1

PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY OF CREATIVITY IN ART

EDUCATION

A thesis presented

by

Sarah Ritz Swain

to

The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in the field of

Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

August 2019

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7  

Research Problem ....................................................................................................................... 7  

Significance of Research Problem .............................................................................................. 8  

Positionality .............................................................................................................................. 12  

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 14  

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 20  

Definition of Key Terminology ................................................................................................ 21  

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 23  

Defining Creativity ................................................................................................................... 24  

The 4 P’s System: Process, Product, Personal, and Press ......................................................... 25  

Process .................................................................................................................................. 25  

Product .................................................................................................................................. 26  

Personal ................................................................................................................................. 28  

Press ...................................................................................................................................... 28  

Creative Problem-Solving ......................................................................................................... 30  

Creativity Definitions in Education .......................................................................................... 35  

Teacher’s Beliefs ...................................................................................................................... 40  

Teacher’s beliefs and definitions of creativity ...................................................................... 40  

Teacher Reexaminations ........................................................................................................... 46  

3

Frameworks for Creativity Research and Pedagogy ................................................................. 47  

Constructivism: Process and Problem-Solving ......................................................................... 49  

PBL ....................................................................................................................................... 50  

Discovery learning ................................................................................................................ 53  

Inquiry-based learning .......................................................................................................... 55  

Creativity and Curriculum ........................................................................................................ 58  

Common Creativity Curriculum: The Arts ........................................................................... 59  

Conclusion: Understanding the Frameworks ............................................................................ 63  

Creativity: Values and Policy ................................................................................................... 64  

Policymakers and the Arts ........................................................................................................ 65  

The Contrast: Creativity and Policy .......................................................................................... 68  

Relationships in Power and Policy ........................................................................................... 70  

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 70  

Chapter Three: Research Design .................................................................................................. 74  

Qualitative Research ................................................................................................................. 75  

Case Description: Participants, Recruitment, and Access ........................................................ 77  

Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 80  

School ................................................................................................................................... 80  

Art program ........................................................................................................................... 80  

Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 81  

4

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 82  

Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 82  

Artifacts ................................................................................................................................. 87  

Reflective memoing .............................................................................................................. 88  

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 89  

Coding ................................................................................................................................... 90  

Credibility and Transferability .................................................................................................. 92  

Internal Audit ............................................................................................................................ 93  

Self-reflexivity and Transparency ............................................................................................. 93  

Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 94  

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 95  

Chapter 4: Research Results ......................................................................................................... 97  

Research Site ............................................................................................................................. 97  

District ................................................................................................................................... 98  

School ................................................................................................................................... 98  

Art program ........................................................................................................................... 98  

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 99  

Teacher Profiles ...................................................................................................................... 101  

Participant One .................................................................................................................... 101  

Participant Two ................................................................................................................... 103  

5

Participant Three ................................................................................................................. 105  

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 106  

Definition of Major Themes and Subthemes .......................................................................... 109  

Review of Data: Examples of Process .................................................................................... 111  

Problem-solving .................................................................................................................. 111  

Ideating/conceptualizing ..................................................................................................... 112  

Evaluating ........................................................................................................................... 114  

Review of Data: Examples of Disciplinary Literacy .............................................................. 115  

Defining .............................................................................................................................. 115  

Selecting .............................................................................................................................. 116  

Making/creating .................................................................................................................. 117  

Review of Data: Examples of Individual Perception .............................................................. 118  

Voice ................................................................................................................................... 119  

Choice ................................................................................................................................. 120  

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 121  

Chapter Five: Findings, Discussion, Limitations, and Implications ........................................... 123  

Discussion of Major Findings ................................................................................................. 125  

Finding One: Creativity Development: Definitions and Teacher Perceptions ....................... 127  

Finding Two: The Creative Process is an Essential Tool for Teaching, Learning, and

Developing Curriculum .......................................................................................................... 131  

6

Finding Three: Recontextualizing CPS and Constructivism .................................................. 134  

Constructivism .................................................................................................................... 136  

Finding Four: Deficiencies ..................................................................................................... 143  

Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 146  

Implications for Educational Practice ..................................................................................... 147  

Practitioner significance ...................................................................................................... 147  

Scholarly significance ......................................................................................................... 149  

Areas for Future Research ...................................................................................................... 150  

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 151  

References ................................................................................................................................... 153  

Appendix Interview Questions ................................................................................................... 174  

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

As human beings, we have an extraordinary power—the ability to imagine things outside

of our experiences and to express them in forms with which other people can engage (Robinson,

2001). This power is called creativity, and because of its ambiguity, it has been contentious in

the U.S. public education system (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Various definitions of creativity

among research, policy, and practice continue to complicate the educational outcomes, goals, and

objectives of creativity (Craft, Cremin, Hay, & Clack, 2013; Fleming, 2010; Zimmerman, 2014).

Continued confusion about what constitutes creativity, and where it fits in the K-12 curriculum,

interferes with the prioritization of creativity education in local, state, and national education

policy and practice. However, creativity’s global relevance has given it resurgent importance in

educational research (Craft, 2005; Freedman, 2010; Zimmerman, 2009). Creativity’s importance

has increased; yet, lack of relevant, actionable policies have created a national dialogue that

includes concerns that students are emerging from schools less creative, leading to a “creativity

crisis” (Bronson & Merryman, 2010) in K-12 public education.

Research Problem

The definition of creativity in educational practice has been unclear (Coleman & Cross,

2001). Many scholars have agreed that creativity is a complex process, one that should be

viewed as interactive among persons, processes, products, and social and cultural contexts

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1999). Gardner (1999) suggested that not all creative people

are creative for the same reason, and it is only after much time and effort in creative fields that

they can be viewed as creative. Creativity from this point of view is an individual characteristic,

as a person reacts with one or more systems within a particular social context (Zimmerman,

2014). Recent changes in education policy and practice, such as high stakes, standardized testing,

have had an impact on the depth and breadth of creativity in art education. This grounded theory

8

case study seeks to examine contemporary models for art education that educators perceive to

promote creativity with the goal of identifying principles of effective practice. Placing emphasis

on teachers’ perspectives, experiences, and practices, this study intends to develop a full

understanding of the creativity in art education, as well as uncover best instructional practices for

teaching creativity in the art classroom. Using teachers’ definitions and interpretations provides

insight into better defining creativity learning in art education and how this influences the

reconceptualization of creativity in arts education. The research questions that guide this study

are:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity

in education?

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate creativity

in their art classes?

Significance of Research Problem

The experiences of art teachers and principals of effective practice identified from this

analysis intend to provide a clear reconceptualization of creativity in art education. Creativity has

many definitions because of the various conceptions about the relationship between the notions

of intelligence and creativity. Davis and Rimm (1998) believed for a person to be creative, he or

she needs to be intelligent. MacKinnon (1965) argued that a basic level of IQ is required for

creative productivity. However, Sternberg (2001) differentiated between intelligence and

creativity and viewed intelligence as advancing societal norms and creativity as opposing

societal norms and proposing new norms. Another source of contention regarding creativity is

the idea that children and adults display creativity very differently. For example, Feldman (1999)

contended that children can demonstrate natural skill in a number of areas while adults build skill

over time. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) noted that this is because creativity involves changing an

9

area of understanding and ways of thinking within that area. In contrast, this may also just

suggest that creativity should be viewed in a more individual way. That is because a person

approaches creative problems at different times with different motivations (Csikszentmihalyi,

1996; Sternberg, 1999). Creativity education, and the standard of creativity in visual art

education, in this unique way, can help to develop a better and broader understanding of creative

human behaviors.

As discussed previously, there has been a dearth in the literature examining the principles

of effective practice for creativity in art education. This case study filled this gap in the extant

literature. The current dialogue surrounding the nature of creativity in schools involves central

discourse in art education as a site for creativity in schools (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012). Unlike

other countries, the United States does not have mandated federal policies concerning creativity

education (Craft, 2005; Fleming, 2010). According to Newton and Newton (2014), governments

and policymakers see creativity as a means of achieving economic growth. However, the self-

reliance and empowerment that creative skills bring to education generate tension, such as—

freedom versus control, or rote learning versus problem-solving. U.S. public education policy

and practice have had an impact on the depth and breadth of creativity in many ways.

First, the standards movement emerged with the 1994 passage of the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act. Title II of that act established a National Education Standards and Improvement

Council, which was charged with finding appropriate organizations to write standards (The

College Board, 2012). Second, while other subjects also integrate creativity, it is important the

inclusion of the arts as a core academic subject in state and federal education policy through the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act

[NCLB]) moved to define “core academic subjects” as English, reading or language arts, math,

10

science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography

(NCLB, 2002). This change made it so that, for the first time in history, the arts were defined as

a core subject. However, this has been problematic, as current federal law (and most state law)

does not include a definition of what the “arts” encompass as an academic discipline. Third, as

the arts become increasingly valued as a core subject across states, the definition in general

terms, such as “the arts,” “the fine arts,” or “the visual and performing arts” remains ambiguous.

The realization that there is ambiguity in the terminology of “the arts” helped pave the way for a

major revision of many state-level arts standards. Last, the revision of standards at the local level

brought about the formation and revision of arts standards at the national level. The National

Core Art Standards (2014) have been developed to replace the voluntary National Arts Standards

(1994), which were crafted to guide arts curriculum, instruction, and assessment in America’s

schools.

The National Art Standards of 1994 helped to originally define artistic literacy through a

set of overarching philosophical foundations and lifelong goals before “the arts” were named a

core subject. The standards of the visual arts, before 2014, included six major standards:

1. Students will understand, select, and apply media, techniques, and processes.

2. Students will understand and apply elements and organizational principles of art.

3. Students will consider, select, and apply a range of subject matter, symbols, and ideas.

4. Students will reflect upon, describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate their own and others’

work.

5. Students will make connections between visual arts, other disciplines, and daily life

(State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education [SEADAE], 2014). Absent from

11

these standards is one that links creativity, the creative process, or creative practice to art

education.

The newly adopted National Core Art Standards contains four standards: creating,

performing/presenting/producing, responding, and connecting (SEADAE, 2014). Important here

is the standard “creating,” which has been defined as “conceiving and developing new artistic

ideas and work.” Three anchor standards are:

1. Generate and conceptualize artistic ideas and work.

2. Organize and develop artistic ideas and work.

3. Refine and complete artistic work.

Here, for the first time, we see the basis for creativity in art education as a national standard. The

SEADAE (2014) defined “creating” as:

Creative personal realization through the philosophical foundation that participation in

each of the arts as creators, performers, and audience members enables individuals to

discover and develop their own creative capacity, thereby providing a source of lifelong

satisfaction. With the lifelong goal that artistically literate citizens find at least one arts

discipline in which they develop sufficient competence to continue active involvement.

(p. 10)

Much as with the standards movement, it is clear that historical trends; along with

cultural, political, technological, and economic events; have helped to shape the emergent

creativity needs and artistic practices in education. While many methodologies in education and

art guide practices toward a more meaningful education, creativity is emerging as part of a

cultural shift toward 21st-century learning (Gude, 2007). Popular forms of art education use

combinations of multiculturalism, critical pedagogy, visual culture, art research, community arts,

12

and social justice for the purposes of engaging students of art (Efland, 1990). Therefore, this

study sought to examine contemporary models for art education that promote creativity to

identify principles of effective practice. An emphasis was placed on teachers’ perspectives,

experiences, and practices to develop an understanding of creativity, as well as instructional

practices for teaching creativity in the art classroom. Using visual arts teachers’ definitions and

interpretations provided insight into creativity learning across the curriculum and how this

influences the reconceptualization of creativity in arts education.

Positionality

This section intends to highlight my positionality as a teacher, learner, and leader of arts

education, and the perspective my socially constructed identity brings to my research. According

to Briscoe (2005), positionality consists of the multifaceted and interpersonal roles of race, class,

gender, and social characteristics. Positionality highlights how individuals understand and

perceive themselves in the world. For this reason, in research, the positionalities of researchers

and the researched are important. According to Milner (2007), “researchers’ multiple and varied

positions, roles, and identities are intricately and inextricably embedded in the process and

outcomes of education research” (p. 389). As Ravitch and Riggan (2011) described when

designing and conducting research, it can be a challenge to examine and make transparent what

influences one’s work. This can be seen through one’s roles, commitments, goal, concepts,

theories, and assumptions.

From the stance of an educational practitioner who has spent many years teaching,

learning, and leading in a traditionally creative subject, I brought to this issue a strong belief that

creativity education will help students succeed across disciplines. I believe this not only because

contemporary research and literature support it, but also because of my first-hand accounts as an

art teacher, learner, and leader. As Briscoe (2005) noted, this positioning cannot go unnoticed. I

13

agree that my study should not only have the merit to represent the groups and subgroups with

which I identify, it should have the power and neutrality to represent the issue as a whole. It was

important to recognize my positioning within these demographic groups to avoid

misinterpretation, especially, as Briscoe contended, superior misinterpretations. According to

Briscoe (2005), “these misinterpretations occur because one always brings one’s history,

experiences, and categories to bear when trying to understand new situations; all researchers

perforce bring their horizons of meaning with them” (pp. 25-26).

I recognized what Jupp and Slattery (2006) referred to as discursive contexts in regard to

misinterpretations in relation to my positioning, that is, an insufficient commonsense

understanding of student differences represented in contemporary education-speak, commercial

and mass-media outlets, and wider national policy debates on education. With creativity in

education having a recent surge in popularity and publicity, I believe it was important for me to

be more aware of broad and commonsense understandings of “creativity” in contemporary

education policy, language, and reform. I looked beyond popular and mass-media notions of

creativity. For example, while I support the ideas in Robinson’s (2006) popular TED Talk, I

looked beyond this very basic testimony in search of ideas that include all learners, leaders, and

teachers.

Jupp and Slattery’s (2006) concept of deficit comes to mind, as this was an avenue that

could predispose me to certain conclusions about creativity. One, in particular, was the surge of

non-educational literature surrounding creativity. As educators, we work with and against

common sense thinking, continually. This was important in our presentation of neutral

information as researchers because of the ways we realize and communicate differences

represented in historical and social practices. For example, by omitting literature that examines

14

race, class, language, and cultural differences (or examines them without references to historical

inequality or student differences) I could be contributing to misrepresentations in regard to

structures and deficits (Jupp & Slattery, 2006, p. 208).

Roulston and Shelton (2015) contended, “bias in quantitative research is a potential

source of error throughout the design and conduct of study, and later in analysis and

representation of findings” (p. 4). As researchers, we cannot separate from our topic of study

completely. However, we can be aware of it and design our research to illuminate the

interactions between the researchers and the researched. To isolate my personal bias, positions,

and sensitivities, and preserve a neutral position, I also used “reflexive practices” (Roulston &

Shelton, 2015, p. 2). I accomplished this by examining my own subjectivity and revealing how it

shaped the research process. Such consideration and self-analysis through the span of the

research established reflexivity. With an understanding that reflexivity alone (i.e., the

researcher’s role, position, and actions in relation to a project and participants) was not enough to

truly remain unbiased. Another way to address predispositions in my work was to consider the

role of bias and positionality in relation to my own hypothetical expectations.

Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by the principles of creative problem-solving and steered by two

basic assumptions: everyone is creative in some way, and creative skills can be learned and

enhanced. The Osborn-Parnes creative problem-solving (CPS) process and CPS learner’s model

(Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2006) were used as a theoretical frame to guide this study. A

diversity of approaches to the CPS have developed over time. However, the Osborn-Parnes CPS

process has educational foundations (Parnes, 2004). The strategy originally was formulated by

Osborn (1963), creator of brainstorming; founder of the Creative Education Foundation (CEF).

Parnes followed Osborn as president of CEF. The model usually has been presented as five steps,

15

but sometimes, a preliminary step has been added called mess finding, which involves locating a

challenge or problem to which to apply the model. The six stages are mess finding (objective

finding), fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding (idea evaluation), and

acceptance finding (idea implementation). These steps guide the creative process to produce one

or more creative, workable solutions. A unique feature is that each step first involves a divergent

thinking phase in which one generates many ideas (i.e., facts, problem definitions, ideas,

evaluation criteria, implementation strategies), and then a convergent phase in which only the

most promising ideas are selected for further exploration (Davis & Rimm, 1998).

The basic structure of the CPS learner’s model is comprised of four stages with a total of

six explicit process steps, as outlined in Table 1. Each step uses divergent and convergent

thinking. For this study, a solid understanding of the difference between divergent and

convergent processes was important. A core principle of this study was that divergent and

convergent thinking must be balanced. This model describes these as keys to creativity, that is,

learning ways to identify and balance expanding and contracting thinking and knowing when to

practice them. Another principal component of this study was to ask problems as questions. This

model uses open-ended questions to invite and develop challenges and problems with multiple

possibilities. The third principle of the CPS method is to defer or suspend judgment. In his early

work on brainstorming, Osborn learned the instantaneous judgment in response to an idea shuts

down idea generation. Last, a focus on “Yes, and” rather than “No, but” to generate information

and ideas was applied (Osborn, 1963).

16

Table 1

CPS Learner’s Model

CLARIFY Explore the vision Identify the goal, wish, or challenge. Gather data Describe and generate data to enable a clear

understanding of the challenge. Formulate challenges Sharpen awareness of the challenge and create

challenge questions that invite solutions. IDEATE Explore ideas Generate ideas that answer the challenge questions. DEVELOP Formulate solutions To move from ideas to solutions. Evaluate, strengthen,

and select solutions for best “fit.” IMPLEMENT Formulate a plan Explore acceptance and identify resources and actions

that will support the implementation of the selected solution(s).

Note. Puccio, Murdoch, and Mande. (2011). CPS learner’s model [Table]. Creative Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org/

To understand creativity in art education, it was important to investigate key theoretical

models of creativity development and application. Different perspectives on investigating

creativity are as varied and contentious of the definitions of creativity. To understand the role of

creativity as an educational tool, it is important to understand its theoretical complexity.

Understanding and applying any one theory aligns with the goals of this study: to create relevant

creativity instructional tools and techniques that foster creativity in art education classrooms.

Most suited to education is the CPS method. Although there are many variations of CPS used

widely in organizations worldwide, all derive from Osborn’s (1953) theory, later developed with

Parnes (1987).

The notion of the creative process, as a definition of creativity, has been represented in

various models (Torrance, 1962). Although definitions of creativity have proven to be complex,

multifaceted, and numerous, Torrance (1974) explained a comprehensive definition of creativity

and the creative process that bears a striking resemblance to many problem-solving models. He

stated that creativity is a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in

knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, identifying difficulty, searching for solutions,

17

making guesses at and testing formulated hypotheses, and being able to communicate the results.

Guilford (1968) created the notion of CPS by combining the creative process with the problem-

solving process with the understanding that creativity shared a close relationship within a

problem-solving structure. However, Parnes (1987) believed creativity could be encouraged

through a modeled and structured system and developed it through the use of steps in the CPS.

It was important to differentiate between the creative process and CPS, as well as

attributes of creativity and the sub-processes of creativity (Lubart, 2001). A creative process, as

the name implies, is a sequence of steps one must progress through to arrive at a solution to a

problem or the production of a product. Wallas (1926) developed a model to represent such a

process that was comprised of four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification.

Here, preparation is defined as the problem and prior knowledge or personal aptitude. Incubation

is the forming of connections that are revealed through illumination. Illumination is the

realization of a refined idea. Verification is the conscious work that takes place to form a

solution. This basic model has endured and can be identified in creativity and educational

literature on the creative process. For example, Amabile (1996) integrated a version of the four-

stage model in her description of the creative process. However, his model identified five phases

that included problem and task identification, preparation, response generation, response

validation and communication, and decision-making. While not dramatically different,

Amabile’s model combined ideas of the creative process with principles of CPS.

While such variation of similar models exists throughout the literature, some scholars

have believed that creative attributes or personality traits are the driving factors that influence the

CPS. In other words, a creative process involves steps the problem solver progresses through,

while creative attributes are the abilities the problem solver may possess while working through

18

the creative process. Guilford (1950) provided an excellent example of these two notions by

suggesting that there was “considerable agreement that the complete creative act involves four

important steps” (p. 451). Described as preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification,

these “steps” characterize the creative process. In the same article, he went on to identify certain

abilities or personality traits that may be involved in creativity: sensitivity to problems; a

capacity to produce many ideas, which he describes as fluency; an ability to change one’s mental

set, which he describes as flexibility; the ability to reorganize; an ability to deal with complexity;

and the ability to evaluate. This model helps identify the complexities of the individual as part of

the process of creativity rather than the creative process. Guilford’s foundation set a clear

explanation of a contentious concept in creativity, which helped to form the basis for various

models of creativity and creativity research (Lubart, 2001).

Important to education, however, discrepant to the framework of this study was the

underlying theory of identifying and assessing creativity through product evaluation. This issue

has been a concern of some researchers in education and the arts (Michael, 1999). In an effort to

study different types of creativity, art and education scholar, Eisner (1962), used the

characteristics of boundary pushing or inventing, boundary breaking, and aesthetic organization

as criteria for rating art products. Through Eisner’s study of the approaches for the measurement

of creativity in the 1950s, two types of assessments existed, which help to delineate two theories

of creativity education in a distinct way: cognition creativity and personal/individual creativity

(Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Torrance, 1972). The desire to find a measurement factor in

creativity boosted the value of it in education, and the approaches used to research creativity

expanded in the 1980s. With this added diversity and interest in the dimensions of creativity,

similar diversity was seen in creativity education through the creation of assessment measures.

19

Beyond cognition and personality, creativity was being assessed through the measure of

the creativity of products (Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1991), the investigation of

environmental characteristics (Amabile, 1996), the measurement of idea generation (Runco,

1991a; Runco & Mraz, 1992), and the characteristics of inventive behavior. The Torrance Test of

Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1972, 1988) has been the most widely used test of

creativity and is supported by more research than any other test of creativity (Kerr & Gagliardi,

2003). The TTCT is based on the concepts developed by Guilford (1967) and provides an

objectively scored psychometric assessment tool that is easy to administer (Sternberg &

Williams, 1996). TTCT assesses students through the use of figural or verbal prompts that are

scored according to fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999;

Torrance 1972, 1988).

Viktor Lowenfeld believed that the purpose of art is to develop creativity (Hamp, 1954).

Sighting the work of both Guilford (1950) and Dewey (1966), he believed creativity expressed in

art transfers to other spheres of learning. Until the emergence of creativity assessment in the mid-

1980s, scholars of art education mostly supported the belief that the ultimate purpose of art was

to promote creative self-expression (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987). However, the field of art

education has expanded significantly over the past 30 years and art has been found to have

numerous positive benefits to students including and expanding beyond the development of

creativity as expression to creativity as a process and tool for learning (Burton, Horowitz, &

Abeles, 2000; Eisner, 2002). In this study, the historical positive correlation art has with

creativity helped to construct the foundation for the framework of CPS. However, it is only one

theory in a plethora of theories in art education. It was the intent of this study to define principles

20

of effective practices that relate to definitions of creativity as a process in education, not a

product, and as a tool for learning over self-expression in art.

The theoretical and conceptual theories that guided this explorative case study, which

sought to discover contemporary principles of effective practice for creativity in art education,

operate under the assumptions that everyone is creative in some way and creative skills can be

learned and enhanced (Piaget, 1929, 1932, 1962). The Osborn-Parnes CPS process and CPS

learner’s model (Puccio et al., 2011) align with the philosophies of creativity learning and other

educational foundations (Parnes, 2004). The CPS model was particularly useful, as it mimics the

nature of the case study. In using this model, the researcher was able to highlight objective

finding, fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and evaluation and

acceptance finding (idea implementation) of art education practitioners. These steps guide the

creative process and the research process. A unique feature is that each step of the CPS model

involves a step in the research process. For this reason, the CPS model also engaged the

discourse of improvement and reexamination needed to promote the need for an authentic

creativity model and outline of principles of effective practice in art education.

Conclusion

Rabkin and Hedberg (2011) contended that many studies have documented the lack of

creativity in schools. However, the value and importance of the arts as a means for cultivating

creativity has gained recognition among federal lawmakers (Noblit, Corbett, Wilson, &

McKenney, 2009). Art programs and practices to develop the skills needed to prepare students

for the 21st century are becoming increasingly prevalent. Movements such as the Common Core

State Standards and the National Core Arts Standards present an opportunity for art educators to

reexamine and restructure the teaching of creativity to address deficiencies and provide models,

modes, and principles of effective practice solutions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007). This

21

qualitative case study addressed teacher perceptions of creativity, supported by the theoretical

perspectives that form the framework CPS in art education. The study offers principles of

effective practice and model creativity teaching by providing the educational community with a

design structure for fostering CPS in 21st-century art education classroom, under the new

National Core Art Standards.

The literature review in Chapter Two examines the definitions of creativity, art education,

and CPS within their historical context while detailing the research surrounding 21st-century

skills, CPS pedagogy, and reviewing research findings of creativity practices in public school art

programs according to teachers. Chapter Three addresses the methodology design and rationale

for the study. Explanations of population, sampling, instrumentation, data collection procedures,

and analysis are provided as well as steps for validating the study. Chapter Four states the

findings of the data analyses organized by research questions. Chapter Five provides a summary

of results, discussion of findings, and recommendations for practice, policy, and research.

Definition of Key Terminology

For the sake of this study, the following terms as defined by the State Education Agency

Directors of Arts Education (2014) in the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (2014)

through the National Core Arts Standards were used:

• Visual arts: originally defined by the National Art Education Association, include the

traditional fine arts, such as, drawing, painting, printmaking, photography, and sculpture;

media arts, such as, animation, video, and emerging digital technologies; design, such as,

communication, product, and interactive; environmental, such as, architecture, landscape

architecture, interior and urban planning; conceptual, performance, participatory, street,

and folk arts and works of art in clay, glass, metal, wood, fiber, paper, and other

materials.

22

• Art: originally defined in the Next Generation Core Visual Arts Standards (2014), the

term is used in the classificatory sense to mean “an artifact or action that has been put

forward by an artist or other person as something to be experienced, interpreted, and

appreciated” (p. 1). Please note this term. In everyday discussions and in the history of

aesthetics, multiple (and sometimes contradictory) definitions of art have been proposed.

Weitz (1956) recommended differentiating between classificatory (classifying) and

honorific (honoring) definitions of art.

• Creativity: the ability to conceive and develop rich, original ideas, discover unexpected

connections, and invent or make new things.

23

Chapter 2: Literature Review

There has been a deficiency regarding the delineation of creativity in educational practice

(Coleman & Cross, 2001). Scholars have agreed that creativity is a complex process, one that

should be viewed as interactive among persons, processes, products, and social and cultural

contexts (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1999). Recent changes in education policy and

practice have had an impact on the depth and breadth of creativity in art education (Halverson &

Sheridan, 2014). This case study sought to examine contemporary models for art education that

promote creativity to identify principles of effective practice in visual arts education. Placing

emphasis on teachers’ perspectives, experiences, and practices, this study intended to develop a

full understanding of creativity in art education, as well as uncover best instructional practices

for teaching creativity in the art classroom. By using teachers’ definitions and interpretations, the

researcher provided insight into better defining creativity learning in contemporary art education.

More so, the investigation revealed how this influences the reconceptualization of creativity in

arts education. There has been a dearth in the literature that has examined the principles of

effective practice for creativity in art education. This case study filled the gap in the extant

literature. The current dialogue surrounding the nature of creativity in schools involves central

discourse in art education as a site for creativity (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012). Unlike other

countries, as of this writing, the United States does not have mandated federal policies

concerning creativity education (Craft, 2005; Fleming, 2010). The research questions that guided

this study were:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity

in education?

24

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate creativity

in their art classes?

Using both multidisciplinary journal databases such as Academic Search Complete,

Academic OneFile, and Journal Storage and subject-specific databases such as Education

Research Complete and Education Resource Information Center, a literature review was

conducted that examines the context of creativity in accordance with the framework of art

education. This literature review first examines a variety of creativity definitions and their

development over time, including the four P’s system (i.e., process, product, personal, and

press), the evolution of the CPS process and theory, and seminal works regarding teachers’

beliefs about, and definitions of, creativity in schools. Next, it highlights a deficiency regarding

the delineation of creativity in educational practice. Third, it reviews the frameworks of

creativity research and pedagogy, highlighting traditional constructivist approaches such as

discovery-based, problem-based, and inquiry-based education as forms of problem-solving. It

continues with studies that focus on creativity and the curriculum, highlighting common

creativity venues, such as the arts, as well as investigate considerations for creativity across the

curriculum. Next, it examines how values around art education and creativity help shape policy

and practice through an investigation of current metadata. Finally, a summation of the literature

is presented, and suggestions are offered based on findings and implications.

Defining Creativity

Creativity is a complex construct, and scholars have yet to achieve consensus on how to

define it. Explicit definitions of creativity vary among researchers. While many definitions

offered in this literature review may be clear, they are rarely consistent (Plucker, Beghetto, &

Dow, 2004). Scholars’ definitions of creativity generally have fallen into one of four major

categories: personal creativity, creative product, creative process, and creative environment

25

(press) that foster creativity (Runco, 2008). Beyond those four categories, some scholars

conceived creativity as a complex system that includes sociocultural and historical components

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). These varied models and definitions of

creativity have brought confusion to both educators and educational researchers (Skiba, Tan,

Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2010). The lack of a single or agreed upon definition of creativity is a

central factor limiting educational implementation. Plucker et al. (2004) contended that a widely

agreed upon and coherent definition of creativity is needed for educators and scholars to

understand creativity as a tool for teaching and learning.

The 4 P’s System: Process, Product, Personal, and Press

In recognition of the multifaceted nature of the topic creativity, a review of “creative”

from the four P’s system of creativity classification designed by Rhodes (1961) begins this

review. The Rhodes model summarizes four distinct perspectives on creativity commonly found

in the literature: person, process, product, and press. “Person” explores the characteristics of a

creative person; “process” refers to the processes through which a person creates; “product”

examines the creativity involved, and “press” involves a relationship to the environment. All are

sensitive to, or aware of, problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, and

disharmonies. All focus on compressing available information; defining the difficulty or

identifying the missing element; searching for solutions and/or making a hypothesis; modifying

and retesting ideas; and communicating the result.

Process. Research in creativity started by assessing the creative process. The term

creative process applies to “motivation, perception, learning, thinking, and communicating.”

(Rhodes, 1961, p. 308). The creative process, or the structured thoughts and actions that lead to a

novel production, has been one of the central subjects in creativity research in the past century

(Lubart, 2001). Creativity scholar Guilford (1950) noted that there has been “considerable

26

agreement that the complete creative act involves four important steps” (p. 451). These steps

have been traditionally identified as (a) preparation, (b) incubation, (c) illumination, and (d)

verification. Guilford’s (1967) outline of the creative process set the foundation for other

research and discover. It also distinguished between divergent and convergent production. From

this idea, Guilford worked to create a variety of measures that intended to assess four main

components of divergent production: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.

For a number of researchers, this four-stage model (or some variation of it) served and

continues to serve as the basis for understanding creativity as a process (Busse & Mansfield,

1980). Amabile (1996) incorporated a version of the basic four-stage model into a new model of

creativity. Amabile described the creative process as consisting of several phases that are

somewhat similar but adjusted to fit multiple definitions of creativity. Amabile noted (a) problem

or task identification, (b) preparation (gathering and reactivating relevant information and

resources), (c) response generation (seeking and producing potential responses), and (d) response

validation and communication (testing the possible response against criteria). Amabile (1996)

noted that development may occur during the creative process but may also encompass changes

in motivation. Amabile’s idea highlighted the notion of problem-solving as a component of the

creative process models. Elaboration on the nuance of the term problem is expanded on in this

chapter.

Product. The creativity of products characteristically centers on investigational

prototypes diverged and assessed under similar conditions. According to Rhodes (1961), “When

an idea becomes embodied into tangible form, it is called a product” (p. 309). Creativity as a

product is often noted as a fleeting and largely situation-dependent state of being. Although

Runco (2008) suggested that the assessment of creativity products is particularly useful in the

27

study of everyday creativity and the creativity of people (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). The

identification and assessment of creative products such as paintings and poems are what helps

define them. A consensual assessment process of creative endeavors frames this notion of

creativity as a product. The creativity of tangible products relies on the consensual assessment of

experts, which continues to be formalized but has a foundation in the consensual assessment

technique (Amabile, 1982; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010).

The consensual assessment technique is defined as a method for assessing creativity in

which panels of expert judges are asked to rate the creativity of creative products such as stories,

collages, poems, and other artifacts (Amabile, 1996). Because of its relative simplicity and the

consistently high levels of integrated agreements reached, this methodology enjoys wide use and

continued examination in the creativity literature (e.g., Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004;

Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007). The consensual assessment technique is quite simple:

Subjects are asked to create something (e.g., a poem, a short story, a collage, a composition, an

experimental design); then experts in the domain in question are asked to evaluate the creativity

of the things they have made. The experts work independently and do not influence one

another’s judgments in any way. The most common kinds of tasks have been writing poems,

creating collages, and writing short stories, but the potential range of creative products that one

could use is quite broad (Baer & McKool, 2009). It has been used to compare creative

performance under different (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic) motivational constraints; to study the

relationship between process and product in creativity (e.g., Hennessey, 2010); to examine

creativity in cross-cultural settings (Niu & Kaufman, 2013); and to analyze ways that people

with different levels of expertise in a domain conceptualize creativity differently (Kaufman,

Reiter-Palmon, Roni, & Tinio, 2012).

28

Personal. The creativity of individual people centers on the idea that expressive, creative

thoughts are relatively enduring and a largely stable and recognizable personality trait.

According to Rhodes (1961), “The term creative person covers information about personality,

intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense

mechanisms, and behavior” (p. 307). E. Paul Torrance had one of the most influential careers in

creativity research of this genre. He developed the TTCT; Torrance, 1974). This method

continues to prevail as an assessment measure when it comes to the testing of individuals

(Kaufman & Baer, 2005). Although this method is widely used and accepted by scholars, the

utility and/or psychometric properties of general tests of creative ability are often questioned

because of the work in the other three fields of creativity study (i.e., process, product, and

environment. Baer (2010) noted that creativity is best conceptualized as domain specific. They

argued that domain specificity explains why divergent thinking tests yield so much variation.

While many researchers and psychometricians continue to examine the connection between

creative-ability and creative-personality measures, the TTCT has still been the most prominent

(e.g., Epstein, Schmidt, & Warfel, 2008; Nassif & Quevillon, 2008). Research has continued to

show that two constructs are only modestly related.

Press. The term creative press refers to the relationship between human beings and their

environment. Creative production is the outcome of “certain kinds of forces playing upon certain

kinds of individuals as they grow up and as they function” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 308). The

understanding of cognitive processes that underlies creative performance is central to this branch

of creativity study, and much like the notion of personal, it is particularly diverse. The variety of

investigative paths is almost as great as the variety of experimental questions being asked. For

example, Kaufman and Baer (2005) suggested there are cognitive means that influence

29

creativity, and that those means are domain specific. Kray, Galinsky, Wong, and Judd (2006)

suggested a “relational processing style” obtained through different mindsets. Kray et al.

revealed that mindsets could be harmful to idea generation, or they can improve performance on

creative association tasks. Miller and Tal (2007) cited a noteworthy relation between

independence and creativity, while Necka (1999) presented evidence that links creativity with

cognitive functioning. Groborz and Necka (2003) also argued that cognitive abilities help to

process the steps of creativity.

Outside of the four P’s of creativity, there is research that has backed the notion of

creativity as a skill. Research at the individual-level, extensively measured by Oldham and

Cummings (1996), described creativity as a personality and cognitive dimension. Oldham and

Cumming’s case study measured creativity through various performance tasks across domains

and searched for broad interests, attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity,

tolerance for ambiguity, and self-confidence. Similarly, Wallach and Kogan’s (1965) landmark

case study of 151 children using simple paper-and-pencil idea generation tests began the early

research on creativity as an individual cognitive skill and described it as both an inherent trait

and an individual and distinct form of intelligence. They found that the 10 measures of creativity

did not correlate with the 10 measures of intelligence and academic achievement (average r =

.09). However, this methodology has been critiqued by modern creativity researchers such as Li

and Gardner (1993) due to the singular measurements. There is validity to these procedures for

measuring fluency and flexibility of thought, as highlighted in the four P’s of creativity.

A review of the four P’s of creativity highlights the consistency between theory and

practice regarding what creativity is. Most scholars have agreed that creativity requires both

originality and appropriateness (Runco, 2015). However, in addition to originality, other

30

divergent thinking abilities have been used to define creativity. For example, the notions of

fluency, flexibility, and elaboration were expanded. Runco (1996) stated, “Creativity is

manifested in the intentions and motivation to transform the objective world into original

interpretations, coupled with the ability to decide when this is useful and when it is not” (p. 4). In

addition, a considerable amount of research treated creativity as a kind of problem finding and

solving (Basadur, Min, Runco, & Vega, 2000). Davidovitch and Milgram (2006) defined

creative thinking as a cognitive process of problem-solving through products. This combines

many notions of the four P’s definitions while questioning the relationship between problem-

solving and creativity.

Creative Problem-Solving

The concept of CPS is not a catchall term for those who think creatively, as it is used in

the common vernacular. CPS has specific academic definitions that relate to a distinct process

for solving problems. To define the CPS process in full, it is important to define each part of the

phrase. Defining creativity is not a simple task, which has been noted. This is mainly because

there are too many definitions with which to contend. The term creative has been described as

elusive, often associated with the arts. It has also been represented as something that is

mysterious, magical, full of merriment, and associated with madness (Isaksen, Puccio, &

Treffinger, 1993). Additionally, there have been misconceptions that creativity is reserved for

gifted people or “special” activities (such as the arts). In addition to that, misconception is the

notion of creativity as an act of letting go (Robinson, 2001). However, creativity is a complex,

multifaceted phenomenon that is neither mysterious nor magical.

The definitions of creative, problem, and solving, as seen in CPS literature, are important

to articulate. Creative refers to the production of ideas or options that are both new and useful

(Puccio et al., 2006). The word problem refers to the difference between the current state and the

31

desired outcome. For example, a problem does not need to be something negative; it may simply

be an opportunity for development. Guilford (1967) stated in his research about creativity that

problems are part of life, and solving them is part of being creative. Finally, solving, or to solve a

problem, is to take action (Puccio & Keller-Mathers, 2007). Throughout history, there are many

examples of solutions that have done nothing more than create additional problems. So, the idea

that a problem can be solved absolutely exists in some branches of the natural sciences (such as

mathematics), but this notion does not carry through in the arts.

The word process refers to a way of doing something that involves steps or operations; it

can be thought of as a method (Puccio et al., 2006). A great example is the scientific method,

which is a deliberate process to acquire new knowledge, and is well known and practiced in

many fields of study. With a shift in the awareness of the uniqueness and meaningful nature of

creativity and its connection to problem-solving, emergent CPS have developed. These include

the CPS process (Miller, Vehar, & Firestien, 2001; Noller, Parnes, & Biondi, 1976; Osborn,

1953; Puccio, 2006). The CPS theory that guides this research, and that I expand on, is the CPS

process.

The CPS is a deliberate problem-solving process based on six stages with the dynamic

balance of divergent and convergent thinking present through each stage. Divergent thinking

refers to the exploration of multiple, diverse, and novel solutions (Puccio et al., 2006). The

guidelines that support this type of thinking include deferred judgment, quantity, connections,

and novelty. Divergent thinking skills are often viewed through the lens of Guilford’s (1968)

four factors problem sensitivity, fluency, flexibility, and originality. Borrowed and blended from

the four P’s of creativity, Guilford suggested that these same skills are utilized to acquire

quantity, diversity, and the novelness of ideas. Through this definition, CPS directly ties to the

32

notion of creativity as a process.

Alex Osborn originally developed the CPS process with the assistance of Sid Parnes out

of a vision for creativity education and problem-solving theory. Osborn introduced creativity

concepts and the basic CPS methodology in his seminal book, Applied Imagination (1953). The

CPS process has undergone over 50 years of continuous development by Noller et al. (1976),

Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger (2000), Miller et al. (2001), and more recently by Puccio et al.

(2006). See Table 2 for more information regarding the CPS method.

Table 2

The Main Components and Six Specific Stages of CPS adapted from Isaksen, Dorval and Treffinger (1994)

Phase Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking Mess finding Seeking opportunities for problem-

solving Establishing a general goal for problem-solving

Data finding Examining the details and looking at the problem from many viewpoints

Determining what is important and how to guide problem development

Problem finding Considering all the possible problem statements

Constructing or selecting a specific problem statement

Idea finding Producing a high quantity and variety of unusual ideas

Identifying possibilities and alternatives with interesting potential

Solution finding Developing criteria for analyzing, refining, and reflecting on ideas

Choosing criteria, and applying them to strengthen and support solutions

Acceptance finding Considering possible sources of support/resistance and actions for application

Formulating a precise plan of action

Alex Osborn (1953) first presented seven steps in the CPS process: orientation,

preparation, analysis, hypothesis, incubation, synthesis, and verification. Isaksen, Dorval, and

Treffinger (1994) transformed Osborn’s CPS process into a linear form. The process went

through several changes, and as for the current model, Isaksen et al. proposed CPS v6.1 (Figure

33

1), which includes four main components and eight detailed steps. This version has been applied

and demonstrated in many educational contexts and classrooms.

Figure 1. CPS v6.1 model. Source. Isaksen et al., 2000.

Early research on creativity in education included Torrance and Torrance’s (1972) classic

analysis of 142 creativity studies addressing the question: “Can we teach children to think

creatively?” Torrance specifically assessed the impact of creativity training associated with the

following programs: Osborn-Parnes CPS process or modification; other disciplined approaches;

complex programs such as the Purdue Creativity Program; arts, media, and reading;

arrangements to foster conditions for creative thinking; teacher-classroom variables; motivation,

reward and competition; and testing conditions. It was found that the 22 studies that used the

Osborn-Parnes approach had a 91% success rate. Torrance (1988) later examined 166 additional

studies and reported the results of 7 more CPS studies with an 88% success rate. Torrance

reported that the success rate for CPS programs was higher than other creativity programs.

Although he reported in the later study that the number of CPS studies in education declined, “it

is somewhat misleading, as many of the other types of training programs rely upon the Osborn-

Parnes procedures as a general system and combine it with other strategies” (Torrance, 1988, p.

205).

34

A study by Aldous (2007) on creativity and problem-solving involving the protocol

analysis of 5 expert problem solvers, followed by a large-scale quantitative analysis of 405

individuals, posited that creativity involved the interplay of 3 activities (Aldous, 2007). These

activities were: the interaction between visual-spatial and analytical/verbal reasoning; attending

to feeling in listening to the self; and the interaction between conscious and non-conscious

reasoning. The validity of these activities draws evidence from (a) historical and introspective

accounts of novel problem-solving by noted scientists and mathematicians; (b) cognitive

psychology and neuroscience; and (c) relating this evidence to the findings of the recent

empirical study (Aldous, 2007). The implications for learning and teaching were then

considered. A case study by Miller (1992) utilized historical data from both primary and

secondary sources including autobiographical notes and reports of introspection pertaining to

Einstein’s theory of relativity to investigate analytical thinking, problem-solving, and

“wondering” (Miller, 1992, p. 409). Wondering, Miller noted, is the feeling for what is a

fundamental problem (Miller, 1992, p. 409). Miller also noted that a wondering and thought

experiment persisted for over 10 years and in this thought experiment, Einstein imagined

solutions to problems; often drawing, taking notes, and working in a visual way. This was stated

as evidence that creative and visual thinking is a form of problem-solving.

That aforementioned ambiguity was the central quality that mystified this researcher on

the nature of creativity. Ambiguity is a characteristic associated with divergent thinking. The

ability to generate multiple solutions to a problem defines divergent thinking. Divergent thinking

might free up individuals’ creativity. However, it is only one factor in defining what it means to

be creative. Divergent thinking allows individuals to form multiple solutions to any given

problem. The empirical research conducted by Silva et al. (2009) provided a refined definition of

35

divergent thinking. Silva et al. concluded that divergent thinking is the ability of individuals to

generate multiple ideas (fluency of ideas) as well as the ability to create profound and unusual

solutions to complex problems. Although divergent thinking is associated with creativity,

Sawyer (2006) suggested, “creative achievement requires a complex combination of both

divergent and convergent thinking” (p. 45). It would seem the highlight of creative individuals is

the ability to engage in complex problem-solving by switching back and forth between both

convergent and divergent thinking. However, this is not the definition of creativity itself. It is

simply a trait associated with the CPS process and creative individuals in educational settings.

So, how do educational settings define creativity?

Creativity Definitions in Education

Coleman and Cross (2001) contended that there is a deficiency regarding the delineation

of creativity in educational practice. According to Sternberg (1999), all creative work happens

separately, in multiple domains. In other words, people are not creative in a general sense; they

are creative in particular domains, such as the visual arts. Many scholars have agreed that

creativity is too complex a process, one that should be viewed as interactive among persons,

processes, products, and social and cultural contexts (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1999).

Gardner (1999) suggested that not all creative persons fit easily within a domain of knowledge,

and it is only after much time and effort that they can be viewed as creative. Creativity from this

point of view is an individual characteristic, as a person reacts with one or more systems within a

particular social context (Zimmerman, 2014).

It is difficult to define creativity because of the various conceptions about the relationship

between the notions of intelligence and creativity. Davis and Rimm (1998) believed for a person

to be creative, he or she needs to be intelligent. MacKinnon (1965) argued that a basic level of

IQ is required for creative productivity. Through testing the role of creative intelligence in

36

creativity in several studies, Sternberg’s (2001) research differentiated between intelligence and

creativity through problem-solving. In the set of studies, one included 80 people who were

presented with novel kinds of reasoning problems that had a single best answer. Their task was

to predict future states from past states, given incomplete information. In another study, 60

people were given more conventional kinds of inductive reasoning problems, such as analogies,

series completions, and classifications, but were told to solve them. However, the problems had

premises preceding them that were either conventional (dancers wear shoes) or novel (dancers

eat shoes). The participants had to solve the problems as though the counterfactuals were true

(Sternberg & Gastel, 1989). Through this small series of studies, it was found that the

delimitation factor in creativity and problem-solving was intelligence. Again, intelligence and

creativity are opposing ideas that converge in the CPS model.

Another source of contention regarding creativity is the idea that children and adults

display creativity very differently. For example, Feldman (1999) contended that children can

demonstrate talent in a number of areas. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) agreed and noted that this is

because creativity involves changing an area of understanding and ways of thinking within that

area. In contrast, this may also just suggest that creativity should be viewed in a more individual

way because a person approaches creative problems at different times with different motivations

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Sternberg, 1999). Zimmerman (2009) outlined the basic assumptions

about creativity that continue to increase conflict and create greater discrepancies behind

creativity and creative learning. In creativity, there are no common definitions and related

dispositional factors. This would suggest that creativity is a complex process with relationships

among people, processes, products, and social and cultural contexts relevant to a domain of

knowledge; and that creativity, based on models developed in art education and other fields, can

37

be enhanced and teaching strategies can be developed to stimulate creativity (Tomljenović,

2015).

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Gardner (1999) suggested that teaching strategies can be

developed to stimulate creativity, and therefore, creativity can be enhanced through educational

models. An empirical study by Barbot, Besançon, and Lubart (2015) highlighted the creative

process as a sequence of thoughts and actions that lead to novel, adaptive productions. Their

study examined the relationship between creativity and tolerance of ambiguity. Participants were

parents and their adolescent children. Three measures of creativity were used: a divergent

thinking task, a story‐writing task, and self‐evaluation of creative attitudes and behavior.

Participants completed two self‐report measures of tolerance of ambiguity: the short version of

the Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance (Lubart, 2001; Norton, 1975) and the Behaviour Scale

of Tolerance/Intolerance for Ambiguity (Stoytcheva, 1998, 2003). Tolerance of ambiguity was

significantly and positively related to creativity. The creativity of parents was related to their

adolescents’ creativity. However, parents’ tolerance of ambiguity was not related to adolescents’

tolerance for ambiguity or creativity. Previously, Lubart (2001) examined stage-based models of

the creative process, which are often discussed in regard to educational practice. His

investigation suggested that the basic four-stage model of the creative process may need to be

revised or replaced. While Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Sternberg (1999) suggested that inquiry-

based learning, problem-solving, divergent and convergent thinking, self-expression, and student

adaptability were all traits commonly associated with general creativity models fit well into

educational models.

Feldhusen (1992) discussed research that demonstrated that problem-finding and

problem-solving skills could be taught and students’ abilities to be productive thinkers and

38

creative problem solvers could be cultivated through instruction. According to Treffinger,

Sortore, and Cross (1993), with structured and meaningful instruction, students can deal with

abstract problems and master productive thinking as well as CPS tasks. They can also learn to

supervise their own knowledge by using failure to analyze unorthodox solutions to problems.

Many educators, researchers, and scholars find a variety of strategies for developing curriculum

and instruction in different subjects that support creativity. These strategies include problem

finding and problem-solving; unfamiliar materials and novel thinking; structured tasks for skill

building paired with unstructured tasks for expression; unity of verbal and visual resources;

open-ended outcome lessons; choice-based work; and groups work (Feldhusen, 1992; Sternberg

& Williams, 1996; Zimmerman, 2009, 2005, 2006).

The challenges associated with defining and embedding creativity within education are

not new. Throughout history, the disconnection between creativity and education has been called

neglectful (Guilford, 1968), appalling (Osborn, 1992), and a contemporary crisis (Bronson &

Merryman, 2010). In the late 1960s, the International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo

State originally tested CPS in higher education through the Creative Studies Project (Parnes,

1987). These studies found that students participating in courses aligned with CPS performed

significantly better on the production, evaluation, and development of ideas; as well as three of

Guilford’s mental operations-cognition, divergent and convergent production; applying creative

abilities to other courses; more production in non-academic achieving areas calling for creative

performance; and large gains in the ability to cope with problems and to participate actively in

discussions compared to the control groups (Parnes, 1987, p. 159).

Research clearly demonstrated the positive effects of including creativity within the

curriculum (Parnes, 1987). However, progress in converting these findings into a practical,

39

applicable, creativity curriculum has been either slow or stagnant (Torrance, 1988).

Unfortunately, even to this day, the impact of early creativity research and CPS has been sparse

and disjointed in the U.S. educational system (Kaufman & Baer, 2006). Many classrooms

continue to be factories where students are expected to sit and become rote learners, rather than

exploring and discovering knowledge for themselves.

Robinson (2001) brought attention to creativity as one of the great skills we have to

promote and teach—collaborating and benefiting from diversity rather than promoting

homogeneity. Generally speaking, this is often aligned with the 21st-century skills concept,

motivated by the belief that teaching students the most relevant, useful, in-demand, and

universally applicable skills should be prioritized in today’s schools and by the related belief that

many schools may not sufficiently prioritize such skills or effectively teach them to students. The

basic idea is that students coming of age in the 21st century need to be taught different skills than

those learned by students in the 20th century, and that the skills they learn should reflect the

specific demands placed upon them in a complex, competitive, knowledge-based, information-

age, technology-driven economy and society.

The National Center on Education and the Economy Research Summary and Final Report

by Craft (2005) reveals the push for 21st-century skills presented a holistic view of 21st-century

teaching and learning that combines a discrete focus on 21st-century student outcomes (a

blending of specific skills, content knowledge, expertise, and literacies) with innovative support

systems to help students master the multi-dimensional abilities required of them in the 21st

century. Adam’s comprehensive summary of current research and theory on the

sources of innovation and creativity, both in individuals and organizations, is based on the

40

recurring concepts in the existing literature. The study suggests that of the six skills they

described, three are related to creativity and problem-solving, solving complex,

multidisciplinary, open-ended problems; creativity and entrepreneurial thinking; and making

innovative use of knowledge, information, and opportunities. Clearly, there is a significant rise in

concern to develop creative thinking abilities in our educational system. The best way to address

concerns in developing creative thinking in the classroom and school buildings is with a strong

understanding of how teachers use, comprehend, and define creativity in their classrooms.

Teacher’s Beliefs

Teacher’s beliefs and definitions of creativity. Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds

(2005) suggested American teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative classroom activities

are generally positive and often aligned with expert opinion. Fleith (2000) contended that

American teachers conceptualize creativity as including the elements “original ideas” and “can

be developed.” Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) highlighted that 50% of their

sample believed creativity could be taught to anyone, and 81% of the sample thought this could

be done in regular classrooms. Fleith (2000) also focused on more general concepts of creativity

in addition to specific teacher practices in her interviews with elementary teachers and their

students. Her data, like those of Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), suggested

teachers and experts are generally aligned in their conceptions of creativity and creative

activities. Teachers agreed that classrooms where “students cannot share their ideas” and

“mistakes are not allowed” inhibit creativity.

In a study examining mini-c and little-c creativity, Beghetto, Kaufman, and Baxter (2011)

conducted a regression analysis to examine the relationship between students’ characteristics

(i.e., grade, gender, and 21 ethnicity), students’ creative self-efficacy beliefs in science, and their

teachers’ ratings of student creative expression in science (a measure of little-c creativity). Their

41

findings indicated a statistically significant amount of the variance in teachers’ ratings was

related to gender, ethnicity, and students’ self-ratings. In addition, there was no significant

difference between teachers’ ratings of creative expression in science and students’ self-ratings

of creative expression in science. These findings indicate that teacher perceptions of creativity in

the classroom, particularly student creative expression, may be related to students’ creative self-

efficacy in a specific domain. In addition, teachers and students are likely to have a similar

understanding of their creative expression in that domain.

The research also unveils the misconceptions of typical and atypical characteristics of

creative students (Aljughaimman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Westby & Dawson, 1995). In the

qualitative study by Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), questionnaires were

administered to elementary school teachers to examine their attitudes, beliefs, and current

classroom practices. The study found that teachers’ characteristics of creative students are at

times misaligned with expert opinion on the topic. For example, teachers rated both aesthetics

and intelligence the second highest among conceptions of creativity (with originality ranked

first). Although the constructs are occasionally included in broad conceptions of creativity,

experts certainly have not emphasized them as strongly. When asked about the characteristics of

creative students, 92% of American teachers reported: “think 22 differently,” whereas only 17%

reported “curious” (Aljughaimman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). Experts would have placed

curious much higher on the list. This research also illustrates teachers’ negative perceptions of

creative students and creativity in the classroom. Westby and Dawson (1995) generally found

that teachers’ favorite students’ personality characteristics negatively correlated with

characteristics of creative people, and personality characteristics of teachers’ least favorite

students positively correlated with characteristics of creative people.

42

Moreover, in the research by Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), despite the

81% of their teacher participants who believed creativity could be developed in the regular

classroom, a mere 33% agreed that it was the regular classroom teacher’s responsibility to do so.

A study by Fleith (2000), which investigated teachers’ and students’ perceptions about

characteristics that either stimulated or inhibited the development of creativity in the classroom

environment, revealed something different. In this study, interviews were conducted with 7

Connecticut public school teachers and 31 students (grades 3 and 4). The findings suggested that

both teachers and students believed that a classroom environment that enhances creativity

provides students with choices, accepts different ideas, boosts self‐confidence, and focuses on

students’ strengths and interests. Alternatively, in an environment that inhibits creativity, ideas

are ignored, teachers are controlling, and excessive structure exists. During Fleith’s interviews

with students, some believed they might “get into trouble” for being creative in class.

Specifically, one student reported, “I am creative at home. Sometimes, I don’t want to get into

trouble, so I don’t use my creativity in the classroom.” (Fleith, 2000).

Other experts suggested that a focus on standardized testing inhibits student creativity

(Niu & Sternberg, 2003), as does a “teacher-centered” strategy and a climate that is both “limited

and rigid” with only one right answer (Fleith, 2000). By “teaching to the test” or simply using

restrictive methodology, teachers may be missing opportunities to engage their students with

thoughtful and creative learning activities. In addition, their students may lose their willingness

to take risks, and their natural curiosity could be replaced with an attitude of compliance

(Beghetto & Plucker, 2006). In a case study that included the observation of 48 teachers,

Schacter, Thum, and Zifkin (2006) found American teachers rarely used methods that promoted

creative thinking. This was especially the case for teachers of minority and low-performing

43

students. In contrast, when primary general education teachers were asked about their classroom

practices, 75% reported they used multiple methods in the classroom that foster creativity

(Aljughaimman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). On the surface, it appears teachers may have

misconceptions about the extent to which they engage their students in creative classroom

activities.

To understand how teachers form their instructional techniques, researchers must be

aware of teachers’ beliefs of concepts and content (Belo, Van Driel, Van Veen, & Verloop,

2014). Researchers may distinguish between such related terms as belief, conceptualization, and

attitudes (Andilou & Murphy, 2010), and while there are nuances between terms, many

researchers have used the terms interchangeably. Other relevant terms included values,

conceptions, perceptions, views, and implicit theories (Andilou & Murphy, 2010). Drawing on

the seminal work of William James, Andilou and Murphy (2010) defined beliefs as, “the mental

state or function of cognizing reality in which an individual perceives something real, beyond the

realm of imagination” (p. 206).

In the seminal work on teacher beliefs, Pajares (1992) described teacher beliefs as a

“messy construct” that ran the gamut from self-efficacy, attribution, epistemological, to subject-

specific beliefs. In a meta-analysis on teacher beliefs, Fives and Buehl (2012) found that beliefs

serve as a filter, intentions, and actions are guided by beliefs and that beliefs change over time, as

beliefs have a “reciprocal relationship with context and experience” (Fives & Buehl, 2012, p.

488). The implicit theories teachers have about creativity are of consequence to their students

(Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015). Much research into teachers’ perceptions about

creativity has centered on how aligned their beliefs were to the explicit theories as promulgated

by creativity researchers (Aljughaimman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). Yet, these explicit theories

44

have not always been consistent (Plucker et al., 2004). Explicit theories can include product,

process, personal creativity, systems, or contexts (Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, & Kettler, 2016).

Alkuş and Olgan (2014) investigated the views of preservice and in-service preschool

teachers concerning the development of children’s creativity by determining the similarities

and/or differences among their views. The data were gathered from 10 preservice and 11 in-

service teachers through focus group meetings, and then from the participants’ views four basic

themes were constituted consisting of their opinions on “creativity,” “creative people,”

“importance of creativity in early childhood education,” and “obstacles to creativity in early

childhood education.” The findings indicated that although the subjects had their own creativity

definitions, they also had some common ideas. In-service teachers tended to define creativity as

doing something original (thinking outside of the box), while preservice teachers also included a

social dimension, such as doing something good for society (Alkuş & Olgan, 2014).

Fryer and Collings (1991) conducted a study involving 1,028 teachers throughout

England and Wales using a survey questionnaire on views of creativity and its development,

together with teaching style preferences. The survey involved socio‐biographical information

and teachers’ perceptions of their situations were collected to locate views in context. The study

employed original measures as well as the Torrance “ideal pupil” and “personality” checklists. A

subsample of 31 teachers took part in follow‐up interviews. Results indicated that creativity was

perceived mainly in terms of “imagination,” “originality,” and “self‐expression.” Most think

creativity can be developed, but almost three‐quarters think it is a rare gift. The distinguishing

feature of teachers highly oriented to creativity is a preference for student-centered learning.

In a meta-analysis, teachers noted the importance of creativity, yet tended to define it in

“broad strokes” (p. 24), definitions were confused or vague, and they did not define the products

45

of such creativity as needing to be useful (Mullet et al., 2016). Teachers held that a “sudden

insight” led to creative products, while some could not differentiate between creative products

versus process (Mullet et al., 2016). There is an art bias among teachers as well. While teachers

believed that creativity could manifest in all domains, creative outcomes were primarily from

hands-on activities within the arts or from writing (Andilou & Murphy, 2010; Kampylis, Berki,

& Saariluoma, 2009). Teachers did not want to judge the creative product for “fear of upsetting

the creative process” (Mullet et al., 2016, p. 28). While the research showed inconsistencies in

reports of how teachers conceptualize creativity, within these studies, many teachers’ own beliefs

were contradictory. Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) found that teachers agreed

with researchers’ categorization of creative behaviors: being imaginative, deep thinking,

curiosity, originality, and creating “novel products and inventions” (p. 27). However, teachers

were unaware of the characteristics necessary for divergent thinking (e.g., being able to offer

multiple solutions to a task).

Kampylis et al. (2009) studied teachers who held that everyone could develop their

creativity, while at the same time about half of the participants believed that creativity was still a

gift possessed by a few. In studying teachers’ perceptions of creative versus “good” students,

Karwowski (2010) found, “creative students were perceived as more dynamic, intellectual, and

excitable and less agreeable and conscientious than good students” (p. 1233). Karwowski

composed a list of 60 adjectives measured on the 7-point Likert scale to describe creative and

good students. A large sample of Polish teachers (630) participated in the study. Confirmatory

factor analyses were applied to confirm five-factor structures of profiles. It showed an acceptable

fit of the five-factor solutions in case of creative and good students. Five identified factors were:

dynamism, intellect, excitability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Scale reliabilities were

46

high (Cronbach’s α exceeds .80). Creative students were perceived as more dynamic,

intellectual, and excitable and less agreeable and conscientious than good students. Effect sizes

ranged from low and medium to large. Karwowski (2010) went on to note that creativity

demands the “hard, persistent work” (p. 1237) of conscientiousness; the very characteristics

assumed to constitute a good student. Despite teachers valuing creativity, they may misinterpret

creativity as demonstrated by good behaviors, those behaviors that make an efficient classroom

possible (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015).

Karwowski et al. (2015) found that the more a teacher believed a student was creative,

the more creative self-efficacy (CSE) that student had; students were sensitive to their teachers’

perceptions of their creative abilities. Students’ own CSE beliefs were found to “decline by grade

level” (p. 344), while teachers did not make this distinction by grade when evaluating the

creative abilities of their students (Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baxter, 2011). Kampylis et al. (2009)

found that most pre- and in-service teachers agreed that in all students, creativity could be

developed. Andilou and Murphy (2010) noted that teachers “value creativity but they feel that

they cannot support its development because of other expectations such as covering content and

preparing students for standardized assessments” (p. 217).

Teacher Reexaminations

It is clear that for creative autonomy to be fostered, teachers, learners, and leaders need to

be able to identify when creativity emerges and know how it should be nurtured and supported.

While there are numerous ways to categorize creativity, there is no set description of what it

means to be creative; therefore, there is no set method for the structuring of creativity. However,

there are collective identifications among scholars from various fields about the connections

between creativity and learning. It would seem that both theoretical and operational definitions

of creativity need to be reexamined, and the analysis should focus on how creativity learning can

47

develop appropriate skills and abilities in a rapidly changing world. The success of various

instructional practices should be investigated and established for students’ creative abilities to be

both recognized and supported. Through a reassessment and examination of the customs,

traditions, and roles of creativity teaching and learning, the concepts of teacher values should be

addressed as a method of learning. This is important to an assessment-oriented world, as it would

benefit students to use their creative skills and to understand the aspects of creativity as a

framework for research and pedagogy.

Frameworks for Creativity Research and Pedagogy

Several theories and definitions have emerged since the 1960s. One that is applicable to

education has been considered a problem-solving or psychometric view (Guilford, 1968;

Torrance, 1962; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) because it asserts that creative abilities can be

described as cognitive processes distinct from intelligence quotient (Runco, 2015) that can be

measured. Half a century ago, Guilford (1950) published an article on creativity that provided the

primary impetus for serious and sustained research on the nature and measurement of creative

thinking capacities. Guilford used divergent thinking (DT) tests and set the foundation for this as

a method for creativity studies. Certainly, DT does not guarantee actual creative achievement,

but tests of DT are reliable and reasonably valid predictors of certain performance criteria.

Guilford (1967), for example, distinguished between two kinds of intellectual abilities in his

structure of intellect (SOI) model: DT versus convergent thinking. Guilford (1968) asserted that

DT was an essential component of creativity. Much of Guilford’s original theory is based on

psychometric tests, which he used to predict and measure SOI abilities. Guildford previously

stated that the general intelligence factor was insupportable. Upon reanalysis, researchers

stipulated that artifacts and methodological errors might have affected the cognitive tests in

question. Further studies that involved more stringent methods found that Guilford’s data and

48

model can be used in education to develop learning measures. In many cases, it serves as a basis

for other theories regarding the traits of creativity and creative learning.

There have been a number of methodologies used to measure creativity in education and

children. Mayer (1999) summarized six methodologies employed by creativity researchers:

psychometric, experimental, biographical, biological, computational, and contextual. According

to him, each methodology entailed a unique viewpoint and a research procedure. Researchers

who used psychometric methodology believed that creativity was a measurable mental trait.

Thus, they administered creativity tests or questionnaires to assess individuals’ creativity, such as

Guilford; while experimental researchers view creativity as a cognitive process and require

participants to solve problems in controlled settings. Biographical methodologists study

creativity with life stories and employ methods such as case studies and historiometry. Long et

al. (2014) led an investigation based on the data collected from 5 prestigious creativity journals,

research methodologies, and methods of 612 empirical studies on creativity published between

2003 and 2012. The study period was chosen to be from 2003 to 2012 because it represents the

most recent 10 years and the rapid advances in research methodologies and methods took place

during this period. In addition, the review only focused on empirical or evidence-based research,

which was defined as “a systematic attempt to collect information about an identified problem or

question, the analysis of that information, and the application of the evidence to confirm or refute

some prior statement(s) about the problem or question under study” (Callahan & Moon, 2007, p.

307). Long et al. (2014) found that creativity research was predominantly quantitative and

psychometrics and experiment were the most frequently utilized quantitative methodologies, and

that case study was the most frequently used qualitative methodology.

Many pedagogical theories of constructivism align with psychometric views and are

49

based on the premise that creativity is multifaceted. As each student brings with him or her to the

classroom varying degrees of readiness and diverse prior knowledge, the teacher creates a

learning environment in which activities and inquiry allow each member of the classroom

community to construct meaning and grow intellectually. In contrast to the view that we need to

move back toward the essentialist emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic amid an

atmosphere of testing pressure, constructivist approaches offer educators a solution to address

the latter concerns as well as the increasing need to individualize education. The following

section reviews creativity education as a constructivist approach to teaching and learning, citing

examples of the development and relationships of constructivist learning theories to those of

creativity and CPS. In-depth information reinforcing models of problem-based learning,

discovery learning, and inquiry-based educations are provided.

Constructivism: Process and Problem-Solving

In learning theory, the paradigm that is most closely related to the methods and modes

discussed in this literature review is constructivism. Constructivism as a learning theory makes

room for creativity at its very core, describing learning as an active and continuous process,

stratified in layers of performance. Creating, making, constructing, building, designing, and

other related terms reflect the nature of both learning and knowledge as a cycle (Bruner, 1961;

Dewey, 1966). Constructivist conceptions of learning have their historical roots in the work of

Dewey (1932), Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1962, 1986), and Piaget (1962). Bednar, Cunningham,

Duffy, and Perry (1992) and von Glasersfeld (1995) proposed several implications of

constructivist theory for instructional developers stressing that learning outcomes should focus

on the knowledge construction process and that learning goals should be determined from

authentic tasks with specific objectives. Null (2004) contended that central to the tenet of

constructivism is that learning is an active process. Constructivism is basically a theory based on

50

observation and scientific study about how people learn. It says that people construct their own

understanding and knowledge of the world through experiencing things and reflecting on those

experiences. Tam (2000) listed the following four basic characteristics of constructivist learning

environments, which must be considered when implementing constructivist instructional

strategies: (a) Knowledge will be shared between teachers and students; (b) Teachers and

students will share authority; (c) The teacher’s role is one of a facilitator or guide; and (d)

Learning groups will consist of small numbers of heterogeneous students.

A case study using psychometrics theory and the DT measure conducted by Masek and

Yamin (2011) found that the constructivist perspective fosters creativity development with

regard to Amabile’s (1996) framework of creativity. This specifically refers to three components

of creativity: domain-relevant skills, creative-relevant skills, and task motivation. A domain-

relevant skill refers to individual knowledge, basic talent for thinking, and may include technical

skill with regard to a specific discipline. The domain-expertise in skills provides a fundamental

basis for any creative performance to occur. The second component is a creative-relevant skill,

which refers to an individual approach to problems and solutions. Creative and critical thinking

are among the family members of the higher-order thinking skills, along with problem-solving

and decision-making (Facione, 1990). The third component mainly involves intrinsic task

motivation, which refers to self-approach to a task, attitude, and self-perceive about one’s own

ability. Masek and Yamin (2011) linked creative thinking to pedagogy in problem-based learning

(PBL), or “learning by doing” where the process of problem-solving is enacted (Brodie & Borch,

2004). The foundations and connections to PBL and other similar learning theories are outlined

in the sections below.

PBL. PBL originates from the theory that learning is an active, integrated, constructive,

51

and somewhat subjective process that can change based on both social and circumstantial factors

(Barrows, 1996; Gijselaers, 1996). Gijselaers (1996) claimed that PBL is characterized by a

student-centered approach where teachers are organizers of learning rather than disseminators.

The main theory behind PBL is the concept of the open-ended problem. In PBL, these are called

“ill-structured.” These open questions serve as the “initial stimulus and framework for learning”

(Gijselaers, 1996, pp. 101-102). Three essential elements of PBL are that it engages students as

stakeholders in an authentic problem situation; integrates an array of curricular areas around this

holistic problem; and creates a learning environment in which teachers guide student inquiry

with the objective of deeper levels of understanding (Torp & Sage, 1998). Butler and McMunn

(2006) advocated that when using PBL, the subject matter should be organized around the

problem, rather than into separate curricular areas.

With PBL, it is important to note that the process of learning commences once students

are presented with a problem and have determined what they know and what they need to find

out. A strong connection to the CPS process is present in the organization and structure of this

style of learning, as students perform necessary research before formulating solutions and finally

present their solutions to an audience (Butler & McMunn, 2006). In addition, PBL emphasizes

learning by creation and requires students to be in active control over the cognitive processes that

engage their learning. In PBL, being able to articulate such thoughts about the learning process

allows students to become capable of independent and self-directed learning. It is important to

note that, initially, many students are not capable of this sort of thinking on their own.

Shelton and Smith (1998) discussed the concepts of PBL as learning where most tasks

have multiple solutions and require that students “look at many methods before deciding on a

particular solution” (p. 21). With concern for the archetypal structure of open-ended questions,

52

Gallagher (1997) contended that the structure “helps students learn a set of important concepts,

ideas, and techniques” (p. 338). This is because, as Barrows (1996) suggested, they inspire all-

class discussions and require that students involve themselves in the solving of relevant

problems; that is, problems related to their own learning. Gallaher suggested that students also

recognize the problems as professionally relevant. It is believed that this is what motivates

students to learn from and work on them, as opposed to discrete problem sets or textbook

exercises. He also suggests that along with being given the opportunity to realize that they are

solving real-world problems that will be useful in the future, they are typically given significant

opportunities for creativity and flexibility in the solving of PBL problems.

Ersoy and Başer (2014) believed the underlying principle in PBL is student-centered

teaching methods and the development of students’ higher-order thinking skills. Together, they

designed a study to reveal the effects of PBL on creative thinking skills. Using the DT measure

and a psychometric methodology, the data-collecting instrument in this study is the Torrance

Creative Thinking Test. The study is descriptive in nature, and the sample comprises first-grade

students (n = 73) in the Department of Statistics at Dokuz Eylül University. As a result of the

study, an increase in the students’ points for their creative thinking skills was observed at the end

of the PBL process. In addition, it was determined that fluency, flexibility, and originality

(subdimensions of creative thinking skills) differed significantly. Moreover, it can also be said

that, as a result of the education given with the scenario, the students approached events in a

multidimensional way, were able to adapt to the changing situations, and succeeded in improving

their viewpoints.

Dochy, Segers, van den Bossche, and Gijbels’ (2003) conducted a meta-analysis to

address the main effects of PBL on knowledge and skills and to address potential moderators of

53

the effect of PBL. They selected 43 articles that met the criteria for inclusion: empirical studies

on PBL in tertiary education conducted in real-life classrooms. The review of this literature

reveals that there is a robust positive effect from PBL on the skills of students shown mainly

through a vote count and the combined effect size. Also, it is important to note that in all 43

articles, no single study reported negative effects. The interest in the effects of PBL produced

two previous and often-cited reviews (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993). The

two reviews use a different methodology. Albanese and Mitchell (1993) relied on a narrative

integration of the literature, while Vernon and Blake (1993) used statistical methods. However,

both reviews concluded that, at the time, there was not enough research to draw reliable

conclusions. The main results of this meta-analysis were similar to the conclusions of those two

reviews. This research revealed a robust positive effect of PBL on skills. Vernon and Blake

(1993) expressed “Our analysis suggests that the clinical performance and skills of students

exposed to PBL are superior to those of students educated in a traditional curriculum” (p. 560).

The reviews also drew similar conclusions about the effects of PBL on the knowledge base of

students.

Discovery learning. In response to the foundation of constructive learning theory

established by Piaget, Bruner (1961) contributed important ideas regarding approaches of

learning representation, including the importance of teaching and learning “optimal structure; the

spiral curriculum; and learning through acts of discovery” (Bruner, 1961, p. 22). Discovery

theory inspires students and learners to form their learning models from previous understandings

and familiarity. It allows students to use their intuition, imagination, and creativity, and to search

for new information and discover facts. In discovery learning, learning does not equal absorbing

what is said or delivered but actively looking for solutions and explanations.

54

Bruner (1961) discussed many themes associated with discovery learning. Of importance

to the concepts of learning through failure is the view of process in learning. He stated, “the

teaching and learning of structure, rather than simply the mastery of facts and techniques, is at

the center of the problem of transfer” (p. 12). Bruner also discussed the nature of intuition; he

stated, “the guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion—these are

the most valuable coin of the thinker at work, whatever his line of work” (p. 13). Last, he

discussed the desire to learn, noting, “Ideally, interest in the material to be learned is the best

stimulus to learning, rather than such external goals as grades” (p. 14). Bruner imagined that if

importance was placed on discovery in learning, teachers, learners, and leaders would have the

positive result of leading students to become more effective learners.

Empirical investigations of discovery-based learning focus more specifically on

evaluating for benefits of enabling students to struggle before teaching them a new solution.

Coining the term productive failure, Kapur (2008) demonstrated the pedagogical advantage of

instructional sequences wherein students are frustrated by the incapacity of their conceptual

reach before learning more powerful techniques. Through several quasi-experimental and

controlled experimental studies, Kapur demonstrated how engaging students in solving

problems that require concepts they have not learned can be productive, provided students are

able to generate multiple representations and solutions even if these solutions are incorrect or

suboptimal. In other words, their initial problem-solving failure activated relevant prior

knowledge, helped students notice critical features, and prepared them to learn from

subsequent instruction (Kapur, 2008).

Kapur and Rummel’s (2012) research on productive failure (PF) drew from ongoing

research on PF in mathematical problem-solving in three Singapore public schools with

55

significantly different mathematical ability profiles, ranging from average to lower ability. The

first study includes seventh-grade mathematics students from intact classes experiencing one of

two conditions, PF in which students collaboratively solve complex problems at average speed

without any instructional support or scaffolds until a teacher-led consolidation; or direct

instruction, in which the teacher provides strong instructional support, scaffolding, and feedback.

The second and third studies, conducted in schools with students of significantly lower

mathematical ability, largely replicate the findings of the first study, ultimately supporting

discovery learning in the classroom.

Inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based learning (IBL), like PBL, was developed during

Bruner’s discovery learning movement and finds its origins in constructivist learning theories.

As a method of instruction, it places the student, the subject, and their interaction at the center of

the learning experience. Similar to PBL, IBL highlights the transformation of the role of the

instructor from a dispenser of facts to a facilitator of learning. What sets IBL teaching apart from

other forms of constructivist learning theory is that it combines the curiosity of students with the

scientific method. Carin, Bass, and Contant (2005) described this as a way to enhance the

development of critical thinking skills while learning science. They contended that as learners

encounter problems they do not fully understand, they can prepare questions that help them to

explore problems better, observe other student questions, and apply new information in seeking a

better understanding of the world. As Cassidy (2004) suggested, the natural process that the

learners follow in IBL, when seeking answers, is often followed by a deeper understanding. This

mimics the popular learning and design-thinking mode of using the scientific method. Much like

the outcomes of research, more questions grow from the discovery of answers, so the cycle is

continuous.

56

According to Kogan and Laursen (2014), an inquiry approach to teaching has also been

shown to have a positive effect on students’ acquisition and retention of conceptual

understanding. At the K-12 level, Boaler (1998) showed that students who learn mathematics in

an open, project-based approach develop superior conceptual understanding to their counterparts

who have learned the same subject matter through a traditional, textbook approach. A central

part of Boaler’s study was to compare students’ capacity to use their mathematical knowledge in

new and unusual situations. Boaler found that students who have been taught in the traditional

way “did not think it was appropriate to try to think about what to do; they thought they had to

remember a rule or method they had used in a situation that was similar” (p. 47).

Research has consistently shown that IBL can be more effective than other, expository

instructional approaches as long as students are supported adequately. Lazonder and Harmsen’s

(2016) meta-analysis synthesized the results of 72 studies to compare the effectiveness of

different types of guidance for different age categories. Results showed facilitative overall

effects of guidance on learning activities (d = 0.66, 95% CI [0.44, 0.88]), performance success (d

= 0.71, 95% CI [0.52, 0.90]), and learning outcomes (d = 0.50, 95% CI [0.37, 0.62]). Type of

guidance moderated the effects on performance success but not on the other two outcome

measures. Considerable variation was found in the effects of guidance on learning activities, but

the relatively low number of studies did not allow for any definitive conclusion on possible age-

related differences. Lazonder and Harmsen’s work identified two major strands in inquiry

learning research: studies investigating how particular groups of learners go about performing an

inquiry and research that identifies the effects of different types of guidance on learners’ inquiry

activities, performance success, and learning outcomes.

As Dewey (1966) suggested, the quality of the mental process, not the production of

57

correct answers, is the measure of educative growth, something hardly less than a revolution in

teaching. There are many types of constructivist learning, but the three discussed above embrace

the concepts of process learning and model the structure of the creative process. Discovery

learning highlights intuition, imagination, and creativity as the key elements of implementing a

theory based in the investigation of knowledge. Discovery learning was founded on the idea that

it is more important to emphasize the process of learning over the arrival at correct or perfect

solutions. PBL emphasizes the importance of creation over production. Introducing to the

constructivist approach the significance of the opportunities for creativity and flexibility in

learning. While discovery relates to imagination, PBL relates to the flexibility that creative

approaches allow in student learning. IBL combines the notions of curiosity with the scientific

process, relating the need for process-based, not product-based, learning. As much as each

method discussed is different, they all share connections to creativity and CPS, which

strengthens the connection of CPS with constructivism. Table 3 illustrates the strong similarity

among the Parnes CPS model (1992), the problem-solving process outlined by Dewey, and the

connection to constructivist learning theory.

58

Table 3

CPS, Dewey’s Problem-Solving Method, and Constructivism

CPS Dewey Constructivist Learning Mess finding Perplexity, confusion, doubt, due to the fact that

one is concerned with something incomplete DBL

Fact finding A tentative interpretation of the given elements IBL Problem finding Examination, inspection, exploration, and

analysis of all attainable considerations which will define and clarify the problem

IBL, PBL

Idea finding Elaboration of the tentative hypothesis to make it more precise and more consistent

DBL, IBL, PBL

Solution finding Plan of action/overt procedures/ testing of a hypothesis

PBL

Acceptance finding Develop the best ideas fully before putting it to use

IBL, PBL

Sources. Miller, 1992; Parnes, 1992.

Creativity and Curriculum

Being creative is often described as an intuitive act. Although most teachers, learners, and

leaders can recognize the purpose of process thinking, not all can relate that behavior to the traits

often associated with creativity (Tait, 2002). Creativity is about needing to use one’s imagination

and perhaps helping others to use their imaginations. Tait offers this notion as a definition of

creativity, declaring it as “shared imaginations.” The Office for Standards in Education,

Children’s Services and Skills (“Learning,” 2010) survey found that the term creativity was

widely used in the schools. It also finds that there are variations in what is meant by the term

creativity. The findings range from a natural aspect of the mind, an approach to thinking, even to

a set of skills that can be cultivated. Importantly, all the school surveys initially offered examples

of creativity only in subjects universally thought of as creative—the arts—visual and performing.

When researchers asked about “creative ways of learning,” examples were offered from most

subjects across the curriculum. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s (QCA; 2005)

characterized creativity learning as a curricular approach that stresses questioning and

59

challenging; making connections and seeing relationships; envisioning what might be;

discovering ideas, maintaining an open mind; reflecting critically on ideas, actions, and

outcomes. First, I highlight problems with notions of common creativity curriculum, that is a

pedagogy provided by fine arts subjects. Then I outline considerations for creativity as a

significant learning process across all curricular boundaries.

Common Creativity Curriculum: The Arts. Art education, as a field, is subject to

different forms of emphasis. As Hickman (2005) contended, a tension exists between approaches

and definitions of learning in and through the arts. This tension can create confusion in teaching

and learning and comes with a variety of other consequences that influence the arts in education.

However, the concern with arts teaching, learning, and assessment has always been a gray area,

pronounced mainly by the basic tensions that exist in the matter of aesthetics, what constitutes

art, its values, and how best to know it (Neperud, 1995). According to Steers (2003), the tension

that exists in arts education is essential to its nature, and the debate is all-important, as the

attempts to formulate definitive statements, objectives, and purposes of art are not conducive to

promoting the dynamic and creative approach to teaching, learning, and assessment that the arts

foster.

There is no doubt that creativity in education shares a deep relationship with the arts, and

that is why the arts and creativity are often used as synonyms in education. Thus, it is thought

that one of the most obvious ways to increase creativity in education is simply to increase arts

education programming. However, as Sawyer (2006) suggested, this is an overly simplistic way

to equate arts education with creativity education. Many contemporary scholars have argued that

creative learning should be embedded in all subject areas. Today’s discourse surrounding

60

creativity in education has moved beyond arts education to argue that creativity is required in all

subject areas (Sawyer, 2006).

Using arts-informed inquiry methods, Eisner (2002) created a case that finds six

artistically rooted qualitative forms of intelligence. Through this study, he declared that art

education is the foundation for creativity, holistically different from what can be found elsewhere

in a school curriculum. Arts-informed inquiry focuses on the use of arts to inform the ways in

which the research is undertaken. Arts-informed inquiry is perhaps one of the most well-known

forms of arts-based research and comprises the process of using art to illustrate and represent

findings. For example, in the 1980s, Schratz and Walker (1995) argued that pictures should not

be used instead of words, but as a way for prompting discussion about the nature of context.

While this method is highly debated, the artistic conflict that highlights the notion, according to

Eisner, is that there are no single right answers to questions. There is never a clear solution to

problems in education. Therefore, the notion of creativity should be effectively developed within

educational practice in an effort to prepare students better to be effective, articulate, curious, and

motivated learners.

Creativity is often associated with the arts, specifically the visual arts. Part of the push to

examine the connection between the visual arts and creativity in schools and education is directly

associated with developing needs in the technology job industry and global economics

(Markusen, Wassall, Denatale, & Cohen, 2008). Hope argued that there is a strong connection

between creativity in the visual arts and creativity in all other fields; therefore, educating for

creativity is the key. Rutland (2009) proposed that designing curriculum for creativity is directly

tied to art and technology. Both art and technology provide pathways for seeing possibilities,

problems, and innovative solutions. According to Rutland, creative teaching is defined in two

61

ways, teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Education Digest (2011) argued that, in

teaching and learning in the arts, creativity is not automatically good; they continued that for

creativity in the arts to be successful, a great deal of effort is required for both teacher and

student. One way the arts take these different notions of creativity learning into account is

through the use of the creative process. Guilford (1950) defined the creative process as a

sequence of thoughts and actions that lead to novel and adaptive products. However, the creative

process can be defined in a variety of ways, but different scholars, over time.

One important and foundational definition is Wallas’ (1926) four-stage model of the

creative process consisting of: (a) preparation, (b) incubation, (c) illumination, and (d)

verification. This near-century-old model is still foundational in creativity research as the

conceptual anchor for many creativity researchers. Many models adhere to this basic framework.

Wallas described the preparation and verification stages as the bookends of the process. He

contended that the mode of thought in preparation is conscious, “voluntary” and “regulated”

rather than wild and ranging. Wallas described the incubation stage in two parts, first in having

no voluntarily or conscious thought and second in having unconscious and involuntary mental

thoughts. Finally, the illumination stage has been defined as being controlled by a direct

culmination of thought. Figure 2 describes the creative process according to Wallas.

62

Figure 2. The creative process, according to Wallas (1926).

Like the CPS process, the creative process in the arts and education has been adapted,

studied, examined, reexamined, and recontextualized over the last few decades to meet the needs

of education and society.

The use of the creative process model has been adapted for arts education and many other

aspects of the curriculum. Waters (2006) contended that the existing curriculum of many schools

is perceived as increasingly confined by too much content and not enough freedom. The seminal

report by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (1999) argued that, to meet the

challenges of the 21st century, there is a need to nurture a creative curriculum that can expand

our capacities for original ideas and creation. Grainger and Barnes (2006) concurred, but

emphasized that it is the schools with imaginative and creative approaches to teaching, learning,

and curriculum that are the most successful. Creativity, in an educational context, is seen not

merely as a bolt on to the curriculum but as central to the whole process. What creativity can do

for the curriculum is to help students learn how to learn.

63

Claxton (2002) believed that creativity provides students with the ability and attitude to

apply their knowledge imaginatively across content. Cropley (2001) suggested creativity

learning encourages students to go further, that it inspires an understanding of appropriate risk-

taking, a desire for complexity in learning, and a willingness to share their learning results.

Findings from the Creative Partnerships (2005) determined that creativity throughout the

curriculum encourages critical and reflective thinking while producing teachers and students that

are inquiry-driven, excited, and enthusiastic learners. This is the purpose and influence of

creativity. This is also why some of the most successful schools have encouraged a creative

approach, and even more claim creativity is the reason for such success.

Conclusion: Understanding the Frameworks

Recently, there has been a surge in studies that explore creativity; it has come to be

something of a buzzword, one that opens debate and discussion in education. This review only

grazes the surface of the many frameworks for creativity in education. From constructivism to

the broad definition of the creative process, and back to the notion of problem-solving; the notion

of creativity is under the microscope in schools and arts programming alike. The lack of a

common definition or constant updating and reworking of models and frameworks does not seem

to exclude academics, researchers, schools, leaders, and students from finding value in the very

nature of creativity. Throughout this extensive research on the notions of creativity in education

and the arts, no valid research or statements have deemed creativity to be an unworthy aspect of

educational research, teaching, learning, or the curriculum. Rather, there is a basic understanding

that many schools, programs, and educational researchers have started to redress the notions of

creativity in significant areas of education, such as curriculum design, structure, and philosophy.

Asking the questions, Where does creativity fit best?; Where can it make the most impact?; How

do we address it as a school, program, or district?; for many, the notion of what creativity is

64

seems to be dependent on the framework of their school or program. However, an area of

contention is: What model is needed when and where? Another is: How do I best address it as a

teacher or learner?

For some, creativity invokes images of chaos and confusion in teaching and learning.

This is because creativity education is not altogether definitive. For others, the lack of creativity

in everyday learning is derived from a desire to shelve its methods, modes, and influences into a

single category—the arts. Some believe emphasizing creativity in places outside of the arts

would be pressing nuanced issues into an already crowded curriculum. Through this review, it

was found that not even the arts could simulate a perfect notion of what creativity is or should be

in education. In fact, while creativity shares a deep relationship with the arts, and the arts may be

the most obvious way to increase creativity in schools, it is overly simplistic to equate arts

education with creativity education. This review highlighted that many contemporary scholars of

art education believe that while founded in the philosophies and canons of arts education,

creativity can move far beyond any single subject, content, or context.

Creativity: Values and Policy

There is a shifting structure in student learning and how current educational policy is

written, interpreted, implemented, understood, and measured. Creativity ideology is a necessary

system of sense-making that should be included in policy development and implementation.

Lieberman (1990) discussed how education policy has changed so much over the last century;

yet, schools and education systems still appear to be the same. Current curricular, pedagogical,

and policy reform efforts that are intended to alter the fundamental structures of how knowledge

is grown have little to no lasting effect on contemporary public education, especially in urban

education (Payne, 2008). With concern for creativity education and the constructivist learning

pedagogy, the following section highlights how current and past policy denies or provides K-12

65

public education students’ opportunity and equitable access to creativity education and how art

education principles of effective practice for creativity can address this issue.

Policymakers and the Arts

Gutmann (1987) described modern democracies as needing an educated and free

citizenry to survive and to thrive. The stakeholders of public education rely on the formation of

student knowledge to provide a prosperous and constructive generation of citizens. Gutman

described how stakeholders of a democratic society are both enriched and challenged by a

diverse education. The path to a democratic education and diverse citizenry encompasses the

varied institutional structures and curricular contents that are suitable for educating free citizens

of democratic societies. This brings to question politics or governance of policymakers,

challenges of diversity in education, and the examination of pedagogy.

Creativity education and constructivist learning pedagogy are parallel with ideologies

about learning and education. Ideology has been described as the “reading of the world from a

particular view” (Leonardo, 2003, p. 22). If ideology is, as Leonardo (2003) described it, “our

impression of the world; how we exist, speak, and act within our own social borders” (p. 51);

then, ideology in educational policy and curriculum creation is a necessity. Ideology viewed as a

necessity, in this manner, is described as a sense-making strategy, a foundation from which to

create and make meaning (Leonardo, 2003). Much like ideology, creativity is a form of meaning-

making.

Taubman (2009) contended that the language of policy shapes how one discusses the

implications of policy in “teaching, curriculum, and schools” (p. 86). The power and influence of

the language of policy can influence decision-making and mandates teaching, learning, and

leading, therefore, determine the concepts of democratic education and the freedom of

knowledge. The power and language of policy can also lead to large and damaging

66

misconceptions that hold back progress and reform efforts. Creativity education scholars such as

Fosnot (2005) and Guba and Lincoln (2005) believed that engaging in experience-learning,

making, and process-based education is what unites creativity with progressive philosophies in

education. However, most formal educational policy includes statements about what is to be

taught, not how. Wiggins (2015) suggested constructivist theory is about how people learn, and

formal policy does not enter the equation.

Craft (2005) contended that weak arguments in support of the arts and creativity are

challenging aspects of educational research. Studies regarding creativity and arts education often

have too many variables or incomplete evidence. For example, arts advocacy groups often cite

arguments that stress the intrinsic value of the arts. This language is often ignored in light of data

from standardized test scores. Many educational policies have suppressed the development of

arts education. One of these factors is the adoption of state and national standards for education.

According to Grey (2009), the NCLB Act of 2001 has altered the landscape of art education

policy. Chapman (2004) noted that while the law articulates the idea that all students can learn

more than teachers may expect of them, it neglects the measures for which this is done. Many

suggestions for how to deal with national-level educational policy changes and the arts have been

outlined. A variety of recommendations, proposals, and suggestions have been made in regard to

NCLB reauthorization regarding the arts (Grey, 2009). Policy recommendations for revisions

with concerns for the school curriculum and creativity come from a variety of agencies.

In 2003, the National Association of State Boards of Education convened a group called

the Study Group on the Lost Curriculum to examine the existing curriculum and, particularly, the

arts and foreign languages. The Study Group on the Lost Curriculum found that these subjects

are widely marginalized (National Association of State Boards of Education, 2004). As part of

67

the 10 recommendations formulated for state policymakers to consider the arts in the general

curriculum, the following address the concerns of this study:

• Incorporate arts learning in the early years into standards, curriculum frameworks, and

course requirements. Also, encourage local school districts to incorporate the arts into

instruction in the early years, whenever possible.

• Advocate continued development of curriculum materials for the arts from the textbook

publishing industry.

• Incorporate all core subject areas, including the arts, into the improvement strategies

promoted by the NCLB Act.

• Urge the National Assessment Governing Board to increase the frequency in the

administration of National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments for both the

arts.

• Urge Congress and state legislatures to make a greater commitment to the arts (12-15).

In September 2007, the Arts Education Working Group, a coalition of national arts and arts

education advocacy organizations, also released their legislative recommendations. The

recommendations that concern and are connected to this study include:

• retain the arts in the definition of core academic subjects of learning and

• improve national data collection and research in arts education (Arts Education, 2009).

From 2008-2009, the National Education Task Force, an initiative that intends to change

the premises of NCLB and federal government in education, provided a variety of proposals for

regarding the arts. The main concern for this study is in the definition of art itself, defining the

arts in Section 1, Title V, as “creative activities and products of the theater, the visual arts, dance,

68

music, and multimedia combinations of the above,” and refer to them subsequently as “the arts

disciplines” (National Education Taskforce, 2009).

The Contrast: Creativity and Policy

While there are sound arguments for and against the adoption of policy in the arts, what

is that connection to creativity? According to Wiggins (2015), what the individuals responsible

for making systemic decisions believe about teaching and learning, and what practitioners at

local levels believe are often dissimilar. However, they both influence long-term and daily

decision-making in education. If individuals believe knowledge is fixed, they will design fixed

curricula with product-oriented assessments based on a set of external, universal standards

(Dweck, 2006). If they believe knowledge is internally constructed, contextual, and negotiable,

they will design flexible curricula with process-oriented, learner-centered experiences (Wiggins,

2015). Therefore, reconceptualizing contemporary notions about creativity in education should

be an important issue in programs with standards that reflect creativity. Currently, creativity is

not a primary focus of National Art Education Association conferences or publications. There are

recent indications that art education is a site where creativity can be developed and nurtured for

all students with an emphasis on both individual processes and cultural practices. It is advocated

that through critical analysis of concepts related to art education and creativity that research and

practice can be developed to cultivate creative education for all art students (Zimmerman, 2009).

In education, a more democratic approach to creativity would generate something new

for the individual. The difference lies in where the originality is valued. When an individual

constructs an understanding for the first time or develops new ways of approaching a problem,

she or he is being creative, usually in the sense of creativity with a lower-case c. Runco (2008)

argues, “Virtually every individual has the mental capacity to construct personal interpretations.

. . . creativity is something we can find in every child, not just the gifted or highly intelligent” (p.

69

96). Through this statement, it is clear that a wide range of educators and others are interested in

fostering creativity in education. In particular, governments generally recognize the value of

creative abilities because of their economic potential. Also, in-depth systematic studies have

probed the way cultures express and value creativity (Niu & Kaufman, 2013).

A clear conception of creativity for education policy and practice is necessary to expand

the role in education (Grodoski, 2015). According to Wiggins (2015):

Constructivism intersects educational practice when teachers understand that learning is a

constructive human process and use their understanding of the nature of this process to

inform their work. Approaching teaching with a constructivist vision of learning enables

highly productive learning and teaching environments. (p. 1)

If teachers see themselves as the holders of the knowledge to be taught, their instructional design

and ways of carrying it out reflect this. If they see the ideas and knowledge that learners bring

into the setting as a viable, necessary part of the learning process, they design and carry out acts

of creative learning and creativity experiences (Wiggins, 2015). To understand creativity

education, teachers also need to understand the constructive nature of the human learning process

and the importance of learner engagement to design learning environments that enable the

creative processes to flourish. It is my experience, as a contemporary arts educator and leader,

that without adequate definition, training, and modes of methods regarding creativity locally, a

constructivist curriculum is the only tool teachers have that supports creativity in art education

(Fleming, 2010; Wiggins, 2015).

According to Fleming (2010), if teachers see the ideas and knowledge that learners have

as a viable, necessary part of the learning process, they design and carry out acts of creative

learning and creativity experiences for students. Regardless of creativity’s value in contemporary

70

society and despite a belief that art education is a source of creativity in schools, confusion about

what constitutes creativity challenges its prioritization in education policy and practice.

If this challenge remains, and creativity continues to be ambiguous, vague, and undetermined at

state and local levels, the risk of the arts as becoming irrelevant, unimportant, or a risk for

schools to invest time in, remains common and arts education does not advance.

Nonetheless, formal and informal policy networks are necessary for advancing art education

since art education is not a policy priority. The role of non-governmental organizations, or hybrid

political and research organizations (e.g., Americans for the Arts), can provide access to the

policy process and research contexts. These organizations, more so now, can help shape

education policy, and may help forward new directions for art education, including the inclusion

of research knowledge in policy-to-practice educational networks (Grodoski, 2015).

Relationships in Power and Policy

Through this discovery of values, ideology, and politics related to creativity pedagogy in

public education, it has become clear that the shifting structure of student learning, and how

current educational policy is written and understood, requires excessive examination from

stakeholders, ideology, influence, power, and policy, to the objective of reform efforts. To move

forward, one must investigate the objectives of current education policy in light of how students

grow knowledge to become diverse and democratic global citizens. Such language gives power

to and limits current and past policy to deny or provide K-12 public education students with

opportunities for creativity through the arts, more specifically, the visual arts, in their education.

Summary

This review has examined the context of creativity in accordance with the framework of

art education. Looking at the variety of creativity definitions and their development over time,

including the four P’s system (i.e., process, product, personal, and press), the evolution of the

71

CPS, and teacher’s own values and definitions a better understanding of the nature of creativity

in education and the arts was formed, and a light was shone on the deficiency regarding the

delineation of creativity in educational practice. In the breakdown of the frameworks of

creativity pedagogy, an emphasis was placed on traditional constructivist approaches such as

discovery-based, problem-based, and inquiry-based education. A review of studies focused on

creativity and the curriculum, highlighting common creativity venues, such as the arts, but also

considering access to creativity across the curriculum. These considerations led to the questions

regarding the values around art education and creativity in relation to policy and practice. The

following findings and implications are in direct correlation to the information gathered from this

review.

The first finding suggests that for creativity to stabilize and be fully fostered, it is

essential that teachers, learners, and leaders be able to identify creativity, including when and

how creativity emerges and methods that nurture and support its growth. While there are

numerous ways to categorize creativity, there is no set description of what it means to be

creative, or therefore, there is no set method for the structuring of creativity in education. This

suggests the need for a reassessment and examination of the customs, traditions, and roles of

creativity in teaching and learning. The second, closely related, finding suggests the concept of

creativity should be addressed as a method of learning through constructivism. While there are

many types of constructivist learning, the three discussed in this study embrace the concepts of

process learning and model the structure of the creative process. Discovery learning highlights

intuition, imagination, and creativity as the key elements of implementing a theory based on the

investigation of knowledge. PBL emphasizes the importance of creation over production. IBL

combines notions of curiosity with the scientific process, relating to the need for process-based,

72

not product-based, learning. All of these approaches have merit in teaching and learning, but also

have a direct correlation to CPS. These three approaches also prove to benefit students’ creative

skills, as well as our ability to understand creativity through the framework of education.

The final finding highlights that many schools, programs, and educational researchers

have started to redress the notion of creativity as a significant area of education growth, largely

through curriculum design, school structures, and educational philosophy. However, creativity

on the whole has no one place in education. Some believe emphasizing creativity in places

outside of the arts would be pressing too many process-based, soft skills into an already crowded

curriculum. Regardless, the power of creativity learning is expanding. Whether it is called

investigation, inquiry, problem-solving, or personal meaning, the notion of creativity is emerging

across content. Often, it is expanding without a clear understanding of the nature of creativity

itself. It is agreed that creativity advocacy is well-intentioned, but without leadership and

guidance, creativity becomes another “add-on” to an already brimming curriculum. What this

study highlighted was that across the curriculum, teachers, learners, and leaders are being

encouraged to engage in the processes, ideas, and concepts of open-ended CPS. This review of

literature also suggests that if the creativity crisis remains, and the context for creativity

education continues to be ambiguous, vague, and undetermined at state and local levels, the risk

of creativity sites such as the arts become irrelevant or unimportant. Additionally, there is a risk

for schools no longer to invest time in programs that hold the values of creativity, the practice of

neglecting creativity education will remain common, and such programs, like art education, will

not advance.

Following this chapter is the summary of a qualitative case study that combines teacher

interviews, artifacts, and observations; where the emphasis is placed on how art teachers

73

perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity in education and how art

teachers cultivate creativity in art classes. This nuanced articulation of creativity, CPS, and

constructivist learning pedagogy for creativity helps frame the importance of the personal

perspective educators use to frame creativity and creative learning in their classroom.

74

Chapter Three: Research Design

There has been a deficiency regarding the delineation of creativity in educational practice

(Coleman & Cross, 2001). Many scholars have agreed that creativity is a complex process, one

that should be viewed as interactive among persons, processes, products, and social and cultural

contexts (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1999). Recent changes in education policy and

practice have had an impact on the depth and breadth of creativity in art education. There is a

dearth in the literature that has examined the principles of effective practice for creativity in art

education. This case study fills that gap in the extant literature. The current dialogue surrounding

the nature of creativity in schools involves central discourse in art education as a site for

creativity in schools (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012).

This case study seeks to examine contemporary models for art education that promote

creativity to identify the principles of effective practice. Placing emphasis on teachers’

perspectives, experiences, and practices, this study intended to develop a full understanding of

creativity in art education, as well as uncover best instructional practices for teaching creativity

in the art classroom. Using teachers’ definitions and interpretations provided insight into better

defining creativity learning in art education and examining how this influences the

reconceptualization of creativity in arts education. Teacher perceptions explored included the

models, modes, and practices of creativity, and the role served within an art education program

employing the CPS framework. Therefore, the overarching research questions guiding this

inquiry were:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting

creativity in education?

75

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate

creativity in their art classes?

To examine these definitions, models, and practices within the context they occur, basic

interpretive qualitative case study methods were utilized. The basic qualitative research design

and case study methods for this research are discussed throughout this chapter. Starting with an

introduction to case study research, the researcher outlined the research design and procedure.

This includes an explanation of the participants, research site, data collection, and analysis

methods. This chapter ends with an outline of the legitimacy of this qualitative research through

an explanation of planned design and ethical practices.

Qualitative Research

The philosophical framework for this study is situated in the interpretive/constructivist

paradigm. This paradigm was advanced from the study of hermeneutics, otherwise known as

interpretive understanding, from philosophers such as Edmund Husserl and Wilhelm Dilthey

(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Willis, Jost, and Nilakanta (2007) contended that interpretive

researchers accept that multiple perspectives must be represented, as each individual interprets

differently. Interpretive research, which is the most common type of qualitative research,

assumes that reality is socially constructed and that there is no single observable reality. Rather,

there are multiple realities, or interpretations, of a single event. This suggests that researchers

using this paradigm do not find knowledge; rather, they work to construct it (Merriam & Tisdell,

2016).

Yin (2013) based the approach to case study research on a constructivist paradigm.

Constructivist researchers claim that truth is relative and that it is dependent on one’s

perspective. This paradigm recognizes the importance of the subjective human creation of

meaning but does not reject the notion of some objectivity, an important dynamic in this study.

76

With a constructivist paradigm, the notion of pluralism is central. This way, there can be a focus

on both the rigor of the subject as well as the subject itself (Gerrish, 2005). Through the

constructivist paradigm, a case study can build on the premise of a social construction of reality,

such as creativity, education, teaching, learning, and schools. Foundationally, the advantage of

this paradigm for this case study was the collaboration between the researcher and the

participants (Crabtree, Miller, & Swenson, 1995). This allowed all participants to openly and

meaningfully share their understandings and backgrounds through experiences, stories, and

artifacts.

This exploratory case study combined semi-structured interviews, observational

memoing, and teacher artifacts; where significance is placed on teachers’ personal approaches to

creativity instruction and teaching. Originating in the work of Yin (2013), this case study was

designed to document the how and why of creativity teaching in the art classroom without any

behavior manipulation of participants involved. The purpose of a case study was to describe

creativity education in the art classroom and teacher’s perceptions, definitions, and practices in

the real-life context in which they occurred. More specifically, as an exploratory case study, it

explored the notion of creativity in art education and principles of effective practice as having no

clear, single set of outcomes. Leading this case study was a nuanced articulation of the definition

of creativity and the roles creativity takes in education. This helped to articulate a clear

understanding of the importance of the personal perspective educators use to frame creativity and

creative learning in classrooms. This helped to develop a deeper inquiry of the study of

creativity.

Yin (2013) revealed that case study research complements contemporary phenomena and

events that are not fully understood or controlled. Creativity education is an important and

77

relevant phenomenon in education that is not fully realized and articulated. By utilizing the

nature of case study research, a variety of evidence from different sources; such as artifacts,

interviews, and observational memoing; was used. The interconnected use of multiple means of

data collection and analysis was central because it went beyond the range of sources that might

be available in a more traditional qualitative or historical study. Yin explained that case studies

are stories. In their narrative, they are able to share information that is realistic, complex, and

contextually rich. This is the case for creativity education, definitions, and current context and

principles of effective practice since the concept of creativity in education is emergent.

Case Description: Participants, Recruitment, and Access

Participants in this study were selected based on their relevant experiences to the

phenomenon being researched. Participants in this case study were (a) senior teachers in the

department of art at a large urban high school in the northeastern United States in 2016-2017, (b)

currently teaching visual arts in a public school system, (c) assessed as exemplary teachers in the

instruction domain of their state-level teacher evaluations, and (d) purposefully selected based on

their understanding and experience in teaching creativity methods, modes, and practices. A

combination of both purposeful and convenience sampling was used to provide the researcher

with the best opportunity to gain meaningful information of each teacher of visual arts education

(Creswell, 2007). The site selection and participant recruitment for this study were based on the

accessibility to the researcher as well as the requirements of the overall focus. Thus, the

sampling strategy was both purposeful and convenient.

The data gathered in this study included semi-structured interviews, artifacts, and

observational memoing of three high school visual art teachers available to record their

perceptions of creativity in regard to the educational experience. These interviews provided

descriptions that “successfully merge the participants’ lived experiences with the researcher’s

78

interpretations of these experiences, thus creating thick meaning for the reader as well as for the

participants and researcher” (Ponterotto, 2006, p. 539). Through the presentation of rich, thick

descriptions, readers determine the degree to which the findings can be generalized or applied to

their own setting (Creswell, 2007). Detailed descriptions of the participants’ educational

experiences and current use of creativity methods were provided so that others could make their

own determination of whether findings can be transferred based on similarities.

In this study, purposeful sampling was used to narrow the range of variation and focus

(Creswell, 2007). This homogeneous sampling ensured that all participants received similar

training and education as:

• state-certified art teachers,

• over 10 years’ experience teaching art in public schools, and

• are accountable for students’ proficiency in the same statewide art standards

Marshall (1996) noted that convenience sampling is used to find the “most accessible

subject” in relation to the researcher. In this circumstance, this type of sampling was used in

terms of location and time, helping the overall progression of the study. The final and defining

characteristic of the participants was the practice of current and relevant creativity practice in

their classroom. This ensured that the participants were able to provide beneficial information to

the researcher.

To determine whether teachers were using current and relevant creativity practices in

their classrooms, they submitted various documents such as lesson plans and class activities that

highlighted their typical creativity-based instructional practices. These documents were aligned

with the categories of creativity outlined by the CPS theory, and the ones that aligned most

frequently in terminology served as data artifacts in the initial analysis and discussion artifacts

79

during the interview phase. Selected participants were those who indicated the highest

frequencies of creativity practices according to CPS theory. The selection of exemplary teachers

as participants for this study used the Connecticut State Department of Education’s (2017)

Common Core of Teaching (CCT) Rubric for Effective Teaching as a measure of “exemplary” in

Domain 3: Instruction for Active Learning. Each teacher must have an “exemplary” score in all

of the three categories of instruction for the last two-year evaluation cycle (2016-2018). This

measure indicated that all teachers in the study implement instruction to engage students in

rigorous and relevant learning and to promote their curiosity about the world at large in three

different categories:

• implementing instructional content for learning;

• leading students to construct meaning and apply new learning through the use of a variety

of differentiated and evidence-based learning strategies; and

• assessing and monitoring student learning, providing feedback to students, and adjusting

instruction.

Each exemplary score contained all characteristics of proficient teaching, plus at least one

additional measure. In the case of the participants of this study, the opportunities for students to

generate their own questions and problem-solving strategies and synthesize and communicate

information must be evident in their work as a teacher, as well as noted in their evaluation.

As recommended by Creswell (2007), three teachers were selected. Creswell ascertained

that a small number of participants yield substantial opportunity to establish 50 themes of the

case as well as cross-case analysis. This sample size allowed for a thorough investigation of the

experiences, impressions, strategies, and knowledge of the participants.

80

Site Description

This case took place in a large urban school district in the northeastern United States. The

district employed over 1,000 professionals and served approximately 11,500 students in 19

schools. The district consisted of 12 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 2 high schools, and 1

alternative high school program. The district’s rich diversity was a key part of its strength as an

organization. The students came from a variety of backgrounds, with more than 38% of students

speaking a second language at home. The district provided comprehensive special education and

bilingual education programs, full-day kindergarten, and expanded pre-K opportunities to meet

the needs of all learners. School-based and district-sponsored before- and after-school programs

were available throughout the district for both elementary and secondary students. The district

had a wide range of interscholastic athletics and extracurricular activities that covered a full

range of interests for students K-12. For many years, this has been viewed as an underperforming

district based on state evaluations.

School. The school housed over 1,800 students and 90 full-time faculty members, and

housed the largest visual arts department in the district. The average class size was 26 students.

The diversity break down of the school was 40% Hispanic, 30% White, 23% Black, 5% Asian,

and 2% other. In 2017, it was defined as the most diverse school in the state.

Art program. The visual arts department employed 8 full-time teachers (the largest art

department in the district) and offered 24 different courses, including Advanced Placement Art

History and Studio Art, International Bachelorette Visual Arts, Honors Portfolio, and Art for

English Language Learners. The department taught a range of studio programs including

drawing, painting, printmaking, ceramics, photography, and graphic art and design. The

department participated in national, state, district, and school-level art exhibitions and contests.

81

Procedures

Ethical practices must be forefront in any research study, as the accuracy of the

information is essential. Creswell (2007) expressed that information and data must be pure to

avoid ethical violations. To protect the information that is collected during this study, the

researcher made sure that it was organized and placed in the context of those that provided the

data. As a member of the school system, information gathered was linked to the study rather than

the individual. The researcher understood that the information attained should be recorded in a

straightforward manner.

All subjects were voluntary participants who could opt out at any time. The methodology

of this study included interviews where information were ascertained in an open and comfortable

environment. The participants were interviewed in the comfort of their own classrooms outside

of the school day. The researcher was in a position as both a leader and colleague within the

school system. Teachers of the visual arts may have felt pressure or apprehension to answer

questions due to this relationship. That is why the researcher informed the participants that it was

voluntary and that their answers would not influence their work or relations. Furthermore, to

protect identities, all participants in the study remained confidential. McDermid, Peters, Jackson,

and Daly (2014) promoted confidentiality, as it helps create a connection, trust, and respect for

the participant and the information that is shared. Confidentiality was applied as a safeguard that

no consequence could come from shared information. This discretion allowed the focus to be

placed on the beneficial findings rather than the individual. To maintain participant

confidentiality and ethical standards of research, each participant signed the Statement of

Consent and received a copy of the form for his or her records. The Statement of Consent

outlined the purpose of the study, the role of the investigator, what was being asked of

participants, the voluntary nature of their participation, procedures for maintaining the

82

confidentiality of the data, and potential benefits. The document that participants received also

emphasized the participants’ right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and

provided assurance that participation in the research would, in no way, affect their employment

status positively or negatively.

Throughout the study, actual participants’ names and district information were not used.

The participants were referred to as Teacher A, B, and C and the district was named

District N. Names and any other identifying information collected during the interviews with

participants was eliminated from written transcripts in preparation for the data analysis. Potential

risks associated with participation in the study were unlikely and of low probability.

Data Collection

Qualitative study data came from an array of sources during research (Yin, 2013). The

primary means of data collection for this study were one-on-one semi-structured interviews,

reflective memoing, and artifact collection. The use of semi-structured interviews is

recommended when the researcher desires specific information, as was the case for this research

(Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Each of these three data collection components required a different

method of examination and yielded different insights. Each case study component served a

different purpose and created a richness in data that came from the multifaceted nature of using

different sources of evidence concurrently.

Interviews. This study included one-on-one semi-structured interviews with three visual

arts teachers from the high school with the largest art department within public school district N.

Convenient to the participant, these selected individuals were interviewed face-to-face and one-

on-one with open-ended questions. A question guide (see Appendix for interview protocol and

questions) was used to provide semi-structured queries that provided flexibility in acquiring

needed data for the study. Interviews were conducted using the conversational approach

83

addressed by Rubin and Rubin (2011).

According to Rubin and Rubin (2011), semi-structured interviews are used to gather

focused, qualitative data. As a technique, it offers a balance between the flexibility of an open-

ended interview and the focus of a structured ethnographic survey. Using semi-structured

interviews allowed the researcher to uncover rich descriptive data on the personal experiences

and understandings of participants. Yin (2013) suggested that the information gathered during

semi-structured interviews could move the innovation process from general topics (domains) to

more specific insights (factors and variables). Scholars; including Briggs (1986), Miller and

Dingwall (1997), and Schostak (2006); suggested a step-by-step process when using semi-

structured interviews in case study research. Important factors to semi-structured interview

questions included the nature and sequence of questioning and the balance of open-ended and

closed questioning. The teacher interview questions began with a request that included

information about the research topic, researcher, and information being collected. The questions

outlined for the teacher interviews were as follows:

1. What important knowledge, skills, and attitudes do you want your students to develop

during your class?

a. Why is [x] skill/knowledge/attitude important?

i. Why do you think [x] skill/knowledge/attitude is important to the creative

process?

ii. Why do you think that skill/knowledge/attitude is important in art?

iii. Why do you think that skill/knowledge/attitude important to education?

2. In your opinion, how can creativity be “taught”? [assure them that any way they answer

the question is fine]

84

a. If not, why?

b. If so, what is essential to the process of teaching creativity? In what ways does art

education help students become more creative?

3. What do you do as a teacher to help students gain the skills and knowledge that are

essential to creativity?

a. I would be interested to hear an example of how this plays out in your class

4. If I walked into your classroom, on a particularly great day, what are the 1-3 major

outcomes I would observe in your students’ learning?

a. Has your perception of the most important “outcomes” changed over time?

i. [if so] What do you think influenced this change?

1. Has that change influenced your teaching of what is essential?

ii. [if not] Why do you think the importance of those outcomes has endured

for you over time?

b. How do these outcomes relate to creativity?

5. What do you think is essential to teaching creativity in art?

a. Do you think that has changed over time?

i. What do you think has influenced that change?

1. Do you think that change impacted your teaching practice?

6. When you think about the specific units you teach, which one(s) does the best job of

helping students develop their creative capacity? Pick the one that is your personal

favorite to teach.

a. Walk me through the unit

i. What do you/your students do first, second, third, etc.?

85

ii. How is the unit introduced? How is the assignment introduced?

iii. Problem finding: What is the goal or purpose of the assignment? [listen for

words such as challenge, problem, solution, etc., if they say this, probe in

more depth—what [word] do you want them to solve, how do students

define the problem]

iv. Mess finding: What aspects of the assignment are structured? What

aspects are unstructured or open-ended? For example … Why?

v. Ideation: How do students come up with ideas?

vi. Developing solutions: How do students decide which idea to go with?

How do they determine when an idea is the “best idea” to pursue?

vii. Developing solutions: How do the students transition from idea to a plan

for how they will carry out the idea? What do you do to provide guidance?

What do you think is important for students to come up with on their own?

viii. Implementation: After they have identified their idea and approach, how

do they go about implementing their idea? What do you do during this

phase?

ix. Acceptance: What do students do at the end of the assignment? How do

they/you determine if their work is “good”?

b. Think of a time when a student or students seemed to be struggling with this

assignment. What did you do [and/or deliberately decide not to do]? Why?

c. How does the assignment help students develop the skills you previously

identified as important to the cultivation of creativity?

d. What models or theories of art education, if any, informed your approach to the

86

design and facilitation of this unit?

e. How, if at all, does the creativity standard inform your approach to this unit and

the assessment of student work? Thinking about this particular unit, in what way

is the creativity standard helpful? In what way does the standard fall short or not,

from your perspective as an educator, reflect what you think is the essence of

creativity?

7. How do you determine if students are being or becoming more “creative” in your class

assignments? What do you do if they do not appear to be developing in this area?

8. If a student asked you to define creativity, what would you say?

a. Why is that important to you?

b. Why is that important to your teaching of art?

i. How does the use of creativity in your classroom, impact your student’s

learning?

ii. Do you think your students are creative?

1. That is interesting; please expand.

9. What can you do as an art teacher to ensure students are creative?

a. What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do educators need to help guide students to

develop their creative capacities?

b. What advice can you offer other art teachers struggling to help students increase

their creativity?

Each interview also included the gathering of observational data through memoing, a

discussion of previously collected artifacts, as well as basic interview data. During the interview,

the researcher recorded, transcribed, and took notes while engaging actively in the interview

87

process. Yin (2013) recognized that interviews were crucial in understanding human actions.

Specific facts were collected from interviewees at the beginning, including title, role, and

integration activities for creativity instruction.

Interviews occurred in a two-stage protocol as follows:

1. Interview one contained introductory background information and open-ended

questions with prompts exploring how visual arts teachers used creativity education in their

teaching practice to enhance learning in their classrooms. Each interviewee discussed an artifact

that was submitted regarding creativity principles of effective practice in art education. The

interviews concluded with a question, comment, care, or concerns from the participants. Each

interview took approximately 45 minutes.

2. Next, a member-checking interview took place to make sure that all interview

questions were explored and to check if there were any other questions that might have arisen

during the other two interviews that needed to be addressed to provide clarification to the

researcher and participant. Last, anything else that the interviewee wanted to share or discuss

was addressed. Each interview took approximately 15 minutes.

For this study, interviews were recorded, and the researcher memoed and took field notes

to capture observations and expressions outside of the audio recordings. The interview and

research process evolvement were sustained by keeping interviews appropriate. Appropriate

interviews were determined by their progression through questioning to match responses

throughout and whether participants had enough time to respond (Green et al., 2015). Interviews

were transcribed using digital software, such a Microsoft Word. All data collected during this

process were stored on a secure drive for research accessibility.

Artifacts. Artifacts provide a method for “discovering context-laden patterns and

88

understandings” (Marshall & Rossman, 2014, p. 179). During this study, artifacts were used to

provide a more comprehensive overview and discussion during the interview process to

reference ideas, materials, and processes. Artifacts were also used to help determine the relevant

use of creativity in the teacher’s classroom prior to the interview. Each artifact was selected by

the interviewee but was previously viewed by the researcher during participant selection.

Artifacts were brought in for discussion during the interview to clarify better the information

asked during interview questions.

A variety of artifacts were collected to further the understanding of attributes that led to

principles of effective practice for creativity instruction. Projects, lesson plans, and assessments

were collected to gain a better picture of affective attributes that supported high levels of

creativity instruction from teachers. The researcher explored the artifacts for common

characteristics and coded common patterns to identify information that was supportive of the

interview. Through reviewing the components and characteristics of teacher-created materials,

the researcher gained additional insight into methods, models, and procedures that influenced

teaching excellence in creativity. A discussion about the artifacts during the interview process

was key to the success of the researcher’s understanding of how creativity instruction was

implemented. Furthermore, the artifacts assisted the interviewees in expressing ideas regarding

creativity, teaching, and learning. All artifact documentation was reviewed before and after the

interviews; any identifying text was removed, and copies were stored on a secure drive.

Reflective memoing. Maxwell (2012) noted that memoing provides an opportunity for

self-reflection, self-analysis, and critique. The activity of reflective memoing occurred during

most of the study to document the overall process. The ongoing practice throughout the study

provided a way to discover items that otherwise might have been missed. Memoing during the

89

interviewing process occurred to generate additional questions to explore or additional

identification of themes, as well as after each interview, to facilitate analytical thinking about the

data and to help remember important details that assisted in capturing experiences for member-

checking interviews (Maxwell, 2012).

The first level of memoing was conducted by hand on sheets of paper during the

interview process. It was both observational and reflective and occurred during and following the

first interview. The researcher reviewed the notes the evening of the interview(s) to memo while

the interview was still fresh in her mind. Specific themes that arose during the interviews and

memos were placed into thematic categories and organized in the same notebook as the notes to

aid in the coding process. During the transcription process of the interviews, the researcher

applied a second level of memoing, “memo in the moment” (Glaser, 1998). Maximizing the

comment tool in Microsoft Word, the researcher highlighted phrases and words and inserted

memos off to the side of the transcription documents. The third level of memoing occurred when

the researcher read the transcription document line by line and added any additional memos.

Finally, all the computer memos were categorized and compared to the initial memos from the

written notes.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurs when the raw data come together to be processed into significance.

Merriam (2009) stated that data analysis is “the process of making sense out of the data . . .

[which] involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said and what the

researcher has seen and read—it is the process of making meaning” (p. 178). In case studies,

there is a simultaneity of data collection and analysis. The principal goal of this study’s data

analysis process was to identify creativity definitions and principles of effective practice in

contemporary visual arts classrooms through teacher understanding and interpretation.

90

Data analysis began with the collection of artifacts during the initial recruitment of

teachers. The data analysis developed as the researcher memoed the interviews, and the

interview data were transcribed. A coding system for the transcriptions evolved during the

analysis process. Member-checking of interview transcriptions followed the coding processes to

identify common themes or points within the data collection. Identification of emerging themes,

through coding, allowed for the data to be explored. In the initial phase, common themes or

characteristics were identified as the responses from the interview questions were examined, and

the process of categorical aggregation evolved (Johnson, 1996). Once these themes or patterns

were identified within each of the cases, an analysis of the themes across the cases (cross-case

analysis) was conducted to assist the researcher in identifying the specific methods, models, and

attributes that were present in teachers who demonstrated teaching excellence in creativity.

Creswell (2007) recommended to “be close to the data” (p. 247), all analysis should be

conducted by hand. Therefore, this study did not use computer software for qualitative data

analysis but rather documented memoing in charts, notes, and comments. In addition to the

transcripts, documents, and artifacts collected from the interviewees were organized according to

the type of document. Once all of the data were collected, transcribed, and analyzed, a list of

specific attributes, methods, models, and modes of creativity, teaching excellence could be

generated based on the participants’ responses.

Coding. A code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or short phrase that

metaphorically allots a collective, significant, essence-capturing feature to a share of language-

based or visual data. The data can consist of a variety of sources. In this case study, coding was

used in interview transcripts, memoing, and the artifact collection. Coding was applied in cycles

and stages. The first cycle of the coding processes can range in magnitude from a single word to

91

a full sentence or even an entire page of text. In this case study, the first cycle was a chart of

common and linked phrases derived from the artifact collection prior to the interview. Open

coding was the first level of coding used. These data became the first level concepts, or master

headings, which helped organize future data coding.

In the second cycle of the coding processes, the portions coded can be similar passages,

longer passages, or even reconfiguration of the codes themselves, as they have so far been

developed. Here, the codes began to represent and capture the primary content and essence of the

raw material, in a way, capturing the initial essence of the materials as a whole. The second cycle

of coding takes place during the first cycle of memoing. Here, using a system of color-coded

highlights to distinguish concepts and categories from interview transcriptions and observations

was later organized into a chart. This took place three times for all three interviews.

The third coding method was used to cross-analyze each of the three transcribed

interviews, and memoing data were pattern coding. Saldaña (2009) noted that pattern coding

“pull(s) together a lot of material into a more meaningful and parsimonious unit of analysis” (p.

152). Pattern coding was used as a secondary coding method to help the researcher in the

interpretation of themes. The pattern coding process reduced the number of themes through

synthesis and interpretation of interviews as well as memoing across all three cases. Last,

provisional coding was used as a fourth and final cycle of coding meant to project themes that

occurred before data were analyzed. These codes were based on their relationship to or against

the CPS theory. Table 4 illustrates each stage of coding in relationship to memoing and data

collection.

92

Table 4

Data Analysis Stages and Coding

Code Stage Code Method Memo Stage Data Method Result Open Highlighting

similarities and relationships in words and phrases

Pre-memo Artifact collection

First level concepts and organizational headings

Second cycle

Color coding and highlighting in themes

Field memo transcription

Interview memos Central themes, topics, and subtopics

Pattern Data tables cross-analysis of cases

Transcription memo

Interviews, transcriptions, and memos

Synthesized themes, topics, and subtopics

Provisional Data tables and color codes cross-analysis of pattern

Coding memos Artifacts, memos, transcriptions, interviews, and literature data

Themes related and unrelated to CPS theory

Credibility and Transferability

The legitimacy of qualitative research comes about through the planned design and

ethical practices. The importance of procedural structure is the pillar that studies rely on when it

comes to validity. External validity or generalizability is the prominent critique of case study

analysis. This is a valid criticism to the observational and free form nature of case studies. King,

Keohane, and Verba (1994) suggested that in qualitative research, it is important to be as precise

as possible about the degree of uncertainty that is produced by biases in this research. Flyvbjerg

(2006) suggested that the case study contains no greater bias toward verification than other

methods of inquiry. A structured design process, with the development of proper study

questions; opening propositions, analysis procedure, theme linking, and interpretation criteria;

helps to combat the notion of free-formed research. Reliability is often associated with the ability

to match the findings at a later time if the same procedures are followed, which is why this study

maintains a set structure and similar data collection and analysis measures throughout the entire

93

process that can occur concurrently. In this case, reflective memoing and concurrent coding

provided detailed information, applied structure, and connected the study themes. Organized,

detailed, and reflective memoing and concurrent coding could be used as tools to replicate this

research process at other institutions.

The constant comparative method used during the coding analysis kept the data accurate,

relevant, and manageable. Structured, leveled coding helped to remove bias when it came to the

analysis of data. However, triangulation, through the use of member-checking interviews, was

used to ensure an extensive triangulation to aid in the validity of the study. The triangulation

method compared the information brought about by the interviews and interviewee artifacts.

Internal Audit

To enhance transferability, transparency, and trustworthiness, an audit trail accompanied

all steps of the data collection and analysis to create a transparent description of the research.

Each step, from the start of the case study research, was documented through memos, notes,

digital documents, and artifacts, including the development and reporting of findings. These

records were kept by date, in a digital journal, on a secure drive.

Self-reflexivity and Transparency

From the stance of an educational practitioner who has spent many years teaching,

learning, and leading in a traditionally creative subject, I bring to this issue a strong belief that a

strong creativity education in the visual arts classroom helps students succeed across disciplines.

I believe this not only because contemporary research and literature support it, but also because

of my first-hand accounts as an art teacher, learner, and leader. I recognized what Jupp and

Slattery (2006) referred to as discursive contexts in regard to misinterpretations in relation to my

positioning. That is an insufficient “commonsense” understanding of student differences

represented in contemporary education-speak; commercial and mass-media outlets; and wider

94

national policy debates on education. With creativity in education having a recent surge in

popularity and publicity, I think it is important to be aware of broad and commonsense

understandings of “creativity” in contemporary education policy, language, and reform. The

literature review in this case study looked beyond popular and mass-media notions of creativity

for research-based modes, models, and definitions of creativity in art, education, and research.

Researchers cannot separate from any study topic completely. However, this case was

designed to isolate personal bias, positions, and sensitivities, and preserve a neutral position in

both data collection and analysis. Through the use of multi-source data collection and analysis;

including layered coding systems, reflective memoing, cross-analysis, and definitional

reexamination; conclusions were drawn that separated the researcher from the researched.

Limitations

A common criticism of the case study method is its dependency on a single case

exploration making it difficult to reach a generalizing conclusion (Tellis, 1997). Yin (2013)

considered case methodology “microscopic” because of the limited sampling cases. However,

the objective setting of this research was more important than a large sample size. This case had

a sample size of three visual arts teachers from a secondary public school in the northeastern

United States.

Jupp and Slattery’s concept of deficit came to mind, as this was an avenue that could

predispose certain conclusions about creativity. Jupp and Slattery (2006) pointed out that as

educators, we work with and against commonsense thinking, continually. This is important in the

presentation of neutral information as researchers because of the way communication differences

are represented in historical and social practices. For example, by omitting literature that

examines race, class, language, and cultural differences (or examining them without references

95

to historical inequality or student differences) I could have contributed to misrepresentations in

regard to structures and deficits (Jupp & Slattery, 2006, p. 208).

Further limitations of the study included generalizability, perspective, and the effect of

the researcher. This case study was specific to secondary art education, and is not easily

generalizable. It is also important to note that participant opinions were not entirely

representative of the stakeholder group that they represented. A complete perspective could not

be truly achieved unless every individual was given a voice; however, that level of exposure

could not be achieved through a study of this nature. Last, while every effort was made to reduce

the impact of the researcher’s position on the truthfulness of the participants, it was impossible to

know if any participants were withholding information. Efforts were made to put participants at

ease and ensure no negative consequences resulted from participation and honesty. All

participants were assumed to communicate honestly, openly, and with much ease.

Summary

This chapter provides a detailed description of a qualitative case study that combines

teacher interviews, artifacts, and observational memos; where the emphasis was placed on how

art teachers perceived creativity in art classes and their role in promoting creativity in education;

and how art teachers cultivated creativity in art classes. A description of the coding and memoing

stages and processes that drove the collection and analysis of data throughout the chapter

highlighted the real-life context essential to the methodology. Utilizing the defined analysis steps

outlined in this chapter, the following chapter presents the findings and themes that emerged

from this analysis in relation to the overall research questions guiding this study:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity

in education?

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate creativity

96

in their art classes?

97

Chapter 4: Research Results

This case study documented and analyzed the work of exemplary art educators to derive a

practitioner view of principles of effective practice in promoting student creativity development.

Practitioner work and perspectives were viewed through the lens of CPS, a contemporary model

for creativity education. Emphasis was placed on teachers’ perspectives, experiences, and

practices to develop a full understanding of creativity in art education, as well as uncover best

instructional practices for teaching creativity in the art classroom. The overarching research

questions that guided this inquiry were:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity

in education?

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate creativity

in their art classes?

This chapter includes a description of how the research plan was implemented (including

the initial recruitment and artifact collection) and a description of the research site (including

demographic data on the participants of the study). It also includes a profile of the three

participants, as well as a detailed presentation of the data with examples. Data included

classroom materials, such as lesson plans and student work samples, observation notes, and

teacher interviews. The data presentation is followed by an analysis of major themes, their

definitions, and emergent subthemes.

Research Site

This case study took place at a public high school in southeastern Connecticut, one of

three public high schools in the district. The school district was one of eight public school

systems in Connecticut’s District Reference Group H. Group H was a classification made by the

Connecticut Department of Education for the purpose of comparison with the achievement levels

98

of similar schools and districts. District reference groups were defined as districts where

students’ families were similar in education, income, occupation, and need, and that had an

approximately similar enrollment.

District. The district employed over 1,000 professionals and served approximately

11,500 students in 19 schools. The district consisted of 12 elementary schools, 4 middle schools,

2 high schools, and 1 alternative high school program. The district included two magnet schools

at the elementary level and one at the high school level. The district’s rich diversity was a key

part of its strength as an organization. Students came from a variety of backgrounds with more

than 38% of students speaking a language other than English at home. The district provided

comprehensive special education and a bilingual education program, full-day kindergarten, and

expanded pre-K opportunities to meet the needs of all learners. School-based and district-

sponsored before and after-school programs were available throughout the district for both

elementary and secondary students. The district offered a wide range of interscholastic athletics

and extracurricular activities that covered a full range of interests for students K-12. For many

years, the district has been classified as underperforming by the state of Connecticut.

School. The school was one of three secondary schools and houses over 1,900 students

and 95 full-time faculty members. It was also home to the largest visual arts department in the

district. The average class size was 26 students. The diversity breakdown of the school was 40%

Hispanic, 30% White, 23% Black, 5% Asian, and 2% other. During the 2017-2018 school year,

the Connecticut Association of Schools named it the most diverse school in the state of

Connecticut.

Art program. The visual arts program was robust. The department employed 8 full-time

teachers and offered 24 different courses, including Advanced Placement Art History and Studio

99

Art, International Baccalaureate Visual Arts, Honors Portfolio, Art for English Language

Learners, and Adaptive Art for Special Needs Students. The department offered a range of studio

programs including drawing, painting, printmaking, ceramics, photography, animation, video,

and graphic art and design. The department participated in national, state, district, and school-

level art exhibitions and contests. The participants from this department had taught for as many

as 25 years and as few as 12.

Research Design

The primary source of research data in this study included three participant interviews,

and three follow-up interviews, with three visual arts teachers who were responsible for teaching

and assessing creativity. The initial recruitment process for participants of this study involved

having teachers submit an artifact that they thought best displayed their use of creativity in the

art classroom. Artifacts submitted included a graphic organizer, a self-assessment, and a project

planning informational guide for students. The researcher examined the artifacts independently

to ensure each participant was implementing steps and stages in the CPS process in his or her

classrooms. The CPS is a deliberate problem-solving process based on six stages with the

dynamic balance of divergent and convergent thinking present in each stage. DT refers to the

exploration of multiple, diverse, and novel solutions (Puccio et al., 2006). The CPS process has

been developed and refined over the course of 50 years by Noller et al. (1976), Isaksen et al.

(2000), Miller et al. (2001), and more recently by Puccio et al. (2006). The model is usually

presented as five steps, but sometimes a preliminary step is added called mess finding that

involves locating a challenge or problem. The six stages are mess finding (objective finding),

fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding (idea evaluation), and acceptance

finding (idea implementation). These steps guide the creative process to produce one or more

creative, workable solution(s). A unique feature of the CPS model is that each step first involves

100

a DT phase in which one generates many ideas (facts, problem definitions, ideas, evaluation

criteria, implementation strategies), and then a convergent phase in which only the most

promising ideas are selected for further exploration (Davis & Rimm, 1998).

Table 5

The Main Components and Six Specific Stages of CPS adapted from Isaksen et al. (1994)

Phase Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking Mess finding Seeking opportunities for

problem-solving Establishing a general goal for problem-solving

Data finding Examining the details and looking at the problem from many viewpoints

Determining what is important and how to guide problem development

Problem finding Considering all the possible problem statements

Constructing or selecting a specific problem statement

Idea finding Producing a high quantity and variety of unusual ideas

Identifying possibilities and alternatives with interesting potential

Solution finding Developing criteria for analyzing, refining, and reflecting on ideas

Choosing criteria, and applying them to strengthen and support solutions

Acceptance finding Considering possible sources of support/resistance and actions for application

Formulating a precise plan of action

All three of the participants who submitted artifacts were selected because their work

demonstrated characteristics of the CPS model, and they were found to be exemplary educators.

Following participant identification, the researcher conducted follow-up interviews to check their

findings against the understanding and knowledge of the participants. Each follow-up interview

was transcribed and manually coded according to the identified themes of the initial interviews.

Next, the emergent themes and subthemes were annotated and aligned with the CPS theory that

served as a foundation for the research study. This research implementation, also outlined in

detail in Chapter Three, aligned with grounded theory and case study methodologies. The

original interview protocol and the subsequent interview questions can be found in the Appendix.

101

After the initial artifact collection, a demographic questionnaire augmented research data

to gain additional information on the scope of each participant’s involvement with the arts and

their experiences in arts education. The research continued with a series of three interviews that

took place in the teachers’ classrooms. During the interview, field notes and memos were made

by the researcher to inform the coding process. After each initial interview was transcribed, the

researcher used a series of manual coding methods to review the information and gather a

collection of relatable emerging themes. The coding stages used by the researcher throughout the

data collection process are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6

Data Analysis Stages and Coding

Code Stage Code Method Memo Stage Data Method Result Open Highlighting

similarities and relationships in words and phrases

Pre-memo Artifact collection First level concepts and organizational headings

Second cycle Color coding and highlighting in themes

Field memo transcription

Interview memos Central themes, topics, and subtopics

Pattern Data tables cross-analysis of cases

Transcription memo

Interviews, transcriptions, and memos

Synthesized themes, topics, and subtopics

Provisional Data tables and color codes cross-analysis of pattern

Coding memos Artifacts, memos, transcriptions, interviews, and literature data

Themes related and unrelated to CPS theory

After each interview was initially transcribed and coded, the researcher was able to cross-

reference the data collected to identify similar emergent themes.

Teacher Profiles

Participant One. Participant One was the oldest and most veteran teacher in the sample.

She had more than 25 years in education, 20 of which were spent as a certified art teacher in

102

grades K-12. She received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees in art education. For 15

of those years, she served as a department chair for her school. She was also a Teacher Education

and Mentoring mentor for new teachers and an art student teacher supervisor. She worked

closely with the Connecticut Art Education Association on district- and school-wide professional

development and has been part of state and local initiatives involving art education for many

years. At the time of her interview, she was planning to retire within the next two years.

In the school community, she was known as an experienced, veteran teacher by her

colleagues and administrators. She was known for helping students excel in the arts and helped

many students get into top colleges and art programs, and for this, she was very proud. Her

experience and understanding of creativity varied, as she explained, in her personal work as an

artist and educator. She would tell a student that creativity is “putting yourself into your artwork

and sharing your ideas, not copying someone else’s.” Personally, in her own art and life, she

thought creativity involved “the willingness to do something no one else is doing, and do it

well.” Both of these ideas contributed to her perspective that creativity was not something that

could be explicitly taught. She explained:

I do not think it can be taught as much as I think you can show kids they can do things in

a variety of ways. Like just because something is drawn really well, it does not mean that

it is creative. It is not good if you just copy artwork you see or if you just draw other

people’s drawings. . . . It is so impossible to get them to understand this. . . .

Despite believing that creativity could not be explicitly taught, she did think it was an

important aspect of art education that all students needed to experience. She was the only

participant who stated she did not think creativity could be “explicitly” taught. However, she did

103

think that it could be fostered in some students. She stated that creativity was important for

students and in her teaching:

Because it makes it, so I allow the kids freedom, so I get to know them as people, so I can

see what they like and how students learn. And, honestly, so both them and me, we do

not do the same thing over and over again.

She thought that when given the opportunity and freedom, many students could become creative

over time. When asked if she believed creativity could be fostered, she said, “Sure. I know you

cannot explicitly teach it, through some test or quiz or sequential step by step unit that makes all

kids brilliant, but you can show them the right path, sure.”

Participant Two. Participant Two spent his entire teaching career teaching art. With 16

years’ experience, he taught students in grades 6-12 starting his career in middle school, working

with students from sixth to eighth grade for eight years. For the past eight years, he had been a

high school art teacher. All but one year, his first, was spent working in the same district where

he was at the time of this study. He taught a variety of courses including the school’s Honors

Portfolio course, an upper-level art class he helped create. This class helped students prepare a

portfolio for applications to post-secondary art schools and programs. He also taught

foundational courses in drawing and ran an after-school art club for the previous five years. He

had an undergraduate degree in art education and 60 credit hours of graduate work in art and

curriculum development. He was the only teacher in the sample who did not have a graduate

degree. Since he had been in art education for more than 15 years, he said he had seen a shift in

the importance of creativity in education as well as a lack of creativity in education. In response

to whether creativity had become essential in schools, he stated:

104

It has changed my teaching of what is successful. You know, some kids just do not have

a good drawing in them, and they would not do it if you force too hard. So, it is like, what

can you make. That becomes creativity for many of them.

In response to how creativity changed over time, he stated:

It has definitely shifted from what I thought art teaching was. When I went to school to

be an art teacher, I think I assumed every student in art class wanted to learn art, and the

outcome would be a lot of great finished products, but it is not so much with a lot of my

underclassmen classes, like drawing.

He continued to explain:

I guess when you really think about it, there is this need for all the kids to succeed and do

really well in all subjects, so with art, it is just like about finding out more what they can

do rather than making them do any one thing.

However, unlike Participant One, he did think that creativity could be taught. When asked how it

could be taught, he stated:

I think we can teach them the best cycle and process of approaching and making art,

which is, in a way, the creative process. You know the general setup and structure of

most of my projects and lessons rely on some aspect of the creative process. So, we do it

as teachers for them, the part of getting them to do it on their own are different.

He defined creativity in a simple way in his own life and in his teaching. He said,

“creativity is a process of coming up with original ideas and seeing them through in a deliberate

way.” He thought this was important to his own art making and his teaching because he thought

it was important for people to know, “creativity does not happen in a single moment. Creative

takes time and practice.” He stressed that in teaching creativity in art and understanding it as an

105

artist, you need to know, “art also takes time and experiences. Art is not a one and done thing. It

is not easy, and it requires dedication and discipline.”

Participant Three. Participant Three was the least experienced teacher in the sample.

However, she had more than 12 years experiencing teaching art grades K-12. All of her art

teaching had been in the same district. She started her career as an elementary school teacher and

moved to high school after one year of teaching. She taught for seven years in another high

school in the district. She left for a 1-year sabbatical to finish her masters in fine arts, and upon

her return, she was rifted to her current high school placement, where she has been teaching

students 9-12 for 4 years. She was the only participant in the sample with a terminal degree in

fine arts. She also had extensive post-graduate work in the field of educational leadership. At the

time of this study, she taught a wide range of courses including, AP Art History, Drawing, Art 1,

Printmaking, Culture Perspectives, and Art History.

Her definition and understanding of creativity primarily grew out of her education as a

studio artist and her work as a teacher. She believed creativity to be “the most important process

that the arts can teach.” She went on to define it as a “cyclical process that includes research,

planning, practice, coming up with ideas, making, sharing, and presenting something publicly.”

As an educator of the arts, she believed that creativity could and should be taught. She stated, “I

think we can teach anything, all aspects of the Core Art Standards, and creativity is part of

creating, which is why there is a very distinct way to approach it.” She continued to explain that

there was a very deliberate way to teach creativity for those who think it cannot be taught. Citing

the stages of the creative process, she outlined the following:

106

Generate and conceptualize artistic ideas and work. Organize and develop artistic ideas

and work. Refine and complete artistic work. These are not my ideas; these are straight

from the National Core Art Standards. They have been thought through and labored over.

She believed that creativity and the arts had a very important role in her classroom and in school

in general. Specifically, she believed that teaching the creative process would help students be

successful in a variety of ways. She thought this aspect of her classroom was what set it apart

from many others:

The creative process and creating, in general, is a skill students can learn in the arts only

because it’s one of our standards and it’s a part of everything we do. We have the

responsibility of both teaching and assessing it. Maybe we should have more time to let

the kids interact with it.

Data Analysis

Table 7 represents participant demographics focusing on the characteristics that have

potentially the greatest influence on the educator’s perspective: years as an educator, years as a

visual arts teacher, level of education, biological sex, and teacher effectiveness rating.

Table 7

Participant Demographics

Participant Years Employed in Education

Years as a Visual Arts Teacher

Level of Education

Biological Sex

CCT Rubric Teaching Effectiveness Rating

1 25+ 20 Master’s Female 4 2 16 16 Bachelor’s + 60 Male 4 3 12 12 Master’s + Female 4

The teachers interviewed shared their level of education in the field of education as a

factor helping to determine their knowledge base. Each participant in the group had advanced

107

coursework beyond a bachelor’s degree. Those interviewed had several different degree

classifications. All participants had a degree or certificate in both art and the field of education to

be hired by the school system. The education fields included art education, and administration

and supervision; the art fields included an MFA in painting and a bachelor’s of science in

photography and one in studio art. Last, in regard to degree level, two participants had worked

beyond their masters, and one individual had a certification of advanced graduate study in

educational leadership.

The final background question for participants had to do with their assessment under the

statewide teacher evaluation system. The selection of exemplary teachers as participants for this

study used the Connecticut CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching (2017) as a measure of

“exemplary” in Domain 3: Instruction for Active Learning. Each teacher had an “exemplary”

score in all of the three categories of instruction for the last two-year evaluation cycle (2016-

2018). This measure indicated that all teachers in the study engaged students in rigorous and

relevant learning and promoted student curiosity about the world at large across a variety of

categories. Each exemplary score contains all characteristics of proficient teaching, plus at least

one additional measure. In the case of the participants of this study, the opportunities for students

to generate their own questions and problem-solving strategies, and synthesize and communicate

information was noted as evident in their work as teachers in their written evaluations.

Table 8

Initial Recruitment: Artifact Collection

Style CPS Mess

Finding

CPS: Data

Finding

CPS: Problem Finding

CPS: Idea

Finding

CPS: Solution Finding

CPS: Acceptance

Finding P 1 Assessment X X P 2 Graphic organizer X X X P 3 Project plan X X X X X

108

As noted previously, each interested person was asked to submit an artifact that best

displayed his or her use of creativity in the art classroom. The artifacts collected were an

assessment, a graphic organizer, and a project plan. The artifact submitted by Participant One

was a student self-assessment. It included space for the student to reflect on what aspects of the

projects met the criteria of the assignment (including creative process criteria) as well as discuss

the outcome of the overall project. The assessment was designed to prompt students to evaluate

their actions and attitudes, especially their performance of the creative process as a learning task,

in relation to the National Core Art Standard’s “create” power standard. This tool highlights both

solution finding and acceptance finding.

The artifact submitted by Participant Two was a graphic organizer. The graphic organizer

was a tool that helped students visualize and organize the ideas and information they came up

with for a project in ceramics. This graphic organizer had a few prompts for students to fill in the

blanks and sketch to help them organize and structure the steps of their project. This tool

highlights idea problem finding, idea finding, and solution finding.

Participant Three provided an entire project plan. The plan included a rich description of

the project objectives, the project criteria, the timeline, and expectations of the assignment, as

well as the evaluation process for the final solutions. This artifact represented all aspects of the

CPS categories, outside of mess finding, as the mess was predefined through the teacher’s

description.

The researcher found that no one artifact holistically covered all six CPS categories, and

no artifact incorporated the mess finding aspect of the CPS process. Each of the other categories

was covered two of three times. The average number of categories covered in an artifact was

three of six, or half. The artifact that covered most categories of CPS was the “project overview”

109

assignment outline and information sheet provided by Participant Three. This is an informational

instruction document provided to students before a project/assignment that highlights the stages

and process of a student-led project that spans multiple sessions. The document includes problem

finding, through a project prompt; developing solutions, and idea finding through a multi-step

sketching and brainstorming task; solution finding through a practice project; and acceptance

through a finalized product.

The artifact that covered the fewest number of categories of CPS was the “student self-

assessment” provided by Participant One. This artifact was a paper copy of a self-assessment

given to students at the end of each unit in a “Foundations of Art” course. The self-assessment

prompted students to rank themselves across a number of categories and to reflect on questions

posed by the teacher. A space for a self-assigned value for each category on the assessment

served as a tool for acceptance and evaluation, which was a reflection on the final product. The

reflection questions aligned with each stage and step in the assignment, and as such, allowed

both teacher and student to consider how the project was implemented, including tools and

methods used.

The last artifact, provided by Participant Two, was a graphic organizer. This artifact was

provided to students after the introduction of a class task as a way to manage ideas, steps, and

stages to creating a final product. The graphic organizer included prompting questions as a

method for supporting student problem finding, and spaces for sketching and note-taking as a

way to engage the student in the development of solutions and ideation.

Definition of Major Themes and Subthemes

Based on the initial analysis of teacher artifacts, a review of interview transcripts, and an

analysis of the data, the researcher identified three major themes and eight subthemes associated

110

with the participants’ experiences. The three major themes are listed and defined below along

with their corresponding subthemes.

• The process—or the formation of art, which includes a variety of steps and stages a

student undergoes to create a final product. Subthemes included: problem-solving,

ideating/conceptualizing, and evaluating:

o problem-solving—the process of working through the details of a task to reach a

solution;

o ideation/conceptualization—generating, developing, and communicating new

ideas; and

o evaluating—judging or determining the significance, worth, or quality of work.

• Disciplinary literacy—the combination of content knowledge, experiences, and skills

needed to develop meaningful content in a given context. Subthemes included: defining,

selecting, and making/creating:

o defining—to explain or identify essential qualities; describe;

o selecting—to make an informed preference to another; and

o making/creating—to produce or cause to exist.

• Individual perception—identity representation or individualized representation and

approach through the subthemes include student voice and student choice:

o voice—to bring expression to and

o choice—the opportunity to select from.

Each of these themes, along with the data supporting the theme and subtheme, is presented in the

following section.

111

Review of Data: Examples of Process

Across all participants, the process of creating art was a central theme and essential

practice in understanding and teaching creativity. Process was one aspect of teaching creativity

that each participant viewed as essential and referenced numerous times. It was the most cited

and discussed theme in the interviews. Participant One discussed process as a way to impact

student learning and creativity in her classroom, stating, “when it comes down to it, it is cycling

through the process of self-discovered right and wrong answers” affirming that this process

“really does allow students to be more successful and more creative.” While Participant Two

suggested that using a process is the only way that creativity is “taught.” He stated, “I think we

can teach them the best cycle and process of approaching and making art, which is the creative

process.” He explained this as the “general setup and structure of projects and lessons in the

arts.” Participant Three went into detail, explaining the concept of process was defined as

“Generating and conceptualizing artistic ideas and work; Organizing and developing artistic

ideas and work; and refining and completing artistic work.” It is important to note that the way

participants expressed these ideas came straight from the National Core Art Standards

vocabulary. Together, the participants suggested that the concept of process was essential to

teaching creativity effectively. Together, they believed it entailed a cycle of self-discovery; a

purposeful set of steps built into the curriculum and structure of teaching art; and that those steps

included idea creation, development, refining, and making artwork. Further, each participant

cited problem-solving, conceptualization, and evaluating as the essential aspects of the process.

Below is a discussion of each of those aspects.

Problem-solving. When discussing problem-solving, there were several elements each

participant highlighted in his or her own teaching. Summed up in plain language, Participant One

stated the outcomes of creativity in her class were mostly about problem-solving skills,

112

“thinking, making, and trying.” Participant Two suggested that problem-solving in his classroom

was about making multiple ideas from one starter idea. He went on to describe how this

happened in his class:

I tell them they have to make a series of at least seven [ideas] and that each time they

have to change one aspect of what they did in the last one. So, they just keep building

ideas and creating more.

He explained that the reason he did this was to show the lack of boundaries or constraints:

I do this because they start to think about how they can change their ideas as they work.

They will start doing something one way, and it frees them up to try something another

way and another way, and they aren’t just focused on making any one thing. It really

frees them up to try and to fail with different solutions.

Participant Three also suggested that problem-solving was about moving beyond the

initial idea and building upon ideas and concepts from past projects and class discussions. She

explained that in her classroom, she had a few different idea generation templates that included

some research on the topic and looking up and at artists and their work. She explained, “I make

them come up with more than one idea and compare those ideas to their peers’ ideas to see if

they are truly creative.” Collectively, the participants highlighted the need for problem-solving to

be about the generation of multiple ideas based on a similar topic or theme.

Ideating/conceptualizing. There is a close relationship between problem-solving and

ideating and conceptualizing, and together, they can work in tandem. However, the participants

discussed the essential differences and their role in the overall process of creativity. Participant

One believed that ideation and conceptualization consisted of the refinement of ideas created

during the problem-solving stage of art making. She explained that after her students came up

113

with ideas, in the form of sketching and writing/note-taking, she reviewed their ideas with them

and asked them a series of questions that would lead them to think about their ideas, as she

described, “more fully.” This teacher guidance, she explained, “reminds them of the kinds of

things they already know how to do . . . or how to put those things together [for a more

appropriate solution].”

Participant Two defined ideation and conceptualization further as being a test of student

ideas against the criteria of the assignment. He explained that during conceptualization he had

his students, “sketch the idea out multiple times as a way to test it and see if it is a concept that

will be good with this criteria and media.” Using the project criteria for guidance allowed

students to refine solutions to the problem because they realized that they might “want to do

something that is not going to work. . . . So, by making them do it multiple times, on a small

scale, they better understand what ideas will work.”

Participant Three defined the stage of ideation and conceptualization as finding the best

solution or idea from all the ideas. In her classroom, she did this on a peer-to-peer level first

rather than with the guidance of the teacher. She described how she used the project criteria and

questioning strategies along the way during the problem-solving stage rather than during

evaluation. When it came to picking a final solution, she had her students, “share their ideas with

their peers to make sure there is not a lot of overlap.” This was an exercise in refinement, so no

two ideas were the same. She also had them, “share [concepts verbally] in order to make sure

their ideas can be understood visually.” Then, she stated that only after this, she had her students

share with her, so she could, “help them decide if they need to make any corrections [against the

criteria].” Together, all the participants defined ideation and conceptualization as a refinement of

114

problem-solving through a set of criteria and questions, each asking what solution was most

appropriate.

Evaluating. All participants described discerning how creative, innovative, or good a

work was as an essential aspect of the process of teaching and assessing creativity. Both the

teacher and the students in the participant’s teaching practice determined evaluation. Participant

One had her students evaluate their own art and ideas together through a self-assessment. She

had them explain their intentions through an artist statement they prepared for the class and

mostly evaluated the work against the other work being made. This was similar to the

ideation/solution selecting process Participant Three described. Similarly, Participant Two used a

self-assessment and reflection for the students to evaluate their work. However, he added a

formal student critique for students to provide feedback and use their evaluations of others to aid

in their own self-evaluation. He stressed the importance of this practice in his teaching. He

stated, “I think it helps them understand [their own] learning more. He continues to discuss this

idea of evaluation as ending the process by stating, “you do not start with the answers [you] find

them as [you] go and try new things, and review them, and hold them against others.” Participant

Three also had her students evaluate their work through reflection, a self-assessment, an artist

statement, and the presentation of their project. She added, “there is a variety of rubrics and

criteria we both use to help determine their grade. They are given those at the start.” Participant

Three stressed her evaluation of the student work as well:

They need to show me what they learned about creativity and media throughout...But in

general, if the students forget steps or continue to ask me “what about this” or will not

come up with solutions, I start to see their project grades drop and that is an important

indicator.

115

So, to help a student in this situation, she said, “I push the process over the product. I let them

know the steps and stages are more important than [the] artwork.” All the participants used self-

assessment, reflection, and sharing with their peers as methods for evaluating the creativity of a

project or lesson in their classroom. All participants described evaluation as the final step or

stage of the process.

Review of Data: Examples of Disciplinary Literacy

Across all participants, discipline-based literacy was a central theme and essential

practice in understanding and teaching creativity. Disciplinary literacy was one aspect of

teaching creativity that each participant discussed throughout his or her interview. It was the

second most cited and discussed theme that emerged from the data. It included topics such as

defining, selecting, and creating and was described as the way students developed meaningful

content in a given context. The conceptualization of “meaningful” varied by participant and is

discussed later in the individual perceptions section of this analysis.

Defining. The discussion of “defining” took place in different contexts within the

interviews. The focus of defining in the context of CPS described defining a process as well as a

problem in the context of art media. Participant Two described the importance of defining in the

context of art media and creativity as the most important aspect of teaching art:

I really want students to know a lot about proper use of media and tools. . . . I focus a lot

on the vocabulary of art, like composition and technique, because I want the students to

be aware that there’s a language to art. And, I want students to know how artists get

ideas, and from their own ideas, rather than just reproduce of always need a prompt to

help them make.

He expanded on this idea not just with the notion of creativity, but in line with CPS. When asked

why he thought it was so important, he explained:

116

I think those particular things really are the creative process in a way. Building skill is

like practice—you practice, you test, to help you better understand. Composition and

technique that is your background knowledge; it is the foundation you can apply to start

to put ideas together. Looking at artists, and sketching your own ideas or asking questions

about other’s ideas, that are how you can get ideas, how you can create.

Participants Three used the terms artistic literacy and media literacy when asked what

was essential in her classroom. When asked why, she explained, “Because they can be carried

throughout their school career in art and other subjects.” When asked to explain further, she

stated that she believed “literacy is really important to education, in that all subjects work

together.” In relation to creativity and the creative process, she expounded, “without a

foundation, you cannot be creative.” One will not have the correct tools to find success.

Participant One could not define exactly what was essential. She stated, “learning to use art in a

lot of different ways is the main goal” and, “it is never about just one thing.” She believed when

it came to learning, it should always just be knowledge.” When asked to develop this idea, she

stated, “I just want them to learn about different materials.” The notion of materials was aligned

with the vocabulary of art, and the notion of “difference” and art not being about one thing

reflected the variety in “creative” approaches.

Selecting. To develop meaningful artistic content, in relation to the creative process, all

three participants discussed the concept of selecting. For these participants, in this context,

selecting was described as an informed preference to another. Selecting served a few purposes in

relation to the creative process and related mostly to the solution-finding step of CPS. Participant

One described selecting in her classroom as “making them [students] think about their ideas

fully.” When asked why this was essential to art education and creativity, she suggestion was

117

“the idea of taking [selecting] what you know and making something complete.” Participant Two

suggested that selecting was more about the transformation of several ideas into one clear idea.

He discussed how in his classroom, in the beginning, he was “less concerned with the subject

matter or the craft.” When asked to explain how this was essential to the creative process, he

described how coming up with multiple solutions was the starting point to “transform many ideas

into one.” Participant Three used a series of peer-related tasks, as well as the criteria to help

students define a solution to the problem, ultimately, the definition of what to do and how to do it

came from their, as she stated, “knowledge of media and the creative process.” Together, all

participants suggested that how well students combined new concepts with new learning was

directly related to their capacity to select an effective solution.

Making/creating. Making or creating is about the production of learning and ideas in art.

It is the action of making a physical product to represent an idea, an answer, or a solution to a

visual problem in art. For all participants, the concept of making or creating was an essential part

of teaching and learning the creative process. Many saw it as one of the final steps. Making or

creating was not a complete representation of student knowledge in art. However, it was the task

that represented many of the previous stages. Participant One believed that making was an

essential practice to creativity because, she stated, “[actually making their idea] gives them

confidence because they came up with it, and they are in charge of seeing it through, it is not

something I do or assign to them. It’s a reflection of them.” Participant Two suggested it was the

task of making that helped knowledge expand or stick in this class. He stated, “So by making . . .

they better understand the concept.” He continued to explain that a student in his class was asked

to make different aspects of his or her idea several times to truly learn it. He believed it is the

118

making of multiple ideas, and relating them to previous ideas and others, that drove home larger

concepts in art and creativity.

Participant Three suggested that making and creating was the task she was best able to

help students with in her class. She thought this step in the process was part of a very hands-on

approach for teaching creativity. While she explained that she could only set up lessons in a

deliberate way to help students come up with ideas, the “making and creating” component was

when a teacher could guide not only the project but also the students’ creativity. In her

classroom, she described a series of one-on-one conversations with students regarding media

literacy; doing demonstrations or providing physical examples of “how to make” and she

discussed something she called a “refinement day.” On this day, students just made and adjusted

ideas. They tested materials, they played with media, and they discussed with her and each other

what was working and what was not. It was the best way to learn, she stated, “through practice,

through making it.” She suggested it was essential to creativity because it gave students “more

time [to let the kids] interact with their ideas and learning.” All participants stated art making and

creating was an essential principle to teaching and fostering creativity because it allowed the

students to interact with their ideas in hands-on ways.

Review of Data: Examples of Individual Perception

Across all participants, individual perception was a central theme and essential practice in

understanding and teaching creativity. Individual perception was one aspect of teaching

creativity that each participant discussed during his or her interview. It was the third most cited

and discussed theme that emerged from the data. It included topics such as student voice and

choice and was identified through identity representation and student expression. It connected to

the concept of meaning-making in discipline literacy.

119

Voice. The participants of this study defined voice as the way students brought

expression to their projects and their learning. It was highly individualized and often more about

the students’ own understanding or relationship to the concepts of the creative process than it

was the process itself. Participant One pushed the concept of personal identity and individual

perception both in her own work and as a central theme in her classroom. It was the concept she

connected with most when discussing creativity. She suggested that she thought it was the most

essential to fostering creativity through education in the arts:

The kids in high school they will put a lot of themselves into things, even when you do

not ask them too, so I just like always ask them too. I have been around too long to know

the kids have always been so interested in talking about themselves so I just let them. I

make it about them . . . kids, they will come up with stories and ideas, and they will use

memories, and next, you know they are being creative. It is not that hard.

When asked why it was essential to her personally, she stated, “Because I want them to know it

is about them and about creating and showing their identity through art.” When asked why it was

essential to her teaching of art, she suggested, “Because it makes it, so I allow the kids freedom,

so I get to know them as people, so I can see what they like and how students learn.” In a follow-

up interview, I asked her to clarify her statement, “Creativity is putting yourself into your

artwork and sharing your ideas and not copying someone else’s.” She responded, “expression

and personal ideas are important to making something creative. If it is not you, it is not yours.”

Participant Two and Participant Three also suggested that the concept of voice as

expression was essential to teaching and learning in creativity and through the creative process.

However, they both viewed expression as a way to find meaning in what their students made. To

answer the question about why this concept was so important, Participant Two defined voice as

120

what inspired students and what they already brought with them to an assignment or a new

concept. When asked why this was essential to education and creativity, he explained:

I think [allowing them to be inspired what their interests] opens students up to think for

themselves. They can inspire students to put ideas together in a new way or want to learn

more about a person, topic, time in history, way of knowing, etc. It can be really cool. I

have seen a lot of kids bring what they are interested in in my class to other subjects.

Participant Three used methods such as art, historical research, and reflection in her classes as a

source of inspiration. She thought voice in art, when one is first learning, can be about

expressing one’s ideas around central themes. She explained that in one of her favorite units she

had students select a cultures’ art to focus on, maybe this culture was part of their heritage,

maybe it was a place they had traveled, maybe it was something they had studied in another

class. Whatever it was, it was the starting point for them to relate to and be inspired by. At other

times, she suggested that she had her students simply, “reflect on past ideas and projects and

identify the types of materials and subjects they like working with.” The reflection on things they

had already tried allowed them more voice in their final project. Two participants thought

inspiration defined the essential nature of voice in teaching creativity, while the other participant

suggested expression could be most important.

Choice. Each participant in this study identified choice as an essential component of the

creative process in art education and an essential principle in teaching creativity. Together, the

participants defined choice as the opportunity to select. In art education, this can be an idea, a

medium, a process, a theme, or even a subject. Participant One believed the idea of choice “has

become important to the entire school. It’s become important to have kids relate to what they are

121

doing.” When asked how the idea of choice takes place in her classroom, she described a unit of

study:

At the end of the year, they self-design a project-based on all our units, and they make a

timeline and choose their material and choose their subject and stuff. They can choose

anything as long as they know what it is, so like, it is a real test of their knowledge.

When it came to choice, Participant Two thought the concept of choice was what helped students

be successful, which is why it was an essential part of creativity teaching and learning. When

asked why he thought this was essential he stated, “you know, some kids just don’t have a good

drawing in them, and they won’t do it if you force too hard. So, it’s more about what CAN you

make.” When asked why he thought this was essential to teaching creativity in art, he stated:

I think it is essential to teach them a skill and allow them to practice it, manipulate it

overtime, change it, make it a few different ways, and find something that really works

for them and then go with it.

Participant Three believed the purpose of choice in art education was having them “come

up with their own ideas and see them out in full to gain the experience of planning a project.”

When asked why this was essential to creativity education, she explained, “It is important that

they [students] are following their own steps, and really going through the creative process

independent of me. This demonstrates that they are able to think for themselves.” Together, all

three participants agreed that choice was essential to a student’s understanding and

demonstration of knowledge and the creative process. It was suggested that making room for

choice in teaching and learning was essential to ensuring outcomes are truly creative.

Summary

This chapter provided a description and analysis of the data, including how the research

plan was implemented. Three major themes were identified in teacher perceptions of the

122

essential principles for teaching creativity: process, disciplinary literacy, and individual

perceptions. Each theme was deemed essential to all participants, and subthemes reflected

individual participants’ understanding and use of each theme in his or her classroom. An

example and description of each emergent theme were analyzed across all participants to provide

a review of the general connections as well as any discrepancies in the data. Subthemes were

analyzed in relation to central themes, and the variations in method, mode, or understanding

were explained through direct interview quotes. Chapter Five discusses emergent themes and

major findings within the context of the study’s theoretical framework, and includes a

comparison of findings with studies identified in the literature review. Implications for practices

and policies that support the development of creativity through art education are be discussed.

123

Chapter Five: Findings, Discussion, Limitations, and Implications

The intent of this study was to examine contemporary models for art education that

educators perceived to promote creativity, with the goal of identifying principles of effective

practice. The study placed emphasis on teachers’ perspectives, experiences, and practices. The

current dialogue surrounding the nature of creativity in schools involves central discourse in art

education as a site for creativity (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012). Studies related to this area of

inquiry have used qualitative measures to examine creativity as a skill. Research at the

individual-level, extensively measured by researchers Oldham and Cummings (1996), described

creativity as a personality and cognitive dimension. Oldham and Cumming’s case study

measured creativity through various performance tasks across domains and searched for: broad

interests, attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, tolerance for ambiguity, and

self-confidence. Similarly, Wallach and Kogan’s (1965) landmark case study of 151 children

using paper-and-pencil idea generation tests began the early research on creativity as an

individual cognitive skill and has described it as both an inherent trait and an individual and

distinct form of intelligence. However, those methodologies have been critiqued by modern

creativity researchers such as Li and Gardner (1993) due to the singular measurements and

deficiencies in definitions.

This study was guided by the principles of the Osborn-Parnes CPS process and CPS

learner’s model (Puccio et al., 2011) as a theoretical framework and steered by two basic

assumptions: everyone is creative in some way, and creative skills can be learned and enhanced.

The model is usually presented in five steps, but sometimes a preliminary step is added called

mess finding, which involves locating a challenge or problem to which to apply the model. The

six stages are defined as mess finding (objective finding), fact finding, problem finding, idea

124

finding, solution finding (idea evaluation), and acceptance finding (idea implementation). These

steps guide the creative process to produce one or more creative, workable solutions. A unique

feature is that each step first involves a DT phase in which one generates many ideas (e.g., facts,

problem definitions, ideas, evaluation criteria, implementation strategies), and then a convergent

phase in which only the most promising ideas are selected for further exploration (Davis &

Rimm, 1998).

The basic structure of the CPS learner’s model (Puccio et al., 2011) is comprised of four

stages, with a total of six explicit process steps, as outlined in Table 9. Each step uses divergent

and convergent thinking.

Table 9

CPS Learner’s Model

CLARIFY Explore the vision Identify the goal, wish, or challenge. Gather data Describe and generate data to enable a clear

understanding of the challenge. Formulate challenges Sharpen awareness of the challenge and create

challenge questions that invite solutions. IDEATE Explore ideas Generate ideas that answer the challenge questions. DEVELOP Formulate solutions To move from ideas to solutions. Evaluate, strengthen,

and select solutions for best “fit.” IMPLEMENT Formulate a plan Explore acceptance and identify resources and actions

that will support the implementation of the selected solution(s).

Note. Puccio et al. (2006). CPS learner’s model [table]. Creative Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org/

This case study was one of the first to provide detailed examples of teacher-defined

principles of effective practice for creativity in art education from the perspective of three

secondary art teachers. The questions that guided this research study were:

1. How do art teachers perceive creativity in art classes and its role in promoting creativity

in education?

125

2. What modes, models, and practices do teachers find most effectively cultivate creativity

in their art classes?

The themes that emerged throughout analysis of the interview data are provided in Table 10

along with the major subthemes and findings associated this each.

Table 10

Emergent Themes, Subthemes, and Findings

Themes Subthemes Findings The process Problem-solving The creative process is an essential tool

for teaching, learning, and developing curriculum.

Ideation/conceptualization Evaluating Disciplinary literacy Defining The creative process is an essential tool

for teaching, learning, and developing curriculum. Recontextualizing CPS and constructivism theory.

Selecting Making/creating

Individual perception Voice Perceptions, definitions, and identity develop creativity in students. Choice

Discussion of Major Findings

Several major findings emerged from an analysis of the interview data. The findings of

this research study suggest that principles of effective practice for cultivating creativity entail:

• reconciling the teacher’s perception and definition of creativity, which is an outgrowth of

their experience and identity as artists, and student perceptions of creativity;

• using the creative process as a tool for teaching, learning, and curriculum development;

and

• contextualizing the steps of CPS and constructivist educational theory to expand and

explicitly teach creativity to art students.

In relation to research Question One regarding perceptions of creativity and art education,

it was found that perceptions of the role of creativity varied according to the teacher. However,

126

all educators in this study agreed that individuality, student choice, and expression promote

creativity and creativity learning in the art classroom. It was also found that creativity in art

education is a process defined in steps and stages and best combined with content knowledge,

experience, and skills. In connection with research Question Two regarding educator perceptions

of the modes, models, and practices that cultivate creativity in art education, the research found

that educators draw upon established educational approaches, including the creative process, The

4 P’s system, and CPS.

Other major findings include practitioner and model-based deficiencies. This study

suggests two major areas:

• The educators in the study did not discuss or appear to integrate the CPS model’s mess

finding into the work they had students do during the creative process;

• The educators in the study did not discuss or appear to integrate National Core Art

Standards (NCAS’s) anchor standard, presenting, into the work students did during the

creative process.

According to the CEF, the CPS model is usually presented in five steps but sometimes a

preliminary sixth step, mess finding, is added when a challenge or problem is present. In

education, and in art at the secondary level, students are often presented with the creative

problem or challenge they need to solve as part of an assignment. For example, the artifact

provided by Participant Three included a problem for the students to solve. The artifact stated,

“apply a motif from one of seven cultures to a piece of functional ceramics.” Here, the “mess

finding” is done for the student. This has been the case in many lessons and unit outlines for

students of art. This research shows how it is not used as frequently or defined as part of the

creative process in teaching. Even when mess finding is not prompted, there is still merit to the

127

use of the creative process. The other deficiency identified through this study was the NCAS

anchor standard, presenting, as disconnected from the creative process and absent in the dialogue

of creativity education. It is important to note that the NCAS covers all areas of the fine and

performing arts. The standard, presenting, may have more significance in more performance-

based courses such as theater, dance, music, or public speaking.

Finding One: Creativity Development: Definitions and Teacher Perceptions

The perceptions of the role of creativity in educational programming range from teacher

to teacher. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Gardner (1999) suggested that teaching strategies could

be developed to stimulate creativity, and therefore, creativity could be enhanced through

educational models. Two of the three participants in this study believed creativity was a skill that

could be taught. The third participant believed it could be fostered. Kampylis et al. (2009)

studied teachers who held that everyone could develop their creativity, while at the same time

about half of the participants of that study believed that creativity was still a gift possessed by a

few. The findings of this research suggested that creativity could be developed in all students

through creativity education. However, the extent or degree varied. Concerning definitions of

creativity, this study revealed creativity was best defined as a process in both art education and

personally for the participants. Aljughaimman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) found that teachers

agreed with general categorizations of creativity, such as, “imaginative, deep thinking, curious,

original, and creating “novel products and inventions” (p. 27). This study contributes that

creative students are also knowledgeable, expressive, experienced, and skilled in art media and

practices.

In an empirical study, Barbot, Besançon, and Lubart (2015) highlighted the creative

process is a sequence of thoughts and actions that lead to novel, adaptive productions. They

examined the relationship between creativity and tolerance of ambiguity. The participants of this

128

study were parents and their adolescent children. Three measures of creativity were used: a DT

task, a story-writing task, and self-evaluation of creative attitudes and behavior. Participants

completed two self-report measures of tolerance of ambiguity: the short version of the

“Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance” (Lubart, 2001; Norton, 1975) and the “Behaviour Scale

of Tolerance/Intolerance for Ambiguity” (Stoytcheva, 1998, 2003). It was found that tolerance of

ambiguity was significantly and positively related to creativity and creativity of parents was

directly related to their adolescents’ creativity. However, parents’ tolerance of ambiguity was not

related to adolescents’ tolerance for ambiguity or creativity. This would suggest that a teacher’s

perception of teaching creativity might not influence the creativity of students as much as how it

is facilitated in the classroom. This study would suggest that the way the teacher teaches

creativity might be more important than how a teacher perceives creativity.

In a previous study, Lubart (2001) examined stage-based models of the creative process,

which are often discussed in regard to educational practice. His investigation suggested that the

basic four-stage model of the creative process might need to be revised or replaced to include

aspects, as this study would suggest, such as self-expression and student adaptability as traits that

are commonly associated with general creativity modes that fit well into current educational

models. Individuality, student choice, and expression are aspects of art education that were all

present in this study. Teachers in this study agreed that to promote creativity and creativity

learning in the art classroom, individuality, student choice, and expression were essential. The

Rhodes (1961) model, known as the four P’s system of creativity classification, summarized four

distinct perspectives on creativity commonly found in literature: person, process, product, and

press. Where “person” explores the characteristics of a creative person; “process” refers to the

processes through which a person creates; “product” examines the creativity involved; and

129

“press” involves a relationship to the environment. This study revealed a deep connection to the

notion of “personal” and “press.”

The creativity of individual people centers on the idea that expressive, creative thoughts

are relatively enduring and a largely stable and recognizable personality trait. According to

Rhodes (1961), “The term creative person covers information about personality, intellect,

temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense

mechanisms, and behavior” (p. 307). E. Paul Torrance had one of the most influential careers in

creativity research of this genre. He developed the TTCT (Torrance, 1974). This method

continues to prevail as an assessment measure when it comes to the testing of individuals

(Kaufman & Baer, 2005). Although this method is widely used and accepted by scholars, the

utility and/or psychometric properties of general tests of creative ability are often questioned

because of the work in the other three fields of creativity study (i.e., process, product, and press.)

Baer (2010) noted that creativity was best conceptualized as domain specific. He argued that

domain specificity explains why DT tests yield so much variation. While many researchers and

psychometricians continue to examine the connection between creative-ability and creative-

personality measures, the TTCT is still the most prominent (e.g., Epstein et al., 2008; Nassif &

Quevillon, 2008). Research continues to show that the two constructs are only modestly related.

This research documented that domain-specific creativity, when it comes to the individual,

occurs very specifically in art courses. However, it does not answer this question regarding any

other domains.

The term creative process refers to the relationship between human beings and their

environment. Creative production is the outcome of “certain kinds of forces playing upon certain

kinds of individuals as they grow up and as they function” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 308). The

130

understanding of cognitive processes that underlie creative performance is central to this branch

of creativity study, and much like the notion of personal, it is particularly diverse. The variety of

investigative paths is almost as great as the variety of experimental questions being asked. For

example, Kaufman and Baer (2005) suggested there are cognitive means that influence

creativity, and that those means are domain specific. Kray et al. (2006) suggested a “relational

processing style” obtained through different mindsets. Kray et al. revealed that mindsets could be

harmful to idea generation, or they could improve performance on creative association tasks.

Miller and Tal (2007) cited a noteworthy relation between independence and creativity, while

Necka (1999) presented evidence that links creativity with cognitive functioning. Groborz and

Necka (2003) also argued that cognitive abilities help to process the steps of creativity.

Zhengkui, Li, and Jiannong (2007) reviewed the notion of creativity and attention, looking at the

importance of conceptual combination and creative thought. This study supports the notion that a

relational processing style can be obtained through the creative process and aid in aspects such as

idea generation and improve student creativity in art class, therefore, revealing that by fostering

creative traits, a teacher can aid in the teaching of creativity.

Research in creativity started by assessing the creative process. The term creative process

applies to “motivation, perception, learning, thinking, and communicating.” (Rhodes, 1961, p.

308). The creative process, or the structured thoughts and actions that lead to a novel production,

has been one of the central subjects in creativity research during the past century (Lubart, 2001).

Creativity scholar Guilford (1950) noted that there is a “considerable agreement that the

complete creative act involves four important steps” (p. 451). These steps are traditionally

identified as (a) preparation, (b) incubation, (c) illumination, and (d) verification. Guilford’s

(1967) outline of the creative process set the foundation for other research and discover. This

131

research reveals that along with the idea that creativity can be developed through education, to

varying extents; when it is paired with self-expression, student identity, and choice; it becomes

essential to teaching creativity. Figure 3 describes the relationship between scholarly creativity

definitions that focus on individual perceptions and the findings regarding creativity

development in students.

Figure 3. The relationship between scholarly creativity definitions that focus on individual perceptions and the findings regarding creativity development in students.

Finding Two: The Creative Process is an Essential Tool for Teaching, Learning, and Developing Curriculum

One important and foundational definition of creativity is Wallas’ (1926) four-stage

model of the creative process. The model consists of (a) preparation, (b) incubation, (c)

illumination, and (d) verification (Wallas, 1926). The near-century-old model is still the

foundation for creativity research and the conceptual anchor for many creativity researchers.

Many models have adhered to this basic framework. Wallas described the preparation and

verification stages as the bookends of the process. He contended that the mode of thought in

preparation is conscious, “voluntary” and “regulated” rather than wild and ranging. This study

132

aligns with Wallas’ notion that the creative process, when combined with student choice at

various stages, is essential to promoting creativity in art education. Teachers in this study

revealed the need for choice and expression, as well as regulated steps and stages. Table 11

aligns the teacher-defined steps of the creative process with Wallas’ (1926) creative process

study.

Table 11

The Creative Process Findings Aligned with Wallas (1926)

Wallas (1926) Findings: The Process Preparation (conscious work) Problem-solving Incubation (non-conscious work) Ideation Illumination (focal consciousness) Conceptualization Verification (conscious work) Evaluation

According to the participants of this study, the steps of the creative process in learning

are problem-solving, ideation, conceptualization, and evaluation. The creative process in the arts

and education have been adapted, studied, examined, reexamined, and re-contextualized over the

last few decades to meet the needs of education and society. The use of the creative process

model has been adapted for arts education and many other aspects of the curriculum. Waters

(2006) contended that the existing curriculum of many schools has been perceived as

increasingly confined by too much content and not enough freedom. The seminal report by the

DfES (1999) argued that to meet the challenges of the 21st century, there is a need to nurture a

creative curriculum that can expand our capacities for original ideas and creation. Grainger and

Barnes (2006) concurred but emphasized that it is the schools with imaginative and creative

approaches to teaching, learning, and curriculum that are the most successful. Creativity, in an

educational context, should be seen not merely as icing on a cake, but as central to the whole

133

process of learning. What creativity can do for the curriculum is to help students learn how to

learn.

This study suggests that curriculum in the arts (and possibly in other areas) could be

written and approached through the lens of the creative process and that this could promote and

develop creativity in students. Two of three participants in this study stated directly that the

stages of the creative process directly aligned the stages of learning in their classroom. The other

participant suggested that all lessons and units should be planned according to the creative

process. This reveals that the creative process is an essential component of arts education

curriculum writing, lesson planning, and instruction. Table 12 highlights the creative process in

art findings and its alignment to the NCAS (College Board, 2014).

Table 12

The Creative Process Findings Aligned to the NCAS (College Board, 2014)

NCAS (College Board, 2014) Findings: The Process Cr: Creating Conceiving and developing new artistic ideas and work.

Problem-solving

Pr: Presenting Interpreting and sharing artistic work.

N/A

Re: Responding Understanding and evaluating how the arts convey meaning.

Evaluating

Cn: Connecting Relating artistic ideas and work with personal meaning and external context.

Ideation/conceptualization

134

Table 13

The Creative Process in Art Findings Aligned to the NCAS (College Board, 2014)

NCAS Findings: Discipline Literacy Cr: Creating Conceiving and developing new artistic ideas and work.

Defining Making and creating

Pr: Presenting Interpreting and sharing artistic work.

N/A

Re: Responding Understanding and evaluating how the arts convey meaning.

Defining Selecting

Cn: Connecting Relating artistic ideas and work with personal meaning and external context.

Selecting Making and creating

To understand the impact of the creative process on the curriculum, there is a need to

recontextualize how we approach learning in schools holistically. The next finding reveals the

need to combine CPS theory with areas of educational constructivism and how this will help

promote and develop creativity in art education, an area that lies at the foundation of creative

education.

Finding Three: Recontextualizing CPS and Constructivism

Early research on creativity in education included Torrance’s (1972) classic analysis of

142 creativity studies addressing the question “Can we teach children to think creatively?”

Torrance specifically assessed the impact of creativity training associated with the following

programs: Osborn-Parnes CPS process or modification; other disciplined approaches; complex

programs such as the Purdue Creativity Program; arts, media, and reading; arrangements to

foster conditions for creative thinking; teacher-classroom variables; motivation, reward and

competition; and testing conditions. It was found that the 22 studies that used the Osborn-Parnes

approach had a 91% success rate. Torrance (1988) later examined 166 additional studies and

reported the results of 7 more CPS studies with an 88% success rate. Despite the high numbers

135

yielded in various research studies regarding the success of the CPS model in creativity,

Torrance (1987) reported in a later study that the number of CPS studies in education has

declined, “it is somewhat misleading as many of the other types of training programs rely upon

the Osborn-Parnes procedures as a general system and combine it with other strategies” (p. 205).

Therefore, more research should be conducted to contextualize the CPS model in art education,

as it was found to be a highly successful model in this study and historically.

The results of this study suggest that the area in art education and CPS that does not align

is the area of mess finding. As previously stated, according to the CEF, the CPS model is usually

presented in five steps but sometimes a preliminary sixth step, mess finding, is added when a

challenge or problem is present. In education, and as this study reveals in art at the secondary

level, the students often have been presented with the creative problem or challenge they needed

to solve as part of an assignment. Earlier, an artifact provided by Participant Three showed a

problem prompt designed for the student to solve, not create. As stated, the issue here is that

many lesson and unit outlines in the arts are designed this way. Therefore, mess finding is not

used as frequently or defined as part of the creative process for many teachers.

Parnes (1987) developed a concept to help to prod thinking in educational settings; in

relation to mess finding, it was called object finding. Object finding consists of identifying a

goal, wish, or, challenge. This strategy is in line with educational outcomes of goal setting,

across many disciplines, but can also be applied easily to projects in art. According to Parnes

(1987), object finding can be used as a reflection or prompting questioning strategy, such as:

● What would you like to accomplish, to achieve?

● What would you like to have?

● What would you like to do?

136

● What would you like to do better?

● What would you like to happen?

● In what ways are you inefficient?

● What would you like to organize in a better way?

● What ideas would you like to get going?

● What do you wish you had more time for?

● What makes you angry, tense, or anxious?

In this way, object finding over mess finding can be used in reflective and evaluative

forms of art education and could align better with the steps of the creative process.

Constructivism. In learning theory, the paradigm that is most closely related to the

methods and modes of creativity is constructivism. Constructivism as a learning theory makes

room for creativity at its very core, describing learning as an active process and continuous

process, stratified in layers of performance. Creating, making, constructing, building, designing,

and other related terms reflect the nature of both learning and knowledge as a cycle (Bruner,

1961; Dewey, 1966). Constructivist conceptions of learning have their historical roots in the

work of Dewey (1932), Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1962, 1986), and Piaget (1929). Null (2004)

contends that central to the tenet of constructivism is that learning is an active process.

Constructivism is basically a theory based on observation and scientific study about how people

learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world through

experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. Tam (2000) listed the following four

basic characteristics of constructivist learning environments, which must be considered when

implementing constructivist instructional strategies: (a) Knowledge will be shared between

teachers and students; (b) Teachers and students will share authority; (c) The teacher’s role is

137

one of a facilitator or guide; and (d) Learning groups will consist of small numbers of

heterogeneous students.

Three contemporary methods align with the CPS model: PBL, discovery learning, and

IBL. PBL is a process of learning that commences once students are presented with a problem

and have determined what they know and what they need to determine. A strong connection to

the CPS process is present in the organization and structure of this style of learning, as students

perform necessary research before formulating solutions and finally present their solutions to an

audience (Butler & McMunn, 2006). In addition, PBL emphasizes learning by creation and

requires students to be in active control over the cognitive processes that engage their learning.

In PBL, being able to articulate such thoughts about the learning process allows students to

become capable of independent and self-directed learning. It is important to note that, initially,

many students are not capable of this sort of thinking on their own. Shelton and Smith (1998)

discussed the concepts of PBL as learning tasks that have multiple solutions and require that

students “look at many methods before deciding on a particular solution” (p. 21).

Much like CPS, the PBL process is defined in six steps:

1. present problem;

2. define problem and brainstorm ideas based on prior knowledge;

3. engage in independent study;

4. share information and work toward a solution;

5. present solution and review learning; and

6. engage in the review process (self, peer, instructor).

138

Ersoy and Başer (2014) believed the underlying principle in PBL is student-centered

teaching methods and the development of students’ higher-order thinking skills. Together, they

designed a study to reveal the effects of PBL on creative thinking skills. Using the DT measure

and a psychometric methodology, the data-collecting instrument in this study was the Torrance

Creative Thinking Test. As a result of the study, an increase in the students’ creative thinking

skills was observed at the end of the PBL process. In addition, it was determined that fluency,

flexibility, and originality, which are subdimensions of creative thinking skills, differed

significantly. Moreover, it was also said that, as a result of the education given with the scenario,

the students approached events in a multi-dimensional way, were able to adapt to the changing

situations, and succeeded in improving their viewpoints.

Table 14 outlines the various connections found in the CPS model and the steps of PBL.

Together, both models employ problem finding; ideation and brainstorming based on prior

knowledge; independent solution making and solution finding; and solution finding and review.

What PBL lacks in comparison with CPS is mess finding, which is consistent with the findings

of this study, as well as data finding, since PBL begins with the presentation of ideas. What PBL

offers that CPS lacks, but we find in the NCAS is a self, peer, and instructor review of the

process. This important step aligns PBL with many other arts-based disciplines such as dance,

music, and theater.

139

Table 14

CPS and PBL Phases

CPS Phases Shared PBL Step 1. Mess finding 2. Data finding 3. Problem finding X 1. Present problem 4. Idea finding X 2. Define problem and brainstorm ideas based on prior

knowledge 5. Solution finding X 3. Engage in independent study four. Share information and

work toward a solution 6. Acceptance finding X 5. Present solution and review learning 6. Engage in the review process (self, peer, instructor)

Bruner (1961) discussed many themes associated with discovery learning. Of importance

to creativity education is the influence of process in learning; he stated, “the teaching and

learning of structure, rather than simply the mastery of facts and techniques, is at the center of

the problem of transfer” (p. 12). Bruner also discussed the nature of intuition; he stated, “the

guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion—these are the most

valuable coin of the thinker at work, whatever his line of work” (p. 13). Last, he discussed the

desire to learn, noting, “Ideally, interest in the material to be learned is the best stimulus to

learning, rather than such external goals as grades” (p. 14). Bruner imagined that if importance

was placed on discovery in learning, teachers, learners, and leaders would have the positive

result of leading students to become more effective learners. Discovery learning theory inspires

students and learners to form their learning models from previous understandings and familiarity.

It allows students to use their intuition, imagination, and creativity, to search for new

information, and to discover facts. In discovery learning, learning does not equal absorbing what

is said or delivered but actively looking for solutions and explanations.

Empirical investigations of discovery-based learning focus more specifically on

140

evaluating for benefits of enabling students to struggle before teaching them a new solution.

Coining the term productive failure, Kapur (2008) demonstrated the pedagogical advantage of

instructional sequences wherein students are frustrated by the incapacity of their conceptual

reach before learning more powerful techniques. Through several quasi-experimental and

controlled experimental studies, Kapur demonstrated how engaging students in solving problems

that require concepts they have not learned, yet can be productive, provided students are able to

generate multiple representations and solutions, even if these solutions are incorrect or sub-

optimal. In other words, their initial problem-solving failure activates relevant prior knowledge,

helps students notice critical features, and prepares them to learn from subsequent instruction

(Kapur, 2008).

The discovery learning model integrates five principles:

1. problem-solving;

2. learner management;

3. integrating and connecting;

4. information analysis and interpretation; and

5. failure and feedback.

The discovery learning model shares some connection with both the CPS model and the

creative process model. Table 15 outlines the connections between discovery learning and CPS.

141

Table 15

Discovery Learning and Creativity Models CPS and Creative Process

Discovery Learning CPS Creative Process Shared 1. Problem-solving 3. Problem finding 1. Problem-solving X 2. Learner management 3. Integrating and connecting 4. Idea finding 2. Ideation X 4. Information analysis and

interpretation 5. Solution finding 6. Acceptance finding

3. Conceptualization X

5. Failure and feedback 4. Evaluation X* Note. *CP only.

Discovery learning involves learner management, a principle that does not overlap with

any of the steps or stages of the CPS model or the creative process steps. This is what sets

discovery learning apart from other models and theories in education. However, it shares many

similar ideas with both CPS and the creative process. Present in all aspects are problem-solving;

ideation and connection; and solution finding, conceptualization, and interpretation, furthering

the importance of these steps of CPS and aligned with the results of this study. However,

discovery learning also emphasizes an evaluative stage in the final principle of failure and

feedback. This is not aligned with CPS or the results of this study, but seems to suggest a larger

connection to the NCAS and may be utilized more for other art forms outside of visual.

Like PBL, IBL places the student, the subject, and their interaction at the center of the

learning experience. Similar to PBL, IBL highlights the transformation of the role of the

instructor from a dispenser of facts to a facilitator of learning. What sets IBL teaching apart from

other forms of constructivist learning theory is that it combines the curiosity of students with the

scientific method. Carin et al. (2005) described this as a way to enhance the development of

critical thinking skills while learning science. They contended that as learners encounter

problems they do not fully understand, they can prepare questions that help them to explore

problems better, observe other student questions, and apply new information in seeking a better

142

understanding of the world. As Cassidy (2004) suggested, the natural process that the learners

follow in IBL, when seeking answers, is often followed by a deeper understanding. This mimics

the popular learning and design-thinking mode of using the scientific method. Much like the

outcomes of research, more questions grow from the discovery of answers, so the cycle is

continuous. It is similar to this study’s findings and Participant Two’s ideas of creating multiple

solutions out of manipulating one solution, through his printmaking project.

According to Kogan and Laursen (2014), an inquiry approach to teaching has also been

shown to have a positive effect on students’ acquisition and retention of conceptual

understanding. At the K-12 level, Boaler (1998) showed that students who learned mathematics

in an open, project-based approach developed superior conceptual understanding to their

counterparts who had learned the same subject matter through a traditional, textbook approach.

A central part of Boaler’s study was to compare students’ capacity to use their mathematical

knowledge in new and unusual situations. Boaler found that students who had been taught in the

traditional way “did not think it was appropriate to try to think about what to do; they thought

they had to remember a rule or method they had used in a situation that was similar” (p. 47).

Research has consistently shown that IBL can be more effective than other, expository

instructional approaches as long as students are supported adequately. The inquiry process is the

method through which students intuitively approach problems. The IBL process and the four

general steps and stages according to Polya’s four-step approach to problem-solving are often

utilized as a part of the design of IBL learning. Generally, the inquiry process involves the

following four steps:

1. Understand the problem.

2. Make a plan.

143

3. Carry out the plan.

4. Look back and reflect.

Table 16 highlights the connections between IBL and creativity models CPS and the creative

process.

Table 16

IBL and Creativity Models CPS and Creative Process

Inquiry-based learning CPS Creative Process Shared 1. Understand the problem 3. Problem finding 1. Problem-solving X 2. Make a plan 3. Carry out the plan 5. Acceptance finding 4. Look back and reflect 4. Evaluation

What becomes clear with IBL, much like discovery learning and PBL, is the importance

of the “problem solving/finding” stage in each method and model of creativity education

highlighted through constructivism. This finding reveals the notion of CPS as the basis and

foundation of many creativity-infused modes and models and reiterates its importance as the

theoretical framework of this study. It also reiterates its importance and frequent use as the

model for researching and learning in creativity. This is a model that may need to be reexamined

through the lens of multiple disciplines of art education. This finding asks the question: What

subject or subjects are best suited for understanding, teaching, and learning through creativity in

education?

Finding Four: Deficiencies

This study revealed two distinct deficiencies in the current models, modes, and practices

used to teach and foster creativity in secondary art education. A combination of artifact

collection and analysis, as well as semi-structured interviews, revealed that neither the full CPS

model nor the NCAS fully highlighted the essential principles for teaching creativity according

to teachers. However, creativity is covered fully in both models; they also seem to say teachers

144

should be doing more for students. Mess finding is an aspect of CPS that is missing from all

investigations and analysis, including popular and contemporary literature regarding creativity in

art education. There is one approach not covered in this study that incorporates the principles of

mess finding. It is called arts-informed inquiry, and it is part of the larger field of arts-based

research.

Arts-informed inquiry is a method Eisner (2002) created based on a case study in arts-

based approaches where he found six artistically rooted qualitative forms of intelligence.

Eisner’s six modes of artistic thinking (2002) are defined as:

• the ability to create a qualitative relationship that serves a purpose (Eisner also calls this

qualitative intelligence);

• expression of objectives;

• the relationship between form and content;

• not everything knowable can be articulated in a propositional form (Our cognition is not

limited by our ability to express what is known or understood);

• there is a relationship between thinking and the material in which the one works; and

• the authentic challenge of art creates intrinsic motivation.

Through this study, he declared that art education is the foundation for creativity,

holistically different from what can be found elsewhere in a school curriculum. Arts-informed

inquiry focuses on the use of arts to inform the ways in which the research is undertaken. Arts-

informed inquiry is perhaps one of the most well-known forms of arts-based research and

comprises the process of using art to illustrate and represent findings. Art educator Elliot Eisner

(1962) noted that our “capacity to wonder is stimulated” (p. 8) by the tools and forms of

expression with which we are familiar. He observed that we seek “what we know how to find”

145

(p. 7). He suggested that researchers need to “come at things differently” to ask new questions or

develop new insights. Researchers tapping into the power of the arts are doing so to create new

ways to see, think, and communicate. Arts-based research exists at the intersection of art and

science. Historically, art and science have been polarized, erroneously labeled as antithetical to

each other.

If art education was approached in this way, teachers might be able to incorporate the

notion of mess finding in their classes and curriculum. A model such as this might allow students

to develop the questions that need to be answered through their art study and art making.

According to Eisner (2002), approaching education in this way suggests that there are no single

right answers to questions. There is never a clear solution to problems in art and education.

Therefore, the notion of creativity should be developed effectively within educational practice in

an effort to prepare students better to be effective, articulate, curious, and motivated learners

altogether. Arts-informed inquiry, aligned with CPS, might be an area for future examination.

Another major finding is that the CPS model and the creative process are being used without

including the standard of presenting from the NCAS (College Board, 2014). This dimension

might be missing because the educators in this study are in the visual arts. This finding is outside

of the principles of effective practice for teaching creativity in secondary art education, but it is

an important one as states and districts begin to adopt the NCAS. Perhaps visual arts educators

might want to explore the potential value of explicitly incorporating presenting. In the visual arts,

this could include personal and community exhibitions, student portfolios, delivering and

evaluating artist statements and talks, museum visits, and curating projects.

Since the initial publication of the nation’s first standards for arts education in 1994

teacher, schools, districts, and states have used them to guide improvements in design, delivery,

146

and assessment. Surveys of states and other organizations revealed that education policy

priorities, as well as arts educators’ instructional resources and practices, have evolved

significantly during the past two decades and should be reexamined. The new arts standards are

designed to help arts educators provide the high-quality curriculum, instruction, and assessment

that students need to succeed in today’s schools, and to provide greater structural and content

alignment among all arts forms. However, this study suggests, “presenting” is not as present in

the visual arts as it may be in other arts disciplines. These findings suggest that an investigation

regarding the impact and importance of the “presenting” standard in areas such as performing

arts could be necessary.

Limitations

These findings may be most relevant to high school art teachers who teach a similar

population of students, in a large urban school district. By definition, a case study is limited to

one site. The findings may apply to educators in other teaching contexts. However, the findings

of this study do align with the findings of larger studies and the broader literature on art

education and creativity. That said, findings from this study should be considered within the

present context. Therefore, the following factors could have been limitations:

• Participation in this study was voluntary. Results may have differed if teachers were

mandated to participate.

• The sample size was small; more participants from other locations could deepen the

findings and help answers additional questions raised by this study.

• Participants in this study demonstrated exemplary instructional practices. Results could

have differed if participants included educators across the spectrum to see if exemplary

147

educators have different perspectives and approaches than those who do not have that

designation of instructional quality.

• Participants in this study all had favorable experiences and were supportive of creativity’s

role in art education. Results could have differed if participants included teachers with

strong negative feelings toward creativity.

Implications for Educational Practice

According to Wiggins (2015), what the individuals responsible for making systemic

decisions believe, and what practitioners at local levels believe about teaching and learning are

often dissimilar. However, they both influence long-term and daily decision-making in

education. Wiggins suggested that if individuals believe knowledge is fixed, they will design

fixed curricula with product-oriented assessments based on a set of external, universal standards.

If they believe knowledge is internally constructed, contextual, and negotiable, they will design

flexible curricula that include process-oriented, learner-centered experiences (Dweck, 2006).

What this study revealed was that although creativity was valued and practiced by art educators,

the approach and fundamentals were often dissimilar. Therefore, reconceptualizing

contemporary notions about creativity in education should be an important issue in programs

with standards that reflect creativity, such as art education. This study revealed two implications

for practitioners and scholars: a need to establish a common creativity practice among schools,

programs, and districts and a need to further investigate and integrate the properties of mess

finding into classroom practices.

Practitioner significance. In the light of recent policy, and its challenges to creativity,

art educators have been placed in the position where they need to make trouble through a re-

definition and extension of art education (Freedman, 2010). In response to negative impacts of

policy, some art educators are enhancing student learning about the expressive, the imaginative,

148

and the inspired through educational structures that go beyond traditional teaching. It is the art

teachers that are shaping creativity education. However, they seem to lack a voice in the

assessment and policy creation. This study revealed that teachers’ perceptions of the teachability

of creativity could influence how creativity is integrated into arts programs. Is it taught explicitly

using an established model as a way to combat inconsistencies, or is it fostered through the use

of student voice and choice? If both methods share many merits, as this study suggests, is there a

need to establish a common practice among schools, programs, districts, or even states? Putting

aside a teacher’s personal relationship to the role of creativity, to develop creativity in the art

classroom, visual arts teachers, at a local and district-level, should draft creativity protocol that

aligns with the literature of creativity. A system that uses process-based creativity practices as an

outline for lesson and unit planning. This study suggests a four-part system:

1. Defining a problem: Step one defines a problem to utilize mess finding and problem-

solving.

2. Conceptualizing a solution: Step two develops a variety of solutions as a method of

ideation and solution finding.

3. Refining through expression: Step three invites student voice and choice in order to

integrate individual perceptions alongside discipline literacy.

4. Presenting a product: Step four contains reflection, evaluation, and communication

methods.

149

Figure 4. Four-step creative process protocol for the visual arts. Note. Steps two and three can be applied in tandem, in reverse order, or repeatedly.

This figure outlines a creative process protocol that includes mess finding, ideation,

evaluation and expression, and communication. This protocol can be used for lesson planning,

unit planning, curriculum development, as well as to guide instruction.

Scholarly significance. This study revealed that teachers omitted the mess finding stage

as part of their CPS teaching process, which is a significant finding. This study indicated a need

for integration and assessment of the effectiveness of mess finding in educational settings and

programs that use creativity as a standard of practice or curricular standard. It is clear that

education through the arts has enormous possibilities not yet fully developed, including new

methods and learning strategies to develop creative and critical thinkers. As part of their daily

practice, educators informally experiment with strategies and retain techniques that they perceive

to be useful, but the field would benefit from a formal study that involves artists, policymakers,

and teachers, regarding if, how, and to what extent the integration of mess finding into the

learning experience impacts the cultivation of creativity in art education. For example, with mess

finding, where does it belong in the curriculum? Where should it be omitted? How should it be

used in the arts?

These questions urge educators and policymakers to consider their own approach and the

impact it has on their students and community. This study suggests approaching artistic essential

150

questions in such a way that a student is made to develop not only a solution but the problem

itself. In art, question development may mimic Wiggins’ (2015) four-phase process for

implementing essential questions:

● Phase one: Introduce a prompt designed to cause inquiry.

o For example, “How do artists use the elements of art to create movement in a

work of art?” This question is thought-provoking, relevant to both students and

the current unit/course content, and explore via a text/research

project/lab/problem/issue/simulation in which the question comes to life.

● Phase two: Elicit varied responses, question those responses.

o For example, have students create multiple and imperfect answers/solutions to the

question through practice (sketching). Probe the original question in response to

the varied student solutions and initial ambiguity.

● Phase three: Invite new perspective(s)

o For example, compare student solutions, sketches, and ideas to previous student

work, such as an exemplar and look for possible connections to other artists.

● Phase four: Reach a possible solution.

Areas for Future Research

This study raised many questions regarding creativity in the curriculum, best practices in

art education, standards of art education, and the perceptions of teachers and their impact on

creativity education. The results of this study suggest the need for a study with a larger sample

size that focuses on just the use of mess finding in art education. More participants from other

locations could deepen the findings and help answer additional questions raised by this study.

Also, by including educators across the spectrum, to see if exemplary educators have different

151

perspectives and approaches than those who do not have that designation of instructional quality,

a wider range of participants could be selected.

There also has been a call for an examination of the impact of the NCAS on all arts

disciplines. This study suggests that presenting is not as present in the visual arts as it may be in

other disciplines in the arts. This finding suggests that an investigation regarding the impact and

importance of the creating or presenting standard in areas such as performing arts could be

valuable. An evaluative study that includes teachers across all arts disciplines concerning the

impact of each of the four NCAS on their respective discipline would allow practitioners a voice

in evaluating shared ideas in their respective disciplines and possibly weight each standard

according to the discipline. This would allow for a more individualized and comprehensive

approach to curriculum development in the arts.

Conclusion

This case study is one of the first to provide detailed examples of teacher-defined

principles of effective practice for creativity in art education from the perspective of three

secondary art teachers. The principles of effective practice for cultivating creativity entail

reconciling the teacher’s perception and definition of creativity, which is an outgrowth of their

experience and identity as artists, and student perceptions of creativity—using the creative

process as a tool for teaching, learning, and curriculum development and contextualizing the

steps of CPS and constructivist educational theory to expand and explicitly teach creativity to art

students.

In relation to research Question One regarding perceptions of creativity and art education,

it was found that perceptions of the role of creativity vary from teacher to teacher. However, all

educators in this study agreed that individuality, student choice, and expression promote

creativity and creativity learning in the art classroom. It was also found that creativity in art

152

education is a process that is defined in steps and stages and best combined with content

knowledge, experience, and skills. In connection with research question two regarding educator

perceptions of the modes, models, and practices that cultivate creativity in art education, the

research found that educators draw upon established educational approaches, including the

creative process, the 4 P’s system, and CPS.

Other major findings included practitioner and model-based deficiencies in the CPS

model, in which mess finding was not discussed. As well as the NCAS anchor standard,

presenting, was disconnected from the CPS. As a result, two implications for practitioners and

for scholars are determined. First, a need to establish a common creativity practice among

schools, programs, and districts, and second a need to further investigate and integrate the

properties of mess finding into classroom practices. Discussions of each of those implications

were presented, and it was suggested that a study with a larger sample size that focuses on the

use of mess finding, with participants from other locations, would deepen the findings and help

answers additional questions raised by this study.

153

References

Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its

outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.

Aldous, C. R. (2007). Creativity, problem-solving, and innovative science: Insights from history,

cognitive psychology, and neuroscience. International Education Journal, 8(2), 76-187.

Aljughaimman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and

creative students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17-34. doi:10.1002/j.2162-

6057.2005.tb01247.x

Alkuş, S., & Olgan, R. (2014). Pre-service and in-service preschool teachers’ views regarding

creativity in early childhood education. Early Childhood Development and Care, 184

(12), 1902-1919. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.893236

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.

Boulder, CO: Westview.

Andilou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’

conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research.

Educational Research Review, 5(3), 201-219. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003

Arts education (what’s new?). (2009, December 3). The Education Innovator, 7(9).

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment

technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117.

Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive

examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592-601.

154

Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment. In C.

Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of assessment technologies, methods, and applications in

higher education (pp. 65-77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative potential in educational settings: Its

nature, measure, and nurture. Education 3-13, 43(4), 1-11.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L.

Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher

education: Theory and practice (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills,

attitudes, and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 34(2), 77-100.

Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we

link? In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction

(pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions:

Exploring the relationship between students’ creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of

creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. doi:10.1037/a0022834

Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). The relationship among schooling, learning, and

creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “you can’t get there from here?” In J. C.

Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316-332).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

155

Belo, Van Driel, Van Veen, & Verloop. (2014). Beyond the dichotomy of teacher-versus-

student-focused education: A survey study on physics teachers’ beliefs about the goals

and pedagogy of physics education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 89-101.

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a

judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 115-126.

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.

Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of

context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.

Briscoe, F. M. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and

intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38(1), 23-41.

Brodie, L., & Borch, O. (2004). Choosing PBL paradigms: Experience and methods of two

universities. Toowoomba: Australasian Association of Engineering Educators

Conference.

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010, July 19). The creativity crisis. Newsweek. Retrieved

November 16, 2016, from:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1231340854.html?refid=easy_hf

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21-32.

Burton, J. M., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The question

of transfer. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 228-257.

Busse, T., & Mansfield, R. (1980). Theories of the creative process: A review and a perspective.

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 14(2), 91-132.

156

Butler, S. M., & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom assessment:

Understanding and using assessment to improve student learning. San Francisco, CA:

John Wiley & Sons.

Callahan, C. M., & Moon, T. R. (2007). Sorting the wheat from the chaff: What makes for good

evidence of effectiveness in the literature in gifted education? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51,

305-319. doi:10.1177/0016986207306317

Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (9th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational

Psychology, 24(1), 419-444.

Chapman, L. (2004). No child left behind in art? Arts Education Policy Review, 106(2), 3-17.

Clark, G. A., Day, M. D., & Greer, W. D. (1987). Discipline-based art education. The Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 129-193.

Claxton, G. (2002). Building learning power: Helping young people become better learners.

Bristol, UK: TLO.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction development,

guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX; Prufrock Press.

The College Board. (2012). Child development and arts education: A review of recent research

and best practices. New York, NY: The College Board.

College Board. (2014). The arts and the Common Core: A comparison of the National Core Arts

Standards and the Common Core State Standards. New York, NY: New York State

Education Department.

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2017). Educator evaluation and support overview.

157

Retrieved from http://www.connecticutseed.org/?page_id=475

Cropley, A. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

Crabtree, B., Miller, W., & Swenson, M. (1995). Doing qualitative research. Nursing Research,

44(4), 254-289.

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London, UK: Routledge.

Craft, A., Cremin, T., Hay, P., & Clack, J. (2013). Creative primary schools: Developing and

maintaining pedagogy for creativity. Ethnography and Education, 9(1), 16-34.

Creative Partnerships. (2005). First findings: Policy, practice, and progress: A review of creative

learning 2002-2004. London, UK: Creative Partnerships, Arts Council.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.

New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Davidovitch, N., & Milgram, R. (2006). Creative thinking as a predictor of teacher effectiveness

in higher education. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 385-390.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Dewey, J. (1932). Ethics, volume 7, 1932: The later works, 1925-1953. Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York, NY: The Free Press.

158

Department for Education and Skills. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture, and education.

Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van Den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based

learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

Eisner, E. W. (1962). A typology of creativity in the visual arts. Studies in Art Education, 4(1),

11-22. doi:10.1080/00393541.1962.11650580

Eisner, E. W. (2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education?

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(1), 4-16.

Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the

visual arts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Epstein, R., Schmidt, S., & Warfel, R. (2008). Measuring and training creativity competencies:

Validation of a new test. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 7-12.

Ersoy, E., & Başer, N. (2014). The effects of problem-based learning method in higher education

on creative thinking. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3494-3498.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of

educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Feldhusen, J. E. (1992). Talent identification and development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center

for Creative Learning.

Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of

creativity (pp. 169-186). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

159

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs.

What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S.

Graham, and T. Urdan, APA Educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual

differences and cultural and contextual factors. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Fleith, D. D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom

environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148. doi:10.1080/02783190009554022

Fleming, M. (2010). Arts in education and creativity: A literature review. London, UK: Creative

Culture and Education.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,

12(2), 219-245.

Fosnot, C. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Freedman, K. (2010). Rethinking creativity: A definition to support creative practice. Art

Education, 63(2), 8-15.

Fryer, M., & Collings, J. (1991). Teachers views about creativity. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 61, 207-219.

Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and

where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332-362.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Gerrish, K. (2005). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Journal

of Advanced Nursing, 51(5), 542.

160

Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In L.

Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher

education: Theory and practice (pp. 13-21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glaser, B. (1998). Gerund grounded theory: The basic social process dissertation. Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press.

Groborz, M., & Necka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: explorations of generation

and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 183-197.

Grainger, T., & Barnes, J. (2006). Creativity in the primary curriculum. In Arthur, J.; Grainger,

T., and Wray, D. Eds. Learning to Teach in the Primary School. London, UK: Routledge,

pp. 209-225.

Green, C., Duan, A., Gibbons, N., Hoagwood, R., Palinkas, D., & Wisdom, K. (2015).

Approaches to mixed methods dissemination and implementation research: Methods,

strengths, caveats, and opportunities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and

Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 508-523.

Grey, A. (2009). No child left behind in art education policy: A review of key recommendations

for arts language revisions. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 8-15.

Gude, O. (2007). Principles of possibility: Considerations for a 21st-century art & culture

curriculum. Art Education, 60(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/00043125.2007.11651621

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., p. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. doi:10.1037/h0063487

161

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. New York,

NY: Robert R. Knapp.

Grodoski, C. (2015). Creativity, policy, and practice in three states: An exploration of definitions

of creativity among state art education policies, the life contexts, and professional

practice of middle-level art educators. Marilyn Zurmuehlen Working Papers in Art

Education, 2015(1), 1-13.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard

Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063

Hamp, M. (1954). Your child and his art: A guide for parents. Viktor Lowenfeld. The

Elementary School Journal, 55(3), 181.

Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569-598.

Hickman, R. (2005). Why we make art and why it is taught. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.

Isaksen, S., Puccio, G., & Treffinger, D. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research—

Profiling for creative problem-solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-170.

Isaksen, C. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approach to problem-solving.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Creative approaches to problem

solving: A framework for change. Buffalo, NY: Creative Problem-Solving Group.

Johnson, K. (1996). The art of case study research. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 556-

557.

Jupp, J. C., & Slattery, P. (2006). White male teachers on difference: Narratives of contact and

tensions. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 23(5), 199-215.

162

Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective Teachers’

conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15-29.

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 379-424.

Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention

activities. Instructional Science, 40, 645-650. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4

Karwowski, M. (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classrooms? Implicit theories

of “good” and “creative” student’ personality among Polish teachers. Procedia—Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1233-1237.

Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-

beliefs are moderated by students’ gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 1-8.

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.10.001

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). The amusement park theory of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman&

J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321-328). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the

consensual assessment technique: New evidence of validity. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 2, 96-106.

Kaufman, J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Tinio, P. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the

Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,

and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308.

Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice. In S. J. Lopez &

C. R. Snyder (Eds.) Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and

measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

163

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in

qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A

case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183-199.

Kray, L., Galinsky, A., Wong, E., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Thinking within the box: The relational

processing style elicited by counterfactual mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 91(1), 33-48.

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of

guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718.

Leonardo, Z. (2003). Ideology, discourse, and school reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishing Group.

Li, J., & Gardner, H. (1993). How domains constrain creativity the case of traditional Chinese

and western painting. The American Scientist, 37(1), 94.

Lieberman, A. (1990). Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. New York,

NY: Falmer Press.

Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present, and future. Creativity

Research Journal, 13(3-4), 295-308.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods, and methodology.

Issues in Educational Research, 16.

Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and realization of creative potential. American

Psychologist, 20(1), 273-281.

Markusen, A., Wassall, G., Denatale, D., & Cohen, R. (2008). Defining the creative economy:

Industry and occupational approaches. Economic Development Quarterly, 22(1), 24-45.

164

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Masek, A., & Yamin, S. (2011). The effect of problem-based learning on critical thinking ability:

A theoretical and empirical review. International Review of Social Sciences and

Humanities, 2, 215-221.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of

creativity (pp. 449-460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2014). Conducting qualitative research in the

context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 28-33.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.

Michael, W. B. (1999). Guilford’s view. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia

of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 785-797). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Miller, A. I. (1989). Imagery and intuition in creative scientific thinking: Albert Einstein’s

invention of the special theory of relativity. In D. B. Wallace, Gruber, H.E. (Ed.),

Creative people at work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincare and Albert

Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5(4), 385-418.

165

Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of

creativity. Schizophrenia Research, 93(1), 317-324.

Miller, B., Vehar, J., & Firestien, R. (2001). Creativity unbound: An introduction to creative

process (5th ed.). Evanston, IL: FourSight.

Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,

unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400.

Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of

creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9-30.

Nassif, C., & Quevillon, R. (2008). The development of a preliminary creativity scale for the

MMPI-2: The C Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 13-20.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2004). The complete curriculum: ensuring a

place for the arts and foreign languages in America’s schools report. State Government

News, 47(2), 10.

Necka, E. (1999). Creativity and attention. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 30, 85-97.

Neperud, R. (Ed.). (1995). Context, content, and community in art education: Beyond

postmodernism. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects, 44(4),

575-589.

Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American cultures. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 47(1), 77-87.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case

of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114. doi:10.1002/pits.10072

166

Noblit, G. W., Corbett, H. D., Wilson, B. L., & McKenney, M. B. (2009). Creating and

sustaining arts-based school reform: The A+ schools program. New York, NY:

Routledge.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Noller, R. B., Parnes, S. J., & Biondi, A. M. (1976). Creative actionbook. New York, NY:

Scribners.

Norton, R. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment,

39(6), 607-619.

Null, J. (2004). Is constructivism Traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular

advocacy. The Educational Forum, 68(2), 180-188.

Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New

York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner.

Osborn, A. F. (1992). The creative trend in education. In S. J. Parnes (Ed.), Sourcebook for

creative problem-solving (pp. 39-62). Buffalo, NY: CEF Press.

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307

Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity

research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

167

Parnes, S. J. (Ed.). (1992). Sourcebook for creative problem-solving: A fifty-year digest of

proven innovation processes. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.

Parnes, S. J. (2004). Visionizing: Innovating your opportunities. Buffalo, NY: Creative

Education Foundation Press.

Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary

Schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). National Center for Education

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban

schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-60). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to

educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research.

Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood (G. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson,

Trans.). New York, NY: Norton.

Ponterotto, J. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative

research concept “thick description”. Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538-549.

168

Puccio, G., & Keller-Mathers, S. (2007). Enhancing thinking and leadership skills through

creative problem-solving. In Tan, A. G. (Ed.). Creativity: A handbook for teachers. (pp.

281-301). Singapore: World Scientific.

Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M., & Mance, M. (2006). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

QCA. (2005). Creativity: Find it, promote it (QCA/05/1596). Qualifications and Curriculum

Authority. Retrieved from www.qcda.gov.uk

Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for

arts participation. Retrieved from http://www.nea.gov/research/2008-SPPA-

ArtsLearning.pdf

Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2011). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Re-investing in arts education: Winning America’s future through creative schools. (2011).

Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(4), 29-35.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The assessment of creative. products in programs for gifted

and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128-134.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester, UK: Capstone.

Robinson, K. (2006). Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?

Retrieved at May 18, 2008 from: http://temoa.tec.mx/node/1595

Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative methods.

Qualitative Inquiry, 1-11.

169

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output

and a creativity index. Educational Psychology Measures, 52, 213-221

Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions

for Child and Adolescent Development, 1996(72), 3-30.

Runco, M. A. (2008). Creativity and education. New Horizons in Education, 56(1), 96-104.

Runco, M. A. (2015). Meta-Creativity: Being creative about creativity. Creativity Research

Journal, 27(3), 295-298.

Rutland, M. (2009). Art and design and design and technology: Is there creativity in the

designing? Design and Technology Education, 14(1), 56-67.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. The International Journal of Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 1(1), 41-48.

Sawyer, R. K. (2009). How to transform schools to foster creativity. Teachers College Record,

118(4).

Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance

elementary school students’ achievement? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 47-

72. doi:0.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01266.x

Schratz, M., & Walker, R. (1995). Research as a social change: New opportunities for

qualitative research. London, UK: Routledge.

170

Shelton, J. B., & Smith, R. F. (1998). Problem-based learning in analytical science

undergraduate teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(1), 19-29.

Silva, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick

and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2),

79-85.

Skiba, T., Tan, M., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Roads not taken, new roads to

take: Looking for creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.),

Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 252-269). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education. (2014). National Core Arts Standards.

Dover, DE: State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? American Psychologist, 56(4),

360-362.

Sternberg, R. J., & Gastel, J. (1989). Coping with novelty in human intelligence: An empirical

investigation. Intelligence, 13, 187-197.

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Steers, J. (2003). Art and design in the UK: The theory gap in Addison, N. and Burgess, Issues in

Art and Design Teaching. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Stoytcheva, K. (1998). Ambiguity tolerance: Adolescents’ responses to uncertainty in life. (ED

422547).

171

Stoytcheva, K. (2003). Tolerance of ambiguity. Pleven, Bulgaria: Lege Artis.

Tait, J. (2002, June). What conditions and environment could support teachers in finding space

for “creativity” in their work with curriculum? Imaginative Curriculum Research Study,

LTSN.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for

transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and

accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2), 50-60.

Tomljenović, Z. (2015). An interactive approach to learning and teaching in visual arts

education. CEPS Journal, 5(3), 73-93.

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12

education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, P. (1972). Combining creative problem-solving with creative

expressive activities in the education of disadvantaged young people. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 6, 1-10.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual.

Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

The nature of creativity (pp. 43-73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

172

Treffinger, D. J., Sortore, M. R., & Cross, J. A. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing

creativity. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of

research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 555-567). New York, NY:

Pergamon.

Vernon, D., & Blake, R. (1993). Does problem-based learning work: A meta-analysis of

evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550-563.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Studies in

mathematics education series: 6. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children; a study of the creativity-

intelligence distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt.

Waters, M. (2006). Towards an innovative curriculum. Presentation at Surrey LEA Conference

Weitz, J. (1956). Job expectancy and survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40(4), 245-247.

Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity

Research Journal, 8(1), 1-10.

Wiggins, J. (2015). Constructivism, policy, and arts education. Arts Education Policy Review,

116(3), 115-117.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

173

Willis, J., Jost, M., & Nilakanta, R. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research interpretive and

critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Zhengkui, L., Li, C., & Jiannong, S. (2007). A review of researches on creativity and attention.

Psychology Science, 30, 387-390.

Zimmerman, E. (2005). Should creativity be a visual arts orphan? In J. Baer & J. Kaufman

(Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work, and act creatively in diverse domains

(pp. 59-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, E. (2006). It takes effort and time to achieve new ways of thinking: Creativity and

art education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(2), 57-73.

Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and

practice. Studies in Art Education, 50(4), 382-399.

Zimmerman, E. (2014). Presences and absences: A critical analysis of recent research about

creativity in visual arts education. In Thomas, K., & Chan, J. (2014). Handbook of

research on creativity (pp. 48-65). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

174

Appendix

Interview Questions

1. What important knowledge and skills do you want your students to develop during your class?

a. Why is [x] skill/knowledge important? i. Why do you think [x] skill/knowledge is important to the creative

process? ii. Why do you think that skill/knowledge is important in art?

iii. Why do you think that skill/knowledge important to education? 2. In your opinion, can creativity be “taught”? [assure them that any way they answer

the question is fine] a. If not, why? b. If so, what is essential to the process of teaching of creativity? c. How can art education help students become more creative?

3. What do you do as a teacher to help students gain the skills and knowledge that are essential to creativity?

a. I would be interested to hear an example of how this plays out in your class 4. If I walked into your classroom, on a particularly great day, what is the major

outcome I would observe in your students’ learning? a. Has your perception of the most important “outcome” changed over time?

i. [if so] What do you think influenced this change? 1. Has that change influenced your teaching of what is essential?

ii. [if not] Why do you think the importance of those outcomes has endured for you over time?

b. How do these outcomes relate to creativity? 5. What do you think is essential to teaching creativity in art?

a. Do you think that has changed overtime? i. What do you think has influenced that change?

1. Do you think that change impacted your teaching practice? 6. When you think about the specific units you teach, which one(s) do the best job of

helping student develop their creative capacity? Pick the one that’s your favorite to teach.

a. Walk me through the unit i. What do you do you/your students do first, second, third, etc.?

ii. How is the unit introduced? How are the lessons introduced? iii. PROBLEM FINDING: What is the goal or purpose of the assignment?

[listen for words like challenge, problem, solution, etc., if they say this, probe in more depth – what [word] do you want them to solve, how do students define the problem]

175

iv. MESS FINDING: What aspects of the assignment do you structure? What aspects are unstructured or open-ended? For example … Why?

v. IDEATION: How do students come up with ideas? vi. DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS: How do students decide which idea to

go with? How do they determine when an idea is the “best idea” to pursue?

vii. DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS: How do the students transition from idea to a plan for how they will carry out the idea?

1. What do you think is important for students to come up with on their own?

viii. IMPLEMENTATION: How do students implementing their ideas? What do you do, as a teacher, during this phase?

ix. ACCEPTANCE: What do students do at the end of the assignment? How do they/you determine if their work is “good”?

b. Think of a time when a student or students seemed to be struggling with this assignment. What did you do?

i. Why? c. How does the assignment help students develop the skills you previously

identified as important to the cultivation of creativity? d. What models or theories, if any, informed your approach to the design of this

unit? e. How, if at all, does the creativity standard inform your approach to this unit

and the assessment of student work? i. Thinking about this particular unit, in what way is the creativity

standard helpful? In what way does the standard fall short or not, from your perspective as an educator, reflect what you think is the essence of creativity?

7. How do you determine if students are being or becoming more “creative” in your class assignments?

8. If a student asked you to define creativity, what would you say? a. Why is that important to you? b. Why is that important to your teaching of art?

i. How does the use of creativity in your classroom, impact your student’s learning?

ii. Do you think your students are creative? 1. That is interesting, please expand.

9. What can you do as an art teacher to ensure students are creative? a. What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do educators need to help guide students

to develop their creative capacities? What advice can you offer other art teachers struggling to help students?