Divergent Thinking – Guilford 1957

J.P Guilford was one of the first contributors to measure and define creativity. Guilford hypothesized that creativity was a way of thinking using both convergent and divergent thinking.

This approach to creativity is beneficial because Gilford’s research began the separation of IQ measurements and creativity, stating that both convergent and divergent thinking contributes to creativity (Gilford 1957).

Convergent thinking is thinking sequentially towards one solution, answer, or central idea. It involves logic and reasoning to get to one single answer.

Divergent thinking is the opposite of convergent thinking. It involves thinking in multiple and different directions towards many answers, options, and different perspectives. Guilford proposed that divergent thinking consists of three thinking qualities:

(a) Fluency = many ideas

(b) Flexibility = many different types of ideas

(c) Originality = unusual or new ideas

While some research does indicate a correlation between IQ and creativity (Gilford 1957), MacKinnon, (1978; as cited by Rimm et al., 2017), found no correlation between measured intelligence and creativity after an IQ score of over 120. This is important to note as often only students with an IQ score of 130 or higher are considered for gifted programming (Rimm et al., 2017). Erroneously assuming that all gifted students have a very high IQ is one major contributing factor to students with creative/productive gifted behaviours being overlooked for enrichment programming (Ambrose & Machek, 2015; Kaufman et al., 2012; Kim, 2019; Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). In a research study of eighteen students identified with creative/productive behaviours, Delcourt (1993) recorded IQ scores ranging from 104 – 154. If IQ score was the only form of assessment within this study, Delcourt (1993) notes at least six students would have been excluded from the gifted and talented programming.

Solely using IQ as a gifted and talented indicator runs the risk of missing students with creative/productive behaviours such as cognitive flexibility and originality, who may make greater contributions to society.

Instead, consider creating a talent pool consisting of the top 10 – 15 percentiles of high-ability students (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). These students can be identified using multiple measures, including peer, self, parent, and teacher nominations, behavior rating scales, assessments for creativity, and potential for creativity (Renzulli and Renzulli, 2010). Additionally, Ambrose & Machek (2015) recommend alternative assessments that include performance-based, portfolio, and dynamic assessments (Pfeiffer and Blei, 2008 as cited by Ambrose & Machek, 2015).