Developing Creative Productivity in Young People through the Pursuit of Ideal Acts of Learning

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511781629.004

3 - Developing Creative Productivity in Young People through the Pursuit of Ideal Acts of Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Joseph S. Renzulli and

Catharina F. De Wet

Edited by

Ronald A. Beghetto and

James C. Kaufman

Show author details

Joseph S. Renzulli: Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, USA
Catharina F. De Wet: Affiliation:
University of Alabama, USA
Ronald A. Beghetto: Affiliation:
University of Oregon
James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The September 2007 issue of Smithsonian Magazine was dedicated to “America's Young Innovators in the Arts and Sciences” – 37 people under the age of 36 who are making names for themselves and are well on their way to eminence in their fields. Most of them can trace their passion and career focus to a few key experiences. Cristián Samper, for example, Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, says in his editorial introduction,

My own love of science came from a love of nature. As a Boy Scout, I camped and hiked in Colombian rain forests, returning home eager to organize my collections of plants and animals.…At 15, I joined ornithologist Jorge Orejuela on a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) summer expedition to the remote rain forests in the Choco region of Colombia. This was my first experience in hands-on fieldwork, and as I saw scientific data, field observation, conservation biology and environmental policy all coming together, I was hooked.

(Smithsonian Magazine, 2007, p. 3)

The unfortunate truth is that schools are not places where youngsters gain these kinds of experiences nor places where creativity thrives, especially in the current educational climate where the emphasis is on increasing the academic achievement of underperforming students (Renzulli, 2005; Robinson, 2001). Academic achievement has become the focus of most of the thought, finances, and energy expended in education, and yet, we have an ambiguous relationship with academic achievement.

Type: Chapter
Information: Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom , pp. 24 - 72

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781629.004 [Opens in a new window]

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

Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: A model on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barbe, W. B., & Swassing, R. H. (1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Concept and practices. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser, Inc.Google Scholar

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar

Board, J. (1991). A special relationship: Our teachers and how we learned. Wainscott, NY: Pushcart Press.Google Scholar

Burns, D. E. (1987). The effects of group training activities on students' creative productivity (doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3072A.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). Learning style inventory. Chappaqua, NY: Rita Dunn & Associates.Google Scholar

Field, G. B. (2007). The effect of using Renzulli Learning on student achievement: An investigation of Internet technology on reading fluency and comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Gentry, M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1995). Inspiration: Targeting my ideal teaching and learning situation. (Interest Inventory). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar

Glaser, R. (1988). Thoughts on expertise. In Schooler, C. & Schaie, W. (Eds.), Cognitive functioning and social structure over the life course (pp. 81–94). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Goertzel, M. C., Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, T. G. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar

Gregorc, A. (1985). Inside style: Beyond the basics. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems, Inc.Google Scholar

Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E., J. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247–263). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gubbins, E. J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students (doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2630A.Google Scholar

Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hunt, D. E. (1975). Person-environment interaction: A challenge found wanting before it was tried. Review of Educational Psychology, 45, 209–230.Google Scholar

Kolb, D., Rubin, I., & McIntyre, J. (1971). Organizational psychology: An experimental approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lubow, A. (2007). Painting the edge. Smithsonian Magazine, October 2007.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, D. (2007). Primed for success. Smithsonian Magazine, October 2007.Google Scholar

Magnifico, A. M. & Shaffer, D. W. (in preparation). Writing beyond the curriculum. Retrieved on November 27, 2007, from http://epistemicgames.org/eg/?p=382.

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Newman, J. (2005). Talents and Type IIIs: The effects of the Talents Unlimited Model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. Roeper Review, 27(2), 84–90.CrossRef Google Scholar

Newman, J. L. (2006). Talents and type III's: A guide for becoming a better creator, decision maker, planner, forecaster, and communicator. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

,New Orleans Homes and Lifestyles, January 2007. Retrieved on January 21, 2008, from http://neworleanshomesandlifestyles.com/in-this-issue/articles/news/school-of-design-1715.html.

Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (Ed. and Trans.). (1981). Intelligence and affectivity. Their relationship during child development. Annual Reviews Monograph. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review.Google Scholar

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (in preparation). A follow-up study of high creative producers who participated in an Enrichment Triad based program.

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smith, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Renninger, K. A. (1989). Individual patterns in children's play interests. In Winegar, L. T. (Ed.), Social interaction and the development of children's understanding (pp. 147–172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Renninger, K. A. (1990). Children's play interests, representation, and activity. In Fivush, R. & Hudson, J. (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 127–165). Emory Cognition Series (Vol. III). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Renninger, K., & Wozniak, R. H. (1985). Effect of interest on attentional shift recognition and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 624–632.CrossRef Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S. (1977a). The interest-a-lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S. (1977b). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S. (1978a). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S. (1978b). What makes a problem real? Stalking the illusive meaning of qualitative difference in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 148–156.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). A quiet crisis is clouding the future of R&D. Education Week, 24(38), 32–33, 40.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The learning style inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M. & Reis, S. M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: A practical plan for real-world, student-driven learning. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J. H., & Hays, T. S. (2000). The Multiple Menu Model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Revans, R. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Bikley, UK: Chartwewll-Bratt.Google Scholar

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. (2007). Site seer. Smithsonian Magazine, October 2007.

Schack, G. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children (doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 905B.Google Scholar

Schlichter, C. L. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for gifted and talented (pp. 352–390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Schlichter, C. L. (2009). Talents unlimited: Thinking skills instruction for all students. In Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 433–457). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar

Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (2002). Talents unlimited: Thinking skills instruction as enrichment for all students. Research in Schools, 9(2), 53–60.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Macmillan.CrossRef Google Scholar

Starko, A. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy (doctoral dissertation: University of Connecticut, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 339A.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Story, C. M. (1985). Facilitator of learning: A micro-ethnographic study of the teacher of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 155–159.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychological approach. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80) – and the teacher who “made a difference.”Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walberg, H. J., Rasher, S. P., & Parkerson, J. (1980). Childhood and eminence. Journal of Behavior, 13, 225–231.Google Scholar