Upload
buithien
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Instructional Approaches to Teaching Creativity or Creative Thinking
In my review I would like to discuss instructional approaches to teaching
creativity or creative thinking. Creativity is a broad field of study with many definitions
and interpretations. In order to narrow down my focus, I will define the terms of
creativity and how it is measured. Additionally, I will address the following questions:
Can creativity be taught? Is there a need to teach creative thinking in schools? What are
some instructional methods for teaching creativity based on existing research?
What is Creativity?
Over the years, creativity has been defined in many ways in many fields of study,
including psychology, education, art and business. These ideas and definitions have all
been similar and stem from the original work of Guilford; in 1967 he first studied the idea
of creativity as part of learning and intelligence (Fasko, 2010; Kaufman, Kaufman, &
Lichtenberger, 2011). Guilford studied creativity within the field of psychology, which
typically defines creativity as a cognitive process whereby the result is the inception of an
idea or product that is both “different, new, or innovative” and “must also be appropriate
to the task at hand” (Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2011, p. 86). Guilford also
determined that the characteristics of creativity included fluidity, flexibility, originality
and elaboration (Almeida, Prieto, Ferrando, Oliveira, & Ferrándiz, 2008). Lassig stated
that “although the construct of creativity is still debated, it is widely accepted that
creativity: results in outcomes that are both novel as well as useful, appropriate,
meaningful, or valuable.” (2013, p. 3) From the field of art, Clark and Cripps define
creativity as a transformative process of knowing, thinking, and doing to produce a new
outcome (2012, p. 114). Each discipline recognizes the complexity of creative thought,
1
and based on my readings, the most common definitions of creativity can be summarized
as, “the skill of bringing about something that is new and valuable” (Teo & Waugh,
2008). Therefore, the definition that I will subscribe to for the purpose of this review is
that creativity is the process of conceiving a product that is both new/novel and
useful/meaningful.
Additionally, based on research, there are two types of creativity that are widely
discussed, big ‘C’ and little ‘c’ creativity. Big ‘C’ creativity has been defined as genius-
level creativity (Brinkman, 2010). Big “C” creativity has been described as “a complex
set of behaviors and ideas exhibited by an individual,” (McWilliam & Dawson, 2008, p.
633) these behaviors must include the ability to generate ideas, a curious personality,
self-control and the drive to succeed, and confidence as well as a bit of luck for being in
the right place at the right time (Gautam, 2012). This type of creativity (genius level) is
equal to that of the great masters such as Mozart, DaVinci, Beethoven and Einstein. Little
‘c’ or everyday creativity, describes the ability to make a new interpretation of something
like a piece of music, a recipe, a display (Brinkman, 2010). It is widely believed that most
people possess this type of creative ability and that it can be built upon and taught
(Brinkman, 2010; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008; Robinson, 2011). The type of creativity
that I will be referring to in this paper is little ‘c’ creativity since there is very little
disagreement that it can be fostered, enhanced, or developed.
How Creativity is Measured
In order to measure creativity, many methods can be used such as personal interviews,
questionnaires, and observation, but the main instrument for pre and post-test data
collection in research studies is the TTCT, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking,
2
developed by Paul Torrance in 1974 (Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2011, p. 86).
There is some question to the reliability of the test since it is used for students ranging
from kindergarten to adulthood (Almeida, Prieto, Ferrando, Oliveira, & Ferrándiz, 2008).
The idea of studying and measuring creativity stemmed from Guilford who emphasized
“divergent production” in his work, specifically the characteristics of creativity included
fluidity (the ability to generate lots of ideas quickly in response to a stimulus), flexibility
(the ability to generate responses that are relevant to multiple), originality (new, unique
idea inception) and elaboration (the ability to expand on an idea and show detail). These
characteristics were assumed by Torrance in his theory and evaluation of creativity.
Torrance’s test was developed in the early years of studying creativity and was designed
to assess fluidity, flexibility, originality and elaboration in creative exercises. (Almeida et
al, 2008). Almeida and his colleagues found that for their population of 1550 students
ranging from ages 5-15 in Portugal and Spain, the results of their studies “showed
inconsistency of the cognitive processes (fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration)
as the main cognitive factors to define and assess creativity” (2008, p. 57). The team has
speculated that the TTCT may be more appropriate for adults rather than children, and
that the tasks may need to be more generalized to truly assess these creative factors in
children (2008). Although the TTCT is the best-known and most widely used test, it
continues to have its skeptics. Kaufman and his colleagues stated that flexibility has been
deleted from the most recent version of the test because of its similarities to fluency and
was replaced by two additional categories, abstractness of titles (the ability to synthesize
and organize the essence of the information involved, and to know what is important) and
resistance to premature closure (intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness) (2011, p.
3
86). Additionally, they noted that some believe that procedures for interpreting scores are
not supported by factor analysis and that the scores vary greatly depending on the
delivery of the instructions (Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2011). Despite the
issues with the TTCT, it has been used since its inception in 1966 and is currently still the
best option for testing creative thinking (Clapham, 1997, Kaufman, Kaufman, &
Lichtenberger, 2011, Teo &Waugh, 2008).
Can Creativity be Taught?
There are many skeptics that do not believe that big ‘C” creativity can be taught,
but many believe that little ‘c’ creativity or creative thinking can be taught and sustained
(Brinkman, 2010; Maksic & Pavlovic, 2011; Marin & Halpen, 2011; Morgan & Foster,
1999; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008). Most studies are based on improving or enhancing
aspects of little ‘c’ creativity in hopes of fostering big ‘C’ creativity (Brinkman, 2010).
According to Craft, Cremin, Hay, and Clack (2013), by utilizing creative teaching
strategies and imaginative curricula, teachers are able to help develop children’s
creativity levels. In their case study of 560 students, in two primary schools in England
know for teaching creatively, Craft and her colleagues found that creativity develops
when there is co-construction between children and real-life contexts, high value placed
on children’s ownership for learning, and high teacher expectations (2013, p. 7). In this
five-month case study, students received instruction in a creative fashion which included
a physical environment (one that allowed for a flexible use of space, materials, tools, and
technology) a pedagogical environment (one that offered a balance of freedom and
structure where students were modeled creative behaviors and attitudes, and were
encouraged to work collaboratively to meet the high expectations of the teachers) a
4
provided partnerships beyond the school (professionals within the community taught mini
lessons to the students and encouraged their involvement outside the walls of the school)
(Craft et al, 2013). Students were interviewed and observed throughout the day, then “the
interviews and observations were coded line by line and two levels of analytic blind
triangulation were undertaken by field researchers then principal investigators, increasing
trustworthiness and rigor” (Craft et al, 2013, p. 7). The results determined that creativity
can be taught if the teacher’s pedagogy became more learner sensitive and included three
main characteristics; co-construction, children’s control agency / ownership, and high
expectations in skills of creative engagement (Craft et al, 2013).
Armstrong has observed the teaching of creativity when administering
undergraduate, graduate, and executive courses where learning takes place in an
experiential learning model based on Kolb’s theory (1999). She typically administers
exercises in a group of 8 to 10 participants with the goal of allowing them to become
more aware of their own creative capabilities and how to apply their enhanced awareness
of their creative capabilities. Participants work in project-based groups to solve creative
problems. Armstrong has found that this exercise has allowed participants to be
“unfettered and imaginative” and to have a direct self-confirming experience of their own
ability to be creative (p. 176). Armstrong’s research does show that creativity can be
enhanced by instruction, but her methods for research include personal observation and
questionnaires that are interpreted by herself, so therefore her methods for assessment
may not be truly reliable or objective (Armstrong, 1999).
Jane Simister set out to show that it is possible to teach thinking skills as a subject
on its own. She created a “club” for 21year-five female students at a private school
5
(Simister, 2004). Simister’s goal was to deliver brief sessions on “brain theory, multiple
intelligences, learning styles and positive thinking attitudes, information gathering and
study skills, skills of philosophical enquiry and debate, critical thinking and decision
making, and creative thinking and the importance of risk taking and perseverance” (2004,
P. 247). The results were gathered by the session administrator as part of a master’s
project through pre and post session questionnaires, interviews and personal observations.
Although this study lacks strong statistical data, Simister discovered five specific
thinking skills emerged: curiosity, inventiveness, creative thinking, critical thinking and
argument (2004). Simister found that 18 of 20 students produced more inventive and
imaginative results post instruction; 10 students were more confident producing and
explaining their opinions via critical thinking techniques; and 8 students indicated that
they would take a more active and inquisitive approach to problem-solving. (2004, p.
251)
Given how much progress I saw in such a relatively short space of time, it
is exciting to think about the potential rewards that could be reaped if
sessions such as these were to play a larger part in the school curriculum.
(Simister, 2004, p. 252)
Is There a Need to Teach Creativity?
There are many arguments for the teaching of creative thinking to students. The
two most popular ideologies are that creative thinking helps develop the ‘whole student’
and that creativity is a highly desirable and employable skill that leads to innovation
(Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008; Robinson, 2011;
Simister, 2004). Some advocates suggest that teaching the whole student would benefit
6
all of society in the long run, so it is a noble cause, and therefore a worthwhile endeavor
(Robinson, 2011; Simister, 2004). Others propose that teaching creativity to provide
innovative thinking as a resource for business is a capitalistic motivation that could
benefit the economy and industry, and therefore has merit as well (McWilliam &
Dawson, 2008).
In Simister’s opinion, creativity allows for deeper exploration of content
knowledge, or a more active educational experience versus a passive one (2004). Others
argue that being engaged in a creative exercise allows for enhanced learning by making
the experience and content more meaningful, allowing students to build knowledge,
while keeping the student engaged, motivated, and interested (Nordstrom & Korpelainen,
2011; Rinkevich, 2011). Simister also claims that students walk away with a deeper
understanding of the content, because they learn to ask questions, search for and gather
evidence and formulate creative solutions (2004). Fasko’s interpretation of the 1981
research of Torrance suggests that improved motivation, alertness, curiosity,
concentration, and achievement are some of the benefits of creativity and thus help us to
develop the whole student (2010). Maksic and Pavlovic allege that, “creativity increases
divergent thinking, imagination, motivation and individuality” (p. 224). Others believe
that, teaching creative thinking can equip students with the ability to make sound
decisions, creatively problem solve, and utilize divergent thinking to see an issue from
multiple points of view (de Bono, 1985; Simister, 2004; Robinson, 2011).
In the opinion of some experts, creativity is essential to innovation and success
(Nordstrom & Korpelainen, 2011; Robinson, 2011). In 1991, Wise said, “Frito Lay
claims that, as a result of an extensive creativity training effort, ideas produced by its
7
employees have lead to $100 million in cost reductions over 4 years” which is a good
reason to invest in creativity and creative training (Clapham, 1997, p. 33). Robbins and
Kegley propose that innovation will be a key factor in the future success of American
Students. Schools have the opportunity to help students develop the skills to be
innovative, which include the skill to think creatively (2010). In fact, they believe that
schools are clearly in a position to help develop the innovative workforce of tomorrow by
helping students develop their creative thinking skills today. According to Kelley and
Kelley, a 2012 IBM survey of chief executives around the world, “stated that creativity is
the most sought-after trait in leaders today” (2012, p. 115). Additionally, McWilliam and
Dawson (2008) allege that the European University Association suggests complex issues
of the future will not be solved by book knowledge, but by the creative, forward-thinking
individuals who are not afraid to question the status quo. Additionally economists are
seeing creativity as an asset, according to Florida and Goodnight as cited in McWilliam
and Dawson: “A company’s most important asset is not raw materials, transportation
systems, or political influence. It’s creative capital–simply put, an arsenal of creative
thinkers whose ideas can be turned into valuable products and services” (2008, p. 124).
This means that our graduates need to be able to tap into their creative side to perform
tasks that are focused on social and interactive relationships, conquering new challenges,
providing innovative solutions, and visualizing ‘big picture’ ideas for the purpose of
commercial gain (2008). Therefore, in the opinion of Robbins and Kegley, it is the job of
our schools and universities to provide creativity training to allow our students to build
these high-demand employable skills for every content area (2010).
How to Teach Creativity
8
There are many ways that have proven successful in teaching creativity and
improving creativity scores (Barak, 2009; Clapham, 1997; Dow & Mayer, 2004; Yeh,
Yeh, & Chen, 2012). Two ideas became clear when researching ways to teach creativity.
The first is the idea that improving creativity is based on explicit instruction that teaches
thinking strategies such as divergent, lateral and convergent thinking (Barak, 2009;
Clapham, 1997). The second idea is based on teaching a step-by-step process or
methodology (Dow & Mayer, 2004; Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012). Both approaches have
had success in improving creativity scores. These strategies are not necessarily domain
specific and it is suggested that they can be transferred among content areas to produce
greater creativity across all content areas (Dow & Mayer, 2004).
Teaching Creativity by Teaching Thinking Skills
Designing instruction that increases the use of divergent thinking (developing
multiple ideas to solve a problem), lateral thinking (a way of solving problems by
rejecting traditional methods and employing unorthodox means), and self-efficacy (our
belief in our ability to succeed) seem to be key factors in improving creative thinking (de
Bono, 1985). This idea stems from using specific strategies or techniques that could be
used individually or together. De Bono has recognized and researched the need to teach
specific thinking skills and has proposed,
If we make no effort to develop the skill of creativity, it can only be a
matter of talent and personality…so I put the emphasis on the deliberate
development of creative thinking skill (for example, through lateral
thinking techniques). I then point out that some people will still be better
9
at it, just as some people are better at tennis or skiing—but most people
can reach a competence level. (1985, p. 138)
In the following paragraphs, I will compare three different studies that produced
positive results for teaching thinking skills to increase creative results.
In the first study, Barak (2009) combined procedures for fostering creative
thinking, such as brainstorming and lateral thinking, to foster innovative solutions. He
utilized a case study with pre and post-tests, records, assignments and telephone
interviews. Barak’s pilot study included 15 hours of instruction and 13 student
participants. His second study included 39 academic hours and 13 student participants
(all participants were mathematics, science and technology teachers studying towards
masters and doctoral degrees at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, no ages were
noted). Each course included a variety of math, science and technology teachers, which
allowed the courses to include solving problems in various fields and contexts (2009).
Barak stated that “it is possible to teach people creativity and inventiveness” because
based on responses to his quizzes during his study the rate of problem solving increased
from 32% to 64% in the first group of participants and from 40% to 63% in the second
group. (2009, p. 352). The conclusions support the claim that you can teach creativity
(Barak, 2009). Not only does this research show that creative thinking and problem
solving can be improved, but it also suggests that creativity is a process of thinking where
we utilize both divergent and convergent thinking to solve problems and develop
inventiveness (Barak, 2009).
Robbins and Kegley (2010) developed a domain general online creative thinking
program, with the goal of increasing creative thinking abilities through teaching divergent
10
thinking methods and increasing self-efficacy (along with showing a correlation between
these two variables). In their study, which used pre- (prior to completing the course) and
post-tests (after completing the course) as well as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking
(TTCT), the participants included fifty one students (50% sophomores, 2% freshmen, 24
% juniors, 24% seniors, 65% women, average age of 19.76) with the majority (74%)
being business majors and 26% arts and social sciences majors. (2010, p. 42). Robbins
and Kegley used a paired comparison t-test to assess differences in divergent thinking
skills and creative self-efficacy (2010, p. 44). The results of their study showed
statistically significant improvement on the three key components measured by the
TTCT: fluency (t=6.28, p>.0001), flexibility (t=5.86, p>.0001), and originality (t=6.32,
p>.0001), These components are believed to be the main factors in creativity. There was
also an increase in creative self-efficacy (t=3.98, p>.0002) as measured by the TTCT
(2010, p. 44). Robbins and Kegley’s program increased divergent thinking skills and
creative self-efficacy and may have increased creativity skills, but those results were
inconclusive (2010). There were marginally significant links, after participation in the
program, between self-efficacy and divergent thinking. This pattern hints at a potential
interactive effect of creative self-efficacy and divergent thinking, but would need further
study to determine a correlation between the two (Robbins & Kegley, 2010).
Clapham wished to compare the effectiveness of a complete creativity training
(one that includes divergent/convergent skills training and building self-efficacy) with
ideational skills training (the process of developing / generating ideas) in increasing
creative performance, with the intent of creating a creativity training program that is more
concise (1997). The goal was to examine whether both creativity training and ideational
11
skills training have a positive effect on overall creativity scores, and whether there are
differences between the effects of creativity training and ideational skills training on
overall creativity scores (1997, p. 35). Claphams study used a pre- and post-test design
with the TTCT Figural Form A and B to measure results of three types of training:
creativity training (30 minute program), ideational training (10 minute program), and the
control group (watched a brief video on word processing without any references to
creativity at all) (1997, p. 36). Participants completed their pre-test, then received the
training and completed the posttest. Participants included 108 Psychology students (93%
Freshman or Sophomores, 7% Junior or Seniors with a median age of 19) consisting of
60 women and 48 men (Clapham, 1997). A multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was conducted using the pre-training Creativity Index and Knowledge
scores as the covariates, the type of training as the independent variable, and the post-
training Creativity Index and Knowledge scores as the dependent variables. The
MANCOVA showed a significant overall training effect according to the Wilk’s lambda
criterion, F(4,204)=11.98, p=.0001. Individual analysis of variance for each dependent
variable revealed that type of training had a significant effect on the post-training
Creativity Index, F(2, 103)=9.17, p=.0002, and on post-training Knowledge,
F(2,103)=18.92, p=.0001 (Clapham, 1997, p. 38). The post-training Creativity Index of
subjects in both the creativity training condition, t(74)=4.03, p=.001, and ideational skills
training condition, t(67)=3.23, p=.002, differed significantly from the control condition
(Clapham, 1997, p. 39). The training in this study suggests that ideational techniques
taught in these conditions were later successfully applied and “that individuals can be
taught to consciously apply ideational skills, a primary component of creativity”
12
(Clapham, 1997, p. 41). The results also suggest that teaching just the ideational skills
portion of the training will yield the same results as teaching the full course, meaning that
the direct instruction of convergent thinking and self-efficacy increasing material (the
additional 20 minutes of the program) may not be necessary (Clapham, 1997).
All three studies show positive results for teaching thinking skills and additionally
show that self-efficacy has a direct effect on creativity (Robbins & Kegley, 2010). The
research also suggests that increased self-efficacy is a byproduct of thinking skills
training (Clapham, 1997). Each of these studies can make a case for including thinking
skills in any form of creativity teaching (Barak, 2009; Clapham, 1997; Robbins &
Kegley, 2010).
Teaching Creativity Through Problem Solving Strategies and Processes.
When trying to increase the creativity and creative thinking abilities of people,
some believe that teaching a specific method or process will ultimately yield results. In
the following I will discuss Dow and Mayer’s problem solving strategy training (2009),
Nordstrom and Korpelainen’s creative problem solving process (2011), Karpova,
Marcketti, and Barker’s creativity exercise process (2011), and Lassig’s approaches to
the creative process (2013). Each exposes a different procedure to increase creative
abilities.
Dow and Mayer believed that teaching students a strategic process for solving
insight problems could increase their creative abilities (2004). Insight problems are a
special type of non-routine problem, “a problem where the solver does not already know
an appropriate solution method and therefore must invent one” (2004, p. 389) Insight
problems require the solver to overcome the familiar way of looking at the problem and
13
invent a creative approach (Dow & Mayer, 2004). Dow and Mayer suggest that insight
problems can be divided into subcategories such as verbal, mathematical, and spatial
insight problems according to the domain-specific theory of learning. Additionally, they
suggest that training to solving one type of problem should transfer to solving all types of
insight problems, according to the domain-general theory (2004, p. 390). Dow and Mayer
designed an experiment aimed at determining if teaching to solve one kind of insight
problem would transfer to solving other kinds of problems. This experiment included 63
undergraduate students from UC Santa Barbara, with an average age of 19.14. They were
divided into groups with 13 students in the verbal group, 13 in the mathematics group, 18
in the spatial training group, and 19 in the combined training group. Each student was
pre and post-tested in all three subcategories, verbal, mathematical and spatial.
Participants were given a background questionnaire and tested individually. Then the
students were given three problem examples in their category (fully worked out) as
training materials, no other training was provided. Results after showed no significant
differences among the training groups on verbal insight problems (F(3,59) =.43, p=.73)
and mathematical insight problems F(3,59) = .59, p=.62 (Dow & Mayer, 2004, p. 395).
There were significant differences between the groups for spatial problems F(3,59) =
4.32, p<.01. Based on Tukey post hoc tests (with A=.05), the spatial training group
scored significantly greater on solving spatial insight problems than did the verbal
training group (HSD=1.03, p<.05) and the mathematical training group (HSD = .94,
p<.05). The results provide partial support for domain-specific theory, but also support
domain-general theory. Based on this experiment, Dow and Mayer concluded that it is
worthwhile to focus on a set of general strategic processes that each apply to a specific
14
problem type when the goal is to improve creative problem solving skills. They suggest
that students need practice in recognizing problem types and adapting the learned
strategies (2004). Dow and Mayer suggest, “creativity training should focus on helping
students learn a collection of general strategies and know when to use them” (Dow &
Mayer, 2004, p. 398).
Karpova, Marcketti, and Barker built a program of creativity exercises that
involved a cognitive framework centered on the core principles of understanding
creativity, opportunity recognition, idea generation, and idea evaluation with the belief
that students could achieve higher creative thinking scores after completing this program
(2011, p. 57). To measure changed in creativity, they utilized the figural format of the
Torrance Test for Creativity (Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011). Five university
classes were chosen for the study with students ranging from freshman to seniors in
various majors. Participants included 114 students, 43% in the textile and apparel
program, 31% in veterinary medicine, 15% from hospitality management, and 8% from
family and consumer sciences. Of the participants, 80% were female, 20% were male,
44% were seniors, 24% were freshmen, 15% were juniors, 13% were sophomores, and
the average age was 21.38 years (2011, p. 58). The study design consisted of one within-
subjects factor (Creativity Test when the creative thinking was measured) with two levels
(pretest before administering the exercises and posttest after completing the exercises)
and one between subject factor (Class) with five levels (five different courses: a freshman
orientation course, a senior-level veterinary practice entrepreneurship course, two
sections of introductory patternmaking and advanced patternmaking) (2011, p. 57).
Instructors in the five courses administered the 12 creativity exercises in the same order
15
and followed the same procedures for administering the exercises and debriefings
following each exercise. The exercises took between 8 and 12 weeks to complete. The
goal of the research was to assess the effect of the exercises on student creative thinking
in courses that teach different content areas, various student populations, and were
delivered by instructors without special training in teaching creative thinking (Karpova,
Marcketti, & Barker, 2011, p. 58). To determine the effect of the creativity exercises,
“the data were analyzed using a general linear model (GLM) repeated measures, which
provided analysis of variance when the same measurement was made twice on each
participant, to determine the effect of the creativity exercises on student creative
thinking.” (Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011, p. 60). The results revealed that the
creativity exercises had a significant influence on the Creativity Index, (F(1,109) =
108.65, p=.0001). The mean measured in the pretest for the entire group was 109.48 (SD
= 13.80) and posttest was significantly higher at 123.53 (SD = 14.44) (Karpova,
Marcketti, & Barker, 2011, p. 60). The study also showed creative thinking differed by
class and by grade level with the junior and senior level courses revealing higher scores
in creative thinking. The results showed a difference in the increase of creativity based on
class, so therefore “the creativity test factor by Class factor interaction was significant,
F(4,109) = 5.12, p = .001, and to further explore the results, a paired sample t test
indicated that the Creativity index significantly increased after the exercises in 4 of the 5
classes” (Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011, p. 61). Only in patternmaking (a freshman
level 8:00 am class, with a 22% drop rate) was the increase in the creativity training not
significant (t(1,10) = -1.13, p = .284). Based on this study, Karpova, Marcketti, and
Barker concluded that creative thinking increased significantly following implementation
16
of creativity exercises. They also found that students at different academic levels had
improved creative thinking as a result of completing the exercises. This result suggests
“creativity exercises are general in nature and not content-specific, and can be used in a
variety of courses with students majoring in diverse subjects” (2011, p. 62). This study
has implications for instructors of any subject matter who wish to foster student creativity
(Karpova, Marcketti, and Barker, 2011).
Lassig sought to determine how adolescents engage in the creative process to
determine the best methods for teaching creativity (2013). He utilized a grounded theory
study, where information was gathered through focus groups, individual semi-structured
interviews, an online discussion forum, and emails. This is a self-report method and is
subject to participant bias, accuracy of memory recall, and ability to articulate
experiences and ideas (2012, p. 5). Participants included 20 students (10 male/10 female)
ages 14-17, from two high schools in Australia, one specializing in the arts, the other in
math, science and technology. Students were selected to participate based on preliminary
survey responses (Lassig, 2013). Lassig found four approaches in the creative process
that emerged and were utilized by the adolescents to develop creative results. These
approaches were: “Adaptation (domain specific), Transfer (remote associations between
domains), Synthesis (combined multiple ideas either from same or different domains) and
Genesis (significantly different from any work that they had previously been exposed)”
(2013, p. 5). Findings suggest that, at a conceptual level, the students from both high
schools approached creativity in similar ways (Lassig, 2013). This study offers insight
into how these adolescents use creativity and proposes, “these adolescents’ approach to
creativity can provide a framework for other students to understand and develop their
17
creative processes” (Lassig, 2013, p. 11). This study could help to develop further lessons
and approaches to teaching creativity, but due to the limited sample, this study could use
additional research to back its findings.
Nordstrom and Korpelainen infused a science class with a creative process with
the goal of fostering deeper learning. They set up a situation to “explore how deep-
learning of scientific fact can be promoted by allowing students to work on assignments
without any specific predetermined end-result in a non-conventional learning space and
to present the results of their work by non-conventional presentation tools” (2011, p.
448). They challenged students to work in groups to become experts on a topic to the
point where they could teach the class their topic. They were allowed to utilize multiple
presentation methods with the exception of Power Point (Nordstrom & Korpelainen,
2011). Nordstrom and Korpelainen developed this case study and used qualitative
analysis for their results (2011). Their study included 26 students in the health technology
microbiology course. Feedback was collected at the start, middle and end of the course.
Feedback from 18 of the 26 original students was positive and indicated that “learning is
deeper when you have to think about your topic in a group” (Nordstrom & Korpelainen,
2011, p. 443). Students also suggested that they had learned “group work skills and
innovativeness,” and that the group work motivated them to study more (Nordstrom &
Korpelainen, 2011). Although this study lacked statistical analysis, it did show that by
utilizing creative approaches to presentation and group-work learning environments that
students were able to create and develop meaning while meeting course objectives. It also
showed that students could be creative in a creative environment even while learning a
non-creative subject. Based on this study, Nordstrom and Korpelainen propose that
18
A transformation process is often called for, whereby learners become
participants in their own education via learning tools which promote learning and
include verbal, digital, visual or emotional tools, which are used to increase
personal and group commitment. Students should therefore learn in an
environment that favors activity and experience and fosters immediate
engagement.” (2011, p. 440)
By utilizing this method, it promotes problem-solving skills, communication, teamwork,
innovation, and motivation within the learning environment leading to a deeper learning
experience (Nordstrom & Korpelainen, 2011).
These four studies utilize processes to enhance creativity and creative thinking
(Dow & Mayer, 2009; Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011; Lassig, 2013; Nordstrom &
Korpelainen, 2011). All four studies are successful on various levels at building creative
processes to enhance learning and creativity. Some suggest step-by-step strategies, others
suggest utilizing a teamwork process with environmental factors, but in each situation,
they have proven benefits on student creativity (Dow & Mayer, 2009; Karpova,
Marcketti, & Barker, 2011; Lassig, 2013; Nordstrom & Korpelainen’s, 2011).
Combining Multiple Factors to Teach Creativity.
Yeh, Yeh and Chen (2012) proposed that KM (knowledge management)
“includes three processes, knowledge sharing, knowledge internalization, and knowledge
creation, and that integrating these processes of KM with blended learning would
improve university students’ creativity” (p. 253). To examine their theory, they
developed a 17-week creativity training program and used both quantitative and
qualitative analyses to test their hypotheses that “blended knowledge management model
19
based instruction would improve university students’ knowledge of creativity, their
dispositions of creativity, and their creative abilities” (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 248).
The participants in their study included 36 university students, who were studying to be
schoolteachers and enrolled in a course called ‘Instruction of Creativity’ with 19.4%
being male and 80.6% female and a mean age of 21.03 (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012). This
study utilized pre and post-tests including the IKC (adapted from the Inventory of
Professional Knowledge in Creativity Instruction), the IPF-TCD (The Inventory of
Personal Factors in Technological Creativity Development) and the NCT (the New
Creativity Test), and the post-test also included a reflection questionnaire about the
blended learning design of the course which included both traditional classroom
instruction and e-learning (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 249). Yeh et al used a Repeated
Measure Analysis of Variance (Repeated Measure ANOVA) to evaluate the effectiveness
of the designed program (2012, p. 250). of means revealed “the
participants had more abundant knowledge of creativity, a higher degree of creativity
dispositions, and better verbal and figural creativity in the posttest than in the pretest”
(Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 250). “A Repeated Measure ANOVA yielded a significant
test (pretest vs. posttest) effect on overall score of the IKC (Wilks’
and for the IPF-TCD (Wilk’s
” (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 250). Significant
improvements in the abilities of creativity were measured by fluency, flexibility and
originality with “Repeated Measure ANOVA for fluency
(Wilks’ flexibility (Wilks’
and originality
20
(Wilks’. Comparisons of means revealed that
the participants showed better verbal and figural creativity on the posttest than on the
pretest in all three aspects” (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 252). This study developed a
unique blended KM model that “integrates e-learning with knowledge sharing,
internalization and creation to improve university students’ creativity” based on
improving three key elements, knowledge, dispositions, and skills, rather than focusing
on only one aspect of improving creativity (Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012, p. 255).
Discussion
Based on this review, multiple studies (Barak, 2009; Clapham, 1997; Craft,
Cremin, Hay, & Clack, J., 2013; Dow & Mayer, 2009; Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker,
2011; Lassig, 2013; Nordstrom & Korpelainen, 2011; Robbins & Kegley, 2010; Yeh,
Yeh & Chen, 2012) suggest that it is possible to teach creativity through creative thinking
exercises, creative problem solving strategies, and creativity exercises. The study by
Craft, Cremin, Hay, & Clack, J. (2013) shows that using group and collaborative work,
balancing freedom and structure and creative/flexible environments also influence and
foster the creative process. In my opinion, I would utilize a blended approach when
developing a program to foster creativity that includes multiple skills and strategies to
elicit the best possible results. I think it is important to teach creative thinking skills and
strategies along with creative problem solving processes because they help students to
engage in content and develop meaning. I also believe that creativity is what sets one
individual apart from the next, and allows people to be able to see a problem from
multiple points of view, to be able to generate a multitude of possible solutions, and then
to have the ability to evaluate the possibilities until a new and viable solution is reached.
21
These skills offer an advantage that is extremely valuable in today’s changing world. By
teaching our students to think creatively and solve problems inventively, we will be
equipping them with the skills and abilities to be successful in any career.
References
Armstrong, A. (1999). Teaching creativity: An “EEE” experiential exercise. Journal of
Management Education, 23, 174-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300206
Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., Ferrando, M., Oliveira, E., and Ferrándiz, C. (2008).
Torrance test of creative thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 53-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.003
Barak, M. (2009). Idea focusing versus idea generating: A course for teachers on
inventive problem solving. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
46(4), 345-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290903301743
Brickman, D. J. (2010) Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education
Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632910903455785
Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training
programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33-44.
Clark, A., & Cripps, P. (2012). Fostering creativity: A multiple intelligences approach to
designing learning in undergraduate fine art. The International Journal of Art &
Design Education, 31(2), 116-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8060.2012.01736.x
22
Craft, A., Cremin, T., Hay, P., and Clack, J. (2013). Creative primary schools:
Developing and maintaining pedagogy for creativity. Ethnography and
Education, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.828474
de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Teaching students to solve insight problems:
Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research
Journal, 16(4), 389-398.
Fasko, D. (2001) Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-
327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_09
Gautam, S. (2012, September 13) Creativity: Products, processes, and people. Retrieved
July 1, 2013 from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fundamental-four/201209/creativity-
products-processes-and-people
Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S.B., & Licthenberger, E.O. (2011). Finding creative potential
on intelligence tests via divergent production. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 26(2), 83-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573511406511
Karpova, E., Marcketti, S. B., and Barker, J. (2011). The efficacy of teaching creativity:
Assessment of student creative thinking before and after exercises. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 29, 52-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.828474
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012, December). Reclaim your creative confidence. Harvard
Business Review, 115-118.
23
Lassig, C. J. (2013). Approaches to creativity: How adolescents engage in the creative
process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 3-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.002
Maksic, S., & Pavlovic, J. (2011). Educational researchers’ personal explicit theories on
creativity and its development: A qualitative study. Higher Ability Studies, 22(2),
219-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.628850
Marin, L. M., & Halpen, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in
adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 6, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002
Morgan, S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the classroom. Gifted Education
International, 14(1), 29-43.
McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: towards sustainable and
replicable pedagogical practice. Higher Education, 56(6), 633-643.
Nordstrom, K., & Korpelainen, P. (2011). Creativity and inspiration for problem solving
in engineering education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 439-450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/3562517.2001.560379
Rinkevich, J. (2011). Creative teaching: Why it matters and where to begin. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(5), 219-223.
Robbins, T., & Kegley, K. (2010). Playing with Thinkertoys to build creative abilities
through online instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 40-48.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester, United
Kingdom: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
24
Simister, J. (2004). To think or not to think: A preliminary investigation into the effects
of teaching thinking. Improving Schools, 7, 243-254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365480204048931
Teo, L. K., & Waugh, R. F. (2010). A Rasch measure of fostering creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 22(6), 206-218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0400419.2010.481534
Yeh, Y., Yeh, Y., & Chen, Y. (2012). From knowledge sharing to knowledge creation: A
blended knowledge-management model for improving university students’
creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 245-257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.004
25