Fostering Creativity in the Classroom: Part 2, The Process

The Creative Process

In the previous blog post, I introduced my curiosity about creativity. Namely, what is it, exactly? Can creativity be developed in the K-16 classroom, and if so, how? Should creativity be assessed? If so, what are the criteria and structures that we can/should use? If not, what can/should be done instead? This post is Part 2 of my ongoing investigation of these questions, in which I present what is known about the Creative Process.

How does creativity happen?

If we are to teach students to be creative, then we must know how people go about being creative. In general, processes are the way students go about their tasks. Can we describe how creativity happens, so we can create a supportive environment in our classrooms? My thinking is that if we understand the process by which individuals come up with new ideas, then we can better design activities and assessments to support our students’ development in this area. 

Models and Stages of Creativity

The concept of creative problem solving (Wallas, 1926) predates the field of creativity itself (Guilford, 1950). Many modern models consider creative problem solving to be an everyday process that is obtainable with sufficient dedication and work (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Lubart (2001) explained the creative process as “a succession of thoughts and actions that leads to novel and adapted productions.” 

From Unconscious to Conscious Thought

Graham Wallas presented a widely-accepted four-stage model of the creative process (Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, Verification) in the book  Art of Thought (1926). This model focuses on “proximity to consciousness (nonconsciousness; fringe consciousness; consciousness)” (Sadler-Smith, 2010). Preparation is the gathering of knowledge; incubation is nonconscious thinking about that knowledge; illumination is that “aha” moment where that idea is fully conscious; verification is when the idea is tested, expanded, and implemented. Later, a fifth stage was added to incorporate fringe consciousness: intimation is that breakthrough thought which bridges the nonconscious to the conscious. 

The four stage model of the creative process

Cropley and Cropley (2008) revised these 5 stages into 7 by changing the name “incubation” to “activation” (which implies an active role in the cognitive processes that leads to creativity), as well as “Intimation” to “Cogitation” (reflecting and thinking deeply about the problem or task, again more inclusive of both passive and active roles). The addition of “Communication” (sharing the idea with others) and “Validation” (obtaining feedback and confirming the worth of the creative solution) reflects an acknowledgement of the social requirements of the creative process.

Emergent Theory

Sawyer’s emergent theory (2016) “describes the artistic creative process to be wandering, unpredictable, non-linear, and embedded in the physical act of generating work. There is no evidence that either moments of insight, or the attempt to be original, play a role in their creative process.” Six subprocesses include intuition, idea emergence, iteration, experimentation, and exploration. Together, generation, selection, exploration, evaluation, refinement, comparison, synthesis, and application represent both well-known factors in the creative process (Boldt, 2019).  

Common Threads

As you can see, the exact number of stages can vary wildly. However, the four basic stages articulated by Wallas (1926), Guilford (1959), and Cropley (2015), are “present in most modern theories: problem recognition, idea generation, idea evaluation, and then solution validation, in which the idea is tested” (Nazzal and Kaufman, 2020). 

 

Process vs. Product

Just because one moves through the creative process does not guarantee a creative product. It is possible that the same process can lead to highly creative, moderately creative, or non-creative outcomes (Lubart, 2016). It may depend on the quality of execution at each stage, the type of problem (open vs. closed), and/or how many iterations are cycled through (Kumar et al, 2022). 

Across Disciplines

Creativity is not confined solely to the realm of fine arts; it permeates all fields, ranging from science and finance to information systems. Despite variations in the number of stages and their labels, the core steps of the creative process remain consistent: problem recognition, idea generation, idea evaluation, and solution validation. While these four stages can be further broken down, they collectively guide us through the cognitive journey, whether in artistic endeavors, bridge design, or the quest for a cancer cure.

The scientific method is taught at all levels, and can be described with varying numbers of stages. The basic idea is to observe, brainstorm ideas, test, and evaluate. Then repeat as many times as needed until the question is answered or time runs out.

Design Thinking

Scholars such as Tim Brown and IDEO have significantly contributed to popularizing the concept of design thinking. Design thinking is a methodology that promotes creativity by focusing on empathy, collaboration, and user-centric problem-solving. Its user-driven and iterative nature encourages creative thinking at all stages of the problem-solving process, making it a powerful tool for innovation in various domains. Many leading companies, such as Apple, IBM, and Google, incorporate design thinking into their product development and innovation processes. They use it to create user-friendly products, improve customer experiences, and foster a culture of innovation. This effective approach for tackling complex problems prioritizes the problem-solving process itself over the final product (Nazzal and Kaufman, 2020).

Again, these six stages share so much in common with the creative process as well as the scientific method. Notice the emphasis on going back to earlier steps as deemed necessary.

The Engineering Design Process

In my discipline, we use a variation of this process called the Engineering Design process.  According to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), engineering design encompasses identifying a problem by specifying criteria for success and constraints, generating a range of potential solutions, evaluating these solutions against the criteria and constraints, and ultimately selecting the most suitable solution for implementation (NGSS Lead States, 2013). 

This is something that I use in my classes. At the end of each unit, students work on a design project, such as a car that travels the farthest distance in a straight line, or a rocket that spends the maximum time spent in the air. One of the main requirements is to iterate, or go through the cycle multiple times. 

The Creative Process lives in Multiple Contexts

The scientific method, the engineering design process, and the stages of creative thinking all share common features, just applied to different contexts. In essence, whether it’s the creative process in the arts, the principles of design thinking, the scientific method, or the engineering design process, the foundational stages and approaches consistently guide problem-solving and innovation across various domains. Therefore, we should be able to design a comprehensive “creative process” to guide students in any creative endeavor, no matter what the field of interest.

Description Creative Process Scientific Method Design Thinking Engineering Design
Problem Identification
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Research
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Experimentation
No
Yes
No
Yes
Prototyping
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Testing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Evaluation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

These processes all involve systematic approaches to problem-solving and innovation. 

  • Problem Identification and Definition
  • Exploration and Idea Generation
  • Research and Analysis
  • Experimentation and Prototyping
  • Testing and Evaluation
  • Iteration and Refinement
  • Communication and Presentation
  • Openness to Serendipity and Discovery

I thought that it might be useful to draft a graphic about the creative process that brought together all of the pieces that we have discussed so far. I obviously edited my Engineering Design Process only slightly to accommodate the minor differences between the two. I found it quite striking how similar they actually are. Yet I think that an art teacher could possibly use this even though much of these steps may be intuitive or less formal than they might be for an engineer or designer. I know that I will need to bring in experts in other fields to critique this. But the exercise was interesting, and as a first draft, useful as a discussion point.

What's next?

Since writing about the creative process is a creative process, I will test its effectiveness by organizing my thinking as a series of iterations through the cycle. As I have done in this first post, I will present the problem I am trying to solve, the relevant research I have come across, some ideas that I have generated, and then analyze those ideas to see how they might be used practically in a typical classroom. Although Testing and Evaluation (steps 7 & 8) are important parts of the creative process, until I can implement these strategies in my classroom and gather data, I cannot fully address them. Perhaps at the end of this process, I will be able to generate some plans for how to do this.

Next week, I will inquire what schools have been doing about developing creativity up until now. In the words of George Land, “What we have concluded is that non-creative behavior is learned.” If that’s not a spoiler, I don’t know what is!

I hope that this has been interesting to you so far! Please submit your own observations, methods, and questions in the comments section. I am eager to hear what you think!

References

“21st Century Skills Standards Rubrics.” 2023, OSPI. www.k12.wa.us/file/21stcenturyskillsstandardsrubricdoc. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.
Alabbasi, A. M., Paek, S. H., Kim, D., & Cramond, B. “What do educators need to know about the torrance tests of creative thinking: A comprehensive review.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000385.
Amabile, T. M. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview Press, 1996.
Amabile, T. M. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 2, 1983, pp. 357-376. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357](DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357).
Battelle for Kids. “Battelle for Kids.” 2020, www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources.
Beghetto, R. A. “Creativity in the classroom.” In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 2010, pp. 447–463. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.027.
Boldt G. “Artistic creativity beyond divergent thinking: Analysing sequences in creative subprocesses.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2019;34:100606.
Brookhart, S. M. How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD, 2010.
Brookhart, S. M. “Assessing Creativity”. ASCD, vol. 70, no. 5, 2013. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/assessing-creativity. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Craft, A. Creativity across the Primary Curriculum: Framing and Developing Practice. Routledge, 2000.
Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. “Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 2, 2008, pp. 283-294.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollins, 1996.
Davies, L.M., Newton, L. D. & Newton, D. P. “Creativity as a twenty-first-century competence: an exploratory study of provision and reality.” Education 3-13, vol. 46, no. 7, 2018, pp. 879-891. [DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2017.1385641](DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2017.1385641).
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. The Macmillan Company, 1916.
Dictionary of Creativity: Terms, Concepts, Theories & Findings in Creativity Research / Compiled and edited by Eugene Gorny. Netslova.ru, 2007. https://creativity.netslova.ru/Evolving_systems_approach.html.
Ericsson, K. A. “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance.” In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, 2006, pp. 683-703. Cambridge University Press.
“Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions.” Battelle For Kids, 2019.
Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. Basic Books, 1993.
Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, 1983.
Gibson, J. J. “The Theory of Affordances.” In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, 1977, pp. 67-82. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glăveanu, V. P. “Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 17, no. 1, 2013, pp. 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528.
Grigorenko, Elena L. et al. “Something New in the Garden: Assessing Creativity in Academic Domains.” Psychology Science 50, 2008, pp. 295.
Guilford, J. P. “Creativity.” American Psychologist, vol. 5, no. 9, 1950, pp. 444-454. [DOI: 10.1037/h0063487](DOI: 10.1037/h0063487).
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-12. [DOI: 10.1037/a0013688](DOI: 10.1037/a0013688).
Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Mariner Books, 2000.
Kumar M, Roy S, Bhushan B, Sameer A. “Creative problem solving and facial expressions: A stage based comparison.” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269504.
Land, G. and Jarman, B. Breaking Point and Beyond. San Francisco: HarperBusiness, 1993.
Lubart, TI. “Models of the creative process: Past, present and future.” Creativity Research Journal, 2001;13(3–4):295–308.
Munro, John. “Insights into the creativity process.” 2023, https://students.education.unimelb.edu.au/selage/pub/readings/creativity/UTC_creativity_tasks_.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2023.
Nazzal LJ, Kaufman JC. “The relationship of the quality of creative problem solving stages to overall creativity in engineering students.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2020;38:100734.
“NGSS Hub”. Ngss.Nsta.Org, 2023. Accessed 25 Aug 2023.
Pink, Daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books, 2011.
Punyamishra.Com. https://punyamishra.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Runco-interview-Tech-Trends-2016.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2023.
Rieck, Dean. “Do You Have These 11 Traits Of Highly Creative People?” Copyblogger, 2009. https://copyblogger.com/highly-creative-people/. Accessed 25 Aug 2023.
Rhodes, M. “An Analysis of Creativity.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 42, no. 7, 1961, pp. 305-310.
Robinson, Ken. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” TED, 2006, https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity.
Roth, T., Conradty, C. & Bogner, F.X. “Testing Creativity and Personality to Explore Creative Potentials in the Science Classroom.” Res Sci Educ, vol. 52, 2022, pp. 1293–1312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10005-x.
Runco, M. A. “Creativity.” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 55, 2004, pp. 657-687. [DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502](DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502).
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. “Mini-c and Little-c Creativity.” Psychological Reports, vol. 53, no. 3, 1983, pp. 895-896. [DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.895](DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.895).
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. Encyclopedia of Creativity. Academic Press, 1999.
Sadler-Smith, E. “Wallas’ Four-Stage Model of the Creative Process: More Than Meets the Eye?” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, 2015, pp. 342-352. [DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277](DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277).
Sandor, Nick. “The 5 A’s Of Creativity”. 2014, https://prezi.com/memogu796dat/the-5-as-of-creativity/. Accessed 23 Aug 2023.
Sawyer, RK. “How Artists Create: An empirical study of MFA painting students.” The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 52, no. 2, 2016, pp. 127–41.
Sawyer, R. K. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Shalaby, Carla. Troublemakers: Lessons in Freedom from Young Children at School. The New Press, 2017.
Shively, Candace. “Teachersfirst – Dimensions Of Creativity: A Model To Analyze Student Projects.” 2022, https://www.teachersfirst.com/ISTECRe8/index.cfm. Accessed 2 Jun 2022.
Simonton, D. K. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Simonton, D. K. “Creative Product and Creative Process in Science.” In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity, 1995, pp. 280-296. American Psychological Association.
Simonton, D. K. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. “Educational creativity.” In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 2010, pp. 250–264. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.016.
Sternberg, R. J. Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. Free Press, 1995.
“Teachersfirst – Dimensions Of Creativity: A Model To Analyze Student Projects.” 2023, https://www.teachersfirst.com/ISTECRe8/index.cfm. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Thomas, M’Balia. “The Everyday Creativity of Authentic Classroom Assessments.” 2023, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1304584.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2023.
Torrance E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual (Research Edition). Princeton: Personnel Press, 1966.
Wallas, Graham. “The Art of Thought.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, vol. 23, no. 6, 1926, pp. 145-151. JSTOR.
Wiggins, Grant. “On Assessing for Creativity: Yes You Can, and Yes You Should.” Authentic Education, 3 Feb. 2012, authenticeducation.org/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/.
Wiggins, Grant. Rubric for Creativity. 2023, https://grantwiggins.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/creative.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2023.
Weir, Kirsten. “The Science behind Creativity.” Apa.org, 1 Apr. 2022, www.apa.org/monitor/2022/04/cover-science-creativity.
Unsworth, Kerrie. “Unpacking Creativity.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 2, 2001, pp. 286-297. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/3028/1/3028_1.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.