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 [email protected]
Top Related