Little research has been conducted on how gifted novices compare to experts in their judgments of creative writing. If novices and experts assign similar ratings, it could be argued that gifted novices are able to offer their peers feedback of a similar quality to that provided by experts. Such a finding would support the use of collaborative feedback in gifted classrooms. We asked gifted high school creative writers and three groups of experts (cognitive psychologists, creative writers, and teachers) to rate a set of 27 short stories and 28 poems for creativity using a scale of 1 to 6. The interrater agreement among the novices was within acceptable standards, and the agreement among the experts was very strong. When the ratings of novices were compared to the ratings of experts, a strong degree of correlation was found, supporting the use of peer feedback among gifted novice creative writers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alber, S. R. (1999). “I don’t like to write, but I love to get published”: Using a classroom newspaper to motivate reluctant writers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 355-361.
2.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
3.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. Buffalo, NY: CEF Press.
4.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-46.
7.
Baer. J. (1997a). Creative teachers, creative students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
8.
Baer, J. (1997b). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25-31.
9.
Baer, J. (1998). Gender differences in the effects of extrinsic motivation on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 18-37.
10.
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117.
11.
Burke, K. (1994). The mindful school: How to assess authentic learning. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight.
12.
Cattell, J., Glascock, J., & Washburn, M. F. (1918). Experiments on a possible test of aesthetic judgment of pictures. American Journal of Psychology, 29, 333-336.
13.
Child, I. L. (1962). Personal preferences as an expression of aesthetic sensitivity. Journal of Personality, 30, 496-512.
14.
Child, I. L., & Iwao, S. (1968). Personality and esthetic sensitivity: Extension of findings to younger age and to different culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 308-312.
15.
Clark, F. (1983). Writing as learning and the superior student. Journal of Advanced Composition, 4, 47-60.
16.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1999). A community of writers: A workshop course in writing (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725-747.
19.
Everson, H. T., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 65-79.
20.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
21.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
22.
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 157-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
Gorman, D. (1998). Self-tuning teachers: Using reflective journals in writing classes. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 434-442.
24.
Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing: Report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
25.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. A. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506-512.
26.
Haritos-Fatouros, M., & Child, I. L. (1977). Transcultural similarity in personal significance of esthetic interests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 285-298.
27.
Hayes, J. R. (1981). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press.
28.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 135-146). New York: Plenum Press.
29.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 346-359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234-244.
31.
Iwao, S., Child, I. L., & Garcia, M. (1969). Further evidence of agreement between Japanese and American esthetic evaluations. Journal of Social Psychology, 78, 11-15.
32.
Jeske, J. (1989, March). Peer-response groups: Answering the critique. Paper presented at the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, Seattle, WA.
33.
Jeske, J. (2002). Peer editing. Retrieved July 7, 2002, from http://www.guilford.edu/campus/index.cfm?ID=700003960
34.
Karegianes, M., Pascarella, E., and Pflaum, S. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 203-207.
35.
Landis, R. J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174
36.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278-291.
37.
Mayfair, L. L. (1999). (Practically) painless peer editing. Instructor-Intermediate, 108(7), 8-10.
38.
McFadzean, E., & McKenzie, J. (2001). Facilitating virtual learning groups: A practical approach. Journal of Management Development, 20, 470-494.
39.
Minsky, M. (1997). Negative experience. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in context (pp. 515-521). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
40.
Mueller, A., & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 259-265.
41.
Myford, C. M. (1989). The nature of expertise in aesthetic judgment: Beyond inter-judge agreement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
42.
Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 117-139.
43.
Rostan, S. M., Pariser, D., & Gruber, H. E. (2002). A cross-cultural study of the development of artistic talent, creativity, and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 13, 125-156.
44.
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-190.
45.
Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 23-31.
46.
Salend, S. J. (1990). Effective mainstreaming. New York: Macmillan.
