SHORT EXAMINATION ABOUT

CREATIVITY

SHORT EXAMINATION ABOUT CREATIVITY

Snchez-Porro Fras, David Guillermo e-mail: davidspf@usal.es Cognitive Psychology I: Learning, Language, Thinking Psychology Department. University of Crete February 2011

Contents

1. Introduction.

2. Concept

3. Different Approaches.

4. Measurement of Creativity

4.1. Creativity tests. 4.2. Objective Analysis. 4.3. Subjective Judgements.

5. Creativity and Intelligence.

6. Geniuses and Creativity.

6.1. Personal and familiar factors. 6.2. Determining educational factors. 6.3. Environmental factors. 6.4. Common factors of Geniuses and creative leaders. 6.5. Future goals in the development of creative geniuses.

7. Improving Creativity.

8. Conclusion.

9. References

1. Introduction.

The concept of creativity is often confused by people. The creation of this essay is born from the necessity of propose a text where we could find the most important topics in the study of creativity. We will see the first steps of creativity and the first definitions that were suggested. All the perspective that have been taken into account will be studied, and we will make reference to the most effective techniques of measurement creativity As representative creative collective, we will focus our study geniuses and talented people, treating eventually in a short way different advices to improve our creativity. Thus we will have an overall but summarized view about creativity that will let us have certain knowledge about it what will mean a beginning of a deeper treatment of this area in Cognitive Psychology.

2. Concept. Teresa M. Amabile, explain in her book Creativity in Context the development of the concept of creativity in a long period of time across different approaches. The treatment of this topic in the first chapters of her book helps us to get a general view of the main theories. For that reason, we will try to make a complete summary of her text. In the history of psychology, the term creativity has been a subject of disagreement among scholars. Some of them referred to it as a group of characteristics of somebody, something or thoughts process. Other researches base their definitions on the quality of the response from somebody that is elicited by a product. Obviously, there are people too, who thinks that creativity can not be defined.

Koestler focused his efforts on finding a definition based on the process. He argued that creativity involved both random associations and a dissociative process. This process would entail the observation of something not seen before that is relevant now. Another theories about creativity as a process came from Gestalt (where it was thought that creativity appear when the different features of a problem and its solution are grasped by the person. From developmental psychology it is pointed that creativity 4

share some features with piagetian transformations. In other hand, Guilford defined creativity in terms of the person with determined trains and patterns of a creative personality. Finally, another point of view in the study of creativity takes the creative product as the indication of it. Psychologists as Jackson, Messick, or Bruner focus their researches in what is elicited in the others by the product.

Thus, there are concepts that emphasises in one thing, and other in another one. Anyway, despite of the different kinds of definitions a lot of psychologists agree on the fact that creativity is a dichotomous variable, that there are different types of creativity such as artistic, verbal or scientific.

Amabile suggest a consensual definition of creativity based on the product instead of the person or the process. In fact, in order to determinate a creative thought as that, it is necessary to observe the response, or product. In this way, it is easier to differentiate the personality traits typical of creativity. But for the empirical research is much more appropriated to find a subjective criterion. Finding the concept of creativity through assessment operations is the target of the consensual definition. In the application of this definition. Objective features of product related with subjective judgements of creativity could be identified, but this definition can work without that.

Creativity can be noticed for everybody without a definition and it is made up of different degrees due to the fact that observers can say is something is more creative than other thing.

However, a concept of creativity that just takes into account subjective criteria is not sufficient enough. A conceptual definition would have two requisites. Firstly, the

product would have to be novel, adequate, practical for a task, and valuable. And secondly, that task must be heuristic, rather than algorithmic. The first requirement is very common among product definitions. Nevertheless, the fact of a heuristic task says to us that there is not a clear way of solution and havent got an identified goal. Although very often a problem itself is an important part of the creative action.

To close up, it is necessary to create a conceptual definition, but an operational one have to come back to the main criterion of the creativity evaluation, a reliable subjective judgement.

3. Different Approaches.

Creativity has been considered for a long time as something mystical topic, what entailed that many psychologists were not heard. However, the last years, studies have increased, thus nowadays creativity is seen as a scientific matter that must be analyzed. In the same way that in the last section, we are going to resort to Sternbergs Handbook of creativity that offers us a big compilation of the approaches in the study of creativity.

Pragmatic approach.

In this view the main concerns are developing creativity and understanding it, but not always validating their techniques. Edward De Bono suggested that with the word po a way origin judge ideas. He proposed too the thinking hats a metaphor for different kind of points of view. Osborn was the creator of the technique known as brainstorming that let people look for solutions for a problem. Adam and von Oech defend the theory that people have mental barriers in their minds that avoid people to have creative ideas. For instance, one of this short of blocks could be the belief that says that, for every question, there is just one answer. Because of this approach has had a lot of public visibility, sometimes have not been taken seriously

Psychodynamic approach.

Creativity would be the result of the fight between conscious reality and unconscious drives. Later two new concepts were added. Adaptive regression is the penetration of un-modulated thoughts (that come from sleeping, taking drugs, 6

psychoses) in the conscious part of the mind. Likewise, elaboration deal with the transformation of that thought to reality-oriented material.

The inconvenient of this approach is that they are mainly focused in the study of great creators, and in these cases is difficult to measure the constructs (like the processes) and the selection and interpretation in every study.

Psychometric approach.

Guilford though that creativity could be measure with other methods, like using paper-and-pencil tasks. Soon, others started to follow the divergent -thinking tasks from Guildford until they became a common way of assessing creativity. In the same way, years later, in 1974, Torrance created the Torrance Test o Creativity, that can be scored for categories such us fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. In one hand, this perspective brought some good things, for instance, nowadays it is possible to assess creativity because of the development of that old test. However, these first tests were not very adequate tools of measuring. More over, some researches say that fluency; flexibility, originality and elaboration scores do not really get its goal, or in other words, analyze the concept of creativity. Eventually, some scholars propose the use of objective judges to consider the creative product.

Cognitive approach.

Finke and other colleagues suggested the Geneplore model. This model is made up of tow process. The first one is called the generative phase, where the person builds mental representations with creative characteristics, whereas the exploratory phases consist on the transformation of this representations in creative ideas. In the middle of this phases, there are some processes such us retrieval, association, transformation, analogical transfer or categorization.

The work with computers has been important too. The interest has fallen on the simulation of what people do. Programs like BACON and others, use heuristics for 7

solving problems, and are designed to transform data set or to reason with qualitative data.

Social-Personality approach.

From this approach, looking for a relation between creativity and personality, motivational and socio-cultural variables is pretended.

A lot of researches have studied the group of traits that characterized creative people. Some of them are self confidence, risk taking, independence of judgement, selfactualization, and attraction to complexity, freedom, spontaneity, etc obviously, always depending of the author.

Some psychologists and their studies of motivation, explain that it would be necessary intrinsic motivation, need for order and achievement for creativity. But creativity must have the property of generating motivation too.

Finally, the social variables have a relation with creativity. Thus, societies with high levels of diversity, amount of resources, the presence of role models, etc have shown, in cross-cultural research, individuals with much more creativity than the ones who have not got those conditions in their society.

Confluence approach.

Amabile consider creativity as the union of intrinsic motivation, the domain of some creativity-relevant skills and knowledge such as determined cognitive style, heuristics and effort, high energy or the capacity to analyze all the parts of a problem. In other hand, Gruber and his colleagues have their own theory. A persons intention, understanding, and affect, increase during some time, amplify deviations that a subject faces, and guide to creative products.

Csikzentmihalyi defend his own model, where there is an interaction between the subject, the domain and the field. The individual take information from a domain, and through his cognitive processes, personality traits and motivation, transforms it. The field is made up of those who control the domain, whereas the domain, a culturally symbol system, keeps and transmits creative products.

As a final theory, Sternberg and Lubart define a creative person as the one who can find new ideas with a big potential. At the beginning these ideas will be encounter resistance, but eventually the creator gets his goal, until he brings the new unpopular idea. In addition, these authors have made more investments, and defend the idea that creativity requires the union of some features: intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation and environment.

4. Measurement of Creativity.

Historically, it has existed three different kinds of creativity measurement instruments. First of all, creative tests, the more used; techniques that make reference to subjects judgements of products or persons; and the last sort of technique, objective analysis of creativity.

4.1. Creativity Tests.

According to creativity tests, we can find a large bunch of types of instruments, depending of the author and the theories they follow.

Personality inventories are really representative. In this section we can find the test made by Gough, which is called Creative Personality Scale for Adjective Check List. It is based on a list of adjectives that are related (or not) with creative individuals. The second kind of test was created by Torrance and Kathena in 1970 to assess creativity. In this instrument, people have to choose adjectives that describe them.

Biographical inventories were invented from an instinctive basis, but later they were improved testing a sample of subjects with both high and low levels in creativity. With this technique was discovered that creative men are closer to areas like mathematics, physics, electronic or communication. In addition they dated more often on college, and when they were children, they used to live in a well-equipped house, and read more.

The third short of creativity test are behavioural tests. They are, maybe, the most famous instruments used for measure creativity. Most of these behavioural tests are very similar in form and content to intelligence ones. Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT or Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking) requires to oral, written or drawn responses to get a score in each category for, finally, obtain a combined result about creativity. These scores come from four elements of creativity: fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality. At the same time, TTCT can be organized in three areas: non verbal test, verbal test using non verbal stimuli, and verbal test using verbal stimuli. TTCT is so important that even the rest of the instruments are very similar to it in content, administration and scoring.

After all of that, we can not forget another important variable in the evaluation of creativity. Environmental influences have a big importance in the results. For instance, when, in an experiment, the subject is said that his creativity will be measured in the test, his scores are better. The same happens when they are told to be original.

Finally, some critiques have appeared to show a few problems with all these tests. The first problem entails the problem that some creativity tests are validated against other ones. The second issue criticized is the amount of abilities measured to get a score of creativity. Some test does not work with a lot of them; therefore some results could be inappropriate. Others unclear aspects is the fact that sometimes there is not so objectivity as it could be expected, due to scores depends on of the kind of assessment of creativity, and its study approach.

10

4.2. Objective analysis.

The second approach is the objective analysis of creativity. Ghiselin, one of the forerunners of this perspective, proposed that the product might be analyzed for its inherent quality in order to determine if it is creative or not. This is a view that nowadays is very attractive for some researches. However, and even with the effort of many psychologists who have been able to create some objective methods for areas like music, this criteria to quantify our notions of creativity is not enough valid to consider it a reliable way of measurement. We can not assess creativity just with objective analysis, it is necessary a subjective assessment too.

4.3. Subjective Judgments.

Although this technique is not very used, it has a long history behind. In the XIX century, Galton used this method to study literary men and scientists. Another methodology in this area consist on select a group of experts to judge. In this sense, one of the most famous studies was conducted by MacKinnon, from Berkeley. He asked four experts in architecture for selecting the forty most creative architects in United States. This group of experts made a list with more than eighty names (Amabile, 1999).

With an original theory, Jackson and Messic suggested that this subjective judgment are made up for four aesthetic responses: Surprise, when appears an unusual element; satisfaction, when the product is adequate to the context; stimulation, due to the change in the product; and savouring, for the ability in the product of summarizing a big intellectual or emotional element in a concise way.

Nevertheless, this methodology presents some critical point that need to be checked. For instance, a few subjective procedures are not valid to see the differences between creativity in the products and other constructs. Moreover, this technique could be useless in social-psychological research for one reason: it is better to detect relatively stable characteristics in the worker personality than try to find global and unspecific features. Finally, some difficulties has been found in the use of this method because

11

there is no an explicit definition of creativity, and that makes complicate to determine what is a creative product and what is not.

5. Creativity and Intelligence.

More than a few researches about the relation between intelligence and creativity have been made during the last century. All of them propose different conception and ideas, but also, agree in many points. R. J. Sternberg and L. A. OHara make a complete summary of this topic.

These points came from to the next question: Are creativity and intelligence the same? Thus, there are some possible answers to this: a) creativity as a part of intelligence, b) intelligence as a part of creativity, c) creativity and intelligence overlap each other, d) creativity and intelligence are practically the same, and e) creativity and intelligence have not any relation.

Creativity as a part of intelligence.

Guildford was one of the precursors of the study of creativity and intelligence. In his model of the structure of intellect, he presented three basic dimensions: operations, content, and products. By crossing 5 operations, 4 contents and 6 products, it is got 120 factors. The most important one for creativity, according to Guildford, is Divergent Thinking, who entails the fact of produce numerous novel answers to different problems instead of just one correct answer. Likewise, Guildford suggested more factors involved in creative problem solving, such us sensitivity to problems; flexibility; and originality. Moreover, these factors can be divided in some of the more. Even, this author invented some test to measure these factors, for instance a test of divergent production, a test of production of alternative relations, or a test of production of systems.

Guildford view of creativity has been a big influence for subsequent studies, nevertheless, much of his appeal has disappeared due to his test are weak to assess creativity adequately. 12

But more scholars have made studies about creativity. Years later after Guildford, Cattell affirmed that creativity is determined by fluid intelligence (reasoning ability) and by personality factors (Sternberg, 1999). For Gardner, intelligence is made up of eight intelligences. In this way, creativity is a component of the multiple intelligences. In other hand, Gardner and Csikszentmihalyi agree in distinguishing among the domain (knowledge about a subject) and the field (the context where the domain is studied). Both of them are essential in the study of creativity.

Intelligence as a part of creativity.

Sternberg and Lubart identify creative people as the ones who generate ideas relatively unpopular ideas, but convince people about the worth of those. There are three aspects that are the key of creativity: synthetic, analytical and practical skills.

The first one, synthetic ability, is the ability of create novel idea of a high level. Is a meta-component for redefining problems, and see them in a different way. This part involves three processes that are the bases of the insightful thinking: selective encoding, selective combination and selective comparison. Analytical ability requires judge the value of the own ideas to decide which ones are creative and which ones not. The third component, practical ability is important to make the ideas have impact over the audience, and be accepted.

However, all these factors are weakly related, and if someone has low scores in one of them, do not mean that this individual is not creative. In fact the present methods of learning in the schools emphasize just in memory and analytical skills. Eventually, it is necessary to take into account the importance of knowledge in creativity in order to know about the field or domain of study.

Creativity and intelligence overlap each other.

This perspective entails the similarity in some ways of between creativity and intelligence. Barron, in 1963, for example, said that if originality is defined as the way 13

of responding to problems adaptively and unusually, in upper levels of problem-solving, the manifestation of intelligence will be of originality too. On the contrary, Roe suggested that the creative process is really near to problem solving; however there is not any clear aim. The creative process would be a special kind of problem solving.

The IPAR (Institute of Personality Assessment and Research) was created at the University of California at Berkeley en 1949. Its goal was to study the use of psychological measurement techniques of effectively functioning persons as opposed to individuals with some pathology. They got some findings. First of them was that creative people tend to have an IQ higher than 120. Therefore, people under this number are not well-represented in the ranks of creativity. The second finding was about the fact that creativity is not strictly related with high IQs, what means that highly creative people often have high scores, but creative requires something more than that.

Finally, Sternberg researched about implicit theories in the population. For people, creativity involves eight characteristics: 1) non-entrenchment; 2) integration and intellectuality; 3) aesthetic taste and imagination; 4) decisional skill and flexibility; 5) perspicacity; 6) drive for accomplishment and recognition; 7) inquisitiveness; 8) and intuition.

Creativity and intelligence are practically the same.

Weisberg and Langley consider that intelligence and creativity have the same mechanism. In other words, if we want to understand creativity we have to study problem solving.

Creativity and intelligence have not got any relation.

This conception is not the mainstream one, and is strange that anybody suggest this idea. However, some of the researches follow this direction.

14

6. Geniuses and creativity.

Geniuses and talented people are one of the groups who represent better the good use of creativity. However, sometimes, social and educational system does not help this collective to advance and get more important roles in society. This fact just delay the natural evolution of them, what can affect even in a national level.

6.1. Personal and familiar factors.

According to numerous studies, behind a brilliant person, it is necessary to find, not only familiar support and socio-cultural success in fields like maths, music, poetry or science, but also personality traits. - Intense interest and curiosity for an activity since the childhood, which has been shown in hobbies and games out of the school. - Dedication of several hours a day during a lot of years to an activity that determines the passion for doing something unique and personal in that field. The persistence and hard work, next to the illusion in the field, is the base of the genius. - Reading and reflexion about the field and frequent contact with specialist and masters. - Advance information and support of mentors create an atmosphere that improves the talents. - Small successes with products that values by themselves and that are appreciated for others. These small but excellent results keep alive the hard work in that area. - The 80% of geniuses social and personal characteristics are related with creativity: sense of humour, mental flexibility, productivity, self-confidence strong ego, independency, going beyond what is known, imagination, fantasy, variety of interests, etc It is just the continuous efficient practice, next to satisfactory results what generate confidence in the own abilities and make the subject try new ideas. In this way, the person develops the habit of easy and nice work. This continue practices entails too a 15

great productivity and variety of products that are an example of innovation. Under an excellent product there is always ten years of hard work.

6.2. Determining educational factors. As we have seen, talented people develop their skills out of the academic place instead of the pressure of a closed way of teaching that put limits on students creativity. The school should have a daily time and special spaces dedicated to creativity, in which creative educators encourage unique hobbies in every pupil: poetry, drama, sculpture, music, maths, sports. The teacher must be charismatic, with an efficient methodology to make their students want get as much as possible. Even more, every subject in the school and all the hours there should be accompanied by methods of information and orientation to creative actions. Just the teachers who are enthusiastic and enjoy one area of knowledge can transfer that passion to their students.

6.3. Environmental factors. In the time and space of passive and consumer spare time, the creative, communicative and active personality is not developed. The joy moments, privates and publics, and the ones in museums, theatres, etc, would be good situations in order to create an area where all the genius meet, interchange and collaborate as a team. The free time, which is dedicated to their hobbies, is the key to cultivate specific skills to get a high domain of them. It is required a lot of hours of dedication and work, guided for real creativity educators, and not just a mechanical and technical training. In reference to the intelligence classical diagnosis through tests to measure bright people, it is remarkable to say that around a 3% of the population have outstanding intellectual abilities. If we take the theory of multiples intelligence, it is possible to get a percentage around 13% in the different components (spatial, linguistic, logicalmathematical, bodily-kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential. 16

But the truth is that, geniuses, are rarely seen, and it is because the educational and social system block them, and just some of them are allowed to emerge.

6.4. Common factors of Geniuses and creative leaders.

Taylor summarizes the characteristics of brilliant people:

a) Motivational characteristics.

- Big dedication to their work. - Intellectual persistence in a target or problem. - They like to manipulate ideas and objects. They like the experimentation. - Necessity of being rewarded by their accomplishments. - Necessity of variety in their activities. - Necessity of autonomy and differentiation from the others. - Preference for complex challenges. - Tolerance to the ambiguity, to the confuse moments. - Resistance to finish completely their matters. They prefer and open end in order to find new ways and possibilities to make, finally, a perfect final. - Necessity of solving a problem. - Necessity of changing the established rules of the routine. - Visible energy in a lot of fields and a discipline work.

17

b) Personality characteristics.

- They like autonomy and independency. - More self-sufficient and open-minded. - Emotional balanced and difficulties to socialize. - More interested in unusual degrees. - Higher awareness about their feelings. - More dominant and self-confident. - Complex as a person. - They appreciate their own effort and accomplishments. - They are capable to find and handle different kind of resources. - More adventurous, bohemians or transgressor. - Rarely dependant of others opinions.

6.5. Future goals in the development of creative geniuses

Taylor indicates some aims that have to be taken into account for the improvement of the circumstances that surround creative minds:

a) There are organizational problems in education and other ambits to promote and use the creative talents. For the reason a continuous research can be very useful.

18

b) It can exits multiples types of creativity, which have been explained to scientifically to determinate the degree of inter connexion or continuity among different disciplines. c) Changes in educational system are required to develop the creative potential of the pupils. It is necessary especial teachers who act like agents of creativity with learning methods based on creative procedures as the brainstorming. d) The creation of adequate programmes for genius has to be an obligation for all the countries because these will be essential to accelerate the scientific, technological, cultural and artistic growth of the nation. e) Unfortunately, teacher and classmates, not only dont facilitate, but also inhibit the rise of creative pupils because they seem threatening. The same happens among teacher and heads when there is a creative educator.

7. Improving Creativity.

The first thing to become more creative consists on having the predisposition to solve the problems in a creative way. In the second task, the individual must overcome personal blocks for use his creativity. For some people, being creative involves expose themselves to the other; for the rest, it implies being aware of the possibility of doing things in a different way. Moreover, there are people who know themselves perfectly and let their creative part works. The subject must be surrounded by people who love and support is an important fact. In other hand, he should think about creative solutions focusing in the positive side of a problem help to the improvement of creativity.

19

Working Tasks Some additional tasks to increase creativity are:

-Study books about thinking techniques and practice them. - Assist to creative thinking courses and makes real the ideas proposed. - Take a diary and write your ideas and thoughts as soon as they come to your mind. Check the diary regularly and see which ideas can be developed. - Practice calm activities and sports to relax the mind and let the subconscious deal with all the information. - Be interested in a big variety of things, mainly, hobbies far away from the work. For example, read comic books o magazines that usually you would not buy. That keeps brain busy with new things. - Do not work too hard. It is necessary a time out of the work problems to be creative after a period of concentration. - Think about creativity as a bunch of skills. Practicing, one can use it better. Thus, if there is an opportunity, try to make easy things in a different way. It will be funny and let express your abilities differently. - If you are creatively blocked and observe somebody with a big creative strength, you can feel intimidated. Even the smaller thing can surprise you when it comes from someone who makes things much easier. - Creativity requires patience and hard work to get a creative product instead of just an illusion. - An environment that promotes creativity and a comfortable and safe place is required too.

20

Programme to improve personal creativity

1st. Propose a measurable goal 2nd. Establish the criteria to indicate if you are getting your goal or not. 3rd. Read and learn about creativity techniques. This information may be taken from books, conferences, other people, internet Spend your time with tho se you believe that are creative and ask them how they do it. There are a lot of ways to be creative. 4th.Celebrate your progress when you get your aims. 5th. Finally, start to think of you as a creative person. Join that thought with the beliefs about your creative skills. Learn the creativity abilities, act creatively in every time you can, and find environments that support your behaviour. Creativity increases when it is admitted. For that reason, create a sensorial and calm environment and dedicate all the time you need to become a stimulus intro a creative product (a poem, a song, a meal, a dance, etc)

Get all the information you can about you area of interest and, deliberately, expose yourself to knowledge out of you field. Respect and look after your creativity worrying about your needs and handle you life strain as much as possible. In addition, practice meditation or any kind of relaxation. Avoid repeating the routine once and again. Do not let your believes distort your perceptions. Joining the contraries every time there is an opportunity is a useful technique for that. Moreover, try to think that your job is creative even if the rest of the people do not Creativity is not a present, is a way of being. Learn a method to increase your creativity will give you some tools and will help you, but it does not change automatically the point of view of yourself and your creativity: your values system about creativity and the myths about it must change to.

21

8. Conclusion.

The purpose of this essay has been to review the most important elements related with creativity. From definitions or perspective to measure methods or geniuses has a large range of approaches and views, what make creativity, one of the most extensively studied phenomenon in cognitive psychology. In reference to the different definitions has been propose in history of creativity, the one that is referred as conceptual definition is the one I consider more complete and adequate to study the concept of creativity and all it entails. This definition has two requisites, the product has to be novel and it comes from a heuristic process. According to the perspectives, the big number of them indicates the multiple studies have been published before about creativity and the multiples opinions from different scholars. From my point of view, the confluence perspective followed by more than a few psychologists is most complete because it implies different areas such us cognitive processes or cultural elements. As far as measurement techniques is concerned, we can find several kind of them such us objective test (behavioural tests or biographical inventories); objective test (very popular nowadays); and subjective judgements (with a ling history behind). However, all of them have problems and some critiques have been proposed against them. It is important too, the relation between intelligence and creativity. Different ways of relation has been researched (creativity as a part of intelligence, intelligence as a part of creativity, creativity and intelligence overlap each other, creativity and intelligence are practically the same, creativity and intelligence have not got any relation) and all of them receive support from numerous psychologists. There is not a unique truth in reference to these relations, but all of them are nowadays valid. Finally, we have been able to observe how talented people share particular motivational and personality features, but and the same time how social and educational systems do not help them to get a useful development. In the same way, different practices have been proposed to improve creative that are based on the conviction of being a creative person, be open-minded, and exercise the brain with creative tasks.

22

9. Bibliographical References.

Amabile, T. M., (1996) Creativity in Context, Oxford: Westview

Boden, M. A., (1996) Dimensions of Creativity, Massachusetts, The MIT Press

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997) Creativity, New York, Harper Pernnial

Prado, D. (1996) Modelos creativos para el cambio docente. http://www.enplenitud.com nota.asp?notaid= 5477#ixzz 1AoKeTnOW

Runco, M. A., (1997) The Creativity Research Handbook, volume 1, Cresskill, New Jersey, Hampton Press

Sternberg, R. J., (1999) Handbook of Creativity, New York: Cambridge University Press

Sternberg, R. J., (2000) Handbook of Intelligence, New York: Cambridge University Press

23