Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 41, Issue 1–2, pp 39–44 | Cite as

Do we all have multicreative potential?

  • Ronald A. BeghettoEmail author
  • James C. Kaufman
Original Article

Abstract

Are only certain people destined to be multicreative—capable of unique and meaningful contributions across unrelated domains? In this article, we argue that all students have multicreative potential. We discuss this argument in light of different conceptions of creativity and assert that the likelihood of expressing multicreative potential varies across levels of creativity (most likely at smaller-c levels of creativity; least likely at professional and eminent levels of creativity). We close by offering considerations for how math educators might nurture the multicreative potential of their students.

Keywords

Current Issue Stereotype Threat Creative Work Creative Expression Creative Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.Google Scholar
  2. Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29, 265–270.Google Scholar
  3. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 13–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative behaviors. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15–25.Google Scholar
  8. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  9. National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Committee on how people learn, a targeted report for teachers. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  12. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Runco, M. A. (2005). Motivation, competence, and creativity. In A. Elliott & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 609–623). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Runco, M. A., & Richards, R. (Eds.). (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity as a constrained stochastic process. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 83–102). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sriraman, B. (2008). Mathematical paradoxes as pathways into beliefs and polymathy: An experimental inquiry. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-008-0110-3.
  20. Sternberg, R. J., Lubart, T. I., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2005). Creativity. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 351–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42, 7–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Learning Research InstituteCalifornia State University at San BernardinoSan BernardinoUSA

Personalised recommendations