Few topics within the study of creativity and innovation incite as much passion as assessment or measurement, the process of gathering data representing one’s aptitudes, knowledge, attitudes, cognition, or potential. This appears to be especially true when the topic is discussed among non-academics who work in creative fields: A colleague once shared a story concerning his speaking about creativity with designers at a major entertainment company. He off-handedly mentioned measurement and … suffice it to say, he did not find the kingdom to be so magical from that point forward. The conventional wisdom is that creativity is too difficult to measure and many people are surprised to learn that creativity assessment has a long, rich history.

How are intelligence and creativity related? Given the dynamic and complex nature of both constructs, this question is a nuanced one. This chapter first discusses how creativity is represented in intelligence theories (such as Guilford’s Structure of Intellect, CHC, and successful intelligence, and how intelligence is represented in creativity theories (such as systems and componential theories, domain-based theories, and cognitive theories). Next, empirical studies are reviewed. The threshold theory, which proposes that intelligence and creativity are related but only up to about an IQ of 120, has received mixed support. More recent studies using sophisticated statistical analyses have found more evidence. A reliance on measures of divergent thinking and g as the sole tests of creativity and intelligence may also limit much existing research.

Educational theorists such Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky have all highlighted the importance of using experiential learning, active hands-on learning, and problem-solving activities to promote learners’ creative development. More recently, research has provided evidence that these engaging instructional strategies can be used to enhance creativity. For example, inquiry-based laboratory activities appear to increase creative thinking levels and attitudes among pre-service science teachers (Yakar & Baykara, 2014).

Although many of these techniques have a well-established track record of success in motivating students and improving critical and creative thinking (Dow & Wagner, 2015), not all teachers embrace these techniques in their own classrooms. Policy and environmental factors, such as test-based accountability systems and diminishing teacher autonomy (Olivant, 2015), can be in direct conflict with creativity-fostering classrooms. And teachers’ negative attitudes toward creativity may be a potential source of bias when promoting creative behavior (Geake & Gross, 2008). The goal of this chapter is to propose a practical approach to enhancing creativity in today's schools and classrooms, primarily by modifying learner attitudes toward and beliefs about creativity.

Attitudes toward creativity are influenced by prior experiences (e.g., teacher education programs) and experiences in the classroom. These attitudes develop and grow into complex, organized mental frameworks of knowledge (Anderson, 1977; Piaget, 1926) that then influence curriculum planning, lesson plan development, and classroom activities. Although attitudes may be flexible, it is very difficult to completely change them, even in light of contradictory evidence (see Palmer, 1981; Wheatley & Wegner, 2001). This causes particular concern among educational psychologists, because some attitudes may be inaccurate or based on partially incorrect information.

Creativity is not immune from inaccurate attitudes or myths. Creativity, defined in this chapter as “the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004, p. 90, emphasis in original), is plagued by implicit myths that, in our view, have led to widespread, inaccurate schemata.

Creativity occupies a tenuous place in schools and classrooms. Scholars have long asserted its value and, at same time, expressed concerns that student and teacher creativity may be undermined in schools and classrooms (Barron, 1969; Guilford, 1950). In recent years, some scholars and commentators have even asserted that creativity is in a state of crisis in schools and classrooms (Berliner, 2011; Kim, 2011), and others have gone as far as to assert that schools kill creativity (Robinson, 2006). We take a more balanced position. We recognize that as long as there is life, there is creativity (Beghetto, 2013), and as such, schools cannot kill it. However, to the extent that formal schooling homogenizes student knowledge and behavior, educators interested in promoting creativity have reason to worry. But does school-based learning necessarily come at the cost of student creativity? The purpose of this chapter is to explore this question.

Creativity, Knowledge, and Formal Schooling

More than fifty years ago, J. P. Guilford recognized that creativity plays a prominent role in learning. And in the years that followed, creativity scholars have amassed persuasive evidence supporting the relationship between learning and creativity. For example, Robert Weisberg (1999) demonstrated that, be it the Beatles, Mozart, Charlie Parker, or Picasso, all experienced extensive, immersive learning processes prior to developing the domain knowledge necessary for producing creative contributions. When it comes to K–12 schools and classrooms there are also examples of how creativity can be incorporated in the learning of academic subject matter and standards-based learning, such as the Common Core State Standards (Beghetto, 2013; Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baer, 2014).

Although there is a general consensus among researchers that a deep level of domain knowledge is necessary for creative expression, the relationship between the type of knowledge sometimes represented in formal school settings and creative contributions is less clear. Sometimes what and how subject matter is taught in K–12 classrooms has little resemblance to the domain knowledge used by professionals and accomplished creators. Educational researchers (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991; Shepard, 2001) have, for instance, called for more “authentic” school-based learning, noting a frequent lack of correspondence between school-based representations of knowledge and how participants in a discipline (e.g., scientists, historians, writers) actually represent knowledge.

ATTITUDE CHANGE AS THE PRECURSOR TO CREATIVITY ENHANCEMENT

Schemas develop from interconnections of ideas and grow into complex, organized mental structures of information (Anderson, 1977; Piaget, 1926). The growth of schemata may occur over a series of experiences and often become engrained in our implicit cognitive processing. Although schema development may be flexible, it is very difficult to completely change them, even in light of contradictory evidence (see Palmer, 1981; Wheatley & Wegner, 2001). This causes particular concern among educational psychologists because many schemata may be inaccurate or based on partially incorrect information. The result can be a mental framework firmly rooted in misinformation.

Creativity is not immune from inaccurate schema representations. Creativity, which is defined as “the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004, p. 90, emphasis in original), is plagued by implicit myths that, in our view, have led to inaccurate schemata on a mass scale.

These schemata are problematic because there appears to be no shortage of areas in which creativity can be applied constructively to improve people's lives and, perhaps more important, areas in which people can use creativity to improve their own lives. However, few educators address divergent thinking, creativity, and innovation in primary, secondary, or postsecondary education, areas that are generally considered to be ripe for helping students develop schema.

When Grace, one of the authors of this article, was a child, she asked her father – an English professor – to read the same books aloud so many times that he eventually committed the narration to audio tape. These stories wove in her mind a tapestry of successive events that unfolded in her imagination. Characters accomplished wild and courageous feats the likes of which she could only dream of emulating, and wondrous things zipped in and around the narration.

For most children and student writers, it is this power of stories – to captivate and bewitch – that inspires their own attempts to create narratives of their own. However, this belief in the magical power of stories simultaneously cultivates in any aspiring artist, but perhaps especially in writers, the sense that they must be hit with a kind of lightning-like inspiration to be able to conjure a text like those that inspired their own novitiate efforts at writing.

This belief mirrors one of the major misconceptions plaguing creativity research. Recently, Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) suggested that a primary challenge facing the field of creativity research remains the myth that “people are born creative or uncreative” (p. 85). In a similar vein, Sternberg and Lubart (1999) have expressed concern about the “mystification of creativity.”

In this chapter, we examine how this “mystification of creativity” has been derived from a traditional theoretical emphasis on instances of eminent creativity and, further, how this focus has influenced the belief systems of creative writers about their capacity to produce written creative texts, or products.

Consider Sophia, an entering kindergarten student, who loves to draw. Equipped with a new box of 128 crayons, she eagerly anticipates the first opportunity to express herself in colored wax. Upon entering the classroom she darts to neat stacks of blank paper and starts to draw. The teacher quickly informs her that it is not “art time.” Confused, but compliant, she stops drawing. When “art time” does arrive, Sophia is again stopped because she started drawing without being told what to draw. Finally, the teacher informs the class that they will be drawing a picture of a tree with changing leaves. When Sophia eagerly starts drawing her tree, she is again stopped and instructed to wait for directions and guidance on how the tree should look. In a few short weeks, Sophia has developed a new understanding of what it means to draw: Wait patently for instructions from the teacher regarding what to draw and how to draw it. Consider the countless students whose favorite question, upon entering kindergarten, is “Why?” And how in a few short years the question “Why?” is replaced with “What do you want me to do and how do you want me to do it?”

The experience of schooling represented in the above scenario leaves little room for student imagination and curiosity. And there is evidence suggesting that such a scenario is a reality for students in our schools (Sternberg, 2003).

At a recent conference, a clinical psychologist who works with gifted students engaged the first author in an exciting and challenging conversation. As we discussed specific research and case studies involving gifted children, we realized that we were talking almost exclusively about the importance of context in defining and addressing giftedness. During the rest of the conference, we noticed the role of context in talent development in every session we attended. On the first author's return home, one question kept leaping into his mind: If the need to consider context comes up in most research sessions and so many practical applications, why don't we spend more time exploring its role in theories of giftedness? In this chapter, we explore the role of context in some classic and contemporary theories and models of giftedness, propose an alternative view, and explore the practical implications of that perspective.

HOW SHOULD WE CONCEPTUALIZE GIFTEDNESS AND TALENT?

Defining terms is very important in conceptual discussions such as those included in this volume. The need for precise definitions is especially critical when dealing with constructs such as creativity, intelligence, and talent, given the wide range of commonly used definitions for these terms. The discussion in this chapter relies on a definition drawn from the following conceptualization of creativity:

The study of human creativity, although historically extensive, is in the midst of a second golden age as the century comes to a close. Authors and researchers from a variety of backgrounds publish hundreds of articles and books on creativity every year, conferences that cross disciplines frequently include sessions on creativity, and programs for increasing the creative productivity of young people and adults are introduced on a regular basis. And while several distinct approaches are used to examine creative phenomenon, a majority of work dealing with creativity relies on psychometric methods - the direct measurement of creativity and/or its perceived correlates in individuals.

Indeed, practically all current work on creativity is based upon methodologies that either are psychometric in nature or were developed in response to perceived weaknesses of creativity measurement. As such, the psychometric studies of creativity conducted in the past few decades form the foundation of current understandings of creativity. Yet the psychometric approach is significantly more complex and comprehensive than its critics (and many of its proponents) would have us believe, and alternatives to the psychometric approach are wrought with many of the same difficulties posed during the direct measurement of creativity. A thorough review of psychometric techniques for the study of creativity benefits both those individuals attempting to measure creativity and those individuals studying creativity via other techniques.