diakidoy & constantinou (2000)

Creativity in Physics: Response Fluency and Task Specificity I. N. Diakidoy and C. P. ConstantinouCreativity in Physics

Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy and Constantinos P. ConstantinouUniversity of Cyprus

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to explorecreativity in the domain of physics and, specifically, itsrelation to fluency of responses (divergent thinking)and type of task. Fifty-four university students were pre-tested on their knowledge of relevant physics concepts.They then were asked to solve 3 ill-defined problemsrepresenting different types of tasks. The appropriateresponses given to each problem were evaluated as totheir number (fluency) and frequency (originality).Task-specific components were found to influence cre-ativity independently and to moderate the effects ofgeneral factors such as fluency of responses. Efforts topredict and facilitate creativity in educational settings,therefore, also must take into account the way creativityis manifested within particular domains and the con-straints that different types of tasks may impose.

Creativity is a complex construct and, although it hasnot been well operationalized, the importance of identi-fying and facilitating it in educational settings has beenwidely recognized. The various creativity tests andtraining programs that have been developed over thepast several decades (Barron, 1969; deBono, 1976;Torrance, 1966; Treffinger, 1995) provide testimony toan increasing interest in creativity. Nevertheless, thereis a general concern that creative potential is not identi-fied systematically or nurtured in the schools the way itshould be (Baer, 1993; Barron, 1988; Hennessey &Amabile, 1987; Hocevar, 1981; Sternberg, 1996; Weis-berg, 1988). The purpose of this study was to examinecreativity and factors that may contribute to it in a spe-cific academic domain, namely physics. Problem solv-ing represents a dominant activity of experts as well aslearners in the domain. This study examined creativityin the solutions or responses given to different physicsproblems and its relation to fluency, problem type, andconceptual knowledge.

Creativity research has been directed at explainingand predicting a complex psychological phenomenonon the basis of evidence concerning factors that arefound or hypothesized to be crucial. However, ourknowledge about the basic components of creativityand the factors that affect its development and manifes-tation remain more or less fragmented. Creativity hasbeen conceptualized as an ability or characteristic ofthe person (Barron, 1988; Taylor, 1988) or as a cogni-tive process (Boden, 1992; Johnson-Laird, 1988;Schank, 1988; Weisberg, 1986) influenced by thinkingstyles or personality traits (Richardson & Crichlow,1995; Sternberg, 1988) and associated with divergentthinking (Clapham, 1997; Guilford, 1956; Torrance,1988).

The issue we raise, however, concerns the extent towhich a generally decontextualized approach to thestudy of creativity has the potential of providing uswith a unified account of the construct and the factorsthat influence it. Creativity does not occur out of con-text (Baer, 1993). The context of its occurrence may berepresented by a particular situation, task, or problemin an academic domain or in everyday life. In this re-spect, most previous research can be said to be con-textualized by virtue of the materials and the tasks em-ployed. However, there is still a need for a thoroughexploration of creativity, its development, and its mani-festation within single identifiable domains. Such an

Creativity Research Journal 401

Creativity Research Journal Copyright 20002001 by20002001, Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4, 401410 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

We would like to thank D. Natsopoulos and H. Tsoukas for their in-sightful comments and support, C. Varnavas and C. Bandis for theirhelp with materials and scoring, and E. Theodorou for her help withthe data. We also want to thank the students in our courses for their en-thusiastic participation and interest in the study.

Manuscript received May 20, 1999; accepted December 1, 1999.Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to to

Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy, Department of Education, University of Cy-prus, P.O. Box 20537, Nicosia CY1678 Cyprus. E-mail: [email protected].

approach potentially can lead to a more unified theoret-ical account of the construct in a specific domain,which then can be contrasted with theoretical accountsof creativity in other domains and contexts.

The validity of such an approach is implicated bythe definition given to creative outcomes. Creative out-comes are conceptualized to be both novel, as indi-cated by their low frequency of occurrence (Sternberg,1988; Torrance, 1990), and appropriate, as indicatedby judgments of correctness, usefulness, and quality(Amabile, 1990; Johnson-Laird, 1987; Sternberg,1988; Weisberg, 1986). The criterion of appropriate-ness is closely linked with the domain and task in ques-tion, because they necessarily impose constraints onwhat outcomes can be considered appropriate. Knowl-edge of the concepts, constraints, and regularities of adomain must influence the generation, evaluation, andmodification of responses within that domain (John-son-Laird, 1987; Weisberg, 1986). Moreover, Boden(1992) argued that if creativity is thought to involve thebreaking or bending of rules imposed by the domain,then knowledge of these rules is a prerequisite for cre-ativity in the domain. At the task level, knowledge ofrelevant concepts and solution requirements contrib-utes to the representation of the givens and to the prob-lems solution (Johnson-Laird, 1988). That, in turn,most likely provides the basis for the generation of ap-propriate and potentially creative solutions.

Previous research on creativity has focused mostlyon creativity as a general ability or process (Hennessey& Amabile, 1988; Richardson & Crichlow, 1995;Sternberg, 1988; Taylor, 1988; Treffinger, 1995). Thisfocus has guided psychometric work in the areaasindicated by the fact that items on widely used creativ-ity tests are relatively domain independent (Barron,1988; Torrance, 1966, 1990)and has resulted in theexpectation that individuals who score high on generalcreativity tests are more likely to exhibit high creativeachievement in one chosen area, if not in several. How-ever, this is not generally the case (Baer, 1993; Feld-husen, 1993; Hocevar, 1981; Nickerson, Perkins, &Smith, 1985), and concern about the tests modest pre-dictive validities led Feldhusen (1994) to suggest thatcreative functioning in one domain may be unique andpsychologically different from creative functioning inanother domain.

The general lack of attention to domain-specificcomponents does not only limit our understanding ofcreativity, but also may have serious educational impli-

cations. Creativity test scores may contribute to deci-sions about placement in gifted education programs(Feldhusen, 1994, 1995), and findings, such as the in-fluence of divergent thinking on creativity in general,may shape instructional methods developed to facili-tate it in the school setting (deBono, 1976; Treffinger,1995). Facilitating creativity in school also must in-volve facilitating creativity in specific academic do-mains in addition to promoting general creativity.However, it is highly unlikely that tests and instruc-tional methods designed to identify and increase gen-eral creativity levels will be equally effective when theobjective is to identify and promote creativity in do-mains, such as mathematics and science, in which out-comes, creative or otherwise, depend on the availabil-ity of conceptual knowledge and problem-solvingstrategies.

A prerequisite to understanding the extent to whichcreativity is domain specific involves the examinationof creativity in particular, identifiable domains. Thisstudy represents a first attempt in this direction. In thisstudy, university students were asked to solve threeill-defined physics problems, each representing a dif-ferent problem type in the domain: explanation, pre-diction, or application. Open-ended tasks and ill-de-fined problems that allow multiple solutions areassumed to facilitate creativity to a greater extent thanwell-defined tasks and problems (Barron, 1988; Hen-nessey & Amabile, 1987; Sternberg, 1988; Torrance,1988; Weisberg, 1986). Problem type was operation-alized in terms of solution requirements. A problemthat requires one to explain or find the causes of a phys-ical phenomenon presents different constraints withrespect to what kinds of solutions are appropriate incomparison to a problem that requires one to predictphysical consequences or to apply a concept. Accord-ing to our position, we hypothesized that creative per-formance within the domain would vary as a functionof the type of problem encountered.

Although it is generally accepted that creativity isvirtually impossible in the absence of some relevantknowledge, it also has been claimed that too muchknowledge can have a negative impact, preventing theindividual from going beyond what is already known(Sternberg, 1988; Taylor, 1988). In this study, to pre-vent simple recall or direct application of knowl-edgewhich has been found to hinder creativity(Weisberg, 1986)the physics problems were unfa-miliar to the participating students. However, the un-

402 Creativity Research Journal

I. N. Diakidoy and C. P. Constantinou

derlying physics concepts were judged by the stu-dents physics instructors to be within the studentscapabilities. In addition, a conceptual knowledge pre-test was administered to establish the extent to whichthe underlying concepts were familiar and to allowfor the examination of the effects of prior knowledgeon students responses. We expected knowledge ofthe relevant underlying concepts to support creativityin the domain.

Guilford (1956) proposed that divergent thinking,as opposed to convergent thinking, is a basic compo-nent of creativity. This hypothesis has been con-firmed by research that has required participants toprovide multiple responses (Richardson & Crichlow,1995; Torrance, 1988), and it has dominated creativ-ity testing and training (Clapham, 1997; deBono,1976; Hocevar, 1981; Torrance, 1966). In fact,Torrances (1966, 1990) work on creativity testinghas relied on the premise that divergent thinkingqualitiesthat is, the ability to produce a large num-ber (fluency) of different (flexibility) ideas that areunusual (originality) and richly detailed (elabora-tion)are indicators of creativity. However, the im-portance of divergent thinking was disputed byWeisberg (1986, 1988), who argued that the ability togenerate a large number of responses does not ensurethat any of them will qualify as creative or original.This study examined the contribution of divergentthinking as represented by the number of appropriateresponses given to each physics problem. Appropriateresponses were considered to be those that fell withinthe domain of physics and that did not appear to orig-inate from fundamental misconceptions with respectto the underlying physics concepts. This operational-ization of appropriateness and the nature of the prob-lems utilized allowed us to obtain a range of re-sponses from each participant and for each problem.

In this study, creativity was operationalized as re-sponse originality. The responses to each problemwere scored as to their total number, their acceptabilityor appropriateness as indicated by the constraints ofthe domain, and their originality as indicated by fre-quency of occurrence in the sample. This method ofscoring follows the guidelines and procedures com-monly utilized in creativity research (Vernon, 1971).However, Davis (1989) drew attention to the fact thatoriginality scores that are based on the sum of the fre-quency weights assigned to responses (see Torrance,1990) are a direct function of the number of responses

given. As a result, there may be a confounding of theoriginality measures with the fluency measures, whichin turn may magnify the influence of divergent think-ing functions. Therefore, in this study, fluency andoriginality were separated by computing originality asthe average of the frequency weights of the appropriateresponses given by each participant to each problem.This departure from standard procedure may result inan underestimation of the strength of the relation be-tween divergent thinking and originality. On the otherhand, it also allows the examination of the contributionof divergent thinking to creativity without any con-founding influences.

Method

Participants

The participants were 54 University of Cyprus stu-dents majoring in education. The majority of the stu-dents were women (n = 50) and in their 3rd year ofstudy (n = 40). Their college performance was averageor above, compared to the performance of all educationmajors. Their grade point average (GPA) ranged from7.00 to 9.00, with a mean of 7.52 and a highest possiblegrade of 10.00. At the time of the study, 45 of the stu-dents had completed a university course in physicalscience as part of their program requirements. Theiraverage grade in this course was 6.91.

Materials

The target physics problems were selected from apool of 40 ill-defined problems constructed by two ex-perts, both of them university professors of physics.All of the problems on this list were classified intothree problem types on the basis of their solution re-quirements. Some problems required that solvers ex-plain possible mechanisms behind a phenomenon;some required that solvers predict what will happengiven a physical situation or a sequence of events; and,finally, some problems required that solvers find waysof using an item or device. These problem types werejudged independently by the two instructors of thephysical science course as not being representative ofthe problems found in textbooks and course assign-


Creativity in Physics

ments. The instructors, who were familiar with the par-ticipating students, were subsequently asked to iden-tify the problems that were most likely to be unfamiliarbut appropriate for this particular student group. Onlyproblems identified by both instructors as fulfilling theset criteria were considered, resulting finally in the se-lection of three problems, each representing a differentproblem type (see Table 1).

The explanation problem required students to pro-vide possible valid explanations for a natural phenom-enon, the prediction problem provided the beginningof a science fiction story that the students had to com-plete, and the application problem required students todescribe possible applications for a device having spe-cific physical properties. The students who had com-pleted the physical science course had spent only 1week covering static electricity (application problem)and 1 week on concepts pertaining to materials (expla-nation problem). Concepts related to radioactivity andthe social impact of nuclear energy (prediction prob-lem) were mentioned only in passing and were nottreated rigorously in that course.

The prior knowledge test consisted of 12truefalse statements constructed by the instructors ofthe physical science course (Table 2). There were 4statements for each target problem assessing knowl-edge of concepts related to the phenomenon or situa-tion described by the problem. For example, State-ment 3.1 (Table 2) tests whether one understands thedifference between magnetization and electricalcharging. Inability to make such a distinction possi-bly would influence how one represents the applica-tion problem and, subsequently, his or her choice of

technological applications. To prevent familiarizationwith the situations described in the target problems,the test statements were designed to assess the rele-vant concepts in contexts different from those pre-sented in the problems.

In addition to the items assessing knowledge of tar-get problem concepts, there were 12 more truefalsestatements assessing knowledge of physics conceptsunrelated to the problems, which served as foils. Theirpurpose was to prevent subsequent familiarization withthe target concepts.

Procedure

The students were divided into two groups for studyparticipation. The prior knowledge test was adminis-tered on 2 consecutive days, with one group of studentstaking the test on the 1st day and the other group takingthe test on the 2nd day. Students were instructed to thinkcarefully before answering each item and to do theirbest.The test tookstudentsabout30mintocomplete it.

Two weeks later, the students met again in theirgroups and were given the target physics problems tosolve. They were instructed to think carefully abouteach problem and to try to provide as many appropriateresponses as possible to all three of them. Some effortwas made to create a relaxed atmosphere in which thestudents would feel that they could work at their ownpace. The students were allowed to make notes on sep-arate pieces of paper and to work on the problems inany order they wished. It took students about 1 hr tocomplete this part of the study.



Table 1. Target Physics Problems Representing Different Problem TypesTarget Problem Problem Type

When I think of iron rusting, wood rotting, and rubber disintegrating, then I am led to believe that anymaterial that is taken from nature, with time strives to return to its natural form and environment. Whymight this be happening?

Explanation

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 theradioactive fuel required by thei spaceship. He first had to distill 3 tons of water which would be used as acooling liquid for the nuclear reactor. With a process of nuclear fusion he would produce the necessaryplutonium, and then, with a large explosion, he would push the spaceship thousands of kilometers awayin a matter of a few hundredths of a second. Complete the story.

Prediction

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 additionalproperties as long as you specify them.

Application

Scoring

The prior knowledge test was scored according tothe number of items that were answered correctly. Thescores were corrected for guessingby subtracting thetotal number of incorrect answers from the total num-ber of correct answers (Nunnally, 1978)and con-verted to a proportional scale to indicate proportion ofitems answered correctly by each student.

The scoring of the responses given to the target phys-ics problems followed a three-step procedure. First, twoindependent raters, one expert in physics and one famil-iar with the target problems, examined the responsesand counted the number of different responses given byeachstudent toeachproblem.Responses thatweresimi-lar to or simply elaborations of previous responses weregrouped together and counted as one response. This stepyielded a total number of responses score for each stu-dent for each problem. The interrater agreement was75%, and the differences were resolved in conference.

Second, two independent raters, both experts in thedomain of physics, assessed the correctness or appro-priateness of each response given. This step yielded anumber of valid responses score for each student andproblem. On the explanation and application problems,

it was relatively easy to discern which responses werephysically valid and particularly feasible. This was notthe case with the prediction problem (Table 1), whichincluded social and cultural aspects. In this case, re-sponses such as the possibility of a GreekTurkish war,which were possible and valid given the political situa-tion, were counted as separate responses but were notconsidered to be appropriate unless they included validphysical information. The interrater agreement was96%.

Finally, all of the responses given by the students toeach problem were tabulated, and their frequency ofoccurrence in the sample was calculated. A responsegiven by fewer than 3 students (5%) received a score of3 and was considered to be highly original. A responsegiven by fewer than 15 students (15%) received a scoreof 2. Responses given by fewer than 27 students (50%)in the sample received a score of 1, and those given bymore than 28 students received a score of 0. This pro-cedure yielded a sample frequency score for each re-sponse. Subsequently, the average of all the frequencyscores received by each student for each problem wascalculated to give the students originality score.

Analysis

Thedatawereanalyzedusinghierarchical regressionfollowing the logic of mixed analysis of covariance. Themaindependentvariablewasoriginality.GPAandphys-icsgradewerebetween-subject factorsandwereenteredfirst. The grand mean of the students across problemssubsequentlywasentered to removeanyremainingvari-ance associated with between-subject factors. Then, thewithin-subjects factorsprior knowledge, problemtype, number of valid responses, and total number of re-sponseswere entered, followed by their interactions.That problem type was a within-subjects factor resultedin obtaining three measures of originality, one for eachproblem type. The F ratio for each within-subjects fac-tor was calculated by taking into account the incrementin R2 attributed to that factor:

where R2 = the variance accounted for by the model, N= the number of observations, k = the number of vari-



Table 2. Prior Knowledge Test Items

1.1 Many construction materials derive from nature and haveundergone some processing.

1.2 On our planet there exists a fine and fragile equilibrium. Inthe case of a permanent temperature change (an increaseof 1C for example on a permanent basis) we could havecatastrophic changes.

1.3 When a system is in a state of dynamic equilibrium then ithas ceased to change.

1.4 Dinosaurs may have become extinct on this planet as aresult of darkness persisting for a few weeks and causedby a comet impacting the earth.

2.1 The atomic bomb explosion at Hiroshima gave rise to fireand major destruction that affected millions of people.

2.2 Distillation of wine will yield water.2.3 Coca-Cola is produced through water distillation.2.4 The speed of light is 300 million kilometers per second.3.1 When I rub a pen it becomes magnetized, and I can use it

to raise small pieces of paper.3.2 Dust is made up of groups of molecules which are

suspended in the air.3.3 A transparent material has a smooth surface.3.4 An electrically charged body has more electrons than protons.

- - - - -

2

2change

(1 ) /[( k S 1) 1]R

R N

ables in the model, and s = the number of participants.This formula yields a more conservative test for thewithin-subjects factors than the standard formula com-monly used for the calculation of the F ratio for the be-tween-subject factors (Kerlinger, 1986).

A preliminary examination of the data indicatedthat the distributions of total number of responses andnumber of valid responses were positively skewed(skewness > 1). That was expected because the prob-lems were unfamiliar, resulting in fewer high scoresthan low scores. Square root transformations normal-ized the data, and the transformed scores were em-ployed in the analyses. Because of missing values onphysics grade, the data of only 45 students were uti-lized in the regression analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics indicated that students per-formed differently in the three target problems (Table3). The concepts related to the application problemwere less familiar to this sample, and yet the students

overall gave more responses and more appropriate re-sponses to this problem.

The responses given to the prediction problem weremore original than those given to either the explanationor the application problems.

Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients amongthe variables of interest. It can be seen that total num-ber of responses, number of valid responses, and origi-nality were all highly and positively correlated witheach other (p < .01).

However, the correlation between total number ofresponses and originality was not significant (r = .04, p> .05) when number of valid responses was partialedout. In contrast, the correlation between number ofvalid responses and originality increased (r = .63, p .05) but negative only inthe prediction problem.

Preliminary regression analyses indicated that theday the prior knowledge test was administered andnonlinear components did not have significant effectson any variables of interest and, therefore, were ex-cluded from the main analysis. Table 5 presents the fi-nal regression model predicting originality score.

It can be seen that the variance accounted for byGPA, physics grade, and prior knowledge was not sig-nificant. Table 6 presents the means of originality,number of valid responses, and total number of re-sponses in two levels of prior knowledge.

Even though there were no significant differences inoriginality scores and total number of responses acrossprior knowledge levels (p > .05), the difference in meannumber of valid responses across prior knowledge lev-els was significant, F(1, 162) = 7.98, p < .01. Studentswho received high scores (above the mean) on the priorknowledge test did not give as many correct responsesto the problems as students whose prior knowledge ofthe relevant concepts was low. The same trend was ap-parent with originality scores and total number of re-sponses as well.

It can be seen from Table 5 that problem type wasa highly significant predictor of originality. Studentsgave the least original responses to the explanationproblem and the most original responses to the pre-diction problem (Table 3). Even though the interac-tion of prior knowledge with problem type was notsignificant, it did approach significance (p = .07). Ta-ble 7 shows the means of originality within problemtypes and levels of prior knowledge. Students withrelatively high knowledge of relevant conceptsshowed a tendency to give more original responses tothe explanation and application problems. In contrast,students with low conceptual knowledge gave moreoriginal responses to the prediction problem (Table7). Even though none of the mean differences withineach problem reached significance (p > .05), it maybe the case that a high level of knowledge hinderedcreativity in the prediction problem, whereas the op-posite appears to be true for the other two problems.This negative influence of prior knowledge on theoriginality scores of responses to the prediction prob-lem also may have masked the positive effects of this



Table 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysisfor Variables Predicting Originality ScoreVariable B R2 change F to Enter

Grade Point Average 0.18 .0077 1.03Physics Grade 0.07 .0039 0.78Grand M 1.00 .4727 41.01**Prior Knowledge 0.11 .0005 0.27Problem Type 0.32 .0541 28.53**Number of Valid

Responses1.08 .1958 103.25**

Total Number of Responses 0.35 .0132 6.97*Problem Type Prior

Knowledge0.48 .0058 3.03

Problem Type Numberof Valid Responses

0.81 .0984 51.87**

Prior Knowledge Number of ValidResponses

.088 .0001 0.06

Model R2 .8521Multiple R .9231

Note: N = 45.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 6. Means of Originality, Number of ValidResponses, and Total Number of Responses in Levels ofPrior Knowledge

Prior Knowledge

Low High

Measures M SD M SD

Originality 0.87 0.95 0.82 0.98Number of Valid Responses 0.85 0.67 0.54 0.69Total Number of Responses 1.47 0.52 1.41 0.45

Table 7. Means of Originality Within Problem Types andLevels of Prior Knowledge

Prior Knowledge

Low High

Problem Type M SD M SD

Explanation 0.37 0.87 0.47 0.97Prediction 1.32 1.19 1.05 1.19Application 0.94 0.82 1.04 0.84

variable on the originality of responses given to theother two problems.

It can be seen from Table 5 that the number of validresponses that a student could give predicted the extentto which at least some of these responses were original.The interaction of this variable with problem type wasalso significant. Table 8 shows the means of originalitywithin problem types and levels of number of valid re-sponses. It is apparent that the ability to produce a largenumber of responses influences originality in the ex-planation and prediction problems to a greater extentthan in the application problem.

The total number of responses that students gave tothe problems was also a significant predictor of origi-nality (Table 5). However, because the partial correla-tion coefficient between this variable and originality,when controlling for number of valid responses, wasnot significant (r = .04, p > .05), the high positive cor-relation initially observed and part of the variance ac-counted for may be due to this third variable and its re-lation to the total number of responses.

Discussion

The results of this study indicated that the numberof appropriate responses that students could give toill-defined physics problems (fluency) and the type ofproblem were the most significant predictors of re-sponse originality.

The number of appropriate or valid responses that astudent can give to a problem is essentially an index ofdivergent thinking, and, within the framework ofpsychometric research, it has always been assumedthat divergent thinking ability is highly related to cre-ativity (Guilford, 1956, 1970, 1971; Torrance, 1966,1988). Consequently, it has been argued that ill-de-

fined tasks and problems, which allow more than oneappropriate response, are more conducive to creativity(Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). However, the highlysignificant interaction of this factor with problem typeindicates that the extent to which divergent thinkingcontributes to creativity depends on the type of theill-defined task encountered. In this study, a greaternumber of valid responses was given to the applicationproblem, but the responses given to the predictionproblem received higher originality scores than the re-sponses given to any other problem. This finding alsosupports, in part, Weisbergs (1986, 1988) claim thatthe ability to produce a large number of responses doesnot ensure that these responses will be highly creative.

The students in our study responded differently toproblems representing different types of tasks in thedomain of physics. An examination of the data re-vealed that, whereas 57% of the students gave highlyoriginal responses (responses receiving frequencyscores of 3) to at least one problem, only 7% gave orig-inal responses to all three problems. Because the prob-lems were equivalent in terms of appropriateness andfamiliarity, these differences in performance can be at-tributed, at least in part, to the fact that the problemsdiffered in their solution requirements and constraints.Even though this study was motivated by the theoreti-cal position that creativity is in part domain specific(Feldhusen, 1994; Hocevar, 1981), it was not designedto address this issue directly. Nevertheless, these find-ings allow the extension of this position and its impli-cations to the level of the task. Creative performance inconnection with one type of task does not appear to en-sure creative performance in other types of tasks.

The extent to which creativity is task and domainspecific has important theoretical and educational im-plications, and needs to be the subject of further re-search. If creativity varies in connection with tasks,and possibly in connection with domains as well, thenthe extent to which it represents a relatively stablecharacteristic or ability is questionable. These findingscast doubts on the appropriateness of employing gen-eral measures to identify and predict creative potentialfor research or educational purposes. Instead, a morevalid approach might be the assessment of creativitythrough the use of a variety of appropriate and repre-sentative tasks within a domain of interest.

Even though the problem types we have em-ployedexplanation, prediction, and applicationarehighly representative of those frequently addressed in



Table 8. Means of Originality Within Problem Types andLevels of Number of Valid Responses

Number of Valid Responses

Low High

Problem Type M SD M SD

Explanation 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.48Prediction 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.41Application 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.80

the domain of physics and science in general, they arenot representative of those encountered in physicscourses at the secondary and undergraduate levels.Typically, students are required to describe physicalphenomena, calculate quantities, and conduct experi-ments that have been carefully prespecified as to theirprocedures and outcomes by instructors and textbookauthors. These activities are designed to promote theacquisition of theories, concepts, and procedures in thedomain. At the same, time they may foster the percep-tion of knowledge acquisition as an end goal, thus ren-dering the knowledge acquired less flexible and appli-cable in novel situations. In that case, these activitiesare unlikely to promote creativity as exemplified by theextension of acquired knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge (Johnson-Laird, 1987).

It has been argued extensively that creativity de-pends on the availability of a large knowledge base(Amabile, 1990; Boden, 1992; Sternberg, 1988; Weis-berg, 1986). Conceptual knowledge is considered to bea prerequisite to mentally representing the problemand guiding the generation and evaluation of solutions(Feldhusen, 1994; Johnson-Laird, 1988). Althoughthese findings do not appear to support the precedingclaim, they cannot be taken to confirm the oppositeclaim that too much knowledge may hinder creativity(Sternberg, 1988). The relation between prior concep-tual knowledge and the creativity measures was weakbut negative only with respect to the prediction prob-lem. An examination of the response protocols indi-cated that at least half of the appropriate responses tothe prediction problem were based on concepts of as-tronomy and space travel, and not on concepts of nu-clear energy as we had originally hypothesized and as-sessed with the prior knowledge test. Therefore, thenegative relation may be partly due to the fact that weevaluated a different knowledge base from the one ac-tually accessed by our students.

According to Schank (1988), the interpretation andthe solution of a problem depend not only on prior con-ceptual knowledge, but also on the availability of rele-vant previous experiences in memory. The rules, orwhat Schank (1988) referred to as the explanation pat-terns, that were employed to deal with previous experi-ences are selectively accessed and modified to apply toa new problem. Amabile (1990) and Runco and Chand(1995) also argued that creativity is based on differentkinds of domain-relevant knowledge, both declarativeand procedural. Considering these claims, it becomes

apparent that the prior knowledge test employed in thisstudy was limited in terms of the extent and the depthto which it assessed potentially relevant knowledge.The test was not designed to evaluate proceduralknowledgethat is, familiarity and strategy use withproblems of this type.

The possibility that the results concerning theknowledge factor may be attributable to the test isstrengthened by a closer examination of the responsesand the results concerning the explanation problem.Knowledge of the underlying concepts (entropy anddynamic equilibrium) was above average, and the re-sponse protocols indicated that this knowledge pro-vided the basis for the responses given. Yet, only 11%of all the responses were judged to be appropriate, andonly 3% received high originality scores. Clearly, theexplanation problem presented a greater challenge toour students than either the prediction or the applica-tion problem. The task it represents is highly demand-ing, requiring the formulation of a theory to account forthe physical phenomena described. Theory formula-tion requires not only in-depth and flexible knowledgeof immediately related and more distant concepts, butalso knowledge about the structure of theories and theprocesses that are involved in their construction. Eventhough this study did not examine this kind of knowl-edge, it can be expected to be low. The content, goals,and methods of teaching and testing at the secondaryand undergraduate levels, at least in the context of sci-ence education, are characterized by more of an em-phasis on the learning of phenomena and the laws thatgovern their behavior than on the epistemological con-struction of structured theories. Therefore, our stu-dents can be expected to know more about establishedtheories and their applications than the processes thatguide theory formulation.

The results concerning the influence of academicachievement indexes, such as GPA and grade in a phys-ical science course, parallel those concerning the influ-ence of prior knowledge. This is not surprising if weconsider that grades in different academic subjects aretaken to reflect the knowledge acquired in the corre-sponding subject areas. These findings overall supportthe notion that creativity and academic achievementare not linked (Guilford, 1956; Sternberg, 1988; Tay-lor, 1988). However, prior knowledge represents acomplex factor, and creativity appears to depend not somuch on the simple availability of knowledge but onthe ability to extend and go beyond the knowledge ac-



quired. Therefore, further research should examinemore thoroughly the different kinds of knowledge andskills that may contribute to creativity in different do-mains and tasks. Such research has greater potential toprovide a more solid basis for educational planningand practice.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychol-ogy 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. EducationalLeadership, 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 psychologicalperspectives (pp. 7698). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Boden, M. A. (1992). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms.New York: Basic Books.

Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element increativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10,3344.

Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 14, 257274.

deBono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. London: Temple Smith.Feldhusen, J. F. (1993). A conception of creative thinking and cre-

ativity training. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L.Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developingcreativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 3150).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Teaching and testing for creativity. In Inter-national encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 11781183).New York: Pergamon.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent development vs. gifted education. Ed-ucational Forum, 59, 346349.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulle-tin, 53, 267293.

Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 4, 149168.

Guilford, J. P. (1971). Some misconceptions regarding measurementof 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 cre-ativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Con-temporary psychological perspectives (pp. 1142). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique.Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450464.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1987). Reasoning, imagining, creating. Bulle-tin of the British Psychological Society, 40, 121129.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. InR. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporarypsychological perspectives (pp. 202219). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Or-lando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The teachingof thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Richardson, A. G., & Crichlow, J. L. (1995). Subject orientation andthe creative personality. Educational Research, 37, 7178.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educa-tional Psychology Review, 7, 243267.

Schank, R. C. (1988). Creativity as a mechanical process. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psy-chological perspectives (pp. 220238). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psy-chological perspectives (pp. 125147). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Investing in creativity: Many happy returns.Educational Leadership, 53, 8084.

Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of cre-ativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Con-temporary psychological perspectives (pp. 125147). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:Technical norms manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its test-ing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contem-porary psychological perspectives (pp. 4375). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Manualfor scoring and interpreting results. Bensenville, IL: ScholasticTesting Service, Inc.

Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative problem solving (C.P.S.): Over-view and educational implications. Educational PsychologyReview, 7, 301312.

Vernon, P. E. (1971). Effects of administration and scoring of diver-gent thinking tests. British Journal of Educational Psychology,41, 245257.

Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York:Freeman.

Weisberg, R. W. (1988). Problem solving and creativity. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psy-chological perspectives (pp. 148176). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.



Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

diakidoy & constantinou (2000)

Documents