2005/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/33

Background paper prepared for the

Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2005
The Quality Imperative

Individual student differences and

creativity for quality education

Todd Lubart
2004

This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as
background information to assist in drafting the 2005 report. It has not been edited by the
team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not
be attributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited
with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report
2005, The Quality Imperative”. For further information, please contact efareport@unesco.org
 Individual student differences and creativity for quality
education.
Todd Lubart

The Report will assess the progress that is being made globally to improve
the quality of basic education and examine the policies and the strategies that
are proving effective in primary education, early childhood care and education
(ECCE), and through literacy and skills development programmes.

The quality of education cannot be understood without examining what

happens in the classroom. How students learn is to a great extent determined
by classroom inter-action, both between teachers and their students as well as
between students. Cognitive development, furthermore, is dependent on a
complex set of individual differences. Cultural and social variables can
heavily influence to what extent students benefit from the education provided
to them. Quality education is therefore a relative concept, and can be
perceived differently by students, even in the same classroom, depending on a
wide range of variables including background, personality and motivation.

Furthermore, the quality of education, it can be argued, should not only be

gauged in terms of academic achievement, but also in terms of students’
ability to produce original, insightful ideas. While schools tend to prize the
ability to memorize and analyze material, creativity may play a crucial but
largely underestimated role in personal and social development, including
economic development of societies in the future.

Terms of reference

1 How can ‘quality education’ best be understood in the

context of individual student differences?
2 What are the main kinds of individual differences
observed in cognitive development? Are schools generally
recognizing and responding to these individual differences, and, if
so, how?
3 What are the main lessons to be learned from the above
for policy and pedagogic reform?
4 What is the role of creativity versus academic
achievement for quality education? For social and economic
development?
5 How does creativity develop in children ?
6 How can schools best be made to foster creativity?

How can ‘quality education’ best be understood in the context of

individual student differences?
Quality education refers to learning situations in which knowledge, skills,
and abilities are developed in the best possible ways in order to promote
students’ personal growth, vocational success and future contributions to
society. Although we tend to group students by age or number of years in the
school system, each student is a unique individual. Any primary school
teacher will confirm that there is a great deal of heterogeneity among students
in an average classroom.
Given student’s differences on cognitive and conative (personality-
motivational preferences) factors, the best way to develop knowledge, skills
and abilities for one student is not necessarily the best for another. Thus, a
high quality education for all does not mean that all students receive the same
programme. In fact, a growing number of researchers and educators argue that
high quality education should take into account students’ individual
differences, providing optimised learning experiences for each child.
According to Snow (1986), “learning how to capitalize on individual strengths
and to promote a diversity of achievements … while compensating for the
individual inequalities that limit educational achievement for many poses the
major challenge to . . . education today and for decades to come” (p. 1029).

What are the main kinds of individual differences observed in

children’s development?
We can distinguish two main kinds of individual differences. First, there
are quantitative differences in the quantity, speed and depth of learning. Some
students can understand a new concept after one lesson whereas others may
need to re-examine an idea several times before being able to grasp it. After a
series of lessons, the amount of knowledge acquired and the extent to which
new concepts or skills are well understood varies greatly across students. In
research on cognitive development, we can observe, for example, that children
move, in general, from associative, pre-logical thinking to more formalised,
logical thinking. However, across children, the transition occurs at a more or
less early age and there are differences in the extent to which formal reasoning
is achieved.
In addition to quantitative differences in cognitive abilities (information
processing, memory, reasoning, abstraction ability, etc) there are conative
differences between students. Conative differences concern personality traits,
motivation, needs and interests. Students differ, for example, on their level of
personal autonomy, level of achievement motivation, tolerance of ambiguity,
and test anxiety. In terms of students’ interests in a given subject matter,
differences are observed across individuals due in part to their age, cultural
heritage and gender. Studies show that memory of reading passages depends
on the degree to which students find the text interesting, in addition to
students’ levels of reading ability and the objective difficulty-level of the text
(Snow, 1986).
Second, there are qualitative differences in the ways that students learn
best. For example, Treiman (1984) found two main learning strategies in
reading and spelling tasks. Some children focus on spelling rules. They can
correctly pronounce or spell new words that follow the rules but have trouble
with exceptions, as when they pronounce “give” the same way as “hive” is
pronounced. Other children develop specific associations for each word in
order to remember how to pronounce and spell words. Many other examples
of qualitative differences can be observed: Some students prefer to begin with
tangible details and then arrive to a larger vision on a topic whereas other
students prefer the exactly opposite approach when beginning on a new topic.
Some students learn well when working alone whereas others do best in
learning through small group situations (Dunn & Dunn, 1972). These
differences, often called “cognitive styles” or “learning styles”, suggest that
students approach tasks in qualitatively different ways, if they are given the
choice.
In addition to the distinction between quantitative and qualitative
differences, we can contrast inter-individual differences (differences between
people) and intra-individual differences (differences within a given person).
Thus, we can measure how students differ in a given knowledge domain, such
as mathematics, but we can also observe how an individual student differs
across domains, such as math, reading, and writing. Some students show
homogeneous profiles across tasks whereas others have strong points and
weak points depending on the learning domain.

Are schools generally recognising and responding to these individual

differences, and, if so, how?

To some extent, schools acknowledge and try to take individual

differences into account. The existence of ability-grouped classes (or tracks)
in some schools, for example, is an attempt to handle quantitative differences
in the quantity and speed of knowledge acquisition. Research suggests that
the lower ability groups have, in fact, reduced opportunities to learn because
relatively more time is spent on discipline and administrative issues and
instructional materials are of lower quality (Snow, 1986). Most schools, in
particular at the primary level, gear learning activities to the average student,
keeping the whole class together as a single group. Of course, students who
deviate radically from the class norm, because they are slow learners or, on
the contrary, gifted students, may receive special attention from the teacher
and, eventually, be placed in special classes. The basic idea, however, is that
most students fall into the “average”, and most of the time teachers will gear
lessons to the class as a whole. There is also a practical issue of class size,
which can vary from 10 to 40 or more pupils in developed countries,
depending on several parameters (rural/urban setting, parents’ socio-economic
level, resources devoted to a country’s educational system) . Clearly, the
larger the class size, the less time teachers tend to have to offer personalised
attention to each student .

In the past century, as elementary school became a widespread, and, in

many countries, compulsory activity for children, some educators, such as
Célestin Freinet (France) and Marie Montessori (Italy) called into question
standard, homogenised educational programs for the “average” student. In
fact, there is notable variability even among average students, both inter-
individual and intra-individual differences are observed. Thus, to treat the
class as a homogeneous group, providing the same lesson at the same time to
all the students favours, in fact, only a small fraction of the students(Blancas
et al., 1985). . An alternative vision of schooling developed in which the
individual student is placed at the centre of the learning environment. The
goal is to enhance the fit between the student’s personal needs and ways of
learning and the pedagogical activities. If each student operates in his or her
“zone of proximal development”, a concept proposed by the Russian
psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978; Wozniak, 1980),
then quality education will be achieved. In this spirit, each student advances
at his or her own pace and the teacher provides help to those who need it and
validates that a student has achieved a given level of learning. Freinet
developed, for example, a series of exercises in spelling, grammar, and
mathematics that each student had to accomplish (see Piaton, 1974). The
speed with which students progressed can vary between students (inter-
individual differences) but can also vary across learning domains for a
particular student (intra-individual variability). Students correct their own
exercises using the answer keys and teachers supervise each student’s
progress daily or weekly, with providing exams at certain points.
The idea of individualising the educational experience has received
growing attention (see Corno & Snow, 1986 for details). For example,
Raymond Corsini (1977), with regard to the U.S. educational system, has
detailed how individualised education programs (IEP) can be implemented at
all levels of schooling (see also, Nisan, 2003). Research on individualised,
child-centered education in developing countries has been rare. In a case
study, Sibia and Raina (2001) describe how some schools in India have
emphasised students’ individual needs. For example, in one Indian elementary
school, pupils followed individualised learning programmes for certain
subject matters. It should be noted that this experimental school had a very
favourable student-teacher ratio because many part-time volunteers in the
community helped the full-time teachers. Snow (1986) envisions an
individualised educational system in which (a) instruction is adapted to fit
students’ current capacities and strengths, which allows learning subject
matter to proceed, and (b) students receive, in addition, focused training to
improve directly weak abilities or overcome specific problems, such as test
anxiety. For example, students with poor reading skills could be provided
science lessons based on diagrams and practical activities with little reading
involved (to maintain learning in science) and receive special exercises to
improve reading skills. For students high in test anxiety, clear, highly
structured lessons can be provided in each subject matter (such as
science)which reduces stress during learning, and in parallel students receive
anxiety-reduction training.
Concerning precocious or gifted children, individualised education may be
one of the best responses. This extreme group provides an interesting case in
point because a system geared to the average students risks to not interest
gifted students. Sometimes gifted students are placed in a special enriched
class or are allowed to skip a grade. Both of these options can have negative
social consequences, such as feeling isolated from other students. In fact,
research suggests that gifted children tend to have heterogeneous ability
profiles, being specially strong in one domain (such as mathematics) and
average in other domains. Thus an individualised educational programme that
allows gifted students to remain in their regular class for certain subjects and
to be in enriched or advanced classes for other subjects may be the best
overall solution given these pupils cognitive and social needs.
In any case, individualised education remains, in current educational
practices, an alternative, non-standard approach that tends to be associated
with relatively small class size, motivated teachers who recognise the
existence and importance of individual differences in students, and students
who learn to take charge of their own education (developing autonomy),
seeking to advance as best they can at each point in the learning process.
 Some empirical studies have compared an individualised educational
approach with a traditional “average-student-oriented” approach. One of the
most important, and most rigorous studies was conducted more than fifty
years ago. Jones (1948) compared two groups of fourth grade students (age 9
–10 years old) that were matched on IQ and pre-test levels of school
performance. The control group (n=125 students in 26 classes) received
regular instruction with 4th grade lessons provided to all students in each class.
The experimental group (n=125 students in 5 classes) received individualized
instruction using materials from 2nd to 6th grade depending on each students
level and interests. Growth in students’ performances in reading, arithmetic
and spelling were examined. The experimental, individual-based teaching
group showed significantly more growth than control group, in general and for
each subject area (reading, arithmetic and spelling). Further analyses by
students’ IQ levels showed that the strongest benefits of individualised
teaching were observed for the low(IQ < 90) and average (90 < IQ < 109)
students, with positive but smaller benefits for the highest IQ group (IQ >
110) Thus there was a clear benefit of individualized instruction, with
strongest benefits for slower and average children. Similar results were
observed in more recent studies. Pratt and Mastroianni (1981) in a review of
research on schools using individualized educational programs compared to
traditional control schools showed stronger results for IEP schools in nearly
every comparison, using standardized achievement tests such as the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills (vocabulary, reading, language skills, work-study skills,
mathematics),. In one study conducted in 1979-1980, elementary students
were given a pre-test before entering 6th grade, received one year of IEP or
one year of traditional education (2 schools in the same town participated),
and then received a post-test during the following year in junior high school
(middle school). Pretest—posttest gains were on average four times larger for
the IEP students compared to the traditional education students.
Taking a somewhat different approach to individual differences and
quality education, Robert Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, Linda Jarvin and their
collaborators conducted a series of studies in elementary and secondary
schools based on the triarchic theory of intelligence. According to this theory,
there are analytical, creative and practical aspects involved in intelligence,
learning and successful performance. Analytical intelligence refers to critical
thinking abilities, creative intelligence refers to original thinking and coping
with novel situations, practical intelligence concerns the judicious application
of knowledge and abilities in real-world settings. Individuals may have
different intellectual strengths (analytic, creative, practical) , with an
orientation toward one or more of these triarchic abilities. Educational
programs can be developed based on analytic, creative or practical exercises.
In addition a combined, triarchic program can be proposed. The question is
whether individual differences in students’ aptitudes and preferences
combined with differentiated instructional programs based on the triarchic
theory will affect academic results and students’ attitudes toward the
educational experience.
In a study of 199 selected high school students participating in a summer
course on psychology, the effect of matching or mismatching students’ ability
profiles and instruction was tested (Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari &
Clinkenbeard, 1999). A battery of tests was used to characterise students as
high in analytical, creative or practical abilities, high in all three, or not
specially notable in all three abilities. The, students received a nine-week
course that included a special emphasis on either analytical, creative ,
practical or memory-based learning activities. The memory-based learning
group comprised the control condition. Thus, certain students received
instruction that matched their ability profile (e.g., a high analytical student
who received analytical-based learning) whereas other students were
mismatched on ability and instruction. All students were assessed by
assignments, midterm and final exams, and an independent project, graded by
four independent judges. Each assessment included analytical, creative,
practical and memory-based questions. Students who received teaching that
matched their ability pattern outperformed those who received instruction that
mismatched their abilities. In the educational literature, this result exemplifies
an aptitude-treatment interaction and supports the role of individual
differences in adapting education to students to achieve the best results. Often
aptitude-treatment interactions have been difficult to demonstrate, perhaps due
to a poor correspondence between the proposed educational programs and the
individual difference dimension considered (Cronbach & Snow, 1977).
A series of studies with elementary and middle-school students showed
that triarchically-based instruction (involving a combination of analytic,
creative and practical activities) led to better quality learning than traditional
memory-oriented lessons or lessons based on only analytic, critical thinking in
social studies (225 3rd grade students) and social science (142 8th grade
students). Analytic instruction emphasizes comparisons, contrasts, evaluation
and judgement; Creative instruction focuses on inventing, discovering;
Practical instruction concerns real-world applications and implications (this
practical component, thus, concerns directly the development of practical
know-how to build society, and more generally social intelligence and cultural
knowledge); memory-based instruction focuses on straight-forward
knowledge acquisition (when, where, who, how). In general students who
received the triarchic instruction both (a) outperformed students receiving
analytic-critical thinking or traditional, memory-based instruction, and (b)
reported that they liked their lessons more than the analytic and traditional
instruction groups (Sternberg, Torff & Grigorenko, 1998; ) It is interesting to
note that the group receiving triarchic instruction outperformed other groups
on analytic, creative and practical, performance measures but also on
traditional memory –based measures of learning. Perhaps the triarchic
teaching approach allows students to capitalise on their intellectual strengths
to learn as well as providing multiple ways to encode information (through
analytic, creative and practical activities) that reinforces memorisation of the
material.
Finally, a study of 708 fifth-grade students showed that triachic methods
were more powerful than traditional methods for reading instruction
(Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2002). The research included a pre-test of
reading skills (with no difference between the instructional groups),
instruction via triarchic or traditional methods, and a post-test which showed
significantly better performance for students in the triarchic instructional
condition. Students reported that they liked (80.8 %) the triarchic program;
teachers also liked it, and found that it addressed a wide range of students
needs.
 No research in developing countries has yet been conducted using the
triarchic approach. However, it is not difficult to imagine that a triarchic
programme could be implemented in developing countries. Indeed, this kind
of program involves analytic, creative and practical activities on each topic
that is taught to the whole class. Thus, the idea is that pupils will find at least
part of the activities to be interesting and to fit their abilities. This triarchic
programme is therefore applicable to large classes.
The triarchic approach is implicitly child-centred because there is
something for each child in the program that all children receive. Individual
differences are taken into account when the program is constructed because
the program responds to a diversity of pupils. The triarchic approach does not
advocate individualised academic standards or individualised ways of
reaching a common goal. Triarchic education is “quality” education in the
sense that multiple angles are offered on each topic and these approaches will,
for each individual, both fit his/her abilities (allowing learning) but will
reinforce learning through the multiple exposure (via analytic, creative and
practical) to a topic. For example, if teaching irregular verbs, pupils will be
exposed to multiple activities (analytic, creative, practical) using these verbs
with the hope that (1) each child will respond to at least one kind of activity,
and (2) all pupils will benefit from the multiple angles offered on the topic,
strengthening learning. In the triarchic approach, quality teaching (via
analytic, creative and practical activities) is linked to (1) the quality of
educational materials that provide adapted, engaging exercises and activities,
but also to (2) quality assessment procedures that measure analytic, creative
and practical learning and thinking. If a component of an educational
program is not assessed, it may be viewed by students as unimportant.
What are the main lessons to be learned from the above for policy
and pedagogic reform?
1. Individual differences need to be understood by teachers.
Teacher training needs to present the variety of individual differences
that students can show and motivate teachers to modulate their lessons
according to these differences. Teachers need to learn how taking into
account these differences among students can improve the quality of
education.

2. Individual differences need to be assessed in order to be taken

into account. To adequately address individual differences, teachers
must have a way to characterize students in a scientifically valid way.
Cognitive ability measures, personality questionnaires, interest
inventories and other tools are available. Teachers need to become
aware of these tools and use them appropriately.

3. In some contexts, a system can be devised in which high

quality education is provided to each student (from slower students to
gifted ones) through differentiated instruction to fit each students zone
for future development. As this mode of education is not commonly
practiced, it is important to begin with pilot schools in each region that
can diffuse teaching methods.
 4. Teaching a topic using a wide range of learning styles and
activities allows students to find at least a part that fits their abilities
and interests. Thus, alternative to differentiated instruction at the
individual student level, it is possible to conceive of educational
programs that offer a diversity of approaches to all students. All
students are exposed to multiple ways to learn, which will allow each
student to find his/her favourite way and to receive reinforcement from
the additional methods offered on each topic (see Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 2000).

Blancas, A., Blancas, R., Dejaune, A., Mur, D., Ramplon, A.(1985).
Pourquoi ? Comment ? Démarrer en pédagogie Freinet. Cannes, France :
CEL.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional
methiods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual
differences in students. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on
teaching (p. 605-629). New York : Macmillan.
Corsini, R. J. (1977). Special supplement on individual education. Journal
of Individual Psychology, 33, 295-349.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Practical approaches to individualizing
instruction. NJ: Parker Publishing (Prentice-Hall).
Grigorenko, E., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School-based tests of
the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 167-208.
Jones, D. M. (1948). An experiment in adaptation to individual
differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 39(5), 257-272.
Nisan, L. (2003). Individual education international. Journal of Individual
Psychology, 59(2), 207-212.
Piaton, G. 1974). La pensée pédagogique de Célestin Freinet [The
pedagogical approach of Célestin Freinet]. Toulouse, France: Privat.
Pratt, A. B., & Mastroianni, M. (1981). Summary of research on
individual education. Journal of Individual Psychology, 37, 232-246.
Sibia, A., & Raina, M. K. (201). Towards understanding the context of
teaching-learning encounters in Mirambika : An ethnographic account.
Psychological Studies, 46(3), 141-147.
Snow, R. E. (1986). Individual differences and the design of educational
programs. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1029-1039.
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E.(2000). Teaching for successful
intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A
triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 3-13.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. (1998). Teaching triarchically
improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3),
374-384.
Treiman, R. (1984). Individual differences among children in spelling and
reading styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 463-477.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
 Wozniak, R. H. (1980). Theory, practice, and the “zone of proximal
development” in Soviet psychoeducational research. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 5, 175-183.

What is the role of creativity versus academic achievement for

quality education? For social and economic development?
Since Guilford’s and Torrance’s work beginning in the 1950s, the topic of
creativity in the fields of psychology and education has received increasing
attention. There is wide agreement that creativity represents an important facet
of human behaviour, which is potentially relevant to nearly every domain of
activity (for example, artistic, scientific, economic, everyday life domains.
Creativity can be defined as the capacity to produce novel, original work that
fits within task constraints (Lubart, Mouchiroud, Tordjman & Zenasni, 2003).
Work refers to all types of ideas and productions. This work must be novel in
the sense that it goes beyond a replication or copy of that which exists. The
extent to which the work produced is novel can vary from being original only
for the person who completed the work (this is the notion of re-inventing ideas
known already in the larger social context) to being original for a limited
social group, to being original for all of humanity. The second component in
the definition concerns the fit with constraints. We distinguish creative ideas
from bizarre ideas, which are also novel, because creative ideas take into
account the parameters of a situation, the constraints. Depending on the field
of endeavour, such as art, science, literature, or engineering and design, the
weight given to the two components, novelty and constraint satisfaction,
varies.
Education has been traditionally focused on the development of expert-
like behaviour through knowledge acquisition and analytic-critical thinking
skills. This academic expertise is valuable and relates to career performance
to some extent. However, the rapid pace of technological and social
evolutions in modern society suggest that high quality education should not be
limited to acquiring an “expert” knowledge base. Indeed, economists such as
Paul Romer (1993, 1994) have proposed that economic growth in the 21st
century will depend on creativity, inventing new products, new services, new
opportunities much more than producing more goods, or producing goods
more inexpensively. These “endogenous” economic growth models suggest
that creative thinking skills will be at least as valuable as traditional academic
skills if not more so. Societal investment of educational resources in creativity
training can be considered as the development of “human capital”, which can
contribute to future economic growth (Walberg & Stariha, 1992). Quality
education allows individuals and society to grow and adapt effectively to new
challenges that will arise. In this sense, knowledge needs to be acquired with
the philosophy that this knowledge is not static but will evolve, be
reconfigured at some point, and perhaps replaced by new ideas. Thus quality
education in the current and future marketplace must foster flexibility, and
creativity in addition knowledge acquisition.
Societies may decide to specifically stimulate creativity for political or
economic reasons. For an historical example, after the launch of Sputnik by
the former Soviet Union, many politicians and educators in the United States
called for programs to enhance students’ scientific creativity to enhance
national competitiveness. More recently, government and private sectors in
various Central and South American countries (such as Brazil, Mexico, Peru,
Venezuela), in African countries (such as South Africa), in India as well as
Chinese societies (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan) have
stressed the importance of developing creativity (Agarwal, 1992;Wu, 2001).
For example, in Singapore, from the 1980s a number of educational initiatives
were introduced to foster creative thinking in students and sensitise teachers.
The prime minister’s speeches (1996-1999) noted the necessity of enhancing
creativity. Since 1999, student teachers are assessed, in part, on their ability to
promote creative thinking (Tan, 2000). Implemented educational practices,
however, do not always correspond to educational policy objectives. Wu
(2001) suggests that many people involved in the Chinese educational sector
continue to emphasise authority figures, exam results and standard answers,
“nice boy and girl” behaviour, memorisation of knowledge, and seriousness.
Tan (2001) notes that despite an emphasis on creative thinking, Singaporean
elementary schools are strongly influenced by the preparation for streaming
exams (age 10 and 12, grades 4 and 6), which lead to an emphasis on
structured questions, textbook activities and memorisation. In addition to
these factors, Ng (2001, 2004) has examined the influence of collectivist
culture on the emergence of creativity and proposed school-based measures to
foster creativity given the various negative influences that have been
identified.

How does creativity develop in children?

According to the multivariate approach, creativity depends on cognitive,
conative, and environmental factors that combine interactively (Amabile,
1983, 1996; Lubart, 1999a; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Lubart et al., 2003).
Each of the factors underlying creativity develops during childhood.

Cognition and development

Several intellectual abilities are considered important for creativity. These
include selective encoding – the ability to notice relevant stimuli in the
environment, selective comparison ability allowing for analogical and
metaphorical thought, selective combination ability to facilitate the generation
of complex ideas from disparate elements, and divergent thinking to generate
numerous alternatives when facing an impasse. These abilities can be
developed but they are not frequently emphasised at school.
It is also important to note that the development of cognitive abilities
particularly involved in creative thinking, such as divergent thinking, is not
isolated from the development of other cognitive abilities, such as logical
reasoning. In fact, some of research suggests that there may be temporary
slumps in creative development when other aspects of cognition that require
contrasting types of thinking are put into place. In addition to basic
information processing skills, the acquisition of knowledge is also important.
Knowledge is the raw material on which creative thinking draws. providing a
platform from which creative ideas can be generated. Of course, as with most
things, too much of a good thing can become detrimental; the negative side of
acquiring substantial knowledge on a topic is that it can lead to rigid,
“fossilized” thinking.

Conation and development

Creativity is more than a purely cognitive phenomenon. In particular the
traits of risk taking, openness, individuality, perseverance and tolerance of
ambiguity seem to play a role in creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).
Consider, for example, the trait of risk taking.
Clifford (1988) examined children’s risk taking and failure tolerance in
academic situations. She asked children at various grade levels (8- to 12-year
olds) to solve problems of their own choice in verbal, mathematics, and other
academic domains. The problems were clearly labelled as being appropriate
for average children of various ages (age 6 to 14 years old). The results were
somewhat surprising and disturbing. Fourth-grade children selected problems
that were approximately six months below their ability level; fifth graders
selected problems that were on average one year below their level, and for
sixth graders differences reached up to 1.5 years between real age and the age-
level of the problems selected. This shows that children were increasingly risk
averse with age, which is smart for getting good grades in school. This result,
which was originally obtained in a study of American children has been
replicated in Mainland China (Clifford, Lan, Chou, & Qi, 1989), in Taiwan
(Clifford & Chou, 1991) and with somewhat different tasks in our own work
in France. The basic finding can be considered disturbing because creative
thinking involves taking risks, going against standard ideas, and exposing
oneself to failure and negative comments from peers, teachers, or parents. In
research with adults, we have found that people who respond to hypothetical
domain-specific situation scenarios in a way that shows willingness to take
risk tend to produce more creative work in tasks in the domain examined
(Lubart & Sternberg, 1995). These considerations among others led to the
development of what we call the investment approach to creativity (Sternberg
& Lubart, 1995). In this view, many people are not creative because they are
unwilling to pursue unknown or little valued ideas, they don’t “buy low.”
“Buying low” involves investing one’s energy and resources in new, risky or
low-valued ideas. Some of these ideas may turn out to be worth the
investment. Being creative is, in part, a philosophy of life, which is acquired
through childhood experiences.
In addition to personality traits, motivational variables have also been
shown to be important for creativity. Motivation refers to the force that drives
an individual to engage in a task. There are both intrinsic motivators, such as
curiosity and the enjoyment gained from expressing one’s self through visual
or verbal modes, as well as extrinsic motivators, such as social recognition
from peers or teachers. Research in which motivation is manipulated by role-
modelling, training, or rewards suggests that children’s motivation for work,
intrinsic or extrinsic, develops over time based on the experiences provided by
their environment. Intrinsic motivation is considered more conducive for
creativity although extrinsic motivation can also contribute in certain
circumstances (Amabile, 1996).
 Environment and development
Several authors have proposed that one of the key influences on creative
development is the physical and social environment of the child, comprised of
family, school, and societal spheres.
The family environment may provide cognitive (e.g., intellectual
stimulation) and affective (e.g., emotional security) support for creativity as
well as providing the physical setting in which a child grows (Harrington,
Block & Block, 1987). For example, families that provide stimulating settings
with many books, magazines and cultural activities tend to foster creative
thinking (Simonton, 1984). Carl Rogers (1954) suggested that a warm, secure
family will serve as a base from which creative work can be attempted.
In addition to the family setting, the school environment plays a crucial
role in the development of creativity, or its lack of development in many
cases. First, children acquire cognitive abilities and knowledge in school.
Often schools emphasize convergent thinking, finding the “correct” answer to
problems proposed by the teacher. Sometimes, however, divergent thinking is
encouraged and children are allowed to struggle with ill-defined problems. In
terms of knowledge, information is often transmitted in a compartmentalized
way, with an emphasis on memorization and recall. However, some curricula
emphasize the dynamic, context-specific nature of knowledge, using
knowledge in diverse ways, and building links across different content areas.
Cropley (1997) has identified some common characteristics of teachers who
foster creativity in the classroom, they encourage independent learning, have a
cooperative teaching-style, motivate students to learn the facts in order to have
a solid base for divergent thinking, encourage flexible thinking, delay judging
students’ ideas until they have been fully considered, promote self-evaluation
of ideas, take students questions and suggestions seriously, offer opportunities
to work with a variety of materials in varied conditions, and help students to
cope with frustration and failure in order to build the courage to pursue new
ideas.
Second, teachers serve as role models for children. Teachers may value or
de-value the expression of creative ideas in the classroom. Work on teachers’
conceptions of the ideal student show that teachers often value characteristics
that are socially important but not specially relevant for creativity. For
example, a study of Finnish school teachers found a conception of the ideal
pupil as honest, broad-minded, valuing self-respect, family security, true
friendship and meaning in life (Verkasalo, Tuomivaara & Lindeman, 1996). A
study of Nigerian teachers showed that they valued pupil characteristics such
as industry, sincerity, obedience, courtesy, consideration, self-confidence, and
health (Ohuche, 1987). Other studies in Germany, Greece, India, the
Philippines, Turkey, and the United States have shown that teachers favour
quiet, conforming behaviours rather than intellectually provocative ones,
which may question the teacher’s authority (Fasko, 2002; Strom & Strom,
2002). Teacher attitudes and values affect children’s leaning because teachers
tend to reward behaviours that correspond to their values. These behaviours,
such as not disrupting the class by asking many questions may lead to reduced
creative thinking, or less learning in general, because students who ask
questions tend to be following the lesson. Working with teachers on their
attitudes towards creative behaviours in the classroom is thus important as
they are in a privileged position to stimulate or stifle creativity. Teachers’
attitudes and values are learned and constructed over time. For current
teachers these attitudes started to develop, probably, when teachers were
themselves primary school students and then were confirmed during teacher
training. It is important in teacher training and in-service programs to help
teachers recognise what attitudes/values they have and to see the effects of
these on students’ learning.
Third, school structures children’s lives and serves as an important context
for socialization. Torrance (1962, 1968) and other authors have suggested that
some temporary slumps in creative divergent thinking task performance,
observed at age 6 and 13 in developmental studies using the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking, can be explained by school-related circumstances. In
particular, around age 6, most children enter the formal school system. They
encounter a structured world with many new rules to master and structured
learning activities to accomplish. It is not surprising, therefore, that creativity
is affected. At approximately age 13, a second slump is often observed in the
average developmental curve. This age corresponds in many cases to a change
from elementary school to secondary school, which certainly requires some
time for children to adjust. Also, age 13 corresponds to adolescence, a period
specially marked by peer pressure and identity development. Other authors
have repeatedly noted that national or regional exams, used for streaming
students, focus teachers and students attention on memorization and analytic
thinking and correspond to neglect of activities to develop creative thinking.
Beyond the local, school setting, the macroscopic social environment
conditions creative development in numerous ways. For example, cultural
activities such as concerts, artistic expositions, museums, and television shows
on diverse topics can all contribute to children’s creative development. In
many schools graphic-expressive activities such as drawing and painting are
given more attention than musical creation and improvisation; creative
activities in scientific courses are even rarer, thus orienting creativity to
certain domains more than others. Social events or competitions, such as the
Olympics of the Mind competition, are organised through schools the local,
national or international level that promote certain domains of creative
activity. These competitions, which focus usually on scientific, musical or
artistic creativity, provide a structured setting in which children receive
materials, instructions, supervision and motivation and, social recognition for
their efforts.
Finally, cross-cultural analyses suggest that the amount of creative
activity, the domains in which creativity is promoted, and even the definition
of creativity can vary across cultures (Lubart, 1999b). Concerning the qualtity
of creative activity, historiometric studies have shown that the presence of
eminent role models (such as great scientists or writers) in one generation (g)
tends to predict the creative accomplishments of future generations (g+1, g+2)
in the same domain (Simonton, 1984, 1996). Furthermore, creativity may be
stimulated or hindered in general by cultural features such as the value placed
on conformity or tradition. Some cultures more than others accept deviation
(at least in certain domains). For example, Silver (1981) reports that African
Ashanti wood carvers avoid overtly criticizing their peers. They look
positively on attempts to try new things considering that that the innovation
may catch on and at worst it will fail harmlessly.
 Concerning the manifestation of creativity in terms of the preferred forms
and domains, culture encourages creativity in some situations and for some
topics but discourages it for others. For example, for traditional Indian
painters, Pichwai paintings of the Shri Nathji idol or other religious topics are
the most important genre. Depiction of a fundamental motif is not open to
change but creativity can play a role in the depiction of subthemes. In
landscape paintings, a greater degree of stylistic variation is permitted.
Paintings produced for popular calendars, a third genre, are seen as a leisure-
time form of painting and show the most creativity (Maduro, 1976). In
Bengal, creative endeavour in literature, music, mysticism and metaphysics,
as well as architecture, sculpture and painting are highly valued, whereas the
scientific and mathematical domains have received less attention.
Anisuzzaman (1981) explains this difference by the fact that, in Bengal,
creativity was closely related to social status. Literary creativity was mostly
practiced among the high caste groups, who relegated other art forms to lower
caste levels. In the case of technological advancement, new methods of
working benefited mostly farmers and craftsmen – members of the working
class. According to Rudowicz and Yue (2000), variations in the preferred
domains for creative activity are also observed in comparisons between
mainland China and Hong Kong. Creativity-relevant books, workshops and
educational materials in mainland China favour examples of scientific and
technological creativity whereas in Hong Kong, creativity in business and
financial sectors is highlighted. The Kaluli of Papua New Guinea illustrate
furthermore how creativity can depend on social structure. In this case the
focus is on gender-based groups: Men and women can both be creative but in
different musical genres. For women, songs that express the personal
emotions of the singer are valued, such as songs in which an individual’s
sorrow for a loved one’s death is expressed. For men, songs that provoke a
collective emotional response are valued, such as those that incite the
audience to cry or even to attack the singer (Brenneis, 1990).
Finally, with regard to the definition of creativity, it is possible to distinguish a
“Western” vision of creativity emphasizing an observable product of creative
thinking from an alternative, Eastern or Oriental view more focused on the discovery
process than the output of innovative products. Creativity is often discussed with
respect to a state of personal fulfilment, an expression of an inner essence or ultimate
reality, the reinterpretation or renewal of traditional ideas – finding a new point of
view – more than a dramatic break with tradition (Lubart,1999b).

How can schools best be made to foster creativity? Practical

suggestions.

1. Schools can provide an environment that specifically values creative

thinking, recognises in students and promotes through teachers’
behaviours in the classroom. Creativity needs to be valued at least as
much as knowledge acquisition. Thus creativity needs to assessed and
recognized through project work as part of school performance.
2. Teachers need to be educated to understand creative development and
ways in which creativity can be fostered or inhibited by school
practices. Teachers need to be sensitised to creativity issues that are
rarely part of their teacher training or priorities.
 3. Exercises can be provided to foster directly the development of the
cognitive and conative factors involved in creativity (such as generic
divergent thinking ability, risk taking tendencies, etc.). This
“creativity training” acts at the sources of creativity in order to see an
effect in the use of creative thinking in diverse activities and projects
undertaken by students.
4. Creative thinking activities can be infused in each subject studied.
This is consistent with the triarchic approach proposed for individual
differences (see the earlier section). This “embedded” approach takes
into account that creativity is partly domain specific and that creativity
depends on domain-specific and task-specific knowledge. Thus
creativity is compatible with knowledge acquisition goals of
education. Project work is favoured and creative thinking skills are
taught in complex, real-world contexts related to topics covered in the
general curriculum. A good example of how infusing creativity in the
elementary school curriculum, combined with teacher training, can be
found in a series of educational programs implemented with success in
Hong Kong (Hui, 2004).

References
Agarwal, K. P. (1992). Development of creativity in Indian schools. New
Delhi: Concept Publishing.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Anisuzzaman, A. T. M. (1981). Social aspects of endogenous intellectual
creativity: A perspective for Bangladesh. In A. Abdel-Malek, & A.
N.Pandeya (Eds.), Intellectual creativity in endogenous culture (pp.301-
339). Kyoto: The United Nations University.
Brenneis, D. (1990).Musical imaginations: Comparative perspectives on
musical creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Theories of creativity (pp. 170-
189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten- to
twelve-year-old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
58(1), 15-27.
Clifford, M. M., & Chou, F. C. (1991). Effects of Payoff and task context on
academic risk taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4),499-507.
Clifford, M.M., Lan, W.Y., Chou, F. C., & Qi, Y. (1989). Academic risk-
taking: Developmental and cross-cultural observations. Journal of
Experimental Education, 57(4), 321-338.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General
principles. In M. Q. Runco (Ed.). The Creativity Research Handbook (Vol.
1, pp. 83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Harrington, D.M., Block, J.H., and Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl
Rogers’s theory of creative environments: Child rearing antecedents of
creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4, 851-856.
Fasko, D. (2002).Creativity in the schools: What’s going on ? Research in the
Schools, 9(2), 15-21.
Hui, A. (2004). Creativity and quality of education : A Hong Kong
perspective. Hong Kong: Center for Child Development, Hong Kong
Baptist University.
Lubart, T. I. (1999a). Componential models of creativity. In M. A. Runco &
S. Pritzer (Eds.) Encyclopaedia of creativity (pp. 295-300). New York :
Academic Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1999b). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 339-350). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lubart, T. I., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003).
Psychologie de la créativité [Psychology of creativity]. Paris: Arman
Colin.
Maduro, R. (1976). Artistic creativity in a Brahmin painter community,
Research monograph 14. Berkeley, CA: Centre for South and Southeast
Asia Studies, University of California.
Ng, K. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than westerners. Singapore:
Prentice-Hall.
Ng, K. (2004). Liberating the creative spirit in Asian students. Singapore:
Prentice-Hall.
Ohuche, N. M. (1987). The ideal pupil as perceived by Nigerian (Igbo)
teachers and Torrence’s creative personality. Indian Journal of Applied
Psychology, 24(2), 80-86.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of
General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.
Romer, P. M. (1993). Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development.
Journal of Monetary Economics, 32, 543-573.
Silver, H. R. (1981). Calculating risks: The socioeconomic foundations of
aesthetic innovation in an Ashanti carving community. Ethnology, 20, 101-
114.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1996). Individual genius and cultural configurations : The
case of Japanese civilisation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27,
354-375.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules : Education for
creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183-200.
Tan, A.G. (2000). A review on the study of creativity in Singapore. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 34(4), 259-284.
Tan, A.G. (2001).Singaporean teachers’ perception of activities useful for
fostering creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 131-148.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Cultural discontinuities and the development of
originality of thinking. Exceptional Children, 29, 1-12.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump
in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13(3), 155-158
Verkasalo, M., Tuomivaara, P., & Lindeman, M. (1996). 15-year-old pupils’
and their teachers’ values, and their beliefs about the values of an ideal
pupil. Educational Psychology, 16(1), 35-47.
Walberg, H. J., & Stariha, W. E. (1992). Productive human capital: Learning,
creativity and eminence. Creativity Research Journal., 12, 323-340.
Wu, J-J.(2001). Enticing the crouching tiger and awakening the hidden
dragon : Recognizing and nurturing creativity in Chinese students. The
second International Symposium on Child Development, Hong Kong, June
26-28.