See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334398288

Creative learning and learning creativity: Scrutinising the nature of creativity

and developing strategies to foster creativity in education

Chapter · July 2019

CITATIONS READS

3 1,018

1 author:

Chloe Shu-Hua Yeh

Bath Spa University
8 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chloe Shu-Hua Yeh on 07 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ref: Yeh C S.-H. (2018) Creative learning and learning creativity: Scrutinising the nature of creativity and developing strategies to foster creativity in
Education. In C. O’Siochru (2018) “Psychology and the Study of Education: Critical Theoretical Perspectives", London: Routledge.

Chapter 3
Creative learning and learning creativity: Scrutinising the nature of creativity and
developing strategies to foster creativity in education.
Chloe Shu-Hua Yeh

Introduction
Creativity is often viewed as a gift rather than a learned skill. From this perspective, individuals
who are creative are seen to have the creative ‘spark’ in particular abilities, often focusing on
the so-called ‘creative arts’ such as literature, painting or sculpture. Therefore, the role of
education and the educator in such a process is limited or even seen as a threat to creativity due
to the conventions of education which may stifle individuals from developing their creativity
(Craft, 2001).

The overall aims of this chapter are to challenge these common views on the nature of creativity
and to make a case for the role of education in enhancing an individual’s creative potential.
The first section explores some foundational models of creativity such as the four-stage theory
(Wallas, 1926) and the primary-secondary thinking process theory (Kris, 1952) in order to
shape the basic understanding of the nature of creativity. The second section discusses two
underlying factors, defocused attention and emotions, which may have a significant influence
on creative thinking. The final section articulates the challenges in fostering creativity and
provides several strategies aimed at fostering creativity in educational contexts.

The nature of creativity

There are many definitions of creativity but one of the most widely cited comes from Sternberg
and Lubart (1999) who define creativity as’the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e.,
original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints)’
(Sternberg and Lubart, 1999:3). In line with this definition, Mayer (1999) suggest there are two
key characteristics of creativity: ‘Originality’ and ‘Usefulness’. Here, ‘Originality’ refers to the
concept of novelty or novel features of creative products, and ‘Usefulness’ to the concept of
utility, appropriateness, significance or the degree to which the features of creative products
is valued by society. The ‘Originality’ dimension of creativity tends to be how the general

1
public would recognise something as creative; however, the ‘Usefulness’ dimension, is
sometimes neglected when creativity is discussed.

Creativity is also often considered as a property of thinking processes. Torrance (1966:6)

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.

In this respect, Torrance (1996) suggests that creative thinking involves multiple cognitive
thinking processes primarily distinguished into two states. One state involves the processes of
generating ideas; identifying unusual and innovative approaches to problems and ordinary
situations. Some would see this state as being similar to divergent thinking, a concept which
also describes a process of generating potentially creative thoughts (Runco and Chand, 1995),
but as we will see later this view is contested by others. The other state in Torrance’s definition
involves a critical evaluation of these new and unusual ideas or perspectives, estimations of
their acceptability and further considerations for creative outcomes. We will encounter this
dual-state definition of creative thinking in the next section where certain models see creativity
as alternating between these states in order to produce something both original and useful.

Reflections: What is divergent thinking and what are the similarities and the differences
between divergent thinking and creative thinking?

Different researchers have proposed their own models of creative thinking, often with similar
viewpoints but using different terminologies for the thinking states which are described as sub-
processes of creative thinking. To get a better understanding of the nature of creativity, four
such models which are important to education, namely the four-stage theory by Wallas (1926),

2
the Primary-secondary Process by Kris (1952), the Three-component model of creativity by
Amabile (1983, 2013) and, considering the scope of creativity, Gardner‘s (1993) Little C and
Big C Theory, are all explored in this next section.

Four-stage theory of creativity

In his Four-stage theory of creativity, Wallas (1926) attempted to understand creativity from
the perspective of creative problem solving. He suggested that creativity could be broken down
into four sequential creative thinking processes in search of a solution to a problem, including
Preparation, Incubation, Illumination and Verification.

In the Preparation stage, the problem is analysed with attempts to provide possible solutions.
It involves a preliminary analysis of the problem, including defining and setting up the
problem, and obtaining sufficient raw materials for creative idea generation (Lubart, 2001). In
this stage, individuals work to obtain problem-relevant knowledge, consciously develop
familiarity with the existing elements, and then analyse them seeking new creative
combinations. This means that there is a time requirement for the Preparation stage; sufficient
time is needed to learn the necessary domain-related knowledge before an individual can be
creative. The greater the diversity of domain-related knowledge an individual accumulates in
this time, the greater are the opportunities in terms of broader associations for creative idea
generation (Martindale, 1995).

After Preparation is complete if a solution has not presented itself and an impasse is reached
then the next stage, Incubation, is triggered (Finke, et al., 1992). In the Incubation stage, the
creative individuals usually set the problem aside to work on other tasks, so the problem solving
processes occur below the conscious level (Wallas, 1926). Therefore, attention is not focused
on the problem. Often, creative individuals take time off from their focused work when
impasses are encountered to simply relax, take a break, and engage in an unrelated activity.
Unconsciously, however, the mind continues to work on the problem, forming train-of-thought
associations which generate further creative solutions or ideas (Lubart, 2001). This indicates
that defocused (broadened or diffused) attention benefits further creative performance as it

3
provides the opportunity for new associations to appear in our thinking processes (Finke, et al.,
1992; Kounios et al., 2008).

The final two stages, Illumination and Verification are closely linked. In the Illumination stage,
creative individuals usually find the solution to the problem as a sudden insight (Wallas, 1926).
Therefore, it is also referred to as a period of ‘insight’, in which creative ideas jump up to the
surface of consciousness from existing elements incubated with a preceding and intuitive
feeling that an idea is coming (Sawyer, 2006). After insights emerge into consciousness, the
stage of Verification is triggered where the creative individual seeks to make sure that a given
solution works (Wallas, 1926). After evaluating the appropriateness of the insights they are
then refined and developed into a complete creative product or idea.

The four-stage theory offers two important insights into the nature of creativity. Firstly, it
highlights the critical importance of domain relevant knowledge as a foundation for creativity.
This shows a clear role for education in promoting creativity through providing that foundation
and challenges the validity of the popular image of education as something that stifles
creativity. Secondly, by proposing the incubation and illumination stages, the four-stage model
suggests a role for subconscious processes in the production of creative ideas and solutions. In
that, ‘defocused attention’ is an important cognitive process which provides opportunities to
develop related teaching and learning pedagogies that would facilitate the generation of
original ideas. The concept of defocused attention is elaborated in a later section of this chapter.

Primary-secondary process
Wallas’s (1929) four-stage model was highly influential on the theories that followed it while
adding their own unique spin. One of the better known theories is the Primary-Secondary
process model by Kris (1952). In essence, Kris has taken the four stages and divided them into
two cyclical stages labelled ‘Primary Process’ and ‘Secondary Process’. Kris defined primary
process thinking as free-associative, analogical, uninhibited, abstract and less conscious. This
is very much in line with the specification for incubation and illumination stages, new
combinations of mental elements or ideas are freely associated in an uninhibited and often less

4
conscious manner. There is a tendency to fantasize during this process, which is believed to
facilitate the discovery of creative ideas (Fromm, 1978). By contrast, the secondary process is
defined as thinking which is logical, associated with concrete images and knowledge, reality-
oriented thought occurring in fully ‘waking consciousness’. This is very much in line with the
verification stage in that cognitive elements of ideas are analysed logically and reoriented with
goals. This model is also similar to what Torrance (1996) defined as ‘dual-state’ creative
thinking processes that involve creative individuals generating original ideas and critically
evaluating their ideas or perspectives for creative outcomes.

An important distinction that the Primary-Secondary process model makes is to present

creativity as a more cyclical process overall than the Four-stage model did. The process
described in the Four-stage model is more liner, from new ideas being generated to the
productions of a creative output at the end. By contrast, Kris (1952) suggested that we alternate
back and forth between primary and secondary processes many times before a solution is
reached. Creative individuals possess a better ability to alternate more flexibly between primary
and secondary process than uncreative individuals.

Following on from Wallas and Kris, research on the concept of creativity continued to explore
and expand our understanding of the nature of creativity during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, as
psychology entered a period known as the ‘Cognitive Revolution’ (Gardner, 1985), and the
computational model emerged as the dominant paradigm (See chapter 05 for a critical
evaluation of the computational model). During this period of time, Rhodes (1961) proposed
the ‘4 P’s of creativity’, four strands which have influence on creativity , namely Person,
Process, Press and Product. The 4 P’s model and others are influential in creativity research
because they see creativity as one of the cognitive processes such as memory, motivation or
attention which are all intertwined and having influences on each other (Torrance, 1966)

Three-component model of creativity

Another example of a creativity model which was influenced by the cognitive research of the
time is Amabile’s (1983, 2013) Three-component Model of creativity. Amabile proposed three
key elements of creativity: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes and intrinsic

5
task motivation. This model suggests that creativity, rather than a single ability, is a collection
of skills and knowledge possessed by creative individuals. She characterises domain-relevant
skills as knowledge, expertise, technical skills, intelligence, and talent in the particular domain
where the problem-solver is working. Creativity-relevant processes refer to interactions
between cognitive processes and creative individuals’ characteristics. The cognitive processes
include the ability to use a wide range of flexible categories for synthesizing information and
to break out of perceptual and performance scripts. The characteristics include self-discipline,
risk-taking and projecting a tolerance for ambiguity during creative processes. Finally, intrinsic
task motivation is characterised as the passion and intrinsic motivation to undertake a task or
solve a problem because it is interesting, enjoyable, personally challenging and satisfying,
rather than being externally motivated by rewards, surveillance, competition, or evaluation
(Amabile, 1983, 2013).

Amabile’s model provides a detailed analysis on the interconnections of these three essential
components of creativity within creative individuals and their interactions with external tasks
and environments. The three-component model could be seen as an update of Wallas’ (1926)
four-stage theory for the cognitive era, incorporating many of the key cognitive concepts and
research of the time. It has continued to develop and remained highly influential in educational
contexts right up the current day. It is used as the basis for a number of educational practices
aimed at fostering creativity among students.

Little C and Big C

The research on the scope of creativity emerging in the 1990’s and early 2000’s considered the
different levels of impact that a creative output had on individuals and society. Gardner (1993)
explores this phenomenon in his notion of Little C and Big C theory. Big C refers to the impact
of one’s creative output being recognised by a wider society as an eminent contribution which
has made a fundamentally and historically novel contribution in a particular field. By contrast,
Little C refers to creativity at the personal level, regardless of whether many others have
produced similar ideas or innovations; something any individual might produce on a regular
basis in the process of solving problems and adapting to changes in daily life (Runco, 2004).

6
Gardner’s (1993) Little C and Big C theory provides two insights on creativity in relation to
education. Firstly, it shows that the characteristics of creativity: originality and
usefulness/appropriateness (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999; Mayer, 1999) are contextual. That is,
an output or idea might be original or significant in one area but not the other (e.g. local versus
global). In this way, something can be known to others but newly ‘discovered’ by one
individual and still qualify as an example of creativity on his or her own part. Secondly, the
Little C concept challenges educators to consider how variable the processes of evaluating
originality in students’ work and learning progress can be. Each educator may have their own
‘thresholds’ in mind when it comes to making judgement on the originality of students’ work
(e.g. I may consider that an idea in an essay is not original if it’s also in the textbook, but you
may disagree). Educators need to be consciously aware of these thresholds as they could affect
how students are evaluated and whether their creativity is encouraged under such practice.

In summary, this section shows that creativity can be seen as the product of processes that
produce the features ‘originality’ and ‘appropriateness’ which characterize creative thought. It
has also been demonstrated that creative thinking is more complex than merely thinking
divergently and creating new ideas. In the next section it will be shown that these complex
creative thinking processes are interconnected with other factors which influence creativity
both positively and negatively.

Underlying factors that influence creativity

Creativity should not only be considered in isolation from other dimensions of human abilities
and experiences (Sternberg, 2010). Previous reviews on the nature of creative thinking have
identified two significant underlying factors which have direct impact on the creative
processes: defocused (broadened) attention and emotions.

Defocused (broadened) attention

Attentional breadth is defined by Kasof as 'the number and range of stimuli attended to at any
one time' (Kasof, 1997:303). The links between attentional breadth and creativity have been

7
explored in a number of studies (e.g., Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; Friedman et al., 2003;
Kasof, 1997; Kounios et al., 2008). In the context of creativity, attentional breadth determines
the number of mental elements or cognitive units to be triggered for idea generation. A
defocused (broadened) attentional breadth, which allows more of these mental elements to
come to mind, is thought to be beneficial to creative thinking (Kasof, 1997). Mendelsohn stated
that 'The greater the attentional capacity, the more likely the combinational leap which is
generally described as the hallmark of creativity' (Mendelsohn, 1976:366).

Attentional breadth determines the range of stimuli to be attended to and thereby has an effect
on the degree to which extraneous or less relevant stimuli or information will be filtered from
awareness (Kasof, 1997). If breadth of attention is consistently narrowed (or focused) on a
relatively small range of stimuli or information, individuals tend to filter greater amounts of
less relevant information away from their consciousness. In contrast, if breadth of attention is
broadened (or defocused) on a large range of stimuli or information, less relevant information
has a greater chance of gaining our attention. In other words, a defocused or broadened breadth
of attention enlarges the possibility for remotely associated ideas, information or cognitive
units to enter into consciousness, resulting in facilitating creative performance (Mendelsohn,
1976; Runco and Sakamoto, 1999). In this line of thought, defocused (broadened) attention
would be more of an asset during the incubation stage (Wallas, 1926) or primary process (Kris,
1952), where ideas are generated and a greater attentional capacity is required. Whereas,
focused (narrowed) attentional breadth would be of more use in the evaluation stage or
secondary process where ideas are to be evaluated and an attention to detail is required.
Friedman and Förster (2005, 2010) further developed the concept of attentional breadth by
distinguishing between perceptual and conceptual attention and attributing a ‘breadth of
attention’ to both facets. Breadth of perceptual attention refers to 'the degree to which attention
is trained on central as opposed to peripheral perceptual cues', while breadth of conceptual
attention refers to 'the degree to which attention is trained on internal cognitive representations
as opposed to external percepts' (Friedman and Förster, 2005:263). Friedman and Forster
believed that the two kinds of attentional breadth were positively associated with each other.
Narrowed or broadened breadth of perceptual attention may correspondingly expand or
constrict breadth of conceptual attention which in turn may influence creative generation

8
(Friedman et al., 2003). It is interesting to note that according to the study of Friedman and his
colleagues (2003), physically directing visual attention to a wider or a narrower visual area
could broaden or narrow breadth of perceptual attention (For more details, see Discussion to
wider research 1). This shift in visual attentional breadth could subsequently engender a
corresponding shift in internal breadth of conceptual attention, increasing or undermining
creative generation correspondingly. This phenomenon could have implications for developing
creative teaching strategies which are discussed in the final part of this chapter.

In summation, the above discussion suggests that creative individuals utilize a form of
defocused or broadened attentional breadth at certain stages of the creative process to achieve
a wider cognitive remote association for creative ideas generation. In addition, they suggest
that achieving defocused attention in one area (visual attention) may be linked to achieving
defocused attention in other areas (conceptual attention). Interestingly, in the next section
emotion is shown to be another factor which influences this defocused (broadened) attention-
creativity link.

Research focus: Can breadth of perception affect breadth of conceptual attention?

In order to explore the relationship between breadth of perceptual attention and breadth of
conceptual attention, Friedman et al. (2003) first examined whether manipulating an
individual’s breadth of perceptual attention would have an influence on the breadth of their
conceptual attention. Participants’ breadth of perceptual attention was manipulated by a
visual searching task which had participants search for a specific digit (e.g. ‘3’) in either a
broader or narrower size of digital display. A second method of altering perceptual attention
was also used involving facial muscles. To broaden the breadth of perceptual attention,
participants were asked to contract their frontalis facial muscle by raising their eyebrows
associatively. To narrow attentional breadth, they were asked to contract their corrugators
muscle by furrowing their eyebrows. Measuring creativity involved participants generating
alternative uses or titles for several objects, with the originality of their suggestions being
rated by several independent scorers. Results of these experiments yielded consistent

9
evidence that a broadened or narrowed breadth of perceptual attention was positively related
with a broad or a narrow breadth of conceptual attention respectively, suggesting a
corresponding enhancement or impairment of creativity.

Emotions

Emotions are thought by some to serve as a gate which unconsciously widens or narrows
attentional breadth and thereby affects which stimuli or information are brought to mind during
the creative process. This means that emotional stimuli such as targets, rewards, competition,
a relaxing environment or anything else which might trigger an individual’s emotions would
influence subsequent creative cognition (Howard-Jones, 2002). The means by which external
emotional stimuli may influence creative thinking can be explained via the breadth of attention
theories previously mentioned. For example, more relaxed emotional states are associated with
broader attentional breadth benefiting idea generation. By contrast, reduced relaxation (i.e.
stress) induced by extrinsic goals or competitive environmental settings may lead individuals
to fixate upon a limited set of ideas, hindering idea generation (Howard-Jones, 2002). It has
been emphasised that even mild fluctuations in emotions from daily lives events and activities
can have very significant influences on cognitive abilities (Mitchell and Phillips, 2007). For
example, different extent of arousal might affect creativity differently (Martindale, 1999).

A large body of research on the cognitive effects of positive emotions has suggested that both
artificially induced and naturally occurring positive emotional states will generally lead to
greater cognitive flexibility and facilitate performances on creative problem-solving activities.
(For reviews, see Ashby, Isen, and Turken, 1999; Ashby, Valentin, and Turken, 2002; Isen,
Daubman, and Nowicki, 1987). These studies have provided evidence to support the notion
that positive emotions broaden our access to alternative cognitive perspectives and facilitate
creative problem-solving skills across a broad range of situations, from young children at play
to adults in organisational settings. In many of these studies, the remote associates test (RAT)
(Mednick, 1962) has been used to provide evidence that positive emotions improve cognitive

10
flexibility (Ashby et al., 1999; Isen et al., 1987). In this test, participants are presented with
three cue words and a blank line and were asked to respond with a fourth word that is related
to each of the three cue words. An example of one set of cue words is GOWN, CLUB, and
MARE and the correct response was NIGHT (i.e. nightgown, nightclub, and nightmare).
Research using this test has shown that individuals in the positive emotions condition
responded with a broader range of more unusual word associations than those in the neutral
emotions condition (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, and Robinson, 1985).

In another set of studies, the people in the positive emotions condition produced a wider range
of possible solutions and perspectives in an innovative problem solving task - Duncker`s candle
task (Isen et al., 1987). Participants viewed comedy film clips before being presented with an
innovative problem-solving task (the candle task) to complete. Their performance on the task
was compared to two other groups, those who had watched a neutral film condition and a
‘separated-cue’ condition. The candle task was presented to them as three objects: a box of
tacks, a candle and a pack of matches placed on a table next to a cardboard wall. The question
in this task was: how to attach the candle to the cardboard wall in a way so that the candle can
burn properly without dripping wax on the table or the floor beneath. In the separated-cue
condition the display of the objects in the task was changed by separating the tacks from their
box as a cue for alternative uses for each item (i.e. the box can be a separate tool rather than
just being a container for the tacks). The solution to this task was usually to empty the box,
then tack it to the wall and use it as a platform or a holder for the candle. The results from this
study showed that participants in both the positive emotions condition and the ‘separated-cue’
condition showed higher levels of creativity in their solutions compared to those the neutral
film condition It’s worth noting, however, that although, most kinds of positive emotions are
likely to enhance creative generation, there may be some kinds of positive emotions that do
not.

Research Focus: Will positive emotions always lead to broader attention?

11
Gable and Harmon-Jones (2010) challenged the view of positive emotions broadening
attention when they proposed the Motivational Dimensional Model of affect, which explored
the way that both positive and negative emotions vary in motivational intensity (i.e., high or
low). They argued that a combination of the valence (positive or negative) of an emotion as
well as its motivational intensity is what determines the effect that emotion would have on
breadth of attention and creative cognition. This is in contrast to previous studies which only
considered the valence of an emotion and in doing so implied that all positive emotions
would broaden attention. Instead, Gable and Harmon-Jones (2010) suggested that only
positive emotions that are low in motivational intensity (e.g. relaxation) will lead to a
broadening of attention; whereas, positive emotions which are high in motivational intensity
(e.g. desire) actually narrow attention. In the same way, negative emotions high in
motivational intensity (e.g. anger) will narrow attention, yet negative emotions low in
motivational intensity (e.g. sadness) which actually broaden attention. What all this shows
us is that the relationship between emotions and creativity may be more complex than we
originally thought.

To summarise, from the above discussions on the underlying factors that influence creativity
generation it can be understood that defocused (broadened) attention may facilitate remote
associations leading to creative ideas being generated. Furthermore, by defocusing or
broadening perceptual attention, creative idea generation may also be enhanced and
encouraged. In addition, emotions play a significant role in determining breadth of attention
and that is likely to thereby influence levels of creative thinking too. As we will see later, the
above concepts lend themselves to application through educational techniques aimed at
enhancing creativity. Before we can review those techniques, in this next section the
challenges and strategies to foster creativity in education are first discussed.

Encouraging creativity in education

While on the one hand education has often been criticised for spoon-feeding and killing
creativity (Kaila, 2005; Robinson, 2009), ironically, it is also in demand to provide educated

12
and creative graduates to respond to global changes in politics and economics as well as the
sociocultural and environmental landscapes (Shaheen, 2010). When unforeseen and
unpredictable challenges and problems emerge, creativity is seen as the solution (Gaspar and
Mabic, 2015). Thus, educational institutions are increasingly expected to encourage creativity
in a wide range of students from early years to higher education (Shaheen, 2010; Walberg,
1988). In the light of reviewing in this chapter the nature of creativity and the factors that
influence it, it can be argued that creativity can be developed as part of an individual’s life-
long development (Craft, 2001) and that everyone can be creative (Lin, 2011). Creativity exists
not only within the extraordinary but, most importantly, also within the ordinary (Craft, 2003;
NACCCE, 1999). To investigate how creativity can be fostered in education, firstly this section
discusses common challenges in promoting creativity in education today. Secondly, several
educational strategies to encourage creativity in the twenty-first century are articulated.

Challenges in fostering creativity

There have been many discussions in the literature regarding the challenges in fostering
creativity in a wide variety of educational contexts (e.g. Craft, 2005; Jeffrey, 2006; Lin, 2011).
From these reviews, this section identifies four common challenges in fostering creativity; 1)
Misconceptions regarding the nature of creativity and creative pedagogy, 2) Limitations of a
pre-designed curriculum, 3) The lack of teachers’ training in fostering creativity and 4) Over-
valuing the grading and assignment systems.

Misconceptions regarding the nature of creativity and creative pedagogy

A common misconception regarding the nature of creativity found in both teachers and students
is the belief that to be ‘creative’ is merely to form new ideas and think divergently (Rinkevich,
2011). This misconception leaves teachers and students with incomplete educational practices
which do not lead to enhancing creative outcomes. The notion that creativity has two
characteristics, originality and usefulness/appropriateness (Mayer, 1999) would change those
practices dramatically. It reinforces the idea that both teachers and students should see the
development of creativity as learning not only to create new ideas but also to scrutinise these
ideas and form them into useful outcomes which have value either at a personal level or on a

13
wider scale.

In addition, misconceptions in relation to the concepts and terminology surrounding creative

pedagogy may sometimes cause ‘slippage of the language’ used to describe creativity in
educational practices and thereby hinder the development of creative teaching and learning
(Craft, 2003). In England, a report by the National Advisory Committee on Creative and
Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999) sought to distinguish between teaching creatively and
teaching for creativity. Teaching creatively is referred to as 'using imaginative approaches to
make learning more interesting and effective' (NACCCE, 1999: 89), whereas teaching for
creativity is defined as the 'forms of teaching that are intended to develop young people’s own
creative thinking or behaviours' (Jeffrey and Craft, 2004:81). The former focuses on developing
the teacher’s practices, while the latter focuses on developing the student’s creativity (Craft,
2005). Craft (2003) and Lin (2011) further argued that creative teaching and teaching for
creativity are also distinct from the concept of creative learning. These concepts of creative
teaching, teaching for creativity and creative learning are all explored in Lin’s (2011) model,
which is elaborated in a later section in this chapter. It’s important that educators understand
these differences: that an initiative which promotes one kind of creativity (e.g. creative
teaching) is not guaranteed to promote the other (e.g. student creativity).

Limitations of a pre-designed curriculum

Many courses in the education system are based on a pre-designed curriculum, a curriculum
which is designed by a central authority and not by the teacher who delivers the course itself.
The curriculum plays an important role in fostering creativity on a course because teaching and
learning practices are often based directly on the design and content of the curriculum.
Although a pre-designed curriculum provides a starting-point for educators and students to then
maximise their best practices according to learning goals and expected outcomes, it can also
cause limitations that hinder creativity development. One limitation of a pre-designed
curriculum is the tendency of many pre-designed curricula to place restrictions on teachers’
practice, forcing them to follow all the instructions provided and so losing sight of the goal of
fostering creativity. Creativity is not usually listed among the prescribed goals on most courses
and so many teachers see it as not within their discretion in terms of which teaching

14
pedagogies/strategies they adopt (Rinkevich, 2011; Craft, 2003). Another issue is time
constraints arising from the time allocated in the curriculum to a given class or topic. Also, the
way in which the curriculum is presented and organised to meet a certain assessment criterion
can cause limitation on teachers’ practice in fostering creativity (Craft, 2003). Ultimately,
these time and regulation constraints that teachers face may lead them to see creativity as
something ‘extra’ and so optional rather than necessary.

The lack of teachers’ training in fostering creativity

Teachers’ behaviours can be a significant factor in encouraging or discouraging creativity
through their acceptance or rejection of the unusual and imaginative. Although educators
generally claim to recognise the importance of encouraging creativity in their classroom
practice, they often hold negative views about certain characteristics of students that are
associated with creativity (e.g. nonconformity, autonomy) (Westby and Dawson, 1995). Many
teachers tend to view novel (unexpected) responses as disruptive, so they prefer ‘relevance’
over ‘uniqueness’ in students’ responses during classroom discussions (Beghetto, 2007).

Teachers may find it difficult to value creative and non-conforming behaviours due to the lack
of training in fostering creativity and dealing with these behaviours (Rinkevich, 2011).
Without the training to enable them to manage it, teachers may simply wish to avoid the stress
and potentially unpleasant emotional feelings of being seemingly disrespected by creative
students’ ‘disruptive behaviours’ (Chang and Davis, 2009). They need help to develop the level
of trust in their relationships with students necessary to foster a creative learning environment
(Rinkevich, 2011).

Over-valuing the grading and assignment systems

Exams and grading systems, peer competitions, and external rewards are commonplace
techniques for achieving motivation in education. However, extrinsic rewards such as these
may hinder intrinsic motivation if not managed appropriately (Hennessey and Amabile, 1987).

15
 Reflections: How does focusing on the goals set in assessments help students to learn? In
what ways may that help be a hindrance for creativity development?

Assessments can and should be used to facilitate students’ intrinsic as well as extrinsic
motivation. Unfortunately, when the high performance in assessments is presented as the goal
or target for a students’ learning, both teacher and student tend to miss the potential for
assessments to facilitate and support a student’s learning. Achievement in assessments is then
overly emphasized and learning or creativity are relegated to little more than the means-to-an-
end, seen only as methods for increasing the level of that achievement. By contrast, an
individual’s own enjoyment of or involvement in the course, their satisfaction in their work,
ungraded learning, and mastery of their subject are all instrumental in the emergence of
intrinsic motivation. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are important to the development
of creativity. However, with performance in assessments increasingly valued by both students
and teachers (who are themselves evaluated on the performance of their students), a focus on
assessment performance comes to dominate teaching and learning interactions. Thus, intrinsic
motivations are side-lined, creating a missed opportunity for creativity development.

Research focus: Culture and creativity in education

It is possible that in some cultural contexts where levels of choices and personal autonomy
are culturally defined, education may face constraints which hamper creativity. For example,
Chinese educational traditions are heavily influenced by Confucianism (Wu, Wu, Chen, and
Chen, 2014) where ‘ Maxims of modesty’ are seen as a social norm for teachers’ and
students’ interactions. The general rule of being modest in a Chinese social context is the
expectation that children do not to show off or ask questions, irrespective of how much they
know or are curious, but instead they keep quiet and listen to the adult’s instructions (Hui
and Yuen, 2010). The social hierarchy is also another dominant culture at all levels of
Chinese society. For the young to respect the elder and the novice to respect the experienced
are common practices, particularly in educational contexts. The young and the novice are
expected not to argue with the elder and the experienced in order to sustain a social harmony

16
in society. Thus, under such cultural constraints, in educational contexts, creativity is
implicitly discouraged and instead students conform compliantly to externally prescribed
standards such as learning outcomes and grades. This cultural element presents an additional
challenge for both teachers and students who wish to introduce and adapt creative practices
in educational contexts involving those Chinese learners who are influenced by the
Confucian educational culture.

Strategies for fostering creativity

This section provides four strategies for fostering creativity in learners. These are based on a
combination of the models of creativity, the factors that influence creative thinking and an
awareness of the challenges of creativity which are reviewed in the previous section.

Integrating creativity into the curriculum

In both the four-stage model (Wallas, 1926) and the three-component model (Amabile 1983)
of creativity, the development of domain-relevant knowledge is seen as an important first step.
Thus, in order to build creativity into the curriculum, schools should provide an environment
where each student can learn the fundamental knowledge, technical skills and intellectual
abilities related to a few domains based on their personal interests. Educators should create a
curriculum which provides opportunities for students to enhance their cognitive complexity
which is paramount to creative idea generation (Runco and Chand, 1995).

‘Cognitive complexity’ refers to a cognitive space which allows for a great diversity of relevant
domain knowledge or information to create interrelationships with each other, facilitating
remotely associated ideas to merge into generative thinking processes. A greater level of
cognitive complexity influences the production of both the quality and quantity of these ideas.
This can be done in education by designing activities that exercise and expand the capacity of
thinking. For example, an up-to-date curriculum should integrate the use of technology into
teaching practices to create a virtual learning environment which helps to expand thinking
capacity. Many students today have long been ‘habitués’ of a multidisciplinary world,
informational omnivores owing to the empowerment of living in a digital environment which

17
stimulates their creativity (Livingston, 2010). An example of this can be found in research by
Yeh (2015) which looked at the cognitive effects of out-of-school videogame play on
creativity, and found evidence that games which demand a broader attentional breadth and
expending cognitive complexity in visual forms appear to facilitate creativity..

Another way to enhance cognitive complexity is to create interdisciplinary subject knowledge

integrated from several different subject domains, an approach that is infrequently supported
in most educational systems (Kandiko, 2012). Today’s students face challenges that require
multi-disciplinary knowledge and problems that cannot be fully addressed by discipline-
specific approaches, all of which show the need for providing interdisciplinary course elements
in the curriculum. Curriculum design could stimulate creativity through the use of
interdisciplinary teaching approaches such as introducing elements of arts and music into other
more traditionally academic subjects (Treffinger, Renzulli, and Feldhusen, 1971), including
what are now so-called STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics)
subjects (e.g. see Barrett et al., 2015).

Encouraging creative pedagogy

Lin (2011) developed a framework of creative pedagogy to illustrate the relationships and
interplay between ‘teaching creatively’, ‘teaching for creativity’ and ‘learning creatively’. He
emphasized that the best creative pedagogy requires teachers to practise all these three aspects
of teaching and learning. To foster creativity, teachers should ‘teach creatively’ by providing
imaginative, dynamic, and innovative approaches to inspire (Jeffrey and Craft, 2004). The
teachers can ‘teach for creativity’ by identifying learners’ creative potential as well as
encouraging and providing opportunities for the development of those capacities, for example,
promoting strategies of learning how to learn, arousing curiosity and learners’ motivation (Lin,
2011). The interplay between creative teaching and teaching for creativity is fluid and teachers
are encouraged to seek collaborative co-construction of knowledge and classroom practices
with students.

One teaching strategy which can be classified as ‘teaching for creativity’ is to promote
collaborative thinking and interaction through group work. Both class discussions and group

18
assignments help to develop the skills of teamwork and group acceptance (Fasko, 2001;
Livingston, 2010). Evidence also showed that, when working in a group, students were more
active, constructive and improvisational (Sawyer, 2004) and revealed a greater willingness to
take risks (Rinkevish, 2011). However, it’s important that these group activities do not merely
become another way to focus on goals such as good grades and assessments, as that can
undermine their usefulness in the development of creative potential. Lin (2011) suggests that
fostering creativity can be achieved by linking learning to ungraded activities such as
questioning, searching, experimenting, and aimless play.

Developing creativity through character development.

Schooling and education are often seen as contexts which encourage students to develop the
skills and abilities related to creativity such as learning to work collaboratively, broadening the
scope of their attention or learning new approaches on problem solving. However, education
should also provide a place to develop personal characteristics which are key to creativity such
as self-motivation, self-discipline, tolerance of ambiguity (Kieran, 2014), openness, curiosity,
risk-taking, resilience, playfulness, humour, dedication and so on. (For reviews, see Zhou and
Oldham, 2001). In particular, the four categories of classroom practices created by Treffinger
and his colleagues (2002:7) can be used to nurture creativity characteristics. This includes
encouraging individuals or groups to ‘generate many ideas’, to be ‘able to dig deeper into those
ideas’, to be ‘willing and able to listen to their own inner voice’, and to ‘have the motivation,
openness, and courage to explore new and unusual ideas’. Ultimately, through practices such
as these educators should aim to develop individuals whose creative outcomes and behaviours
consider the social justice and promote the common good (Livingston, 2010).

Providing a positive learning environment

Given that breadth of attention affects creative performance and positive emotions appear to
facilitate breadth of attention (Ashby et al., 1999), creating a positively charged learning
environment may be helpful in fostering creativity. Teaching and learning in a relaxing learning
environment often means that there are positive emotional experiences for both teachers and
students during educational practices. There are a number of ways in which this can be
achieved. For example, a relaxing learning environment can be encouraged by offering short

19
breaks, or changing contexts which could also broaden attentional breadth and facilitate new
idea generation, or by offering a safe environment where students are free to make mistakes
without suffering negative consequences. Fasco (2001) argued the most effective teaching and
learning techniques for creativity are those which stimulate both cognitive and emotional
factors as well as providing active learning opportunities. Bringing the classroom outdoors is
another way which stimulates positive emotions during learning and broadens perceptual and
cognitive attentional breadth, benefiting creative idea generation.

Conclusion
By reviewing relevant models of creativity and examining the underlying factors which
influence creative thinking processes, this chapter provides a number of insights into both the
nature of creativity and its relevance to education. Far from being the exclusive remit of certain
subjects or ‘gifted’ individuals, creativity can be seen as any output which contains the two
key elements, originality and appropriateness, and can be produced in almost any subject or
situation by any ordinary individual. Creativity could be seen an outcome of a complex
combination of remotely associated information and knowledge, as well as the analysis and
evaluation of ideas in a circular process. This conceptualization of creativity as a cognitive
process has allowed researchers to explore its relationship with other cognitive processes like
attention and emotions. Thus, it also enables educators to develop strategies for fostering
creativity in education. With all this in mind, although there are challenges in fostering
creativity in educational contexts, it has been shown in that education can be a safe place for
creativity development when the appropriate strategies are put in place.

Ultimately, this chapter shows that creativity both can and should be fostered by education. It
is important to foster creativity particularly in the fast-changing world of today where there are
many unforeseen challenges, such as tackling ambiguous problems in an uncertain future or
achieving economic stability in a competitive global market (Shaheen, 2010). With enhanced
creative thinking skills, students today will be better equipped with the fundamental life skills
which are vital, not only to survive but to thrive in the twenty-first century.

20
Key points
● Creativity represents the ability to produce work that is both original and useful.
While originality is widely recognised characteristic of creativity, usefulness is often
overlooked.
● Creative thinking involves either alternating between or progressing through the
processes of generating new ideas and a critical evaluation of these new ideas.
● The scope of creativity can range from a historical impact on issues faced by a wider
society to a personal impact on problems and changes faced in daily life.
● A defocused (broadened) attentional breadth, which allows more mental elements to
come to mind, is thought to be beneficial to creative thinking.
● Emotions serve as a gate which unconsciously widens or narrows attentional breadth,
thereby affecting which information is brought to mind during the creative process.
● There are various ways in which creativity can be fostered in education; by
introducing cognitive complexity, encouraging group work, promoting the
development of personal characteristics such as self-discipline or tolerance for
ambiguity and creating a relaxing, low-stress learning environment.

Recommended readings

1. Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Forster, J., and Werth, L. (2003) Attentional priming
effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15 (2and3), pp.277–286.
2. Shaheen, R. (2010) Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1(3), pp.166–169.
3. Newton, D. (2012) Moods, emotions and creative thinking: A framework for
teaching. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, pp.33-44.
4. Ho, D. Y. F. and Ho. R. T. H. (2008) Knowledge is a dangerous thing: Authority,
relations, ideological conservatism, and creativity in Confucian-heritage cultures.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38 (1), pp.67-86.

21
References

Amabile, T. M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity: A componential

conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.

Amabile, T. M. (2013) Componential Theory of Creativity. In E. H. Kessler (Ed.)

Encyclopedia of Management Theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ashby, G., Isen, A. M., and Turken, A. U. (1999) A Neuropsychological Theory of Positive
Affect and its Influence on Cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.

Ashby, G., Valentin, V. V., and Turken, A. U. (2002) The effects of positive affect and
arousal on working memory and executive attention. Neurobiology and computational
models. In S. Moore, M. Oaksford, Emotional cognition: from brain to behaviour,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company (pp. 245–287).

Barrett, T., Webster, P., Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Costantino, T. E., and Kellam, N.
N. (2015) Collaborative Creativity of STEAM: Narratives of art education students’
experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. International Journal of Education and the Arts,
16(15), 1-38.

Beghetto, R. A. (2007) Does Creativity have a Place in Classroom Discussions? Prospective

teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9.

Chang, M.-L. and Davis, H. A. (2009) Understanding the Role of Teacher Appraisals in
Shaping the Dynamics of their Relationships with Students: Deconstructing teachers’
judgments of disruptive behavior/students. In P. A. Schutz and M. Zembylas (Eds.)
Advances in Teacher Emotions Research. New York: Springer.

Craft, A. (2001) An Analysis of Research and Literature on Creativity in Education. London:

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

22
Craft, A. (2003) The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the educator. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), pp.113–127.

Craft, A. (2005) Creativity in Schools : Tensions and dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge.

Fasko, D. (2001) Education and Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 and 4), 317–
327.

Fredrickson, B. L. and Branigan, C. (2005) Positive Emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, pp. 313–332.

Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Forster, J., and Werth, L. (2003) Attentional Priming Effects
on Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2and3), pp.277–286.

Friedman, R. S., and Förster, J. (2005) Effects of Motivational Cues on Perceptual

Asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), pp.263–275.

Friedman, R. S., and Förster, J. (2010) Implicit Affective Cues and Attentional Tuning: An
integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), pp.875–93.

Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gaspar, D., and Mabic, M. (2015) Creativity in higher education. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 3(9), pp.598–605.

Hui, A. N. N. and Yuen, T. C. M. (2010) The Blossoming of Creativity in Education in Asia:

Changing views and challenging practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(3), pp.155–
158.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A. and Nowicki, G. P. (1987) Positive Affect Facilitate Creative
Problem Solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), pp.1122–1131.

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., and Robinson, G. F. (1985) The Influence of Positive
Affect on the Unusualness of Word Associations. Journal of Personality and Social

23
 Psychology, 48(6), pp.1413–1426.

Jeffrey, B. (2006) Creative Teaching and Learning: Towards a common discourse and
practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), pp.399–414.

Jeffrey, B., and Craft, A. (2004) Teaching Creatively and Teaching for Creativity:
Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), pp.77–87.

Kaila, H. L. (2005) Democratizing Schools across the World to Stop Killing Creativity in
Children: An Indian perspective. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), pp.1–6.

Kandiko, C. B. (2012) Leadership and Creativity in Higher Education: The role of

interdisciplinarity. London Review of Education, 10(2), pp.191–200.

Kasof, J. (1997) Creativity and Breadth of Attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4),
303-315.

Kieran, M. (2014) Creativity as a Virtue of Character. In S. B. Kaufman and E. S. Paul (Eds.)

The Philosophy of Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kokotsaki, D. (2011) Student Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity in the Secondary Music

Classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), pp.100–113.

Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M. and Jung-
Beeman, M. (2008) The Origins of Insight in Resting-state Brain Activity.
Neuropsychologia, 46, pp.281–291.

Kris, E. (1952) Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. New York: International Universities

Press.

Lin, Y.-S. (2011) Fostering Creativity through Education – A conceptual framework of

creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), pp.149–155.

Livingston, L. (2010) Teaching Creativity in Higher Education. Arts Education Policy

Review, 111(2), pp.59–62.

24
Martindale, C. (1995) Creativity and Connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, and R. A.
Finke (Eds.) The Creative Cognition Approach. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.

Martindale, C. (1999) Biological Basis of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of

Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (1999) Fifty Years of Creativity Research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of

Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mednick, S. A. (1962) The Associative Basis of the Creative Process. Psychological Review,
69, pp.220–232.

Mendelsohn, G. (1976) Associative and attentional processes in creative performance.

Journal of Personality, 44, pp.341–369.

Mitchell, R. L. C., and Phillips, L. H. (2007) The psychological, neurochemical and

functional neuroanatomical mediators of the effects of positive and negative mood on
executive functions. Neuropsychologia, 45 (4), pp.617-629.

NACCCE (1999) All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: DfEE.

Rinkevich, J. L. (2011) Creative teaching : Why it matters and where to begin. The Clearing
House, 84(5), pp.219–223.

Robinson, K. (2009) Ken Robinson: Do Schools Kill Creativity? [Online]. Available from:
http://www. ted. com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity. (Accessed 30
October 2016).

Runco, M. A. (2004) Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, pp.657–687.

Runco, M. A., and Chand, I. (1995) Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(3), pp.243–267.

Runco, M. A. and Sakamoto, S. O. (1999) Experimental Studies of Creativity. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25
Shaheen, R. (2010) Creativity and Education. Creative Education, 1(3), pp.166–169.

Sternberg, R. J. (2010) The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), pp.87–
98.

Sternberg, R. J. and Lubart, T. I. (1999) The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1966) The Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel
Press.

Treffinger, D. J., Renzulli, J. S., and Feldhusen, J. F. (1971) Problems in the assessment of
creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, pp.104–111.

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G., Selby, E., and Shepardson, C. (2002) Assessing Creativity: A
guide for educators. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.

Walberg, H. J. (1988) Creativity and Talent as Learning. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature
of Creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Bruce and Co.

Westby, E. L. and Dawson, V. L. (1995) Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom?

Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), pp.1–10.

Wu, H.-Y., Wu, H.-S., Chen, I.-S. and Chen, H.-C. (2014) Exploring the Critical Influential
Factors of Creativity for College Students: A multiple criteria decision-making
approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, pp.1–21.

Yeh, C. S-H. (2015) Exploring the effects of videogame play on creativity performances and
emotional responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, pp.396-407.

26
 Zhou, J. and Oldham, G. R. (2001) Enhancing Creative Performance: Effects of expected
developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 35(3), pp.151–167.

27

View publication stats