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