This paper considers some of the problems that occur when school teachers wish to convey the standard of individual students' creative outcomes to G&T co-ordinators, but lack specific assessment tools to record and transmit evidence. This demand was highlighted by a survey of the views of 800 G&T coordinators in 2005. The development of a new tool is disclosed, with which subject teachers can consensually assess the creativity of products with a high degree of reliability. Some formative results from its trialling revealed significantly high correlations of agreement (ranging from r=.89 to r=.95) over seven essential criteria, even when the different processes, climates and students themselves were unknown to the judging panels. The tool's effectiveness as part of a Creative Feedback Package (CFP) for teachers, tasked with nominating the gifted, is evaluated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmabileT. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
2.
AndreasenN. (2005). The creating brain: the neuroscience of genius. Ezcurra, Mexico: Agrupacion Sierra Madre, 160–168.
3.
BaerJ.KaufmanJ. C.GentileC. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113–117.
4.
BalchinT. (2005a). A creativity feedback package for teachers and students of design and technology in the UK. International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 10(2), 31–43.
5.
BalchinT. (2005b). Identifying gifted and talented students through creative behaviour. The Journal of the National Association for Gifted Children, 9(1), 20–26.
6.
BalchinT. (2007). Identifications of the gifted: the efficacy of teacher nominations in British schools. The Journal of the National Association for Gifted Children, 11(1), 5–17.
7.
BarronR. (1988) Putting Creativity to Work, in SternbergR.J., (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BeckwithN.LehmannD. (1975). The importance of halo effects in multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(3), 265–275.
9.
BelcherT. L.RubovitsJ. J.DiMeoP. A. (1981). Measurement of creativity: A factor analysis study. Psychological Reports, 48, 819–825.
10.
BesemerS. P. (1998). Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products — Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal11(4), 333–346.
11.
BesemerS. P.TreffingerD. H. (1981). Analysis of creative products: review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior15(3)458–178.
12.
BodenM.A. (1990). The creative minds : myths and mechanisms. London : Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 5–89.
13.
CabezaR.NybergL. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience12(1), 1–47.
14.
CarsonS. H.PetersonJ. B.HigginsD. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499–506.
15.
CartierF. (2000). Review of Understanding those who create, Mensa Journal, (46)1, 79.
16.
ChenC.KasofJ.HimselA.GreenbergerE.DongQ.ZueG. (2002). Creativity in Drawings of Geometric Shapes: A Cross-Cultural Examination with the Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2) 171–187.
17.
CropleyA. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: are creativity tests worth using?Roeper Review, 23(2), 72–77.
18.
CropleyA. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.
19.
CrutchfieldR.S. (1961). The creative process, in McKinnonD.W.(Eds.), Conference on the Creative Person (pp. 58–93). Berkley, California: University of California Press.
20.
CsikszentmihayliM. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and innovation. New York: Harper Perennial.
21.
DavisG. A.Al-SabatyI. (1989). Relationship between creativity and right, left integrated thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 2(1), 111–117.
22.
DweckC. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House, 15.
23.
FeldmanD.H. (1999). The Development of Creativity, in SternbergR.J. (Ed.), : Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.
24.
GaboraL. (2000). The beer can theory of creativity in BentleyP.CorneD., (Eds.) Creative Evolutionary Systems. London: Morgan Kauffman.
25.
GardnerH. (2000) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the list Century. New York: Basic Books.
26.
GeakeJ. G. (2004). How children's brains think: not left or right but both together. Journal of Education 3–13, 32(3), 65–72.
27.
GeakeJ. G.DodsonC. S. (2005). A neuropsychological model of the creative intelligence of gifted children. Gifted & Talented International, 20(1), 4–16.
28.
GeakeJ. G.HansenP. (2005). Neural correlates of intelligence as revealed by fMRI of fluid analogies, Neurolmage, 26(2), 555–564.
29.
GoelV.DolanR. J. (2001). “Functional neuroanatomy of three-term relational reasoning.” Neuropsychologia39(9), 901–909.
30.
HalfordG. S. (1992). Analogical reasoning and conceptual complexity in cognitive development. Human Development, 35(4), 193–217.
31.
HeilmanK. M.NadeauS. E.BeversdorfD. O. (2003). Creative innovation: possible brain mechanisms. Neurocase, 9, 369–379.
32.
HickeyM. (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(3), 234–244.
33.
HocevarD.BachelorP. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity, in GloverJ.A.RonningR.R.ReynoldsC.R., (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). New York: Plenum Press.
34.
HofstadterD. R. (1995). Fluid concepts and creative analogies. Basic Books, New York.
35.
HollandJ. L. (1959). Some limitations of teacher ratings as predictors of creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 219–223.
36.
IsaksenS. G. (1987) Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics. Buffalo, N.Y: Bearly Limited, 341–379.
37.
KaltsounisB.HoneywellL. (1980). Instruments useful in studying creative behaviour and creative talent. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 14, 56–67.
38.
KaufmanJ.C.SternbergR. (2007). Creativity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(4), 55–60.
39.
KnauffM.MulackT.KassubekJ.SalihH. R.GreenleeM. W. (2002). Spatial imagery in deductive reasoning: a functional MRI study. Cognitive Brain Research13(2): 203–212.
40.
MansellW. (2007). Education by Numbers: The Tyranny of Testing. London: Politico's Publishing Ltd.
41.
MurdockM. C.PuccioG. J. (1993). A contextual organiser for conducting creativity research, in IsaksenS.G.MurdockM.C.FirestienR.L.TreffingerD.J. (Eds.), Understanding and recognising creativity: the emergence of a discipline (pp. 249–280). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
42.
PlsekP. E. (1997). Creativity, innovations and quality. Ontario: Irwin. 47–58.
43.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 128–134.
44.
RenzulliJ. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for creative productivity, in SternbergR.J.DavidsonJ.E. (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
RhodesM. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
46.
ShoreB. M.RejskindG.KanevskyL. S. (2003). Cognitive research on giftedness: a window on creativity and teaching for creativity, in AmbroseD.CohenL. M.TannenbaumA. J. (Eds.) Creative intelligence: toward theoretic integration (pp. 181–210). Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
47.
StablesK. (1994). Discontinuity in transition: Pupils' experience of technology in year 6 and year 7. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 157–169.
48.
SunsteinC. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 32–70.
49.
SurowieckiJ. (2005). The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few. London: Abacus, 173–189.
50.
SternbergR.J.LubartT. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31.
51.
TorranceE. P.GoffK. (1990). Fostering academic creativity in gifted students. Retrieved 18th December 2006, from Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC) database, ED321489, ERIC Digest No. E484.
52.
TaggartW.TorranceE. P. (1984). Human information processing survey, administrator's manual. Bensenville, II: Scholastic Testing Service.
53.
TreffingerD. J. (1987). Research on creativity assessment, in IsaksenS.G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics. Buffalo, N.Y.: Bearly Limited, 103–119.
54.
UrbanK. (2003). Toward a componential model of creativity, in AmbroseD.CohenL. M.TannenbaumA.J. (Eds.) Creative Intelligence: Toward Theoretic Integration. Hampton Press Inc: Cresskill, N.J.
