Encouraging Creativity in Online Courses
by Stephanie A. Clemons
Introduction
“It is easy to consider the essential role of creativity in bringing joy
and meaning to the human condition – without creativity
we have no art, no literature, no science, no innovation, no problem
solving, no progress.” – Starko, 1995, p. vii.
Creative people are in high demand in
today’s world (Stevens and Burley, 1999). If adults are to be successful
and prosper, innovative thinking and behaving must be encouraged.
Therefore it is imperative that students continue to receive opportunities
to develop divergent thinking skills (e.g. thinking outside the box) (Slavkin,
2004).
Creativity is an important component of
problem solving, other higher cognitive abilities, social and emotional
well-being, and academic and adult success (Slavkin, 2004). “Creativity is
important to society but it traditionally has been one of psychology’s
orphans” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, 4).
It is still common that traditional
classroom educators -- due to demands on time, support issues, and/or
curriculum requirements -- hold to the tenet that “learning is a
mechanistic experience” (e.g. input/output) (Slavkin, 2004). Therefore,
students may lack the opportunity to think abstractly or creatively.
Are there strategies, techniques or methods
that can encourage student creativity in online courses? This paper
explores creativity and offers reminders concerning the tips and
strategies available for online educators.
Review of Literature
Creativity Begins in the Brain
The frontal lobe of the brain focuses on
processes such as decision-making, judgment, planning, creativity, and
problem solving (Sprenger, 2002; Lucas, 2004). Brains need time to digest
and adapt new information. One thing that attracts the brain is novelty,
it may be the result of the brain dealing with survival (Sprenger, 2002).
Something new and different is examined by the brain to make sure it is
safe (Carper, 2000). Novelty and curiosity can boost attention (Lucas,
2004).
Brain-based theory advocates the need for
enriched environments (not necessarily physical environments) to encourage
learning. Research performed by neuroscientists has indicated that
enriched environments encourage the growth of dendrites, which relates to
learning (Sprenger, 2002). Neuroscientists have offered learning
principles to enhance enrichment in the classroom such as:
Give the brain
something to do that it is capable of doing
Provide repetition
(consistently and with some intensity) so that brain neurons fire
repeatedly enabling them to become more efficient
Give timely
feedback
Adapt learning to
the student (Tallal, 1999).
Enriched
environments engender student self-confidence, which leads to creativity.
Learning Theory
Supports Creativity
Contemporary learning theory acknowledges
human learning to be a complex, constructive process with learners
building onto their own knowledge similar to a contractor building a house
(Starko, 1995). Learning in pursuit of a goal makes the learning
purposeful. Tying information to prior knowledge and understanding can
make it meaningful. Since connections created by each student must be
original and goal-oriented, learning must by definition be appropriate
(meeting the goal) (Starko, 1995). Each learner builds an individual
cognitive structure that is unique and full of personal associations.
Meaningful learning is viewed as essentially creative (Caine & Caine,
1991).
Creativity: Definition, Theories, Myths,
Virtues
Although a standard definition for
creativity is still not agreed upon, a common definition is found or
inferred from a wide range of studies (Slavkin, 2004). It involves the
production of original, useful products as determined by that field
(Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Perkins (1988) defined creativity as a result
that is both original and appropriate with appropriateness related to the
cultural context in which the creativity is based (Sternberg, 1990).
Czikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed that creativity was not a characteristic
of people or products but an interaction among an individual, product, and
environment. Gardner professed that individuals are “creative” in a
particular domain-specific ways. He advocated that the creative individual
was a person who regularly solved problems, designed products, or defines
new questions within a domain that was perceived novel but ultimately
became accepted in that particular cultural setting (Gardner, 1993).
Implicit theories of creativity include
themes of originality and utility (Sternberg, 1985). Jung (1972) advocated
the importance of personal experience and the unconscious mind in framing
creative production. The Creative Problem-Solving Model (Osborn, 1963)
proposed a theory and a process to determine ways to use creativity
appropriately. Each version of the process included a series of steps that
involved both divergent (finding many ideas) and convergent (drawing
conclusions, narrowing the field) stages (Starko, 1995).
Creativity is both a communication tool
(e.g. literature) and a technique for problem solving (e.g. inventors of
modern lighting). In fact, the identification of a problem or “problem
finding” underlies all types of creativity (Starko, 1995). Myths and
stereotypes of creative individuals include 1) people are born creative or
uncreative, 2) creativity is limited to the arts and music, 3) creativity
is intertwined with negative aspects of psychology and society (e.g. to be
identified as creative the individual must be made, weird or neurotic), 4)
creativity is a fuzzy, soft construct, 5) constraints inhibit creativity,
6) a person must be relatively young to make significant creative
contributions, 7) creativity is enhanced with a group, and 8) creativity
should not be marketed (Slavkin, 2004).
There are two different types of
creativity: real-time and multi-stage. Real-time creativity is
improvisational, impromptu, and spur-of-the-moment. Multi-state creativity
involves the passage of time; students need sufficient time to generate
and select ideas (Mau, 1997).
Psychologists and educators have discussed
virtues of creativity and its relationship to the intellectual,
educational, and development of intellect and talent in children (Slavkin,
2004). Contributions of creativity have been noted in areas as diverse as
workplace leadership (Tierney, Farmer and Graen, 1999), healthy coping and
emotional growth (King & Pope, 1999) and the maintenance of healthy
relationships (Livingston, 1999). Creativity can reduce conflict and
violence while promoting conflict resolution (Kovac, 1998). Creativity
research related to technology has also been garnering more attention (Kappel
& Rubenstein, 1999). Students enrolled in a variety of online classes may
pursue this breadth of applications.
Creativity: Challenges and Benefits to
Students
Giving students opportunities to be
creative means allowing them to find and solve problems and communicate
ideas in “novel” and “appropriate” ways (Starko, 1995). Learning occurs
best when learners are involved in setting and meeting goals as well as
linking information to their experiences in unique ways. To encourage
students to find and solve problems in ways that facilitate original
ideas, students need tools to communicate novel thinking to enhance their
learning.
Inviting innovation from online students
may be met with psychological roadblocks. Some students are not ready to
think in a different way. To challenge their beliefs and worldviews may be
a source of frustration. Other students begin the class with poor
self-esteem concerning their creativity. They may have been told by
teachers or significant others that they are not creative (Slavkin, 2004).
When asked to demonstrate creativity, students may need to reconstruct
their own definitions of creativity through hands-on activities,
interviews, experimentation, and play to see their potential and personal
innovativeness (Slavkin, 2004).
One way to begin an online course and
engage the student is to request they assess their creativity. Such an
assessment can help understand student perceptions of their creativity
level the online classes. An example of such an assessment tool is
available at this website:
http://www.adventuresincreativity.net/mag5.html .
Students can benefit from creativity
exercises, showing greater self-efficacy and improved ability to identify
and express creativity within him- or herself (Slavkin, 2004). Findings
from a pre/post-creativity exercise survey indicated that an overwhelming
majority of students felt that the coursework gave them greater insight
into themselves and their abilities to tap into unappreciated and
underutilized aspects of self. This newly-recognized part of their
personality carried over into other classes, into the workplace and into
their personal relationships (Livingston, 1999; Stokes, 1999). In
addition, students believed that their leadership abilities were enhanced
(Tierney, Farmer, and Graen, 1999)
Tips for Online Educators
Perrone (1994) describes common elements of learning activities that most
engage students intellectually. Coincidentally, they echo key attributes
of creativity: finding interests and problems, looking in new ways,
communicating personal ideas, and creating new products and solutions to
problems. Perrone’s elements include:
Students help define content of course
Students had time to wonder/determining a
particular direction that interests them
Topics had a “strange” quality – something
this is common but seen in a new way to evoke lingering questions
Teachers encouraged different forms of
expression and respected students’ views
Teachers were passionate about their work.
The most meaningful activities were “invented” by the teacher or student.
Students did something.
Students sensed that results of their work
were not fully predictable.
Michalko (2001) developed nine strategies
for enhancing student creativity that are applicable to the online
environment. They include:
Making your thoughts visible – think
in terms of visual or spatial forms rather than mathematical or written
lines of reasoning.
Knowing how to see – the first way
to look at a problem is too biased toward the usual way of seeing things.
Take a different perspective.
Thinking fluently – generate
quantities of ideas rather than holding onto one.
Making novel combinations – permit
ideas and thoughts to randomly combine
Connecting the unconnected – change
your thinking pattern by connecting your subject with something that is
not related.
Looking at the other side – rather
than looking at boundaries, look for the solution outside the assumptions.
Looking in other worlds – lateral
thinking that allows one ideas from one world solve a problem for another
(e.g. biomimicry
http://www.biomimicry.org/intro.html and
http://www.annonline.com/interviews/971218/ ).
Finding what you’re not looking for –
creative accidents take place when you are not looking for them. Embrace!
Awakening the collaborative spirit – share
and discuss ideas without thought of condemnation or judgment; have
freedom to propose ideas, without risk.
There are thousands of ideas to encourage
creativity that can be used in an online environment. Even encouraging
students to investigate various creativity websites or discover their own
can communicate the perception that creativity is valued in the online
course. See this website for the many ideas:
http://www.mycoted.com/creativity/techniques/index.php. Following are
three suggestions: introduce novelty, plan for problems, and divergent
thinking strategies.
Novelty
Novelty can be explored from the
instructor’s perspective and/or the student’s perspective. It can be
introduced from the beginning of the online class with openers such as
exciting stories, appropriate jokes, startling facts, interesting visuals
(Lucas, 2004).
There are many researchers and educators
who have developed unique ways to generate creativity in the student or
adult learner. Following are a few novel tips to help students develop a
different way of looking at the presented problem in the online course.
Multiple perspectives. Da Vinci espoused
that until a problem was looked at from three perspectives, a basis for
understanding was truly not in place. (e.g. when designing the bicycle, he
looked at the problem from three perspectives: inventor/investors,
rider/consumer, and municipalities where the bicycles would be used.)
Take on a different role. Ask online
students to respond to questions such as: “How would the leader in your
field write it? How would a precocious child write it? How would a
politician write it?”
Imagine you are the problem. This is a
favorite technique used by T.A. Rich, famous inventor at General Electric.
(e.g. think of yourself as a light being hurtling through space.)
Switch gender (Michalko, 2001).
Note: Too much novelty causes stress and
perhaps brain shrinkage. Stress is known to kill brain cells.
Plan for problems
Present broad areas of concern in the
online course within which to identify and frame individual problems.
Problems can be to research questions, activities, themes, an aesthetic or
idea. Remember to divide the problem-solving process into four parts:
exploring the environment (internal or external), investigating ideas and
materials, recording ideas, and experimenting with production (Starko,
1995).
Exploring the environment includes:
beginning to “look.” For art that would mean art materials and tools; for
writers that would mean scenes, moods and characters; for scientists that
would mean patterns and related variables.
Experimenting with ideas includes:
free play, multiple hypotheses, several sketches, explorations. This is a
great phase to use groups in the online class.
Recording ideas includes: inventor’s
notebooks, writers’ journals, artist’s sketchpads as well as technology
tools.
Experimenting with production includes:
sculpture, technical journalism articles, animation clips, and experiments
(Starko, 1995).
Divergent Thinking Strategies
Free thinking, divergent thinking,
brainstorming, or creative processing can assist students in make unique
connections between prior knowledge and unsolved problems (Slavkin, 2004).
The common definition of divergent thinking includes Guilford’s (1986)
Structure of Intellect (SOI) model: fluency (thinking of many ideas),
flexibility (thinking of different categories or points of view),
originality (thinking of unusual ideas), and elaboration (adding detail to
improve ideas) (Schlichter, 1986). For more information see this website:
http://homepages.which.net/~gk.sherman/mbaaaaab.htm
Of all the strategies for generating ideas,
brainstorming is one of the most familiar and is based on Osborn’s (1953)
principle of deferred judgment: avoiding the evaluation of ideas until a
number of them have been produced. Brainstorming rules are: criticism is
not allowed; freewheeling is welcome; quantity is wanted; combination of
ideas is sought (Starko, 1995). See following website for brainstorming
information:
http://www.innovationtools.com/resources/brainstorming.asp
Another strategy for online educators is to
use SCAMPER. SCAMPER is an acronym developed by Eberle (1977) who took
some of Osborn’s key questions to enhance divergent thinking and made them
into an acronym. See website for more information on SCAMPER.
http://www.in2edu.com/edulinks/discover%
20learning..%20learning%20styles%20etc_scamper%20thinking%20technique.htm
The acronym with its identifiers is as follows:
S = substitute something new for the
existing
C = combine parts or ideas
A = adapt from old ideas
M = modify or changes in the existing
product or situation
P = put to other uses or “How can I use
this in a new way?”
E = eliminate or omit unnecessary
processes, items, problems
R = rearrange or reverse to develop a
different sequence or new parts
Synectics is another technique to use in
the online class to encourage divergent thinking. It is quite useful to
enhance brainstorming and is easily used in threaded discussions.
Synectics is a metaphor/analogy-based technique for bringing different
elements together in a search for new ideas or solutions (Starko, 1995).
It has been used in business settings, think tanks, and research
organizations. The basic premise is to “make the strange familiar” and
“make the familiar strange” (Prince, 1968, p. 4). To make the strange
familiar, the familiar is combined with a new problem or situation in
order to solve the problem or some to a new understanding. To make the
familiar strange, something new or strange needs to be combined with
something familiar to gain new insights or perspectives on the already
familiar idea. This process is facilitated through various types of
analogies.
http://www.writedesignonline.com/organizers/synectics.html or
http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/forster2.htm
Authentic Assessment
Many of the skills associated with
creativity are vital parts of authentic assessment. The goal of assessing
creativity is not to generated creativity scores or to divide students
into “creative” and “not creative” but instead to recognize creativity
when it occurs and to create conditions to allow it to develop (Starko,
1995). Assessed creativity can expand understanding of human abilities
(particularly how creativity related to traditional views of
intelligence), provide baseline data that may be used to diagnose student
needs, and evaluate efforts to enhance creativity (Starko, 1995).
It is important that students learn to
assess the creativity of their own ideas, as creative individuals must not
only generate original ideas but recognize which ideas are original (Runco,
1993). Self-evaluation requires students to measure their efforts against
some scale or criterion and make judgments about the quality of the final
product (Starko, 1995).
Three modes of assessment are commonly
used. They are 1) paper and pencil tests when assessing learned knowledge
and skills, 2) performance assessment to evaluate the process of learning
and creating, and 3) personal communication (or in the case of online
courses, threaded discussions) (Mau, 1997). Other ideas may be to 1)
direct students to create a new kind of test that has never been given yet
will accurately assess concepts covered in class (Sprenger, 2002); this
enhances a “democratic classroom” where students believe that everyone can
successfully learn but never at the expense of anyone else (McDermott,
1999) and 2) request some type of performance assessment such as the
creation of videos, hypermedia presentations, puppet shows, interviews,
surveys, or graphic organizers. These encourage curiosity and risk taking
(Sprenger, 2002).
Conclusion
Structuring online courses to enhance creativity can be a slippery goal. A
teaching activity that produces an enjoyable outcome does not necessarily
enhance creativity unless the students have the opportunity for creative
thinking (Starko, 1995). In other words, if the exercise is original but
the student’s input is fairly routine then it may not have been a success.
Teaching to enhance creativity has a
different focus for the online educator; the creativity is on the part of
the student. It is important to provide students the knowledge, skills,
and surroundings necessary for their own creativity to emerge (Starko,
1995). Giving students opportunities to be creative means allowing them to
find and solve problems and communicate ideas in “novel” and “appropriate”
ways (Starko, 1995).
Providing online students with multiple
forums for creativity will allow them to find unique outlets and avoid
domain- and task-specific expression. Teachers should remember that
creativity should be emphasized, but not at the expense of maintaining
high standards and expectations (Slavkin, 2004).
Music and arts programs are being forced
out of K-12 curriculum throughout the country due to funding cuts. This
action opens doors to recognize that as a phenomenon, creativity can
support innovation in such subjects as social studies, science, and
language arts. It is important to recognize the interconnectedness of
knowledge and the importance of how ideas from various areas of study can
nurture understanding in disparate knowledge bases (Slavkin, 2004).
Online educators navigate technology
challenges that traditional classroom teachers rarely do. However, their
goal of enhancing student learning through an enriched environment is the
same. Through use of the Internet, other technologies, and navigational
tools, creativity can be enhanced in ways unimaginable a few years ago.
The creative process can be an extraordinarily personal thing; one that
can be explored and assessed safely and appropriately through online
environments.
“Imagination is more important than
intelligence.” – Albert Einstein
References
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1991). Teaching and the human brain. Alexindria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carper, J. (2000). Your miracle brain. New York: HarperCollins.
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity: In M. A. Runco & R.
S. Albert (Eds.). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eberle, R. F. (1977). SCAMPER. Buffalo, NY: DOK.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, use and
development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.
Jung, C. G. (1972). The spirit in man, art, and literature. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kappel, T. A. & Rubenstein, A. H. (1999). Creativity in design: The
contribution of information. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management,
46: 132-143.
King, B. J. and Pope, B. (1999). Creativity as a factor in psychological
assessment and healthy psychological functioning. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 72, 200-207.
Lucas, R. W. 2004. The creative training idea book: Inspired tips and
techniques for engaging and effective learning. New York: AMACOM.
Kovac, T. (1998). Creativity and prosocial behavior. Studia Psychologica,
40, 326-330.
Livingston, J. A. (1999). Something old and something new: Love,
creativity and the enduring relationship. Bulletin of the Menniger Clinic,
63, 40-52.
Mau, R. Y. (1997). The role of assessment in developing creativity. REACT,
2. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://eduweb.nie.edu.sg/REACTOld/1997/2/7.html.
McDermott, C. (1999). Beyond the silence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative genius.
Berkley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner’s.
Perkins, D. N. (1988). Creativity and the quest for mechanism. In R. J.
Sternberg and E.E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp.
309-336). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perrone, V. (1994). How to engage students in learning. Educational
Leadership, 51(5), 11-13.
Prince, G. (1968). The operational mechanism of synectics. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 2, 1-13.
Runco, M. (1993). Creativity as an educational objective for disadvantaged
students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center for on the Gifted and
Talented.
Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents Unlimited: Applying the Multiple Talents
approach in main-stream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.),
Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented
(pp. 352-389). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Slavkin, M. L. (2004). Authentic learning: How learning about the brain
can shape the development of students. Toronto: ScarecrowEducation.
Sprenger, M. B. (2002). Becoming a “wiz” at brain-based teaching. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Starko, A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious
delight. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of the mind: Conceptions of the nature
of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). Buy low and sell high: An
investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 1: 1-5.
Stevens G. and Burley, B. (1999). Creativity + business discipline =
higher profits faster from new development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 16: 455-468.
Tallal, P. (1999). How new knowledge about the brain improves school
learning [Audiotape]. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., and Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of
leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and
relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52: 591-620.
Stephanie Clemons, Ph.D., FIDEC, ASID is an
Associate Professor in the Department of Design and Merchandising at
Colorado State University. Her doctorate is from the School of Education.
She is a Past President and Fellow of the Interior Design Educators
Council (IDEC) (www.idec.org) and currently serves on the Educational
Training Area Council (ETAC) for the American Society of Interior
Designers (ASID) (www.asid.org), the leading professional organization for
interior designers with more than 34,000 members. She has received
numerous teaching awards, and has published extensively – both refereed
and non-refereed articles. Her specialty areas relate to technology and
education (both K-12 and higher education). Clemons has presented research
both nationally and internationally (including in South Korea’s World
Congress and at the South Africa IFI Conference) and has taught in higher
education for over 20 years. Clemons has been teaching online courses for
two years.
Dr. Clemons can be reached at
sclemons@cahs.colostate.edu.
|
