Creativity Essay

Creativity is a hard phenomenon to be measured, for it is a complex concept that encompasses a lot of domains; it is not specific to a certain field, rather it is manifested in different ways. Throughout the years, researches have tried to come up with a variety of methods to assess the occurrence and the development of the creative abilities individuals possess, each depending on a different perspective. As mentioned in the previous sections, creativity was considered an exceptional gift only certain people are endowed with, the reason why, at that time, there was no need for assessment, for it was recognized through the exceptional achievement of those “exceptional individuals”; their outcome is sufficient to tell how creative they are. Barboot,

How (how much) creative is this student? And how (and where) is this student creative? The first question refers to eminent creativity; things like scientific articles, musical compositions, etc. ability rarely observed in the general population. The second question views creativity as a potency in every individual. According to the monologue, as stated in Assessing Creativity in the Classroom by Barboot, Besancon, Lubart (2011, p. 60). “The assumption behind this approach is that, by measuring a component of creative potential, one can have a good estimation of creative potential without distinction of the components, type of task, or domain of creative expression.” The last question “goes beyond the notion of status’ ‘degree’ or ‘level’ of creative potential It underlies the form that creative potential can take and it implicitly includes both questions where is and how the creative potential of this student is expressed across various dimensions? It emphasizes the importance of considering the multidimensionality and domain specificity of construct of creativity, when assessing creative potential in

The way the latter was measured may bring some insight into the measurement of creativity, the reason why the following is a single example on how intelligence was measured. In Implicit Theories of Artistic Scientific, and Everyday Creativity Runco and Bahleda states that the most telling investigation of implicit theories of intelligence is that of Sternberg, Conway, ketron, and Bernstein (1981) “ they approached individuals (a) in a railroad station, (b) in a supermarket, and (c) in a college library, and asked them to list characteristics of intelligence, everyday intelligence, academic intelligence, or unintelligence…They also asked the individuals to rate their own intelligence on a nine point scale. After these data were collected, Sternberg et al (1981) compiled a list which included all characteristics given by the participants.” As a result, individuals in the library generated many of the same characteristics for academic intelligence while individuals in the railway station and supermarket had reliable prototype for everyday intelligence. Sternberg (1985) differentiated between two types of theories, explicit and implicit. Implicit theories help evaluating the “social validity” of psychometric examinations, for they are derived from individual’s belief. They are based on the idea that judgments given by significant individuals have more real-word contextual relevance than purely objective