Abstract
This study focuses on visual creativity and how it can be supported with computer technologies and thereby be used to support learning and instruction. However, studies related to computer-enabled visual creativity have not been frequently explored. As such, the current research proposes a model consisting of four major factors: (a) computer-aided visual art self-efficacy, (b) computer self-efficacy, (c) general creative self-efficacy, and (d) visual creativity. The aim is to explore the causal relationships among these factors so that they can then be used to support creativity, especially in the context of learning and instruction. To test the proposed model, this study firstly collected a total of 736 responses from an American public university to construct a scale using exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses for three factors: (a) computer self-efficacy, (b) computer-aided visual art self-efficacy, and (c) general creative self-efficacy. Later, 164 responses were collected to analyze those hypothesized predictors of visual creativity and their relationships using structural equation modeling with Mplus. The results of the study indicate that computer self-efficacy was a significant predictor of computer-aided visual art self-efficacy, which in turn was a significant predictor of general creative self-efficacy. General creative self-efficacy, in turn, was a significant predictor of visual creativity. Finally, the study yielded a significant indirect effect of computer-aided visual art self-efficacy on visual creativity as mediated by general creative self-efficacy. Implications for learning and instruction are discussed as well as future studies to further research to develop relevant models of visual creativity in support of learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Arrighi, P. A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2014). Addressing constraints creatively: How new design software helps solve the dilemma of originality and feasibility. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12082.
Avila, L., & Bailey, M. (2016). Art in the digital age. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 36(4), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcg.2016.77.
Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534507.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students’ creative self-efficacy and teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and The Arts, 5, 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022834.
Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Noakes, T. (2016). Online content creation: Looking at students’ social media practices through a connected learning lens. Learning, Media and Technology, 41, 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1107097.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Ling (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chang, S. F., Eleftheriadis, A., & McClintock, R. (1998). Next-generation content representation, creation, and searching for new-media applications in education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 884–904. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.664278.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688.
Dames, M. (2016). Exploring changes in computer self-efficacy during graphics skills acquisition. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, College of Education, University of South Carolina.
Dollinger, S. J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on consensual assessment technique in creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.100.3.592-598.
Dudgeon, P. (2004). A note on extending Steiger’s (1998) multiple sample RMSEA adjustment to other noncentrality parameter-based statistics. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 305–319.
Frohlich, D., Robinson, S., Eglinton, K., Jones, M., & Vartiainen, E. (2012). Creative cameraphone use in rural developing regions. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 181–190). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2371574.2371603
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guo, J., & Woulfin, S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: An investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Review, 38(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741.
Haase, J., Hoff, E. V., Hanel, P. H. P., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relation between creative self-efficacy and different creativity measurements. Creativity Research Journal, 30, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411436.
Horwitz, S. M. (2017). Is note-taking more effective with a keyboard or a pen? Unpublished Undergraduate Honors Theses. https://scholar.colorado.edu/honr_theses/1369
Hsu, M. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2004a). Predicting electronic service continuance with a decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001669969.
Hsu, M. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2004b). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38, 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001.
Islam, A. Y. M. A. (2016). Development and validation of the technology adoption and gratification (TAG) model in higher education: A cross-cultural study between Malaysia and China. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 12(3), 78–105. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2016070106.
Javadi, E., Gebauer, J., & Mahoney, J. (2013). The impact of user interface design on idea integration in electronic brainstorming: An attention-based view. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00322.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Karwowski, M. (2011). It doesn’t hurt to ask…But sometimes it hurts to believe: Polish students’ creative self-efficacy and its predictors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021427.
Kim, H. J., Park, J. H., Yoo, S., & Kim, H. (2016). Fostering creativity in tablet-based interactive classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 207–220.
Miettinen, R. (2006). The sources of novelty: A cultural and systemic view of distributed creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00381.x.
Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2003). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 13–27). London: Kogan Page.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.
Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(4), 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900412.
Onwuagboke, B. B. C., & Singh, T. K. R. (2016). Effects of computer self-efficacy on pre-service art teachers’ achievement in graphic design. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24, 1315–1333.
Parvanta, C., Roth, Y., & Keller, H. (2013). Crowdsourcing 101. Health Promotion Practice, 14(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912470654.
Pereira, J., Echeazarra, L., Sanz-Santamaría, S., & Gutiérrez, J. (2014). Student-generated online videos to develop cross-curricular and curricular competencies in nursing studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.011.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1.
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Schmalensee, S. L. (2014). Is what you see what you really get? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of real-world divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901023.
Rehim, S. A., & Chung, K. C. (2015). Educational video recording and editing for the hand surgeon. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 40, 1048–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.08.021.
Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428298700500206.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400203.
Sapsed, J., & Tschang, F. T. (2014). Art is long, innovation is short: Lessons from the renaissance and the digital age. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.014.
Sarsani, M. R. (2011). Computers and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 231–240). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sayers, J. G. (2011). Charlie chaplin 1889-1977. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 192–196). San Diego: Academic Press.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68.
Song, I., Yang, J., & Shimada, K. (2014). Development of sketch-based three-dimensional modeling system for rapid generation and evaluation of automotive seat shape using reference models. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(5), 051001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026495.
Spector, J. M. (2016). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Spector, J. M., & Park, S. W. (2018). Motivation, learning and technology: Embodied educational motivation. New York: Routledge.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2014). Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12042.
Tella, A., & Ayeni, C. O. (2006). The impact of self-efficacy and prior computer experience on the creativity of new librarians in selected universities libraries in Southwest Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 8(2), 101–112.
Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J. C. J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency model of computer and Internet self-efficacy. Information & Management, 43, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.02.001.
Treadaway, C. (2004). Digital reflection: The integration of digital imaging technology into the creative practice of printed surface pattern and textile designers. The Design Journal, 7(2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069204789354435.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CN: Graphics Press.
Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative thinking-drawing production (TCT-DP). International Education Journal, 6, 272–280.
Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., York, P. T., Greiner, M. E., & Wynn, D. (2008). The business of open source. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/1330311.1330321.
Way, D., Lin, W., & Shih, Z. (2006). Computer-generated Chinese color ink paintings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 29(6), 1041–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2006.9671203.
Yang, H. L., & Cheng, H.-H. (2009). Creative self-efficacy and its factors: An empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.005.
Yoon, C. H. (2017). A validation study of the torrance tests of creative thinking with a sample of Korean elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.004.
Zaman, M., Anandarajan, M., & Dai, Q. (2010). Experiencing flow with instant messaging and its facilitating role on creative behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.001.
Funding
This work is supported by the Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors state they have no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, with regard to this research study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: visual creativity tests
Appendix: visual creativity tests
Instructions for line meaning test
Welcome! On the next page, you are going to play a line game. You will see some lines and figures and after you have looked at each one, please tell us all of the things that the drawing makes you think of.
Here is an example:
For this figure, you could answer, “Mountain; Crack in a glass table; A squished piece of paper; Stock market trend lines; Kid’s doodling; Electricity; Soundwave; Analysis chart.” There are many more things you can think of, and all of them are legitimate.
If you are ready, please turn to the next page. Let’s begin now.
Line meaning test
List all the things that the drawing could be. You can look at it from any direction (or angle) you want.
Drawing test 1
Below are the elements you’ve seen in the previous task. Now, how about combining these figures together to make a story? Try to draw an interesting story based on the figures below. And add a title to your story.
Drawing test 2
Please add details to the squares below to make recognizable objects. Try to make these figures as interesting and unusual as possible. Add names or titles if you think the meaning of the object is not clear.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiajun, G., Islam, A.Y.M.A., Teo, T. et al. Computer-enabled visual creativity: an empirically-based model with implications for learning and instruction. Instr Sci 47, 609–625 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09487-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09487-0