Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking, Intrinsic Motivation, and Evaluation

Chapter

Abstract

There is not yet consensus among creativity researchers about how domain-specific creativity may be, but domain specificity has huge implications for activities designed to nurture divergent thinking. I will explain why assuming domain generality poses large risks that creativity training may be ineffective if domain generality is wrong, whereas assuming domain specificity poses no such risks even if domain specificity were completely mistaken. I will also suggest ways to avoid some of the negative effects of evaluation on intrinsic motivation and creativity and describe ways to balance teaching for skills and content knowledge with teaching for creativity.

Keywords

Carol 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer, J. (1998a). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baer, J. (1998b). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baer, J. (2002). Are creativity and content standards allies or enemies? Research in the Schools, 9(2), 35–42.Google Scholar
  9. Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baer, J. (2011). Why teachers should assume creativity is very domain specific. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(2), 57–61.Google Scholar
  11. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or Myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity: A Case Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121–130.Google Scholar
  15. Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social-cognitive-neuroscience model. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations