Assessment is defined as a process to measure whether students meet learning outcomes. Therefore, assessment will affect students’ performances as been either creative or not (Runco, 2010). For example, if teachers only want to measure how well students remember knowledge, then they shouldn’t encourage students to perform creative learning activities. Similarly, standardized tests, which include multiple choice with one or some right answers and several wrong answers, and/or short-answer tests, cannot promote creativity as students only need to select the right answers instead of thinking “out of the box” to provide critical thinking solutions (Gardner, 1993).
On the other hand, if teachers determine the purpose of assessment as a means to examine how well students can apply knowledge acquired in classrooms to address practical problems, the assessment will encourage students to think creatively in response to practical issues (Sternberg, 2012). For example, in history classrooms, teachers may ask students to think about failures in past events in order to provide lessons learnt for the future. This kind of task will encourage students to think differently about past failures and take this into consideration when needed. Consequently, students can develop and use their own creativity to find answers and solutions to problems. In the other words, the divergent thinking tasks and/or heuristic tasks will require students to think “out of the box” in order to provide flexible responses to problems. This type of task is a source of creativity development for students (Runco, 2010).
In literature on teaching, Sternberg (2012) introduced the investment-based approach as an assessment type to measure the creativity of students. This approach argued that creative people tended to pursue ideas that were unknown by others or not of interest to others but which resulted in high growth potential. Furthermore, creative people would cope with resistance when their ideas were presented and attempt to persuade others to believe in their ideas. With this approach, creativity can be fostered when the following resources are available – knowledge, intellectual ability, personality, thinking styles, environment, and motivation. Therefore, teachers, who want to promote creativity in their students, should understand these elements of this investmen-based approach and facilitate building the abovementioned resources in their classrooms.
Lubart & Sternberg (1995) developed an interesting assessment to foster and measure creativity in their students. They required their students to draw the Earth from an insect’s perspective. This task encouraged students to think differently about the Earth and promoted thinking styles. It was also an interesting and different perspective which motivated the students. It was not a difficult or complex task as the students already had a certain knowledge about the Earth. Consequently, this type of assessment resulted in students’ performances being of a high quality with good creativity. Similarly, Sternberg (2012) provides another assessment method. In this method, teachers asked the students to depict what the Chinese government would look in the next 20 years. This type of assessment required students to consider different factors and formulate their responses creatively based on their assumptions.
However, in the practice, the investment-based strategy also presented limitations. It cannot be applied in all domains, especially those requiring logical and accurate outcomes. Furthermore, it can only be applied to small groups. As discussed in the previous blog, creativity may be negatively influenced by social factors, which may include large groups of students wherein there are several unforeseen judges/evaluators (Amabile, et al., 1990).
Therefore, in the practice, no single formula works in every classroom. Teachers need to understand the different methods of assessment in promoting and/or devaluing creativity as the basis for applying the most suitable method in their practice.
References
Amabile, T., Goldfarb, P. & Brackfleld, S. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity research journal, 3(1), pp. 6-21.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy as seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. s.l.:Harper Collins Publishers.
Lubart, T., & Sternberg, R. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. The creative cognition approach, pp. 269-302.
Runco, M. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Volume 413, p. 446.
Sternberg, R. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity research journal, 24(1), pp. 3-12.