Creativity, Technology, and Learning

Theory for Classroom Practice

Florence R. Sullivan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317656401
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Creativity, Technology, and Learning provides a comprehensive introduction to theories and research on creativity in education and, in particular, to the role of digital-learning technologies in enabling creativity across classroom learning environments. Topical coverage includes play, constructionism, multimodal learning and project-/problem-based learning. Creativity is uniquely positioned throughout the book as an integral component of the educational process and also as a foundational aspect of self-actualization, thriving communities, and humane societies.Through in-depth, empirically based discussions of the philosophical, curricular and pedagogical elements of creativity, Sullivan demonstrates how creativity can be fostered across the curriculum through the use of digital-learning technologies in design, personal expression and problem-solving activities.

Part I
Theoretical Foundations of Creativity and Play

Part I consists of two chapters concerned with the theoretical underpinnings of creativity and play as developed through both empirical research and philosophical exposition. It firmly grounds the subsequent parts of the book in the sociocultural and psychological approaches to the study of creativity that have developed over the last several decades, and upon which educational research about creativity is based. Chapter 1 reviews the history of creativity research in education with a special emphasis on understanding the three main theoretical approaches. Cognitive psychologists, primarily concerned with the mental functioning of the individual, conducted research into creativity beginning in the 1950s. Their conceptualization of creativity is one of individual capacity. By the 1980s, social psychologists became interested in the study of creativity in educational settings. Their work focused on the social and environmental conditions that affect the development of creativity within the individual. The most recent perspective on creativity is the sociocultural view. This view, rooted principally in Vygotskyan (1978) psychology, focuses on creativity as a collaborative act. I take Wertsch's (1991) view of Bakhtin's (1981) theory of dialogism as an important explanation of how the social is internalized through language and expand the view to encompass the development of creativity. In this way, I present a new view of creativity as collaborative dialogic inquiry.

Chapter 2 builds on the theoretical and empirical groundwork laid in Chapter 1 by focusing on the role of play in learning and creativity. I begin by discussing play from Vygotsky's (1978, 1994) sociocultural perspective. Next, the sociocultural view of imagination and conceptual thinking is expanded to encompass Egan's (1992) philosophical approach to understanding the role of imagination, wonder, and awe for enabling creativity in the middle childhood and early teen years. This discussion then leads to an exploration of learning technologies that afford creative interaction, especially those that allow children to engage in transformational play. The chapter also addresses the role of playful talk in facilitating older students' exploration of potential future identities. Finally, I provide insights from research on the playful approaches that students take in learning with robotics.

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: Ages 8 to 15. New York, NY: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The development of thinking and concept formation in adolescence. In Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 185-265). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

1
Perspectives on Creativity in School-Age Children

All people are creative, including children. But, what do we know about creativity in children? And how do we know it? This second question is key to answering the first question because how we know something dictates what we know. As Phillips and Burbules (2000) note, research is theory-laden: all researchers approach their topics from a specific theoretical point of view, which guides the questions they ask and how they ask them. Therefore, to develop a robust understanding of creativity in children, it is important to consult research from multiple theoretical perspectives (Anderson et al., 2000). Toward that end, this chapter provides an overview of the research findings from the three main theoretical approaches to studying creativity in children taken by researchers—the cognitive psychology, social psychology, and sociocultural approaches. It is the research in these three areas that will best inform the discussion of creativity and learning with technology throughout this text.

Yet, one may ask, how can research findings in cognitive psychology be compared to those in social psychology and those derived from sociocultural approaches? Are there not underlying contradictions in the theory of mind that underlie each? Although some may believe this to be so, I argue that the differences are meaningful at the level of analysis, but not at the level of underlying, paradigmatic, assumptions. Each of these approaches may be termed interpretivist in nature, as each seeks to infer unseen psychological processes (both cognitive and affective) from careful and systematic analysis of the environment (e.g., historical evolution, material conditions, social arrangements, social interactions) and the individual or group acting in the environment. The primary difference among these theories is found in the emphasis given to the origins of change: social or individual.

Comparison of Three Approaches to Creativity Research

In this chapter, I take up each approach to studying creativity in chronological order of research undertakings. Cognitive psychologists first began focusing on creativity as a cognitive capacity of individuals in the early 1950s. The cognitive-psychology approach relies on tests and surveys of individual capacities. In this way, cognitive-psychology research uses a reductionist approach that seeks to isolate specific abilities of individuals under certain experimental conditions. Meanwhile, social psychologists became interested in studying creativity in the early 1980s. They expanded the focus on creativity beyond individual cognitive capacities to include questions related to the social context and environmental conditions that might affect an individual's creativity. Social psychologists have since made significant contributions to our understanding of social and environmental effects on individual and group creativity. Social-psychology methods include interviews, surveys, observations, and artifact analyses.

Sociocultural researchers began studying creativity as an outcome of collaborative interactions in the early part of the 21st century. The sociocultural lens has greatly expanded our capacity to investigate and understand creativity as it unfolds in actual learning settings. This is so, in part, because the sociocultural lens is interdisciplinary in nature, attending to aspects of human psychology, the historical and sociological context, and the role of language in meaning and identity development. The comprehensiveness of the sociocultural approach has the potential to help us understand how creativity is developed over time and in situ. This approach goes beyond the cognitive-psychology focus on which cognitive processes are linked to creativity and beyond the social-psychology approach of how environmental conditions affect creativity. It is the microgenetic approach taken by sociocultural researchers that allows this extensive developmental analysis. Microgenetic analysis is an observational research technique in which the researcher attends closely to the social interactions and the use of tools within the learning environment in order to understand the origins of cognitive change (Siegler 2006; Wertsch, 1991). Sociocultural methods include interview, observation, and microgenetic and discourse analysis of collaborative group discussions and interactions with tools in the learning environment. The sociocultural approach to studying creativity is new, and yet it has the potential to provide deep insight into the role of language and technology tools in creativity, well beyond both the cognitive- and social-psychology viewpoints. Because the sociocultural approach is not reductionist, it seeks to make sense of a phenomenon based on all of the historical and contextual factors that bear on any human activity. As such, the sociocultural approach presents a far more complex picture of such activity. It is this complexity—the richness of the data collected and the microgenetic analysis of activity—that allows us to develop deep insight about creativity and learning, which may then meaningfully guide educators' decision making in context.

Taken together the findings from these three approaches help us develop a robust understanding of creativity in school-age children. They provide guidance on the types of activities that may lead to creativity, the types of learning environments that may support creative engagement, and the nature of the role of language and tools in supporting creative practices. Let us now examine each approach in detail.

The Cognitive-Psychology View of Creativity

Cognitive psychology is a discipline that focuses on understanding how our minds work in relation to thinking and thought processes. A widely accepted definition of creativity held by cognitive psychologists is “the ability to produce work that is both novel [i.e., original, unexpected] and appropriate [i.e., useful or meets task constraints]” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996, p. 667). Guilford (1950), in an address to the American Psychological Association, made a strong case for the societal importance of research into creativity. In his influential speech, he introduced several ideas that shaped creativity research in following years including:

• All people are creative
• The development of creativity may be fostered through educational means
• Creative ability and processes may vary depending on the discipline with which one is involved
• Sensitivity to problems is part of creativity
• Fluency and novelty of ideas and flexibility in thinking are part of creativity
• Creativity is a complex process that may include the reorganization and redefinition of ideas
• Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are important to creativity

Many cognitive researchers responded to Guilford's call to investigate creativity as a cognitive capacity.

While a number of cognitive theories have been developed related to creative processes (see Runco, 2007), four strands of research are particularly relevant to thinking about creativity and school-age children and will be my focus in this section: divergent thinking, problem finding, insight and prior knowledge, and everyday creativity. The results of these four strands of research are not mutually exclusive; rather, they work together to provide a general view of creativity as a cognitive capacity of individuals.

Divergent Thinking

An over-used phrase related to creativity with which many of us are familiar is the exhortation to “think outside the box.” As hackneyed as it is, this phrase serves as a useful starting point for understanding the notion of divergent thinking. Indeed, divergent thinking may be described as the ability to develop ideas that go beyond the conventional bounds of a particular domain, classification, or category. Over time and through years of research, cognitive psychologists researching divergent thinking came to focus on four elements in relation to the development of ideas—originality, flexibility, fluency, and elaboration. Originality refers to the uniqueness or novelty of an idea, flexibility refers to the use of diverse ideas drawn from a number of conceptual categories, fluency is related to the number of ideas that one develops, and elaboration is the ability to extend or elaborate on provided ideas (Runco & Acar, 2012). Engaging in divergent thinking then includes developing novel ideas, entertaining multiple perspectives on a problem, creating numerous ideas related to solving a problem, and/or extending or building on existing ideas in new ways.

Paul E. Torrance (1974) created a well-known suite of tests of divergent thinking known as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which are the most widely used tests of divergent thinking. And, in part due to the availability of these tests, divergent thinking is the aspect of creative thinking that has been the most widely studied by cognitive psychologists. The TTCT are used by administrators in PK-12 schools in deciding whom to admit to gifted and talented programs. The TTCT elements include both verbal (e.g., create a list of objects that have wheels) and figural (e.g., complete a partial drawing). In relying on multiple modes of representation, these tests make it possible to detect divergent-thinking ability in students who have low-verbal and/or low-visual abilities. In other words, one may have creative potential that is expressed visually, as opposed to verbally, or vice-versa.

Multimodality is a particular strength of the TTCT because as Kim (2011) has pointed out, the figural tests of divergent thinking are “culture-fair,” meaning that they do not offer an unfair advantage to children with well-developed verbal ability (an empirically documented characteristic of children from middle and upper socio-economic circumstances). The idea of a test being “culture-fair” refers to the well-supported critique that IQ tests are culturally biased. Many scholars argue that so-called “IQ tests” actually test for one's familiarity and immersion in the cognitive life of the dominant culture. That is, the test makers ask questions in such a way as to privilege those who share their own cultural background and ways of knowing and doing. Therefore, through the figural element, the TTCT offers school administrators a better tool for identifying students for a gifted and talented program, regardless of their verbal ability or economic background. As a result, the use of the TTCT in screening tests has boosted the number of children of color from lower socio-economic circumstances into gifted and talented programs (Kim, 2011). While this in and of itself is encouraging, we must also question the wisdom of separating children on the basis of intelligence tests. A more-inclusive approach to education respects the needs and abilities of all students. Much can be gained by working alongside diverse others.

Indeed, the use of the TTCT to screen for gifted and talented programs in PK-12 schools may lead one to believe that creativity and intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, are correlated. However, that is not the case. There is little relationship between intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, and creativity, as measured by divergent-thinking tests. While this is so, there is mixed support for what is known as threshold theory (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). According to this theory, there is a minimum level of intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, that is needed to engage in creative processes, such as divergent thinking. Again, we must be cautious with these understandings so as not to limit children's potential unnecessarily, especially since the research in this area has resulted in mixed results and is, therefore, contested.

An unresolved issue related to divergent thinking is whether creativity is a domain-general or a domain-specific capacity. Several researchers argue that creativity is domain specific (Almeida et al., 2008). These researchers claim that people will show varying levels of creative ability depending on the activity in which they are involved (drawing, music, science, math, etc.). This idea makes a lot of intuitive sense. We all know people who have specific creative talents, but are not particularly creative in other areas. This idea of the domain-specific nature of creativity also aligns well with Gardner's (1983) notion of multiple intelligences. In his book, Frames of Mind, Gardner provided evidence to support the idea that people may have specific, heightened intelligence in a given area. To date, he has identified nine such areas of intelligence. If one accepts Gardner's work with multiple intelligences, it is easy to construct a corollary to heightened creative ability in a specific domain. If creativity is domain specific, then the TTCT may incorrectly miss the creativity of many, many children. Moreover, in this scenario the TTCT is rendered ineffectual for creativity research, which is an argument some have made (Baer, 2011).

Meanwhile, Kim (2011) argues that there are general aspects of creative thinking that span domains. She gives the example of the Renaissance polymath, Leonardo Da Vinci, as an example of someone who was creative with everything he did. Kim argues that in today's world, it is harder to develop into a polymath because so much knowledge is needed to become an expert in just one area that a person must devote oneself fully to such endeavors. At this point, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether or not creativity is a specific or a general skill. It does seem likely, though,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I Theoretical Foundations of Creativity and Play
• PART II Pedagogies for Enabling Creativity
• PART III Creativity Across the Curriculum
• Index