Creativity, Intelligence, Memory, and Learning in Academic Achievement

Introduction

One of the more mysterious aspects of the human condition concerns how some people are enormously creative throughout their lives while others appear mired in a pattern that precludes any creative thought. In many cases, high levels of creativity are also characterized by correspondingly high levels of intelligence, memory, and learning ability. While more research in this area is needed, a growing body of evidence indicates that creativity, intelligence, memory, and learning are interrelated. To determine how, with specificity, this paper provides an exploration of the interrelations among these ideas and predicts how they can best be harnessed to enhance student outcomes. A summary of the research and important findings concerning creativity, intelligence, memory, and learning are presented in the conclusion.

Analyzing the Interrelation of Creativity, Intelligence, Memory, and Learning

At first blush, the interrelation between creativity, intelligence, memory, and learning appears to be intuitive. After all, memory and learning are clearly linked with intelligence, and most laypersons agree that highly intelligent people are the most creative. For instance, according to DeLellis (1999), "Many people think that creative people are born, not made" (p. 48). It is important to note, though, that conceptualizations of what it means to be creative have changed in fundamental ways over the past several decades. In this regard, Montuori and Donnelly (2013) report that, "Indeed, creativity is increasingly viewed as an avenue for exploring the adaptive responses needed in this transitional period, from individuals, communities and organizations to educational institutions, governments and social systems" (p. 58).

In fact, creativity has even become a buzzword among business practitioners seeking ways to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive globalized marketplace, and there is a growing recognition that virtually anyone can be creative under the appropriate circumstances. For example, Galagan (2009) points out that, "Once thought to be a favored and fevered state known only to artists and Einsteins, creativity today is regarded as a practical workplace tool [and] a way of using the mind to improve ideas" (p. 24).

Similarly, although many laypersons conceptualize intelligence in terms of a single score, most authorities agree that it is difficult — if not impossible — to accurately describe an individual's intelligence quotient (IQ) using the single number that many such tests provide (Bouchard, 2014). According to Miller (2013), "Uncovering the neural networks involved in intelligence has proved difficult because, unlike, say, memory or emotions, there isn't even a consensus as to what constitutes intelligence in the first place" (para. 3). Moreover, it remains unclear to what extent, if any, the different types of intelligence are related. Miller adds that, "It is widely accepted that there are different types of intelligence — analytic, linguistic, emotional, to name a few — but psychologists and neuroscientists disagree over whether these intelligences are linked or whether they exist independently from one another" (2013, para. 4).

Psychologist Hans Eysenck studied the biological basis of intelligence extensively and developed a taxonomy of intelligence that exists along a continuum ranging from genetic to social intelligence (Li, 1999). In his earlier research, Eysenck attempted to differentiate intelligence type (A) from intelligence type (B). According to Li (1999), "Intelligence (A) stands for basic abilities, such as learning capacity, memory, reasoning, problem-solving abilities, and so on. It is a set of 'pure abilities' inherent in humans" (p. 53).

By contrast, intelligence type (B) represents the actual observed level of cognitive performance (Li, 1999). In sum, intelligence type (B) is the widely accepted view of intelligence, which subsumes intelligence type (A); however, intelligence type (B) is affected by variables including personality, education, socioeconomic status, and other situational life factors (Li, 1999). Subsequent research that built on Eysenck's original studies added intelligence type (C), which represents an individual's IQ test results (Li, 1999). The combination of these three intelligence types provides a more reliable indicator of an individual's intelligence than a single IQ test score alone.

It is important to note that even these conceptualizations have changed significantly over the past century. In the past, highly intelligent people may have been considered those with excellent memories who could, say, recall all 50 states and their capitals or other facts. However, this information is now readily available online, making the memory aspect of intelligence less definitionally relevant than it once was. Even Einstein conceded that "the true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination" (cited in Miller, 2011, para. 1). Likewise, an individual's learning ability may be largely innately determined, but it can also be improved with practice (McDrury & Alterio, 2003). In fact, with proper instruction, young people can become masterful learners (McDrury & Alterio, 2003).

Taken together, it is reasonable to suggest that there is an inextricable but ill-defined interrelation between creativity, intelligence, memory, and learning, and that this interrelation can be exploited to enhance student learning outcomes, as discussed below.

Conclusion

The research showed that there is an interrelation between creativity, intelligence, memory, and learning, but the precise function of this interrelation in academic settings varies from individual to individual. Creativity and intelligence in particular were shown to be elusive qualities that defy easy definition or quantification, yet most authorities agree that higher levels of intelligence can translate into higher levels of creativity. Similarly, the interrelation between memory and learning is well established, but even here views have been altered in fundamental ways in recent years.

Certainly, there is still a need for rote memory as part of the educational process. Young people need to know their multiplication tables and natural science to understand how the world around them works, but this need has diminished in the wake of the information revolution, where facts and figures are instantaneously available to anyone with Internet access. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that savvy educators will be able to discern which students possess various levels of these four attributes in order to build on their strengths and help offset any corresponding deficits.

References

Bouchard, T. J. (2014, March 7). Genes, evolution and intelligence. Behavioral Genetics. DOI 10.1007/s10519-014-9646-x.

DeLellis, A. J. (1999, November). Tapping creativity in others. Training & Development, 45(11), 48–53.

Eyster, L. (2010, September). Encouraging creativity in the science lab: A series of activities designed to help students think outside the box. The Science Teacher, 77(6), 32.

Galagan, P. (2009, June). Creativity and work. Training & Development Journal, 43(6), 23–25.

Geist, E. & Hohn, J. (2009, Fall). Encouraging creativity in the face of administrative convenience: How our schools discourage divergent thinking. Education, 130(1), 141–144.

Li, R. (1999). A theory of conceptual intelligence: Thinking, learning, creativity, and giftedness. Westport, CT: Praeger.

McDrury, J. & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection & experience to improve learning. London: Kogan Page.

Miller, M. (2013). What is intelligence? Big Think. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/going-mental/what-is-intelligence-2.

Montuori, A. & Donnelly, G. (2013, April 1). Creativity at the opening of the 21st century. Creative Nursing, 19(2), 58–61.