) condition, participants were asked to take round paper
coasters (that had previously been cut in half) and recombine them for around two
minutes. In the non-recombination (control) condition, participants simply took the cut
pieces of coaster and transferred them from their right side to the left or left side to their
right (counterbalanced). All participants were then given a commonly used measure
of creativity (Remote Associates Test (RAT) Mednick, Mednick, & Mednick, 1964).
Here, participants are given three words (e.g., falling, actor, and dust) and are asked to
think of a fourth word that relates to the previous three (star). Results revealed that the
recombination group significantly outperformed the non-recombination group.
Thinking outside the box is another common creative metaphor. To test whether
there is more to this expression than mere language convention, Leung et al. assigned
participants to complete the RAT while literally sitting in a five feet by five feet
cardboard box or not. To ensure that sitting in the box itself did not influence their
results, participants also reported on the extent to which they felt safe, comfortable,
private, confused, and claustrophobic. Results showed that the out-of-the-box group
outperformed the in-the-box group on the RAT, and that these results were not
accounted for by the feeling measures, which were treated as covariates.
Leung et al. (2012) report additional studies, but the overall message seems clear:
seemingly unrelated and preconscious aspects of ones embodied experiences can
in fact influence ones creative cognitions. These results provide a powerful insight
into the nature of insight itself. On this view, ones embodied, sensoriperceptual
states are as important to the creative mind as controlled deliberation.
If Type 1 and Type 2 processes both operate on creative cognition, then how might
they be implemented together in an educational context? It turns out that there has
been a growing current of researchers, teachers, and administrative educationalists
who advocate for exactly this blend of action and rationalism.
ACTIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and
I will understand.
Confucius
160
Active and experiential learning are not new ideas. John Dewey (1938) argued for
integrating concrete experiences with concepts and actions with observations, and
Jean Piaget (1936/1963) similarly contended that childrens physical experiences
with their environments can fundamentally influence their intellectual growth. More
recent versions of their dictates have arisen over the years, specifically in what is now
referred to as place-based learning, which can be broadly defined as a pedagogical
style that draws upon students knowledge and unique experiences within their
local communities to ground course content (Smith, 2007). This pedagogical style
incorporates both active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) and experiential learning
(Kolb, 1984; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009) techniques, which both postulate that
physical engagement should be juxtaposed with more classical styles of lecture and
instruction. These two pedagogical styles (i.e., physical engagement and classical
lecture) can be likened to dual-process theory such that the perceptual experiences
accrued through physical engagement represent Type 1 processes, whereas the
linguistic and otherwise symbolic information students encode during classical
lecture represent Type 2 processes.
Regardless of the moniker one uses, all of these approaches to education and
pedagogy focus on the importance of incorporating physical activity into the
classroom. Grounded theories of cognition would predict that students who are
physically engaged with content would be more likely to encode, retrieve, and
manipulate that information than students who are not. More importantly, and more
relevant to the present discussion, students who interact with content should be more
likely to engage in creative acts than students who do not because the former students
have more information (perceptual, embodied, Type 1 information and symbolic,
higher-order, Type 2 information) with which to work.
Bonawitz, Shafto, Gweon, Goodman, Spelke, and Schulz (2011) found exactly
that. In one study, they tested the effects of different pedagogical styles in a
non-educational context, specifically a childrens museum. The experimenters
approached preschoolers with one of four different pedagogical styles as they gave
them a novel toy to play with. In the pedagogical condition, the experimenter said,
Look at my toy! This is my toy. Im going to show you how my toy works. Watch
this! (p. 325). The experimenter then explicitly demonstrates to the child one of
the toys major functions (the squeaker function). There were three different non-
pedagogical conditions. In the interrupted condition, the experimenter introduced
the toy like above, but then interrupts herself by saying, I just realized I have to
stop because I forgot to write down something over there. I have to go take care
of it right now! (p. 325). In the nave condition, the experimenter told the child,
I just found this toy! See this toy? (p. 325). Then, by accident, the experimenter
discovered one of the toys functions (the squeaker), repeats it, and says, Huh!
Did you see that? (p. 325). Finally, in the baseline condition, the experimenter tells
the child, Wow, see this toy? Look at this! (p. 325), and then puts it back on the
table. The children were then given the toy to play with for as long as they liked.
However, if they stopped interacting with the toy for a period of five consecutive
161
seconds, then the experimenter prompted the end of the session by saying, Are you
done? (p. 326). The length of play time, number of unique actions performed, the
total play time with the demonstrated function of the toy (the squeaker function),
and the extent to which children discovered the other major functions of the toy (the
light, music, and mirror functions) were noted.
Overall, the results showed that most of the children in the pedagogical condition
failed to discover any of the toys other major functions (i.e., they only played with
the squeaker function that was taught to them by the experimenter), whereas children
from all three of the non-pedagogical conditions discovered most of the toys other
functions. Further, children in the pedagogical condition played with the toy for
significantly less time than those in the non-pedagogical conditions. Together, these
results suggest that explicit pedagogical instruction can be detrimental to students
creative exploration and discovery and that implicit, sensoriperceptual experiences
can contribute to cognitive development.
Other education researchers have also shown how embodied information can
motivate conceptual development. For example, Owen and Siakaluk (2011) used
embodied information (i.e., physical height) to teach the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) statistical technique to undergraduates and found that students were better
able to understand and conceptualize abstract properties of ANOVA (between- and
within-groups variance) better than students who did not use embodied information
to ground the content. Schwarzmueller (2011) similarly used a multi-modal active
learning strategy to engage students with course content. Here, students were
directed to engage in various activities that drew from multiple sensory modes
ranging from writing papers to class discussions and interactive group work to
inquiry-based research. Results showed that students who were exposed to these
experiential learning techniques outperformed a control class on pre-post quizzes
testing specific course content. Finally, Gier and Kreiner (2009) tested the effects
of adding discussion based questions to traditional PowerPoint lectures to enhance
active learning. They showed that students who engaged in the active learning
component (relative to the baseline group who only received PowerPoint lectures)
performed significantly better on quizzes and examinations.
CONCLUSION
In sum, research in active and experiential learning suggests that conceptual

development, discovery, and creative cognition in general are enriched by physical
interacting with content in a manner that uses multiple modal domains. Again, this is
consistent with, and indeed predicted by, theories of grounded and embodied cognition,
which hold that sensoriperceptual experiences not only become incorporated into
ones conceptual representations but that they also motivate conceptual development
(Barsalou, 1999, 2010; Glenberg, 1997; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
With respect to dual-process theories, these embodied states are ideal candidates
for the implicit, automatic, and spontaneous bodily states that naturally accompany
162
cognition in real-time and in educational contexts. We argue here that researchers

and educators should focus on creating rich sensory and perceptual experiences for
their students that can be used as a foundation for understanding abstract course
content. Accordingly, these basic lower-level experiences might be used to scaffold
deeper conceptual representations (Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009). In this way,
this approach complements Simontons (2004) stance on conceptual combination.
According to this view, the manner in which various pre-existing concepts are
organized plays a significant role in creativity. Creative ideas thus emerge as a
byproduct of various unique combinations of pre-existing concepts, a process that
is moderated by Darwinian chance, genius, and other factors. Grounded cognitions
contribution points to the fascinating possibility that basic embodied states are
stored as patterns of activity in the brain that are available for the same conceptual
combination processes that have traditionally been reserved for ideas or concepts
typically fashioned from Type 2 processes. Thus, embodied states might be more
important ingredients to creative and gifted minds than previously thought.
This process of creative conceptual combination, however, need not be conscious,
and when coupled with Type 1 processes like sensoriperceptual states, it becomes
clear how creative cognition benefits from embodied experience, as evidenced in the
previously discussed research. Creative giftedness is clearly a complex phenomenon,
yet our everyday, mundane physical experiences might play a more significant
role than previously thought, and future research and practice should consider the
grounded cognition literature and its implications for higher-order cognition. As
Henri Poincare famously pointed out, The mind uses its faculty for creativity only
when experience forces it to do so.
NOTE
1
The now popular view, embodied cognition, is a species of grounded cognition (Barsalou, 2008).
While the former focuses on the role and influence of specific bodily states on cognition, the latter
focuses more broadly on both the stored (offline) and immediate (online) sensorimotor and perceptual
states that operate on ones conceptual systems.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. (2005). Marrying intelligence and cognition: A developmental review. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition & intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind (pp. 268288).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617645.
Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2,
716724.
Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-
edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120,
322330.
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. AEHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass.
163
Broaders, S., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings
out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136,
539550.
Byers, W. (2007). How mathematicians think: Using ambiguity, contradiction and paradox to create
mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011). The nature of gestures beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 102106.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dodds, R. A., Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The use of environmental cues during incubation.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159184). Personality and Social Psychology.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. K., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences
moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22, 295299.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 255278.
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Gier, V. S., & Kreiner, D. S. (2009). Incorporating active learning with PowerPoint-based lectures using
content-based questions. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 134139.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20(1), 155.
Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups
using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 389399.
Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined
activity can enhance young childrens reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96, 424436
Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about
math. Psychological Science, 20, 267272.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human
motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301307.
Kaufman, S. B. (2011). Intelligence and the cognitive unconscious. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 442467). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., & Jimenez, L., Brown, J. B., & Mackintosh, N. (2010).
Implicit learning as an ability, Cognition, 116, 321340.
Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Giftedness in the Euro-American culture. In S. N. Phillipson &
M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 377413). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook
of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leung, A. K.-y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L., Qui, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012).
Embodied metaphors and creative acts. Psychological Science, 23, 502509.
Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Improving Native American childrens listening
comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32,
537550.
Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, E. V. (1964). Incubation of creative performance and
specific associative priming. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 8488.
164
Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence
as learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
8, 511526.
Olton, R. M. (1979). Experimental studies of incubation: Searching for the elusive. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 13, 922.
Owen, W. J., & Siakaluk, P. D. (2011). A demonstration of the analysis of variance using physical
movement and space. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 151154.
Piaget, J. (1936; reprinted 1963). The origins of intelligence in the child. New York, NY: Norton.
Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G., & Jordan, A. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 10961109.
Schwarzmueller, A. (2011). A multi-modal active learning experience for teaching social categorication.
Teaching of Psychology, 38, 158161.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701703.
Shobe, E. R., Ross, N. M., & Fleck, J. I. (2009). Influence of handedness and bilateral eye movements on
creativity. Brain and Cognition, 71, 204214.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Change, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK:
Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public
school. Environmental Education Research, 13, 189207.
Smith, S., & Blankenship, S. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving.
American Journal of Psychology, 104, 6187.
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwann, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on
picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153156.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a
tri-process theory. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond
(pp. 5588). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences
in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342357.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2002). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality
debate? In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of
intuitive judgment (pp. 421440). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Williams, L.E., & Bargh, J.A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth.
Science, 322, 606607.
Williams, L.E., Huang, J.Y. & Bargh, J.A. (2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are
gounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
12571267.
165
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
THE GENETICS OF GIFTEDNESS

What Does It Mean to Have Creative Talent?
It is with some hesitation that I write this chapter. Personal modesty and professional
honesty require that I admit my limitations from the outset. This admission might
even be considered an act of truth in advertising or a caveat emptor. So, here are
two confessions.
First, I do not conduct research directly in the area of gifted education. To be
sure, I have published articles in journals like the Gifted Child Quarterly, the Roeper
Review, the Gifted and Talent International, and the Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, and I have written numerous book chapters and encyclopedia articles
for volumes with gifted or giftedness in their titles, such as the Handbook of
Gifted Education and the Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent. Yet
if you look at those publications very carefully, the empirical contributions were
based on my extensive scientific studies of adult geniuses (e.g., Simonton, 1976,
1986, 2008a; Simonton & Song, 2009). Taking the knowledge that I have acquired
from more than 35 years of research on notables like Napoleon, Newton, Cervantes,
Michelangelo, and Beethovenplus combining that expertise with my reading in the
giftedness areaI then deemed myself sufficiently informed to speculate wildly on
various extrapolations and interpolations. These speculations focus largely on how
giftedness can transform itself into genius (Simonton, 1998, 2000b, 2002, 2009a).
From time to time, I have presented my preliminary ideas before teachers and parents
involved in gifted and talented programs. The feedback received on these occasions
then permitted me to engage in some corrections when my ideas were found to be
really off base. Benefiting from those spontaneous audience reactions is as close as
I get to engaging in research on giftedness.
Second, even though I am going to talk here about the genetics of giftedness,
I am not an expert in behavior genetics. On the contrary, I am as self-trained in that
discipline as I am in gifted education. I have never studied a group of gifted children,
nor have I ever carried out a behavior genetic analysis using twin or adoption data.
In truth, my credentials are even more questionable here, because for most of my
35+ years conducting research, the bulk of my inquiries were focused on
environmental variables, such as family background, educational experiences, and
sociocultural conditions (Simonton, 1987; Simonton & Ting, 2010). It was not until
1983 that I first tested a genetics-based hypothesis (Simonton, 1983), not until 1999

D. K. SIMONTON
that I first formulated a genetic theory of talent (Simonton, 1999), and not until 2008
that I published meta-analysis of behavior genetic research (Simonton, 2008b). So
I often feel like an outsider or interloperor, at best, a Johnny-come-lately to the
field.
The confessional is almost over. I must only admit as well that I am also a
university professor, and a professors job is to profess things. That I will do. Below
I profess what I believe about the genetics of giftedness, with a special emphasis on
creative talent.
WHAT IS TALENT AND GIFTEDNESS?
Allow me to start by defining what I mean by talent and giftedness. Although some
of my colleagues try to make fine distinctions between these two concepts, it is only
fair to point out that in common usage the words are practically synonyms. According
to the dictionary, to be gifted is to be endowed with great natural ability whereas
to be talented is to have a marked innate ability (American Heritage Electronic
Dictionary, 1992). The only major difference I can discern between the concepts
is that giftedness is more likely to be associated with intelligence while talent is
more likely to be associated with achievement, especially in the arts. Hence, a
child who scores high on an IQ test is intellectually gifted whereas a child who
plays a prodigious piano is musically talented. Yet even here, the terms might be
interchanged without much loss in meaning.
Although giftedness and talent thus seem almost equivalent, they do have variable
convenience depending on whether we are using the words in their adjective or
noun form. It is less awkward (and more alliterative) to say talent development
instead of giftedness development, but a bit more elegantby the criterion of
syllable counts anywayto utter a gift for math rather than a talent for math.
Accordingly, throughout this chapter I will use the words interchangeably, guided
only by the flow of the prose.
I also take as more or less equivalent the corresponding expressions endowed
with great natural ability and to have a marked innate ability. Obviously, both
expressions entail great or marked abilities that are either natural or innate
which I take also to be synonymous. When we discuss the nature-nurture issue in
psychologylike whether genius is born (nature) or made (nurture)we are using
natural in the sense of innate. An innate ability is part of a persons nature. In short,
ability then represents genetic endowment.
What is left to define before we can comprehend the meaning of giftedness or
talent? Well, the adjectives great and marked look self-explanatory. Yet just
to avoid any ambiguity, let me define both as signifying that an individual is well
above average. How much above average? The answer is arbitrary. Perhaps we can
say that someone has a gift or talent if their innate or natural ability puts them in
the upper 10% of the population distribution. That is, 90% of those in the same age
group have lower ability. If we want to make the cutoff more restrictive, we certainly
168
can do soperhaps the top 5% or even 1% can provide the demarcation. From my
perspective, this decision does not have to be made before I can present the rest of
my argument.
What is more crucial to the argument is to define the final term in these definitions,
namely, ability. What does it mean to have ability, whether marked or great, natural
or innate? Presumably, ability is the capacity to do something, to perform some task
or to achieve some goal. If I can hit a pitched baseball at least some of the time, then
I have an ability to bat, the amount of that ability depending on my batting average
(and the ability of the pitcher I am facing, where his or her ability is partly defined
by how often people like me strike out). In this example, it would be presumed that
I had sufficient practice batting, with or without a live pitcher. It would constitute an
exceptional innate batting ability indeed for anyone to hit a home run the very first
time they walked up to the plate.
The last point raises a critical issuethe role of practice. Some abilities require
no practice whatsoever to manifest. Someone with 20-10 vision has greater visual
acuity than does someone with 20-40 vision, but that difference was not due to
practice. In some instances, practice would not help one way or another. Each
one of us has a personal (and well-hidden) list of things that we could never do no
matter how hard we triedeven simple things, like wiggling our ears. Although we
might want to talk about a talent for reading optometrists eye charts or a gift for
wiggling ones ears, that usage does not sound very profound. It would seem to fall
almost into the same category as being seven feet tall, and thus being able to grab
ripe apples that the rest of us cannot reach.
Hence, here I want to confine the concepts of talent and giftedness to those
situations in which the person must have an expertise specific to the domain of
achievement.
WHAT IS DOMAIN-SPECIFIC EXPERTISE?
For most areas of creative achievement, you cannot just walk in out of nowhere and
produce a creative idea. You first have to have some knowledge and skills in the domain.
Albert Einstein is sometimes perceived as some novice when he revolutionized
physics while working full-time in a Swiss patent office. That perception is wrong.
His revolutionary paper on relativity theory shows a comprehensive understanding
of both Newtonian mechanics and Maxwells electromagnetic equations. Similarly,
his paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he later received the Nobel Prize,
exhibited competence in the new quantum theory that Max Planck had introduced
only a few years before. Einstein certainly knew more physics than the rest of us.
Some cognitive psychologists have argued that you cannot be fully creative
without first acquiring appropriate domain-specific expertise, and that it normally
takes a full decade of intensive study and practice to acquire the necessary knowledge
and skills (Ericsson, 1996). This 10-year rule was demonstrated in the domain of
classical music: Composers tend to produce their first genuinely creative work about
169
D. K. SIMONTON
10 years after beginning their first compositional studies (Hayes, 1989). Before
reaching that level of domain-specific competence, even a great composer like
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart only managed to generate juvenilia. Mozart first had to
master all the diverse techniques of composition before he had the wherewithal to
express himself uniquely as Mozart.
Although there is certainly a grain of truth in the expertise view, it is too often
taken too far. Even the greatest creative geniuses are nothing more than the greatest
domain-specific experts (Howe, 1999). Just work hard enough for enough years,
and you too can become a creative genius. This extremist position has been
styled the drudge theory (Simonton, 2001b; see also Winner, 1996). Giftedness
or talent really is not necessary. Actually, the idea that genius is made rather
than born is very old. In the 18th century, the British artist Sir Joshua Reynolds
(17691790/1966) gave the following advice to students at the Royal Academy
of Art:
You must have no dependence on your own genius. If you have great talents,
industry will improve them; if you have but moderate abilities, industry will
supply their deficiency. Nothing is denied to well directed labour; nothing is
to be obtained without it. Not to enter into metaphysical discussions on the
nature or essence of genius, I will venture to assert, that assiduity unabated
by difficulty, and a disposition eagerly directed to the object of its pursuit,
will produce effects similar to those which some call the result of natural
powers. (p. 37)
The last sentence seems to say you do not need natural powers, or innate talent, so
long you are willing to drudge away long enough.
This debate illustrates a common problem in the history of psychology:
Disagreements tend to become polarized into either-or terms (Simonton, 2000c).
The nature-nurture controversy has been one of those polarizing issues ever since
Francis Galton (1874) formally introduced the problem a very long time ago. Both
sides in the argument have taken extreme positions that ignore much of the evidence
against their opinions. In the case of those who advocate the drudge theory, several
empirical objections have to be considered (Simonton, 2000a). Allow me to mention
just a few objections.
First, drudge theorists ignore the fact that people vary greatly in the labor
necessary to gain sufficient expertise to make a creative contribution (Simonton,
2000a). The 10-year rule is an average with a large range in either direction. Even
more critically, those young talents who devote less time to domain mastery end up
more creative! In classical music, for example, the most productive and eminent
composers tended to take less time to master compositional technique before they
were ready to commence the production of masterworks (Simonton, 1991). How is
this possible?
Second, sometimes domain-specific expertise can become a liability rather than
an asset (Frensch & Sternberg, 1989; for counterview, see Bilali, McLeod, &
170
Gobet, 2008). One can become overly specialized so that it becomes impossible
to think outside the box. For instance, opera composers are much more likely
to maintain their creative vitality if they jumped back and forth between genres
and even composed non-operatic music on the side (Simonton, 2000a). Consider
Jacques Offenbach, who is most famous for his opera Tales of Hoffmann, his
final work. Yet he had composed only one opera before that, and had spent most
of his career composing operettas, ballet and incidental music, and vocal, piano,
and cello works. If creativity were nothing more than expertise, then the opposite
should be the case: The greatest opera composers would stick to one genre
and become the worlds leading expert in that genre. Tales of Hoffmann would
have been the culmination of a long career of writing operas rather than far
lighter fare.
Third, creativity is positively associated with openness to experience and a breadth
of interests (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005; Gough, 1979; Harris, 2004; McCrae,
1987). Highly creative people are usually omnivorous readers, reading well outside
their specialty areas (Chambers, 1964; McCurdy, 1960; Simon, 1974; Simonton,
1984; Van Zelst & Kerr, 1951). Strikingly, highly creative scientists tend to have
more artistic interests than their less creative colleagues (Root-Bernstein et al., 2008;
Root-Bernstein, Bernstein, & Garnier, 1995). Better yet, creative geniuses tend to be
highly versatile, contributing to more than one specific domain (Cassandro, 1998;
Cassandro & Simonton, 2010; Raskin, 1936; Simonton, 1976; Sulloway, 1996;
White, 1931). Because we have no evidence that highly creative people sleep much
less than the rest of us, extraneous hobbies and extra competencies can only take
time away from the acquisition and maintenance of specialized expertise. Indeed,
when someone contributes substantially to two or more domains, how can the 10-
year rule possibly apply? People like Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, and
Wolfgang von Goethe could not possibly exist.
To comprehend what is going on, we need to answer the next question.
WHAT IS NATURAL ENDOWMENT OR INNATE TALENT?
Too many people have a simple-minded view of how genes might provide the basis
for giftedness. Nature proponents are just as guilty as the advocates of nurture are.
To illustrate the former, Galtons (1865, 1869) pioneering studies of the hereditary
basis of talent and genius seems to speak as if a scientist can directly inherit scientific
ability from a scientist relative. In Galtons view, a natural born scientist becomes
a scientific genius even if he or she had been raised on a remote island devoid of
scientific activity. Such a simplistic notion is all too easily overthrown by nurture
advocates. Indeed, very shortly after Galton presented his theory, Alphonse de
Candolle (1873) presented data showing that scientific geniuses appear under very
specific environmental conditions. The irony here is that Galton (1869) had identified
Candolle as someone who inherited his scientific genius from his father (Augustin
Pyramus), an attribution that Alphonse did not buy however complementary.
171
D. K. SIMONTON
Instead, Alphonse believed that both father and son had benefited from the vital
science-supporting milieu available in French Switzerland.
For the nature position to become fully tenable, it must be integrated with the
nurture position. Furthermore, this integration must take advantage of the latest
1
advances in behavior genetics. Let us start with the latter.
Researchers in behavior genetics have shown quite consistently that almost any
variable on which people can vary features a sizable heritability or heritability
coefficient (Bouchard, 2004). These individual-differences variables include both
general intelligence and special abilities (e.g., spatial and verbal reasoning) as well
as personality, such as openness to experience, extraversion, and psychopathology.
In addition, many variables that have significant heritabilities also are correlated
with exceptional creativity (Bouchard & Lykken, 1999; Simonton, 2008b). For
instance, openness to experience is both correlated with creativity as well as highly
inheritable (Bouchard, 1994). You add these two sets of findings together and you
get an inevitable conclusion: Creativity must have a partial genetic foundation
(Bouchard & Lykken, 1999; Simonton, 2007, 2008b). But what might this
foundation be?
At this point, we can return to the belief that creativity requires the acquisition of
domain-specific expertise. There are two main ways to connect talent with expertise.
First, natural endowment can accelerate expertise acquisition (Simonton, 2008b).
Those with innate talent will get better faster. This acceleration helps explain why
the gifted can attain mastery of a domain so much more quickly than the non-gifted.
Second, innate talent can affect domain-specific expertise by giving more bang for the
buck (Simonton, 2008b). Given two people with the exact same amount of training
and practice, the more gifted will display higher levels of creative performance than
the less gifted. Unfairly, a superior talent might even outdo someone with superior
domain-specific expertise. Einsteins knowledge and competence in both physics
and mathematics was excelled by many of his contemporaries, yet he was able to
achieve much more with less.
It should be stressed that when I speak of natural endowment or innate talent
I do not mean a single homogeneous genetic basis for creativity in a particular
domain. Instead, the genetic foundation is a heterogeneous mix of inheritable
characteristics that have only one thing in common: They all are correlated
with creativity in a given domain. Moreover, because the inheritable correlates
of artistic creativity are different from the inheritable correlates of scientific
creativity (Feist, 1998; Simonton, 2009b), it is meaningful to identify the two
sets of correlates as representing artistic and scientific talent (Simonton, 2008b).
Finally, it must be evident that these correlates include more than pure abilities.
Personality factors are also included insofar as they contribute to the get better
faster or more bang for the buck effects. As case in point, conscientiousness
would contribute to the former effect, and openness to experience would contribute
to the latter effectand both conscientiousness and openness are highly inheritable
(Bouchard, 1994).
172
The nature and nurture perspectives have now been unified. We do not have
to deny the importance of domain-specific expertise. We only have to assume
that natural endowment or innate talent operates to either (a) accelerate expertise
acquisition or (b) enhance performance for a given amount of acquired expertise.
Is that it? Not quite. Complete understanding of the genetics of giftedness requires
2
that I discuss two other pertinent phenomena, namely, emergenesis and epigenesis.
WHAT ARE EMERGENESIS AND EPIGENESIS?
Let me answer this question by looking at each phenomenon in order. That is

possible because each represents a rather distinct complication in the genetics of
giftedness.
Emergenesis
I have just defined talent according to the set of inherited abilities and attributes
that correlate with either expertise acquisition or objective performance in a
specific domain. Both the precise nature of this genetic inventory will depend
on the domain. The talent behind artistic creativity is not the same as that behind
scientific creativity. But now we need to add another consideration: Talents or gifts
can differ according to the number of inherited characteristics involved as predictors
of acquisition or performance (Simonton, 2008b). Simple talents will involve just
one or a few inherited proclivities, whereas complex talents will entail a very large
number of distinct inherited traits. In other words, complex talents are genetically
multidimensional (Simonton, 2001a). This contrast between simple and complex
natural endowments or innate talents becomes crucial when we consider how the
characters are combined (Simonton, 2005b).
There are two options (Simonton, 1999). The first is simply to add all of the traits,
yielding an additive model. The second is to multiply all traits together, producing
a multiplicative model indicative of behavior genetic emergenesis (Lykken, 1982;
Lykken, McGue, Tellegen, & Bouchard, 1992). What difference does this make?
All the difference in the world, especially as you go from simple to complex talents.
For one thing, if all of the traits are normally distributed in the population, the
additive model will produce an overall talent that is also normally distributed in
the populationthe bell shaped curve. In contrast, under the same conditions,
the multiplicative or emergenic model will yield a highly skewed distribution with
a long upper tail (Simonton, 1999). Under the additive, the talent will be relatively
common, whereas under the multiplicative, the talent will be far rarer, even elitist
(Simonton, 2005b). The greater the talents complexity, the more elitist will be
the distribution. Worse still, for highly complex talents, a very large proportion of
the population will have no talent whatsoever under a multiplicative model. By
comparison, under an additive model, almost everybody will inherit some degree of
talent, no matter how minuscule.
173
D. K. SIMONTON
Another implication is just as amazing. It concerns familial inheritance (Lykken,

McGue, Tellegen, & Bouchard, 1992). Galton (1869) assumed that genius could be
inheritedpassed down from parent to offspringlike hair color or height. Under
an additive model, kids will indeed look a lot like mom and dad. Yet a multiplicative
model, when applied to complex talents, does not guarantee this outcome. On the
contrary, because a talent cannot be passed down without inheriting the entire set
of genetic traits, a child need not be a chip off the old block. This implication of
emergenesis helps explain why sometimes talent seems to come out of nowhere
(Lykken, 1998). As Galton admitted, there is nothing in the family backgrounds
of Isaac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven, Michelangelo Buonarroti, or William
Shakespeare that would predict the emergence of such distinguished progeny. Such
Kilimanjaro talents are salient consequences of emergenesis.
Epigenesis
If it looks like talent has now become a very complicated phenomenon, well, you
aint seen nothing yet! We also have to insert epigenesis into the picture. Too
frequently, we tend to view genetic inheritance as a static process. The infant is
born with a set of characteristics, and then the environment operates on these fixed
characteristics to direct them this way or that way. Yet it is more realistic to consider
that genetic traits may take time to unfold, and certain traits may not appear until a
growth spurt occurs much later, such as during adolescence (Simonton, 2001a).
This epigenetic development helps explain a curious fact: Identical (monozygotic)
twins separated at birth and raised in different foster homes will still become
increasingly similar to one another as they get older (Bouchard, 1995). Even though
the divergent environments have had more time to operate, the impact of genetic
inheritance slowly takes over.
When epigenetic development is coupled with multiplicative inheritance in
complex talents, then the complications become even more pronounced (Simonton,
2005b). One nicety has to do with the phenomenon of late bloomers (Simonton,
1999). Because under emergenesis a talent does not exist until all genetic components
are in place, and because under epigenetics one or more components may take some
time to emerge, a childs inborn gift may not appear right awayperhaps not until
adolescence or early adulthood! Then, once the missing piece of the puzzle appears,
the newfound talent bursts into view seemingly out of nowhere.
Needless to say, complex, emergenic, and epigenetic talents wreak havoc
elsewhere as well. The possibility of late bloomers certainly introduces problems for
the early identification of gifted children because some talents will be overlooked
(Simonton, 2005b). This type of innate talent also creates difficulties for teaching
or training programs insofar as the talent that a child displays today may transform
to a different talent years later (Simonton, 2005b). A budding artist may become a
budding scientist instead, or the reverse may happen, as different genetic traits kick
in at different times during development. What a mess!
174
HOW IS CREATIVITY UNIQUE?
I have now presented enough information to address one final question: How are
creatively gifted students different from other gifted students? My answer is that
creative talent is complex, emergenic, and epigenetic, much more so than many
other forms of giftedness. Creative gifts are complex because they entail a mixture of
many different genetic components, some having to do with cognitive abilities and
others with personality factors (Simonton, 2008b). Furthermore, as noted before, the
specific mix of these genetic contributions depend on the type of creative talent. Not
only do we have to distinguish between artistic and scientific creativity, but we also
have to make finer distinctions within the arts and sciences as well as additional forms
of creativity, such as entrepreneurial or culinary creativity. In addition, creativity
is most likely emergenic, meaning that the genetic components contribute to the
overall talent in a multiplicative manner (for evidence, see Waller et al., 1993). As a
result, true creative talent is not a normally distributed in the population but rather
the gifted constitute indisputable elite like other forms of exceptional performance
(Walberg, Strykowski, Rovai, & Hung, 1984; cf. Nicholls, 1972). Finally, because
creative talent develops epigenetically, it is not a stable entity over time. The talent
must be constantly changing. The creativity may not even appear right away because
the talent is a late bloomer.
To appreciate, let us consider how the creatively gifted might differ from another
form of giftedness that is rather commonplaceperhaps too commonplace. I am
speaking of course of intellectual giftedness as defined by a high score on an IQ
test. Given the extremely high heritability of general intelligence, there is no doubt
that intellectual giftedness exists as a talent domain. That said, because intelligence
measures are dominated by Spearmans g, the talent itself is relatively simple.
Admittedly, students can score differently on the tests subscales. Even so, the high
intercorrelations among those subscales preclude us from claiming that the talent
is multidimensional in the same way that creativity is. In support of this statement,
alternative measures of intelligence are far more strongly intercorrelated than are
alternative measures of creativity (McNemar, 1964; see also Carson et al, 2005;
Gough, 1979). At the same time, because familial hereditability is so highindeed,
among the highest of all individual-difference variablesintellectual giftedness
cannot be emergenic. Like parent, like child, for the most part. Finally, although
intelligence does develop epigenetically, its homogeneity ensures that development
is smooth and predictable, with no big surprises (Oden, 1968; Simonton, 1976;
Terman, 19251959; Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2005). A highly brilliant kid usually
ends up as a highly brilliant adult. It is no wonder the intellectually gifted seem such
favorites: Any teachers instructional investment has a guaranteed return!
I close with one final point. If a talent domain is complex and multiplicative (i.e.,
multidimensional and emergenic), then two gifted children or adolescents can have
identical overall talents but have that overall talent represented by entirely different
profiles of genetic traits. For instance, a domain like architectural creativity might
175
D. K. SIMONTON
require both spatial reasoning and openness to experience, but one future architect
might score higher on the former and lower on the latter whereas another future
architect might have the scores reversedwhile the overall (multiplicative) score
is exactly alike. Although both can be said to have equivalent architectural talent in
a quantitative sense, their respective talents will differ substantially in qualitative
terms. For example, the one superior in spatial reasoning might generate a more
creative design for a particular architectural project, whereas the one superior in
openness might produce a more creative design with respect to the context in which
the project will be realized. Consequently, even when we focus on the creatively
gifted in a narrowly defined domain, the actual composition of that talent may be
extremely diverse. That heterogeneity in nature must introduce a corresponding
diversity in nurturewith all the repercussions that may entail for parents and
teachers.
NOTES
1
Below I just give the conceptual basis for what has been presented in terms of formal meta-analytic
procedures that combine variable heritabilities and predictive validities into a single estimate of total
heritability removing overlapping variance in the correlates. See Simonton (2008b) for details and
illustrations.
2
The mathematical version of the emergenic and epigenetic model of talent development is found in
Simonton (1999), with a condensed version in Simonton (2001a). Presentations that are addressed
more specifically to persons involved in gifted education are given in Simonton (2002, 2005a,
2005b, 2005c). The presentation here is largely based on Simonton (2005b). Please note that the
epigenetic theory espoused here is not to be confused with the epigenetics in biology, which refers
to the inheritance of changes in gene expression, nor must it be confounded with epigenesis in the
development of multicellular organisms.
REFERENCES
American heritage electronic dictionary (3rd ed.). (1992). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bilali, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Inflexibility of experts reality or myth? quantifying
the einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 73102. doi:10.1016/j.
cogpsych.2007.02.001
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1994). Genes, environment, and personality. Science, 264, 17001701.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1995). Longitudinal studies of personality and intelligence: A behavior genetic
and evolutionary psychology perspective. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International
handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 81106). New York: Plenum.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits: A survey. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13, 148151.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & Lykken, D. T. (1999). Genetic and environmental influence on correlates of
creativity. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development III: Proceedings from
the 1995 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 8197).
Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Candolle, A. de (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux sicles. Geneve: Georg.
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the
Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 3750.
Cassandro, V. J. (1998). Explaining premature mortality across fields of creative endeavor. Journal of
Personality, 66, 805833.
176
Cassandro, V. J., & Simonton, D. K. (2010). Versatility, openness to experience, and topical diversity
in creative products: An exploratory historiometric analysis of scientists, philosophers, and writers.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 118.
Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 78 (7, Whole No. 584).
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In
K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to expert performance: Empirical evidence from the arts and sciences,
sports, and games (pp. 150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 290309.
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to
know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5,
pp. 157188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality
Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 913929.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howe, M. J. A. (1999). Genius explained. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Lykken, D. T. (1982). Research with twins: The concept of emergenesis. Psychophysiology, 19,
361373.
Lykken, D. T. (1998). The genetics of genius. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of
creativity and temperament in the historical record (pp. 1537). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Tellegen, A., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1992). Emergenesis: Genetic traits that
may not run in families. American Psychologist, 47, 15651577.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality
McCurdy, H. G. (1960). The childhood pattern of genius. Horizon, 2, 3338.
McNemar, Q. (1964). Lost: Our intelligence? Why? American Psychologist, 19, 871882.
Nicholls, J. G. (1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: The
concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait. American Psychologist, 27, 717727.
Oden, M. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 77, 393.
Raskin, E. A. (1936). Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of eminent
scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
31, 2035.
Reynolds, J. (1966). Discourses on art. New York: Collier. (Original work published 17, (69-90)).
Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L. Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., Kremkow, B., Lapp, J. Lonc,
K., Pawelec, K., Podufaly, A., Russ, C., Tennant, L, Vrtis, E., & Weinlander, S. (2008). Arts foster
scientific success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi members.
Journal of the Psychology of Science and Technology, 1, 5163.
Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific
style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 115137.
Simon, R. J. (1974). The work habits of eminent scientists. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1,
327335.
Simonton, D. K. (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the
Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218226.
Simonton, D. K. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual differences in hereditary monarchs:
Genes, role-modeling, cohort, or sociocultural effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44, 354364.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
177
D. K. SIMONTON
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Biographical typicality, eminence, and achievement style. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 20, 1422.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Developmental antecedents of achieved eminence. Annals of Child Development,
5, 131169.
Simonton, D. K. (1991). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical
composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829840.
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Gifted child-genius adult: Three life-span developmental perspectives.
In R. C. Friedman & K. R. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives
(pp. 151175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological
Review, 106, 435457.
Simonton, D. K. (2000a). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical
test. Developmental Review, 20, 283318.
Simonton, D. K. (2000b). Genius and giftedness: Same or different? In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mnks,
R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of
giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 111121). Terrytown, NY: Pergamon.
Simonton, D. K. (2000c). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary
impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 1324.
Simonton, D. K. (2001a). Talent development as a multidimensional, multiplicative, and dynamic process.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 3943.
Simonton, D. K. (2001b). Totally made, not at all born. [Review of the book The psychology of high
abilities, M. J. A. Howe]. Contemporary Psychology, 46, 176179.
Simonton, D. K. (2002). When does giftedness become genius? And when not? In N. Colangelo &
G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 358370). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Simonton, D. K. (2005a). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model. In
R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312326). New York:
Simonton, D. K. (2005b). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 270286.
Simonton, D. K. (2005c). Putting the gift back into giftedness: The genetics of talent development. Gifted
and Talented International, 21(1), 1518.
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Talent and expertise: The empirical evidence for genetic endowment. High
Ability Studies, 18, 8384.
Simonton, D. K. (2008a). Childhood giftedness and adulthood genius: A historiometric analysis of 291
eminent African Americans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 243255.
Simonton, D. K. (2008b). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic
endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 2846.
Simonton, D. K. (2009a). Giftedness: The gift that keeps on giving. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J.
Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 2631). London:
Routledge.
Simonton, D. K. (2009b). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition,
development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441452.
Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and achievement
domain: Coxs 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20, 429434.
Simonton, D. K., & Ting, S.-S. (2010). Creativity in Eastern and Western civilizations: The lessons of
historiometry. Management and Organization Review, 6, 329350.
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Pantheon.
Terman, L. M. (19251959). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Van Zelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. (1951). Some correlates of technical and scientific productivity. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 470475.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among
intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
178
Walberg, H. J., Strykowski, B. F., Rovai, E., & Hung, S. S. (1984). Exceptional performance. Review of
Waller, N. G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Blacker, D. M. (1993). Creativity,
heritability, familiality: Which word does not belong? Psychological Inquiry, 4, 235237.
White, R. K. (1931). The versatility of genius. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 460489.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
179
TANJA GABRIELE BAUDSON AND FRANZIS PRECKEL
INTELLIGENCE AND CREATIVITY

Their Relationship, with Special Attention to Reasoning Ability and
Divergent Thinking. Implications for Giftedness Research and Education.
THE RELEVANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE

AND CREATIVITY
Which teachers would not love to have smart children bubbling with ideas in
their classes? And, more generally: who would not like to be intelligent and
creative? Both characteristics are considered highly desirable attributes and thus
worthwhile goals in our culture. Today, intelligence the ability to purposively
adapt to, shape, and select environments (Sternberg, 1985), to mention but one
of the hundreds of definitions and creativity the ability to produce something
novel, original, and useful (e.g., Runco, 1993) have the potential to represent
the crucial resources for solving the increasingly complex problems humankind
is confronted with. Fostering both intellectual and creative giftedness is therefore
an issue not only with regard to individual development and happiness (which
certainly are worthwhile goal in themselves), but also of great concern for our
future.
The present book focuses on the creatively gifted, a concept which will be
discussed in the light of the relationship between intelligence and creativity in this
chapter. In the context of giftedness in particular, it is not always easy to disentangle
intelligence and creativity. First, from a theoretical stance, no single definition or
theoretical model of giftedness can be said to be universally accepted. Considering
the different roles intelligence and creativity play in them, this means that the
relationship between the two constructs as well has been conceived of in many
different (sometimes mutually exclusive) ways. Further complications arise from
the fact that not even the two constructs themselves have been clearly defined. To
date, a host of theories, definitions, and operationalizations for both intelligence
(e.g., Davidson & Kemp, 2011; Flynn, 2007; Stanovich, 2009) and creativity (see,
e.g., Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2011; Runco & Albert, 2011, for overviews)
have been proposed, sometimes rather obscuring the field than clarifying the two
constructs and their complex interrelatedness. For practitioners, it is not always easy
to tell them apart either. For instance, teachers commonly associate these rare (and
therefore salient) characteristics to giftedness, especially if both occur conjointly
(e.g., Callahan, 2005). Hence, children showing both virtues are more likely to be

T. G. BAUDSON AND F. PRECKEL
identified as gifted, thus also shaping the teachers image of the prototypical gifted
(i.e., both intelligent and creative) student in turn.
The present chapter pursues a twofold goal: first, to explore and systemize
the complex relationship between giftedness, intelligence, and creativity and its
relevance to conceptions of giftedness; and second, to provide an overview of the
findings relating to what can be considered core constructs with regard to the latter
two: reasoning and divergent thinking. While reasoning ability refers to the capacity
for processing power/formal logical thinking and judgment ability (Carroll, 1993,
p. 64), divergent thinking refers to the ability to generate diverse and numerous
ideas (Runco, 1991). The question whether different types of gifted people can be
identified as suggested by the title of the present volume will be examined in
the light of the so-called threshold theory, which posits that the correlation between
different cognitive abilities (e.g., reasoning and divergent thinking) decreases with
increasing general intelligence. Finally, implications for both future research and
educational practice will be discussed.
The Relationship Between Intelligence and Creativity A Look at the

Published Research
Intelligence and creativity seem to be two hot topics indeed: On September 5, 2011,
the PsycINFO database yielded 128,518 and 38,237 hits for the truncated keywords
intell* and creativ*, respectively; the combination of the two still provided 4,301
articles. Considering the peer-reviewed publications from 20002010, more and
more articles on these topics appeared with each year (Fig. 1). Similar changes can
be observed with regard to the percentual increases in the respective year, compared
to the baseline of 2000. The trend is most pronounced for intelligence-related
publications (intell*), where an increase of about 240% could be observed in 2009
and 2010, relative to the year 2000. A comparable tendency, yet with a somewhat
less rampant slope, can be found for creativity-related publications (creativ*). For
the combination of the two terms, a peak was observed in 2006 (+180.6%), which
was first followed by a decline of about 30% and a stagnation still at a high level,
though. Since last year, a percentual increase compared to the 2000 baseline can be
observed again (for the interpretation of the data, the absolute numbers shown in
Figure 1 should be taken into consideration, though).
Relevance of Intelligence, Creativity, and the Relationship of the Two of

Gifted Education
As outlined in the introduction, the importance of intelligence and creativity

becomes particularly salient in the context of fostering excellence, for example,
in gifted programs. Both intelligence and creativity are characteristics worth
developing; yet a clear differentiation has to be made with regard to the goals of the
respective programs. Gifted students are a heterogeneous group; thus, there is no
182
6000
5000
4000
intell*
3000 creativ*
both
2000
1000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
300
250
200
intell*
150 creativ*
both
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 1
one-size-fits-all solution which addresses all possible needs (see Lucito, 1963, for a
classification of definitions of giftedness). Distinct ability domains (e.g., numerical,
verbal, or figural ability) as well as different levels of achievement need to be taken
into consideration. Identifying and fostering broadly defined potential, for instance,
requires a different approach than the promotion of children who already achieve at
a high level, or the support of gifted underachievers (e.g., Lohman, 2005). To make
responsible use of (usually limited) resources, the fit between the gifted child and the
program attended is crucial. Therefore, it is essential to identify those children who
are most likely to benefit from an educational measure.
This is where the differentiation between intelligence and creativity comes in.
For instance, if the two turn out to be distinct constructs, this may have far-reaching
implications for the discussion about different types of giftedness (e.g., intellectually
vs. creatively gifted). In contrast, if they are highly related, this would point out
183
the necessity to examine whether the influence of possible third variables and/or
constellations is responsible for the different ways in which giftedness manifests
itself.
Examining intelligence, creativity, and their relationship is also relevant for
curriculum development. Both constructs matter in the development of achievement
not only in gifted students but across the entire ability spectrum (for academic
achievement see, e.g., Vock, Preckel, & Holling, 2011). If one is found to be the
better predictor for later excellence, this would have far-reaching consequences
for curriculum development. Possible developmental changes in the structure of
ability play a role here as well. For instance, changes in the respective importance
of intelligence and creativity for achievement would imply necessary adaptations of
current curricula to promote later excellence in the best possible way.
However, while school requires and supports those intellectual abilities that are
close to academic achievement (especially numerical or verbal abilities; Mayer,
2011), the development of creative abilities plays a minor role only. Considering
the importance of creativity not only for academic achievement (and potential later
benefit to society), but also for the individuals self-actualization, this neglect is
astonishing.
Relevance for Giftedness Research and Theory
A plethora of heterogeneous definitions and models of giftedness has been

proposed, without leading to a consensus; the different purposes they serve (e.g.,
identifying gifted students for research and/or fostering purposes, developing
educational programs, counseling, or depicting the processes and mechanisms
of talent development; Heller, 1987) may be a reason for this heterogeneity.
Intellectual ability is a characteristic shared by most of them; however, creativity
also plays an important role in many of the classical definitions and models,
which will be outlined below. Reliable empirical findings about the relationship
between intelligence and creativity, its development over the lifespan, and possible
differences between ability groups may thus contribute to a more differentiated view
and the conditions and circumstances under which one definition or model may be
preferred over another. In the following, we will therefore attempt to disentangle
the conceptual confusion surrounding the complex relationship between giftedness,
intelligence and creativity.
DEFINITIONS AND MODELS OF GIFTEDNESS
In the words of Carroll and Laming (1974), defining giftedness appears to be a

timeless problem as long as intangibles such as creativity, intelligence, aptitudes,
and abilities are the criteria used to measure yet another intangible, giftedness.
(p. 89) a problem that still has not been solved conclusively. In the following, we
will outline different approaches to this multifaceted construct.
184
Potential Versus Performance
Whereas achievement is considered a valid indicator of underlying ability by both

the person in the street and some theoretical models, other conceptions rather define
giftedness as potential to be developed. The latter often use intelligence tests as an
approximation of a persons intellectual capacity. Such models account for the fact
that not all persons are able to tap their full potential. Some people achieve at a lower
level than their potential might suggest, whether this might be due to debilitating
personality characteristics other than ability, disadvantageous circumstances, or both.
Models which focus on potential are particularly relevant in those branches of gifted
education who aim at identifying a broad range of abilities, whereas achievement-
based conceptions of giftedness are more useful in educational measures which aim
at bringing already high proficiency to perfection (Lohman, 2005).
Practice is of particular importance in the context of giftedness development. In the
following, we will present two rivaling approaches to giftedness the psychometric
versus the expertise perspective which, however, may not even be as contradictory
as they seem at first sight.
Differential Psychological Versus Cognitive Perspective
Whereas approaches focusing on individual differences pursue the objective

to identify the person-related conditions of later achievement (prospective
approach), with a particular focus on cognitive ability, the expertise paradigm in
cognitive psychology (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Ericsson, 1996) frequently analyzes
high achievement retrospectively, with a particular focus on training and practice.
Despite their apparent discrepancies, the two can be considered complements rather
than antagonists. Although early expertise research went so far as to say that ability
hardly matters at all (e.g., Ericsson, Krampe, & Clemens, 1993), other findings
have shown differential effects of training, depending, at least partly, on intelligence
(e.g., Bs & Schneider, 1997; Horgan & Morgan, 1990; Schneider, 2008). Hence, it
can be concluded that (1) intelligence matters in virtually all conceptions of giftedness
that are based on an individual differences approach, and that (2) the importance of
intelligence can even be integrated into the expertise paradigm: higher intelligence
(especially fluid intelligence) contributes to more successful learning (e.g., Schweizer
& Koch, 2002; Mayer, 2011) and can therefore be considered an important prerequisite
for expertise in domains where a large amount of knowledge is crucial (e.g., science).
Uni- Versus Multidimensional Approaches
As shown above, giftedness can be considered the superordinate construct to

intelligence and creativity. Intelligence represents a particularly important aspect
of giftedness, to such an extent that some definitions even limit giftedness to this
dimension. Intelligence can be measured in an objective, reliable and valid way by
185
IQ tests, which makes this criterion particularly attractive for research purposes (and
which is one further reason why a differential psychological approach was preferred
over the expertise paradigm in the present chapter). In contrast to these unidimensional
models, multidimensional approaches have been proposed, which take into
consideration that (1) giftedness may be the result of several factors coming together,
or that (2) giftedness can show in other domains than intellectual achievement. The
classical definition of giftedness proposed by the Marland Report (1972), for instance,
specifies six areas in which potential may reveal itself: general intellectual ability,
specific academic aptitude, creative/productive thinking, leadership ability, visual/
performing arts, and psychomotor ability. One well-known model of giftedness
integrating a similar multitude of variables is the Munich Model of Giftedness (e.g.,
Heller, Perleth, & Hany, 1994), which comprises seven ability domains: intellectual,
creative, social, practical, artistic, musical, and psychomotor abilities. Under certain
circumstances, these domains can be transformed into achievement, for example,
into languages, painting, or social relationships. Whether this is the case or not is
moderated by intrapersonal (e.g., achievement motivation, strategy use, proneness to
stage fever, and the like) and environmental catalysts (e.g., instructional quality, family
climate, or critical life events). Gagns Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
(e.g., Gagn, 2003), despite its somewhat fewer domains, is similar in that potential
may translate into achievement in a developmental process which can be hampered
or facilitated by intrapersonal and environmental catalysts. However, Gagns model
includes chance as a separate factor influencing both potential and catalysts, which
has proven a valuable complement to the Munich model, as successful actualization of
potential often depends on being at the right place at the right time (see also the section
on Westmeyers relational approach below). Such models are useful for educational
purposes as well: Given the importance of fit between person and program outlined
above, identifying a certain constellation of abilities and auxiliary characteristics may
help decide whether a child will benefit from a certain gifted education program, or
whether a different program may be better suited for his or her needs.
Giftedness as the result of several joint factors can be found in Renzullis well-
known Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (e.g., Renzulli, 1986). Renzulli locates
giftedness at the intersection between above-average (intellectual) ability, creativity,
and task commitment. His model has proven useful for the development of giftedness.
Only few children are equally able in all three domains; hence, his approach aims at
fostering the strengths that are already present while supporting the areas yet to be
developed. In the context of gifted education (as conceptualized, for instance, in the
Schoolwide Enrichment Model; e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 1985), a child who is bright
and creative, yet lacks motivation may thus receive interesting yet complex tasks that
require effort and persistence such that his or her task commitment can be developed
as well. Hence, a child need not be perfect from the start; consequently, Renzullis
qualification criteria for entering the talent pool are somewhat less strict (e.g., the top
1520%) than the usual cut-offs used in giftedness identification (e.g., top 23%).
186
Categorical versus Continuum Approaches
The latter remarks lead us to a further important distinction. Besides the dimensionality
of giftedness, models also differ with respect to how strictly they differentiate
between gifted and nongifted, i.e., whether a cut-off point is (at least somewhat)
defined or not. Unidimensional definitions (as frequently used in research or in high-
IQ societies, where clear cut-off points are required) commonly define giftedness as
an IQ of two (or sometimes more) standard deviations above the mean. Yet as we
have seen above, such a (more or less arbitrary) criterion does not make sense for
all identification purposes. Practically, the intellectual needs of a child with an IQ
of 126 probably will not differ from those of a peer with an IQ of 133. Hence, one
should carefully deliberate whether such more or less artificial typologies do indeed
serve the goal one hopes to attain through identification.
Placement decisions are a more practical example of such categorizations. Here,
IQ tests alone are rarely a sufficient criterion, as most educational programs for the
gifted use multivariate approaches to giftedness including variables that are relevant
to the program requirements. Hence, to reach a decision, several variables have to be
integrated into one judgment. Whereas noncompensatory approaches define minimal
values that have to be attained for all areas (e.g., a minimum IQ, minimum interest,
etc.), compensatory approaches provide the possibility that lower values in one area
can be compensated for by higher values in others (e.g., lower motivation can be
compensated for by higher interest). The two approaches may also be combined such
that, for instance, a minimum IQ is required (noncompensatory), whereas creativity,
motivation, and interest can make up for each other (compensatory). Taken to the
extreme, every gifted and talented program would thus provide their own definition
of giftedness, as a child who is accepted can be considered gifted with respect
to that particular program (Hany, 1987) which probably does not help reduce the
conceptual confusion but rather leads to an inflation of the concept of giftedness,
thus making it pointless.
Integration: A Relational Approach to Giftedness, Intelligence, and Creativity
The previous paragraphs show that giftedness is an elusive concept whose definition
depends on many factors. In the following, we will outline a definition based on
Westmeyers (2001, 2008) relational approach, which integrates the diverse aspects
introduced here. His model, which shows some similarities to Csikszentmihalyis
system perspective on creativity (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1988), takes into
consideration that no everlasting one-size-fits-all definition can exist in constantly
changing contexts, which, in principle, can be applied to any complex construct.
In the following, we will explain the relational approach by taking the example of
creativity, as both Csikszentmihalyi and Westmeyer did; afterwards, we will attempt
to apply Westmeyers model to the concept of giftedness.
187
Early proto-systemic approaches have distinguished different components

of creativity. For instance, Rhodess (1961) 4P model posits that a person creates
a product in a process; this is influenced by press exerted by the environment.
However, this model fails to consider the evaluative component. Something is not
creative per se, but has to be accepted as such to be categorized as creative. One
can therefore define a concept (e.g., creative) as a relation between the domain
(e.g., composing), the field that belongs to it (in other terms, the gatekeepers; e.g.,
music critics), the person (e.g., the composer), the product (e.g., the musical piece),
the process leading to it (e.g., composing), and time (e.g., late 19th-century Austria-
Hungary). In terms of Westmeyer,
person ps product x is regarded as creative at time t if and only if D, F, and R
exist in a way that (1) D is a domain, (2) F the field belonging to the domain D,
(3) R a substantial subset of F; (4) person ps product x at time t is considered
as new with regard to domain D by rater r, which applies to all r out of R; (5)
person ps product x at time t is recommended for acceptance into domain D or
accepted into domain D by rater r, which applies to all r out of R. (Westmeyer,
2001, p. 238; authors translation)1
Hence, creativity is not considered to be an inherent characteristic of the person
which implies that in Westmeyers view, the psychometric approach alone is
insufficient to explain creativity. This is probably true; however, as we will outline
below, measures of creativity such as divergent thinking tests have proven their
value for research and can therefore be considered useful even within Westmeyers
conception.
As mentioned above, the relational approach is not limited to creativity but can
be applied to any complex construct, and systemic approaches to intelligence have
already been proposed. As is the case with creativity, the concept of giftedness has
also been subject to change, depending on the field, the sociohistorical context,
and so on; an application of Westmeyers model is therefore both feasible and
meaningful. Take the example of special gifted and talented classes: To be admitted
to such classes (the domain), a student (the person) has to be identified as gifted
in terms of the program standards by a selection committee (the field). A verbally
gifted student may not fulfill the criteria of a mathematics program and therefore
not be considered gifted, whereas a more verbally oriented program may probably
classify him or her as such.
The Person as the Pivot of Psychology
The relational model provides an integrative approach to complex concepts in

general. To do justice to their complexity, their empirical and phenomenological
examination should and cannot be carried out by one discipline alone (Westmeyer,
2001). All subjects (in the context of creativity, for instance: psychology, the arts,
history and history of arts, literature, music, education, philosophy, or sociology)
188
contribute their own approaches and methods that are better suited to some aspects
of the model than to others. As a whole, the model is impossible to operationalize
(and the question is also whether this would make sense at all). Therefore, the
challenge is, first, to join the different expertise and then, to find a common language
to integrate the resulting variety of findings as well as their interrelationships.
The expertise of psychology as the science of human behavior and mental processes
is probably most obvious for the person factor of the model. The psychometric tradition
in particular, which examines person characteristics and ways of measuring them, has
offered useful insights into the nature of intelligence, creativity, and giftedness. Due
to its heterogeneity and context-dependence, it is not possible to measure giftedness
in its entirety. Yet some aspects considered crucial to it can be assessed using
psychological tests. As we have seen above, intelligence and also creativity, which
are complex constructs in themselves, can be considered key components of most
giftedness definitions; hence, only certain aspects of them can be measured. IQ, for
instance, does not equal intelligence, but is limited by characteristics of the individual
test that is used to assess it (e.g., Kim, Cramond, & VanTassel-Baska, 2010). In a
similar line, finding many uses for a brick will not necessarily predict outstanding
scientific, literary, or artistic achievements in later life. Here, Westmeyers (2001)
argument that creativity cannot be measured in the psychometric sense needs to be
put into perspective: Common creativity tests assess behaviors that are considered
expressions of an underlying characteristic of a person. In our eyes, the relational
perspective can be applied here with some small modifications as well: Based on
current knowledge about the underlying construct, a persons score in a psychometric
test (i.e., the product) at a given point in time is accepted as indicative of the construct
by experts in the field at that point in time. This takes into consideration that our
knowledge about a given complex construct which cannot be measured in its entirety,
as shown above is always relative and thus subject to change over time.
In this sense, clear-cut and measurable operationalizations, despite their obvious
limitations, can definitely be considered useful. However incomplete the picture
they show may be it is usually a reliable one, given that the indicators are chosen to
the best of current knowledge. As said above, intelligence and creativity are crucial
constituents of giftedness, yet represent complex constructs in themselves, which
therefore need to be broken down further. In the following, the adequacy of reasoning
and divergent thinking as indicators of the underlying constructs intelligence and
creativity will be discussed.
Psychometric Indicators of Intelligence and Creativity
Reasoning as an Indicator of Intelligence Reasoning abilities are traditionally

considered to be at or near the core of what is ordinarily meant by intelligence
(Carroll, 1993, p. 196) this statement calls for further explanation. Evidence for
the validity of reasoning as the core component of intelligence comes from both
differential psychological and cognitive approaches, indicating that reasoning
189
assumes an intermediate position between a complex overarching general cognitive

ability and basic cognitive processes like working memory or mental speed. (The
possible influence the latter may have on the relationship between intelligence and
creativity will be discussed below.) Hierarchical models based on factor-analytic
methods (e.g., the CHC model; McGrew, 2005) agree that all cognitive abilities share
a certain amount of common variance, which can be represented as a general factor
of intelligence, or g. The stronger the correlation of a test with the superordinate
factor g, the higher its level of complexity, with more complex tasks requiring higher-
order functions. Carroll (1993) identified three factors pertaining to reasoning: (1)
sequential reasoning, which emphasizes the ability to reason and draw conclusions
from given conditions or premises, often in a series of two or more sequential steps
(ibid., p. 234); (2) induction, where the rules underlying given stimuli have to be
inferred; and (3) quantitative reasoning, which are based on mathematical properties
and relations (ibid., p. 238), all of which load highly on g, especially inductive
reasoning. Even if not all researchers agree with Gustafssons (1988) and Kvist and
Gustafssons (2008) strong claim that g equals fluid intelligence, which in turn equals
reasoning, there is at least ample evidence for their close relationship (see Lohman &
Lakin, 2011, for an overview).
Further evidence comes from Marshalek, Lohman, and Snow (1983) who, using
multidimensional scaling, showed reasoning and g to be closely related concepts.
According to Guttmans (1954) radex model (which is based on multidimensional
scaling), complexity can be illustrated as the proximity of a test to the center of the
radex. Combining the two approaches, Marshalek et al. (1983) were able to show
that Ravens matrices were the best indicator of g. However, the figural domain they
tap is but one out of three content domains. Because people differ in their ability to
respond to figural, verbal, or numerical tasks, it makes sense to include the latter two
as well to tap a persons actual ability in the best possible way.
Besides these top-down approaches, reasoning has been related to more basic
cognitive abilities, in particular mental speed and working memory which, according
to Kyllonen and Christal (1988), constitute two primary sources of individual
differences in cognitive ability. Galton (1883) already assumed a relationship
between reaction time and intelligence. After having been abandoned in favor of
test construction, the topic was taken up again in the 1960s and has received some
empirical support since (see Nettelbeck, 2011, for an overview). For instance, an
age-related decline in general mental speed seems to be responsible for changes
in fluid reasoning abilities, whereas crystallized intelligence is not affected (e.g.,
Finkel, Reynolds, McArdle, & Peterson, 2007). The relationship is complex and far
from being definitely solved, though, especially in the light of the fact that speed
is multifaceted and thus a more complex construct than it seems (e.g., Nettelbeck,
2011).
Findings on the relationship between reasoning and working memory also
support the notion that fluid abilities, and reasoning in particular, is related to more
basic cognitive processes. Using a variety of tests, Kyllonen and Christal (1990)
190
found correlations between reasoning and working memory ranging from r = .80
to .88, which they interpret as a substantial overlap, if not isomorphism of the
two constructs. This was confirmed by S, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, and
Schulze (2002), who found working memory capacity (one component of working
memory; e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) to be more strongly related to reasoning than
to other facets of intelligence (which already showed high correlations). A meta-
analysis by Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005) rebutted the notion of isomorphism
of general cognitive ability and working memory, as their results disfavored the
identity of the two constructs (although a substantial correlation between the two
was identified, r = .48, correcting for unreliability of the measures). Their findings
did not pass unchallenged, though (e.g., Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & S,
2005; Kane, Hambrick, & Conway, 2005), and the debate has not yet been settled
conclusively.
Like mental speed, working memory is a more complex construct than it
may seem at first sight. The relationship between the two (e.g., Kyllonen &
Christal, 1990; Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2002) as well as possible differences
as a function of development (e.g., Hornung, Brunner, Reuter, & Martin, 2011)
complicate matters for the relationship between reasoning and each of them even
further. However, although neither mental speed nor working memory equals
reasoning, there is quite some evidence that they are at least closely related
and that, furthermore, working memory capacity in particular is a promising
candidate to help us better understand the functional mechanisms that underlie
human cognition. As Oberauer and colleagues put it, WMC [working memory
capacity] is the one parameter that correlates best with measures of reasoning
ability []. Therefore, investigating WMC, and its relationship with intelligence,
is psychologys best hope to date to understand intelligence. (Oberauer et al.,
2005, p. 64)
Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creativity Divergent thinking (DT;

also termed divergent production in Guilfords Structure-of-Intellect model;
Guilford, 1967) can be described as the ability to generate many (=fluency), diverse
(=flexibility) and unusual (=originality) ideas upon presentation of a stimulus
(usually verbal or figural, whereas numerical contents are often neglected; e.g.,
Cropley, 2000; Preckel, Wermer, & Spinath, 2011); level of elaboration is sometimes
included as a fourth criterion (Batey & Furnham, 2006).
Relationships between measures of DT. Indicators of divergent thinking
have been shown to correlate substantially . For instance, the chance to produce
diverse ideas increases with the number of given answers. This was confirmed
by empirical results. In 1957 already, Christensen, Guilford, and Wilson found
late answers to be more original. Preckel et al. (2011), who used five divergent
thinking subtest of the Berlin Structure of Intelligence Test for Youth: Assessment
of Talent and Giftedness BIS-HB??; (Jger et al., 2006), identified correlations
between number and flexibility of ideas ranging from r = .76 to .92. This is in
191
line with Runco and Pezdeks (1984) findings, who reported a correlation of r =
.85 between fluency and flexibility. Originality or uniqueness, which is usually
assessed simply by the number of unique answers in a given sample, is related
to fluency (e.g., Johns, Morse, & Morse, 2001) and also to sample size, as more
persons are likely to produce more, more diverse, and more unique answers (see
Silvia, Martin, & Nusbaum, 2009, for a critical overview); Silvia (2008a), in his
reanalysis of Wallach and Kogans data, found a correlation between fluency and
originality of r = .89. It can therefore be concluded that other factors besides fluency
add little incremental variance, and that the number of answers produced can be
considered a sufficient indicator of DT (Hargreaves & Bolton, 1972). Accordingly,
several contemporary studies have limited DT to fluency scores alone (e.g.,
Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2009; Preckel, Holling, & Wiese, 2006;
Preckel et al., 2011).
Reasons for the relationship between measures of DT. Creativity seems to
be related to lower thresholds between concepts and thus less steep association
hierarchies (e.g., Mednick, 1962; Kaufman, 2009). This makes it easier for creative
persons to switch between categories and thus to produce more responses. It
may also facilitate connections between new and prior knowledge, which possibly
explains findings of creative peoples richer knowledge base. Recently, executive
functioning (and managing interference in particular) have been proposed as an
alternative explanation. For instance, Gilhooly, Fioratou, Anthony, and Wynn (2007)
were able to show that the number of solutions to an unusual uses task (which is
a common measure of divergent thinking) was related to the use of less common
strategies (see Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011, for an overview).
Both the knowledge/association hierarchy and the executive function conception
can be related to real-life creativity. Regardless of the domain, creative problems
in the broadest sense often comprise the transfer of concepts from one domain to
another (requiring knowledge beyond ones own domain as well as flexibility).
Too much domain-specific knowledge or formal education, however, may lead to
cognitive set formation and thus even be detrimental to creativity (e.g., Simonton,
1984). Furthermore, creative people should not only produce ideas, but also realize
them, despite concurrent tasks requiring their resources. Higher-order functioning
is therefore crucial to creative production and achievement. Hence, whatever
explanation of the functioning of divergent thinking is correct, both can be related to
actual creative achievement.
DT tests as valid indicators of creativity. Both the sufficient reliability of
common DT tests (see Cropley, 2000, for an overview) as well as their validity, using
other creativity tests (Plucker, 1999) and real-life creative achievement (Barron &
Harrington, 1981; Plucker, 1999; Runco, 1986; Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002)
as criteria, could be shown in empirical examinations.2 Runco (1991) showed that
although DT is not a perfect measure of creativity, it is both an important component
of the creative process and a useful estimate of a persons potential for creative
192
thought. Regarding also the evidence presented above, it can be concluded that both
from a theoretical and an empirical stance, divergent thinking can be considered the
core cognitive base of creativity. To bring it back to Westmeyers approach explained
above: DT tests are reliably related to those criteria the field accepts as creative.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND CREATIVITY
Conceptual Issues: Possible Relationships
Before getting to the empirical findings on the relationship between intelligence

and creativity and on the relationship between reasoning and divergent thinking
in particular , we will address some conceptual issues which might explain
why, besides the problems already mentioned, it is so difficult to draw definite
conclusions. Because a clear-cut definition exists for neither of the two concepts,
their relationship can be conceptualized in different ways (e.g., Sternberg & OHara,
2009). In this section, we will assume a broader and more general stance; in the
next part, where empirical findings will be related, a somewhat narrower perspective
using more clearly defined operationalizations of both intelligence and creativity
(with a particular focus on reasoning and divergent thinking, for the reasons outlined
above) will be assumed.
First, creativity can be seen as a subset of intelligence. For instance, Guilfords
Structure-of-Intellect model (e.g., Guilford, 1967), which conceives of creativity
in terms of divergent production, considers it to be one aspect of the operations
dimension. Similarly, the Berlin Model of Intelligence Structure (BIS: Jger, 1984;
see Neubauer & Bucik, 1996, for an English description) also sees ideational fluency
and flexibility along the three content domains figural, verbal, and numerical
thinking as one aspect of intelligence.
Sternberg and OHara (2009) mention Sternberg and Lubarts (1995) investment
theory of creativity as an example for an intelligence as a subset of creativity
conception. Their model postulates that different components need to converge to
form creativity; intelligence (defined as the combination of synthetic, analytical,
and practical abilities in terms of Sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence; e.g.,
Sternberg, 1985) is but one of them.
Intelligence and creativity as overlapping sets, which intersect in some aspects
but differ in others, have been described in models of giftedness and talent in
particular. For instance, Renzullis Three-Ring Conception mentioned above sees
both constituents along with task commitment as equivalent contributors. Further
evidence comes from research on implicit theories (lay conceptions) of giftedness.
For instance, Baudson and Preckel (2012) found the image teachers hold about
gifted students to include both an intellect/achievement and a creativity factor,
which were highly correlated (r = .71, p < .001), whereas correlations with the third
factor identified (antisocial behavior) were substantially lower.
193
A fourth view assumes that intelligence and creativity are more or less two labels
for one and the same thing. Some researchers (e.g., Haensly & Reynolds, 1989) view
creativity as a mere expression of intelligence. Furthermore, many definitions of the
two constructs imply problem solving as a component that is crucial to both; the
nothing special view (e.g., Perkins, 1981; Weisberg, 1986) even goes so far as to
say that insightful and routine problem solving are basically the same thing.
The opposite view, that intelligence and creativity are disjoint sets, is of interest in
the present context for several reasons. First, as Sternberg and OHara (2009) point
out, it is this view in particular which underlies several approaches to the identification
of giftedness, because IQ alone cannot account for all aspects of giftedness. Hence,
including creativity as a similarly outstanding, yet somewhat unrelated construct
would serve as a useful complement in the identification process (although the impact
of creativity tests in actual placement decisions, if administered at all, is lower than
that of IQ; Kaufman & Baer, 2006).3 A second reason lies in early findings relating
to the so-called threshold theory or, more generally speaking, Spearmans Law of
Diminishing Returns (Spearman, 1927; see below), which assumes a persons different
cognitive abilities to be less related with increasing general intelligence. This means
that at lower IQ levels, intelligence and creativity share more common variance (thus
representing partially overlapping sets) than at higher levels, where they are basically
unrelated. Hence, although findings are yet unequivocal, it is conceivable that the
relationship between the two may be moderated by third variables; level of cognitive
ability is but one of them. These aspects will be discussed below in section 4 of this
chapter. In the following, we first present both correlational and other regression-
based findings for the relationship between intelligence and creativity as well as
evidence for mediating and moderating variables.
Empirical Findings on the Relationship Between Intelligence and Creativity
In the following, findings on the overall relation between intelligence and creativity
will be outlined. Because the magnitude of their correlation may differ depending
on other variables that influence the relationship, empirical results on diverse
mediators and moderators will be presented afterwards. Whereas most studies
have operationalized creativity as divergent thinking, the operational definition of
intelligence is less consistent. Because one specific focus of the present chapter is on
reasoning and divergent thinking, we will therefore proceed from the general to the
specific in each section: first, overall findings will be presented, followed by more
detailed findings on reasoning and divergent thinking where available.
How Strong Is the Correlation Between Intelligence and Creativity? A number

of older studies have found intelligence and creativity to be largely independent
(e.g., Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Helson & Crutchfield, 1971; Wallach & Kogan,
1965). As early as 1898, Dearborn, examining responses to inkblots, noticed that
two students of decidedly intellectual type were among those who scored lowest
194
in imagination (cited after Getzels & Jackson, 1962, who also mention further early
examples). Torrances (1967) early meta-analysis on divergent thinking tests that
were to be compiled into the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking later on (TTCT;
Torrance, 1974), identified a median correlation of r = .21 between IQ and verbal
DT. Richards (1976), who combined elements from both Guilfords DT assessments
and the tests used by Wallach and Kogan (1965), found a mean correlation of r =
.27 between this compound measure and a combined IQ score derived from three
different intelligence tests. More recent approaches confirmed these moderate
correlations (e.g., overall rs = .20.40, according to Batey & Furnhams [2006]
review). A meta-analysis by Kim (2005) about the relationship between intelligence
and divergent thinking, which included correlation coefficients of many of the older
studies, revealed an r of .137, which increased to r = .174 after correcting for sample
size. Silvia (2008a), in his reexamination of Wallach and Kogans (1965) study using
a latent variable approach, found comparable correlations of about r = .20. He further
suggests that because intelligence tests measure only certain aspects but never the
entire construct, the real relationship may be somewhat closer.
As to the relationship between DT and reasoning, Preckel et al. (2011) identified
latent correlations between r = .48 and .60, depending on speededness of the
administration of either (see section Test characteristics). Similarly, Preckel et al.
(2006) found a zero-order correlation of r = .54 between DT and reasoning (which
was moderated by processing speed; see section Testee characteristics below).
Factors Influencing the Relationship Between Intelligence and Creativity Although

the above-mentioned findings suggest an overall weak to moderate relationship, this
does not yet solve the problem, as conflicting results cannot be simply ignored.
Several studies (e.g., Cropley, 1968; Feist & Barron, 2003; Furnham & Bachtiar,
2008; Guilford, 1950; Helson & Crutchfield, 1971; Rossmann & Horn, 1972;
Torrance, 1977; Vartanian, Martindale, & Matthews, 2009) have shown that neither
DT test scores nor creative achievement are substantially related to psychometric
intelligence. These contradictory findings may be due to third variables influencing
the relationship, which will be described in the following sections. According to
Runco and Albert (1986), the nature of relationship depends both on the test used
and on the populations tested. We therefore distinguish between two sources of
influence: test characteristics and testee characteristics.
Test Characteristics
Test types. Wallach and Kogan (1965), who measured creativity using multiple
DT tests, already identified differences in correlations depending on the tests used:
Some outliers were not related to intelligence at all, whereas others showed strong
relationships. In line with these early findings, Kims (2005) meta-analysis identified
types of intelligence tests and DT tests used as moderators of the relationship
between intelligence and creativity. For instance, creativity tests with one correct
solution which are conceptually closer to convergent thinking (such as the Remote
195
Associates Test; Mednick & Mednick, 1967), in contrast to genuine DT with many
correct solutions tests like, e.g., Guilfords Alternate Uses, show higher correlations
to IQ (Kim, 2005), and to verbal IQ in particular (Katz, 1983). Early already, some
creative abilities (e.g., the ability to sense problem areas, or the originality of ideas)
were shown to bear little relationship to IQ test results (e.g., French, 1951; Guilford,
1959). However, when all variables Kim (2005) identified as statistically significant
moderators were included into a weighted multiple regression to predict the
magnitude of the correlation coefficients (with types of intelligence and creativity
tests used, creativity subscales, and age entered in step 1, and ability grouping in
terms of threshold theory, i.e., above and below IQ = 120 entered in step 2), only
type of creativity test and age remained significant predictors.
Test administration. Shared method variance due to test administration also seems
to influence the relationship between intelligence and DT. The test situation plays
a particular role here. When DT tests are administered under exam-like conditions
(speeded test taking with focus on achievement), correlations with intelligence
tests are likely to be higher. For instance, Kim (2005) showed lower correlations
for the game-like Wallach-Kogan tests compared to the more test-like Guilford
tests (although, as Kim states, none of the studies used in her meta-analysis made
explicit that the tests were indeed administered in a fun situation, as recommended
by Wallach and Kogan). According to Wallach (1971), however, the test atmosphere
does not seem to influence DT test results substantially. Preckel et al. (2011) come
to a similar conclusion, yet specify a further reason. They found latent correlations
of r = .48 between both speeded and unspeeded reasoning with unspeeded DT;
latent correlations with speeded DT were r = .58 and .60 for unspeeded and speeded
reasoning, respectively. However, these correlations decreased substantially when
mental speed was taken into consideration (see section Testee characteristics
below).
Batey et al. (2009) assume that an efficient neural basis of intelligence may
explain variance in DT test scores under speeded test taking conditions in particular:
first, information can be quickly retrieved; second, it can be manipulated rapidly
to fit the answers to the question (fluid intelligence); and third, a well-organized
knowledge base (crystallized intelligence) helps find and recombine ideas.
Creativity scoring. As shown above, the diverse dimensions of DT (fluency,
flexibility, and originality) are closely related, which justifies the somewhat more
economic use of fluency scores in empirical studies. However, correlations between
DT and intelligence also depend on the method of scoring. Silvia (2008a) found
lower (and only marginally significant) relationships between intelligence (a latent
factor comprising ten subscales from diverse intelligence, aptitude, and achievement
tests used by Wallach and Kogan in their 1965 study) and originality ( = .16) than
for intelligence and fluency ( = .21). However, because his analysis was based
on existing data, no direct comparison of different scoring methods performed on
the same data sets could be made. Similarly, Kims (2005) meta-analysis found the
types of creativity subscales to moderate the intelligence creativity relationship,
196
which partly overlap with the common DT measures. Highest mean correlations
were found for flexibility (r = .23), followed by fluency (r = .17) and originality
(r = .13); correlations with general creativity scales were r = .21.4 Including
measures other than DT tests (e.g., rated creativity using consensual assessment, or
creative achievement; e.g., Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, 2010) complicates matters
even further; however, this would exceed the scope of the present article.
Structural facets of intelligence. Intelligence is a complex hierarchical construct
(Carroll, 1993); hence, it is not surprising that the relationship between intelligence
and creativity has been subject to more differentiated examinations with regard to
structural components of intelligence as well. Positive correlations of fluency with
both fluid (Gf in terms of reasoning; Batey et al., 2009; Furnham, Batey, Anand, &
Manfield, 2008) and crystallized intelligence (Gc, as assessed by a general knowledge
test; Batey et al., 2009) have been reported, whereas actual creative achievement
does not seem to be related to any of these facets of intelligence (e.g., Furnham &
Bachtiar, 2008). Using a multiple regression approach, Batey et al. (2010) found
reasoning to be the only significant predictor of both fluency and rated divergent
thinking, whereas age, gender, general knowledge (Gc), and the Big Five failed to
add explained variance. The authors conclude that irregardless [sic] as to how verbal
DT is assessed, gf is part of the explanation. (p. 535). Prior findings (Batey et al.,
2009) also showed the impact of Gf, whereas overall IQ had no influence on fluency.
Using a latent-variable approach, Silvia (2008b) examined the relationship between
intelligence (g) and creativity in undergraduate students. Fluid intelligence (Gf),
verbal fluency, and generation of successful strategies for solving the verbal fluency
task represented indicators for latent g, whereas two unusual uses tasks (brick and
knife) served as indicators of creativity. A multiple regression model using the three
lower-order factors (Gf, fluency, and strategy) and gender to predict creativity showed
that Gf was more closely related to creativity ( = .24) than the other variables.
Batey et al. (2009) found contrasting results in their second study when Gc was
included instead of overall IQ, though: Gc was the only significant predictor of
fluency, whereas Gf and the Big Five did not contribute substantially to the variance
explained. However, their small sample (N = 82) may have been insufficient to reveal
smaller effects. This parallels findings by Cho, Nijenhuis, van Vianen, Kim, and Lee
(2010), who found only Gc and freedom from distractability, but not Gf to be related
to fluency in Torrance figural TTCT. (Verbal fluency, originality, and flexibility,
however, were related to both Gc and Gf.) In addition, Gc is not independent from
Gf either (e.g., Cattell, 1987).
As mentioned above, the effect of Gc on creativity may be illustrated by an
inverted U curve. The interference hypothesis states that very high intelligence in
terms of knowledge may even have debilitating effects on creativity (e.g., Simonton,
1994; Sternberg, 1996).
Content facets of intelligence and creativity. Intelligence and creativity tests
differ with regard to the specific abilities they tap. According to the Berlin Model of
Intelligence Structure (BIS; Jger, 1984), different content domains figural, verbal,
197
and numerical abilities should be considered for both reasoning and DT. Empirical
results show that this differentiation makes sense. For instance, Kim (2005) found
the mean correlation with intelligence to be higher for nonverbal (r = .23) than for
verbal creativity tests (r = .16); however, sample sizes were somewhat imbalanced
(357 versus 41 correlation coefficients).
The above-mentioned study by Cho et al. (2010) also yields evidence that reasoning
is more closely related to verbal than to figural DT. In contrast, Preckel et al. (2006),
who examined students aged 12.5 to 16.4 years, showed reasoning to correlate
highest with verbal creativity (r = .51); correlations with figural (r = .36) or numerical
creativity (r = .38) were substantially lower. Their study was based on the BIS, which
conceives of creativity as divergent thinking across the three content facets. Holling
and Kuhns (2008) study yielded comparable results: They found gifted students
(IQ > 130) to score higher on the BIS creativity scale, especially regarding verbal
divergent thinking. However, the authors point out that the speed conditions under
which the entire test was administered may have put gifted students at an advantage.
Testee Characteristics
Basic mental processes: Mental speed and memory. The above-mentioned study
by Preckel et al. (2006) assessed correlations between reasoning and DT (both
overall and content domain-specific fluency). Partialing out processing speed led to
substantial decreases in correlations across domains (overall creativity: r = .54 [.20];
verbal creativity: r = .51 [.24]; numerical creativity: r = .38 [.07]; figural creativity:
r = .36 [.07], partial correlations when controlling for speed in square brackets).
Similarly, the above-mentioned study by Preckel et al. (2011) found the correlations
between reasoning and DT (administered under both speeded and unspeeded test
taking conditions) to dissipate once mental speed was taken into consideration.
They conclude that the latter rather than speededness of administration is the crucial
moderator of the reasoningDT relationship.
Kuhn and Holling (2009) examined the relationship between the four aggregated
test scores of the BIS-HB (Jger et al., 2005): reasoning, DT, memory, and processing
speed. Reasoning and DT were substantially correlated (r = .51); however, the zero-
order correlation dropped to a mere r = .15 when both memory and processing speed
were accounted for.
Gender. According to Kim (2005), correlations between DT and intelligence are
comparable across genders (mean r = .16 for women, r = .15 for men). This is
confirmed by more recent results (e.g., Batey et al., 2010), where no significant
influence of gender on the intelligence creativity relationship was found either.
Personality. Openness to experience, which is correlated to both intelligence and
creativity, is likely to influence the relationship between the two variables, too. Silvia
(2008b) employed a latent-variable approach to regress creativity (with two unusual
uses tasks as indicators) on g (as indicated by fluid intelligence, verbal fluency, and
strategies produced to solve verbal fluency tasks). The higher-order latent factor g
showed a strong relationship to creativity ( = .43); however, its magnitude decreased
198
to = .26 when openness to experience was taken into consideration. Silvia (2008b)
therefore concludes that the relationship between creativity and intelligence may
have been underestimated in prior studies, which examined measured variables
rather than latent factors, and that openness to experience may explain part of the
variance in their relationship.
Age. Empirical findings regarding the influence of age on the intelligence
creativity relationship have yielded unequivocal results. Batey et al. (2010) found
no influence of age on the intelligencecreativity relationship at all; considering
that their sample consisted of university students only, this finding is not surprising,
though. A life-span perspective, considering both theoretical and empirical findings,
is therefore warranted. Whereas the differentiation hypothesis posits that cognitive
abilities tend to differentiate with age, resulting in decreasing correlations between
different aspects of intellect (e.g., Baltes & Lindenberger, 1997; Cattell, 1987; Li,
Lindenberger, Hommel, Aschersleben, Prinz, & Baltes, 2004; see also Birney &
Sternberg, 2006, for an illustrative model), Kims (2005) results rather point in the
opposite direction. In her meta-analysis, age moderated the correlation between
intelligence and creativity such that correlations between the two were lowest for
elementary school children (r = .09) and highest for high-school students (r = .26);
for middle-school students and adults, the relationship was similar (rs = .21 and
.21, respectively). This is in line with recent empirical findings of the extended
age differentiationdedifferentiation hypothesis across the entire lifespan, which
included a large representative cross-sectional sample, ages 4 to 101 years (Tucker-
Drob, 2009). His results rather support the inverse developmental trajectory, i.e., an
age-related dedifferentiation during childhood, followed by later differentiation, as
shown by an increase in some of the factor loadings examined. However, the issue
of structural invariance of cognitive abilities is still unsolved, and results are yet
mixed. Longitudinal studies are certainly warranted to verify whether the findings
reported here will stand, and also to learn more about the dynamics of cognitive
development (e.g., shifts in the influence of diverse components such as Gf and Gc;
Batey & Furnham, 2006).
Level of cognitive ability. Similarly to age-related differentiation and
dedifferentiation, differences in intercorrelations between cognitive abilities
depending on overall intellectual functioning have been proposed. Spearman (1904)
represents cognitive abilities as a positive manifold, with all facets of ability showing
positive intercorrelations. However, the strength of these intercorrelations depends
on a persons overall intelligence. In his Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR;
Spearman, 1927; see also Deary, Egan, Gibson, Austin, Brand, & Kellaghan, 1996;
Detterman & Daniel, 1989), he posits that cognitive abilities in highly able people
show lower correlations than in less able people, meaning that g saturation of diverse
ability tests is expected to decrease with intelligence. This is supported by Reynolds
and Keith (2007), who found evidence for SLODR in the KABC-II norming
sample. Generally, g explained more variance across all five KABC-II broad ability
factors in the low-ability group, compared to the high-ability group (as defined
199
by median split). The effects were particularly pronounced for fluid intelligence,
where g accounted for more than 90% of the variance in the low ability group, yet
explained a mere 30% in the highly able group. However, empirical findings are yet
unequivocal. For instance, Hartmann and Teasdale (2004) actually found higher g
loadings in the high-ability group of their representative sample, confirming prior
studies by Fogarty and Stankov (1995).
SLODR is of particular interest to the relationship between intelligence and
creativity, which is expected to decrease with overall cognitive ability. Support for
this assumption comes from Jensen (2003): SLODR is expected to hold for tasks with
low loadings on g in particular. Because DT tasks usually show weak to moderate
loadings on g, an ability-dependent decrease in the correlation between reasoning
and DT is to be expected.
A particular instance of SLODR has attracted considerable research interest:
the so-called threshold theory, which assumes not only a continuous ability-related
decrease in correlations, but even a clear cutoff point in terms of IQ level.
THRESHOLD THEORY AS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF HOW INTELLIGENCE AND

CREATIVITY MIGHT BE RELATED
In line with SLODR, threshold theory posits that reasoning and DT are correlated
up to a certain cognitive ability level (e.g., IQ = 120) but that correlations dissipate
beyond this point. In other words, a certain amount of intelligence is required
for creativity, but [] intelligence and creativity are by no means synonymous.
(Getzels & Jackson, 1962, p. 125). Hence, high intelligence represents a necessary
but not sufficient condition for high creativity (Guilford, 1967).
General Findings on Threshold Theory
Up to now, empirical results have been inconclusive. As with the inconsistent results
reported for the general relationship between intelligence and creativity, differences
in methodological approaches and in the tests used as well as heterogeneous and
hence incomparable populations are likely reasons (Runco & Albert, 1986). While
most early research and theory agreed with threshold theory (e.g., Barron, 1963,
1969; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Guilford, 1967; Guilford & Christensen, 1973;
Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966; MacKinnon, 1967; Simonton, 1994; Torrance, 1962),
more recent studies have cast doubt on its validity. Kim (2005), for instance, found
no evidence that threshold (IQ = 120) or a finer categorization of IQ level (below
100; 100120; 120135; above 135) moderate the correlations between intelligence
and creativity, as examined for diverse IQ and creativity measures. Sligh, Conners,
and Roskos-Ewoldsens (2005) overall results failed to support threshold theory
as well. This was also true for Preckel et al. (2006), Runco and Albert (1986), or
Runco and Pezdek (1984), who found the magnitude of the differences in correlation
between the high- and low-ability groups to be negligible. As Runco and Albert
200
(1986; see also Plucker & Renzulli, 2009) assume, the fact that the two constructs
have evolved in complexity (with implications for their measurement) may explain
why early findings supported threshold theory, whereas newer ones do not. Sligh
et al. (2005) even hypothesize that threshold theory may simply be an artifact, due
to restricted variances of both IQ and creativity in the high-IQ groups, which affects
the magnitude of the correlation coefficients.
An interesting parallel can be drawn between threshold theory and Hayess
(1989) certification theory, which claims that intelligence and creativity are not
intrinsically related. Rather, a minimum level of intelligence is required to attain
certain educational and professional certificates, which then offer the opportunity
to be creative at a high level however, creative achievement is by no means a
characteristic of all people thus certified. Without an academic degree, on the other
hand, it is formally impossible to become an outstandingly creative scientist; yet
this does not imply that people without such a certificate are incapable of eminent
scientific creativity per se.
In 1994, Lubart claimed that threshold theory was generally agreed upon;
however, systematic research is still not sufficient to draw such conclusions. The
debate, which has been going on for almost 50 years now, is still hot and far from
being settled. As Kaufman and Plucker (2011) put it, [g]iven all the weaknesses
of this area of study, the threshold theory may be best viewed as largely untested.
(p. 779).
In the following, the focus will be on empirical studies which have examined
threshold theory with regard to the relationship between reasoning and DT as
specific and psychometrically sound operationalizations of the complex constructs
intelligence and creativity.
The Relationship Between Reasoning and DT Above and Below the Threshold
Several studies from Germany are based on the Berlin Model of Intelligence
Structure (Jger, 1984), which comprises both DT (in terms of fluency and, partly,
flexibility) and reasoning. The two operations are measured across the three content
domains figural, verbal, and numerical thinking. Studies using tests that are based on
this model (e.g., the BIS-HB, a test for the assessment of gifted youth; Jger et al.,
2006) are therefore particularly suited to examine the relationship between DT and
reasoning. Preckel et al. (2006), examining the standardization example of the BIS-
HB, did not find any evidence for threshold theory, neither for the postulated threshold
of IQ = 120 nor for ability quartiles. The latter was included to account for Hartmann
and Teasdales (2004) findings that intercorrelations between cognitive abilities are
highly influenced by the choice of the cut-off point. Both correlation analyses and
structural equation modeling results showed that reasoning and DT showed mean
positive correlations across the entire ability spectrum (which decreased when
mental speed was taken into consideration; see above), thus disconfirming threshold
theory.
201
Holling and Kuhn (2008), who performed a multiple-group analysis of mean and
covariance structures on the same sample, found that a model assuming partial strict
measurement invariance with regard to the latent ability structure (verbal, figural,
and numerical DT) could not be rejected. Their findings do not suggest a qualitative
leap at IQ = 130, thus disfavoring threshold theory.
Both Preckel et al.s (2006) and Holling and Kuhns (2008) results are based
on youth aged between 12.5 and 16.4 years; their conclusions are therefore limited
to this age group. However, similar results have been found for college student
populations as well. Evidence for this age group comes from Sligh et al. (2005), who
also reported detailed correlations for different aspects of creativity and intelligence.
Their results, however, point in a different direction than threshold theory would
predict. For fluid intelligence (corresponding to reasoning) and a generation task
(similar to a figural inventiveness task of the BIS-HB), significant correlations (r =
.33) were found for the high-IQ group (mean composite IQ = 129.4), but not for the
low-IQ group (r = .03; mean composite IQ = 105.7).
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
Current empirical findings agree that intelligence and creativity are moderately
related; the exact magnitude of their relationship depends on many factors inherent
in both the assessment methods and procedures and the persons examined. Both
contribute significantly to academic achievement (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Vock
et al., 2011). DT in terms of fluency represents a valid estimate for the cognitive
base of a persons creative potential. With regard to intelligence, reasoning can be
considered a core intellectual ability, although in practice, more comprehensive
measures (e.g., aggregate full-scale IQ measures) are common, too. In this context,
threshold theory the assumption that up to a certain level of cognitive ability
(usually IQ = 120), correlations between intelligence and creativity are substantial,
yet dissipate above this threshold has been discussed. Despite early support, more
recent studies, using more sophisticated conceptual and methodological approaches,
found no evidence for this assumption. However, even if threshold theory has not
received much empirical support lately, its assumptions are hard to test and research
has not yet exploited all its possibilities. If a threshold based on general cognitive
ability exists whether at the IQ = 120 level, above, or below , this would mean
that creative giftedness would require a certain minimum IQ to become manifest at
all. Spline regression approaches using latent variables may provide insights both
into the true relationship between intelligence and creativity and into the existence
of a threshold level (which again may differ depending on the variables examined
and measures used; e.g., NICHD, 2004).
To conclude, although research on the intelligencecreativity relationship has
made quite some progress since Guilfords seminal APA address (Guilford, 1950),
many open questions remain. In the following, some implications of the findings
reported in the present chapter will be discussed.
202
Conceptual and Theoretical Implications
Westmeyers (2001; 2008) systemic approach shows that the distinction between
gifted and average-ability persons is largely dependent on consensus within the
respective field. This is reflected in identification practice as well. Currently, students
participating in gifted programs are usually selected based on compensatory or
mixed procedures (e.g., Renzulli and Reiss Revolving Door Model, which requires
a certain minimum IQ yet is more generous with regard to other criteria such as
motivation), whereas research commonly defines giftedness in terms of a clear-cut
noncompensatory statistical criterion (IQ > 130). Obviously, the field has accepted
that intellectually gifted children do exist although identification varies with the
respective purposes. How about the creatively gifted?
Focusing on the person perspective within such a systemic approach, psychometric
studies support the existence of creative giftedness irrespective of reasoning. For
example, according to the findings of Preckel et al. (2006, 2011) reasoning and DT are
independent of each other once processing speed is controlled for. This suggests that
reasoning and DT are not directly related but instead by the influence of third variables.
Interestingly, DT seems to be more dependent on processing speed than reasoning (the
reverse was found with respect to short term memory; Vock et al., 2011).
In addition, a developmental perspective might contribute to our knowledge
on the relation of intelligence and creativity or on different kinds of giftedness,
respectively. Issues concerning cognitive development, as conceptualized in
the (de)differentiation hypothesis, open up additional fields for future research
here. In line with the yet inconsistent findings on age-related development, it is
conceivable that creative giftedness may be more likely to emerge at certain points
in life, or under certain circumstances. The frequently observed fourth-grade
slump, a decrease in creativity around grade 4 of primary school (e.g., Torrance,
1968) may be indicative of either and certainly deserves more detailed research
attention.
Considering furthermore the differences in personality between highly intelligent
and highly creative children, it is plausible from this point of view that the two
represent different types of students. Empirical studies also show that teachers
perceive them differently (e.g., Scott, 1999). However, although some evidence
suggests intellectually and creatively gifted students to be distinct types, we should
keep in mind that giftedness is not a dichotomy, but a dimension. (Robinson,
2005, p. 290). Our current attempts to structure a complex concept in line with
Westmeyer are at best preliminary and also highly dependent on the methods used.
This particular issue will be addressed in the following.
Methodological Implications
Whereas intelligence (and reasoning as its core constituent) can be measured quite
accurately, consensus about how creativity should be measured is still lacking.
203
DT tests provide a measure for creative potential that is both reliable and valid
and can therefore be considered useful tools for both research and practice.
Whereas Guilford (1972) complained the lack of DT measures in modern group
intelligence tests, this issue has been addressed in the German BIS-HB (Jger et al.,
2006), which has already triggered some fruitful research, as shown in the present
chapter.
However, DT is but one aspect of creativity. Some authors (e.g., Silvia et al.,
2009) see the overreliance of creativity research on DT as one of its weaknesses.
Furthermore, scoring methods that go beyond merely counting the number of
responses (e.g., average scoring or uniqueness scoring) are often time-consuming
and thus impractical, besides other problems (see Silvia, Winterstein, Willse,
et al., 2008, for an overview). Alternatively, subjective scoring methods such as
snapshot evaluations (assessing entire sets of creative responses on a one-item
Likert-type scale; e.g., Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Silvia et al., 2009) or the Top
2 approach (judging a persons creativity based on the two responses s/he considers
his/her best ones; Silvia, Winterstein, Willse, et al., 20084) may be somewhat less
precise but far more economic tools, especially when expert judges assess the
quality of the output (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Baer, 2008). Although the relationship
between intelligence and creativity was not considered in Silvia, Winterstein,
Willse, et al.s (2008) study, Kogan (2008) points out in the debate ensuing their
article that it would have made sense to include it as a covariate to substantiate
the new measures convergent and discriminant validity. This suggests possible
interesting future research on the relationship between intelligence and creativity
using such easy-to-handle measures especially with regard to prospective
longitudinal studies on the development of this relationship over the lifespan we
still know very little about. Latent-variable approaches (e.g., Holling & Kuhn,
2008; Preckel et al., 2006, 2011; Silvia, 2008a) using multiple indicators may
prove especially useful to learn more about the true relationship between the two
constructs.
Practical Implications
The nature of the relationship between intelligence and creativity has a substantial
impact on curriculum development, educational practice, teacher training, and
the identification and promotion of gifted students. Whereas intelligence (and
achievement, which is commonly associated to it in teachers implicit theories; e.g.,
Baudson & Preckel, 2012) is seen as a positive and worthwhile characteristic, the
role of creativity is somewhat ambiguous.
From early on, empirical studies have shown that creatively gifted children who
are not intellectually gifted (defined as the top 20% of the creativity and, at the same
time, the bottom 20% of the intelligence spectrum in Getzels and Jacksons [1962]
sample) achieve at a level that is comparable to that of intellectually gifted children
204
who are not creative, despite a 23-point IQ difference between the two groups. More
recent research has pointed out the predictive validity of DT in terms of creative
potential (e.g., Runco, 2005) for both real-life creativity in all domains except for
musical creativity (Kim, 2008) and for academic achievement, where DT was the
second-highest predictor after reasoning (Vock et al., 2011). This is not surprising
from a general problem solving perspective. Successful problem solving requires
both convergent processes (reasoning) and divergent processes (DT). Differential
psychological findings were reported by Rindermann and Neubauer (2000), who
showed that DT was more closely related to achievement in the humanities (r = .37)
than to mathematics/physics achievement (r = .08). DT may therefore be used to
detect potential in areas that are currently being pushed less than the STEM domains.
Although the importance for educational and professional success has been widely
acknowledged in both research and politics, transferring these insights into practice
has proven difficult. Since Getzels and Jackson (1962) pointed out that highly
creative students who scored low on intelligence tests faced more disadvantages in
school than children who scored low on both dimensions, the image of creatively
gifted students may have changed in terms of lip service, but hardly in practice. For
teachers, creativity seems to be related to disruptive behavior (e.g., Scott, 1999)
and lower conformity and discipline (Gner & Oral, 1993). Westby and Dawson
(1995) found that those students teachers selected as their least favorites were highly
similar to their prototypes of a creative child. Some authors therefore consider
creativity a risk factor (e.g., Kim et al., 2010) or a serious disadvantage (creatively
handicapped; Gowan, Khatena, & Torrance, 1979) if not accompanied by high
intelligence.
Conclusion
In the light of the plethora of contradictory findings, it is not easy if feasible

at all to draw a conclusion. If one thing is certain, it is that researchers on the
intelligencecreativity relationship are unlikely to become bored out: Although
a vast amount of both theoretical, empirical, and methodological knowledge has
been accumulated over the last five decades, we are still just beginning to chart this
complex and fascinating terrain.
Considering educational implications (and the identification of gifted children in
particular), there is evidence that creatively gifted children differ from intellectually
gifted children both with regard to their characteristics, the image other people hold
of them, and their educational needs resulting from both. Although such typologies
are certainly useful to structure a field as diverse, complex, and also time-bound
as giftedness, we need to be aware that the continuum approach to giftedness
may be more useful. To conclude with Getzels and Jackson (1962, p. 132), in
the classroom there is no such thing as the intelligent child or the creative child.
Ultimately there are no types, only children.
205
NOTES
1
Many historical examples prove that the time component is a useful and important complement to
Csikszentmihalyis model. An unknown critic, for instance, judged Gustav Mahlers famous first
symphony as the dullest work the new epoch has produced (cited after de La Grange, p. 99). Another
famous example is Vincent van Gogh who, despite his enormous productivity, sold one single painting
only during his lifetime.
2
Concerning the predictive power of DT tests for real-life creativity, Silvia, Winterstein, and Willse
(2008) raise an interesting point. They argue that the link between DT and creative achievement
may be stronger in novices such as schoolchildren, youth, and college undergraduates (i.e., the vast
majority of the populations examined in creativity research) but that this may apply to a lesser extent
to experts, whose performance is less dependent on global resources (e.g., fluid intelligence, DT) than
on their expert knowledge structures (e.g., Ackerman, 2007; Ericsson & Ward, 2007).
3
In practice, though, probably no one would assume two psychological constructs to be completely
unrelated. In the social sciences everything is correlated with everything (Meehl, 1990, p. 210), and
all the more so if the two constructs belong to a similar (e.g., cognitive) domain of abilities.
4
Kim (2005) also reports correlations for figural redefinition subtests, which are not considered here
due to the small sample size (only six correlation coefficients were reported).
5
Unlike Mumford, Vessey, and Barrett (2008), who claim that the alternative assessment methods
proposed by Silvia, Winterstein, Willse, et al. (2008) tap only one aspect of the creative process (i.e.,
idea generation), the authors would like to point out that one more aspect of the creative processidea
evaluation, and the persons ability to select his/her best ideas wellis implied in the Top 2 scoring at
least.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L. (2007). New developments in understanding skilled performance. Current Directions in
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2002). Individual differences in working memory
within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 131, 567589.
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or
different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3060.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning
and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 4789). New York: Academic Press.
Baer, J. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking tests have problems, but this is not the solution.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 8992.
Baltes, P. B., & Lindenberger, U. (1997). Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and
cognitive functions across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging?
Psychology and Aging, 12, 1221.
Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. Princeton, NY: Van Nostrand.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of
Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors
of divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 4, 6069.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the
scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355429.
206
Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as
predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532535.
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2012). Gifted students as seen by their teachers: Intelligent, creative, and
maladjusted? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Birney, D. P., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Intelligence and cognitive abilities as competencies in
development. In E. Bialystok & G. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change
(pp. 315330). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalisations about talent development. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent
in young people (pp. 507579). New York: Ballantine Books.
Bs, K., & Schneider, W. (1997). Talententwicklung im Tennis: Eine Reanalyse der Heidelberger
Lngsschnittstudie [Talent development in tennis: A reanalysis of the Heidelberg Longitudinal Study].
Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted children from underrepresented populations. Theory into
Practice, 44, 98104.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge:
Carroll, J. L., & Laming, L. R. (1974). Giftedness and creativity: Recent attempts at definition: A literature
review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18, 8596.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-
Holland.
Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., van Vianen, A. E. M., Kim, H.-B., & Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship
between diverse components of intelligence and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44,
125137.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., & Wilson, R. C. (1957). Relations of creative responses to working time
and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 8288.
Cropley, A. J. (1968). A note on the Wallach-Kogan test of creativity. British Journal of Educational
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper
Review, 23, 7279.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, person: A systems approach view of creativity.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. pp. 325339). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Davidson, J. E., & Kemp, I. A. (2011). Contemporary models of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg &
S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 5882). New York, NY:
Deary, I. J., Egan, V., Gibson, G. J., Austin, E. J., Brand, C. R., & Kellaghan, T. (1996). Intelligence and
the differentiation hypothesis. Intelligence, 23, 105132.
Detterman, D., & Daniel, D. (1989). Correlations of mental tests with each other and with cognitive
variables are highest for low ability groups. Intelligence, 13, 349359.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In
K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellencethe acquisition of expert performance in the arts and
sciences, sports and games (pp. 150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R, T., & Clements, T.-R. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in expert
performance. Psychological Review, 103, 363406.
Ericsson, K. A., & Ward, P. (2007). Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance of experts
in the laboratory: Toward a science of expert and exceptional performance. Current Directions in
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 6288.
Finkel, D., Reynolds, C. A., McArdle, J. J., & Pedersen, N. L. (2007). Age changes in processing speed
as a leading indicator of cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 22, 558568.
Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
207
Fogarty, G. J., & Stankov, L. (1995). Challenging the law of diminishing returns. Intelligence, 21,
157174.
French, J. W. (1951). The description of aptitude and achievement tests in terms of rotated factors.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45, 613617.
Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and
creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 10601069.
Gagn, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo
& G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 6074). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. New York, NY: AMS Press.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive
involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98,
611625.
Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1979). Educating the ablesta book of readings on the
education of gifted children. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469479.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1972). Intellect and the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 175187.
Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973). The one-way relation between creative potential and IQ.
Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1966). Creative potential is related to measures of IQ and verbal
comprehension. Indian Journal of Psychology, 41, 716.
Gner, B., & Oral, G. (1993). Relationship between creativity and nonconformity to school discipline as
perceived by teachers of Turkish elementary school children, by controlling for their grade and sex.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 208214.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive abilities.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 3571).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical
thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258348). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Haensly, P. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Creativity and intelligence. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, &
C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 111132). New York, NY: Plenum.
Hany, E. A. (1987). Psychometrische Probleme bei der Identifikation Hochbegabter [Psychometric Issues
in Gifted Identification]. Zeitschrift fr Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 8, 172191.
Hargreaves, D. J., & Bolton, N. (1972). Selecting creativity tests for use in research. British Journal of
Hartmann, P., & Teasdale, T. W. (2004). A test of Spearmans Law of Diminishing Returns in two large
samples of Danish military draftees. Intelligence, 32, 499508.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds
(Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 135146). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Heller, K. A. (1987). Perspektiven einer Hochbegabungsdiagnostik [Perspectives of Giftedness
Diagnostics]. Zeitschrift fr Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 8, 159172.
Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Hany, E. A. (1994). Hochbegabung ein lange Zeit vernachlssigtes
Forschungsthema [Giftednessa long neglected research issue]. Einsichten. Forschung an der
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt, 3(1), 1822.
Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Creative
Achievements, 32, 210220.
Holling, H., & Kuhn, J.-T. (2008). Does intellectual giftedness affect the factor structure of divergent
thinking? Evidence from a MG-MACS analysis. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 283294.
Horgan, D. D., & Morgan, D. (1990). Chess expertise in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4,
109128.
208
Hornung, C., Brunner, M., Reuter, R. A. P., & Martin, R. (2011). Childrens working memory: Its structure
and relationship to fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 39, 210221.
Jger, A. O. (1984). Intelligenzstrukturforschung: Konkurrierende Modelle, neue Entwicklungen,
Perspektiven [Research on the structure of intelligence: Competing models, new developments,
perspectives]. Psychologische Rundschau, 35, 2135.
Jger, A. O., Holling, H., Preckel, F., Schulze, R., Vock, M., S, H.-M., & Beauducel, A. (2006).
Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test fr Jugendliche: Begabungs- und Hochbegabungsdiagnostik (BIS-
HB) [Berlin structure of intelligence test for youth: Asssessment of talent and giftedness]. Gttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Jensen, A. R. (2003). Regularities in Spearmans law of diminishing returns. Intelligence, 31, 95105.
Johns, G. A., Morse, L. W., & Morse, D. T. (2001). An analysis of early vs. later responses on a divergent
production task across three different time press conditions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 6572.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence
are strongly related constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2995). Psychological
Bulletin, 131, 6671.
Katz, A. N. (1983). Relationship of the Ammons Quick Test of Intelligence to verbal and nonverbal tests
of creativity. Psychological Reports, 52, 747750.
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligence testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal, 18,
99102.
Kaufman, J. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2011). Intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 771783). New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 16, 5766.
Kim, H. C. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent
thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 106130.
Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and
intelligence. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity
(pp. 395412). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kogan, N. (2008). Commentary: Divergent-thinking research and the zeitgeist. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 100102.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2011). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 2047). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Kvist, A. V., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and the general
factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattells investment theory. Intelligence, 36,
422436.
Kuhn, J.-T., & Holling, H. (2009). Exploring the nature of divergent thinking: A multilevel analysis.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 116123.
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1988). Cognitive modeling of learning abilities: A status report
of LAMP. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/
ERICServlet?accno=ED327547
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory
capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389433.
de La Grange, H.-L. (1995). Gustav Mahler. Vienna: The years of challenge (18971904) (Vol. 2).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Li, S.-C., Lindenberger, U., Hommel, B., Aschersleben, G., Prinz, W., & Baltes, P. B. (2004).
Transformations in the couplings among intellectual abilities and constituent cognitive processes
across the life span. Psychological Science, 15, 155163.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An
aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111136.
Lohman, D. F., & Lakin, J. M. (2011). Intelligence and reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 419441). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
209
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 290332).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lucito, L. J. (1963). Gifted children. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.), Exceptional children in the schools
(pp. 179238). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1967). Educating for creativity: A modern myth? In P. Heist (Ed.), Education for
creativity (pp. 120). Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the
United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S.
Office of Education. (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2: G36). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and
hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7, 107127.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Intelligence and achievement. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 738747). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The CattellHornCarroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future.
In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and
issues (2nd ed., pp. 136181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220232.
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Remote Associates Test: Examiners manual. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable.
Psychological Reports, 66, 195244. (Monograph Supplement 1V66.)
Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Childrens original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative
measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 382401.
Nettelbeck, T. (2011). Basic processes of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 371393). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Neubauer, A. C., & Bucik, V. (1996). The mental speedIQ relationship: Unitary or modular?
Intelligence, 22, 2348.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2004). Does class size in first grade relate to childrens
academic and social performance or observed classroom processes? Developmental Psychology, 40,
651664.
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence,
executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 3645.
Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & S, H.-M. (2005). Working memory and intelligencetheir
correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beuer, and Boyle (2005). Psychological
Bulletin, 131, 6165.
Perkins, D. N. (1981) The minds best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrances (1958 to present) longitudinal
data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103114.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3561). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-
gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 159170.
Preckel, F., Wermer, C., & Spinath, F. (2011). The interrelationship between speeded and unspeeded
divergent thinking and reasoning, and the role of mental speed. Intelligence, 39, 378388.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of creative
productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 5392). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for
educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2007). Spearmans law of diminishing returns in hierarchical models of
intelligence for children and adolescents. Intelligence, 35, 267281.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305310.
210
Richards, R. L. (1976). A comparison of selected Guilford and Wallach-Kogan Creative Thinking Tests in
conjunction with measures of intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178182.
Rindermann, H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2000). Informationsverarbeitungsgeschwindigkeit und Schulerfolg:
Weisen basale Mae der Intelligenz prdiktive Validitt auf? [Speed of information processing and
academic achievement: Do basal measures of intelligence have predictive validity?] Diagnostica,
46, 817.
Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness:
A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions
of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280294). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rossmann, B. B., & Horn, J. L. (1972). Cognitive, motivational and temperamental indicants of creativity
and intelligence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9, 265286.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted
students. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308315.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Runco, M. A. (1993). Operant theories of insight, originality, and creativity. American Behavioral
Scientist, 37, 5467.
Runco, M. A. (2005). Creative giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 295311). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An
empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 212218.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2011). Creativity research: A historical view. In J. C. Kaufman & R.
J. Sternberg, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 319). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Runco, M. A., & Pezdek, K. (1984). The effect of television and radio on childrens creativity. Human
Communications Research, 11, 109120.
Schneider, W. (2008). Expertiseerwerb [The acquisition of expertise]. In W. Schneider, & M. Hasselhorn
(Eds.), Handbuch der Pdagogischen Psychologie (pp. 136144). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schweizer, K., & Koch, W. (2002). A revision of Cattells investment theory: Cognitive properties
influencing learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 5782.
Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers biases toward creative children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 321328.
Silvia, P. J. (2008a). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan
(1965). Creativity Research Journal, 20, 3439.
Silvia, P. J. (2008b). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and
probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 10121021.
Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple
method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 7985.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., & Willse, J. T. (2008). Rejoinder: The madness to our method: Some
thoughts on divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 109114.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., Martinez, J. L., &
Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and
validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 6885.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: Guilford.
Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized
intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 123136.
Spearman, C. E. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal
of Psychology, 15, 201293.
Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man. London, UK: Macmillan.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
211
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & OHara, L. A. (2009). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
of creativity (pp. 251272). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
S, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory
capacity explains reasoning abilityand a little bit more. Intelligence, 30, 261288.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: National and international extensions.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions guide and scoring manual.
Lexington, MA: Personal Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2009). Differentiation of cognitive abilities across the life span. Developmental
Vincent, A., Decker, B., & Mumford, M. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence and expertise. Creativity
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Matthews, J. (2009). Divergent thinking ability is related to faster
relatedness judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 99103.
Vock, M., Preckel, F., & Holling, H. (2011). Mental abilities and school achievement: A test of a mediation
hypothesis. Intelligence, 39, 357369.
Wallach, M. A. (1971). The intelligence/creativity distinction. New York, NY: General Learning
Corporation.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity, genius and other myths. New York, NY: Freeman.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research
Journal, 8, 110.
Westmeyer, H. (2001). Kreativitt: Eine relationale Sichtweise [Creativity: A relational approach]. In E.
Stern & J. Guthke (Eds.), Perspektiven der Intelligenzforschung (pp. 233249). Lengerich, Germany:
Pabst Science Publishers.
Westmeyer, H. (2008). Das Kreativittskonstrukt. Zwei Konstruktionen und ihre Konsequenzen
[The creativity construct. Two types of construction and their consequences]. In M. Dresler & T.
G. Baudson (Eds.), Kreativitt. Beitrge aus den Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften (pp. 2130).
Stuttgart, Germany: Hirzel.
212
JANE PIIRTO
BUT ISNT EVERYONE CREATIVE?
ABSTRACT
This essay troubles the definition of creative giftedness, especially as it has

impacted gifted education policy. Some states identify creative giftedness through
divergent production testing, IQ testing, and the use of checklists. These methods
are problematic, not only because of their doubtfulness as means of predicting
creative production in adulthood, but also because of the difficulty of scoring and
programming. The author deconstructs the term creative giftedness. The author also
submits her Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development as a model which can be helpful
in helping develop talent by domains.
The identification, development, and pedagogy for creativity pose quandaries
at the practical level, down on the ground, in the schools. This has been so since
the Marland report, in 1972, which listed six types of giftedness, including creative
giftedness. Creative giftedness, one asks? What the heck is creative giftedness?
Does this mean that some children have more of something called creativity than
other children do? If that is so, then how are the schools supposed to identify creative
giftedness so that they may teach to and serve such students who possess creative
giftedness.
In that same Marland report, there were listed other ways children could be
called gifted: (1) high IQ giftedness, or superior cognitive ability, identified by
scoring high on an IQ test; (2) specific academic giftedness, identified by scoring
high on an achievement test in one of the academic areas, such as mathematics
or language arts, science or social studies; (3) visual and performing arts
giftedness, measured by various products that were deemed superior by the critical
community; (4) leadership giftedness, or the ability to control and guide others; and
(5) psychomotor giftedness, physical giftedness, measured by physical prowess
shown in athletic accomplishments. And then there was (6) creative thinking
giftedness.
Let us tease that out a bit. The positivist stance in the domain of psychology in
the 1950s, when the term creativity began to be bandied about, on the heels of
J. P. Guilfords presidential address to the American Psychological Associations
inauguration address (1950), was met with a concerted effort to measure creativity.
Guilford said there had been fewer than 200 studies of creativity up to that time,
among them, Spearmans (1931) book called Creative Mind. Terman had specifically

J. PIIRTO
rejected creativity as a construct to enfold into his work on the Stanford-Binet test
of intelligence, seeking a unitary measure and finding in his experiments with the
testing of ingenuity that creativity would not fit (Taylor, 1976). Working definitions
of the construct appeared: I summarized these (Piirto, 1992; 1999; 2004; 2007).
They were also summarized very completely by others (Makel & Plucker, 2008;
Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). My purpose here is not to critique the psychometric
approaches to creativity assessment, but to fret about the applications of such
assessments.
Definitions of creativity fit into theoretical frameworks that featured associational
definitions, humanistic definitions, trait definitions, personality definitions, and
the like (Piirto, 1992; 1999; 2004). Guilford (1975) painstakingly laid out how his
cognitive-based Structure of Intellect (SI) model included various types of creative
giftedness: He described his battery called Creativity Tests for Children (1973), which
included Divergent Production (DP) tests for several types of fluency, flexibility,
elaboration, and originality. These included
Make Something Out of It (DFU [Divergent Production of Figural Units]) Given

a very simple figure such as an ellipse, name objects that could be made out of it
by adding other lines.
Different Letter Groups (DFC [Divergent Production of Figural Classes]) Given
a set of eight selected capital letters, classify three of them at a time in different
ways.
Making Objects (DFS [Divergent Production of Figural Systems]) Using five
given simple geometric forms, construct several different stated objects by
combining those forms as needed.
Hidden Letters (DFT [Divergent Production of Figural Transformations]) Given
a somewhat complex, geometric-like figure in 50 replications, use lines selected
in it to form letters.
Adding Decorations (DFI [Divergent Production of Figural Implications)] Given
outline drawings of familiar objects, such as of furniture or dress, add inner lines
by way of decorations.
Among the semantic tests were
Names for Stories (DMU [Divergent Production of Semantic Units]) Given a

short outline of a story plot, suggest different appropriate titles for the story.
What To Do with it (DMC [Divergent Production of Semantic Classes]) Given
the name of a common object, such as a shoe, and its common uses, list other,
uncommon uses for it.
Similar Meanings (DMR [Divergent Production of Semantic Relations]) Given a
familiar word, give a number of synonyms for it.
Writing Sentences (DMS) [Divergent Production of Semantic Systems] Given
a set of five familiar nouns, write different sentences, each containing three of
those words.
214
Kinds of People (DMI [Divergent Production of Semantic Implications]) Given

a picture of a common object, such as a glove, name different kinds of work or
occupations that it might suggest.
Picture Writing (DMT [Divergent Production of Semantic Transformations])
Given a word that has several different meanings, or aspects, sketch roughly
different figures or designs that might represent those meanings, e.g., for the word
heavy. (Guilford, 1975, pp. 113114)
Here Guilford described what could arguably be called what came to be the most
influential creativity assessments. Torrances Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
were similar to Guilfords. Torrance (1962, 1976) described his theoretical
framework for making the tests: they had to be factorially diverse; they had to be
based on biographical information; that is, information from reading the biographies
of creators?; they had to be scorable for divergent production aspects of fluency,
flexibility, and so on; they had to be able to be administered reliably in school
settings; and they had to be attractive to young and old.
Why would psychologists want to give tests to find creativity? Why would
psychologists devise such tasks and say that they would yield an index that would
predict who would be creative in adulthood? What can justify gaining a general
factor of creativity from making children or adults do tasks such as these? Putting
a piece of paper between the child and the hypothesized construct and scoring these
drawings, and words according to a protocol based on subjective judgment (inter-
raters are required and training is needed) is supposed to show who has MORE ability
in divergent production (often called creativity) and who has LESS. This attempt to
codify creativity to testability was, partially, an attempt to be fair and to be accurate.
If kids could be tested with a test which met criteria for reliability and validity, they
would be assessed equally, without regard for socioeconomic factors or demographics.
Psychologists wanted to be considered scientists, using cutting edge statistics of
factor analysis and correlation, and using the experimental method to justify their
conclusions about creativity. Of course the definition of the creativity construct was at
issueand still is. What is creativity? is still at issue and was then, as well. No matter
what working definition the psychometricians came up with, it was disputed by others
who countered with definitions that were just as believable and provable by various
scientific means (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993; Torrance,
1987; VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002; Williams, 1970). citation
A logical question would be, Why didnt the psychometricians just ask the students
to draw pictures, play or sing music, dance or invent, write stories or poems or
plays? Why didnt they see which ones were promising in terms of the elements tried
and true in the various domains of knowledge? These domains had been identifying
potential for ages. They still do. Young musicians, artists, sports phenoms, writers,
readers, thinkers, are all being developed within domains. The big problem came
when education began to use psychologys assessments, began to subject children to
decisions made by results of tests that were controversial and not accurate.
215
J. PIIRTO
Some background on Guilford might be appropriate here. Guilford was a

psychologista psychometrician at the University of Southern California who had
received large federal grants during World War II and immediately afterward, in
what was called the Aptitudes Research Project (19491959). Guilford published the
results of these grant projects in Guilford and Hoepner (1971), and he was invested
in proving there are 120 + kinds of intelligence, each discrete. He also made tests for
each of these postulated kinds of intelligence. His theory has since lost favor; Carroll
(1993) in his monumental and highly respected study of factor analytic studies of
intelligence, called Guilfords model fundamentally defective . . . it is unlikely that
his model can be confirmed, either in terms of its taxononomic structure or in terms
of the large number of cognitive ability factors claimed by him (p. 59). Carroll
went on to call Guilfords model a somewhat eccentric aberration in the history
of intelligence models (p. 60) and found it disturbing that textbook authors and
others had written about it as if the model was valid and widely accepted, when
clearly it is not (p. 60).
Among these authors and others was the prominent board member of the
National Association for Gifted Children (19771993) Mary Meeker (Piirto &
Keller-Mathers, in press). Her Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-
LA) contains 3 divergent production subtests (Divergent Production of Figural Units
(DFU), Divergent Production of Semantic Units (DMU), Divergent Production of
Symbolic Systems (DSS).
Another person who made assessments that were used by the educators of the
gifted and talented in identifying children gifted in creative thinking, according
to the call in the 1972 Marland report, was E. P. Torrance. Torrance rejected the
Guilford theory and the assessments made by Wallach and Kogan (1965) in their
famous study illustrating the threshold theory, to make his own instrument that aim
[ed] to measure creative thinking tasks that are necessary for daily life activities and
creative breakthroughs under traditional test conditions (Runco, Millar, Acar, &
Cramond, 2010). There were 10 (now 9Cramond, personal communication, May
7, 2012) subtests on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). These ten
subtests had two forms: Thinking Creatively with Words and Thinking Creatively
With Pictures. Verbal subtests were these:
Ask and Guesstest-taker looks at a picture and asks questions, guesses causes,
or gives reasons for what takes place in the picture
Product Improvement test taker lists ways to improve an object, e.g., a stuffed
toy
Unusual Usesthink of unusual uses of a common object [similar to Guilfords
Brick Uses Test, according to Khatena (1978 )]
Unusual Questionsencourages test-taker to ask uncommon questions (This
is not on the test anymore [personal communication, Bonnie Cramond, May 7,
2012]).
Just Supposemeasures fantasy by eliciting ideas from drawings
216
Picture Construction measures how the person can take a certain shapea
teardrop, a jelly beana picture that makes sense and that has meaning.
Incomplete Figuresa person adds lines to squiggles and such to make a drawing
that makes sense and that has meaning. The person also gives his/her drawing a
title.
Repeated Figuresa test taker works with a closed space (a triangle, a square)
No and makes something different from the figures.
These are from a different test :
Sounds and Imagesan audio prompt induces imaginative fancy.

Onomatopoeia and Imagesan auditory and visual prompt of onomatopoeic
words induces imaginative creative writing.
The most troubling use of these and similar assessments is that they were and are
used by several states of the United States, to identify children who are creatively
gifted or gifted in creative thinking. States which have creative giftedness
in their definitions are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin (Ford & Whiting, 2008). Which ones use the divergent
production tests described here is not known. This modernist construction of
assessment has been criticized but has not been defeated. The belief, begun with Binet
at the turn of the century, that tests can be constructed that will separate children for
special instruction, has not been defeated. The careers of brilliant psychometricians,
who work with the theories and who construct ever more sophisticated ways to
prove construct validity, concurrent validity, and content validity, are spent in re-
calculating calculations to show that these tests predict which children will become
creative adults, predict better than seeking expertise in drawing or in creative writing.
The evidence seems persuasive to fellow researchers (Runco, et al., 2010).
I myself was one who unquestioningly thought that such assessment had value
and was not damaging for education. I was an advanced trainer for the SOI [Structure
of Intellect) Institute in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I traveled the country training
thousands of teachers in the use of the SOI-LA. I trained them how to score the
divergent production subtests, after receiving training myself, from Mary Meeker
and Robert Meeker in California.
Scoring these tests for fluency requires counting the number of squares filled
out with even just a mark (Divergent Production of Figural Units), and counting
the number of words in a story that is based on one of the drawings in the squares
(Divergent Production of Semantic Units). Students have five minutes each for the
tests. In this last task, if a child has written a poem, for example, arguably the highest
form of verbal communication, he will be scored with a lower score in fluency (and
the fluent always win in scoring these tests). As a reward for writing a poem, he will
217
J. PIIRTO
receive 10 extra points, surely not enough to counter the stories told by very fast-
writing and skillful students whose stories may make no sense, have no originality,
or even worse, are merely descriptive. The fluency scores still almost always add up.
In scoring the drawings for flexibility, one looks for different ideas in the squares.
Flexibility is not scored in the creative writing test. Scoring for originality is quite
formulaic. If a student labels anything, if a student goes outside the lines (the outside
lines not the inside lines), if a student shows humor, if a student has a drawing that
no more than two other students in a class of 30 have drawn, if a student shows the
macabre (middle school boys get a lot of originality scores for their poison bottles
and dripping knives), if a student makes a squiggly line to show smoke coming
out of a chimney (or movement), etc., the student receives an originality score that
counts for four extra points each. On the DMU, creative writing task originality
scores count for 10 points. Again, the ways to be original are arbitraryagain, the
macabre counts, a story that is moving emotionally counts (very difficult to do in a
five minute-timed test), if the student has written his response as a poem, if there is
personification (a very common device in childrens books and so not very original
if you think about it; rather, it is imitative), if the student has told the story as an
allegory (once I had an entire sixth grade class do so, as they had just studied and
practiced allegories), the student receives an originality score, an extra 10 points on
top of the fluency score, which can be no higher than 100 pointsor 100 words,
including title.
When I trained people, questions abounded, and the visual artists almost
invariably scored low, as they used the whole grid and score a transformation (eight
points, nothing that would outweigh fluency), or they slowly and painstakingly drew
in each square, rather than scribbling a drawing into all the squares, and though
they received an originality score for elaboration , the four points was not enough
to outweigh fluency. A drawing which is called a transformation uses more than one
square. Some people used the whole grid to make one large drawing (e.g., a quilt);
they received a score for one transformation (8 points). If they filled in each square
separatelybeing fluent, they would receive a higher score than if they had done
a large and elaborate single drawing. So, as I said before, the fluent always scored
higher. Fluency is an aspect of brainstorming, which has value in team building, but
which does not yield products that are more creative than those developed by experts
in collaboration with other experts (Lehrer, 2012; Runco, 2007).
Torrance and Safter (1990) in discussing how the scoring of the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking evolved beyond indicators of fluency, flexibility, originality, and
elaboration, listed other qualities test assessors were now looking for:
Highlighting the essence through the production of abstract titles

Keeping open through resistance to premature closure;
Emotional awareness;
Putting ideas into context;
Combining and synthesizing;
218
Visualizing richly and colorfully;

Using fantasy;
Using movement and sound;
Unusual visual perspective;
Internal visualization;
Extending or breaking through boundaries;
Using humor;
Getting glimpses of infinity. (p. viii)
As a long-time teacher and trainer, I have trouble having my trainees understand

the theory, much less make such small differentiations in small drawings or lists by
many children. The assessment training for such a rubric as in the items above would
be nigh impossible for me.
So why are we still using these tests, subjecting scorers and takers to elaborate
scoring schemes that take scorers much time and much training? Why not look at
the students works themselves? One suspects that it is the desire for fairness and
the illusion of objectivity, that scorers will have inter-rater reliability that is high
(meaning they scored the assessment similarly). People who use assessments are not
perverse judgers. They are liberal hopers, hoping that the assessments are fair and
provide equal opportunity for special programming (more about that later). They
hope that students who have the potential to become adult creative producers but
who have not had a chance to demonstrate their potential, will be identified by such
elaborate assessments as creativity tests, or by such simplistic assessments as teacher
checklists. They desire to be fair to all. These are reasons that are valorous, but
which may be impossible to accomplish given the personnel needed to do a good job
on scoring the divergent production assessments.
In my own state of Ohio, we have a requirement to identify creative thinking as a type
of giftedness (along with superior cognitive giftedness, specific academic giftedness,
and visual and performing arts giftedness). This requirement entered our initial state
rule in the mid-1980s, at the time when the threshold effect was well and alive. The
threshold effect says that you need an above-average IQ (about 120) to do worthwhile
creative work , that students who dont have an above average IQ, will probably not be
able to do creative thinking. Based on research at the University of Chicago (Wallach
& Kogan, 1965), and reified by studies of students with high IQs, the notion of the
threshold is well alive here in the second decade of the 21st century. Students who
have taken a group intelligence test (individual tests count also, but districts dont have
personnel to administer them to all students in the nominating pool), and who score one
standard deviation above the mean minus the standard error of measurement (SEM),
are considered for identification as being gifted in creative thinking. Students who
have scored one standard deviation above the mean minus the SEM, are administered a
teacher-administered creativity checklist approved by the state.
Other questionable test-related suggestions have been made to identify those
who are supposedly creatively gifted. One suggestion was to administer the
219
J. PIIRTO
Overexcitability Questionnaire (OEQ), and to choose those who scored high in

Imaginational Overexcitability. Other suggestions have been to administer the same
personality inventories that the researchers at the Institute for Personality Assessment
and Research were developing in the late 1950s, when they invited eminent creators
to the University of California at Berkeley for a week of testing, interviews, and
Q-sorted assessment. Among these are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI),
the Gough Adjective Checklist (ACL), the California Personality Inventory (CPI),
and others. Well, these are instruments developed and validated on adults, and it is
unethical to assess personalities of developing children, and to make decisions about
their education based on the results of such instruments. The newer NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised NEO-PI-R (Costa & McRae, 1995), has an Openness scale, which
seems to have promise in identifying potential creativity as measured by self-reports
by participants in studies of having creative products (King, Walker, & Broyles,
1996; McCrae, 1987). When a researcher says he or she has defined creativity, or
creative aptitude, as scoring high on a divergent production test, the circular nature
of the reasoning is exposed if the thinker disagrees that such a cognitive measure can
measure the abstract and difficult construct of creativity. In fact, most of these studies
used college students as subjects. I realize that defining creativeness as having peer-
reviewed creative products is not consonant with prevailing thought nor even thought
thats 50 years old (e.g., Maslow, 1962, who defined primary creativity as the epitome
of self-actualization, in which talent is unnecessary, and secondary creativity as that
which elaborates on what other people have made, and integrated creativity as that
which uses both primary and secondary processes: it is from this kind [integrated
creativity] that comes the great work of art, or philosophy, or science (p. 143)
Csikzentmihalyi (1995) subsequently called these Big C and Little C creativity.
WHAT IS CREATIVE GIFTEDNESS?
The construct in the title of this book creative giftednessis, to me, itself in question
. In this section, I describe several sources where the term was used: (1) the federal
definition in National Excellence (1993); (2) the definition by Davis (1999); (3) by
Khatena (1978); (4) by Sternberg (2000); (5) by Neihart and Olenchak (1992); (6)
by Willings (1980); and by (7) Rimm (1986). Then I posit that creative giftedness is
enfolded into all the other kinds of giftedness and is not separate unto itself. What is
creative giftedness? The concept that certain students are creatively gifted did continue
within education. The second federal report on the gifted and talented, National
Excellence (1993) came out 21 years after the Marland report (1972). The new
definition recommended that the term gifted be substituted for by the term outstanding
talent and insisted that outstanding talent occurs in all groups across all cultures:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for
performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with
others of their age, experience, or environment.
220
These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual,

creative, [italics mine] and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership
capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities
not ordinarily provided by the schools. (National Excellence, pp. 78)
Here, in this 1993 attempt to define the role of schools in nurturing talent, the
intellectual, the creative, and the artistic are separated. This seems to imply that the
intellectual is not creative, the creative is not intellectual, the artistic is not intellectual
or creative . Common sense says that both the intellectual and the artistically talented
are ocreative, and that creative people can be both intellectual and artistic .
A review of various definitions of creative giftedness seems appropriate here.
Davis (1999), made a somewhat circular observation:
The predominant use of creativity tests is for selecting creatively gifted students
for participation in programs for the gifted and talented. . . . Eventually, students
who are creatively gifted probably will make the most valuable contributions
to society, and certainly deserve the frog-kissing, prince-becoming benefits of
G/T programs. (p. 196)
Creatively gifted students to Davis (1999) are those who score high on some index
of creativeness, consisting of test scores, teacher, parent, peer, or self-ratings of
creativeness, and enthusiasm for the program as well as other information. This
other information included whether or not the student had imaginary playmates as
children and whether they had ever been involved in theater, as these children always
show other characteristics of creativity (attitudes, personalities, and products) (p. 198).
Khatena (1978) in a book called The Creatively Gifted Child: Suggestions for
Parents and Teachers defined creatively gifted children as children who use their
talents in a productive way (p. 1). This implies that a product is required. He also
indicated that the creatively gifted may be misunderstood and may get into trouble.
In advising parents and teachers, Khatena told them to administer his checklist,
Something About Myself, which he developed. He also spoke of certain adjustment
problems of creatively gifted children, such as
psychological isolation and estrangement from peers, teachers, and parents
since his propensity to be nonconforming, independent, and productive in his
thinking create tensions between himself and others leading to the application
of pressure tactics of one kind or another to bring him in line. (p. 89)
Such pressures may lead to the consequences of repression: emotional problems
and neurosis, and even psychosis (p. 90). In such psychosis, thinking is often
paralyzed and the imagination functions in a way that cannot distinguish between
reality and irreality (p. 90). When such a child is poor, mental stimulation as well
as material possessions may be lacking, and the child may be hindered as well
from acquiring adequate verbal concepts and communication skills . . . so that he is
erroneously labeled as mentally retarded and treated as such (p. 91 ).
221
J. PIIRTO
Sternberg (2000) said that creative giftedness is a decision and presented a

dynamic assessment list of ten suggestions, with examples from creators. He said,
They thus develop creative giftedness as a decision-making skill. Students

can learn how to be creative by observing creativity at work in any field of
endeavor. If we want to identify creative individuals, therefore, we are better
off looking at the decisions they make rather than at the supposedly fixed
abilities they possess. (p. 61).
The assumption or belief that those who are creatively gifted are troubled,
nonconformist, and not quite as normal as are normal gifted children is rife.
Psychologists within the field of gifted education conduct workshops to help
parents cope with their creatively gifted children. A whole chapter in an edited
book on social and emotional needs was devoted to asking for understanding for
the creatively gifted (Neihart & Olenchak, 2002), with no definition of who they
are. They stated that the creatively gifted are similar affectively and emotionally
to the intellectually gifted . Their implicit definition of the creatively gifted
seems to be that those who are creatively gifted are young writers and visual
artists (no mention of young scientists or mathematicians or performers). Schools
should help these writers and artist students to discern and develop their creative
giftedness and . . . protect them from the potential risks that may accompany
the pursuit of high creative achievement (p. 171). They mention certain things:
wanting to be alone [(desire for more solitude (p. 171)] and having mood
disorders.
What does this mean? Writers and visual artists are not intellectually gifted and
are loners? [This is contrary to what I have found in my qualitative studies (Piirto,
2002; Piirto, 2008)]. In fact, I have found a marked preference for Introversion in all
identified gifted students when I administered them the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(N=600; Piirto, 1998; Piirto & Johnson, 2004). The assumption about creative
giftedness for some of the thinkers is that the creatively gifted are associated with
the arts. I myself made that assumption in a chapter on creatively gifted adolescents
in 1991: I began the article thus:
If one were to drive up Amsterdam Avenue behind Lincoln Center in New

York City early in the morning just before the school day begins, one would
see hundreds of teenagers lounging, talking to each other in groups, crossing
the street. These are students at Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music
and Art and Performing Arts . . . This chapter will discuss this attitude and other
characteristics of adolescents in the visual and performing arts who are often
called creative, as well as those of young people who are scientifically and
mathematically creative. Creative is defined here as producing novel products:
that is, creativity implies production. Both intellective characteristics (mental
powers and the processes used to master ideas) and nonintellective (social,
behavioral, and emotional) characteristics will be described. (pp. 104105)
222
The association of so-called creative giftedness with having problems was also
upheld by Willings (1980), who said that these problems are in addition to the
problem of being intellectually gifted (p. 29). Willings said that the person who
is creatively gifted, besides having a high IQ, is an adaptive, elaborative, and
developmental thinker, and needs help to come to terms with their creativity and
maximize its many benefits (p. 33). He developed this theory with case studies of
each. He described how each of these three types of creatively gifted people deals
with imagery, language, adolescence, school, and work. Being creatively gifted is a
special problem (p. 90) and the school is not set up nor should it be, to deal with
it. He seems to categorize the creatively gifted child as the child who paints, writes,
or designs some ingenious piece of equipment and warns against parents using
the child as a status symbol (p. 109). Willings encouraged these creatively gifted
people to take up a new outside interest every three years, saying
Show me a man or woman with a progression of outside interests and the
chances are I can show you a man or woman who has the potential to help to
take your company into the 21st century if your company can make proper use
of such people. (p. 136)
According to Willings, with proper counseling, the creatively gifted can be productive
and happy members of society. They are often underachievers academically with a
wide range of outside interests. They relate best to counselors and therapists who
themselves are creatively gifted. The creatively gifted have to reconcile themselves
to living in a world filled with what Willings called defensive thinkers who put
productive, elaborative, and developmental thinkers down, dismissing their very
presence and nature. The counselor must help the client to admit he is creatively
gifted, much as admitting to an addiction or condition; after the creatively gifted
person admits this, and realizes that his or her lack of advancement in status, is
because of his creative personality:
There is no tendency for creatively gifted clergy to become bishops. Boards of
directors are certainly not noted for creatively gifted members. Research has
shown that creatively gifted teachers and social workers are good at their job
but not manifestly promotable. Moreover, advancement could be a real source
of frustration to such people. The creatively gifted senior manager may find
he has become so tied down with administration and internal politics that he
would gladly turn back the clock. (p. 157)
This view, that the creatively gifted are unhappy with adult achievement, can be
resolved if the creatively gifted person takes pleasure in the creative process, the
very act of making, rather than the results: The creatively gifted client needs to be
helped to measure his inherent worth by yardsticks other than approbation (Willing,
1980, p. 159).
This rather shocking description of the creatively gifted and their paths in
life is upheld by Rimm (1986), who described the problems of counseling the
223
J. PIIRTO
underachieving creatively gifted in her book on the underachievement syndrome.

She described them as oppositional, full of bloated pride in being creative,
and their underachievement difficult to reverse because of their skepticism
and disobedience. The pathological view of creative people and creative youth
persists.
A MORE POSITIVE MODEL: THE PIIRTO PYRAMID OF

TALENT DEVELOPMENT
Over the years, I have developed a model of talent development that describes the
development of the talented individual in any domain. I have called it the Piirto
Pyramid of Talent Development. It has guided my work on talent in domains (Piirto,
1992, 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011). See Figure 1.:
Genetic Aspect
Beneath the foundation of the Piirto Pyramid is the genetic aspect, our roots, which
reach down through the ages. We dont know the full extent of genetics in the
development of talent, but we know it is considerable.
Personality (The Emotional Aspect)
The research into the creative personality has shown that creative people have certain
personality attributes (e.g. Institute for Personality Assessment and Research
IPA R [MacKinnon, 1985]; 16 Personality Factors Inventory [l6 P-F; Cattell, Eber
& Matsuoki, 1970; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [MBTI; Myers & McCaulley,
1985]; and others [Eysenck, 1993; Feist, 1999]). I have administered personality
instruments to talented adolescents and have confirmed the presence of most of these
(Piirto & Fraas, 2012; Piirto & Johnson, 2004; Piirto, Montgomery, & Fisher, 2008b;
Piirto, Montgomery, & May, 2008b).
Minimum IQ (The Intellectual Aspect)
Each domain has a minimum intellectual requirement below which the tasks of the
domain cannot be performed (Simonton, 1994). This requirement is highest for such
domains as philosophy or theoretical physics, but lower for domains such as singing,
athletics, or teaching .
Talent (The Talent Aspect)
Each domain of talent has its own requirements which are guarded by gatekeepers
who permit people to enter the domain based on their talent as demonstrated by
audition or display. People without the required talent need not apply.
224
Piirto Pyramid of
Talent Development
5. The Environmental
Aspect - the 5 suns
Sun of
SCHOOL
Sun of
Sun of COMMUNITY
HOME and
CULTURE
***The Talent Becomes a

Calling. or Thorn***
Sun of * Sun of
CHANCE GENDER
** **
Art Math
Music Dance
Visual Social
Theatre Intervention
Science Writing 4. The Aspect of Talent
Academics in Domains
Athletics Mechanics
Technical Business
Entrepreneurship Spiritual 3. The Cognitive
etc. Aspect
Specific *
Talent main**
In a Do
2.The Emotional
Minimu etence
m Comp g Aspect:
Intellec ti o n in
nc Personality
tual For fu d o m ian
sen
in cho
Pers s s
Drive onali bute excitabilitie
Pas ty Attri Ove
r
ities) ity
Self- sion ism
ns
(Inte r Comple
x
Disc
ip
Indepe
ndence ction plexity fo
Intuit line Perfe m ence al
io Risk-Ta Self- e for Co P refer Intellectu l
Crea n king
renc nce tiona
Intro
tivity Percce
ption Prefe Resilie on Emo tional
ver vati ina
Ope sion Insight Moti gyny Imag sual
nne Toleran
o
Andr ousness Sen otor
(naiv ss ce ti hom
ete) for Amb scien e Psyc
iguity Con rsistenc
Pe
Gen s
es Gene
Gen s
es Gene
1.The Genetic
Piirto2010
Aspect
Piirtos Pyramid of
Talent Development
first appeared in Talented Children
and Adults (1994). It was subsequently
revised in 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2004,
This is Version 6.
Figure 1: The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development. Jane Piirto. All Rights Reserved.
225
J. PIIRTO
Thorn (The Motivation)
Talent is cheap; it exists in plenitude. Whether a talented person chooses to,

is motivated to, develop that talent to the point of expertise is determined by
environmental factors as well as internal motivation (Reynolds & Piirto, 2008).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUNS
I theorized five environmental suns, called that because they shine above a pyramid
after alland because if they are bright, the talent is optimally developed, and if
they have clouds in front of them, there are challenges to the development of the
talent.
The Sun of Home. Home factors are vital in the development of talent. For
example, in the domain of scienceto be a creative scientistthe home factors
often include a strong father, a stable family (to permit the long path to the requisite
Ph.D (Simonton, 1998; Sosniak, 1985).
The Sun of Community and Culture. The culture in which a person exists is
extremely influential in encouraging or not encouraging the development of certain
talents. For example, rhythm and blues singing is heavily influenced by the African
American church culture of singing and earlier, by field call and response.
The Sun of School. The school has a major role in the development of talent,
from recognizing it to teaching to it, to encouraging its development in curricular
matterscourses, counseling, opportunity.
The Sun of Gender. Whether one is a talented female or a talented male,
ones gender makes a difference. For example, in the domain of business, fewer
women make it to the position of CEO, because of the glass ceiling effect; this is
an environmental influence, and not an internal influence. In the domain of dance,
fewer men undertake long study because their peers and parents disapprovean
environmental influence.
The Sun of Chance. The accident of geography, nationality, physicality, and
such helps to determine whether the talent will be developed. Opera singing is not
encouraged in most rural areas, while country-western singing is. A talented singers
development is influenced by where he or she lives.
HOW CAN CREATIVITY BE ENCOURAGED WITH THE PYRAMID APPROACH?
First off, this approach assumes there is no general creativity quotient that can be
calculated; there is no MORE or LESS that can be assessed. Instead, people with
talent can submit themselves to the path to optimum talent development that the
domain in which they have talent has developed over its time in existence. Domains
change their demands and paths. For instance, in the domain of creative writing,
the path used to be getting a major in English literature, and then writing poetry or
fiction, submitting to a publisher, getting published, and making a living by whatever
226
means necessary. Today, the tendency is for people to major in creative writing, get
an Master of Fine Arts in creative writing, get a job in academe and teach others
creative writing, and publish along the way (Piirto, 2002).
Predictive Behaviors
How to discover the talents in immature children is a problem. They often show
certain behaviors that give a clue to the possession of talent. I have called these
predictive behaviors, which are behaviors that are common to youth who grow up to
practice a certain domain. In mathematics, an early interest in and comprehension of
numbers and number relationships is apparent (Kruteskii, 1976). In science, an early
interest in gadgets and in collections is apparent (Tannenbaum, 1983). In foreign
languages, a good memory for vocabulary is apparent, and an ear for hearing nuances
in sentences is another (Sparks & Ganschow, 2001). I have listed such predictive
behaviors by domain in other venues. There is no space for them here. (See Piirto,
2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011).
The commonly-used checklists that are domain-based could be helpful
the SRBCSS domain -related scalesthe Artistic Characteristics, Dramatics
Characteristics, Communication Characteristics (Expressive) and Communication
Characteristics (Precision) scales. Feldhusen and his colleagues also made little-used
scales which could also be helpful: these are the Purdue Academic Rating Scales
(Feldhusen, Hoover, & Sayler, 1989) in English, Mathematics, Science, Foreign
Language, and Social Science. The general Creativity Scale on such batteries as the
SRBCSS should not be used, as these scales do not yield information on whether
the students possess attributes of behavior that the domain requiresfor example,
reading widely and deeplythe main characteristic of the writers in my (2002)
study.
DISCUSSION
One of the precepts for identifying giftedness within and by the schools should be
that once the giftedness is identified, it will be served. Curriculum will be planned
so that the particular type of giftedness receives differentiated instruction. Specific
academic identification in mathematics should receive differentiated instruction
in mathematics; specific academic identification in science should receive
differentiated instruction in science, and so forth; that should be a given. It would
follow that if districts identify creative giftedness, there should be differentiation in
creative thinking. Should the students be trained in fluency, flexibility, elaboration,
transformation, and originality if that is the way they were identified? There is little
evidence that such training leads to MORE adult creativity (Lehrer, 2012). In fact,
what has happened is that creative giftedness has been conflated with poverty. In
areas with high poverty, students who are identified for creative giftedness are often
the only ones identified as gifted; that is because the identification cutoff requires
227
J. PIIRTO
a lower IQ. However, these students who are identified with a lower IQ (influence
of the threshold effect) often receive differentiation for academics if they receive
differentiation at all.
Students who are identified in creative thinkingcreatively giftedshould not be
subjected to high level, academically ramped-up curriculum which they are unable
to do. One of my students, a math specialist in an urban school district, had half of
her eighth-grade pre-algebra class filled with students who had been identified in
creative thinking. She was unable to move as fast with these students as with those
who had been identified in superior cognitive and specific academicmathematics.
The students who had been identified in creative thinking were, in this case, unable
to do the mathematics. This was unfair to them and unfair to the students who were
able to do the mathematics.
Going back to the first sentence of this essay, the appellation creatively gifted or
creative giftedness has been subjected to faulty identification, mistaken pedagogy,
and assumptions about development that may or may not be true (e.g. that creative
giftedness implies a need for counseling or therapy). It is time we deconstruct the
term and serve the talent. And yes, all children, and all adults are creative. That is the
wrong question. Many are talented. But talent development is a process, a process
that is widely known to people within the domain. Teachers of the talented are tasked
to help the talented child step into the river of the domain and subject themselves to
the trials and rocky paths that developing such talents requires.
REFERENCES
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Csikszentmihalyi, M (1995). Creativity. New York, NY: Harpercollins.
Davis, G. (1999). Creativity is forever (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4,
14778.
Feist, G. H. (1999). Influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 273296). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Feldhusen, J. F., Hoover, S. M., & Sayler, M. F. (1989). Identification of secondary students at the
secondary level. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press.
Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students.
In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.). Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and
best practices (pp. 293308). New York NY: Springer.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement and development. Gifted Child
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Storytelling as a means of assessing creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 22, 235247.
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales:
A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322336.
Khatena, J. (1978). The creatively gifted child: Suggestions for parents and teachers. New York,
NY: Vantage Press.
228
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1973). Thinking Creatively with Sounds and Words: Norms-technical
manual (research edition). Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory: Norms-technical
manual (research edition). Chicago, IL: Stoelting.
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Research in Personality, 30, 189203. Doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1996.0013.
Kruteskii, V (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. In I. Wirszup &
J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), J. Teller (Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work
published 1968).
Lehrer, J. (2012, January 20). Groupthink: The brainstorming myth. The New Yorker, pp. 2227).
MacKinnon, D. (1975). IPARs contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity.
In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 6089). Chicago, IL: Aldine
Publishing.
Makel, M., & Plucker, J. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:
Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 249270). New York NY: Springer.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McRae, R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 12581265.
Neihart, M., & Olenchak, F. R. (2002). Creatively gifted children. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis,
N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children:
What do we know? (pp. 165). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Piirto, J. (1991). Encouraging creativity and talent in adolescents. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.),
Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues
(pp. 104121). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Piirto, J. (1998, March). Feeling boys, thinking girls, and judging teachers: Talented students and the
MBTI. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference of the Center for the Application of Personality Types
(CAPT) Conference, Orlando, FL.
Piirto, J. (1999). A survey of psychological studies of creativity. In A. Fishkin, B. Cramond, &
P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.). Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 1025). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Piirto, J. (2007). Understanding visual artists. In K. Tirri (Ed.), Values and foundations in gifted education
(pp. 2939). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Piirto, J. (2009). Eminence and creativity in selected visual artists. In B. Macfarlane & T. Stambaugh
(Eds.), Leading change in gifted education (pp. 1327). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Festschrift volume
for Joyce VanTassel-Baska.
Piirto, J. (2011). Talent and creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 427434). London, UK: Elsevier.
Piirto, J., & Keller-Mathers, S. (In preparation). Mary Meeker: A deep commitment to individual
differences. In A. Robinson & J. Jolly (Eds.), Gifted education: A century of illuminating lives.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Piirto, J., & Fraas, J. (2012). A mixed methods comparison of vocational and identified- gifted students on
the Overexcitabilities Questionnaire. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 334.
Piirto, J., Montgomery, D., & May, J. (2008). A comparison of Dabrowkis overexcitabilities by gender
for American and Korean high school gifted students. High Ability Studies, 19, 141153.
Piirto, J., Montgomery, D., & Fisher, J. (2008, September). Perfectionism and personality: A multiple
regression study comparing the NEO-PI-R and the MPS on talented adolescents. European Council
for High Ability Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
Piirto, J., & Johnson, G. (2004, September). Personality attributes of talented teenagers. Proceedings of
European Council for High Ability Conference, Pamplona, Spain. CD-ROM.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches for the study of human creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (3561). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
229
J. PIIRTO
Reynolds, F. C., & Piirto, J. (2007). Honoring and suffering the Thorn: Marking, naming, initiating, and
eldering: Depth psychology, II. Roeper Review, 29(5), 4853.
Rimm, S. (1986). Underachievement syndrome: Causes and cures. Watertown, WI: Apple Publishing.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theory and themes: Research, development, and practice. Boston,
MA: Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as
predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal,
22, 361368. Doi 10.1080/10400419.2010.523393.
Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Scientific genius: The psychology of science. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Sosniak, L. (1985). Becoming an outstanding research neurologist. In B. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent
in young people (pp. 348408). New York, NY: Ballantine.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 21, 90111.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Identifying and developing creative giftedness. Roeper Review, 23(2), 6065.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Lubart T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 37(1), 715.
Tannenbaum, A. J (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Taylor, I. A. (1976). A retrospective view of creativity investigation. In I. A. Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.),
Perspectives in creativity (pp. 136). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Torrance, E. P. (1976). Creativity research in education: Still alive. In I. A. Taylor & U. Getzels (Eds.),
Perspectives in creativity (pp. 278296). Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for Satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. J. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research:
Beyond the basics (pp. 190215). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, T. (1990). The incubation method of teaching: Getting beyond the Aha! Buffalo,
NY: Bearly Limited.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. (2002). Using performance tasks in the assessment of
disadvantaged and minority youngsters: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46,
110123.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.
Williams, F (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.
230
STEVEN I. PFEIFFER AND TAYLOR L. THOMPSON
CREATIVITY FROM A TALENT DEVELOPMENT

PERSPECTIVE
How It Can Be Cultivated in the Schools
INTRODUCTION
American creativity is in a crisis, at least according to two respected pop culture

authors writing in Newsweek on recent trends in creativity. According to Bronson and
Merryman (2010), American creativity scores, once ever-rising, are now in a state
of steady decline. They cite in their Newsweek article a study by Kyung Hee Kim
(2011) at the College of William & Mary, who analyzed almost 300,000 scores on
a popular creativity testThe Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1990,
2008). According to Kim, creativity scores had been steadily increasing until 1990, but
have since sharply declined. Kim is cited as stating that the decline is most serious
for younger children in Americakindergarten through sixth grade (Kim, 2011).
Although the time to panic is not yet upon us, it doesnt seem in any way
precipitous or untimely to examine whether we are doing all that we can to
encourage creativity in Americas schools. Just about everyone agrees that creativity
is important and valued in todays society (Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Creativity is valued in almost every field in our society,
including medicine, the sciences, engineering, teaching, the arts, politics, business,
law, and psychology. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and popular business self-
help books identify creativity as a critical leadership skill (Pfeiffer, in press). It is
almost impossible to think of a profession that doesnt respect and hold in high
regard innovation, ingenuity, and imagination.
Yet, in todays schools society seems to place a premium and considerable emphasis
on standardized curriculum, rote learning of facts, memorization, and high-stakes
testing. Although this might sound like a gross oversimplification and even an unfair
stereotype, Americas schools focus considerable time and resources on the learning
and recall of information. Americas schools ask our students to define, describe,
identify, know, label, match, name, recall, and recognize information, when viewed
from a well-known taxonomy of learning objectives (Bloom, 1956; Pohl, 2000). As
a result, schools demand less of students in terms of higher-level cognitive skills,
including understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

S. I. PFEIFFER AND T. L. THOMPSON
WHAT IS CREATIVITY?
Okay, we have disclosed a personal bias. We believe that schools are not emphasizing
higher-level cognitive skills, including creativity. But just what is creativity? We
recognize that it isnt something real, like a sailboat or a pear tree or a mountain
stream is real. It is, rather, a psychological construct. To some researchers who
study and write about creativity, the construct reflects a particular way in which
individuals think, solve problems, or produce art or products in a given field. To other
researchers, the construct describes people who are endowed with certain cognitive
and personality characteristics that make them more likely to be creative. A number of
authors distinguish among at least four different perspectives in trying to get a handle
on what we mean by the construct of creativity: (1) how creative a product is, (2) a
particular process or way of thinking about things, (3) particular persons with a lot
of creative ability, and (4) aspects of the environment that either facilitate or impede
the expression of creativity (Rhodes, 1962). According to Kaufman (2009), of the
four different creativity perspectives, the creative product is the most widely studied
and measured. In this chapter, however, we limit our attention to one of the other
perspectives, specifically ways in which the environmentin the case of our work,
the classroom environmentcan facilitate or obstruct the development of creativity.
It is the thesis of this chapter, and our belief, that classroom environments vary in
terms of the degree to which they are conducive or favorable to the development of
creativity (creative products, creative persons, and the creative process).
We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Lets return to the question of defining
creativity. Before we provide our definition of creativity, wed like to first tender
four points which undergird our view of creativity. One, our view of creativity is
the result of (and perhaps even biased by) extensive experience working with a
unique and select cohort of youngsters: middle and high school students of uncanny
intellectual ability (Pfeiffer, 2012 b). Two, our understanding of creativity is viewed
from a developmental perspective: we conceptualize creativity within a more broad
model of talent development (Sternberg, et al., 2011; Subotnik, 2003), as one
important component and expression of expertise in any culturally-valued field or
domain (Pfeiffer, 2012 b). Three, we believe that as the student gets older and moves
on from elementary schoolgaining increased factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge (Bloom, 1956), as well as considerable experience and competence in
one or more fieldss/he will demonstrate increased domain-specific creativity.
This is consistent with what is known in the creativity field as domain specificity
(Baer, 1998, 2011). This does not imply that we dont believe in the existence of
some degree of domain-general creativity (e.g., Torrance, 1990; Treffinger, 1986).
However, our work with many hundreds of extraordinarily bright middle and high
school students has focused on how domain-specific creativity unfolds and is best
nurtured as one moves beyond competence toward expertise and even, in some
instances, elite status in a specific domain (Pfeiffer, 2008b, 2012 a, b; Sternberg,
2001). The focus of our work with high ability students has been at a crossroads
232
CREATIVITY FROM A TALENT DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
between the Big C (expressions of creativity among high ability students on a

trajectory toward eminence in a given field) and the little c creativity of everyday
life (Richards, 2007; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). We suspect that, had our
careers focused more on working with younger children of uncanny intellectual
ability, our views might very well be more closely aligned with domain-general
theories of creativity. Finally, we believe and our experience indicates that children
and adolescents, even those who test at very high levels of intellectual ability (top
12%), vary considerably in terms of their capacity for creative expression. This
does not mean that we view people as either creative or not creative, as born either
creative or uncreative (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). However, we do believe
that individuals demonstrate significant individual differences in terms of their
potential for or capacity to be creative. This capacity is likely based on the dynamic
and synergetic interaction of genetic, intellectual, temperamental, personality,
attitudinal, and environmental factors.
Defining Creativity
Okay, now we are ready to proffer our definition of creativity. Our definition is
similar to many other definitions in the field (e.g., Plucker et al., 2004; Sternberg
& Kaufman, 2010). To be creative, an idea or work must be original, novel, and
distinctive. And to be creative, an idea or work must not only be original, novel,
and distinctive, but also judged to be relevant, appropriate, useful, beneficial,
helpful, valuable, and/or aesthetically pleasing (Pfeiffer, 2012 b). As you can see,
our definition includes a subjective element, in that a judgment is being made on
the relevance or appropriateness, usefulness, and/or aesthetic value of the idea
or product. Usually, although not always, consensual agreement is rather easily
reached in terms of what is considered creative across different cultures in most
domains (e.g., the arts, sciences, medicine, engineering, politics, psychotherapy,
teaching, architecture, philanthropy). Sometimes however, there is disagreement.
Disagreement most often occurs in the arts and humanities, where the opinion of
experts can be rather contentious. However, other disciplines, including the sciences,
are not without controversy over what constitutes a creative or innovative idea or
discovery.
Creativity within a Talent Development Framework
We earlier mentioned that we conceptualize creativity within a talent development

framework and view creativity as one component of the unfolding of talent in any
field or domain. We next explain what we mean by this. Again, our thinking has been
influenced by our work with high-ability middle school, high school, and college
students who are on a trajectory to developing expertise in an academic domain
(medicine, engineering, architecture, mathematics, the sciences, law, the helping
233
professions, the arts). We believe that the unfolding and nurturance of creativity, as
part of gaining expertise and even eminent status in any academic domain or field,
reflects the following seven components (see Pfeiffer, 2012 b for a more detailed
discussion):
A certain threshold of general intellectual ability is necessary for students to reach

a level of expertise or beyond (elite or eminent status) in any of the academic
fields or professions. This is likely equally true in non-academic fields, although
the general ability factor in fields such as athletics or the performing arts is non-
intellectual (Pfeiffer, 2012 b). Although some authorities suggest that an IQ
cut-score of 120 or higher is the minimum threshold (e.g., Renzulli, 1978; Reis
& Renzulli, 2009) in academic fields, there really is very little well-designed
longitudinal research which confirms a minimal threshold to reach expertise or
eminence in an academic field (other than the work of David Lubinski, Camilla
Benbow, and their colleagues, whose research confirms that a high level of
intellectual ability is necessary in certain academic fields; Benbow & Lubinski,
1996). Anecdotal reports and experience suggest that general intellectual ability
within the upper range of high-average is a minimum for most academic fields,
and for some fields (e.g., engineering, mathematics) a considerably higher
minimum threshold of general intellectual ability is necessary for expert creative
contribution.
However, general intellectual ability is never enough to reach expertise and elite
status in any academic domain or field. Of course, the same can be said in such
fields as athletics or the performing arts. Specific abilities and well-honed skills
are critical if one hopes to move beyond competence toward expertise in any field
or domain. Figure 1 depicts a model of talent development which highlights six
critical components necessary if a youngster hopes to attain the highest levels
of development in almost any academic domain or field. The model is based on
the first authors experience over many years working with extraordinarily bright
middle and high students who were selected to participate in an academically
rigorous summer academy on the campus of Duke University. It is also based on
the first authors experience working with elite youth athletes as part of the U.S.
Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program (ODP) and the womens soccer team
at Duke University. The model incorporates ideas proposed by a number of leading
authorities in the gifted and talent development fields, including Bloom (1985),
Gagn (2005), and Subotnik (2003). It depicts how we conceptualize creativity as a
component of talent development. Creativity is intentionally placed nearer the apex
of the talent development model (Pfeiffer, in press c), consistent with a domain-
specific theory of creativity, as we mentioned. Our experience leads us to advocate for
viewing creativity as building upon factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge
(Bloom, 1956), the result of a youngster obtaining considerable experience and
competence in any subject or field. In other words, bright and competent students
likely require a fair amount of experience and exposure in any field or domain
234
A Dream
Creativity in the Domain of Field
Deep interest/passion and joy in the

domain or field
Persistence; Drive; Motivational Beliefs;

Personality Characteristics
Specific Abilities and Skills
General Ability
Figure 1. How Creativity Interfaces with Other Factors Critical to Talent Development
(from (Pfeiffer, 2012 b)
before we can expect that they will display the imagination, originality, and
resourcefulness that is the hallmark of meaningful creativity.
The talent development model proposed by Pfeiffer consists of four distinct stages;
each has a transitional or sub-stage. Each stage is marked by transformations in
thinking, attitude, motivation, and even personality (Subotnik, Edmiston, Cook,
& Ross, 2010). First, the child is exposed to knowledge, skills, and experience
in a specific field or domain, hopefully presented in an enjoyable and reinforcing
fashion; second, over time the individual reaches a recognized threshold where
s/he attains competence in the field or domain; third, the individual continues to
gain further experience, supervision, guidance, and instruction to the point where
s/he obtains a level of recognized mastery or expertise in the field or domain
at this point, we believe one sees clear evidence of domain-specific creativity;
finally, further development, refinement and enhancement of ones expertise lead,
for a very select few, to a recognized elite or eminent status in the field or domain.
Only the most promising are likely to attain a level of eminence in a field or
domain. This fourth stage is marked by clear evidence of Big C creativity, which
in fact is one of the defining features of eminence in any field. Creativity, at
least domain-specific creativity, becomes particularly relevant and is specifically
emphasized in terms of curricular and instructional emphasis in the final two
stages of our talent development model.
The student who is competent in chess, writing essays, debate, or solving
mathematical problems is very different from the youngster who has progressed
235
to a level of expertise in chess, writing essays, debate, or solving mathematical

problems. Similarly, the youth who is a competent soccer player on a local club
team is a very different soccer player from the elite athlete on a University team
or a member of the U.S. Olympic Development national soccer pool. One expects
to begin to see creative thinking and creative performance as the youngster moves
from a level of competence to an expert or elite level in any field.
This proposition is consistent with Blooms revised taxonomy, in which
creativity unfolds only after the more foundational cognitive operations of
remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluatingbe it factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, or meta-cognitive
knowledgeare first solidified (Bloom,1956; Amer, 2006). Although we dont
see creative activity necessarily flourishing in the first two stages of this model,
we certainly dont discourage educators, parents, or others from encouraging
innovation, imagination, and creativity when presenting activities early in a
students academic career. However, the type of creative activities that one might
encourage in the early years is more domain-general, and thus far we have little
research evidence that it will generalize or translate to domain-specific creativity
later in the childs life. Our point is that, as long as the jury is out, we envision no
reason not to imbue the early childhood and elementary curriculum with activities
that purport to enhance creativity. They are fun. They help establish a learning
culture for experimentation and intellectual risk. In fact, as we will soon point
out, we see a clear pedagogical value in starting early in encouraging discovery,
innovation, and creative expression in the classroom.
If students of uncanny ability (or any students, for that matter) continue to
successfully progress along the talent development trajectory beyond competence
to expertise and elite or eminent status in a field or domain, the following factors
are important: general intellectual ability and specific abilities and skills (as
mentioned earlier); drive; persistence; ardor; self-confidence; passion for the
domain or field; facilitative motivational beliefs (growth mindset); a willingness
to listen and learn from mentors, role models and instructors (being coachable);
comfort with being competitive in the field or domain; and possessing a dream
to be successful in the specific domain. This is equally true in the arts, athletics,
and academic fields.
Sustained interest in the field or domain and commitment to excellence is critical
to reach the highest levels; creativity is much easier to nurture and encourage if
the student is passionate about the subject matter or field and has a rage to learn
(Piirto, 2008; Winner, 1996). Lionel Messi is an internationally recognized soccer
player for the world-renowned Spanish team, FC Barcelona. He is considered
one of the most creative soccer players in the world. The celebrated Uruguayan
novelist Eduardo Galeano recently wrote an essay on Messi, including this
poignant comment, No one plays with as much joy as Messi doesHe plays
like a child enjoying the pasture, playing for the pleasure of playing, not the duty
of winning (Longman, 2011, p. 6).
236
A substantial investment of time is necessary to reach the highest levels (Ericsson,

Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993).
Only a select number of individuals reach the highest levels of elite or eminent status
in any domain or fieldacademic or otherwise; there is always going to be a small
number who reach the pinnacle and are recognized as uniquely talented. This is
certainly true for the creative individual, as well; only a small number of students with
uncanny potential at an early age reach the Big C level of creativityirrespective
of whether we are considering the most creative scientists, artists, teachers,
athletes, engineers, surgeons, architects, computer programmers, or any other
professionals.
CAN WE MAKE KIDS MORE CREATIVE: WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SAY?
Is creativity enhance-able from the outside? Does research indicate that educators
can actually influence children or their environments in such a way that they will
lead more creatively productive lives? By incorporating creativity into the talent
development model described earlier in this chapter, we have obviously revealed our
belief that creativity can, in fact, be cultivated as part of a childs broader network
of gifts and talents. However, whether creativity can be enhanced is not simply a
theoretical matter, but an empirical question as well.
In J. P. Guilfords 1950 APA presidential addressthe legendary starting-
gun moment of modern creativity researchGuilford advanced the position that
all people have the potential to be creative to varying degrees, and that creative
development depends on strengthening pre-existing abilities and resources within
the individual. Since Guilfords time, a generation of researchers (e.g., Amabile,
Cropley, Csikszentmihalyi, Hennessey, Lubart, Kaufman, Plucker, Renzulli,
Simonton, Sternberg, Torrance) have harnessed these thoughts, developing theory-
driven research programs dedicated to the study of creativity and its enhancement. In
his review of the creativity field, Nickerson (1999) summarizes that, although there
is preliminary evidence that creativity has a stable, genetic component, the larger
body of psychological inquiry suggests that everyone can be creative and that day-
to-day elements of nurture can play a sizeable role.
Students of high intellectual ability are no exception. Although intelligence and
creativity are often conceptualized as co-aligned, textbook intelligence does not
guarantee creativity (e.g., see Sternbergs [2003] distinction between creative and
analytical skills in his theory of successful intelligence). As mentioned previously,
we believe that there are individual differences in creative capacity, regardless of
intellectual ability. Therefore, intellectually precocious students require intentional
enhancement efforts and supports like all other students. Throughout the following
literature review, we inventory research from the fields of education, psychology,
and even business as to how creativity might be promoted among high-ability
students (notably, the same approaches often may be applicable to students of both
237
high and average ability). We synthesize evidence regarding developmental concerns

and formal enhancement approaches as a springboard for proposing specific,
empirically-supported recommendations to nurture childrens and adolescents high
creative potential every day in the educational environment. We end by summarizing
directions for further inquiry for researchers and key take-home points on creativity
intervention for educators.
When Do We Intervene?
To answer a question with another question: are children and adolescents even
capable of being creative in any formal sense? This may seem like a moot point
in a chapter on youth creativity enhancement; however, creativity is a complex
cognitive process, and whether children can be creative does receive some treatment
in discussions on creativity development. Luckily for our chapter, the consensus
in the literature seems to be yes, children are capable of creativity (within certain
limits)! For instance, Stokes (2010) suggests that children are creative to extent that
their responses can be novel and appropriate (i.e., solve a problem in a new way), but
not to extent they can be generative or influential (i.e., lead to new ideas or change
a field).
This position dovetails with Beghetto and Kaufmans Four-C model of creativity
(2010), which proposes that varying levels of creative achievement are possible.
Beghetto and Kaufman purport that children are capable of Mini-C (personal,
interpretive insights) and Little-C creativity (everyday creativity; e.g., a child
discovers a new way to tie her sneaker), but rarely are able to achieve at the level of
Pro-C (professional creativity; e.g., a graphic designer creates a cool new website
to teach shoe-tying to kids) or Big-C creators (e.g., a shoe scientist invents sneakers
that tie themselves) due to lack of domain-relevant knowledge, experience, and
practice. This notion is also fully consistent with our view of creativity within a
talent development model, with real domain-specific creative ideas and products
not emerging until the level of expertise (stage 3 in our model). Thus overall, it seems
feasible to promote creativity in childhood, as long as the aims of the intervention
are developmentally appropriate.
So we now know that children have the ability to behave creatively, but when
would be the optimal time for our intervention efforts? Unfortunately, to date, there
is no comprehensive theory of when or how creativity develops (Russ & Fiorelli,
2010). However, both empirical evidence and developmental theory can suggest an
estimated intervention window. Whether the intrinsic creativity levels of a child tend
to remain stable across his development is somewhat unclear (Russ & Fiorelli, 2010):
some studies find a trait-like quality (similar to intelligence); others reveal uneven
increases in creative capabilities across grades (e.g., Besanon & Lubart, 2008; Lau
& Cheung, 2010); and still others show an inverse-U developmental curve, with the
peak of production varying by domain (summarized by Makel & Plucker, 2008).
Furthermore, the fact that the general cognitive development of high-ability students
238
can be advanced and/or uneven relative to average-ability students (Dixon, 2008)

has not been explored with respect to any of these potential creativity development
models. Thus, it is unclear whether creativity intervention efforts for gifted students
would support naturally-upward, lockstep developmental trajectories, incremental
gains above and beyond a baseline level of creativity unique to each child, or a series
of transformational stages before a child reaches his or her peak.
Regardless of the dynamic course of creativity, schools of thought from both
the education and psychology realms suggest that creativity enhancement efforts
should be undertaken relatively early in a high-ability childs life. Our own
anecdotal experience supports this view. As mentioned earlier, Blooms revised
taxonomy (Amer, 2006) and our own talent development model both suggest that
creativity is toward the pinnacle of educational efforts. Creativity is supported by the
building of successively more complex thinking habits/skills (e.g., Remembering,
Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, Creating; Amer, 2006). It is
assumed that a child must first learn how to remember the characters in her Harry
Potter book and understand how the plot works before she develops the later
capacity to create her own stories. Thus, the earlier she is encouraged to develop
these foundational skills, the sooner she may prepare to engage in later creative
productivity.
Also mentioned in our introductory comments, a large time investment is required
to become an expert contributor in any field. Specifically, researchers in the expertise
field suggest that approximately 10 years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice
are necessary across many fields (Ericsson et al., 1993). Along with the simple
repetition and perfection of skills, an individual may be mastering the background
knowledge, materials, conventions, accepted styles, and practices within her field
(Stokes, 2010). For instance, in order to discover a new element, a chemist must
have learned her periodic table at some point in her education. Given the large time
commitment, those striving for expert achievement are advised to start early in
acquiring background knowledge and practice hours.
Stokes (2010) expands on this point to say that early experiences are also an
important time for the development of habitual variability levels. In other words,
prohibiting habitual responses when a student is first introduced to a field, concept,
or problem promotes overall creativity in the area as the student gains expertise in
it. A budding musician who learns only to play C-sharp and D-flat on the violin and
is never encouraged to experiment with other notes may come to believe that this is
the expected amount of variability for her instrument and be henceforth stunted in
her musical development. This habitual variability level is supposedly acquired soon
after a student comes in contact with a domain. Therefore, the sooner a student starts
practicing and mastering the ABCs of her field, and the sooner she is encouraged
to experiment with variability in that field, the closer she comes to expert creative
contribution.
So far it seems that all signs point to intervening early to establish a foundation
for promoting creativity. How early do parents and educators need to concern
239
themselves with a childs creativitythe first day of school? When the child utters
her first words? On the day they return home from the hospital nursery? Fortunately,
a variety of well-established general developmental principles speak to this point.
A childs general intellectual, psychosocial, and emotional development serve to
place limits on what may be possible for creative intervention, even for highly
advanced youngsters.
Lesner and Hillman (1983) and Russ and Fiorelli (2010) have both compiled
reviews of the implications of major developmental theories for creativity. Although
it is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe each in detail, the main points
of each theory as they relate to creativity will be summarized briefly. Piagets
theory of cognitive development is certainly relevant to the present discussion. The
sensorimotor stage (birth to 2 years) is significant as the time when decentration
(the process of separating self from environment and others) begins, which is vital
since decreasing egocentric thinking and taking on new perspectives are essential
to creative thought. Piagets preoperational stage (ages 27) is similarly key to the
creative process because during this stage children acquire the ability to use mental
imagery and symbolic representation (e.g., pretending a cardboard box is a space
shuttle) as well as the ability to adapt new information into their existing knowledge
structures, which is important for creative problem-solving. Outside of Piagets
work, other of childrens early specific cognitive maturities are known to place
limits on creative potential. Working memory span, processing speed, inhibition of
poor responses, and shifting between mental sets all develop with age, which in turn
improves the likelihood for creative productivity (Stokes, 2010). Overall, educators
should regard a high-ability childs unique level of cognitive development when
considering what level of creativity to expect and what type of interventions best
match this level of cognitive maturity.
Lesner and Hillman (1983) and Russ and Fiorelli (2010) also discuss the role of
psychoanalytic theories of development in creativity. Freuds ideas about primary-
process thoughts (i.e., primitive, drive-laden, illogical thoughts, such as dreams)
are integral to young childrens development of imagination. Children must be old
enough to access these thoughts in a controlled fashion to use the images fruitful to
creativity. Eriksons (1968) psychosocial development theory suggests a variety of
developmental conflicts in relating to the world experienced by growing children:
infants seeking to trust the world, toddlers seeking autonomy, preschoolers seeking
initiative, school-age children seeking productiveness, and adolescents seeking
personal identity. Each of these factorstrust, autonomy, initiative, productiveness,
and personal identityis important in the development of creative behavior.
Furthermore, Kohlbergs model of changes in conventionality proposes another
potential developmental conflict: children seeking conformity (Russ & Fiorelli,
2010). According to this model, middle childhoodthe conventional stagemay be
a time of intense pressure from social norms, which may stifle creativity. Notably,
this period of conformity may underlie the 4th grade slump in creativity noted in
the empirical literature (Besanon & Lubart, 2008; Russ & Fiorelli, 2010). Thus, the
240
phase of a child and his present developmental conflicts should be considered by

educators in determining the most appropriate avenues for creativity enhancement.
Of note, Lesner and Hillman (1983) also proposed their own schema for the
development of creativity across the lifespan. Of the three phases, the Creative
Internal Enrichment stage (birth-adolescence) is the most relevant to the present
discussion. It is the time when individuals acquire the basic life skills and a stable
sense of personality/identity necessary for creativity. While childhood products may
not be esteemed by anyone outside of the child himself, successfully practicing
creativity is essential to later mature production. The implication is that knowledge
and identity should be developed solidly before working on subsequent stages more
focused on sharing ones creativity and creative products or on self-reflection and
assessment. Thus, a high school coach may wisely encourage a young athlete to
invest in learning how to cross-over dribble and be verbally confident and assertive
before she starts accepting text messages and calls from college coaches interested
in recruiting her to their schools. In summary, the answer to the question, when
to intervene? is to intervene as early as possible while paying due attention to
developmental limitations of even the most gifted child.
How do we intervene?
Now that we know that we can intervene and that early intervention is prudent, it is
time to get down to the brass tacks of how we go about developing childrens and
adolescents creativity. In this section, we review programs specifically designed for
training creativity, general classroom enrichment activities, and informal contextual
factors that may be adjusted to best support creativity.
Training Programs
Direct, formal approaches explicitly seek to enhance creativity based on a model and
package together a set of specific learning activities. The great number of programs
renders a comprehensive review of each one impractical. Most formal training
programs, such as the Purdue Creative Thinking Program (Feldhusen, 1983), include
a curriculum, worksheets and student activities emphasizing different components
of creative thinking.
Nickerson (1999) reviewed the empirical evidence for a variety of such programs,
such as the Productive Thinking Program (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, & Olton,
1974); CoRT Program (Cognitive Research Trust; de Bono, 1970, 1992), Project
Intelligence (Herrnstein, Nickerson, de Sanchez, & Swets, 1986), Synetics (Gordon,
1961, 1966, 1981), and the Purdue Creative Thinking Program (Feldhusen, 1983).
Each of these programs varies in content, duration, and specific techniques used. He
concluded that while some programs have preliminary evidence of effectiveness,
evidence for others is sparse, equivocal, or fraught with generalizability issues (e.g.,
no evidence of endurance of effects, generalizability outside of lab).
241
Based on Nickersons (1999) less-than-favorable evaluation, a teacher or principal

looking to promote creativity might choose to pass on investing in a creativity training
program. However, since the publication of Nickersons review further research
and development have been conducted with creativity training programs, to more
promising effect. According to a more recent review tailored to gifted educators,
structured training programs have been found to enhance a variety of creativity
outcomes (e.g., divergent thinking, creative problem solving, creative performance
[production],creative attitudes) by focusing on specific techniques to develop
cognitive processes (e.g., analogies), practicing skills and receiving feedback,
working with others, working on solutions to realistic problems, and using variety
of instructional strategies and exercises (Beghetto, 2008). Additionally, a series of
recent meta-analyses (Huang, 2005; Ma, 2006; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004)
substantiate in more detail that these program are directly effective in enhancing
students creativity. These studies evaluated the big-name programs directly
(e.g., Purdue Creative Thinking Program, New Directions in Creativity Program,
Khatenas Training Method, Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Program;
Ma, 2006) or less well-established programs as part of broader categories (Huang,
2005; Scott et al., 2004). Each meta-analysis showed an effect size of between
.62 and .77, considered moderate to large, meaning that these programs have an
appreciable impact with childrenkids are acting and producing in demonstrably
more creative ways, at least in the short-term. In Huangs (2005) study, these effects
generalize across schools and even type of program. The main significant predictor
was group (experimental vs. control), meaning that it didnt matter which type of
program a student participated in, as long as they participated in something.
Nevertheless, all of the results were not so clear cut. There were some mixed
findings regarding age of participants. Ma (2006) found that the older the student,
the greater the effect of the program (up to college age); Scott and colleagues (2004)
found strongest effects for children under the age of 14; Huang (2005) found no effect
for age. These results, though inconclusive, represent an important avenue of inquiry
for our question of when to execute creativity interventions for high-ability students.
If interventions were found to be more beneficial at one age versus another, this may
be suggestive of a developmentally more sensitive period for creativity development
and enhancement. Further research on the topic is, of course, necessary before we can
affirm a best time to act, if there is one. Also, conflicting results were found regarding
duration of training. In Mas analyses, duration of training was not significant; all
programs showed benefits regardless of duration. Yet, in Huangs analyses, duration
of training was significant for established (named) creativity programs, such that the
longer a student participated, the greater creativity returns he saw. Again, attempting
to resolve these conflicting findings on duration has important implications for those
wishing to design or purchase a program for their school district.
Looking more specifically at different programs, we find more consistency
in results. One trend across studies was the strong effect of the Creative Problem-
Solving Program (CPS; Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967). CPS fell above the mean in
242
Mas study (2006), and in Huangs study (2005) CPS had the lowest training time, but
the highest training effects. Other programs found to show above-average increases
in creativity were New Directions in Creativity and Khatenas Training Method
(Ma, 2006). As far as the mediating factors contributing to the success of these
programs, Ma found that programs emphasizing attitude training, simple ideation,
synetics, or a composite of techniques showed above average effects in developing
attitudes, divergent thinking originality, and problem-solving flexibility, specifically.
(These may be viewed in contrast to below-average methods, such as problem
identifying, incubation, or SCAMPER). Scott et al. (2004) found that focus on
development of cognitive skills, heuristics involved in application, and using realistic
exercises appropriate to the domain were also important characteristics of successful
programs. Integrating across all of these results regarding training programs, educators
may reasonably choose to employ a well-established creativity program (e.g., CPS)
and one incorporating evidence-based practices, such as developing cognitive skills,
attitude training, or real-life exercises for students. However, we need to be vigilant
for further confirmatory evidence of long-term effects and real-world generalizability.
Enrichment Programs
Despite the success of creativity training programs, teachers may say, Fine, but
we have the F-CAT [Floridas state standardized test] next month! When do I have
time for creativity training? This response reflects a major conflict for todays
educator: the disconnect between the lofty stated goals of education to advance the
higher-order thinking and creativity of students and the actual objectives of day-to-
day curricula (Gude, 2010). As we have already mentioned, teachers operate in the
demanding environment of content standards and high-stakes testing, and they often
view creative activities as an add-on or even a distraction (Beghetto & Kaufman,
2010). Researchers such as Fairweather and Cramond (2010) suggest infusing
creativity into the everyday curriculum to enrich, not necessarily extend or over-
burden, current practices.
One such enrichment model serves as a highly elaborated exemplar supported by
considerable empirical research: the School-wide Enrichment Model (SEM; Reis
& Renzulli, 2009). This model broadly seeks to encourage full development of the
learner versus seeing him simply as a repository for information to be assessed
by standardized tests. Thus, SEM is actually a general talent development program,
with high priority placed on creative exploration.
The School-wide Enrichment Model consists of four steps (Reis & Renzulli,
2009). The first step involves assessing which students show talent potential; the
second step involves assessing the unique interests and needs of each student; and
the third step outlines methods for compacting (i.e., accelerating) content for those
students capable of handling advanced material. However, the step most applicable
to the topic of creativity enhancement is step fourthe meat and potatoes of
SEMknown as the Enrichment Triad Model (ETM).
243
The intent behind ETM is to expose high-potential students to diverse fields,

exploratory methodologies, and advanced skills with the goal of stimulating creative
production in self-selected areas (e.g., music, physics, baseball). ETM consists of
three levels of enrichment experiences: General Exploratory Activities (Type I),
Group Training Activities (Type II), and Investigations of Real Problems (Type III).
General Exploratory Activities serve to expose students to a wide assortment of
disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events (similar to step
1 of our talent development model). For instance, a teacher could invite a local news
station meteorologist to speak to the class about weather, piquing a young girls
interest in precipitation patterns. Group Training Activities involve small group
projects to develop a variety of skills essential to innovation (e.g., problem solving,
critical thinking, affective processes, reference materials skills, communication
skills) (most aligned with step 2competence developmentof our model). In our
example, the young student may be involved in a group project to develop a 3-D map
of precipitation patterns of the Southeastern United States. Finally, Investigations of
Real Problems consists of just that. Individuals (or small groups) take on the role
of principle investigator, first author, or first chair in exploring a variety of real-life
critical issues in creative ways (step 3 of our model). The student may start a project
to monitor the precipitation levels around her flood-prone town by collecting rain
samples at different friends houses, curious if different specific areas receive more
rain than others.
Overall, ETM and SEM (Reis & Renzulli, 2009) are purported to support a
variety of positive outcomes related to creativity (e.g., advanced content acquisition,
authentic product creation, self-directed learning skills, task commitment), but
what does the research on SEM say? Reis (n.d.) summarizes a number of studies
demonstrating the benefits of SEM. SEM has been adopted in 2,500 schools in the
U.S. The program has been associated with higher levels of creative productivity
in and out of school. Students who have undertaken Type III enrichment projects
report higher self-efficacy than those who have not, and the greater the number of
projects, the higher the reported self-efficacy. Furthermore, the hobbies and interests
students develop in SEM follow them through life, affecting post-secondary plans
and later creative productivityindirect evidence for the durability of program
outcomes.
While it can be argued that SEM and other enrichment programs detract from
content-teaching time, researchers (Baer & Garrett, 2010; Sawyer, 2010) suggest
that if enrichment activities are grounded in a content area (e.g., a small group
dedicated to writing and work-shopping creative stories), students will actually
learn the content (e.g., grammar, syntax, clear written expression) better than they
would with standard instruction. SEM is sensitive to, not conflicting with, standard
classroom curricular activities (e.g., SEM recommends after-school individualized,
extracurricular activities with a mentor). Educators can, of course, choose to
implement the Schoolwide Enrichment Model in total or in an la carte fashion,
incorporating into their classroom one or more components.
244
Educational Environment
An educator or parent may well ask if our already over-extended schools have
the wherewithal to support official creativity training or enrichment programs. Is
there no less formal method to teach a child of high ability how to imagine and
create? Is there a way of positively restructuring our current practices that also
respects our limited classroom resources? The following section summarizes
research on informal, day-to-day methods, habits, and outlooks that promote
creativity in the classroom. In an attempt to synthesize these many works, we
present a list of recommended themes essential to a fostering a creative classroom
environment:
Establishing an expectation for creativity. A teacher hoping to increase creativity
among his or her students may need only to ask! Evidence suggests that people will
show more creative behavior in their work if they understand that imagination or
innovation is expected (Hammond, Neff, Farr, & Schwall, 2011; Nickerson, 1999).
This may seem like a no-brainer, but many educational tasks and assignments can at
times be relatively straightforward (e.g., solving an algebraic equation), especially
to sharp, high-ability students, and they may not understand that a novel approach or
solution is desired unless this is made explicit.
Creating a creative space. Students may only be as creative as their environments
support. Research suggests that classrooms should include interesting, unusual
artifacts, resources, and materials to stimulate the imagination (Baldwin, 2010;
Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Richards, 2010). Even if you cannot conceive of a
use for a particular item, that doesnt mean a gifted child cant (Fletcher, 2011)! The
classroom should also be a safe, comfortable, and spacious environment, including
work spaces appropriate for both active learning and quiet reflection (Fairweather &
Cramond, 2010; Richards, 2010).
Maintaining a psychologically safe environment. Creativity can be an anxiety-
provoking process for young, high-ability students (Gude, 2010; Russ & Fiorelli,
2010). In a way, genius and creativity are both defined by social isolation (Claxton,
Edwards, & Scale-Constantinou, 2006): talented students often think differently and
have ideas most others dont. In order to express themselves creatively, they must
believe in these innovative ideas and that they can further improve their creative
prowess (i.e., an incremental theory of creativity; Dweck, 2006; Nickerson, 1999,
2010). More importantly, the student must feel free to express himself. For an
educator, this means fostering self-efficacy (Hammond et al., 2011; Hope, 2010;
Tierney & Farmer, 2011), bravery (Richards, 2010), risk-taking (Fairweather &
Cramond, 2011; Fletcher, 2011; Nickerson, 1999), and resilience (Claxton et al.,
2006). The learning environment should be a psychologically safe space with a
zero-tolerance policy for peer ridicule or bullying (Fairweather & Cramond, 2010).
There must be room for multiple correct answers in the creative classroom, and less-
good or wrong answers should be viewed as trials versus failures or embarrassments
(Fletcher, 2011; Hope, 2010; Nickerson, 2010).
245
Stimulating and rewarding curiosity. Nickerson (1999) suggests that children are
born curious and only learn not to be curious by not having their questions taken
seriously by adults. Treating wild, unanswerable questions as childish or irrelevant
may stifle creative thinking (Nickerson, 2010). Curiosity is the joy of wondering
about things and questioning the assumptions most people carry (Claxton et al.,
2006). Classrooms where any question as long as it is sincereis valued and
not viewed as silly or stupid establish a learning environment that promotes higher
learning and creativity.
Encouraging autonomy. In order for children to lay the internal psychological
groundwork for solo creative performancewhether it is a painting, short story,
science project, or new gymnastics movethey must be given opportunities to
experiment with their own intuition and self-government. Autonomy has been
empirically linked to innovation in work (Hammond et al., 2011). Nickerson (2010)
suggests that step one to encouraging autonomy is adults stepping down. If a
teacher creates a culture of submission to or fear of authority, a student will likely
keep any creative whims to himself. On the other hand, an egalitarian classroom
gives all the chance to fearlessly take the lead. A teacher wishing to encourage
independent thinking can allow students to design their own assignments and
projects, create their own timelines, and assess their own progress and success
(Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Nickerson, 1999). Of course, a concomitant level
of student responsibility and maturity are required when implementing this level of
autonomy.
Allowing freedom to explore and play. Related to the idea of autonomy is the idea
of freedom. If we wish for a talented student to go where no student has gone before,
we must give her the free reign to wander there. Various lines of research support
this idea. Play has been found to be an important correlate of creativity. Research
indicates that the more unstructured play time, the more creative the individuala
result that holds up over time (Garaigordobil, 2006; Memmert, Baker, & Bertsch,
2010; Mullineaux & Dilalla, 2009; Rhodes, 1962; Russ & Fiorelli, 2010). This child-
directed, improvisational exploratory learning is the idea behind such institutions
as Montessori schools, which have been shown to have more creative students than
traditional schools (Besanon & Lubart, 2008).
Providing structure to optimize efforts. As a caveat to the freedom strategy, it must
be conceded that a totally free environment has the potential to be chaotic (Hope,
2010) or even lazy and anti-creative; Free to do anything, most of us do whatever
worked best in the past (Stokes, 2010, p.107). Some structure is a necessary
complement to unbridled creative anarchy. By definition, a creative product is both
original and appropriate (Begehtto & Kaufman, 2010). Every student who wishes
to produce innovative things of value to others must first appreciate the existing
practices and standards of a field and the proper expression of creativity within it
(Ericsson et al, 1993; Hope, 2010; Nickerson, 1999; Stokes, 2010). While a creative
classroom teacher may not want to be the boss, Stokes (2010) discusses the value
of constraints. Studies show that articulating consistently high expectations, clear
246
guidelines, and defined goals are essential to creativity-promoting leadership (Byrne,

Mumford, Barrett, & Vessey, 2009; Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Fletcher, 2011).
Preparing and engaging students to work. Creativity requires effort and hard
work (Hope, 2010; Pfeiffer, in press). Ericsson and colleagues (1993) suggest that
achieving expertise in most fields requires approximately 10,000 hours of deliberate
practice. Students need help understanding this level of commitment, the importance
of patience, and the amount of initial failure to routinely expect on all roads to
innovative achievement (Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Gude, 2010; Hope, 2010;
Nickerson, 1999). One important thing that an educator can do to help students
engage is to consider their motivation, commitment, and passion. The empirical
link between motivation and creativity has been well-established (Nickerson, 1999).
Though an oversimplified account, the general wisdom is that leveraging the intrinsic
motivations and passions of the student is preferable to using extrinsic motivators
(e.g., prizes, tests) to shape interests, as these may eventually turn creativity into a
dull job (see Kaufman, 2009 for a summary of Amabile and colleagues extensive
work on the complex motivation-creativity link). Young students may explore many
interests throughout development (Kaufman, Beghetto, Baer, & Ivcevic, 2010)
from whales, to trains, to soccer, to haikus, to rocket science. This is especially
true for the student with gifts in multiple domains. However, it behooves a teacher
to follow students motivationsnomadic though they may be, especially in the
early yearsas passionate students are better equipped to tolerate the frustrations,
anxieties, and failures wrapped up in creative achievement (Russ & Fiorelli, 2010).
Capitalizing on the power of groups. The earliest approaches to creativity
enhancement came in the 1950s in the form of group brainstorming (i.e., generating
as many ideas as possible while deferring judgment) (Nickerson, 1999). Hearing
others ideas was thought to stimulate, disinhibit, and reinforce imagination among
the members. Research has since been mixed on whether group work results in
the generation of more or fewer ideas (Makel & Plucker, 2008; Nickerson, 1999).
However, as mentioned above, support for the effectiveness of enrichment programs
and training programs both highlight the benefit of group projects (Beghetto,
2008; Reis, n.d.; Reis & Renzulli, 2009). There is evidence that creativity is more
likely under certain conditions: members are familiar with each other, the topic
is personally relevant (Makel & Plucker, 2008), members get time to process
independently (Nickerson, 1999), members have pro-social orientations (Bechtoldt,
De Dreu, Nijstad, & Choi, 2010; De Dreu, Nigstad, Bechtoldt, & Baas, 2011), and
the group experiences constructive conflict (Badke-Schaub, Goldschmidt, & Meijer,
2010; Fletcher, 2011). Such research may translate into more group projects in
the classroom, which will hopefully prepare the upcoming generation of talented
students for the real-world of team-based producing (Sawyer, 2010).
Embracing diversity in the classroom. As we increasingly seek to make our
curricula more culturally-inclusive, research suggests that we will be seeing some
fringe benefits in student creativity. Exposure to multicultural experiences may
directly enhance creativity. Factors such as living abroad, immigrating, bilingualism,
247
interactions with people from different cultures, and exposure to multiple cultures in
a lab setting have all been shown increase creativity (e.g., problem-solving, remote
associations, divergent ideas, recruiting ideas from foreign cultures) (Leung & Chiu,
2010; Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2006). Research thus seems to empirically
support practices such as study abroad programs, developing a multicultural
curriculum, and working toward truly integrated schools. To avoid being overly
idealistic, it should be noted that those who are not open to new cultural ideas,
who spend only a tourists short trip seeing the world, or who express a culturally-
unrecognized version of creativity do not evidence the same benefits. Expanding on
this last point, if ones version of creativity is not accepted in another culture, one
may be inhibited in expressing it (Baldwin, 2010). Teachers must pay attention or
they may miss (or worse, dismiss) the culturally-different creative attempts of even
the most gifted student (Westwood & Low, 2003)! Researchers must also be careful
to avoid imposing Western enhancement models in international classrooms, or face
resistance and lack of benefits (e.g., Cheung, 2011).
Supplying examples. Short of asking students to be creative, showing them how
to do so may be the simplest way to stimulate creativity (Stokes, 2010). A recent
fMRI study found that participants exposed to others ideas while generating their
own had more original responses and showed distinctive brain activations compared
to controls (Fink, Grabner, Gebauer, Reishoger, Koschutnig, & Ebner, 2010). If a
high school-level gifted teacher wants to do a current events lesson, she can bring in
a political cartoon and ask her students to generate alternative captions or produce
their own cartoons. Of course, educators must be cautious in using examples, or
students may fixate on the ideal model, attempting to reproduce it instead of using
it as inspiration for original work (McLellan & Nicholl, 2011; Stokes, 2010). Using
multiple, divergent examples or models from unrelated areas (e.g., budding clothing
designers looking at ocean waves as inspiration for new textures, lines, and colors)
have both been proposed as solutions to this issue.
Being the change you want to see. Students need examples of how to be a
creative person as much as they need examples of creative process and products.
Covering famous creators, from Benjamin Franklin to Bill Gates, and providing live
role models and mentors can be invaluable social learning tools (Richards, 2010).
Another potentially powerful example of the creative person is the teacher herself.
A teacher can model creative attitudes, such as intellectual excitement, openness,
inquisitiveness, reflectiveness, flexibility, and spontaneity (Fairweather & Cramond,
2010; Nickerson, 1999, 2010; Pfeiffer, 2008c). A teacher can be creative in her own
work, teaching a lesson in a new way (e.g., moving the photosynthesis lecture to the
school garden) (Baldwin, 2010). She can do a show-and-tell with her own projects
(e.g., her unfinished childrens book), modeling her thinking process and struggles
(Fletcher, 2010). If we want our students to be creatively brave, we can lead by
example.
Providing just right challenges. The idea of just right challenges comes
from an article by Fletcher (2011) wherein she details the best activities to provide
248
high-ability students a challenge and also a likelihood of success. Tasks need to

involve some real problem and intellectual risk in order to push students to think in
new ways (McLellan & Nicholl, 2011; Stokes, 2010). Studies show that thinking
in non-habitual ways and undertaking complex tasks stimulate peoples creative
systems (Dane, Baer, Pratt, & Oldham, 2011; Hammond, et al., 2011). If things are
too easy, new learning is unlikely and creativity will not occuran idea in line with
Vygotskys ideas about the zone of proximal development (Russ & Fiorelli, 2010).
Teachers need to keep their fingers on the creative pulse of every student to ensure
that classroom tasks have the blood flowing (appropriate challenge) without giving
students heart attacks (inappropriate challenge)!
Offering feedback. Over fifty years ago, Guilford (1950) discussed the discrepancy
between educators having objectives to teach higher-level thinking processes, but
only testing students on facts. If students arent provided detailed, specific, and
individualized feedback on their performance of a skill, then they are unlikely to
value that skill or know how to improve it. As we have already suggested, high-
stakes assessment can certainly hinder creativity (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian,
2010). Yet, evaluation of creative work need not be stilted, uninformative, or
punishing to the learner. However, it does need to be given at the correct time in
the creative process and with the intent to encourage and improve (Fairweather &
Cramond, 2010; Hope, 2010). In the classroom, feedback could be as simple as
an orchestra director adjusting a students grip on her bow or as intensive as an
individual conference to review a students mastery of writing nonfiction essays.
Critiques need not be sugar-coated or presented through a rose-colored lens to be
effective. Students on a trajectory toward mastery and even eminence and creativity
in a field need to learn to graciously and gratefully accept honest, well-intentioned
feedback from their teachers, mentors, and advisors.
Making time. In an ideal world, class content would drive the time, with students
working on a topic or project as long as necessary. However, in todays classroom,
teachers have from 7:45 a.m.-3:00 p.m. to teach students math, reading, writing,
spelling, science, history, geography, foreign languages, critical thinking, computer
skills, current events, citizenship, personal ethicsoh, and creativity, if time
permits. As the reader recognizes, creativity is not a 5-minute mini-lesson to add
on at the end of the day. Students need time to daydream, generate/incubate ideas,
conduct research, evaluate ideas, experiment, and revise ideas. (Claxton et al., 2006;
Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Nickerson, 1999). The idea that the creative process
can take a lot of time even for very smart people is especially liberating for high-
ability students under the added pressure of high expectations (Claxton et al., 2006).
However, as any teacher can attest, carving-out the time for higher-order and creative
activities in the classroom is a daunting task. Fletcher (2011) challenges teachers to
consider how students are spending each educational moment of their day. Is there
some busy work (e.g., a worksheet) that can be eliminated? Can completion dates
for creative projects be established far enough in the future to allow students to
work at their own pace and have enough time to actually create? (Fairweather &
249
Cramond, 2010). Might some of our multi-potential students benefit from coaching
in time management skills and prioritizing interests and projects? The real challenge
is fully integrating higher-order and creative activities and projects into the regular
curriculum using all options available. The bottom line is that if we truly value
creativity in the classroomand wish to avert a potential creativity crisiswe
will make time for it.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS
We believe that creativity will flourish when the classroom curriculum incorporates
the full range of Blooms taxonomy (1956; Amer, 2006) of learning and critical
thinking (including remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating,
and creating). Creativity will thrive when a talent development model is embedded
within educational pedagogy, with expertise as the ultimate goal of the learning
process. We have offered a few possible strategies for promoting creativity in
such a classroom. To summarize, these evidence-based best practices indicate that
classroom creativity enhancement efforts for high-ability students may
begin as early as possible while being sensitive to the cognitive limitations and
developmental challenges faced by young children.
incorporate formal creativity training programs (e.g., Osborn-Parnes Creative
Problem-Solving Program), which appear to be at least moderately effective
in promoting creativity outcomes via developing cognitive skills, conducting
attitude training, and allowing student to work on real-world problems.
involve enrichment programs, such as the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, which
integrate desired content into creativity-boosting exploratory activities, group
training activities, and real-problem investigations.
establish a clear expectation for creativity and innovation in schoolwork.
maintain a safe, yet stimulating and challenging physical and psychological
environment for creative pursuits.
encourage and reward curiosity and autonomy.
balance classroom freedom with an appreciation for structure and appropriate
creative behavior and outlets.
prepare students for hard work and accommodate their natural interests and
passions.
incorporate group work into the curriculum.
expose students to many cultures and diverse ideas, and make educators vigilant
for culturally-different expressions of creativity among students.
supply examples of creative products and role models of creative persons
(including teachers themselves).
provide students with just right challenges, as well as honest, specific feedback
from teachers, mentors, and advisors.
work with explicit intent to reserve time for creativity in the classroom.
250
We recognize that teachers only have so much influence over the direction of their
schools and the control of their resources in the classroom. As Fletcher (2011) points
out, educators are sometimes powerless to alter things like their school schedules,
educational standards, financial circumstances, physical buildings, or community
environments. Sensitive to the very real limitations and impediments to re-creating
ones classroom along the lines of fully adopting the SEM or a similar curricular
model, we hope that todays schools can meet their local district obligations and
incorporate these kinds of exciting learning opportunities that promote a students
progress on a success trajectory. A trajectory that takes the student with uncanny
ability from initial exposure to a field, to basic knowledge, skills, and experience, to
the highest levels of talent developmentwhere students demonstrate mastery and
even recognized expertise and innovation in one or more domains (Pfeiffer, 2008a,
c; 2011; 2012 b).
Our list of recommendations in support of this goal is, unfortunately, limited in
several ways. In terms of scope, this review represents only a select sample of
possible strategies and doesnt cover the full range of tactics, techniques, approaches,
and policies that schools might implement to bring creativity to the forefront of
learning. In terms of generalizability, the research itself has not yet progressed to
a point that creativity enhancement strategies may be said to have a long-term,
durable, or transferable impact. Educators will likely be eager to stay abreast of
future creativity research as investigators begin to design more sophisticated
studies to shed further light on these important empirical questions. Regardless
of the preliminary nature of creativity enhancement research, as Nickerson said,
Which would be the more serious errorto try to enhance creativity if success
is impossible, or to fail to try to enhance it if it really can be enhanced? In my
view, the latter would be the more regrettable mistake (1999, p.407). Though
it may not now be the time to panic over an unconfirmed creativity crisis or to
make unrealistic or exaggerated claims about skill enhancement, it is always the
time to marvel over the innovative potential and creative future of our high-ability
students.
REFERENCES
Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Blooms revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Badke-Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams
support the development of creative ideas? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 119133. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00553.x
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173177.
doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract, and disappoint. The International
Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21, 73100.
Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In
R.A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 623). Cambridge:
251
Baldwin, A. Y. (2010). Creativity: A look outside the box in the classroom. In R.A. Beghetto &
J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 7387). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated information
processing, social turning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
622637. doi: 10.1037/a0019386
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Creativity enhancement. In J.A. Plucker & C.M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues
and practices in gifted education (pp. 139153). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
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 (pp. 191205).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1996) (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Besanon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies in children
schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 381389.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I. The cognitive domain. New York:
David McKay Co.
Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek, July 19, 2010 issue, 4450.
Byrne, C. L., Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Vessey, W. B. (2009). Examining the leaders of creative
efforts: What do they do, and what do they think about? Creativity and Innovation Management, 18,
256268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00532.x
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity:
A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),
201212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868
Cheung (2011). Infusing creativity into Eastern classrooms: Evaluations from student perspectives.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 6787. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.05.001
Claxton, G., Edwards, L., & Scale-Constantinou, V. (2006). Cultivating creative mentalities: A framework
for education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 5761. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2005. 11.001
Covington, M. V., Crutchfield, R. S., Davies, L., & Olton, R. M. (1974). The productive thinking program:
A course in learning to think. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Dane, E., Baer, M., Pratt, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2011). Rational versus intuitive problem solving: How
thinking off the beaten path can stimulate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 5, 312. doi: 10.1037/a0017698
de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.
de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York:
HarperCollins.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nigstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and innovation:
A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5,
8189. doi: 10.1037/a0017986
Dixon, F. A. (2008). Cognitive development. In J.A. Plucker & C.M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and
practices in gifted education (pp. 8595). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition
of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363406. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fairweather, E., & Cramond, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum
together. In R.A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom
(pp. 113141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1983). The Purdue Creative Thinking Program. In I. S. Sato (Ed.), Creativity research
and educational planning (pp.4146). Los Angeles: Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and
Talented.
252
Fink, A., Grabner, R. H., Gebauer, D., Reishoger, G., Koschutnig, K., & Ebner, F. (2010). Enhancing
creativity by means of cognitive stimulation: Evidence from an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 52, 1687
1695. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.072
Fletcher, T. S. (2011). Creative thinking in schools: Finding the just right challenge for students. Gifted
Child Today, 34, 3742.
Gagn, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J.
E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98120). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Garaigordobil, M. (2006). Intervention in creativity with children aged 10 and 11 years: Impact of a play
program on verbal and graphic-figural creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 329345. doi:
10.1207/s15326934crj1803_8
Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synetics. New York: Harper.
Gordon, W. J. (1966). The metaphorical way of learning and knowing. Cambridge, MA: Porpoise Books.
Gordon, W. J. (1981). The new art of the possible: The basic course in Synetics. Cambridge, MA:
Porpoise Books.
Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63, 3137.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444454. doi: 10.1037/h0063487
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., & Schwall, A. R. (2011). Predictors of individual-level
innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90105.
doi: 10.1037/a0018556
Hernstein, R. J., Nickerson, R. S., de Snchez, M., & Swets, J. A. (1986). Teaching thinking skills.
American Psychologist, 41, 12791289. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.11.1279
Hope, S. (2010). Creativity, content, and policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 111, 3947. doi:
10.1080/10632910903455736
Huang, T. Y. (2005). Fostering creativity: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. (Doctoral
dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Available from http: / /hdl .handle .net
/1969 .1 /2338
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy: What Benjamin
Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 380387.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.001
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285295.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 2047). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental trends of creativity: What twists of turn do boys and girls
take at different grades? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 329336. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.
503543
Lesner, W. J., & Hillman, D. (1983). A developmental schema of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,
17, 103114.
Leung, A. K., & Chiu, C. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(56), 723741. doi: 10.1177/0022022110361 707
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu (2006). Multicultural experience enhances
creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169181. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169
Longman, J. (2011, May 22). Lionel Messi: Boy genius. New York Times Sports Sunday. pp. 1, 67.
Ma, H. H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages
in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 435446. doi: 10.1207/s
15326934crj1804_3Makel, M.C., & Plucker, J.A. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook
of giftedness in children (pp. 247270). New York: Springer.
McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2011). If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a
chair: Product analysis and the causes of fixation in students design work 1116 years. International
Journal if Technology and Design Education, 21, 7192. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9107-7
253
Memmert, D., Baker, J., & Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in the development of sport-specific
creativity in team ball sports. High Ability Studies, 21, 318. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.488083
Mullineaux, P. Y., & Dilalla, L. F. (2009). Preschool pretend play behaviors and early adolescent creativity.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (E.d.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 392430). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (2010). How to discourage creative thinking in the classroom. In R.A. Beghetto &
University Press.
Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination. New York: Scribners.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribners.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (February, 2008a). Best practices in serving the gifted: Opportunities for school psychology.
Professional development workshop at the Annual Convention of the National Association of School
Psychologists, New Orleans.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2008b). Handbook of giftedness in children. New York: Springer.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (July, 2008c). Thinking in-the-future: Hopes, fears and expectations for your gifted child
grown up. Invited pre-conference workshop at the 25th Annual Convention of SENG, Salt Lake
City.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (in press). Lessons learned in work with high ability students. Gifted Education International.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012 a). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30 (1), 39.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psycho-educational practice. New
York: Routledge.
Piirto, J. (2008). Giftedness in nonacademic domains. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in
children (pp. 367386). New York: Springer.
psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 8396. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Pohl, M. (2000). Learning to think, thinking to learn: Models and strategies to develop a classroom
culture of chinking. Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow.
Reis (n.d.) Research that supports using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and extensions of gifted
education pedagogy to meet the needs of all students. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/
sem/semresearch.html
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths
and interests. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, Y C. A. Little (Eds.),
Systems and models for developing the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323352). Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3),
180184.
Rhodes, M. (1962). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305311.
Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity
and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. 2553).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity in the classroom: A trip through time with seven suggestions.
In R.A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 206234).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russ, S. W., & Fiorelli, J. A. (2010). Developmental approaches to creativity. In J. C. Kaufman &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 233249). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361388. doi: 10.1207/s1532 6934crj1604_1
Sawyer, R. K. (2010). Learning for creativity. In R.A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing
creativity in the classroom (pp. 172190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
254
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities
and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12, 159179. doi: 10. 1080/13598130120084311
Sternberg, R. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research,
47(3), 325338. doi: 10.1080/0031383032000079281
Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko. E. L. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constraints on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 467482). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677688. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677
Stokes, P.D. (2010). Using constraints to develop creativity in the classroom. In R.A. Beghetto &
University Press.
Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26,
1415.
Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., Cook, L., & Ross, M. D. (2010). Mentoring for talent development,
creativity, social skills, and insider knowledge: The APA Catalyst Program. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 21, 714739.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over
time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277293. doi: 10.1037/a0020952
Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, I. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual Figural
(Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 1519. doi:10.1177/
001698628603000103
Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2003). The multicultural muse: Culture, creativity and innovation.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 235259. doi: 10.1177/1470 5958030032006
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: Basic Books.
255
KYUNG HEE KIM, JOHN BAER AND JAMES C. KAUFMAN
CONCLUSIONS
The researchers who contributed to this volume provide a range of diverse and
timely views on how parents and educators can better meet the very important and
specific needs of highly creative students. Their arguments, evidence, and advice
cover a broad array of topics relating to those needs. This volume should be thought
of as a reference work to be consulted regarding particular topics, and to that end,
this Conclusion provides a brief summary of the ideas presented by each contributor.
Ronald Beghetto: Nurturing Creativity in the Micro-moments of the Classroom.
This chapter focuses on strategies for working with gifted students unexpected
and potentially creative ideas. It provides tips for recognizing and supporting
students creative potential. Developing creative potential should be a shared
responsibility of all educators and students. To this end, Beghetto introduces
the idea of micromoments in the classroom and shows how to recognize and
pursue micromoments as opportunities to instill and develop creative potential.
For example, creativity can be nurtured in classroom micromoments when
students share unexpected ideas. Unexpected ideas are often evidence of creative
potential, but as these ideas are typically only tangential to the intended lesson
plan, teachers often tend to redirect the class to get back to the intended lesson
plan. However, creativity can be nurtured by first recognizing the creative idea
by showing curiosity, and by showing a willingness to explore the unexpected
idea by providing an opportunity to discuss it at a later time. This may involve
providing constructive feedback as to when and how the idea might fit into
academic constraints and conventions.
Eunsook Hong and Christine Ditzer: Incorporating Technology and Web tools
in Creativity Instruction Creativity Instruction. Hong and Ditzer characterize
most parents and teachers as digital immigrants who cautiously embrace new
technologies. In contrast many students are digital natives who rush into new
technologies. Digital natives conceive and perceive the world differently than the
digital immigrants, which results in a technological and conceptual gap between
teachers and students. Students who are digital natives use new technologies
and create new uses for existing technologies. This can enhance creativity, but
it may also result in unguided experiences that can be detrimental to creativity.
Parents and teachers can use web-based tools and technology to facilitate learning
and creativity for both teachers and students. Properly managed, technology-
integrated learning facilitates self-regulated learning in which students become

K. H. KIM, J. BAER AND J. C. KAUFMAN
responsible, disciplined, and independent learners by creating and managing

learner-generated goals and sub-goals, and by self-reflecting to monitor their
understanding and progress. Parents and teachers need to learn to utilize useful
technological tools for teaching and guiding their students.
John Baer: Aligning Program Goals, Student Selection, and Program Activities.
Gifted programs have many different goals, and the selection process should
match those goals. Academic ability and achievement tests may be appropriate
for programs that have no specific focus, but many programs have more clearly
delimited goals such as nurturing creative writing skills or developing future
scientists. Baer explains why creative thinking skills should be taught within
specific content areas, based upon the theory that creative and critical thinking
skills are domain specific. Teaching to a specific content area requires tools to
identify students specific talents, and Baer suggests the Consensual Assessment
Technique to assess creative ability in specific areas. The Consensual Assessment
Technique is a powerful tool for assessing creativity in specific areas and can be
adapted to work in almost any domain. This tool can identify creatively gifted
students in art, writing, mathematics, and other areas. Domain specific talent
development can then be provided based on each students interests and strengths.
Sandra W. Russ, Karla K. Fehr, and Jessica A. Hoffmann: Helping Children
Develop Pretend Play Skills: Implications for Gifted and Talented Programs.
Russ, Fehr, and Hoffman explore the importance of play in developing creativity.
Play is a skill (or set of skills) that involves imagination and creativity and these
skills can be learned, practiced, and improved. The authors share play intervention
techniques for preschool and school-age children that have been effective in
increasing emotional expression and imagination in play. Play intervention
involves prompts, modeling, and facilitation by adults to enhance child play,
and play intervention has been shown to enhance scores on the Affect in Play
Scale. This scale includes factors that are intrinsic to creative thinking, so play
intervention at early ages can better prepare a child for later creative productivity.
Rex E. Jung and Sephira G. Ryman: Imaging Creativity. Modern neuroimaging
techniques can demonstrate measurable changes within childrens brains as they
undergo normal developmental processes and as they learn new skills (e.g., Tetris).
This neuroplasticity has implications for the development of intellectual and
creative capacity within children, and it also represents an opportunity to shape
a developing brain in a manner amenable to measurable outcomes. As we learn
how the structure and function of the brain facilitates creative capacity, we might
be able to structure learning environments that better identify and facilitate the
development of creativity. Research studies have recently demonstrated specific
neuronal, axonal, biochemical, and functional attributes of brains associated with
high creative skill. Jung and Ryman outline contemporary knowledge concerning
developmental brain processes, brain plasticity, intelligence, and creativity, the
combination of which neuroscientific research might serve creatively gifted
children.
258
CONCLUSIONS
Susan Daniels: Picture This: Integrating Visual Thinking, Design, and Creativity
Across the Curriculum. Daniels discusses the need for visual thinking opportunities
to develop creativity in all students, and not just in the creatively gifted. Daniels
argues that providing opportunities for visual modes of learning and expression
is not solely the domain of the arts. She argues that students do not need to have
high artistic abilities to benefit from visual modes of learning and expression.
She suggests that visual modes of learning and expression should be integrated in
the curriculum and instruction for all subjects and all classrooms not just gifted
classes. Daniels provides various resources that allow teachers to incorporate
visual thinking strategies, activities, and projects in classrooms.
Susan J. Paik: Nurturing Talent, Creativity, and Productive Giftedness: A New
Mastery Model. Paik discusses the Productive Giftedness Model which identifies
10 factors that are theorized to contribute to creatively productive outcomes.
These factors include individual aptitude (ability, development, & motivation),
school factors (quality and quantity of instruction), and environment (home,
mentoring, peers, & extracurricular time). In the individual aptitude factors,
undeterred focused motivation is critical to creative production, as is intentional
perseverance with an end goal or product in mind. Among the school factors,
school climate and school experiences that affect the morale of the school-learning
environment are reviewed, together with the quality and quantity of instruction.
Other environmental factors, such as programs, institutions, and other supportive
mentoring opportunities encourage creative production. Early exposure to role
models and mentoring can also be supportive ways to encourage productive
giftedness. Teachers, parents, and mentors can help students by encouraging
focused motivation (focused with a vision or end goal in mind), perseverance,
hard work, and by helping them to develop specific and challenging goals within
their domains of interest.
Kimberly M. McCormick and Jonathan A. Plucker: Connecting Student
Engagement to the Academic and Social Needs of Creatively Gifted Students. For
the past 20 years research has shown that student engagement is a key component
of student academic success. However, despite considerable evidence supporting
the positive effects of high engagement in school, the role of engagement with
gifted and talented students has received much less attention. McCormick and
Plucker identify a number of practical, research-based strategies for increasing
the engagement of gifted underachievers. They show the importance of increasing
gifted and talented student engagement and how this can be achieved in current
educational systems.
Barbara Kerr and M. Alexandra Vuyk: Career Development for Creatively Gifted
Students What Parents, Teachers, and Counselors Need to Know. Kerr and Vuyk
discuss the successes enjoyed by the University of Kansass career counseling
laboratory with regard to creative individuals. Creative individuals may feel
drawn to unusual fields, and they may choose paths less frequently traveled. The
counseling laboratory created a general profile and five specific profiles that
259
include each adolescents interests, personality, and achievements and then used
these profiles to identify creatively gifted adolescents in the state of Kansas. The
general profile includes descriptions of eminent creators personalities in general,
and the specific profiles include: 1) verbal/linguistic creativity for potential
writers, journalists, and linguists; 2) mathematical and scientific inventiveness; 3)
interpersonal/emotional creativity; 4) musical and dance creativity; and 5) spatial
and visual creativity. One of the activities the adolescents engage in is called
Future Perfect Day, in which they imagine their perfect workday ten years into the
future. At the end of this activity, a step-by-step goal-setting session for attaining
their perfect day is followed, starting with small steps to take today, tomorrow,
the following month, the following six months, and the following year. They also
include other activities, like art classes, writing competitions, film competitions,
researching colleges, job shadowing, informational interviews with people in
their desired field, part-time jobs, museum visits, and required qualifications
for college admissions. The ultimate goal of the counseling is to discover career
options that honor the participants creative abilities and interests and to design
paths that lead them to accomplish their dreams. A six month follow-up report
showed an increase in the participants engagement in specific behaviors related
to their career exploration and their positive feelings about the steps taken.
Kendall J. Eskine and Scott Barry Kaufman: Grounding Creative Giftedness in
the Body. Eskine and Kaufman discuss a dual-process theory of cognition that
includes Type 1 and Type 2 processes. Type 2 processes generally involve more
complex reasoning, and Type 1 process are the background thought processes that
usually happen unconsciously. Type 1 processes may involve insight, imaginative
play, and reduced latent inhibition. Traditionally, Type 2 processes have been
associated with giftedness, but Type 1 processing aptitude may be a better
predictor of creative ability. Much of cognition occurs in a Type 1, automatic
processing, which is an economical use of cognitive resources that frees up more
potential for the Type 2 processes. Both processes employ representational states
and perceptual symbols, which are indicators of creativity; however, an individual
may be unaware of Type 1 processing. Thus, mundane physical and lower-level
sensoriperceptual experiences may play a more significant role in creative thinking
than previously understood. Explicit instruction can hamper Type 1 processing
and hurt students creative exploration and discovery, while sensoriperceptual
experiences can contribute to cognitive and creative development.
Dean Keith Simonton: The Genetics of Giftedness: What Does It Mean to Have
Creative Talent? Creative gifts are commonly thought of as a natural ability
given at birth which merely awaits a nurturing environment to develop and grow.
Simonton explains that creativitys emergenic and genetic components contribute
to overall talent in a multiplicative manner. Creativity develops epigenetically
and thus is not stable. Creative talent constantly changes over time, which may
result in late bloomers. Intellectual giftedness, in contrast, is not emergenic, and
its homogeneity ensures that development is smooth and predictable. A highly
260
CONCLUSIONS
intelligent child becomes a highly intelligent adult and teachers instructional

investments in the intellectually gifted have a guaranteed return. Natural creative
talent only exists once the genetic components are in place and by virtue of their
epigenetic properties, additional components may emerge over time. As a result,
a childs creative talent may not be exhibited until adolescence or even adulthood.
Because different genetic traits emerge at different times during development, an
individual may exhibit various talents over time, and there is no particular path
that must be followed for achievement.
Tanja Gabriele Baudson and Franzis Preckel: Intelligence and Creativity: Their
Relationship with Special Attention to Reasoning Ability and Divergent Thinking.
Implications for Giftedness Research and Education. Baudson and Preckel discuss
the relationship between giftedness, intelligence, and creativity. They suggest that
reasoning may be a core construct of intelligence, and divergent thinking may be
a core construct of creativity. High intelligence, especially high fluid intelligence,
is a prerequisite for expertise in domains where a large amount of knowledge is
crucial, as in science. Fluidity is more related to creativity than verbal fluency
or generation of successful strategies. Openness to experience is related to both
intelligence and creativity, and openness may explain some of the relationship
between intelligence and creativity. Divergent thinking is a reliable predictor of
creativity. Intelligence and creativity are only marginally or moderately related,
and the so-called threshold theory may be flawed. A developmental perspective
may explain the relationship between intelligence and creativity because creative
giftedness tends to emerge at certain points in life and under certain circumstances.
Jane Piirto: But Isnt Everyone Creative? Everyone is creative, but Piirto
argues children are taught to suppress creativity. The inclusion of creativity as a
separate type of giftedness in the Marland definition has posed many problems
for contemporary educators, who have struggled to make sense of the alleged
distinction between high IQ and creative potential. This model seems to imply
that the intellectual is not creative, the creative is not intellectual, and the artistic
is neither intellectual nor creative. Common sense says that both intellectual
and artistically talented people are creative, and that creative people can be
both intellectual and artistic. Piirto provides a skeptical review of measures and
concepts of creativity, identifies some of the limitations of prevalent tests and
testing methods by which researchers have tried to quantify creativity, and then
offers her own model for domain specific talent development.
Steven Pfeiffer and Taylor L. Thompson: Creativity from a Talent Development
Perspective: How It Can be Cultivated in the Schools. Pfeiffer and Thompson
discuss how creativity interfaces with other factors that are critical to talent
development, such as general ability; specific abilities and skills; persistence,
drive, motivational beliefs, and personality characteristics; and deep interest or
passion and joy in a specific domain or field. Pfeiffer and Thompson suggest
that parents and teachers should start encouraging childrens creative expression,
discovery, and innovation early in their lives. Children need experience and
261
exposure in a specific domain before they can use imagination, resourcefulness,

and originality in that domain. As children accumulate knowledge and skills in a
domain, they need to be encouraged to experiment. Creativity training programs
can be effective, especially when the programs specifically focus on developing
cognitive processes. Physical environments need to include unusual materials
and resources to stimulate imagination, space for quiet reflection, and time to
experiment, research, evaluate, and revise ideas. Learning environments should
never tolerate ridicule of different ideas or behaviors, and should always encourage
questioning. Educators should coach frustration coping mechanisms, time
management skills, and prioritizing skills. Teachers should provide constructive,
detailed, specific, and individualized feedback regarding how to improve work
product.
262
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
John Baer
Rider University
Tanja Gabriele Baudson

University of Trier, Germany
Ronald A. Beghetto
University of Oregon
Susan Daniels
California State University, San Bernardino
Christine Ditzler
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Kendall J. Eskine
Loyola University New Orleans
Karla K. Fehr
Case Western Reserve University
Jessica A. Hoffman
Eunsook Hong
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Rex E. Jung
University of New Mexico
James C. Kaufman
California State University, San Bernardino
Scott Barry Kaufman

New York University
Barbara A. Kerr
University of Kansas
263
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Kyung Hee Kim

College of William and Mary
Kimberly M. McCormick
Salisbury University
Susan J. Paik
Claremont Graduate University
Steven I. Pfeiffer
Florida State University
Jane Piirto
Ashland University
Jonathan A. Plucker
University of Connecticut
Sandra W. Russ
Sephira G. Ryman
University of New Mexico
Dean Keith Simonton

University of California, Davis
Bharath Sriraman
The University of Montana
Taylor L. Thompson
Florida State University
264

(Advances in Creativity and Giftedness 5) K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

(Advances in Creativity and Giftedness 5) K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Creatively Gifted Students are not like

Other Gifted Students

Advances in Creativity and Gifted Education (ADVA) is the first internationally

International Advisory Panel:

ISBN: 978-94-6209-234-1 (paperback)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved 2013 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

To my dear friends, Jim Weiner and Chip Goldstein- KHK

To my father Capt. S.R. Sriraman on his 75th birthday [10-08-2012]

Introduction to Creatively Gifted Students are not like Other

Nurturing Creativity in the Micro-moments of the Classroom 3

Incorporating Technology and Web Tools in Creativity Instruction 17

Aligning Program Goals, Student Selection, and Program Activities 39

Helping Children Develop Pretend Play Skills: Implications for

Nurturing Talent, Creativity, and Productive Giftedness:

Connecting Student Engagement to the Academic and

Career Development for Creatively Gifted Students: What Parents,

Grounding Creative Giftedness in the Body 153

Intelligence and Creativity: Their Relationship, with Special

But Isnt Everyone Creative? 213

Creativity from a Talent Development Perspective: How It Can Be

Author Affiliations 263

K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students

NURTURING CREATIVITY IN THE MICRO-MOMENTS

I vividly recall, as a new classroom teacher, trying to find ways to incorporate

K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students

teachers do in these moments has important implications for whether opportunities

CREATIVITY ENHANCEMENT EVERYDAY OR EXTRACURRICULAR?

Teachers commonly view creativity enhancement efforts as extra-curricular

Creative micromoments are brief, surprising moments of creative potential that

In the classroom context, creative micromoments emerge anytime the curriculum-as-

This typically involves attempting to redirect unexpected student responses in

Attempting to understand a students unexpected response, in the context of a

Multiple Students: Four!

ASKING KNOWN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND OTHER PATTERNS OF

AVOIDING CURRICULAR CHAOS

Although encouraging and exploring unexpected student ideas provide opportunities

DISMISSING UNEXPECTED IDEAS: AVOIDING CHAOS AND CREATIVITY

Dismissing unexpected ideas is an effective way to avoid curricular chaos. However,

DUAL RESPONSIBILITY: SUPPORTING LEARNING & CREATIVITY

SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS FOR REALIZING THE CREATIVE POTENTIAL

INCORPORATING TECHNOLOGY AND WEB TOOLS

K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students

Students in the 21st Century: Digital Natives

TECHNOLOGY AS A LEARNING TOOL IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Thomas Friedman (2005) famously described how spreading globalization, increased

Wikis Music editing Photo sharing

Blogs Web 2.0 tools

Personal Learning Environment (PLE)

Figure 1. An example of a basic Personal Learning Environment (PLE)

is a process of network formation comprised of making meaningful networks,

et al., 2006), students ability to self-regulate their learning is critical. Teachers in

in the traditional classroom environment have also been evidenced to be as effective

pockets of researchers who tested the effects of technology-integrated self-regulated

CREATIVITY EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

the knowledge economy (Thompson, 2009, p. 39). The Creative Partnerships

CREATIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM

Incorporating creativity in school curricula is essential for students life success.

ALIGNING PROGRAM GOALS, STUDENT

OVERVIEW AND BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively Gifted Students