Search

Recent studies suggest that educational robotics may have a positive effect on creativity. Authors claim that robotics in classrooms may be a promising new tool to address the creativity crisis in school. Although this line of research is up-and-coming, we often face a lack of theoretical development of the concept of creativity and the mechanisms involved. With few exceptions, authors do not discuss how exactly creativity is boosted and what cognitive components are promoted by the training. In this article, we will first provide an overview of existing research using educational robotics to foster creativity. We will use a confluence model of creativity to account for the positive effect of designing and coding robots on students' creative output. We will zoom on cognitive components of the process of constructing and programming robots and compare them with existing models of creative cognition. We will also address the question of the role of meta-reasoning and strategies in the creative process. We will finally discuss how the notion of creativity applies to robots themselves and present the distinguishing characteristics between human and robotic creativity. Ultimately, we argue that considering how robots and humans deal with novelty and solve open-ended tasks could help us to understand better some aspects of the essence of human creativity, although human creativity cannot be reduced to cognition.

The aim of this article is to investigate the hybrid approach of creativity, according to which some features are more domain-general whereas others are more domain-specific. The total sample consisted of 359 participants. The hybrid approach was confirmed. Whereas fluid intelligence had a domain-general importance, the role of ego-strength was very domain-specific. Ego-strength was positively involved in adaptive creativity among student architects but negatively in creativity with the social science students: whereas student architects tended to show a “scientific” creative profile, social science students showed an “artistic” creative profile. Finally, as anticipated, people from the general population demonstrated the expected profile for everyday creativity.

The literature on creativity has often focused on the analysis of artists and scientists. The ability to generalize these findings to respective professional sub-disciplines is examined. In particular, the present study addresses the generalizability of the personality profile of creative scientists to creative social scientists. Autonomy was found to be the most important personality feature for creativity in social sciences. These results suggest the importance of fostering an autonomous working style.

This chapter proposes an integrative model for creativity in student architects. It is inspired by several theoretical conceptions and adapted to the present population. The established model is an initial attempt to build a genuine latent model for the prediction of creativity. This approach can be adapted to different domains of creative achievement: artistic, scientific and everyday life.