Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Creativity as a Student Learning Outcome in Theatre Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Creativity in Theatre

Part of the book series: Creativity Theory and Action in Education ((CTAE,volume 2))

Abstract

Creativity is an important and widely accepted learning goal of theatre programs in higher education. Yet it appears that creativity and the act of assessing creativity as a learning outcome have received minimal attention by the community of practice and in theatre education scholarship. In this chapter we address this gap by describing a model for assessing creativity as a student learning outcome that we implemented in a theatre performance lab. First, we differentiate between the act of measuring creativity and that of assessing it for the purpose of programmatic improvement and enhanced student learning. Second, we describe the importance of the environment and the impact of exemplars on student learning and development of creativity. Last, we describe how we use the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, reflective journals, and rubrics to assess creativity; we discuss how collectively, the results of these assessments can be used to guide curriculum, improve learning outcomes, and help students of theatre reach their creative potential.

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 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n.d.). Creative Thinking VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/creative-thinking.

  • Baer, J., & McKool, S. S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In C. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 65–77). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baehr, M. (2010). Distinctions between assessment and evaluation. Faculty Guidebook, 7–10. Retrieved from http://pcrest3.com/llc/humc/workshops/w3b.pdf.

  • Bailin, S. (2011). Creativity and drama education. In S. Schonmann (Ed.), Key concepts in theatre/drama education (pp. 209–213). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–465). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007a). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007b). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the expert performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18(1), 59–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Promises and pitfalls in differentiating amongst the C’s of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2016). Revisiting the relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reasoning in cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belluigi, D. Z. (2013). A proposed schema for the conditions of creativity in fine art studio practice. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 14(19), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden, V. M., & Zak Owens, J. L. (2001). Measuring quality: Choosing among surveys and other assessments of college quality. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the literature. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 43–62). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(90), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2011). Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces. Educational Research, 53(3), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, J. C. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions. TechTrends, 50(6), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. (1992). The elusive definition of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(3), 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (2006). First insights: Fostering creativity in university performance. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishibashi, K., & Okada, T. (2004, January). How copying artwork affects students’ artistic creativity. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment (Vol. 53). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. R., & Viering, M. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: Integrating research findings. Proceedings from the National Council on measurement in education. Vancouver: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, A., Kaasinen, M., Karjalainen-Väkevä, M., & Toivanen, T. (2016). Promoting creativity in teaching drama. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 558–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. J. (2011). Collage journaling with pre-service teachers. International Review of Qualitative Research, 4(1), 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindauer, M. S. (2003). Does creativity decline with age? Aging, creativity and art, the Plenum series in adult development and Aging. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, H., & Plucker, J. A. (2015). Assessing creative thinking. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 315–329). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, P. L. (2002). Developing an assessment plan to learn about student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 211–232). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, E., & Henderson, J. A. (2015). Teaching creativity across disciplines at Ontario universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, J. (2011). Creative copying? The pedagogy of adaptation. Canadian Theatre Review, 147, 55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, D. P., & Donkin, H. (2011). Some notions of artistic creativity amongst history of art students acquired through incidental learning. International Journal of Education through Art, 7(3), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A. (1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. M., & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 421–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, T. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using the rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 25–53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2017). People, passions, problems: The role of creative exemplars in teaching for creativity. In R. Beghetto & B. Sririman (Eds.), Creative contradictions in education (pp. 143–164). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. (2004). Personal creativity and culture. In S. Lau, A. A. Hui, & G. Y. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When east meets west (pp. 9–21). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schonmann, S. (1997). How to recognize dramatic talent when you see it: And then what. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 31(4), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, S. (2014). Moving from evaluation to assessment. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 102(4), 227–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right - using it well. Portland: Assessment Training Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toivanen, T., Salomaa, R., & Halkilahti, L. (2016). Does classroom drama support creative learning? Viewpoints on the relationship between drama teaching and group creativity. The Journal of Drama in Education, 32(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual: Verbal tests, forms a and b: Figural tests, forms a and b. Princeton: Personal Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timperley, H. S. (2001). Mentoring conversations designed to promote student teacher learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. C., Ho, H. C., Cheng, C. L., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2014). Application of the Rasch model to the measurement of creativity: The creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Marcelo Schmidt

  2. School of Theatre & Dance, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Mark Charney

Authors
  1. Marcelo Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Charney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Schmidt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Theatre, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Suzanne Burgoyne

Appendix A

Appendix A

A score of 1 should be assigned to a student who fails to meet criteria expected of the category Emerging

 

Exemplar (5)

Proficient (4)

Satisfactory (3)

Emerging (2)

Acquiring competencies

Reflect: Evaluates creative process and product using domain-appropriate criteria.

Create: Creates an entirely new object, solution or idea that is appropriate to the domain.

Adapt: Successfully adapts an appropriate exemplar to his/her own specifications.

Model: Successfully reproduces an appropriate exemplar.

Taking risks

Actively seeks out and follows through on untested and potentially risky directions or approaches to the assignment in the final product.

Incorporates new directions or approaches to the assignment in the final product.

Considers new directions or approaches without going beyond the guidelines of the assignment.

Stays strictly within the guidelines of the assignment.

Solving problems

Not only develops a logical, consistent plan to solve problem, but recognizes consequences of solution and can articulate reason for choosing solution.

Having selected from among alternatives, develops a logical, consistent plan to solve the problem.

Considers and rejects less acceptable approaches to solving problem.

Only a single approach is considered and is used to solve the problem.

Embracing contradictions

Integrates alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas fully.

Incorporates alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas in an exploratory way.

Includes (recognizes the value of) alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas in a small way.

Acknowledges (mentions in passing) alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas.

Innovative thinking

Extends a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product to create new knowledge or knowledge that crosses boundaries.

Creates a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product.

Experiments with creating a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product.

Reformulates a collection of available ideas.

Connecting, synthesizing, transforming

Transforms ideas or solutions into entirely new forms.

Synthesizes ideas or solutions into a coherent whole.

Connects ideas or solutions in novel ways.

Recognizes existing connections among ideas or solutions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmidt, M., Charney, M. (2018). Assessing Creativity as a Student Learning Outcome in Theatre Education. In: Burgoyne, S. (eds) Creativity in Theatre. Creativity Theory and Action in Education, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78928-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78928-6_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78927-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78928-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation