Abstract

In recent years, interest in the dynamic nature of creativity from a socio-cognitive perspective has increased. However, few studies have been conducted to assess creative potential dynamically. The present study attempted to investigate whether creative strategies mediated within a dynamic assessment of creativity in the graphic domain were transferred to and emerged in the verbal and mathematical domains.  Seventy-one 11- and 12-years old children were divided into three sub-groups. The first received complete pre- and post-testing in graphic, verbal and mathematical domains and mediation of creative skills in graphic tasks; the second received the same as the first with the addition of transfer prompts, and the third did not receive any mediation on creative skills but only took the tests. The results demonstrated that internalized mediated skills were spontaneously transferred to and emerged in verbal creativity but not in mathematical. However, some transfer effect was found in mathematical creativity only in the group that was prompted to do so.  The study’s findings are considered of significant interest in assessing and in the instructional applications of creativity.

Keywords

References

• Arslan, B., Verbrugge, R., & Taatgen, N. (2017). Cognitive control explains the mutual transfer between dimensional change card sorting and first-order false belief understanding: A computational modeling study on transfer of skills. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 20, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2017.03.001
• Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534507
• Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00767.x
• Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.002
• Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005
• Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
• Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
• Benedek, M., & Fink, A. (2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: the role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.002
• Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
• Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 369–412). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.019
• Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., Jones, R. S., & Steinberg, E. (1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(85)90017-0
• Carruthers, L., & MacLean, R. (2019). The Dynamic Definition of Creativity: Implications for Creativity Assessment. In R. A. Beghetto & G. E. Corazza (Eds.), Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice in Education (pp. 207–223). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_12
• Cheng, V. M. Y. (2016). Understanding and enhancing personal transfer of creative learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.001
• Chrysikou, E. G. (2019). Creativity in and out of (cognitive) control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.014
• Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: the dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
• Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357965
• Detterman, D. K. (1993). Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Ablex Publishing.
• Dumas, D. G., Dong, Y., & Leveling, M. (2021). The zone of proximal creativity: What dynamic assessment of divergent thinking reveals about students’ latent class membership. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 67, 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102013
• Dumas, D., Boris, F., & Alexander, P. (2024). Using a model of domain learning to understand the development of creativity. Educational Psychologist, 59(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2291577
• Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910303253
• Feuerstein, R., & Jensen, M. R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: theoretical basis, goals, and instruments. The Educational Forum, 44(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728009336184
• Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. Freund Publishing House.
• Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 141–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90016-0
• Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01114.x
• Gentner, D. (2017). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164535.ch1
• Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
• Glăveanu, V. P., & Beghetto, R. A. (2021). Creative experience: a non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606
• Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.75
• Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1087
• Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal’perin’s criticism and extension of Lev Vygotsky’s Work. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 34(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405340254
• Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press.
• Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
• Haywood, H. C., & Wingenfeld, S. A. (1992). Interactive assessment as a research tool. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600303
• Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of efl text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733
• Kubricht, J. R., Lu, H., & Holyoak, K. J. (2017). Individual differences in spontaneous analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 45(4), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0687-7
• Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller, (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 99–116). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.007
• Lubart, T., Barbot, B., & Besançon, M. (2019). Creative potential: assessment issues and the EPoC Battery. Estudios de Psicología, 40(3), 540–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2019.1656462
• Mayer, R. E. (1989). Cognitive views of creativity: Creative teaching for creative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(89)90010-6
• Pai, H.-H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8
• Palmiero, M., Chie, N., Daniel, R., Marta Olivetti, B., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Abilities within and across visual and verbal domains: how specific is their influence on creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523396
• Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10692-009
• Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
• Poehner, M. E., Davin, K. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (pp. 243–256). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_18
• Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
• Resing, W. C. M., Bakker, M., Pronk, C. M. E., & Elliott, J. G. (2016). Dynamic testing and transfer: An examination of children’s problem-solving strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.011
• Runco, M. A. (2019). Creativity as a Dynamic, Personal, Parsimonious Process. In R. A. Beghetto & G. E. Corazza (Eds.), Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice in Education (pp. 181–188). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_10
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
• Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
• Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314
• Schoevers, E. M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Kattou, M. (2020). Mathematical creativity: a combination of domain-general creative and domain-specific mathematical skills. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.361
• Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Harvard University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020601027773
• Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.374
• Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2017). A cross-cultural study of task specificity in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.12
• Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033138
• Taatgen, N. A. (2016). Theoretical models of training and transfer effects. In T. Strobach, & J. Karbach (Eds.),Cognitive training: An overview of features and applications. (pp. 19–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42662-4_3
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
• Vogelaar, B., & Resing, W. C. M. (2018). Changes over time and transfer of analogy-problem solving of gifted and non-gifted children in a dynamic testing setting. Educational Psychology, 38(7), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1409886
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Harvard University Press.
• Zbainos, D., & Sagia, C. (2022). Dynamic assessment of creativity for diagnostic purposes. European Psychologist, 27(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000476
• Zbainos, D., & Tziona, A. (2019). Investigating primary school children’s creative potential through dynamic assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00733

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.