An Exploratory Study: The Relationship Of Apparent Creativity And Tested Creativity In Selected Second Grade Children
Concern for the creative potential is nothing new. Creativity, in the past ten years, has moved to a prominent position in the field of education. People such as J. P. Guilford, Getzels and Jackson, Calvin Taylor, E. Paul Torrance and Miriam Wilt have pioneered research in this area. Though many aspects of creativity have been studied, many remain unstudied. There are many definitions and approaches available for ’’creativity". Margaret Mead defines creativity as a process in the individual to the extent that a person makes, invents, or thinks of something that is new to him. Erich Fromm sees creativity as an attitude; he describes it as "an ability to see, to be aware, and to respond with yourself as the whole person you are." Harold H. Anderson, concerned with the openness of creativity, defines it as a flow and interweaving of individual differences, a sort of dynamic individuality. Sydney J. Parnes, for his purposes, defines creativity as "behavior which demonstrates both uniqueness and value in its product". Maslow differentiates "special-talent creativeness" from "self-actualizing creativeness"Jerome Kagan states that "creativity refers to a product, and if that product was made by a man, we give him the honor of the adjective". Torrance’s process definition of creativity requires that a sequence of experiences take place. Thus is seen the variety of ideas available from a variety of people about a very controversial topic.
This emphasis on and interest in creativity has already had far reaching effects on our present educational system. It has caused educators to become concerned about such educational goals as the production of fully-functioning, mentally healthy, well-educated, and successful individuals who are not afraid to take their place in society. Recent research findings indicate strongly that these goals g are undeniably related to creativity.