Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Copyright 20002001 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
I. N. Diakidoy and
Creativity
C. P. Constantinou
in Physics
401
approach potentially can lead to a more unified theoretical account of the construct in a specific domain,
which then can be contrasted with theoretical accounts
of creativity in other domains and contexts.
The validity of such an approach is implicated by
the definition given to creative outcomes. Creative outcomes are conceptualized to be both novel, as indicated by their low frequency of occurrence (Sternberg,
1988; Torrance, 1990), and appropriate, as indicated
by judgments of correctness, usefulness, and quality
(Amabile, 1990; Johnson-Laird, 1987; Sternberg,
1988; Weisberg, 1986). The criterion of appropriateness is closely linked with the domain and task in question, because they necessarily impose constraints on
what outcomes can be considered appropriate. Knowledge of the concepts, constraints, and regularities of a
domain must influence the generation, evaluation, and
modification of responses within that domain (Johnson-Laird, 1987; Weisberg, 1986). Moreover, Boden
(1992) argued that if creativity is thought to involve the
breaking or bending of rules imposed by the domain,
then knowledge of these rules is a prerequisite for creativity in the domain. At the task level, knowledge of
relevant concepts and solution requirements contributes to the representation of the givens and to the problems solution (Johnson-Laird, 1988). That, in turn,
most likely provides the basis for the generation of appropriate and potentially creative solutions.
Previous research on creativity has focused mostly
on creativity as a general ability or process (Hennessey
& Amabile, 1988; Richardson & Crichlow, 1995;
Sternberg, 1988; Taylor, 1988; Treffinger, 1995). This
focus has guided psychometric work in the areaas
indicated by the fact that items on widely used creativity tests are relatively domain independent (Barron,
1988; Torrance, 1966, 1990)and has resulted in the
expectation that individuals who score high on general
creativity tests are more likely to exhibit high creative
achievement in one chosen area, if not in several. However, this is not generally the case (Baer, 1993; Feldhusen, 1993; Hocevar, 1981; Nickerson, Perkins, &
Smith, 1985), and concern about the tests modest predictive validities led Feldhusen (1994) to suggest that
creative functioning in one domain may be unique and
psychologically different from creative functioning in
another domain.
The general lack of attention to domain-specific
components does not only limit our understanding of
creativity, but also may have serious educational impli-
402
cations. Creativity test scores may contribute to decisions about placement in gifted education programs
(Feldhusen, 1994, 1995), and findings, such as the influence of divergent thinking on creativity in general,
may shape instructional methods developed to facilitate it in the school setting (deBono, 1976; Treffinger,
1995). Facilitating creativity in school also must involve facilitating creativity in specific academic domains in addition to promoting general creativity.
However, it is highly unlikely that tests and instructional methods designed to identify and increase general creativity levels will be equally effective when the
objective is to identify and promote creativity in domains, such as mathematics and science, in which outcomes, creative or otherwise, depend on the availability of conceptual knowledge and problem-solving
strategies.
A prerequisite to understanding the extent to which
creativity is domain specific involves the examination
of creativity in particular, identifiable domains. This
study represents a first attempt in this direction. In this
study, university students were asked to solve three
ill-defined physics problems, each representing a different problem type in the domain: explanation, prediction, or application. Open-ended tasks and ill-defined problems that allow multiple solutions are
assumed to facilitate creativity to a greater extent than
well-defined tasks and problems (Barron, 1988; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Sternberg, 1988; Torrance,
1988; Weisberg, 1986). Problem type was operationalized in terms of solution requirements. A problem
that requires one to explain or find the causes of a physical phenomenon presents different constraints with
respect to what kinds of solutions are appropriate in
comparison to a problem that requires one to predict
physical consequences or to apply a concept. According to our position, we hypothesized that creative performance within the domain would vary as a function
of the type of problem encountered.
Although it is generally accepted that creativity is
virtually impossible in the absence of some relevant
knowledge, it also has been claimed that too much
knowledge can have a negative impact, preventing the
individual from going beyond what is already known
(Sternberg, 1988; Taylor, 1988). In this study, to prevent simple recall or direct application of knowledgewhich has been found to hinder creativity
(Weisberg, 1986)the physics problems were unfamiliar to the participating students. However, the un-
Creativity in Physics
derlying physics concepts were judged by the students physics instructors to be within the students
capabilities. In addition, a conceptual knowledge pretest was administered to establish the extent to which
the underlying concepts were familiar and to allow
for the examination of the effects of prior knowledge
on students responses. We expected knowledge of
the relevant underlying concepts to support creativity
in the domain.
Guilford (1956) proposed that divergent thinking,
as opposed to convergent thinking, is a basic component of creativity. This hypothesis has been confirmed by research that has required participants to
provide multiple responses (Richardson & Crichlow,
1995; Torrance, 1988), and it has dominated creativity testing and training (Clapham, 1997; deBono,
1976; Hocevar, 1981; Torrance, 1966). In fact,
Torrances (1966, 1990) work on creativity testing
has relied on the premise that divergent thinking
qualitiesthat is, the ability to produce a large number (fluency) of different (flexibility) ideas that are
unusual (originality) and richly detailed (elaboration)are indicators of creativity. However, the importance of divergent thinking was disputed by
Weisberg (1986, 1988), who argued that the ability to
generate a large number of responses does not ensure
that any of them will qualify as creative or original.
This study examined the contribution of divergent
thinking as represented by the number of appropriate
responses given to each physics problem. Appropriate
responses were considered to be those that fell within
the domain of physics and that did not appear to originate from fundamental misconceptions with respect
to the underlying physics concepts. This operationalization of appropriateness and the nature of the problems utilized allowed us to obtain a range of responses from each participant and for each problem.
In this study, creativity was operationalized as response originality. The responses to each problem
were scored as to their total number, their acceptability
or appropriateness as indicated by the constraints of
the domain, and their originality as indicated by frequency of occurrence in the sample. This method of
scoring follows the guidelines and procedures commonly utilized in creativity research (Vernon, 1971).
However, Davis (1989) drew attention to the fact that
originality scores that are based on the sum of the frequency weights assigned to responses (see Torrance,
1990) are a direct function of the number of responses
Method
Participants
The participants were 54 University of Cyprus students majoring in education. The majority of the students were women (n = 50) and in their 3rd year of
study (n = 40). Their college performance was average
or above, compared to the performance of all education
majors. Their grade point average (GPA) ranged from
7.00 to 9.00, with a mean of 7.52 and a highest possible
grade of 10.00. At the time of the study, 45 of the students had completed a university course in physical
science as part of their program requirements. Their
average grade in this course was 6.91.
Materials
The target physics problems were selected from a
pool of 40 ill-defined problems constructed by two experts, both of them university professors of physics.
All of the problems on this list were classified into
three problem types on the basis of their solution requirements. Some problems required that solvers explain possible mechanisms behind a phenomenon;
some required that solvers predict what will happen
given a physical situation or a sequence of events; and,
finally, some problems required that solvers find ways
of using an item or device. These problem types were
judged independently by the two instructors of the
physical science course as not being representative of
the problems found in textbooks and course assign-
403
ments. The instructors, who were familiar with the participating students, were subsequently asked to identify the problems that were most likely to be unfamiliar
but appropriate for this particular student group. Only
problems identified by both instructors as fulfilling the
set criteria were considered, resulting finally in the selection of three problems, each representing a different
problem type (see Table 1).
The explanation problem required students to provide possible valid explanations for a natural phenomenon, the prediction problem provided the beginning
of a science fiction story that the students had to complete, and the application problem required students to
describe possible applications for a device having specific physical properties. The students who had completed the physical science course had spent only 1
week covering static electricity (application problem)
and 1 week on concepts pertaining to materials (explanation problem). Concepts related to radioactivity and
the social impact of nuclear energy (prediction problem) were mentioned only in passing and were not
treated rigorously in that course.
The prior knowledge test consisted of 12
truefalse statements constructed by the instructors of
the physical science course (Table 2). There were 4
statements for each target problem assessing knowledge of concepts related to the phenomenon or situation described by the problem. For example, Statement 3.1 (Table 2) tests whether one understands the
difference between magnetization and electrical
charging. Inability to make such a distinction possibly would influence how one represents the application problem and, subsequently, his or her choice of
Table 1.
Procedure
The students were divided into two groups for study
participation. The prior knowledge test was administered on 2 consecutive days, with one group of students
taking the test on the 1st day and the other group taking
the test on the 2nd day. Students were instructed to think
carefully before answering each item and to do their
best. The test took students about 30 min to complete it.
Two weeks later, the students met again in their
groups and were given the target physics problems to
solve. They were instructed to think carefully about
each problem and to try to provide as many appropriate
responses as possible to all three of them. Some effort
was made to create a relaxed atmosphere in which the
students would feel that they could work at their own
pace. The students were allowed to make notes on separate pieces of paper and to work on the problems in
any order they wished. It took students about 1 hr to
complete this part of the study.
Target Problem
Problem Type
When I think of iron rusting, wood rotting, and rubber disintegrating, then I am led to believe that any
material that is taken from nature, with time strives to return to its natural form and environment. Why
might this be happening?
When the spaceship Thrumfus landed on the reef known as Imia to the Greeks and as Kardak to the Turks,
its crew did not know what to expect from this planet. After 60 years of travel at the speed of light,
Captain Maximus from the Andromeda galaxy decided to land somewhere in order to generate the
radioactive fuel required by thei spaceship. He first had to distill 3 tons of water which would be used as a
cooling liquid for the nuclear reactor. With a process of nuclear fusion he would produce the necessary
plutonium, and then, with a large explosion, he would push the spaceship thousands of kilometers away
in a matter of a few hundredths of a second. Complete the story.
An electrically charged piece of a particular plastic has the ability to remove dust particles from the air.
Mention ways in which this material could be used. You could assume that the material has additional
properties as long as you specify them.
404
Explanation
Prediction
Application
Creativity in Physics
Table 2.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Scoring
The prior knowledge test was scored according to
the number of items that were answered correctly. The
scores were corrected for guessingby subtracting the
total number of incorrect answers from the total number of correct answers (Nunnally, 1978)and converted to a proportional scale to indicate proportion of
items answered correctly by each student.
The scoring of the responses given to the target physics problems followed a three-step procedure. First, two
independent raters, one expert in physics and one familiar with the target problems, examined the responses
and counted the number of different responses given by
each student to each problem. Responses that were similar to or simply elaborations of previous responses were
grouped together and counted as one response. This step
yielded a total number of responses score for each student for each problem. The interrater agreement was
75%, and the differences were resolved in conference.
Second, two independent raters, both experts in the
domain of physics, assessed the correctness or appropriateness of each response given. This step yielded a
number of valid responses score for each student and
problem. On the explanation and application problems,
Analysis
The data were analyzed using hierarchical regression
following the logic of mixed analysis of covariance. The
main dependent variable was originality. GPA and physics grade were between-subject factors and were entered
first. The grand mean of the students across problems
subsequently was entered to remove any remaining variance associated with between-subject factors. Then, the
within-subjects factorsprior knowledge, problem
type, number of valid responses, and total number of responseswere entered, followed by their interactions.
That problem type was a within-subjects factor resulted
in obtaining three measures of originality, one for each
problem type. The F ratio for each within-subjects factor was calculated by taking into account the increment
in R2 attributed to that factor:
R2 change
(1 - R2 ) /[( N - k - S - 1) - 1]
405
Results
Descriptive statistics indicated that students performed differently in the three target problems (Table
3). The concepts related to the application problem
were less familiar to this sample, and yet the students
Table 3.
Types
overall gave more responses and more appropriate responses to this problem.
The responses given to the prediction problem were
more original than those given to either the explanation
or the application problems.
Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients among
the variables of interest. It can be seen that total number of responses, number of valid responses, and originality were all highly and positively correlated with
each other (p < .01).
However, the correlation between total number of
responses and originality was not significant (r = .04, p
> .05) when number of valid responses was partialed
out. In contrast, the correlation between number of
valid responses and originality increased (r = .63, p <
.01) after total number of responses was partialed out,
indicating that the ability to come up with more than
one appropriate response is positively related to the degree of originality. Physics grade was positively related
only to GPA, as expected, but not to any other variables. It is interesting to note that prior knowledge was
negatively related to the number of valid responses.
Analysis within each problem indicated that the corre-
Means of Originality, Number of Valid Responses, Total Number of Responses, and Prior Knowledge in Problem
Problem Type
Explanation
Measures
Originality
Number of Valid Responses
Total Number of Responses
Prior Knowledge
Table 4.
Prediction
Application
SD
SD
SD
0.43
0.19
1.27
0.64
0.92
0.39
0.29
0.17
1.14
0.54
1.32
0.68
1.18
0.57
0.37
0.20
0.97
1.37
1.74
0.46
0.81
0.55
0.53
0.23
Measures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.69*
.21*
.17
.15
.13
.06
.09
.13
.22*
.67*
.10
.11
.05
.71*
.43*
*p < .01.
406
Creativity in Physics
R2 change
F to Enter
0.18
0.07
1.00
0.11
0.32
1.08
.0077
.0039
.4727
.0005
.0541
.1958
1.03
0.78
41.01**
0.27
28.53**
103.25**
0.35
0.48
.0132
.0058
6.97*
3.03
0.81
.0984
51.87**
.0001
0.06
.088
.8521
.9231
Note: N = 45.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
High
SD
SD
0.87
0.85
1.47
0.95
0.67
0.52
0.82
0.54
1.41
0.98
0.69
0.45
High
SD
SD
0.37
1.32
0.94
0.87
1.19
0.82
0.47
1.05
1.04
0.97
1.19
0.84
407
Discussion
The results of this study indicated that the number
of appropriate responses that students could give to
ill-defined physics problems (fluency) and the type of
problem were the most significant predictors of response originality.
The number of appropriate or valid responses that a
student can give to a problem is essentially an index of
divergent thinking, and, within the framework of
psychometric research, it has always been assumed
that divergent thinking ability is highly related to creativity (Guilford, 1956, 1970, 1971; Torrance, 1966,
1988). Consequently, it has been argued that ill-deTable 8. Means of Originality Within Problem Types and
Levels of Number of Valid Responses
Number of Valid Responses
Low
Problem Type
Explanation
Prediction
Application
408
High
SD
SD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.30
2.29
1.04
0.48
0.41
0.80
Creativity in Physics
409
References
Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert
(Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 6191). London: Sage.
Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldnt trust creativity tests. Educational
Leadership, 51, 8083.
Barron, E. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barron, E. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological
perspectives (pp. 7698). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Boden, M. A. (1992). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms.
New York: Basic Books.
Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in
creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10,
3344.
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 14, 257274.
deBono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. London: Temple Smith.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1993). A conception of creative thinking and creativity training. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L.
Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing
creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 3150).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Teaching and testing for creativity. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 11781183).
New York: Pergamon.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent development vs. gifted education. Educational Forum, 59, 346349.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267293.
Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 4, 149168.
Guilford, J. P. (1971). Some misconceptions regarding measurement
of creative talents. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, 7787.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 1142). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
410
Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.