Eric L. Mann
Hope College
ABSTRACT
Creativity and innovation at times are used interchangeably, while others see then as distinct concepts. Writing for Business Insider, Marshall (2013) distinguishes between the two by defining creativity as “unleashing the potential of the mind to conceive new ideas,” a subjective concept difficult to measure. Innovation he offers as a completely measurable concept that involves, in part, the work necessary to implement an idea. The current era of creativity research that began in 1950 views creativity as a process that begins with an idea that culminates in a product, encompassing both aspects of Marshall’s view. While the multifaceted nature of and different perspectives on creativity have failed to yield a single, accepted definition of creativity E. Paul Torrance, often referred to as the “Father of Creativity,” viewed creativity as much more than just a new idea without form. His definition provided in the first few paragraphs of the chapter has many similarities to the literature on engineering design thinking, including prototyping and communicating results. Beginning with Guilford’s (1950) call for research into creativity, this chapter first explores the concept of creativity and the roles Person, Product, Process, Press, and Problem play in its development and assessment in K–12 settings. Next are brief discussions of the connection between the study of creativity and design thinking and creativity and education. Methods and instrumentation to assess creativity are offered from the current literature, along with opportunities for future research in the area with respect to engineering education in K–12 settings.
The creative individual has always been valued by society. The ability to see the world in new ways and to act on those visions to improve the human condition is the essence of engineering. The ability to be creative exists in everyone in varying degrees—a capacity to be nourished and developed. While creativity is an essential feature in all disciplines, it is commonly viewed through an aesthetic lens with the associated products in the fields of art, music, and literature. In many K–12 classrooms, creativity is unrewarded and discouraged in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as students work on exercises involving problems with known solutions and prescribed solution paths. The introduction of engineering design activities in the classroom provides children the opportunity to use their imagination and the knowledge they have acquired to create solutions to relevant problems. Making the creative nature of the design process explicit and assessing the creativity of the products helps the students recognize and develop their creativity, while educators discover and shape creative talent.
OVERVIEW OF CREATIVITY
In his 1950 presidential address to the American Psychological Association, Guilford noted that the study of creativity had been neglected and pressed for research to identify and develop the creative promise in children, thus initiating a new emphasis in creativity research. Sternberg and Lubart (1999) discussed the different approaches to the study of creativity that have been employed since then, including mystical, pragmatic, psychodynamic, psychometric, social-personality, and cognitive. The multifaceted nature of creativity and the related research has made identifying a single accepted definition of creativity difficult. Treffinger (2003) asserts that more than 100 accepted definitions can be documented. E. Paul Torrance, often referred to as the “Father of Creativity,” defined creativity as,
a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies; testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the results. (Torrance, 1966, p. 6)
Torrance’s view of creativity was focused on the process. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (1996, 2008) contain both a figural and verbal component that assesses the divergent thinking of participants based on the fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration of their responses.
Sternberg and Lubart’s Investment Theory of Creativity (Sternberg, 2006) focuses on the confluence of six different but related resources within an individual: intellectual skills, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and environment. Intellectual skills are further delineated as
(a) the synthetic skill to see problems in new ways and to escape the bounds of conventional thinking, (b) the analytic skill to recognize which of one’s ideas are worth pursuing and which are not, and (c) the practical-contextual skill to know how to persuade others of—to sell other people on—the value of one’s ideas. (Sternberg, 2006, p. 88)
Amabile (1996) defines creativity by the product or response generated. The criteria used to judge the creativity is that of experts in the appropriate field(s):
A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers agree that is it creative. Appropriate observers are those who are familiar with the domain in which the product is created or the response articulated. Thus creativity can be regarded as the quality of products or responses judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also be regarded as the process by which something so judged is produced. (p. 33)
These three different approaches highlight three of the four P’s of creativity (Runco, 2004): Person, Product, and Process. The fourth P, Press, refers to the environment or context in which the creative act occurs. The environment provides both the conditions that foster creativity and the cultural context in which creativity is viewed and value is assigned. While the terms novelty and surprise are often used to describe creative products, if the product is not valued, it is often not recognized as creative. History provides many examples of creative individuals and their ideas that went unrecognized either because the knowledge and skill to implement them was not yet known or the ideas were culturally unacceptable at the time.
Volumes have been published on the nature of creativity and an in-depth look at the current theories and debates is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, the role of person, product, process, and press are highly interrelated and are applicable to the assessment of creativity in engineering.
The role of person
Is creativity an innate talent, an acquired skill, or a bit of both? If creativity is a set of traits or ability similar to intelligence, then assessment at an early level may be adequate to ensure future creative productivity. If creativity is viewed as a socially constructed ability, one that can be developed either individually or in a collaborative environment, then appropriate creativity training would be sufficient. However, experience with intelligence assessments has shown that the possession of a high level of intelligence is not sufficient for high academic or scholarly performance, so it may also prove to be true that the possession of traits and ability with respect to creativity are a necessary but insufficient assessment to identify productive creativity. There is a modest correlation between intelligence and general creativity to a point; however, above an intelligence test score of 120 this correlation rapidly diminishes (Baer & Kaufman, 2005). Other factors must be considered.
Motivation, cognitive style, and personality traits such as persistence, openness to new ideas, willingness to take risks, curiosity, and wonder all play a role in defining the creative person. Many of these aspects can be influenced (positively or negatively) by training and experience. One aspect that is particularly relevant for the study of engineering creativity is domain-specific knowledge. Hayes (1989) and Gardner (1993) studied eminent creators and found that a period of preparation within the discipline, often referred to as the 10-year rule, was necessary before these individuals created new ideas, processes, and products. Similarly, Simonton’s (1984) historical study found an inverse U-relationship between formal education and creativity, with creativity peaking in the baccalaureate years. However, Weisberg (1999) postulates a difference between education and knowledge, challenging the U-relationship theory with one that supports a more straightforward linear relationship between knowledge and creativity. Regardless of the theory applied, research suggests that some level of engineering knowledge is required for emergent creativity to be demonstrated and acknowledged.
The role of process
A four-stage model of the creative process was proposed by Wallas in 1926 (Heywood, 2005; Lubart, 2001). The process moves though the stages of (1) problem definition and analysis or Preparation; (2) unconscious thought, where ideas are considered and most rejected, referred to as Incubation; (3) insight, or Illumination, in which a solution is revealed; and (4) Verification, a period of work in which the idea is developed and evaluated. Wallas’s model is a foundational concept in creativity research (for an overview of the applications of this model, see Lubart, 2001).
Each stage is relevant to the assessment of creativity. In the preparation phase, finding and formulating problems as well as recognizing the knowledge and skills required and the conditions under which potential solutions must function is essential. The incubation and illumination periods are the time for idea generation and evaluation. While a period of time away from a problem often results in an illuminating event, more structured approaches that focus on idea generation and exploration are often part of the classroom or professional environment where the luxury of time may not be an option. Techniques such as brainstorming or SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Rearrange) (Eberle, 1972) are used to stimulate idea generation. The difference between a creative and non-creative process during this period may be the individual’s or group’s ability to freely play with new ideas rather than be constrained by conventional thoughts and applications—a time best served by a childlike curiosity and willingness to explore and take risks, rather than reliance on standard practice, rules, and procedures. Evaluation of the ideas generated is the initial part of the verification phase. At this point the individual or group judges the acceptability of an idea or solution to the field or client. Thus a level of knowledge and experience in the field is necessary to identify a desirable and feasible design. Once an idea is selected, the verification process continues with prototyping, evaluation, redesign, and production.
The role of product
The manifestation of creativity is a product (either an object or a process) that is viewed and judged by others. Amabile’s (1996) conceptual definition of creativity is built on two essential elements of a creative product: “(a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic” (p. 35). In this context following a known process or solution path in designing a new structure or developing a new compound is not a creative act, but rather following an algorithm to yield an expected outcome. Novelty is a necessary but not sufficient criterion, as the product must have value in the marketplace (Tôrnkvist, 1998). Novelty can be viewed as the surprise factor in the product—a new idea or a new way to approach a problem. However, if novelty is the sole criterion, then any unusual or absurd idea might be considered creative. Value adds the aspects of effectiveness and relevancy to the criteria. If a bridge or a painting is novel, but the bridge does not solve the problem or the painting fails to communicate the artist’s ideas, the product provides no value and is not creative. Novelty and value require some level of knowledge in the discipline(s). Knowledge and skills are necessary ingredients for creative production (Amabile, 1996; Feldhusen, 2002; Heywood, 2005), for if the judgment of observers familiar with the domain is the means by which creativity is determined then the product or process must also be viewed significant by the gatekeepers of that domain.
Other criteria are often added to novelty and value. Taylor’s (1975) Creative Product Inventory included criteria for generation, reformulation, originality, relevance, hedonics, complexity, and condensation. Bessemer and Treffinger’s (1981) Creative Product Analysis Matrix incorporated novelty, resolution, and elaboration and synthesis. More recently, Cropley and Cropley (2000) assessed the products of undergraduate engineering students using the following criteria:
1. Effectiveness
2. Novelty (originality and surprisingness)
3. Elegance (easily understood and workmanlike finish)
4. Geminiality (usefulness, ability to open up new perspectives)
5. Overall Impression (p. 211)
Some tangible product is necessary for creativity to be recognized. There are differences in the degree of creativity involved in the creation of products. Though several decades separate their work, both Boden (2004) and Taylor (1959) proposed similar levels of creativity. Boden offers three levels: (1) combining existing ideas to create a new product or process, (2) exploratory creativity in which the individual investigates new ideas, and (3) transformational creativity, or making the impossible possible. Taylor’s five levels begin with expressive creativity, characterized by spontaneity and freedom with no attention paid to originality or quality. This level is often demonstrated in children’s drawings or brainstorming sessions. Next in Taylor’s hierarchy is technical creativity, where an individual is proficient in creating products at a “production” level, consistently replicating known and valued products. Third is inventive creativity, employing known objects and materials in new and ingenious manners. Fourth is innovative creativity, to “think outside the box” and establish new ways of thinking that advance the discipline. The highest level is emergent creativity, the great leaps of insight that incorporate the most abstract ideational principles or assumptions underlying a body of knowledge. To develop creativity in the K–12 classroom, the focus should be on engaging students at the first two levels of Boden’s model and the third level in Taylor’s hierarchy, while developing an appreciation for the higher levels. Often the classroom environment limits students’ experiences to Taylor’s expressive and technical creativity modes.
The role of press
Creativity needs a facilitative environment, not an authoritative one. Future engineers need to wrestle with problems, challenge the questions posed, and learn to work collaboratively to analyze, criticize, and synthesize information. Early in their professional careers, engineers are often placed on teams with experienced engineers for, despite all their education, these new engineers lack an experience base from which to analyze problems or evaluate solutions. Professional judgment develops over time and is a valued component of the design process. Knowledge, intuition, experience, and creativity are all invoked when making engineering design choices.
The role of the problem (a fifth P)
While often implied in the literature, direct references to the nature of the problem are seldom found. However, problems must be of sufficient interest and challenge to stimulate a creative response. Problems that mirror or mimic ones previously encountered often elicit routine responses or the search for an algorithm that defines the solution path rather than an innovative solution.
CREATIVITY IN ENGINEERING
The ultimate goal of engineering is to improve the human condition. Each technological advance has been in response to a creative idea acted on by an engineer. Yet, for many engineers the ill-defined concept of creativity is in conflict with “the precise, quantitative nature of the engineering world” (Thompson & Lordan, 1999, p. 17). Creativity exists in all fields, but the nature and manifestations of creativity differ based on the values and objectives within the discipline. While artists, authors, poets, and musicians may seek to invoke an aesthetic or emotional response, engineering is focused on the creation of objects that solve a problem—a functional view of creativity (Cropley & Cropley, 2005). A foundational concept of engineering is design, an inherently creative process in which the problem and associated constraints are identified, a solution is selected from a list of possibilities, prototypes are developed and tested, the results are shared with others, and improvements are made. Within this view of creativity, “context determines creativity by defining not only a product’s relevance and effectiveness, but also its degree of novelty” (Cropley & Cropley, 2005, p. 178). Thus the context, often the marketplace or customer, also defines the value of a solution, with an implication that the higher-valued new products or designs are also the more creative ones.
Engineering design has been defined at three different levels: (1) original design—a new solution, (2) adaptive design—using a known solution in a new way, and (3) variant design—a redesign of the product with no change in functionality (Pahl, Beitz, Feldhusen & Grote, 2007). These three levels align with Boden’s (2004) levels of creativity: original design–transformative creativity; adaptive design–exploratory creativity; and variant design–combinational creativity. Within the classroom, students often encounter a fourth level, replicative design, where students mimic an established design algorithm to construct, as opposed to create, a product. While this level is appropriate to develop design skills and to modify existing designs to meet changing criteria, there is little creativity involved in the process. If the educational experiences of engineering students are limited to replicative design tasks, the dynamic, creative aspects of engineering are left hidden and untouched.
Blicblau and Steiner (1998) dispute the view of engineering as a dull, non-creative profession constrained by codes, specifications, legal requirements, and cultural pressures. These constraints are part of the press or environment in which the discipline functions. All disciplines have similar social and cultural expectations that set the context under which the relevance, effectiveness, and creativity of a work is judged. Engineering products first and foremost must be relevant and effective; they must solve the problem for which they were designed. Occasionally a design may fail to solve the problem, but the product is novel and has potential. Cropley and Cropley’s (2005) discussion of engineering creativity in terms of functionality introduces the concept of latent functional creativity: “products that possess novelty without a particular functional purpose … [the] potential to become relevant and effective when the right circumstances occur” (p. 181).
The terms creativity and design are closely related, and in some fields used interchangeably. In engineering the two concepts overlap. There are a number of similarities in creativity as defined by Torrance earlier in the chapter and the definition for engineering design provided by Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, and Leifer (2005):
Engineering design is a systematic, intelligent process in which designers generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or process whose form and function achieve clients’ objectives or users’ needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints. (p. 104)
While both definitions have a process orientation and a focus on problem solving, design is more focused on functionality. To better understand the nature of design thinking, biographical studies of eminent engineers and designers have been done seeking to understand their success. Researchers investigating the nature of creativity include neuropsychologists and geneticists (Kuszewski, 2009) as well as educators and social scientists. Alexiou, Zamenopoulos, Johnson, and Gilbert (2009) conducted pilot studies using brain imaging to investigate the biological nature of design thinking. Along with brain function and innate abilities, personality, motivation, intelligence, and experience all play a role in an individual’s creativity.
Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) offer a multilevel model of creativity that spans a continuum that acknowledges the students’ construction of knowledge in learning situations, at one end, to the revolutionary work of eminent individuals, at the other. Within this model are levels identified as Pro-c and mini-c. Pro-c is a professional-level creativity within a field, a level consistent with the goals of the development of engineering design thinking at an undergraduate level. In the K–12 classroom, students’ efforts more closely align with the mini-c level of creativity.
Researchers interested in the distribution of creative ability distinguish between everyday creativity (little c) and revolutionary creative works (Big C). Within Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) Four C model of creativity, the additional levels of mini-C and Pro-C provide a more robust structure by which to view development and applications of creativity.
Table 15.1. The four-c model of creativity.
| Brief definition | Example | Types of measures | |
| mini-c | Novel and personally meaningful interpretation of experiences, actions, and events. | Student’s new and meaningful insight about how to use a strategy learned in math class to analyze data in her science fair project. | Self-assessment, microgenetic methods. |
| little-c | Everyday expressions of novel and task appropriate behaviors, ideas, or products. | Combining leftover Italian and Thai food into a new and tasty fusion of flavors that your family enjoys. | Ratings (teachers, peer, parents); psychometric tests (e.g., Torrance tests); consensual assessment. |
| Pro-c | Expert expressions of novel and meaningful behaviors, ideas, or products (that exceed everyday but have not attained legendary status). | A professor’s psychological study that receives an award from a professional psychological association. | Consensual assessment; peer review; prizes/honors. |
| Big-C | Legendary novel and-meaningful accomplishments, which often redirect an entire field of study or domain. | The scientific theories of Isaac Newton.The innovative socialjustice work of MartinLuther King, Jr. | Major prizes/honors; historiometric measures. |
Source: Kaufman, Beghetto, Baer, & Ivcevic, 2010. Used with permission.
Within the K–12 environment, professional levels of creativity (Pro-C) are unrealistic. Students’ levels of creative ability will vary, but all have some potential for creativity and all engage in both every day problem solving (little c) and mini-c creativity. Creativity at this level is fragile and shaped in part by opportunities, experiences, and encouragement (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). Parallels between developing creativity and performance on design tasks are easily drawn as students move from novices to professional engineers.
Dym et al. (2005) describe the underpinnings of the educational content in the engineering curriculum as a knowledge-based approach using proven principles to guide a systematic approach to questioning, leading to verifiable solutions. The knowledge and questioning strategies learned are further described as “tools and techniques used to assist designers’ creativity” (Dym et al., 2005, p. 104). Dym et al. further distinguish between the forms of questioning that occur during design thinking: deep reasoning and generative design questions. Deep reasoning questions are those that most closely correlate with academic achievement tests scores—questions seeking answers within the knowledge domain of engineering science. These questions are characteristic of convergent thinking, in which individuals are searching for knowledge applicable to the problem and the context of the design challenge. Generative design questions seek to generate possibilities that diverge from what is known and accepted to what might be possible. Questions along these lines seek to synthesize concepts and knowledge to generate new, unproven concepts. In contrast to deep reasoning questions, generative design questions are representative of divergent thinking. By far, the assessment of divergent thinking is the most prevalent means currently used in the assessment of a child’s potential for creative thinking (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008; Runco, 1991). According to Dym et al. (2005) “design thinking is thus seen as a series of continuous transformations from the concept domain to the knowledge domain” (p. 105).
Engineering intuition is built as individuals gain experience in design thinking (Dym et al., 2005). In their investigation of intuition’s role in creative problem solving, Eubanks, Murphy, and Mumford (2010) described the process of intuition as “the formation of an inarticulate, unconscious, pattern that guides problem-solving and decision making on complex tasks” (p. 171). Experience (Rush, Wallace, & Newman, 2008) and mentoring (Ekwaro-Osire & Orono, 2005) enhance creative expression in engineering design, implying a link between intuition and creativity. However, since intuition is an inarticulate and unconscious process, Dym et al.’s note, that “decision-based design cannot account for or suggest a process for how concepts and alternatives are generated—and this is often regarded as the most creative and hard-to-model aspect of design thinking” (p. 107), suggests that there is still much to learn about how the creative engineering mind functions.
Knowledge and experience are both necessary for engineering creativity to emerge, but without opportunity the potential for creative design will remain dormant. While educational preparation to develop the knowledge and skills to be successful in a profession is necessary, attention to development of creativity is appropriate as well. Dieter wrote, “a technical education with its emphasis on precision of thought and correct solutions to mathematical problems is especially deadly to creativity” (as cited by Blicblau & Steiner, 1998, p. 56). Without balancing rigor and creativity, educational experiences may cast the view of engineering as a dull, non-creative profession constrained by codes, specification, legal requirements, and cultural pressures (Blicblau & Steiner, 1998; Thompson & Lordan, 1999).
EDUCATION AND CREATIVITY
J. Paul Guilford’s (1950) presidential speech to the American Psychological Association is cited as the beginning of the current era of creativity research. In his speech, Guilford called to task the reliance on intelligence tests designed to measure mastery of reading and mathematics as a means to identify individual creativity. The education system of the 1950s and today’s emphasis on standardized testing to measure quality of education (Bronson & Merryman, 2010) both discourage the development of creativity as “the child [and teacher] is under pressure to conform for the sake of economy and for the sake of stratifying prescribed standards” (Guilford, 1950, p. 448). Citing Charles Kettering’s characterization of an inventor as “a fellow who doesn’t take his education too seriously,” Guilford suggests that “creative individuals do not seek higher education in engineering and science, or that kind of education has negative transfer effectives with respect to inventiveness” (2005, p. 448).
Efforts to foster creativity in the classroom were first linked legislatively in the United States by the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Cropley, 2010). Idea generation was added to British secondary school curriculums in 2008; 2009 was the European Year of Creative and Innovation; and China is moving toward a more problem-based learning approach (Bronson & Merryman, 2010), demonstrating an international awareness and interest in finding way to develop creative potential. While creativity is valued, educational practices to develop creativity focus primarily on divergent thinking programs, often in prescriptive or pre-packaged commercial forms, and ignore the other aspects essential to develop creative thinking. Cropley offers a componential model of creativity that includes both cognitive (items 1–3) and personal (items 4–6) components:
1. General knowledge and a thinking base
2. A specific knowledge base and area-specific skills
3. Divergent thinking and acting
4. Focusing and task commitment
5. Motivation and motives
6. Openness and tolerance for ambiguity (pp. 145–146)
Rather than a stand-alone skill to be taught, creativity needs to be infused into the daily expectations for students. Divergent thinking is a cognitive aspect of creativity, but it needs a content and knowledge base within which such thoughts can occur. Environment, experience, and opportunity all influence the personal components of creativity.
Krathwohl (2002) offers a revision to Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy that places creativity at the highest level of cognitive function. The first three levels—remember, understand, and apply—are typical of the kinds of tasks presented to K–12 students. While these levels are important in creating foundational knowledge and skills, engineering education also emphasizes the higher three levels: analyze, evaluate, and create. While all six dimension of the cognitive taxonomy are important, often assessments in K–12 classrooms are weighted heavily toward the lower three, as they are the easiest to measure. For example, the Engineering is Elementary curriculum from the Museum of Science, Boston, is the most widely used K–6 engineering curriculum in the United States. Students are encouraged to imagine and create solutions to real-world problems. Yet the formal assessments provided seek to evaluate students’ understanding of technology and engineering, leaving the assessment of students’ creativity to the teachers and peers.
Assessments at the highest levels of cognitive function are challenging and often dependent on the knowledge, skills, and insight of both the student and the teacher. Thus, including formal creativity assessments within a curriculum unit is also challenging and may be counterproductive in the development of creativity. A more effective approach would be to provide guidelines for discussion and peer feedback that offer students the opportunities take risks, reflect on the failures and successes, and revise and improve their work.
CREATIVITY ASSESSMENTS
Existing creativity assessments used in K–12 settings fall into one of several categories. Kaufman, Plucker, and Baer (2008) identified four categories. The first, divergent thinking tests, are used extensively in part due to the heavy emphasis on this type thinking in the 20 to 30 years after Guilford’s address. The best-known assessment in this area is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 2008). This series of tests includes Thinking Creatively with Pictures, a set of picture completion tasks, and Thinking Creatively with Words, in which students are asked to generate as many questions, statements, or ideas as possible for a given situation. These tests raise the question of baseline differences as performance, at least in part, is dependent on drawing ability and verbal skills (Amabile, 1996). Responses are evaluated based on fluency, elaboration, and originality. Normative score guides for both age and grade levels of K–12 students are provided (Torrance, 2008). An engineering-specific version of this type of test is the Purdue Creativity Test (Lawshe & Harris, 1960), which was developed to assist in the assignment of engineering personnel. Divergent thinking assessments are time consuming and challenging to evaluate, and by their nature address only one aspect of creativity.
Self-assessment and assessment by others are similar categories that use rating scales, such as the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Renzulli et al., 2004) and the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena & Torrance, 1976). These measures of creativity are inexpensive and easy to administer; however, there are significant validity and reliability issues. Assessments by others (peers, parents, teachers, etc.) are subject to bias and limited by opportunities to observe the individuals being rated. Self-assessments also are subject to error, as often individuals under- or over-estimate their attributes and abilities. The Creativity Assessment Packet (Williams, 1993) contains tests for both divergent thinking and feeling, as well as an assessment scale for parents and teachers to use to evaluate students in grades 1 through 12.
The fourth category of measures of creativity identified by Kaufman, Plucker, and Baer (2008) is consensual assessment techniques. The foundation for this approach is Amabile’s (1996) definition of a creative product or response provide earlier. Through the use of “appropriate observers,” creativity is assessed in terms of performance rather than potential. While such an approach does provide evidence of creative ability within the context of a discipline, assembling a group of experts to act as judges can be difficult in K–12 settings. Issues such as levels of creativity (mini-C to Big C), the experience and knowledge a student has, and the classroom environment and teacher expectations all have an impact on the products developed by students. While past performance is often viewed as an indicator of future potential, individuals who lack experience and opportunities may not be able to demonstrate their creative potential within a particular problem setting. This approach “relies on comparisons of levels of creativity within a particular group, and it is therefore not possible to create any kind of standardized scoring” (Baer & McKook, 2009, p. 67), making comparisons among groups difficult.
A fifth measure of creativity involves convergent thinking tasks that involve insight or analogical reasoning. Dow and Mayer (2004) used insight problems to study domain specificity in creativity training. Students are presented with non-routine problems that can be solved by a novel approach (to the student) using a familiar procedure in a way different from the setting in which it was acquired. When first presented, these problems may appear impossible and often remain so if the individual remains fixated on an initial solution method. However, individuals who can break this fixation often achieve an “ah-ha” moment where an alternate solution path proves successful. Insight problems are categorized as verbal, mathematical, or spatial in nature. The Remote Associates Test (Mednick & Mednick, 1967) provides three words and asks the test taker to find a fourth that links all three. Many times these kinds of convergent thinking questions are the ones found on “how creative are you tests” in popular magazines.
A distinction is necessary between the assessment of creativity and the seeking to identify creative potential. As previously discussed, creativity is multifaceted and influenced by a variety of factors. In K–12, students’ experience, knowledge, and opportunity are developmental and situational. Thompson and Lordan (1999) caution against measuring levels of creativity in engineering design, as scores achieved on various instruments and methods can vary significantly and being labeled “not very creative” (p. 18) is counterproductive to the development of design thinking. Thompson and Lordan offer a different approach to creativity assessment: examining the creative style of an individual. They cite the work of Kirton and the Kirton Innovator-Adaptor (KAI) inventory (Kirton, 1976). This assessment views creativity as a continuum, with adaptors, who are individuals who seek to improve or do things better, on one end, and innovators, or those who seek different ways to do things, on the other. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Meyers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) seeks to identify individual style preferences in four dichotomies: extraversion–introversion, sensing–intuition, thinking–feeling, and judgment–perception. Isaksen, Lauer, and Wilson (2003) investigated the relationship between cognitive style as measured by the KAI and personality type as determined by the MBTI and found significant relationships between the two. Applications of these instruments can be found in the literature for corporate and military settings, but not for K–12 settings. By understanding individual styles and preferences, opportunities for creativity can be enhanced, both by working within a student’s areas of strength and by designing groups in ways that all styles/strengths are represented.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Creativity plays a vital role in engineering design. Products and processes that offer original, novel, or innovative solutions to problems and add value are the desired outcomes of any engineering project. Within the social sciences, a renewed effort in creativity research was sparked by Guilford’s work in the 1950s. In 1957, 1959, and 1961 the National Science Foundation sponsored conferences on scientific creativity, culminating in the publication of Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (Taylor & Barron, 1963). However, the nature of creativity is elusive, and there is no consensus on what it means to be creative. General and domain-specific characteristics are debated. Creativity research in the K–12 arena has focused on development of creative–thinking skills, with a preference for divergent thinking. Often creativity, or its potential, is measured by performance on creative-thinking tests and not in the development of products to solve a real-world problem.
Within engineering education, creativity research has focused on undergraduate students, not the K–12 classroom. This is not surprising, as especially the K–6 grades have lacked the requisite curricula and teachers knowledgeable in design to introduce engineering to their students. A few instruments have been developed to assess creative potential in first-year undergraduate students, such as the as the Creative Engineering Design Assessment (Charyton & Merrill, 2009; Charyton, Jagacinski, & Merrill, 2008) but their use is limited. Instrumentation to assess potential of engineering design creativity, as well as age appropriate assessment of product creativity, are needed for the K–12 settings. The effect of current K–12 creativity training programs on children’s approaches to design challenges needs to be explored. Programs that have a positive effect on development of design thinking should be incorporated into K–12 engineering curricula. Finally, building on the ideas of adaptive to innovative design, the Four-C model of creativity, and the five P’s (Person, Process, Product, Press, and Problem), new engineering specific creativity models are needed to infuse a developmental approach to creativity in K–12 engineering programs.
REFERENCES
Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T., Johnson, J. H., & Gilbert, S. J. (2009). Exploring the neurological basis of design cognition using brain imaging: some preliminary results. Design Studies, 30(6), 623–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.05.002
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
Baer, J., & McKook, S. S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In C. S. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods and applications in higher education (pp. 65–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Bessemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 159–179.
Blicblau, A. S., & Steiner, J. M. (1998). Fostering creativity through engineering products. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23, 55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0304379980230107
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind, myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for creative engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.147
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01013.x
Cropley, A. J. (2010). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across the domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813002001223
Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems. Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 389–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534550
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education., 94(1), 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Eberle, R. F. (1972). Developing imagination through SCAMPER. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(3), 199–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00929.x
Ekwaro-Osire, S., & Orono, P. O. (2005). Pan-mentoring in creative engineering design—the coordination of individual and team creativity. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.icee.usm.edu/icee/conferences/FIEC2005/papers/1504.pdf
Eubanks, D. L., Murphy, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Intuition as an influence on creative problem-solving: The effects of intuition, positive affect, and training. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 170–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481513
Feldhusen, J. F. (2002). Creativity: the knowledge base and children. High Ability Studies, 13(2), 179–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813022000048806
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heywood, J. (2005). Engineering education: Research and development in curriculum and instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471744697
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Wilson, G. V. (2003). An examination of the relationship between personality type and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal, 15(4), 343–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1504_4
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., Baer, J., & Ivcevic, Z. (2010). Creativity polymathy: What Benjamin Franklin can teach your kindergartener. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 380–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.001
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essential of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Khatena-Torrance creative perception inventory. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuszewski, A. M. (2009). The genetics of creativity: A serendipitous assemblage of madness. METODO Working Papers, No. 58. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1393603
Lawshe, C. H., & Harris, D. H. (1960). Purdue creativity test, forms G and H. (TC002523). ETS Test Collection. Retrieved from http://store.ets.org/store/ets/en_US/pd/ThemeID.12805600/productID.39303300
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner’s manual, Remote Associates Test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Meyers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). K. Wallace, & L. T. M. Blessing, Trans. London: Springer-Verlag Limited.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., Westberg, K. L., … (2004). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking: Creativity research. Westport, CT: Albex Publishing.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 657–687). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Rush, M., Wallace, D., & Newman, D. (2008). Creative thinking in a first year mechanical engineering design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: A community of practice model. Proceedings of the ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Brooklyn, NY. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2008-49364
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Tylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–325). Chicago: Aldine.
Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (Eds.). (1963). Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Taylor, I. A. (1959). The nature of the creative process. In P. Smith (Ed.), Creativity: An examination of the creative process (pp. 51–82). New York: Hastings House.
Thompson, G., & Lordan, M. (1999). A review of creativity principles applied to engineering design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part E, Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 213(1), 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/0954408991529960
Tôrnkvist, S. (1998). Creativity: Can it be taught? The case of engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0304379980230102
Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms a and b-figural tests, forms a and b. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual figural (streamlined) forms a and b. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Treffinger, D. (2003). Assessment and measurement in creativity and creative problem solving. In J. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, F. (1993). Creativity assessment packet: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.