Environmental Aspects that Inspire and Limit Teaching

Chapter II. Literature Review

 

What Citation Formats Do You Support?

We hear “Can you write in APA or MLA?” all the time—and the answer’s a big yes, plus way more! Our writers are wizards with every style—APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Turabian, you name it—delivering flawless formatting tailored to your assignment. Whether it’s a tricky in-text citation or a perfectly styled reference list, they’ve got the skills to make your paper academically spot-on.

Overview

The contextual elements of the environment that relate to instructional creativity are not well understood. This dissertation aims to widen our knowledge about how aspects of the environment inspire and limit creative teaching professionals. The goal of this research is to explore the importance of the environment, define key attributes, and delineate the role of those attributes in mediating instructional creativity.

The literature presented in this chapter demonstrates the breadth of understanding about instructional creativity and associated gaps. The review includes knowledge concerning creativity and education and defines the constructs of instructional creativity.

The Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) is used as a tool to support a systematic analysis of the literature. This approach organizes the knowledge into four dimensions of instructional creativity: the creative person, process, product, and environment. The review first presents general knowledge about the Four-Ps, and secondly presents knowledge about the Four-P specific to the domain of instruction.

Are Paper Services Legal?

Yes, completely! They’re a valid tool for getting sample papers to boost your own writing skills, and there’s nothing shady about that. Use them right—like a study guide or a model to learn from—and they’re a smart, ethical way to level up your grades without breaking any rules.

The review is synthesized as a conceptual framework and is used to inform a method of investigation that can answer the questions of this study.

Distinguishing Instructional Creativity from Teaching Creativity

The relationship of creativity to education has been a dynamic area of research in the United States for nearly seventy years. Much of the interest in studying creativity began in 1950 with J.P. Guilford’s Presidential address to the American Psychological Association where he called attention to the topic (Sawyer, 2011). He proposed that creativity should be studied more intently as a measure of human ability.  Prior to Guilford’s address, intelligence was widely accepted to be the driving force behind human exceptionalism. Copious research has been conducted on this topic since and creativity is now understood to be an important aspect of human skills, behavior, and knowledge. This knowledge has transformed how we think about teaching and learning.

How Much for a Paper?

Prices start at $10 per page for undergrad work and go up to $21 for advanced levels, depending on urgency and any extras you toss in. Deadlines range from a lightning-fast 3 hours to a chill 14 days—plenty of wiggle room there! Plus, if you’re ordering big, you’ll snag 5-10% off, making it easier on your wallet while still getting top-notch quality.

A dense timeline of research supports creativity playing an important role in learning. However, creative instruction has not always been viewed as different from learner creativity. Creative instruction is often lumped together with learner creativity. This has contributed to gaps that exist in our current understanding.  In 1999, the National Advisory Committee on Creative Cultural Education proposed that creative instruction warrants distinction. They advised that creativity is manifested in an environment in distinct ways, and that creative instruction should be distinguished from teaching for creativity. This endorsed focused studies about creativity discerning teacher from learner and helped further our understandings of instructional creativity as a complex system. Lucas (2001) suggests that the separation enhances our understanding about creativity in education, allowing for new questions and explorations.

The contributions to knowledge since these distinctions were recommended has helped define what creative instruction is and is not. It has also clarified what happens when it’s present or lacking. When unable to engage in instructionally creative practices, the teaching profession is dull and is comparable to the work of a “technician,” tasked to do things a specific way (Woods, 1995). Learners are disadvantaged when this happens. Sawyer (2004) suggests that instruction is not effective when it is scripted and technician-like. McWilliam (2008) suggests that when teachers demonstrate hesitation or resistance to change and uncertainty, that they actually harm the “creative future” of their students (p. 127).  Pleschova (2007) suggests that a lack of unique and non-routine tasks can negatively impact an instructor’s engagement with their work. Davies et al. (2013) suggest in their literature review of 210 sources about creative learning environments that learners benefit when instructors engage in non-prescriptive planning (p. 88).

The benefits of creative instruction to learners are substantial (Newton (2013). Creative instruction is an important aspect of teaching for creativity and nurturing learner creativity (Jeffrey & Woods, 1997; Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; Grainger, Barnes & Scoffham, 2004; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010; Cheng et al., 2010; Sternberg, 2015). Creative instruction is analogous to good teaching. It is linked to instructional effectiveness (Sawyer, 2004; Sawyer, 2011; Reilly et al., 2011) that enhances learning (Rinkevich, 2011). When instructors model creative thinking, it promotes creative thinking among learners (Nickerson, 2010; Horng et al., 2005). Creative instruction is original (Sawyer, 2004), strategic (Woods, 1995; Jeffrey, 2006), and exhibits an energetic delivery of content that learners find interesting (Lilly & Bramwell-Rejskind, 2004). When instructors deliver content in this way, it motivates their students (Pleschova, 2007).

The discoveries about creative instruction are expansive and rich. However, the creativity of individual instructors and aspects that support instructionally creative practices have not been given merited consideration. We generally lack knowledge about the creative behavior of teachers. Henriksen & Mishra (2015) attribute this gap in knowledge to the nature of existing creativity research where understanding is substantiated by learner outcomes and perspectives. The literature tells us that we do not have to do that for every study because we know creative instruction benefits the learner.

Will Anyone Find Out I Used You?

Nope—your secret’s locked down tight. We encrypt all your data with top-tier security, and every paper’s crafted fresh just for you, run through originality checks to prove it’s one-of-a-kind. No one—professors, classmates, or anyone—will ever know you teamed up with us, guaranteed.

Another contributing factor is that our knowledge of the field is largely derived from studies aimed to define individual attributes of creativity, measure creativity, and a wide-spread interest in identifying the accomplishments and contributions of prominent creatives (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Others attribute the gap to a tendency to not distinguish creative instruction from teaching for creativity (NACCCE, 1999). Kalin (2016) attributes the gap to a deeper issue that relates to the structure of today’s educational system. Kalin summarizes, “Even though employers claim to desire flexibility and creativity in their future workforce, these characteristics are largely alien to the standardized contexts of schooling that devalue the teacher’s creative engagement with students, sites, and knowledge.” (p. 9). The origins for why current knowledge suffers from a disparate interest in studying the teacher are not wholly understood.

Researching instructional creativity is an important but complicated task, compounded by the interrelatedness of teacher and learner. It is difficult to evaluate creative instruction and learning in isolated from one another (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004), because teachers are an “important part of the child’s environment.” (Ward, 2007, p. xx). However, it is arguably necessary to do so if we want to expand our knowledge. Our understanding about creative instruction is limited because it is largely based on work that uses the learner as the unit of study; learner-outcomes, perspectives, and interests. As a result, we are missing the narrative of the creative instructor. We know that creative instruction involves a broad range of skills, experience, and perspectives (Ambrose, 2005). We know what creative instruction is, why it’s important, and how it benefits the learner. But, we don’t know how to support or nurture it in teachers.

We are missing information about instructional creativity as a system. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) suggests that creativity in general is a complex system of contextually important parts that are interrelated. They include the environment, interpersonal relationships, personal interests, and personal skills. What are the contextual parts of this system for teaching? What manifests creatively enabling and limiting instructional experiences?

The literature presented in the following sections represent our current understanding about creative instruction and the elements that contextualize and impact it. The literature is organized using the Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) to substantiate creative instruction as a system, to reveal associations to creative systems outside of education, and to identify and summarize the gaps in understanding. The systematic review and resulting conceptual framework guide a research design that answers the questions of this dissertation.

Do You Rely on AI?

Not even a little—our writers are real-deal experts with degrees, crafting every paper by hand with care and know-how. No AI shortcuts here; it’s all human skill, backed by thorough research and double-checked for uniqueness. You’re getting authentic work that stands out for all the right reasons.

Instructional Creativity as a System

Extensive research has defined our current knowledge about creativity and presents it as a system.  This is a relatively new academic idea. Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow (2004) supported our general understanding of it as a system through their content analysis of existing literature. Their review clarified that the challenges of studying creativity are mostly centered around contextual challenges. They used their work to support the development of widely adopted definition, designating creativity as “the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context.” (p.90).  They suggest the understanding creativity as a system that is contextually dependent allows researchers to “articulate what creativity ‘looks like’ in light of various stakeholders…” (p.92).

Identified as both complex and subjective, much of the contemporary work aims to expand our definition and understanding about creativity as a system that is contextually dependent (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Csiksentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014). A systems approach to understanding is paramount to creativity research today.

A variety of creative systems have been proposed, varying in both content and application. The Componential Theory of Creativity (modeled in Figure 2.1) is a popular systematic representation of organizational creativity (Amabile, 1983, 2011). The components include domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, task motivation and the social environment. The model proposes that cultural contexts and symbolism are related to the originality of ideas that am individual brings into a domain (where they are reviewed and validated for creative value). The model integrates environment as socio-organizational dimensions that include: types of tasks, the mission of the organization, scheduling, workload, position hierarchies, income, and other aspects identified as stressors.

Why Are You Top for Research Papers?

Our writers are Ph.D.-level pros who live for nailing the details—think deep research and razor-sharp arguments. We pair that with top plagiarism tools, free revisions to tweak anything you need, and fast turnarounds that don’t skimp on quality. Your research paper won’t just shine—it’ll set the bar.

Figure 2.1. Componential Model of Creativity (Amabile, 2011)

Urban (2007) adapted the componential model to include six components in their Components Model of Creativity. Their expansion responded to the argued need to include aspects of cognition (a factor that Amabile’s model does not address). Urban’s concern and reason for adding cognition is the believe that “cognition is part of personality” (p.170), and therefore relates to how motivated and focused a person is during task motivation. Their adapted model is represented in Figure 2.2. Urban’s model proposes that the environment is an integrated part of the system, relevant at individual, local and societal or global scales.

Figure 2.2. Components Model of Creativity (Urban, 2007)

The Systems (or General) Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014) is a more generalizable model (Figure 2.3). This model has been used to understand creativity a wide variety of domains and contexts.  The general model features components of environment within each lobe the triadic model, where press is defined by cultural, social, and personal attributes.

Figure 2.3. Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014)

Is My Paper Original?

100%—we promise! Every paper’s written fresh from scratch—no AI, no copying—just solid research and proper citations from our expert writers. You can even request a plagiarism report to see it’s 95%+ unique, giving you total confidence it’s submission-ready and one-of-a-kind.

Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow (2004) suggest that the environment is a catalyst in a creative system. They explain, “The environment-influences aspect of our definition was rarely found in the surveyed articles, but the research literature provides substantial evidence that specific aspects of one’s environment are positively related to the existence of creativity.” (p. 90). They describe the environment as “construed broadly” (p. 91). The issue they identify is important, nor entirely defined by the two systems described above.

The goal of this dissertation is to understand the importance of the environment, define key attributes, and delineate the role of those attributes in mediating instructional creativity. Accomplishing this goal requires investigating how the environment participates in a creative system that is unique to the profession. Zane (2015) suggests that “A classroom is more than a collection of items found within a space; it’s a complex system of relationships.” (p.15). Most instructors are likely to agree with Zane. While creativity as a system of related parts is defined for a wide range of professional domains, we lack a systematic understanding of instructional creativity.

It is essential that the design of this research is fit to address the gaps in understanding about the environment and creative instruction. Instructional creativity can be systematically defined to reflect the contextual elements specific to creative instruction and support a conceptual framework that can guide a research design and enrich the analysis of data. That is the overarching goal of this literature review.

Currently, we do not have a defined system or conceptual framework unique to creative instruction. The Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) is guides the organization of literature in the following sections as a means to propose one.

Can You Do Any Citation Style?

Yep—APA, Turabian, IEEE, Chicago, MLA, whatever you throw at us! Our writers nail every detail of your chosen style, matching your guidelines down to the last comma and period. It’s all about making sure your paper fits academic expectations perfectly, no sweat.

Four-P Construct of Creativity

The Four-P Model was developed by Rhodes (1987) after compiling the available literature about creativity and clustering the definitions into themes. Four dimensions emerged from this analysis as distinct. Creativity is defined by person, process, product, and press (environment, place). The Four-P Model is a widely adopted approach guiding creativity research today. This section of text describes the four parts of Rhode’s model in detail.

Figure 2.4. Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987)

Can I Adjust Instructions Later?

Absolutely—life happens, and we’re flexible! Chat with your writer anytime through our system to update details, tweak the focus, or add new requirements, and they’ll pivot fast to keep your paper on point. It’s all about making sure the final draft is exactly what you need, no stress involved.

 

Person

The Four-P Model describes a creative person as one who creates (Hasirci & Demirkan, 2007). It is widely accepted that a creative person creates novel ideas (Sternberg, 1999). But creativity is also considered one’s ability to create iterations (Amabile, 1983; Feldman, 1999; Brennen, 2015). Defining a person as creative is sometimes viewed subjectively, and “creative” is often used flippantly to describe a person who has done something differently (Runco, 2014; Glaveanu, 2016). Others have argued that defining the preferences and behavior of creative people as paradoxal (Cropley & Cropley, 2008). However, quantifying creative ability has emerged as a conclusive science.

The concept of a creative “person” dates back to the work of Guilford (1957), suggesting creativity as a measurable ability. Guilford identified that creative people are distinguished by four measures: fluency (the ability to come up with several ideas), originality (the ability to come up with different ideas), flexibility (the ability to perceive alternatives), and elaboration (the ability to add details to ideas that enrich their meaning). Guilford integrated these measures into the early workings of an instrument to assess creative ability.

How Do I Get Started?

It’s super easy—order online with a few clicks, then track progress with drafts as your writer works their magic. Once it’s done, download it from your account, give it a once-over, and release payment only when you’re thrilled with the result. It’s fast, affordable, and built with students like you in mind!

Torrance (1988) applied Guilford’s work as the foundation for developing the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The TTCT measures creative ability by assessing divergent thinking skills, defined by four norm-referenced measures: fluency, originality, elaboration, and flexibility. The instrument presents three varying methods to assess these measures; a written/verbal method combined with verbal prompts, a written/verbal method combined with non-verbal prompts, and a figural method that implements non-verbal tasks and sketching. Other instruments are used measure creativity, especially for practical applications.

In psychometric terms, measuring creative ability is embraced as a conclusive science. The TTCT is the most widely used instrument for measuring creative thinking (Cropley, 2000; Kim, 2006; Starko, 2013) with high validity (Cropley, 2000; Cramond et al., 2005; Kim, 2006; Althuizen, Wierenga & Rossiter, 2010; Starko, 2013). It is identified as a reliable assessment of creative ability for its predictive validity (Althuizen, Wierenga & Rossiter, 2010). The TTCT defines creative ability by primary dimensions of originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. We also know that individual creativity is linked to curiosity, openness, and risk taking (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2006; Torrance, 1988; Cecil, Gray, Thornberg, 1995; Maksic & Pavlovic, 2001). Sternberg & Lubart (1995), Finke (1995), and Turner (2013) suggest that intuition, perception and insight are important in “finding ways” to negotiate or think differently about a situation. Creativity is suggested as the ability for an individual to iterate (Amabile, 1983; Feldman, 1999; Brennen, 2015). Sternberg (2003) and Urban (2007) suggest that a creative person has a particular tolerance for ambiguity when perceiving a problem or situation. The TTCT measures these attributes as sub-dimensions.

Creative ability is understood as generalizable knowledge. Researchers typically agree how to define and measure the creative ability of individuals. However, we know little about defining creative individuals in a particular domain.

Process

How Fast for Rush Jobs?

We can crank out a killer paper in 24 hours—quality locked in, no shortcuts. Just set your deadline when you order, and our pros will hustle to deliver, even if you’re racing the clock. Perfect for those last-minute crunches without compromising on the good stuff.

The Four-P model describes creative process as operations that are performed in order to be creative.  Cognitively derived, creative process is something that can be developed.  A creative process involves engaging in the activity of developing an idea. This includes thinking and decision making, and can be informed by a motivation, inspiration and perspective (Rhodes, 1987).

Wallas (1976) is attributed to developed one of the most widely used and commonly adapted models of creative process.  Wallas’ Four Stages of the Creative Process (Figure 2.5) delineated preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification as the essential activities. Preparation involves collecting information and perspectives. Incubation involves thinking about the information collected and may appear to others as “doing nothing.” Illumination involves realizing there are connections that were not seen previously, often referred to as a “eureka” moment. And verification involves presenting your ideas and illuminations to others in the domain where they are reviewed for their worth. These activities are not regarded as directional or exhaustive; a person engaged in the process may experience looping through and jumping steps.

Figure 2.5. Wallas’ Four Stages of the Creative Process (1976)

Divergent thinking is regarded as integral to any a process that results in creative outcomes (Torrance, 1988).  This idea is attributed to the early work of Guilford (1957) even though he himself did not claim or pursue evidence supporting a direct correlation.  We now know that a creative process entails more than just divergent thinking; it requires both divergent and convergent thinking (Cropley, 2006). Creative thinkers toggle between divergent and convergent thinking during the process of generating and developing ideas.  The creative process is defined by dynamic transactions between contradictory concepts; intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996b), toughness and sensitivity, closure and ambiguity (Cropley & Cropley, 2008).

Can You Handle Complex Subjects?

For sure! Our writers with advanced degrees dive into any topic—think quantum physics or medieval lit—with deep research and clear, sharp writing. They’ll tailor it to your academic level, ensuring it’s thorough yet easy to follow, no matter how tricky the subject gets.

Intrinsic motivation is fundamental to a positive creative process (Amabile, 1996a; Lubart 1990; Russ, 1993; Runco, 2004; Amabile, 2012). It relates to decision making and thinking in the act of creating, evokes personal feelings and variable modes of inquiry, and encourages exploration (Russ, 1993). Amabile (1998) suggests that the absence of intrinsic motivation in the creative process actually “kills” creativity.  Csikszentmihalyi (1996) suggests intrinsic motivation as quintessential to “flow,” a state or mental being where a person is completely immersed in what they are doing. When a person is experiencing flow in the process, they are able to achieve their most creative potential (Sawyer, 2011).

Product

Creativity is widely agreed as the ability for collaborative or individual efforts to produce novel and appropriate work (Sternberg, 1999). The thought that the resulting work is creative if it is unique, effective, and useful has sustained for over 60 years (Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). However, several contemporary researchers have argued the term “creativity” as subjective (Martens, 2011). Others claim it as uncertain and too broadly used, thus a word devalued in meaning (Glaveanu, 2016). Runco (2014) suggests that term be limited to use as an adjective (i.e. creative products, behavior, thinking), and that creativity as a noun should be avoided. Much of these discussions stem from an overuse and generalization of the term, but also because creative things, actions, and behaviors are considered too subjective to define, and contextually dependent (novel, useful to who?).

A creative product is generally thought of as a physical artifact. Runco (2014) attributes this to art- and product-biases and describes how these partialities drive assumptions about what creative outcomes are and are not. Art bias is the idea that specific activities and talents have a claim on creative outcomes. Research supports that this is often untrue – an artist’s work may not be embraced as creative, and an artist may not have a measurably high creative ability. Product bias is the idea that creative products must be a physical thing, and that it is the final manifestation or end outcome of a creative process (Halpern, 2003).

However, a creative product is open to numerous results and outcomes; a physical artifact, action, or behavior. The Four-P Model designates a creative product as the “record” of one’s thinking, or manifestation of an idea (process) into a “tangible form.”  A creative product is widely open to interpretation. Urban (2007) suggests creativity as a “hypothetical construct which describes or explains (to a certain extent) a special kind of human potential or aptitude. Creativity is not a power in itself; it is a human bound potential, dependent on, demonstrated and manifested by a person, his/her thinking, acting, and doing. This special human activity results in a new, innovative product.” (p. 168-9).

How Do You Meet Prof Standards?

We stick to your rubric like glue—nailing the structure, depth, and tone your professor wants—then polish it with edits for that extra shine. Our writers know what profs look for, and we double-check every detail to make sure it’s submission-ready and grade-worthy.

Solomon et al. (1999) suggests that we define a creative product by criteria that acknowledges the contexts surrounding an individual producer because “results depend on factors such as the range of quality in the products to be rated, the qualifications and bias of raters, the relevance of the products hoses as reflections of the individual’s creativity, and the demand of the rating task.” (p.364).

Today, we understand that people from all levels of creative ability are capable of producing a wide variety of creative outcomes and that each outcome is valuable and contextually dependent (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Martens, 2011; Csiksentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014); creative products are not limited to production by eminent creatives (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Furthermore, a creative product is now accepted to include creative imagination or playful approaches to solving problem (Runco, 2014), and instrumentation for measuring this “openness” for a broad range of people have been validated (Dollinger et al., 2004).

Press

The creative environment or “press” is defined by any forces or situations that shape our ideas and perceptions. Rhodes (1987) emphasized that the press as perceived human-environment relationships. Perception of these relationships are believed to be both individually and contextually defined (Rhodes,1987; Runco, 2004). Hasirci & Demirkan (2007) describe the press as the environment or the contexts surrounding a “creative act.”

What’s Your Editing Like?

Send us your draft and tell us your goals—we’ll refine it, tightening arguments and boosting clarity while keeping your unique voice intact. Our editors work fast, delivering pro-level results that make your paper pop, whether it’s a light touch-up or a deeper rework.

When creative environments were first studied as a serious research domain, there was a general assumption that we could not related the environment to creative acts or inspiration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Today we know that the physical, social, and organizational environment does relate to creativity, and variably across domains (Amabile, 1983, 1996a; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Amabile et al., 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; Puccio et al., 2000; Phelan, 2001; McCoy, 2005; Sawyer, 2006, 2011; Vischer, 2007; Dul & Ceylan, 2007; Dul, 2009; Dul, Ceylan & Jaspers, 2011; de Korte et al., 2011; Dul & Ceylan 2011; Martens, 2011; Williams, 2013; Kafashpour & Gharibpour, 2016).

The connections between the socio-organizational press and creativity arguably began with Amabile (1983). Her work is the foundation of the Componential Model of Creativity, a systematic representation of organizational creativity (Amabile, 1983, 2011), and the Components Model of Creativity (Urban, 2007) (reference Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Both componential models propose that cultural contexts and symbolism are related to the originality of ideas that am individual brings into a domain (where they are reviewed and validated for creative value). The socio-organizational environment is integral to both models. The the Systems Model of Creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014) is a more generalizable model, used to understand creativity a wide variety of domains and contexts.  Similarly, the general model proposes that the environment plays and integral role throughout the system (reference Figure 2.3).

Instruments have been developed to measure creative press, especially in an organizational setting. The KEYS instrument (Amabile,1997) is a reliable means for assessing the workplace environment for creativity (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). The instrument assesses how well the environment supports autonomy, provides access to resources, supports a culture of encouragement, and minimizes pressures and organizational impediments to creativity.   As a means to identify environmental attributes optimize creative output, Mayfield & Mayfield (2010) developed furthered this work by developing instrumentation to measure perceptions of a creative environment.

Richardson & Mishra (2018) suggest that “the context in which creativity exists and the design of the environment in that context has been shown to be a key support for creativity” (p. 46). But, what environment designs supporting creativity? It is clear that we know more about the impact that social and organizational dynamics have on creative production (Stokols et al., 2002).  And, the limits of our knowledge about the physical press and productivity are not exclusive to creativity research – it is a much broader gap. This is evident in studies related to work performance and job stress. Vischer (2007) presents evidence of ergonomics, lighting, noise, and spatial configurations resulting in a press-person misfit, contributing to workplace stress and discomfort.

Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow (2004) suggest that the environment is a catalyst in a creative system. They explain, “The environment-influences aspect of our definition was rarely found in the surveyed articles, but the research literature provides substantial evidence that specific aspects of one’s environment are positively related to the existence of creativity.” (p. 90). They describe the environment as “construed broadly” (p. 91). Marten agrees, describing our understanding about creativity and the physical environment is fragmented (2011).

Can You Pick My Topic?

Yes—we’ve got your back! We’ll brainstorm fresh, workable ideas tailored to your assignment, picking ones that spark interest and fit the scope. You choose the winner, and we’ll turn it into a standout paper that’s all yours.

Though we know little about the relationship of creativity and the physical environment, McCoy & Evans (2002) conducted a study that offers some insight. Noting that too much research had emphasized the relationship of personality and creativity, they were interested in learning how creativity is fostered by the physical environment. They designed a two-phased investigation with sixty participants to evaluate the role of the interior design elements. The first study used photographs as a medium to evaluate how participants perceived spatial elements (i.e. shapes, light, size) as adding to the “creative potential” of a space (p. 418). They learned that spatial complexity, visual details, views to nature, nature materials, and spaces that support social gathering are perceived as important. They also learned that cool colors, lack of views, and manufactured and composite materials are perceived as lowering the creative potential of space. The second study used this information to evaluate the performance of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1988) in spaces of high and low creative potential. They learned that the attributes that emerged from the first study are predictors of creative performance.

One possible limitation of current research is that it is largely focused on creativity in a business or organizational system. This presents issues of transferability of knowledge that defines the creative press (Kristensen, 2004; Kafashpur & Gharibpour, 2016). Another possible limitation is that the impact that a social or organizational environment has on one’s creativity must consider broader meaning and the experience of that individual (Runco, 2014). In other words, no person-environment interactions are the same for all.  Stokols et al. (2002) suggest that this is also true for the physical environment.

Runco (2004) suggests that we are lacking research about how aspects of the environment inform a creative process. The most insightful knowledge about the relationships between physical press and process have emerged from few studies. As a highly regarded study on this topic (and perhaps one of the first), Kristensen (2004) produced substantial evidence that physical attributes have a positive impact on the creative process. They investigated the four-stage development of a collaborative project (preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification; Wallas, 1976), and conducted in a space that they distinctly crafted for the study. Informed by existing literature, the space was designed with a large centralized room that radiated outward to surrounding workshop clusters. To maximize adaptability and to allow for floor and wall space to feature artifacts of creative production, no furnishings were fixed. The design featured large tables, computers, and light colors. They found that Wallas’ stages related to these physical properties in different ways. They conclude:

“…there are differences in the requirements between stages. The preparation and elaboration stages typically require a combination of communal and private space. The incubation and insights stages probably require more private space. For example, useful information presented in the nature of objects, artifacts, tables, images, tabletops etc. can facilitate the process at an implicit level.” (p. 95).

McCoy (2005) reviewed the existing research on this topic to draw conclusions about creative contexts in workplace environments. They learned that social constructs and the characteristics of creative teams are an important factor for influencing creativity.

Their review revealed that distinct attributes of the physical environment are connected to performance outcomes in the workplace, namely supporting positive social interactions and resulting in the creative production of teamwork. Social interactions are increasingly identified as important. Proximity to spaces and resources, space planning and layout, circulation patterns, surfaces and features that allow for personal customization and displayed thinking, and a variety of space types all identified as important in existing literature. Several of these features were also found to influence social behavior, in addition to technology access, comfort, size and adaptability of space, visual access to others, and the opportunity to work in multiple areas.  They summarize that the physical environment relates to social behavior more than it does to creative behavior.

Kristensen and McCoy’s findings are important because they begin to differentiate individual creative production from group production and delineate how the environment may support different types of creative tasks.  Sawyer (2006, 2011) has produced a broad range of work on this topic, relating group tasks and the socio-organizational environment. They emphasize that a creative climate is fostered when organizations provide support for collaborative work. When people work together, creative possibilities are optimized.

Do You Do Quick Revisions?

Yep—need changes fast? We’ll jump on your paper and polish it up in hours, fixing whatever needs tweaking so it’s ready to submit with zero stress. Just let us know what’s off, and we’ll make it right, pronto.

De Korte et al. (2011) used heartrate data to investigate how creative task-types and the physical, interior environment relate. Their study was largely inconclusive in connecting the two. They found that the fluency and quality of ideas is not related to spatial changes and found some evidence that it can increase the originality of ideas. They found that the mood of an individual as an intervening variable to creative performance. However, their study suggests flexibility of the space as important in supporting a variety of tasks. They recommend that future research should investigate how physical press fosters creativity.

Relationships between mood, the physical environment, and optimal performance have also been explored by Barrett & Barrett (2010). They suggest that space has sensory stimulating attributes that can make a person feel positive, and can affect mood, performance, and health. Their evaluation of building-user relationships suggests that space takes a role in helping people reach their full potential. Barrett (2010) found that light and color stimulate a creative process.

Martens (2011) interviewed creative professionals to learn more about its relationship to Wallas’ 4-Stages of the Creative Process (Similar to Kristensen). Their literature review suggests that a creative production is supported through the physical press when it facilitates communication between people, acknowledges the importance of individual needs, fosters flow (Csiksentmihayli, 1996), and facilitates creative thinking. Their study confirmed this impact as true. They discovered that physical attributes play an instrumental role in stimulating creative behavior and support a creative culture that is experientially positive. Their emergent findings describe how noise, temperature, space constrictions are creatively limited to creative production in teams. Tangible attributes they identify as important to supporting a creative culture, creative thinking, interactions, and flow include aspects of spatial layout, open configurations, displayed thinking, adaptability and flexibility, Tangible attributes they identify as important to supporting creative production include: plants, bright lighting, and windows.

Kafashpur & Gharibpour (2016) arrived at similar conclusions after conducting a large-scale survey about the physical press in workplace. They aimed to know more about the relationship creative behavior to a myriad of physical features, including: light, surfaces, personalization, privacy, collaboration, ergonomics, work area types, views to nature, comfort, color, and décor.  They learned that the types of work surfaces, daylighting, and views strongly influence creative production.

Summary of Knowledge

Rhodes’ model provides organization for describing the parts of a creative system (person, process, product and press). The information about each of these dimensions is discussed in depth because they outline a general baseline of knowledge about the Four-Ps. These dimensions are further reviewed and defined for instructional creativity in the next section. The goal is to reveal the gaps in understanding that are important to this dissertation.

Can You Outline First?

Sure thing! We’ll whip up a clear outline to map out your paper’s flow—key points, structure, all of it—so you can sign off before we dive in. It’s a handy way to keep everything aligned with your vision from the start.

For a dissertation hoping to understand the relationship of environment to the larger system of creative instruction, it is important to clarity that the Four-P Model does not infer how its parts relate. Sternberg & Lubart (1996) suggest that intellectual skills, knowledge, thinking style, personality, motivation, social constraints, and physical constraints of the environment have equal importance to a creative system. Simonton (2003) argues that person, process and product are the most important aspects of a creative system because the environment uniquely relates to each. Cramond et al. (2005) reviewed the available literature about measurably creative peoples and concluded that personality, experience and the environment play an important role in creative production. Hasirci & Demirkan (2007) suggest that contextual elements of the environment support the connections between person, process and product, and that creativity must be studied in a way that considers the interrelationship of each. All of these ideas suggest that understanding a creative system (of any type) requires considering a holistic role of the environment. These suggestions provide guidance to the research design.

The following sections present our current understanding about instructional creativity and the elements that contextualize it. The information is organized using Rhodes’ Four-P constructs: person, process, product and press. This approach is appropriate to substantiate instructional creativity as a system, to reveal associations to creative systems outside of teaching, and to identify and summarize understanding. The systematic review is used as a foundation to reveal the gaps in knowledge, build a conceptual framework for creative instruction, and guide a research design that answers the questions of this dissertation.

Four-P Constructs of Instructional Creativity

Creative Instructor

Instruction is regarded a highly complex undertaking that requires creativity (Ambrose, 2005; Burnard, 2012), and involves a broad range of individual skills, experience, and perspective. The creativity of an instructor is regarded as essential to creative pedagogy (Lin, 2011).  Lin suggests that an effective instructor is one with first-hand experience of being a creative producer and demonstrate that they have an authentic interest in a creative outcome. Stansberry, Thompson, & Kymes (2015) suggest that a teacher must recognize and develop their own individual creativity if they are to be instructionally effective. But, what defines a creative instructor?

Reuter suggests that teachers are often not delineated as creative. They write, “Those who adhere to the product approach define authors, artists, and scientists as creative persons. The product approach to creativity is confronted with the critique that it is difficult to decide if members of different domains (or professions) indeed produce exceptional ideas.” (2007, p. 80). This offers one possibility for why our knowledge about creative instruction is generally lacking, which will be discussed later in this section.

We generally agree how to define and measure the creative ability of individuals. However, we know little about defining creative individuals in a particular domain. We have limited information about creative individuals that enter the profession of teaching. Considering that the profession is tightly intertwined with high-stakes learning assessments, learner outcomes, and learner achievements, it is not surprising that the attributes of the creative instructor are not fully defined by contemporary research. This gap may be attributed to the methodology of existing studies. We lack research about instructors that include measured creative ability. Rather, most work in this area uses self- or community-reported means to designate an instructor as “creative.”

Two studies demonstrate this gap. Reilly et al. (2011) synthesized findings from 10 years of existing to summarize the attributes of creative instructors. They found that creative instructors are intrinsically motivated and are aware of inter- and intra-personal aspects of their own character. Creative instructors believe that creative instruction means empathizing with learner needs, building strong relationships, and collaborating. They are confident risk takers, and actively implement strategies to make their teaching effective. The attributes that are summarized through their work is informative and complex, identifying the relevance of beliefs, behavior, and social interactions. However, the findings are limited because the creative abilities of the instructors were not validated by measurable dimensions defined by Torrance (1988). The instructors were either reported as creative by their respective learning communities or assumed to be creative because of accolades and teaching awards.

Can You Add Data or Graphs?

Absolutely—we’ll weave in sharp analysis or eye-catching visuals like stats and charts to level up your paper. Whether it’s crunching numbers or designing a graph, our writers make it professional and impactful, tailored to your topic.

Bramwell et al. (2011) is another study that demonstrates that our knowledge about creative instructors is limited, particularly from a definable, measurable construct. They conducted a qualitative study aimed to distinguish the attributes of a creative instructor from non-creative teachers. They found that creative instructors place more value on intellectual topics, are more open to taking risks, express a stronger passion for teaching, and exhibit a higher degree of motivation on the job.  The findings of this study are rich, but again limited because the creative ability of the participants was determined by self-reporting, and by identification by others.

The idea that personal feelings and beliefs have a relationship to individual creativity is a popular one in instructional research and complicates answering the question of this section (What defines a creative instructor?). Cropley & Cropley (2010) suggest that an individual’s mood alters the perception of instructional creativity. Cheung (2012) discovered that feelings and beliefs about instructional creativity are not necessarily a predictor of creative praxis; often important attributes of creative instruction that are expressed as important are not observable in practice. Cheung’s findings suggest that the beliefs and creativity of a teacher are in conflict. Creative “self-worth” is also described as important (Beghetto, 2006). Rubenstein, McCoach, & Siegle (2013) found a “high correlation between teachers’ perceptions of their own creativity and the teacher self-efficacy subscale” (p. 332). Brennan (2015) suggest that personal feelings create a clash between “teacher” and “self.” This clash limits instructors from being creative as they navigate the expectations and anxieties inherent to being an educator.

This review demonstrates that we can use the Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) to define a “person” for instructional creativity. It also shows that measured constructs of creative ability offer a the most conclusive baseline for defining a creative person. The literature illustrates that defining a creative instructor outside of measurable means is complex, and inconclusive. In summarize, there is a general need to expand how we evaluate and define the creativity of instructors, and to define what attributes and behaviors are associated with those metrics. Future studies that examine the attributes of creative instructors should investigate the relationship those characteristics have with creative ability as developed and defined by Torrance (1988).

 

Creative Instructional Process

The Four-P Model describes creative process as operations that are performed in order to be creative.  Cognitively derived, creative process is something that can be developed.  A creative process involves engaging in the activity of developing an idea. This includes thinking and decision making, and can be informed by motivation, inspiration and perspective (Rhodes, 1987). We generally understand the components and benefits of a creative process, and how to guide others to engage and learn a creative process. But, what defines a creative instructional process?

Early discussions about the creative instructional process began to take form in the 1960s. This trend fell in sequence to a rising interest in creativity and divergent thinking in education that emerged after J.P. Guilford’s Presidential address to the American Psychological Association in 1950 (Sawyer, 2011). Wendt (1961) was concerned about the misconceptions that people have about teaching, and its importance as a creative domain. In their article, they present teaching as nothing but a creative process, and argue that any one immersed in the profession “would readily agree that teaching is a creative process” (p.3). They continue with an illustrated comparison to activities generally regarded as creative:

“Surely teaching is no less a creative process than writing, painting, or composing, and the dedicated teacher can readily see himself as a creative artist, for in his work the elements of the creative process – immersion, openness to experience, inspiration, and elaboration – are all present.”

Today, the creative process that is typically endorsed by instructional training and university programs draw from Wallas’ 4-Stages of the Creative Process (1976). For example, Starbuck (2012) suggests that a to be more creative, an instructor should engage a knowledge-acquisition state where they collect information, and then think calmly about the knowledge they’ve gained through that preparation before proceeding. These two guidelines mimic Wallas’ first of four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification.

Studying the creative instructional process is complex. Reid and Petocz (2004) argue that creative instruction, processes, and the environment cannot be defined as a static state; they are within a set of highly integrated parts. The process and product of creative instruction are part of a “total learning environment” (p. 54), complicated by personal approaches to teaching, and normative aspects of the academic discipline or domain in which they teach. Thus, experiential writings about the lived-experience of teaching are the most descriptive sources we have to define what a creative instructional process is and is not.

How Do You Manage Big Projects?

We tackle each chunk with precision, keeping quality consistent and deadlines on track from start to finish. Whether it’s a dissertation or a multi-part essay, we stay in sync with you, delivering top-notch work every step of the way.

Few studies that offer insight about tangible attributes of the creative instructional process. Most of our knowledge attempts to explain what factors inform an instructor to engage a creative process, or how a creative process results in effective instruction. However, this knowledge is limited. We know that creative instructors draw from past experience to develop a unique process that supports effective teaching (Craft & Jeffrey, 2004), and that the process includes conceptualizing, planning, questioning, modifying and integrating the methods and strategies that the instructor believes will be effective. Stansberry, Thompson, & Kymes suggests that when instructors engage in or practice a creative process, it increases their creative ability (2015).

Basom & Frase (2004) approached examining creative instruction through the lens of flow state (Csikszentmihalyi,1996) when a person is thought to achieve their most creative potential (Sawyer, 2011). Their findings suggest relationships between instructor flow, perceived efficacy, and motivation. Their work is important to defining the creative instructional process because motivation is fundamental (Amabile, 1996a; Lubart 1990; Russ, 1993; Runco, 2004; Amabile, 2012), relating to decision making and thinking, and encouraging exploration (Russ, 1993). The impact that motivation has on the creative process yields attention to studies that suggest links between instructor creativity and efficacy (Tan & Majid, 2011; Ferguson, Frost & Hall, 2012; Johnson et al., 2012; Pas, Bradshaw & Hershfeldt, 2012; Koo et al., 2013, Westervelt, 2016). Feeling-oriented findings present expanded research opportunities that might reveal more about the creative instructional process.

Cropley & Cropley (2008) examined international paradigms of teaching to gather insight about creative instructional processes. Their study revealed inconsistent understandings about teaching creativity to learners, about creative thinking (cognitive), the personality and motivation of teachers, and the social aspects of the instructional environment. They describe motivation as paradoxal in the instructional process because extrinsic drive has been identified to both enable and limit creativity. They describe instructor knowledge as paradoxal because the creative process requires divergent thinking and free associations to ideate, yet the application of extensive knowledge is required to converge on an idea. Their study demonstrates how two educational approaches (one rooted in inventing, analyzing and proving, and the other rooted in mastering speed and accuracy of procedures) result in differentiated instructional processes, practices, and outcomes. This suggests that the environment has an impact on the creative instructional process and will be discussed in the section on “press.”

Tsai (2011) proposed a framework for creative pedagogy that is process-oriented. The framework defines creative instruction as a highly integrated structure of components: initiation, operation, and content. Initiation is defined by an instructor facilitating curiosity, new experiences, and tolerance for alternative perspectives.  Operation is defined by an instructor facilitating creative thinking, engaging exciting and innovative ways to teach, and facilitating exploratory learning experiences. Content is defined by an instructor facilitating opportunities to define and solve problems, and to reflect. All three dimensions of Tsai’s model emphasize creative process through dialogic, improvisational, inspirational, philosophical, exploratory, and autonomously related means. The model suggests process as holistic to creative instruction.

Sawyer (2010) offers an alternative way of defining the creative instructional processes that is unique in this research domain. He suggests that creative instruction is “disciplined improvisation” (Sawyer, 2004) that demands an “emergent” approach that he compares to the extemporizing attributes of a jazz ensemble. This idea embraces the idea that creative process and creative outcome are heavily integrated in teaching, is collaborative, and is dynamic to the point that the “outcome is determined by all participants” (p. 181). Sawyer describes this creative process as contextualized procedures, similar to that of on-stage performing artists where a dynamic exchange of information and parts are constantly redefining the outcome. This idea is perceptive, providing insight for why we lack information about the creative instructional process while further supporting the holistic role of process to creative teaching. To Sawyer, the process is not just one aspect or step towards instructional creativity. The process is everything.

Do You Follow Global Academic Rules?

Yes—we’ve got it down! Our writers switch seamlessly between UK, US, Australian, or any other standards, matching your school’s exact expectations. Your paper will feel native to your system, polished and ready for wherever you’re studying.

Zolfaghari et al. (2011) suggest that a creative instructional process that seems similar to what Sawyer describes with his jazz analogy but is instead defined by “creative questioning.” This process facilitates a question-oriented approach to instruction and minimizes the dissemination of knowledge and promotes a dynamic relationship between the process of teaching and the process of learning. They suggest that a process where instructors and learners enter a mode of exploratory problem solving together reduces the pressures and barriers that limit learners.

Cheung (2012) conducted a multi-phased investigation to learn more about instructional creativity that involved talking to teachers and then observing them in practice. Cheung’s study revealed incongruencies between knowledge about creative practices and the actual act of implementing a creative process into teaching. They found that instructors can describe what a creative instructional process looks like and why it is important. However, these aspects of process are not engaged or are difficult to identify in practice.

Finally, Davies et al. (2014) conducted a systematic review of literature about the roles and development needs of instructors in facilitating learner creativity. In their discussion, they describe a need to promote participatory creative teaching paradigms where the process and outcome are dialogic. They suggest that this should be fostered through continuous professional development.

The literature summarizes what we know about the creative instructional process, not what we know about teaching a creative process to learners. The review suggests that our knowledge is somewhat inconclusive; we lack a clear definition for what a process of creative instruction looks like, and what factors enable and limit an instructor from engaging in one. But, it demonstrates that we can use the Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) to define “process” for instructional creativity.  The review suggests that this process is regarded as highly integrated with creative instructional outcomes (or product). The later will be discussed in the next section.

Creative Instructional Product

What is a progressive delivery and how does it work?

Progressive delivery is a cool option where we send your paper in chunks—perfect for big projects like theses or dissertations. You can even pay for it in installments. It’s just 10% extra on your order price, but the perks are worth it. You’ll stay in closer touch with your writer and can give feedback on each part before they move to the next. That way, you’re in the driver’s seat, making sure everything lines up with what you need. It saves time too—your writer can tweak things based on your notes without having to redo huge sections later.

The thought that a creative thing or idea is unique, effective, and useful has sustained for over 60 years (Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). A creative product is generally thought of as a physical artifact (Halpern, 2003; Runco, 2014). However, a creative product is open to numerous results and outcomes; a physical artifact, action, or behavior.

The Four-P Model designates a creative product as the “record” of one’s thinking, or manifestation of an idea (process) into a “tangible form.”  Solomon et al. (1999) suggests that we define a creative product by criteria that acknowledges the contexts surrounding an individual producer because “results depend on factors such as the range of quality in the products to be rated, the qualifications and bias of raters, the relevance of the products hoses as reflections of the individual’s creativity, and the demand of the rating task.” (p.364).

We understand creative products to be many things, and to take several forms. But what is a creative instructional product? Teachers often define classroom creativity by referencing the instructional strategies that they implement to support learning (Turner, 2013). However, research has delineated creative instruction in a variety of ways.

Instructional creativity is linked to effective teaching that enhances learning (Sawyer, 2011; Reilly et al., 2011; Rinkevich, 2011). When instructors model creative thinking, it promotes creative thinking among learners (Nickerson, 2010; Horng et al., 2005; Burnard, 2012). Creative instruction is also an important piece to teaching for creativity (Sternberg, 2015; Cheng et al., 2010; Grainger, Barnes & Scoffham, 2004). Nurturing learner creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010) is a critical 21^st-century skill to foster in learners to prepare them for life beyond the walls of school (Salpeter, 2003). It is defined as the educational exchanges facilitated by the teacher that are “unique, customized and meaningful” (Rinkevich, 2011), and that are exciting, engaging and innovative (Craft, 2011). It is suggested as a pedagogical approach to “energize existing structures” (Tsai,2015) and a means for enhancing learning (Cheng et al., 2010). Diakidoy and Phtiaka (2002) talked to teachers to gather their perspectives about creative instruction and found that teachers describe creativity as a skill and process that results in outcomes that are surprising and unexpected.  Finally, Sawyer (2010) compares creative instruction to jazz and defines it as a form of “disciplined improvisation” that is intimately tied to teacher experience and the instructional process.

The definitions of creative instruction presented in the previous paragraph reveal that it is often lumped together with learner creativity. This has contributed to gaps that exist in our current understanding (NACCCE, 1999; Lucas, 2001). Starko (2014) argues that this assumption might still be perpetuated in practice and research — that creative instruction has not always viewed as different. Creative instruction is often expected to provide students the opportunity to think creatively or enhance the creative ability of the students. They describe how instructional activities might “produces an enjoyable, or even creative, outcome,” but they may lack value to others if they do not ultimately enhance the creativity of the learner.

The contributions of knowledge since these distinctions were recommended has helped define what creative instruction is and is not. It has also clarified what happens when it’s present or lacking. When unable to engage exciting, engaging, and innovating (Craft, 2011) delivery of curriculum, the teaching profession is dull and is comparable to the work of a “technician,” tasked to do things a specific way (Woods, 1995). Learners are disadvantaged when this happens. Sawyer (2004) suggests that instruction is not effective when it is scripted and technician-like. In their literature review about creative learning environments, Jindal-Snape et al. (2013) concluded that non-scripted instruction is an important aspect of acknowledging learner needs. McWilliam and Dawson (2008) suggests that when teachers demonstrate hesitation or resistance to change and uncertainty, that they actually harm the “creative future” of their students (p. 127).

Reid and Petocz, 2004) define creative instruction as an integration of environment and process that work to support an effective instructional product. They suggest that the environment that the instructor provides to their students is a creative product. They suggest that the encouragement they provide the students is a creative product. They suggest that the knowledge and perspectives they offer their students in their lessons, the opportunities they offer them to solve problems or explore unique ideas is a creative product.  They add that a creative instructional product includes some element of “surprise,” that might include feelings and expressions, instructional techniques and methods, and actual materials.

The literature demonstrates that we can use the Four-P Model of Creativity (Rhodes, 1987) to define a “product” for instructional creativity.  We can generalize this product as something that has a positive impact on learners and can generalize it as effective instruction.

Tags: Affordable Academic Writing Services USA, Assignment Help for Master's Students, Online Class and Exam Help, Thesis and Dissertation Writing UK