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.
For a APA 2011 symposium on Teaching to Enhance Creativity in Students
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.
Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.
Baer, J. (1998a). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18–37.
Baer, J. (1998b). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.
Baer, J. (2002). Are creativity and content standards allies or enemies? Research in the Schools, 9(2), 35–42.
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.
Baer, J. (2011). Why teachers should assume creativity is very domain specific. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(2), 57–61.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or Myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity: A Case Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 121–130.
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.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baer, J. (2013). Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking, Intrinsic Motivation, and Evaluation. In: Gregerson, M., Kaufman, J., Snyder, H. (eds) Teaching Creatively and Teaching Creativity. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5185-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5185-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5184-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5185-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)