The Measurement and Teaching of Creativity
Harold F. O'Neil, Jr.
University of Southern California/CRESST
University of California, Los Angeles/CRESST
Charles D. Spielberger
University of South Florida, Gainesville
We believe that although many education and training systems have achieved excellent results in terms of domain-specific declarative and procedural knowledge, this excellence has been at a cost of reducing students' creativity. It is clearly in the long-term interest of education and training vendors to examine the creativity of students in their environments and to develop instruction to stimulate and improve students' creativity. Such instruction could be either teacher-led or technology-based. The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the nature, measurement, and teaching of creativity, and to suggest some necessary research activities to facilitate the teaching of creativity.
Many psychologists, educators, and philosophers of science have endeavored to articulate commonly acceptable definitions of creativity. Sanders and Sanders ( 1984, pp. 24-27), for example, cite various definitions of creativity offered by well-known educators, researchers and writers; several of these are given in Table 13.1.
Inspection of this table clearly demonstrates the complexity of creativity as a scientific construct. For example, Paul Torrance (cited in Sanders & Sanders, 1984) believes that: "Creativity is a process that involves sensing gaps or disturbing missing elements, hypotheses, communicating the results and possibly modifying and retesting these hypotheses" (p. 25).
Other definitions of creativity cited by Sanders and Sanders ( 1984) are even less operationally defined, representing a more complex picture of creativity. For