Back

1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've
requested.

Persistent
link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the
article or citation.
Cut and Paste: To
place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML
below, starting with "<A HREF"

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE
then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar
above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page,
HTML only' file (.html). In Netscape, select
FILE then SAVE AS from your
browser's toolbar above.

Record: 1

Title:

About Creativity, Giftedness, and Teaching the
Creatively Gifted in the Classroom.

Author(s):

Sak, Ugur

Source:

Roeper Review, v26 n4 p216 Sum 2004. 7 pp. (Peer
Reviewed Journal)

ISSN:

0278-3193

Descriptors:

World Problems, Poetry, Personal Narratives,
Novels, Creativity, Creative Writing, Academically Gifted

Abstract:

In this case study the author explored a
teacher's beliefs about creativity and giftedness and investigated the
classroom practices of this teacher of gifted students for 20 years. Seven
semi-structured and 2 open observations were carried out in her classroom, and
2 prefigured interviews were conducted with her. She believed that creative
children are those who are "free thinkers" and have "imaginative
intelligence." The thin line between an academically gifted child and a
creatively gifted child is built by "imagination," "emotional intensity," and
"curiosity." In creative writing, she tried to implement activities such as
learning to write poetry, personal narratives, research reports and essays
posing solutions to real world problems, and mystery stories decorated with
similes, metaphors and imaginative expressions. In reading, students analyzed
characters, problems, places and times in stories and novels, and then rewrote
stories.

Abstractor:

Author

Number of Pages:

7

Publication Type:

Journal Articles

Availability:

Not available from EDRS
Roeper Review, P.O.
Box 329, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303. Tel: 248-203-7321; e-mail:
[email-masked]

Journal Code:

SEP2005

Entry Date:

2005

Accession Number:

EJ698585

Persistent link to this record:

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ698585&site=ehost-live

Cut and Paste:

<A
href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ698585&site=ehost-live">About
Creativity, Giftedness, and Teaching the Creatively Gifted in the
Classroom.</A>

Database:

ERIC

Full Text Database:

Academic Search Premier

About Creativity, Giftedness, and Teaching the
Creatively Gifted in the Classroom

In this case study the author explored a teacher's
beliefs about creativity and giftedness and investigated the classroom practices
of this teacher of gifted students for 20 years. Seven semi-structured and 2
open observations were carried out in her classroom, and 2 prefigured interviews
were conducted with her. She believed that creative children are those who are
"free thinkers" and have "imaginative intelligence." The thin line between an
academically gifted child and a creatively gifted child is built by
"imagination," "emotional intensity," and "curiosity." In creative writing, she
tried to implement activities such as learning to write poetry, personal
narratives, research reports and essays posing solutions to real world problems,
and mystery stories decorated with similes, metaphors and imaginative
expressions. In reading, students analyzed characters, problems, places and
times in stories and novels, and then rewrote stories.

Teacher attitudes, beliefs, and classroom practices are
deemed to be of crucial influence in the development of students' creativity.
However, what teachers know about characteristics of creative students and what
they do to foster students' creativity have been found controversial (Alencar,
1993; Collings & Fryer, 1991; Cropley, 1994; Fleith, 2000; Gentry, Rizza
& Owen, 2002; Mayfield, 1979; Rash & Miller, 2000; Starko, 1995; Tan,
2001).

Creativity is important at both the individual and the
societal levels. At the individual level, creativity is relevant to solving real
life problems. At the societal level, creative individuals pioneer progress in
science and technology and the beauty in arts (Sternberg, 1999). Creativity also
is important at the global level. Creative accomplishments help to build a more
interactive world that fortifies human civilization. In fact, Starko (1995)
argues that humans would have no advancement in art, literature, science, and
invention if human creativity did not exist. Ironically, educators sometimes
teach students about creative and eminent people, but ignore teaching that
fosters students' creative thinking in their classrooms. The importance of
schooling in the development of students' creativity has been mentioned in many
studies about creativity. The classroom is construed to open new pathways in
children's creativity (Cropley, 1994; Fishkin, Cramond, &
Olszewski-Kubilius, 1999; Lynch & Harris, 2001; Runco & Albert, 1990;
Sternberg, 1999). Therefore, teachers can play important roles to enhance any
components of students' creativity.
Teachers as Facilitators of Students' Creativity

Cropley (1994) highlights three aspects of teacher
behaviors that can influence students' creative thinking in the classroom. The
first aspect is the teacher herself as a role model. The behaviors that the
teacher displays shape the behaviors students develop. The second aspect is the
classroom atmosphere that the teacher builds. Creativity flourishes in an
atmosphere that is constructively responsive to unusual ideas. The third aspect
is the teacher's efforts that reward and foster students' creativity through
instructional activities. These three aspects reflect personality (e.g.,
openness), intellectual (e.g., creativity) and knowledge prerequisites (e.g.,
instructional knowledge) that a teacher needs to teach creative students.
Teachers' Understanding of
Creativity

Scholars in the field of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi,
1997; Gardner, 1993; Runco & Albert, 1990; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991)
discuss important behaviors associated with creativity. However, teachers have
been found to have insufficient knowledge of characteristics of creative
students. Renzulli (1976) asserted that teachers lack understanding of the
nature of creativity. Alencar (1993) found teachers tend to focus only on
students' academic characteristics as indices of creativity. Fleith (2000)
reported that teachers evaluated students as creative based on students'
interpersonal characteristics. As the researchers have reported, teachers'
beliefs about creativity are mixed. Some believe that creativity is a
personality trait while others think it is an intellectual ability related to
academic achievement. Yet, few say creativity is multifaceted and can be
fostered through supportive teacher behaviors and teaching practices.
Do Teachers Welcome Creative
Behavior?

Teachers have been found to undervalue creativity
(Dacey, 1989; Parnes, 1967). Cropley (1994) summarizes the kinds of behavioral
and personality traits that are common to creative children but not preferred by
teachers. These are "impulsive, nonconformist, disorganized, adventurous, and
imaginative" (p. 18). Traits preferred by teachers are "courteous, punctual,
well-rounded, receptive and obedient" (p. 19). In fact, Westby and Dawson (1995)
reported that teachers seemed to have a negative view of characteristics
associated with creativity. Students displaying creative behaviors tend to be
unappealing to teachers. This claim is very important for the future of human
advancement. When teachers do not know what creativity is, how it manifests and
how it is important, they may ignore teaching for creativity; thereafter, loss
of creative talent is reflected in scientific and artistic advancements in
particular, and in human civilization in general.
Classroom Practices of Teachers

Researchers (Maker & Nielson, 1995a) have identified
principles and found many ways to modify content, process, learning
environments, and products that are challenging for creative students;
nonetheless, teachers were found to be slow to integrate these modifications
into their teaching-learning practices (Mathers & Murdock, 1999). Regarding
content and process modifications in the classroom, Tan (2001) found that most
experienced teachers considered all learning activities valuable for fostering
the creativity of children. They tended to place more value on teacher-centered
activities and rote memorization than did beginning teachers. On the other hand,
most teachers, regardless of experience, perceived the importance of independent
learning and collaboration for creativity. Fleith (2000) found that teachers did
not use students' self-evaluations and extrinsic and intrinsic rewards for
promotion of creativity.

Runco (1990) and Starko (1995) state that a classroom
environment that supports unusual ideas, provides freedom of thought and freedom
of choice is conducive to creative achievement. However, Gentry, Rizza and Owen
(2002) reported that students perceived little freedom of choice in their
classrooms. Likewise, Alencar (1993) found most classroom climates discouraged
students' creativity.
Creativity in the Classroom for the Gifted

Does the mirror of creativity in the classroom for the
gifted reflect a different profile than the one in the regular classroom? There
is little research to answer this question. However, in a survey with teachers
of the gifted, Rash and Miller (2000) found that teachers of the gifted
recognized the importance of process skills and used several teaching models.
They used Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Enrichment Triad, Taba
Teaching Strategies Program, and Creative Problem Solving model (Maker &
Nielson, 1995a). Yet Bain, Bourgeois and Pappas (2003) reported in a survey
study that, although most teachers of the gifted were aware of teaching models,
they rarely used these models in their teaching.
Rationale

Teachers in general seem to lack two types of knowledge
about creative children. One is the nature of creativity; in other words, the
kinds of behaviors a creative child displays. The other one is about teaching
for creativity; that is, how children's creativity can be fostered in the
classroom. One assumption based on research findings is that most teachers do
not favor creative behaviors and do not know how to foster creativity, probably
because most do not understand the nature of creativity. Therefore, case studies
of teachers who have experience with teaching gifted and creative students can
bring new insights into understanding and teaching creative pupils. This method
of investigation also can help the development of new teaching and learning
strategies useful for challenging and fostering creative students.

Although some research has been done with teachers,
using surveys and questionnaires (Collings & Fryer, 1991; Fleith, 2000;
Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002; Rash & Miller, 2000; Tan, 2001), in reality,
these methods of investigation have not provided in-depth information about
teachers' understanding of creativity and their classroom practices to foster
it. Unless the researcher embeds himself or herself in the classroom, what he or
she finds might be cosmetic information. I believe relationships between
teachers' perceptions and classroom practices can be better understood, and
useful practices to foster creativity can be better identified through case
studies when the researcher becomes part of the classroom setting as an insider,
or an observer of the natural setting as an outsider. The purpose of this study
was to understand the beliefs of a teacher of the gifted about creativity and to
further investigate the practices she used in the classroom to foster gifted
students' creative thinking. To achieve this purpose, a qualitative method of
investigation was used; therefore, classroom observations and interviews were
carried out. The following research questions guided the study:

What does a teacher of gifted students believe
about students' creativity?

How does this teacher foster students'
creativity in the classroom?

Theoretical Framework

Despite extensive research about creativity, there is
little consensus on what creativity means, how it is manifested, and how it is
enhanced. On the one hand, this is because of the divergence in people's
understanding of creativity. On the other hand, it is because of the way
creative behaviors are valued differently in different contexts (Amabile, 1996;
Fishkin, Cramond & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1999; Lynch & Harris, 2001;
Simonton, 1997, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). The definition of
creativity varies from person to person, from place to place, and from time to
time. Hence, creativity by definition is a complex and subjective phenomenon,
about which human beings construct meaning out of their experiences.

According to the constructionist epistemological view,
human knowledge is constructed through meaning-making activities of the
individual mind (Crotty, 1998). The same phenomenon is interpreted differently
by people with different experiences in different periods and in different
places. This view of human knowledge makes sense when speaking of creativity,
which is both abstract and subjective. It is subjective because it is construed
through effects on individual minds. Therefore, our experiences seem to play a
unique role in our understanding of creativity. For example, many people's image
of a gifted and creative individual is "a little guy with thick glasses" or "a
young rebel poet" (Kerr & Cohn, 2001, p. 39). Likewise, some people consider
gifted and creative persons as geniuses who share a common set of personality
and intellectual characteristics such as loneliness and precocity (Piirto,
1998). Still, media portrays a genius as a biopsychological intersection of some
psychotic syndromes such as schizophrenia and intellectual gifts such as
creativity as seen in the movie, A Beautiful Mind.

From the constructionist vantage point, meaning cannot
be made objectively nor just subjectively because we do not create meaning but
we construct meaning through our experiences with the world (Crotty, 1998).
Crotty says, "All meaningful reality is socially constructed... the basic
generation of meaning is always social, for the meanings with which we are
endowed arise in and out of interactive human community" (Crotty, 1998, p.
55).

A classroom is both a social and an academic environment
in which teaching-learning, teacher-student, and peer interactions take place.
In other words, what occurs in a classroom is in large part social interactions
whereby both teachers and students construct meanings. A teacher experiences how
students grow psychologically, cognitively, and physically during the course of
schooling. The teacher's perceptions of students' psychological differences vary
from those who have never had similar experiences in an interactive classroom
culture. Therefore, teachers' understanding of creativity and their classroom
practices can be better explained from the constructionist epistemological view,
which is what the author of this study held before going to the research
field.
Methods

Participant

Rossman and Rallis (1998) underscore the importance of
the decision to choose participants in qualitative studies. Indeed, it is
fundamental to the entire study. The criteria I established to select the
participant were as follows: willingness to participate, extensive classroom
teaching experience, experience with teaching both high and average ability
students, and nomination as exemplary by school administrators or teachers.

Martha (a pseudonym) was a teacher of gifted students at
an elementary school in the southwest region of the USA. She has been teaching
both gifted and average ability students for 20 years. She graduated from the
University of Arizona with a B.A. in secondary education, a major in history and
a minor in political science. Later, she went back to the university to obtain
an endorsement in gifted education. She also took several courses at a special
summer institute, the Greater Phoenix Writing Project, and some incidental
courses in math, for she was the math leader in her school for many years. She
was honored with the best teacher award in the district in 1998. She retired a
year ago. Employed as a part-time teacher, she was still teaching 3rd and 4th
grade gifted students in a pullout program, which had 12 verbally gifted
students in language arts and 15 mathematically gifted students.

Setting

The school where Martha worked was an inner city
elementary school. Seven hundred and forty-one students were currently enrolled.
There were 41 teachers and 2 administrators. The school's population was 64%
White, 23% Hispanic, 8% African American, 4% American Indian, and 1% Asian. The
mobility profile of the school indicated 223 new student entries and 125
withdrawals in the year of this study. Average daily student attendance was 662.
Thirty-nine percent of the students received free and reduced lunch. The school
district provided special programs for students in the school: Special Education
Resources, Special Education Self-Contained, Cross Categorical, Speech and
Language Program, ESL, Title I, Reading Recovery, and Advanced Educational
Placement (AEP). Martha taught in the AEP Program.

Teaching only in the mornings, Martha shared the
classroom with a science teacher, who taught in the afternoon. Student tables
were in vertical rows facing the board. Martha's table was on the right front
corner of the classroom. There were six computers on the right side, and a
classroom library on the left front. She displayed students' work at the back of
the classroom. Students' work included drawings, poetries, essays, stories, and
some reports. While she was lecturing or leading a discussion, she usually sat
on a chair in front of the students.

Data Collection

During a 6-month period, I performed 7 semi-structured
observations in Martha's language arts class as part of a larger project,
entitled Teacher Advancement Program. The purpose of the project was to
investigate through classroom observations types of instructional activities,
learning environments, and teacher-student interactions in 2nd to 5th grade
language arts classes. Martha was one of the teachers who volunteered to
participate in the project. Because Martha also was the participant in this
study, I increased my observations extensively her classroom, seeking answers to
my research questions. I paid special attention to her classroom practices
related to students' creativity. A month after I completed the 7th observation,
I carried out 2 more open-ended classroom observations focusing on anything in
the classroom.

I used electronic classroom observation forms to collect
data. Employing prefigured techniques, which according to Rossman and Rallis
(1998) carefully specify and keep the focus on specific events and activities of
observations, I took ethnographic field notes about instructional activities;
the content, structure and pacing of the lesson; questioning, thinking skills;
classroom management and environment; student-teacher interactions; and reading
materials. Each observation took 90 minutes. I used a laptop to record the
observations, which had two components: running records, which were descriptive,
and observer comments (Rossman & Rallis). I edited field notes shortly after
each observation. This method enabled me to do some preliminary analysis of
data.

A week after I finished the last two observations, I
interviewed Martha to explore her perceptions of students' creativity and
giftedness. I used a semi-structured interview protocol (Seidman, 1998) that
featured questions about creativity, giftedness, and her classroom practices.
These 25 minute interviews took place in two sessions. They were tape-recorded
for later transcription. Because I wanted to explore her beliefs about certain
topics, I developed interview questions based on my previous observations and my
theoretical framework. I asked open-ended questions and frequently asked
follow-up questions for clarification and elaboration on some ideas or concepts.
Seidman (1998) maintains that this method of asking questions for elaboration
and clarification enables the researcher to better understand and make more
accurate interpretations. After analyzing my first interview, I had the
opportunity to ask for more clarification and elaboration on issues discussed in
the first interview.

Data Analysis

To analyze the classroom observation data, I applied an
"ongoing analysis" (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). This process continued
throughout the study. I read and edited my field notes after each observation
and wrote analytic memos. This intense process enabled me to become familiar
with the data. Observation forms helped me to analyze data in a more organized
way.

First, I transcribed the interviews verbatim. Then, I
underlined interesting, important, and salient concepts, phrases and ideas.
Afterward, I coded these through a coding system as described in Rossman and
Rallis (1998). For each idea, concept or phrase that had meaning I assigned two
numbers; one for page number, one for idea number. For example the concept
"freedom of expression" was represented by 2/4 or 2/5. Here, the first number
represents an idea, and the second one is the page number. This method of coding
enabled a more accurate analysis of data.

After coding and listing concepts, phrases and ideas, I
developed a "Conceptually Clustered Matrix" (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that
included concepts, phrases and ideas as the first column, categories as the
second column, and themes and patterns as the third column. A basic principle in
a conceptually ordered display is conceptual coherence according to Miles and
Huberman. I used the "Concept Development Strategy" of Hilda Taba's Critical
Thinking strategies (Maker & Nielson, 1995b) to bring together items that
were related and to establish conceptual coherence and to develop categories and
themes. This critical thinking technique strengthened the process of data
analysis. However, I also reviewed principles of qualitative data analysis
described by Miles and Huberman to check the appropriateness of the technique
for qualitative data analysis.

Concept Development Strategy consists of five steps:
listing, grouping, labeling, subsuming, and recycling. The first step, listing,
involves differentiating relevant from irrelevant information. Through this
step, I listed all useful and meaningful information (concepts, phrases, and
ideas) such as "linear thinking" and "free thinking." The second step, grouping,
involves the cognitive task of analyzing similar attributes and putting items
together on the basis of these similarities. For example, "imagination,"
"fantasy," and "piggyback" could go under one group as "fostering creativity."
Through this step, I identified multiple attributes of items with open and
flexible thinking, and then developed categories. The third step, labeling,
requires abstracting and synthesizing to find an appropriate word or phrase to
express the relationship or commonality among diverse items. Through this
process, I was able to label each category with a suitable name like "creative
self" In the fourth step, subsuming, the thinker has another opportunity to
analyze different relationships and attributes of items. By applying this step,
I transferred some items from one category to another as well as copied some
items from one category to another category because of common relationships. For
example, the term "curiosity" was used under both the category "creative self"
and "creative versus uncreative self" At the last step, recycling, I recycled
all previous steps, which helped me to look at data from different angles and
promoted openness and flexibility.

Integration of observation notes into coded interview
data was another step in the analysis. During this process I looked at linkages
between these two data sets, and combined them to make meaningful connections.
For example, while I was reporting Martha's beliefs about imagination, I infused
her classroom practices of imagination into my writing.

I used three of Lincoln and Guba's (1985) recommend
techniques to establish the credibility of a qualitative study: use of more than
one method to collect data (Triangulation), external checks on the inquiry
process (Peer Debriefing) and direct tests of findings and interpretations with
participants (Member Check). I used interview and observation methods to collect
data (Triangulation). After I transcribed tape recorded interviews, Martha
examined the transcribed interview and made some changes (Member Check).
However, she did not examine my analysis. Meanwhile, some graduate students
examined the interview data (Peer Check), which helped me in coding and
analyzing ideas from multiple perspectives.
Results

The Meaning of Creativity

Martha used three concepts to express her beliefs about
the meaning of creativity. The first was "perceive," the second was "act," and
the third was "impact." She considered creativity a three-dimensional construct,
one being "perception" by seeing and understanding or perceiving the complexity
of the outer world; the other being "action facet" by acting to accomplish a
purpose such as adaptation to a new environment; and the last was "impact facet"
by coming up with something that had impact. She expressed her beliefs about the
first one as "How one sees the world and perceives it" while she elaborated on
the second facet as "what people can do to make the world interesting,
innovative, different, and original, and also put a new twist on it." Explaining
the third facet of creativity she said, "coming up with a newer idea or manner
that is unusual."

Creative Self

Martha used the concepts "unique, original, unusual,
innovative, impressive, different, and interesting" many times while depicting a
creative student. Creative children go beyond what they have read or what they
have been told, think outside the parameters of what is normal, and come up with
original thoughts. However, these ideas are not always original but help
students grow and expand. She distinguished between creation and recreation
while underlying "uniqueness and originality." She said that some of her
students wrote unbelievable stories they claimed were their own but were not.
According to her, they have seen these stories so many times in fantasy books,
and they were just recreating those presentations. Also she stressed that it was
very hard for students to draw the line between what has been presented to them
in books and what was an original thought for them. However, she did not see
this recreation to be "an overkill"; rather, it helped develop original ideas.
That is, students elaborated on existing stories or figures and modified them
from the original form. In fact, they sometimes rewrote fantasy stories.

While she was portraying the most creative student in
her classroom, she accentuated the student's imagination, expressiveness,
different perspectives, and original ideas.

She tries to create and think of new ideas and ways to
think of things...she is very expressive and can create a story that is
extremely expressive in so many original ideas...she did a story that she
created from a paper skeleton and she had the viewpoint of how the world looked
to this little paper skeleton.

This student was in 4th grade and was 10 years old. In
my observations, I noticed the student's critical thinking while she was
evaluating current events like "freedom" and "terrorism" from very different
perspectives. She said, "We also need to take another point of view if we want
to make a fair decision... I mean those people... I mean, we think they are
terrorists." However, staying within the structure of the classroom was
difficult for her. The student sometimes seemed very bored and disinterested in
activities even though the program was differentiated for the gifted. On the
other hand, she was at times very expressive and could hardly contain herself,
frequently interrupting the teacher. While Martha was describing her, she
pointed to the nonconformity of this student as well as others. According to
Martha, the most creative children found it the most difficult to stay within
the structure of the classroom or programs:

Sometimes they are labeled "trouble makers" because the
parameters that they have to work with are very difficult for them to be within
the structure, and they often do not work well with other children because they
have very definite ideas of how things should be.

Creative versus Uncreative Self

Martha distinguished between two concepts as
representations of thinkers. The first one was "linear thinkers." According to
her, linear thinkers are those who cannot go outside of their parameters and are
not productive. This group could include the gifted who are not creative. On the
other hand, the creative student is "a free thinker" who can think outside the
box and generate many ideas. Further, she differentiated between the creatively
gifted and gifted by the term "imaginative intelligence." From her point of
view, the creative student has certain imaginative intelligence that results in
creative work. She said that those who turn out to be the greatest have to be
both gifted and creative. Martha considered Einstein as an example with his
popular saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Another distinction Martha made between the creative and
the gifted were the "personal assets" that each individual has. From her
perception, people are born with certain personal assets that make some more
creative than others. People who have difficulty opening their minds and
thinking outside the lines can be helped to develop their creativity. She
articulated that people are born with or without the aptitude. Yet without this
aptitude, it can be developed, "but it is within a person." She thought that
creativity was within the self; "creativity comes from insight." According to
Martha, insight, personality, and emotional intensity play significant roles in
creative personality. While talking about the most creative student in her
classroom, she described that student as the most "emotionally deep."

Martha also emphasized the term "curiosity" while making
distinctions between the creative personality and the uncreative one. She did
not find many bright children curious, "...they see things in black and white,
and it is difficult for them to see it any other way... but they are
academically gifted and I see other kinds."

Fostering Creativity: Extension of the Content in a Welcoming Classroom

Reading. Imagination and fantasy had very important
places in Martha's teaching. She expressed her thoughts about how she integrated
these into her teaching while practicing regular curriculum. What they did in
the classroom was the extension of an idea; that is, the students used the
content in creative ways. They discussed important and broad ideas while
connecting these ideas to their fantasy world. They read books on fantasy; they
talked about the idea of fantasy and creativity and how things were different. I
observed that these fantasy and science fictions were some major activities
integrated into the contents of the Language Arts class. For example, I saw that
students were excitedly discussing the books Shape Changer, A Wrinkle in Time,
and The Hobbit. They analyzed each character and event in the stories. The
following questions that Martha asked seemed to create an interactive atmosphere
in the classroom: How was the main character's personality reflected in this
story? How would this story end if the main character had a completely different
personality? What would you do if you were the main character? What would you
predict happens next? Martha stated that these kinds of activities challenged
students' minds, "...they think outside the parameters. I think we do this by
just imagining things that are unusual, so imagining is good."

Other learning activities that Martha thought fostered
students' creativity were current events, the use of newspapers, journals,
magazines, and book reports. She practiced these activities through whole-class
discussions, panel discussions, presentations, independent study and individual
projects. Martha differentiated the instruction while teaching current events.
For instance, after students read passages and news about Martin Luther King,
Martha connected the topic to real world problems as an extension of an activity
to promote students' creativity. They not only had discussions about Martin
Luther King but also about civilized people, civil wars, and civil rights. "They
explored the true meaning behind Martin Luther King Day," said Martha.

Creative writing. Another activity implemented to extend
an idea was creative writing and connecting writing to real life. Martha
believed that the more children read and wrote the more their minds expanded. In
addition to personal narratives, which were the part of regular curriculum in
the school, her students were writing mystery stories by imagining and writing
essays, poems, and research reports. In short story writing, they created their
own characters, problems, and events. Martha sometimes prompted students by
asking, "How would you rewrite this story if you were the author?" Then, the
students rewrote stories by replacing characters, times, and places. Some
stories turned out to be completely different. Then, they discussed "what
changed what?" That is, what kinds of key changes caused important changes in an
original story? Martha further explained the importance of imagination and
fantasy. According to her, imagination and fantasy activities presented students
different worlds because they piggybacked on ideas. Martha said,

They read a book [of] a new land or something of that
nature, then I give them a day and a time, where I now say "you create your own
land" and the people you have in it and what would you do?

Another extension of the content was the "vocabulary
enrichment." Using contextual word analysis technique, the students discussed
meanings of words integrated in texts. They examined relationships between
words, ideas, and events such as color-ethnicity-discrimination, and
discrimination-civil war-civil rights. They found synonyms that could replace a
word in the text, and discussed how some synonyms could change the meaning of a
sentence. Afterward, they reviewed some concepts by analyzing their grammatical
structure such as civil-civilized-civilization; and
segregate-segregated-segregation. Martha encouraged the students to use the
concepts in their writings they learned. She asked them how the concepts
civilization and segregation are related. A student promptly responded:

When a country has no civil rights, people get
discriminated... I mean segregation happens in that country... You know there
was discrimination in our country years ago... Black people were segregated...
because they had different color. They did not have the same civil rights.
Today, we are equal... I mean we are civilized.

Another day Martha connected creative writing to real
life matters. She elicited students' prior knowledge about civil rights and
world problems. Students were assigned to write essays posing solutions to real
world problems. Martha encouraged the students to use a variety of information
sources such as library books, journals, magazines, newspaper, Internet, and
other electronic sources. The students wrote about world peace, segregation,
nuclear weapons, and terrorism.

Classroom Environment

Martha promoted students' creativity through
modifications in process and classroom environment in addition to the changes in
content. She used the concepts "freedom, discovery, independence, and higher
levels of thinking" while describing an ideal classroom environment. During my
final visit to her classroom, the class was discussing an independent research
project. The students were supposed to work independently on a project of their
choice.

Although they had predetermined choices of topics, they
were free to find their own topics as well. Some topics were the judicial
system, religions, sound, brain, heredity, stock market, and dreams. Students
were free to use various modes of investigation such as interviews with adults,
research at a library or visit to local public institutions. They could use any
kind of materials that could help them in their projects and to use a variety of
formats for their final products such as an essay, a biography, a research
report, or a piece of art that symbolized their ideas.

"Time for independence is very important," said Martha.
During the last minutes of each class, students worked independently on their
individual projects by searching through books in the classroom library and
using computers to search the Internet or to type their reports. Martha usually
circulated in the classroom to monitor students' involvement in tasks. She
directed the students to help each other instead of seeking help only from her.
Martha said, "Students evaluate their own ideas as well as others when they work
together or help each other in their projects."

From Martha's perspective, an ideal classroom was one
with no time limits, more independent study, fewer prescribed tasks, and was
less structured. "Students who have certain imaginative intelligence find basic
tasks very redundant, and they do not go over these tasks. That time would be
better spent by themselves creating a new task," said Martha. According to her,
in an ideal classroom a teacher must be a facilitator.
Discussion and Conclusion

In the results section, I described Martha's comments
about creativity and giftedness and what occurred in her classroom. In this part
of the article, I will discuss Martha's beliefs about creativity, giftedness,
and her classroom practices; therefore, a subjective interpretation of her
beliefs and practices will come into view in the rest of the article.

Martha considers creativity a human behavior such as
perceiving, doing, and acting that brings about "change" in human life. The key
to the final product is the concept "change." This is an original and unusual
change, and must make an "impression" on people. She also stressed the creative
process while distinguishing between an academically gifted and a creatively
gifted child. Metaphorically, she said, "academically gifted students see things
in black and white, but I see other kinds." What Martha said about the creative
process resembles Mednick's (1962) Free Associative Theory, in which creative
ideas are the result of bringing together remote and seemingly unrelated
ideas.

Creatively Gifted

In distinguishing between the creative and the gifted,
Martha pointed out several factors such as imagination, curiosity, emotional
intensity, insight, and personality, which are considered in the field of
creativity as resources (Gardner, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991;
Piechowski, 1991; Piirto, 1998). The terms that she used to elucidate the
distinction between gifted children and creative children actually seem to
distinguish between creatively gifted and academically gifted children. She
believed that creative children are those who are "free thinkers" and have
"imaginative intelligence" whereas academically gifted children lack this type
of thinking. They, on the other hand, have the capacity to manage information
and are outstanding academic achievers, but may not be productive. In a sense,
the concept "imaginative intelligence" is similar to the concept "creative
intelligence" (Lubart, 2003), if not the same.

Personality is an essential factor contributing to
creativity from Martha's perspective. She expressed her beliefs about the
importance of personality by saying, "creativity comes from insight." The
creative child is emotionally very intense. Accordingly, this intensity makes
insightful work. The creatively gifted child is very curious about things with
which they have little or no experience. By the same token, Piechowski (1991)
describes primary intensities in Dabrowki's Overexcitability Theory, in which
intellectual overexcitability, imaginational overexcitability, and emotional
overexcitability play important roles in the formation of the creative
self.

Teaching for Creativity

In practice, Martha's students discuss world problems
like freedom, peace and civil rights, and imagine things that enrich their
fantasy worlds, while mastering the content. Martha tries to implement
activities that spur higher cognitive skills through learning to write poetry,
personal narratives and essays decorated with similes, metaphors and imaginative
expressions. Although Martha uses a variety of activities and modifies these
activities to foster students' creativity, her classroom does not reflect the
same use of teaching models such as Creative Problem Solving, Hilda Taba
Teaching Strategies Program, and The Autonomous Learner Model (Maker &
Nielson, 1995b).

Martha did not stress peer evaluations, although they
constituted another kind of activity provoking critical-evaluative thinking. The
students evaluated their own products through proofreading, revision, and panel
discussions. These evaluations usually occurred in a whole-class discussion,
while the students made comments on each paper.

Creative Products

While Martha was describing creative products, she
emphasized the quality of ideas or work that one produces. What makes an idea or
a product creative is the extent to which ideas are original, novel, unusual,
and have the potential for "impact" or "impression." Her understanding of
creative work seems similar to those of theorists of creativity in some ways
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Gardner, 1993; Guilford, 1968; Simonton, 1997). Both
Martha and creativity theorists emphasize originality and usefulness aspects of
creative work; however, Martha also sees "the potential for impact" and
"impression" as important facets of creative work. Her definition of creativity
differs from some definitions mentioned in creativity literature.

Runco (1990) states that such expressions as "think of
things that no one thinks; come up with your own ideas" that Martha uses are
provocative for children's creativity. These explicit instructions to ignite
students' creative responses based not only on quality but also on quantity of
ideas are good practices to implement. Although Martha considers quality and
quantity as important in products, the statement "outside the parameters of what
is normal" that she used often indicates that she attaches more importance to
the quality of products. Thereafter, her instructions usually seemed to foster
students' original thinking.

Obstacles to Creativity

In previous research Morgan and Forster (1999) reported
that time constraints were one of the obstacles to creativity. Likewise, Martha
believes that the time limit on thinking and strictly structured classrooms that
provide no independence are major barriers to students' creativity.
Conclusion

Teachers' implicit theories of creativity and their
classroom practices to foster it should be investigated in more detail by
researchers through in-depth interviews and observations with a large sample of
teachers. In this study I found that Martha's beliefs about creativity directly
affected her classroom practices to foster students' creativity. This conclusion
does not imply any generalizations of the findings of this study; rather, it
implies that one's beliefs are very important in shaping classroom practices. As
I observed how differentiated curriculum interests and stretches gifted and
creative students in Martha's classroom, I concluded that future research should
focus on the classroom reality to uncover teacher practices that better serve
this population.

Manuscript submitted August 27,2003. Revision accepted
December 10, 2003.

This research was supported partially by the Milken
Family Foundation. The author would like to thank Dr. John Schacter for his
advice.
REFERENCES

Alencar,
E. (1993). Thinking in the future: The need to promote creativity in the
educational context. Gifted Education International, 9, 93-95.

Amabile,
T. M. (1996). The social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Bain,
S. K., Bourgeois, S. J., & Pappas, D. N. (2003). Linking theoretical models
to actual practices: A survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 4,
166-172.

Collings,
J. A., & Fryer, M. (1991). British teachers' views of creativity. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 75-80.

Cropley,
A. (1994). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Crotty,
M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: HarperCollins.

Dacey,
J. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Toronto: Lexington Books.

Fishkin,
A. S., Cramond, A., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1999). Investigating
creativity in youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Fleith,
D.S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions in the classroom environment.
Roeper Review, 22, 148-52.

Gardner,
H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: BasicBooks.

Gentry,
M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining challenge and choice in
classrooms: The relationships between teachers and their students and
comparisons between gifted students and others. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46,
145-155.

Guilford,
J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. San
Diego, CA: Knapp.

Kerr,
B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for
meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Lincoln,
Y. S., & Guba, G. S. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Lynch,
M. D., & Harris, C. R. (2001). Fostering creativity in children, K-8: Theory
and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lubart,
T. I. (2003). In search of creative intelligence. In R. J. Steinberg, J.
Lautrey., & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International
perspectives (pp. 279-292). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Maker,
C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995a). Curriculum development and teaching
strategies for gifted learners. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maker,
C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995b). Teaching models in education of the gifted.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Mathers,
S. K., & Murdock, M. C. (1999). Research support for conceptual organization
of creativity. In A. S. Fishkin; B. Cramond., & P. Olszewski-Kubilius
(Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 49-71). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.

Mayfield,
B. (1979). Teacher perceptions of creativity, intelligence and achievement.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 812-817.

Mednick,
S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
Review, 69, 220232.

Miles,
M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2r ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan,
S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the classroom. Gifted Education
International, 14, 29-43.

Parnes,
S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner.

Piechowski,
M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colengelo
& G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285-304). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Piirto,
J. (1998). Understanding those who create (2"d ed.). Gifted Psychology
Press.

Rash,
P. K., & Miller, A. D. (2000). A survey of practices of teachers of the
gifted. Roeper Review, 22, 192-194.

Renzulli,
J. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible
programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20,
303-326.

Rossman,
G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field. Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Runco,
M. A. (1990). Divergent thinking of children: Implications of the research,
Gifted Child Today, 13(4), 36-39.

Runco,
M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Seidman,
I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research (2r ed.). New York: Teachers
Collage Press.

Simonton,
D. K. (1997). Genius and creativity: Selected papers. Greenwich, CT:
Ablex.

Simonton,
D. (2003). Creativity as variation and selection: Some critical constraints. In
M.A. Runco (Ed.), Critical Creative Processes (pp. 3-18). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.

Starko,
A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. New York:
Longman.

Steinberg,
R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Steinberg,
R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its
development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.

Tan,
A. G. (2001). Singaporean teachers' perception of activities useful for
fostering creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 131-146.

Westby,
E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom.
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1-10.

~~~~~~~~

By Ugur Sak

Ugur Sak is a doctoral student in the Department of
Special Education, Rehabilitation & School Psychology, The University of
Arizona. He holds an M.A. in gifted education, and his main research interest
includes assessment of giftedness and creativity, child prodigies, and
curriculum models for gifted learners.

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Roeper
Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual
use.

Back