Teaching Creativity

H. YUEN TEACHING VISUAL ARTS CREATIVITY 1

A Literature Review of Teaching Creativity in Visual Arts

There is an age old question of whether creativity can be taught, or whether it is innately

within people from birth. This question is pertinent to art educators because it is the

quintessence of art and what art educators strive to accomplish. Clark (1986) and Smilan (in

press) stated if creativity is viewed as novelty, then creativity must exist isolated without any

other influences. By this definition, art educators would not be necessary because students

would develop creativity on their own. This view of creativity would be the nature view. There

is also the nurture point of view of creativity which states that it may be taught.

Common themes on creativity emphasize the importance of materials, environment,

lesson design and assessment as ways in which these aspects affect students’ creativity. Before

discussing these aspects, a working definition of creativity, a history of creativity and why

creativity is important must be established.

Defining Creativity

Creativity is a complex term to define. Depending on context, creativity may refer to a

new idea or product, or reference daily problem solving (Zimmerman, 2008). If the root of

creativity is novelty, it seems hard to view anything or anyone as truly creative (Hofstadter, D.,

Holderness, M., & Else, L., 2005). Applying Clark’s (1986) notion, if someone makes

something that has been created before it is not creative; however, if that person applies a new

meaning to it, then it is viewed as creative (Zimmerman, 2008). This is supported by the

movement of appropriated art by such artist as Andy Warhol, Shepard Fairey, Marcel Duchamp

or Cindy Sherman.

Zimmerman (2008) stressed, creativity is subjective in the context of culture, and time

period. For example, in western culture a new novel idea focusing on the product might define


creativity. Contrary to this belief, in eastern culture a redundant form can put creative emphasis

more on the process. To illustrate this one may look at Chinese ceramics where the Meiping or

S-curve shape has been used repeatedly for centuries. Although the shape is repeated, it is only

in that one moment that the shape has occurred and is slightly different each time, providing

novelty.

History of Creativity

Over the past century the importance of creativity in art education has fluctuated.

Beginning in the 1920’s there was a strong emphasis on the self-expressive aspect of creativity

as evident in the work of Ernst Kirchner, Wassily Kandinsky and Max Beckmann. During the

1930’s emphasis on creativity came to a halt, in lieu of utilitarian pursuits, as a result of the Great

Depression. It was not until the end of World War II that creativity had a resurgence. Again, the

self-expression aspect of creativity was emphasized with individuals’ ideas being good and

conformity being bad (Chapman, 1971).

creative self-expression. According to Zimmerman (2008) this new self-expression was

about students’ innate creativity. This paradigm affected art education greatly, teaching teachers

not to interfere with students’ processes. Teachers were only there to provide supplies and

support. This view of creativity following World War II is a nature’s view (Zimmerman, 2008).

Students are innately creative and teachers need only provide support to students to permit

students’ creativity to flow.

During the sixties and seventies the importance of art education creativity was on the

psychological development of a student. During the seventies and into the eighties, art education

creativity began to shift its scope focusing more on developing expression with new media, like

film and television, as well as emphasizing more on aesthetics (Hamblen, 1985).


problem solving strategies. Currently, creativity is coming to a peak with emphasis on

creative problem solving and imagination. This can be attributed, as all emphasis on creativity

and art education, to the current state of America’s economy, and for that matter, the world

economy. As cited by President Obama’s State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011: “What

we can do—what America does better than anyone else – is spark the creativity and imagination

of our people”. It is evident here that creativity is what will turn hard economic times around.

Importance of Creativity

Although creativity to an artist may be seen as paradoxical to money and economy,

economy and art education are closely related. As illustrated above, creativity is a hot topic with

respect to the current state of our economy. Going along with this, Zimmerman (2008) identified

specifics of creativity’s potential to help the economy grow beginning with technological

creation, development, and innovation of products. Examples of these would be video games,

gadgets, kitchen tools, web designs, and advertisements to promote the above (Freedman, 2010).

With respect to current technological ubiquity, it makes sense that developing products for this

demand would help with the economy.

Product developers need creativity to make the new products that match consumer

demands. As a result, developers are rewarded financially for creative products. But, how about

the people purchasing these products; do they need creativity? Yes! According to Zimmerman

(2008) what permits the regular person to purchase creative products is creative

entrepreneurship. Examples that illustrate this would be in risk taking, such as opening a new

business, or entrepreneurship which permits new ideas that go against the status quo, such as

those types of businesses for ethnically diverse people and culturally diverse people (Florida,

2002).


Beyond the scope of creativity’s financial and economic importance, Freedman (2010)

described creativity as important to the development of a whole, well-rounded person.

Specifically, creativity helps in the psychological development of students to discover who they

are and their personal aesthetics. Creativity is also important because it allows students to think

divergently, while becoming aware that there can be a variety of answers to the same problem.

In addition, creativity permits interaction with others and promotes students’ expression of

feelings in a positive and constructive environment.

Materials

Materials are an integral part to teaching creativity from the nurture point of view.

According to Easton (1992) knowledge of materials permits students the ability to make

informed decisions that will best suit their creative ideas and allow these ideas to come to

completion. This can be exemplified by a student creating a tall structure out of clay. If the

student did not know the material of clay and attempts to join pieces when the clay is very wet,

most likely the piece will collapse. However, if the student knows they can let the clay dry

before attaching the pieces most likely the student will have success. Easton (1992)

acknowledged the view of technical knowledge as inhibiting an artist’s ability for spontaneity,

but also said without material and technical knowledge artists are very limited in expressive

choices. Scholl (1967) similarly identified the need for working knowledge of materials.

Scholl (1967) viewed people’s abilities to be creative as limited by their knowledge of

materials and technique, indicating an increase in the knowledge of an artist’s materials leads to

an increase in creativity. Although teaching students about clay process or printmaking

processes may not be creative in itself, it is directly connected to artists’ creative products.

Nickerson agreed with Scholl, acknowledging the importance of technical knowledge of


materials. He contextualized the point highlighting innovation and development of new avant-

garde movements and styles by artist who had first mastered more rudimentary skills and

technique. However, Nickerson was also aware that too much emphasis on technique does not

permit students to see possibility in using materials in other manners which are less traditional,

yet still may permit authentic creativity. Therefore, there is a necessity to balance knowledge of

materials and techniques with allowing flexibility and permitting experimentation with materials.

Knowledge of materials is important, but should not be taught exclusively. Student

intention is more vital to the development of creativity according to Eisner (2002). However,

there are times when creativity develops with no intention in mind. Eisner suggested a balance

as fundamental to creative success with materials, but not the only concern that teachers should

have.

Smilan (in press) used a case study to illustrate the use of new materials to permit

students’ development of original ideas. Smilan uses an example where a boy draws things he is

in constant interaction with and most comfortable with: trees, landscapes and pets. The boy is

smart if he is graded on his ability to render these objects. However, referencing criteria

established E.P. Torrance, Smilan questioned whether this is creative. Although creativity may

in some instances require students to be able to render objects realistically in order to expand a

student’s repertoire, students must be encouraged and choose to take a risk and go out of their

comfort zone over exhibition of technical skill. Another facet of this example could be the

student demonstrating his or her personal aesthetic. However, if redirected to different subject

matter, is that restraining creative freedom?


Lowenfeld (1968) eloquently spoke to knowledge of skills in a specific area as not being

enough to support creativity:

If a sculptor is only skilled, he may be at best a mason, but not a creative sculptor. And if

the engineer has just the skill of an engineer, he may at best be a draftsman, but not a

creative engineer or inventor. And if we have here even a physician, he needs specific

skills and knowledge for being a physician, but if he doesn’t have a criteria which

distinguish him as a creative physician, he would be a practitioner, but not one who

breaks through the boundaries and finds new things” ( pp. 38-39).

It is apparent that material and technical knowledge, although important, do not stand alone in

teaching for creativity. There is something more to creativity than material knowledge.

School Environment

According to Diakidoy and Kanari (1999), there is a shifting paradigm within school

culture today that inhibits creativity. The implementation of state mandated high-stakes testing

(Chapman, 2005) has forced schools to become less concerned with student-centered self-

expression, individuality, and divergent thinking, and more concerned with knowledge

attainment across disciplines and student scores on tests. As a result of state mandated, high-

stakes testing according to Milbrandt, Felts, Richards and Abhari (2004) teachers allow students

less accountability, and less choice which is evident in the change of school curricula and

impedes on creativity; administrators are minimizing, if not excluding, subjects that are not

assessed by standardized testing which squashes creativity.

Nakamura and Csikszentmihlyi (2001) view creativity as non-linear and therefore

disagree with the ideology of school districts changing curriculum to include only subjects that

are assessed by state mandated tests. Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi use quantum chemist


Linus Pauling’s work to illustrate the point that although creativity may not be measurable, as

Pauling’s theory at the time was immeasurable and not observable, it later became an important

piece to understanding quantum chemistry with the judgment and additional contributions from

other leaders in the field.

Like Diakidoy and Karnari, Eisner (2002) and Smilan and Miraglia (2009) believed

schools are not conducive to creativity. Eisner’s suggestions to overcome this obstacle began

with establishing an environment in which teachers are present to provide support and materials

to students. Students then are left alone to explore and develop their own constructs and

meanings. Second, Eisner suggested an environment where teachers designed situations that

capture students’ interest, which crosses over into lesson design. These situations facilitate

student engagement. Eisner’s first suggestion is a very inductive approach to teaching which is

probably better suited for older students than younger students. The second part of Eisner’s idea,

was an environment relating to intrinsic motivation will be discussed in more detail later. Smilan

and Miraglia (2009) discuss schools as not conducive to creativity by not utilizing the arts to

contribute to a school’s curriculum. Instead the arts are used so grade teachers are able to have

preparation time which does not allow for collaboration.

Sefton-Green (2008) continued along Eisner’s inductive methods to describe an

environment that fosters creativity. Sefton-Green believed teachers should not come from an

authoritarian position, but rather serve as mentors. From this perspective, teachers can share

knowledge while giving students equal footing with regard to creativity development.

Consequently, teachers can give students emotional support to take risks and not be afraid of

failure. Nickerson agreed elaborating on the concepts of creativity and failure.


Nickerson (1999) and Torrance (1968) viewed failure as important to creativity. Failure

allows students to further creative problem solving. When faced with failure students must take

what has occurred, analyze, and synthesize the event, and then develop a new approach to the

problem. Developing this process is essential to creative students because rarely does a solution

to a problem come after one attempt. Torrance (1968) viewed creativity as an occurrence of

accident and chance. Diakidoy and Kanari (1999) agreed with Nickerson and Torrance

suggesting the best environment for creativity is where students are able to see their mistakes and

then are permitted the opportunity to correct them.

Amorino (2009) made a case for the environment of young children where play is needed

in order to develop their creativity. Through play children’s sensory processes are heightened

which are necessary for creativity. While Amorino suggested the importance of play, Amorino

also cautioned that adults should not place outcome-based goals on them, extrinsic motivation.

Gude (2010) agrees with Amorino on play being necessary for creativity, but also contradicts

Amorino suggesting that children in the art room need to be taught how to use methods,

materials and concepts in a playful manner.

Amorino agreed with Lowenfeld (1968) perception that although competition may be fun

and gain recognition for one’s school, it extrinsically motivates students which is detrimental to

the development of creativity. Students develop a work ethic to receive others’ approval, adult

standards, and monetary rewards, instead of developing a personal aesthetic and producing work

that is valued by the student.

Lastly, classroom climate is important when fostering creativity. Gude (2010) pointed

out how students interact with each other during critique and class discussions is a determinate to

whether students feel safe and willing to take risks. If a positive classroom climate is established


students will experiment with materials and not be afraid to stand out from their peers. Teachers

have control over classroom environment, nurture, which is imperative and can allow students to

develop an identity that may incorporate creativity.

Student Environment

In order to develop creativity students must have certain personality traits (nature).

According to Diakidoy and Kanari (1999), a significant personality trait to a creative person is

intrinsic motivation. Students must be invested in their work, while being tenacious and

relentless while reacting to the continuously changing piece. This is a challenging feat when

there are multiple solutions and no definitive answers. Although this is a nature trait that some

students have, this can be developed in students (nurture) through activities that interest students.

Collins and Ambabile (1999), echoes the need for intrinsic motivation for creativity to be

fostered and see a connection between a student’s interest in a project and intrinsic motivation.

So, it is recommended that in order for teachers to promote intrinsic motivation in regards to

lesson design students need to be permitted freedom within each project and the subject matter to

a certain degree.

Nickerson (1999) suggests self-management as a necessary skill for creativity to occur,

and although this is a skill and may be innate, it needs to be taught as well as practiced. It is

imperative that students become accustomed to self-evaluating their owe work throughout the

entire process.

Along with intrinsic motivation, hard work is important. Amabile (2001) saw that even if

one is creative by nature, hard work is imperative to execute and continue creativity. Amabile

spoke about the process of creating where one must be in constant dialogue with oneself,

reflecting on decisions being made and how to proceed. Gude (2010) agreed with Amabile that


creativity is hard work. However, Gude attributed this to balancing commitment of an idea; with

being fluid while responding to process.

Another important trait that students need in order to be creative is curiosity. Nickerson

(1999) believed that curiosity is innate. This trait is necessary for creativity to occur because it

allows for new possibilities to develop. It allows for the what if’s [emphasis added] to happen,

for skepticism and questioning. Nickerson continues with the need to continually teach this trait

because it slowly diminishes in students as they become older and as a result of schools

impressing, and valuing obedience in students.

Diakidoy and Kanari (1999) performed a study that looked at what traits teachers, artists

and students view as important to creativity. Interestingly, the study found that according to

students, obedience to rules, fear of failure, convergent thinking and willingness to accept

guidance were among the lowest characteristics necessary for creativity. Smilan (in press) had

similar findings with regard to obedience. Many times breaking the rules allows for a creative

solution. However, fear of failure, convergent thinking and guidance seem to be misplaced.

Going back to Nickerson, failure allows for creative problem solving. Additionally,

experiencing failure makes Amabile’s (2001) view of hard work even more relevant. Students

view of guidance being at the bottom of the importance list is interesting because creative

problem solving seems to emphasis using all resources available.

Other nature traits that are important to recognize are gender differences. Clark and

Zimmerman (1997) performed a study that found girls rely more on others’ approval and have an

idealistic concept of what art and creativity needs to be. Boys were more self-motivated, needed

less approval from others, and viewed creativity as important only in relation to vocational skills.

Knowing this an art educator can inform their practice by providing female students more


positive reinforcement needed to be successful, and breaking the illusion of what art and

creativity are. Additionally, art educators can provide applicable, real life examples of creativity

for the male students to ensure success.

Discussing student traits, Gude spotlights family and culture. Gude (2010) described a

student’s value and view of creativity as inseparable from their family’s beliefs. For instance, a

student whose family sees creativity as too dreamy and not important will have a much more

challenging time trying to be creative since their family does not support it. Moreover,

depending on a student’s culture and family, their aesthetic may differ with emphasis more on

realism, or politics and society, all of which affects students’ creativity. Knowing this informs

teachers’ instruction and the establishment of classroom environments.

Zimmerman (2008) pointed out a variety of dichotomous personal traits that creative

people demonstrate. Zimmerman listed positive traits of creative people: open-minded, curious,

motivated and receptive. However, creative people can also demonstrate traits of disobedient,

defiant, disjointed, disorganized, and absent minded. From these personality traits, anyone could

be creative. This is important because teachers must redirect students who demonstrate the

negative traits of creativity so as not to discourage those students.

Lastly, Gude (2010) gave empathetic insight for art educators attempting to develop

students’ creativity. Gude stated, although the task was challenging before, today it is even

harder. Students are in a hostile environment that is not conducive to creativity with hours spent

in front of televisions which do not permit for individual thought. Additionally, children’s lives

are overscheduled and do not allow for a moment of quiet time to develop creative thought.

With this knowledge, art educators must respond and adjust their practice to the changing student

environment to make instruction relevant.


Lesson Design

criteria. Lesson design in an important piece to the puzzle if one takes a nurture position

believing that creativity is capable of being taught. In 2010, Freedman proposed instruction

toward creativity in art education setting cannot make project criteria too specific. This approach

does not permit students to make choices, or allow for experimentation, which is necessary to

foster creativity. Freedman uses an example of assigning a traditional landscape painting using

only primary colors. With this example according to C. Smilan (personal communication,

December 10, 2011) the interpretation to the project is open, but the criteria is set. Criteria in

this case, are the planned lesson objectives. However, the path which the student attains the

objectives is open, allowing for creative exploration and development. It allows students choice

in composition, yet provides a challenge which consequently encourages creative problem

solving (Sternberg, 2006). Freedman elaborated with a student using primary colors in his

landscape composition, but layered the colors resulting in a more fantasy than realistic

landscape. The question that came up is should the student fail because he or she did not follow

directions? It seems that the student did in fact follow directions in using primary colors, and did

creating a landscape. However, the student exhibited creativity in the way he or she used the

medium. If the teacher intended students to use the primary colors in only bold masses and not

overlapped, then the should have been more specific.

Contrary to Freedman’s caution to criteria Collins and Amabile (1999) supported criteria

and its use to facilitate creativity. Collins and Amabile make a point that criteria allows for more

varieties to problem solving. For instance, if a river were a creative solution, then adding a rock

which is symbolic of criteria, provides two streams, which would be two solutions. What is


cautioned though, is not to put so many rocks in the river that water becomes restricted and

impassable.

curriculum sequence. Art educators can teach their discipline systematically while

demonstrating creativity. However, Amorino (2009) cautioned the misconception that if

technique, skills, and art history are taught creativity will occur by itself. This according to

Amorino only creates a repeated practice and not an experience that is necessary for creativity to

develop.

It is sometimes thought that providing exemplars inhibits student creativity; after students

view an exemplar they many copy it. James (1997) dismissed this point of view after preforming

a case study that followed an undergraduate student with little background in art. The student

benefitted from the professor’s slide presentation of modernist figurative sculpture. The images

gave the student direction in the assignment, and who later decided on a relief sculpture. Here

the student was provided with a starting point to the project, while being able to develop his or

her own vision.

Clark and Zimmerman (2004) case study of gifted and talented students site the

importance of direct instruction with regard to materials and painting. In the study an instructor

demonstrated to students how to mix colors and how to look at objects being painted beginning

with basic structure. Although this in itself is not creative, it is directly linked to a student’s

creativity in allowing him or her the skills to execute the vision later.

Milbrandt, Felts, Richards and Abhari (2004) demonstrated a constructivist approach as

relevant to curriculum sequencing. Milbrandt, et al. described three case studies where students

were introduced to a variety of different materials and techniques. Following this, students were

then set off on their own with the support of teachers to work collaboratively and master the


technique, material and skill of their choice. Findings revealed that students were much more

invested in their work, developed a high sophistication, and completed work to a higher standard

than teachers expected.

In curriculum design it is equally important for students to be provided projects which

may utilize convergent thinking resulting in good products. This permits students to feel success

in their work and become invested in it. Equally important, according to Clark and Zimmerman

(2004), is to provide students with unfamiliar materials and projects that are open-ended and

allow for unpredictable results. This will allow for students to develop more original ideas, and

again provides an obstacle. According to Sternberg (2006), open ended assignments are

important in order to engage students in their work. Here it is clear that balance between

convergent and divergent thinking is important when designing sequences of lessons for students

because not only is it different skills students are gaining, it also builds students’ self-esteem and

resilience.

Teaching students not to obsess over technical skill is challenging as pointed out by

Amorino (2009). It is fact that as students grow from children to pre-adolescents they become

more interested in rendering realness. So, in order to combat this development that children

natural go through, it is sometimes in students’ best interest to provide projects that contain

subject matter of fantasy such as dragons and dinosaurs that alleviates stresses to replicate

realness (Torrance, 1968).

instruction. Zimmerman (1984) put creative instruction into perspective. According to

the research of The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), art educators have the

illusion that teaching art systematically will result in destroying creativity. When in actuality

instruction of art making skills and techniques, instruction to responding to art, instruction to


perceiving skills, and instruction and practice with aesthetic judgment are all integral pieces to

creative development, which can be taught with some sort of intention or system in place.

Clark and Zimmerman (1997) described the instruction of art as systematic and even

necessary to reach all students. Art educators must develop a curriculum that spirals and allows

teachers to spend time with each student at varying levels. A curriculum that spirals allows

students to revisit concepts that may have been challenging and develop successful resolutions.

The misconception of complete freedom allowing for creativity to thrive resurfaces again

and again. Scholl (1967) dismissed this misconception and stated that what cultivates creativity

is interesting limitations and criteria. Smilan (in press) agreed, and emphasized the need for the

criteria and objectives to be clear. These provide students with authentic problems and when

solved demonstrate creativity and innovation.

Clark and Zimmerman (2004) bring critique to the spotlight of lesson design and its

impact on the development of creativity. Critique allows for students to defend their decisions

while becoming reinvested and provides intrinsic motivation when students rework their

projects. A teacher’s role in critique according to Clark and Zimmerman is to respond as

positively as possible, while utilizing questioning to guide students toward further development

of a concept or idea. Eisner (2002) breaks this down into two types of teacher responses:

aesthetic and personal. Each one is very important and, depending on the circumstance, a

teacher needs to choose the correct one to keep student investment. In doing this, students

develop their own constructs which makes for a meaningful learning experience.

Assessment

There are a variety of differing opinions as to the place of assessment in fostering

creativity. Proponents of assessment like Clark and Zimmerman (2004) view authentic


assessment as good and beneficial to students’ creativity, as long as the assessment tests what a

teacher has taught. Sefton-Green (2008) agreed that assessment is good, but defines assessment

differently.

Sefton-Green (2008) saw assessment as being beneficial if used to embrace learning

competencies in students. For instance, students would receive a better assessment if more risks

were taken. Additionally, students would receive better assessments if they reflected on their

process in order to take more control over their learning, which is conducive to creativity.

However, questions of legitimacy, integrity and objectivity of one’s grades come into the mix.

Mature students would benefit well from this type of assessment.

Eisner (2002) acknowledged the benefits, as well as the disadvantages of assessment on

creativity. Evidence supports peer and self-critique as a form of assessment as vital to the

creative process and therefore should be incorporated into practice. These types of assessments

allow students to demonstrate to the teacher what learning has occurred. Beghetto (2005) held

the same point of view as Eisner, putting importance on students’ needs for self-improvement,

which will allow students to take more risks and persevere during difficulty.

Contrary to the benefits of assessment, Eisner (2002) describes the drawbacks of

assessing art. Eisner states that art and creativity is more about process than about an outcome,

which therefore cannot be measured. Many times when teachers place an assessment on a

project students, fall back and do what they know best, hoping that their skill will be reward the

teacher. Smilan (in press) had similar findings in her case study.

Students begin to develop a false sense of self as a result of assessment from an external

force – their assessor. This does not provide an honest creative experience allowing students to

think critically and execute their intentionality (Belluigi, 2011).


Sefton-Green (2008) brought to light an interesting perspective of the challenges that

assessing creativity possesses. According to the definition of creativity, originality and an

individual’s imagination is demonstrated. Therefore, how can an assessment with predetermined

criteria be applicable if unknown discoveries will be made throughout the process?

Torrance (1992) developed a creative assessment with pictures in art. Torrance’s

assessment looked at five mental characteristics: fluency, elaboration, originality, resistance to

premature closure, and abstractness of titles. These assessments are judged against norms of

others in the age range.

Criteria is important to developing one’s creativity, as well as impeding one’s creativity.

Sabol (2006) provided an interesting finding with regard to students’, teachers’ and artists’

importance of such skills. Accordingly, students ranked personal expression in school as number

11 of importance, while students at home ranked personal expression number two, which is

inconsistent. Teachers ranked personal expression as number eight and artists ranked personal

expression as number four. Students and teachers both ranked originality number nine in

importance. Artists ranked originality as number one. What this study makes evident is that

students’, teachers’ and artists’ view of essential qualities to creativity, personal expression, and

originality are not in alignment or high enough on the importance scale. Thus, students cannot

demonstrate creativity until teachers and students have the same clear expectations, as well as

place the two critical components of creativity higher on the priority scale.

Conclusion

Although there are no definitive answers on how to teach creativity, according to the

literature a variety of strategies must be utilized to capitalize on students’ creative potential in the

face of nature. A balance in teaching technique and possibility of mediums along with


permitting experimentation and exploration of materials is necessary. Equally important is

classroom environment and student culture. Although a student’s environment outside the

classroom cannot be controlled, knowledge of this can inform one’s practice. Lastly, providing a

variety of lesson designs that incorporate convergent and divergent thinking, direct instruction

and constructivist approach, and a variety of assessments including, teacher, peer, and self-

evaluation centered on learning seems to be the best way to meet the goal of teaching creativity.


References:

Amabile, T.M., (2001). John Irving and the passionate craft of creativity. American

Psychologist, 56(4), 333-336.

Amorino, J. S. (2009). The artistic impetus model: a resource for reawakening artistic

expression in adolescents. Studies in art education, 50(3), 214-231. Retrieved from:

http://www.arteducators.org/research/Studies_50-3-_Spring2009.pdf

Beghetto, R.A., (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity?. The Educational Forum,

69(3), 254-262.

Belluigi, D.Z., (2011). Intentionality in a Creative Art Curriculum. Journal of Aesthetic

Education, 45(1), 18-36

Chapman, L. H. (1971). A second look at the foundation for art education. Studies in Art

Education, 13(1), 40-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1319869

Chapman, L. H. (2005). No child left behind in art? Art Education, 58(1), 6-16. Retrieved

from:

http://libproxy.umassd.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=774863061&sid=3&F

mt=6&clientId=1533&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Collins, M. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and Creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of Creativity (pp.297-312). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, W. H. Jr. (1986). Some Thoughts on Teaching Creativity. Journal of Aesthetic


Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1997). The Influence of Theoretical Frameworks on Clark and

Zimmerman’s Research about Art Talent Development. Journal of Aesthetic Education,

31(4), 49-63. Received from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333143

Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Current Issues in Art Talent Development. In Teachers


College, Columbia University, Teaching Talented Art Students Principles and Practices.

Diakidoy, I.N., & Kanari, E., (1999). Student Teachers’ Beliefs About Creativity. British

Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225-243.

Easton, E.L., (1992). Understanding Materials as a Foundation for Teaching and Creating

Sculpture. Leonardo, 25(2), 129-134.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). Teaching the Visual Arts. The Arts and the Creation of Mind (46-69).

New Haven: Yale University.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Educational Uses of Assessment and Evaluation in the Arts. The arts

and the creation of mind (pp.178-195). New Haven: Yale University.

Florida, R. (2002). Entrepreneurship, creativity, and regional development. In D. Hart (Ed.),

Entrepreneurship (pp.1-30).

Freedman, K. (2010). Rethinking creativity: A definition to support contemporary

practice. Art Education, 63(2), 8-15. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.umassd.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1992507021&Srch

Mode=2&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS

=1321789841&clientId=1533

Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31-37.

Hamblen, K. (1985). An art education chronology: a process of selection and interpretation.

Studies in Art Education, 26(2), 111-120. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320567

Hofstadter, D., Holderness, M., & Else, L. (2005). Oh look, a new cliché! New

Scientist,188(2523), 52-3.


James., P. (1997). Learning Artistic Creativity: A Case Study. Studies in Art Education, 39(1),

74-88.

LaChapelle, J. R. (1983). Its sociological and educational limitations. Studies in Art


Lowenfeld, V. (1968). On fostering Creative Sensitivity. In W.Lambert Brittain (Eds). Speaks

on Art and Creativity (28-32). Washington, D.C.: National Art Education Association

Lowenfeld, V. (1968). On Creativity in Education. In W.Lambert Brittain (Eds). Speaks on Art

and Creativity (37-43). Washington, D.C.: National Art Education Association

Lowenfeld, V. (1968). On Research and the Creative Process. In W.Lambert Brittain (Eds).

Speaks on Art and Creativity (44-50). Washington, D.C.: National Art Education

Association

Milbrandt, M. K., Felts, J., Richards, B., & Abghari, N. (2004). Teaching-to-learn: a constructivist

approach to shared responsibility. Art Education, 57(5), 19-24.

Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmikhalyi, M. (2001). Catalytic Creativity: The Case of Linus Pauling.

American Psychologist, 56(4), 337-341. doi: 10.1037//0OO3-O66X.56.4.337

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing Creativity. In R. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity

(392-430). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Sabol,R.F., (2006). Identifying Exemplary Criteria to Evaluate Studio Products in Art

Education. Arts Education, 59(6), 6

Scholl, S., (1967). The Cultivation of Creativity. Peabody Journal of Education, 44(5), 282-285

Sefton-Green, J. (2008). Creative Learning. Retrieved from http://www.creative-

partnerships.com/data/files/creative-learning-booklet-26.pdf

Smilan, C. & Miraglia, K. M. (2009). Art teachers and leaders of authentic art integration. Art


Education, 62(6), 39-45. Retrieved from:

http://libproxy.umassd.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1895156451&sid=4&F

mt=6&clientId=1533&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Smilan, C., personal communication, December 10, 2011.

Smilan, C. (in press). I wish my assignments were more creative. In F. Bastos and E.

Zimmerman (Eds). Creativity and Art Education: Foundations, Pedagogies, and

Contemporary Issues.(pp. x-x). Reston, VA: NAEA.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87- 98.

Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (1992). Torrance tests of creative thinking

streamlined scoring guide figural A and B. Bensenville, Illinois: Scholastic

Service, Inc.

Torrance, P. E. (1968). Minnesota studies of creative behavior: 1958-1966. North Carolina:

Georgia University, Athens: Richardson Foundation.

Zimmerman, E. (1984). What Art Teachers Art Not Teaching, Art Students Are Not Learning.

Art Education, 37(4), 12-15. Retrieved From http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192741

Zimmerman, E. (2008). A contemporary consideration of the role of creativity in art education.

South Carolina Consortium for Gifted Education. Retrieved from:

http://www.scgifted.org/2008handouts.html

Zimmerman, E. (2010). Creativity and Art Education: A Personal Journey in Four Acts. Art

Education, 63(5), 84. Retrieved from

http://www.arteducators.org/research/LowenfeldLecture_2010_EnidZimmerman.pdf

Documents

Teaching Creativity