“Describe the tongue of a woodpecker,” wrote Leonardo Da Vinci on one of his

to-do lists, next to sketching cadavers, designing elaborate machines, and

stitching costumes. Da Vinci filled over 7,000 notebook pages with questions,
doodles, observations, sketches, and calculations. He nurtured creativity as a
habit and skill every day—and it paid off. Da Vinci’s work reshaped multiple
disciplines, from science, to art, to engineering.

I was intrigued when my co-teacher suggested using “Da Vinci” notebooks in our
2nd grade classroom. The idea was simple: students keep notebooks,
independent of any academic subject, where they can try creative exercises and
explore personal passions. I ordered a stack of bound notebooks for the
occasion.

Within a week, the results astounded me. Whenever a student’s thinking

diverged from our lesson objectives, or their question glimmered with the spark of
a potential new interest, we sent them to their Da Vinci notebook. “Write it
down!”—a refrain chanted countless times a day. One day, we did a “100
questions challenge,” inspired by the book How to Think Like Leonardo Da
Vinci by Michael Gelb. The goal: Write 100 questions, in one sitting,
about anything. The 2nd graders asked questions like: How does your brain
work? Why do we have music? Do tiny people live on atoms? Why am I not a
tiger? How do keys open door locks? Why do things have to die? Why did
Beethoven write an ode to joy if he was so grumpy? Why aren’t all cars electric?

By the end of the year, the Da Vinci notebooks were gloriously full. One 2nd
grader had designed and sketched a fleet of zombie-apocalypse vehicles.
Another wrote poem upon poem, practicing techniques she’d learned earlier in
the week. Another took insightful notes on her day-to-day observations of our
classroom. Despite many trips between home and school, only one child lost
their notebook all year—no mean feat for 7-year-olds.

The Da Vinci notebooks weren’t just for students. We teachers kept them too.
Joining in on the creative chaos with our students, we logged our own curiosities
and passions. As I scribbled poems, sketched the plant on my desk, and
recorded questions about who invented the fountain pen, I was re-immersed in
the joy of the learning process. I’m convinced the notebook made me a more
engaged teacher, especially on challenging days. There’s no way to know with
certainty what the effects of these notebooks were. But the creative attitude of Da
Vinci began to take root in our classroom—in our students and in us as
educators.

Creativity is often paid lip service, but in reality, most schools are currently
experiencing a “creativity gap”—with significantly more creative activity
occurring outside of school. Numerous psychologists argue that creativity is not
just an enrichment or add-on in the classroom: It is a definable, measurable, set
of psychological skills that enhance learning and will be necessary in the 21st-
century workforce.

Do your students regularly display and develop their creativity while in your
classroom?
Are you in touch with your own creativity as a teacher?

Here are some steps you can take to reflect—and some strategies you could try.

Why schools need to prioritize creativity

A well-accepted definition of creativity is the generation of a new product that’s
both novel and appropriate in a particular scenario. (A product could be an idea,
an artwork, an invention, or an assignment in your classroom.) There isn’t just
one way for a person to “be creative,” or one set of characteristics that will
differentiate “the” creative person. Instead, many experts think of creativity as a
set of skills and attitudes that anyone is capable of: tolerating ambiguity,
redefining old problems, finding new problems to solve, taking sensible risks, and
following an inner passion.

Some researchers distinguish between several stages of creativity.

Most people are familiar with “Big-C” creativity: rare ideas of extraordinary
people, like Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, or Einstein’s paradigm-shifting
theories of theoretical physics. But there are also everyday forms of creativity:
“Mini-c” creativity, when a person learns something new and their understanding
of the world changes, and “Little-c” creativity, when a person’s life become
embedded with everyday creative thoughts and actions.

It may also be instructive to think about what creativity is not:

1. Just for artists, writers, and painters. It’s an attitude and way of problem-
solving that applies across domains, from engineering, to biology, to
business.
2. Necessarily a result or sign of mental illness. While there may be
connections between creativity in individuals with certain disorders, beware
anecdotal stories of ear-slicing artists and hot-headed scientists.
3. A fixed trait that only some people possess.
4. The same as IQ. Even students who are not intellectually “gifted” can be
highly creative.
5. Beyond measurement. While no single test is perfect, there are many ways
to assess (and improve) creativity.
Many experts in psychology and education argue that creativity skills are
psychological skills needed for success in school and in the future workforce. As
such, schools have a duty to teach them and value them. One 2010
survey found that over 1,500 executives valued creativity as the most crucial
business skill in the modern world. In a knowledge economy where rote tasks are
can be completed by machines, and almost all information is available with one
click, students need to be ready to learn independently, and constantly adapt,
innovate, and creatively problem-solve in the workplace.

Creativity also directly enhances learning by increasing motivation, deepening

understanding, and promoting joy. Intrinsic motivation is essential to the creative
process—and relies on students pursuing meaningful goals. “Create” is at the top
of Bloom’s taxonomy for a reason: By noticing broader pattern and
connecting material across academic disciplines, creative thinking can facilitate
deeper cross-curricular learning. As Alane Jordan Starko points out in the
book Creativity in the Classroom, the strategies that support creativity—
solving problems, exploring multiple options, and learning inquiry—also support
depth of understanding.

Robert Sternberg has argued that creativity can predict college success above
and beyond just what we get from standardized test scores: In one study of
students taking the GRE, higher scores correlated with higher creativity. Beyond
academic achievement, creativity can make learning more fun—leading to joy
and positive emotional engagement in students. (Watch out for what Jonathan
Plucker, a professor in the Johns Hopkins School of Education, calls “Listerine”
approach to education—that “serious and boring” is the only way towards
productive learning.)

Develop your students’ creativity in the

classroom
Creativity requires a safe environment in which to play, exercise autonomy, and
take risks. As teachers, it’s up to us to establish this kind of supportive
classroom. Here are some suggestions from psychologists and educators for
how to develop and nurture your students’ creativity:

 Create a compassionate, accepting environment. Since

being creative requires going out on a limb, students need to trust that they
can make a mistake in front of you.
 Be present with students’ ideas. Have more off-the-cuff
conversations with students. Find out what their passion areas are, and
build those into your approach.
 Encourage autonomy. Don’t let yourself be the arbiter of what “good”
work is. Instead, give feedback that encourages self-assessment and
independence.
 Re-word assignments to promote creative thinking. Try
adding words like “create,” “design,” “invent,” “imagine,” “suppose,” to your
assignments. Adding instructions such as “Come up with as many
solutions as possible” or “Be creative!” can increase creative performance.
 Give students direct feedback on their creativity. Lots of
students don’t realize how creative they are, or get feedback to help them
incorporate “creative” into their self-concept. Explore the idea of “creative
competence” alongside the traditional academic competencies in literacy
and mathematics. When we evaluate something, we value it! Creating a
self-concept that includes creativity.
 Help students know when it’s appropriate to be
creative. For example, help them see the contexts when creativity is
more or less helpful—in a low-stakes group project versus a standardized
state assessment.
 Use creative instructional strategies, models, and
methods as much as possible in a variety of domains. Model creativity
for students in the way you speak and the way you act. For example, you
could say “I thought about 3 ways to introduce this lesson. I’m going to
show you 2, then you come up with a third,” or show them a personal
project you’ve been working on.
 Channel the creativity impulses in “misbehavior.” For
students who are often disturbances, see if you notice any creativity in
their behavior. Perhaps that originality could be channeled in other ways?
 Protect and support your students’ intrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic motivation fuels creativity. Several studies have
shown that relying on rewards and incentives in the classroom can
undermine intrinsic motivation to complete a task—an effect called
“overjustification.” To avoid this, Beth Hennessey, a professor of
Psychology at Wellesley College, suggests that educators try to limit
competitions and comparison with others, focusing instead on self-
improvement. Experiment with monitoring students less as they work, and
provide opportunities for them to pursue their passion when you can.
 Make it clear to students that creativity requires
effort. The creative process is not a simple “aha” that strikes without
warning. Tell students that truly creative people must imagine, and
struggle, and re-imagine while working on a project.
 Explicitly discuss creativity myths and stereotypes with
your students. Help them understand what creativity is and is not, and
how to recognize it in the world around them.
  Experiment with activities where students can practice
creative thinking. Many teachers have suggestions for creative
activities they’ve tried as warm-ups or quick breaks. “Droodles,” or visual
riddles, are simple line drawings that can have a wide range of different
interpretations, and can stimulate divergent thinking. “Quickwrites” and
“freewrites” can help students to let go of their internal censor. As part of
reviewing material, you could have kids use concept cartooning, or
draw/design/paint visual metaphors to capture the essence of complex
academic information.

Teachers: Develop and nurture your own

creativity
As creativity scholars Scott Barry Kaufman and Carolyn Gregoire write in their
book Wired to Create: “Creativity isn’t just about innovating or making art—it’s
about living creatively. We can approach any situation in life with a creative
spirit.” Teaching is, through and through, a creative profession.

Teachers who can model creative ways of thinking, playfully engage with content,
and express their ideas, will beget creative students. Students need to see
teachers who have passions, whether it’s drawing, mathematics, painting,
biology, music, politics, or theater. That contagion of passion and positive
emotion is a hotbed for creative thought. Creatively fulfilled teachers may also be
happier teachers. One study in the Journal of Positive
Psychology suggests that engaging in a creative activity—doodling, playing a
musical instrument, knitting, designing—just once a day can lead you into a more
positive state of mind. This positive state of mind will sustain you, and spread to
your students.

Here are some ways teachers can develop and nurture their own creativity:

 Be aware of your own limiting misconceptions about

creativity. Examine your own attitude toward creativity and help yourself
grow by thinking about alternative solutions.
 Experiment with new ways of teaching in the classroom—
could you try a new arts integration lesson you’ve always been afraid to
try? What about trying a new hands-on STEM investigation?
 Take a risk to express your creative side. Often, I’ll doodle
something on the board as an attention-getter, or to deliver the morning
message. Having a meerkat or a dragon telling students to put their
backpacks away is much more likely to amuse, plus it’s a chance for me to
challenge myself artistically every day.
  Treat lesson planning as the creative exercise it is. Every
day, you face new constraints in the form of the needs and preferences of
the specific learners in your classroom. Have you heard your students
debating a certain issue during recess or in the hallway? Have you noticed
their attention focused on a particular new gadget, fad, or current events
issue? Find a way to weave it into a lesson.
 Develop personal creative rituals. In her classic 1992 book on
developing personal creativity, The Artist’s Way, Julia Cameron writes
about the “artist’s date”: “a block of time, perhaps two hours weekly,
especially set aside and committed to nurturing your creative
consciousness, your inner artist.” As Cameron puts it, “the artist date is an
excursion, a play date that you pre-plan and defend against all interlopers.
… A visit to a great junk store, a solo trip to the beach, an old movie seen
alone together, a visit to an aquarium or an art gallery—these cost time,
not money. Remember, it is the time commitment that is sacred.”
 Try meditation practices that encourage creative
thought, such as “open-monitoring” meditation. One study found that
those who practiced focused-attention meditation performed better on a
test of convergent thinking, while those who practiced open-monitoring
meditation performed better on a test of divergent thinking.
 Seek solitude. Spending time in solitude is essential to nourishing your
creativity. Set aside some time to be alone, away from the distractions of
technology and others who may rely on you.
 Travel. One study found that cross-cultural experiences can
increase measures of creative thinking.
 Switch up your daily routines. Challenge your conventional ways
of thinking by taking a different route to work, listening to a new genre of
music, go to a museum and check out a style of art you’re unfamiliar with.
Changing your environment and breaking out of habitual thought can
shake your mind out of its rut.
 Embrace ambiguity. You’re probably teaching your students to
embrace error, take risks, and learn from failure. See your own teaching as
an extension of the same process. Embrace the gray areas, the
ambiguities. “Ambiguity tolerance” is a key component of creativity.

Another teacher in my school also used Da Vinci notebooks in his 4th grade
classroom, and we eagerly traded stories. As I flipped through his class’s
responses to the 100 questions challenge, I saw thoughts like: Why do we sleep?
When will the world end? Why are we addicted to candy? How was Morse code
invented? Why did we invent schools? How does poison kill you? Why do we
love?
 One question caught my eye: “Why don’t woodpeckers get brain damage?” I
smiled at the creative coincidence. Perhaps Da Vinci wondered the same thing in
his notebook centuries ago.

How to promote creativity in

the classroom
December 17, 2015 9.08pm AEDT

Author

1. Dan Davies
Dean of the Cardiff School of Education, Cardiff Metropolitan University

Disclosure statement

Dan Davies has received funding from the Teacher Training Agency, Education Scotland and the
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) in relation to his research in
creativity.
Partners

Cardiff Metropolitan Universityprovides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Republish this article

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
 Teach children to think creatively to solve tomorrow’s problems. Air
Images/www.shutterstock.com

 Email
 Twitter 175
 Facebook 457
 LinkedIn
 Print
Creativity is a big deal in the 21st century classroom. Many countries include it as a core
aim for their students in national curricula and even countries such as Singapore that
come top of world education league tables are recognising the need for more of it in
their schools.
 This surge of interest in creativity among teachers, school leaders, academics and
governments is partly driven by a growing belief that a fast-paced global economy
requires workers with the flexibility of mind to adapt to constant change rather than
follow a traditional career path.

We live in a world where increasingly complex problems require creative solutions and
where individuals’ lives can be enhanced by the greater sense of agency that comes with
having opportunities to explore their own creativity.

Yet, surprisingly few teachers describe themselves as creative. This is perhaps because
they have a performance-related, arts-based model of creativity in their minds, such as
playing a musical instrument, painting a picture, acting a part in a play, writing a unique
song, poem or story. This is in contrast to a broader definition of creativity as the ability
to make connections between two previously unrelated ideas or contexts – what has
been called “bisociation” by the Hungarian-British writer Arthur Koestler.

In 2013, I led a team undertaking a systematic review of Creative Learning

Environments in Education for the Scottish Government. Looking at a number
of studies, we found that in order to promote creativity among their pupils, teachers
need to unpick their preconceptions about what it means to be creative as part of the
professional learning process.

Let teachers be creative

They need to be given permission to innovate and improvise by school leaders, which is
risky in a school culture structured around high-stakes testing. Once given this
permission and support, teachers can develop creative learning environments for their
students. This comprises both the physical environment of the classroom and a teaching
environment with the following characteristics:

 students are given some control over their learning

 there is a balance between structure and freedom
 teachers are “playful”
 time is used flexibly
 relationships between teachers and learners include high expectations, mutual respect,
modelling of creative attitudes, flexibility and dialogue
 students work collaboratively and assess each other
While each of these characteristics on its own might seem like a description of good
teaching, it is their combination which creates the environment to promote creativity.

Two examples I uncovered during my research can help illustrate this. One teacher I
observed in Somerset surprised his class by setting up a series of activities on their
tables while they were out at break to introduce the topic of “gases”. These consisted of a
candle burning, a series of plastic cups containing different numbers of marbles, and
pairs of inflated and deflated balls.

The teacher gave no vocal instruction, but there were question cards with the activities,
for example:
Watch the candle as it burns, what do you notice? Look at how the marbles are
arranged, shake them, what is happening? Squeeze the two rugby balls, what can you
say?
Initially bemused, groups of pupils soon began interacting with the exhibits and
discussing their ideas. This unexpected start to the lesson – out of the normal routine –
together with an invitation to look at everyday phenomena differently, provided the
“hook” needed to engage children’s enthusiasm in a new scientific topic.

Abstract concepts, made fun

Another science co-ordinator at a South Gloucestershire primary school used stop-
frame animation with plasticine models (like the Wallace and Gromit films) to help
children understand forces in real-life situations. Working in groups of two or three, the
children were asked to tell a story with their short animations that would involve
everyday examples of forces in use.

Forces of nature. Ilike/www.shutterstock.com

One group of three girls shot a simple story of two boys having a fight “pushing each
other over” and a dog jumping on top of them. They then annotated the resulting short
movie on the computer with labels such as “push”, “pull”, “gravity” or “air resistance”.
One child commented:

You can be more creative when you do animation, because you can design what you’re
going to do, and you get to think things through, like what forces you’re going to use
and how the forces work.
Not only did this experience help reinforce children’s understanding of the tricky and
abstract conceptual area of forces, it also enabled them to exercise choice, make links
with other areas of the curriculum and engage in critical reflection as they viewed the
results of their work.

Examples such as these demonstrate how teachers’ own creativity and willingness to
take risks can promote creativity in the way their students are learning. Such teaching
for creativity is no laissez-faire, easy option – it requires careful preparation. As Thomas
Edison said of genius, it’s “1% inspiration, 99% percent perspiration”.
Models of Teaching
Objectives

Reading this Topic, the Student/Teacher will able to

 Comprehend the concept of Models of Teaching

 Understand the various essential elements of Models of Teaching
 Acquire information about various families of Models of Teaching

The classic definition of teaching is the design and creation of environments.

Students learn by interacting with those environment and they study how to
learn (Dewy, 1916). A model of teaching can be defined as the depiction of
teaching and learning environment, including the behaviour of teachers and
students while the lesson is presented through that model. Models of teaching
enable the students to engage in robust cognitive and social task and teach
the student how to use them productively. Models of teaching are the specific
instructional plans which are designed according to the concerned learning
theories. It provides a comprehensive blue print for curriculum to design
instructional materials, planning lessons, teacher pupil roles, supporting aids
and so forth. Joyce & Weil (2014) defines A model of teaching is a description
of a learning environment, including our behavior as teachers when that model
is used. Eggen (1979) defines that Models are prescriptive teaching strategies
which help to realize specific instructional goals. Models of teaching are really
models of learning. It helps students to acquire information, ideas, skills, value,
way of thinking and means of expressing themselves. Hence models of
teaching train the student on how to learn. In fact the most important long term
outcome of instruction may be the student’s increased capabilities to learn
more easily and effectively in the future. Hence the main aim of models of
teaching is to create powerful learners.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD TEACHING MODEL

The following are the chief characteristics of a good teaching model

 Each model has built up based on particular learning theory

 Creation of congenial learning environment in the classroom
 Effective interaction between the teacher and students
  Planned use of appropriate strategies
 Teaching process are systematically, sequentially and logically arranged
 Clear and specified roles for teachers and students
 Large scope for supporting material
 Ensure active participation of entire students in the class
 It raises the students’ level of aspiration, motivation and interest in
learning
 Every model foster and strengthen the cognitive structure of the student

ELEMENTS OF MODELS OF TEACHING

Element of a model of teaching represent its structure, process and teaching

aids of the instruction. A model of teaching consists of syntax, social system,
principle of reaction and support system. The detailed descriptions are as
follows.

Syntax

It is the steps or phases of the model being presented before the class. It
illustrates the logical and sequential order of the teacher student activities of
the instruction procedure. It describes the complete programme of action of the
model.

Social system

Social system of a model explains its nature of learning environment. It

describes the role and relationship of the teacher and students through the
phases as well as designing the lesson. As each and every model is unique,
the role of teacher and students in every model may vary according to the
respective learning theory of the model is built. It also varies in phases to
phases.

Principle of Reaction

This is the extension of social system. It deals with the rules of reaction to the
students responses in the classroom interaction. The reaction of the teacher
must be in accordance with the theory of which model has been built. The
teacher reaction is desired when the students’ responses/ behavior are
untouched with expected level responses and for giving reinforcement. It
depends the family of the model is presented.

Support system

It includes all instructional aides used in a model of teaching. Eg. Books,

Encyclopedia, Video clips, slides, News paper, Tab, Expert, Films, Specimen
etc.

Effect of models of Teaching

Models of teaching have a very positive effect on students’ behavior. Bruce

Joyce classified the effect as Instructional effect and Nurturant
Effect. Instructional effects are the direct effect of an instruction on students’
cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain. Nurturant effects are the indirect
effect other than the teacher intends to achieve through the model. It is the
additional achievement gained by the students through the unique nature
classroom interaction. Examples are the development of problem solving
ability, analytical thinking, critical thinking, social skill, tolerance etc.

FAMILIES OF MODELS OF TEACHING

Joyce & Weil (2014) categorized the models of teaching in to four families. The
classification has been made in accordance with the theoretical basis and
fundamental aim of the teaching model. The four families explained below in
detail.

THE INFORMATION PROCESSING FAMILY

Models in the information processing family focus on the cognitive activity of

child. It includes scientific inquiry for collecting original information, organizing
and properly storing of the information. Some models provide the learners with
information and concept, some emphasis concept formation and hypothesis
testing and still other generate creative thinking. Joyce & Weil (2014) listed
eight models in Information Processing Model.
THE SOCIAL FAMILY

The focus of the social model family is to build synergy (collective energy) in
the classroom for addressing ongoing problems of personal, social, national as
well as international importance. Social models help the students to develop
Self directed problem solving ability, sense of belongingness towards the
society and make them responsible citizens of the country.

THE PERSONAL FAMILY

The personal models begin from the perspective of the selfhood of the
individual. Individual consciousness and development of unique personality is
the chief focus of this family. The models in personal family attempt to make
them understand their self and thereby students can shape their future. The
cluster of personal models pays great attention to the individual perspective
and seeks to encourage productive interdependence, increasing people’s self
awareness and sense of responsibility for their own destinies.
THE BEHAVIOURAL SYSTEM FAMILY

Modification of behavior is the main focus of this family. The stance taken is
that human beings are self correcting communication systems that modify
behavior in response to the information about how successfully tasks are
navigated. The role of predetermined objectives, observable behavior, clearly
defined task and methods, feedback and reinforcement are the foundations of
models in behavior family.

CONCLUSION

Models of teaching are very effective teaching strategies which are meant for
transacting specific topic to students. The nature of the topic, presentation
method and classroom environment will direct the teacher that what model of
teaching s/he has to select for teaching the concerned topic. However the
teachers and student teachers should be well aware on the concept and
various models of teaching. Hence they can implement the models of teaching
in their professional life and make wonder in their classroom interactions.
MODELS OF TEACHING
Posted on November 28, 2013 by admin

Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A. (Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D.

Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
Mrs Sudha Rani Maheshwari, M.Sc (Zoology), B.Ed.
Former Principal, A.K.P.I.College, Roorkee, India

The term model is used to mean a teaching episode done by an experienced teacher in
which a highly focussed teaching behaviour is demonstrated, in it an individual
demonstrating particular patterns which the trainee learns through imitation. It is a way
to talk and think about instruction in which certain facts may be organized, classified
and interpreted.

Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil describe a Model of Teaching as a plan or pattern that can
be used to shape curricula, to design instructional materials and to guide instruction in
the classroom and other settings.

Thus teaching models are just instructional designs. They describe the process and
producing particular environmental situations which cause the student to interact in
such a way that specific change occurs in his behaviour.

.According to N.K.Jangira and Azit Singh (1983): “A model of teaching is a set of inter-
related components arranged in a sequence which provides guidelines to realize specific
goal. It helps in designing instructional activities and environmental facilities, carrying
out of these activities and realization of the stipulated objectives.”

Models of Teaching are designed for specific purposes-the teaching of information

concepts, ways of thinking, the study of social values and so on-by asking students to
engage in particular cognitive and social tasks. Some models centre on delivery by the
instructor while others develop as the learners respond to tasks and the student is
regarded as a partner in the educational enterprise.

These are based on the following specifications:

a-Specification of Environment- It specifies in definite terms the environmental
conditions under which a student’s response should be observed.
b- Specification of operation- It specifies the mechanism that provides for the
reaction of students and interaction with the environment.
c- Specification of criterion of Performance-It specify the criterion of
Performance which is accepted by the students The behavioural outcome which the
learner would demonstrate after completing specific instructional sequences are
delineated in the teaching models
d- Specification of learning outcome- It specifies what the student will perform
after completing an instructional sequence.
Effects of teaching by modelling
Models of Teaching are really models of learning. As we helps students acquire
information ideas skills, values, ways of thinking, and means of expressing themselves,
we are also teaching them how to learn . ln fact the most important long term outcome
of instruction may be the students ‘increased capabilities to learn more easily and
effectively in the future ,both because of the knowledge and skills they have acquired
and because they have mastered learning processes.

According to Joyce and Weil, Each model results in two types of effects Instructional
and Nurturant.

A- Instructional effects are the direct effects of the model which result from

the content and skills on which the activities are based.

B- Nurturant effects are those which are implicit in the learning environment.

They are the indirect effects of the model.

Bandura and Walters have formulated three kind of effect in teaching by modelling:

1- Modelling effect- The learner acquires new kind of response pattern.

2- -Inhibitory and disinhibitory effect- The learner increases or decreases the

frequent, latency or intensity or previously required responses.

3- Eliciting effect- The learner receives from a model merely a cue for realising a
response.

Modelling effect can be seen when a teacher demonstrates to a student how to hold a
pencil or write capital A and thus shows a new behaviour. Through modelling the
teacher lets the student know that it is not permissible of obscene nature in art book.
The eliciting effect takes place when through modelling; a teacher tries to teach students
to get up when he enters the room. Thus it provide a cue eliciting a response neither new
nor inhibited. Gagne feels that learning through imitation seems to be more appropriate
for tasks which are a little cognitive in nature.

Utility of Teaching Models in Teaching

 Teaching models are useful in developing social efficiency, personal abilities, cognitive
abilities and behavioural aspects of the students. It helps in selecting and stimulating
situations which causes the desirable changes in students
 Teaching models help to establish teaching and learning relationship empirically. It
helps in making the teaching more effective.
 Teaching models helps in providing a theoretical rationale to the teaching, which will
provide changes and rectifications in teaching.
 Teaching models stimulates the development of new educational innovations in teaching
strategies and tactics, which may replace the existing ones in schools of today.
 Teaching models assist makers of materials to create more interesting and effective
instructional materials and learning sources.
 Teaching models assist teachers to develop their capacities to create conductive
environment for teaching, as its nature is practical.
 Teaching models help curriculum planners to plan learning activities and content
material which provide a variety of educational experiences to learners.
 Teaching model evaluates the behaviour of the students. For this important task, it
presents such a criterion with the help of which the changes in the students behaviours can
be easily evaluated.
Characteristics of a Teaching model
1- Encourage Art of Teaching- Teaching is considered as an art.. Teaching models
encourages this art by providing learning environment.
2- Development of Inherent Abilities -Teaching models bring about the
qualitative development of personality as it helps in developing human abilities. It also
increases the teacher’s social competency.
3- Based on Individual Differences- Teaching model uses the student’s interest,
as it is constructed on the basis of individual differences.
4- Influenced by Philosophy- Every teaching model is influenced by the
philosophy of education. Hence, teachers formulate different models of teaching under
the influence of the philosophy they believe.
5- Answers Fundamental Questions- In every teaching model answers to all the
fundamental questions pertaining to the behaviour of students and teachers are
included.
6- Providing Appropriate Experiences- Teaching models provides proper
experiences to both teacher and student. Selecting the content and presenting it for
learning before the students is the main essentiality of teaching. This difficulty is solved
when a teacher presents appropriate experience before the students.
7- Maxims of Teaching- The basis of teaching model is the maxims of teaching.
They are the foundation of each teaching model.
8- Practice and Concentration- The development of a teaching model is based on
regular and continuous practice and concentration. The proper development of a
teaching model is only possible when the assumptions are made clear by related
thinking.
Fundamental Elements of a Teaching Model:
Normally majority of teaching models are based on the following six elements:
Focus
Focus is the central aspects of a teaching model. Objectives of teaching and aspects of
environment generally constitute the focus of the model. Every teaching model is based
on one or the other objective as its focal point. Any teaching model is developed by
keeping this focal point in mind. Every teaching model differs from another in terms of
its objectives. It is the nucleus of a teaching model. Every model is developed by keeping
in view its focal point or objective . Every model has various phases, some particular
types of competencies are developed by it.

Syntax
Syntax of the model describes the model in action. Syntax includes the sequences of
steps involved in the organization of the complete programmed of teaching. It is the
systematic sequence of the activities in the model. Each model has a distinct flow of
phases. It means the detailed description of the model in action. In it, the teaching
activities and interactions between a pupil and the teacher are determined .The syntax
of any teaching model means those points which produce activities focused on
educational objectives at various phases. Under syntax, the teaching tactics, teaching
activities and interaction between a student and the teacher are determined in such a
pattern of sequence that the teaching objectives are achieved conveniently by providing
desirable environmental situations.

Principles of Reaction
Principles of Reaction tell the teacher how to regard the learner and to respond to what
the learner does. This element is concerned with the way a teacher should regard and
aspects respond to the activities of the students. These responses should be appropriate
and selective. They provide the teacher with rules of thumb by which to select model,
appropriate responses to what the student does. This element is concerned with the
teacher’s reaction to the students responses. In it,he comes to know that how he has to
react to the responses of the students and has to see whether the learners have been
actively involved in the process, or not.

The Social System

This element is concerned with the activities of pupil and the teacher and their
mutualrelationships. Every teaching model has separate objectives and will have
therefore separate social systems. It is related with the interactive roles and relationship
between the teacher and the student, and the kinds of norms that are observed and
student behaviour which is rewarded. The Social System describes the role of and
relationships between the teacher and the pupils. In some models the teacher has a
dominant role to play. In some the activity is centred around the pupils, and in some
other models the activity is equally distributed. This element is based on the
assumption that every class is a miniature society. In it also discussed the selection of
motivating strategies and tectics for the students. Naturally social system occupies a
central position in making the teaching impressive and successful in relation to the
previously selected objectives. .

Support system
Support System describes the supporting conditions required to implement the model.
‘Support’ refers to additional requirements beyond the usual human skills, capacities
and technical facilities. The support system relates to the additional requirements other
than the usual human skills or capacities of the teacher and the facilities usually
available in the ordinary classroom. Teacher requirements refer to special skills, special
knowledge of the teacher and special audio-visual material like films, elf-instructional
material, visit to special place etc.This includes books, films, laboratory kits, reference
materials etc. It means the additional requirements beyond the usual human skill,
capacities and technical facilities. In it, the evaluation is done by oral or written
examination, whether the teaching objectives have been achieved or not. On the basis of
this success or failure, clear idea is achieved regarding the effectiveness of strategies,
tactics and techniques used during teaching.

Application
It is an important element of a teaching model. It means the utility or usage of the learnt
material in other situations. Several types of teaching modes are available. Each model
attempts to desirable the feasibility of its use in varying contexts related with goal
achievements in terms of cognitive, and affective behaviour modification.

Types of Teaching Models:

Every teaching model has its specific objective. In order to achieve the objective of a
teaching model, the teacher has to choose right type of model for achieving the
particular objective. The teaching models have been classified into three main types:

1. Philosophical teaching models: Israel Saffer had mentioned such types of

models. These include
A- The Insight model (Plato).-The insight model discard the assumption that the
meaning of of a teaching model is merely deliver the knowledge or ideas through
teaching to the mental domain of the students. According to this model the knowledge
can not be provided merely through the expression of sence organs, but the knowlnd
principles of language are most important.edge of the content is also a necessity. The
knowledge can not be provided merely by speaking the words or listening them. Mental
processes and language both work together.
B- The Impression model of teaching (John Locke).-It is based on a general
assumption the the child’s brain is like a clean slate at the time of birth. Whatever
experiences are provided through teaching, creates impression on child’s brain. These
impressions are termed as learning. In the learning process the sense organs .
C- The Rule model ( Kant)-In this model much importance is given to the logic. Kant
gives importance to logic, because in it following certain rules is essential. The objective
of rule model is to devlop the logical reasoning capacities of the student. Some particular
rules are followed. Planning, organisation and interaction of teaching is performed
under specific rules.
2- Psychological model of teaching: John P. Dececco had mentioned such types of
models. It includes
A- Basic Teaching model (Robert Glaser)- Robert Glaser (1962) has developed a
stripped-down teaching model which, with modifications, is the basic teaching model.
The basic teaching model divides the teaching process into four components or parts. It
will be useful in several ways.. The four parts of the model represent the basic
divisions. Instructional objectives, Entering behavior, instructional procedure, and
finally performance assessment.
B- An Interaction model of teaching (N.A. Flander).- Flander considered
teaching process as an interaction process. He divided class-room behaviour in ten
categories known as Flander’s ten category system. In this model the behaviour of
student and teacher is analysed. An interaction between a teacher and the student is
more emphasised in this model.
C-Computer based teaching model ( Daniel Davis )-It is the most complicated
model having , entering behaviour, determination of objectives and teaching aspect as
fundamental elements. In this element computer teaching plan is selected according to
the entering behaviour and instructional objectives. The performances of the student are
evaluated. Accordingly alternative teaching plan is presented. In this model, the
diagnosis and teaching go side by side. Remedial teaching is provided on the basis of
diagnosis .Individual differences are also given importance.
3- Modern teaching models (Joyce and Weil)
Eggen, Kauchar and Harder (1979) have discussed six Information Processing
Models –
1. General Inductive Model,
2. Concept Attainment Model,
3. Taba Model,
4. General Deductive Model,
5. Ausubel’s Model and
6. Such man’s Inquiry Model.
Modern teaching models
The most comprehensive review of teaching models is that of Joyce and Weil
(1980).Bruce R.Joyce has divided all the teaching models under the title “Modern
teaching models”. They identified 23 models which are classified into four basic families
based on the nature, distinctive characteristics and effects of the models. These four
families are :
1. information Processing Models

2. Personal Models

3. Social Interaction Models and

4. Behaviour Modification Models.

Within the families, there are specific models which are designed to serve particular
purposes.

Information Processing Models

The models of this type are concerned with the intellectual development of the
individual and help to develop the method of processing information from the
environment. These models focus on intellectual capacity. They are concerned with the
ability of the learner to observe, organise data, understand information, form concepts,
employ verbal and nonverbal symbols and solve problems. The primary purposes are :

1. The mastery of methods of inquiry

2. The mastery of academic concepts and facts

3. The development of general intellectual skills such as the ability to reason and think
more logically
The models which belong to this family are :
a. The Concept Attainment Model

b. Inquiry Training Model

c. The Advance Organiser Model

d. Cognitive Growth Development Model

e. Biological Science Inquiry Model

Brief Review of the Information Processing Source Models

SOURCE TEACHING MODEL INNOVATOR AIMS AND APPLICATION

To develop inductive
1-Concept Attainment reasoning, mental
The Information Model inductive process, and
Processing 2-Inductive Model understanding of concepts
Source Bruner, Hilda Taba and principles.

To develop individual
competencies to achieve
Inquiry Training Model Richard Suchman the social objective.

To develop understanding
of research methodology,
Biological Science Inquiry to think logically on social
Model Joseph J. Schwab problems.

Advance Organizational David Asubel To understand concepts

Model and facts and to make the
 content purposeful and
interesting.

To develop general
Cognitive Growth intelligence and logic,social
Developmental Model Jean Piaget and moral development.

II. Personal Models

Personal development models assist the individual in the development of selfhood, they
focus on the emotional life an individual,.

The emphasis of these models is on developing an individual into an integrated,

confident and competent personality. They attempt to help students understand
themselves and their goals, and to develop the means for educating themselves. Many of
the personal models of teaching have been developed by counsellors, therapists and
other persons interested in stimulating individual’s creativity and self expression.

The primary goals are :

 To increase the student’s self worth,

 To help students understand themselves more fully.
 To help students recognise their emotions and become more aware of the way emotions
effect other aspects of their behaviour,
 To help them develop goals for learning,
 To help students develop plans for increasing their competence,
 To increase the students’ creativity and playfulness,
 To increase the students’ openness to new experience.
The models which belong to this family are :

a. Non-Directive Teaching Model,

b. Synectics Teaching Model,

c. Awareness Training Model,

d. Classroom Meeting Model.

e-Conceptual System Model

Brief Review of The Personal Source Models

SOURCE TEACHING MODEL INNOVATORS AIMS AND APPLICATION

 To develop self learning by
auto instructions, self
The Personal Non-Directive Teaching research and self
Source Model, Carl Rogers understanding

To develop creative
competencies for problem
Synectics Teaching Model, William Gordon solving.

To develop individual
Awareness Training competencies and mutual
Model, W.S. Fietz relations.

To develop skills of self –

Classroom Meeting understanding and
Model. William Glasser capacities of dutifulness.

To adjust with the

environment with flexibility
Conceptual System Model David. F. Hunt in the personality.

Ill. Social Interaction Models

The models in this family emphasise the relationships of the individual to the society or
other persons. The core objective is to help students learn to work together. to identify
and solve problems, either academic or social in nature.

The primary goals are :

To help students work together to identify and solve problems

 To develop skills to human relations, and

 To become aware of personal and social values.
The models which belong to this family are :

a. Group Investigation Model,

b. Role Playing Model,

c. Jurisprudential Inquiry Model,

d. Laboratory Training Model,

e. Social Simulation Model,

f. Social Inquiry Model.

Brief review of The Social Interaction Source Models

SOURCE TEACHING MODEL INNOVATOR AIMS AND APPLICATION

To develop democratic
The Social abilities, use of knowledge
Interaction and skills in life of
Source Group Investigation Model John Dewey, Herbert individual and society.

To solve problems on the

Donald Oliver, James P. basis of information and
Jurisprudential Model Shaver reasoning power.

Social Inquiry Model

Social Simulation Model,

Role Playing Model.

To develop competencies
of problem solving and
Benjamin Cox, Byron adjustment

To develop group skills

individual capacities and
Laboratory Method Model Bethal, Maine adjustment.

IV. Behaviour Modification Model

All the models in this family share a common theoretical base, a body of knowledge
which referred to as behaviour theory. The common thrust of these models is the
emphasis on changing the visible behaviour of the learner.

The models which belong to this family is Operant Conditioning Model

Brief Review of The Behaviour Modification Source Model

SOURCE TEACHING MODEL INNOVATORS AIMS AND APPLICATION

 To achieve the objectives
Behaviour of lower level of cognitive
Modification Operant Conditioning domain on the basis of
Source Model B.F.Skinner individual differances

A number of instructional strategies to realise different instructional goals have been

developed recently by different researchers They have transformed existing knowledge
in the learning and teaching processes into ‘Models of Teaching’ which can be used by
teachers in the teaching, learning process for realising different instructional objectives.
There is a need to incorporate a few ‘Models of Teaching’ in the curriculum of teacher
education programme at the secondary as well as elementary level so that prospective
teachers attain a higher degree of ‘ability to teach’

Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed. The created
item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a
physical object (such as an invention, a literary work, or a painting).
Scholarly interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines, primarily psychology, business
studies, and cognitive science, but
also education, technology, engineering, philosophy (particularly philosophy of
science), theology, sociology, linguistics, and economics, covering the relations between creativity
and general intelligence, personality type, mental and neurological processes, mental health,
or artificial intelligence; the potential for fostering creativity through education and training; the
fostering of creativity for national economic benefit, and the application of creative resources to
improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

Contents

 1Etymology
 2Definition

 3Aspects

 4History of the concept

o 4.1Ancient views

o 4.2The Enlightenment and after

o 4.3Twentieth century to the present day

o 4.4"Four C" model

 5Theories of creative processes

o 5.1Incubation
 o 5.2Convergent and divergent thinking

o 5.3Creative cognition approach

o 5.4The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory

o 5.5Conceptual blending

o 5.6Honing theory

o 5.7Everyday imaginative thought

 6Assessing individual creative ability

o 6.1Creativity quotient

o 6.2Psychometric approach

o 6.3Social-personality approach

o 6.4Self-report questionnaires

 7Creativity and intelligence

o 7.1Creativity as a subset of intelligence

o 7.2Intelligence as a subset of creativity

o 7.3Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct constructs

o 7.4Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets

o 7.5Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets

 8Neuroscience
o 8.1Working memory and the cerebellum

o 8.2REM sleep

 9Affect
o 9.1Positive affect relations

 10Creativity and artificial intelligence

 11Mental health

 12Creativity and personality

 13Malevolent creativity
o 13.1Malevolent creativity and crime

 14Creativity across cultures

 15In organizations
o 15.1Team Composition

o 15.2Team Processes

o 15.3Organizational Culture
 o 15.4Constraints and Creativity

 16Economic views of creativity

 17Fostering creativity

 18Creativity and education policies

o 18.1Scotland

o 18.2United States

 19List of academic journals addressing creativity

 20See also

 21Notes

 22References

 23Further reading

 24External links

Etymology[edit]
The lexeme in the English word creativity comes from the Latin term creō "to create, make":
its derivational suffixes also come from Latin. The word "create" appeared in English as early as the
14th century, notably in Chaucer, to indicate divine creation [1] (in The Parson's Tale[2]). However, its
modern meaning as an act of human creation did not emerge until after the Enlightenment.[1]

Definition[edit]
In a summary of scientific research into creativity, Michael Mumford suggested: "Over the course of
the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the
production of novel, useful products" (Mumford, 2003, p. 110),[3] or, in Robert Sternberg's words, the
production of "something original and worthwhile". [4]Authors have diverged dramatically in their
precise definitions beyond these general commonalities: Peter Meusburger reckons that over a
hundred different analyses can be found in the literature. [5] As an illustration, one definition given
by Dr. E. Paul Torrance described it as "a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies,
gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching
for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and
retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating
the results."[6]
Creativity in general is usually distinguished from innovation in particular, where the stress is on
implementation. For example, Teresa Amabile and Pratt (2016) defines creativity as production of
novel and useful ideas and innovation as implementation of creative ideas [7], while
the OECD and Eurostat state that "Innovation is more than a new idea or an invention. An innovation
requires implementation, either by being put into active use or by being made available for use by
other parties, firms, individuals or organisations." [8]

Aspects[edit]
Theories of creativity (particularly investigation of why some people are more creative than others)
have focused on a variety of aspects. The dominant factors are usually identified as "the four Ps" —
process, product, person, and place (according to Mel Rhodes).[9] A focus on process is shown in
cognitive approaches that try to describe thought mechanisms and techniques for creative thinking.
Theories invoking divergent rather than convergent thinking (such as Guilford), or those describing
the staging of the creative process (such as Wallas) are primarily theories of creative process. A
focus on creative product usually appears in attempts to measure creativity (psychometrics, see
below) and in creative ideas framed as successful memes.[10] The psychometric approach to
creativity reveals that it also involves the ability to produce more. [11] A focus on the nature of the
creative personconsiders more general intellectual habits, such as openness, levels of ideation,
autonomy, expertise, exploratory behavior, and so on. A focus on place considers the circumstances
in which creativity flourishes, such as degrees of autonomy, access to resources, and the nature of
gatekeepers. Creative lifestyles are characterized by nonconforming attitudes and behaviors as well
as flexibility.[11]

History of the concept[edit]

Main article: History of the concept of creativity

Greek philosophers like Plato rejected the concept of creativity, preferring to see art as a form of discovery.
Asked in The Republic, "Will we say, of a painter, that he makes something?", Plato answers, "Certainly not, he
merely imitates."[12]

Ancient views[edit]
Most ancient cultures, including thinkers of Ancient Greece,[12] Ancient China, and Ancient India,
[13]
lacked the concept of creativity, seeing art as a form of discovery and not creation. The ancient
Greeks had no terms corresponding to "to create" or "creator" except for the expression "poiein" ("to
make"), which only applied to poiesis (poetry) and to the poietes (poet, or "maker") who made
it. Plato did not believe in art as a form of creation. Asked in The Republic,[14] "Will we say, of a
painter, that he makes something?", he answers, "Certainly not, he merely imitates."[12]
It is commonly argued that the notion of "creativity" originated in Western
culture through Christianity, as a matter of divine inspiration.[1] According to the historian Daniel J.
Boorstin, "the early Western conception of creativity was the Biblical story of creation given in
the Genesis."[15] However, this is not creativity in the modern sense, which did not arise until
the Renaissance. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, creativity was the sole province of God; humans
were not considered to have the ability to create something new except as an expression of God's
work.[16] A concept similar to that of Christianity existed in Greek culture, for instance, Muses were
seen as mediating inspiration from the Gods.[17] Romans and Greeks invoked the concept of an
external creative "daemon" (Greek) or "genius" (Latin), linked to the sacred or the divine. However,
none of these views are similar to the modern concept of creativity, and the individual was not seen
as the cause of creation until the Renaissance.[18] It was during the Renaissance that creativity was
first seen, not as a conduit for the divine, but from the abilities of "great men".[18]
The Enlightenment and after[edit]
The rejection of creativity in favor of discovery and the belief that individual creation was a conduit of
the divine would dominate the West probably until the Renaissance and even later.[16] The
development of the modern concept of creativity begins in the Renaissance, when creation began to
be perceived as having originated from the abilities of the individual, and not God. This could be
attributed to the leading intellectual movement of the time, aptly named humanism, which developed
an intensely human-centric outlook on the world, valuing the intellect and achievement of the
individual.[19] From this philosophy arose the Renaissance man (or polymath), an individual who
embodies the principals of humanism in their ceaseless courtship with knowledge and creation.
[20]
One of the most well-known and immensely accomplished examples is Leonardo da Vinci.
However, this shift was gradual and would not become immediately apparent until the
Enlightenment.[18] By the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, mention of creativity (notably
in aesthetics), linked with the concept of imagination, became more frequent.[21] In the writing
of Thomas Hobbes, imagination became a key element of human cognition; [1]William Duff was one of
the first to identify imagination as a quality of genius, typifying the separation being made between
talent (productive, but breaking no new ground) and genius. [17]
As a direct and independent topic of study, creativity effectively received no attention until the 19th
century.[17] Runco and Albert argue that creativity as the subject of proper study began seriously to
emerge in the late 19th century with the increased interest in individual differences inspired by the
arrival of Darwinism. In particular, they refer to the work of Francis Galton, who through
his eugenicist outlook took a keen interest in the heritability of intelligence, with creativity taken as an
aspect of genius.[1]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading mathematicians and scientists such as Hermann
von Helmholtz (1896) and Henri Poincaré (1908) began to reflect on and publicly discuss their
creative processes.

Twentieth century to the present day[edit]

The insights of Poincaré and von Helmholtz were built on in early accounts of the creative process
by pioneering theorists such as Graham Wallas[22] and Max Wertheimer. In his work Art of Thought,
published in 1926, Wallas presented one of the first models of the creative process. In the Wallas
stage model, creative insights and illuminations may be explained by a process consisting of 5
stages:
(i) preparation (preparatory work on a problem that focuses the individual's mind on the
problem and explores the problem's dimensions),
(ii) incubation (where the problem is internalized into the unconscious mind and nothing
appears externally to be happening),
(iii) intimation (the creative person gets a "feeling" that a solution is on its way),
(iv) illumination or insight (where the creative idea bursts forth from
its preconscious processing into conscious awareness);
(v) verification (where the idea is consciously verified, elaborated, and then applied).
Wallas' model is often treated as four stages, with "intimation" seen as a sub-
stage.
Wallas considered creativity to be a legacy of the evolutionary process, which
allowed humans to quickly adapt to rapidly changing environments.
Simonton[23] provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, Origins of
genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity.
In 1927, Alfred North Whitehead gave the Gifford Lectures at the University of
Edinburgh, later published as Process and Reality.[24] He is credited with having
coined the term "creativity" to serve as the ultimate category of his metaphysical
scheme: "Whitehead actually coined the term – our term, still the preferred
currency of exchange among literature, science, and the arts. . . a term that
quickly became so popular, so omnipresent, that its invention within living
memory, and by Alfred North Whitehead of all people, quickly became
occluded".[25]
The formal psychometric measurement of creativity, from the standpoint of
orthodox psychological literature, is usually considered to have begun with J. P.
Guilford's 1950 address to the American Psychological Association, which
helped popularize the topic[26] and focus attention on a scientific approach to
conceptualizing creativity. (It should be noted that the London School of
Psychology had instigated psychometric studies of creativity as early as 1927
with the work of H. L. Hargreaves into the Faculty of Imagination, [27] but it did not
have the same impact.) Statistical analysis led to the recognition of creativity (as
measured) as a separate aspect of human cognition to IQ-type intelligence, into
which it had previously been subsumed. Guilford's work suggested that above a
threshold level of IQ, the relationship between creativity and classically
measured intelligence broke down.[28]

"Four C" model[edit]

James C. Kaufman and Beghetto introduced a "four C" model of creativity; mini-
c ("transformative learning" involving "personally meaningful interpretations of
experiences, actions, and insights"), little-c (everyday problem solving and
creative expression), Pro-C (exhibited by people who are professionally or
vocationally creative though not necessarily eminent) and Big-C (creativity
considered great in the given field). This model was intended to help
accommodate models and theories of creativity that stressed competence as an
essential component and the historical transformation of a creative domain as
the highest mark of creativity. It also, the authors argued, made a useful
framework for analyzing creative processes in individuals. [29]
The contrast of terms "Big C" and "Little c" has been widely used. Kozbelt,
Beghetto and Runco use a little-c/Big-C model to review major theories of
creativity.[28] Margaret Bodendistinguishes between h-creativity (historical) and p-
creativity (personal).[30]
Robinson[31] and Anna Craft[32] have focused on creativity in a general population,
particularly with respect to education. Craft makes a similar distinction between
"high" and "little c" creativity.[32] and cites Ken Robinson as referring to "high" and
"democratic" creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi[33] has defined creativity in terms
of those individuals judged to have made significant creative, perhaps domain-
changing contributions. Simonton has analysed the career trajectories of
eminent creative people in order to map patterns and predictors of creative
productivity.[34]

Theories of creative processes[edit]

There has been much empirical study in psychology and cognitive science of
the processes through which creativity occurs. Interpretation of the results of
these studies has led to several possible explanations of the sources and
methods of creativity.
Incubation[edit]
Incubation is not a temporary break from creative problem solving that can
result in insight.[35] There has been some empirical research looking at whether,
as the concept of "incubation" in Wallas' model implies, a period of interruption
or rest from a problem may aid creative problem-solving. Ward [36] lists various
hypotheses that have been advanced to explain why incubation may aid
creative problem-solving, and notes how some empirical evidence is consistent
with the hypothesis that incubation aids creative problem in that it enables
"forgetting" of misleading clues. Absence of incubation may lead the problem
solver to become fixated on inappropriate strategies of solving the problem.
[37]
This work disputes the earlier hypothesis that creative solutions to problems
arise mysteriously from the unconscious mind while the conscious mind is
occupied on other tasks.[38] This earlier hypothesis is discussed
in Csikszentmihalyi's five phase model of the creative process which describes
incubation as a time that your unconscious takes over. This allows for unique
connections to be made without our consciousness trying to make logical order
out of the problem.[39]

Convergent and divergent thinking[edit]

J. P. Guilford[40] drew a distinction between convergent and divergent production
(commonly renamed convergent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking
involves aiming for a single, correct solution to a problem, whereas divergent
thinking involves creative generation of multiple answers to a set problem.
Divergent thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in psychology
literature. Other researchers have occasionally used the terms flexible thinking
or fluid intelligence, which are roughly similar to (but not synonymous with)
creativity.[citation needed]

Creative cognition approach[edit]

In 1992, Finke et al. proposed the "Geneplore" model, in which creativity takes
place in two phases: a generative phase, where an individual constructs mental
representations called preinventive structures, and an exploratory phase where
those structures are used to come up with creative ideas. Some evidence
shows that when people use their imagination to develop new ideas, those
ideas are heavily structured in predictable ways by the properties of existing
categories and concepts.[41] Weisberg[42] argued, by contrast, that creativity only
involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results.

The Explicit–Implicit Interaction (EII) theory[edit]

Helie and Sun[43] recently proposed a unified framework for
understanding creativity in problem solving, namely the Explicit–Implicit
Interaction (EII) theory of creativity. This new theory constitutes an attempt at
providing a more unified explanation of relevant phenomena (in part by
reinterpreting/integrating various fragmentary existing theories
of incubationand insight).
The EII theory relies mainly on five basic principles, namely:

1. The co-existence of and the difference between explicit and implicit

knowledge;
 2. The simultaneous involvement of implicit and explicit processes in most
tasks;
3. The redundant representation of explicit and implicit knowledge;
4. The integration of the results of explicit and implicit processing;
5. The iterative (and possibly bidirectional) processing.

A computational implementation of the theory was developed based on

the CLARION cognitive architecture and used to simulate relevant human data.
This work represents an initial step in the development of process-based
theories of creativity encompassing incubation, insight, and various other
related phenomena.

Conceptual blending[edit]
Main article: Conceptual blending
In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler introduced the concept of bisociation —
that creativity arises as a result of the intersection of two quite different frames
of reference.[44] This idea was later developed into conceptual blending. In the
1990s, various approaches in cognitive science that dealt
with metaphor, analogy, and structure mapping have been converging, and a
new integrative approach to the study of creativity in science, art and humor has
emerged under the label conceptual blending.

Honing theory[edit]
Honing theory, developed principally by psychologist Liane Gabora, posits that
creativity arises due to the self-organizing, self-mending nature of a worldview.
The creative process is a way in which the individual hones (and re-hones) an
integrated worldview. Honing theory places emphasis not only on the externally
visible creative outcome but also the internal cognitive restructuring and repair
of the worldview brought about by the creative process. When faced with a
creatively demanding task, there is an interaction between the conception of the
task and the worldview. The conception of the task changes through interaction
with the worldview, and the worldview changes through interaction with the task.
This interaction is reiterated until the task is complete, at which point not only is
the task conceived of differently, but the worldview is subtly or drastically
transformed as it follows the natural tendency of a worldview to attempt to
resolve dissonance and seek internal consistency amongst its components,
whether they be ideas, attitudes, or bits of knowledge.
A central feature of honing theory is the notion of a potentiality state. [45] Honing
theory posits that creative thought proceeds not by searching through and
randomly ‘mutating’ predefined possibilities, but by drawing upon associations
that exist due to overlap in the distributed neural cell assemblies that participate
in the encoding of experiences in memory. Midway through the creative process
one may have made associations between the current task and previous
experiences, but not yet disambiguated which aspects of those previous
experiences are relevant to the current task. Thus the creative idea may feel
‘half-baked’. It is at that point that it can be said to be in a potentiality state,
because how it will actualize depends on the different internally or externally
generated contexts it interacts with.
Honing theory is held to explain certain phenomena not dealt with by other
theories of creativity, for example, how different works by the same creator are
observed in studies to exhibit a recognizable style or 'voice' even though in
different creative outlets. This is not predicted by theories of creativity that
emphasize chance processes or the accumulation of expertise, but it is
predicted by honing theory, according to which personal style reflects the
creator's uniquely structured worldview. Another example is in the
environmental stimulus for creativity. Creativity is commonly considered to be
fostered by a supportive, nurturing, trustworthy environment conducive to self-
actualization. However, research shows that creativity is also associated with
childhood adversity, which would stimulate honing.

Everyday imaginative thought[edit]

In everyday thought, people often spontaneously imagine alternatives to reality
when they think "if only...".[46] Their counterfactual thinking is viewed as an
example of everyday creative processes.[47] It has been proposed that the
creation of counterfactual alternatives to reality depends on similar cognitive
processes to rational thought.[48]

Assessing individual creative ability[edit]

Creativity quotient[edit]
There was a creativity quotient developed similar to the intelligence
quotient (IQ). It makes use of the results of divergent thinking tests (see below)
by processing them further. It gives more weight to ideas that are radically
different from other ideas in the response.[49]

Psychometric approach[edit]
J. P. Guilford's group,[40] which pioneered the modern psychometric study of
creativity, constructed several tests to measure creativity in 1967:

 Plot Titles, where participants are given the plot of a story and asked to
write original titles.
 Quick Responses is a word-association test scored for uncommonness.
 Figure Concepts, where participants were given simple drawings of objects
and individuals and asked to find qualities or features that are common by
two or more drawings; these were scored for uncommonness.
 Unusual Uses is finding unusual uses for common everyday objects such
as bricks.
 Remote Associations, where participants are asked to find a word between
two given words (e.g. Hand _____ Call)
 Remote Consequences, where participants are asked to generate a list of
consequences of unexpected events (e.g. loss of gravity)

Building on Guilford's work, Torrance[50] developed the Torrance Tests of

Creative Thinking in 1966.[51] They involved simple tests of divergent thinking
and other problem-solving skills, which were scored on:
 Fluency – The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas
generated in response to the stimulus.
 Originality – The statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects.
 Elaboration – The amount of detail in the responses.

Such tests, sometimes called Divergent Thinking (DT) tests have been both
supported[52] and criticized.[53]
Considerable progress has been made in automated scoring of divergent
thinking tests using semantic approach. When compared to human
raters, NLP techniques were shown to be reliable and valid in scoring the
originality.[54][55] The reported computer programs were able to achieve a
correlation of 0.60 and 0.72 respectively to human graders.
Semantic networks were also used to devise originality scores that yielded
significant correlations with socio-personal measures. [56] Most recently, an NSF-
funded[57] team of researchers led by James C. Kaufman and Mark A.
Runco[58] combined expertise in creativity research, natural language
processing, computational linguistics, and statistical data analysis to devise a
scalable system for computerized automated testing (SparcIt Creativity Index
Testing system). This system enabled automated scoring of DT tests that is
reliable, objective, and scalable, thus addressing most of the issues of DT tests
that had been found and reported. [53] The resultant computer system was able to
achieve a correlation of 0.73 to human graders.[59]

Social-personality approach[edit]
Some researchers have taken a social-personality approach to the
measurement of creativity. In these studies, personality traits such as
independence of judgement, self-confidence, attraction to complexity, aesthetic
orientation, and risk-taking are used as measures of the creativity of individuals.
[26]
A meta-analysis by Gregory Feist showed that creative people tend to be
"more open to new experiences, less conventional and less conscientious,
more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and
impulsive." Openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and
impulsivity had the strongest effects of the traits listed. [60] Within the framework
of the Big Five model of personality, some consistent traits have emerged.
[61]
Openness to experience has been shown to be consistently related to a
whole host of different assessments of creativity.[62]Among the other Big Five
traits, research has demonstrated subtle differences between different domains
of creativity. Compared to non-artists, artists tend to have higher levels of
openness to experience and lower levels of conscientiousness, while scientists
are more open to experience, conscientious, and higher in the confidence-
dominance facets of extraversion compared to non-scientists. [60]

Self-report questionnaires[edit]
An alternative are biographical methods. These methods use quantitative
characteristics such as the number of publications, patents, or performances of
a work. While this method was originally developed for highly creative
personalities, today it is also available as self-report
questionnaires supplemented with frequent, less outstanding creative behaviors
such as writing a short story or creating your own recipes. For example,
the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, a self-report test that measures
creative achievement across 10 domains, was described in 2005 and shown to
be reliable and valid when compared to other measures of creativity and to
independent evaluation of creative output. [63] Besides the English original, it was
also used in a Chinese,[64] French,[65] and German-speaking[66] version. It is the
self-report questionnaire most frequently used in research. [64]

Creativity and intelligence[edit]

The potential relationship between creativity and intelligence has been of
interest since the late 1900s, when a multitude of influential studies – from
Getzels & Jackson,[67] Barron,[68]Wallach & Kogan,[69] and Guilford[70] – focused not
only on creativity, but also on intelligence. This joint focus highlights both the
theoretical and practical importance of the relationship: researchers are
interested not only if the constructs are related, but also how and why. [71]
There are multiple theories accounting for their relationship, with the 3 main
theories as follows:

 Threshold Theory – Intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient condition

for creativity. There is a moderate positive relationship between creativity
and intelligence until IQ ~120. [68][70]
 Certification Theory – Creativity is not intrinsically related to intelligence.
Instead, individuals are required to meet the requisite level intelligence in
order to gain a certain level of education/work, which then in turn offers the
opportunity to be creative. Displays of creativity are moderated by
intelligence.[72]
 Interference Theory – Extremely high intelligence might interfere with
creative ability.[73]

Sternberg and O’Hara[74] proposed a framework of 5 possible relationships

between creativity and intelligence:

1. Creativity is a subset of intelligence

2. Intelligence is a subset of creativity
3. Creativity and intelligence are overlapping constructs
4. Creativity and intelligence are part of the same construct (coincident
sets)
5. Creativity and intelligence are distinct constructs (disjoint sets)

Creativity as a subset of intelligence[edit]

A number of researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key
component of intelligence.
Examples of theories that include creativity as a subset of intelligence

 Gardner’s Theory of multiple intelligences (MIT)[75] – implicitly includes

creativity as a subset of MIT. To demonstrate this, Gardner cited examples
of different famous creators, each of whom differed in their types of
 intelligences e.g. Picasso (spatial intelligence); Freud (intrapersonal);
Einstein (logical-mathematical); and Gandhi (interpersonal).
 Sternberg’s Theory of Successful intelligence[73][74][76] (see Triarchic theory of
intelligence) includes creativity as a main component, and comprises 3 sub-
theories: Componential (Analytic), Contextual (Practical), and Experiential
(Creative). Experiential sub-theory – the ability to use pre-existing
knowledge and skills to solve new and novel problems – is directly related
to creativity.
 The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory includes creativity as a subset of
intelligence. Specifically, it is associated with the broad group factor of long-
term storage and retrieval (Glr). Glr narrow abilities relating to creativity
include:[77] ideational fluency, associational fluency, and originality/creativity.
Silvia et al.[78] conducted a study to look at the relationship between
divergent thinking and verbal fluency tests, and reported that both fluency
and originality in divergent thinking were significantly affected by the broad
level Glr factor. Martindale[79] extended the CHC-theory in the sense that it
was proposed that those individuals who are creative are also selective in
their processing speed Martindale argues that in the creative process,
larger amounts of information are processed more slowly in the early
stages, and as the individual begins to understand the problem, the
processing speed is increased.
 The Dual Process Theory of Intelligence[80] posits a two-factor/type model of
intelligence. Type 1 is a conscious process, and concerns goal directed
thoughts, which are explained by g. Type 2 is an unconscious process, and
concerns spontaneous cognition, which encompasses daydreaming and
implicit learning ability. Kaufman argues that creativity occurs as a result of
Type 1 and Type 2 processes working together in combination. The use of
each type in the creative process can be used to varying degrees.

Intelligence as a subset of creativity[edit]

In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of
creativity.
Theories of creativity that include intelligence as a subset of creativity

 Sternberg & Lubart’s Investment Theory.[81][82] Using the metaphor of a stock

market, they demonstrate that creative thinkers are like good investors –
they buy low and sell high (in their ideas). Like under/low-valued stock,
creative individuals generate unique ideas that are initially rejected by other
people. The creative individual has to persevere, and convince the others of
the ideas value. After convincing the others, and thus increasing the ideas
value, the creative individual ‘sells high’ by leaving the idea with the other
people, and moves onto generating another idea. According to this theory,
six distinct, but related elements contribute to successful creativity:
intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and
environment. Intelligence is just one of the six factors that can either solely,
or in conjunction with the other five factors, generate creative thoughts.
 Amabile’s Componential Model of Creativity.[83][84] In this model, there are 3
within-individual components needed for creativity – domain-relevant skills,
creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation – and 1 component
external to the individual: their surrounding social environment. Creativity
 requires a confluence of all components. High creativity will result when an
individual is: intrinsically motivated, possesses both a high level of domain-
relevant skills and has high skills in creative thinking, and is working in a
highly creative environment.
 Amusement Park Theoretical Model. [85] In this 4-step theory, both domain-
specific and generalist views are integrated into a model of creativity. The
researchers make use of the metaphor of the amusement park to
demonstrate that within each of these creative levels, intelligence plays a
key role:
 To get into the amusement park, there are initial requirements (e.g.,
time/transport to go to the park). Initial requirements (like intelligence)
are necessary, but not sufficient for creativity. They are more like
prerequisites for creativity, and if an individual does not possess the
basic level of the initial requirement (intelligence), then they will not be
able to generate creative thoughts/behaviour.
 Secondly are the subcomponents – general thematic areas – that
increase in specificity. Like choosing which type of amusement park to
visit (e.g. a zoo or a water park), these areas relate to the areas in
which someone could be creative (e.g. poetry).
 Thirdly, there are specific domains. After choosing the type of park to
visit e.g. waterpark, you then have to choose which specific park to go
to. Within the poetry domain, there are many different types (e.g. free
verse, riddles, sonnet, etc.) that have to be selected from.
 Lastly, there are micro-domains. These are the specific tasks that
reside within each domain e.g. individual lines in a free verse poem /
individual rides at the waterpark.

Creativity and intelligence as overlapping yet distinct

constructs[edit]
This possible relationship concerns creativity and intelligence as distinct, but
intersecting constructs.
Theories that include Creativity and Intelligence as Overlapping Yet Distinct
Constructs

 Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.[86] In this conceptualisation,

giftedness occurs as a result from the overlap of above average intellectual
ability, creativity, and task commitment. Under this view, creativity and
intelligence are distinct constructs, but they do overlap under the correct
conditions.
 PASS theory of intelligence. In this theory, the planning component –
relating to the ability to solve problems, make decisions and take action –
strongly overlaps with the concept of creativity.[87]
 Threshold Theory (TT). A number of previous research findings have
suggested that a threshold exists in the relationship between creativity and
intelligence – both constructs are moderately positively correlated up to an
IQ of ~120. Above this threshold of an IQ of 120, if there is a relationship at
 all, it is small and weak.[67][68][88] TT posits that a moderate level of intelligence
is necessary for creativity.

In support of the TT, Barron[68][89] reported finding a non-significant correlation

between creativity and intelligence in a gifted sample; and a significant
correlation in a non-gifted sample. Yamamoto [90] in a sample of secondary
school children, reported a significant correlation between creativity and
intelligence of r = .3, and reported no significant correlation when the sample
consisted of gifted children. Fuchs-Beauchamp et al.[91] in a sample of
preschoolers found that creativity and intelligence correlated from r = .19 to r = .
49 in the group of children who had an IQ below the threshold; and in the group
above the threshold, the correlations were r = <.12. Cho et al.[92] reported a
correlation of .40 between creativity and intelligence in the average IQ group of
a sample of adolescents and adults; and a correlation of close to r = .0 for the
high IQ group. Jauk et al.[93] found support for the TT, but only for measures of
creative potential; not creative performance.
Much modern day research reports findings against TT. Wai et al. [94] in a study
using data from the longitudinal Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth – a
cohort of elite students from early adolescence into adulthood – found that
differences in SAT scores at age 13 were predictive of creative real-life
outcomes 20 years later. Kim’s[95] meta-analysis of 21 studies did not find any
supporting evidence for TT, and instead negligible correlations were reported
between intelligence, creativity, and divergent thinking both below and above
IQ's of 120. Preckel et al.,[96] investigating fluid intelligence and creativity,
reported small correlations of r = .3 to r = .4 across all levels of cognitive ability.

Creativity and intelligence as coincident sets[edit]

Under this view, researchers posit that there are no differences in the
mechanisms underlying creativity in those used in normal problem solving; and
in normal problem solving, there is no need for creativity. Thus, creativity and
Intelligence (problem solving) are the same thing. Perkins[97] referred to this as
the ‘nothing-special’ view.
Weisberg & Alba[98] examined problem solving by having participants complete
the 9-dot problem (see Thinking outside the box#Nine dots puzzle) – where the
participants are asked to connect all 9 dots in the 3 rows of 3 dots using 4
straight lines or less, without lifting their pen or tracing the same line twice. The
problem can only be solved if the lines go outside the boundaries of the square
of dots. Results demonstrated that even when participants were given this
insight, they still found it difficult to solve the problem, thus showing that to
successfully complete the task it is not just insight (or creativity) that is required.

Creativity and intelligence as disjoint sets[edit]

In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely different, unrelated
constructs.
Getzels and Jackson[67] administered 5 creativity measures to a group of 449
children from grades 6-12, and compared these test findings to results from
previously administered (by the school) IQ tests. They found that the correlation
between the creativity measures and IQ was r = .26. The high creativity group
scored in the top 20% of the overall creativity measures, but were not included
in the top 20% of IQ scorers. The high intelligence group scored the opposite:
they scored in the top 20% for IQ, but were outside the top 20% scorers for
creativity, thus showing that creativity and intelligence are distinct and
unrelated.
However, this work has been heavily criticised. Wallach and
Kogan[69] highlighted that the creativity measures were not only weakly related to
one another (to the extent that they were no more related to one another than
they were with IQ), but they seemed to also draw upon non-creative skills.
McNemar[99] noted that there were major measurement issues, in that the IQ
scores were a mixture from 3 different IQ tests.
Wallach and Kogan[69] administered 5 measures of creativity, each of which
resulted in a score for originality and fluency; and 10 measures of general
intelligence to 151 5th grade children. These tests were untimed, and given in a
game-like manner (aiming to facilitate creativity). Inter-correlations between
creativity tests were on average r = .41. Inter-correlations between intelligence
measures were on average r = .51 with each other. Creativity tests and
intelligence measures correlated r = .09.

Neuroscience[edit]
The neuroscience of creativity looks at the operation of the brain during creative
behaviour. It has been addressed[100] in the article "Creative Innovation: Possible
Brain Mechanisms." The authors write that "creative innovation might require
coactivation and communication between regions of the brain that ordinarily are
not strongly connected." Highly creative people who excel at creative innovation
tend to differ from others in three ways:

 they have a high level of specialized knowledge,

 they are capable of divergent thinking mediated by the frontal lobe.
 and they are able to modulate neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine in
their frontal lobe.

Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be the part of the cortex that is most important
for creativity.
This article also explored the links between creativity and
sleep, mood and addiction disorders, and depression.
In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model of the creative drive.
Drawing from evidence in brain imaging, drug studies and lesion analysis, she
described the creative drive as resulting from an interaction of the frontal lobes,
the temporal lobes, and dopamine from the limbic system. The frontal lobes can
be seen as responsible for idea generation, and the temporal lobes for idea
editing and evaluation. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe (such as depression or
anxiety) generally decrease creativity, while abnormalities in the temporal lobe
often increase creativity. High activity in the temporal lobe typically inhibits
activity in the frontal lobe, and vice versa. High dopamine levels increase
general arousaland goal directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition, and all
three effects increase the drive to generate ideas. [101] A 2015 study on creativity
found that it involves the interaction of multiple neural networks, including those
that support associative thinking, along with other default mode
network functions.[102]
Working memory and the cerebellum[edit]
Vandervert[103] described how the brain's frontal lobes and the cognitive functions
of the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation. Vandervert's
explanation rests on considerable evidence that all processes of working
memory (responsible for processing all thought [104]) are adaptively modeled for
increased efficiency by the cerebellum.[105]The cerebellum (consisting of 100
billion neurons, which is more than the entirety of the rest of the brain [106]) is also
widely known to adaptively model all bodily movement for efficiency. The
cerebellum's adaptive models of working memory processing are then fed back
to especially frontal lobe working memory control processes [107] where creative
and innovative thoughts arise.[108] (Apparently, creative insight or the "aha"
experience is then triggered in the temporal lobe.[109])
According to Vandervert, the details of creative adaptation begin in "forward"
cerebellar models which are anticipatory/exploratory controls for movement and
thought. These cerebellar processing and control architectures have been
termed Hierarchical Modular Selection and Identification for Control
(HMOSAIC).[110] New, hierarchically arranged levels of the cerebellar control
architecture (HMOSAIC) develop as mental mulling in working memory is
extended over time. These new levels of the control architecture are fed forward
to the frontal lobes. Since the cerebellum adaptively models all movement and
all levels of thought and emotion, [111] Vandervert's approach helps explain
creativity and innovation in sports, art, music, the design of video games,
technology, mathematics, the child prodigy, and thought in general.
Essentially, Vandervert has argued that when a person is confronted with a
challenging new situation, visual-spatial working memory and speech-related
working memory are decomposed and re-composed (fractionated) by the
cerebellum and then blended in the cerebral cortex in an attempt to deal with
the new situation. With repeated attempts to deal with challenging situations,
the cerebro-cerebellar blending process continues to optimize the efficiency of
how working memory deals with the situation or problem. [112] Most recently, he
has argued that this is the same process (only involving visual-spatial working
memory and pre-language vocalization) that led to the evolution of language in
humans.[113]Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers have pointed out that this
blending process, because it continuously optimizes efficiencies, constantly
improves prototyping attempts toward the invention or innovation of new ideas,
music, art, or technology.[114] Prototyping, they argue, not only produces new
products, it trains the cerebro-cerebellar pathways involved to become more
efficient at prototyping itself. Further, Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers
believe that this repetitive "mental prototyping" or mental rehearsal involving the
cerebellum and the cerebral cortex explains the success of the self-driven,
individualized patterning of repetitions initiated by the teaching methods of
the Khan Academy. The model proposed by Vandervert has, however, received
incisive critique from several authors.[115][116]

REM sleep[edit]
Creativity involves the forming of associative elements into new combinations
that are useful or meet some requirement. Sleep aids this process.
[117]
REM rather than NREM sleepappears to be responsible.[118][119] This has been
suggested to be due to changes
in cholinergic and noradrenergic neuromodulation that occurs during REM
sleep.[118] During this period of sleep, high levels of acetylcholine in
the hippocampus suppress feedback from the hippocampus to the neocortex,
and lower levels of acetylcholine and norepinephrine in the neocortex
encourage the spread of associational activity within neocortical areas without
control from the hippocampus.[120] This is in contrast to waking consciousness,
where higher levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit recurrent
connections in the neocortex. It is proposed that REM sleep adds creativity by
allowing "neocortical structures to reorganize associative hierarchies, in which
information from the hippocampus would be reinterpreted in relation to previous
semantic representations or nodes."[118]

Affect[edit]
Some theories suggest that creativity may be particularly susceptible to
affective influence. As noted in voting behavior, the term "affect" in this context
can refer to liking or disliking key aspects of the subject in question. This work
largely follows from findings in psychology regarding the ways in which affective
states are involved in human judgment and decision-making. [121]

Positive affect relations[edit]

According to Alice Isen, positive affect has three primary effects on cognitive
activity:

1. Positive affect makes additional cognitive material available for

processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available for
association;
2. Positive affect leads to defocused attention and a more complex
cognitive context, increasing the breadth of those elements that are
treated as relevant to the problem;
3. Positive affect increases cognitive flexibility, increasing the probability
that diverse cognitive elements will in fact become associated.
Together, these processes lead positive affect to have a positive
influence on creativity.

Barbara Fredrickson in her broaden-and-build model suggests that positive

emotions such as joy and love broaden a person's available repertoire of
cognitions and actions, thus enhancing creativity.
According to these researchers, positive emotions increase the number of
cognitive elements available for association (attention scope) and the number of
elements that are relevant to the problem (cognitive scope).
Various meta-analyses, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 studies about creativity
and affect support the link between creativity and positive affect. [122][123]

Creativity and artificial intelligence[edit]

Jürgen Schmidhuber's formal theory of creativity[124][125] postulates that creativity,
curiosity, and interestingness are by-products of a
simple computational principle for measuring and optimizing learning progress.
Consider an agent able to manipulate its environment and thus its
own sensory inputs. The agent can use a black box optimization method such
as reinforcement learning to learn (through informed trial and error) sequences
of actions that maximize the expected sum of its future reward signals. There
are extrinsic reward signals for achieving externally given goals, such as finding
food when hungry. But Schmidhuber's objective function to be maximized also
includes an additional, intrinsic term to model "wow-effects." This non-standard
term motivates purely creative behavior of the agent even when there are no
external goals. A wow-effect is formally defined as follows. As the agent is
creating and predicting and encoding the continually growing history of actions
and sensory inputs, it keeps improving the predictor or encoder, which can be
implemented as an artificial neural network or some other machine
learning device that can exploit regularities in the data to improve its
performance over time. The improvements can be measured precisely, by
computing the difference in computational costs (storage size, number of
required synapses, errors, time) needed to encode new observations before
and after learning. This difference depends on the encoder's present subjective
knowledge, which changes over time, but the theory formally takes this into
account. The cost difference measures the strength of the present "wow-effect"
due to sudden improvements in data compression or computational speed. It
becomes an intrinsic reward signal for the action selector. The objective function
thus motivates the action optimizer to create action sequences causing more
wow-effects. Irregular, random data (or noise) do not permit any wow-effects or
learning progress, and thus are "boring" by nature (providing no reward).
Already known and predictable regularities also are boring. Temporarily
interesting are only the initially unknown, novel, regular patterns in both actions
and observations. This motivates the agent to perform continual, open-ended,
active, creative exploration.
According to Schmidhuber, his objective function explains the activities of
scientists, artists, and comedians.[126][127] For example, physicists are motivated to
create experiments leading to observations obeying previously
unpublished physical laws permitting better data compression. Likewise,
composers receive intrinsic reward for creating non-arbitrary melodies with
unexpected but regular harmonies that permit wow-effects through data
compression improvements. Similarly, a comedian gets intrinsic reward for
"inventing a novel joke with an unexpected punch line, related to the beginning
of the story in an initially unexpected but quickly learnable way that also allows
for better compression of the perceived data." [128] Schmidhuber argues that
ongoing computer hardware advances will greatly scale up
rudimentary artificial scientists and artists[clarification needed] based on simple
implementations of the basic principle since 1990. [129] He used the theory to
create low-complexity art[130] and an attractive human face.[131]

Mental health[edit]
Main article: Creativity and mental illness
A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found creativity to correlate
with intelligence and psychoticism.[132] Another study found creativity to be
greater in schizotypal than in either normal or schizophrenic individuals. While
divergent thinking was associated with bilateral activation of the prefrontal
cortex, schizotypal individuals were found to have much greater activation of
their right prefrontal cortex.[133] This study hypothesizes that such individuals are
better at accessing both hemispheres, allowing them to make novel
associations at a faster rate. In agreement with this hypothesis, ambidexterity is
also associated with schizotypal and schizophrenic individuals. Three recent
 studies by Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham have demonstrated the
relationships between schizotypal[134][135] and hypomanic personality[136] and
several different measures of creativity.
Particularly strong links have been identified between creativity and mood
disorders, particularly manic-depressive disorder (a.k.a. bipolar disorder)
and depressive disorder (a.k.a. unipolar disorder). In Touched with Fire: Manic-
Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, Kay Redfield
Jamison summarizes studies of mood-disorder rates in writers, poets,
and artists. She also explores research that identifies mood disorders in such
famous writers and artists as Ernest Hemingway (who shot himself
after electroconvulsive treatment), Virginia Woolf (who drowned herself when
she felt a depressive episode coming on), composer Robert Schumann (who
died in a mental institution), and even the famed visual artistMichelangelo. A
different case study suggested for Schumann a difference between bipolar
disorder and "creative bipolarity".[137]
A study looking at 300,000 persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or
unipolar depression, and their relatives, found overrepresentation in creative
professions for those with bipolar disorder as well as for undiagnosed siblings of
those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. There was no overall
overrepresentation, but overrepresentation for artistic occupations, among
those diagnosed with schizophrenia. There was no association for those with
unipolar depression or their relatives. [138] Another case study suggested a
difference between severe mood disorders and "creative melancholy", pointing
out mild and moderate depression may inspire creative achievements while
severe depression inhibits and may even destroy creative activity.[139]
Another study involving more than one million people, conducted by Swedish
researchers at the Karolinska Institute, reported a number of correlations
between creative occupations and mental illnesses. Writers had a higher risk of
anxiety and bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, unipolar depression, and
substance abuse, and were almost twice as likely as the general population to
kill themselves. Dancers and photographers were also more likely to have
bipolar disorder.[140]
However, as a group, those in the creative professions were no more likely to
suffer from psychiatric disorders than other people, although they were more
likely to have a close relative with a disorder, including anorexia and, to some
extent, autism, the Journal of Psychiatric Research reports. [140]
According to psychologist Robert Epstein, PhD, creativity can be obstructed
through stress.[141]

Creativity and personality[edit]

Creativity can be expressed in a number of different forms, depending on
unique people and environments. A number of different theorists have
suggested models of the creative person. One model suggests that there are
four "Creativity Profiles" that can help produce growth, innovation, speed, etc. [142]
(i) Incubate (Long-term Development)
(ii) Imagine (Breakthrough Ideas)
(iii) Improve (Incremental Adjustments)
(iv) Invest (Short-term Goals)
 Research by Dr Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at Work
Research Group at Manchester Business School has
suggested that the creative profile can be explained by four
primary creativity traits with narrow facets within each
(i) "Idea Generation" (Fluency, Originality, Incubation and Illumination)
(ii) "Personality" (Curiosity and Tolerance for Ambiguity)
(iii) "Motivation" (Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Achievement)
(iv) "Confidence" (Producing, Sharing and Implementing)
This model was developed in a sample of
1000 working adults using the statistical
techniques of Exploratory Factor Analysis
followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis by
Structural Equation Modelling.[143]
An important aspect of the creativity profiling
approach is to account for the tension between
predicting the creative profile of an individual,
as characterised by
the psychometricapproach, and the evidence
that team creativity is founded on diversity and
difference.[144]
One characteristic of creative people, as
measured by some psychologists, is what is
called divergent production. Divergent
production is the ability of a person to generate
a diverse assortment, yet an appropriate
amount of responses to a given situation.
[145]
One way of measuring divergent
production is by administering the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking.[146] The Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking assesses the
diversity, quantity, and appropriateness of
participants responses to a variety of open-
ended questions.
Other researchers of creativity see the
difference in creative people as a cognitive
process of dedication to problem solving and
developing expertise in the field of their
creative expression. Hard working people
study the work of people before them and
within their current area, become experts in
their fields, and then have the ability to add to
and build upon previous information in
innovative and creative ways. In a study of
projects by design students, students who had
more knowledge on their subject on average
had greater creativity within their projects.[147]
The aspect of motivation within a person's
personality may predict creativity levels in the
person. Motivation stems from two different
sources, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive within a
person to participate or invest as a result of
personal interest, desires, hopes, goals, etc.
Extrinsic motivation is a drive from outside of a
person and might take the form of payment,
rewards, fame, approval from others, etc.
Although extrinsic motivation and intrinsic
motivation can both increase creativity in
certain cases, strictly extrinsic motivation often
impedes creativity in people.[148]
From a personality-traits perspective, there are
a number of traits that are associated with
creativity in people.[149] Creative people tend to
be more open to new experiences, are more
self-confident, are more ambitious, self-
accepting, impulsive, driven, dominant, and
hostile, compared to people with less
creativity.
From an evolutionary perspective, creativity
may be a result of the outcome of years of
generating ideas. As ideas are continuously
generated, the need to evolve produces a
need for new ideas and developments. As a
result, people have been creating and
developing new, innovative, and creative ideas
to build our progress as a society.[150]
In studying exceptionally creative people in
history, some common traits in lifestyle and
environment are often found. Creative people
in history usually had supportive parents, but
rigid and non-nurturing. Most had an interest in
their field at an early age, and most had a
highly supportive and skilled mentor in their
field of interest. Often the field they chose was
relatively uncharted, allowing for their creativity
to be expressed more in a field with less
previous information. Most exceptionally
creative people devoted almost all of their time
and energy into their craft, and after about a
decade had a creative breakthrough of fame.
Their lives were marked with extreme
dedication and a cycle of hard-work and
breakthroughs as a result of their
determination.[151]
Another theory of creative people is
the investment theory of creativity. This
approach suggest that there are many
individual and environmental factors that must
exist in precise ways for extremely high levels
of creativity opposed to average levels of
creativity. In the investment sense, a person
with their particular characteristics in their
particular environment may see an opportunity
to devote their time and energy into something
that has been overlooked by others. The
creative person develops an undervalued or
under-recognised idea to the point that it is
established as a new and creative idea. Just
like in the financial world, some investments
are worth the buy in, while others are less
productive and do not build to the extent that
the investor expected. This investment theory
of creativity views creativity in a unique
perspective compared to others, by asserting
that creativity might rely to some extent on the
right investment of effort being added to a field
at the right time in the right way.[152]

Malevolent
creativity[edit]
Malevolent creativity (MC) focuses on the
"darker side" of creativity.[153] This type of
creativity is not typically accepted within
society and is defined by the intention to cause
harm to others through original and innovative
means. MC should be distinguished from
negative creativity in that negative creativity
may unintentionally cause harm to others,
whereas MC is explicitly malevolently
motivated. MC is often a key contributor to
crime and in its most destructive form can
even manifest as terrorism. However, MC can
also be observed in ordinary day-to-day life as
lying, cheating and betrayal.[154] Although
everyone shows some levels of MC under
certain conditions, those that have a higher
propensity towards malevolent creativity have
increased tendencies to deceive and
manipulate others to their own gain. Although
levels of MC appear to dramatically increase
when an individual is placed under unfair
conditions, personality is also a key predictor
in anticipating levels of malevolent thinking.
Researches Harris and Reiter-Palmon
investigated the role of aggression in levels of
MC, in particular levels of implicit aggression
and the tendency to employ aggressive
actions in response to problem solving. The
personality traits of physical aggression,
conscientiousness, emotional intelligence and
implicit aggression all seem to be related with
MC.[153] Harris and Reiter-Palmon's research
showed that when subjects were presented
with a problem that triggered malevolent
creativity, participants high in implicit
aggression and low in premeditation
expressed the largest number of malevolently-
themed solutions. When presented with the
more benign problem that triggered prosocial
motives of helping others and cooperating,
those high in implicit aggression, even if they
were high in impulsiveness, were far less
destructive in their imagined solutions. They
concluded premeditation, more than implicit
aggression controlled an individual’s
expression of malevolent creativity.[155]
The current measure for malevolent creativity
is the 13 item test Malevolent Creativity
Behaviour Scale (MCBS) [154]

Malevolent creativity and

crime[edit]
Malevolent creativity has strong links with
crime. As creativity requires deviating from the
conventional, there is a permanent tension
between being creative and producing
products that go too far and in some cases to
the point of breaking the law. Aggression is a
key predictor of malevolent creativity, and
studies have also shown that increased levels
of aggression also correlates to a higher
likelihood of committing crime.[156]

Creativity across
cultures[edit]
Creativity is viewed differently in different
countries.[157] For example, cross-cultural
research centred on Hong Kong found that
Westerners view creativity more in terms of the
individual attributes of a creative person, such
as their aesthetic taste, while Chinese people
view creativity more in terms of the social
influence of creative people e.g. what they can
contribute to society.[158] Mpofu et al. surveyed
28 African languages and found that 27 had no
word which directly translated to 'creativity'
(the exception being Arabic).[159] The principle
of linguistic relativity, i.e. that language can
affect thought, suggests that the lack of an
equivalent word for 'creativity' may affect the
views of creativity among speakers of such
languages. However, more research would be
needed to establish this, and there is certainly
no suggestion that this linguistic difference
makes people any less (or more)
creative; Africa has a rich heritage of creative
pursuits such as music, art, and storytelling.
Nevertheless, it is true that there has been
very little research on creativity in Africa,[160]and
there has also been very little research on
creativity in Latin America.[161] Creativity has
been more thoroughly researched in the
northern hemisphere, but here again there are
cultural differences, even between countries or
groups of countries in close proximity. For
example, in Scandinavian countries, creativity
is seen as an individual attitude which helps in
coping with life's challenges,[162] while in
Germany, creativity is seen more as a process
that can be applied to help solve problems.[163]

In organizations[edit]

Training meeting in an eco-design stainless steel

company in Brazil. The leaders among other things
wish to cheer and encourage the workers in order
to achieve a higher level of creativity.

It has been the topic of various research

studies to establish that organizational
effectiveness depends on the creativity of the
workforce to a large extent. For any given
organization, measures of effectiveness vary,
depending upon its mission, environmental
context, nature of work, the product or service
it produces, and customer demands. Thus, the
first step in evaluating organizational
effectiveness is to understand the organization
itself — how it functions, how it is structured,
and what it emphasizes.
Amabile[164] argued that to enhance creativity in
business, three components were needed:
 Expertise (technical, procedural and
intellectual knowledge),
 Creative thinking skills (how flexibly and
imaginatively people approach problems),
 and Motivation (especially intrinsic
motivation).

There are two types of motivation:

 extrinsic motivation – external factors, for

example threats of being fired or money as
a reward,
 intrinsic motivation – comes from inside an
individual, satisfaction, enjoyment of work,
etc.

Six managerial practices to encourage

motivation are:

 Challenge – matching people with the right

assignments;
 Freedom – giving
people autonomy choosing means to
achieve goals;
 Resources – such as time, money, space,
etc. There must be balance fit among
resources and people;
 Work group features – diverse, supportive
teams, where members share the
excitement, willingness to help, and
recognize each other's talents;
 Supervisory encouragement –
recognitions, cheering, praising;
 Organizational support – value emphasis,
information sharing, collaboration.

Nonaka, who examined several successful

Japanese companies, similarly saw creativity
and knowledge creation as being important to
the success of organizations. [165] In particular,
he emphasized the role that tacit
knowledge has to play in the creative process.
In business, originality is not enough. The idea
must also be appropriate—useful
and actionable.[166][167] Creative competitive
intelligence is a new solution to solve this
problem. According to Reijo Siltala it links
creativity to innovation process
and competitive intelligence to creative
workers.
Creativity can be encouraged in people and
professionals and in the workplace. It is
essential for innovation, and is a factor
affecting economic growth and businesses. In
2013, the sociologist Silvia Leal Martín, using
the Innova 3DX method, suggested measuring
the various parameters that encourage
creativity and innovation: corporate culture,
work environment, leadership and
management, creativity, self-esteem and
optimism, locus of control and learning
orientation, motivation, and fear.[168]
Similarly, social psychologists, organizational
scientists, and management scientists who
conduct extensive research on the factors that
influence creativity and innovation in teams
and organizations have developed integrative
theoretical models that emphasize the roles of
team composition, team processes, and
organizational culture, as well as the mutually
reinforcing relationships between them in
promoting innovation.[169][170][171][172]
The investigation by Loo (2017) [173] on creative
working in the knowledge economy brings
together studies of creativity as delineated in
this web page. It offers connections with the
sections on the ‘”Four C” model’, ‘Theories of
creative processes’, ‘Creativity as a subset of
intelligence’, ‘Creativity and personality’, and
‘In organisations’ It is the last section that the
investigation addresses.
Research studies of the knowledge economy
may be classified into three levels: macro,
meso and micro. Macro studies refer to
investigations at a societal or transnational
dimension. Meso studies focus on
organisations. Micro investigations centre on
the minutiae workings of workers. There is
also an interdisciplinary dimension such as
research from businesses (e.g. Burton-Jones,
1999; Drucker, 1999), economics (e.g.
Cortada, 1998; Reich, 2001; Florida, 2003),
education (e.g. Farrell and Fenwick, 2007;
Brown, Lauder and Ashton, 2011), human
resource management (e.g. Davenport, 2005),
knowledge and organizational management
(Alvesson, 2004; Defillippi, Arthur and Lindsay,
2006; Orr, Nutley, Russell, Bain, Hacking and
Moran, 2016), sociology, psychology, and
knowledge economy-related sectors –
especially information technology (IT) software
(e.g. O’Riain, 2004; Nerland, 2008) and
advertising (e.g. Grabher, 2004; Lury, 2004)
(Loo, 2017).
Loo (2017) studies how individual workers in
the knowledge economy use their creativity
and know-how in the advertising and IT
software sectors. It examines this
phenomenon across three developed
countries of England, Japan and Singapore to
observe global perspectives. Specifically, the
study uses qualitative data from semi-
structured interviews of the related
professionals in the roles of creative directing
and copywriting (in advertising), and systems
software developing and software programme
managing.
The study offers a conceptual framework (Loo,
2017, p. 49) of a two-dimensional matrix of
individual and collaborative working styles, and
single and multi-contexts. The investigation
draws on literature sources from the four
disciplines of economics (e.g. Reich, 2001;
Quah, 2002), management (e.g. ,Drucker,
1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; von Hippel,
2006), sociology (e.g. Zuboff, 1988; Bell, 1973;
Lash and Urry, 1994; Castells, 2000; Knorr
Cetina, 2005), and psychology (e.g. Gardner,
1984; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Sternberg,
Kaufman and Pretz, 2004). The themes arising
from the analysis of knowledge work and
creativity literature serve to create a distinct
theoretical framework of creative knowledge
work. These workers apply their cognitive
abilities, creative personalities and skill sets in
the areas of science, technology, or culture
industries to invent or discover new
possibilities – e.g. a medium, product or
service. These work activities may be done
individually or collectively. Education, training
and ‘encultured environments’ are necessary
for the performance of these creative activities.
Acts of creativity are viewed as asking new
questions over and above those questions
asked by an intelligent person, seeking novelty
when reviewing a situation (Gardner, 1993),
and creating something that is different and
novel, i.e. a ‘variation’ on the idea of existing
ideas in a domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
This framework is evidenced by the empirical
chapters on the micro-workings of creative
workers in the two knowledge economy
sectors from global perspectives.
This investigation identifies a definition of
creative work, three types of work and the
necessary conditions for it to occur. These
workers use a combination of creative
applications including anticipatory imagination,
problem-solving, problem seeking, and
generating ideas and aesthetic sensibilities.
Taking aesthetic sensibilities as an example,
for a creative director in the advertising
industry, it is a visual imagery whether still or
moving via a camera lens, and for a software
programmer, it is the innovative technical
expertise in which the software is written.
There are specific creative applications for
each of the sectors such as emotional
connection in the advertising sector, and the
power of expression and sensitivity in the IT
software sector. In addition to the creative
applications, creative workers require abilities
and aptitudes to carry out their roles. Passion
for one’s job is generic. For copywriters, this
passion is identified with fun, enjoyment and
happiness alongside attributes such as
honesty (regarding the product), confidence,
and patience in finding the appropriate copy.
Knowledge is also required in the disciplines of
the humanities (e.g. literature), the creative
arts (e.g. painting and music) and technical-
related know-how (e.g. mathematics, computer
sciences and physical sciences). In the IT
software, technical knowledge of computer
languages (e.g. C++) is especially significant
for programmers whereas the degree of
technical expertise may be less for a
programme manager, as only knowledge of
the relevant language is necessary to
understand the issues for communicating with
the team of developers and testers.
There are three types of work. One is intra-
sectoral (e.g. ‘general sponge’ and ’in tune
with the zeitgeist’ [advertising], and ‘power of
expression’ and ‘sensitivity’ [IT software]). The
second is inter-sectoral (e.g. ‘integration of
advertising activities’ [advertising], and
‘autonomous decentralized systems’ [ADS] [IT
software]). The third relates to changes in
culture/practices in the sectors (e.g. ‘three-
dimensional trust’ and ‘green credentials’
[advertising], and ‘collaboration with HEIs and
industry’ and ‘ADS system in the Tokyo train
operator’ [IT software]).
The necessary conditions for creative work to
exist are a supportive environment such as
supportive information, communications and
electronic technologies (ICET) infrastructure,
training, work environment and education.
This investigation has implications for lifelong
learning of these workers informally and
formally. Teaching institutions need to offer
multi-disciplinary knowledge of humanities,
arts and sciences and it has impacts on the
programme structure, delivery approaches and
assessments. At a macro level, governments
need to offer a rich diet of cultural activities,
outdoor activities and sports fixtures that
inform potential creative workers in the areas
of video gaming and advertising. This study
has implications for work organisations that
support and encourage collaborative working
alongside individual working, offer
opportunities to engage in continuous
professional development (formally and
informally), and foster an environment, which
promotes experiential functioning and supports
experimentation.

Team Composition[edit]
Diversity between team members’
backgrounds and knowledge can increase
team creativity by expanding the total
collection of unique information that is
available to the team and introducing different
perspectives that can integrate in novel ways.
However, under some conditions, diversity can
also decrease team creativity by making it
more difficult for team members to
communicate about ideas and causing
interpersonal conflicts between those with
different perspectives.[174] Thus, the potential
advantages of diversity must be supported by
appropriate team processes and
organizational cultures in order to enhance
creativity.[169][170][171][172][175][176]

Team Processes[edit]
Team communication norms, such as
respecting others’ expertise, paying attention
to others’ ideas, expecting information sharing,
tolerating disagreements, negotiating,
remaining open to others’ ideas, learning from
others, and building on each other’s ideas,
increase team creativity by facilitating the
social processes involved
with brainstorming and problem solving.
Through these processes, team members are
able to access their collective pool of
knowledge, reach shared understandings,
identify new ways of understanding problems
or tasks, and make new connections between
ideas. Engaging in these social processes also
promotes positive team affect, which facilitates
collective creativity.[169][171][172][175]

Organizational Culture[edit]
Supportive and motivational environments that
create psychological safety by encouraging
risk taking and tolerating mistakes increase
team creativity as well.[169][170][171][172]Organizations
in which help-seeking, help giving,
and collaboration are rewarded promote
innovation by providing opportunities and
contexts in which team processes that lead to
collective creativity can occur.
[177]
Additionally, leadership styles that
downplay status hierarchies or power
differences within an organization and
empower people to speak up about their ideas
or opinions also help to create cultures that are
conducive to creativity.[169][170][171][172]

Constraints and Creativity[edit]

There is a long standing debate on how
material constraints (e.g., lack of money,
materials, or equipment) affect creativity. In
psychological and managerial research, two
competing views in this regard prevail. In one
view, many scholars propose a negative effect
of material constraints on innovation and claim
that material constraints starve creativity [178].
The proponents of this view argue that
adequate material resources are needed to
engage in creative activities like experimenting
with new solutions and idea exploration [178]. In
an opposing view, scholars assert that people
tend to stick to established routines or
solutions as long as they are not forced to
deviate from them by constraints[179][180][181]. In this
sense, Neren posits that scarcity is an
important driver of creativity[182]. Consistently,
Gibbert and Scranton demonstrated how
material constraints facilitated the
development of jet engines in World War II[183].
To reconcile these competing views,
contingency models were proposed[184][185][186] .
The rationale behind these models is that
certain contingency factors (e.g., creativity
climate or creativity relevant skills) influence
the relationship between constraints and
creativity[184]. These contingency factors reflect
the need for higher levels of motivation and
skills when working on creative tasks under
constraints[184]. Depending on these
contingency factors, there is either a positive
or negative relationship between constraints
and creativity[184][185].

Economic views of
creativity[edit]
Economic approaches to creativity have
focussed on three aspects — the impact of
creativity on economic growth, methods of
modelling markets for creativity, and the
maximisation of economic creativity
(innovation).
In the early 20th century, Joseph
Schumpeter introduced the economic theory
of creative destruction, to describe the way in
which old ways of doing things are
endogenously destroyed and replaced by the
new. Some economists (such as Paul Romer)
view creativity as an important element in the
recombination of elements to produce new
technologies and products and, consequently,
economic growth. Creativity leads to capital,
and creative products are protected
by intellectual property laws.
Mark A. Runco and Daniel Rubenson have
tried to describe a "psychoeconomic" model of
creativity.[187] In such a model, creativity is the
product of endowments and active
investments in creativity; the costs and
benefits of bringing creative activity to market
determine the supply of creativity. Such an
approach has been criticised for its view of
creativity consumption as always having
positive utility, and for the way it analyses the
value of future innovations.[188]
The creative class is seen by some to be an
important driver of modern economies. In his
2002 book, The Rise of the Creative
Class, economist Richard Florida popularized
the notion that regions with "3 T's of economic
development: Technology, Talent and
Tolerance" also have high concentrations
of creative professionals and tend to have a
higher level of economic development.

Fostering
creativity[edit]
Main article: Creativity techniques
Several different researchers have proposed
methods of increasing the creativity of an
individual. Such ideas range from
the psychological-cognitive, such as Osborn-
ParnesCreative Problem Solving
Process, Synectics, science-based creative
thinking, Purdue Creative Thinking Program,
and Edward de Bono's lateral thinking; to the
highly structured, such as TRIZ (the Theory of
Inventive Problem-Solving) and its variant
Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving
(developed by the Russian scientist Genrich
Altshuller), and Computer-Aided morphological
analysis.
Daniel Pink, in his 2005 book A Whole New
Mind, repeating arguments posed throughout
the 20th century, argues that we are entering a
new age where creativity is becoming
increasingly important. In this conceptual age,
we will need to foster and encourage right-
directed thinking (representing creativity and
emotion) over left-directed
thinking(representing logical, analytical
thought). However, this simplification of 'right'
versus 'left' brain thinking is not supported by
the research data.[189]
Nickerson[190] provides a summary of the
various creativity techniques that have been
proposed. These include approaches that
have been developed by both academia and
industry:

1. Establishing purpose and intention

2. Building basic skills
3. Encouraging acquisitions of domain-
specific knowledge
4. Stimulating and rewarding curiosity
and exploration
 5. Building motivation, especially internal
motivation
6. Encouraging confidence and a
willingness to take risks
7. Focusing on mastery and self-
competition
8. Promoting supportable beliefs about
creativity
9. Providing opportunities for choice and
discovery
10. Developing self-management
(metacognitive skills)
11. Teaching techniques and strategies for
facilitating creative performance
12. Providing balance

Creativity and
education policies[edit]
Some see the conventional system
of schooling as "stifling" of creativity and
attempt (particularly in
the preschool/kindergarten and early school
years) to provide a creativity-friendly, rich,
imagination-fostering environment for young
children.[190][191][192] Researchers have seen this
as important because technology is advancing
our society at an unprecedented rate and
creative problem solving will be needed to
cope with these challenges as they arise.[192] In
addition to helping with problem solving,
creativity also helps students identify problems
where others have failed to do so.[190][191][193] See
the Waldorf School as an example of an
education program that promotes creative
thought.
Promoting intrinsic motivation and problem
solving are two areas where educators can
foster creativity in students. Students are more
creative when they see a task as intrinsically
motivating, valued for its own sake.[191][192][194]
[195]
To promote creative thinking, educators
need to identify what motivates their students
and structure teaching around it. Providing
students with a choice of activities to complete
allows them to become more intrinsically
motivated and therefore creative in completing
the tasks.[190][196]
Teaching students to solve problems that do
not have well defined answers is another way
to foster their creativity. This is accomplished
by allowing students to explore problems and
redefine them, possibly drawing on knowledge
that at first may seem unrelated to the problem
in order to solve it.[190][191][192][194] In adults,
mentoring individuals is another way to foster
their creativiy.[197] However, the benefits of
mentoring creativity apply only to creative
contributions considered great in a given field,
not to everyday creative expression.[66]

Scotland[edit]
In the Scottish education system, creativity is
identified as a core skillset for learning, life and
work and is defined as “a process which
generates ideas that have value to the
individual. It involves looking at familiar things
with a fresh eye, examining problems with an
open mind, making connections, learning from
mistakes and using imagination to explore new
possibilities.” [1] The need to develop a shared
language and understanding of creativity and
its role across every aspect of learning,
teaching and continuous improvement was
identified as a necessary aim [2] and a set of
four skills is used to allow educators to discuss
and develop creativity skills across all subjects
and sectors of education – curiosity, open—
mindedness, imagination and problem
solving. [3] Distinctions are made between
creative learning (when learners are using
their creativity skills), creative teaching (when
educators are using their creativity skills) and
creative change (when creativity skills are
applied to planning and
improvement). [4] Scotland’s national Creative
Learning Plan [5] supports the development of
creativity skills in all learners and of educators’
expertise in developing creativity skills. A
range of resources have been created to
support and assess this [6] including a national
review of creativity across learning by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education. [7]

United States[edit]
Creativity has also been identified as one of
the key 21st century skills and as one of the
Four Cs of 21st century learning by
educational leaders and theorists in the United
States.