teacher behaviors that foster creativity - numerons · pdf file19.04.2012 ·...

Educational Psychology Review, VoL 7, No. 2, 1995

Teacher Behaviors that Foster Creativity

Giselle B. Esquivel t,2

The literature on teacher behaviors that influence the development of creative abilities in children was reviewed. A historical overview of the concept of creativity within an educational context served to highlight the importance of the role of the teacher in providing the type of classroom environment that is conducive to creative learning. Teachers who show a humanistic philosophical orientation, have developed their own creative competencies, and implement specific creative methods and techniques in their classroom are more effective in enhancing students' creative abilities than teachers who follow more traditional instructional approaches.

KEY WORDS: creativity; teacher behaviors; curricula; education.

INTRODUCTION

The involvement of teachers in facilitating the development of creativity in students is a concept that evolved gradually as a result of (1) an increased understanding of the nature of creativity as a distinct process, amenable to training; (2) historical developments that led to educational reform and innovative practices, emphasizing giftedness and creative abilities; (3) research findings on teacher variables, instructional behaviors, and learning environments effective in fostering creativity; and (4) the development and evaluation of creative curriculum methods and programs to be implemented by the teacher in the classroom. This paper will review the state of the art in creative teaching within the context of the above educational developments and with a focus on the role of the teacher.

IFordham University, New York, New York. ZCorrespondence should be directed to Giselle Esquivel, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, 113 West 60th St., Room 1008, New York, NY 10023.

185

1040-726X/95/0(~0--0185507.50/00 1995 Plenum Publishing Corporation

186 Esquivel

THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY

Originally, creativity was perceived as an integral aspect of intelligence, largely hereditary and possessed primarily by a few highly endowed individuals (Galton, 1869; Terman, 1925). However, as multidimensional theories of intelligence and as the concept of diverse human abilities evolved (Gardner, 1983; Guilford, 1956, 1967; Sternberg, 1988; Thurstone, 1952), creativity came to be viewed as a construct that, although bearing some relation to intelligence (Getzels and Jackson, 1962; Haensley and Reynolds, 1989; WaUach, 1971; Wallach and Kogan, 1972), represents a unique and distinct aspect of human experience. Although creativity is a complex and multifaceted construct, for which there is no agreed-upon definition, it is viewed as a critical process involved in the generation of new ideas, the solution of problems, or the self-actualization of individuals, according to whichever theoretical perspective is espoused. In essence, creativity is rec- ognized as a fundamental dimension of giftedness (Marland, 1972; Treffin- ger, 1991a) that may, given the proper conditions, lead to exceptional accomplishments, productivity, or outcomes of potential value to society.

An increased understanding of the importance of creativity has resulted in further study of its nature and an emphasis, from an applied research perspective, on examining the possibility of its responsiveness to educational interventions. A significant question that underlies many research efforts, therefore, has been: Can creativity be taught?

Several decades of research on the nature of creativity has supported the assumption that creative abilities may be amenable to further development (HaUman, 1967; Hutchinson, 1967; Isaksen and Parries, 1985; Rose and Lin, 1984; Torrance, 1972, 1981a; Torrance and Safter, 1986). The nature-nurture position on creativity is predominantly an interactionist one. Although there is evidence for genetic factors in creativity, manifested in individual and gender differences, there is also strong support for the in- teractive role of environmental and sociocultural influences on the expression of creative abilities (Vernon, 1989; Torrance, 1969; Woodman and Schoenfeldt, 1989).

Obviously, proponents of creativity education have emphasized environmental variables over genetic factors, as being more relevant and fea- sible aspects to consider in impacting creativity development (Torrance, 1970, 1972, 1977a, 1986, 1987; Renzulli, 1977, 1991; Treffinger, 1986, 1991). It is argued, from a social-learning perspective, that individual and gender differences in creativity are, to a great extent, related to interaction with significant adults. For example, educators may show less encouraging re- sponses to female versus male students in terms of specific academic or creative tasks, particularly in the area of mathematics, which may result in

Teacher Behaviors that Foster Creativity 187

the lowering of female students' interest in that subject (Fox, 1977; Fox, Brody, and Tobin, 1980; Hutchinson, 1967; Vernon, 1989). However, the major premise for advocating educational efforts in creativity is the assumption that all individuals have the potential to be creative, that children are naturally creative, and that creativity may be a life long process (Maslow, 1968; May, 1975; Rogers, 1970; Torrance, 1987; "Ereffinger, 1989). This humanistic-developmental perspective appears to form the philosophical basis for creativite learning and creative teaching and has had significant educational implications.

CREATIVITY AND EDUCATION

There are several historical developments in the field of education, noted by various movements, that have provided support for the concept and the implementation of creative teaching (Treffinger, Isaksen, and Feir- stein, 1983).

Starting in the mid-1950s, American education was undergoing public scrutiny and criticism of its educational practices in comparison with the former Soviet Union's apparent superiority, particularly in the areas of scientific endeavor. The launching of the Sputnik satellite, symbolic of Soviet supremacy, made this rivalry more poignant and served as a turning point in American education. In response to this crisis, the National Defense Education Act was passed in 1958, as a comprehensive educational reform bill to strengthen teacher practices in the areas of math and science, foreign languages, and creative arts (Dow, 1991).

Major educational efforts, led by the National Science Foundation, helped to promote scientific research, reform of science education, the development of educational materials, teacher training, and dissemination of innovative educational ideas and programs. Attempts to reform education also led educators to re-examine such issues as the relation between schol- arship and teaching; the nature of the leaming process; the replacement of conventional approaches with experimental and nondirective methods; and the implementation of teaching strategies for stimulating inquiry, creativity, and self-directed learning (Dow, 1991). These innovative attempts were the precursors of current creative methods and approaches.

In the 1960s, the "open classroom movement" served as another impetus to creative education. One of the major goals of this movement was to foster creative thinking (Walberg and Thomas, 1972, Wright, 1975). Im- plementation of this goal included innovations with active learning, team teaching, independent learning, cooperative learning, and individualized instruction. According to a review by Horwitz (1979) on the effectiveness of

188 Esquivel

these open classroom practices, most efforts in this area showed positive psychological outcomes in terms of attitudes and resulted in creative development. Moreover, contrary to the expectations of critics of this movement, the gains in creativity were not made at the expense of academic achievement. Torrance and Goff (1989) view this point in time as the "start of a quiet and subtle revolution in the direction of greater emphasis on creative problem solving and creative expression," and as continuing to have at least a positive influence on education today. During this time, attention was also given to the creative characteristics and strengths of children from disadvantaged or culturally diverse backgrounds.

The 1970s may be characterized by a more conservative public mood regarding education, as a result of American space achievements, and as the impetus of curriculum reform in regular education began to wane (Dow, 1991). However, during the same time, the "gifted child movement" spurred the development of special programs for gifted students and the implementation of creative techniques and approaches (Davis, 1992). Yar- borough and Johnson (1983) conducted a survey to identify programs for the gifted and talented in the United States. Based on the 36 State De- partments of Education which responded, a total of 109 outstanding programs for the gifted and talented were identified.

In the 1980s, the decline in school performance, including the lowering of achievement test scores, led, once again, to questions about the quality of teaching. Research on teacher performance suggested that regular classroom teachers were still emphasizing traditional methods of rote learning and basic skill training, at the cost of higher-level thinking skills and creativity (Goodlad, 1990). The National Commission on Excellence in Educa- tion (1983) and other blue ribbon panels, formed to examine the problem, reported on the educational state of affairs as a "nation at risk" and highlighted the "rising tide of mediocrity" in our schools (Sikula, 1990). Ac- cording to Goodlad (1990), Torrance (1986) and others, not much has changed despite the increased research on creativity in education.

In the 1990's, a new paradigm shift seems to be taking place in education. A renewed emphasis on educational restructuring is based on a concern with providing more equitable opportunities for all children, including those who have limited English proficiency or who have special learning needs (Barkaa and Bernal, 1991; Gallagher, 1991; Vanqhssel-Baska, 1991). Accord- ing to Renzulli (1991), school reform initiatives, which have called into question programs for gifted students, may provide an opportunity for upgrading the performance and the development of strengths and potential abilities of all students. Creative teaching and practices for the gifted may be infused into the regular curriculum, as exemplified by such approaches as the schoolwide enrichment model. "lteffmger (1989, 1991b) argues that the notion that


only a few individuals are gifted or creative is false and that although not every one actually becomes gifted, anyone "might" have the possibility. It is the role of educators to enhance the creative potential of all students.

TEACHER BEHAVIORS AND CREATIVITY

The study of the teacher's role in creative teaching may be subsumed under the broad category of the "teacher effectiveness" research, which documents the impact that teachers have on student learning in general (Duncan, 1987; Houston, 1990; McKinnon, 1978). The research literature on teacher effectiveness in creative teaching is limited and, similar to this area in gifted education, lacks a well-integrated and coherent model. How- ever, Whitlock and DuCette (1989) have organized a review of this research in terms of (1) characteristics, (2) competencies, and (3) behaviors.

TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

According to Eggen and Kauchak (1988), research on teacher characteristics was based for many years on the assumption that teachers were "born and not made" and that their characteristics were somehow related to student learning. Methodologically, these studies failed to investigate whether these traits produced any differences in the classroom or in student performance. However, Ryans (1960) studied teacher effectiveness in terms of personality characteristics of teachers and their relation to observable classroom behavior and to student achievement. Among the characteristics he found that have relevance for general teaching practices, as well as for creative teaching, is the emphasis that exceptional teachers give to their interpersonal relationship with students. Characteristics attributed to teachers of the gifted that have been studied, may also be pertinent to creative teaching. Whitlock and DuCette's (1989) study and review of the literature in this area suggested that teachers who are the most effective in teaching gifted children show enthusiasm, empathy, dedication to students, personal flexibility, openness, creativity, and imagination.

Studies that relate teacher personality characteristics to creative development in students show a similar pattern. One of the most important characteristics of effective teachers is their attitude toward creativity and their ability to be accepting, open, and flexible in relating to students (Dacey, 1989). Teachers who possess these qualities tend to have a humanistic philosophical outlook on life (Torrance and Myers, 1970). Stein (1974) cites Torrance's description of these teachers as "highly sensitive, resource-

190 Esquivel

ful, flexible" and willing to "get off the beaten track." However, the most important quality of these teachers is "their capacity to form good relationships with students."

Consistent with Torrance's view, Halpin, Goldenberg, and Halpin (1990) found that more creative student teachers showed a more humanistic pupil control ideology. According to these findings, the more creative teachers tended to see students as capable of self-discipline in the context of a close personal teacher-student relationship. These teachers valued open communication and a flexible and democratic classroom atmosphere and stressed the importance of individual student needs and growth patterns.

On the other hand, the less creative student teachers tended to be more authoritarian in their pupil control orientation. They were more con- cerned with appearance, status and behavior, preferred impersonal relationships with students, and viewed student behavior more in moralistic than in psychological terms.

New students' perspectives on creative teachers also reflect the importance of interpersonal qualities. McGreevy (1990) surveyed students' re- flections about teachers they would nominate as the most creative teachers they ever had. The personality characteristics that surfaced in rank order were: a sense of humor, an open and accepting kind of mind; a willingness to share "a personal side"; a spontaneity in the classroom and an understanding of and caring for individual students, especially those who do not learn as fast as others. Interestingly, the majority of nominated creative teachers were men and were high school teachers.

The above findings suggest that teachers who enhance creative development tend to have a humanistic philosophical orientation, place high value on interpersonal relationships, and, in general, show characteristics of the creative personality. A critical question that may be raised is: Do teachers need to be creative themselves in order to be creative teachers? Gowan and Bruch (1967) describe the characteristics that make a creative individual a creative teacher. However, according to Stein (1974), although some people would answer this question affirmatively, based on their pref- erence for an apprenticeship model of teaching, others would argue that the creative individual is too involved in creative pursuits and has limited time left "to give" to students.

It is possible that creative characteristics and abilities alone are not sufficient. For example, Torrance's (1987) review of studies on teacher variables suggested that teachers' creative motivation was stronger than teachers' creative abilities in influencing student creativity. The fact is that research on the causal relations among teacher creativity, classroom behavior, and student creative development shows inconclusive data (Houtz,


LeBlanc, and Butera, 1992). There is support, however, for the indirect effects that teacher creativity may have on student learning and creative thinking. When teachers are exposed through training to creative methods and activities, they are likely to show attitudes and behaviors that are more receptive to their students' creativity (McConnell and LeCapitaine, 1988; Treffinger, Ripple, and Dacey, 1968). It seems important, therefore, not only to enhance teachers' creative characteristics and abilities, but also to train them in specific creative teaching competencies.

TEACHER COMPETENCIES

The competencies of teachers in the areas of giftedness and creativity have been studied as an integration of characteristics and cognitive dimen- sions and as goals to be attained through preservice teacher training (Whit- lock and DuCette, 1989). Houtz (1992) reviewed the literature in the above area and suggested the need to develop creative teacher competencies in creative thinking, problem solving, experiential methods and activities, teaching as an art, reflective thinking; and the ability to use research to guide classroom practices. These latter competencies are based on the view of teachers as "reflective practitioners" or as professionals who apply their own critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving ability to their classroom instruction.

The concept of the "expert teacher" is also receiving renewed emphasis in terms of its implications for enhancing teacher competencies (Brandt, 1986; Feden, Vogel, and Clabaugh, 1992; Weinert, 1990; Welker, 1950; West- ernab, 1991). On the positive side, the expert teacher is viewed as one who demonstrates (a) thinking in action; (b) multiple points of view and a wide perspective; (c) active, sensitive and deliberate involvement in a situation; (d) relevance in content; and (e) problem-framing strategies. However, Welker (1991), questions that if the expert model of teaching involves such degrees of specialization and preciseness, there it may actually stifle student creativity and independent learning. Although content expertise and teaching competence are necessary, it is also important that teachers develop the ability to transfer these competencies to their relationship with students and to the learning environment in the form of creative behaviors.

TEACHER BEHAVIORS

Creative teacher behaviors may be classified into (9) "molecular" behaviors, involving the more concretely defined and measurable activities

192 Esquivel

and techniques employed by the teacher and observable in interactions with students; and (b) "molar" behaviors, referring to the more global notions and approaches that teachers employ as a reference point in creating a learning atmosphere conducive to creativity (Houtz, 1992). Studies on both molar and molecular aspects of creative teaching have served to develop theoretical models of effective teaching, which, in turn, have been refined to serve as guidelines for teacher classroom behaviors.

MOLAR BEHAVIORS

Although there are several models that may form the basis for effective specific or "molar" creative teaching behaviors only three representative models that emphasize the creative process, creative enrichment, and creative problem solving and productivity will be reviewed. The models are Tor- rance's Incubation Model, Renzulli's Enrichment Triad Model, and Treffinger's Enrichment ~iad Model.

Torrance's Incubation Model of creative instruction (1979) refers to the stage in the creative process when unconscious or subconscious elements are involved in the free association of symbols, images and ideas, and in the rehearsal of alternative relationships that may lead to problem solving (Wallas, 1926). The incubation model of creative teaching has three consecutive stages or phases that have implications for specific teaching behaviors: (1) the "heightening anticipation" stage, (2) the "deepening expectations" stage, and (3) the "keeping it going" stage.

Torrance and Safter (1990) suggest behavioral activities for each stage. The first stage involves attention-getting and warm-up activities to prepare the student to adopt a relaxed and motivated attitude and a divergent thinking state of mind. Some of the behavioral activities suggested for this stage are presenting ambiguities or uncertain ideas, asking questions to raise expectations, stimulating curiosity, looking for different viewpoints, giving clues or hints, and asking provocative questions to stimulate new ideas.

The second stage in the Incubation Model involves becoming more engrossed in the creative task by analyzing and reflecting on the nature of the problem(s) involved and by personalizing the problem on an affective level. The behavioral activities for this stage include heightening awareness, practicing elaboration of ideas, using mysteries as curriculum content, stressing divergent thinking, introducing surprises, and developing imagery and imagination.

The third stage involves the ability to "keep going" with the creative endeavor or to show persistence and sustained effort in generating new


ideas or alternatives. This phase may also require that the student transfer the process to settings outside the classroom and find opportunities for further exploration and experimentation on their own. The teaching behaviors suggested for this stage are playing with ambiguities, deepening awareness of gaps or missing pieces, challenging students to respond con- structively, requiring experimentation, examining fantasies to find solutions to real problems, and encouraging future projections.

Another major creative teaching model with implications for behavioral activities is the Enrichment "II'iad Model developed by Renzulli (1977). This model also includes three sequential stages: Type I enrichment involves "general exploratory activities," Type II enrichment involves "group training activities" to promote the development of thinking and feeling processes, and Type III enrichment activities involve the "investigation of real problems." In Type I enrichment, teachers identify topics of interest to students and provide opportunities for structured activities in the form of classroom learning centers or field trips and the use of community resources. This is an exploratory stage in which students are encouraged to investigate on their own. Type II activities involve specific training in thinking skills and feeling processes. Some of the processes include problem solving, critical thinking, reflective thinking, divergent thinking, hypothesiz- ing, inquiry techniques, and creative thinking. Bloom's (1956) and Krath- wohrs (1964) taxonomic skills may be used as the basis for the development of higher-level thinking skills.

Treffinger (1991a) describes the Creative Productivity Model of instruction. This model also constitutes a "three stage approach" for nurturing productivity. Level 1 represents the "basic tool for creative and critical thinking. Level 2 involves learning and practicing a systematic approach to problem solving, drawing upon and extending the basic creative thinking tools. Level 3 involves the application of the systematic, creative problem solving process to real problems. Rather than prescribing teaching behaviors in absolute terms, Treffinger (1986) suggests the importance of different behaviors at different levels in the learning process. The instructional behaviors for Level 1 involve the direct teaching of thinking skills and their integration into existing course content. The specific activities or techniques that may be used include brainstorming, attribute listing, idea checklists, forced relationships, morphological analogies and others. Level 2 activities are geared to extending the usefulness of tlae thinking skill "tools" by the systematic practice of steps or processes for creative problem solving. Some of the activities suggested include case studies, simulation, role playing, and future-scene scenarios. At this level, the teacher shifts from "teaching about" thinking skills to leading the students in their efforts to master and apply problem solving methods. Level

194 Esquivel

3 teaching activities are facilitative in nature and involve the transfer of problem solving skills to real-life problems and situations. Examples of the activities include involvement in the actual concerns of students, in community needs, or in special projects.

MOLECULAR BEHAVIORS

For effective teaching to occur, it may be important that specific teacher behaviors be based on a creative attitude or philosophical orientation that is pervasive of his or her interactions with students and of the learning environment in general (Martindale, 1989). The more global or "molar" behaviors represent the teacher's attempt to provide a learning atmosphere that is consistent with a creative methodology and that is sup- portive of day-to-day creative behaviors and techniques (Houtz, 1992). In essence, the teacher creates a classroom atmosphere that is stimulating and that facilitates creative learning (Heck, 1978).

Amabile (1989) presents a philosophical basis for a creative teaching environment where (a) learning is made to seem important and fun to both students and teachers; (b) students are made to feel worthy, loved and respected; (c) students are active learners; (d) students have a sense of ownership and pride in their classrom and school; (e) teachers act like resources, coaches and advisers; (f) students feel they can discuss their problems in an open manner; (g) cooperative learning methods are used more often than competitive methods; and (h) learning experiences are made relevant to students' lives.

Feldheusen and Treffinger (1977) suggest the following classroom goals: define creative-thinking and problem-solving processes and abilities; be explicit in specifying the processes, skills and content you wish the students in your class to learn and develop; try out your plans and ideas before you begin to use them in your class; create an atmosphere in your class in which creative learning can occur; employ a variety of instructional activities, alternative media, teaching methods, and learning products; and con- duct careful reviews and evaluations of your own projects and efforts, and of student learning, and plan revisions accordingly.

Among the characteristics of a creative teaching style suggested by students in McGreevy's (1990) survey are the following: Do not always lecture; use interdisciplinary projects; relate real events; give attention to student interests and choices; use open-ended questions in class and on tests; encourage questions from students and explore their opinions; allow independent study; and help students get ideas when none are flowing.


Torrance's (1965) suggestions for rewarding creative behavior are: be respectful of unusual questions; be respectful of imaginative, unusual ideas; show your students that their ideas have value; occasionally have students do something for practice; and tie in evaluation with causes and consequences.

Frederiksen (1984) identified several themes within the creative teaching literature: allow time for incubation; suspend judgment; establish social climates that encourage and support imagination, playfulness, and original- ity; show respect for students' ideas; use training methods which require analyzing of ideas, and manipulating and combining of elements; teach un- derlying cognitive abilities; and provide practice with feedback in an environment where no negative stigma is attached to failure.

In general, a review of the literature (Houtz, 1990) suggests that a creative learning environment is characterized by democratic and open interactions, by an atmosphere of safety to experiment with ideas, by student-initiated and cooperative learning activities, by nondirective teaching methods, and by a responsiveness to individual needs of students.

Creative Curriculum Methods and Programs

A number of curriculum methods, techniques and programs may also form the basis for teachers' specific and global behaviors in the classroom. Curriculum methods in creative teaching may be classified according to theoretical models of creativity proposed by Gowan (1972) and Treffinger, Isaksen and Firestien (1985). These models include cognitive, personality or affective, social and interpersonal, biological, perceptual and nonrational or psychedelic perspectives. Although there is overlap in the application of the various perspectives, teaching methods tend to emphasize certain processes more than others.

Developmental stage theory (Gowan, 1981a) has had implications for the use of play and fantasy, particularly in early childhood methods (Cor- nelius and Casler, 1991; Hildebrand; 1991, Runco; 1991). Curriculum methods based on information-processing theory emphasize the role of teachers as being actively involved in directing and guiding students in the analysis of information, in the development of cognitive strategies for problem solving, and in the attainment of higher-order conceptual reasoning skills (Eggen and Hauchach, 1979; Idol and Jones, 1991; Samson, 1979; Stern- berg, 1988). The systematic development of thinking skills is another approach based on cognitive theory (Beyer, 1987). Basically, some cognitive psychologists propose that teaching cognitive strategies following a problem-solving model will enable students to transfer learning to novel prob-

196 Esquivel

lem-solving situations (Mumford, Baughman, Costanza, Uhlman, and Con- nelly, 1993). Other psychologists have argued that training in creative thinking should involve real-life or future goal-directed problems in order for creativity to have any productive significance (Okuda, Runco, and Berger, 1991; Renzulli, 1983; ~effinger, 1986).

Some instructional approaches are more domain-specific, based on the assumption that individuals are not globally creative but tend to develop and express their creative abilities in specific ways and areas. For example, Khatena's (1987) training in imagery and visual imagination processes and the use of creative arts, music, and movement to develop right hemisphere imagery and creativity (Bums, 1988; Gowan, 1981b; Houtz and Frankel, 1992; Torrance, 1981b, 1987) have a sensorial and perceptual basis. Fol- lowing this approach, a teacher might involve students in imagery activities, such as visualizing rearrangements of patterns or musical tunes; engage students in the use of several sense modalities to explore a variety of rhythms; or provide materials, such as fairy tales, folk stories, myths, and fables, which enrich imagery in creative writing (Gowan, 1981b; Torrance, 1981b). Creative methods for bilingual and linguistically diverse students (Barkaa and Bernal, 1991; Kessler and Quinn, 1987; Snyman and de Kock, 1991) are based on psycholinguistic theories. The teacher may build on the bilingual student's cognitive flexibility, or may use verbal playfulness in the form of puns and storytelling, to enhance these students' creative learning (Martorell, Esquivel, and Carrasquillo, 1994).

Parnes (1968) provides a list and a description of techniques that may be appropriate to use at different times or levels of instruction, depending on the model of creativity. The techniques most often used in school settings are: attribute listing, awareness development, braintorming, checklists, forced relationships, role playing, morphological analysis, psychodrama, synectics, modeling, and others. These techniques may also be classified according to theoretical perspectives on creativity. For example, brainstorming involves cognitive associative processes for creative problem solving. The application of computer technology to creative instruction may be based on information processing and cognitive theory (Clements, 1991). Role playing, synectics and sociodrama are more pertinent and are found to be more effective for personality and affective processes (Stein, 1974).

Various structured creativity programs have been developed, implemented, and evaluated. Mansfield, Busse, and Krepelka (1978) provide a review of some of the 1960s programs. Feldheusen and ~effinger (1977) review several programs, books, and commercially available materials with goals for the classroom. Torrance (1987) found the Osbom-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Program to be one of the most widely used and most successful program~ for enhancing creativity. Among other programs found


to be effective, at least in some aspect of creative development, are Covin- ton's Productive Thinking Program, CORT Thinking Skills, the Creative Problem Solving Model, and The Purdue Creative Thinking Program. Houtz (1992) provided a classification system for creativity programs on the basis of their relationship to curriculum content. Infused programs emphasizing more content-specific skills, include William's Total Program for Humanizing and Bruner's Man: A Course of Study. Intermediary programs have some connections to curriculum. Some examples are the Structure of Intellect Model, Instrumental Enrichment, Philosophy for Children, and Parnes' Productive Thinking Programs. Abstract and generic skills programs include deBono's Cognitive Research q~'ust and The Ideal Problem Solver.

More recent programs and approaches for overall school planning include: Odyssey of the Mind; The Pyramid Project; Renzulli's School Wide Enrichment Model, with curriculum compacting and enrichment cluster components; and Taylor's Multiple Talent Pole Model, implemented in the Key School in Indianapolis (Davis, 1992; Renzulli and Reis, 1985).

New Directions and Future Research

The direction taken by historical developments in educational reform, as discussed in previous sections, suggests an emphasis on providing quality education to all children. This educational aim gives added importance to the role of the teacher in enhancing the creative abilities of each individual student in the classroom. Because students vary in terms of their learning and cognitive styles as a result of developmental, gender, personality, cul- tural, and linguistic differences or based on special learning needs, it is important that teachers understand these differences and adapt their teaching and behaviors in ways that are appropriate for the unique needs of students (Baum, 1990; Barkaa and Bernal, 1991; Van Tassel-Baska, 1991). According to "li'effmger (1991), educators need to become "resources for the nurture of creativity among all individuals"; therefore, greater understanding of individual learning differences, as these relate to creativity, should be a critical research goal. A basis for this area of study may be found in the literature on differences in learning and thinking styles (Dunn and Dunn, 1978; Halpern, 1986; Messick, 1976) and on culturally diverse gifted students (Esquivel, 1985; Martorell, Esquivel, and Houtz, 1992; Ki- tano, 1986, Lopez, Esquivel, and Houtz, 1993; Renzulli, 1973; Torrance, 1977b; Valencia, 1985).

Another related area that needs further study and implementation, and which is often neglected in education, is the affective and personality aspects that influence learning and, in this case, creative learning or the ex-

198 Esquivel

pression of creative abilities. For example, Torrance (1979) pointed to the affective aspects of creativity, including humor and emotional awareness. The importance of motivation as a dimension of creativity and of intrinsic motivation as an integral part of the creative process has been highlighted (Am.abile, 1989; Renzulli, 1977). Research in this area needs to focus on teacher attitudes and behaviors that promote student attainment of characteristics that are associated with creative functioning, such as flexibility, openness, and persistence. Moreover, because the nature of the relationship between teacher and student is an essential aspect of creative development, it is important to study further the potential effects of mentoring relationships on the link between affective and creative growth (Torrance, 1984).

CONCLUSION

Creativity is a unique and integral aspect of human experience and an important educational goal. Its development is of potential value for individual self-actualization and expression and of benefit to others and society. Teachers may play a significant role in fostering the development of creative abilities in all students through their philosophical outlook and attitudes, the learning environment they provide, the instructional approaches they implement, and their relationship and behavioral interaction with students. Educators need to be aware of research-based findings on what constitute the best practices in the above areas, yet they must also realize that creative teaching is in itself a creative process.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to acknowledge Susan McCann for her contri- bution to some aspects of the literature search and review.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up Creative: Nurturing a Lifetime of Creativity, Crown, New York. Barkaa, J. H., and Bernal, E. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English

proficient students. Gifted Child Quart. 35(3): 144-147. Beyer, B. (1987). Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking, Allyn & Bacon, Boston,

MA. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook L" Cognitive Domain, David

McKay, New York.


Brandt, R. S. (1986). On the expert teacher: A conversation with David Berliner. Educ. Leadership 44(22): 4-9.

Burns, M. T. (1988). Music as a tool for enhancing creativity. Z Creative Behav., 22(1): 63-69. Clements, D. H. (1991). Enhancement of creativity in computer environments. Am. Educ.

Res. J. 28, 173-187. Cornelius, G., and Casler, J. (1991). Enhancing creativity in young children: Strategies for

teachers. Early Child Devel, Care, 72: 99-106. Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of Creative Thinking, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Davis, G. (1992). Creativity is Forever, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA. Dow, J. (1991). Schoolhouse Politics, Harvard University Press, MA. Duncan, M. (ed.) (1987). International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education,

Pergamon, Elmsford, NY. Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles:

A Practical Approach, Reston Publishing Company, Reston, VA. Eggen, P., and Kanchack, D. (1988). Strategies .for Teachers: Teaching Content and Thinking

Ski//s, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Esquivel, G. B. (1985). The effects of special classroom placement on the creativity,

self-concept, and academic achievement of culturally different gifted children. SABE J. 1: 18-25.

Feden, P. D., Vogel, R. M., and Clabaugh, G. K. (1992). Preparing expert teachers: Transcending the school-as-factory. Educ. Horizons 70: 130-134.

Feldheusen, J. F., and Treffinger, D. T. (1977). Teaching Creative Thinking and Problem Solving, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.

Fox, L H. (1977). Sex differences: Implications for program planning for the academically gifted. In Stanley, J. C., George, W.C., and Solano, C.H. (eds.). The Gifted and the Creative: A Fifty Year Perspective, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 113-138.

Fox, L. H., Brody, L , and Tobin, D. (1980). Women and the Mathematical Mystique, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Frededksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Rev. Educ. Res. 54: 363-407.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Educational reform, values and gifted students. Gifted Child Quart. 35(1): 12-19.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Book

Publishers, New York. Getzels, J. W., and Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and Intelligence: Exploration with Gifted

Students, Wiley, New York. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Gowan, J. C. (1972). The Development of the Creative Individual, Knapp, San Diego, CA. Gowan, J. C. (1981a). The use of developmental stage theory in helping gifted children become

creative. In Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., and Torrance, E. P. (eds.). Creativity: 1is Enducational Implications. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, pp. 72-88.

Gowan, J. C. (1981b). Art and music as stimulants to right hemisphere imagery and creativity. In Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (eds.), Creativity: Its Educational Implications, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, pp. 152-155.

Gowan, J. C., and Bruch, C. (1971). What makes a creative person a creative teacher? In Gowan, J. C., and Torrance, E. P. (eds.), Educating the Ablest, Peacock, Itasca, I L pp. 165-176.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychol. Bull, 53: 267-293. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw Hill, New York. Haensley, P. A., and Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Creativity and intelligence. In Glover, J. A.,

Ronning, R. R., and Reynolds, C. R. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 111-132.

Halpin, G., Goldenberg, R., and Halpin G. (1990). Are creative teachers more humanistic in their pupil control ideologies? J. Creative Behav. 7(4): 282-286.

200 Esquivel

Hallman, R. (1967). Techniques of creative teaching. J. Creative Behav. 67: 325-330. Heek, S. (1978). The creative classroom environment: A stage-set design. J. Creative Behav.,

12, 120-133. Hildebrand, V. (1991). Young children's care and education: Creative teaching and

management. Early Child Development and Care, 71: 99-106. Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the "open classroom." Rev. ofEduc. Res. 49:

71-86. Houston, W. R. (1990). Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan. Houtz, J. C. (1990). Environments that support creative thinking. In Hedley, C., Houtz, J.,

and Baratta, A. (eds.), Cognition, Curriculum and Literacy, Abler., Norwood, NJ., pp. 61-76.

Houtz, J. C. (October 1992). Pre-service Teacher Education for Creative and Critical Thinking. Paper presented at the Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal Conference, Critical Thinking Institute, Montclair State College, NJ.

Houtz, J. C., and Frankel, A. D. (1992). Effects of incubation and imagery training on creativity. Creativity Res. J. 5(2): 183-189.

Houtz, J. C., Le Blanc, E., and Butera, T. (in press). Personality Type, Creativity, and Teaching Style in Student Teachers. J. Classroom Interact.

Hutchinson, W. L. (1967). Creative and productive thinking in the classroom. J. Creative Behav. 1: 419-427.

Idol, L, and Jones, B. F. (1991). Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for Reform, Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

lsaksen, S. G., and Parnes, S. J. (1985). Curriculum planning for creative thinking and problem solving. J. Creative Behav., 19(1): 1-29.

Kessler, C., and Quinn, M. E. (1987). Language minority children's linguistic and cognitive creativity. J.. Multiling. Multicult. DeveL 8: 173-186.

Khatena, J. (1987). Imagery and creative imagination. In S.G. Isaksen (ed.). Frontiers of Creativity Research; Beyond the Basics, Bearly Limited, Buffalo, NY, pp. 314-340.

Kitano, M. IC (1986). Gifted and talented Asian children. Rural Spec. Educ. Quart. 8(1): 9-13.

Krathwohl, D. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I1." Affective Domain, David McKay, New York.

Lopez, E. C., Esquivel, O. B., and Houtz, J. C. (1993). Exploring the creativity skills of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse students. Creativity Res. J.

MacKJnnon, D. W. (1978). In Search of Human Effectiveness: Identifying and Developing Creativity, Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, NY.

Mansfield, R. S., Busse, T. V., and Krepelka, E. J. (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Rev. Educ. Res. 48: 517-536.

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. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In Olover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 211-232.

Martorell, M. F., Esquive!, G. B., and Houtz, J. C. (March 1992). Bilingualism and Creativity. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Conference, Nashville, Tennessee.

Martorell, M. F., Esquivel, G. B., and Carrasquillo, A. (in press). Language proficiency, creativity, and locus of control among Hispanic bilingual gifted children. J. Educ. Iss. Lang. Minority Stud.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychoiogy of Being, D. Van Nostrand CO., New York. May, IL (1975). The Courage to Create, W.W. Norton, New York. McConnell, D. M., and Le Capitaine, J. E. (1988). The effects of group creativity training in

teachers' empathy and interaction with students. Reading Improvement 25: 269-275. McGreevy, A. (1990). Tracking the creative teacher. Momentum 21(1): 57-59.


Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. E., Costanza, D. P., Uhlman, C. E., and Connelly, M. S. (1993). Developing creative capacities: Implications of cognitive processing models. Roeper Rev. 16(1): 16-21.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk." The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Okuda, S. M., Rune.o, M. A., and Berger, D. C. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 9(4): 5-53.

Parnes, S. J. (1968). Methods and educational programs for stimulating creativity: A representative list. 3". Creative Beh. 2: 71-75.

Renzulli, J. (1977). The Enrichment Triad ModeL" A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented, Creative Learning Press, Wethersfield, CN.

Renzulli, J. S. (1983). Guiding the gifted in the pursuit of real problems: The transformed role of the teacher. J. Creative Beh. 17: 49-59.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive Plan for Educational Excellence, Creative Learning Press, Mansfield Center, CT.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quart. 35(1): 26-35.

Rogers, C. R. (1970). Towards a theory of creativity. In Vernon, P. E. (ed.), Creativity, Penguin Books, Suffolk, England.

Rose, L H., and Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. J. Creative Behav. 18(1): 11-22.

Runco, M. A. (1990). The divergent thinking of young children: Implications of the research. Gifted Child Today 13(4): 37-39.

Ryans, D. (1960). Characteristics of Teachers: A Research Study. Their Description, Comparison, and Appraisal. American Council on Education, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 60-7727, Washington D.C.

Samson, R. W. (1970). Problem Solving Improvement, McGraw Hill, New York. Sikula, J. (1990). National commission reports of the 1980s. In Houston, W.R. (ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teacher Education, Macmillan, New York, pp. 78-82. Snyman, R., and de Kock, D. M. (1991). Problem solving and creative thinking in structured

second language teaching. J. Creative Behav. 25(3): 228-240. Stein, M. I. (1974). Stimulating Creativity. Volume L Individual Procedures. Academic Press,

NY. Sternberg, R. (ed.) (1988). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psyhological Approaches,

Cambridge University Press, New York. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. In Genetic

Studies of Genius (VoL I), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Thurstone, L. L. (1952). Creative talent. In Thurstone, L.L. (ed.), Applications of Psycholog),,

Harper, New York. Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding Creative Behavior:. Experiments in Classroom Creativity,

Prentice-Hall, Engiewood Cliff.s, NJ. Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creative positives of disadvantaged children and youth. Gifted Child

Quart. 13: 71-81. Torrance, E. P. (1970). Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom, William C. Brown, Dubuque,

IA. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? J. Creative Behav. 6: 114-143. Torrance, E. P. (1977a). Creativity in the Classroom. What Research Says to the Teacher,

National Education Association, Washington, D.C. Torrance, E. P. (1977b). Discovery and Nurturance of Giftedness in the Culturally Different,

Council for Exceptional Children, Reston, VA. Torrance, E. P. (1979). The Search for Satori and Creativity, Creative Education Foundation,

Buffalo, NY. Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Can creativity be increased by practice? Creative teaching makes a

difference. In Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., and Torrance, E. P. (eds.), Creativity: Its Educational Implications, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, pp. 99-108.

202 Esquivel

Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Ten ways of helping young gifted children in creative writing and speech. In Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., and Torrance, E.P. (eds.), Creativity: Its Educational Implications, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.

Torrance, E. P. (1984). Mentor Relationships: How They Aid Creative Achievement, Endure, Change and Die, Beady Limited, Buffalo, NY.

Torrance, E. P. (1986). Teaching gifted and creative learners. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Third Handbook of Research on Teaching, Macmillan, New York, pp. 630-647.

Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity R?.search, Beady Limited, New York, pp. 189-215.

Torrance, E. P., and Goff, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. J. Creative Behav. 23(2): 136-145. Torrance, E. P., and Myers, R. (1970). Creative Learning and Teaching, Dodd, Mead, & Co.,

New York, NY. Torrance, E. P., and Salter, H. T. (1990). The Incubation Model of Teaching: Getting Beyond

the Aha! Bearly Limited, Bufalo, N'Y. Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quart. 30(1): 15-19. Treffinger, D. J. (1989). From potentials to productivity: Designing the journey to 2000. Gifted

Child Today 17-21. Treffinger, D. J. (1991a). Creative productivity: Understanding its sources and nurture. Illinois

Court Gifted J. 10: 6-9. Treffinger, D. J. (1991b). School reform and gifted education--Opportunities and issues.

Gifted Child Quart. 35: 1, 6-11. Treffinger, D. J. (1992). Productive thinking. J. Gifted Talented Educ. Coun. Alberta Teachers'

Assoc. 6(2): 23-33. Treffinger, D. J., Ripple, R. E., and Dacey, J. S. (1968). Teachers' attitudes about creativity.

J. Creative Behav., 68(2): 242-246. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., and Firestien, R. L. (1985). J. Creative Behav. 17(1): 9-17. Valencia, A. A. (1985). Curricular perspectives for gifted limited English proficient students.

NABE 10, 65-77. Van TasseI-Baska, J. (1991). Gifted education in the balance. Building relationships with

general education. Gifted Child Quart. 35(1): 20-25. Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In Glover, J. A., Ronning,

R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 93-108.

Walberg, H., and Thomas, S. (1972). Open education: An operational definition and validation in Great Britain and United States. Am. Educ. Res. J. 9: 197-208.

Wallach, M. (1971). The Intelligence~Creativity Distinction, Harper & Row, New York. Wallach, M. A., and Kogan, N. (1972). Creativity and intelligence in children. In Rothenberg,

A., and Hausman, C. R. (eds.), The Creativity Question, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 208-217.

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought, Harcourt, New York. Weinert, F. E. (1990). Educational expertise: Closing the gap between educational research

and classroom practice. School PsychoL Int. 11(3): 163-180. Welker, R. (1991). Expertise and the teacher as expert: Rethinking a questionable metaphor.

Am. Educ. Res. J. 28(1): 19-35. Whitlock, M. S., and DuCette, J. P. (1989). Outstanding and average teachers of the gifted:

A comparative study: Gifted Child Quart. 33(1): 15-21. Williams, F. (1972). A Total Program for Individualizing and Human~'ng the Learning Process,

Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Woodman, R. W., and Shoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior.

The J. Creative Behav. 24(1): 10-20. Wright, R. J. (1975). The affective and cognitive consequences of an open education

elementary school. Am. Educ. Res. J. 12: 449-468. Yarborough, B., and Johnson, R. (1983). Identifying the gifted: A theory-practice gap. Gifted

Child Quart. 27(3): 135-138.

teacher behaviors that foster creativity - numerons · pdf file19.04.2012 ·...

Documents