Explicit Instructions & Creativity Judgment
Keywords:
açık yönergeler, yaratıcılığın değerlendirilmesi, uzman eğitimi, çoğul düşünmeAbstract
Abstract
Creativity assessment methods that rely on ex- pert judges (i.e., the Consensual Assessment Technique) are resource intensive and particu- larly difficult to find expert judges, time inten- sive, and project costs are often obstacles to con- sider. Additionally, individual tendencies and subjective preferences play important roles in the assessments submitted by creativity judges. The CAT is one example of a system that used such judges; however, the CAT does not pro- vide a solution for these resource requirements and CAT does not include training or norming for the expert judges. Furthermore, the transfer- ability of the judges’ training to another subject or domain is another avenue to minimize the re- source requirement for these assessment measures. The present study investigated workshop training of creativity judges by providing Explicit Instructions (EIs) in order to make them better informed about originality and more aware of the processes involved in creative production. Idea Density and Key- words quantitative methods were used to objec- tively observe the EIs and the effects of such training in the study. The results demonstrated that non-expert judges can be trained, and showed that the judges’ acquired knowledge can be transferred to other domains. Keywords: explicit instruction, creativity as- sessment, judge training, divergent thinking.
Öz
Yaratıcılığı ölçme anlamında uzman görüşlerini metot olarak kabul eden yöntemler (ör. Konsen- sus Değerlendirme Tekniği) kaynak kullanımı bakımından maddi ve manevi açıdan oldukça külfetlidir. Ayrıca, değerlendirmeyi yapan uz- manların kişisel eğilimleri ve objektif tercihleri yapılan değerlendirmeler üzerinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Konsensus Değerlendirme Tekniği bu şekilde uzman görüşleri temelli ya- ratıcılığın değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan me- totlardan biridir. Bu durumlardan yola çıkarak, değerlendirmeyi yapacak olan uzmanların eği- tilmesi ve bu eğitimlerinin diğer farklı alanlara da transfer edilebilmesi yaratıcılıkta uzman gö- rüşüne bağlı değerlendirme sistemlerinin maddi ve manevi yükünü hafifletmek adına bir başka çözüm yoludur. Burada sunulan çalışma yaratıcılıkta değerlendirme yapacak olan kişi- lere hazırlanan bir eğitim sonucunda Açık Yö- nergeler kullanılarak kişilerin yaratıcılığın önemli boyutlarından biri olan özgünlük hak- kında daha derin bilgi sahibi olmaları ve yara- tıcı düşünme sisteminin içine dâhil olan diğer yapıların farkında olunması durumunu incele- miştir. Idea Density ve Keywords isimli yaratı- cılığın ölçümünde kullanılan iki farklı objektif ölçme metodu kullanılarak, bu çalışma içinde kullanılan Açık Yönergeler ve kişilerin aldıkları eğitimlerin etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışma sonu- cuna göre konusunda uzman olmayan kişilerin eğitilerek yaratıcılıkta konusunda uzman olan kişiler gibi değerlendirmeler yapabileceği ve öğrenilen bilgilerin farklı alanlara da transfer edilebileceğini ortaya çıkmıştır.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to 'The Social Psychology of Creativity.'. Boul- der, CO, US: Westview Press.
Caroff, X., & Besançon, M. (2008). Variability of creativity judgments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 367-371.
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality & Individual Differences, 14, 155–162.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(1), 47–52.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (2014). Discovery-Oriented Behavior and the Originality of Creative Products: A Study with Artists. Systems Model of Creativity, 1.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate uses. Bev- erly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Covington, M. (2009). Idea density — A potentially informative characteristic of retrieved doc- uments. IEEE Southeastcon 2009, 201.
Dollinger, S. J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on the Consensual assessment technique in creativ- ity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35-47.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and non- expert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 171-178.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to 'be creative' on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434-454.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality As- sessment, 45, 450.
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Stern- berg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48-73). New York, NY: Cam- bridge University Press.
Rothenberg, A. (1986). Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed versus combined- composite visual images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 370-381.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and non-gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308-315.
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children's art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-189.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40-76). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.
Runco, M. A. (2010). Testing creativity. International Encyclopedia of Education, 170-174.
Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svensen, E., (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology, 128, 23-31.
Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1991). The instructional enhancement of the flexibility and orig- inality scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 435-441.
Runco, M. A., & Smith, W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295-302.
Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children's ideas. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5, 439-452.
Speecher, T. B. (1964). Creativity and individual difference in criteria. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity (pp. 336-350). New York: Wiley.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base (pp. 77-63). Boulder, Colorado: Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Col- orado.
Turkman, B., & Runco, M. (In press). Predicting written works’ creativity: The keywords study. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications.
Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1953). The measurement of individual dif- ferences in originality. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 362–370.
