Creativity is one of the most important yet elusive assets of learners, which depends on various factors. Intelligence is a core determinant of creativity, according to the predominant federal approaches to the identification of giftedness (Luria et al. 44). However, it is essential to discuss why educators assess for creativity; the motivation for such an assessment is two-fold. On the one hand, creativity is assessed to identify students’ potential in attaining the curriculum. In other words, creativity assessment provides a comprehensive set of data about the compatibility between the curriculum and student characteristics. On the other hand, “it helps present a fuller representation of a student’s cognitive capabilities” (Luria et al. 47). This aspect is more effectiveness-oriented and allows for stating that educators assess for creativity to ensure student identification for services. However, Luria et al. claim that currently used creativity tests are biased and induce mere intelligence-based assessment (44). Therefore, it is essential to develop specific qualitative measurements to assess learner creativity for accurate results.
When discussing the ways in which educators might service creatively gifted students, one might identify the approaches related to developing personalized effectiveness-based instruction. In order to provide quality service to gifted students, educators should develop flexible curricula that prioritize the environment for creative learning (Luria et al. 45-46). Moreover, it is important to recognize each gifted student’s particularity and address it in the course of the educational process. It is essential to leverage an equality-based learning environment and a personalized student-centered approach that would not diminish the learning opportunities of the diverse body of students. In such a manner, the quality of service will allow for recognizing each student’s uniqueness and gift potential.
Luria, S. R. et al. “Creativity in Gifted Identification: Increasing Accuracy and Diversity.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1377, no. 1, 2016, pp. 44–52.