Creativity, Giftedness and Education
Maud Besançon
To cite this version:
Maud Besançon. Creativity, Giftedness and Education. Gifted and talented International Journal,
Taylor and Francis, 2013, 28 (1&2), pp.149-161. 10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410. hal-01393542
HAL Id: hal-01393542
https://hal.parisnanterre.fr//hal-01393542
Submitted on 9 Nov 2016
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Creativity, giftedness and education
Maud Besançon
Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
Laboratoire CHArt (EA4004)
Author’s address :
Laboratoire CHArt (EA 4004)
UFR SPSE, Bâtiment C
Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
200 avenue de la République
92001 Nanterre Cedex, France
e-mail : maudbesancon.psy@gmail.com
Creativity, giftedness and education
-2-
ABSTRACT
In this article, conceptions of creativity in giftedness and their implications for
education are reviewed. First, the definition of giftedness is examined taking into
consideration the difference between intellectual giftedness and creative giftedness and the
difference between potential and talent. Second, the nature of creativity based on the
multivariate approach is explored. Third, various measures of creativity are presented. Finally,
the effect of different pedagogical methods and the influence of teachers on the development
of creativity are examined.
Creativity, giftedness and education
-3-
The education of gifted children represents an important engagement of a society for
its future development. Numerous conceptions of giftedness have been proposed. Most have
focused on academic achievement and a superior level of intellectual ability, measured by IQ
tests (Feldman, 1982; Lubart, 2006). However, there have been recent calls for an expanded
view of giftedness, taking into account multiple facets of cognitive functioning, including
creativity (Gagné, 2004; Gardner, 1983; Lubart, 2006; Sternberg, 1985). Professionals who
work with gifted students recognize that creativity is a salient issue and creative thinking is
often a major part of gifted educational programs. Four issues are examined in this article.
First, the differences between intellectual and creative giftedness are addressed. Second, a
multivariate approach to creativity is presented. Third, different measures of creativity are
examined. Fourth, implications for education are exposed, with attention to the influence of
teachers and pedagogical methods.
CREATIVITY, POTENTIAL, TALENT
Is creativity a part of intelligence and giftedness?
For some, intelligence is viewed as a general capacity (Binet & Simon, 1905; Huteau
& Lautrey, 1999), others see it as a set of distinct capacities (Gardner, 1983), and finally some
propose a system of capacities organized in a hierarchical way (Horn & Cattel, 1966;
Gustaffson, 1984). In each perspective the question of creativity has been raised. For Binet
and Simon (1905), imagination is a basic mental function. In their tests, they included a few
open-ended items such as generating rhyming words or completing sentences to measure this
aspect of intelligence. In the theory of multiple intelligence, Gardner (1983) distinguishes
various intellectual abilities organized according to the type of cognitive stimuli. Each
Creativity, giftedness and education
-4-
intelligence involves a particular cognitive content: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical,
spatial, kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and interpersonal. For Gardner, people may be
creative in each of these intellectual domains and the nature of the creative intelligence
depends on the domain of activity. Finally, Horn and Cattel (1966) make a distinction
between fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is the capacity for
context-independent reasoning whereas crystallized intelligence is the use of acculturated,
context-dependent learning. Creative intelligence involves both aspects of intelligence.
Indeed, the search for new ideas relies on analogical thinking, evaluation and deductive
reasoning; for crystallized abilities, domain-specific knowledge must be applied to select
which information is relevant to understand and solve the problem.
Thus most conceptions of intelligence suggest that creativity must be taken into
account. However, intelligence tests almost never measure creativity. The first studies
concerning gifted children focused on intellectual capacities. Indeed, one of the first
measurements used to identify gifted children was the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) equal or
higher than 130 (Gowan, 1971). The use of IQ to identify gifted children has limits. The
results with such tests (1) provide a measure of the success of the pupil at a given moment, (2)
do not study talents which one could observe apart from academic success (Mulhern, 2003).
Many authors consider that creativity is a basic capacity for any form of high
potential. In particular, Renzulli (1979; 1986) postulates that high potential in any field of
activity stems from three components: (1) above-average general intellectual capacities, as
measured by traditional tests of intelligence; (2) engagement in the task, which includes
factors such as enthusiasm, interest, perseverance, eagerness, openness to criticism; and (3)
creativity which includes fluency, flexibility and originality of thought, openness to new
experiences, curiosity, risk taking and aesthetic sensibility.
Creativity, giftedness and education
-5-
Gagné (1983) has questioned this model. One of the issues is whether creativity is a
systematic component of high potential for all fields or sub-fields of endeavor. For example,
in the field of dance, a choreographer must be creative in order to propose new sequences, a
new choreography, whereas the dancer, interprets this choreography; so the dancer is not
necessarily creative, rather expressing best what is required by the choreographer. In sports,
there is the example of Fosberry who invented a new way of executing the high jump; a
creative accomplishment. However, most gifted and talented athletes who compete in the high
jump for field and track seek to execute it as well as possible without any concern for
creativity.
According to Maker (1993), intelligence and creativity are capacities that play
different roles in the phenomena of high potential depending on the nature of the problem
with which the individual is confronted. Different types of problems emphasize either
intelligence or creativity. The problems that involve creativity tend to have a vague
formulation, require a solution to be invented, and often do not have a single “right” answer.
This position is consistent with the view that the distinction between intelligence and
creativity is an artificial one; perhaps, there is a continuum from intellectual to creative
giftedness which is more or less pronounced depending on the domain and the nature of the
task in the domain (Runco & Albert, 1986). We will now examine the differences between
potential and the realization of this potential.
Differences between potential and talent
It is one thing to have potential and another to express it, to put it to use effectively.
For example, certain studies of children with a high IQ (Peters, Grager-Loidl & Supplee,
2000; Reis & McCoach, 2002) found that some do not show the expected academic
performance. Rather, these children underachieve, showing low or failing grades, and clearly
do not express their potential. According to Gagné (1983), the gift corresponds to a
Creativity, giftedness and education
-6-
competence that is definitely higher than average in one or more fields of skills. Talent is
defined as a performance definitely higher than average in one or more fields of human
activity. These definitions highlight that a person with talent is necessarily a gifted one. On
the contrary, any child with high potential does not necessarily express this "gift". For Gagné
(1983), motivation makes it possible to transform the gift into talent.
The phenomenon of "underachievement", the gap between giftedness and talent, is not
limited to academic performance. Olszewski-Kubilius (2000) highlights the gap between
children’s giftedness and their creative productiveness; different kinds of factors explain this
discontinuity - environmental conditions in childhood and stable individual characteristics
such as motivation and personality. However, Kim (2008) has questioned the possible link
between underachievement and creativity as certain characteristics of children showing
underachievement are similar to those of highly creative children. In the next section, the
nature of creativity and the factors which can influence it are described.
THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY
Definition of creativity
Creativity can be defined as the capacity to produce something new and adaptive
within the constraints of a given situation (Lubart, Mouchiroud, Tordjman & Zenasni, 2003).
Thus a creative production must be original, at least to some extent. Is this creative capacity
general or specific to each field? Although the debate is not settled, (see Lubart & Guignard,
2004), many authors support a rather domain-specific modular conception (Gardner, 1983;
Feist, 2004). For example, a child may have a high creative capacity in the scientific field
(mathematics, sciences) but may have difficulty inventing a story. Another child may be
creative in verbal tasks (such as inventing a story) but have difficulties making an original
Creativity, giftedness and education
-7-
drawing. Thus, creative abilities can differ depending on the field. These differences in
creative performances can be understood within the multivariate approach.
Multivariate approach
According to Sternberg and Lubart (1995), different factors contribute to creative
potential. The differences observed between individuals result from a combination of
cognitive, conative and environmental factors (Lubart, Mouchiroud, Tordjman & Zenasni,
2003).
Cognitive resources and development
Cognitive factors refer to knowledge and information-processing abilities that
facilitate inventive thinking. Creative performance is partly domain specific because
individuals do not have the same level of knowledge in every field. In addition to knowledge,
different intellectual abilities are required in the creative process, such as flexibility, divergent
and convergent thinking (see Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).
Flexibility refers to the ability to find varied solutions to a problem, to change ones’
approach to solve it and to understand it from different angles (Georgsdottir & Lubart, 2003).
Divergent thinking is the ability to generate many different ideas from a given stimulus or
starting point. According to Guilford (1950; Lubart & al., 2003), divergent thinking is an
essential ability for creative achievement. Empirically, the more ideas generated, the greater
the chance to find at least one that is original. Creativity requires also convergent thinking in
order to wean out the best ideas and improve them. The combined use of both divergent and
convergent thinking seems essential.
Conative resources and development
Conative factors refer to traits of personality and to motivation. Some traits of
personality, such as risk taking, openness, tolerance of ambiguity, are important to develop
original thinking (Lubart & al., 2003). For example, in many schools, most of students do not
Creativity, giftedness and education
-8-
take initiatives because the teacher decides what students should do. On the contrary, in
Freinet’s alternative pedagogy (described in detail later in this article) children can choose
their activities. Moreover, children can suggest others activities like theatre. Sometimes, if a
group of children wants to engage in a particular project, they have the possibility. For
example, two girls in the 5th grade have suggested organizing a dance class; they proposed
this to others, formed a group, prepared by themselves a choreography and finally, at the end
of the year presented their show.
Motivation corresponds to the energetic strength with which an individual engages in
performing a task. Two types of motivation are often compared for creativity (Amabile,
1996): intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation comes from the inner needs of
individuals such as curiosity drive, it focuses on the task and the enjoyment derived from
solving the problem. Alternatively compensations, like material goods, money, award or
social praise generate extrinsic motivation. Results of most research show that intrinsic
motivation is positively associated with creative performance. A relationship between
creativity and extrinsic motivation also exists but appears less obvious, varying according to
the circumstances of the task and moderating traits of the individual (Amabile, 1996; Baer,
1998; Collins & Amabile, 1999).
Environmental factors
Environment influences not only the development of creative capacities but also the
various forms that creative expression may take. The environmental influence occurs in
different spheres: in the family, in the school or work environment and in the cultural context
in which the person evolves. These various environments are embedded in each other.
The familial environment provides the cognitive and emotional bases for the
development of creativity. Simonton (1984) showed that a familial environment full of
cultural stimulation (books, arts...) favors creative development. Lautrey (1980) observed a
Creativity, giftedness and education
-9-
link between children’s intellectual capacities and family structure; in more recent research,
children living in families with "flexible" rules (for example, children must to go to bed at
8p.m. if they have school in the morning; but on the week-end, they can stay up later to see
television programs) for governing children’s activities showed higher levels of creative
thinking than did children who lived in families with rigid rules (for example, children must
always go to the bed at 8p.m. regardless of special circumstances) (Lubart & al., 2003).
School and later professional environments have each an important impact on creative
expression. Indeed, under some conditions, these environments can stimulate creative
behavior whereas in other cases they hinder it. For example, aspects of a creative climate in
work settings include (Crespo, 2004): time for ideas, freedom to create, humor, discussion,
absence of conflict, openness, risk-taking, support for innovation and tolerance of differences.
Concerning the school environment, the study of the development of creativity in children
shows periods of stagnation and sometimes temporary decline of average levels of creative
performance (Torrance, 1968). The majority of the explanations for these results refer to the
school environment because these slumps are found mainly at the time when children change
school cycles (e.g., move from kindergarten to first grade) (Torrance, 1968). As we will see in
a later section of this article, many studies concerning gifted children and schooling suggest
the importance of the school environment for the development of talent (Baldwin, 1987; Kim,
2008; Landrum & Ward, 1993).
Finally, culture refers to the set of thoughts, traditions, values and symbols that
structure the way in which a group of individuals interacts with the social and physical
environment. The values transmitted through the social environment promote or inhibit
creativity. This promotion depends on the field and on the culture. Ng (2001) suggested that if
there is a difference in creative products between occidental and oriental cultures, it seems to
be due, at least partly, to the dimension of individualism and collectivism. Indeed, there is a
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 10 -
link between individualism and intrinsic motivation, which was already mentioned as an
important factor for the creative product.
The combination of these different kinds of factors influences creative potential and
its’ expression in different fields. It is possible to evaluate psychological profiles based on
these factors to measure an individual’s creative potential. Consider in the following section,
different kinds of tests used often to identify creative potential.
MEASURES OF CREATIVITY
Numerous tools have been proposed to evaluate creativity. We will first examine
divergent thinking tasks, then integrative-thinking tasks, questionnaire measures and finally
parent and teacher appreciations.
These different kinds of measures of creativity can be categorized into two groups:
measures of creative potential and measures of creative achievement. The first one evaluates
creative giftedness (divergent thinking, productive-integrative tasks and out-of-school activity
questionnaires). Evaluations by teachers or parents can us inform about both creative potential
and actual creative achievement.
Divergent thinking tasks
Consider three tasks that come from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT,
1976). These tasks evaluate the ability to generate many ideas from a given stimulus with
verbal and graphic modes of expression. For example, in the “New uses of a cardboard box”
task, we explain to children that a cardboard box can be used in many ways rather than being
thrown away. Children must give as many original ideas as possible in ten minutes. In the
“Improvement of toy” task, children must give as many ideas as possible to improve a stuffed
animal. They have ten minutes. Even if proposed changes are costly, they can give all
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 11 -
propositions. In the “Parallel lines” task, children must make as many drawing as possible
based on sets of parallel lines.
For these kinds of tasks, different scores are calculated: fluency, flexibility and
originality. For the graphic task, there is also an elaboration score. Fluency corresponds to the
number of ideas given. Flexibility is the number of categories to which ideas belong.
Originality is the statistical rarity of the ideas. Finally, elaboration, for the graphic task, is the
capacity to develop and embellish the basic drawing. The score depends on the number of
details used to develop the basic idea.
It is important to note that divergent thinking is only one part of creativity. So if a
child obtained a high score in a divergent thinking task, he or she is not necessarily creative.
However, it is easy to evaluate divergent thinking and the majority of indices are objective. So
many studies use these kind of tasks.
Productive (or integrative) tasks
In contrast to divergent thinking tasks, productive integrative tasks require the
conception and development of an idea. We will examine sample verbal and graphic tasks.
In one verbal creativity task, a story title is proposed, such as “the
centipedes’sneakers” (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995). From the title, each child must generate and
then tell aloud a short story. The story is recorded and transcribed. Every story is then
evaluated by judges who each give a score between 1 (not creative at all) and 7 (very
creative), and an average judgement score is calculated for each production. This consensual
evaluation of creative productions using adult judges has been widely used (Amabile, 1996).
In a graphic creativity task, either a topic, such as “tension”, or a set of diverse objects
is proposed (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995). The child can complete the drawing as he or she
wants but must center the work on the provided stimuli. To evaluate the creativity of the
drawings, judges evaluate the drawings on a scale of 7 points, as for the stories (1= not
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 12 -
creative at all; 7=totally creative), and a consensual score is calculated for each drawing. It is
important to have several judges, to reduce the subjectivity of the criteria employed. Indeed,
usually each judge evaluates the production based on his or her own experience and criteria.
Another possibility for judges is to propose several detailed criteria and each criterion is given
points according to the rarity of the proposal in the population. This kind of task allows an
evaluation of children’s capacity to produce something creative upon an external demand and
is best considered a measure of creative potential.
Evaluation of Potential for Creativity (EPoC, Lubart, Besançon & Barbot, 2011)
The Evaluation of Potential for Creativity (EPOC; Lubart, Besançon & Barbot, 2011)
is an up-to-date measurement-tool for children. The development of EPoC is based on two
important ideas: first, it is possible to categorize the numerous micro-processes involved in
the creative potential into two main sets, called divergent-exploratory processes, and
convergent-integrative processes (Lubart, Besançon & Barbot, 2011). Divergent-exploratory
mode of thinking refers to the process of expanding the range of solutions in creative problem
solving and includes factors such as flexibility, divergent thinking, selective encoding, which
are supported by personality traits, such as openness to experiences and intrinsic task-oriented
motivation. Convergent-integrative thinking refers to the activity of combining elements in
new ways (including associative thinking, selective comparison and combination allowing a
synthesis of various heterogeneous elements to converge into a unique, original production)
which are supported by conative factors such as tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance, risk
taking, and achievement motivation. Second, as creativity is relatively domain specific, it is
important that measures of creative potential take into account the domain of creative
expression. Consequently, EPOC measures both sets of microprocesses (divergentexploratory and convergent-integrative, as opposed to previous measurement tools that
typically measure a single component), based on diverse domains of expression, whereas the
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 13 -
previous approaches of creativity measurement had rather a generalist approach (tending to
generalize the observed results to any domain of creative expression).
EPoC includes two alternative forms (Form A and Form B) so that users can assess the
progress made by children. Each of EPoC’s forms is composed of eight subtests which
measure both the two types of thinking and two application domains (verbal and graphical).
Thus, for each child, there are four measures of creative potential: Divergent-Exploratory
Thinking in the Graphic domain (DG), Divergent-Exploratory Thinking in the Verbal domain
(DV), Convergent-Integrative thinking in the Graphic domain (IG), and ConvergentIntegrative thinking in the Verbal domain (IV). Results are interpreted in terms of efficiency
and creative potential style, yielding an EPoC profile. These styles emphasize an individual's
“preference”, related to the likelihood to perform well in a particular domain (e.g. high score
in DG and IG, suggesting a “preference” for the graphic domain across processes) or a
specific mode of thinking (e.g. high score of IG and IV, suggesting a “preference” for the
Convergent-integrative thinking mode across domains). These EPoC profiles thus provide
useful insights to tailored creativity-based educational programs aiming to guide the
development of creativity appropriately, or in a diagnostic perspective (e.g. for the detection
of children with high creative potential in the four EPoC indexes).
To summarize, EPoC offers a creativity assessment that combines an approach by
domain of creative expression and by mode of thinking, in order to capture the diversity of
creative abilities of children. This up-to-date approach thus provides a broader vision of
creative potential in children and proves useful as a monitoring tool to guide the development
of creativity.
Questionnaires of creative activities
Different kinds of questionnaires exist. Notably, some extrascholastic-activity
questionnaires measures related to creativity. Milgran & Hong (1999) developed and used a
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 14 -
questionnaire (Tel-Aviv Activities Inventory) to evaluate the achievement in out-of-school
activities in art, science, literature, and music. Children indicate their activities and if they
have actually created something. This type of questionnaire measures the implication of
children in several activity domains and the extent to which they engage in creativity relevant
activities in these fields.
These questionnaires offer a comprehensive idea of children’s creativity-relevant work
in different domains. However, the potential biases of self-report instruments may influence
the data obtained.
Evaluation by parents or teachers
A last method often used to evaluate creative performance relies on parent and teacher
ratings, indicating the extent to which children are creative at home or in school. These types
of evaluation are potentially rich because they are based on different moments of observation.
Notably, teachers can compare children who are in the same class. However, this evaluation
can again be subject to bias, such as social desirability or halo effects in which creative ability
is mixed with overall academic performance evaluation (see Noizet & Caverni, 1978).
CREATIVITY AND EDUCATION
In the school system, three elements are interrelated: students, teachers and
knowledge. These three elements form a teaching triangle which can be organized in many
ways (Pelpel, 2002). A teaching method is a specific way to organize relations between the
pupils, the teacher and knowledge. First, we will examine the influence of children, then
different methods for educating the gifted child. Finally, we will study the specific influence
of teachers on creative development.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 15 -
Influence of children's characteristics
Diverse characteristics influence student achievement, including learning styles. (Dunn &
Dunn, 1993; Gregorc, 1982; Wintkin and Goodenough, 1981). For Dunn and Dunn (1993)
environmental, emotional, biological, physical and psychological characteristics contribute to
a student’s learning style (Dunn & Griggs, 1995). In one study, Karwowski (2008) examined
students characteristics by preferences for a rational or an intuitive style. Rational-thinkingstyle-oriented students were significantly more conformist and less inclined towards a
creative, heuristic behavior compared to those preferring the intuitive style.
However,
preference for the rational-thinking style was correlated significantly with school grades. In
another study, Karwowski, Lebuda, and Wisniewska (2008-2009) found relations between
stylistic measures, creativity and school performance, with results varying for public and
private schools
Research indicates in general that students and trainees learn effectively with a
teaching pedagogy that matches their learning style preferences (Lee & Li, 2008; Zhang,
2008). In the next session the influence of different pedagogies is examined.
Influence of different kinds of pedagogies
Numerous studies have examined the influence of the school environment on gifted
children.
In traditional pedagogy, teachers generally use a method centered on their own role in
the class. The teacher has complete control: he or she has the knowledge and knows how to
transmit it. This method is founded on the performance of the teacher, which can be evaluated
by an inspector. In this pedagogy, when children stray from the prescribed method or idea,
teachers tend to put the pupils back on the right track. The teacher plays the role of the expert.
Development of creativity is not a main objective. Additionally, large classes require that
certain norms be maintained to allow the class to advance. The majority of teachers help
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 16 -
children to follow the rules correctly. Consequently, children do not tend to practice taking
risks and being independent. Pupils learn to depend on their teachers and to follow the
system's norms.
However, autonomy and risk taking are important for creativity. For example, risk
taking is inherently involved in creative thinking and production because one must break from
what is known and comfortable, and move in a new direction. There is potential for success
but failure may occur, with an idea that does not solve the problem well and/or is criticized by
others. In a series of studies, Clifford (1988) examined the development of risk taking in
children aged from 8 to 12. Clifford asked children to choose a problem in a list in which the
difficulty of each problem was indicated for each school level (third grade, fourth grade and
so on). Results show that on average children chose problems that were relatively easy,
corresponding to a lower school level than their own. The difference between the real grade
level of children and the grade of problem chosen was greater and greater with age. With
school years, children took less and less risks because they were afraid of failure. This attitude
may promote good grades but does not foster creativity. On the contrary, generally in
alternative pedagogy, teachers do not use grades. So children are less afraid of taking risks.
Moreover, teachers allow children to choose their own activities.
Furthermore in traditional school, concerning cognitive abilities, mainly “right-answer”
thinking is solicited. In fact, when a student is confronted with a problem, only one solution is
generally possible. For example, teachers ask “what is the result of 7+7?”; and expect one
right response “14”. However, teachers could ask “what makes 14?” For this question,
different responses can be given, thereby involving divergent thinking. These two types of
exercises differ on the nature of problem (Maker, 1993): the first is closed whereas the second
is more open, on a continuum from well-formulated problems with one right solution (closed
problem) to problems that have less constrained formulations with various possible solutions
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 17 -
(open problem) (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976). In closed problems, all is known to the
teacher, and the child does not know the response. On the contrary, for open problems, all the
possible responses are not known and the formulation allows children to adopt different
approaches and find several responses.
In classical pedagogy, pupils are often in competition. Indeed, with grades, children
tend to compare their performance. This competition can develop perseverance and provide
certain forms of motivation. Perseverance is important in creativity because the answer is not
always easy to find. However, according to Conti and Amabile (1999), intrinsic motivation is
most important for creative activity. Whereas extrinsic motivation from competition may
contribute to creative production as well, it is intrinsic motivation that is most conductive to
creativity.
In summary, classical pedagogy brings some elements, useful for the development of
creative capacities, such as competition, motivation, convergent thinking and knowledge.
However, as noted, classical pedagogy fails to develop fully the components needed for
creativity, or is even antithetical to it in certain ways (Besançon, Lubart & Barbot, in press; .
Loi and Dillon (2006) propose a conceptualization of educational environments to develop
creative abilities in children. For them, it would be important to foster certain intellectual
abilities such as transference and synthesis in cross-disciplinary situations. Moreover, some
gifted students, who are characterized by faster learning and by a desire for independence
(Mulhern, 2003), are bored in traditional classrooms (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003).
Some researchers and educators have sought a better school environment for gifted
students (Coleman, 2003). Different methods of schooling for gifted children (grouping,
enrichment programs, pullout programs and acceleration) have been tested and each one has
its partisans (Lautrey, 2004). Consider each of these methods in terms of its relevance to
creativity.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 18 -
For the grouping option, children can be placed in groups according to their
performance. Although this may seem to be a coherent approach, this type of program has
been found to influence negatively the self-esteem of students who had an outstanding
position in their original class and become, with this method, average or below average (Kulik
et Kulik, 1992). Another possibility is to group children of different grades only for one
subject according their performance. In this case, creativity is not necessarily fostered:
children are grouped according their performance in general fields and not according to
creativity.
Enrichment programs and pullout programs propose to gifted children additional
activities because they acquire the regular lessons more easily and quickly. There are various
activities: development of creativity, problem solving, and development of individual
projects. These programs can occur during the holidays (enrichment program) or during the
school week, at certain hours (pullout programs). The effect of pullout programs suggests that
school performance is sometimes enhanced and that performance on specific activities is
better but the difference with other, control group children is not significant (Vaughn,
Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991). In this type of activity, it is easier to improve creativity because
there can be a focus on divergent thinking which is an element for creativity. Although certain
factors can be improved and contribute to creative giftedness, it is not enough to focus only on
certain abilities such as divergent thinking because as we indicated, creativity is influenced by
a combination of several factors.
Acceleration allows gifted children to accomplish in a reduced time frame the regular
school program; for example, children may follow a three-year program in two years. In this
type of program, there are no discontinuities: gifted children cover the entire program during
less time. On the contrary, when children skip a grade, there is a discontinuity and they do not
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 19 -
study the entire program. In accelerated learning, creativity is not usually part of the
curriculum, so children do not develop it.
Beyond classic approaches to gifted education, there is the possibility of alternative
pedagogies. Indeed, several pedagogies (Montessori, Freinet, Steiner, Decroly, Ferrière)
which emerged during the beginning of 20th century are centered on both on content and on
pupils' action. Teachers have knowledge and transmit it, but children must actively seek to
acquire this knowledge and integrate it. For example, Montessori (1992) suggested that to
learn to read, pupils should learn to recognize letters actively, both by sight and with their
hands: they move their fingers on letters made in different textures. Teachers bring the
material (knowledge) but children adapt it to themselves. For Freinet (Peyronie, 1999),
individualized learning through a series of exercises that students accomplish at their own
pace is considered important. In classical pedagogy, the whole class moves together; in
alternative pedagogies, an individualized pace is possible. If children have a problem, the
teacher is there to help them. So, the teacher is mainly a guide, facilitating for children their
search for knowledge.
To identify clearly the best practices for educating creative gifted children, it would be
necessary to compare all methods in the same study. In any case, there is agreement that it
seems to be important to privilege individualized learning. As this proposition exists since the
beginning of the 20th century with Montessori and Freinet, introducing this approach in the
educative system for gifted would not be totally original! (Mönks & Mason, 2000). In addition
to pedagogical orientation and different methods for educating the gifted child described here,
the characteristic of the teacher who implements a pedagogy is important, and this point is
treated in the next section.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 20 -
Influence of teachers
Some studies have examined the influence of teachers on children’s creative performance.
Indeed, teachers’ attitude, beliefs and classroom practices influence the development of
creativity, notably in elementary school where children are confronted with the same teacher
throughout the day. Wentzel (1993) examined the conception of American teachers: for them,
an ideal student is a child who follows instructions, keeps quiet and does not ask many
questions. Furthermore, a study of Finnish school teachers found a conception of the ideal
pupil as honest, broad-minded, valuing self-respect, family security, true friendship and
meaning in life (Verkasalo, Tuomivaara & Lindeman, 1996). A study of Nigerian teachers
showed that they valued pupil characteristics such as industry, sincerity, obedience, courtesy,
consideration, self-confidence, and health (Ohuche, 1987). Other studies in Germany, Greece,
India, the Philippines, Turkey, and the United States have shown that teachers favor quiet,
conforming behaviors rather than intellectually provocative ones, which may question the
teacher’s authority (Fasko, 2002; Strom & Strom, 2002). So these attitudes promote
submission and conformism, which are adapted to disciplined school behavior but not
creative behavior which thrives on curiosity and independence (Cropley, 1994; Sak, 2004;
Wentzel, 1993).
Newton and Newton (2010) explored teachers’ conception of creative
thinking in primary school science. These results show that teachers’ conceptions tend to be
narrow, focusing on practical, fact-based investigations. Although teachers are often
encouraged to support creativity, their notions of how to accomplish this within specific
school subjects may be inadequate. Thus, teachers may not recognise opportunities for
involving creativity.
Working with teachers on their attitudes towards creative behaviors in the classroom is
therefore important as teachers are in a privileged position to stimulate or stifle creativity.
Teachers’ attitudes and values are learned and constructed over time. For current teachers
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 21 -
these attitudes started to develop, probably, when teachers were themselves primary school
students and then were confirmed during teacher training. It is important in teacher training
and in-service programs to help teachers recognize what attitudes/values they have and to see
the effects of these on students’ learning. Teachers must be open to the propositions of
children, allow failure, and help pupils to overcome failures and frustration by supporting
perseverance in their work. Moreover, by favoring independent learning (each child works at
his or her own speed) as well as cooperative learning between children (grouping children to
do a particular task), teachers foster the development of creativity (Cropley, 1997). Moreover,
for Sternberg (2003), teaching in ways that encourage creativity could also improve school
performance in general.
Thus, there is an interaction between the characteristics of gifted children, teacher’s
characteristics and the school pedagogical environment. So, not only the pedagogy but
teachers also play a crucial role in fostering each component of creativity.
DISCUSSION-CONCLUSION
We have seen that creativity is an important component for giftedness. Some authors
think that creativity is the highest form of giftedness (Runco & Albert, 1986). Different
measures of creativity exist to identify creative potential and creative achievement. If we use
these techniques, we can begin to differentiate the academically gifted children from
creatively gifted ones. Creativity needs to be valued at least as much as knowledge
acquisition. Thus creativity needs to assessed and recognized through project work as part of
school performance. Pedagogical practice is very important to improve creative potential or
achievement in children. Indeed, schools can provide an environment that specifically values
creative thinking, recognizes it in students and promotes it through teachers’ behaviors in the
classroom.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 22 -
Maker & Nielson (1995) have proposed the main features that must be modified to
develop creative behaviors in the classroom. Notably, a school environment that favors
creative giftedness is characterized by research of excellence, development of creativity,
critical thinking, “real” problems, independence, individualized learning, encouragement of
risk taking, and relatively less structured learning time compared to traditional classrooms.
Teachers are informed and conscious of these principles, but their application can be difficult
(Sak, 2004). Teachers need to be educated to understand creative development and ways in
which creativity can be fostered or inhibited by school practices. Teachers need to be
sensitized to creativity issues which are rarely part of their teacher training or priorities. If the
formation of future teachers includes such information (about various techniques and the
environment to improve creativity), application of such methods could be facilited
(Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000). Moreover, alternative pedagogical methods exist since the
beginning of the 20th century but few teachers use them; empirically the effects of these
pedagogies on creativity, in particular for gifted children in school remain to be studied
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 23 -
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(1), 18-37.
Baldwin, A.Y. (1987). I’m Black but look at me, I am also gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 41(4), 180-185.
Besançon, M., Lubart, T. & Barbot, B. (in press). Creative Giftedness and educational
opportunities. Educational & Child Psychology, 30(2), 79-88.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau
intellectuel des anormaux [New methods for diagnosing the intellectual level of abnormal
persons]. L’Année Psychologique, 11, 191-244.
Clifford, M.M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten- to twelve
year old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15-27.
Coleman, L.J. (2003). Gifted-child pedagogy : Meaningful chimera ? Roeper Review,
25(4), 163-164.
Collins, M.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R.J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp.297-312). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 24 -
Conti, R., & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Motivation/Drive. In M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker
(Eds), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol.2, pp.251-259). San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
Crespo, M.L. (2004). Construction of a creative climate measure instrument in
organizations. Estudos de Psicologia, 21(2), 91-99.
Cropley, A.J. (1994). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cropley, A.J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In
M.Q. Runco (Ed.). Creativity Research Handbook (pp.83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches
to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In K., Heller,
F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook of giftedness and
talent (pp.81-93). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual
learning styles: practical approaches for grades 7-12. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn & Dunn model
of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 383-393.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 25 -
Fasko, D. (2002).Creativity in the schools: What’s going on ? Research in the Schools,
9(2), 15-21.
Feist, G. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In E.L.
Grigorenko & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: from potential to realization (pp.57-82).
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Feldman, D.H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children.
In D.H. Feldman (Ed.). New Directions for Child Development: Developmental Approaches
to Giftedness and Creativity (pp.31-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gagné, F. (1983). Douance et talent: deux concepts à ne pas confrondre. [Gidtedness
and talent : two concepts to not be confused]. Apprentissage et Socialisation, 6(3), 146-159.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental
theory, High Ability Studies, 15 (2), 119-147.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Georsgdottir, A., & Lubart, T.I. (2003). La flexibilité cognitive et la créativité: une
approche développementale, différentielle et expérimentale. [Cognitive flexibility and
creativity : a developmental, differential and experimental approach]. Psychologie Française,
48(3), 29-40.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 26 -
Getzels, J.W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal
study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Gowan, J.C. (1971). The Relationship between creativity and giftedness. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 239-243.
Gregorc, A.F. (1982). An adult guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates, Inc.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Gustaffson, J.E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities,
Intelligence, 8, 179-203.
Horn, J.L., & Cattel, R.B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of mind and
crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
Huteau, M., & Lautrey, J. (1999). Evaluer l’intelligence [Evaluate intelligence]. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding
boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20-28.
Karwowski, M. (2008). Giftedness and intuition. Gifted and Talented International,
23(1), 115-124.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 27 -
Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., & Wisniewska, E. (2008-2009). Creative abilities and
styles as predictors of school success. Gifted and Talented International, 23(2)-24(1), 119127.
Kim, K.H. (2008). Underachievement and Creativity: are gifted underachievers highly
creative? Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234-242.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.
Landrum, M.S., & Ward, S.B. (1993). Behavioral assessment of gifted learners.
Journal of Behabioral Education, 3(3), 211-215.
Lautrey, J. (1980). Classe sociale, milieu familial, intelligence [Social classe, familial
environnent, intelligence]. Paris : PUF.
Lautrey, J. (2004). Les modes de scolarisation des enfants à haut potentiel et leurs
effets. [Modes of schooling of gifted children and their effects]. Psychologie Française, 49,
337-352.
Lee, L.-Y., & Li, C.-Y. (2008). The moderating effects of teaching method, learning
style and cross-cultural differences on the relationship between expatriate training and
training effectiveness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4),
600-619.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 28 -
Loi, D., and Dillon, P. (2006). Adaptative educational environment as creative spaces.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36 (3), 363-381.
Lubart, T.I. (Dir.) (2006). Enfants exceptionnels. Précocité intellectuelle, haut
potentiel et talent. [Exceptional children : precocity, high potenial and talent]. Paris : Bréal.
Lubart, T., Besançon, M. & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du Potentiel Créatif (EPoC).
[Evaluation of Potential Creativity].Paris: Hogrefe France.
Lubart, T. & Guignard, J-H. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: A
multivariate approach. In E.L. Grigorenko & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: From potential
to realization (pp.43-56). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la
créativité. [Psychology of creativity]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Lubart, T.I., & Sternberg, R.J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory
and data. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach
(pp. 271-302). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Maker, J. (1993). Creativity, Intelligence, and Problem Solving: A definition and
design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education
International, 9, 68-77.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 29 -
Maker, C.J., & Nielson, A.B. (1995). Curriculum development and teaching strategies
for gifted learners. 2nde ed. Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.
Milgram, R.M. & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually
gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal
study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77-87.
Mönks, F.J. & Mason, E.J. (2000). Developmental psychology and giftedness:
Theories and research. In F.J. Monks, & K.A. Heller (Eds.), International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp.141-267). New York: Elsevier Applied Science.
Montessori, M. (1992). L'enfant [The child]. Paris, Desclée de Brouwer.
Mulhern, J.D. (2003). The gifted child in the regular classroom. Roeper Review, 25(3),
112-115.
Newton, L., and Newton, D. (2010). Creative thinking and teaching for creativity in
elementary school science. Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 111-124.
Ng, A.K. (2001). Why asians are less creative than westerners. Singapore: Prentice
Hall.
Noizet, G., & Caverni, J.P. (1978). Psychologie de l’évaluation scolaire [Psychology
of school evaluation]. Paris : PUF.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 30 -
Ohuche, N. M. (1987). The ideal pupil as perceived by Nigerian (Igbo) teachers and
Torrance’s creative personality. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 24(2), 80-86.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The Transition from Childhood Giftedness to Adult
Creative Productiveness: Psychological Characteristics and Social Supports. Roeper Review,
23(2), 65-71.
Pelpel, P. (2002). Se former pour enseigner [Learning to teach]. Paris: Dunod.
Peters, W.A.M., Grager-Loidl, H., & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement in gifted
children and adolescent: theory and practice. In K.A.M. Heller; R.J. Sternberg; R.F. Subotnik
(Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp.609-620). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Peyronie, H. (1999). Célestin Freinet. Pédagogie et émancipation [Célestin Freinet :
Pedagogy and emancipation]. Paris : Hachette Education.
Reis, S., & McCoach, B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted students. In M. Neihart,
S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S. Moon (Eds), The social and emotional development of gifted
children (pp.81-91). Washington DC: Prufrock Press.
Renzulli, J. (1979). What makes giftedness: a reexamination of the definition of the
gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendant of Schools Office.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 31 -
Renzulli, J. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model
for creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conception of giftedness
(pp.53-92). New-York: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M.A., & Albert, R.S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and
intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and non-gifted children. Creative Child and Adult
Quarterly, 11, 212-218.
Sak, U. (2004). About Creativity, Giftedness and Teaching the Creativity Gifted in the
Classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216-222.
Simonton, D.K. (1984). Genius, Creativity and Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Havard
University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Creative Thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 47 (3), 325-338.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating creativity in a
culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules : Education for creative
thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183-200.
Creativity, giftedness and education
- 32 -
Torrance, E.P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump in
creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13(3), 155-158.
Torrance, E.P. (1976). Tests de pensée créative. Paris: Editions du Centre de
Psychologie Appliquée.
Vaughn, V.L., Feldhusen, J.F., & Asher, J.W. (1991). Meta-analyses on review of
research on pullout programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92-98.
Verkasalo, M., Tuomivaara, P., & Lindeman, M. (1996). 15-year-old pupils’ and their
teachers’ values, and their beliefs about the values of an ideal pupil. Educational Psychology,
16(1), 35-47.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behaviour and
academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357-364.
Wintkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: essence and origins.
New York: International Universities Press.
Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Preferences for teaching styles matter in academic achievement:
Scientific and practical implications. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 615-625.