5<sup>th</sup> - 7<sup>th</sup> Grade Girls’ Conceptions of Creativity: Implications for STEAM Education
- 1 School of Educational Studies, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA
- 2 School of Educational Studies, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA
- 3 College of Natural Science and Mathematics & Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA
- 4 College of Liberal Arts & UA Museum of the North, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA
Abstract
Creativity is at the heart of both art and science, yet art is commonly viewed as more creative than science. A STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math) approach to education has the potential to increase understandings about creative practices and dispositions that are common to both fields. In this paper, we examine how 5 th - 7 th grade girls attending a summer STEAM academy viewed creativity in both art and science. We draw on existing concepts of creativity, with a focus on the 4P framework (person, press, process, product) (Rhodes, 1961), to frame and explain similarities and differences in the girls’ notions of creativity. We found a number of similarities in views about creativity in art and science, as well as some important differences: Girls view creativity as it relates to art as associated with the person, while they more often view creativity as it relates to science as associated with specific practices or processes. Further, the girls viewed art, and creativity in art, as essentially an unstructured enterprise with no rules. We discuss the implications for STEAM instruction that can help support the development of authentic views of creativity in art and science, which in turn may foster interest and engagement with both fields.
- Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A Case for “Mini-C” Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
- Brahms, L. J. (2014). Making as a Learning Process: Identifying and Supporting Family Learning in Informal Settings (Doctoral Dissertation). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
- Dalí, S. (1931). The Persistence of Memory.
- Fulton, L. A., & Simpson-Steele, J. (2016). Reconciling the Divide: Common Processes in Science and Arts Education. The STEAM Journal, 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20160202.03
- Gardner, H. (1993). Creating Minds. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM Ahead: Creativity in Excellent STEM Teaching Practices. The STEAM Journal, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
- Jenkins, T. (2015). Bringing Engineering Design to the Classroom. https://www.teachingchannel.org/blog/2015/12/11/engineering-design/
- Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
- Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in Science Education: Perspectives and Challenges for Developing School Science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225
- Kozbelt, A. (1991). Artists as Experts in Visual Cognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 705-723.
- Kozbelt, A., & Seeley, W. P. (2007). Integrating Art Historical, Psychological, and Neuroscientific Explanations of Artists’ Advantages in Drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.80
- Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: On Being In-Disciplined. TechTrends, 56, 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0608-y