(use this version
Promoting Creativity in Talented Adolescents
Sally M. Reis
Joseph S. Renzulli
Introduction
This
entry highlights some of the major issues associated with promoting high levels
of creative potential and achievement in talented adolescents. It summarizes recent research about the
environmental factors,
and school and home programs,
that are more likely to result in the realization of creative talent.
Schoolhouse giftedness and talent refers to
test-taking, lesson-learning, or academic giftedness or talents. Individuals
who fall into this category generally score well on more traditional
intellectual or cognitive assessments and perform well in school.
Creative/productive giftedness and
talent, on the other hand, is reflected in individuals who tend to
be or have the potential to become producers (rather than consumers) of
original knowledge, materials, or products and who employ thought processes
that tend to be inductive, integrated, and problem oriented.
We have no way of estimating the
number of talented young people with high creative potential who currently fail
to develop this potential in American schools; nor do we have a way to estimate
how many adolescents and children have creative potential. Nationally, approximately five to ten per
cent of students are identified as gifted or talented, but not all of these
young people demonstrate high creative potential, and indeed, many of these
talented students underachieve in school (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Renzulli’s (1978) theory examines
gifted behaviors, rather than gifted individuals:
Gifted
behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits--above
average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.
Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or
capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any
potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are
capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide
variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily
provided through regular instructional programs. (Renzulli & Reis, 1997)
These three
basic clusters of human traits contain the following characteristics:
Above
average ability, viewed as a general ability,
includes 1) high levels of abstract
thought, 2) adaptation to novel
situations, and 3)
rapid and accurate retrieval of information. Viewed as a specific ability, it includes 1)
application of general abilities to a specific area of knowledge, 2) the
capacity to sort out relevant from irrelevant information, 3) the capacity to acquire and use advanced
knowledge and strategies while pursuing a problem.
Task
commitment includes
1) a capacity for high levels of interest and enthusiasm, 2) a capacity for hard work and determination in a particular area, 3) self-confidence and drive to achieve, 4) the ability to identify significant
problems within an area of study, and 5)
setting high standards for one's work.
Creativity
includes 1)
fluency, flexibility, and originality of thought, 2) being open to new experiences and
ideas, 3) being curious, 4) being willing to take risks, and 5) being
sensitive to aesthetic characteristics (adapted from Renzulli & Reis, 1997:
9).
A discussion of “high intellectual
ability or potential” and “high creative ability or potential” must be
presented separately because existing research and discussion often identify
the existence of two broad categories, which Renzulli (1986) referred to as
either “schoolhouse giftedness” and/or “creative/productive giftedness.”
Many research studies support a
general approach that develops the creative potential of adolescents in school
(Renzulli & Reis, 1994). Results of
several recent longitudinal studies (Perleth, Sierwald, & Heller, 1993;
Hébert, 1993; Delcourt, 1994) provide research support for Renzulli’s
distinction between schoolhouse giftedness and creative/productive
giftedness. Perleth, Sierwald, and
Heller (1993), in their Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness (1985-1989)
focusing on a large number of secondary students, found clear differences
between students who demonstrated creative/productive as opposed to schoolhouse
giftedness. Renzulli believes that both schoolhouse giftedness and creative
productive giftedness should be developed in adolescents and that an
interaction logically exists between them (Renzulli & Reis, 1985; 1997).
Many authors have described the
personality traits, social environment, and thinking and learning styles of
creatively gifted adults (Davis, 1992, 1999; Rothenberg, 1990; Walberg &
Stariha, 1992; Walberg & Zeiser, 1997).
However, few studies have examined similarly talented adolescents who
may have the potential for high levels of creative productive work (Bloom,
1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde & Whalen, 1993; Winner, 1996; Winner &
Martino, 1993). A consistent finding from the adolescent studies is that
several characteristics, personality traits, and environmental factors
facilitate the development of high levels of creativity and creative productive
giftedness in young people and adolescents (Czikszentmihalyi, 1998; Gardner, 1983;
Renzulli, 1986; Reis, 1998; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993).
Personality Traits and
Characteristics of Highly Creative Persons:
Much of the work on personality factors associated with high creative
achievement suggests that there is a consistent psychological profile of
creative persons, though there is considerable variety from one person to the
next (Barron, 1988; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, et
al; 1993; Renzulli, 1978, 1986; Runco, 1992; Simonton, 1988; Torrance,1978, 1995). This cluster of personality traits
distinguishes more creative individuals from those with lower levels of
creative potential. Creative persons are generally considered to be open to new
experience, persevering, nonconforming, and intellectually and emotionally
independent. They may be impulsive yet self-confident, and often have good
insight into their abilities. They may be less group-oriented, more
introverted, seeking more time alone than do average people.
Other characteristics that
researchers and theorists have associated with creative giftedness include
awareness of one’s own creativity (Daniels, 1997) and emotional maturity,
including the courage to actualize one’s abilities (Sternberg & Lubart,
1993). Creative achievers may withdraw more often, and seek solitude for some
creative tasks require long stretches of concentration without interruption.
Creatively gifted individuals also tend to be much less motivated by external
rewards like grades and public recognition, and more driven by a love for
creative work (Kirshenbaum & Reis, 1997).
More recent work has also concluded that youngsters who are
exceptionally creative engage in fantasy, and can openly express emotion (Russ,
Robins, & Christano, 1999). The same study also found that their emotional
expression was relatively stable over time; young people who expressed more
emotion in their early years also did so later in their childhood.
The negative traits include: questioning rules and authority, stubborness,
low interest in
details, forgetfulness,
careless and disorganized, egotistical, indifference to common conventions,
rebellious and arugmentative, tendency to be emotional, absentminded, neurotic, and impulsive or huyperactive.
These negative traits tend to upset
the parents and educators, as well as some of the peers, of creative children,
since they lead to behaviors not considered appropriate in traditional
classrooms. A challenge exists for
educators and parents to identify these characteristics of creativity in
children and to channel creative energy into constructive outlets (Renzulli
& Reis, 1985; 1997) by encouraging playfulness, flexibility, and the
production of wild and unusual ideas (Torrance, 1962), as well as opportunities
to pursue real problems (Renzulli & Reis, 1985; 1997).
In summary, creatively talented
children may exhibit different characteristics than academically gifted
children. Those with high academic abilities may have the potential to develop
creative gifts and talents, yet many creatively talented students do not
necessarily display high academic performance in school.
Environmental Factors: Several researchers also suggest that certain
environments can help to nurture high levels of creative potential (Amabile,
1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Torrance, 1978). For instance, families with
moderate levels of stress may promote creativity in children because children
learn to tolerate tension, ambiguity, and are less pressured to conform (
In studies of talented adolescents,
Bloom (1985) points to the important influence of gifted peers who match or
surpass a student’s abilities, and share the motivation needed for persistent
effort over a prolonged period. Access to a peer group of students with similar
passions and abilities prepares creatively gifted adolescents to cope with the
realities of the intense competition and stardom that characterizes some
creative careers later in life.
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) research
on creative adolescents suggests that the pursuit of high creative achievement
among this group is likely to result in reduced popularity and perhaps
increased marginalization or alienation from peers. Creatively gifted persons may appear
particularly odd to peers when they have interests and passions that differ
from the mainstream, and a proclivity for unique thinking and
self-expression. Development of creative
talent often necessitates more time spent alone than for average teens, and the
amount of time allocated to mental play appears to inhibit sexual awareness and
independence.
Several instructional strategies,
programs and models can be used to develop and nurture creativity in
adolescents. A brief summary of some of
these is provided as well as a thorough description of one model designed to
develop creative productivity in students.
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli &
Reis, 1985; Renzulli & Reis, 1997) is one of the mostly widely used
enrichment models in the
In the Schoolwide Enrichment
Model (SEM), a talent pool of 15-20% of above average ability, creative,
high potential students is identified through a variety of measures
including: achievement tests, teacher
nominations, assessment of potential for creativity and task commitment, as
well as alternative pathways of entrance (self-nomination, parent nomination,
etc.). High achievement and IQ test
scores automatically include a student in the talent pool, enabling those
creative students who are underachieving in their academic schoolwork to be
included.
Once students are identified for the
talent pool, they are eligible for three services. First, interest and learning
styles assessments are used with talent pool students. Many schools use this process for all
students. Informal and formal methods
are used to create or identify students' interests and to encourage students to
further develop and pursue these interests in various ways. Learning style preferences which are assessed
include: projects, independent study,
teaching games, simulations, peer teaching, programmed instruction, lecture,
drill and recitation, and discussion. This information, which focuses on
strengths rather than deficits, is compiled into a Total Talent Portfolio used
to make decisions about talent development opportunities, either for students
in the talent pool or for all students.
This approach is also consistent with the more flexible conception of developing creative gifts and talents
that has been a cornerstone of this approach promoting more equity in
enrichment or gifted programs.
Second, curriculum compacting is
provided to all eligible students for whom the regular curriculum is modified
by eliminating portions of previously mastered content. This
streamlining of curriculum enables above-average students to avoid
repetition of previously mastered work and guarantees mastery while
simultaneously finding time for more creative and appropriately challenging
activities (Reis, Burns & Renzulli, 1992).
A form, entitled the Compactor (Renzulli & Smith, 1978), is used to
document which content areas have been compacted and what alternative work has
been substituted.
Third, three types of enrichment
experiences are offered, based on the theoretical approach underlying the SEM,
the Enrichment Triad. The goal is to
encourage creative productivity on the part of young people by exposing them to
various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study; and to further train
them to apply advanced content,
process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of
interest. In the SEM, Type I (exposure to new topics,
areas and issues) Type II (thinking skills, problem solving and methods
training within content areas, such as historical, scientific, etc.), and Type
III Enrichment (small group or individual self-selected studies in academic or
artistic areas) are offered to all students; however, Type III enrichment is
usually more appropriate for students with higher levels of ability, interest,
and task commitment.
Evidence that the SEM approach works
is supported by numerous studies (Renzulli & Reis, 1994). Delcourt (1988) and Starko (1986)
investigated student creative productivity in the SEM. Delcourt (1988) investigated characteristics
related to creative/productive behavior in 18 adolescents who consistently
engaged in first-hand research of self-selected topics both in or out of
school, finding that: (1) targeted students do exhibit characteristics similar
to those of creative/productive adults; (2) these students can be producers of
information as well as consumers; and (3) the learning processes of these
students merit closer attention if their abilities are to be better understood
by themselves, their parents, and their teachers. Delcourt (1994) also conducted longitudinal
research using the same subjects and focusing on their interests, educational
and professional experiences, career plans, and projects. Results indicated that students maintained
similar or identical career goals to their plans in high school and remained in
major fields of study in colleges. Based
upon each student's level of involvement with his or her investigations and the
quality of the projects, Delcourt's study supports the concept that adolescents can
continue to become creative young adults.
Starko
(1986) examined the effects of SEM participation on student creative
productivity. Students who participated
in SEM programs for at least four years were compared with students who
qualified for such programs but received no services. Data were analyzed by
hierarchical multiple regression, as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended
questionnaire items. Results indicated
that students who became involved in independent study projects in the SEM more
often initiated their own creative products both in and outside of school than did students in the comparison
group. A total of 103 students, 58
program students and 45 non-program students of similar ability, participated
in the study. The group in the
enrichment program reported more than twice as many creative projects per
student (3.37) as the comparison group (1.4).
The group that participated in the enrichment program also reported
doing more than twice as many creative products outside of school on their own
time (1.03) than the comparison group (.50).
In a longitudinal study of SEM program
participants, Hébert (1993) examined
the educational experiences of nine senior high school students ten
years after their involvement in the program.
The students selected for the study were chosen because of the number
and quality of the Type III products they completed during their elementary TAG
Program experience. He found that: (1) Type III interests of students affect
post-secondary plans, (2) creative outlets are needed in high school, (3) a
decrease in creative Type III productivity occurs during the junior high
experience (perhaps due to increasing demands of more teachers and peer
pressure not to pursue additional academic work) and (4) the Type III process
serves as important training for later productivity. Baum, Renzulli, and Hebert (1995) found that
Type III studies can work to reverse underachievement in talented students, as
well.
In a comprehensive examination of
wide-spread efforts to teach creativity,
The
Future Problem Solving Program is a year-long program in which teams of four
students use a six-step problem solving process to solve complex scientific and
social problems of the future such as the overcrowding of prisons or the
greenhouse effect. At regular intervals
throughout the year, the teams mail their work to evaluators, who review it and
return it with their suggestions for improvement. As the year progresses, the teams become
increasingly more proficient at problem solving. The Future Problem Solving Program takes
students beyond memorization. The
program challenges students to apply information they have learned to some of
the most complex issues facing society.
They are asked to think, to
make decisions, and, in some instances, to carry out their solutions. Little research has been conducted on this
program, however. Other articles have described the success
of the program in general (Chapman,
1991; Torrance, 1984), as well as success using Future Problem Solving with
underachieving students (Rimm & Olenchak, 1991).
Eleven
states have created separate schools for talented students in math and science
such as The North Carolina School for Math and Science, and several of these
stress creative products and self-selected research. Some large school districts have established
magnet schools to serve the needs of talented students. In
Within
schools that have gifted or enrichment programs, some options for the development
of creativity exist through the use of resource room programs in which a
student leaves his/her regular classroom and spends time doing creative
projects or independent study. Some
students also become involved in advanced research on topics that they select
in a resource room or in a classroom.
Some classroom teachers provide opportunities for creativity training or
creative work or even independent study projects that provide students with
opportunities to engage in pursuing both individual interests and creative
work. Many districts have created
innovative mentorship programs that pair students with older students or adults
who have similar interests.
In
addition to Future Problem Solving, programs such as Odyssey of the Mind, a
national program in which teams of students use creative problem solving to
design structures, vehicles, and solutions to problems such as designing a
vehicle which uses a mousetrap as its primary power source. Many talented students have the opportunity
to participate in History Day in which students work individually or in small
groups to research an historical event, person from the past, or invention
related to a theme that is determined each year. Using primary source data including diaries
or other sources gathered in libraries, museums, and interviews, students
prepare research papers, projects, media presentations or performances as
entries. These entries are judged by
local historians, educators, and other professionals and state finalists
compete with winners from other states each June. Additional research is needed concerning the
overall effectiveness of this program.
It
is difficult to identify what does not work to develop creativity as
researchers usually focus on what can increase creativity, rather than diminish
it. It seems clear that some classroom
environments seem to constrict creative thoughts and productivity. Too much rigidity, too few opportunities for
freedom of choice and enjoyment exist in the learning process and too few
teachers today concentrate on trying to develop creativity. Instead, they seem to focus on how to
increase achievement test scores. The
most common manner in which the underachievement of talented students is
described involves identifying a discrepancy between ability and achievement
described in detail by Reis and McCoach (2000) who review the issues
surrounding the definition and identification of underachievement in
gifted.
The
absence of creative opportunities for work is widely mentioned as one reason
that creatively talented students underachieve.
Many talented underachievers are bored or unstimulated in school
(Pirozzo, 1982; Reis, Hebert, Diaz, Rattley, Maxfield, 1995). Whitmore (1980) specifically found that the
creativity of talented underachieving students is stifled in the typical
classroom situation that focuses on achieving the “one right answer.” Whitmore (1980) further argued that the
instructional strategies of classroom teachers, curricula, and the typical classroom
climate are unsuitable for high ability students. Teachers may judge students only on the basis
of their performance or apply unreasonable pressure for achievement and conduct
strict, autocratic classes emphasizing rote, repetitive learning that may
stifle creativity in talented learners.
The ultimate goal of education for
adolescents should be engagement in current learning that inspires adolescents
to continue learning and working to develop their academic and creative
potential. This potential is best
developed in a systematic approach that targets the benefits of the development
of creative productivity, such as the three types of enrichment that are a part
of the SEM approach. Type I enrichment is designed to expose students to a wide
variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and
events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum. In schools that use this model, an enrichment
team consisting of parents, teachers, and students often organizes and plans
Type I experiences by contacting speakers, arranging mini-courses,
demonstrations, or performances, or by ordering and distributing films, slides,
videotapes, or other print or non-print media.
Type II enrichment consists of
materials and methods designed to promote the development of thinking and
feeling processes. Some Type II
enrichment is general, consisting of training in areas such as creative
thinking and problem solving, learning how to learn skills such as classifying
and analyzing data, and advanced reference and communication skills. Other Type
II enrichment is specific, as it cannot be planned in advance and usually
involves advanced instruction in an interest area selected by the student.
Type III enrichment occurs when students
become interested in pursuing a self-selected area and are willing to commit
the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in
which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer. The goals of Type III enrichment include: providing opportunities for applying
interests, knowledge, creative ideas and task commitment to a self-selected
problem or area of study; acquiring advanced level understanding of the
knowledge (content) and methodology (process) used within particular disciplines,
artistic areas of expression and interdisciplinary studies; developing
authentic products primarily directed toward bringing about a desired impact
upon a specified audience; developing self-directed learning skills in the
areas of planning, organization, resource utilization, time management,
decision making and self-evaluation;
developing task commitment, self-confidence, and feelings of creative
accomplishment.
Today, many educators and
politicians seem to be more interested in raising achievement scores, rather
than in developing creativity in their students. This may be very short-sighted from an historial and societal perspective. By using some of the strategies developed in
the programs that nurture creativity, we can help some students develop their
creativity, as well as their academic potential, as part of their overall
school experiences. It may very well be that these creative opportunities
matter much more in students' futures, and in society
as well.
Amabile, T.
(1989). Growing
up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity.
Barron, F.
(1988). Putting creativity to work. In R.J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity.
Baum, S.,
Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert, T. P. (1995). The
prism metaphor: A new paradigm for reversing underachievement. (Collaborative Research Study 95310)
Bloom, B.
(Ed.) (1985). Developing
talent in young people.
Chapman, S. M. (1991). Introducing
young children to real problems of today and
tomorrow. Gifted Child Today, 14 (2)
14-18.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (1990). Flow: The psychology
of optimal experience.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and
the psychology of discovery and invention.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (1998). Creativity and genius: A systems perspective. In A. Steptoe (Ed.). Genius
and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M., Rathunde, K., Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure.
Daniels, S.
(1997). Creativity in the classroom: Characteristics, climate, and curriculum.
In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook
of gifted education (2nd ed.).
Davis, G.A.
(1992). Creativity is forever.
Davis, G.
A. (1999). Creativity is forever. (4th ed.).
Delcourt,
M. A. B. (1988). Characteristics related to high levels of
creative/productive behavior in secondary school students: A multi-case study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Connecticut,
Delcourt,
M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high level creative
productivity: A longitudinal study of
students identified by Renzulli's three-ring conception of giftedness. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold
(Eds.), Beyond Terman (pp.
401-436).
Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences.
Gardner,
H. (1993). Creating
Minds.
Hébert,
T. P. (1993). A developmental examination of young
creative producers. Roeper Review: A Journal on
Gifted Education, 16, 22-28.
Kirschenbaum, R.J. & Reis, S. M. (1997). Conflicts
in creativity: Talented female artists. Creativity Research Journal. 10 (2&3).
251-263.
MacKinnon,
D.W. (1978). In search
of human effectiveness.
Perleth,
C., Sierwald,
W., & Heller, K. A. (1993). Selected results of the
Reis,
S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Compromises and challenges of talented females.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting:
The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability
students.
Reis, S. M., Hébert, T. P., Diaz, E. P., Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley,
M. E. (1995). Case studies of talented students who
achieve and underachieve in an urban high school. (Research Monograph 95120)
Reis, S. M.
& McCoach, D. B. (2000).
The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we
go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-170.
Renzulli,
J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs
for the gifted and talented.
Renzulli,
J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 26, 1.
Renzulli,
J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of
giftedness: A developmental model for
creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92).
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The
schoolwide enrichment model: A
comprehensive plan for educational excellence.
Renzulli,
J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to
the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38,
2-14.
Renzulli,
J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide
enrichment model: A how - to guide for
educational excellence .
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The compactor.
Rimm, S. B.
& Olenchak, (1991). F. R. How FPS helps underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 14 (2). 19-22.
Rothenberg,
A. (1990). Creativity and madness: New
findings and old stereotypes.
Runco, M.A.
(1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. In M.A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp.234-252).
Runco, M.A.
(1992). The evaluative, valuative, and divergent thinking of
children. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 25, 311-319.
Russ, S.,
Robins, A., & Christano, B. (1999). Imaginative youngsters
become creative problem solvers. Creativity
Research Journal, 12, 129-139.
Simonton,
D.K. (1988). Scientific genius: A
psychology of science.
Starko,
A. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door
identification model on creative
productivity and self-efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut,
Sternberg,
R.J., & Lubart, T. (1993). Creative giftedness: A
multivariate investment approach. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 37 (1), 7-15.
Torrance,
E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent.
creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 189-215).
Torrance,
E. P. (1984). Some
products of twenty-five years of creativity research. Educational perspectives. 22
(3), 3-8.
Walberg,
H.J., & Stariha (1992). Productive human capital:
Learning, creativity, and eminence. Creativity
Research Journal, 5, 323-340.
Walberg,
H.J., & Zeiser, S. (1997). Productivity, accomplishment,
and eminence. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.).
Whitmore,
J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and
underachievement.
Willings,
D. (1983). The gifted child grows up.
Winner, E.
(1996). Gifted children: Myths
and realities.
Winner, E.
& Martino, G.(1993). Giftedness
in the visual arts and music. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, & A.H.
Passow (Eds.), International handbook of
research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 253-281).