For class this week, we had to read Csik., Sternberg, and Mishra&Koehler. The theme for this week was individual creativity: what is it, how does it develop. The main take-aways were (a) that creativity is found in the “domain, field, and the individual”, and (b) that something creative is “novel, effective, and whole”.
These readings made me think back to my CEP 902 class with Jack Smith “Psychology of learning school subjects”. For his class we had to write several critical summaries. The first question we had to answer in those summaries was “what is the authors’ view of competence” (in the article we chose). What does it mean to be good in writing or math or science? Is the competence in the process or product or both?
What does it mean to be creative? According to Kaufman and Sternberg (2007), “one way to organize research on creativity is by using the ‘four P’s’ model, which distinguishes among the creative person, process, and press (i.e., environment)” (p. 55). Person and press are related to Csik’s realms that are related in the formation of creativity: domain, field, and individual. These are the required precedents.
But how can you measure creativity? Do you look at the process, at the product, or at both? According to Kaufman and Sternberg (2007) research seems to look at either the process (e.g., flow, generative and exploratory) or the product (e.g., propulsion model of creativity which outlines eight types of possible creative contributions, rating creative products, divergent thinking tests). In Punya’s study with Danah and Laura, they are looking at artifacts (products) and applying the NEW framework to them.
What is the reasoning behind looking at either the process or product to assess creativity?