Laura H. Chapman, a reader who is an expert curriculum consultant in the arts, wrote the following in response to studies that say that “grit” is unrelated to creativity:
“This discussion about creativity should include mention of theoretical and empirical work from the 1950s and 1960s such a J.P. Guilford’s broad view of human intelligence, reworked by Howard Gardner; Getzels & Jackson, “Creativity and Intelligence:
Explorations with gifted students;” and the legacy of E. Paul Torrence who developed still-in-use tests of creativity translated into 36 languages and being studied for cultural bias. More at http://www.coe.uga.edu/events/major/ttct-figural
Here is a little-known back story on the fate of talk about “creativity” in the midst of the roll-out of the CCSS and the desire of Achieve and the Council of Chief State School Officers to bury this concept (along with other phrases popularized by tech-lobbyist Ken Kay under the banner of 21st Century Skills.)
In July, 2010, Newsweek featured a report called “The Creativity Crisis,” citing a steady decline in scores on the Torrance Tests of Creativity since 1990. The tests have been respected and widely used, in part, because data has been kept on multifaceted accomplishments of each cohort of test takers since the late 1950s. A secondary analysis of the longitudinal data indicated that lifetime creative accomplishment (patents, publications, awards and other indicators) is more than three times stronger for childhood creativity than for traditional childhood measures of intelligence.
In response to inquiries, the CCSSO issued a press release that dismissed the Torrance tests and referred its own work on creativity. This work included a program of individualized instruction via computers (a stretch); some activities in the Arts Education Partnership (not relevant); and EdSteps, the latter described as a project to help “advance creativity to the highest possible international standards, and measure creativity in a way that is situated in a context of actual activity.”
EdSteps is a web-based standard setting and assessment project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is operated by the CCSSO. Although the Common Core State Standards are separate from EdSteps, the CCSSO says the two initiatives complement one another. “EdSteps was created to find new ways to assess vital skills—those that contribute to college and career readiness—that are not currently assessed on a broad scale for reasons of difficulty and cost.”
“EdSteps defines creativity as the valued uses and outcomes of originality driven by imagination, invention, and curiosity.” In order to create a novice-to-expert scale for creativity, EdSteps started soliciting work for an online data bank. ….”from students in early childhood and elementary, middle, high school and from college and graduate students; from individuals in the workplace; from teachers of all subject areas; for any audience or purpose, both within the United States and globally; in any form, genre, or media. Creativity samples can include anything – writing, videos, images, charts, or other graphics – in any subject area.”
Anyone can submit work through EdSteps’ website. The submitter must agree to give up all rights to the work, and permit EdSteps to alter, edit, and otherwise modify the work for its purposes. That freedom of action may be a concern to persons in the arts who think that the integrity of a performance is in the whole work, not a snippet.
I was unable to determine how the proposed scale will address the fact that, in some arts, novice performances by children and untutored adults are sometimes judged more original and imaginative than expert performances by well-trained adults (e.g., a quote attributed to Picasso: ”It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child”). Nor was I able to determine whether EdSteps assumes that a single scale of creative achievement can be constructed from the heterogeneous samples of work.
The process of constructing the scale is fairly technical, but it relies on comparing two works and deciding which of the two is the most “effective,” The paired comparisons are carried out in multiple iterations, by multiple judges, with multiple samples. Submissions are coded to permit analyses based on factors such as age, gender, ability level, geographic region, type of work, and the like. In theory, a scale representing a progression of achievement from novice to expert can be constructed without the need for written criteria or explanations, “although these may be added.”
This all sounds like a crock to me, perhaps because I had more than one conversation with Torrence as a young scholar and, as a worker in arts education, have relied on his vocabulary—fluency, flexibility, elaboration, humor, elaboration, and the like—to teach others that some qualities of creative thinking are not entirely a mystery.
Gates paid for some high profile talent to consult on EdSteps, including Howard Gardner. I can’t imagine that they endorced what the website has become.
Judge for yourself. Samples of work and the rest are posted on the glitchy EdSteps website.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yes, the EdSteps website seems like a crock –a bungled effort to measure creativity. We probably all agree that The Onion is creative. Think about how much knowledge is behind that creativity –a deep knowledge of the typical style of news writing is essential for that satire. Plus there’s the knowledge of the issues –e.g. ed reform –that they satirize. Who can deny that knowledge is central to their creativity? And yet I’d reckon that most people think knowledge is separate from, if not inimical, to creativity. When Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge” he gave the misleading impression that knowledge is separable from imagination. Knowledge is the fuel of the imagination. I’d bet that kids who get a well-rounded liberal arts education (e.g. Core Knowledge) are more creative than those who get a skills-centric education.
You are correct about the last point, in fact Gardner ‘discovered’ that when he went to China and then wrote about it, i.e. that kids who are taught stuff do better at all sorts of things than kids who aren’t. There isn’t an inner genius lurking waiting to come out unless it’s crushed by knowledge (come on down Ken Robinson). Genius is the result of knowing lots of stuff but we do love the ‘natural’ (Dweck’s work should have laid that to rest) and the ‘self made man’.
Or as Nelson Goodman said ‘The virgin mind is empty, and the innocent eye blind’.
Creativity is the genius which has helped this nation become one of history’s and the present world’s greatest leaders. Why cannot people like Bill Gates and others who have displayed that creativity not recognize its importance. Makes no sense.
Bill Gates has limited creativity, he stole ideas from others. His dad is a high powered lawyer, his son does business in a similar manner. He knows creativity when he sees it, he just compiles it and co-opts it.
Here is a link to Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talk: How schools kill creativity
Haven’t we had enough yet of people telling shcools what’s WRONG with them, Ken Robinson included? Gimme a break.
And his prescriptions are not at all original, but a rerun of stuff that’s been around since the 19th century but periodically rediscovered and rebadged.
This guy is a dangerous charlatan. A fraud selling a very popular snake oil. American teachers need to get over their prejudice against facts. They misread Bloom’s Taxonomy. The proper way to read it is: higher order thinking springs from facts; ergo we must teach facts. Alas, most teachers look at Bloom’s Taxonomy and read it as a call to amputate the bottom half of the pyramid! There is a grave, grave misconception at the heart of American education and guys like Robinson perpetuate it.
Ponderosa and Catherine. I too am underwhelmed by Sir Kenneth Robinson. He has honed a presentation intended to be entertaining and ideas that are not very original.
He is a darling among some people in the arts community because he is a performing artist, entertainer, and does not make anyone think too much. Some are also enchanted with the “Sir.”
Most of us have likely heard of Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, but it seems many fewer know what he actually thought of them, or how he’d outgrown it a decade later.
Most of the elements Howard Gardner elaborated upon in his 1995 recommendations for schools were already part of his 1992 guest lecture in Geneva, entitled, “The unschooled mind: why even the best students in the best schools do not understand.” 1992 also saw Gardner’s “Assessment in Context: The Alternative to Standardized Testing” in Changing Assessments Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction, (Bernard R. Gifford,
Mary Catherine O’Connor, editors, Volume 30, 1992, pp 77-119.)
How do you measure the impact of ‘Christopherian encounters,’ (Gardner, 1992) or ‘threshold concepts,’ (Meyer & Land, 2010) with a standardized test? More to the point here, what does the so-called “effectiveness” of a final product tell us of the creator’s learning processes? What does it leave out? Can “situated in a context of actual activity” ever be validly re-situated in other contexts, applied to different activities? Who benefits from automating evaluation? Who does not?
Educators have at least a 40 year head start in applying technology to pedagogy and learning. Bill Gates has a multi-billion dollar head start convincing policy-makers to experiment with applying his untested and often unsupported opinions on American children.
More to the point here, what does the so-called “effectiveness” of a final product tell us of the creator’s learning processes?
EdSteps doesn’t care about the learning process or the criteria that people are using when they pick this over that. It process looks like more like a popularity content than anything else.
popularity contest.
If EdSteps requires one to release all rights for a submitted work, that suggests the pool is tainted, doesn’t it? The “most creative” works may have been withheld; why give up rights to something wonderful. GIGO
Stopped reading after the first paragraph, where I saw that the author is a consultant.
I’m sure she has some fantastic PowerPoints full of really great acronyms and buzzwords about how whatever system *she* happens to be peddling to school districts is like, super creativity-enhancing and great!
You would be wise to read Laura’s posts to find out what she has to say. You might learn a thing or two!!
I have yet to see a post from Laura Chapman that is anything but well reasoned and informative. She knows her field, and, as far as I can tell, has yet to hawk her wares. I would “consult” her any day.
I did not write the first paragraph.
I am not peddling services to anyone one.
I have written some books, but most of these are out of date.
I am barely competent in Powerpoint presentations.
I have consulted but never marketed myself as a consultant.
I am aware of the parade of self-appointed consultants and experts in marketing products that bombard superintendents, principals, and teachers with the latest silver bullets, magic elixirs, and snake oil.
This is to say I can understand your cynicism.
I am a longstanding–and still-standing–critic of federal policies (since the mid-1960s) especially policies bearing on arts education in public schools.
I hope will will read beyond the first paragraph.
CTee, you should read the entire post. Laura Chapman is retired. She is not hawking anything but thoughtfulness.