Assessment

[]

Donald Treffinger et al - Assessing creativity: A guide for educators



Here's some additional thoughts regarding Assessment (Full article: [])

Recording and assessing creativity There is very little on the recording and assessing of creativity in the literature although in the field of psychometrics, creativity tests were historically used, for example those developed by Torrance (Torrance, 1966, 1974). Torrance described four components by which individual creativity could be assessed: 􀂃  fluency: the ability to produce a large number of ideas 􀂃  flexibility: the ability to produce a large variety of ideas 􀂃  elaboration: the ability to develop, embellish, or fill out an idea 􀂃  originality: the ability to produce ideas that are unusual, statistically infrequent, not banal or   obvious. More recently, however, teachers have preferred to use a variety of means to assess creativity, by monitoring pupils’ work, behaviour and what they say (Fryer, 1996). Some attempts have been made to identify the criteria relevant to the assessment of creativity. For example, Besemer and Treffinger (1981) group these into: 􀂃  novelty - how new the product is in terms of techniques, processes, concepts; the capacity of a   product to spark further creative products inspired by it; the potential of a product to ‘transform’, or create a radical shift in approach 􀂃  resolution - the extent to which a product meets a need, or resolves a situation 􀂃  synthesis - the extent to which a product combines elements which are unlike, into a coherent whole. Synthesis thus encompasses criteria such as complexity, elegance, attractiveness, expressiveness, completeness and the quality of its crafting. Others (for example, Jackson and Messick, 1965 and Kneller, 1965) propose ‘relevance’ or ‘appropriateness’ as an additional and essential area of criteria. It could be argued that this set of criteria is implicit in the three groups of Besemer and Treffinger, as it would be difficult to imagine how a product could be novel without also being appropriate or relevant. However, as Fryer (1996) notes, when considering the creativity of school pupils, there are some problems with such taxonomies of criteria. For example, how is novelty to be understood in the context of school pupils? In Fryer’s study of 1,000 teachers, many suggested they preferred judging pupil’s work against each individual’s past performance. Thus something might be deemed to be original for a particular pupil. 24 Another area of difficulty concerns how comprehensive all criteria for assessing creativity must be. Work which succeeded in satisfying all or most of the criteria would be of a very high standard, with a potential for damaging pupil self-esteem. Fryer recommends that in the case of school pupils’ creativity, much less stringent criteria are required, and that self-assessment should be encouraged. Craft (2000), following the same line of less stringent criteria, nevertheless leaves assessment in the hands of the teacher, suggesting that the observation and recording by the teacher of the behaviour of young children is particularly significant, as this highlights what is then novel for the individual child as meaning maker. A further area of difficulty highlighted by Fryer’s study concerns teachers, in terms of the approach which they bring to the definition of creativity as a whole. For example, there are gender differences: female teachers seem to value the personal sides of creativity more than male teachers who place higher value on the elegance of an outcome, and this affects their judgements of pupil creativity. This finding was borne out by Stoycheyva’s work (1996). In addition, the teacher’s subject area has an impact on their confidence as an assessor, for it seems that staff teaching art and design feel most confident about assessing creativity and other teachers are much less so. Stoycheva found that primary teachers were found to be reluctant to nominate children of either gender as non-original. Turning finally to the wider context for assessing and recording creativity, there is a case for examining the relationship between fostering creativity and the bureaucratic arrangements for the quality assurance of teaching and learning, including subject-centred level grading of achievements of both teachers and pupils. Some have used empirical studies to argue that such arrangements have led to the diminution of creativity in education (Jeffrey & Woods, 1998, Woods et al, 1997, Woods and Jeffrey, 1996).

131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778 // Creativity is certainly something that teachers want to encourage in their students. And yet it's one of the most poorly handled aspects of classroom assessment. Many teachers want their students to be creative but are not entirely sure what to look for. For some classroom projects, teachers allot points to creativity but leave it undefined. Too often, creativity ends up meaning the report cover was nicely colored or something like that. Even worse, the "creativity" slot can end up being used as a "fudge factor" for the teacher's overall impression of the student. Creativity is not, as a colleague once railed, "cute animals with long eyelashes." But if creativity does not mean aesthetically pleasing or cute, what does it mean? How do you ask for it, and how do you know it when you see it? // // (Excerpt from book: //How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom by Susan M. Brookhart)

13134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425131342442513134244251313424425user:jseymour1` Can Creativity Be Measured?

Yes!!

** Can Creativity Be Measured? ** [] Creativity can be measured. Since 1950 researchers have developed an array of formal methods for measuring creativity. Much of the research was conducted by [|Dr. E. Paul Torrance], Helson, Isaksen and Rhodes. Since no one measure can fully capture the many aspects of creativity, it is critical that selection of a measure should be one best suited for desired goals.

**__ Definitions __**** : **

** Measure: ** establishing quantity, size, quality of character by some standard ** Measurement: ** provides standardization of complex constructs, permitting subtle discrimination and more precise description.

** How to Measure Creativity **

o Self-Assessment o Ratings Scales o  Interviews o Checklists o Peer, Parent, Teacher Rating/Nomination o Observations o Products o Personality Tests o Biographical Sketches o Aptitude and Ability Tests o Awards o Acceleration, Mentorship, Enrichment Programs o Problem Finding/Solving To fully understand and to assess creativity measures, one must have a working knowledge of quantitative research methods. [|Glossary of key reliability terms.]


 *  **// There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns. --Edward de Bono //** ||

** Creativity Assessment **

Creativity is complex; however the basic facets of creativity can be grouped into four qualities: ** Person ** - characteristics of creative people ** Process ** - preferences associated with aspects of the creative process ** Products ** – qualities of creative products ** Environment or Press ** – factors in the environment which facilitate creative performance

(And these four qualities can be assessed individually.)

There are also issues with measuring creativity and will need to be addressed as well. ** Issues with Measuring Creativity **
 * Reliability Inadequate
 * Validity Questionable
 * Authentic Assessment
 * Predictive Validity
 * Self-Assess not Honest
 * What exactly is creativity?
 * How many forms?

1313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778 Additional Research of Assessing Creativity

(adapted from **Creative Curriculum Assessment Checklist Steps.** [])

Observation
==** Observe students daily in all settings as they are naturally engaged. Make note of social interaction, emotional behaviors, motor skills (both fine and gross motor), cognitive abilities, and language development and use. **==

Portfolio Keeping

 * In support of observations, keep portfolios. Items to include in the portfolio are examples of art work, cognitive learning (colors, matching and number concepts) and examples of following directions. You may include photographs, and audio and video of each student interacting, playing, creating and learning. **

Parent Observations

 * The parent/ educator partnership is important as well. Parents should also observe and record their observations in all developmental domains. **

Score and Tally Observations

 * Three to four times a year a teacher can generate a full assessment. Both educators' and parents' scores are tallied. By analyzing the data both parents and teachers should be able to assess strengths and interests of a child and follow her development. The assessment allows both parties to see what changes need to be made to suit the child, adaptations that are necessary and what skills to build upon. **

== 13134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778131342377813134237781313423778 ==

[|Fitting Creativity into Assessment]
([]) ~Greg McVerry

Allow students to choose the assignments, projects or achievements that best show how they have met the learning standards set for them at the start of the year. Allow them to keep a blog, an online portfolio or website. Allow them to verbally present these portfolios if they choose to. Challenge them to explain the process they went through picking each piece, much as a researcher or scientists explains the process by which he or she reached a conclusion. Challenge students to reflect on their own accomplishments, their own learning. Allow their creativity to shine. Even a first grader can put together a small portfolio of his or her best work. I'd love to be a fly on the wall as they explained each choice!

This of course requires us, as educators, to provide a variety of learning experiences and assignments and well-defined expectations for quality work.

But we're already doing that.

OK, Devil's advocate. I know, I know--how can we measure AYP goals in this manner? Let the students still take the darned tests. But don't let them be defined by them.

==1313427731131342773113134277311313427731131342773113134277311313427731131342773113134277311313427731131342773113134277311313427731== Also interesting: Creativity Killers! Creativity Killers Marvin Bartel - © 2001 to 2011
 * Ten Classroom

This is my confessional as a teacher. Most of what I learn in art and in teaching is direct result of mistakes I make. I become aware of problems after something happens. I get into habits that are hard to break. It is hard for me to see an issue until it presents itself in the form of failure. Every student is different, so teaching is never an exact science. I am tempted to be pleased if a few of my students do well. || > It is when I wonder why some do poorly, that I keep trying something different. It is when I wonder why some fail to enjoy what seems like so much fun for others, that I question what I am doing. Some of these points are 180 degrees from where I was when I started teaching art. Some are direct opposite the ways I was taught. --mb --- also see [|footnotes] for more background. about the author ||
 * ". . creativity scores had been steadily rising. . .until 1990. Since then, creativity scores have consistently inched downward." **from: Bronson, Po & Merryman, Ashley. "The Creativity Crisis." //Newsweek, July 10, 2010//, retrieved July 27, 2010from @http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html || **Introduction **

#1. I Kill Creativity when I encourage Renting (borrowing) instead of Owning ideas. Real artwork is based on the child's own experience, memory, observation, and/or imagination. Real artwork is not borrowed from other children or other artists. The definition of borrowing is "use it and give it back". Even thieves take ownership--they do not borrow. They do not intend to return what they take. Ideas cannot be patented or copyrighted. They are free in the vapor of our lives. I stole this idea from Nick Lindsay, a good friend and poet. He is the son of poet Vachel Lindsay. When I asked him if he was ever tempted to borrow from other poets, he said, "Steal it--Don't borrow it. Make it your own." Making an idea my own means that I choose it, improve it, shake it, pound it, deconstruct it, reengineer it, materialize it, test it, internalize it, and so on. I can not simply copy it or rent it. (also see number 5 and 10) # 2. I Kill Creativity when I Assign Grades without providing Informative Feedback. Grades without rationale give no useful information that helps a person be creative. When we give reasons, do our criteria include credit for the originality as much as for following prescribed requirements? Sometimes grades punish instead of rewarding. If grading is used as punishment, it can motivate rebellion or passive resistance unless the student is unusually mature. When grading is needed in art, we can use an accumulation of positive points including credit for growth and improvement (longitudinal grading instead of normative grading). Normative grading assumes that there is a certain equal norm that everybody must achieve. It would be like forcing all children to be a certain height by a certain age. Snoopy dogs, hearts, smiley faces, stick figures, formulas for drawing trees or animals, ovals for people, and so on, are all evidence that I am killing creative thinking in my class. If I see a lot of Cliché drawing, it tells me that I have not established a classroom culture of creative thinking and a joy of learning to learn. How can I encourage more imagination, better observation, and expressing what is remembered ? Can we prohibit Cliché production ? What if we start each class with a few minutes of innovation practice and direct observation practice? What if I ask more open questions that encourage thinking instead of making suggestions? What if we practice doing experiments in order to have fun making discoveries instead of teaching principles and color mixing as facts. Can more of our homework consist of idea books, journals, sketchbooks, question-lists, diaries, reflections, illustrated experiences, and so on that can be turned into future class projects? I can sleep through a demonstration. I can not sleep through a hands-on practice lesson. **Tell me** and I might remember a little while - if I listen. ** Show me ** and I will remember a bit longer - if I pay attention. ** Have me do it ** - I learn it. When I demonstrate, I still get quite a few questions about what I "taught". [|Students need to do the demo for themselves.] When I direct a practice session nearly everybody feels confident to do it again using their own ideas. If a demo is the only way, I find that it needs to immediately followed by practice, not by the final product assignment. A demonstration can cause the aborting of imagined ideas before they are born. It implies a "right" way. I never see what a student might have imagined had I not provided the "right" way. I like to show the Art History, the Fine Art Exemplar, the multicultural examples at the end of the lesson. This allows us to use what we learn during the media work experience as frame of reference for the example. However, when not showing examples prior to media work, I must provide a better problem definition, more chances to practice the technique, and be particularly alert to students who may be floundering at the beginning of a problem because they are not accustomed to doing their own thinking. Sometimes we have to repeat the practice a few times until everybody understands how to practice a new skill that can help them be creative. When not showing an example, I must give students time for their subconscious mind to operate. This might mean that we discuss assignment issues and conduct practice sessions on one day and come back to the same problem on another day. Many students forget what is learned, so I ask questions to let them know that it is good to remember what is learned so it can be used again next time. Often, if students are not accustomed to listening carefully, they feel lost if I do not show them what it is supposed to look like. In these cases, I repeat the problem definition using different words, or I have them make a some sketches of what they think might work. I also have them make written lists of ideas to pick from. Some are not accustomed to sketching and thumbnailing. They are not used to the idea that they are to originate ideas from their own lives, experiences, and concerns. Other teachers may not ask this of them. When I do not show them the answers, they may need help in learning how creative people develop ideas for their work. It can mean that we start thinking about things several weeks in advance. A future challenge can be presented long before the actual production so the subconscious mind can be focused on it. Creative people generally have several projects going on simultaneously at different stages of development. Creative minds, once unleashed, continue to work while we sleep. While "image flooding" (showing many examples) may be inspirational, it can also be intimidating and very suggestive. It can be argued that "image flooding" creates slicker work, but less creative thinking skills. It may win the scholastic awards, but it teaches us to go through life in other people's skins. We never learn the ecstasy of having original ideas. Also see #10 below and #1 above. # 6. I Kill Creativity when I Praise Neatness and Conformity more than Expressive Original work Neatness is over rated. Conformity (and even following the assignment too slavishly) may be a negative indicator when assessing art. I believe that product centered education makes very good slave training. What I want is student ownership. I often imagine what it might be like to be one of those artists cranking out "Starving Artist" oil paintings. They are done in painting factories. In any list of grading criteria, originality must have more importance than neatness. Neatness is style--not substance. As a style, neatness can get some credit, but other styles that are well executed without showing neatness need to get just as much credit. # 7. I Kill Creativity when I give Freedom without Focus If I ask students to do whatever they want to do, they often avoid risk by doing something they already have learned in the past. The amount of creative thinking may be zero. When there are **limits**, there is a better chance of having a challenging task. Limits can encourage new and creative problem solving. The teacher's challenge is to make the limits seem compelling and interesting to the student. Good lessons ask questions, provide learning goals, reasonable objectives, and so on. As a teacher, my job is to make the hard stuff easy and to make the easy stuff hard. It is not to allow risk free lazy repetition. As art teachers, we also benefit from self-imposed limits that force us to try new approaches. If I have been routinely teaching something with a demonstration, it can be very creative for me to come up with a way for students to learn the same thing with hands-on experiences that I have them do as a warm-up or preliminary practice routine. If I have routinely been teaching by showing examples, it can be very creative for my to come up with alternatives that use questions, experiments, preliminary sketches, and list making instead of me showing visual answers (examples). Students of nearly any age can learn to give themselves limits, but I have to cultivate the classroom culture where these expectations are expected. I want there to be student choices that require genuine thinking and decision making, but never choices to avoid innovation and problem solving. A creative classroom culture expects focus and experimentation that requires modification to move beyond entrenched habits of thinking and working. I want students to learn to work this way on their own. Therefore, I think it is good to move from assigning this at first to a culture where it is expected without being specifically required. In art class, the rubrics and critiques used can actively move students in the direction of self planning for creative thinking. # 8. I Kill Creativity by Making Suggestions instead of asking Open Questions. Too often I am so glad I have what seems like an intelligent suggestion that I blurt it out without thinking. When I do this I am taking away several important things. I make my students less self-reliant and more dependent on me. I teach them not to think for themselves. Would it not be better to bite my tongue - to pause long enough to phrase a question or two that helps students realize that what ** they ** think is important. I can often simplify the problem by asking them to solve a smaller problem that helps with the larger question. **My Open Questions** - What would happen if I would ask those who observe my teaching to help me overcome my tendency to give answers? How could I be teaching thinking and self empowerment? Could I ask our students do this for me? What if my students learning to be teachers, when observing other teachers giving an answers, would jot down ways to revise these events into empowering teaching moments (instead of spoon feeding students with suggestions)? Hmm. How could I have stated these questions better? Could experiments replace suggestions? How can I help students learn to set up experiments to find answers? What are problem solving strategies used by artists? Some move things around until they look "right". Some know that they need to simplify. Some need to work at creating new kinds of order from chaos. Some want to point out the problems of the world. Others want to solve them. Some want to search for more perfect beauty. Still other artists use intentional accidents (often a series of accidents). They find ideas in the accidents that are impossible to discover by force of will? There are many experimental methods of working aesthetically. How can I get students to practice using as many experimental methods as possible and get them to invent new methods of invention? It is not my job to answer the students' questions. It is my calling to encourage the students to learn how to formulate questions that they find compelling. It is my job to make sure they learn to devise ways to test their ideas experimentally. In this sense we are teaching both science and art--truth and beauty.  # 10. I Kill Creativity if I allow students to copy other artists rather than learning to read their minds. We know that artists look at and that they are influenced by the work of other artists (as well as everything else in their lives). How can we respond creatively to outstanding works by other artists? How do we learn to stand on their shoulders rather than gather their crumbs? How can we use their expertise to surpass them, or at least do for our time what they did for their time? Is not the apprentice system based on mastering the work of previous experts? I am concluding this list of creativity killers with some ways to think about the apprentice system of teaching and learning. In #5 above I say that I kill creativity if I show examples before students have developed their own concepts of what might go into a significant creative effort. When not showing examples, we have to practice other ways to generate ideas. In #1 above I say it is better to steal, rather than borrow ideas. To really be creative with an idea, one has to believe it and own it. The question is not simply: What can we learn from Picasso? The question is, What did Picasso learn that allowed him to surpass his artist father? The question is not simply: What we can learn from Rembrandt? It is, How did Rembrandt learn to surpass Karel van Mander and his other teachers. What must we surmise about how the greatest artists became creative? I am guessing that the most creative artists learned much more than technical expertise from their progenitors. In the tradition of the apprentice system, many assume that the apprentice learns by copying the techniques and looking at the master's finished products. Some of this happens. However, what may not be nearly as obvious, is that particularly creative apprentices are also apprenticing (or even surpassing) the master's idea generation process. The creative apprentice copies the master's best thinking methods, idea building sequences, questioning processes, warm-up routines, practice routines, habits of work, and so on. When I was a student teacher I apprenticed with two master teachers with many years as successful art teaching. From Mr. Nelson, I learned ways to being a personable and helpful person, but eventually abandoned many of his other ways of presenting lessons. From Mrs. Wolfe, I learned some very effective ways to get students to generate ideas for their own work, but I have had to work to abandon some of her personality traits. Today, formal education has replaced the apprentice system. As a teacher, I used to start a new course by showing slides of great works of art in the area the students were expected to learn. I now start the course with warm ups that require skill building and with idea generation activities. They learn good practice methods to build confidence and make things easier to do. New students get warm-ups that are easy enough to avoid frustration and hard enough so they feel they are learning and becoming prepared and skilled enough to be creative. This is accompanied by questions to be answered with art materials. The questions focus the thinking and the practice suggests ways to materialize answers to the questions. Often students expect and ask to see examples. I assure them that we will be studying great exemplars as we begin to understand and experience how it feels to materialize work ourselves. I explain that I look at lots of great art so that I know what I do **not** need to do (it has already been done). I explain that when I look at great art, I see a reflection of another person and/or another time and/or culture. I do not see work that needs to be done today by me and in my situation. I also tell students that I apprentice at great work to analyze the motivations behind the work--not to find something that I can visually mimic. I explain that I apprentice with important artworks in order to learn to read and understand the mind and heart of artists, but not to copy the look of their work. I speculate on why it may have been made. If I had made it, what would it have looked like? I never conclude that my work should look like what I am looking at. Copying is not a reasonable option. When viewing art this way, it can inspire and give me the courage to create something in my life that I need to express. Artwork is great because it was made for a reason deeply felt by the artist. Of course apprenticing with exemplars in this way often requires some understanding of context--not merely surface appraisal. This is a reason to delay showing work until students are minimally familiar and confident in their own creativity. By showing exemplars of great work **after** some student creative experience, I want the student to see validation of their own inventions and yet be inspired to come back again and again knowing that there are more ways to think, to question, and develop the same themes. First impressions are important and unforgettable. I want students' first impression of art making to come out of **themselves**---not from another artist. To show examples before the work is wrong because it cultivates an art studio culture of dependence on experts. By showing exemplars of great work after they have done their own work, I hope students will respond by moving beyond the exemplars by "stealing" thinking processes to make their own work---never copying or borrowing the look or style of the work. The thinking processes are taken (copied) to strengthen and express their own discoveries and experiences more fully. Learning to use art models creatively means learning to search for the hidden creative strategies and motivations under and behind the art works. No master artist outside of ourselves can do this for us. We have to learn to see the masterwork in ways that inspire and activate our minds. Copying the mere look of the work kills creativity because it does not include this thinking and speculation process. Because copying replicates answers, it is a shortcut that eliminates questions. It teaches dependency--not creativity. One should copy the questions that you imagine an artist worked with--not the answers (the artwork). Even if you imagine totally wrong questions, the questions can produce a lot of creative thinking. "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessoning mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." --Thomas Jefferson
 * 1) 3. I am probably Killing Creativity if I see a lot of Cliché Symbols instead of Original or Observed Representation of Experience.
 * 1) 4. I Kill Creativity when I Demonstrate instead of having students Practice.
 * 1) 5. I Kill Creativity when I Show an Example instead of Defining a Problem.
 * 1) 9. I Kill Creativity if I Give an Answer instead of teaching Problem Solving experimentation methods.