Carvajal 1

Michael Carvajal Megan Keaton ENG 112 2 May 2013 Argumentative Essay Recently, researchers have developed a great interest in the role of creativity among schoolchildren. A common question that arises is, should creativity be included in standardized tests? One side of the argument would suggest that measuring creativity is not possible because everyone has different abilities and capabilities; there would be an uncertainty on exactly what to test. The opposing group would suggest that creativity can in fact be measured by qualitative means and that the information obtained from measuring it could reveal stronger correlations than those from a normal standardized test. This issue is important because everyone has their own form of creative abilities which is essential for stimulating a diverse society or economy. In this essay, I will first introduce one side of the argument that supports creativity in standardized tests; then, I will introduce the counter argument with various testimonies. After both sides are presented, an agreeable comprise will be made along with a future plan to expose the argument in a real world-setting. Most teachers would agree that creativity is vital for a students academic development. In fact, in order for an adult to reach an inspired accomplishment, he or she must have both a creative drive and creative abilities (Kim 3). However, there is a shared uncertainty on how creative abilities should be identified and encouraged. To solve this dilemma, some educators have argued that creativity should be incorporated in standardized tests. Psychologist E. Paul Torrance was among the first to propose the solution; he developed the Torrance Tests of

Carvajal 2

Creative Thinking (TTCT) with the intentions of understanding and nurturing qualities that help people express their creativity (Kim 3). The TTCT is administered in both the educational and work setting and it is considered the most popular form of creative assessment (Kim 3). This test allows people to think in various ways, including divergent thinking which is essential to being creative (Reinartz 1). Introducing creative elements in a standardized tests would encourage students to think differently, thus would expose them to use other cognitive methods in the classroom that they would not ordinarily use themselves. This is the primary motive to include creativity in formal assessments. Then there is the question about how creativity would be measured which can be answered by using multiple models such as the three dimensional heuristic model (Batey 55). If there is already a test that measures creativity, then why not utilize it on a national level? Professor Reinartz at the University of Cologne reveals, We have the technology to find the linkages between creativity in personsonce we start it well discover a lot of interesting relationships (2). Applying this quote to Torrances test, the TTCT should be added to standardized tests and should be distributed to the majority of students. Reinartzs thinking is shared by educators and researchers alike because they have a valid point. However, there are others who say differently. Opponents who argue that creativity is impossible to scale hold the idea that creative abilities are unique for each individual. They propose that that there are no two people who have developed the same quality of creativity; that any grade level, there is an array of knowledge that a student is likely to know (Popham 2). In addition to the individuality of students, there is another complication: the term creative has no universal meaning. Without a firm denotation, then there is no clear indication of what creative elements should be administered on a test. Susan Brookhart, an independent education consultant, supports by stating, Before you can

Carvajal 3

assess creativity, you need to make sure that the tasks you set for students are conductive to creativity (30). To emphasize Brookharts point, if a creativity exam had a question that required the test taker to make a picture by using four different polygons, then what rubric would be used to grade that problem? Opponents further exposed the consequences of measuring creativity by explaining the flawed format of a modern standardized test. A standardized test has equal parts of sections that measure objective abilities such as writing, reading and math. In these sections, there are sub-sections that consist of several questions. Overall, there are not enough content that would accurately measure a students educational quality. With the current diversity in what can learned in the classroom, developers of a standardized test have no choice but to create a series of one-size-fits-all assessments (Popham 3). Adding creative content to an already incoherent test would only create a larger gap in correlations. What is trying to be accomplished on the standardized tests could be accomplished in the classroom. To maximize the creative output of students, they just need the proper feedback from their parents and teachers (Brookhart 33). When students are acknowledged that their work is creative, then they will know what strategy or type of thinking to use when completing an assignment. With years of proper feedback and motivation, students would have developed a level of creativity that surpasses the level of creativity they would have developed if they took a creativity test. Both sides of the issue can come to a mutual agreement. Creativity does not have to be included in standardized tests; but a creativity test, one that would resemble the TTCT, can still be distributed on a national level. Instead of measuring creative abilities, the creativity test would accomplish two tasks: it would identify extraordinary gifted students and it would promote creativity among the test takers. Both sides of the argument share the idea that creativity can come in many forms, making each person unique in abilities. Distributing assessments like the

Carvajal 4

TTCT is not meant to diminish the creative values of people; it is an attempt to further understand creativity and to help people enhance their own creative abilities. The opponents of the argument would benefit this resolution because the end result is in the best interest of both parties. Teachers and parents could continue trying to give proper feedback, but it would be difficult for them to distinguish originality from standard work. With no particular expertise in creativity, teachers and parents could mistakenly praise a student for producing a standard piece of work which would encourage the student to continue making standard work. I remember that in middle school, there would be many teachers who simply followed their teaching lessons that they have kept the same for years. Then, there would be a few teachers that would assign projects that promote creativity. For example, in my sixth grade writing class, my teacher asked us to create a narrative that resembles a horror story and that we would have to read them aloud in a circle as if we were telling camp stories. On the day of presentation, the class would form a circle and eat marshmallows while telling our individual stories. In retrospect, the assignment was fun, but it did not promote creativity. Many of the stories that I heard that day were clich horror scenarios. The teacher did not tell students whether or not their stories were innovative and she did give feedback on stories that were surely creative. Giving an assignment that is conductive to creativity is not enough to promote a students creative abilities. However, giving proper feedback can be used in unison with creativity tests in order to maximize the possibility of encouraging creativity. The two methods of providing effective feedback and distributing creativity tests can reveal amazing results. However, in order for this companionship to strive, parents and teachers must learn how to identify creative works from ordinary work. They can accomplish this difficult

Carvajal 5

task by following a simple rubric. Brookhart, who is also a research associate at the Center for Advancing the Study of Teaching and Learning, has developed a four by four chart that helps parents and teachers identify creative work. On one axis, she classifies the level of work which ranges from very creative to imitative work. On the other axis, she provides the types of work such as communication or combining ideas. From this chart, a teacher or parent determines the type of work being done, then choose the description that best fits the quality of the work, and finally match the description with the assigned level of work. To bring this argument into light, there are a number of actions that can be accomplished. First, I believe that a survey needs to be distributed to students in secondary schools and higher. The survey would ask questions like What creative abilities do you have? Do you believe that your teachers or your parents are aiding in the enhancement of your creative abilities? Would you like to see creativity become part of standardized tests? With this information, we can see what the general student bodys view on this issue. From this survey, we can start reaching out to local school districts and their affiliated school board by showing them the results of the survey. If enough attention is given by the school board, then we can take the issue on to the state level, and finally tackle the argument on a federal level. At this point, the argument would have reached national attention and the Supreme Court would be reviewing the case. With a convoluted case such as creativity, it is important to have an understanding of the subject before presenting the issue. It is also important that information regarding creativity with standardized tests should be distributed at a smaller scale initially; it will eventually reach to larger scales if the case calls for it.

Carvajal 6

Batey, Mark. "The Measurement of Creativity: From Denitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework." Creativity Research Journal. 24.1 (2012): 55-65. Print. Brookhart, Susan M. "Assessing Creativity." Educational Leadership 70.5 (2013): 28-34. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. Kim, Kyung. "Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)." Creative Research Journal. 18.1 (2006): 3-11. Print. Popham, James. "Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality." Educational Leadership. Mar 1999: n. page. Web. 1 Apr. 2013. Reinartz, Werner. "Measuring Creativity: We Have the Technology." HBR Blog Network. Harvard Business Review, 12 Mar 2013. Web. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/measuring_creativity_we_have_t.html>.