Curriculum and the creative process: contributions in memory of A. Harry Passow.

In the spring of 1990, the late A. Harry Passow formed The Creativity Group at Teachers College, Columbia University. Although others were invited and attendance varied, the regulars included MaryLee Grisanti, writer and doctoral student at Teachers College, Columbia University; Howard Gruber, Visiting Professor, Teachers College; Sandra Kay, Visiting Scholar, Teachers College; Susan Rostan, Alumna, Teachers College; Rose Rudnitski, SUNY College at New Paltz; Morris I. Stein, Professor Emeritus, New York University; and Abraham Tannenbaum, Professor Emeritus, Teachers College. Providing the conditions to develop our thoughts, to informally present current research for constructive criticism, and to continue the quest, Harry Passow ended almost every session with questions like "So what? What does this mean for teaching creativity?" or "How can we use what we know and learned about creative thought to improve teaching?"

To celebrate one of Harry Passow's many contributions to the field of gifted education, we present some of the group's responses to Harry's questions. To provide structure the group was asked three questions: (1) What do you use in the classroom of what you know about the creative process? (2) Do you purposefully teach for creativity? (3) In what ways might teachers be helped to recognize and foster the development of creativity in their students?

S. Kay: I have always been interested in the creative child who falls between the cracks of our educational system. In the art room these students had unique conceptual contributions regardless of their ability in art. As early as kindergarten or first grade, the unusual interpretation or perspective a child would give to an assignment served as an indicator of creative thought. For example, a third grade student of mine asked if he could make a sculpture when the art problem posed was to design and make a clay container. When I asked what a sculpture "contained", his answer was memories and feelings. Prior to this, the student had not demonstrated interest in art. Providing the conditions and recognizing possibilities are, to me, important characteristics of a teacher interested in fostering creative growth.

One characteristic often cited in the literature on creative thought or creative problem solving describes the role played by aesthetics - especially with regard to an elegant solution. Knowing when an elegant solution has been reached is an interesting phenomenon. It seems that creative work in all fields involves evaluating the novel solution as correct by using an aesthetic criterion. In M. Stein's words, "The experimental finding, the engineered apparatus, the portrait, the abstract painting, have a feeling about it that it "works". It is well designed. Everything fits just right. It is pleasing and satisfying." (p.21, 1984). I could add to that list the response to a classroom assignment.

Taking a slightly different perspective, I have been looking at elegant problems. If an assignment or problem provides the conditions for various learners to engage in making the problem personally meaningful and challenging, it is what I consider to be an elegant problem. Looking at successful teaching, I asked "What are the characteristics of an elegant problem that guide curriculum design?". Designing problems (or assignments) that translate a field of knowledge to reach a level of meaning for the learner is critical at any position along an imaginary continuum of expertise. An elegant problem elicits elegant solutions. When the parameters of a problem are stretched by an individual's solution, that individual has engaged in creative thought. That is why I see curriculum design as the artistry of teaching.

It seems to me that creative thinking is a requisite skill for good teaching. The teacher, in seeking ways to provide opportunities for students to create meaning in any subject area, must make many choices. Perhaps the most consequential decision is choosing a problem that is worth solving. Some problems are more worthy than others. The issue of quality or value discriminates an elegant problem from others. The elegant problem is also one that provides technical and intellectual growth as it elicits original solutions from each individual. The opportunity is there for fluency of responses.

To elicit creative solutions, a problem must also remain responsive to the various levels of expertise found in a student population. For example, the growth necessary to a developing artist is different from the growth of a student uninterested in developing artistic talent. Considering the prior knowledge and experiences of individuals is important as well. However, for me, an elegant problem is one that can be translated across ages and degrees of talent development. It has a flexible problem space. Room for elaboration is another characteristic of an elegant problem. There is a balance of freedom and constraint.

I suspect it is this fascination with elegant problems that fueled the motivation to transcribe and edit audiotape conversations and written texts over the last two years of our meetings.

H. Gruber: I'll tell you a story about myself. I really never thought very much about how to teach. No one ever told me how to teach. I would have a big group of 30 students in a graduate course with five such sections. I always felt it wasn't going well. I had to lecture, no discussions. Then in my first teaching job at a Canadian University, some student mentioned to me the idea of buzz groups. What it means is that at some point during the class time, the students all turn around and talk to each other. I thought: interesting, I'll try that.

I announced to the class at the beginning of the meeting what I was going to do and a groan went up. I didn't know what the groan was about. I said well, I didn't ask for your opinion, we are going to do it. We did it and it worked like a charm. It was very exciting. The very same people who groaned said it was the best class they ever had. There was much more enthusiasm then I could have dreamed. So I asked the 60 or so students in that class, So what happened? What did I do differently than the person that this came from? They said "You gave us time. Other times we were given a minute to buzz. You gave us a half an hour." That became an unspoken... I never even said it until just now...directive to myself. There are lots of variations to that method....how long it takes you to build up to the question, whether you walk around the room or leave it for a time. I know that somebody has done a study on how long a teacher waits after asking a question before giving an answer. It is something like 31 seconds, 15 seconds...something very short.

The way in which a person organizes creative work must provide time for the generation of ideas and reflection upon those ideas. Creative work must also be organized in a way that allows the products of spontaneous play and variation to be incorporated in the set of ongoing projects or a network of enterprise. Emotions, values, loyalties, and ethical beliefs play a fundamental role in creative work. The organization of affect guides the creative person through the terrain of a domain. It serves to energize, mobilize resources, and maintain motivation. Study of the internal development of each thinker through analyses of scientific notebooks capturing thought on the wing reveal the intense social interactions that are vital parts of the creative process. The idea of the process of sharing thoughts and looking at ideas aborning that goes on between mentor and student is an active part of creative work. The creative process is more than problem solving or divergent thinking. Failing to give students an inkling of the systems of the creative process dooms them to a sponge-like absorption of great men's thoughts and deprives them of the thrill of participating in intellectual episodes of discovery. It was the idea of simulating this participation in an institutional setting such as a university that led to the Newark experiment.

The Newark Experiment was an effort to develop approaches to university teaching that assist students to think better. Although a variety of students were involved, the aim from the beginning was to develop a program appropriate for educationally deprived, ill-prepared students. A goal that emerged early in the course of the work was to develop teaching methods that would work with the subject matter of a conventional course at any level and in any discipline. But these methods needed to respect both the voice of "learn" and the voice of "think." The major aspects of the program were: openness, pluralism, active participation, communication and self-explanation, shared reflection, teacher participation, minilecture, group planning, production and reflection, and self-tailoring. (See Table 1 for brief descriptions.)

Aspects of the Newark Experiment Program

Gruber, H.E. & Richard, L. (1990). Active work and creative thought in university classrooms. In Schwebel, M.; Maher, C.A.; and Fagley, N.S. (Eds.) Promoting Cognitive Growth Over the Lifespan, pp. 137-164. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Openness, When the students register for the course they are told that its main aim is to help them to think better, with coverage of subject matter a secondary aim. One of the requirements of the course is active participation in classroom work. To avoid imposing the special goals of the course on anyone, the students are given an opportunity to transfer to other courses or other sections taught in a traditional way.

Pluralism. There is no one best way to think well. Activities, problems, and experiences are chosen with an eye to bringing out the natural diversity of students' thinking.

Active participation. Every student is expected to do all the work. Activities in class are done either individually or in small groups.

Communication and self-explanation. After each bout of individual or small-group activity, there was a round-robin in which each student is asked to describe what he or she did. During this phase the teacher makes notes at the blackboard, for the use of all. One invariable result in this phase is everyone's astonishment and usually pleasure at the diversity produced.

Shared reflection, After every individual has reported, a discussion is developed, examining differences, points in common, strengths, missed opportunities, underlying assumptions, possible future problems, and so forth. A main goal of this phase is to reiterate, as is done throughout the course, that it is not enough to have good, even wonderful ideas. They must be expressed, tried out, reflected upon, and elaborated.

Teacher participation, In the initial phase of each class meeting, the teacher tries to get the experiential, active part going as quickly as possible, usually with a 5-minute introduction and explanation of the task for the day. When it is appropriate, the teacher tries to do the same work as the students. Even though the teacher has done it before while preparing the class, there is always some fresh nuance to be discovered, so the teacher can be a bona fide participant. Because the teacher is usually a more "experienced thinker" (John-Steiner, 1985) than the others in the room, this broadens the spectrum of available models of thought, but without imposing one model as the best way to think.

Mini-lecture, Often the teacher will see an opportunity to give a brief talk at the end of the class period, linking the experiences the students have just had with other information and reflections.

Group planning. Ideally, the class would - after the first meeting or two - plan its own future sessions. As this program is conducted within the confines of an ordinary American university structure, with classes meeting twice a week for 75-100 minutes, we have not often found it possible to do this. But we do have a reasonable substitute for it.

Production and reflection, After all, the conduct of the class described earlier does have something in common with divergent thinking experiments. The teacher presents a problem, and then there is a relatively relaxed period of idea-production. But the all-important differences lie in the process of reflection. First, there is no effort made to find the best idea or solution. Rather, the collection of ideas produced by the group becomes the object of reflection. Second, the process of shared reflection usually takes as much or often considerably more time than the initial, individual work.

Self-tailoring, One fundamental principle of our approach asks that students should become aware of their own strengths and develop them. This happens spontaneously in the reiterated process of self-explanation and mutual comparison. In addition, we give the students a few exercises explicitly aimed at this goal. These can take the form of asking everyone to develop an exercise that plays from that individual's own strengths - or that focuses on a felt weakness.

Table 1. from pg.151 -153 if permission to reproduce can be acquired,

There is other experimental and case study evidence that supports a developing body of knowledge showing that important cognitive changes can be experimentally and educationally induced. Experimental studies of memory and causal reasoning have yielded significant improvements. These are important parts of many fields of endeavor, yet there is little direct instruction at improving them. From the research, it seems that improvement of thinking and creative work can be achieved in every component skill or complex, molar performances whenever educational or training efforts are made toward that end.

A sample activity introducing synaesthesia to an Introductory Psychology course demonstrates the interactions of the major aspects of the Newark Experiment:

In about 5 minutes, the teacher explains the basic facts of

synaesthesia. Then the students are asked to close their eyes

and listen. The teacher produces a more or less musical tone

(sometimes vocally, sometimes with an alto recorder or a

pitch pipe). Then we go around the room and students are

asked individually to describe their visual experiences. We

repeat this process a number of times, varying the sounds,

and sometimes trying for a particular kind of experience

(such as pure color response). We then move from the communication

and self-explanation phase into the phase of

shared reflection - trying to make sense of the rich array of

data just accumulated, and noted down on the blackboard.

This is a good exercise with which to begin the course. It

is nonthreatening because there is obviously no correct

answer; it produces a great variety of responses (which the

teacher welcomes openly); and it opens the way to discussion

and later reading about standard topics in general psychology,

imagery and cross-modal experiences. If the

teacher can manage to stop the students' momentum, the

last 5 or 10 minutes can be used to link up these flesh experiences

with a mini-lecture about research on imagery and

synaesthesia. (Gruber & Richard, 1990, pp. 153-154)

The assignments we designed vary in the amount of individual thought and shared reflection. Shared reflection broadens the scope of individuals and decentralizes the patterns of communication. It is also important to point out that most creative work includes some elements of collaboration, although the topic is neglected in the literature.

Case studies of gifted people, specifically Feldman's (1986) study of children and Bloom's (1985) study of adults with exceptional achievements in multiple domains, demonstrate two other important points for our understanding of creative work. First, it is evident that the period of time from the first appearance of an exceptional ability to the first emergence in the form of effective, creative work or extraordinary performance is a timespan of years. A recurrent finding in our case study research has been the long duration of creative projects. For example, Darwin took decades to write the Origin of Species. In fact, Bloom found that the time involved was almost always 10 years. Second, an individual's talents will not develop to the fullest extent without recognition and support. Feldman's study documents the complex efforts involved in developing an adequate support system tailored to individual needs. Extraordinary achievement requires recognition, encouragement, and years of hard work.

There may be many ways in which more could be done to connect thinking skills programs with the real concerns of students, including attending to their desire for subject matter mastery. A realistic educational aim for the next decade or so should be innovations that address the desire for covering standard subject matter, the conservative voice of "learn" while modifying the teaching strategies to include the goal of "think." Special classes on how to think better, free of a commitment to any domain-specific body of knowledge but sampling thinking strategies are valuable for exploring the terrain. Then we can exploit the results of these special efforts within the framework of current disciplines and bodies of knowledge.

S. Kay: I avidly agree. I began in gifted education as a high school art teacher involved with the design of a comprehensive cross-disciplinary program for gifted and talented students as defined by the 1972 Marland Report. In addition to their independent inquiry, students attended seminars that addressed thinking skills or learning strategies useful to all of them. It was a seminar we held on creative problem-solving that served as a crystallizing experience for me as well as the other program facilitators. The artistically talented students loved the presentation, diving into the group assignment with enthusiastic leadership. Those students who had been uncomfortable with previous seminar content, now helped others through the steps. This was exactly what we had planned as an outcome of combining these students with strengths in various domains. However, the valedictorian of the class became visibly upset and challenged a process that did not have one correct solution as lacking in educational merit. Convincing him to stay with the lesson took faculty from several academic disciplines. Witnessing the extreme discomfort of a senior who had never encountered an educational experience requiring creative thought left us all horrified. Providing high ability students with a repertoire of thinking strategies and experiences that utilize and advance their prior knowledge remains a major goal of our EXPAND program.

I also believe that individuals with a variety of thinking strategies at their disposal have the flexibility with these requisite tools to develop an artistic spirit as well as the empiricism of scientific inquiry. Creative contributions- those that add to our understanding and insight, rather than just add to factual data - appear to require a repertoire of thinking strategies.

Currently, as a district coordinator of gifted programs, I teach critical and creative thinking skills to students in grades 3-12 who are enrolled in our self-directed, inquiry-based program designed to develop producers of ideas. Some of my time is also spent integrating thinking skills into the regular curriculum through my work with classroom teachers. These experiences have directed my research on creative thought and problem-finding toward the context of curriculum design and teacher education.

ML. Grisanti: My experience is domain-specific as I am a writer and teacher of writing. Until I was asked to write a book about creativity, I never suspected that I was a researcher in creative thought, as Piaget's children never suspected they were epistemologists. I just went on my merry way trying to write stories and trying to help college students do the same thing. My colleagues at the School of Visual Arts were busy in the same way, except in painting, sculpture or other visual media. We were artists mentoring younger artists. We struggled to earn a living, and were often at odds between the work we thought was good and the work we were paid for.

Quite often we failed to realize our dreams, and nearly failed to pay the rent. Most of us failed as much as we were successful. We noticed that we learned as much from failure as from success. In fact, the way one learns from success is predictable and leads to repetition, but the way one learns from failure is always different and surprising, rich with nuances to be mined at a later date.

H. Gruber: Surprise is failure backwards.

ML. Grisanti: Yes. We also noticed that our students learned from our failures as from their own. Sometimes we stood before classes feeling we had nothing to offer but years of mistakes. But our honesty was rewarded with growth. The credibility we had in our students' eyes let them trust us. Because they trusted us, they threw themselves head first into the air supported only by words or paint or clay. They knew even if we couldn't catch them, we would at least break their fall.

It is clear to me now that what my colleagues seemed to know innately in the way that they shared lessons of their creativity with their students, is something that can be used to nurture creativity in any classroom. It begins with trust.

Trust is a dialogue; it is a question asked by someone who does not already know the answer. Trust requires the humility of the listener. A modern Hasidic rabbi, Reb Zalman SchacterShalomi paraphrases older sources when he says there are ears that have the power to open mouths. There is a kind of empowering listening that teachers who nurture creativity have. They sense the secret opening into the zone of proximal development, if you will. But they are also willing to be pulled into new zones of their own by their students. For when the contribution is creativity, the apprentice may sometimes surprise the master.

Creativity is in the surprise, the exception. Nearly everything in most classrooms mitigates against surprises; it is organized to insure consistency and often conformity. It is very hard to have it both ways. My own belief is that while students have the right to expect high standards of skill teaching, a teacher who values creativity makes it clear that these skills are a cart - a student's own creativity is the horse. Sometimes to create a classroom with these priorities means fighting administrative strictures - perhaps changing schedules to allow for longer periods, changing grade options to lower extrinsic pressures, changing rooms so that materials can be left in process, for example. But it can also mean fighting students who want rules they can follow with assurance. This is human nature - look at the tidal wave trend toward quantitative assessment in many fields.

But more than any other subject I can think of, creativity requires self-knowledge. Profound and yet subtle, exacting yet questioning. This is the real job of mentors who would nourish creativity - to help the student hear his own voice, see his own soul. This is why creativity is so closely linked to self-esteem, and why it can lead to real breakthroughs for students who suddenly find the source inside themselves. No other subject is located so much in the inner libraries of memory, dream, and reflection. Creativity realized and enacted is a kind of dialogue of self-reflection with the outside world: in a way as Lee Strasbourg described acting: the art of being private in public. Each contact with the private self is transformed by the response of the environment; the self representations that are sent out again become each time more powerfully transformative.

True creative development cannot be achieved - at least not with the young - apart from character development. This kind of classroom dialogue requires honesty and credibility. Teachers cannot always be right, but they can always be honest. There are many creative ways to encompass what is false - satire for example - but they all require one to recognize it. Sometimes it is impossible to reject what is false - there are many fictions which are part of life. But the trick is to know they are fictions. This might account for the difference between imitation in all its categories and originality which is always singular and unique.

To nurture creativity in the classroom requires character for another reason as well. At no time are students and teachers more involved in an activity of meaning-making, so important to students' understanding of themselves. Speaking as a writing teacher, I, as well as my colleagues, have seen many stories in which students were speaking aloud for the first time. Stories of suicide attempts, drug use, rape. Sometimes lives depend on the integrity of our responses, on our ability to listen with the heart and to act. Teachers who teach for creativity must be willing to accept the whole person which emerges - often unwittingly - with the work. This is a tough commitment which more than anything requires the nurturance and support of other teachers.

S. Rostan: I work with young artists (K-6) in non-agegraded, mixed-ability groups within the context of a private, after-school fine arts program. My experiences as an artist, a teacher, and a researcher suggest that the motivation to develop domain-specific skills, despite challenge and frustration, is an important component of the early development of creative thinking. I encourage the young artists I work with to experiment with methods of painting and drawing, to persevere when they encounter challenging projects, and to spend as much time as they need to develop and revise their art projects. My goal is to establish a supportive environment in which help and instructions are provided according to each child's needs. I structure the individualized curriculum around the student's chosen project, forging their purposeful work with the pleasures of creating and realizing goals. Individualizing the curriculum allows me to help each child maximize his or her interaction with the educational environment and to nurture the expression of talents.

Typically, confidence in the mastery of technical skills and the ability to express themselves free the young artists to explore alternatives--alternative methods and subject matter. I am conscious of my attempts to teach for expressivity. Interestingly, the intention or artistic focus of the young artists I work with changes with the development of domain-specific skills. The youngest artists are concerned with technical expertise. The older students' focus shifts to using what they know to make something they value and then to expressing themselves. It is from their unique personal perspective that we work together to engage in creative problem finding and problem solving.

My interaction with young artists involves giving them the necessary skills to create things that are meaningful to them. This involves building a curriculum around their interests and expressed needs. I work to nurture a sense of self-direction and ownership of the task by letting them choose their projects. The students typically take on projects that demand more skills than they currently possess. They view the frustrations they meet and overcome as milestones in their development. Accomplishments are celebrated and perceived failures are minimized by helping them to fine tune their expectations to the demands of the chosen projects and encouraging changes in ideas and their representations. Their reflections on their own development, something I have been documenting for the past few years, reveal a sense of accomplishment associated with the mastery of skills and the execution of satisfying solutions to challenging problems. I make an effort, through a review of the year's projects, to foster an awareness of their development and the achievement of their self-selected goals. The key components to their early development as creators are experimentation, perseverance, courage, and a sense that they are changing and growing along with their work. They are surrounded by other young artists, engaged in different projects, and using different methods. Together we teach one another about the work involved in transforming both strengths and weaknesses into a personal quality in art. We all learn by doing. They acquire the courage to meet with frustrations and challenges in their art and they begin again. I acquire the courage to meet with the frustrations and challenges in their development and I begin again. Courage, a component of creativity that Howard Gruber has discussed, involves facing known challenges and obstacles.

One of the interesting findings emerging from my research is how adults foster the young artists' conceptions and misconceptions about what it means to be creative. Too often children learn that being artistically talented and creative are innate gifts that they either have or don't have. The idea that talent and creativity in the fine arts need to be developed through purposeful work is something that many of the parents of the young artists learn by observing their child's artistic development. We might suggest that teachers and parents spend some time studying their own conceptions about what it means to be creative and how they explicitly or implicitly communicate their own expectations to their students.

Moving beyond the development of competence in the conventions of the domain, I encourage young artists' explorations, experimentations, and self creations. Despite the work, they tell me they are having fun.

M.I. Stein: Let me start with a caveat. Almost all of my teaching experience was limited to the university graduate level. Two years before my retirement, much to the surprise of the Chairman of my department, I requested to teach Introductory Psychology and that is about the only undergraduate course I ever taught--and enjoyed.

My experience with grade schoolers is limited to an occasional invitation to "do something creative" with them. Each time I have to work through a potential anxiety attack. As I said to one group of small children "I don't know who is more afraid, you or I."

I am absolutely in awe of anyone who teaches at the grade school level, the high school level or even the college level. I hope that what I say will be of some use to them.

I began my work in creativity a good many years ago. It grew out of my curiosity about an interesting question in personality theory. At the time I began my work, psychologists were all involved in factors that led up to or that were associated with psychological difficulties and mental illness. They focused on what my professor and mentor, the late Henry Murray, called the "catabolic factors" in personality--those that led to or were associated with psychological difficulties, problems and breakdowns. Following in his footsteps I became interested in the "anabolic factors" of personality--those that kept the person "together" and which were associated with mental health. To reflect this interest I conducted my research in the center I established at the University of Chicago and later at New York University, "The Center for the Study of Creativity and Mental Health."

Searching for a group of persons who encountered difficulties and problems in living or in their work but who resolved them constructively, I decided to study creative persons. My first paper was on a group of painters who worked around the Near Northside in Chicago (I was teaching at the University of Chicago at the time). I did not continue working with them because I could not get agreement from experts in the field on my subjects' creativity. Fortunately, I then was able to get a grant to study scientists. They were special in the sense that they were employed in industrial research organizations. This was important to me since the theoretical orientation that shaped my research argued that creativity like all behavior is a function of the transactional relationships between the individual and the environment--the individual effects the environment and the environment effects the individual. The research was begun at the University of Chicago and it was continued later at New York University from which I retired in 1991. Although retired, I am still actively involved in studying a whole variety of factors associated with the creative process in adults and in gifted children.

It is apparent from what I have just said that my work has been primarily in research. My published articles and books either present my own research or review the research published by others. I have published a book on gifted, talented and creative young people (Stein, 1986). My other works focus on adults. Although I have conducted workshops on creativity, I am not a trainer. I consider myself primarily a researcher and a teacher.

As I turn to the questions at hand, and as I look back at my teaching experience, I have to say that I do not purposefully try to teach creativity directly. If anything, I teach it indirectly. I love and am excited about what I teach and I hope this excitement rubs off on my students and stimulates them to try their wings creatively. If any of them shows any spark or interest in striking out on their own, I try to be as helpful and as supportive as possible in facilitating their creative development.

The following are some implicit or explicit factors that characterize my teaching.

Contricipation--This is a word I coined several years ago to call attention to the fact that everyone plays a role in the creative process as a contributor and/or as an appreciator. All too often workers in the creativity area attend only to contributors. But, the fact is that contributors need appreciators and appreciators need contributors.

To underscore my point I will ask a group, "What would the world be like without creativity?" I expand the question by asking, "Imagine that one night you have insomnia and want to read a good book. Nobody wrote it." "Imagine you are having dinner with your significant other and you want to play some special mood music. Nobody composed it." "Imagine that you plan to go to a museum on a weekend. You don't. No one has painted any paintings."

It doesn't take long for the group to see that appreciators need contributors and that appreciators have to become more active and supportive of contributors. Those who focus on contributors soon see that contributors frequently have to be more in touch with appreciators.

I would be overjoyed if my teaching resulted in more contributors and better appreciators. Being a pragmatist, if I can't get both, I'll take either.

The Socio-Cultural Context of Creativity--As I said above, for me creativity, like all behavior, is a function of the transactional relationships between the individual and the environment. In my classroom teaching, I spend more time on environmental factors than on individual psychological factors because I don't want the students to become self-conscious and compare themselves to others. Since I don't have psychological data on my students, I don't know their areas of sensitivity, strengths or weaknesses. I have a great deal of respect for the individual and therefore I never comment about individuals before a class. I speak only in generalities about creative persons and follow student leads in any discussion. If a student wants an individual session or if a student has some "creative" idea that he or she wants to talk about, I am more than happy to arrange an individual session.

I am much more open in discussing environmental factors and usually devote the first class, whether it be my personality theory class, the undergraduate class, or the class on creativity to a discussion of the socio-cultural factors affecting creativity. I start with a transparency that is headed "The Social Context" and immediately below it I specify that it as an "Evolutionary Model". Later, if the situation allows for it, the students and I get into a discussion of Darwin and his creative contributions.

There are two columns on the transparency. The one on the left side is headed Factors Effecting the Sources and Development of Creativity and to its right is a column headed Factors Effecting the Survival of Creative Accomplishments. There are 8 factors in the left-hand column--Physical Environment, Philosophical Orientation of the Culture, Developmental Level, Educational Opportunities and Practices, The Family and Child Rearing Practices, Political Factors, Economic Factors and Organizations.

Where it is possible, each of the factors is discussed at a general level and also at a more concrete and potentially more meaningful level for the student. For example, in discussing Geographical Factors I point out how throughout history major civilizations grew up around river valleys where groups of people of quite different backgrounds came into contact with each other and where they could learn from each other. All this led to new developments and the growth of civilization.

At a more concrete level, there is discussion of how important it is for schools, offices and companies to attend to how they build and design the work space for their employees, for this would have subtle or not so subtle effects on their creativity on the job. It also was a jumping off point for alerting students to how their own work environments might effect their creativity.

Another example: In the presentation of Philosophical Orientation, differences between Eastern and Western orientations are discussed. In Eastern cultures it is believed that God exists internal to humans; hence "intuition" is an important investigative technique. In Western cultures, on the other hand, it is believed that God exists external to humans; consequently measuring that which is outside is an important investigative technique.

The discussion of Philosophical Orientation also makes it possible to point out to the students how steeped our concepts of creativity are in Western philosophical orientations but that these are not the only ones. Eastern orientations also have a great deal to contribute.

After completing a discussion of all the Factors Effecting Sources and Development of Creativity on the left side of the transparency, we then turn to the right side and discuss two major groups--the intermediaries and the audience.

Intermediaries are those persons who exist and play their roles between the creative individual and the audience or public. They are the creative individual's grandparents, parents, siblings, extended family, classmates, peers, art critics, drama critics, scientific review committees, mentors, teachers, coaches, etc. These can be very powerful and crucial persons in the creative process when considered from a social point of view, yet very little systematic attention has been paid to them from a research point of view.

To give students some experience with intermediaries in classes where it is appropriate--usually in a class devoted to research on creativity--they are asked to interview a curator in a museum, an art gallery owner, the owner of cabaret, jazz or disco club (of which there are many in Greenwich Village around NYU), or any person who fulfills the role of an intermediary. Students find this very interesting especially since they never thought of the roles that intermediaries play in the creative process. Those who go to local disco joints are especially fascinated with all the decisions that go into the hiring and development of the musicians and hence effect their creativity.

The socio-cultural discussion is completed with a talk about the characteristics of the audience and public that effect their willingness to accept creative products. The work of sociologists is very helpful here. Students have to confront the fact that people actually vary in how quickly they will accept novel works. In the course of the discussion, problems of social change and marketing need to be touched on.

Throughout the discussion of socio-cultural factors and creativity, I will sprinkle examples of how some of the factors discussed effected the lives of famous creative persons. This is especially relevant to my discussions of personality theorists. Here I limit myself to matters related to Freud.

When it comes to Freud, I discuss the intellectual and cultural atmosphere of the Vienna (Geographical Factor) of his time and how it related to the spirit of his inquiries. In discussing the effects of the Developmental Level of the arts and science, I point out that about the time that Freud was developing his theories of repression and the unconscious, there were important developments in photography and in voice recording. I then ask the class to consider the similarity between Freud's theories and these technological developments. Don't all three bring to the future, events and developments that occurred in the past?

When it comes to discussing Freud's own thought processes, I emphasize the importance of the relationship between language and thought process (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) and highlight the importance of the metaphor. I discuss Freud's use of "sublimation" in his theorizing, a concept he took over from Chemistry.

Surely, I don't limit to socio-cultural context of creativity. I do discuss some very personal matters in a theoretician's life. In Freud's case I point out that Freud developed his concept of the Oedipus Complex only after his own father died.

Diversity--The third characteristic of my teaching approach is my emphasis on Diversity. I emphasize that there is no single "cookie-cutter" that produces the creative individual--the creative contributor or the creative appreciator. Different types of people play very significant roles in the creative process. Typologies are not very popular these days among psychologists; nevertheless I focus on types of persons. In this manner I try to suggest that each student has the opportunity to discover his or her own "voice", as the poets say.

In this regard I also point out to the students that currently a basic model for psychology is physics which psychologists are always trying to emulate. This approach seeks and tests universals and, therefore, when covering the creativity literature students will find that there are many studies in which psychological variables are correlated with creativity.

While modeling psychology on physics has produced valuable information, I suggest that in addition to this approach we might also model our work on botany. Many flowers are beautiful and please us, but they are different from each other. So I suggest that it is important to study the diversity among persons and how these differences might be related to their creativity.

To illustrate what I try to do in this regard, let me describe what I did in my class devoted to a discussion of personality theories. A goodly number of theorists are discussed in this class--Freud, Jung, Adler, Erikson, etc. Students, if they do their work, are usually quite capable of reporting (by rote?) the basic tenets of each of the theories. But, they are less capable when it comes to applying the theory. For example, a student might be quite good at telling you what and an Oedipus Complex is and what Freud had to say about it. Yet, the student might not recognize an Oedipus Complex in himself or others, if it stared him or her in the face.

To counteract this shortcoming in my Personality Theory class, I give my students a case study via a biographical form I developed in my creativity research. In this instance the form was filled out by a young woman some years ago. The biographical material is to be analyzed and interpreted by the students, working not as individuals, but as teams. Each team looks at the biographical material through the eyes of a theorist that they selected. There is a Freudian Team, a Jungian Team and an Adlerian Team--three theorists are sufficient for the typical class. All presentations are made on one day of a weekend at the end of the semester so that presentations should not be rushed. The presentations have always been fantastic. The teams try to outdo each other. Some come in wearing period costumes. Others write soap opera scripts. Some play it very straight. In all cases they do terrific jobs. When presentations are over there is a discussion of the similarities and differences between the various interpretations.

The students' interpretations of the biographical material reflect their attempts to understand the case. "Understanding" is one factor in their training. They also need experience in "prediction." Actually, that is not possible since they don't have the subject available. All they have is past material. Therefore they don't get experience in prediction but in postdiction. In this instance they are asked to postdict the subject's occupation. This is not a very easy task because the subject they studied provided the biographical data in the 1960s. Also, the subject had a rather unique occupation. She was a go-go dancer in a nightclub. Frankly, that was one of the reasons this case was selected. What has always amazed me is how many students do get the subject's occupation correct and how many come close.

Hopefully, the discussion thus far provides a reasonable picture of how I apply my work in creativity to my teaching. If there is a common denominator then it is the attempt to make connections between the material that is taught, the content of the course, and anything I know that is or can be associated with creativity--either for contributors or appreciators.

S. Kay: Moe, you have made reference to the use of metaphors by Freud and your mentor, Murray. I know your work often cites metaphorical thinking as important to creative thought. Do you think metaphors are indicators of advanced expertise or might this concept be important to teaching at some or any level?

M.I. Stein: I believe that metaphors are valuable in all parts of the creative process and in teaching generally as well as in teaching focused on creativity. As you said, I have done research on metaphors especially with a test/technique I developed that provides a measure of Physiognomic Perception which seems to be related to creativity.

Turning to the other part of your question, I think that youngsters of all ages should be very responsive to metaphors but I don't know since that is not an area of my expertise. Years ago, I know that I read about some of the work that Gordon (of Synectics fame) and Poze were doing on metaphors with children. I think they had developed a very interesting series of workbooks for the use of metaphors with children. Unfortunately, I lost contact with that work. It is something that should be looked into.

R. Rudnitski: All this talk of creativity and how to foster it is fine, but I think that we've omitted a very important aspect: the moral aspect of creativity. Abe and I, in our own discussions, have tried to imagine the moral imperatives behind the creativity of people like Hitler and his followers. How can someone be so creative and yet be so lacking in moral judgement and thoughts of the implications of his creative acts? Can actions so bizarre and demonic be deemed creative? They were certainly unique and original.

In creating environments that foster creativity in schools and the workplace, how do we foster moral creativity and the desire to create for the benefit of others and not just for the benefit of the creator? We live in a society that sends millions of messages every day to children and adults. The content of these messages is very similar: "Do things that promote your own well being." There are few messages and there is little incentive for students to create for others. This, of course, begs the question, "What is moral creativity?" Is moral creativity that which is used to benefit others? Can it benefit both the creator and others at the same time? I would answer, "Absolutely, but creativity that benefits just the creator is not necessarily moral."

As a teacher of teachers, I want my students to develop their creativity, but I want them to do it for the benefit of their students. Though there is much ego satisfaction in creating, the best teachers keep their egos out of their creating and create for their students. For them, creativity may result in actions and words on the fly, intangible products; but it also may result in tangible products and wonderful lessons. I try to model this as much as possible in the classroom, but explicitly teaching creativity sometimes distracts from the subject matter - and the idea of a moral imperative seems stuffed in too little space in the curriculum. How can one do it all and know what one is getting?

I am a teacher educator. I try to foster creativity in my own classroom by creating a nurturing environment in which originality and exploration are valued. This is done primarily through developing trust with the students. They are free to take risks and not suffer consequences in their grades if they do not initially live up to their own and my standards; and I try to support their efforts to get there. This means scaffolding, not just in terms of cognition, but also in terms of creativity. The vast majority of students have very little experience with creative tasks and processes, primarily, I think, because they are not provided with opportunities to develop their skills and abilities in these areas in school and at home. I try to provide these opportunities in my methods courses so that my students will be inspired to create similar opportunities for their own students.

Speaking of abilities as opposed to skills, what about the spiritual dimensions of creativity? Many eminent creatives have spoken of it. They speak of their ideas coming from someone else or from God. Does intuition emanate from the spirit; from a Jungian collective consciousness? It, too, seems to be without ego. We attach the "I" and derive the satisfaction from creating. The ideas, themselves, have no attachment. Mozart wrote a great deal about this. That is why he invented a form of chance music, where he rolled dice to choose his next notes. He felt that his music was not coming from him, so why not just let it come from dice?

The great Tibetan teacher, Chogyam Trungpa, said that we make our own dramas and star on our own stage in our minds. We see our lives in this way as a result of our egos. Does the truly creative individual see his/her creativity in this way or does it emanate naturally, on its own, as Mozart claimed? There is a definitely different perspective if one views one's creativity from the ego point of view than if one views it from the spiritual point of view.

I suppose that I am thinking on a more philosophical level, but this level provides the foundation for all research and measurement. If we omit the moral and the spiritual, we will be making the same mistake that Western science has made for the past 500 years and simply come up with some dry, linear, rational framework that creative people will laugh at and say has nothing to do with real creativity. That is a recurrent problem.

I'm afraid that I've raised more questions than I've answered, but the raising of questions serves a purpose, too.

A.J. Tannenbaum: I never think of myself as a particularly creative person - a producer of exemplary theory or research, or works that are considered aesthetically precious, or any form of ingenious invention, for that matter. Nor am I a re-creator of note, in the sense of interpreting other people's creations. Even my performance of social service through teaching and writing is regarded at best, as serviceable, but hardly inspirational enough to imprint itself on the minds and hearts of students.

But while I can't take credit for being a "big C" creative, with a history of major accomplishments, I pride myself as being a fairly good idea person, which qualifies me for "little c" status. And if the difference between "little c" and "big C' is only in degree, rather than in kind, then my own experiences in creating may be meaningful for understanding some people who are far more creative than I.

As I mentioned earlier, if I have any strengths at all, they are in the realm of generating ideas that are original to me, at least. More specifically, I am a fairly competent synthesizer of other people's ideas, rather than a revolutionizer of disciplines that I study. For example, my program paradigm for enriching the education of the gifted contains elements from several such models that are familiar to me, except that I am not exclusive minded about single elements as their respective promoters are. The one original contribution to the mix is my insistence that the model include the social and affective consequences of being gifted (see Tannenbaum, 1983). Maybe it's my religious education and upbringing that accounts for my insisting that the curriculum feature a strong ethical overlay, a conscience, as it were. I take credit for sounding the alarm about gifted minds exposed to a school program that provides virtually no set of values dedicated to preserving and enhancing the quality of life on this planet.

I am frankly proud of introducing ethics and morals into an enrichment framework for the gifted for obvious reasons. Giftedness is a double edged sword that can be used for master building or mass destruction. Society needs its brilliant builders, even if it is for no other reason than to restore what has been, and is being, ingeniously destroyed. I have shared these sentiments with professional and lay audiences far and wide over many years, and the reactions have been enthusiastic. At first blush, my idea and its acceptance should promote me to "middle c" status, right? Wrong. Despite its spirited positive reception, the idea has never become part of an enrichment program, to my knowledge. So where do I stand? Does the admiration with which my thought has been received qualify me for promotion to "middle c"? Or does the fact that it was never implemented reduce me to failure as an innovator while building my reputation as a crowd pleaser, an entertainer?

By nature and training, I consider my intellectual orientation to the world of ideas as inclusive. By that I mean that my focus is not narrow when I think about creativity, for example. I am not interested only in how behavioral scientists view it, but also in how it is perceived by social scientists, historians, artists, writers, philosophers, and whoever else has a stake in it. Through their diverse perspectives, they may communicate to each other about as clearly as did the builders of the Biblical Tower of Babel. Yet I find it exciting to amalgamate these thoughts and languages into some coherent message that they can all live with. Is this a sign of creativity or just mental diplomacy? I'm not sure.

What I do know is that my inclination to include rather than choose between often competing viewpoints, provided there is some redeeming quality, explains why I create the way I do. In sponsoring dissertations, for instance, I allowed any reasonable and meaningful topics to be investigated, provided they were designed to contribute to understanding, not merely factual information. This means that I did not insist on students following my own research agenda. I tried to immerse myself in the diverse dissertation topics of their choice, no matter how ignorant I was of many of them initially, in order to be of help with ideas of my own that might strengthen the studies.

My tendency to adopt a broad perspective also accounts for the social-psychological approach to the understanding of antecedents of gifted behavior. I emphasize social and chance factors, as well as static and dynamic dimensions in ways that are generally ignored in other dimensions of what accounts for giftedness. Are the products of my professional broad-mindedness proof that I am "creative" because people find them interesting and reasonable? It seems to me that judging original ideas as "interesting and reasonable" or even "brilliant" is far behind considering them "creative". I guess what I'm groping for is a better view of the twilight zone between solid but dull mastery, or proficiency, or expertise, at one extreme, and the magic of creativity at the other. Clarifying a bit of that twilight zone is where I hope to belong when my career is evaluated some day.

What spurs on my brand of creative production? It is not quite internal or external motivation, or even a combination of the two. I am basically lazy and would have perhaps preferred teaching students other people's ideas, instead of devising and sharing my own. But circumstances brought me to a college where I felt it incumbent upon its faculty to generate new thought for the field rather than just repeat received wisdom. I therefore interpreted my role as a contributor to a body of knowledge that deserves quoting in my field of study, even if I am among only a relatively few who refer to it. Creativity in my case has been an inner reaction to my perceived (not actual) responsibility to be creative. This is quite different from an overflowing of personal impulses or a response to external blandishments. It is more phenomenological, and thus dependent on both the self and the environment. There I go again, being inclusive and "ecumenical".

Summary

As Harry would say, "So what?" - What are some of the major points that have been made here? There are many. Without being prescriptive or comprehensive, here is a sample:

* Creative thinking is important, and therefore deserves to be recognized and supported as devotedly as mastery learning and information gathering.

* Creative thinking, planning, and implementation are requirements of good teaching.

* Designing "elegant problems" for students to solve guides the development of their creative thinking.

* The creative process involves emotional and social interaction, as well as skill in problem solving.

* Adequate time to reflect on and integrate newly introduced concepts is essential for creative outcomes. "Think" time is as critical as "learn" time.

* Specific instruction in critical and creative thinking skills is required. Special classes on how to think better, freed of the commitment to a specific discipline, provide tools for thought that are then applied to specific disciplines.

* It is important to construct a learning environment in which risk-taking, living with temporary frustration, and failure can occur.

* Competence in basic domain-specific skills is necessary to creative thought.

* Experiences in learning to value or appreciate creativity is as important as producing creative achievements (contricipation).

* Moral or ethical characteristics of creative products warrant serious consideration.

* Creative thinking involves making connections between diverse ideas, concepts or perspectives.

* Metaphorical thinking frequently occurs in the creative process.

All teachers can provide the conditions for continuous encouragement of the creative process. The master teacher recognizes his/her role to provide these conditions. We all thank you, Harry!

REFERENCES

Bloom, B. (1985). Developing Talent in Young People. New York, N.Y.: Ballantine Books.

Feldman, D.H. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books.

Gruber, H.E. & Richard, L. (1990). Active work and creative thought in university classrooms. In Schwebel, M.; Maher, C.A.; and Fagley, N.S. (Eds.) Promoting Cognitive Growth Over the Lifespan, pp. 137-164. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marland, S.P., Jr..(1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Volume I: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stein, M.I. (1984). Making the point. Amaganset, N.Y.: Mews Press.

Stein, M.I. (1986). Gifted, talented, and creative young people. New York, N.Y.: Garland.

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan. Wallace, D.B. & Gruber, H.E. (1989). Creative people at work. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Manuscript submitted November, 1997. Revision accepted March, 1998.