Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formative Assessment of Creativity

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

Policy makers and educators have emphasized the many promising features of technology education (TE) as a vehicle for the development of creativity. Design and technology are, in essence, manifestations of human creativity; educated designers display a high ability in seeing possibilities, discovering problems, branching out, and inventing (Facaoaru, 1985) skills everybody should master in the future.

It is, however, not easy for teachers and learners to know what creativity is and how to develop it. Assessment of creativity is particularly challenging because it is one of the areas of human affairs where we cannot write down rules for what makes something good. In addition, when products have a ground-breaking novelty, criteria to judge their relevance do not yet exist but have to be developed alongside.

Therefore, objective assessment – in the sense of using preset criteria – is not possible. To direct learning processes, teachers and students need ways to share personal perceptions of quality. This improves their understanding of creativity and to know where to go next. Formative assessment is most suitable for the assessment of creativity.

Formative assessment can focus on the (creative) processes, products, personal styles, and the context. For each angle, an overview of existing ways to assess creativity in various research traditions is given. The four angles will enrich each other and ideally TE teachers integrate them. Ways to formatively assess at the personal and context level are relevant but scarce.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 359.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, I., & Glaves-Smith, J. (2009). A dictionary of modern and contemporary art. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, A. (2001). Little C’ creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. London: Continuum International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremin, T., Craft, A., & Clack, J. (2012). Creative Little Scientists: Enabling creativity through science and mathematics in preschool and first years of primary education, D2.2. Conceptual framework, Addendum 2 of 4; Literature Review of Creativity in Education. www.creative-little-scientists.eu. Accessed 14 July 2016.

  • Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2010). Recognizing and fostering creativity in technological design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1985). Styles of learning, designing and computing. Design Studies, 6(3), 157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essers, V. (2000). Matisse. Taschen GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativitat in Wissenschaft und Technik. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgays, D. G., & Forgays, D. K. (1992). Creativity enhancement through flotation isolation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 329–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartell, E. (2014). Exploring the (un-) usefulness of mandatory assessment documents in primary technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Further performance assessment. In Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development (pp. 99–138). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, T. (1997). Exposing and improving the metacognition of designing through practical structured workshops, IDATER 1997 Conference, Loughborough: Loughborough University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, T., & Howlett, M. (2003). Designing styles: A new way of looking at design and technology learning and teaching, DATA International Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholl, B., Hosking, I. M., Elton, E. M., Lee, Y., Bell, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Inclusive design in the key stage 3 classroom: An investigation of teachers’ understanding and implementation of user-centred design principles in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 921–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, N. K., Chun, M. Y., & Lee, J. (2016). Revisiting individual creativity assessment: Triangulation in subjective and objective assessment methods. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge, towards a post critical epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 306–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K. (2001). Introduction. In K. Robinson (Ed.), Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., & Villalba, E. (2008). How about composite indicators? In Measuring creativity: The book. European Commission (17–24).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2000). The unpickled portfolio; pioneering performance assessment in design & technology. In D&T international millennium conference: Learning from experience; modelling new futures. Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2007). Evidence through the looking glass: Developing performance and assessing capability, 13th International Conference on Thinking, Norrköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., & Derrick, K. (2016). Lighting the blue touch paper: Design talk that provokes learners to think more deeply and broadly about their project work, PATT Conference, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassoul, M. (2009). Creative facilitation. Delft: VSSD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1968). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington: Personnel Press, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Sande, E. (2015). Executive functions for early literacy learning. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldhoen, L. (2004). Onverwacht succes. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. (2006). Toward productive design studies. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 8–13). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments: The art of creative teaching in primary schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. R. (2016). Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies, 45, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2002). Effects of mood states on creativity. Current Psychology Letters, 8, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Remke Marleen Klapwijk

Authors
  1. Remke Marleen Klapwijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remke Marleen Klapwijk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education and Communication, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Section Editor information

  1. Goldsmiths University of London, London, UK

    Kay Stables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Klapwijk, R.M. (2018). Formative Assessment of Creativity. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_55

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation