Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Creativity Assessments from NAGC 2015

392 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Here is the presentation from NAGC 2015.

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Loggen Sie sich ein, um Kommentare anzuzeigen.

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Creativity Assessments from NAGC 2015

  1. 1. PROJECT DATE PRESENTER NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LISA RUBENSTEIN EXAMINING CREATIVITY ASSESSMENTS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH (UNLESS IT ISN’T)
  2. 2. Why is assessing creativity important? How should we assess creativity?
  3. 3. WHY IS CREATIVITY IMPORTANT?
  4. 4. Why is assessing creativity important?
  5. 5. Why is assessing creativity important? Personal Growth/ Self-Actualization Research and Development Philosophical Underpinnings Program Design and Evaluation
  6. 6. ASSESSMENT  METHODS  AND  REQUIREMENTS   PROBABLY  HAVE  A  GREATER  INFLUENCE  ON  HOW   AND  WHAT  STUDENTS  LEARN  THAN  ANY  OTHER   SINGLE  FACTOR.   -BOUD, 1988, PG. 35
  7. 7. We assess what is important.
  8. 8. “How do you break it to them? It is not quite right but its great? How can you stand in judgement of somebody else’s creativity?” Participant quote from Myhill & Wilson (2013)
  9. 9. Easy Trumping Importance Bias against assessment of creativity Need for content first Maintains a mystical quality Subjective Challenge with defining dimensions
  10. 10. CREATIVITY V. INTELLIGENCE V. ACHIEVEMENT
  11. 11. Fuzzy Definition Fuzzy Assessment Unique Definition Unique Assessment
  12. 12. 111 121(THYS, SABBE, & DEHERT, 2014)
  13. 13. 74 121(THYS, SABBE, & DEHERT, 2014)
  14. 14. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
  15. 15. Traditional Categories of Educational Assessment Who? How? • TEACHERS • PARENTS • STUDENTS • PEERS • ADMINISTRATORS • SURVEYS • STUDENT ASSESSMENTS (FORMATIVE, SUMMATIVE, PERFORMANCE) • OBSERVATIONS • INTERVIEWS • FOCUS GROUPS What?
  16. 16. PRODUCTPERSON PROCESS PRESS/ENVIRONMENT Traditional Categories of Creativity
  17. 17. Person
  18. 18. Person Personality Characteristics Motivational Framework Perceptions of Creativity Knowledge/Cognition Levels OR ACCORDING TO WHOM? HOW?
  19. 19. Personality Examples... SRCBSS (Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students) Big 5 Inventory: Openness Subscale Gough Personality Scale (IU webpage) Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised Kirton-Adaptation Inventory
  20. 20. Motivational Framework Mindset Theory (Karwowski, 2014) Applying other motivational theories? Self-Determination Theory Attribution Theory Expectancy Value Theory
  21. 21. Perceptions of Creativity Teaching for Creativity Scales (Rubenstein, McCoach, & Siegle, 2013) Motivational Factors Environmental Factors Student Factors Self-Efficacy Task Value Student Potential
  22. 22. Knowledge/Cognition?
  23. 23. Process Which skills?
  24. 24. DIVERGENT THINKING ELABORATION? FLUENCY? FLEXIBILITY? ORIGINALITY?
  25. 25. Process Skills Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration Application Risk Taking Question Asking Problem Solving Collaboration/ Communication Connections Imagination Visualization
  26. 26. Process Assessments Summative Formative Performance
  27. 27. Summative Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Guilford’s Measures Wallach and Kogan Hypothetical Scenarios from Runco & Dow Unusual Uses Tests Future: Collaboration/Critical Thinking Computer Adapted Tests (Griffin & Care; Greiff & Wuestenberg) Future: Dynamic Assessments?
  28. 28. Summative: Domain Based For example: Creativity Test in Mathematics (Gontijo)
  29. 29. Formative?
  30. 30. Formative (LUCAS, CLAXTON, & SPENCER, 2014)
  31. 31. Ideas for Formative Options Consider the desired process skill. Choose a goal. (Creativity in and of itself is too broad.) Create assignments that address that.
  32. 32. More Ideas for Formative Options Cognition Labs (Think Aloud Opportunities) Formats: Cognitive maps, essays, journals, exit cards
  33. 33. Products
  34. 34. Product Individual products Rubrics Expert Reviewers Student reflections Collection of products Portfolio and rubrics Reflections Life Achievement Lists Iterative Nature
  35. 35. Other Option: Student Product Assessment Form (Renzulli & Reis)
  36. 36. Consensual Assessment Technique Not theoretically based, purely expert based Subjects create products. Raters are experts. They often rate on a 1-5 scale. No explanation needed for ratings. Use the full scale across participants.
  37. 37. Environment
  38. 38. Environment Levels (Home, Classroom, School, Culture, Media) Characteristics of Supportive Environments Observation Protocols, Interviews, and Surveys
  39. 39. A Few Existing Scales... Obstacles to Personal Creativity Inventory (I would be more creative if...; Factors: inhibition/shyness, lack of time opportunity, social repression, lack of motivation; Soriano de Alencar) Climate for Creativity in the Classroom (Factors: students expression of ideas, self- perception of creativity, student interest in learning, student autonomy, teacher incentive to students idea production; de Souza Fleith) Inventory of Teaching Practices (Factors: incentive to new ideas, climate for expression of ideas, evaluation and teaching methodology, interest for students’ learning; Soriano de Alencar & de Souza Fleith) Creativity in the Workplace (Factors: Stimulants: physical environment, social climate among work colleagues, incentive to new ideas, freedom of action, challenging activities, adequate salaries and benefits, actions by managers and the organization in support of new ideas, availability of material resources: Barriers: bocking of new ideas, excessive number of tasks and scarcity of time, resistance to new ideas, organizational problems; de Fatima Bruno-Faria)
  40. 40. Plus One... Creative Teaching Framework (Schacter, Thum, & Kifkin, 2006) 19 items Scaled to address frequency and quality
  41. 41. PRODUCTPERSON PROCESS PRESS/ENVIRONMENT ASSESSING CREATIVITY IS IMPORTANT.
  42. 42. Questions? lmrubenstein@bsu.edu Thank you.
  43. 43. ResourcesBoud, D. 1988 (ed.) Developing student autonomy in learning, second edition, London: Kogan Page Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Assessing Creativity. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 28-34. Greiff & Wuestenberg (2014). Assessment of Complex Problem Solving. Paper presented at the Annual Convention for the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA. Griffin, P. E. & Care, E. (2014). Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving. Paper presented at the Annual Convention for the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA. Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity, And The Arts, 8(1), 62-70. doi:10.1037/a0034898 Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2014). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice, 6(2), 81-121. Myhill, D., & Wilson, A. (2013). Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry writing. Thinking Skills And Creativity, 10101-111. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.002 Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An Instrument to Examine Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors That Allow for the Teaching of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324-334. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.813807 Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How Much Does Creative Teaching Enhance Elementary School Students' Achievement?. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 47-72. Soriano de Alencar, E. L., de Fátima Bruno-Faria, M., & de Souza Fleith, D. (2014). Theory and practice of creativity measurement. Waco, TX, US: Prufrock Press.

×