1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article = you've=20 requested.

Persistent= =20 link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the = start of the=20 article or citation.
Cut and = Paste: To=20 place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste = the HTML=20 below, starting with "<A HREF"

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select = FILE=20 then SAVE AS from your browser's = toolbar=20 above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a = 'Web Page,=20 HTML only' file (.html). In Netscape, select=20 FILE then SAVE AS = from your=20 browser's toolbar above.

Record: 1

Title:: About Creativity, Giftedness, and = Teaching the=20 Creatively Gifted in the Classroom.
Author(s):: Sak, Ugur
Source:: Roeper Review, v26 n4 p216 Sum 2004. 7 = pp. (Peer=20 Reviewed Journal)
ISSN:: 0278-3193
Descriptors:: World Problems, Poetry, Personal = Narratives,=20 Novels, Creativity, Creative Writing, Academically Gifted
Abstract:: In this case study the author explored = a=20 teacher's beliefs about creativity and giftedness and investigated the = classroom practices of this teacher of gifted students for 20 years. = Seven=20 semi-structured and 2 open observations were carried out in her = classroom, and=20 2 prefigured interviews were conducted with her. She believed that = creative=20 children are those who are "free thinkers" and have "imaginative=20 intelligence." The thin line between an academically gifted child and = a=20 creatively gifted child is built by "imagination," "emotional = intensity," and=20 "curiosity." In creative writing, she tried to implement activities = such as=20 learning to write poetry, personal narratives, research reports and = essays=20 posing solutions to real world problems, and mystery stories decorated = with=20 similes, metaphors and imaginative expressions. In reading, students = analyzed=20 characters, problems, places and times in stories and novels, and then = rewrote=20 stories.
Abstractor:: Author
Number of Pages:: 7
Publication = Type:: Journal Articles
Availability:: Not available from EDRS
Roeper = Review, P.O.=20 Box 329, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303. Tel: 248-203-7321; e-mail:=20 info@roeperreview.org
Journal Code:: SEP2005
Entry Date:: 2005
Accession = Number:: EJ698585
Persistent link to this record:=20: http://search.ebscohost.com/lo= gin.aspx?direct=3Dtrue&db=3Deric&AN=3DEJ698585&site=3Dehost-l= ive
Cut and Paste:: <A=20 = href=3D"http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=3Dtrue&db=3Deri= c&AN=3DEJ698585&site=3Dehost-live">About=20 Creativity, Giftedness, and Teaching the Creatively Gifted in the=20 Classroom.</A>
Database:: ERIC
Full Text Database:=20: Academic Search Premier

About Creativity, Giftedness, and Teaching = the=20 Creatively Gifted in the Classroom

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

Teacher attitudes, beliefs, and classroom = practices are=20 deemed to be of crucial influence in the development of students' = creativity.=20 However, what teachers know about characteristics of creative students = and what=20 they do to foster students' creativity have been found controversial = (Alencar,=20 1993; Collings & Fryer, 1991; Cropley, 1994; Fleith, 2000; Gentry, = Rizza=20 & Owen, 2002; Mayfield, 1979; Rash & Miller, 2000; Starko, 1995; = Tan,=20 2001).

Creativity is important at both the individual = and the=20 societal levels. At the individual level, creativity is relevant to = solving real=20 life problems. At the societal level, creative individuals pioneer = progress in=20 science and technology and the beauty in arts (Sternberg, 1999). = Creativity also=20 is important at the global level. Creative accomplishments help to build = a more=20 interactive world that fortifies human civilization. In fact, Starko = (1995)=20 argues that humans would have no advancement in art, literature, = science, and=20 invention if human creativity did not exist. Ironically, educators = sometimes=20 teach students about creative and eminent people, but ignore teaching = that=20 fosters students' creative thinking in their classrooms. The importance = of=20 schooling in the development of students' creativity has been mentioned = in many=20 studies about creativity. The classroom is construed to open new = pathways in=20 children's creativity (Cropley, 1994; Fishkin, Cramond, &=20 Olszewski-Kubilius, 1999; Lynch & Harris, 2001; Runco & Albert, = 1990;=20 Sternberg, 1999). Therefore, teachers can play important roles to = enhance any=20 components of students' creativity.

Teachers as Facilitators of Students' Creativity =

Cropley (1994) highlights three aspects of = teacher=20 behaviors that can influence students' creative thinking in the = classroom. The=20 first aspect is the teacher herself as a role model. The behaviors that = the=20 teacher displays shape the behaviors students develop. The second aspect = is the=20 classroom atmosphere that the teacher builds. Creativity flourishes in = an=20 atmosphere that is constructively responsive to unusual ideas. The third = aspect=20 is the teacher's efforts that reward and foster students' creativity = through=20 instructional activities. These three aspects reflect personality (e.g., = openness), intellectual (e.g., creativity) and knowledge prerequisites = (e.g.,=20 instructional knowledge) that a teacher needs to teach creative = students.

Teachers' = Understanding of=20 Creativity

Scholars in the field of creativity = (Csikszentmihalyi,=20 1997; Gardner, 1993; Runco & Albert, 1990; Sternberg & Lubart, = 1991)=20 discuss important behaviors associated with creativity. However, = teachers have=20 been found to have insufficient knowledge of characteristics of creative = students. Renzulli (1976) asserted that teachers lack understanding of = the=20 nature of creativity. Alencar (1993) found teachers tend to focus only = on=20 students' academic characteristics as indices of creativity. Fleith = (2000)=20 reported that teachers evaluated students as creative based on students' = interpersonal characteristics. As the researchers have reported, = teachers'=20 beliefs about creativity are mixed. Some believe that creativity is a=20 personality trait while others think it is an intellectual ability = related to=20 academic achievement. Yet, few say creativity is multifaceted and can be = fostered through supportive teacher behaviors and teaching = practices.

Do Teachers Welcome = Creative=20 Behavior?

Teachers have been found to undervalue = creativity=20 (Dacey, 1989; Parnes, 1967). Cropley (1994) summarizes the kinds of = behavioral=20 and personality traits that are common to creative children but not = preferred by=20 teachers. These are "impulsive, nonconformist, disorganized, = adventurous, and=20 imaginative" (p. 18). Traits preferred by teachers are "courteous, = punctual,=20 well-rounded, receptive and obedient" (p. 19). In fact, Westby and = Dawson (1995)=20 reported that teachers seemed to have a negative view of characteristics = associated with creativity. Students displaying creative behaviors tend = to be=20 unappealing to teachers. This claim is very important for the future of = human=20 advancement. When teachers do not know what creativity is, how it = manifests and=20 how it is important, they may ignore teaching for creativity; = thereafter, loss=20 of creative talent is reflected in scientific and artistic advancements = in=20 particular, and in human civilization in general.

Classroom Practices = of Teachers=20

Researchers (Maker & Nielson, 1995a) have = identified=20 principles and found many ways to modify content, process, learning=20 environments, and products that are challenging for creative students;=20 nonetheless, teachers were found to be slow to integrate these = modifications=20 into their teaching-learning practices (Mathers & Murdock, 1999). = Regarding=20 content and process modifications in the classroom, Tan (2001) found = that most=20 experienced teachers considered all learning activities valuable for = fostering=20 the creativity of children. They tended to place more value on = teacher-centered=20 activities and rote memorization than did beginning teachers. On the = other hand,=20 most teachers, regardless of experience, perceived the importance of = independent=20 learning and collaboration for creativity. Fleith (2000) found that = teachers did=20 not use students' self-evaluations and extrinsic and intrinsic rewards = for=20 promotion of creativity.

Runco (1990) and Starko (1995) state that a = classroom=20 environment that supports unusual ideas, provides freedom of thought and = freedom=20 of choice is conducive to creative achievement. However, Gentry, Rizza = and Owen=20 (2002) reported that students perceived little freedom of choice in = their=20 classrooms. Likewise, Alencar (1993) found most classroom climates = discouraged=20 students' creativity.

Creativity in the Classroom for the Gifted

Does the mirror of creativity in the classroom = for the=20 gifted reflect a different profile than the one in the regular = classroom? There=20 is little research to answer this question. However, in a survey with = teachers=20 of the gifted, Rash and Miller (2000) found that teachers of the gifted=20 recognized the importance of process skills and used several teaching = models.=20 They used Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Enrichment Triad, = Taba=20 Teaching Strategies Program, and Creative Problem Solving model (Maker = &=20 Nielson, 1995a). Yet Bain, Bourgeois and Pappas (2003) reported in a = survey=20 study that, although most teachers of the gifted were aware of teaching = models,=20 they rarely used these models in their teaching.

Rationale

Teachers in general seem to lack two types of = knowledge=20 about creative children. One is the nature of creativity; in other = words, the=20 kinds of behaviors a creative child displays. The other one is about = teaching=20 for creativity; that is, how children's creativity can be fostered in = the=20 classroom. One assumption based on research findings is that most = teachers do=20 not favor creative behaviors and do not know how to foster creativity, = probably=20 because most do not understand the nature of creativity. Therefore, case = studies=20 of teachers who have experience with teaching gifted and creative = students can=20 bring new insights into understanding and teaching creative pupils. This = method=20 of investigation also can help the development of new teaching and = learning=20 strategies useful for challenging and fostering creative students.

Although some research has been done with = teachers,=20 using surveys and questionnaires (Collings & Fryer, 1991; Fleith, = 2000;=20 Gentry, Rizza & Owen, 2002; Rash & Miller, 2000; Tan, 2001), in = reality,=20 these methods of investigation have not provided in-depth information = about=20 teachers' understanding of creativity and their classroom practices to = foster=20 it. Unless the researcher embeds himself or herself in the classroom, = what he or=20 she finds might be cosmetic information. I believe relationships between = teachers' perceptions and classroom practices can be better understood, = and=20 useful practices to foster creativity can be better identified through = case=20 studies when the researcher becomes part of the classroom setting as an = insider,=20 or an observer of the natural setting as an outsider. The purpose of = this study=20 was to understand the beliefs of a teacher of the gifted about = creativity and to=20 further investigate the practices she used in the classroom to foster = gifted=20 students' creative thinking. To achieve this purpose, a qualitative = method of=20 investigation was used; therefore, classroom observations and interviews = were=20 carried out. The following research questions guided the study:

What does a teacher of gifted students = believe=20 about students' creativity?=20
How does this teacher foster students' = creativity in the classroom?

Theoretical Framework

Despite extensive research about creativity, = there is=20 little consensus on what creativity means, how it is manifested, and how = it is=20 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;=20 Fishkin, Cramond & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1999; Lynch & Harris, = 2001;=20 Simonton, 1997, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). The definition of=20 creativity varies from person to person, from place to place, and from = time to=20 time. Hence, creativity by definition is a complex and subjective = phenomenon,=20 about which human beings construct meaning out of their experiences.

According to the constructionist = epistemological view,=20 human knowledge is constructed through meaning-making activities of the=20 individual mind (Crotty, 1998). The same phenomenon is interpreted = differently=20 by people with different experiences in different periods and in = different=20 places. This view of human knowledge makes sense when speaking of = creativity,=20 which is both abstract and subjective. It is subjective because it is = construed=20 through effects on individual minds. Therefore, our experiences seem to = play a=20 unique role in our understanding of creativity. For example, many = people's image=20 of a gifted and creative individual is "a little guy with thick glasses" = or "a=20 young rebel poet" (Kerr & Cohn, 2001, p. 39). Likewise, some people = consider=20 gifted and creative persons as geniuses who share a common set of = personality=20 and intellectual characteristics such as loneliness and precocity = (Piirto,=20 1998). Still, media portrays a genius as a biopsychological intersection = of some=20 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=20 be made objectively nor just subjectively because we do not create = meaning but=20 we construct meaning through our experiences with the world (Crotty, = 1998).=20 Crotty says, "All meaningful reality is socially constructed... the = basic=20 generation of meaning is always social, for the meanings with which we = are=20 endowed arise in and out of interactive human community" (Crotty, 1998, = p.=20 55).

A classroom is both a social and an academic = environment=20 in which teaching-learning, teacher-student, and peer interactions take = place.=20 In other words, what occurs in a classroom is in large part social = interactions=20 whereby both teachers and students construct meanings. A teacher = experiences how=20 students grow psychologically, cognitively, and physically during the = course of=20 schooling. The teacher's perceptions of students' psychological = differences vary=20 from those who have never had similar experiences in an interactive = classroom=20 culture. Therefore, teachers' understanding of creativity and their = classroom=20 practices can be better explained from the constructionist = epistemological view,=20 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=20 the decision to choose participants in qualitative studies. Indeed, it = is=20 fundamental to the entire study. The criteria I established to select = the=20 participant were as follows: willingness to participate, extensive = classroom=20 teaching experience, experience with teaching both high and average = ability=20 students, and nomination as exemplary by school administrators or = teachers.

Martha (a pseudonym) was a teacher of gifted = students at=20 an elementary school in the southwest region of the USA. She has been = teaching=20 both gifted and average ability students for 20 years. She graduated = from the=20 University of Arizona with a B.A. in secondary education, a major in = history and=20 a minor in political science. Later, she went back to the university to = obtain=20 an endorsement in gifted education. She also took several courses at a = special=20 summer institute, the Greater Phoenix Writing Project, and some = incidental=20 courses in math, for she was the math leader in her school for many = years. She=20 was honored with the best teacher award in the district in 1998. She = retired a=20 year ago. Employed as a part-time teacher, she was still teaching 3rd = and 4th=20 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=20 elementary school. Seven hundred and forty-one students were currently = enrolled.=20 There were 41 teachers and 2 administrators. The school's population was = 64%=20 White, 23% Hispanic, 8% African American, 4% American Indian, and 1% = Asian. The=20 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.=20 Thirty-nine percent of the students received free and reduced lunch. The = school=20 district provided special programs for students in the school: Special = Education=20 Resources, Special Education Self-Contained, Cross Categorical, Speech = and=20 Language Program, ESL, Title I, Reading Recovery, and Advanced = Educational=20 Placement (AEP). Martha taught in the AEP Program.

Teaching only in the mornings, Martha shared = the=20 classroom with a science teacher, who taught in the afternoon. Student = tables=20 were in vertical rows facing the board. Martha's table was on the right = front=20 corner of the classroom. There were six computers on the right side, and = a=20 classroom library on the left front. She displayed students' work at the = back of=20 the classroom. Students' work included drawings, poetries, essays, = stories, and=20 some reports. While she was lecturing or leading a discussion, she = usually sat=20 on a chair in front of the students.

Data Collection

During a 6-month period, I performed 7 = semi-structured=20 observations in Martha's language arts class as part of a larger = project,=20 entitled Teacher Advancement Program. The purpose of the project was to=20 investigate through classroom observations types of instructional = activities,=20 learning environments, and teacher-student interactions in 2nd to 5th = grade=20 language arts classes. Martha was one of the teachers who volunteered to = participate in the project. Because Martha also was the participant in = this=20 study, I increased my observations extensively her classroom, seeking = answers to=20 my research questions. I paid special attention to her classroom = practices=20 related to students' creativity. A month after I completed the 7th = observation,=20 I carried out 2 more open-ended classroom observations focusing on = anything in=20 the classroom.

I used electronic classroom observation forms = to collect=20 data. Employing prefigured techniques, which according to Rossman and = Rallis=20 (1998) carefully specify and keep the focus on specific events and = activities of=20 observations, I took ethnographic field notes about instructional = activities;=20 the content, structure and pacing of the lesson; questioning, thinking = skills;=20 classroom management and environment; student-teacher interactions; and = reading=20 materials. Each observation took 90 minutes. I used a laptop to record = the=20 observations, which had two components: running records, which were = descriptive,=20 and observer comments (Rossman & Rallis). I edited field notes = shortly after=20 each observation. This method enabled me to do some preliminary analysis = of=20 data.

A week after I finished the last two = observations, I=20 interviewed Martha to explore her perceptions of students' creativity = and=20 giftedness. I used a semi-structured interview protocol (Seidman, 1998) = that=20 featured questions about creativity, giftedness, and her classroom = practices.=20 These 25 minute interviews took place in two sessions. They were = tape-recorded=20 for later transcription. Because I wanted to explore her beliefs about = certain=20 topics, I developed interview questions based on my previous = observations and my=20 theoretical framework. I asked open-ended questions and frequently asked = follow-up questions for clarification and elaboration on some ideas or = concepts.=20 Seidman (1998) maintains that this method of asking questions for = elaboration=20 and clarification enables the researcher to better understand and make = more=20 accurate interpretations. After analyzing my first interview, I had the=20 opportunity to ask for more clarification and elaboration on issues = discussed in=20 the first interview.

Data Analysis

To analyze the classroom observation data, I = applied an=20 "ongoing analysis" (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). This process continued=20 throughout the study. I read and edited my field notes after each = observation=20 and wrote analytic memos. This intense process enabled me to become = familiar=20 with the data. Observation forms helped me to analyze data in a more = organized=20 way.

First, I transcribed the interviews verbatim. = Then, I=20 underlined interesting, important, and salient concepts, phrases and = ideas.=20 Afterward, I coded these through a coding system as described in Rossman = and=20 Rallis (1998). For each idea, concept or phrase that had meaning I = assigned two=20 numbers; one for page number, one for idea number. For example the = concept=20 "freedom of expression" was represented by 2/4 or 2/5. Here, the first = number=20 represents an idea, and the second one is the page number. This method = of coding=20 enabled a more accurate analysis of data.

After coding and listing concepts, phrases and = ideas, I=20 developed a "Conceptually Clustered Matrix" (Miles & Huberman, 1994) = that=20 included concepts, phrases and ideas as the first column, categories as = the=20 second column, and themes and patterns as the third column. A basic = principle in=20 a conceptually ordered display is conceptual coherence according to = Miles and=20 Huberman. I used the "Concept Development Strategy" of Hilda Taba's = Critical=20 Thinking strategies (Maker & Nielson, 1995b) to bring together items = that=20 were related and to establish conceptual coherence and to develop = categories and=20 themes. This critical thinking technique strengthened the process of = data=20 analysis. However, I also reviewed principles of qualitative data = analysis=20 described by Miles and Huberman to check the appropriateness of the = technique=20 for qualitative data analysis.

Concept Development Strategy consists of five = steps:=20 listing, grouping, labeling, subsuming, and recycling. The first step, = listing,=20 involves differentiating relevant from irrelevant information. Through = this=20 step, I listed all useful and meaningful information (concepts, phrases, = and=20 ideas) such as "linear thinking" and "free thinking." The second step, = grouping,=20 involves the cognitive task of analyzing similar attributes and putting = items=20 together on the basis of these similarities. For example, "imagination," = "fantasy," and "piggyback" could go under one group as "fostering = creativity."=20 Through this step, I identified multiple attributes of items with open = and=20 flexible thinking, and then developed categories. The third step, = labeling,=20 requires abstracting and synthesizing to find an appropriate word or = phrase to=20 express the relationship or commonality among diverse items. Through = this=20 process, I was able to label each category with a suitable name like = "creative=20 self" In the fourth step, subsuming, the thinker has another opportunity = to=20 analyze different relationships and attributes of items. By applying = this step,=20 I transferred some items from one category to another as well as copied = some=20 items from one category to another category because of common = relationships. For=20 example, the term "curiosity" was used under both the category "creative = self"=20 and "creative versus uncreative self" At the last step, recycling, I = recycled=20 all previous steps, which helped me to look at data from different = angles and=20 promoted openness and flexibility.

Integration of observation notes into coded = interview=20 data was another step in the analysis. During this process I looked at = linkages=20 between these two data sets, and combined them to make meaningful = connections.=20 For example, while I was reporting Martha's beliefs about imagination, I = infused=20 her classroom practices of imagination into my writing.

I used three of Lincoln and Guba's (1985) = recommend=20 techniques to establish the credibility of a qualitative study: use of = more than=20 one method to collect data (Triangulation), external checks on the = inquiry=20 process (Peer Debriefing) and direct tests of findings and = interpretations with=20 participants (Member Check). I used interview and observation methods to = collect=20 data (Triangulation). After I transcribed tape recorded interviews, = Martha=20 examined the transcribed interview and made some changes (Member Check). = However, she did not examine my analysis. Meanwhile, some graduate = students=20 examined the interview data (Peer Check), which helped me in coding and=20 analyzing ideas from multiple perspectives.

Results

The Meaning of Creativity

Martha used three concepts to express her = beliefs about=20 the meaning of creativity. The first was "perceive," the second was = "act," and=20 the third was "impact." She considered creativity a three-dimensional = construct,=20 one being "perception" by seeing and understanding or perceiving the = complexity=20 of the outer world; the other being "action facet" by acting to = accomplish a=20 purpose such as adaptation to a new environment; and the last was = "impact facet"=20 by coming up with something that had impact. She expressed her beliefs = about the=20 first one as "How one sees the world and perceives it" while she = elaborated on=20 the second facet as "what people can do to make the world interesting,=20 innovative, different, and original, and also put a new twist on it." = Explaining=20 the third facet of creativity she said, "coming up with a newer idea or = manner=20 that is unusual."

Creative Self

Martha used the concepts "unique, original, = unusual,=20 innovative, impressive, different, and interesting" many times while = depicting a=20 creative student. Creative children go beyond what they have read or = what they=20 have been told, think outside the parameters of what is normal, and come = up with=20 original thoughts. However, these ideas are not always original but help = students grow and expand. She distinguished between creation and = recreation=20 while underlying "uniqueness and originality." She said that some of her = students wrote unbelievable stories they claimed were their own but were = not.=20 According to her, they have seen these stories so many times in fantasy = books,=20 and they were just recreating those presentations. Also she stressed = that it was=20 very hard for students to draw the line between what has been presented = to them=20 in books and what was an original thought for them. However, she did not = see=20 this recreation to be "an overkill"; rather, it helped develop original = ideas.=20 That is, students elaborated on existing stories or figures and modified = them=20 from the original form. In fact, they sometimes rewrote fantasy = stories.

While she was portraying the most creative = student in=20 her classroom, she accentuated the student's imagination, = expressiveness,=20 different perspectives, and original ideas.

She tries to create and think of new ideas and = ways to=20 think of things...she is very expressive and can create a story that is=20 extremely expressive in so many original ideas...she did a story that = she=20 created from a paper skeleton and she had the viewpoint of how the world = looked=20 to this little paper skeleton.

This student was in 4th grade and was 10 years = old. In=20 my observations, I noticed the student's critical thinking while she was = evaluating current events like "freedom" and "terrorism" from very = different=20 perspectives. She said, "We also need to take another point of view if = we want=20 to make a fair decision... I mean those people... I mean, we think they = are=20 terrorists." However, staying within the structure of the classroom was=20 difficult for her. The student sometimes seemed very bored and = disinterested in=20 activities even though the program was differentiated for the gifted. On = the=20 other hand, she was at times very expressive and could hardly contain = herself,=20 frequently interrupting the teacher. While Martha was describing her, = she=20 pointed to the nonconformity of this student as well as others. = According to=20 Martha, the most creative children found it the most difficult to stay = within=20 the structure of the classroom or programs:

Sometimes they are labeled "trouble makers" = because the=20 parameters that they have to work with are very difficult for them to be = within=20 the structure, and they often do not work well with other children = because they=20 have very definite ideas of how things should be.

Creative versus Uncreative Self

Martha distinguished between two concepts as=20 representations of thinkers. The first one was "linear thinkers." = According to=20 her, linear thinkers are those who cannot go outside of their parameters = and are=20 not productive. This group could include the gifted who are not = creative. On the=20 other hand, the creative student is "a free thinker" who can think = outside the=20 box and generate many ideas. Further, she differentiated between the = creatively=20 gifted and gifted by the term "imaginative intelligence." From her point = of=20 view, the creative student has certain imaginative intelligence that = results in=20 creative work. She said that those who turn out to be the greatest have = to be=20 both gifted and creative. Martha considered Einstein as an example with = his=20 popular saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Another distinction Martha made between the = creative and=20 the gifted were the "personal assets" that each individual has. From her = perception, people are born with certain personal assets that make some = more=20 creative than others. People who have difficulty opening their minds and = thinking outside the lines can be helped to develop their creativity. = She=20 articulated that people are born with or without the aptitude. Yet = without this=20 aptitude, it can be developed, "but it is within a person." She thought = that=20 creativity was within the self; "creativity comes from insight." = According to=20 Martha, insight, personality, and emotional intensity play significant = roles in=20 creative personality. While talking about the most creative student in = her=20 classroom, she described that student as the most "emotionally = deep."

Martha also emphasized the term "curiosity" = while making=20 distinctions between the creative personality and the uncreative one. = She did=20 not find many bright children curious, "...they see things in black and = white,=20 and it is difficult for them to see it any other way... but they are=20 academically gifted and I see other kinds."

Fostering Creativity: Extension of the Content in a Welcoming = Classroom=20

Reading. Imagination and fantasy had very = important=20 places in Martha's teaching. She expressed her thoughts about how she = integrated=20 these into her teaching while practicing regular curriculum. What they = did in=20 the classroom was the extension of an idea; that is, the students used = the=20 content in creative ways. They discussed important and broad ideas while = connecting these ideas to their fantasy world. They read books on = fantasy; they=20 talked about the idea of fantasy and creativity and how things were = different. I=20 observed that these fantasy and science fictions were some major = activities=20 integrated into the contents of the Language Arts class. For example, I = saw that=20 students were excitedly discussing the books Shape Changer, A Wrinkle in = Time,=20 and The Hobbit. They analyzed each character and event in the stories. = The=20 following questions that Martha asked seemed to create an interactive = atmosphere=20 in the classroom: How was the main character's personality reflected in = this=20 story? How would this story end if the main character had a completely = different=20 personality? What would you do if you were the main character? What = would you=20 predict happens next? Martha stated that these kinds of activities = challenged=20 students' minds, "...they think outside the parameters. I think we do = this by=20 just imagining things that are unusual, so imagining is good."

Other learning activities that Martha thought = fostered=20 students' creativity were current events, the use of newspapers, = journals,=20 magazines, and book reports. She practiced these activities through = whole-class=20 discussions, panel discussions, presentations, independent study and = individual=20 projects. Martha differentiated the instruction while teaching current = events.=20 For instance, after students read passages and news about Martin Luther = King,=20 Martha connected the topic to real world problems as an extension of an = activity=20 to promote students' creativity. They not only had discussions about = Martin=20 Luther King but also about civilized people, civil wars, and civil = rights. "They=20 explored the true meaning behind Martin Luther King Day," said = Martha.

Creative writing. Another activity implemented = to extend=20 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=20 addition to personal narratives, which were the part of regular = curriculum in=20 the school, her students were writing mystery stories by imagining and = writing=20 essays, poems, and research reports. In short story writing, they = created their=20 own characters, problems, and events. Martha sometimes prompted students = by=20 asking, "How would you rewrite this story if you were the author?" Then, = the=20 students rewrote stories by replacing characters, times, and places. = Some=20 stories turned out to be completely different. Then, they discussed = "what=20 changed what?" That is, what kinds of key changes caused important = changes in an=20 original story? Martha further explained the importance of imagination = and=20 fantasy. According to her, imagination and fantasy activities presented = students=20 different worlds because they piggybacked on ideas. Martha said,

They read a book [of] a new land or something = of that=20 nature, then I give them a day and a time, where I now say "you create = your own=20 land" and the people you have in it and what would you do?

Another extension of the content was the = "vocabulary=20 enrichment." Using contextual word analysis technique, the students = discussed=20 meanings of words integrated in texts. They examined relationships = between=20 words, ideas, and events such as color-ethnicity-discrimination, and=20 discrimination-civil war-civil rights. They found synonyms that could = replace a=20 word in the text, and discussed how some synonyms could change the = meaning of a=20 sentence. Afterward, they reviewed some concepts by analyzing their = grammatical=20 structure such as civil-civilized-civilization; and=20 segregate-segregated-segregation. Martha encouraged the students to use = the=20 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=20 was discrimination in our country years ago... Black people were = segregated...=20 because they had different color. They did not have the same civil = rights.=20 Today, we are equal... I mean we are civilized.

Another day Martha connected creative writing = to real=20 life matters. She elicited students' prior knowledge about civil rights = and=20 world problems. Students were assigned to write essays posing solutions = to real=20 world problems. Martha encouraged the students to use a variety of = information=20 sources such as library books, journals, magazines, newspaper, Internet, = and=20 other electronic sources. The students wrote about world peace, = segregation,=20 nuclear weapons, and terrorism.

Classroom Environment

Martha promoted students' creativity through=20 modifications in process and classroom environment in addition to the = changes in=20 content. She used the concepts "freedom, discovery, independence, and = higher=20 levels of thinking" while describing an ideal classroom environment. = During my=20 final visit to her classroom, the class was discussing an independent = research=20 project. The students were supposed to work independently on a project = of their=20 choice.

Although they had predetermined choices of = topics, they=20 were free to find their own topics as well. Some topics were the = judicial=20 system, religions, sound, brain, heredity, stock market, and dreams. = Students=20 were free to use various modes of investigation such as interviews with = adults,=20 research at a library or visit to local public institutions. They could = use any=20 kind of materials that could help them in their projects and to use a = variety of=20 formats for their final products such as an essay, a biography, a = research=20 report, or a piece of art that symbolized their ideas.

"Time for independence is very important," = said Martha.=20 During the last minutes of each class, students worked independently on = their=20 individual projects by searching through books in the classroom library = and=20 using computers to search the Internet or to type their reports. Martha = usually=20 circulated in the classroom to monitor students' involvement in tasks. = She=20 directed the students to help each other instead of seeking help only = from her.=20 Martha said, "Students evaluate their own ideas as well as others when = they work=20 together or help each other in their projects."

From Martha's perspective, an ideal classroom = was one=20 with no time limits, more independent study, fewer prescribed tasks, and = was=20 less structured. "Students who have certain imaginative intelligence = find basic=20 tasks very redundant, and they do not go over these tasks. That time = would be=20 better spent by themselves creating a new task," said Martha. According = to her,=20 in an ideal classroom a teacher must be a facilitator.

Discussion and = Conclusion=20

In the results section, I described Martha's = comments=20 about creativity and giftedness and what occurred in her classroom. In = this part=20 of the article, I will discuss Martha's beliefs about creativity, = giftedness,=20 and her classroom practices; therefore, a subjective interpretation of = her=20 beliefs and practices will come into view in the rest of the = article.

Martha considers creativity a human behavior = such as=20 perceiving, doing, and acting that brings about "change" in human life. = The key=20 to the final product is the concept "change." This is an original and = unusual=20 change, and must make an "impression" on people. She also stressed the = creative=20 process while distinguishing between an academically gifted and a = creatively=20 gifted child. Metaphorically, she said, "academically gifted students = see things=20 in black and white, but I see other kinds." What Martha said about the = creative=20 process resembles Mednick's (1962) Free Associative Theory, in which = creative=20 ideas are the result of bringing together remote and seemingly unrelated = ideas.

Creatively Gifted

In distinguishing between the creative and the = gifted,=20 Martha pointed out several factors such as imagination, curiosity, = emotional=20 intensity, insight, and personality, which are considered in the field = of=20 creativity as resources (Gardner, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991;=20 Piechowski, 1991; Piirto, 1998). The terms that she used to elucidate = the=20 distinction between gifted children and creative children actually seem = to=20 distinguish between creatively gifted and academically gifted children. = She=20 believed that creative children are those who are "free thinkers" and = have=20 "imaginative intelligence" whereas academically gifted children lack = this type=20 of thinking. They, on the other hand, have the capacity to manage = information=20 and are outstanding academic achievers, but may not be productive. In a = sense,=20 the concept "imaginative intelligence" is similar to the concept = "creative=20 intelligence" (Lubart, 2003), if not the same.

Personality is an essential factor = contributing to=20 creativity from Martha's perspective. She expressed her beliefs about = the=20 importance of personality by saying, "creativity comes from insight." = The=20 creative child is emotionally very intense. Accordingly, this intensity = makes=20 insightful work. The creatively gifted child is very curious about = things with=20 which they have little or no experience. By the same token, Piechowski = (1991)=20 describes primary intensities in Dabrowki's Overexcitability Theory, in = which=20 intellectual overexcitability, imaginational overexcitability, and = emotional=20 overexcitability play important roles in the formation of the creative=20 self.

Teaching for Creativity

In practice, Martha's students discuss world = problems=20 like freedom, peace and civil rights, and imagine things that enrich = their=20 fantasy worlds, while mastering the content. Martha tries to implement=20 activities that spur higher cognitive skills through learning to write = poetry,=20 personal narratives and essays decorated with similes, metaphors and = imaginative=20 expressions. Although Martha uses a variety of activities and modifies = these=20 activities to foster students' creativity, her classroom does not = reflect the=20 same use of teaching models such as Creative Problem Solving, Hilda Taba = Teaching Strategies Program, and The Autonomous Learner Model (Maker = &=20 Nielson, 1995b).

Martha did not stress peer evaluations, = although they=20 constituted another kind of activity provoking critical-evaluative = thinking. The=20 students evaluated their own products through proofreading, revision, = and panel=20 discussions. These evaluations usually occurred in a whole-class = discussion,=20 while the students made comments on each paper.

Creative Products

While Martha was describing creative products, = she=20 emphasized the quality of ideas or work that one produces. What makes an = idea or=20 a product creative is the extent to which ideas are original, novel, = unusual,=20 and have the potential for "impact" or "impression." Her understanding = of=20 creative work seems similar to those of theorists of creativity in some = ways=20 (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Gardner, 1993; Guilford, 1968; Simonton, 1997). = Both=20 Martha and creativity theorists emphasize originality and usefulness = aspects of=20 creative work; however, Martha also sees "the potential for impact" and=20 "impression" as important facets of creative work. Her definition of = creativity=20 differs from some definitions mentioned in creativity literature.

Runco (1990) states that such expressions as = "think of=20 things that no one thinks; come up with your own ideas" that Martha uses = are=20 provocative for children's creativity. These explicit instructions to = ignite=20 students' creative responses based not only on quality but also on = quantity of=20 ideas are good practices to implement. Although Martha considers quality = and=20 quantity as important in products, the statement "outside the parameters = of what=20 is normal" that she used often indicates that she attaches more = importance to=20 the quality of products. Thereafter, her instructions usually seemed to = foster=20 students' original thinking.

Obstacles to Creativity

In previous research Morgan and Forster (1999) = reported=20 that time constraints were one of the obstacles to creativity. Likewise, = Martha=20 believes that the time limit on thinking and strictly structured = classrooms that=20 provide no independence are major barriers to students' = creativity.

Conclusion

Teachers' implicit theories of creativity and = their=20 classroom practices to foster it should be investigated in more detail = by=20 researchers through in-depth interviews and observations with a large = sample of=20 teachers. In this study I found that Martha's beliefs about creativity = directly=20 affected her classroom practices to foster students' creativity. This = conclusion=20 does not imply any generalizations of the findings of this study; = rather, it=20 implies that one's beliefs are very important in shaping classroom = practices. As=20 I observed how differentiated curriculum interests and stretches gifted = and=20 creative students in Martha's classroom, I concluded that future = research should=20 focus on the classroom reality to uncover teacher practices that better = serve=20 this population.

Manuscript submitted August 27,2003. Revision = accepted=20 December 10, 2003.

This research was supported partially by the = Milken=20 Family Foundation. The author would like to thank Dr. John Schacter for = his=20 advice.

REFERENCES=20

Alenc= ar,=20 E. (1993). Thinking in the future: The need to promote creativity in the = educational context. Gifted Education International, 9, 93-95.

Amabi= le,=20 T. M. (1996). The social psychology of creativity. New York:=20 Springer-Verlag.

Bain,= =20 S. K., Bourgeois, S. J., & Pappas, D. N. (2003). Linking theoretical = models=20 to actual practices: A survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper = Review, 4,=20 166-172.

Colli= ngs,=20 J. A., & Fryer, M. (1991). British teachers' views of creativity. = The=20 Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 75-80.

Cropl= ey,=20 A. (1994). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ:=20 Ablex.

Crott= y,=20 M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: = Sage.

Csiks= zentmihalyi,=20 M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and = invention. New=20 York: HarperCollins.

Dacey= ,=20 J. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Toronto: Lexington = Books.

Fishk= in,=20 A. S., Cramond, A., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1999). Investigating=20 creativity in youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Flei= th,=20 D.S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions in the classroom = environment.=20 Roeper Review, 22, 148-52.

Gard= ner,=20 H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: BasicBooks.

Gent= ry,=20 M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining challenge and = choice in=20 classrooms: The relationships between teachers and their students and=20 comparisons between gifted students and others. Gifted Child Quarterly, = 46,=20 145-155.

Guil= ford,=20 J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational = implications. San=20 Diego, CA: Knapp.

Kerr= ,=20 B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the = search for=20 meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Linc= oln,=20 Y. S., & Guba, G. S. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: = Sage.

Lync= h,=20 M. D., & Harris, C. R. (2001). Fostering creativity in children, = K-8: Theory=20 and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Luba= rt,=20 T. I. (2003). In search of creative intelligence. In R. J. Steinberg, J. = Lautrey., & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: = International=20 perspectives (pp. 279-292). Washington, DC: American Psychological=20 Association.

Make= r,=20 C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995a). Curriculum development and teaching = strategies for gifted learners. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Make= r,=20 C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995b). Teaching models in education of the = gifted.=20 Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Math= ers,=20 S. K., & Murdock, M. C. (1999). Research support for conceptual = organization=20 of creativity. In A. S. Fishkin; B. Cramond., & P. = Olszewski-Kubilius=20 (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 49-71). Cresskill, NJ: = Hampton=20 Press.

Mayf= ield,=20 B. (1979). Teacher perceptions of creativity, intelligence and = achievement.=20 Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, 812-817.

Medn= ick,=20 S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. = Psychological=20 Review, 69, 220232.

Mile= s,=20 M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2r ed.). = Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morg= an,=20 S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the classroom. Gifted = Education=20 International, 14, 29-43.

Parn= es,=20 S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner.

Piec= howski,=20 M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. = Colengelo=20 & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285-304). = Needham=20 Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Piir= to,=20 J. (1998). Understanding those who create (2"d ed.). Gifted Psychology=20 Press.

Rash= ,=20 P. K., & Miller, A. D. (2000). A survey of practices of teachers of = the=20 gifted. Roeper Review, 22, 192-194.

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

Ross= man,=20 G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field. Thousands = Oaks, CA:=20 Sage.

Runc= o,=20 M. A. (1990). Divergent thinking of children: Implications of the = research,=20 Gifted Child Today, 13(4), 36-39.

Runc= o,=20 M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, = CA:=20 Sage.

Seid= man,=20 I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research (2r ed.). New York: = Teachers=20 Collage Press.

Simo= nton,=20 D. K. (1997). Genius and creativity: Selected papers. Greenwich, CT:=20 Ablex.

Simo= nton,=20 D. (2003). Creativity as variation and selection: Some critical = constraints. In=20 M.A. Runco (Ed.), Critical Creative Processes (pp. 3-18). Cresskill, NJ: = Hampton=20 Press.

Star= ko,=20 A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. = New York:=20 Longman.

Stei= nberg,=20 R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University=20 Press.

Stei= nberg,=20 R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity = and its=20 development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.

Tan,= =20 A. G. (2001). Singaporean teachers' perception of activities useful for=20 fostering creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, = 131-146.

West= by,=20 E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the = classroom.=20 Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1-10.

~~~~~~~~

By Ugur Sak

Ugur Sak is a doctoral student in the = Department of=20 Special Education, Rehabilitation & School Psychology, The = University of=20 Arizona. He holds an M.A. in gifted education, and his main research = interest=20 includes assessment of giftedness and creativity, child prodigies, and=20 curriculum models for gifted learners.

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property = of Roeper=20 Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or = posted=20 to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. = However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual=20 use.

Back=20