Creative Thinking in the Classroom

  • Published on
    05-Dec-2015

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Pensamiento creativo en el aula de sternberg. como propiciarlo y como fortalecerlo, me cagan los de scri

Transcript

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 07 September 2014, At: 00:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20</p><p>Creative Thinking in the ClassroomRobert J. Sternberg aa PACE Center , Yale University , Box 208358, New Haven, CT,06520-8358, USAPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.</p><p>To cite this article: Robert J. Sternberg (2003) Creative Thinking in the Classroom, ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research, 47:3, 325-338, DOI: 10.1080/00313830308595</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830308595</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp;Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,Vol. 47, No. 3, 2003</p><p>Creative Thinking in the ClassroomROBERT J. STERNBERGPACE Center, Yale University, Box 208358, New Haven, CT 065208358, USA</p><p>ABSTRACT Schools generally undervalue creativity. Perhaps teachers think creativity is nodifferent from general intelligence or that schooling cannot or should not value creativity, orperhaps they do not know how to teach for creativity. This essay first argues that creativity isdifferent from general intelligence; second, that teaching in a way that encourages and rewardscreativity can improve school performance; and third, that children can learn to make certainkinds of decisions that will enhance their creativity. Creativity can be of different kinds and itis important that teachers reward all kinds of creativity.</p><p>Key words: creativity; intelligence; investment theory of creativity; propulsion theory ofkinds of creative contributions</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>Are children who are high in general intelligence the same ones who are high increativity? If not, can teaching in a way that is responsive to childrens creativityimprove the achievement of creative children who might otherwise be viewed as notvery smart or even as behaviour problems? And if teaching for creativity can besuccessful, exactly what form does it take? These are the kinds of questions weaddress in our research.</p><p>The general notion motivating our work is that children can be intelligent in avariety of ways but that schools tend primarily to value only a single way of beingintelligent. According to the theory of successful intelligence, intelligence comprisesanalytical, creative and practical abilities (Sternberg, 1985, 1997, 1999c). Schools,however, tend primarily to value memory and analytical skills, but creative andpractical skills are at least as important to success in life as are memory andanalytical skills, and may even be more important, especially after formal schoolingends. If so, then we ought to be nurturing and rewarding rather than ignoring oreven punishing students who are high in creative or practical skills.</p><p>So let us consider the three questions raised above. First, are creative skillsdistinct from other kinds of intellectual skills? Second, if so, can teaching in a waythat nurtures and rewards creativity result in improved academic performance?Third, exactly what form does such teaching take?</p><p>Creative thinking will be defined here as thinking that is novel and that</p><p>ISSN 0031-3831 print; ISSN 1430-1170 online/03/030325-14 2003 Scandinavian Journal of Educational ResearchDOI: 10.1080/0031383032000079281</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [A</p><p>ston U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity] a</p><p>t 00:4</p><p>7 07 S</p><p>eptem</p><p>ber 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>326 R. J. Sternberg</p><p>produces ideas that are of value (Sternberg &amp; Lubart, 1995, 1996; see also essays inSternberg, 1999a).</p><p>THE RELATION OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE TO ANALYTICAL ANDPRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE</p><p>An important foundation of the theory of successful intelligence is the importance ofanalytical, creative and practical abilities to intellectual functioning. A number of thestudies described below show both the internal validity and external validity of theseconstructs.</p><p>Measures of Successful Intelligence, in General</p><p>Many of our studies have examined creative thinking in the context of analyticalthinking (as measured by tests of intelligence and similar tests) and of practicalthinking as well. We have examined both the internal validity and external validityof our measures.</p><p>Internal validity. Three separate factor-analytic studies support the internal validityof the theory of successful intelligence.</p><p>In one study (Sternberg et al., 1999), we used the so-called Sternberg TriarchicAbilities Test (STAT) (Sternberg, 1993) to investigate the internal validity of thetheory. Three hundred and twenty-six high school students, primarily from diverseparts of the USA, took the test, which comprised 12 subtests in all. There were foursubtests each measuring analytical, creative and practical abilities. For each type ofability, there were three multiple choice tests and one essay test. The multiple choicetests, in turn, involved, respectively, verbal, quantitative and figural content. Con-sider the content of each test.</p><p>1. Analyticalverbal. Figuring out meanings of neologisms (artificial words)from natural contexts. Students see a novel word embedded in a paragraphand have to infer its meaning from the context.</p><p>2. Analyticalquantitative. Number series. Students have to say what numbershould come next in a series of numbers.</p><p>3. Analyticalfigural. Matrices. Students see a figural matrix with the lowerright entry missing. They have to say which of the options fits into themissing space.</p><p>4. Practicalverbal. Everyday reasoning. Students are presented with a set ofeveryday problems in the life of an adolescent and have to select the optionthat best solves each problem.</p><p>5. Practicalquantitative. Everyday mathematics. Students are presented withscenarios requiring the use of mathematics in everyday life (e.g. buyingtickets for a ballgame) and have to solve mathematical problems based onthe scenarios.</p><p>6. Practicalfigural. Route planning. Students are presented with a map of an</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [A</p><p>ston U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity] a</p><p>t 00:4</p><p>7 07 S</p><p>eptem</p><p>ber 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>Creative Thinking in the Classroom 327</p><p>area (e.g. an entertainment park) and have to answer questions aboutnavigating effectively through the area depicted by the map.</p><p>7. Creativeverbal. Novel analogies. Students are presented with verbal anal-ogies preceded by counterfactual premises (e.g. money falls off trees). Theyhave to solve the analogies as though the counterfactual premises were true.</p><p>8. Creativequantitative. Novel number operations. Students are presentedwith rules for novel number operations, for example flix, which involvesnumerical manipulations that differ as a function of whether the first of twooperands is greater than, equal to or less than the second. Participants haveto use the novel number operations to solve presented mathematical prob-lems.</p><p>9. Creativefigural. In each item, participants are first presented with a figuralseries that involves one or more transformations. They then have to applythe rule of the series to a new figure with a different appearance andcomplete the new series.</p><p>We found that a confirmatory factor analysis on the data was supportive of thetriarchic theory of human intelligence, yielding separate and uncorrelated analytical,creative and practical factors. The lack of correlation was due to the inclusion ofessay as well as multiple choice subtests. Although multiple choice tests tended tocorrelate substantially with multiple choice tests, their correlations with essay testswere much weaker. We found the multiple choice analytical subtest to load mosthighly on the analytical factor, but the essay creative and performance subtests toload most highly on their respective factors. Thus, measurement of creative andpractical abilities should probably ideally be accomplished with other kinds of testinginstruments that complement multiple choice instruments.</p><p>We have now developed a revised version of this test, which, in a preliminarystudy of 53 college students, shows outstanding internal and external validationproperties (Grigorenko et al., 2000). This test supplements the creative and practicalmeasures described above with performance-based measures. For example, creativeabilities are additionally measured by having people write and tell short stories, byhaving them do captions for cartoons and by having them use computer software todesign a variety of products. Practical skills are measured additionally by aneveryday situational judgment inventory and a college student tacit knowledgeinventory. These tests require individuals to make decisions about everyday prob-lems faced in life and in school. We found that the creative tests are moderatelycorrelated with each other and the practical tests are highly correlated with eachother. The two kinds of tests are distinct from one another, however. Interestingly,the performance-based assessments tend to cluster separately from multiple choiceassessments measuring the same skills (similar to our earlier findings of essaymeasures tending to be distinctive from multiple choice measures). These resultsfurther suggest the need for measuring not only a variety of abilities, but also formeasuring these abilities through various modalities of testing.</p><p>In a second and separate study, conducted with 240 freshman year high schoolstudents in the USA, Finland and Spain, we used the multiple choice section of</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [A</p><p>ston U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity] a</p><p>t 00:4</p><p>7 07 S</p><p>eptem</p><p>ber 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>328 R. J. Sternberg</p><p>the STAT to compare five alternative models of intelligence, again via confirmatoryfactor analysis. A model featuring a general factor of intelligence fitted the datarelatively poorly. The triarchic model, allowing for intercorrelation among theanalytical, creative and practical factors, provided the best fit to the data (Sternberget al., 2001a).</p><p>In a third study, we tested 511 Russian school children (ranging in age from 8to 17 years) as well as 490 mothers and 328 fathers of these children (Grigorenko&amp; Sternberg, 2001). We used entirely distinct measures of analytical, creative andpractical intelligence. Consider, for example, the tests we used for adults. Similartests were used for children.</p><p>Fluid analytical intelligence was measured by two subtests of a test of non-verbal intelligence. The Test of g: Culture Fair, Level II (Cattell &amp; Cattell, 1973) isa test of fluid intelligence designed to reduce, as much as possible, the influence ofverbal comprehension, culture and educational level, although no test eliminatessuch influences. In the first subtest we used, Series, individuals were presented withan incomplete, progressive series of figures. The participants task was to select,from among the choices provided, the answer that best continued the series. In theMatrices subtest, the task was to complete the matrix presented at the left of eachrow.</p><p>The test of crystallised intelligence was adapted from existing traditional tests ofanalogies and synonyms/antonyms used in Russia. We used adaptations of Russianrather than American tests because the vocabulary used in Russia differs from thatused in the USA. The first part of the test included 20 verbal analogies(KR20 0.83). An example is circleball square? (a) quadrangular, (b) figure, (c)rectangular, (d) solid, (e) cube. The second part included 30 pairs of words and theparticipants task was to specify whether the words in the pair were synonyms orantonyms (KR20 0.74). Examples are latenthidden and systematicchaotic.</p><p>The measure of creative intelligence also comprised two parts. The first partasked the participants to describe the world through the eyes of insects. The secondpart asked participants to describe who might live and what might happen on aplanet called Priumliava. No additional information on the nature of the planet wasspecified. Each part of the test was scored in three different ways to yield threedifferent scores. The first score was for originality (novelty); the second was for theamount of development in the plot (quality); the third was for creative use of priorknowledge in these relatively novel kinds of tasks (sophistication). The meaninter-story reliabilities were 0.69, 0.75 and 0.75 for the three respective scores, all ofwhich were statistically significant at the P 0.001 level.</p><p>The measure of practical intelligence was self-report and also comprised twoparts. The first part was designed as a 20 item self-report instrument, assessingpractical skills in the social domain (e.g. effective and successful communicationwith other people), in the family domain (e.g. how to fix household items, how torun the family budget) and in the domain of effective resolution of sudden problems(e.g. organising something that has become chaotic). For the subscales, internalconsistency estimates varied from 0.50 to 0.77. In this study, only the total practicalintelligence self-report scale was used (Cronbachs 0.71). The second part had</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [A</p><p>ston U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity] a</p><p>t 00:4</p><p>7 07 S</p><p>eptem</p><p>ber 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>Creative Thinking in the Classroom 329</p><p>four vignettes, based on themes that appeared in popular Russian magazines in thecontext of discussion of adaptive skills in the current society. The four themes were,respectively, how to maintain the value of ones savings, what to do when one makesa purchase and discovers that the item one has purchased is broken, how to locatemedical assistance in a time of need and how to manage a salary bonus one hasreceived for outstanding work. Each vignette was accompanied by five choices andparticipants had to select the best one. Obviously, there is no one right answer inthis type of situation. Hence we used the most frequently chosen response as thekeyed answer. To the ex...</p></li></ul>