The Necessity and Beauty of Unleashing Creativity

By Benjamin Hebebrand
Head of School, Quest Academy

Creativity, innovation, and imagination have become buzzwords in the 21^st century. Sir KenRobinson, author of Out of Minds: Learning to be Creative, says that “creativity is not some exotic, optional extra. It’s a strategic issue.” In my opinion, creativity has indeed risen to a national – if not global -- priority status as a result of a confluence of both proactive and reactive forces.  

The reactive forces can be found in both our economy and education. Still mired in a recession, today’s economy not only requires innovation to launch new products and services but also to foster new systems of management and leadership, allowing industry to capitalize on the power of collaboration and ideas at all organizational layers. In education, we are reacting to a hard-core standards movement that has put so much emphasis on academic skills that we dropped and discounted the student’s curiosity in learning for the sake of merely “covering” learning content to check off a standard and prepare for the next standardized test. And, yes, we also dropped and discounted the fine and performing arts. I, for one, am sensing that our educational system is moving in a new direction of “uncovering” and “discovering” the learning content. 

The proactive force can be found in technology – the kind of technology that allows us to interact without limits and the kind of technology that allows for the transformation of both our systems of education and economy. Technology has to be used properly and not misused by engaging with technology in a passive, consumer-oriented, numbing manner. Instead, technology should spur collaboration, strategic thinking, and productive outcomes, all of which can nowadays be encountered in well-designed gaming environments or well-guided virtual classrooms. 

The field of gifted education has always included the idea of creativity as an essential component. Dona J. Matthews and Joanne F. Foster, authors of Being Smart about GiftedEducation make the point that giftedness and creativity are not two separate or disconnected notions but rather they are symbiotically intertwined. “Creativity is an important component of actualizing giftedness in every domain, and domain-specific mastery is a prerequisite for high-level creative work.” In a way, creativity advances knowledge and knowledge advances creativity. We would be wise to remember this in educating students, particularly those students who are just entering the formalized educational system. 

Consider how Sir Ken Robinson explains creativity within the context of education: “I remember when I was running the national commission on creativity, education and the economy in the U.K., the Secretary of State there said, ‘We're very committed to creativity in education but we've got to get literacy and numeracy right first.’ And I said, this is just a basic misunderstanding. It's like saying we're going to bake a cake and if it works out, then we'll put the eggs in. That's not how it works. If you want people to be literate, you have to get them passionate about reading and that's a creative job. To think of it as an afterthought or in conflict of the core purposes, is a misconception of what creativity is.” 

Schools should indeed be among the primary incubators of creativity. Classrooms must be supportive and encouraging to allow creativity to emerge and flourish. Thus, schools and the teachers within the schools have a choice to make – to be creative and thus liberate students to be the same.

 

Indeed Robert Sternberg, a noted gifted education theorist and creator of the Triarchic Model of Intelligence (comprised of analytical intelligence, creative or synthetic intelligence, and practical intelligence), believes that being creative is a decision we make (or not). He proposes a list of ten mindsets by which we decide for creativity – a list that teachers would be well served to employ in their classrooms: 

·         Redefine problems: This approach may prevent us from getting stuck.

·         Analyze one’s own ideas: I would refer to this mode of thinking as fine-tuning and re-tuning one’s own thoughts.

·         Sell one’s own ideas: Demonstrating the value of one’s thinking is bound to result in greater creativity.

·         Knowledge is a double-edged sword: So-called expertise may limit flexibility.

·         Surmount obstacles: I would define this as one’s willingness to entertain contrary points of view in an effort of redefining one’s own ideas.

·         Take sensible risks: Creativity or divergent thinking mandates one move beyond one’s comfort zone.

·         Willingness to grow: One’s viewpoint of being correct can hinder the examination of different solutions.

·         Believe in oneself:  I would think that anyone who believes they can be creatively productive will indeed be creatively productive.

·         Tolerate ambiguity: Embrace the uncertainties of the creative process – accept that the end point can be redefined during the process.

·         Find what you love to do and do it: Follow your passions and interests. 

In conclusion, we would be wise to think of creativity as a means to stretch our ideas. Stretching one’s body increases flexibility; stretching one’s mind (and not limiting it to a multiple choice answer) increases creativity.

 

 

 

 

An evolutionary perspective on giftedness

By Benjamin Hebebrand, Head of School, Quest Academy

A historical study on the subject of giftedness clearly underscores the notion that our understanding of giftedness is continuously evolving. This evolution is congruent with the very idea that we teach our students in school – continued study and research lead to better and more comprehensive understandings.

In examining this evolution of our understanding of giftedness, it is evident that a broad analysis of the past 100 years of the study of giftedness has offered several periods or movements of understandings of giftedness. It is only logical that these movements also have shaped our ideas about best practices in identifying and teaching gifted students.

It is my view that the evolution of these movements has resulted in a broader, more multi-faceted view of giftedness – appropriate, in my opinion, given the fact that I believe that a) giftedness to some degree can be nurtured; and b) that gifted learners deserve to be assessed and taught in multiple dimensions. In my opinion, this historical evolution of the conception of giftedness has made the field of gifted education enriched by a diversity of opinions. There may also be those who believe that the ideas of giftedness have become diluted and thus have lost focus as a result of ever-broadening conceptions of giftedness.

In the Handbook of Gifted Education, edited by Steven I. Pfeiffer, cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg have identified four “waves” of conceptions of giftedness. The following is a brief summary of these four waves:

·         1) Domain-General Models

This wave essentially conforms to the idea that it is one’s general intelligence that is indicative of giftedness. Giftedness is viewed as “a single entity.” Most often, this view espouses the idea that giftedness can be measured in a single test such as an IQ test. This particular wave of thought may best be represented by English psychologist Charles Spearman, who in 1904 termed pervasive ability as general intelligence (the “g” factor), while he termed a specific ability as “s.” He recognized and determined that a “wide variety of cognitive tests tend to positively correlate with each other.”

·         2) Domain-Specific Models

This wave – as its name implies – holds to the notion that abilities may be domain-specific. In 1938, Louis Thurstone identified “seven different mental abilities that he claimed were statistically independent of each other.” These seven abilities related to both verbal comprehension and fluency, number computation, perception speed, inductive reasoning, spatial visualization, and also memory – some of these components are now included in the most recent editions of intelligence tests. This wave also includes Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory that divides into linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. Another major contributor to this wave of thought is the work of J.B. Carroll, who in 1993 outlined three strata of intelligence of a) “highly specialized skills;” b) “somewhat specialized abilities” such as fluid intelligence (depends on the functioning of the central nervous system); crystallized intelligence (based on prior experiences and cultural context); general memory and learning; broad visual and auditory perceptions; broad retrieval ability; broad cognitive speediness; and processing speed; and c) one ability such as the “g” factor which “underlies all aspects of intellectual activity.”

·         3) System Models

As the name implies, this wave espouses the view that giftedness is an interrelated system “which is dependent on a confluence of psychological processes operating together." A widely- -applied model that fits this idea of an interconnected system is Joseph Renzulli’s “three-ring definition,” first introduced in 1978. His three characteristics are a) well-above-average ability; b) creativity; and c) task commitment. Renzulli’s system brings to light the idea that giftedness is defined in more "active" terms – as he states, giftedness should be thought of in terms of “the creative and productive people of the world, the producers rather than consumers of knowledge.” Broadly stated, it's not just what you know, but what you produce and create. Renzulli’s model opens the door to the idea that intelligence alone is not sufficient in defining giftedness;  non-intellective factors need to be considered as well.

·         4) Developmental Models

External or environmental factors such as family, school, or peers are introduced to the idea of intelligence in the sense that these “external factors might interact with the internal factors of the individual to produce gifted behavior.” Francoys Gagne introduced in 2005 the Differentiated Model of Gifted and Talented, which proposes that gifts are transformed into talents. This transformation includes a) environmental impacts such as the home, school, parents, mentors, coaches, activities, encounters, and specific life experiences such as academic competitions; and b) non-intellective factors such as a child’s motivation, temperament, resilience, persistence, and endurance (training).  In my opinion, this wave most closely aligns itself with the idea of teaching to the “whole child.” Kurt Heller’s recent Munich Model of Giftedness views talent factors as predictors that are to be transformed into performance areas (i.e. achievement criteria). During this transformation, moderators come into play in the form of a) non-cognitive personality characteristics (i.e. coping with stress, test anxiety, or achievement motivation); or b) environmental conditions (quality instruction, classroom climate, or critical life events).

In providing this overview of these four waves, it is my aim that gifted education practitioners understand that a child’s giftedness is far more than general test scores – in fact giftedness may be domain-specific or may include one’s creativity and productivity, and may also be greatly influenced by a child’s personality and environment. Please post your thoughts, informing us of your conception of giftedness.