There are several elements within the context of education that can prevent creativity from taking place. Within the classroom, environment creativity is not seen as a desirable trait (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Zimmermann, 2009). Conditions that stifle creativity are associated with both the student and teacher (Beattie, 2000; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987, Zimmerman, 2009). There is an argument within the field of creativity and education that asserts children do not have enough experience to demonstrate creativity (Beattie, 2000; Cunliffe, 2008; Zimmerman, 2009).
Dispositional factors that are linked to people who are creative are not necessarily valued within school settings. Character traits such as questioning rules, disorganization, and absentmindedness have been linked to creative people (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Zimmermann, 2009). These types of character traits challenge the traditional classroom atmosphere in education and test teachers’ tolerance levels. Classroom environments that suppress student character traits such as questioning rules, disorganization, and absentmindedness run the risk of hampering the creative abilities of the student.
Students themselves can cause the suppression of creativity. Obstructions in these creative abilities include both personal and social blocks. Personal blocks to creativity can range from problems confronting ambiguity in their work to expressing their emotions in public. A social block to creativity caused by the student is disallowing their product or idea to be viewed or addressed in the public arena. Through personal and social blocks, students can suppress their own creativity (Zimmerman, 2009).
Certain instructional strategies implemented by the teacher can cause the suppression of creativity in students. The instructor can cause obstructions in creative abilities by implementing competitive situations and surveillance of tasks (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Beattie, 2000; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987). These instructional strategies reduce intrinsic motivation within the student and may even lead to reduced productivity.
There is an argument that states the accepted consensus relating to the definition of creativity does not espouse the idea that children are able to be creative (Beattie, 2000; Cunliffe, 2008; Zimmerman, 2009). In order to produce a novel idea or product that is appropriate, a minimum of six years of experience developing sufficient skills within that particular discipline is required (Beattie, 2000; Cunliffe, 2008). Instead, creativity for children can be rated within a continuum ranging from the individual in everyday circumstances to eminence of grand proportions affecting society (Beattie, 2000; Hennessy & Amabile, 2010). With the lack of sufficient skills and experience to be creative in a discipline, children’s creativity should be rated on daily circumstances.
This synthesis has shown that there are several elements that can prevent creativity from taking place in the context of a student’s education. Certain dispositional factors linked to creative people are undesirable traits within the classroom environment. Both the student and teacher can be the cause of creativity being stifled. The current socially constructed definition of creativity does not accept creativity in children due to their lack of mastering a discipline, so their ideas or products cannot be gauged as novel or appropriate.
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.
Cunliffe, L. (2008). Using assessment to nurture knowledge-rich creativity. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 45, 309-317.doi:10.1080/14703290802176253
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
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education, 50, 382-399.