Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T23:09:01.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Using Constraints to Develop Creativity in the Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Patricia D. Stokes
Edited by
Ronald A. Beghetto  and
James C. Kaufman
Patricia D. Stokes
Affiliation:
Barnard College, USA; Columbia University, USA
Ronald A. Beghetto
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Get access

Summary

Creativity is a commendation given to responses that are new and appropriate, generative, or influential (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Simonton, 1999). Appropriate means that the novelty solves a problem; generative, that it leads to other new things; influential, that it expands a domain. Children, like other novices, are capable of creativity at the appropriateness level. Generativity and domain change require far greater expertise. (Stokes, 2005).

Creativity at the classroom level can be characterized by two things, novelty and appropriateness. Novelty depends upon variability; appropriateness, on expertise. This chapter introduces a constraint-based model of problem solving to establish these two important precursors of creativity. Before introducing the problem-solving model and applying it to the classroom, we briefly discuss the critical connections between variability, novelty, and learning.

VARIABILITY, NOVELTY, AND EXPERTISE

Variability is defined as how differently something is done. As Figure 5.1 shows, variability can be pictured as a continuum with high and low levels at its extremes.

High Variability and Novelty

Expected (reliable, repeated) behaviors lie closer to the low end of the continuum, while surprising (novel, unanticipated) behaviors lie closer to the higher end (Stokes, 1999). The reason for the placements is simple: reliability is rewarded, reinforced. As a result of operant conditioning, responses that were successful in particular situations in the past will be tried before new ones are attempted. Since familiar solutions surface sooner than novel ones (Maltzman, 1960; Runco, 1986; Ward, 1969), variability is a precondition for novelty. It is also a precondition for acquiring expertise.

Type
Chapter
Information
Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom , pp. 88 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: A systems perspective. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 31–42). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolph, K. E. (1997). Learning in the development of infant location. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 62(3, Serial No. 251).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture-speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child's state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 147–279.Google Scholar
Anzai, Y., & Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review, 86, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker-Ward, L., Ornstein, P. A., & Holden, D. J. (1984). The expression of memorization in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 555–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjorklund, D. F., & Green, B. L. (1992). The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity. American Psychologist, 47, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K. (1987). Developmental differences in the acquisition and maintenance of an organizational strategy: Evidence for the utilization deficiency hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 44, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, T. P, & Moser, J. M. (1982). The development of addition and subtraction problem-solving skills. In Carpenter, T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 9–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaud, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 209–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1986). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23, 43–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyle, T. R., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1997). Age differences in, and consequences of, multiple- and variable-strategy use on a multiple sort-recall task. Developmental Psychology, 33, 372–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of invention. NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Doane, S. M., Sohn, Y. W., & Schreiber, B. (1999). The role of processing strategies in the acquisition and transfer of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1390–1410.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, A. (1998). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 704–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericcson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericcson, K. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ericcson, K. A. (2007). An introduction to Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: Its development, organization, and content. In Ericcson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 3–20). NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating children's proportional reasoning: A model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuson, K. C. (1982). An analysis of the counting-on solution procedure in addition. In Carpenter, T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 67–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1992). Korean children's single-digit addition and subtraction: Numbers structured by ten. Journal for Research in Mathmatics Education, 23, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The significance of children's drawings. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Garlick, D. (2002). Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence: The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism. Psychological Review, 109, 116–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Liu, F., & Siegler, R. S. (1996). Development of arithmetic competencies in Chinese and American children: Influence of age, language, and schooling. Child Development, 67, 2022–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). Looking at the hands through time: A microgenetic perspective on learning and instruction. In Granott, N. & Parsiale, J. (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 80–105). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 10, 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grow-Maienza, J., Hahn, D., & Joo, C. (2001). Mathematics instruction in Korean primary schools: Structures, processes, and a linguistic analysis of questioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, L. A., & Miller, S. (1991). Memory span increases with age: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1987). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holman, J., Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1977). The training of creativity as an operant and an examination of its generalization characteristics. In Etzel, B. C., LeBlanc, J. M., & Baer, D. M. (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 441–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related changes in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologica, 44, 2017–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). Freedom and constraint in creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 202–219). NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kail, R. (1986). Sources of age differences in speed of processing. Child Development, 57, 969–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kail, R. (1991). Processing time declines exponentially during childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kee, D. W. (1994). Developmental differences in associative memory: Strategy use, mental effort, and knowledge-access interactions. In Reese, H. E. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 25 (pp. 7–32). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, R., & Booth, B. (1978). Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korenzek, D. (1995). The changing concept of artistic giftedness. In Golumb, C. (Ed.), The development of artistically gifted children (pp. 1–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lamaire, P., & Siegler, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic choice: Contributions to children's learning of multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextural interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9, 730–746.Google Scholar
Lehto, J. E., Juujarvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manoel, E. de Connolly, J., , K. J. (1995). Variability and the development of skilled actions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 19, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milbrath, C. (1998). Patterns of artistic development in children: Comparative studies of talent. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H., Woody-Ramsey, J., & Aloise, P. A. (1991). The role of strategy effortfulness in strategy effectiveness. Developmental Psychology, 27, 738–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, I. T., Okamoto, Y., Kim, C. C., Steere, M., & Fayol, M. (1993). First graders' cognitive representation of number and understanding of place value: Cross-national comparisons – France, Japan, Korea, Sweeden, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moxley, S. E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, C. A. (1999). Neural plasticity and human development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. C., & Donahoe, J. W. (1992). Essentialism and selectionism in cognitive science and behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1344–1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, M., Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1988). Transitional knowledge in the acquisition of concepts. Cognitive Development, 3, 359–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1955/1977). The stages of intellectual development in childhood and adolescence. In Gruber, H. E. & Voneche, J. J. (Eds.), The essential Piaget (pp. 814–819). London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.Google Scholar
Reitman, E. (1965). Cognition and thought. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rivers, L. (1987, March 31). Improvisation and the creative process in jazz and the visual arts. Presentation given at Barnard College, Columbia University, NY.Google Scholar
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children's strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runco, M. A. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. Journal of Psychology, 120, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextural interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur? A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M. (Series Eds.) & Kuhn, D. & Sieger, R. (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2002). Models of performance in learning multisegment movement tasks: Consequences for acquisition, retention, and judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 222–232.Google ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity as a constrained stochastic process. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 83–101). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, P. D. (1999). Learned variability levels: Implications for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, P. D. (2001). Variability, constraints, and creativity: Shedding light on Claude Monet. American Psychologist, 56, 355–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stokes, P. D. (2007). Using constraints to generate and sustain novelty. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, P. D., & Balsam, P. (2001). An optimal period for setting sustained variability levels. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, P. D., & Fisher, D. (2005). Selection, constraints, and creativity case studies: Maz Beckmann and Philip Guston. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, P. D., & Harrison, H. (2002). Constraints have different concurrent and after-effects on variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, P. D., Holtz, D., Massel, T., Carlis, A. & Eisenberg, J. (2008a). Sources of variability in children's problem solving. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 18, 49–68.Google Scholar
Stokes, P. D., Lai, B., Holtz, D., Rigsbee, E., & Cherrick, D. (2008b). Effects of practice on variability, effects of variability on transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 49–67.Google Scholar
Thelan, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trainor, L. J. (2005). Are there critical periods for musical development?Developmental Psychobiology, 46, 262–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uttal, D. H., Schudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997) Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Ward, W. C. (1969). Rate and uniqueness in children's creative responding. Child Development, 40, 869–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (2005). Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment in language systems of the brain. Developmental Psychobiology, 46, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. R., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999). Development of inhibitory control over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 35, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×