Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T18:11:32.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Education Based on a Parsimonious Theory of Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Mark A. Runco
Edited by
Ronald A. Beghetto  and
James C. Kaufman
Mark A. Runco
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, USA
Ronald A. Beghetto
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Get access

Summary

The best education is grounded in good science. It is not based on opinion, tradition, or speculation but instead is drawn directly from the reliable information of empirical studies and the logical theories that take into account the empirical data. I have often told my students (many of whom are planning to teach) that it is their ethical responsibility to develop curriculum and follow pedagogy that has been tested and verified.

Fortunately, there is no lack of good information about creativity. This means that educators should have plenty of data and reliable theory to apply in the classroom. There is also quite a bit of bad information about creativity, but if opinion, tradition, and speculation are used to identify untrustworthy sources, it is not that difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed, there may be too much information about creativity. There are different perspectives on various aspects of the creative process (e.g., Simonton, 2007; Weisberg, 2007), which can make it difficult to focus. Many of the differences can be explained by the fact that creativity is a syndrome (MacKinnon, 1965; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), which is affected by quite a few different influences. Additionally, it takes various forms depending on the creator's age (Runco & Charles, 1997) and the domain (Albert, 1980; Gardner, 1983). Age and domain are especially relevant to education because they indicate that certain things may be best for the creativity of a preschool- or elementary school–aged student, but other things may be best for an adolescent or a young adult.

Type
Chapter
Information
Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom , pp. 235 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (1979). Conceptual blockbusting (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Albert, R. S. (1980). Family position and the attainment of eminence: A study of special family positions and special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, R. S. (in press). The Achievement of Eminence as an Evolutionary Strategy. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 3). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 61–91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Basadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Basadur, M. (in press). Managing the creative process. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brower, (1999). Dangerous minds: Eminently creative people who spent time in jail. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. ([1859] 1964). On the origin of species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, G. (1999). Barriers to creativity and creative attitudes. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 165–174). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eisenman, R. (1999). Creative prisoners: Do they exist?Creativity Research Journal, 12, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R. (1990). Generativity theory. In Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 116–140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. (2000) How to get a great idea. In Epstein, N. R. (Ed.), Creativity, cognition, and behavior. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Flach, F. (1990). Disorders of the pathways involved in the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E. (1981). On the relation between ‘a ha’ experiences and the construction of ideas. History of Science, 19, 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, H. (1996). The life space of a scientist: The visionary function and other aspects of Jean Piaget's thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. ([1960] 1983). The highly effective individual. In Albert, R. S. (Ed.), Genius and eminence: A social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 114–127). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. (1968). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In Toward a psychology of being (pp. 135–145). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
May, R. ([1975] 1994). The courage to create. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
McCullough, D. (1977). The path between the seas: The creation of the Panama Canal 1870–1914. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (1994). In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1981). Foreword. In Gruber, H., Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Google Scholar
Rickards, T, & deCock, C. (in press). Understanding organizational creativity: Toward a multi-paradigmatic approach. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 2). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1954/1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In Anderson, H. H. (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation: Addresses presented at the interdisciplinary symposia on creativity (pp. 69–82). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1987). Tools for thought: Designing an integrated curriculum for lifelong learners. Roeper Review, 10, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1992). The psychoeconomic approach to creativity. New Ideas in Psychology, 10, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1995). The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4, 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1994). (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72(Summer), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1999). Tactics and strategies for creativity. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 611–615). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 47, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runco, M. A. (2007a). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2007b). A hierarchical framework for the study of creativity. New Horizons in Education, 55(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Basadur, M. (1993). Assessing ideational and evaluative skills and creative styles and attitudes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. (1997). Developmental trends in creativity. In Runco, M. A. (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 113–150). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1996). Optimization as a guiding principle in research on creative problem solving. In Helstrup, T., Kaufmann, G. G., & Teigen, K. H. (Eds.), Problem solving and cognitive processes: Essays in honor of Kjell Raaheim (pp. 119–144). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjorke.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1990). In Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1995). Exceptional personal influence: An integrative paradigm. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2007). The creative process in Picasso's Guernica sketches: Monotonic improvements versus nonmonotonic variants. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. (2007). We are all partly right: Comment on Simonton. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×