Definitions

There are different definitions of creativity and there is no consensus. The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning has a chapter specifically on creativity.

Sternberg, Lubart, Kaufman and Pretz (2005) summarised all the different types of literature related to creativity which are currently available. First, there is the mystical approach to the study of creativity, according to which a divine or Muse might inspire the creator. Sternberg and Lubart (1999) offered examples of a pragmatic approach and mentioned examples of techniques which could help the students to become more creative, such as the technique of brainstorming and the technique of removing the perception that there is only one right answer. Sternberg et al. (2005) mentioned other approaches. Specifically, they reported the psychodynamic, psychometric, cognitive,

60

social, evolutionary, confluence and alternate approach. In addition, Plucker and Renzulli (1999) referred to five categories of creative studies: psychometric, experimental, biographical, biometric and historiometric.

The categorisation offered by Sternberg et al. (2005) is more extensive. Its main benefit is the fact that the authors also offer the taxonomy of creative contributions. They discussed different types of contributions, such as replication of a study or redirection of a field. The question was not restricted to whether a process can be judged creative, but what type of creativity is demonstrated by an individual. Plucker and Renzulli (1999) categorised the literature in a less detailed way but I think their categorisation is more straightforward.

This thesis can be considered as what Plucker and Renzulli called experimental approaches with creativity since this thesis will mostly involves measurement tools of creativity, a comparison and an intervention group as the psychometric approach would have suggested. Psychometric approaches are concerned with the person, the product, the process and the environment. It is apparent that different factors, assessments and definitions are considered for each of these approaches.

3.3.1.1. Person

When there is a reference to the creative person, there is usually an attempt to search for related personality characteristics. Davis (1999) summarised the personality traits of creative people. Creative people are meant to be aware of their creativity. They are original, independent, willing to take risks, energetic characterised by thrill-seeking, thorough and curious. They have a sense of humour and capacity for fantasy. They are attracted to ambiguity and complexity, artistic, open-minded, perceptive, emotional, ethical and they need time alone. The one I believe needs clarification is the element thorough, because it demonstrates that creative people are actually self-disciplined, organised and perfectionists. Creative people do not simply wait for inspiration as the mystical approach to creativity would suggest. One of the personality traits of creative people is being hard working. Furthermore, Davis (1999) reported the negative traits of some creative people, such as their childish, neurotic or even slightly sociopathic behaviour.

Amabile’s work also focuses on motivation as a characteristic of creative people. Amabile (1995) conducted an experiment trying to identify the impact of motivation on creativity. She found that the poems produced by adults after having

61

responded to an extrinsic orientation were less creative compared to those produced by adults who had just responded to an intrinsic orientation questionnaire.

According to Piirto (2010), some core attitudes for the creative process, are tolerance for ambiguity, self-discipline, risk-taking. Furthermore, she mentioned openness, which according to Piirto (2010), is the ability of creative people to be curious and pay attention to small things. These elements have already been discussed by Davis (1999) and in what follows it will become apparent that they are also aligned with Torrance’s views.

In Piirto’s pyramid of talent development (Piirto & Ford, 2000), there are many personality traits which are in alignment with those discussed for creative people, such as intuition, openness, passion for work, perceptiveness, perfectionism, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity. There are also some additional traits, such as androgyny, perfectionism and resilience.

To conclude, I did not identify extremely contradictory references when the characteristics of creative people are presented. Some sources are complementary to others, but the personality traits presented are usually aligned. Considering what was previously discussed with the dispositions for critical thinking and the distinction between the critical thinking and the critical thinker, it can be argued that somebody might have creative personality traits, but they might not generate creative outcomes.

3.3.1.2. Process

Guilford (1950)discussed creativity and he focused on the creative abilities. He clearly stated the abilities are those that can determine whether the person will be able to display creative behaviour. He presented a list of creative abilities. As he explained, these refer to the creative abilities needed for scientists, inventors or people who are focused on technology and do not necessarily apply in other domains. These are summarised as:

 Sensitivity to problems, which involves skills such as asking questions  Fluency

 Flexibility

 Having novel ideas. Regarding this, Guilford (1950) clarified that in order for these novel ideas to be considered creative, they should be acceptable.

62  Analysing ability

 Reorganisation of organised wholes

 Resistance to confusion and able of handling complex mental structures  Evaluation

Guildford (1950) suggested this definition as mostly appropriate for particular domains, but I suggest that this definition can be appropriate for creativity as a domain- independent skill. Even though evaluation is adopted as an element of critical thinking by this thesis, all the other elements are accepted for creativity as a general construct and hence most of these elements will be used in the working definition of this thesis. The most important element of this definition is that the generation of creative responses does not have to come from anything. Synthesising and analysing existing ideas can result in a product which can be considered novel and creative.

Also, Guilford (1956; 1967) included divergent production as one of the six operations in his Structure of Intellect. Particularly, he suggested that divergent production can refer to units, classes, relations, systems, transformation and implications and it might be on a figural, symbolic semantic or behavioural level (Guilford, 1967). In an earlier version of the system of intellect, Guilford (1956) referred to the particular type of content in divergent production. He explained that the production might refer to production in words, ideas, expressions, shifts, novel responses and details. As a result, he used the term ‘flexibility’ for the shifts, elaboration for the details, the term ‘originality’ for the novel responses and ‘fluency’ for words, ideas and expressions.

In what follows, it is necessary to refer to the definition of Torrance. It can be supported that Torrance continued the tradition from Guilford and expanded on it. Even though Torrance discussed various definitions for creativity, he summarised his research definitions in what follows (Torrance, 1988, p. 47):

‘I tried to describe creative thinking as the process of sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements, something askew; making guesses and formulating hypotheses about these deficiencies; evaluating and testing these guesses and hypotheses; possibly revising and retesting them; and finally communicating the results.’

63

There are many interesting aspects included in Torrance’s definition. First of all, he clearly discusses creativity as a process. Secondly, he discusses both problem-finding and problem-solving as parts of the creative process. It also includes an audience in the definition. Moreover, the definition of Torrance includes elements which were discussed in the definitions of critical thinking earlier in this chapter, such as hypothesis testing. This should not be surprising, because of the idea of critico-creative thinking (Fisher, 2010) which was also introduced earlier in this chapter. Even though this thesis discusses these two concepts separately, both concepts can be considered examples of thinking skills and related - at least to some extent.

Lipman (1987, p.10) claimed that critical thinking and creativity are ‘compatible and even overlapping’. Norris and Ennis (1989) described the relationship between critical, creative and good thinking. They said that critical thinking is a part of good thinking and it can be separated into evaluative and non-evaluative thinking. Likewise, creative thinking is a part of good thinking and includes reflective and non- reflective thinking. These two parts overlap when the thinking is reasonable, reflective, productive and non-evaluative. The first two elements are included in the definition of critical thinking in all cases. However, when the thinking is reasonable and reflective, but also evaluative and non-productive, then it is also an area of critical thinking and it does not overlap with creative thinking. According to Norris and Ennis, creative thinking is always non-evaluative, productive and reasonable.

Burbules and Berk (1999) perceived creativity as an alternate version to criticality. They emphasised that criticality does not only include finding a meaning, but also creating a meaning and to think in a different way. They focused on elements that they have been emphasised as elements of creativity for a long time: openness and imagination. Although these authors refer to criticality and the social character of thinking, which is not necessarily how critical thinking is perceived and defined by this thesis, it can still become obvious that they recognize the close link between criticality and creativity.

Fisher and Scriven (1997) also attempted to set a relationship between critical thinking and creativity. They referred to the creativity that exists in critical thinking, which is different from what is usually mentioned as creativity. They said that this type of creativity has different characteristics. It operates with language and not art (e.g. dance or painting) or mechanical invention. It requires novel ideas. These ideas should be novel for the specific context. Therefore, novel is not referred to the novelty that a

64

Nobeler would require. They named this type of creativity ‘functional creativity’. This is the type of creativity that this thesis focuses on. It is not the creativity that should be related to arts, science or a specific discipline. It is the creativity which is linked to (critical) thinking.

The creative process requires some intentionality. Craft (2001) argued that fantasies and dreams are not creative here because there is no conscious intention to create them. I only partially agree with Craft. I agree that fantasies and dreams are not typical creative products. However, this is not because of lack of intentionality. Fantasies and dreams still have a creator and this is the person who imagined them. Furthermore, even in Wallas (1926) illumination, the mental activities were not intentional. I argue that fantasies and dreams refer to a creative process but they are not creative products. In other words, fantasies and dreams are characterized by creativity. However, they are not creative products because they can only be experienced by a creator and they do not have an audience. As soon as these are used in order to be the basis of a different product, such as an oral story, which is communicated to an audience, they can lead to a creative product.

3.3.1.3. Product

Runco and Jaeger (2012) wrote what is called a standard definition of creativity. According to them, creativity requires originality and effectiveness. This means that original products should be uncommon, and they should have a value. Corazza (2016) accepted these two elements but suggested that this definition perceives creativity as static. Creativity should be perceived as a dynamic process. Therefore, creativity requires potential originality and effectiveness. A creative thinking process sometimes might not produce a creative product or reach a specific conclusion. In that sense, a creative agent is the one who pursues and not necessarily achieves creative goals.

By the examination of what Corazza (2016) argued in relation to creativity, it becomes apparent that there is no concentration on the product itself, since in some of the cases there is no production of a conclusion or a final product. I think the dynamic definition is useful in a theoretical framework. However, it might be problematic used for educational assessments. The potentiality in the definition of creativity turns the focus to less visible elements of the creative process. It is difficult to distinguish who is more or less creative in a dynamic definition of creativity. From a pedagogical point of

65

view, it is useful to see potential in students. It is difficult, however, to make concrete judgments about this.

The standard definition of creativity was also criticised on other aspects.

Weisberg (2015) questioned the inclusion of value in the definition of creativity. The main argument is that the judgment about the value of a creative product is extremely subjective. As a result, he suggested the definition that a product is creative if it is novel and produced intentionally. This working definition adopted by this thesis is in agreement with the recommendation of Weisberg (2015) for the exclusion of value, because this might lead to subjective assessments which may be highly culturally and time-dependent.

Similarly, James and Taylor (2012) criticised the element of usefulness required in order for a product to be judged as creative. They explained that it has to be questioned whether this aspect refers to the usefulness for the agent, but not for the other people. For instance, a robbery might be useful for the robber, but not for the people who are being robbed. Therefore, James and Taylor (2012) argued that negative creativity should be distinguished from creativity which has unintended negative consequences. Their argument, however, still suggests that the usefulness or the value of a product is not an objective indicator. Something which is valuable for someone for the time being might not be for others at the same or different time.

3.3.1.4. Environment

The environment is also an element widely discussed in creativity literature. Many researchers argued that the environment can foster creativity. The acceptance of the belief that the environment can support creativity is important for this thesis. This means that creativity can be developed and interventions in the life of an individual can have an impact on creativity. Therefore, it can be questioned whether P4C can be one of these interventions.

It is useful to present an example of a definition in which the environment plays a crucial role. Plucker, Beghetto and Dow (2004, p.90) defined creativity as ‘[...] the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context’. According to this definition, environment is needed both as a factor to influence creativity and to set the context in which creativity is defined. As it will be presented later in the grading process of the creativity, even though cultural knowledge

66

was not rewarded in the responses of the students, there is an acceptance that cultural knowledge and context was used in order to grade the responses and categorise them.

Also, the environment added a different perspective to this thesis, since the school can be considered an environmental factor. Piirto and Ford (2000) presented the pyramid of talent development and included five suns above the pyramid, which could potentially affect the development of talent. These suns stand for the home and the family, the school, the community and culture, the gender and chance. Even though the presentation of gender might seem bizarre in a model of talent, this is not a sexist stance of the authors. The authors simply accepted that even though both boys and girls are born with the same talent, gender might play a role in the society. Thus, it will impact on how people develop or how much they are rewarded for their talents. Similarly, the community plays a crucial role in whether the talents of a person get recognised. This thesis concentrates on the influence of the second sun and examines whether the school and particularly a school-based intervention can play a role in the development of pupils’ creativity.

Amabile (2017) discusses the impact of the environment on creativity. This is because the environment can have an impact on motivation. Since the environment impacts on motivation, motivation can also have an impact on creativity. This can bring a different approach to the current research because a potential interpretation of any impact that P4C plays on creativity might be explained through motivation. For example, the positive or negative impact that P4C could have on creativity may result from a change in the motivation for learning of pupils instead of being a direct effect on their creativity.

To summarise, in this thesis there is an experimental study to examine whether a school-intervention as an environmental factor can have an impact on the creativity of the students. Furthermore, the environment and the social context were also used to some extent as references for the grading of the creativity activities in the assessments.