James C. Kaufman

Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity

Most investigations of creativity tend to take one of two directions: everyday creativity (also called “little-c”), which can be found in nearly all people, and eminent creativity (also called “Big-C”), which is reserved for the great. In this paper, the authors propose a Four C model of creativity that expands this dichotomy. Specifically, the authors add the idea of “mini-c,” creativity inherent in the learning process, and Pro-c, the developmental and effortful progression beyond little-c that represents professional-level expertise in any creative area. The authors include different transitions and gradations of these four dimensions of creativity, and then discuss advantages and examples of the Four C Model.

Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A Case for "mini-c" Creativity

In this article the authors argue that a new category of creativity, called “mini-c” creativity, is needed to advance creativity theory and research. Mini-c creativity differs from little-c (everyday) or Big-C (eminent) creativity as it refers to the creative processes involved in the construction of personal knowledge and understanding. The authors discuss how the category of mini-c creativity addresses gaps in current conceptions of creativity, offers researchers a new and important unit of analysis, and helps to better frame the domain question in creativity research. Implications for creativity research are also discussed.

The international handbook of creativity

The idea of democracy would be wholly uncreative in the United States, at least as democracy is traditionally thought of. People in the United States would probably say that the idea is lacking in novelty and hence cannot be creative. In some other country, someone having the idea of democracy might be seen as being very creative indeed and at the forefront of new thought about government. Clearly, different countries, or at least their governments, have different ideas about what constitutes creative thought. What does constitute creative thought, and how have people around the world understood and studied creativity?

Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to Nonparallel Creative Products

The consensual technique for assessing creativity is widely used in research, but its validation has been limited to assessing the creativity of artifacts produced under tightly constrained experimental conditions. Typically, only artifacts produced in response to very similar instructions have been compared. This has allowed researchers to compare such things as the effects of different motivational conditions on creative performance, but it has not allowed many other kinds of comparisons. It has also limited the use of the technique to artifacts gathered for specific experimental purposes, as opposed to already-existing artifacts produced under less controlled conditions. For this study, samples of writings collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress that were written in response to a very wide variety of assignments and under varying conditions were rated for creativity by 13 expert judges. Judges compared the creativity of 103 stories, 103 personal narratives, and 102 poems, all written by 8th-grade students. Very high levels of inter-rater reliability were obtained, demonstrating that the consensual method can be validly extended to such samples. New avenues for future research made possible by these findings are then discussed.

Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity

One of the most contentious areas in creativity theory is the question of domain specificity. How we conceptualize creativity — as something that transcends content domains, or as something that varies depending on the domain in question — has important implications for both creativity research and creativity training programs. The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity is the first creativity theory to successfully bridge the gap between these contrasting views of creativity. The APT model uses the metaphor of an amusement park to explore creativity. There are four stages: Initial requirements, general thematic areas, domains, and micro‐domains. The first level (initial requirements) is very general, and each subsequent level gets more and more domain‐specific. The APT model can provide a powerful framework for creativity assessment, selection of students for gifted education programs, and the development of creativity training programs.

Sure, I'm Creative—But Not in Mathematics!: Self-Reported Creativity in Diverse Domains

The degree to which creativity is domain-specific or domain-general remains hotly contested, but there is at least one area of agreement: people have different creativity profiles. In this study, we asked 241 students to give self-ratings of their creativity in different domains. These ratings were then studied for inter-correlations. We also examined how such self-assessments in diverse domains relate to other measures of cognitive ability and to creativity as measured with a personality scale. In general, if students viewed themselves as generally creative, they also viewed themselves as creative in different areas. The only area that was not correlated with general creativity ratings was mathematics.

Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative?

The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a common creativity assessment. According to this technique, the best judges of creativity are qualified experts. Yet what does it mean to be an expert in a domain? What level of expertise is needed to rate creativity? This article reviews the literature on novice, expert, and quasi-expert creativity ratings. Although current research indicates that novices may be poor choices to be CAT raters, quasi-experts may represent a compromise between ideal scientific rigor and practical time and budget restrictions. Certain guidelines are suggested to make the selection of experts more streamlined, including paying attention to which domain is being assessed.

Malevolent Creativity: A Functional Model of Creativity in Terrorism and Crime

Although creativity is often seen as an aspect of self-fulfillment, it is important to recognize its social effects. The traditional view is that these should be beneficial, creativity thus being benevolent. However, those who wish to do deliberate harm to others can also display creativity, in this case malevolent creativity. This is governed by the same principles as benevolent creativity, differing only in its intended purpose. Like any creativity, malevolent creativity can be examined through its products. Concepts from research on creative products provide important insights into the activities of terrorists and criminals, especially the idea of competing solutions. The key ideas in malevolent creativity are summarized in 11 principles; recognizing these helps in developing more effective means for counteracting terrorism.

In Praise of Clark Kent: Creative Metacognition and the Importance of Teaching Kids When (Not) to Be Creative

Despite creativitys many benefits and positive outcomes, there are still both explicit and implicit teacher biases against creative students. We argue that teachers do not dislike creativity but rather dislike inappropriate creativity that can come from students at poorly chosen times. After reviewing the literature on metacognition and creativity, we propose the adapted construct of creative metacognition (CMC), a combination of self-knowledge (knowing ones own creative strengths and limitations) and contextual knowledge (knowing when, where, how, and why to be creative). We end with ways that teachers can raise students’ CMC.

Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom.

1. How to discourage creative thinking in the classroom Raymond S. Nickerson 2. Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability John Baer and Tracey Garrett 3. Developing creative productivity in young people through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning Joseph S. Renzulli and Catharina F. de Wet 4. Creativity: a look outside the box in classrooms Alexinia Young Baldwin 5. Using constraints to develop creativity in the classroom Patricia D. Stokes 6. Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum together Elizabeth Fairweather and Bonnie Cramond 7. The five core attitudes, seven Is, and general concepts of the creative process Jane Piirto 8. Learning for creativity R. Keith Sawyer 9. Broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom Ronald A. Beghetto and James C. Kaufman 10. Everyday creativity in the classroom: a trip through time with seven suggestions Ruth Richards 11. Education based on a parsimonious theory of creativity Mark A. Runco 12. Roads not taken, new roads to take: looking for creativity in the classroom Thomas Skiba, Mei Tan, Robert J. Sternberg and Elena L. Grigorenko 13. Creativity in mathematics teaching: a Chinese perspective Weihua Niu and Zheng Zhou 14. Possibility thinking and wise creativity: educational futures in England Anna Craft 15. When intensity goes to school: overexcitabilities, creativity, and the gifted child Susan Daniels and Michael M. Piechowski 16. Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom: have we come full circle? Beth A. Hennessey 17. Attitude change as the precursor to creativity enhancement Jonathan A. Plucker and Gayle T. Dow 18. Creativity in college classrooms Diane F. Halpern 19. Teaching for creativity Robert J. Sternberg 20. Creativity in the classroom coda: 20 key points and other insights James C. Kaufman and Ronald A. Beghetto.