Wall 1

The first three words any visitor to my classroom will notice are Imagine... Believe ... Create. Simple as these words may seem, these three words encompass the body of knowledge which underpin the theoretical constructs that guide the development of creativity in the classroom.

(Starko, 2010) citing (Resnick 2007-2008) states ...knowledge alone is not enough. In todays
rapidly changing world, people must continually come up with creative solutions to unexpected problems. Success is based not only what you know or how much you know but on your ability to think and act creatively. ... On one hand the proliferation of new technologies is quickening the pace of change, accentuating the needs of creative thinking in all aspects of peoples lives ... (Resnick 2007-2008, p.18) citied in (Starko, 2010)

Through the years, researchers have opined various definitions for creativity, some have contended it is a step out of the ordinary while researchers such as (Wallace 1989) have suggested certain conditions are necessary for creativity to occur, the theorist asserts;

creativity must provide ample room for factors that permit the creative person to sustain the dangers and ardors of creative work (p.40)

Warner 2000 cited in (Warner & Myers, 2009) contends creativity is a human act or process, which occurs when the key elements of appropriateness, novelty and a receptive audience in a given field come together to solve a given problem. While other researchers contend creativity is a distinct characteristic which is displayed as a form of activity (Ljubljana, 2004 , p.1 ). Furthermore, other theorists, (Plucker, Beghatto, & Dow, 2004) contend creativity is
"the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined in a social context" (p.90).

While much of the research on creativity has been done outside of the region, within the Caribbean researchers such as Richardson, Crichlow and Cato (1999), have examined the

Wall 2

theoretical construct related to creativity and based on research have examined the linkages between creativity and intelligence among Caribbean students. Richardson (1999) p.49 states creativity proponents have conducted extensive research on nature and development of creativity as well as the relationship between intelligence and creativity. Guilford (1950, 1959), Torrance (1962, 1974) , Taylor(1978) and Parnes (1981) have conduct studies on Intelligence, the development of creative thinking abilities, the multiple traits model of creativity and well as the Creative Problem Solving Mode l. Over the past decade, the definitions related to creativity have evolved as theorists, (Sternberg, Kaufman, &Pretz, 2002); (Sternberg & Lubart 1995, 1996) have put forth several approaches to examining the determinants of creativity and devising methods whereby creativity could be measured in students. Theorist, Woolfolk (2007) defines creativity as imaginative, original, thinking or problem solving p. 306. Berk (2005) cited in Woolfolk defines creativity as the ability to produce work that is original but still appropriate and useful. While, the definition put fourth by (Plucker, Beghatto, & Dow, 2004) stated earlier combines a theoretical constructs that encompasses the many aspects of creativity. Based on the definition put forth by (Plucker, Beghatto, & Dow, 2004) it can be argued creativity does not occur in a vacuum, other factors such as motivational patterns, background experiences, cognitive process and personality factors have to be taken into consideration when examining the outputs of creativity. Research on such factors has been undertaken by (Simonton, 2000). However to understand the construct surrounding creativity, the social environment or social factors necessary to foster creativity is critical (Arnabile, 1996, 2001; Simonton, 2000) cited in Woolfolk (2007).

Wall 3

(Guilford, 1965) suggests, in order to fully understand the definition of creativity, it needs to be examined within several components, first, creative potential which can be viewed as a collection of traits or abilities which contribute towards successful creative thinking, which in turn is distinguished by its novelty, with the degree of creativity being measured relative to the degree of novelty of the thinking, Further, the notion of creative production, this is where the output can be tangible in the form of a poem, scientific theory, musical composition or machine which is judged to be social useful or worthy. Intangible, as in the process for creative thinking which accord to Wallas (1926) cited in (Guilford, 1965) cited in (Starko, 2010 p. 27) undergo four stages; preparation, in terms of recognising a difficulty; incubation, analysis of the situation or need; illumination, formulation or suggestions of possible solutions and verification, which involves the birth of a new idea or invention and judgement of the solution or idea. With regards to the relationship between creativity and intelligence Woolfolk (2007) states creativity requires extensive knowledge, flexibility and continual reorganising of ideas p. 307. The theorist further states, while the student must have a rich store of knowledge in the area of study; something more is needed p.307 and factors such as persistence, social support and motivation also play critical roles in the creative process. With regards to the issue of defining intelligence (Sternberg, 1997) states :
Intelligence comprises the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any envirornment context (p.1030)

He further revised the definition to state The abilty to puposely adapt to, shape and select enviroment (Sternberg, Intelligence, 1999 p. 81) While Haier cited in (Staudt and Neubauer, 2006) states:

Wall 4

Intelligence is not a function of how hard the brain works but rather how efficiently it works . This efficiency may derive
from the disuse of many brain areas irrelevant for good task performance as well as the more focused use of specific task relevant areas.(Haier et al., 1992, pp. 41516)

Congruently, by examining the finding of other theorists (Woolfolk, 2007) states intelligenge is the basic abilty, which affects performance on all tasks that are cognitively oriented (p. 112). The psychology proponent further cites (Cattell 1963; Horn, 1998), stating intelligence can be seen as operating on two levels; fluid intelligence which focus on mental efficiency which is essentially non-verbal and culture free and crystallised intelligence which focuses on the ability to apply culturally approved problem solving methods to task- analysis. (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 112) puports students develop their crystallised intellegience when they invests fluid intelligence in problem solving. Several theoriests have put forth a number of theoricatical models to explain intelliengence, (Sternberg, Intelligence, 1999) suggests there are five possible relations which may be examined between the two theorectical constructs, intelligence is a subset of creativity or creativity as a subset of of intelligence, creativity and intelligence are essentially the same or creativity and intelligence bear no relation and finally creativity and intelligence are overlapping sets (p. 82) . The theorist (Sternberg 2000), cited in (Woolfolk, 2007) p.112 propose that intelligence has many facets and is best understood based on a hiearchy of abilities with more specific abilties at the lower level of the stratum and general abilties at the top. In presenting his triarchic theory of intelligence, Sternberg was concerned with how intelligence was used, particularly in relation problem solving, as well the abilities it includes. The theory is divided into three tiers, the first, componential intelligence, which falls at the bottom of the tier and

Wall 5

includes components essential to the students acquisition of knowledge, use of problem-solving strategies and techniques, and use of meta cognition for selecting a strategy and monitoring progress toward success; secondly, experiential intelligence, which incorporates both creativity in dealing with new situations and the use of a combination different experiences in insightful ways to solve novel problems and finally contextual intelligence, which is reflected in the students ability to manage their day-to-day affairs Another theorectical model which seeks to incoporate the varible of creative in defining intelligence is the construct put forth by Gilifold (1967). (Batey & Furnham, 2006), suggests previous researchers have opined whether it is possible to be creative in the absence of high intelligence and vice versa. The theorists argue that Guilford (1967) was one of the first researchers to develop ataxonomy of human abilities that made creative thinking relatable to intelligence.
Guilfords (1967) structure-of-intellect (SOI) model postulated three fundamental dimensions of intelligence: (a) operations (cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, evaluation), (b) content (figural, symbolic, semantic, behavioral), and (c) products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, implications). These dimensions are represented as a cube. When the 5 operations, 4 contents, and 6 products are crossed, the model yields 120 factors. In everyday terms, this made the SOI model unsuitable for applied work (e.g., training and development), but it enabled specific components of cognition to be related to creativity.

(Batey & Furnham, 2006 p. 365)

Gardner (1983) is another theorist whom has sought to examine the link between intelligence and creativity. In constructing his theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner sought to do an analysis of the lives of several individuals who made highly creative contributions in the 20th century each specializing in one of the multiple intelligences, interpersonal, bodilykinaesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, logical- mathematical, linguistic and spatial. Gardner

Wall 6

however concluded most of the individuals drew their strengths from multiple intelligences and were also weak in some as well. Additionally, the theorist argues these individuals stuck a Faustian bargain hence they gave up many of lifes pleasures to accomplish greatness, conversely at the point of their creative breakthrough they would have a milieu of support (Gardner, 1983) cited in (Sternberg, Intelligence, 1999 p. 83) In seeking to examine the link between creativity and intelligence, tests by researchers have focused on the ability to deal critically with verbal and numerical symbol system with object-space relations. Moreover these tests sought to gauge the relationship between creativity and intelligence by not attributing the score to only a single pre determined response but the students ability to derive a number, novelty and a variety of adaptive responses to a given task (Getzels & Jackson, 1962 p. 17) (Jackson & Messick, 1967), further contends, tests demonstrating the relationship between creativity and intelligence have sought to produce unusual responses in order to establish the relationship between the two variables, creativity and intelligence, however the duo in citing Golaan p.1 states:
... intelligence is not performance on a test; creativity is more than test performance or being judged as creative. What is needed for the understanding of the relationship between creativity and intelligence is not only data at the correlational level but conceptual reorganisation as well.

The theorists further argue while intelligence responses are correct and they operate within the paradigm of logic of reality and must be considered true or false or right or wrong, creative responses are relative to subjectivity therefore they are not limited to the constraints of reality or logic but are subject to judgement and the willingness of the field of study to acknowledge the creative contribution (Jackson & Messick, 1967) (Woolfolk, 2007).

Wall 7

Moreover, finding on several tests carried out on school children by Getzels and Jackson (1962), Wallach and Kogan (1965) and Cropley (1968) who used the same measure as Wallach and Kogan (1965) Carroll (1993) cited in (Batey & Furnham, 2006 p . 367) suggests that creativity and intelligence are essentially two independent concepts. With (Batey & Furnham, 2006) citing: Carroll (1993 p. 427) that creativity or originality is linearly independent of many of the factors in other
domains, or more generally, of what is regarded as intelligence as measured by standard tests

(Batey & Furnham, 2006 p. 378- 379) (Batey & Furnham, 2006) in presenting their conclusion on the review of research related to the relationship between creativity and intelligence contend given the correlation on tests between the two variables were found in the range of r = .20.40, it can be argued that a 5 20% of the variance may be accounted for and while it is unlikely that the two variables are synonymous they are nonetheless related. Within the Caribbean in order to critically examine the question of the correlation between creativity and intelligence, as well as the role teachers play in foster creativity in primary classroom several factors must be examined (Richardson, Carribbean Adolescents and Youth, 1999) presents a section on this phenomena entitled Creativity in Caribbean Adolescents found factors such as fluency and originality were useful to determining what tests were relevant for testing creativity in Jamaican students (Richarson, 1999). In Barbados, it was found that the creative performance between art oriented students and science-oriented students was similar (Richardson & Crichlow, Subject Orientation and the Creative Personality: Findings From a Barbadian Sample, 1999). These finding differed from earlier research but was attributed to the Barbadian education system which requires all students to be exposed to a balanced programme of arts and science subjects from their formative years up to the lower grades of

Wall 8

secondary school. Finally in a study conducted by (Richardson & Cato, Learning Style,Academic Locus of Control and Creativity: Astudy of Adolescent Students in High Schools in St. Vincent and the Greanadines, 1999) found that factors such as classroom environment, teacher methods and training as well teacher awareness and appreciation of student creativity were critical to engendering creativity in the classroom. Rhodes (1961) in examining context for creativity constructed the Four P model the Person- the individual, Process- the steps taken by the individual, Product- the invention or production and the Press- which the environment or condition under which the person exhibited creativity. It is argued of these four, classroom teachers have the most control over the Press or creative environment. Hence the set up of the classroom and the delivery of teaching play a critical role in developing creativity in students. Inclusion of classroom centre, where students can engage in role playing and being actively involved in the lesson. Moreover students should be encouraged to have fun and should experience a psychological climate that is as comfortable and as stimulating as possible. (Kim, 2005) (Honig, 2000)

Amabile and Griskiewikz, (1989) cited in (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008) have identified eight features that teachers can incorporate in the classroom to make the environment one that encourages creativity, first being part of an organization that supports creativity, secondly students must feel a sense of co-operation or well- being; teachers having appropriate resources and along with a supportive supervisor is critical and finally providing students with challenging work which makes them think critically and apply their problem solving skills as well as students having adequate freedom explore their creativity. The theorists further argue that the classroom environment must one which is enquiry based, teachers should engage

Wall 9

students in frequent small group learning activities where strategies such as grouping (STAD), guided discovery, brainstorming and the Socratic method should be encouraged.

This view is shared by (Halpern, 2003) who opines that teachers must organize the classroom time in a manner which encourages students to brainstorm new idea, examine existing paradigms to either reject them, improve on them or proposed new extensions to the present model. (Halpern, 2003) further argues that teachers should encourage students to think analogical by making the familiar strange, additionally using images to make the classroom stimulating and as interactive as possible. Overall the theorist states the classroom atmosphere must be conducive to Synthesis which ranks the highest on Benjamin Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives (Halpern, 2003, pp 404-425). (Fleith, 2000) in a study on Teacher and student perception of creativity in the classroom environment with third and fourth grade teachers concluded these factors were necessary for enhancing creativity in the classroom. With regards to teachers attitudes, teachers should provide students with the opportunities to be aware of their creativity; students should be given choices; teachers should act as motivator and facilitator and aid in boosting students self confidence by accepting students as they are. The study further suggests that strategies such as cooperative grouping, cluster grouping, free time, brainstorming, flexible direction and arts centre can be used by teachers to create creativity in the classroom, while activities such as creative writing, drawing, open ended and hands on activities. (Fleith, 2000 p. 248)

Pink and Cornell cited in (Warner & Myers, 2009) suggest that teachers should examine what is being taught in classroom, how it is being taught and how the development of growth of creativity should be woven into teaching and learning. Conversely (Honig, 2000) point out as

Wall 10

much of the focus in schools in the recent decade has been on preventing school failure much effort is now spent on remediation and introducing numeration and basic literarcy skills esspecially in the earlier years, teachers are finding less opportunities to foster their students creativity and gift behaviours.

(Honig, 2000) , nevertheless goes to suggest several techniques teachers may use in the classroom to promote creativity, the first being specific praise, the proponent argues teachers need to use positive language in the description of their students work; teachers also need to engage in self- monitoring, this also allow the teacher to not only reflect on the uniqueness of each child but also the pedagogical challenge to nurture creativity in children. Promoting divergent thinking, teachers incorporating techniques which encourage their students to continually generate new hypothesis while avoiding premature closures or evaluations. Engaging students in cooperative grouping or the Jigsaw Method purported by Aronson (1978) cited in (Honig, 2000). These methods allow for peer- teaching and empowering students to become innovative contributors to group presentation.

It is also argued by (Honig, 2000)Creative thinking is argued as being implicit in activities such as cooperative story telling, role playing and cooperative games. These activities encourage students to make connections. Sharpening students verbal tools, teachers should have strong verbal skills and tools which encourage students to develop divergent thinking. Teacher should use a wide variety of language in the classroom helps students to develop their own verbal skills The use of the Socratic Method (Honig, 2000) which is a method of questioning in the classroom is argued to be a wonderful way to get students thinking juices flowing.

Wall 11

Additionally, this method allows the student to create new schema while building on what schema is already present.

Nonetheless it is argued (Honig, 2000) (Shi, 2004) despite teachers efforts to promote students creativity, it would be futile if students have been exposed to a narrow knowledge base and are ill- equip to participate fully in the creative adventures teachers have prepared in the classroom.

It can be concluded therefore that there is a relationship between creativity and intelligience, how great the varriance is based not only on the two variables themselves but on other factors such as the enviroment, the matrix of support and recognition in ones choosen field of study. Teachers also play a vital role in fostering the creative genius in their students. First, by having an understanding of what is creativity is and secondly, having a clear vision of how they can engender the development of creativity in their students from an early age by tapping into their form of multiple-intelligiences.

Wall 12

Bibliography
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality: A Critical Review of The Scattered Literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 2006 , 355-429. Fleith, D. d. (2000). Teacher and Student Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom. Roeper Review Vol 22, 3 , 148. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity And Intellienge: Exploration with Gifted Students. London: John Wiley& Sons Inc. Guilford, J. P. (1965). Intellectual Factors in Productive Thinking. In M. J. Aschner, & C. E. Bish, Productive Thinking In Education (pp. 5-20). New York: National Education Association. Halpern, D. (. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (4th Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Honig, A. S. (2000). Promoting Creativity in Young Children. Guides Non- Classroom (005) Speeches and Meeting Papers (150). Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1967). The Person, the Product and the Response: Conceptual Problems in the Assessment of Creativity . In J. Kagan, Creativity and Learning (pp. 1-19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kaufman, J., Plucker, J., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. Hoboken, NJ : Wiley and Sons. Kim, K. H. (2005). Can Only Intelligent People be Creative. The Journal of Gifted Secondary Education Vol. XVI, No. 2/3, Winter/Spring , 57-66. Ljubljana, G. V. (2004). From aggressiveness to creativity. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49 , 103-112. Plucker, J. A., Beghatto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologist? Potentials, Pitfalls and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 2 , 83-96. Richardson, A. G. (1999). Carribbean Adolescents and Youth. New York: Caribbean Diaspora Press, Inc . Richardson, A. G., & Cato, B. R. (1999). Learning Style,Academic Locus of Control and Creativity: Astudy of Adolescent Students in High Schools in St. Vincent and the Greanadines. In A. G. Richardson, Caribbean Adolescent and Youth: Contemporary Issues in Personality Development and Behaviour (pp. 69-83). New York: Caribbean Diaspora Press. Richardson, A. G., & Crichlow, J. L. (1999). Subject Orientation and the Creative Personality: Findings From a Barbadian Sample. In A. G. Richardson, Caribbean Adolescents and Youth, Contemporary Issues in Personality Development and Behaviour (pp. 57-68). New York: Caribbean Diaspora Press Inc.

Wall 13 Richarson, A. G. (1999). A Factor Analytic Study of Creativity in Jamaican Adolescents. In A. J. Richardson, Caribbean Adolescents and Youth: Contemporary Issues in Personality Development and Behaviour (pp. 49-56). New York: Caribbean Diaspora Press, Inc. Shi, J. (2004). Intelligence current in creative activities. High Abilty Studies Vol 15, No 2 , 172-188. Starko, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight 4th Edition. New York : Taylor and Francis . Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Volume 2 (p. 81). San Diego, California: Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The Concept of Intelligence and Its Role in LifeLong Learning and Success. American Psychologist Vol.52, No. 10 , 1030-1037. Sternburg, R. J. (2006 ). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal Vol. 18, No. 1 , 8798. Warner, S. A., & Myers, K. L. (2009). The Creative Classroom: The Role of Space and Place Towards Facilitating Creativity. Technology Teacher , 28-34. Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational Psychology 10th Edition. Boston: Pearson .