Creativity and Education: Beyond the Myths

Maciej Karwowski Creative Education Lab, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Poland

A few things for the beginning

School has poor reputation among creativity scholars – for several reasons:

School: part of the system creativity challenges the system

Childhood = creativity (transition shocks / 4rd grade slumps)

School supports certain kind of creativity

Creative students usually do quite poorly in school

The best students are usually not so creative

Great creators and school…

But is this poor reputation really well-deserved?

Preposition (In general)…

School is supportive, not harmful for creativity

Although, probably

It is not as supportive, as it should and could be

And it is very likely that not all types of creativity are equally welcomed in schools

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

1. Not all types of creativity

are equally welcomed

Creative abilities

Openness Independence

(Nonconformity)

Not all types of creativity are equally welcomed in schools

SELF-ACTUALIZING OR SCRIBBLER’S CREATIVITY?

SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY

REBELLIOUS CREATIVITY

Complex Creativity

7

CL7: Tool relates to hammer, as: Table to chair Toy to doll Weapon to iron knocker do bell

29% 35%

28%

36% 42%

37%

63%

41%

Hammer Socks

Elementary

Vocational

High school

University

If you have black socks and brown socks in your drawer, mixed in a ratio of 4 to 5, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair the same color?

N>10.000 representative sample of Poles

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

2.

Creative students do poorly in school

Is it really so bad? Three arguments: food for thought

Large scale (mid-term) longitudinal

Meta-analytical

Long-term longitudinal

Large scale longitudinal study (Karwowski & Jankowska, in press)

A representative sample of Polish elementary school students (N > 6000)

School achievement measured using standardized tests twice – in the third and sixth grade

Creative imagination, measured using TCIA (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015) in fifth grade;

Correlations (all ps < .001):

Reading – r = .20 (.18)

Math – r = .18 (.16)

Language awareness – r = .24 (.18)

GPA – r = .21 (.20)

Contrast-groups analysis

Large scale longitudinal study (Karwowski & Jankowska, in press)

Low creative imagination (bottom 5%)

High creative imagination (upper 5%)

Other

Sch

oo

l Ach

ieve

men

t

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

3.

Good students are not so creative

Contrast-groups analysis

Large scale longitudinal study (Karwowski & Jankowska, in press)

Low school achievement (bottom 5%)

High school achievement (upper 5%)

Other

Cre

ativ

e Im

agin

atio

n

Increase in school achievement

between 3rd and 6th grade

Creative imagination

(grade 5)

.07***

Increase in school achievement

between 3rd and 6th grade

Creative imagination

(grade 5)

.05***

IQ (grade 3)

.12***

Large scale longitudinal study (Karwowski & Jankowska, in press)

Meta-analytical argument (Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2017, JEduc Psych)

(Probably) the largest meta-analysis in creativity studies to date:

k = 120 independent studies

> 750 effect sizes (correlations)

Total N > 50.000 participants

Aim: to establish whether the correlation between creativity (creative thinking, self-report) and school achievement (GPA / standardized tests) is positive, negative or null?

16

17

Meta-analytical path model (alternative)

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

4.

This is just an average… Schools differ so much…

0.76

0.68

0.41

0.34 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.290.26

0.23

0.180.15 0.13 0.13

0.10 0.08 0.08

0.00 0.00 -0.01-0.04

-0.07 -0.07 -0.08-0.11 -0.12

-0.18

-0.26 -0.27-0.30

-0.39 -0.39

-0.59-0.64

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Schools

Co

rre

lati

on

Cre

ati

vit

y-G

PA

Between-school variance is huge (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2012, TSC)

Follow-up observational study

Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (revised & resubmitted). Exploring Creative Learning in the Classroom: A Multi-Method Approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity

- 10 classes, observed every 5 minutes interdependent observational units

- 3 types of classes: positive, negative, null

Behavior unit – Teachers f % Caring Encouraging

Creativity

Emotional

Support

Risk

Acceptance

Careful listening to questions 12 13% 0.96

Delayed assessment of ideas 7 8% 0.85

Group work organization 18 20% 0.68

Authenticity, genuineness 14 16% 0.60

Encouraging to search for diverse ideas 17 19% 0.99

Encouraging to create many ideas 22 24% 0.91

Open questions 18 20% 0.90

Encouraging divergent thinking 16 18% 0.88

Atmosphere of creative play 21 23% 0.61

Friendly humor 24 27% 0.90

Using constructive criticism 7 8% 0.67

Motivating to manage failures 8 9% 0.48

Sensitivity to feelings 3 3% 0.47

Encouraging to take risk 2 2% 0.73

Making it possible to choose and make decisions 5 6% 0.59

Acceptance of unconventional and strange ideas 5 6% 0.59

Encouraging to test new ideas 4 4% 0.49

Tolerance of otherness and new ideas 5 6% 0.45

Encouraging to imagine different things 4 4% 0.37

Differences in teachers’ behaviors across classes

Patterns of teachers-students interactions

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

5.

Too much focus on creativity decreases teaching effectiveness

Does focus on creativity hurt? Not really…

Correlation Creativity x School Achievement

Edu

cati

on

al A

dd

ed V

alu

e (E

AV

)

Segmented regression analysis (N = 295 classes, Nstudents > 6000)

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

6.

Great creators did poorly in school…

Long-term longitudinal argument – the Warsaw Study

1. Initiated in 1974, on all children from Warsaw born in 1974 (whole 1963) (N > 14.000)

2. Several follow-ups on subsamples: 1976 (N=1176), 1994 (N=170), 1995 (N=141), 1999 (N=97+N=49)

3. Results published in Science (Firkowska, et al., 1978)

4. A follow-up in 2015

Warsaw Study at a glance

1974, N > 14.000

Raven Matrices

1976, N = 1176

WISC

2015, N ≈1936

Creative Achievement

Questionnaire

N = 1936 (Raven + CAQ)

N = 310

WISC + CAQ

Necessary Condition Analysis

CFA & SEM WISC & CAQ

IN

CM

AR

SM

VO

PC

PA

BD

OA

CD

g

cg

Perfor

Visual

VC

PO

FD/PS

CFI = .987; TLI = .979;

RMSEA = .024 (.018, .030)

DS

-.16*

.31*

.45**

R2=41%

R2=11%

R2=15%

WRITING

HUMOUR

SCIENCE

ENGINEERING

KITCHEN

MUSIC

DANCE

THEATER

VISUAL ART

ARCHITECTURE

1976 2015

.25

.16

.04

-.02

.11#

-.07

-.03

Warsaw Study

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

7.

School destroys CREATIVE SELF-BELIEFS?

Why are creative self-beliefs important at all?

Regulatory focus

Not just an epiphenomenon of personality (discriminant validity)

Different roles in explaining creative achievement and creative activity (potential mechanisms and incremental validity)

Malleability and dependence on social influences

CBAD Creative Behavior as an Agentic Decision (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2017 [under review])

Panel A (Study 1) Panel B (Study 1)

Panel C (Study 2) Panel D (Study 2)

Panel E (Study 3) Panel F (Study 3)

Malleability of CSBs? (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015, LAID)

CFI = .929, RMSEA = .042, 90% CI (.040, .045)

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

8.

Creative self-beliefs are destructive for school functioning?

Self-perception (Karwowski, ???)

High and middle school students, N=2293 χ2(df = 20) = 127.17; p < .001, χ2/df = 6.36; GFI = 1; AGFI = .999; CFI = .934, RMR = .026; RMSEA = .048, 95% CI: .04, .057

.26***

-.13***

The intriguing and puzzling role of students’ self-beliefs

Self-perception role replicates…

Study Correlation (Pearson r)

Regression (β) N Measures

Study 1 SAI x SAC = .51*** 2293 Adjective list

SAI x GPA = .24*** SAI GPA = .27***

SAC x GPA = .08** SAC GPA = -.06**

Study 2 ASC x CSE = .40*** 202 ASC – SDQ (Marsh)

ASC x GPA = .52*** ASC GPA = .44*** CSE – SSCS (Karwowski, et. al.)

CSE x GPA = .14* CSE GPA = -15*

Study 3 ASC x CSE = .64*** 2777 ASC – SDQ (Marsh)

ASC x GPA = .38*** ASC GPA = .41*** CSE – SSCS (Karwowski, et. al.)

CSE x GPA = .21*** CSE GPA = -.05*

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

9.

No place for flow and intrinsic motivation, too many rewards

Flow at school?

45

Intrinsic x Extrinsic Motivation explaining creativity of high school students (N=591) (Karwowski & Gralewski, 2012)

Extrinsic motivation

Cre

ativ

e b

eh

avio

r

High intrinsic motivation

Low intrinsic motivation

Medium intrinsic motivation

Motivational synergy works

Creative Education Lab, Academy of Special Education, Poland

What could we (and school) do?

What could school do?

Primum non nocere

Bubbles and incremental changes in instruction and curriculum: still place for new ideas (e.g. ICT based)

Building the growth creative mindset

Thank you for your attention

Please send questions or comments at mkarwowski@aps.edu.pl