Creative Potential in Educational Settings: Its Nature, Measure, and Nurture.

TLDR: In this article, a multidimensional and partly domain-specific view of creativity is presented, in contrast to a classic but inaccurate "g-factor view" of creativity, upon which new assessment tools can be developed.

Abstract: Although creativity is considered one of the key ‘twenty-first-century skills’, this ability is still often misunderstood. Persistent conceptual and methodological barriers have limited educational implications. This article reviews and discusses the three critical issues of ‘nature’, ‘measure’, and ‘nurture’ of creative potential in educational settings. A current perspective on the nature of creative potential is presented. In contrast to a classic, but inaccurate ‘g-factor view’ of creativity, this perspective emphasises a multidimensional and partly domain-specific view, upon which new assessment tools can be developed. Based on a more comprehensive evaluation of a child’s creative potential, educational programmes tailored to a child’s strengths and weaknesses can be offered. These perspectives are discussed in light of current findings in the field.

Full text

HAL Id: hal-01392522
https://hal.parisnanterre.fr//hal-01392522
Submitted on 9 Nov 2016
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Creative potential in educational settings: its nature,
measure, and nurture
Baptiste Barbot, Maud Besançon, Todd Lubart
To cite this version:
Baptiste Barbot, Maud Besançon, Todd Lubart. Creative potential in educational settings: its nature,
measure, and nurture. Education 3-13, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2015, 43 (4), pp.371-381.
�10.1080/03004279.2015.1020643�. �hal-01392522�

RUNNING HEAD:CREATIVE POTENTIAL IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Creative Potential in Educational Settings: its Nature, Measure, and Nurture
Baptiste Barbot
1,2
Maud Besançon
3
Todd Lubart
4
1
Pace University, Department of Psychology, New York, USA
2
Yale University, Child Study Center, New Haven, USA
3
Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France
4
Université Paris Descartes, LATI, Paris, France
Author Notes.
We thank Jessica Harlow for editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Baptiste Barbot; Pace University,
Department of Psychology; 41 Park Row; New York, NY, 10038; Tel: (+1) 212-346-1903; Fax:
(+1) 212-346-1618; Email: bbarbot@pace.edu

CREATIVE POTENTIAL IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
2
Abstract
Although creativity is considered one of the key ―21
st
century skills‖, this ability is still
often misunderstood. Persistent conceptual and methodological barriers havelimited educational
implications. This article reviews and discusses the three critical issues of ―nature‖, ―measure‖,
and ―nurture‖ of creative potential in educational settings. A current perspective on the nature of
creative potential is presented. In contrasts to a classic, but inaccurate ―g-factor view‖ of
creativity, this perspective emphasizes a multidimensional and partly domain-specific view, upon
which new assessment tools can be developed. Based on a more comprehensive evaluation of a
child’s creative potential, educational programs tailored to a child’s strengths and weaknesses
can be offered. These perspectives are discussed in light of current findings in the field.

CREATIVE POTENTIAL IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
3
Creative Potential in Educational Settings: its Nature, Measure, and Nurture
Creativity is increasingly recognized as a valuable asset for individuals in their daily
problem solving and their professional careers, that contributes to personal and societal
development (Besançon, Lubart, & Barbot, 2013; Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013). As one of
the four key ―21
st
century skills‖ (together with critical thinking, collaboration, and
communication), creativity has received increasing attention in the fields of psychology and
education since the 1950’s. Despite over half a century of systematic research on this topic, this
ability is still incompletely understood. As a result, developing children’s creativity in
educational settings is a complex endeavor. First, it requires that the nature of the construct of
creativity be consensually understood by psychologists, educators, teachers, and the scientific
community. Second, it supposes that instruments measuring accurately this construct in children
be available. Third, interpretations made from creativity test scores should lead to informed
decision in terms of orientation, and accurate implementation of creativity learning in the
classroom. This article reviews anddiscusses these three major issues of nature, measure, and
nurture in terms of implications in educational settings.
The Nature of Creative Potential
In the fields of Education and Psychology, creativity is often defined as the ability to
produce original and valuable work that fits within particular task or domain constraints (Runco
& Jaeger, 2012; Stein, 1953; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Compared to classical intelligence
focusing on analytic ability, knowledge, and expert resolution of common problems with defined
solutions, creativity concerns generating new, previously unknown ideas and behaviors in novel
situations or treating familiar situations in new ways (Sternberg, 1985). Another important

CREATIVE POTENTIAL IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
4
distinction between creativity and intelligence is that contrary to general intelligence
(operationalized by the g-factor or IQ), creativity does not represent a unitaryentity (Barbot &
Tinio, in press). If individual differences exist in the outcomes of one’s ―potential‖ for creativity,
much evidence in the field has pointed to the multifaceted and partly domain-specific nature of
creativity: Multifaceted, because a large set of resources come into play in creative work, and the
resources needed and their combination may vary according to the specific demands of a
particular creative work; Domain-specific, because most people have only a limited set of
resources that ―fits‖ the optimal set and combinations of skills required in a given creative outlet,
and it is therefore not likely that a person will show achievements across multiple creative tasks.
Hence, to understand the nature of creativity, it is first useful to distinguish between
creative potential, creative accomplishment, and creative talent (Barbot & Lubart, 2012a;
Besançon et al., 2013). Creative potential is a latent ability to produce original, adaptive work,
which is part of an individual’s ―human capital‖ (Walberg, 1988). It results from a person’s
unique combination of resources coming into play in creative work, including aspects of
motivation, cognition, and personality(Lubart, 1999; Lubart et al., 2013; Sternberg & Lubart,
1995). Specifically, this unique combination results in multiple potentials for creativity (ranging
from low to high potential) depending on its fit between one’s resources and the various creative
tasks demands (e.g., Lubart et al., 2013). Importantly, a person’s potential may lead to
achievement if that person has the opportunity to do so. Whereas intellectual ability often results
in academic success, creative potential is best accomplished in original and unique outputs,
recognized as valuable in a domain-based context. Therefore, creative achievement refers to the
actual production of a creative output that has been recognized as creative by some audience.
Finally, creative talent refers to the tendency to produce creative work on repeated

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Creative potential in educational settings: its nature, measure, and nurture" ?

HAL this paper is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. 

Q2. What are the important characteristics of the school environment for the development of creativity?

High expectations, mutual respect, the modeling of creative attitudes, flexibility, and dialogue are among the most important features of the teacher-learner relationship for creativity (Davies et al., 2013). 

Q3. What are the factors that affect the development of creativity?

At the classroom level, assessment, limitation of choices, pressure to conform, competition, androte learning can compromise creativity development (Beghetto, 2005; Kudryavtsev, 2011). 

Q4. What is the definition of convergent-integrative thinking process?

The convergent-integrative thinking process cluster refers to the activity of combining, integrating or synthesizing elements in new ways, and encompasses some convergent operations such as ―synthesis‖ and ―evaluation of ideas‖ (Cropley, 2006; Osborn, 1953). 

Q5. What is the way to build upon the child’s ideas?

Building upon the child’s strength (generating many ideas), a brainstorming setting can be used to elicit the child’s numerous ideas. 

Q6. What is the influential environment for the development of creativity?

One of the most influentialmicroenvironments for the development of creativity is indeed the school environment (Mourgues, Barbot, Tan, & Grigorenko, 2014). 

Q7. What are the factors that influence the development of creativity in schools?

In a review of over 200 articles, Davies and colleagues (Davies et al., 2013) identifiedcharacteristics of the school environments that promote creative skills in children including aspects of the physical environment, availability of resources/materials, pedagogical environment, play-based learning, and relationships between teachers and learners.