SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY

Paul Henrickson and E. Paul Torrance, Bureau of Educational Research, University

of Minnesota
© 1961

Even a casual mulling over of the literature concerning the creative personality
makes one aware of the incompatibilities between the concept of “creative growth”
and concepts of “school discipline”. Studies of creative personalities in nearly all the
fields thus far investigated suggest the need for encouraging the kind of behavior
generally regarded as disruptive of “good school discipline”. We should like to take
this opportunity to relate some of the research findings to problems of discipline as
experienced by the public school art teacher.

Torrance (1960) recently compiled a checklist of the characteristics of the creative

personality on the basis of a large number of personality studies of creative
individuals. Of the 84 characteristics included, many of the less desirable
characteristics are doubtless a function of the struggle through which the creative
person must go in order to maintain the creativity. We do not know what would
happen, if some of those obstacles were removed. An effort was made, however, to
differentiate between the characteristics in this list, which seem essential to
creativity and those, which develop as a result of the way the creative person, is
treated. On the basis of our present understanding of the nature of creative
thinking, Torrance judged the following to be essential: always baffled by
something, attracted to mysteries, attempts difficult jobs (sometimes too difficult),
constructive in criticism, courageous, energetic, full of curiosity, independence in
judgment, independent in thinking, intuitive, persistent, becomes preoccupied with
a problem, questioning, receptive to external stimuli, receptive to ideas of others,
regresses occasionally, unwilling to accept anything on mere say-so, and willing to
take risks.

These characteristics may be more clearly understood if we try to conceptualize a

non-creative personality type. Such a one might be described as seldom or never
baffled by anything, ignores the unfamiliar, is not interested in testing his abilities
against a problem or task, unimaginative in criticism, avoids risks, over dependent
upon peer values, relies only on empirical evidence, not terribly concerned about
problems or questions, indifferent to the ideas of others, or willing to accept the
unquestioned opinions of others.

Inasmuch as many of these characteristics are descriptive of extreme personality

types they may or may not be present in an individual as a result of special
environmental or social conditions, which alter their expression or their appearance.
Interpretation of these characteristics may be modified by such considerations as
quality, direction, special aptitudes and the like. A creative personality need not
always be baffled by something if, for example, a solution to a problem has
suggested itself to him and his energies are directed toward realizing a solution. But
as soon as it’s realized he’s baffled about something else. This energy itself would
probably be channeled to the needs of the interest at hand and would thereby be
limited in its application in other areas or directions. It is not at all inconceivable
that a creative personality would cease to exhibit a receptivity to the ideas of others
when he has tested them and found them to be false or when he is absorbed in
working out a solution on his own. The creative personality may quite likely appear
more rigid—when occupied creatively---than the above characteristics would
suggest. Frequently he must persist in working out a solution even though all others
have rejected it.

Coercion or Encouragement as Means to Control

We may also consider the possibilities that some of these characteristics notably
courage, energy, curiosity, independence, persistence, preoccupation, regression, and
more than anything else an unwillingness to accept anything on mere say-so are of
the kind that make the usual classroom situation difficult to handle when group
discipline is desirable.

The methods commonly used to encourage and facilitate classroom discipline are
not methods, which encourage the creative personality type. From a kind of
arbitrary means of control there may build up pressures, which do not find their
expression along acceptable lines but result in behavior which is aggressive and
resentful and which may lead to outright delinquent behavior. On the other hand
many measures employed to control a large class do encourage, or at least, favor the
individual who possesses the qualities postulated above and which belong to the
“pure” non-creative type. For the classroom teacher the dependent –prone student
causes little difficulty. The extreme example of this type of student responds to the
teacher’s direction with meticulous care, wants to comply with directive, continually
checks the work in progress with the teacher and gives evidence of a strong need of
support, reassurance, and supervision. Discipline may not be a problem in such a
case but the drain on the teacher’s energies and other resources is a serious
problem.

One incident recently reported by an industrial arts teacher recounts an occurrence

of cheating on the part of one of the students. The methods employed by the student
were clever, unusual and ingenious. To have punished the student would not have
solved this student’s problems for the cause which motivated him to choose this
method of achieving success would have remained the same, but by emphasizing the
positive characteristics (ingenuity and originality) evidenced in the student’s
methods of cheating on problems which involved mere reproduction identified the
student as gifted. The instructor then provided more difficult material, which
demanded that this student think out solutions to problems. The result of this
response on the part of the teacher was that the formerly unproductive and
undisciplined student created solutions and solved problems related to this class,
which could only be rewarded by a superior grade. There is little doubt that
prolonged; enforced repression of the creative desire may lead to actual personality
breakdown.

It is quite possible that many discipline problems will disappear, when teachers
learn to reward creative thinking appropriately. Certainly we know of many
dramatic cases in which this has been true. For example, the most creative class of
fourth graders we have thus far encountered in our research on creative thinking
were also the most orderly and well-disciplined. The class was the largest in the
school –40. Thus far, it has been the only forth grade class to show superiority over
the forth grade classes in the same school on tests of creative thinking. The
principal of the school nominated the teacher of the class as the most creative
teacher in the school and as the one who stimulated her students to do the most
creative thinking. In the taking of tests of creative thinking and in participating in
an experiment they were spontaneous and lively, yet controlled. The teacher would
say one word and there would be complete silence. That word was “Freeze!” Yet
there was no sign that their imaginations had been frozen.

Torrance has suggested the following six principles as guides to rewarding creative
thinking in the classroom:
1) Treat questions with respect. Remember that the most important reward to
the curious, inquiring child is to find the answer to his question.
2) Treat imaginative, unusual ideas with respect.
3) Show pupils that their ideas have value.
4) Give opportunities for practice or experimentation without evaluation.
5) Encourage and evaluate self-initiated learning.
6) Tie in evaluations with causes and consequences.

Dependence Proneness and Creativity

Some creative students prefer to be left alone; they initiate very few contacts with
the teacher; and their need for adult approval is more easily submerged in their task
orientation. In a structured school environment this, too, may cause disciplinary
problems. Research by Flanders (1959) suggests that dependent-prone or compliant
students are more sensitive to the behavior of the teacher and that they may; learn
more subject matter or at least be aware of the teacher’s attitude toward subject
matter than others. This would occur when their need for supervision is satisfied.
This suggests that our schools do, in fact, encourage the creative type but tend to
favor the moderately dependent and non-creative type.

There is a possibility that scores on dependent-proneness tests will be related to

measures of creativity. Dependent-prone students may be expected to try to make
responses that they think the teacher wants. This, as can be quickly realized,
facilitates class control. A consistent small correlation between I.Q. and
dependence-proneness (Flanders 1959) supports other findings about highly
intelligent but low creative” students (Getzels and Jackson, 1958; Torrance, 1959).
It seems possible that students who score low on dependence-proneness will have a
stronger tendency toward creativity and, at the same time, be les restricted by
teacher influence. This may pose problems of group control.

Such findings continue to underline the problem of discipline and the related, but
definitely more important, or view of the function of the teacher.

Characteristic of Creativity and the Art Teacher

If we attempt to describe the ideal art teacher we must first arrive at an acceptable
definition of the art we teach and a definition of the role of the teacher. It is, by this
time, a truism to state that art is unlike any other “subject” taught in the public
schools. Nevertheless, this must be stated and accepted—if only temporarily—if the
following relationships are to be understood.

The history of art teaches us that modes of expression, subject matter of interest and
media employed change. An unbiased understanding of historical facts precludes
the teacher of art – even the elementary school teacher – from organizing the subject
matter of art exclusively around any one of the many artistic traditions to which we
are heir. This does not mean that the teacher should be devoid of personal
preference, but it does mean that there can be little objective support brought to
sustain the position to teach as absolute values, the values of the 17th century or
Renaissance epochs. Such a decision is in fundamental error when it fails to take
into account the purposes to which the art of the various epochs was put, why such
art developed or how this art was viewed by the people of the time.

What this does mean is that art has served different purposes at different historical
epochs and the only defensible position any art teacher in the public schools can
take is to accept the fact that art is a personal-cultural expression of the people who
create it. In this situation the function of the teacher as defined by evidence from
art history is in line with the concept of the teacher as a leader, a person who
“brings out”, aids in the child’s self-discovery and development. There are few
teachers of art—or any other subject – who would categorically deny that they teach
human beings as opposed to subject matter. The degree of emphasis an individual
may choose on the extreme ends of the subject –student dichotomy is not our
concern at this time. It is sufficient for our present purposes if we recognize that
there is a student to learn and to think.

Implementation of Findings of Creativity Studies

In light of the findings discussed in the first part of this paper the above discussion
suggests certain problems of implementation. A review of the characteristics of the
creative personality type and a review of those qualities in art as revealed through
studies in the history of art suggests to us some startling similarities. The creative
personality type is characterized by energy, independence, intuition, persistence and
the like. A study of the history of art reveals characteristics of is which are similar;
change, pre-occupation, experimentation and also a fascination for the mysterious.
To the extent that these observed similarities are accurate we can say that artistic
expression is an archetype of creative expression! If this is true, the art teacher, as
defined above, has no choice but to take the current findings in the area of
creativity very seriously. And the art teacher’s support of
continued interest and research in this field could be of value
to themselves in securing those teaching conditions, which
promise the optimum development of the creative personality
type. In short the psychologist’s interest in the creativity type
is an unexpected and may be a welcome source of support for
the public school art program.

As indicated above, the characteristics of the creative person

are not of the kind, which make the problem of class discipline
easier. It is the non-creative, dependent-probe student who
makes the teaching of a large number of students easier by
not introducing material or questions, which tend to disrupt a
systematic class plan. It has been found that most teachers
prefer the high I. Q. to the highly creative (Getzels & Jackson,
1958; Torrance, 1959). Idealistically, what right has a teacher
—with all the wonder this occupation implies—to restict by
artificial and coercive means a goodly portion of our students-
who show evidence of being productive and capable
achievement equal to those who have been identified as
intellectually gifted (Torrance, 1959).

The teacher, however, who responds favorably to a “creative

inquiry” by the intelligent, curious, persistent, an energetic
pupil runs the risk of loosing class order. The teacher who
responds unfavorably to such behavior generally employs a
mechanism of control, which results in the discouragement of
the creative person. Such discouragement may be reflected in
other characteristics of the creative type, which have been
noted by researchers. Some of those may be revealing to the
sensitive teacher and may suggest areas where additional
thought may be productive. A few of these are: outwardly
bashful, discontented, introversive, reserved and visionary.
Others, perhaps, indicative of another kind of response to an
unfavorable teacher reaction would include: altruism, non-
conforming, radical, self-confident, tenacious and not popular.

If we accept as valid the results of tests of creative thinking in

the early school years, it is certainly true that highly creative
children create many behavior problems in most classrooms.
Their classmates nominate them with high frequency as the
ones who have the most ideas for being naughty and the
silliest ideas (Torrance, 1959a). From small group experiments
designed to study peer pressures on highly creative children, it
is quite clear that many highly creative children bring many of
their woes upon themselves.

It seems obvious that a major problem of the teacher is to help

the highly creative child become less obnoxious without
sacrificing his creativity. The following paraphrasing of Stein’s
(1956) suggestions concerning the social role of the creative
industrial researcher has been offered as one approach: “Help
the creative child maintain his assertiveness without being
hostile or domineering. He should be aware of his superiors,
peers, and subordinates as persons. He may work alone but he
must not be withdrawn or uncommunicative. He must “know
his place” without being timid, submissive, or acquiescent and
“must speak his mind” without being domineering as he tries
to gain a point, he can be subtle but not cunning or
manipulative. In all relationships he must be sincere, honest,
purposeful and diplomatic. In the intellectual area, he must
learn to be broad without spreading himself too thin, deep
without being “bookish” or “too scientific” and “sharp”
without being over critical.

The above characteristics do ask a lot of a child---it also asks

more of the teacher. Not only does it suggest that he teacher
possess, to some degree, these same qualities but it implies
that she must possess them to a greater or at least a more
flexible extent than the students. The frequent breaches of
acceptable conduct, which will undoubtedly occur before a
student learns to maintain his assertiveness without being
hostile, before he can be subtle or sharp without being
overcritical will, undoubtedly, be legion. During this interim
period how will the teacher be able to cope with the intricacies
of leadership in the realm of student development?

In a less than ideal school situation—which may be said to

characterize our present system – there are positive first
steps, which can be taken by the teacher on behalf of the
creative student. Torrance (1959) suggests that the teacher
learn to value creative thinking and to create an environment,
which places value on creative activity so that the highly
creative student does not have to exist as a deviate in the
shadow of his more socially successful peers. He further
suggests that the teacher develop tolerance of new ideas and
to lead students to test systematically each new idea. Because
the creative child often manifests behaviors, which tend to
alienate him from his peers and teachers, it is suggested that
skills be taught to help the creative person to avoid peer
sanctions. Major counseling problems presented by the highly
creative student are likely to center around his isolation an
estrangement from his peers and teachers as a result of his
divergent values and attitudes.

Creativity and Philosophy of Art Education

Because the teacher’s job is so complex these questions

deserve thoughtful consideration. We may ask ourselves this
question: What reserve of energy is there in the person of the
teacher, which has not already been tapped? What
opportunity is there for the teacher to make use of the spare
time in the quiet contemplation of the personalities and the
special needs of her children? In many systems where the art
teacher may meet hundreds of different pupils in the course of
a week, what technique can be devised which can be employed
so that these hundreds can get their share of thoughtful
attention they deserve? At this time we do not wish to try to
answer those important and complex questions. Merely to
raise them at this time seems to be enough.

The subject matter of art at all levels pf public education has

been frequently attacked and perhaps no more bitterly than by
people in the profession of art instruction. Some (Edward
Warder Rannells of the University of Kentucky) have stated
that art is not something that can be taken for granted in art
education and there is evidence that as art educators we do
just that. Art that is not art as an artist knows it is explored.
Art at the secondary school level should be taught as a
creative adventure; it should be art that sensitizes and
awakens the individual to the value that is in it, and in the
student. A very pertinent question is: unless the teacher is an
artist is an artist-teacher how can he embody art in himself?

On the other end of the continuum of attitudes is the one that

would hold that the training of professional artists is not the
function of then public school. This attitude questions as to
whether it is desirable to have an “artist-teacher” who “loves
his art more than the students” and is unfamiliar with the
“needs and developmental characteristics” of his students to
conduct art classes in public schools and colleges. Many art
teachers and administrators maintain that the professionally
interested artist is ineffectual in the classroom and actually
harm students because he is “more interested in art than in
child development. We believe it to be also that enthusiasm for
the subject is going to inhibit effective teaching. It is doubtful
that these critics have had the opportunity to observe the
subject matter and personality achievements of students in
high schools and colleges when they have been exposed to a
teacher who knows both his field and the child. They probably
have not observed the disintegration of motivation and
accomplishment that ensures in classes conducted by
instructors who know more than they understand.

There have been studies (Torrance, 1959b) which have

indicated that teachers’ unvoiced attitudes influence the
behavior of the student. These unfavorable attitudes are
sensed by the student and alter his responses in spite of
conscious effort on the part of the teacher to present an
attitude that is favorable toward the subject matter. It can
only be guessed what effect a teacher who is not sympathetic
to the creative process may have on the creative student.

In conclusion, we would like to question the current idea which

suggests hat it is not the function of the public school teacher
to encourage students toward a professional career in the arts.
There is the hidden idea that it is wrong or, at least,
undesirable to encourage students who have the interest,
desire and potential to pursue this field. College
administrators who are concerned about placing their students
in teaching positions have been known to instruct their art
staffs to “play down” the art department because the state
offers few openings in art. Few, however, question the
desirability of encouraging apt students in the sciences to
pursue their interests. If we adopt a less biased view –a view
which could be said to be more educationally objective—we
would recognize that , aside from out own personal,
professional and creative abilities, the real job of the teacher
is to lead the student to a realization of his own abilities and a
development of his interests which may likely include the arts.
Such a view implies that what the student needs for his own
development should be provided him as regularly, consistently
and effectively as possible. This concern is especially
meaningful when it is noted that highly creative adolescents
tend to choose the more unconventional and rare occupations
(Getsels and Jackson, 1960).

Conclusion
Although we have centered this discussion on creativeness in
art, the important principle that we should consider –if we
truly wish to encourage creative thinking—embrace creativity
generally. The conditions under which creative solutions in
mathematics, art, science, poetry, or music have occurred are
remarkably similar (Torrance, 1959; Patrick 1955: Rossman
1931). Samuel Taylor Coleridge recounts how he dreamed of a
creative solution, which he later, while fully conscious,
conceptualized. Poetry, Wordworth tell us, takes the origin
room emotion recollected in tranquility. Jean Cocteau indicates
that he believes that inspiration is the result of a profound
indolence and maintains that it would be inexact to accuse an
artist of pride when he declares that his work requires
“somnambulism”. He too recounts that: “after I slept poorly. I
woke with a start and witnessed, as from a seat in a theatre,
three acts which brought to life an epoch and characters about
which I had no documentary information and which I regarded
moreover as forbidden.”

These statements are insistent in their emphasis on the role of

the unconscious or preconscious in the development of a
creative product. It does not seem inconsistent that
scientifically conducted researches into the nature of creativity
have arrived at a list of personality traits many of which would
seem to be concomitant with the above accounts of the
creative experience.

It is quite obvious that the creative person is not likely to be

dependent upon the direction of the teacher and that the
manner in which he maintains his independence of thought
and judgment may not contribute to a well-disciplined
classroom. We have raised the question of control in the light
of the alternatives and have suggested that encouragement
may be a more effective measure of control than punishment
and that it certainly would be educationally more defensible.
The art teacher, perhaps more than any other, has evidence to
be found within the discipline of art to support the recent
research findings in the area of creativity and might profit
from these findings by working for those conditions which
encourage creative growth. Implementing the findings of
researches into the creative personality may likely involve
serious re-evaluation of many current practices, a re-
statement of our goals and objectives at all levels of public
education, including teacher-training institutions.

References
Flanders,N.A., J.P. Anderson and E.J. Amidon. Measuring dependence proneness in the
classroom. (Research memorandum BER-60-6.) Minneapolis: Bureau of Educational
search, University of Minnesota, 1960.
Getzels,J.W. and P.W. Jackson. The meaning of “giftedness”—An examination of an
expanding concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 1958, 40,75-77.
Getzels,J.W. and P.W. Jackson. He highly intelligent and the highly
creative adolescent: A summary of some research findings. In C.W.
Taylor (ed) The third (1959) University of Utah research conference on
the identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City: University
of Utah Press, 1959.
Patrick, Catherine. What is creative thinking? New York: Philosophical
Library, 1955
Rossman,J. The psychology of the inventor. Washington, D.C.: Inventor
Publishing Company., 1931.
Stein, M.I. A transactional approach to creativity. N C.W. Taylor (Ed.)
The first (1955) University of Utah research conference on the
identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press, 1956.
Torrance, E.P. Current research on the nature of creative talent. J.
teacher education., 1960, 12, 97-102.
Torrance, E.P. The measurement and development of the creative
thinking abilities. In Year book of education. London: Evans Brothers,
Ltd., 1961.