Matthew Worwood: 
Hello and welcome to our fourth listen and Learn series for summer 2024. And as a reminder, in the Listen and Learn series, we produce these short, super duper short episodes that are designed to support professional learning for educators and emerging scholars during the summer months.

Cyndi Burnett:
In this listen and Learn series, we are focused on classic literature from the field of creativity, which we hope will not only offer you a historical perspective of the field, but also help you bridge some connections between this research and creative and teaching learning environments.

Matthew Worwood: 
And if you’ve been listening to our past few episodes, you would know that during the introduction to the Listen and Learn series, Cindy and I introduced our emerging scholar in residence, Jimmy Wilson, who’s going to be sharing some commentary related to this listen and learn series on our website, fuelingcreativitypodcast.com dot.

Cyndi Burnett:
And to make things extra fun, at the end of each episode we will share a single letter, which is part of a code word that you, our listeners, must guess before the end of August.

Matthew Worwood: 
And when you’ve guessed it, of course you must email it to us@questionsoueuelingcreativitypodcast.com. and if you don’t mind, in addition to the code word that you’ve worked out, please share with us a connection you’ve made between one of the discussion points related to one of these classical articles and how it relates to something you’re planning for the upcoming school year. And after we’ve received that email, we will select one winner to receive a fueling creativity and podcast prize.

Cyndi Burnett:
So let’s begin.

Matthew Worwood:
So, Cindy, we’re actually halfway through the listen and learn series. We’re over halfway through now, and so we should set the stage a little bit. We’re in a scenario where we’ve kind of had joy Paul Guilford kind of present to a group of psychologists saying, hey, we need to go and investigate this thing called creativity because I don’t think it is just about intelligence. And it’s kind of really important. It’s important for our economy, it’s important for our nation. And I think that there are some important things that we need to consider when it comes to studying it. And we shared that article, and then as the field started to emerge, we started to get obviously you need to operationalize the word creativity, and that’s something I didn’t really fully appreciate until I did my doctorate program. If you’re going to study something, the field itself has to come up with an understanding of what it is we’re studying.

Matthew Worwood: 
And that’s, of course, what leads us to the scholarly definition of creativity. So the field is starting to become aware of, well, we’re talking about originality, and we’re talking about the fact that this thing that we create that is original also has some purpose, some usefulness, can kind of like solve a problem in a particular domain of some sort. And then, of course, we also get someone like Mel Rhodes, which is another episode that we’ve done, kind of says, well, look, you know what? It’s hard to create this definition. But what I’ve noticed is that when we’re talking about creativity, sometimes we’re talking about the creative product. Sometimes we’re talking about the creative process, sometimes we’re talking about the creative person. And of course, sometimes we’re talking about the creative environment and press. And that was another article that we’ve discussed. And I think this article, which I’m going to have you introduce in a second, really kind of, I think builds on all of that work, but I think particularly related to Guildford because we’re looking at the creative person.

Matthew Worwood: 
We’re starting to set up identifying creative potential and laying the foundation for talented and giftedness as well. So, Cindy, why don’t you share with us our article for episode four?

Cyndi Burnett:
So the article we selected as number four is by Donald McKinnon, and it’s called Nature and Nurture of creative talent. And it was written and published in 1962. So Donald McKinnon was the head of the institution of Personality Assessment and Research, which is also known as iPAR, at the University of Berkeley in California. So Donald McKinnon was well known, especially in this pivotal article, as identifying creative personality characteristics. So we’re going to tell you a little bit about this journal article, but we’re going to start with a story that he shares around identifying creative potential and the importance of identifying creative potential. And he says in this story, which was believed to be first told by Mark Twain, that there is a man who seeks the greatest general who ever lived. Upon inquiring as to where this individual might be found, he was told that this person he sought had died and gone to heaven. So at the Pearly gates, he informed Saint Peter of the purpose of his quest, whereupon St.

Cyndi Burnett:
Peter pointed to a soul nearby. But that, protested the Inquirer, isn’t the greatest of all generals. I knew that person when he lived on earth, and he was only a cobbler, which is a shoe, a shoe fixer upper. I know that, said St. Peter, but if he had been a general, he would have been the greatest of them all. And Matt, when I read that story, a big smile came across my face because I thought, yeah, how many children do we have in our classrooms that don’t have their creative potential realized, and therefore they become the cobblers of the world instead of the generals? So he positioned that story at the start of this article to showcase the importance of identifying and nurturing creative potential.

Matthew Worwood: 
And to follow up. I mean, obviously, that has been a topic that we’ve explored. We’ve explored it in Todd Lubotsh episodes. We’ve also, I think, covered it with some of the people we brought on to talk around talented giftedness. I remember Joe Renzuli, for example, has often spoken about all the. All the kind of, like, potential that we don’t get to realize. Sally Reese has spoken about it. Jonathan Plucker has spoken about the talent gap as well.

Matthew Worwood: 
It continues to be an important question to this day, but I think that we also should acknowledge that there have been some efforts to try and identify talented giftedness. This is at the beginning stage of asking those questions. But to your point, and based on the many conversations we have, we’re still not doing a good job of identifying creative potential, particularly when it kind of falls out of the domains that we might place more value on versus others. And speaking of domains, I wanted to provide a little bit of context for the study, because within this study, and I think some similar studies at the time, now we’ve got a better understanding of what creativity is, and at least as a construct to which we’re exploring, we’re able to kind of reach out and say, okay, I’m going to go and identify some really creative people within their domains. And within this particular study, they identified a different collection of domains, creative writing, architecture, mathematics, industrial research, physical sciences, engineering. So lots of different domains. So we’re definitely seeing an interesting creativity outside of the arts. And all of these groups were kind of identified within their field and then brought to the university so they could, in essence, be studied further.

Matthew Worwood: 
And they had these personality tests, had some creativity exercises, and then also looked a little bit into their upbringing as well, and kind of raising this question of, okay, well, if we can identify by some of these personality traits, let’s kind of now start thinking about how these traits might manifest within the classroom environment. Because if we know, for example, I’m just going to throw something out there that if all of these individuals are able to tolerate some ambiguity, and then that actually does come up within the research, how might that trait manifest in the classroom environment? And if we can identify it, then obviously we might be in a better position to then nurture that talent as we progressed. Now, what’s interesting, there was a lot of common characteristics that was found within these creative people, despite their domains. Now, the article does focus a little bit more on architects, and I think it was interesting that the focus of architects was partly referenced as, because it was seen as a domain where there was both this kind of artistic and scientific piece that was coming together, science being this desire for truth and data and factual analysis, whereas the art piece is that expression of oneself and how that one self finds its way into the work. And actually, it was interesting because within this article, there was talking about how, you know, these participants in the study were able to navigate that the tension between art and science quite well. But what I wanted to do is just pull out a few quotes that I found toward the end of the article, which, in essence, were takeaways. Here’s one our data suggest, rather than if a person has the minimum of intelligence required for mastery of a field of knowledge, whether he performs creatively or bannerly in that field will be crucially determined by non intellectual factors. We would do well then to pay more attention in the future than we have in the past to the nurturing of these non intellectual traits, which in our studies have been shown to meet intimately associated with creative talent.

Matthew Worwood: 
And the reason why I bring that one up, and I’d be interested to hear your take on that. But obviously, there’s placing a lot of emphasis on mastery of knowledge and also suggesting that when we’re identifying talent, we need to be careful that we don’t focus solely on the mastery of talent. But I feel like that conversation is still something we’re having as well.

Cyndi Burnett:
I think so, too, Matt, and I think that what are the characteristics that they describe that come out of creative individuals? Was the other piece that I was just thinking about when you said that. So getting beyond just the intellectual and the knowledge, but into these other, their skills, like openness, they talk about. And one of the things that struck me was the openness of feelings and emotions and having a sensitive intellect and understanding self awareness, and having a wide range of interest. So it was really interesting to me to think about focusing on the content and the knowledge versus this openness to feelings and emotions and intellect and richness and complexity of experience.

Matthew Worwood: 
Yeah. And being able to handle that complexity of problems as well, I thought was interesting. And of course, it was a period. I mean, it’s a classical piece of literature, so we get the stereotype that those emotions are most often associated with the feminine characteristics and I think we’re making some progress on the fact that men can share emotions as well. But I think just that idea of that, the sensitivity to the problem, the sensitivity to other people, I totally agree. And then the openness, I’ve actually got a quote with the openness, which you may have as well. It is the duty of parents to communicate and of professors to profess what they judge to be true, but it is no less their duty, by example, to encourage in their children and in their students an openness to all ideas, and especially to those which most challenge and threaten their own judgment. So making sure, I think, I think, kind of connects with this idea of the one right answer, but also recognizing that the students need that options in the classroom.

Matthew Worwood: 
We need to provide them with, with that sense of choice, which is another theme that’s come up on the podcast as well.

Cyndi Burnett:
Yes, and I also think this whole idea of keeping open to what your students and what your children are interested in, because it may not be the same as what you have, and I’m sure, Matt, you have three boys at home. Not all of them have the same interests you do. So being open to their ideas, being open to their experiences and what they want in life, I think it’s sometimes challenging to do if it’s not in the same realm of what your interests are.

Matthew Worwood: 
Well, I mean, I’m going to get onto the parent piece in a moment. And in fact, it is actually related to parenting, because within the article, when they were looking into the background of these people who were identified as being creative within their fields, it was interesting to note that a lot of them, in essence, had seemed, my interpretation was just a wide experience of different life events and situations. You know, I kind of, like, equated it to the fact that, you know, some of them have moved around a lot, but it wasn’t like they were, if I was to translate the findings in today’s world, they wasn’t necessarily in just one sport, and they wasn’t necessarily just in a situation where they only lived in a city. They’d been able to experience different things, which obviously, if you think about it, the more experiences we have, the more knowledge we probably can gain about the world, and probably with that knowledge, we can also begin to make some, some unique connections as well. So I think that’s something that both educators and parents can think about. But the final quote that I had for this article does very much focus on parents, and I think it builds on what you just said, because we’re starting to flirt with this idea of, like, being open to different career paths as well. There was not an anxious, so this is, this is them sharing their findings around the home environment of these creative individuals. There was not an anxious concern on the part of the parents about the skills and abilities of the child.

Matthew Worwood: 
What is perhaps most significant was the widespread, definite lack of strong pressures from the parents toward a particular career.

Cyndi Burnett:
Matt, that reminds me so much of a book I just finished that was just recently published called Never Enough. And it’s all about the pressures that we put on our children because we want them to be more. And so when I read that, it really struck me of what’s happening right now in our society in 2024 and how much pressure we put on our kids to do more and be more and participate more and be in more activities. And I think that’s part of a really challenging landscape of parenting right now and trying to work through how much do I want my kids to push themselves and how much do I want them to enjoy their life and how do we strike that balance between the two? Because I don’t think it’s easy, especially when we see other kids getting ahead because they are putting in more time. How do we balance that polarity? I don’t know. What do you think?

Matthew Worwood: 
Well, I can’t get too deep into this topic because obviously I’m experiencing it now with my boy’s sports, and I’m dealing with a lot of feelings. I know that he should be running laps around the track to improve his fitness. I know that I should be finding time to improve his shooting practice and his ball skills. But he’s already playing soccer a few times a week during the regular semester. And at the end of the day, he’s just turned ten. Now I’m wrestling with the fact that he likes basketball, and I actually should be open to the fact that there’s other. I’m taking him camping this weekend, but I kid you not. In today’s parenting culture.

Matthew Worwood: 
I’m dealing with the fact that I know that the number of other parents within his team are, the kids are doing lots of soccer throughout the summer. And, you know, you start thinking about that 10,000 hours rule and they’re going to be clocking up a lot of training time over these summer months when I choose to kind of have him do something other than soccer. And I’m sitting there and I’ve actually said to myself and my wife and I have discussed this, well, maybe we could do one more year of this, but if we don’t have him playing soccer over the summer, he’s going to start falling too far behind. And of course there, that’s an example of me laying down the pressure. I think the balance is that he needs to say, oh, I don’t want to go camping, I want to play soccer instead. And he hasn’t done that. He wants to go camping. And I think that’s the balance.

Matthew Worwood: 
And it’s tough because I don’t think he’s going to be a football player if he doesn’t work hard on it. But I just have to live with.

Cyndi Burnett:
That and that’s okay, and they’re going to be okay. And I think that’s a hard place. I think that’s a hard place to be. So, Matt, there’s one more quote I want to bring up, which is comes directly from the article. In college, our creative architects earned about a b average in work. In courses which caught their interest, they could turn in an a performance, but in courses that failed to strike their imagination, they were quite willing to do no work at all and could be seen as rebellious, which those might be students that are not to our liking. We like students. I’m sure you like students in your class who go and do the assignments as you’ve asked them to do.

Cyndi Burnett:
And there are students that may seem rebellious because they’re questioning your authority or they’re questioning your assumptions, or they don’t want to put in the work because they’re not really interested in. So what do we do with those students who have the creative potential but don’t want to put in the work because they don’t have the interest? What do you think?

Matthew Worwood: 
Well, it’s a good question. In the podcast, we’ve discussed a lot around interests as well. And funny enough, a lot of the conversations around interest have been when we’ve been interviewing gifted and talented scholars, and I remember Jonathan Plucker talking about the fact that when it comes to giftedness, you can usually identify it because they’re usually doing it. But to your point, you don’t need to necessarily have mastery of your discipline, but you need to have the minimum level of knowledge. And I think, again, unfortunately, I would argue that we need to learn things to be creative. We need to learn about the domains. So we do have to teach. We do have to get students to sometimes learn things that they might not necessarily realize is important.

Matthew Worwood: 
I think that’s the key, not necessarily important to them at this time. And I think that’s part of the challenge with instruction and ultimately, Cindy, within the podcast, one of the themes is make the connections to their interests. So that’s really the challenge. It’s not always going to be easy to do, and it might not even be always possible to do, but let’s endeavor to make the connections to interests when we can. And that also requires you to get to know your children as well.

Cyndi Burnett:
Well, Matt, I think that is a great way to end it. So are you ready to wrap up?

Matthew Worwood: 
Yes. And before we go, of course, we have to share that special code word for this episode.

Cyndi Burnett:
Are you ready? Should we do a drum roll?

Matthew Worwood: 
Yes. And you throw out the code word. Here’s the drum roll. The code word.

Cyndi Burnett:
The code letter. Are you ready?

Matthew Worwood: 
Code letter. I did that. I did that in the last listening learn series. Code. Code t portango trinket talented telephone tuberculosis.

Cyndi Burnett:
Tucked.

Matthew Worwood: 
I want to say Todd Lubar, because I feel like there’s a really close connection with this episode.

Cyndi Burnett:
Love it. Let’s end there. Thanks so much for joining us. I’m Doctor Cindy Burnett, and my name.

Matthew Worwood: 
Is Doctor Matthew Worwood.

Cyndi Burnett :
This episode was produced by Matthew Warwood and Cindy Burnett. Our podcast sponsor is curiosity to create, and our editor is Sam Atkinson.