DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY:

importance of creativity styles

Tom Balchin, Brunel University

Norman Jackson, Higher Education Academy

Proposition

It is difficult to find ways to focus on examining how much creativity a student

possesses. I propose that examining the relationship between creativity and
cognitive styles is useful to explore, and have found research, notably Guilford
1980; Kirton 1976; Messick1984 and Witkin and Goodenough 1981 that indicates
that cognitive styles have an impact upon thinking, problem solving, decision
making and creating.

This avenue of research appears to be a productive one for several reasons.

First, examining styles in relationship to creativity will assist researchers and
teachers in discovering what kinds of creativity techniques work best with what
kinds of people and under what kinds of circumstances (Stein 1975). Secondly,
understanding style may help an individual to appreciate why someone else
approaches or solves problems differently than oneself. Finally, understanding
style may be very important for those that rely on group creativity. Research has
demonstrated that individuals of various styles will possess different creative
strengths and weaknesses (Bloomberg 1967, Kirton 1976 and Spotts and
Mackler 1967). Utilizing the styles and strengths, which various individuals bring
to a group, will empower the group to function more effectively and efficiently. In
the context of the growing interest in problem and enquiry based learning in
higher education it would be worth considering the likely group dynamics that
would result from mixes of people with different cognitive styles.

What do we mean by cognitive style?

Cognitive styles refer to the preferred way an individual processes information

and describe a person’s typical mode of thinking, remembering or approach to
problem solving. Cognitive style simply denotes a tendency to think and behave
in a certain manner. Learning styles (for example those defined by Kolb 1984)
specifically deal with different styles of learning. Cognitive and learning styles can
be used to predict what kind of teaching approaches would be most effective for
an individual or group. This short piece focuses on cognitive styles that might be
useful to consider when designing teaching for creativity.

Before discussing a specific cognitive style theory, it is important to review the

characteristics of cognitive style. Witkin and Goodenough (1981) believed that
style is concerned with form rather than content. In this was, style refers to the

1
manner in which we characteristically process information. Styles are also
pervasive. Messick (1976) stated that “...styles cut across diverse spheres of
behaviour”. In other words, the style that you possess at work you will most likely
possess at home or play. Cognitive styles are also stable over time; measured
over a period of time an individual's cognitive style will remain relatively the same
(Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox 1977).

Another important point about style is that it is not an either-or situation; Gregorc
(1979) shows that we all possess some of each style, however each of us prefers
one style over the other. Messick (1976) states that “...each style has adaptive
value depending on the situation....no one style is consistantly more adaptive
than another.” In this way, styles are ‘value neutral’. Each style possesses its
own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, all styles are valuable and useful.

One of the most promising cognitive style theories to impact the field of creativity
that I have found is Kirton's (1976) ‘adaptation-innovation’ distinction. Mainly
through his observations of managers, Kirton (1961) noted that some were able
to initiate change that improved the current system, but were unable to identify
opportunities outside it. He calls these people ‘adaptors.’ Other managers were
fluent at generating ideas that led to more radical change, but generally failed in
getting their radical ideas accepted. Kirton termed this style ‘innovative.’

These observations gave rise to Kirton's (1976) hypothesis that there is a

personality continuum called adaptor-innovator, which presumes two very
different approaches to change. The adpator prefers to improve things while
working within the given paradigm or structure. The adaptor is characterized by
precision, reliability, efficiency, discipline, and conformity. He/she is seen as both
safe and dependable in his/her work. The adaptor reduces problems by
improvement and greater efficiency. The innovator, however, prefers to do things
differently, to challenge the paradigm or structure. He/she sometimes is seen as
undisciplined, thinking tangentially, and as approaching tasks from unexpected
angles. The innovator solves problems by breaking down patterns and doing
things differently. The descriptions of adaptors and innovators shown below
present the characteristics of the extreme ends of the style continuum. I have
found that other researchers who have examined this theory have stressed that it
is important to recall that style is not an ‘either-or’ situation; their consideration
being that individuals possess varying degrees of both styles. They are almost
certainly right. Some individuals will show a strong preference for either
adaptiveness or innovativeness, and will exhibit many behaviors consistent with
their preferred style. Others possess only a slight preference for either style, and
exhibit characteristics of both the adaptive and innovative style.

2
Cognitive and behavioural style characteristics of adaptors and innovators

Characteristics of adaptors

• Characterized by precision, reliability, efficiency, methodicalness, prudence,

discipline, and conformity.
• Concerned with resolving problems rather than finding them.
• Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood ways.
• Reduces problems by improvement and greater efficiency, with maximum of
continuity and stability.
• Seen as sound, conforming, safe, and dependable.
• Liable to make goals a means.
• Seems impervious to boredom, seems able to maintain high accuracy in long
spells of detailed work.
• Is an authority within given structures.
• Challenges rules rarely, cautiously, when assured of strong support.
• Tends to have high self-doubt; reacts to criticism by closer outward conformity;
vulnerable to social pressure and authority; compliant.
• Is essential to the functioning of the institution all the time, but occasionally
needs to be dug out" of his or her systems.

Adaptors when collaborating with innovators

• Supplies stability, order and continuity.

• Maintains group cohesion and cooperation -- is sensitive to people.
• Provides a safe base for riskier operations

Characteristics of innovators

• Seen as undisciplined, thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from

unsuspected angles.
• Could be said to discover problems and discover avenues of solution,
manipulates problems by questioning existing assumptions.
• Is catalyst to settled groups, irreverent of their consensual views; seen as
abrasive, creating dissonance.
• Seen as unsound, impractical; often shocks his or her opposite.
• Capable of detailed routine work (system maintenance) for only short bursts;
quick to delegate routine tasks.
• Tends to take control in unstructured situations.
• Often challenges rules, has little respect for past custom.
• Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing
consensus to maintain confidence in face of opposition.
• Is at his or her best in unscheduled institutional crises; can even help to avoid
them if he or she can channel efforts.

3
Innovators when collaborating with adaptors
• Supplies task orientation by breaking with the accepted theories of the past.
• Often threatens group cohesion and co-operation -- is insensitive to people.
• Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic radical change.

Kirton (1976) believes these cognitive styles are found in everyone and that they
play a role in creativity, problem solving, and decision making. Both of these
cognitive styles result in ‘engaged states of being.’ We might contrast this with
disengaged or more passive styles of engagement that simply lead to
reproduction or assimilate information with little processing.

Kirton maintains that adaptors and innovators possess equal levels of creative
potential. However, Kirton states, "...although both adaptors and innovators
create in their own way, the literature on creativity has concentrated on
describing the innovators." Both styles of creativity are important and necessary
for the development and growth of our society. For example, innovative creativity
gave us the first airplane, and adaptive creativity enables us to fly the Atlantic
Ocean in less than four hours. Innovative creativity breaks down paradigms and
establishes new ones, while adaptive creativity can improve upon the current
paradigm. Organizations require the service of both styles. Kirton (1977) believes
a team that is heterogeneous, in terms of styles, will be better prepared to meet
all contingencies, than a team that is homogeneous.

He also states that “...instead of valuing one style, the organization should
respect and value the adaptive and innovative styles of creativity. Individuals
within an organization can work more effectively together by capitalizing on each
others' strengths, rather than punishing each other because of individual
differences.” If an atmosphere of openness and trust prevails in an organization,
then these adaptors and innovators will be theoretically able to join their creative
talents to propel the organization to success.

It can be seen that people are creative in varying degrees and styles. Past
research has demonstrated that an individual's level of creative potential can be
increased through formal training. Current research is examining the relationship
between cognitive style and creative behaviour. This new frontier in creativity
research has already produced a number of positive outcomes for both
individuals and organizations interested in creativity (Gryskiewicz 1982). One of
the most beneficial outcomes is the awareness that individuals will manifest their
creativity in different ways, and that both styles of creativity are valuable.

Implications for Teaching and Learning

From a teaching perspective, the higher education world is in a state of

transformative change and institutions need teachers with imagination and both

4
sorts of cognitive style. Teaching teams, departments, institutions need people
whose cognitive styles enable them to move outside current orthodoxy in
programme design, forms of delivery and support to invent new ways of thinking
about the curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, support, student
engagement and all the other things that are necessary to provide good
education. But success will only be achieved if most teachers continually refine
and adapt their practices to enrich students’ experiences and learning.

A primary concern of teachers is to develop learning experiences that students’

find engaging and teaching strategies that cause students to be engaged. Both of
the cognitive styles described above require engagement. Some course designs
and teaching and learning methods are more likely to create the conditions that
will support the deployment of these different cognitive styles and enable
students to recognise that different cognitive styles lead to different behaviours
and outcomes. Raising awareness in students of the cognitive styles they adopt
in different problem working situations is something that might be designed into
reflective exercises and personal development planning.

REFERENCES

Bloomberg, M. (1967) “An Inquiry into the Relationship between Field

Independence-dependence and Creativity.” in the Joumal of Psychology, 67, p.
127-140.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979) “Learning/Teaching Styles: Their Nature and Effects.

Student Learning styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs.” Reston,
Vancouver : National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1982) “Creative Leadership Development and the Kirton

Adaption-Iinnovation Inventory.” Paper presented at the Occupational
Psychology Conference of the British Psychological Society, Brighton, England,
July 1982.

Guilford, J. P. (1980) “Cognitive Styles: what are they?” in Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 40, p. 715-735.

Kirton, M. J. (I976) “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description of a Measure.” in the

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, p. 622-629.

Kirton, M. J. (1977) “Manual of the Kirton Adaption-Iinnovation Inventory.” in

London, England: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Messick, S. (1976) Personality Consistencies in Cognition and Creativity, in S.

Messick and Associates (Eds.), “Individuality in Learning.” San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

5
Messick, S. (1984) “The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in
Educational Practice.” in the Educational Psychologist, 2, p. 59- 74.

Spotts, J. V. & Mackler, B. (1967) “Relationships of Field-dependent and Field-

independent Cognitive Styles to Creative Test Performance.” in Perceptual and
MotorSkills, 24, p. 239-268.

Stein, M. 1. (1975) “Stimulating Creativity .” N.Y. : Academic Press.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. and Cox, P. W. (1977) “Field-

dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational
Implications.” in the Review of Educational Research, 47, p. 1-64.

Witkin, H. A. and Goodenough, D. R. (1981) ”Cognitive Styles: Essence and

Origin (Psychological Issues Monograph NO. 51).” N.Y. : International University
Press, Inc.