Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity

Creativity Research Journal

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 179-182

  Plucker, Jonathan A ^a,b  

^a Indianna University   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009916855     PISSN: 10400419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: The social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
3. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher. 25(4), 5-11.
4. Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
5. Baer, J. (1993a). Divergent thinking and creativity: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Baer, J. (1993b, December/January). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 80-83.
7. Baer, J. (1994a). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-36.
8. Baer, J. (1994b). Generality of creativity across performance domains: A replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1217-1218.
9. Baer, J. (1994c). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 17, 7-11.
10. Baer, J. (1994d, October). Why you still shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 72-73.
11. Baker, E. L., Abedi, J., Linn, R. L., & Niemi, D. (1995). Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent performance assessments. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 197-205.
12. Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 1-17.
13. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393-452). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
14. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989a). Debating the situation: A rejoinder to Palincsar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 10-12, 62.
15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989b). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
16. Chi M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 35(3), 52-70.
19. Cramond, B. (1994, October). We can trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 70-71.
20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Dunbar, S. G., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289-303.
22. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
23. Greeno, J. G. (Ed.). (1993). Situated action [special issue]. Cognitive Science, 17.
24. Grigorenko, E. L., & Stemberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63, 295-312.
25. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26. Hocevar, D. (1976). Dimensionality of creativity. Psychological Reports, 39, 869-870.
27. Holland, J. L., & Nichols, R. C. (1964). Prediction of academic and extracurricular achievement in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 165-174.
28. Holland, J. L., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1965). Academic and nonacademic accomplishment: Correlated or uncorrelated? Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 165-174.
29. Kogan, N. (1994). Diverging from divergent thinking [Review of the book Divergent thinking and creativity: A task specific approach]. Contemporary Psychology. 39, 291-292.
30. Lane, S., Liu, M., Ankenmann, R. D., & Stone, C. A. (1996). Generalizability and validity of a mathematics performance assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 71-92.
31. Lave, J. (1988). Cognitive in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
34. Linn, R. L., & Burton, E. (1994). Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(1), 5-8, 15.
35. Linn, R. L., Burton, E., DeStefano, L., & Hanson, M. (1996). Generalizability of New Standards Project 1993 pilot study tasks in mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 201-214.
36. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989, January/February). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
37. Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). An integrative model of misconceptions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 303-326.
38. Plucker, J. A. (in press). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity check lists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior.
39. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (in press). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857-867.
41. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 121-125.
43. Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children's art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-189.
44. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215-232.
45. Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 115-130.
46. Stemberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36-39.
47. Stemberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
48. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Normstechnical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
49. Tripp, S. D. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated learning. Educational Technology, 22(3), 71-77.
50. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51-67.