Over the past six decades of research and thousands of published works on the subject, the nature of creativity continues to be a subject that is not easily agreed upon (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Beattie,2000; Cowdroy & Williams, 2006; Cunliffe, 2008; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Klausen, 2010; Sternberg, 2006; Zimmerman, 2009). Among those who study within this field, there is a consensus that creativity is an act, idea, or product that is viewed as original or novel and as valuable or appropriate (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Beattie, 2000; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Klausen, 2010; Zimmerman, 2009). In identifying that an idea or product is novel and appropriate, a large body of research has focused on the person, process, and social environment from an educational standpoint.
Nothing guarantees creativity, but looking for the unexpected by maximizing the probability of creativity is through the acquisition of knowledge to the field or discipline studied. The more knowledge an individual has about a field or discipline, the more predisposed the mind is of previous achievements. This provides opportunities to try out new solutions by reformulating and combining ideas in unanticipated ways (Cunliffe, 2008; Harnard, 2001; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Hope, 2010; Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg, 2006). To better prepare for creativity, motivation is a driving force for success. The intrinsic motivation of a person, such as the enjoyment, interest, and personal challenge of the task are conducive to creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Beattie, 2000; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Sternberg, 2006). A person’s prior knowledge of the field or discipline and their intrinsic motivation towards that particular subject will potentially maximize the creative process within the individual.
The process taken by the individual in creating a product that is novel and appropriate can be reduced to the relationship between memory and thinking abilities (Cowdroy & Williams, 2006). Decision-making abilities are the result of these memory and thinking abilities that the person acts upon to move the creative process forward. The individual is able to tap into an innate series of memory abilities to support new meaning from past experiences or knowledge, orient facts, and events to present phenomena, and an adaptation to support skilled performance (Cowdroy & Williams, 2006; Harnard, 2001). Through these memory, abilities the process of conceptualization and schematization continues to take place within the thinking abilities (Cowdroy & Williams, 2006). Most research in this area identifies thinking abilities related to flexible cognitive approaches such as problem identification and response generation (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Cowdroy & Williams, 2006; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Zimmerman, 2009). Through the creative process, a person is able to draw on memory and thinking abilities in order to promote a range of decision-making abilities.
To maximize the chance of success in creativity, the social environment offers a support system to a person. The social environment provides a forum for proposing and testing ideas (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010; Hope, 2010; Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg, 2006). In order to confirm that an act, idea, or product is novel and appropriate it is required to be scrutinized and judged. The consensus definition of creativity is viewed as a social construct by which they act, idea, or product is judged to be novel and appropriate by experts within the field from which it originates (Beattie, 2000; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Klausen, 2010; Sternberg, 2002). The social environment not only offers a support system to the individual but also validates the act, idea, or product of its novelty and appropriateness.
This synthesis has shown that although the nature of creativity has many notions and theories, a general consensus exists as to how creativity can be defined. A large body of research has focused on many dispositions in identifying creativity. The person, process, and social environment are the most common attributes associated with identifying creativity in education.
Amabile, T., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 3-15. doi:10.1002/jocb.001
Beattie, D. K. (2000). Creativity in art: The feasibility of assessing current conceptions in the school context. Assessment in Education, 7, 175-192.
Cowdroy, R., & Williams, A. (2006). Assessing creativity in the creative arts. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5, 97-117. doi:10.1386/adch.5.2.97_1
Cunliffe, L. (2008). Using assessment to nurture knowledge-rich creativity. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 45, 309-317. doi:10.1080/14703290802176253
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247.
Harnad, S. (2001). Creativity: Method or magic?. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/1627/1/harnad.creativity.html
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1987). Creativity and learning: What research says to the teacher [Pamphlet] West Haven, CT: National Education Association. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology. 61, 569-598. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Hope, S. (2010). Creativity, content, and policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 39-47. doi:10.1080/10632910903455736
Klausen, S. (2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philosophical perspective on creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 347-360. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523390
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Encouraging students to decide for creativity. Research in Schools. 9, 61-70.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87-98.
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education, 50, 382-399.