Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking, Intrinsic Motivation, and Evaluation
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.
- Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
- Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Baer, J. (2002). Are creativity and content standards allies or enemies? Research in the Schools, 9(2), 35–42.Google Scholar
- 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
- Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
- 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