Gifted Classroom Environments and the Creative Process: A Systematic Review

The creative process in context

Although there are numerous definitions of creativity in the field, Plucker et al. (2004) defined creativity as “the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context [emphasis in original]” (p. 90). Puryear and Lamb (2020) noted that researchers investigating domain-specific creativity in professional contexts (e.g., business, education, psychology) favored Plucker et al.’s (2004) definition due to its focus on the interactions between abilities, processes, and environments. Lamb (2020) identified this “interaction piece” as a vital aspect of classroom instruction and suggested that “educators should consider classroom factors that impact students’ creative thinking and how these factors can be used to foster creative classroom environments” (pp. 282–283). To create classroom environments that are conducive to creativity, scholars (e.g., Sawyer, 2012) have encouraged explicitly teaching the creative process.

Sawyer (2012) synthesized the major creative process models of the 20th and 21st centuries and created a recursive stage model that represents decades of research-based best practices for encouraging creative ideas, products, and performances, which aligns with Plucker et al.’s (2004) definition of creativity as a process. Sawyer’s eight stages include (a) finding the problem, (b) acquiring knowledge, (c) gathering related information, (d) incubation, (e) generating ideas, (f) combining ideas, (g) selecting the best ideas, and (h) externalizing ideas. Dai (2017) and other scholars in gifted education and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey, 2015; Renzulli, 2012; Simonton, 1994) have emphasized the importance of environment in the development of the creative behaviors that are necessary for successful engagement in talent domains, which makes creative pedagogy a critical element of school-based academic, creative, and career-related talent development.

Creative pedagogy

Developing creative thinking in the classroom requires the use of creative pedagogy, which includes teaching methods and practices that encourage creativity (Kettler et al., 2018). Subotnik et al. (2019) pointed out that educators and students must understand the metacognitive aspects of knowing how to play “the game” in a particular field of study, which includes an understanding that the “rules of the game” are continually in flux, and can be adapted. Creative pedagogy requires modeling an active learning process that works in a sequence and includes gaining knowledge, critiquing knowledge claims, examining evidence and perspectives (e.g., lateral thinking; de Bono, 1985), engaging in reflection and conversation (Kettler et al., 2018), and searching for alternative explanations and solutions (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Thus, educators need to be engaged in an ongoing process of understanding relevant teaching strategies and tactics to develop students’ creative thinking capacity (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration; Torrance, 1970; resistance to premature closure; Reisman, 2017). For instance, popular pedagogical strategies for bridging expertise and creativity include incorporating creative problem-based learning units situated in the subject matter (Treffinger et al., 2006; Yew & Goh, 2016), brainstorming techniques (e.g., SCAMPER; Eberle, 1997), or engaging in metacognitive conversations (Sawyer, 2012). Although there are numerous strategies available, there is limited empirical information available to gifted education professionals regarding strategies they can use and how to construct learning environments (both physically and pedagogically) to best facilitate developing creative potential in classroom contexts.

Creative environments

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) asserted that the process of turning creative potential into creative contributions is highly influenced by the environment; and, therefore, creativity can be developed in anyone given the right environmental conditions. Hennessey (2015) proposed the Classroom System Model, which accounts for the influence of the environment and classroom culture on individual differences in students’ task motivation, domain expertise, and engagement with the creative process (see also Amabile, 1996). If the aim of gifted education is to “transform potential talent during youth into outstanding performance and innovation in adulthood” (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 6), then classroom environments need to provide opportunities for gifted students to learn domain-specific creative processes in various talent domains. Educators play a large role in developing classroom environments and cultures (i.e., little-c culture; Hennessey, 2015) to support the cultivation of talent and creative production for high-ability learners. However, in doing so, educators must acknowledge the interplay between various developmental systems that help shape these environments and how particular systems (i.e., classrooms, schools, school districts) influence the creative process (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Systems to support creativity and talent development

Systemic thinking assumes that reality can be explained best by interconnected components that interact within an environment (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). Systems approaches (e.g., Hennessey, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011) can be applied to the interaction of elements underlying the development of creativity and talent. Hennessey (2015) described the influence of Big-C culture (i.e., values, norms, power distance, social cognition, psychology of self) on little-c culture (i.e., classroom or workplace culture) and the way both cultures affect individual differences in motivation to master domain-specific knowledge and engage in the creative process. Together, the Talent Development Framework and the Classroom System Model comprise a systematic perspective that provides a useful lens to examine the influence of environments on the development of creativity in gifted and talented classrooms and considerations for educational leaders who are implementing creative pedagogy within their schools (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey, 2015; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017).

Coding

We conducted independent parallel pattern coding (Saldaña, 2016) focused on key terminology in the research questions (e.g., gifted classroom environments, creative processes, research-based methods) and six a priori codes developed during the article screening process, including creative process stages (Sawyer, 2012), creative process skills, physical environments, performance feedback, product feedback, and classroom culture (Ryan & Bernard, 2003; see Table 2) to evaluate the full text of each article. We conducted further open coding to explore beyond the a priori codes and connect the elements of the theoretical framework to the variation in classroom environments described in the articles. Initial descriptive open codes were determined based on the three articles read by all three researchers. We independently coded the three articles and then met to negotiate agreement on the emergent codes (Campbell et al., 2013). These negotiated emergent codes were used for the remainder of the articles. When other emergent codes were identified in the data, they were discussed, compared with existing codes, and added or collapsed into existing codes (Clarke et al., 2017; Thomas, 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Categories, Themes, and Codes.

Categories	Themes	Codes
		A priori	Emergent
Integrating creative process skills	Finding authentic problems can create meaningful learning. Acquiring knowledge is necessary for creative ideation and production. Incubation gives students time to synthesize learning. The process of generating and combining ideas is recursive. Selecting the best ideas requires reflection. Feedback shapes future creative endeavors.	creative process stages creative process skills performance feedback product feedback	authentic problems established parameters open-ended problems interest-driven domain-specific problem-specific exploration teacher-facilitated student-directed time to think time to work inquiry connections product share authentic audience dialogue with peers dialogue with teacher
Adaptive environments	Flexible physical/digital environments allow for student-centered exploration. Access to resources is necessary for creative production.	physical environments	digital environments tangible materials digital resources flexibility
Reflective classroom culture	Teachers can adapt to student needs by providing appropriate levels of challenge. Intentional system-building can encourage engagement in the creative process. Teacher-guided psychosocial skills coaching helps students navigate the creative process.	classroom culture	active engagement choice of product metacognition adapt to student needs teacher intentionality vary teacher involvement motivation encourage independence reflection process feedback
Challenges to implementation	Domain-specific curriculum often has to be adapted. Following curriculum standards and preparing for testing are nonnegotiable requirements in many schools. Time constraints limit opportunities for creativity.		adapt curriculumadapt materialsstate standardsstandardized testingdifferentiationappropriate challengelack of time

Developing categories and themes

After independently coding all articles, we met to discuss repetition within articles, identify similarities between articles, and negotiate agreement on the assignment and naming of individual codes and categories (Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Saldaña, 2016). Descriptive information for each article (e.g., research design, creative process stages, key findings), final codes, and potential categories and themes were organized in an online cloud-based matrix (i.e., AirTable). The final categories included (a) integrating creative process skills, (b) adaptive environments, (c) reflective classroom cultures, and (d) challenges to implementation. Once categories were established, we examined article excerpts and data memos. We independently drafted potential themes within each category and then met to negotiate discrepancies until a consensus was achieved. The categories and themes were collaboratively reviewed, defined, and named within the context of the research questions (Clarke et al., 2017; Thomas, 2006).

Authentic problem finding

The first theme about integrating creative process skills is that finding authentic problems can create meaningful learning. To begin the creative process in the classroom environment, gifted students need opportunities to find authentic problems and pursue passions within a domain of interest or skill (Renzulli, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011). Options in the articles ranged from open-ended problems and interest-based investigations (Westberg & Leppien, 2018) to community activism (Beason-Manes, 2018) and design-focused problem-solving (Senne et al., 2016; Shively et al., 2018; Thompson, 2017). Westberg and Leppien (2018) discussed the importance of independent “investigations of real problems and solutions” (p. 13), and Coxon (2012) suggested that “children be provided with problems” that “require them to decide what evidence is relevant and to offer their own interpretations of what the evidence means” (p. 281). These learning experiences used interest-based inquiry to examine real-life issues that students wanted to solve in domains of interest (e.g., science, math, community activism; Firmender et al., 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Jo & Ku, 2011; Thompson, 2017) that were relevant to their current situations in school (e.g., bullying; Groman, 2019). The literature suggested that teachers harness student interest in local or global problems (e.g., environmental concerns, Beason-Manes, 2018; accessibility, Schroth & Helfer, 2017). Of the strategies discussed for problem finding, collaboration with peers (Hagge, 2017), a focus on the vocabulary and thinking practices of professionals in a domain (Gavin & Casa, 2013), and making interdisciplinary connections (Senne et al., 2016) were suggested to engage high-ability learners in relevant, meaningful, autonomous learning experiences.

Acquiring knowledge and gathering information

The second theme related to integrating creative process skills is that acquiring knowledge is necessary for creative ideation and production. To move forward in the creative process and begin generating ideas, students must have background knowledge in the domain. Educators in the articles provided opportunities for gifted students to build an initial knowledge base by delivering lectures or providing textbook chapters (Chandra Handa, 2015; Coxon, 2012; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Groman, 2019; Miller, 2012). However, educators better supported the creative process when they built systems that prepared gifted students to acquire domain knowledge from other sources, such as conversations with experts (Fletcher, 2011; Senne et al., 2016; Shively et al., 2018; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) and more knowledgeable peers (Hagge, 2017), from real-time data collection (Jo & Ku, 2011), or from vetted internet sources. Classroom environments that encouraged high-ability students to gather knowledge as part of the creative process were student-driven and educators provided flexible guidance and opportunities for research rather than disseminating knowledge through lectures (Chandra Handa, 2015; Groman, 2019; Thompson, 2017).

Providing time to synthesize learning

The third theme about integrating creative process skills is that incubation gives students time to synthesize learning. Firmender et al. (2017) described incubation as a “stage of rest, wherein one walks away from the problem for a while to allow the brain to continue working on the problem subconsciously” (p. 207). Hines et al. (2019) and Shively et al. (2018) contended that educators often overlook the need for incubation in the creative process. Hines et al. (2019) advocated for the use of Torrance and Safter’s (1990) Incubation Model of Teaching to incorporate more opportunities for gifted students to seek “connections between content and ideas, or events from past experiences, present problems, and future images” (p. 39) beyond the classroom. Beyond just providing time for ideas to incubate, authors advocated for explicitly teaching students to defer judgment when they consider an idea (Beason-Manes, 2018; Firmender et al., 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Groman, 2019). Deferring judgment allowed students to record and carefully consider ideas before discarding them (Thompson, 2017) and required teachers to provide “adequate time” instead of asking students to complete tasks “on-demand” or on a “preset schedule” (Firmender et al., 2017, pp. 207–208). In Jo and Ku’s (2011) investigation of how teachers used real-time data in project-based learning tasks for gifted students, teachers posted sample student solutions for 1 week while students continued to work, which provided more time for students to look at diverse solutions as they worked toward uniquely solving the problem. Shively et al. (2018) also noted the importance of time and asserted that incubation is a crucial factor in critical and creative thinking, stating that “if students need to return to a stage or develop new ideas, they may need more time” (p. 152).

Generating and combining ideas

The fourth theme about integrating creative process skills is that the process of generating and combining ideas is recursive. In other words, after brainstorming an initial set of ideas, some of those ideas may need to be combined, and as the creative process evolves, it may be necessary to generate additional ideas. Educators used creative and divergent thinking strategies to encourage fluency in idea generation (Chan & Yuen, 2015; Chandra Handa, 2015). Some common strategies used for generating ideas with gifted and talented students were brainstorming, strategic questioning by the teacher, and guided questioning with peers (Gavin & Casa, 2013). For example, Firmender et al. (2017) advocated for developing mathematical creativity through supportive classroom communities and environmental structures that give ample opportunities for students to generate ideas, pose questions, and collaboratively develop arguments. Similarly, Gavin and Casa (2013) encouraged educators to have students engage in thinking practices similar to mathematicians in the field by coming up with “new outside of the box ideas to try” (p. 144) and to foster student enjoyment of finding new approaches to solve problems. For all domains, Shively et al. (2018) recommended educators use techniques such as “reverse brainstorming, attribute listing, and SCAMPER (i.e., an acronym of question prompts to guide idea generation; Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Minimize/Maximize, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse/Rearrange)” (p. 154) and other strategies to encourage critical and analogical thinking with gifted students.

Selecting the best ideas

The fifth theme related to integrating creative process skills is that selecting the best ideas requires reflection. After students generated ideas, they engaged in reflection and evaluation to identify and select ideas to consider when creating products or performances (Chandra Handa, 2015; Senne et al., 2016). Students had to reflect on their understanding of the topic and the cultural context to evaluate the originality and usefulness of their ideas and determine which ideas they should continue processing. For example, Senne et al. (2016) described a wayfinding task that required gifted students to evaluate their environment and find ways to improve how people moved from place to place without getting lost. Students spent an extensive amount of time troubleshooting potential solutions and weeding out those that did not work. Authors recommend that educators build supportive environments in which high-ability students feel comfortable interacting with their ideas and with others while they reflect upon and evaluate their end goal (e.g., solution, product; Chandra Handa, 2015; Hébert et al., 2014; Renzulli, 2012; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) before moving forward with the best ideas.

Product and performance feedback

The sixth theme related to the integration of creative process skills is that feedback shapes future creative endeavors. Authors in the articles encouraged teachers of gifted and talented students to allow class time for students to share their work, either formally to an audience (e.g., professionals in the domain; Beason-Manes, 2018; Renzulli, 2012; Senne et al., 2016; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) or informally to the class (Fletcher, 2011; Hébert et al., 2014; Jo & Ku, 2011). To progress toward a quality final product and competence in the domain, talented students in gifted classrooms engaged in ongoing dialogue with their teacher (Gavin & Casa, 2013; Jo & Ku, 2011) and with peers (Hébert et al., 2014; Shively et al., 2018). Building school-based mentoring relationships between high-ability students and professionals (e.g., independent study courses, projects with mentors; Beason-Manes, 2018; Fletcher, 2011; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Schroth & Helfer, 2017; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) was one suggestion for providing learners with valuable domain-specific feedback, so they could begin to understand the nuances of creative thought and production within the field.

Flexible physical and digital environments

The first theme related to adaptive environments is that flexible physical and digital environments allow for student-centered exploration. The authors of several articles described the physical classroom environment as space to work. For instance, students should have flexible spaces to work and problem-solve in the “real, dimensional world outside of school” (Beason-Manes, 2018, p. 20). Shively et al. (2018) and other authors (e.g., Senne et al., 2016; Thompson, 2017) encouraged teachers to ensure that students have space to design (e.g., makerspaces); however, there was limited instruction for educators on how to construct these physical spaces. Alternatively, Beason-Manes (2018) provided an online classroom environment for high-ability students to use digital spaces to collaborate in the creative process. Students in gifted and talented classes also explored outside environments, including natural spaces and exterior architecture, to work on specific problems (Schroth & Helfer, 2017; Senne et al., 2016; Thompson, 2017). Senne et al. (2016) recommended teachers routinely ask, “Is the space generous enough for the activities to take place?” before embarking on a lesson. Although physical space is not unique to learning environments for gifted and talented students, the scope and scale of the interest-driven investigations talented students may choose to take on makes this element of the microenvironment (e.g., individual differences in class composition) a practical consideration that does need to be addressed.

Access to resources

The second theme related to adaptive environments is that access to resources is necessary for creative production. To participate in the gifted classroom activities described in the articles, high-ability students needed access to a variety of resources, both tangible and digital, to support research, exploration, collaboration, and production, including computers and other devices that connect to the internet (Beason-Manes, 2018; Coxon, 2012; Firmender et al., 2017; Fletcher, 2011; Groman, 2019; Hagge, 2017; Hébert et al., 2014; Jo & Ku, 2011; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Senne et al., 2016; Thompson, 2017; Wu et al., 2019), access to experts and mentors (Beason-Manes, 2018; Fletcher, 2011; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Schroth & Helfer, 2017; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018), software programs (Coxon, 2012; Hagge, 2017), and tangible materials, such as books, art supplies, or musical instruments (Groman, 2019; Scott, 2011). For example, gifted classrooms focused on STEM require access to specific resources commonly found within STEM professions (e.g., devices for coding, construction materials, and equipment for scientific experiments). Across the articles, authors suggested that gifted education teachers in the curriculum planning stage assess the resources their high-ability students will need for investigations that use creative process skills to determine if they have access to those materials or if they need to acquire them. Notably absent from the literature in this review was information on how to access resources or funding to obtain resources.

Adapt to student needs and provide appropriate challenge

The first theme about reflective classroom culture is that teachers can adapt to student needs by providing appropriate levels of challenge. Within the gifted classrooms in the articles, students’ ability levels varied widely. The authors suggested having systems in place to ensure that each student is challenged (Hines et al., 2019; Subotnik, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018; Wu et al., 2019). Differentiation required gifted education teachers to understand their high-ability students’ strengths and to make plans to engage those strengths and interests in investigations using the creative process to facilitate new learning (e.g., Wu et al., 2019). Authors argued that providing appropriately challenging opportunities and instruction aligned with student abilities supports student motivation to be creative (Chan & Yuen, 2015; Fletcher, 2011; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Renzulli, 2012; Renzulli & Reis, 2012), which aligns with research on developing talent (e.g., Talent Search Model; Stanley, 1976; Subotnik et al., 2011). Classroom structures that allowed high-ability students to build psychosocial skills and move through appropriately challenging instructional content (e.g., required curriculum, state standards, and interest-based investigations) flexibly at their own pace opened time to engage in more creative endeavors (Firmender et al., 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) and supported creative production (Hébert et al., 2014; Subotnik, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011).

Intentional system-building that encourages the creative process

The second theme related to reflective classroom culture is that intentional system-building can encourage engagement in the creative process. Miller (2012) described the intersection of domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills, and task motivation as interactions that “are influenced by intentional and unintentional environmental factors” (p. 99; see also Amabile, 1996). Similarly, Subotnik et al. (2011) contended that systems must be deliberately constructed to help talented students move from domain knowledge to domain competence as they further develop their talent. Throughout the articles, authors described how teachers engaged in system-building and intentionally planned for creativity within existing structures both in and outside their gifted and talented classrooms (Beason-Manes, 2018; Chandra Handa, 2015; Thompson, 2017). Educators made decisions about their level of involvement in the classroom (Fletcher, 2011; Renzulli, 2012; Scott, 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) to monitor and adapt to student needs (Senne et al., 2016; Shively et al., 2018; Subotnik, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018). Educators incorporated structures outside their classrooms by encouraging community involvement through expert partnerships and mentorships (Chandra Handa, 2015; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) and by providing students with opportunities for activism within the community (Beason-Manes, 2018; Schroth & Helfer, 2017). Educators also sought to understand student backgrounds, incorporated relationship building through teacher and peer feedback (Gavin & Casa, 2013), and provided opportunities for student reflection and collaboration (Beason-Manes, 2018; Chandra Handa, 2015; Firmender et al., 2017; Hagge, 2017; Hébert et al., 2014; Jo & Ku, 2011; Shively et al., 2018; Thompson, 2017).

Coaching psychosocial skills

The third theme associated with reflective classroom culture is that teacher-guided psychosocial skills coaching helps students navigate the creative process. Subotnik et al. (2011) argued that strength in psychosocial skills is necessary for gifted students to progress from domain competence to domain expertise and to reach eminence or professional creative productivity. These psychosocial skills must be “actively and deliberately cultivated via programming, counseling, and mentoring of students” (Subotnik, 2015, p. 46). Subotnik (2015) urged educators and parents to intentionally cultivate gifted students’ psychosocial skills by rewarding effort, teaching that mistakes are learning opportunities, and encouraging risk-taking, self-confidence, and persistence through “high stress, high performance activities” (p. 47).

Domain-specific curriculum

The first theme related to challenges to implementation is that domain-specific curriculum often has to be adapted. The articles highlighted creative processes and implementation strategies for gifted classrooms in domains that included math (Firmender et al., 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Sak, 2013), science (Jo & Ku, 2011; Schroth & Helfer, 2017; Thompson, 2017), applied math and science (Senne et al., 2016), computer programming (Coxon, 2012; Hagge, 2017), writing (Firmender et al., 2017; Groman, 2019; Kettler & Bower, 2017), music (Scott, 2011), and art (Groman, 2019). Each of these subject areas required very different instructional approaches, so the domain-general creative process strategies suggested by several articles (Chandra Handa, 2015; Shively et al., 2018; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) would have to be adapted to fit specific course requirements in other contexts and to differentiate for individual learners. The gifted education teachers who designed learning experiences using real-world, domain-specific reading and instructional materials had to adapt them and learn some of the nuances of professional practice in a domain. For example, teachers and gifted students alike needed help interpreting real-time scientific data (Jo & Ku, 2011) and drawing and reading architectural blueprints (Senne et al., 2016).

Standards and testing

The second theme related to challenges to implementation is that following curriculum standards and preparing for testing are nonnegotiable requirements in many schools. Teachers and learners in gifted and advanced academic classrooms experienced conflicts related to grade-level standards, student performance on standardized tests, and campus-level expectations for teachers, including curricular requirements (e.g., scope and sequence documents) laid out by school leaders (e.g., Big-C culture influences little-c culture; Hennessey, 2015). Gifted classroom teachers felt pressure from observers (e.g., administrators, parents) to justify their efforts to prepare their high-ability students for accountability measures, such as high-stakes standardized tests, which took time away from creative pursuits and independent investigations (Chan & Yuen, 2015; Coxon, 2012; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Hines et al., 2019; Sak, 2013; Senne et al., 2016; Thompson, 2017; Westberg & Leppien, 2018). Some authors (e.g., Coxon, 2012) described enrichment activities that could be started in the gifted classroom and extended to out-of-class clubs and competitions. Other authors recommended a focus on deep conceptual understanding of content (e.g., Gavin & Casa, 2013; Thompson, 2017) and explicit instruction about creativity in a domain (e.g., Sak, 2013) to work within the required curriculum and tested standards and continue to prepare high-ability students to move from ability to competence and expertise. Yet, other authors suggested using a system of diagnostic and ongoing formative assessments to gauge student mastery and to compact the curriculum or allow gifted and talented students to move flexibly through content they have already mastered (Hines et al., 2019; Westberg & Leppien, 2018).

Time constraints

The third theme about challenges to implementation was that time constraints limit opportunities for creativity. Teachers in the articles had to be selective about how to spend their limited class time (Fletcher, 2011; Hagge, 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Sak, 2013; Senne et al., 2016). The recommendations for gifted and talented curriculum adaptations in these articles included diagnostic testing and ongoing formative assessments (e.g., Hines et al., 2019) to determine whether high-ability students in the course had mastered content slated for the current grade level in an earlier grade, including standardized test content designed to evaluate proficiency on basic skills. These classroom systems, including intentional curriculum compacting (e.g., Fletcher, 2011), allowed students to move flexibly through the content and freed up time for high-ability students to engage in independent investigations using the creative process.

Providing time for strengths-based, interest-driven investigations

Gifted education professionals need to identify student strengths and interests to better align advanced learning opportunities with the development of talent (Fletcher, 2011; Lee et al., 2020; Subotnik, 2015). In the classroom, finding a problem that resonates with a high-ability student’s interests and strengths and that relates to the broader culture (e.g., Big-C culture) was related to motivation to engage in the creative process (Beason-Manes, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey, 2015; Westberg & Leppien, 2018). Specific strategies for problem finding included learning the terminology of the discipline (Gavin & Casa, 2013) and bringing in information from the professional domain to make connections (Sawyer, 2012; Senne et al., 2016). As students progress through the creative process, it is critical for teachers to monitor whether or not students have relevant and accurate background information before they begin synthesizing ideas into products (Chandra Handa, 2015; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2016; Sawyer, 2012). Once a student has a sufficient amount of background knowledge, classrooms can be organized to foster an encouraging environment for students to explore their own research interests and discover problems they want to solve that are similar to those that professionals in the field pursue (Hennessey, 2015; Plucker et al., 2004; Renzulli, 2012; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Sawyer, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011; Thompson, 2017; Wu et al., 2019).

Sawyer (2012) incorporated incubation, or a waiting period to internalize new learning, as part of the creative process because he believes it is “an overlooked component of the creative thinking process” (p. 47). Due to time constraints, educators often overlook the need to incorporate time for incubating ideas (Hines et al., 2019; Shively et al., 2018). Classrooms that support the creative process need to be intentional about teaching students to defer judgment when generating ideas and providing adequate time to do so (Gavin & Casa, 2013; Groman, 2019). The literature suggests that providing more time and deferring judgment are not domain-specific phenomena (Sawyer, 2012); however, being able to provide this extra time within existing structures will be largely dependent upon individual classrooms (i.e., values and norms) and school cultures (Hennessey, 2015).

Encouraging creative productivity with feedback

Gifted education scholars focus on creativity through the lens of (a) productivity theory (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015; Renzulli, 1986; Sawyer, 2012; Simonton, 2017; Tannenbaum, 1983), which is the assumption that fluency of ideas and the strategic selection of ideas leads to greater creative production, and (b) on achieving “the highest possible levels of creative performance or productivity” (Subotnik et al., 2011, p. 4). Generating ideas can require small moments of insight over time as a result of experiences and knowledge acquired within a domain (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2017; Gavin & Casa, 2013; Sawyer, 2012). Combining techniques or modes of inquiry from other disciplines within the classroom can provide ways for gifted students to see patterns across disciplines and generate additional ideas (Hagge, 2017; Sawyer, 2012; Shively et al., 2018). This aligns with Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) ideas that little-c creativity not only requires independent thinking but also relies on examining different perspectives to generate ideas (e.g., Subotnik et al., 2011). Within classrooms, students hold varying cultural perspectives, so it is vital to have the opportunity to consider other values, norms, and social cognitions (e.g., attitudes, perceptions of behavior) as they engage in the creative process (Hennessey, 2015).

To select the best ideas in a domain—those that are innovative and have potential—students must engage with the topic (e.g., apply domain-specific knowledge) and their immediate and larger environments (e.g., little-c culture, Big-C culture; Chandra Handa, 2015; Hennessey, 2015; Plucker et al., 2004; Sawyer, 2012; Senne et al., 2016). It is crucial that those who evaluate products have knowledge of the domain (Sawyer, 2012) and the creator’s environment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey, 2015). Product evaluation should be undertaken with the goal of engaging high-ability students in the constant process of critical reflection and self-evaluation (Hagge, 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Sawyer, 2012). For example, mentorship between high-ability students and professionals (Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2011) can help high-ability learners through feedback that acknowledges the systems (e.g., gatekeepers; Sternberg, 2018; Big-C culture; Hennessey, 2015) that guide innovation in the domain (Kettler & Puryear, 2016; Knotek & Babinski, 2018; Meyer et al., 2021; Subotnik et al., 2019). Expertise theorists contend that knowledgeable coaching, deliberate practice, and growth-focused feedback are the keys to progressing in a talent domain and sustaining the motivation required to reach eminence (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). In classroom settings, it is customary to evaluate and score student work, so creative ideas can be assessed much easier if they result in a product (e.g., performances, presentations, writing). The feedback high-ability students receive about their products and performances can shape how, and even if, they engage in future creative endeavors in and out of the classroom (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2017; Dai, 2017). Classroom systems that support open dialogue (i.e., little-c culture; Hennessey, 2015) and critical reflection are vital to the continued development of creativity within talent domains and whether individuals move from ability to competence and competence to expertise (Dai, 2017; Firmender et al., 2017; Fletcher, 2011; Hébert et al., 2014; Shively et al., 2018; Subotnik, 2015; Subotnik et al., 2011).

Building a schoolwide culture for creativity

Hennessey (2015) observed that “researchers in one subarea [of creativity] seemed entirely unaware of advances in another” (p. 199), which highlights the need to synthesize research from gifted education, creativity, and talent development with other disciplines, such as educational leadership. Some articles did discuss how to create classroom environments (e.g., little-c culture) to develop ability into competence and competence into expertise, how to differentiate learning within standard-based instruction, and how to develop reflective cultures to support psychosocial skills for the creative process (e.g., creative thinking skills, persistence, and increase motivation). It was clear from the practitioner articles in the review that these elements of creative pedagogy (Kettler et al., 2018; Lamb, 2020) and little-c culture (Hennessey, 2015) in classrooms for high-ability were important for fostering environments conducive to the use of creative process skills, but the obstacles associated with the norms and values held by school organizations and state systems were not fully addressed. Future research should continue to examine how classroom environments can support the creative process through a systems approach with a broader focus on external systems (e.g., funding, policies, standards, and school systems) and the role of educational leadership in integrating creativity into schools. For instance, STEM-focused programs that use problem-based learning and design processes have been widely implemented within gifted programs (e.g., Shively et al., 2018). Despite the fact that nearly one third of the articles discussed STEM disciplines (n = 9), there was little guidance on larger issues related to how to construct physical spaces, access classroom resources, train educators, or address the identification of traditionally underrepresented students in gifted education programs focused on STEM talent development. More research is needed to focus on classroom connections to school culture (e.g., Big-C culture to little-c culture), as well as a greater focus on the broader systems that govern schools and classrooms. These systems (e.g., state education agencies, local school boards) can intentionally and equitably support the integration of creative process skills within gifted classroom environments across disciplines (Hennessey, 2015; LaBanca et al., 2014).

Moving from competence to expertise

Classroom systems that allow students to flexibly advance through the content must be intentionally created and maintained to preserve students’ intrinsic motivation to learn advanced content at an accelerated pace (Hennessey, 2015) and to move from competence to expertise in a domain (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2018; Subotnik et al., 2011). Acquiring background knowledge related to the domain is a precursor to developing competence (Hagge, 2017; Renzulli, 2012; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Senne et al., 2016; Subotnik et al., 2011). However, developing expertise can take a substantial amount of consistent effort (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). Although most gifted education teachers do not have the opportunity to work with their high-ability students for the length of time it takes to reach eminence in a domain, they can help students make progress in the classroom time they do have. LaBanca et al. (2014) described a high school leadership academy that focuses on workforce preparation using blended learning (e.g., digital and experiential learning) as part of a grant to “facilitate desegregation” and comply with the Connecticut State Supreme Court ruling in Sheff v. O’Neill (p. 23). The school curriculum is based on technology-enhanced challenge projects, similar to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 2012). Participation in these projects has led to notable academic gains for students who previously did not have opportunities to learn in enriched educational settings. However, the success of this program requires coordinated efforts by school leaders and teachers, as well as systems that promote creative thinking and professional quality products (Dai, 2017; Hennessey, 2015). The articles in this review emphasize that teachers who are well-versed in their subject matter can apply the principles of deliberate practice, provide reflective feedback, and help high-ability students develop the psychosocial skills necessary for the long road toward expertise. In addition, these approaches have the potential to engage students and shrink opportunity gaps, achievement gaps, and excellence gaps (LaBanca et al., 2014; Plucker & Peters, 2016).

Designing environments for collaboration

Classroom structures that support mastery-learning and acceleration (e.g., conferencing, structured reflection) require a collaborative classroom culture that understands and willingly engages in the creative process together (Hennessey, 2015). In today’s context, this includes physical and digital environments where educators actively build classroom communities to encourage the creative process (Beason-Manes, 2018; Hagge, 2017). For instance, physical environments should change based on student and teacher needs (i.e., multiple configurations inside or outside the classroom). This flexibility gives high-ability learners in the midst of guided and independent investigation one more layer of support for creative risk-taking (Hennessey, 2015). Specifically, makerspaces in a physical classroom can provide tangible materials and opportunities to build community through cooperative product manufacturing, assembly, and troubleshooting among groups of high-ability students (Groman, 2019). In digital environments, online communities can provide a virtual space to find resources, publish products, receive feedback and collaborate with peers, mentors, or experts across the globe. The development of these classroom structures can help scaffold learning and encourage both mastery and creativity. However, the resources required for creative ideation and production—whether physical or virtual—highlight issues of equity and access because the systems (e.g., local education agencies, school leadership) that allocate these resources (e.g., physical space, supplies, and digital resources) to classroom teachers vary widely (Hamilton et al., 2018; Hennessey, 2015).

Cultivating little-c culture

The environment that educators cultivate within the larger Big-C culture (i.e., norms, values, power distance, social cognition, and psychology of self) to construct the little-c culture of their gifted classrooms influences whether high-ability students are able to reflect on their failures and successes and develop the psychosocial skills necessary to engage in the creative process and develop their talents (Hennessey, 2015; Lamb, 2020; Subotnik et al., 2011). Of the psychosocial skills “essential to continued involvement in any domain” (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2019, p. 2), Rinn and Crutchfield (2020) argued that schools should focus on developing the malleable and reciprocal skills of motivation and self-concept in gifted students. As motivation is the factor that distinguishes gifted individuals who move past domain competence and domain expertise to become eminent and creatively productive (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2015), the little-c classroom culture that impacts the motivational orientation of students is an essential element for creative and talent development. Educators must understand that the environmental factors that influence self-concept, motivation, and creative behavior are both intentional and unintentional (Miller, 2012). To move to a more collaborative atmosphere that empowers talented students to take part in the creative process, educators must acknowledge that power dynamics (e.g., teacher–student relationships, district-school dynamics) and other environmental factors (e.g., student familial backgrounds, school funding, outside contexts) affect the gifted classroom environment (Hennessey, 2015; Plucker et al., 2004).

Supporting psychosocial skill building

Teachers of high-ability students must intentionally plan for differentiation and address individual differences to create a classroom culture (e.g., little-c) that reduces competition and unrealistic expectations so that intrinsic motivation can “flourish” (Hennessey, 2015, p. 203). Teachers can facilitate intentional, supportive environments by building a system that is responsive to student needs and provides appropriate challenges (Senne et al., 2016; Shively et al., 2018; Subotnik et al., 2011; Westberg & Leppien, 2018), while encouraging students as they adapt to interactions with others and to their own successes and failures (Beason-Manes, 2018; Chandra Handa, 2015; Coxon, 2012; Fletcher, 2011; Hébert et al., 2014; Jo & Ku, 2011; Shively et al., 2018; Thompson, 2017). Authentic problem finding and solving experiences can serve as meaningful and appropriately challenging experiences for high-ability students (Fletcher, 2011; Renzulli & Reis, 2012; Westberg & Leppien, 2018) and provide an opportunity for perspective-taking, which helps students improve relationship-building skills, think flexibly, and cope with uncertainty (Beason-Manes, 2018; Chandra Handa, 2015; Hagge, 2017; Schroth & Helfer, 2017). Educators can also reinforce motivation by planning interest-focused learning (Renzulli, 2012), increase self-regulatory skills (Callan et al., 2021; Ridgley, 2019) by designing student-directed learning (Hagge, 2017; Hines et al., 2019) and providing timely and specific feedback (Firmender et al., 2017; Fletcher, 2011; Shively et al., 2018), and they can increase self-concept and resilience by organizing opportunities for risk-taking and experiencing failure without adverse consequences (Coxon, 2012; Fletcher, 2011; Hébert et al., 2014; Schlechty, 2011).