Advertisement

Is Creativity Compatible with Educational Accountability? Promise and Pitfalls of Using Assessment to Monitor and Enhance a Complex Construct

  • Jonathan A. PluckerEmail author
  • Rasis Alanazi
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

Stakeholders frequently note the importance of creativity in education, business, popular culture, and many other aspects of society, yet creativity is rarely addressed in K-12 education. Including creativity in K-12 education accountability systems is one possible avenue for increasing the emphasis on creativity in education, and doing so is a primarily social act: it has the potential to lead to greater transparency about creativity instruction (or the lack thereof) and enhance sociocultural conditions for creativity in the future. In this chapter, we review the sociocultural perspective on creativity, note relevant advances in creativity assessment, and describe the limited, previous efforts to incorporate creativity into large-scale K-12 accountability systems. The chapter provides guiding principles for the creation of such systems based on these recent developments and efforts. We conclude with the observation that building a creativity accountability system based on these principles will be difficult but possible given recent and anticipated conceptual, empirical, and technological advances.

Keywords

Creativity assessment Sociocultural theory School accountability Education policy 

References

  1. Aldeman, C., Hyslop, A., Marchitello, M., Schiess, J. O., & Pennington, K. (2017). An independent review of ESSA state plans. Sudmury, MA: Bellwether Education Partners. Retrieved from: https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/independent-review-essa-state-plans
  2. Andersson, E. K., & Malmberg, B. (2018). Segregation and the effects of adolescent residential context on poverty risks and early income career: A study of the Swedish 1980 cohort. Urban Studies, 55, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 42–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biasutti, M. (2015). Creativity in virtual spaces: Communication modes employed during collaborative online music composition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calman, R. C., & Crawford, P. J. (2013). Starting early: Teaching, learning and assessment. Toronto, ON: Education Quality and Accountability Office, Government of Ontario, Canada. Available at: http://www.eqao.com/en/research_data/Research_Reports/DMA-docs/starting-early.pdf
  6. Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Human Relations, 68, 1021–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305–331.  https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024004305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cekaite, A. (2018). Microgenesis of language creativity: Innovation, conformity and incongruence in children’s language play. Language Sciences, 65, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang-Wells, G. L. M., & Wells, G. (1993). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 58–90). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as part of a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
  12. de Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2009). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15531.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43, 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fránquiz, M. E., & Ortiz, A. A. (2016). Co-editors’ introduction: Every student succeeds act—A policy shift. Bilingual Research Journal, 39, 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1148996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 101–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. John-Steiner, V., Panofsky, C. P., & Smith, L. W. (Eds.). (1994). Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35, 155–165.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.799413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krysan, M., & Crowder, K. (2017). Cycle of segregation: Social processes and residential stratification. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGuinn, P. (2016). From no child left behind to the every student succeeds act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46, 392–415.  https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjw014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 1–175.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v14n1.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plucker, J. A. (2016). Creative articulation. In J. A. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 151–163). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  28. Plucker, J. A. (2017). Toward a science of creativity: Considerable progress but much work to be done. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (in press). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Plucker, J. A., McWilliams, J., & Alanazi, R. (2016). Creativity, culture, and the digital revolution: Implications and considerations for education. In V. Glăveanu (Ed.), Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 517–533). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Schmalensee, S. L. (2014). Is what you see what you really get? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of real-world divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901023 http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/gsnq4DiaCgUuqxB2r4gs/full.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Why accountability matters, and why it must evolve. Education Next, 17(3). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1907276103?accountid=11752
  34. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–311.Google Scholar
  35. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenberg, S., & Hunter, D. (2016, December 27). STEM to STEAM [blog post]. Available at https://blog.americansforthearts.org/2016/12/27/stem-to-steam
  37. Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the NCLB act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932–989.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.476463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sebastian, J., & Huang, H. (2016). Examining the relationship of a survey based measure of math creativity with math achievement: Cross-national evidence from PISA 2012. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2017). Old or new? Evaluating the old/new scoring method for divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (Eds.). (2010). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Strickfaden, M., Stafiniak, L., & Terzin, T. (2015). Inspired and inspiring textile designers: Understanding creativity through influence and inspiration. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2011). Final report on the evaluation of the growth model pilot project. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wellman, J. V. (2001). Accountability systems. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33, 46–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wöbmann, L., Lüdemann, E., Schütz, G., & West, M. R. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003 (OECD Education Working Papers 13). Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1787/246402531617
  46. Yen, W. M. (2007). Vertical scaling and no child left behind. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pomerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 273–283). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. (2006). Successive student cohorts and longitudinal growth models: An investigation of elementary school mathematics performance. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(2), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v14n2.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations