Creative Giftedness and Educational Opportunities Maud Besançon, Todd Lubart & Baptiste Barbot
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Creative giftedness and educational opportunities Maud Besançon, Todd Lubart & Baptiste Barbot In contrast to intellectual giftedness reflected in high academic performance and often measured by IQ tests, there is growing recognition that other forms of giftedness exist. This paper focuses on creative giftedness, defined as high potential to produce work that is original and context appropriate. After a brief introduction to the psychological basis of creative giftedness, the role of school context in the development of creative potential is highlighted. Then an empirical study suggesting that creative potential is influenced by educational context is presented; pupils attending traditional and Montessori schools in France were compared on a set of creativity tasks in both the graphic and verbal domains. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted as children were seen at two measurement occasions, with approximately one year delay. Results indicated greater scores on measures of creative potential for children in the Montessori context. The discussion situates the results in a broader context of issues concerning the development of creative giftedness through education. Keywords: Creativity; development; children; education. REATIVITY is increasingly recognised Creative talent can be contrasted with as a valuable ability that contributes to intellectual giftedness, or ‘schoolhouse’ gift- Cpersonal and societal development. It edness (Besançon, Lubart & Zenasni, 2010; refers to the ability to produce work that is Lubart, Georgsdottir & Besançon, 2009; both novel-original and different from Renzulli, 1986, 2002; Sternberg & Lubart, commonplace productions – and contextu- 1993). The intellectually gifted have high ally relevant and valuable (Lubart et al., levels of ‘academic’ cognitive abilities, such 2004; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). It is useful as verbal, mathematical, and reasoning abili- to distinguish three concepts: creative poten- ties. They have high potential to succeed in tial; creative accomplishment; and creative academic tasks, to acquire and process talent. Creative potential is a latent ability to knowledge, to show expertise. Many, but not produce original, adaptive work; this poten- all, will be successful at school and later in tial may be more or less high and it can be their careers. Intellectual potential is often measured. Creative accomplishment refers measured through intelligence tests, such as to a case of actual production, in which the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2005). Traditionally, creative potential has been transformed into individuals showing IQ scores at or beyond real-world work that has been recognised as two standard deviations above the mean creative by some audience. In comparison, score – in general ≥130 – for their popula- creative talent refers to the tendency to tion reference group have been labelled produce creative work on repeated occa- gifted. Creativity relies partly on the same sions. Thus, a person who has a high level of cognitive abilities that are solicited in intelli- creative potential, who activates this poten- gence tests. However, these are only part of tial and produces creative work on repeated the cognitive abilities that are relevant to occasions can be said to have creative talent. creativity and they are not necessarily the Be it children or adults, those with a high most important ones. A large number of level of creative potential are often called the studies over the past century have identified creatively gifted. specific aspects of cognition -- such as diver- gent thinking, mental flexibility, ability to Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 2 79 © The British Psychological Society, 2013 Maud Besançon, Todd Lubart & Baptiste Barbot encode, link and combine information in Creative potential is not a fixed ability unusual ways – which contribute to creative and each of the person-centred psycholog- potential (Bink & Marsh, 2000). Empirically, ical resources underlying creative potential scores on traditional intelligence tests (IQ mentioned before may develop and evolve tests) tend to predict creative performance over time, through interactions with home only very moderately, with correlations typi- or school or work contexts. However, the cally in the .20 range. Children and adults environmental context, be it the home, who have creative potential and/or creative school, professional context, or cultural-soci- talent do not necessarily have high intellec- etal setting, all contribute to creative poten- tual ability, and those who are intellectually tial by providing the stage on which the gifted are not necessarily creatively gifted. psychological, person-centred resources will In addition to cognitive abilities, and be brought into play. Thus, some contexts domain-related or task-related knowledge, are assumed to favour creativity more than personality, motivational and emotional others, and invite individuals to express their factors (i.e. conation) play also an important cognitive, conative and affective resources role (see Besançon, Lubart, Zenasni, 2010; that form the basis of creative potential. For Lubart, Georgsdottir & Besançon, 2009; example, a child who has the ability to Lubart et al., 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, engage in divergent, non-standard ways of 1995). A person must have, for example, thinking and is willing to take the social risk a personality profile oriented toward risk- to express his or her idea, may not do so if taking, openness to new ideas and experi- the classroom teacher has made it clear that ences, and be tolerant of ambiguity, which is only ‘correct’ answers are valued and given inherently linked to solving open-ended, time constraints. If a climate of criticism and unexplored problems. Each of these traits is normative behaviour dominates in a class- involved in creative work, which by nature room, children will quickly learn that goes against common, well-accepted, tradi- creativity is not part of the ‘programme’, will tional, comfortable ideas. Creative people not be rewarded, and may even be seen as dare to propose something new, which is a disruptive. Thus, the school context may necessary behavioural repertoire that can be foster or hinder creative behaviour, and it distinguished from the cognitive ability may facilitate or deter the development of underlying the generation of the new idea the psychological resources that underlie itself. Another aspect of conation is motiva- creative potential. tion, and numerous studies show the value of The impact of school contexts on intrinsic motivation (such as the motivation creativity has been examined in some studies to explore new things, or curiosity drive). In that contrasted traditional school settings terms of affective resources, research has with alternative, pedagogy, such as Montes- shown that both positive and negative moods sori, Steiner, Freinet, or others with results are relevant to creative work (at certain favoring the alternative pedagogies (Allodi, moments in the productive process), and a 2010; Dreyer & Rigler, 1969; Heise, Böhme & rich emotional life may contribute to Kömer, 2010; Horwitz, 1979; Thomas & original thinking. According to the multi- Berk, 1981). For example, Rose, Jolley and variate approach to creativity (Sternberg & Charman (2012) examined the influence of Lubart, 1995), the presence of each of these British national curriculum, Steiner and components and their interaction allows the Montessori approaches to representational emergence of creativity. Thus, the differ- and expressive drawing ability with a positive ences observed between individuals result effect of alternative pedagogy. from a combination of factors (Lubart, 1999; According to Danvers (2003), traditional Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). pedagogy is characterised by: (1) a central role assigned to the teacher: the teacher is in 80 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 2 Creative giftedness and educational opportunities front of the class; (2) an impersonal relation Besançon & Lubart, 2011; Lubart, Besançon with pupils because there are usually many & Barbot, 2011). In this approach, the extent pupils in a class; and (3) the importance of to which a child is able to put into play the abstract knowledge, which is not always two main kinds of thinking involved in the linked with everyday life. In contrast, creative process (divergent-exploratory, Montessori (1918, 1958, 1965) postulated convergent-integrative) is examined. The that children want to learn about the world, measure concerns potential rather than and are capable of concentrating on an achievement or talent because the produc- object or topic ‘to absorb’ knowledge about tions (such as graphic or verbal responses) this object. Through active learning situa- are not spontaneous, real-world cases of a tions, the child constructs his or her intelli- child’s natural creative output. However, the gence and personality. The fundamental productions provide an indication of the principle of Montessori pedagogy is to child’s potential, which may be put into provide a safe, peaceful environment action at some point in real-life situations allowing children to concentrate on topics that the child may encounter. Thus, in this under study and to construct knowledge contribution we have operationalised and actively over time. measured creative potential with divergent In France, although traditional schools thinking tasks (verbal and graphic) that dominate the educational landscape, diverse require children to generate