Articles, Chapters & COmmentaries



Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Taking beautiful risks in education. Educational Leadership, 76, 18 - 24.

Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  Creative learning: A fresh look.  Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 6 - 23. 

Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and uncertainty. In C. A. Mullen (ed.). Creativity under duress in education? Switzerland: Springer.

Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Educational Psychology. (link)

Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M.  (in press).  Toward untangling creative self-beliefs.  In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.).  The creative self.  Cambridge MA: Academic Press. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E.  (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams?  Toward understanding creative mortification in children and adolescents.  New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 85 - 95.  [uncorrected proof]

Gajda, A., R. A. Beghetto, & M. Karwowski.  (2017).  Exploring creative learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity

Beghetto, R. A.  (in press).  Creativity in teaching.  In J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer, V.P. Glaveanu (Eds.).  Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains.  New York: Cambridge University Press. [pre-publication proof] 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2017).  Legacy projects: Helping young people respond productively to the challenges of a changing world.  Roeper Review - special issue: Wisdom in a changing world.

Runco, M. A. & Beghetto, R. A.  (2018).  Primary and secondary creativity.  Behavioral Sciences. (uncorrected proof).

Beghetto, R.A. & Karwowski, M. (2019). Educational consequences of creativity: A creative learning perspective. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 5, 146 - 154.

Creativity, uncertainty, and beautiful risks: A conversation with Ronald Beghetto. (Henriksen, Mishra, & the Deep-Play Research Group, 2018).

Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Inviting uncertainty into the classroom. Educational Leadership, 75, 20 - 25.


Karwowski, M. & Beghetto, R. A.  (in press).  Creative behavior as agentic action.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.

This article introduces and empirically explores a theoretical model of creative behavior as agentic action (CBAA). According to this model, transforming creative potential into creative behavior results from a decision informed by one’s creative confidence and perceived value of creativity. More specifically, the model posits that the link between creative potential and creative behavior is mediated by creative confidence and moderated by perceived value of creativity. We tested the model in two cross-sectional studies and in one longitudinal study. Across all three studies, we found evidence in support of the CBAA model. Implications for subsequent theory development and research are discussed.

Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Structured uncertainty: How creativity thrives under constraints and uncertainty. In C. Mullen (Ed.). Creativity Under Duress in Education? Resistive Theories, Practices, and Actions. Switzerland: Springer

Creativity is often associated with slogans like “think outside the box,” which imply that creativity dwells outside of constraints. Given that schools and classrooms are filled with constraints, it makes sense that people may come to believe that creativity is under duress, in a state of crisis, or that “schools kill creativity.”  In this chapter, I offer an alternative perspective.  More specifically, I discuss how creative expression emerges from structured experiences with uncertainty.   Rather than viewing constraints as stifling creativity, I argue that they actually serve as a supportive structure for creative thought and action in educational settings. 

Beghetto, R. A. (in press). From static to dynamic: Toward a socio-dynamic perspective on creativity in the classroom. In I. Lebuda & V. Glaveanu (Eds.). Palgrave handbook on social creativity. London: Palgrave

Classroom settings serve as key sites for studying the social aspects of creative expression.  Conducting creativity research in classrooms, however, is challenging.  This challenge stems from the recognition that classrooms are complex, multifaceted, and often mercurial social settings.  One way researches have responded to this challenge is to reduce the complexity of classrooms by relying on static approaches.  Such approaches are typically aimed at isolating and examining specific features of students and teachers thought to be associated with creativity.   In this reflection, I discuss how I (and others) are attempting to move from more static to more dynamic conceptions of creative expression in classrooms.

Karwowski, M., Han, M., & Beghetto, R. A.  (in press).  Toward dynamizing the measurement of creative confidence beliefs.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.

Creativity researchers have typically assessed creative confidence beliefs (i.e., confidence to think and act creatively) using static, domain general measures. In this paper we report on two studies that illustrate how more dynamic, task-specific, and micro-longitudinal approaches can offer new insights into the nature of creative confidence (CC) beliefs. We also discuss how the use of more dynamic approaches to studying CC beliefs can be used by creativity scholars to advance theory and research.

Runco, M. A. & Beghetto, R. A.  (2018).  Primary and secondary creativity.  Behavioral Sciences. (uncorrected proof).

Who decides what counts as creative? Although most creativity researchers would acknowledge that both individuals and broader social audiences can offer interpretations about creativity, the way in which researchers tend to conceptualize and study creativity typically focuses on either an individual or a social perspective. Those who focus on individual interpretations may treat the social superficially (if at all), whereas those who focus on social judgments risk minimizing or erasing the role of the individual. Consequently, the question of ‘Creativity for whom?’ too often divides creativity research. In this article, we briefly review recent work in the field of creativity studies that falls along the lines of personal and social judgments of creativity. We introduce an integrative framework that endeavors to reconcile the divide between the personal and the social. Specifically, we introduce a model of Primary and Secondary Creativity, which illustrates how the one process of creativity can explain both personal and social judgments of creativity.

Beghetto, R. A.  (in press).  Creativity in teaching.  In J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer, V.P. Glaveanu (Eds.).  Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains.  New York: Cambridge University Press. [pre-publication proof]

Creative teaching, like all forms of teaching, is a polymorphous act. It can take multiple forms and have different pedagogical aims. The purpose of this chapter is to describe creativity in the domain of teaching and clarify three forms of creative teaching: teaching about creativity, teaching for creativity, and teaching with creativity. The chapter will describe each of these types of creative teaching, including their different aims, previous work on each type, and the knowledge base necessary for each type of creative teaching. Directions for future research will also be discussed. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (in press). Unfreezing creativity: A dynamic, micro-longitudinal approach. In R. A. Beghetto & G. Corazza (Eds.). Dynamic perspectives on creativity. Switzerland: Springer

Creativity researchers have conceptualized and studied creativity in a variety of ways.  One common approach is to treat creative thought and action as if they are static phenomena that can be assessed using fixed measures.  In this chapter, we argue for a more dynamic, micro-longitudinal approach to studying creativity in classrooms.

Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Abductive reasoning and the genesis of new ideas: Charles S. Peirce. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.). Creativity Reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

In this chapter I provide commentary on selections from Charles Sanders Peirce’s Collected Papers as they pertain to creative reasoning.   More specifically, I provide commentary on Peirce’s concept of Abductive reasoning and discuss how it comprises a larger process of creative inquiry.  In order to support this effort, I introduce a model of creative reasoning that I hope can serve as a bridge between Peirce’s ideas and concepts relevant to contemporary creativity theorists and researchers. 

Beghetto, R. A. (in press).  Creativity in the classroom: Quick insights for leaders.  In A. Middlebrooks, S. J. Allen, M. McNutt, & J. Morrison (Eds.).  Discovering Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

What do leaders need to know about creativity in the classroom?  This entry provide a brief overview of classroom creativity for educational leaders, including common and problematic beliefs and what educational leaders can do to support creativity in their own leadership practices.


Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M.  (2017).  Toward untangling creative self-beliefs.  In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.).  The creative self.  Cambridge MA: Academic Press. 

In this chapter, we argue that the way researchers (including ourselves) have conceptualized and measured creative self-beliefs may blur important distinctions amongst these beliefs.  We focus our discussion on three key self-beliefs: creative self-efficacy, creative metacognition, and creative self-concept. More specifically, we aim to clarify how these beliefs are conceptually distinct, highlight key areas of conceptual overlap, and offer our recommendations how researchers might revise or developing new measures that are more aligned with these conceptualizations.  Implications for theory and research are also discussed.

Gajda, A., R. A. Beghetto, & M. Karwowski.  (2017).  Exploring creative learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity

How might researchers better understand the variations in creative learning in and across classrooms? This article addresses this question.  In this paper we report on a study that used a  multi-method approach to explore the dynamic features of creative learning in ten elementary classrooms.  The ten classrooms were first classified into one of three groups (positive, negative, and null), based on the relationship between students’ (N = 204) measured creativity and academic achievement (average positive r = 0.52; average negative r = −0.23; and average null r = 0.02). Next, we analyzed observed teacher and student behaviors in each classroom. We found different patterns of behavior based on classroom classifications.  Finally, used a micro-level interactional analysis to visually illustrate patterns of interactions between teachers and students in three different classroom classifications. We found more extended and exploratory interactions in the positive association classroom, whereas the negative association classroom was characterized by more directive and rapidly closing patterns of interaction and the null association classroom tended to have patterns of interaction that left students’ ideas suspended and lacked exploration, development or refinement of ideas. 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2017).  Lesson Unplanning: Toward transforming routine tasks into non-routine problems. DOI: 10.1007/s11858-017-0885-1.

How might teachers transform routine tasks into non-routine ones?  The purpose of this article is to address this question.   

Beghetto, R. A., & Schreiber, J. B.  (2017).  Creativity in doubt: Toward understanding what drives creativity in learning. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. Switzerland: Springer. 

What propels creativity in learning? In this chapter, we discuss a long- standing—yet often overlooked—form of reasoning that helps address this question. That form of reasoning is called abductive reasoning (introduced by the early American Pragmatist, Charles Sanders Peirce). Abductive reasoning represents a special form of creative reasoning that is triggered by states of genuine doubt. Genuine doubt occurs whenever our everyday habits and beliefs fall short in making sense of a situation. In the context of learning, genuine doubt occurs anytime a learner is unable to inductively or deductively reason through an academic task or situation. As we will discuss, these states of doubt represent opportunities for creative learning. Specifically, our aim in this chapter is to demonstrate, by way of example, how abduction and creativity work together in every day learning. We will also discuss how understanding this link will help clarify efforts aimed at support- ing creativity in the classroom, expand current conceptions of creativity, and pro- vide directions for research on creativity in educational settings. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M.  (2017).  Toward untangling creative self-beliefs.  In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.).  The creative self.  Cambridge MA: Academic Press. 

In this chapter, we argue that the way researchers (including ourselves) have conceptualized and measured creative self-beliefs may blur important distinctions amongst these beliefs.  We focus our discussion on three key self-beliefs: creative self-efficacy, creative metacognition, and creative self-concept. More specifically, we aim to clarify how these beliefs are conceptually distinct, highlight key areas of conceptual overlap, and offer our recommendations how researchers might revise or developing new measures that are more aligned with these conceptualizations.  Implications for theory and research are also discussed.

Beghetto, R. A.  (2017).  Legacy projects: Helping young people respond productively to the challenges of a changing world.  Roeper Review - special issue: Wisdom in a changing world.

How might educators help young people respond to current and future challenges of a changing world?  In this brief article I describe how educators can design Legacy Projects to provide young people with opportunities to make positive and lasting differences in their lives, schools, communities, and beyond. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C.  (2017).  Ever-broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom.  In R. A. Beghetto & J. C.  Kaufman (Eds.).  Cambridge companion to nurturing creativity in the classroom.  New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Our purpose in this chapter is to reexamine, and in some cases reinforce, conceptions of creativity that can support educators in nurturing student creativity and, at the same time, allow them to fulfill curricular requirements.


Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Educational Psychology. (link)

This article reports on a meta-analysis of 120 studies examining the relationship between creativity and academic achievement in research conducted since the 1960s. Average correlation between creativity and academic achievement was r = .22, 95% CI [.19, .24]. An analysis of moderators revealed that this relationship was constant across time but stronger when creativity was measured using creativity tests compared to self-report measures and when academic achievement was measured using standardized tests rather than grade point average. Moreover, verbal tests of creativity yielded significantly stronger relationships with academic achievement than figural tests. Theoretical and practical consequences are discussed. 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  Creative learning: A fresh look.  Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 6 - 23. 

That creativity can play a role in learning seems clear.  Creativity researchers and educational scholars have long asserted that theories of learning need to be broadened to include creative cognition.  What is less clear, however, is the specific nature of that role.  The purpose of this article is to introduce a new model of creative learning.   The article opens with a brief discussion of previous work on learning and creativity.  Next a model of creative learning is introduced, specific assertions based on the model are discussed, and an example of how the model might be applied to classroom learning is presented.  The article closes with a discussion of implications for future research on creative learning.

Beghetto, R. A. (2016).  Creative openings in the social interactions of teaching. Creativity: Theory-Research-Applications.

What role does creativity play in the social interactions of teaching?   The purpose of this article is to address this question by introducing the concept of creative openings. Creative openings refer to unexpected breaks in otherwise planned teaching interactions that result in new and meaningful insights, perspectives, and understandings.  The concept of creative openings builds on recent work that has endeavored to explore how creative thought and action can emerge in the socio-psychological and material interactions of practice.  The article opens by briefly introducing creative openings, highlights three key moments (interactional ruptures, interactional responses, and interactional outcomes) that researchers can use to examine the trajectory of creative openings, and closes with a brief example that illustrates these key moments and how they might be represented diagrammatically.  Directions for future research are also discussed.

Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  Creativity and conformity: A paradoxical relationship.  In J. A. Plucker (Ed.). Creativity and innovation: Current understandings and debates.  Waco, TX: Prufrock. [uncorrected proof]

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the paradoxical relationship between creativity and conformity by explaining how creativity can emerge from the combination of originality and conformity.  

Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative leaders define themselves in the micromoments of leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9, 72 - 74.

People tend to associate creative leaders with monumental accomplishments. In this brief provocation, I assert that creative leaders define themselves in the micromoments of everyday leadership. Also highlighted are three corollaries derived from the assertion that offer a new way of thinking about creative leadership. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams? Toward understanding creative mortification in children and adolescents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 85 - 95. [uncorrected proof]

What experiences influence the development of creativity in children and adolescents? One experience is the mortification of creative aspirations. Creative mortification (CM) refers to the loss of one’s willingness to pursue a particular creative aspiration following a negative performance outcome. The purpose of this article is to introduce an empirically testable model of CM. Specifically, the model highlights how CM can result from interpreting a negative performance outcome through the lens of internal attributions, fixed ability beliefs, and the experience of shame. The model further posits that young people’s level of aspirational commitment, the feedback they receive, and their sociocultural context can moderate their interpretations and experiences of negative performance outcomes and CM.  

Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Learning as a creative act. To appear in T. Kettler (Ed.). Modern Curriculum for Gifted and Advanced Learners. New York: Routledge.

It has been said that learning is a creative act.  Indeed some of the earliest creativity researchers have acknowledged the central role that creativity plays in academic learning.  Curriculum designers, however, sometimes view creativity and academic learning as important, but separate curricular goals .  Why might this be the case?  What is at the heart of this inconsistency?  Can we really say that learning is a creative act?  If so, what would the implications be for the design of modern curricula? The purpose of this chapter is to address these questions.

Glăveanu, V. & Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  The difference that makes a creative difference.  In R. A. Beghetto & B. Sriraman (Eds.).  Creative contradictions in education: Cross-disciplinary paradoxes and perspectives. Switzerland: Springer. 

What type of difference is favorable for creative action in classroom settings? The purpose of this chapter is to explore this question. More specifically, we attempt to highlight and untangle the role that difference plays in both creativity and education. We also highlight key tensions and contradictions that can support (or inadvertently undermine) students’ and teachers’ ability to creatively act on the difference afforded to them in the day-to-day classroom. We close with a brief discussion of future directions for research and practice.

Beghetto, R. A.  & Kaufman, (2016).  Theories of creativity.  In J. A. Plucker (Ed.). Creativity and innovation: Current understandings and debates.  Waco, TX: Prufrock. 

Theories are like containers.  They help us organize the way we think about complex topics, like creativity.  Many theories try to answer core questions about creativity, such as "Who is creative?", "How are we creative?", "Why are we creative?" and "What is creative?"  In this chapter we highlight a few theories that can help address these questions.  We all discuss how these theories can be helpful in thinking about creativity and the potential pitfalls in rigidly relying on any one theory. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A.  (2016).  Revisiting the relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity.  In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer, The Cambridge Companion to Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

[This Chapter is an updated version of Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006) . The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can't get there from here”? In J. C. Kaufman and J. Bear (Eds.).Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.]

Beghetto, R. A.  (2016). Leveraging micro-opportunities to address Macro-Problmes Toward an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Creative Intelligence in the 21st Century (pp. 159 - 174). Sense Publishers. 

The kinds of 21st Century Macroproblems facing current and future generations of teachers and students can be quite daunting if not downright demoralizing.  What, if anything, can be done to help young people develop the capacity to manage the rapid depletion of natural resources, repair widespread environmental devastation, address increasingly severe inequalities, reverse the erosion of democracy, disrupt dangerous dogmatisms, and address yet to be discovered Macroproblems?  One way to address this question is to seek out radical changes.   According to this logic, big problems require big solutions.  The purpose of this chapter is to challenge such a view and, instead, outline an argument for the importance of capitalizing on micro-opportunities presented in the everyday classroom.  On such opportunity is to use academic subject matter as a vehicle for cultivating an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking (UPT) in students and teachers.  UPT represents a motivational orientation towards problem solving that allows people to think and act in ways necessary for addressing complex and ill-defined problems.  As will be discussed students who approach problems with an unshakeable sense of possibility thinking are in a much better position to break through the crust of the Macroproblems they face and move toward more hopeful futures.

Cotter, K., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creativity in the classroom: Advice for best practices. In T. Lubart, M. Botella, X. Caroff, C. Mouchiroud, J. Nelson & F. Zenasni (Eds), Homo Creativus: The 7 C's of human creativity. New York: Springer.    

The aim of this chapter is to address how creativity can be nurtured in the classroom, including ways in which it may emerge or be stifled. Through the examination of several topics directly related to creativity and the classroom environment, we hope to instill a more thorough understanding of the psychological science behind the umbrella topic of creativity, and how to maximize development of student creativity in the classroom environment. We will close with a few recommendations for how creativity could be actively supported in the classroom. Broadening educators’ understanding of environmental influences on creativity in the education system has potential to foster classroom environments more welcoming to creative expression.

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Understanding creativity in the schools. In A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Springer Science. 

In this chapter we will review definitions and conceptions of creativity. We highlight what conceptions are most appropriate for K12 settings, noting approaches that can help in assessing and fostering creativity. Specifically, we discuss the Four C Model of creativity and implications for this model. We close by summarizing key insights and providing a list of resources for educators interested in cultivating students’ creative potential in the classroom.

Helfand, M., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A.  (2016).  The four-c model of creativity: Culture and context.  In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.).  The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research.  London, UK: Palgrave.

 There has been a broad consensus on the definition of creativity for more than 60 years, with most researchers agreeing that creativity represents to some degree of a combination of two core elements.  The first is newness, novelty, or originality.  The second is task appro- priateness, usefulness, or meaningfulness.  In this chapter we use the Four-C model to frame our discussion of how these core elements of creativity are determined by a particular sociocultural and historical context.  In short, we attempt to illustrate that creativity, culture and context are inextricably connecte.


Beghetto, R. A.  (2015).  Teaching creative thinking.  In The Routledge International Handbook of Teaching Thinking.  New York: Routledge. 

What is worth teaching?  This is a timeworn and contested question.  Teaching students to think creatively has long been viewed as one of the best ways to prepare students for an uncertain future. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of theory and research on the teaching of creative thinking in K12 settings.  The chapter opens by providing a brief historical context of teaching for creativity – discussing how creativity has long been viewed as a key educational goal that is compatible with academic learning, but has been impeded by several challenges.  Those challenges include lack of clarity of what is meant by creativity, inertia in the educational system, and a too narrowly focused curriculum.  Trends in contemporary research on teaching creative thinking are also discussed. The chapter closes with a summary of promising and needed directions for scholars interested in pursuing this line of research. 

An Interview with Ronald Beghetto (S. E. Henshon, 2015, Roeper Review,37, 119 - 123]   [pre-publication proof]

Interview conducted by Suzanna Henshon for Roeper Review

Tanggaard, L., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Ideational pathways: Toward a new approach for studying the life of ideas.  Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 2, 129 - 144. {link}

What is the life of an idea?  How do some ideas result in creative outcomes?  People interested in creativity often want to know the answers to these questions. Although there are numerous methods and measures for assessing creative persons and products, there is little by way of methods for documenting and analysing the trajectories of ideas.  The purpose of this paper is to address this need by introducing a new approach for tracing and analysing ideational pathways.  Ideational pathways refer to the trajectory of ideas in temporal and spatial dimensions.  That is, how ideas travel through time and space and whether those ideas end up resulting in creative outcomes. We open the paper by providing a theoretical and conceptual background for ideational pathways.  We then introduce an emerging approach for tracing these pathways and apply it to two examples.  We close by discussing implications and directions for future research.  

Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2015).  Promises and pitfalls in differentiating amongst the C’s of creativity.  Creativity Research Journal, 27, 1 - 2. 

In a recent CRJ Comment, Runco (2014) outlined several problems with dichotomous representations of creativity, specifically the Big C/little c distinction.  He also extended this concern to sub-distinctions such as Pro-c and mini-c.  We are sympathetic with features of his argument.  Indeed, we have made similar arguments about the problems associated with the Big C/little-c dichotomy.  Where we disagree with Runco is his claim that such labels and distinctions about creativity lack value.  We briefly outline why we feel the additional distinctions presented in our Four-C model have value in thinking about and studying creativity. 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2015).  What can creativity researchers learn from the Grey Parrot.  In A. B. Kaufman, & J.C. Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). Animal creativity and innovation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Why do creativity researchers often fail to acknowledge non-human creativity?  One reason has to do with the way we categorize our beliefs about creativity.  We often view non-human creativity as a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree.  I explore these differences in light of Pepperberg's chapter (Creativity and Innovation in the Grey Parrot).  I then briefly discuss the implications of these different views and what it might mean to creativity research if we expanded our work to include non-human examples of creativity.   

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C.  (2015).  Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective.  Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394 - 399.

Creative metacognition (CMC) refers to a combination of self- and contextual-knowledge used to make decisions about one's own creative efforts and accomplishments. This article reports on an exploratory study that examined whether elementary students' domain specific mini-c and little-c self-ratings aligned with external ratings of creativity. Students (N = 242) completed three performance tasks (i.e., a visual, verbal, and scientific task). Immediately following each task, students were asked to judge whether their resulting product was creative at the mini-c level (i.e., creative to the self, but not others) and little-c level (i.e., recognized as creative by others). External raters also scored the creativity of each completed task. Results indicate that students were able to differentiate their performance on different creative domains (i.e., visual, verbal, scientific) and across levels of quality (i.e., mini-c and little-c). In addition, their self-ratings were significant (albeit modest) predictors of creativity scores as assigned by expert raters. 


Beghetto, R. A. (2014).  Is the sky falling or expanding? A promising turning point in the psychology of creativity.  Creativity: Theories, Research, & Applications, 1, 206 - 212. 

Is the psychology of creativity in a state of crisis?  I explore this question and argue that the field of creativity studies faces an important turning point, which signifies a promising expansion and maturity of the field.  I then discuss, by way of example, how integrative models can serve as an important vehicle for moving the field forward.  I close with a brief discussion of how integrative models allow creativity researchers to capitalize on opportunities presented by the expansive growth occurring in the psychology of creativity.  

Beghetto, R. A.  (2014).  Creative Mortification: An Initial Exploration. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity And The Arts, 8, 266 - 276.  

Most people have experienced some form of creative suppression – sharing a unique and personally meaningful idea, insight, or product only to have it dismissed, ignored, or misunderstood.  Some forms of creative suppression are more profound and can result in what is herein called “creative mortification.”  Creative mortification refers to the loss of one’s willingness to pursue a particular creative aspiration following a negative performance outcome.  This article reports on a two-part exploratory study that first examined factors associated with creative mortification and then identified factors that differentiate between mortifying versus motivating experiences in a sample of prospective teachers.  In Part 1, participants (N = 99) were randomly assigned to one of two hypothetical negative feedback conditions (person-focused versus process-focused) in which they were asked to imagine how they would respond to a negative performance outcome. Results of Part 1 indicate that experiencing negative self-conscious emotions, shame in particular, and attributing negative outcomes to one’s fixed creative ability served as unique, significant predictors of creative mortification.  In Part 2, participants (N = 99) were again randomly assigned to two sets of conditions, one aimed at eliciting descriptions of prior motivating experiences the other aimed at eliciting mortifying experiences.  Results of Part 2 indicate that mortifying experiences were associated with a younger age of occurrence, negative self-conscious emotions, a desire to avoid reoccurrence of the experience, and fixed ability beliefs.  Conversely, motivating experiences were associated with an older age of occurrence, a feeling of being wronged, a desire to confute, and a belief that improvement was possible.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Looking At Creativity Through A Business-Psychology-Education (BPE) Lens: The Challenge And Benefits Of Listening To Each Other. (Pp. 9 - 30).  In Shiu, E. (Ed.).  Creativity Research: An Interdisciplinary And Multidisciplinary Research Handbook.  New York: Routledge. 

There is great potential in viewing creativity through a more integrated business-education-psychology (BPE) lens. Realizing this cross-disciplinary potential will, however, require a realistic understanding of several core issues and tensions that have maintained the trifurcation among these areas.  In this chapter we focus on one of those issues – what we call the consequencequestion -- and discuss how this issue presents not only a challenge for creativity researchers, but can also serve as opportunity for bringing together the three strands of BPE oriented creativity research.

Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2014).  Creativity and classroom management.  In W. G. Scarlett (Ed.), Classroom management: An a-to-z guide. Thousand Oaks California: Sage. 

How does one think about creativity and classroom management?  One common way is to view creativity and classroom management as contradictory: Creativity is often viewed as thriving only in settings that have limited or no constraints (e.g., requiring thought that goes “outside of the box”), whereas classroom management is typically viewed as establishing clear and consistent constraints that govern student behavior (e.g., behavior expectations, classroom rules, approaches to discipline).  Moreover, there is evidence (both anecdotal and empirical) that highly creative students sometimes struggle in school and can be viewed by their teachers as troublesome and disruptive.  But where does such a contradictory view leave teachers who value both creativity and a well-managed classroom?  We address these questions and demonstrate how creativity and classroom management are complimentary goals. 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2014).  Toward avoiding an empirical march to nowhere. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 18 -20. 

As social scientists we want to make contributions that can help us better understand and possibly change the world, even if in small ways. We endeavor—in our field of psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts—to understand and contribute insights into fundamental and complex aspects of the human experience.  In this commentary, I respond to Matthew Makel's lead article -- offering my suggestions for how we as researchers, journal editors, and reviewers might work toward strengthening our scholarly efforts in the field of Creativity Studies.

Beghetto, R. A.  (2014).  The exhibit as planned versus the exhibit as experienced.  Curator: The Museum Journal, 57, 1 - 4. 

Is it even possible to design museum exhibits that have an above average chance of engaging visitors in meaningful experiences? Museum-based researchers and designers, working over the past several decades, have endeavored to address this and other questions. Recently, a promising Ideas-People- Objects (IPO) model of the visitor experience, subsequently elaborated on to include Physical (IPOP) has been used in the design and subsequent study of visitors’ museum experiences. Here I briefly describe the model and introduce three papers featured in this issue of Curator: The Museum Journal that offer new insights and perspectives for understanding the theory behind the model, as well as features of the IPOP model that have been used in the design and interpretation of exhibitions, and a comparison of analytic techniques that produce results that can be used in IPOP-related research. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies. 

Various factors influence the development of creative potential, including everything from individual differences to the kinds of experiences and opportunities that creators experience throughout the lifespan. When it comes to nurturing creativity in the classroom, the learning environment is one of the most important factors - determining, in large part, whether creative potential will be supported (or suppressed). In short, classroom context matters. It is one thing to recognize that the classroom environment impacts the development of creative potential, it is quite another to understand just what it takes to develop an optimally supportive creative learning environment. This is because many of the features of optimal learning environments are quite subtle and even counter-intuitive. In this paper we discuss insights from the research on how teachers might establish a creativity supportive learning environment in their classroom.

Baxter, J. A., Ruzicka, A. R., Beghetto, R. A., & LIvelybrooks, D.  (2014). Professional development strategically connecting mathematics and science: The impact on teachers' confidence and practice.  School Science and Mathematics, 114, 102 - 113. {link}

This article reports on a professional development project designed to help elementary teachers improve their teaching of mathematics and science.  Participating teachers, in both math and science, reported feeling more confident in their ability to engage students in learning, to assess students’ understanding, to facilitate classroom discussions and to help students meet the requirements of state work samples.  In addition to changes in confidence, participating teachers reported changes in their instruction resulting from their participating in the professional development project.  These changes included, creating more opportunities for students to share their thinking; allowing more time for students to explain their strategies for both solving problems and investigating questions in science; and creating more opportunities for students to share their thinking.  Implications for similar professional development efforts and directions for future research are also discussed.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creativity in Schools: Renewed interest and promising new directions.  In Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. J.  (Eds.). Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools (2nd Ed.). Routledge

[This chapter is an updated version of Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: A rapidly developing area of positive psychology. For the second Edition of In Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S., & Furlong, M.J. Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Routledge.]


Beghetto, R. A. (2013).  Expect the unexpected: Teaching for creativity in the micromoments. In M. Gregerson, J. C. Kaufman, & H. Snyder (Eds.). Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. New York: Springer Science.  [request pdf]

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss ways creativity researchers and teacher educators might increase prospective teachers’ awareness and confidence in teaching for creativity in the fleeting curricular micromoments that emerge anytime a planned lesson takes an unexpected turn.  The chapter opens with a description of why and how it is important to develop in-the-moment awareness of opportunities for supporting creativity when teaching.   This is followed by a detailed overview of a simulation that has been used to help prospective teachers become more confident and competent in responding to unexpected curricular moments.  The chapter closes by briefly highlighting future directions for how to help practicing and prospective teachers support student creativity in the micromoments of their classroom.   

Beghetto, R. A.  (2013).  Creativity: Development and enhancement.  In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.).  Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd. Ed.).  Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. [request pdf]

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introductory summary of research on creativity development and enhancement that keeps an eye firmly fixed on how the research applies to educational settings.  To this end, this chapter opens by briefly defining common terms used in the research, highlights major questions addressed by the research, the kinds of conclusions that can (and cannot) be drawn from the research, and closes by highlighting practical implications and key references that might provide additional guidance for understanding creativity development and enhancement in educational settings. 

Beghetto, R. A.  (2013).  Creativity.  In D. S. Dunn (Ed.). Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology.  New York: Oxford University Press. {link}  

Creativity is a complex and compelling psychological phenomenon.  To understand creativity is to understand the varied individual, social, cultural, and historical factors that impinge on creativity.  This resource provides researchers and students with an overview of creativity in psychology, which includes over 100 annotated citations.  Topics covered include: classic works, key concepts, theoretical perspectives, and recent develops.

Beghetto, R. A. (2013).  Nurturing creativity in the micromoments of the classroom.  In K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, B. Sriramen, & L. Skidmore (Eds.). Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students: Research, theory, and practice. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [request pdf]

Surprising, everyday moments of the classroom represent defining moments when it comes to nurturing student creativity.  What teachers do in these moments has important implications for whether opportunities for nurturing student creativity will be addressed or missed.  In this chapter, I describe how teachers often find themselves choosing between attempting to be understood versus attempting to understand when confronted with unexpected micromoments.  The chapter closes with suggestions for how teachers might make slight adjustments in the ways they typically respond during these micromoments and, thereby, better support the development of students' creative potential.

Beghetto, R. A., Barbee, B., Brooks, S., Franklin-Phipps, A., Fukuda, E., Gardner-Allers, N. L., Hood, D., Raza, N., Uusitalo, N., White Eyes, C. (2013). Light bulbs, Bill Evans, and cat hair: Exploring representations of creativity and education in images, videos, and blogs.  Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 188 – 206. {link} 

This article reports on the findings from three studies that explored the question of: How is creativity and education represented in online images, videos, and blogs?  Insights into this question are of particular importance given that educators and parents interested in learning more about the nature of creativity are likely to turn to the Internet as a primary source of information.  Results of Study 1 indicate that product-based images and images that metaphorically “point to” creativity were most prevalent, potentially reinforcing product-bias and conceptually fuzzy conceptions of creativity.  Results of Study 2 indicate that videos most frequently focused on teaching with creativity (as opposed to teaching for or about creativity) and were educationally based.  Results of regression analysis indicate that the videos with the most “views” focused on producing creative behaviors, demonstration of techniques, environments that suppress creativity, and appeared earlier in the search results. Finally, the results of Study 3 indicate that blogs were equally likely to be written from the perspective of a teacher as from the perspective of a non-teacher, tended not to define creativity, and tended not to include citations.  Interestingly, however, results of regression analysis indicated that the most “liked” blogs were those written from the perspective of a teacher and defined creativity.  Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Beghetto, R. A., & Breslow, J. Z.  (2013).  A commanding survey of the creativity studies landscape: A review of Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 417 - 418. [request pdf] 

Review of the book, Explaining Creativity (2nd Ed.), edited by R. Keith Sawyer. In this book, Sawyer set out to “present the most comprehensive overview of what scientists have learned about creativity.” What Sawyer has accomplished in his second edition is no mean feat. Anyone attempting to map out such a vast and expanding landscape faces serious challenges and nontrivial responsibilities. The challenges inhere in attempting to clarify what is already known about creativity, debunking timeworn and widely held misconceptions, and documenting new discoveries. The responsibilities involve acknowledging the subjective aspects involved in attempting to develop an objective and comprehensive survey of the field and an acceptance of the consequential impact that such a work can have on readers who turn to it as a guide. Sawyer’s earnest attempt to address these challenges and meet these responsibilities provides students of creativity with a solid basis for further theoretical and empirical engagement.

Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C.  (2013).  Fundamentals of creativity  Educational Leadership, 70, 10 - 15. {full text link} 

Creativity has become a hot topic in education.   Increasingly, business leaders, major media outlets, government officials, and educational policy makers have started advocating for the development students’ creative potential as part of the 21st Century curriculum.   Renewed interest in creativity may signal new hope to educators and researchers who have long been emphasizing the importance of creativity in schools and classrooms. However, without a clear understanding of the nature of creativity itself, such well-meaning advocacy has the potential to do more harm than good.  It is easy to stress the importance of adding creativity to the curriculum. It is much harder to offer guidelines and support for the additional pressure and guilt placed on teachers to somehow add yet another thing to an already overwhelming set of curricular demands.  The purpose of this article is to highlight five fundamental insights every educator should know about creativity.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35, 155 - 165. 

Despite creativity’s many benefits and positive outcomes, there are still both explicit and implicit teacher biases against creative students. We argue that teachers do not dislike creativity, but rather dislike inappropriate creativity that can come from students at poorly chosen times. After reviewing the literature on metacognition and creativity, we propose the adapted construct of creative metacognition (CMC), a combination of self knowledge (knowing one’s own creative strengths and limitations) and contextual knowledge (knowing when, where, how, and why to be creative). We end with ways that teachers can raise students’ CMC. 

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the Four Cs?  Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 229 - 236. {link} 

Researchers examine implicit beliefs about creativity to understand what laypeople think. Past work has looked at cultural differences, characteristics associated with creativity, and the positive or negative valence that people feel toward creativity. In this study, we focused on the Four C Model of Creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) to discover if laypeople perceive nuances in different levels of accomplishment. We found that although Pro-c and little-c merged into one factor, Big-C, mini-c, and Not-C (not creative) were distinguishable. Personality (particularly agreeableness and openness) predicted how participants rated different levels of creativity.


Beghetto, R. A., & Baxter, J.  (2012).  Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 942 - 960

This study had the goal of investigating the association among elementary students’ (N = 276) science and math beliefs and the relationship of those beliefs with teachers’ ratings of mathematical and science understanding.   Results of structural path analysis indicate that in science, intellectual risk-taking (the willingness to share tentative ideas, ask questions, attempting to do and learn new things) was positively related to teachers’ ratings of science understanding, while creative self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., students’ confidence in their ability to generate ideas and solutions in science) were indirectly related (working through intellectual risk-taking).  Results also indicate that students’ scientific certainty beliefs (i.e., the belief that science knowledge is stable, fixed and represented by correct answers) were negatively related to teachers’ ratings of science understanding. With respect to math, results indicate that students’ creative self-efficacy beliefs were positively related to teachers’ ratings of math understanding; whereas students’ mathematical source beliefs (i.e., believing that math knowledge originates from external sources) were negatively related. 

Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., Hegarty, B., Hammond, H., & Wilcox-Herzog, A.  (2012).  Cultivating creativity, play and leisure in early childhood education: A 4 C perspective.  In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.).  Contemporary perspectives on Creativity in Early Childhood Education.  Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. [request pdf]

Most parents and early childhood educators readily recognize the value of unstructured, imaginative play; many also feel the pressure to spend more time preparing young children for academic learning and performance expectations they will encounter in K-12 schooling and beyond.  Almost everywhere parents and early childhood educators turn they are bombarded by messages promoting structured and direct academic preparation at ever-younger ages (from womb to cradle to classroom).  In this chapter we argue that placing too great an emphasis on structured learning in early childhood education can stifle the development of learning and creativity.    We hope to demonstrate that a more balanced approach to early childhood education – informed by a broader conception of creativity –will better prepare students for life-wide learning and creativity.   We open the chapter by briefly discussing the nature of creativity.  We then introduce the Four C model of creativityand discuss how the broader conception of creativity represented in the Four C model provides a new way of thinking about how early childhood educational experiences can serve as a foundation for cultivating meaningful learning and creativity.


Beghetto, R. A. (2011). Toward replacing fear of unknown educational futures with creative possibilities: A review of Creativity and Education Futures. Thinking Skills and Creativity. [request pdf]

Review of thebook, Creativity and Education Futures by Anna Craft . We, as humans, generally fear the unknown.  This fear is amplified by any hint of danger.  It should therefore come as no surprise that parents and educators might harbor fears about children participating in the ever changing and somewhat unknown digital landscapes of social media, wiki’s, on-line gaming and other electronically mediated experiences.  Such fears are underwritten by legitimate digital pitfalls and dangers (e.g., Will children be misinformed, duped, endlessly distracted, cyber-bullied or worse?).  Still, even in light of such concerns, parents and educators want to do all they can to prepare children for the future -- one of the greatest unknowns of human existence --  and many recognize that digitally mediated learning experiences offer youngsters a ticket on the express train toward a vast array of exciting and important future possibilities.   Anna Craft invites readers into the very heart of this issue and challenges us -- as parents, educators, concerned global citizens --  to actively engage with the educational possibilities of the digital age so that youngsters can more wisely and creatively participate in shaping their own futures. 

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [request pdf]

Teachers often worry that inviting creativity into the classroom will result in curricular chaos.  At the same time most teachers generally value student creativity and worry that too great a focus on covering content can turn the act of teaching into little more than series of scripted monologues, delivered to a room full of passive students. The seemingly conflicting concerns and commitments result in the teaching paradox; teachers find themselves balancing two inverse tensions:  (1) teaching requisite academic subject matter while still wanting to foster student creativity and (2) wanting to allow for creativity yet fearing curricular chaos.  In this chapter, we address these tensions and discuss how teachers can, through disciplined improvisation, address the teaching paradox. We show how teachers can have enough structure for academic work to be productive, and at the same time allow for the improvisation necessary to encourage student creativity. We open the chapter by arguing that the teaching paradox results from the gap between the curriculum-as-planned and curriculum-as-lived.  We then introduce our elaboration on the concept of disciplined improvisation and discuss how this concept can help address the teaching paradox.

Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J.  (2011).  Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts.

Two studies explored the relationship between elementary students’ creative self-efficacy (CSE) beliefs (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) and teachers’ ratings of students’ creativity. In Study 1, elementary students’ (N = 595) CSE beliefs in science predicted teachers’ ratings of students’ creative expression in science, accounting for a significant, but small (3.4%), proportion of variation in teachers’ ratings.  Results of Study 1 also indicate that students’ CSE beliefs tended to decline by grade level. Teacher ratings did not vary by grade level, but teachers tended to rate females and White students as more creative. In Study 2, elementary students’ (N = 306) CSE beliefs in science and math predicted teachers’ ratings of creative expression in math and science, again accounting for a significant, but small (2.1% in science; 4.2% in math), proportion of variation in teachers’ ratings. Also similar to Study 1, results indicate students’ CSE beliefs declined by grade level.  Results of Study 2 indicate that students tended to underestimate their creative ability and tended to differentiate between creative ability in science and math (whereas their teachers did not). Implications for creativity research are discussed.

Beghetto, R. A.  & Samek, L.  (2011).  Sowing the seeds of multi-institutional collaborative research.  In H. Rosselli, M. Girod, & M. Brodsky (Eds.).  Connecting teaching and learning: History, evolution and case studies of teacher work sample methodology.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

In chapter we provide a brief introduction and overview of the genesis and development of a collaborative research initiative comprised of researchers and teachers educators representing nearly a dozen public and private teacher education institutions. Specifically, we describe the historical context out of which this collaborative research initiativeemerged – highlighting how the process was seeded and grew into what developed into a set of three robust, interrelated studies.  We then highlight the goals of each project and close with a brief discussion of key supports and challenges in attempting to develop and sustain this type of project.

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Pourjalali, S. (2011). Criatividade na sala de aula:Uma perspectiva internacional (Creativity in the classroom: An international perspective). In S. M. Wechsler & V. L. Trevisan (Eds.), Criatividade e aprendizagem: caminhos e perspectivas internacionais (Creativity and learning: International paths and perspectives) (p. 53-72). Brazil: Edicoes Loyola.

In this chapter, we present the creativity in the classroom from an international perspective. We hope to highlight how creativity has been conceptualized in countries around the world. We will first define how creativity is perceived across cultures. Next we discuss that, although creativity is often valued across cultures, there are several obstacles that stand in the way it is stimulated in the classroom. Finally, we discuss the conditions necessary to promote student's creativity and finish by addressing the importance of developing broader conceptions of creativity on the part of educators.

Kaufman, J. C., Davis, C. D., & Beghetto, R. A.  (2011).  Why creativity should matter, why it doesn’t and what we can do.  In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.).  How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking.  New York: Routledge.

In this chapter, we discuss why creativity should matter in educational settings, why it often doesn't seem to, and what concerned educators, parents and researches might do to ensure that creativity finds a meaningful role in the curriculum.  We present an overview of research highlighting this issue and offer practical suggestions for how creativity might take a more meaningful place in the learning and lives of students and teachers.


Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [download]

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the conflicted nature of creativity in the classroom. The chapter opens with a brief discussion of creativity as a mainstream curricular goal. Next, a variety of common barriers to creativity in the classroom are discussed along with considerations for how creativity researchers might help address these barriers. The chapter closes by highlighting key directions for future research.

Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Prospective Teachers' Prior Experiences with Creativity Suppression.International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 20, 29 - 36.

The purpose of this study was to provide an initial exploration of prospective teachers' personal experiences with intellectual hide-and-seek during their prior K-12 schooling experience. Intellectual hide-and-seek (IHS) refers to an instructional practice in which students learn to suppress their own unique insights and ideas in favor of providing responses and ideas that they think their teachers expect and want to hear. Results indicated that all but one prospective teacher reported having had experienced IHS in their prior K-12 schooling experience and the elementary grades (1 st – 5 th ) were disproportionately selected as the first time prospective teachers experienced IHS. Implications of these results, along with prospective teachers' descriptions of their experiences with IHS, are also discussed.

Beghetto, R. A. (2010). How open are we to the challenges of everyday creativity?  A review of Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 3, 127 - 129.

Review of thebook, Everyday creativity and new views of human nature, edited by Ruth Richards . In this book, Richards and her contributors both invite and challenge readers to explore the multifaceted opportunities and transformative potential of everyday creativity. Contributors to the volume represent a surprisingly broad range of disciplines, traditions, units of analysis, and perspectives. The volume opens with an essay by Richards that effectively introduces the concept of everyday creativity and the focus of the book. After the introduction, contributors to Part 1 of the book challenge readers to be open to the potential for creativity in our everyday experiences. The contributors to the second part of Richards’s volume offer arguments, speculations, and challenges to rethink the possibilities (and responsibilities) of social and global creativity. Taken together, the essays not only underscore the elegance and transformative power of the concept of everyday creativity but also directly challenge readers to rethink their own conceptions of creativity.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010).   Broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom.   In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds).  Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Educators committed to creativity often wonder: Is it really possible to infuse creativity in an already overpacked curriculum and still adhere to the curricular standards and constraints? In this chapter we address this question by discussing how a broader conception of creativity can support educators in nurturing student creativity and, at the same time, allow them to fulfill curricular requirements.

Kaufman, J.C. & Beghetto, R. A.  (2010).  Creativity in the classroom coda: 20 key points and other insights.   In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds).  Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

In this coda we offer a summery of key themes and insights found in our edited book Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom.  Theses themes and insights about how to better support creativity in the classroom include: the importance of broadening our own conceptions of creativity; the power of classroom ideas from other cultures; the necessity of being aware of limiting myths and misconceptions; the urgency of supporting creativity in students from traditionally underserved and marginalized groups; the need to understand the role of  motivation, domain-specific knowledge, technology, context and constraints; and the multiple ways to teach, learn about, and support creativity in the classroom.    

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J. & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creative polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning & Individual Difference, 20, 380 - 387. 

Creative polymathy at the very highest levels is rare, but this is largely the result of the long period of training usually necessary to become proficient in any field. We explain why creative polymathy is not ruled out by arguments for the domain specificity of creativity and argue that considerations of multiple levels of creativity (Big-C, Pro-c, little-c, and mini-c) lead to the conclusion that creative polymathy may actually be fairly common. We use a hierarchical model of creativity (the APT Model) to help understand some constraints on and possibilities for creative polymathy, suggest different ways creative polymathy may be expressed and offer guidelines for recognizing and nurturing creative polymathy in students.

Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

This chapter provides a comparative review of major contemporary theories of creativity. The chapter is organized into two major sections. The first section presents a discussion of how the theories will be classified and compared, highlighting key challenges, considerations, and limitations involved in such an endeavor. The second part of the chapter presents an overview of ten categories of contemporary creativity theories, highlighting the underlying assertions, key concepts, major studies, and contemporary exemplars associated with each theoretical category. The chapter closes with a brief discussion of future directions and considerations for the future development of theories of creativity. 

Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Baer, J. (2010).  Finding young Paul Robesons: Exploring the question of creative polymath.  In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Press (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 141 - 162).  New York: Springer.

Paul Robeson attained high levels of creative accomplishment in many areas (academics, athletics, acting, music, and social justice).   People who excel creatively in so many different areas stand out because of their rarity. We will in this chapter that the scarcity of large numbers of multi-domain geniuses does not necessarily mean that creative polymathy (i.e., being creative in more than one domain) is impossible, or even highly unlikely, and we will make some tentative suggestions of ways we might identify and nurture the multi-creative abilities of students.



Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210 - 223.

This study had the goal of exploring factors associated with elementary students' (N = 585) reports of intellectual risk taking in science. Intellectual risk taking (IRT) was defined as engaging in adaptive learning behaviors (e.g., sharing tentative ideas, asking questions, attempting to do and learn new things) that placed the learner at risk of making mistakes or appearing less competent than others . Results of hierarchical regression indicate that students' reports of IRT declined by grade-level , but were positively related to interest in science, creative self-efficacy, and perceptions of teacher support. Of all the factors considered, interest in science was found to have the strongest unique and positive relationship with students' reports of intellectual risk taking in science.

Beghetto, R.A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts, 3, 2 - 5.

This article explores how micro-moments of the classroom -- brief, easy to miss interactions between teachers and students -- can play a large role in determining whether students' creative potential is supported or undermined. One particular micro-moment, which occurs when students' unexpected ideas are dismissed by teachers, is examined. Potential reasons why teachers might routinely dismiss student ideas, consequences of such dismissals for students, and considerations for addressing this problem are also discussed.

Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Everyday creativity. In Kerr, B. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent. Thousand Oaks California: Sage.

Discussions of creativity often invoke images of artistic masterpieces, trend setting musical accomplishments and scientific and technological breakthroughs. Yet, such images can cast a shadow on everyday expressions of creativity. This entry highlights the nature and transformative potential of everyday creativity – considering how it might be nurtured in schools, classrooms, and daily life.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Do we all have multicretaive potential? ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 39 - 44.

Are only certain people destined to be multicreative – capable of unique and meaningful contributions across unrelated domains? In this article, we argue that all students have multicreative potential. We consider this argument in light of different conceptions of creativity and assert that the likelihood of expressing muticreative potential varies across levels of creativity (most likely at individual and everyday levels of creativity; least likely at professional and eminent levels of creativity). We close by offering considerations for how math educators might nurture the multicreative potential of their students.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting learning and creativity in programs of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 296 - 324.

Efforts aimed at nurturing creativity and academic learning sometimes are represented as two related but separate paths. We argue that this separation is unnecessary and can undermine the development of creative and academic potential. In this paper, we consider this split in light of interpretive conceptions of creativity (i.e., “mini-c”) and learning (i.e., socio-cultural perspectives) to demonstrate the connection between creativity and academic learning. Finally, we close by offering the metaphor of Intellectual Estuaries for describing how programs of advanced academics can simultaneously support student learning and creativity.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1 - 12.

Most investigations of creativity tend to take one of two directions: everyday creativity (also called “little-c”) and eminent creativity (also called “Big-C”). In this paper, we propose a Four C model of creativity, in which we add the idea of “mini-c,” creativity inherent in the learning process, and Pro-c, the developmental and effortful progression beyond little-c that represents professional-level expertise in any creative area. We then discuss advantages and examples of the Four C Model.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Creativity in the schools: A rapidly developing area of positive psychology. In Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S., & Furlong, M.J. Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Routledge.

Often creativity in the schools is seen as a footnote, afterthought, or as an extra-curricular activity. In this chapter, we explore how a new idea that we have been developing, called “mini-c” creativity is important for broadening educators' conceptions of creativity and its role in schools and classrooms. We then discuss the conditions necessary for nurturing students' development of creativity; including: issues surrounding the assessment of creativity and the types of educational environments conducive to nurturing creative development and expression.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Exploring the Four-C model of creativity: Implications for giftedness. To appear in N. L. Hafenstein, & B. Crammond. (Eds.). Perspectives in Gifted Education: Creativity. Denver, CO.: University of Denver.

When most people think of creatively gifted individuals, images of eminent trend setters and innovative pioneers typically come to mind. Many people also recognize that creativity can occur in the everyday settings of schools and classrooms. In this chapter, we discuss the Four-C model of creativity, which expands this dichotomy. We explore the significance of this model for gifted education.

Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., Beghetto, R. A., Burgess, S. A., & Persson, R. S. (2009). Creative giftedness: Beginnings, developments, and future promises (pp. 585 - 598). I L. Shavinina (Ed.),International Handbook of Giftedness. New York: Springer.

In this chapter we highlight how creative giftedness research has differentiated itself from intelligence. Next, we will describe five recent theories of intelligence that involve a creative component and discuss recent advances in creativity research that have implications for creative giftedness such as the concepts of “mini c,” intelligent testing, and dynamic assessment.

Rosiek, J., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Emotional scaffolding: The emotional and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas. (Eds.). Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers' lives. New York: Springer. 

In this chapter we consider the emotional and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning, how these dimensions often are neglected, and how the concept of “emotional scaffolding” offers a way for teachers (and researchers) to consider how to more positively incorporate emotion and imagination in classroom teaching and learning. We close by discussing case-studies of teachers who have successfully used emotional scaffolding to engage their students' imagination, support positive student emotions and enrich student learning.


Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective Teachers' Beliefs about Imaginative Thinking in K-12 Schooling.Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 134 - 142.

This study examined prospective teachers' (N = 176) beliefs about the role that memorization and imaginative thinking play in K-12 schooling. Results indicate that a significantly disproportionate number of prospective teachers selected the elementary grades (and 1 st grade in particular) as the time when students should be encouraged to focus more on memorization. Results of logistic regression analysis indicate that prospective teachers who viewed unexpected student responses as ideal were significantly more likely to believe that it was never appropriate to place more emphasis on memorization. Prospective teachers' justifications for their beliefs and implications for future research are also discussed.

Beghetto, R.A. (2008). Creativity in schools and classrooms: An introduction to the special issue.International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving.

Creativity occupies somewhat of a paradoxical position in schools and classrooms; while most educators see the value of creativity, uncertainty about how to support it -- in light of external curricular pressures, constraints, and commitments -- may result in lost opportunities to nurture it Contributors to this special issue focus on addressing various issues related to the topic of creativity in schools and classroom.

Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Creativity. In N. J. Salkin Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology.Thousand Oaks California: Sage.

The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the nature of creativity discuss implications of creativity scholarship for educational psychologists. We argue that educational psychologists have a unique opportunity to bridge complementary programs of research such that existing knowledge can be brought to bear on the advancement of what is known regarding the relationship between human learning and creative expression.

Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Exploring “mini-c:” Creativity across cultures. In R. L. DeHaan & K. M. Narayan (Eds.). Education for Innovation in India , China and America. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

In this chapter we explore creativity across different cultures. We start by examining what is meant by “creativity”—highlighting a false dichotomy between eminent and everyday creativity that is found across many cultures. We then discuss how cross-cultural approaches to creativity are more complex than simply being individualist vs. collectivist. Finally, we then discuss how new conceptions of creativity (i.e., mini-c creativity) can impact negative teacher perceptions of creativity that have been found across cultures around the world.


Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2007). Darwinian creativity in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 19, 375-379.

The present article considers the debate between Darwinian and non-Darwinian accounts of creativity from the perspective of little-c (or everyday) creativity. Specifically, the basic arguments found in both positions are highlighted by juxtaposing Simonton's empirical analysis of Picasso's Guernica sketches with Weisberg's and Hass' analysis. Unresolved issues in this debate are identified and discussed. The body of the article is focused on developing an argument for how these lingering issues might be addressed by expanding empirical studies of Big C (eminent) creative processes to include little-c (or everyday) levels of creative magnitude.

Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Factors associated with middle and secondary students' perceived science competence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 800 - 814.

The aim of the present study was to gain a better understanding of students' perceived science competence by examining potentially related beliefs and perceptions in a diverse sample of middle and secondary students ( N = 1289). Results of hierarchical regression analysis showed that students' perceived science competence was related to: (a) students' age, gender, and ethnicity; (b) students' mastery and performance-approach goals; (c) students' self-perceptions of their ability to generate creative ideas (i.e., creative self-efficacy); and (d) students' perceptions of teacher support and press (i.e., challenging academic demands). Of all these factors, creative self-efficacy was found to have the strongest positive relationship with students' perceived science competence. Implications for subsequent research are discussed.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the expert-performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18, 59 - 61.

Creativity scholarship generally focuses on one two forms of creative performance: eminent creativity (Big-C) or everyday creativity (little-c). Recent work on a new construct, mini-c, has taken a developmental perspective. The expert-performance framework is consistent with such trajectory-like views of creative performance, which argue that Big-C is more likely influenced by intense deliberate practice within a particular domain than some special, genetic endowment of a few individuals. The necessity of some gatekeeper subjective judgment is also noted.

Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Prospective teachers' beliefs about students' goal orientations: A carry-over effect of prior schooling experiences? Social Psychology of Education, 10, 171 - 191.

This study examined the relationship between prospective teachers' ( N = 166) retrospective perceptions of their own past achievement goals and their current beliefs about students' goal orientations and achievement behaviors. Results of hierarchical regression analysis provide correlation evidence in support of a “carry-over effect” of prospective teachers' past goal orientations on their current beliefs about students. Specifically, prospective teachers' were found to believe that their future students will pursue goal orientations analogous to their own past goal orientations. In addition, prospective teachers' explanations for why students might engage in or avoid achievement-directed behaviors were examined. Regardless of past goal orientation, “internal motives” (e.g., improvement and self-satisfaction) represented the most frequent explanation offered by prospective teachers for why students engage in achievement behaviors. Prospective teachers with past performance-approach goals were significantly more likely to view avoidance as a sign of “laziness,” whereas those with past performance-avoidant goals were more likely to view avoidance as resulting from a “lack of confidence and support.” Implications for subsequent research are discussed.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1 , 73-79.

In this paper we argue that a new category of creativity, called “mini-c” creativity, is needed to advance creativity theory and research. Mini-c creativity differs from little-c (everyday) or Big-C (eminent) creativity as it refers to the creative processes involved in the construction of personal knowledge and understanding. We discuss how the category of mini-c creativity addresses gaps in current conceptions of creativity, offers researchers a new and important unit of analysis, and helps to better frame the domain question in creativity research. Implications for creativity research are also discussed.


Why is it that so many teachers espouse a value for creativity, yet do not actively support the expression of creativity in their own classroom? The present article offers considerations for how teachers can begin to reconcile their value for creativity with a pedagogy that supports it. First, teachers' experience of finding themselves caught in the middle between valuing creativity and helping students conform to the constraints of the classroom is considered. Next, the role that constraints play in creativity is discussed. Finally, a new way of thinking about creative expression, called ideational code-switching, is proposed. Ideational code-switching represents the ability to move between intrapersonal creative interpretations and interpersonal creative expression. The article closes with considerations for how teachers might support students' ideational code switching and thereby encourage creative expression in their classroom.


The purpose of this study was to examine prospective middle and secondary teachers' preferences for unique versus relevant student responses during classroom discussions. Results indicate that, on average, prospective teachers ( N = 70) preferred relevance to uniqueness in student responses. In addition, results of regression analysis indicate that prospective teachers' preference for unique responses varied as a function of grade level and academic subject area. Finally, analysis of written explanations revealed nuanced reasons for prospective teachers' preferences ranging from viewing unique responses as potentially distracting to viewing any response as acceptable because of a desire to encourage student participation. Implications for future research and teacher education are discussed.


The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of what is known about creativity enhancement. The chapter is organized into seven sections. First, key definitions and major questions addressed by research on creativity enhancement are discussed. Next, conclusions that can be drawn from creativity enhancement research are summarized. Then, limitations and practical implications of creativity enhancement research are discussed. The chapter closes with a summary of what is known about creativity enhancement and a list of research-based sources.


In this chapter I draw on contemporary creativity scholarship to examine common conceptual pitfalls in creativity research and practice. I then offer considerations for how these pitfalls might be addressed by teachers and researchers so that teachers will be in a better position to maximize students' creative potential in the classroom.


Not all students have a positive schooling experience. Some students are skeptical about the value of school, feel marginalized, disengaged, and sometimes even attempt to disrupt the classroom learning process. Students who are disaffected with schooling are a great concern for educators. This entry highlights insights and considerations for motivating students in classroom settings.



Prospective teachers ( N = 117) enrolled in an introductory educational psychology course completed questions measuring their perceptions of past schooling experiences, current views regarding the importance of promoting student creativity, and their perceived ability to promote creativity. Statistically significant differences were found between the low importance and high importance groups. Prospective teachers who viewed promoting creativity of students as highly important were significantly less likely to indicate that they enjoyed school. In addition, prospective teachers in the high importance group indicated significantly lower levels of experiencing belongingness (relatedness) and significantly lower self-judgments of their past ability to be successful in school (competence). Judgments regarding the choices afforded in school (autonomy) were mixed, but favored prospective teachers who placed less importance on promoting student creativity. Finally, prospective teachers who viewed promoting student creativity as highly important were significantly more likely to indicate that they had the ability to promote student creativity. A creative-justice hypothesis was derived from these results. This hypothesis posits that individuals committed to promoting creativity are driven by their own past experiences with creativity diminishing environments. These individuals then seek out opportunities to transform the experiences of new inhabitants in similar environments.


This study examined correlates of creative self-efficacy (i.e., self-judgments of creative ability) in middle and secondary students ( N = 1322). Results indicate that students' mastery and performance-approach beliefs and teacher feedback on creative ability were positively related to students' creative self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy was also linked to student reports of their teachers not listen to them and sometimes feeling that their teachers had given up on them. Students with higher levels of creative self-efficacy were significantly more likely to hold more positive beliefs about their academic abilities in all subject areas and were significantly more likely to indicate that they planned to attend college than students with lower levels of creative self-efficacy. Finally, students with higher levels of creative self-efficacy were significantly more likely to report higher levels of participation in after school academics and after school group activities. Implications for creativity research and practice are discussed.


The experience of schooling sometimes leaves little room for student imagination and curiosity. To the extent that formal schooling homogenizes student knowledge and behavior, educators interested in promoting creativity have reason to worry. But does purposeful, school-based learning necessarily come at the cost of student creativity? The purpose of this chapter is to examine this question. In this chapter we explore the relationship between knowledge, creativity, and schooling. We highlight potential sources of marginalization and present a case for the relationship between creativity and learning and the need for educators to focus on supporting student creativity.


The purpose of this chapter is to provide insight into how instructional leaders can meet the challenge of cultivating and sustaining a learning-focused school community. The chapter starts with a definition of learning-focused communities and highlights challenges inherent in cultivating these communities. The next section addresses the question of why students engage in or avoid achievement-directed behavior. Then follows a discussion of how the school community influences student and teacher outcomes. The chapter closes with considerations for cultivating a school wide focus on student learning.


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the importance of clarifying student learning goals and offer considerations for selecting strategies that promote the attainment of those goals. We begin the chapter with a brief discussion of what learning means and highlight various perspectives of learning. We then explain the nature of school learning and discuss how instructional leaders can support teachers in promoting the learning process. Next, we clarify three types of learning goals: cognitive, behavioral, and motivational. We close the chapter by offering considerations for selecting research-based instructional strategies to ensure the successful attainment of student learning goals.

Beghetto, R. A., & Ketterlin Geller, L. (2006). Ensuring learning through progress monitoring. In S. C. Smith and P. K. Piele (Eds ). School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence (4th. Ed.). Corwin Press.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of progress monitoring and offer considerations for how to manage this process. The first two sections define progress monitoring and highlight the importance of using multiple sources of information. We then discuss how instructional leaders can improve the interpretation and use of information generated by this process. We also comment on the importance of communicating progress. The final section provides an example of a school district that used progress monitoring to help meet learning goals.



A culture of isolation pervades the practice and preparation of teachers. Consequently, the development of teachers can be delayed and result in a focus on self-concerns rather than promoting student learning. Teacher educators have a unique opportunity to address this problem by creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration amongst pre-service teachers, supervisors, and faculty. The purpose of this article is to describe our experiences with an on-going collaborative teacher development project aimed at helping pre-service teachers to see beyond their personal concerns and work collaboratively toward promoting their own, their colleagues, and their students' learning. The body of the article is devoted to a description of the genesis of the project and an overview of the project's activities. We close the article with a description of our own and our students' experiences with the first attempt at integrating this project into our graduate elementary teacher education program.


Does assessment kill creativity? In this article, creativity is defined and discussed and an overview of creativity and motivational research is provided to describe how assessment practices can influence students' creativity. Recommendations for protecting creativity when assessing students also are provided.


This study examined potential differences between preservice teachers who held positive self-judgments of their test taking ability (positive self-judgers) and preservice teachers who held negative self-judgment of their test-taking ability (negative self-judgers). Preservice teachers (N = 87) enrolled in an introductory evaluation-for-decision-making course completed questions that measured views of testing. Significant differences in past experiences with testing, current views of testing, and future use of tests existed between positive and negative self-judgers. Positive self-judgers held significantly more favorable views regarding how accurately classroom and statewide assessments had measured their knowledge. On average, negative self-judgers attributed their poor test-taking performance to "bad tests," whereas positive self-judgers attributed their poor performance to a lack of preparation. Positive self-judgers were significantly more likely to agree that tests in general provide useful information. Negative self-judgers were significantly more likely to question the accuracy of information from statewide achievement tests and the fairness of classroom tests. Positive self-judgers intended to use tests in their classroom and to trust the results of classroom tests that they administered to a significantly greater degree than did negative self-judgers.



The question of whether creativity is domain general or domain specific is one of the most enduring controversies in the field. Strong opinions are regularly shared in support of both positions, which has led to a polarization of the debate. The dominant perspective currently appears to be that of domain specificity, probably due in large part to the pendulum swing toward situated cognition in the social sciences in general. However, considerable evidence supports the idea that creativity has both specific and general components, and that the level of specificity-generality changes with the social context and as one develops through childhood into adulthood. The authors present their position that creativity is a developmental construct that can be viewed as exhibiting both domain-specific and domain-general characteristics. Furthermore, they argue that from an educational perspective, these distinctions simply are not very important. In this chapter, they present their conception of creativity, describe why creativity can (and should) be viewed as both context-free and context-dependent, and review the theoretical, empirical, and educational implications of this conceptualization using a preliminary model drawn from their analysis.


The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the assessment of students' motivational beliefs. The body of the article is focused on a particular type of motivational belief, namely, beliefs involving achievement goal orientations. I explain why these beliefs are an important aspect of academic learning, and suggest how teachers can incorporate assessments of them within existing classroom routines.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-97.

The construct of creativity has a great deal to offer educational psychology. Creativity appears to be an important component of problem-solving and other cognitive abilities, healthy social and emotional well-being, and scholastic and adult success. Yet the study of creativity is not nearly as robust as one would expect, due in part to the preponderance of myths and stereotypes about creativity that collectively strangle most research efforts in this area. The root cause of these stereotypes is the lack of adequate precision in the definition of creativity. The body of the article is devoted to specific suggestions for conceptualizing and defining creativity to maximize its potential contributions to educational psychology.

2003 (and earlier)


In this chapter we discuss persistent issues limiting creativity enhancement efforts in schools. We outline and discuss these issues, highlight promising new directions for promoting creativity, and close with considerations for how these practices can be incorporated into school settings.


Post-secondary students in the applied professions (e.g., business, education, psychology) often see the value of creativity to their future work, but have never had the opportunity to critically examine their assumptions about creativity. A more critically examined and substantiated understanding of creativity can go a long way in helping pre-professional students consider how creativity might be best applied and cultivated in their future professional work. The purpose of this article is to discuss how principles of critical thinking can be brought to bear on understanding creativity. First, a discussion of the importance of critically examining the basic assumptions surrounding creativity will be presented. Then, a pedagogical framework for incorporating critical thinking into the examination of creativity will follow. Finally, an example of how the model might be used with post-secondary students will be presented, followed by a brief conclusion.


Students are increasingly using the World Wide Web (Web) as a science resource, especially to gather information on a variety of topics. The abundance of information on the Web makes it an especially tantalizing source of information, but not one without considerable risks due to its size and the inability of most Web search engines to organize and prioritize their search results. The purpose of this study was to examine searching patterns of students using the Web as a science information resource. We present cases of both successful and unsuccessful student experiences. Previous research demonstrates that domain knowledge and search expertise are particularly important in terms of students finding information on the Web. In light of these findings, we attempted to (a) provide detailed accounts of how students use the Web as a science resource, (b) illuminate how the different levels of domain knowledge, search expertise, and situational interest impact students' ability to find useful and relevant information on the Web, and (c) draw inferences about the types of tools and scaffolding needed by students when using the Web as a science resource. Detailed case descriptions of students' experiences facilitate discussion of how educators may integrate this popular information source more efficiently and effectively in their classrooms.


This study examined author trends in creativity scholarship through examining authors and articles in the Journal of Creative Behavior during the period 1968-1998. 1,159 articles were examined concerning identification of highly productive authors, 1st-time authors, possible trends in the research topics of 1-time authors. Results show that the field of creativity is similar to other scientific fields in respect to its author contribution distribution. There was a positive trend in 1-time contributors. The 16 prolific contributors contributing 6+ articles to the journal are no longer active.


In this article I discuss the importance of parental involvement at the middle level and present an alternative avenue for parental involvement—the use of virtual communities. More specifically, I outline how virtual communities can promote positive parental involvement,and I consider the benefits and limitations of implementing such technologies.


In this article we analyzed the content of popular creativity texts. Data were gathered from nine books in an effort to aid text-selection for college-level creativity courses. Results revealed that all the texts were well-written and compelling. Although each author promoted his or her own perspective, most made an effort to provide additional breadth of coverage. A brief overview of the nine books, with a focus on each text's strengths with respect to use in a college-level creativity course, is provided.