Supportive Classroom Environments For Creativity in Higher Education

277 Volume 33 Number 4 Fourth Quarter 1999

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

D A R N E L L G . C O L EH E A T H E R L . S U G I O K A

L I S A C . Y A M A G A T A - L Y N C H

Supportive Classroom EnvironmentsFor Creativity in Higher Education

This qualitative study was an investigation of a supportive class-room environment for developing student creativity. Observa-tions and interview data collected focused on assessment,classroom activities, and the teacher’s effort in creating thissupportive environment. Teacher-student relationships, de-emphasizing standardized assessment, and encouraging mul-tiple perspectives was significant to this creative milieu.

Creativity is an important element in relation to education andsocietal growth. As the degree of complexity and the amountof information in our society continue to increase, society’sproblems require more creative solutions. For this reason, allsectors of society are requiring leaders who can think criticallyand creatively (Isaksen & Murdock, 1993). Although this im-portant construct has not been universally defined, definingcreativity as “the production of novel thoughts, solutions, orproducts based on previous experience and knowledge”(Gandini cited in Carter, 1992, p. 38) seems to capture theessence of creativity.

In terms of education, creativity is an essential element nec-essary for learning. Starko (1995) suggests that learning is acreative process that involves students making informationrelevant by linking prior knowledge and new knowledge in anindividually meaningful format. She attributes this meaning-fulness to the individual’s creativity. Unfortunately, most schoolenvironments do not support, and many actively suppress,creative expression. Torrance and Safter (1986), for instance,assert that teachers are often ill equipped to develop, support,or evaluate creativity in their students. In addition, much theory

278

Supportive Classroom Environment

and research shows that creative students often lose their cre-ative potential (Shaughnessy, 1991). If education strives toprepare children for a productive life in society, the educationalsystem must accept responsibility for supporting and devel-oping creativity. The purpose of this study was to explore thecharacteristics comprising a supportive classroom environ-ment for creativity. Within this context, we focused on theteacher’s role in creating this supportive environment.

Shaughnessy (1991) recommends an educational climate con-sisting of communication, consensus, consistency, clarity,coherence, consideration, community, cohesiveness, commit-ment, concern, care, and cooperation. Research has shownthat environments that encourage independence, risk-taking,and intrinsic motivation have been found most conduciveto creativity (Anderson et al., 1970; Hill & Amabile, 1993;Richardson, 1988; Shaughnessy, 1991). In creating this typeof environment, it is recommended that teachers accept andencourage creative thinking, tolerate dissent, encourage stu-dents to trust their own judgments, emphasize that everyoneis capable of creativity, and serve as a stimulus for creativethinking through brainstorming and modeling (Torrance &Myers, 1970; Woolfolk & McCune-Nicolich, 1980).

Several articles, reports, and books investigate methods ofteaching creativity in the classroom, but few focus on the im-portance of building teacher-student relationships in a creativeenvironment (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Pascarella, 1980).Morganett (1991) states that quality teacher-student relation-ships can encourage students to be active learners in the class-room, which will foster creativity. Furthermore, creativity canbe fostered by positive teacher-student relationships, as sug-gested by Carter (1992). Astin (1993), Fleming (1984),Pascarella (1980), and Terenzini and Pascarella (1980, 1991)have reported that teacher-student relationships are extremelyimportant to college student development regardless of theclassroom context.

In a qualitative investigation about creative teaching andlearning, Torrance and Myers (1970) found when teachers cre-ate a “responsive” classroom environment students are lessapprehensive about their creative expression and sharing thoseideas in class. A responsive classroom environment is opti-mized when teachers are “respectful of unusual questions, re-spectful of imaginative and unusual ideas, show [students] thattheir ideas have value, occasionally have pupils do something

LITERATURE REVIEW

279

Journal of Creative Behavior

‘for practice’ without the threat of evaluation, and tie in evalu-ation with causes and consequences” (p. 253). Based on thesestudies, four themes emerging from the literature offer muchinsight into the importance of teacher-student relationships ina creative classroom environment: (a) perceptions and expec-tations, (b) communication, (c) personal experiences, and (d)classroom activities.

DeLucia (1994) reports that assumptions, expectations, andperceptions impact attitudes and behaviors in building teacher-student relationships, regardless of whether these perceptionsare “real or distorted”. Student misconceptions can also func-tion as an inhibiting factor in building teacher-student relations(DeLucia, 1994; Meyer, 1994). Therefore, it is imperative toteacher-student relations that expectations and perceptions aredealt with directly.

Hutchinson and Beadle (1992), however, report that teach-ers often transmit their expectations through unintended non-verbal cues and that students are often unaware of theseexpectations. For example, DeLucia found that teachersexpect college students to be self-motivated and self-reliant. Ifthe teacher does not perceive the student in this fashion, thestudent is considered “passive” or “difficult to work with.” Thisperception may or may not be an accurate interpretation ofthe student, yet it still has a negative impact on the teacher-student relationship. Carter (1992) states that teachers mustidentify their own filters and agendas that might inhibit theirwillingness to establish teacher-student relations, especially ina creative environment.

One salient solution is direct and intentional communica-tion. DeLucia (1994), Shapiro (1993), and Torrance and Myers(1970) suggest that providing more information in class dis-cussions about the roles and expectations would positivelyimpact these perceptions and expectations. Thus, it becomesimperative that communication be realized and utilized in avariety of capacities.

Hutchinson and Beadle (1992) state that “teachers can ‘turnon’ or ‘turn off’ students by their communication styles” (p.405). They also suggest that the teacher’s communication styleis related to student satisfaction and achievement. Communi-cation in the classroom as they have described it includes feed-back, directing, questioning, and explaining. Other forms ofcommunication are important, but the immediate feedback andfeedback on assignments tend to have the most impact(Hutchinson & Beadle, 1992). Morganett (1991) suggests that

Perception andExpectations

Communication

280


teachers provide positive constructive criticism in creativeclassrooms when appropriate. This practice will foster a com-fortable and safe environment which will enhance the sharingof creative ideas and thoughts (Shaughnessy, 1992). Morganett(1991) states that teachers can recognize effort, cooperativeand helping behavior, which will also promote a supportiveclassroom environment. This nurturing environment encour-ages students to trust their own judgment, while providing sup-port and guidance (Shaughnessy, 1992). Providing both verbaland written positive feedback either in class or on assignmentsis also important.

Morganett (1991) states that teachers should communicateto students that they care about them as individuals as well asa class. Students want to know that their teachers have a vestedinterest in them academically, but more importantly — person-ally. Morganett (1991) asserts that this personal interest is im-portant in building teacher-student relationships because “whenwe [people, teacher, or students] feel accepted byothers we have the feeling that they care about us . . . we aremore likely to cooperate with them and try to please them”(p. 261).

Carter (1992), Morganett (1991, 1995), and Shaughnessy(1991) report that when teachers include their personal expe-riences and allow students to share personal experiences inthe classroom, students have a greater opportunity to relate tothe course. Additionally, Wilson, Wood, and Gaff (1974) statethat when students are able to relate their personal experiencesto the course content, they tend to be more active in the learn-ing process. Carter (1992) cites Gandini, stating that “one ofthe premises of creativity is that the process of knowing findsconnections with the process of expressing what is known”(p. 39), which implies that students are more able to expresswhat they know if they can relate their knowledge to informa-tion from their experiences.

Morganett (1995) provides five examples of personal expe-riences, which can be used to enhance the teacher-studentrelationship in the classroom, especially in a creative environ-ment. First, at the beginning or end of class, ask students aboutcurrent events, magazine or newspaper articles, or personalevents that could be tied into the class discussion. Second,use work time during class to talk with students individuallyabout their assignment or even personal matters. During thistime, Morganett (1995) suggests that giving at least one posi-tive comment during the interaction will promote positive

PersonalExperiences

281


teacher-student relations. Third, take the opportunity to wishthe class or individual students a good week (at the beginningof the week) or a good weekend (at the end). Fourth, takeadvantage of any irregulars in the time schedule to talk withstudents about their interests and activities, while sharing someof yours. Fifth, use discussions or short presentations for stu-dents to talk about topics decided by the class, hobbies, orother interesting experiences and life goals.

For students to become creative within educational contexts,creativity needs to be supported in the classroom. Creativityhas been identified as a high-risk job for students (Kawenski,1991; Smith, 1991). Being creative in traditional classrooms isoften difficult for students because they become “afraid to takerisks, afraid to explore new ideas, and afraid to fail” (Kawenski,1991, p. 263). Smith (1991) states that students need to beprepared for “risk of ridicule, of rejection, or of severe resis-tance to a new idea when they are being creative” (p. 271).Traditional educational systems have allowed students to feelmore comfortable by not being creative.

Berenson and Carter (1995) describe assessment as one ofthe components in the current educational environment, whichprevents students from taking risks. They suggest that

Traditional methods of assessment have contributed tostudents’ pursuits of grades rather than pursuits of learn-ing. Broadening the system to include assessments thatprovide an opportunity for students to make conceptualconnections and reflect on understanding can refocusstudents toward the pursuit of learning. (p. 182)

The current educational system would benefit from under-standing creativity as a more personally based construct thanevidenced by traditional measurements used for assessing stu-dent knowledge. Berenson and Carter (1995) promote the useof journals, open-ended problems, portfolios, interviews, andperformance assessment as measurements which allow stu-dents to “discover that the new rules of grading alternative as-sessments reward their unique contributions rather than theirshort-term memories” (p. 182).

When speaking of the criteria for judging students’ creativeproducts, Sobel and Rothenberg (1976) cited in Reis andRenzulli (1991) state that, “the major responsibility for assess-ing the creativity of a product is placed on the values and ex-perience of the judge(s). Usually no specific guidelines areavailable to those doing the judging” (p. 128). This statement

Assessment

282


reveals that assessing creativity places much responsibility onteachers, who need to find new methods and create their ownguidelines while remaining supportive of their students.

Shapiro (1993) suggests that the proper selection of class-room activities can create a positive classroom climate in whichvalues can be shared and challenged, expectations revealedand discussed, and students can have the opportunity to takeleadership roles in the class. In this type of classroom setting,students are more apt to take risks and share their creativeideas. In supporting creativity through classroom activities,teachers need to address common misconceptions about cre-ativity and teach creative processes and methods of enhanc-ing students’ creative expression. Creativity in education hasbeen hindered by a common misconception of creativity asmysterious (undefined), magical (only certain people have the“gift”), madness (to be creative you have to be strange or ab-normal) (Isaksen, 1987), and even a one-step process consist-ing of a “eureka” moment (Wright, 1990). These beliefs havehindered the teaching of creativity.

Despite these misconceptions of creativity, teachers cancreate a supportive environment for creativity by encouragingstudents to see creativity as a learned process, which can beattained through effort and practice (Wright, 1990). Severalprocess models have focused on problem-solving, unconsciouselements, and perceptual aspects of creativity. For example,the Parnes/Osborn model (CPS) has outlined a series of prob-lem solving steps based on the balanced integration of diver-gent thinking, or originality, and convergent thinking, orsynthesis (Treffinger & Isaksen, 1992). This process includesformulating a problem, generating ideas, and evaluating theseideas. Wallas (1926) emphasize an unconscious elementthrough an incubation stage, in which the creator leaves theproblem, but continues to consider it subconsciously. Finally,O’Neill and Shallcross (1994) have emphasized creativity as aperceptual process, in which steps are taken to tap the uncon-scious mind and perceptions.

This study was conducted during the spring semester of 1996,within the context of an advanced level graphics communica-tion course offered at a large Midwestern University. The coursewas oriented toward junior and senior journalism majors, anda total of 18 undergraduate students varying in class standingand artistic ability were enrolled in the class. The instructorpossessed several years of experience in offering this particu-

Classroom Activities

METHOD

GraphicsCommunication

Course

283


lar course, and also had two decades of experience in report-ing photography, copy editing, picture editing, and graphicsediting. The major course objectives outlined in the coursesyllabus in order of importance were (a) creative process, (b)graphic design theory, and (c) computer skills. Enabling stu-dents to synthesize these elements was a long-term goal ofthe class emphasized by the instructor. The classroom in whichthis course was taught seated a total of 20 students. Each deskcontained a graphic design computer equipped with the ap-propriate software for producing assignments in this course.

This study was conducted in a naturalistic setting wherethe following qualitative methods were employed as datacollection methods: document review of the course syllabus,instructor interview, six student interviews, and classroomobservations. The syllabus was examined with the assump-tion that it provides the student with the instructor’s intentionsand directions for the course. This data provided informationon student-teacher relationships, methods of assessment, com-munication of this assessment, creative processes taught, andstudents’ responses to these processes. Observations and thesyllabus provided information useful in devising questions forthe interviews. Separate sets of questions for both the instruc-tor and students were used for the interviews. We analyzed thedata by coding units of information and developing categoriesemerging from this data.

We triangulated our findings by conducting multiple datacollection and by conducting our study as a team. All threeresearchers were equally involved in the data collection, analy-sis, and interpretation phase. The major limitation of this studyis that no follow-up interviews or survey data were collected toprovide member checks of the interpretations we made. How-ever, each member of the research team first independentlyanalyzed the data before joining the team with their summa-ries and interpretations of the findings.

The following four areas emerged as important characteristicsof the supportive environment for fostering creativity (a) per-sonal teacher-student relationship, (b) assessment, (c) opennessand freedom of choice, and (d) classroom activities. To high-light the elements in this supportive environment, a summaryof results is presented in Table 1 containing categories ofinstructor’s intentions, instructor’s implementations, and studentreactions. These categories were chosen because they capturedthe dynamic interactions taking place in the college classroom.

Data Collection

RESULTS

284


TABLE 1. Summary of Results: Instructor’s Intent, Implementation, and StudentReactions.

Instructor’s Intentions

Developed personalrelationships withstudents

Taught creativeprocesses: divergent andconvergent processes

Encouraged multipleperspectives

Encouraged freedom ofchoice

De-emphasized grades

Instructor’s Implementations

• called students by firstnames

• dealt with students asindividuals

• provided flexible officehours, phone ande-mail communication

• introduced techniquessuch as thumbnailsketches, brainstorm-ing, matrices, research,and synthesis

• emphasized “No oneright answer”

• included an openoption in everyassignment

• communicated hismethod of grading

• did not give standard-ized tests or exams

• grading was based onstudent effort, ability todevise creative solu-tions, enactment ofthese solutions, andreflexive papers

Student Reactions

• students felt comfort-able in sharing theirideas and thoughts

• students enjoyedhaving an opportunityto get to know theirinstructor

• students felt that theinstructor wasaccessible

• students benefitedfrom different aspectsof these processes

• students gained newconceptions of creativity

• students felt comfort-able in taking risks

• students were encour-aged in their individualexpression

• students felt free to ex-periment and take risks

• students were encour-aged in their individualexpression

• students were free touse different processes

• students felt free toproduce many ideas

• students trusted theinstructor

• students generally feltmore comfortable

• students feltencouraged to becreative

285


Personal teacher-student relationships are thought to be in-clusive of common teacher-student interactions within a class-room environment, and portray the care that the instructor hasfor students’ cognitive and intellectual development. This de-scription is not typical when using terms such as relationship,but it does highlight the affective (emotional) nature and car-ing attitude that the professor has for students and shows howintegral the relationship is in cultivating students’ personal andcognitive development. Thus, we have noted that the instruc-tor placed much emphasis on establishing a personal relation-ship with students as an essential aspect of a supportiveenvironment. For him, personal relationships with studentsensure that students feel respected as individuals. Dr. Wilsonstated that, “students need to have contact with their teacherand that they need to feel that their teachers think about themas real individuals, not as numbers.” In creating these personalrelationships, the instructor used a variety of strategies, includ-ing learning students’ names and listening attentively to theiropinions. One reason for this emphasis on personal relation-ships stems from the professor’s belief in the power of teacher-student relationships in enhancing students’ creativity. He viewshis role in supporting creativity as being an audience for stu-dents and giving them feedback, rather than an authority fig-ure on creativity.

Students revealed that they perceived and appreciated theinstructor’s practice of building personal rapport. One studentnamed Joe said that, “[Dr. Wilson] is so laid-back and prettypersonal . . . he always stresses that he is there to help us . . . itis almost like a friendship.” When students were asked “Howoften do you communicate with [the instructor]?” Emilyresponded by saying, “he has been a great professor . . . he iseasy to get a hold of . . . either go to his office — he is alwaysaround or e-mail him.”

Dr. Wilson viewed the social context of the classroom as animportant source in creating a personal environment. For thisreason, he used several methods in enhancing the social con-text as a source of support. One method of creating a per-sonal environment was to rely on traditional lecture as little aspossible. Dr. Wilson would often lecture for five to ten minutesand then encourage students to put this theory into practice.When referring to this teaching style, he stated, “it is just amatter of being personal instead of having a wall or barrierbetween the teacher and student.”

Personal Teacher-Student

Relationship

286


Overall, Dr. Wilson established a comfortable and personalenvironment in which he communicated respect and caringfor students individually. In conveying this respect, he usedeffective methods such as learning each student’s name, lis-tening attentively, and making himself accessible. He also pro-vided feedback by assuming the role of audience, which impliesa non-judgmental attitude and emphasizes active listening,followed by constructive feedback. Students noticed and ap-preciated these efforts, describing him as supportive, acces-sible, and as challenging their thinking.

Dr. Wilson’s method of assessment was an important fac-tor in creating a supportive college classroom environment byde-emphasizing grades and standardization. An emphasis onassessment can create a focus on performance, reducing stu-dents’ desire to take the risks necessary for creativity. There-fore, an important element of the environment portrayed bythis class was the instructor’s de-emphasis on grades. Dr. Wil-son felt that grades are a hindrance to all types of learning andare especially detrimental to any type of learning that requiresrisk-taking.

In supporting individual creativity, Dr. Wilson relied on non-standardized methods of assessment. No standard examina-tions were given in this class, and assessment was determinedby four factors: (a) the students’ creative solution to the prob-lem; (b) how well the students executed the solution; (c) howmuch work the students put into the assignment; and (d) thestudents’ written analysis of their creative processes. Throughthese methods, learning was portrayed as an ongoing process,which should confer personal satisfaction for its own sake. Thisview resulted in an emphasis on intrinsic rather than extrinsicmotivation. The instructor also maintained an amiable attitudeof the projects created by the students, which further reducedthe element of evaluation.

Students noticed and responded positively to the lack of fo-cus on assessment, indicating that this aspect of the class madethem feel more comfortable in expressing creative ideas. Forexample, another student Rachael stated, “It’s the kind of envi-ronment where you’re completely unafraid to spit out your ideas.”

The interviews with Dr. Wilson revealed that his views onassessment and communication to students about evaluationplayed an important role in designing a supportive environ-ment for creativity. He viewed traditional exams as counter-productive to creativity, and communicated this view throughthe organization of alternative assessment activities. Grading

Assessment

287


based on creative solutions and effort rather than exams servedto individualize assessment and turn students’ attention towardlearning and creative expression rather than evaluation. As aresult, students perceived the professor’s view of assessmentas non-threatening and felt free to be creative and take risks.

Related to his views on grades and performance, Dr. Wilsonalso encouraged independence and freedom of choice, enhanc-ing students’ ability to find their individual creative style. Increating a comfortable and safe environment, Dr. Wilson pro-moted a diversity of ideas, often reminding students that in hisclass, there was no one right answer. This openness contrib-uted to creating an environment conducive to risk-taking. Thesyllabus clearly conveyed this sentiment, stating, “Finally, incase there still might be some doubt at this point in the semes-ter, there is no right answer!”

Students felt that the element of openness and acceptancehelped them in expressing creativity by providing a sense offlexibility. Because they were not searching for a particularanswer or the teacher’s “correct” view, students were free toconsider many ideas and perspectives. One student identifiedthe acceptance and flexibility of the class as the most support-ive aspects of the environment.

One method that the instructor used to create this openenvironment was to integrate choices into the assignmentswhile maintaining a degree of guidance through outliningbasic requirements. For example, an option common to allassignments allowed students to invent alternatives to thesuggested options.

Although not all students utilized the open option, studentsappreciated the freedom and independence incorporated intothe assignments. Rachael felt that the freedom inherent in theassignments helped her to think more creatively, although shedid not use the option to create her own assignments. Karen, onthe other hand, chose the open option for all of her assignments.

Overall, the combination of freedom and basic guidancecontributed toward an environment conducive to creativity.Allowing choices was possible due to the absence of standard-ization in evaluation and contributed to the atmosphere of in-dividual expression and personal growth. Although not allstudents took advantage of the multiple options, they valuedthe free atmosphere provided by the presence of these options.

Instruction in creative processes such as divergent andconvergent thinking represents an essential element in a cre-ative learning classroom. As a precursor to focusing on these

Openness andFreedom of Choice

Classroom Activities

288


processes, Dr. Wilson first worked to banish the prevalent mythsabout creativity by conveying the message that creativityis accessible to all students, stating that if students followedsteps leading toward creative processes, “you cannot avoidbeing creative.”

Dr. Wilson described his teaching of creative processes asa combination of divergent and convergent methods, with moreemphasis placed on divergent thinking. He felt that through-out their years of formal schooling, students are required toengage in convergent rather than divergent thinking. For thisreason, he required students to generate a wide range of ideasbefore selecting one for refinement.

Some techniques designed to provoke ideas included brain-storming, thumbnail sketches, matrixes, and small groups.Brainstorming is a process in which students focus on produc-ing as many ideas as possible, waiting until after this processto evaluate these ideas. Thumbnail sketches allow studentsto visually experiment with ideas by drawing rough sketchesbefore working on the final product. Matrices are a set of cellsin which students write ideas and juxtapose these ideas withone another by matching the cells. Small group work wasanother method of enhancing creative processes. These groupswere free to negotiate their own delegation of responsibilities,and Dr. Wilson acted as facilitator. These methods providedinstruction in divergent thinking by encouraging students togenerate ideas in a playful manner.

Convergent thinking was also considered an importantaspect of creativity. To integrate this type of thinking into thecreative process, Dr. Wilson encouraged students to engagein research before beginning divergent thinking. Synthesis, orthe process of merging separate ideas into a coherent prod-uct, was incorporated into the class through the integration oftechnical aspects of design.

Students generally expressed an appreciation for the class-room activities in supporting the development of creative pro-cesses. Most of the students we interviewed reported that theyparticularly benefited from understanding creativity as a pro-cess, and from the divergent thinking exercises. For example,Rachael valued understanding creativity as a step-by-step pro-cess rather than a spontaneous moment. She states, “a lot ofpeople think that creativity is when something just kind ofcomes to you . . . but that’s not really it — it’s just a matter ofworking through . . . he goes step by step. It helps us to bemore creative.”

289


Student responses to group work portrayed mixed feelings.Rachael expressed enthusiasm for the multiple perspectivesgained in small groups, although she felt that the possibility ofa “bad group” represented a disadvantage. Although other stu-dents could see the advantage of pooling ideas, Joe felt thatgroup work compromises individual creativity, and Clark de-scribed group work as “time consuming.”

Individual students valued different aspects of the class ex-ercises and showed a variety of needs in developing their cre-ative process. For example, Kevin evidenced different needsin learning to be more creative. Because he had entered theclass with a background in art, he focused on more advancedtechniques not explicitly taught in the class. In describing hiscreative process, Kevin portrayed a highly visual process basedon perception and images. However, Kevin also appreciatedthe acceptance of more than one right answer. When asked tochoose the creative technique which he found most helpful,Kevin stated that the idea of trying different and even inferiorideas was the most helpful because the process of experimen-tation allowed him to see aspects which he would not havenoticed otherwise.

Dr. Wilson supported students’ creative growth by teachingcreativity as a process which can be enhanced using manydifferent techniques, focusing on developing students’ diver-gent thinking ability. While all students responded positivelyto the class, their answers portrayed individual differences inlearning needs, although all students benefited from the openenvironment of the class. Overall, students benefited from theclassroom activities and creative processes in this class.

Dr. Wilson shaped a multifaceted, supportive environment forcreativity through his efforts in establishing positive relation-ships with students, methods of assessment, and classroomactivities. A common theme running throughout all aspects ofthis college classroom was his respect and support for indi-vidual student expression. Striving to know each student indi-vidually, encouraging multiple perspectives, and teachingconvergent as well as divergent thinking processes all portrayedthe student as an individual and encouraged students in devel-oping their unique creative potential.

The teacher-student relationship evidenced in this classroomwas primarily centered on the care that the instructor expressedfor students’ cognitive and creative development. Another as-pect that shaped teacher-student relationships was the personal

DISCUSSION

290


rapport, which the professor established with each student. Dr.Wilson often initiated one-to-one interaction as a way to estab-lish a level of comfort in the classroom while encouraging stu-dents to feel free in taking risks. Due to his desire to make thisclassroom more comfortable, many students either recipro-cated in behavior or were appreciative of the teacher’s effortto think of them as “real individuals and not as numbers.” Thisstudent-centered approach to teacher-student relationships isoften indicative of many effective classroom relationships, andimplies that students value the opportunity to interact moreclosely with the teacher. As illuminated within this creativecontext, it may also imply that students value their indepen-dence in the classroom and their freedom to express their cre-ative ideas without fear of interpersonal judgment. Notably,this individual approach may be more difficult in larger col-lege classroom. However, it is still an important classroom goalfor the teacher when creating a creative learning environment.

The role of assessment is extremely powerful in classroomsettings, and it re-emphasizes the power dynamic between theteacher and student. The power dynamic in college classroomsoften remains unchallenged. In expressing sensitivity for thesepower dynamics, Dr. Wilson altered his course to be more sen-sitive to students’ feelings toward grades rather than usinggrades as a prodding device for guiding and directing studentsto perform a required set of expectations. Consequently, heencouraged students to feel a certain amount of freedom orcomfort for taking risks and expressing ideas and thoughtsthat may not conform to ‘normal’ standards in other post-secondary classrooms.

The classroom activities also represented another impor-tant element of this supportive environment. These activitieswere designed in ways that challenged students’ currentperception of creativity as a “one moment” in time expressionand changed these perceptions to view creativity as a processthat can be cultivated and developed within the context of theclassroom. School systems, and more specifically, collegeclassrooms often overlook the impact of creativity on theprocess of learning, and only recognize creativity when it isframed in an extreme example (e.g., a student who is giftedin writing poetry). In this classroom, however, Dr. Wilson hasspecifically focused on divergent thinking through variousclassroom activities as a perspective influencing the students’view of creativity and the creative process.

291


This study was framed with the purpose of identifying charac-teristics comprising a supportive environment for creativity ina college classroom. However, future development of this en-vironment would also benefit from research in both the indi-vidual student level and classroom community level. Futureresearch at the student level should concentrate on the cre-ative development of individual students. The current studyrevealed differences in individual needs for the creative pro-cesses taught in this class. Second, these finding indicated theneed to investigate methods of designing group work support-ive of the creative process, and the need for accurate evalua-tion of group work, from the students’ perspectives.

Third, further investigation, at the broader classroom level,should explore dynamics of teacher-student interaction andexamine student’s influence on shaping the classroom envi-ronment. Because this study focused on the professor’s influ-ence, students’ impact on shaping the environment was notdiscussed. Fourth, research determining the effects of variousassessment methods on creativity are needed, especially con-sidering the importance of assessment in influencing all as-pects of the college classroom. If research finds thatnon-traditional grading significantly enhances creativity, policymeasures will need to address issues of standardization andgrading, and changes in post-secondary institutions will benecessary. In the meantime, teachers are responsible forgiving grades to students, and therefore need to cope withcurrent policies. For this reason and our final implication,research examining additional methods for coping with thisrequirement while simultaneously implementing low riskassessment methods as part of a supportive environmentfor creativity will also be needed.

ASTIN, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ANDERSON, R. E., DEVITO, A., DYRLI, O. E., KELLOG, M., KOCHENDOR-FER, L., & WEIGAND, J. (1970). Developing children’s thinkingthrough science. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

BERENSON S. B., & CARTER, G. S. (1995). Changing assessment practicesin science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 95,182-186.

CARTER, M. (1992). Training teachers for creative learning experiences.Exchange (5), 38-40.

DELUCIA, R. C. (1994). Perceptions of faculty-student relationship: A survey.NASPA, 31, 271-279.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

292


ENDO, J., & HARPEL, R. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction onstudents’ educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16,115-138.

FLEMING, J. (1985). Black in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.HILL, K. G., & AMABILE, T. M. (1993). A social psychological perspective

on creativity: Intrinsic motivation and creativity in the classroom andworkplace. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J.Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and recognizing creativity: Theemergence of a discipline (pp. 400-432). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

HUTCHINSON, L. M., & BEADLE, M. E. (1992). Professors’ communicationstyles: How they influence male and female seminar participants.Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 405-418.

ISAKSEN, S. G. (1991). Basic and advanced approaches to creativityproblems solving. Unpublished training manual. Buffalo, NY: CreativeProblem Solving Group – Buffalo.

ISAKSEN, S. G., & DORVAL, K. B. (1993). Toward an improvedunderstanding of creativity within people: The level-style distinction. InS. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.),Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of adiscipline (pp. 299-330). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

ISAKSEN, S. G., & MURDOCK, M. C. (1993). The emergence of a discipline:Issues and approaches to the study of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C.Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding andrecognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 13-47).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

ISAKSEN, S. G., & TREFFINGER, D., J. (1985). Creative problem solving:The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

KAWENSKI, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 25, 263-266.

MEYER, D. K. (1993). Recognizing and changing students’ misconceptions:An instructional perspective. College Teaching, 41, 104-108.

MORGANETT, L. (1995, January). Classroom teacher’s idea notebook.Social Education, 27-28.

MORGANETT, L. (1991). Good teacher-student relationships: A key elementin classroom motivation and management. Education, 112, 260-264.

O’NEIL, S., & SHALLCROSS, D. (1994). Sensational thinking a teaching/learn-ing model for creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 75-87.

OSBORN, A., F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner.PARNES, S. J., & NOLLER, R. B. (1972a). Applied creativity: The creative

studies project: Part I—The development. Journal of Creative Behavior,6, 11-22.

PARNES, S. J., & NOLLER, R. B. (1972b). Applied creativity: The creativestudies project: Part I I — Results of the two year program. Journal ofCreative Behavior, 6, 164-186.

PASCARELLA, E. T. (1980). Student-Faculty informal contact and collegeoutcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545-595.

PUCCIO, G. (1990). Person-environment fit: Using Kirton’s adaptorinnovator theory to determine the effect of stylistic fit upon stress.Job satisfaction, and creative performance. Unpublished doctoralthesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology,Manchester, UK.

293


REIS, S. M., & RENZULLI, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative productsin programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,35, 128-134.

RICHARDSON, A. G. (1988). Classroom learning environment and creativeperformance: Some differences among Caribbean territories.Educational Research, 30, 224-227.

SHAPIRO, S. (1993). Strategies that create a positive classroom climate.The Clearing House, 67(2), 91-97.

SHAUGHNESSY, M. F. (1991). The supportive educational environmentfor creativity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 360 080)

SMITH, M. K. (1991). Inventions and the creative process. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 25, 267-272.

SMOLUCHA, L. W. & SMOULUCHA, F. C. (1992). The creative process inart: An interdisciplinary perspective by an artist and a psychologist.Paper presented at the International Conference on Psychology and theArts, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

STARKO, A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curiousdelight. New York, NY: Longman.

TORRANCE, E. P. & MYERS, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching.New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.

TORRANCE, E. P., & SAFTER, H. T. (1986). Are children becoming morecreative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 1-13.

TERENZINI, P. T., & PASCARELLA, E. T. (1980). Student/Facultyrelationships and freshman year educational outcomes: A furtherinvestigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 521-528.

TERENZINI, P. T., & PASCARELLA, E. T. (1991). Twenty years of researchon college students: Lessons for future research. Research in HigherEducation, 32, 83-92.

TREFFINGER, D. J., & ISAKSEN, S. G. (1992). Creative problem solving:An introduction. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

WALLAS, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt & Brace.

WILSON, R., WOOD, L., & GAFF, J. (1974). Social-psychological accessibilityand faculty-student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology ofEducation, 47, 74-92.

WOOLFOLK, A. E., & MCCUNE-NICOLICH, L. (1980). Educationalpsychology for teachers (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

WRIGHT, J. (1990). The artist, the art teacher, and misplaced faith: Creativityand art. Art Education, 43, 50-57.

Darnell Cole, Ph.D.; Assistant Professor; Marquette University; SchroederHealth Complex, 184; P.O. Box 1881; Milwaukee, WI 53201.

Equal contribution by authors.

We are grateful to Dr. Curtis Bonk, Dr. Jonathan Plucker, and Dr. ClaudeCookman for their support and suggestions during the preparation ofthis paper.

NOTE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Documents

Supportive Classroom Environments For Creativity in Higher Education