To understand the relationship between cultural experience and creativity using a creative cognition

approach, the cognitive interpretation of culture as a structure of knowledge is fundamental. Culture

can be operationalized as a set of knowledge that encompasses learning routines and conventional
knowledge that people in culture often use as a lens to frame their daily experiences. People
internalize cultures in the form of broad networks of knowledge, specialized knowledge structures,
and therefore individuals with intercultural experience necessarily have more of these loose
networks of knowledge structures. This expands their domain knowledge i.e. culture, which is
associated with many aspects of human life and behaviour and as a result, they are able to make
creative concept development by spontaneously accessing ideas from various cultures, comparing
and integrating these ideas into novels. And creative ideas, as suggested by the creative cognition
approach.

In the past two decades, an evolving literature has provided two types of evidence for a positive
relationship between intercultural experience and creativity. Direct intercultural experience gained
from living or living in a foreign culture. indirect intercultural experience with foreign cultural
exposure through watching foreign movies and TV programs, listing foreign music, reading foreign
books and magazines, tasting foreign food, and making friends from various countries. In the
following sections below, both types of intercultural experiences will be examined in terms of their
relationship to creativity.

We know that creativity is very important for student learning. We also know that we tend to value
the things we value. Yet, when we evaluate creativity, we can inadvertently render students risk
-free. Therefore, we evaluate creativity in a way that encourages students to be more creative.

We value what we value and we tend to value what we value. A school may have a vision statement
about developing lifelong students who fall in love with learning. However, when teachers keep data
charts on reading fluency or on benchmark test scores, there is a higher likelihood that teachers will
teach for those tests. Lifelong learning becomes a lofty goal but the frequent use of standardized
tests can shift the focus from interest in learning and towards higher academic achievement.

When we don’t evaluate something, we tend to emphasize it. Students, in turn, may internalize the
message that it is not so important. So even if we can evaluate creativity, if we don’t evaluate, we
will probably ignore it. When I started out as a teacher teaching all subjects, I tended to ignore
creative thinking in math and language as these were tested subjects and I felt pressure to make
students get good marks in assessments. Creative work becomes something I will convey when we
have time for it. I was careful in implementing project-based learning until I could see that it led to a
higher level of achievement. In other words, the whole school’s focus on test scores reshaped my
teaching.

So we have this reality that we value what we value. If we fail to evaluate something, we tend to
ignore it. Apparently, teachers should evaluate students ’creativity. In some cases, the assessment is
descriptive and reflective. When students describe their creative process, the evaluation process can
take some evaluation as risk avoidance.