Skip to main content
editor@masterjournals.com | Master Journals Journal Home
Login Register

Current Research Journal of Pedagogics

Peer Reviewed | Open Access | E-ISSN: 2767-3278
Published Article

Enhancing Creative Potential: A Dynamic Assessment Of Skill Transfer Across Graphic, Verbal, And Mathematical Domains In Primary School Children

Enhancing Creative Potential: A Dynamic Assessment Of Skill Transfer Across Graphic, Verbal, And Mathematical Domains In Primary School Children

Authors

  • Dr. Elias J. Thorne
    Department of Educational Psychology, Institute of Applied Learning Sciences, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Prof. Anika V. Sharma
    Faculty of Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Keywords:

Creativity Dynamic Assessment Transfer of Learning

Abstract

Background: The debate over whether creativity is a domain-general trait or domain-specific ability has significant implications for educational practice. Existing research on the transfer of creative skills is often limited by traditional, static assessment methods that measure only a final product, failing to capture the underlying cognitive processes and potential for growth. Dynamic assessment (DA), rooted in Vygotsky’s theory, offers a promising alternative by actively mediating a learner's performance to reveal their potential for change and development. This study addresses a critical gap in the literature by using DA to investigate the transfer of creative skills across three distinct domains: graphic, verbal, and mathematical.

Methods: A quasi-experimental design was used with 120 primary school children. Participants were divided into an experimental group and a control group. Both groups underwent pre- and post-testing using standardized creativity assessments in the three domains. The experimental group received a structured, mediated intervention focused on developing domain-specific creative strategies within a single training domain. The effectiveness of the mediation was quantified by measuring learning gain, while transfer was assessed by the change in performance on the untrained domains.

Results: The experimental group showed a significant increase in creative performance in the trained domain compared to the control group, confirming the efficacy of the DA intervention. More importantly, statistical analyses revealed a significant degree of far transfer, where the cognitive strategies learned during mediation were effectively applied to enhance creative performance in the verbal and mathematical domains. The magnitude of transfer was found to be positively associated with the participant's engagement with and application of the mediated strategies.

Conclusion: This study provides robust evidence that creativity, while expressed in domain-specific ways, contains a trainable, domain-general component. Dynamic assessment proved to be a powerful tool for not only measuring but also actively fostering this latent creative potential. The findings have profound implications for educators, suggesting that teaching for transfer through mediated learning can unlock creative skills that might otherwise remain dormant, supporting a more dynamic and inclusive approach to creativity education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arslan, B., Verbrugge, R., & Taatgen, N. (2017). Cognitive control explains the mutual transfer between dimensional change card sorting and first-order false belief understanding: A computational modeling study on transfer of skills. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 20, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2017.03.001

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534507

Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00767.x

Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.002

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Benedek, M., & Fink, A. (2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: the role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.002

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010

Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 369–412). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.019

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., Jones, R. S., & Steinberg, E. (1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(85)90017-0

Carruthers, L., & MacLean, R. (2019). The Dynamic Definition of Creativity: Implications for Creativity Assessment. In R. A. Beghetto & G. E. Corazza (Eds.), Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice in Education (pp. 207–223). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_12

Cheng, V. M. Y. (2016). Understanding and enhancing personal transfer of creative learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.001

Chrysikou, E. G. (2019). Creativity in and out of (cognitive) control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.014

Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: the dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357965

Detterman, D. K. (1993). Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Ablex Publishing.

Dumas, D. G., Dong, Y., & Leveling, M. (2021). The zone of proximal creativity: What dynamic assessment of divergent thinking reveals about students’ latent class membership. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 67, 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102013

Dumas, D., Boris, F., & Alexander, P. (2024). Using a model of domain learning to understand the development of creativity. Educational Psychologist, 59(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2291577

Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910303253

Feuerstein, R., & Jensen, M. R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: theoretical basis, goals, and instruments. The Educational Forum, 44(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728009336184

Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. Freund Publishing House.

Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 141–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90016-0

Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01114.x

Gentner, D. (2017). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164535.ch1

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6

Glăveanu, V. P., & Beghetto, R. A. (2021). Creative experience: a non-standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606

Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.75

Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1087

Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal’perin’s criticism and extension of Lev Vygotsky’s Work. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 34(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405340254

Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press.

Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.

Haywood, H. C., & Wingenfeld, S. A. (1992). Interactive assessment as a research tool. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600303

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of efl text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733

Kubricht, J. R., Lu, H., & Holyoak, K. J. (2017). Individual differences in spontaneous analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 45(4), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0687-7

Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller, (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 99–116). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.007

Lubart, T., Barbot, B., & Besançon, M. (2019). Creative potential: assessment issues and the EPoC Battery. Estudios de Psicología, 40(3), 540–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2019.1656462

Mayer, R. E. (1989). Cognitive views of creativity: Creative teaching for creative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(89)90010-6

Pai, H.-H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8

Palmiero, M., Chie, N., Daniel, R., Marta Olivetti, B., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Abilities within and across visual and verbal domains: how specific is their influence on creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523396

Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10692-009

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa

Poehner, M. E., Davin, K. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (pp. 243–256). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_18

Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Resing, W. C. M., Bakker, M., Pronk, C. M. E., & Elliott, J. G. (2016). Dynamic testing and transfer: An examination of children’s problem-solving strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.011

Runco, M. A. (2019). Creativity as a Dynamic, Personal, Parsimonious Process. In R. A. Beghetto & G. E. Corazza (Eds.), Dynamic Perspectives on Creativity: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice in Education (pp. 181–188). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99163-4_10

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314

Schoevers, E. M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Kattou, M. (2020). Mathematical creativity: a combination of domain-general creative and domain-specific mathematical skills. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.361

Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Harvard University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020601027773

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.374

Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2017). A cross-cultural study of task specificity in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.12

Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033138

Taatgen, N. A. (2016). Theoretical models of training and transfer effects. In T. Strobach, & J. Karbach (Eds.),Cognitive training: An overview of features and applications. (pp. 19–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42662-4_3

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.

Vogelaar, B., & Resing, W. C. M. (2018). Changes over time and transfer of analogy-problem solving of gifted and non-gifted children in a dynamic testing setting. Educational Psychology, 38(7), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1409886

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Harvard University Press.

Zbainos, D., & Sagia, C. (2022). Dynamic assessment of creativity for diagnostic purposes. European Psychologist, 27(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000476

Zbainos, D., & Tziona, A. (19). Investigating primary school children’s creative potential through dynamic assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00733