Abstract
Creativity is a valuable skill for instructional designers. However, few studies have researched creativity in instructional design (ID) graduate courses. Future professionals' creative thinking is necessary to address societal, technological, and economic challenges. Developing creative thinking in novice instructional designers could allow them to generate creative solutions to ill-structured problems in real-world contexts. This multiple case study investigated the extent to which the nine core courses in an online instructional design master’s program encouraged creativity. We conducted a document analysis of course materials for each course, to analyze whether creativity indicators derived from creativity literature were present. Subsequently, a cross-case synthesis was used to identify patterns across the cases. Semi-structured interviews of the lead course instructors were conducted to evaluate the extent to which they deliberately included creativity concepts into the course design process. Results indicated core courses include learning activities and instructional strategies with the potential to foster creativity. However, explicit references mentioning creativity or being creative were only found in three courses. Lead instructors considered creativity an important aspect of teaching and learning and a concept that needs to be further developed and discussed in ID education. Implications for instructional design education are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Access to the data can be requested from the first author via e-mail.
References
Alencar, E., & Oliveira, Z. (2016). Creativity in higher education according to graduate programs’ professors. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 555–560. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040312
Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429501234
Amabile, T. (2013). The componential theory of creativity. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139). Sage Publications.
Amabile, T., & Pratt, M. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
Amabile, T. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge
Amer, A. (2005). Analytical thinking. Center for Advancement of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Engineering – Cairo University.
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577544
Baum, L. M., & Newbill, P. L. (2010). Instructional design as critical and creative thinking: A journey through a Jamestown-era native American village. TechTrends, 54(5), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0434-z
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2015). Skills for the 21st century: What should students learn? Center for curriculum design. https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/CCR-CharacterEducation_FINAL_27Feb2015.pdf
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. The Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/aligning-teaching-and-assessment-curriculum-objectives
Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-Hill Education.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). The significance of negotiation. In M. Breen & A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process syllabuses in practice (pp. 5–38). Cambridge University Press.
Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450902945215
Brown, P. S. (2012). Introducing a negotiated curriculum. In K. Irie & A. Steward (Eds.), Realizing autonomy (pp. 49–64). Palgrave Macmillan.
Campbell D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373
Caropreso, E. J., & Couch, R. A. (1996). Creativity and innovation in instructional design and development: The individual in the workplace. Educational Technology, 36(6), 31–39.
Chirico, A., Glaveanu, V. P., Cipresso, P., Riva, G., & Gaggioli, A. (2018). Awe enhances creative thinking: An experimental study. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446491
Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The Design/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9216-3
Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1991). Teamwork. Nous, 25(4), 487–512. https://doi.org/10.2307/2216075
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12090
Combs, L. B., Cennamo, K. S., & Newbill, P. L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology, 49(5), 3–14.
Costley, C., & Armsby, P. (2007). Work-based learning assessed as a field or a mode of study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600848267
Craft, A. (1997). Identity and creativity: Educating teachers for postmodernism? Teacher Development, 1(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664539700200001
Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for higher education and organizations. Hampton Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Strenberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge University Press.
De Bono, E. (2014). Lateral thinking: An introduction. Random House.
DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
Dick, W. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the critics. Educational Technology, 35(4), 5–11.
Elam, J., & Mead, M. (1990). Can software influence creativity? Information Systems Research, 1(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1.1.1
Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, 35, 23–31.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Wiley.
Garner, J. K. (2012). Cognitive apprenticeship learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1202
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. Wiley.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann.
Gibson, P. (2017). The need for imagination and creativity in instructional design. In Adult education and vocational training in the digital age (pp. 134–146). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0929-5.ch008
Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528
Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418809534285
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. Knapp.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 135–145). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5356-1_7
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Henriksen, D., & Hoelting, M. (2016). A systems view of creativity in a YouTube world. TechTrends, 60(2), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0047-2
Hirumi, A., Appelman, B., Rieber, L., & Van Eck, R. (2010). Preparing instructional designers for game-based learning: Part 1. TechTrends, 54(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0400-9
Hixson, N. K., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-based learning: Impacts on 21st century teaching and student achievement. West Virginia Department of Education, Division of Teaching and Learning, Office of Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565466.pdf
Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED170350.pdf
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4505_1
Hokanson, B. (2006). Creativity in the design curriculum. Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2006.11674631
Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary perspective for innovation in instructional design. TechTrends, 52(6), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0215-0
Hondzel, C. D., & Hansen, R. (2015). Associating creativity, context, and experiential learning. Education Inquiry, 6(2), 23403. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.23403
Hong, Y.-C., Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (2014). Designing creative user interactions for learning. Educational Technology: THe Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 54(2), 20–25.
IBSTPI. (2020). Instructional designer competencies. https://ibstpi.org/instructional-design-competencies/
Jackson, N. (2014). Developing students’ creativity through a higher education. In International symposium on ‘the cultivation of creativity in university students’. http://www.normanjackson.co.uk/creativity.html
Jackson, N., & Shaw, M. (2006). Subject perspectives on creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 89–108). Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. ETR&D, 45, 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
Kao, C. Y. (2014). Exploring the relationships between analogical, analytical, and creative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.03.006
Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III., & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.
Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371–393.
Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 269–302). MIT Press.
Maley, A., & Bolitho, R. (2015). Creativity. ELT Journal, 69(4), 434–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv036
Marquis, E., & Henderson, J. A. (2015). Teaching creativity across disciplines at Ontario universities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v45i1.184340
Marquis, E., Radan, K., & Liu, A. (2017). A present absence: Undergraduate course outlines and the development of student creativity across disciplines. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237495
Mateos, M., Martín, E., Villalón, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21(7), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6
McDonald, J. K., West, R. E., Rich, P. J., & Hokanson, B. (2020). Instructional design for learner creativity. In Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 375–399). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8_17
McFadzean, E. (2001). Critical factors for enhancing creativity. Strategic Change, 10(5), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.542
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
OECD. (2011). Skills for innovation and research. In Skills for innovation and research (Vol. 9789264097, pp. 1–142). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264097490-en
OECD. (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en
Peña-López, I. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en
Plucker, J. A., & Guo, J. (2018). Creativity: Definitions, interventions, and assessments. In J. L. Roberts, T. F. Inman, & J. H. Robins (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 299–320). Prufrock Press.
Proctor, R., & Burnett, P. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534553
Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2011). Idea generation and idea evaluation: Cognitive skills and deliberate practice. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook for organizational creativity (pp. 187–213). Elsevier.
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01304.x
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. Syracuse University.
Rowland, G. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the criticized. Educational Technology, 35(5), 17–22.
Rowland, G., & DiVasto, T. (2001). Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2001.tb00207.x
Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (pp. 5–15). Purdue University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001
Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners. Teachers College Press.
Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional strategies to support creativity and innovation in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p201
Shen, T. L. (2012). Inspiring the creativity and imagination of university students during creative curriculum by teaching design. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.599
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: Teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020601027773
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment based approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652925
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence: Principles, procedures, and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700206
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual research edition—Verbal tests, forms A and B—figural tests. Personnel Press.
Tsai, K. C. (2013). A review of the effectiveness of creative training on adult learners. Journal of Social Science Studies, 1(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5296/jsss.v1i1.4329
U.S. News and World Report. (2021). Best online master’s in Education Programs. U.S. News and World Report.
Valentine, A., Belski, I., Hamilton, M., & Adams, S. (2019). Creativity in electrical engineering degree programs: Where is the content? IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(4), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2912834
Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. ETR&D, 52, 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504840
Vogler, J. S., Thompson, P., Davis, D. W., Mayfield, B. E., Finley, P. M., & Yasseri, D. (2018). The hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9438-9
Williams, S. D. (2004). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and creativity in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410549883
Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. Centre for the new economy and society. World Economic Forum. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756712473437
Yanchar, S. C., & Hawkley, M. (2014). “There’s got to be a better way to do this”: A qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9336-7
Yashin-Shaw, I. (1994). Cognitive structures of creativity: Implications for instructional design. European Journal of High Ability, 5(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445940050103
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
The corresponding author wants to thank the Colombia Científica Program (foco Sociedad y Salud) and ICETEX for funding her doctoral studies under the “Fulbright – Pasaporte a la Ciencia” Fellowship program.
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CC-H is a Learning Design and Technology PhD candidate at Purdue University, USA. ZC is an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at Shenzhen University, China. ME is an Associate Professor in the Learning Design and Technology program at Purdue University, USA.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Categories for creativity | Creativity related skills | Description | Literature |
---|---|---|---|
Cognitive skills—thinking abilities | Analogical thinking | Analogy is a process of establishing correspondence between concepts from different fields of knowledge. Analogical thinking involves mapping two domains or situations and bringing across inferences from the more familiar domain to the less familiar domain | Kao (2014) |
Analytical thinking | Analytical thinking involves abilities to (1) take apart a problem and understand its parts, (2) explain the functioning of a system, the reasons why something happens, or the procedures of solving a problem, (3) compare and contrast two or more things, or (4) evaluate and critique the characteristics of something | Sternberg (2002) | |
Synthesis and Evaluation | Gather, shift, select, organize, and synthesize (arrange better) large quantities of evidence doing a reflective judgment of the resources used, the logic, value, and worth of the work done | ||
Open-ended problem solving | Open-ended problem-solving ability is used to formulate questions and provide answers using valid and relevant evidence and arguments | ||
Lateral thinking | Lateral thinking is used when people think in unconventional or unfamiliar ways | De Bono (2014) | |
Divergent thinking | Divergent thinking is used when people solve problems or topics from multiple angles and perspectives and/or consider several possible solutions/ideas | ||
Remembering accurately | Those who can code, retain, and recall large amounts of detailed information probably have an advantage in creative performance | ||
Breaking perceptual set | A perceptual set refers to a predisposition to perceive things in a certain way, so breaking perceptual set is breaking out of a set way of viewing a problem | ||
Breaking cognitive set | Exploring new cognitive pathways. Breaking out of a set way of solving a problem | ||
Ideas | Generation of ideas | The production of original mental images and thoughts that respond to important challenges | Puccio and Cabra (2011) |
Reflecting on ideas | Reflection focuses on uncovering assumptions, the conceptual glue that holds our perspectives, meaning schemes, and habits of mind in place | Brookfield (2009) | |
Evaluation of ideas | When engaging in idea evaluation, individuals and teams turn their attention away from the production of novel ideas to the selection and development of new insight into a workable solution | Puccio and Cabra (2011) | |
Activities that promote creativity | Reflect critically on the nature of their discipline | The core to being a creative educator and fostering creativity in learners is a willingness to reflect critically on practice and to adapt plans and practice as appropriate | Craft (1997) |
Breaking out of performance “scripts” | Domain-relevant skills include performance scripts or algorithms and set sequences of steps for performing tasks or solving problems in a given domain. It may be important for creativity to be able to break out of well used scripts occasionally or at least to be able to examine them instead of proceeding through them uncritically | Amabile (2013) | |
Operating in complex and ambiguous settings | Interpretation of complex, ambiguous, conflicting, and incomplete material. Capacity to consider and solve complex problems | Amabile (2013) | |
Transfer and application of learning in new contexts | Experts are able to draw on their knowledge to come up with new strategies for solving unique or novel problems within a knowledge domain and between domains. This knowledge application results in inventive or creative solutions to problems | ||
Taking risks and coping with failure | Willingness to take risks with a particular task | Amabile (1983) | |
Keeping response options open as long as possible | In a study of student artists, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) found that those who approached their canvas without a definite plan produced more creative paintings than those who knew in advance what they were going to do | ||
Suspending judgment | Judgment or criticism can severely disrupt the free flow of ideas, thus reducing the number of unique and novel ideas generated | ||
Use “wide’’ categories | Individuals who categorize information in “wide” as opposed to “narrow” categories, who see relations between apparently diverse bits of information, may be more likely to produce creative works and responses | Amabile (2018) |
Instructional strategies with the potential to promote students’ creativity | Description | Literature |
---|---|---|
Negotiated learning | Negotiation informs curriculum development by involving and including student’s interests, needs, and voices. It promotes greater freedom, control, and ownership of the learning process by increasing self-direction and learner motivation | Breen and Littlejohn (2000), Brown (2012), Knowles et al. (2014) |
Experiential learning | Is learning that occurs when the dimensions of content, incentive, and interaction are balanced, such that learners are connected to each other and able to make sense of new information or relate ideas with or without the direct pedagogical instruction of an instructor | Hondzel and Hansen (2015) |
Project-based learning | Project-based learning is a comprehensive perspective focused on teaching by engaging students in investigation. Within this framework, students pursue solutions to nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, communicating their ideas and findings to others, asking new questions, and creating artifacts | |
Problem-based learning | PBL is an instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to ill-structured problems (often interdisciplinary) | |
Creative Learning | Creative learning requires that students create their own knowledge, a constructivist process that involves emergence. Guided by teacher practices, curricular structures, and learning goals that guide and aid students in their own process of creative learning | Sawyer (2019) |
Cognitive Apprenticeship | Cognitive apprenticeship learning is situated within social constructivist approaches to instruction. It prioritizes the use of authentic tasks and situations and the role of interactions between more and less skilled individuals in order to foster the development of metacognitive strategies and domain-specific problem-solving skills | Garner (2012) |
Case based learning | Case-based instruction is a teaching method that requires students to actively participate in real or hypothetical problem situations, reflecting the kind of experiences naturally encountered in the discipline under stud | |
Situated learning | Situated learning occurs when students work on “authentic tasks” whose execution takes place in a “real-world” setting. It does not occur when students are taught decontextualized knowledge and skills | Winn (1993) |
Learning techniques that promote creative thinking | Description | Literature |
---|---|---|
Brainstorming | Group brainstorming is a process during which members build upon previous ideas, not criticize any ideas, and generate many ideas, additionally participants feel free to contribute wild ideas to the exercise | |
Self-assessment | Self-assessment is a formative assessment process during which students self-evaluate the quality of their work, judge the degree to which it reflects certain goals or criteria, and change their behaviors, attitudes, or cognitive thoughts accordingly | Andrade and Valtcheva (2009) |
Peer assessment | Peer assessment is a process of learners to learners considering the level, value, or quality of other equal-status learners’ performances or products | |
Negotiated assessment | Negotiated assessment is a process of different stakeholders in a group discussing and making an agreement on the criteria and mechanism of assessment for different individuals involved based on their own considerations | |
Teamwork | Teamwork is a goal-oriented process during which a group of people decide to achieve a goal together, with a single agent of beliefs, goals, and intentions of its own, over and above the individual ones | Cohen and Levesque (1991) |
Analytical thinking | Analytical thinking is the ability to scrutinize and break down facts and thoughts to solve problems, analyze data, and utilize information | Amer (2005) |
Synthesizing | Synthesizing is a summarizing process during which learners elaborate an integrating idea from different propositions and make decisions on how to integrate the information from different resources into a new structure of knowledge | Mateos et al. (2008) |
Scaffolding | Scaffolding is an instructional process during which teachers provide temporary supporting structures to assist learners in developing new understandings, new concepts, and new abilities. Teachers withdraw the support as the learner acquires these skills | Gibbons (2002) |
Collaboration | Collaboration is a process during which a group of autonomous stakeholders use shared rules, norms, and structures to act or solve a related problem | Wood and Gray (1991) |
Appendix 2
Semi-structured interview sample items
-
1.
How do you define creativity?
-
2.
What do you think creativity means to an instructional designer?
-
3.
If you were to evaluate if an instructional designer is being creative in their practice, what would you look for?
If they response is some artifact (for example: design documents, new ideas etc), refer to that artifact and ask:
What skills and knowledge do you think that an instructional designer needs to evidence that? Can you give an example?
-
4.
Ask what courses they teach/have designed. For example: “I believe you are the lead instructor for [Course(s)], is that correct?” Did you design it?
Ask for each of their courses:
Now, I would like to talk about your course [Course name/number]
-
a.
Is creativity built into learning objectives, course activities, assignments or materials?
-
b.
If not, why not? Do you think that it could be built in other ways?
-
c.
If so, can you give an example?
-
a.
-
5.
Do you consider helping students develop creative skills as a major or minor objective in this course?
-
a.
If so, how do you teach that objective?
-
b.
If not, what are some of the reasons to exclude this objective from your course? Why?
-
a.
-
6.
Do you think what we need to address creativity more explicitly in ID education?
-
a.
If so, how? Can you give an example?
-
b.
If not, why not?
-
a.
-
7.
Is there anything else you would like to share?
Appendix 3
Sample interview excerpts
Theme 1: creativity development has not yet been built into ID core course design
Sample interview excerpts:
-
1.
So as a word, and honestly, at this point, um, know, that course, I don’t think creativity is built into any point, we talk about problem solving and working within constraints.
-
2.
And had we not had this conversation, I’m guessing that I would not have put creativity into it. I mean, I think that’s just not realistic. But by talking about it, I mean, it will, it’ll prompt me to think Well, does it make sense? Can I put this in here, so that it, it makes sense so that it can be something that they’re thinking about that we can measure in an adequate way? That sort of thing?
Theme 2: creativity was implicitly integrated into the courses’ minor objectives, activities, and assignments
Sample interview excerpts:
-
1.
So I think there is a lot of underlying creativity that’s been like considered in this course, but it’s just not maybe called that. So let me give an example. In every case analysis that students are required to complete, they’re asked to share how their previous experiences help them to come up with the solutions. And this seems really hard for students. It’s like sometimes, well, I’ve never designed a kiosk before, so I didn’t have any experience. Okay, yeah, that’s true. But you have had all these other experiences, how can you pull on, you know, pull from those to make these connections that aren’t obvious? So, I mean, that’s something that I think they’re, if I can help them do better, but that I yeah, so that’s something and then the other one is, they’re asked to come up with two solutions, and to the problems that they identified. And this is really hard for students, because they see one way of doing something. And that’s it. But if, you know, I think creativity goes along with this, because back to like the definition, another component of creativity, from my perspective, is that you can look at things and see if multiple ways of completing it right.
-
2.
I think it’s through my feedback. We have in that class. We have status reports. We have the digital plan, and then an initial proposal and the plan. And then we have status reports as they go through. And basically, they say, this is what’s going on. And this is how I’m doing. These are the problems that I’ve run into. And so at that point, I’m able to give them some encouragement, and help them to think through how would you do this? And I asked him, you know, how would you think that would hopefully help them to come to their best solution?
Theme 3: creativity can be learned without intentional training
Sample interview excerpts:
-
1.
And I don’t think that I intentionally did this, at least I didn’t think let’s make them be creative. But I, I think they come from real world things that they really experienced. So, you know, maybe in that way, it’s not exactly creative. But as they have to write up the situation, and they come up with new things, and then if they have to respond to the situation, I think that’s where it becomes creative. Right? So they’re writing up something that usually something that really happened to them occasionally, it’s something happened to somebody, you know, some problem somebody else has, usually it’s something in the past that an organization they were in where things were not going well, or they are instructional designers.
-
2.
People are turning into me some very creative ways of creating instructional materials for the audiences. And almost everybody across the board, it’s brand new for them, they did it, they picked an area that they’ve never worked in before, even if, even if it’s within their own school, and within their own subject matter. It’s a subject matter they haven’t dealt with in in great depth. And so they’re developing it now. So I think they’re trying as hard as they can to come across that way. But I’ve got I’ve got like four teachers in my practicum right now. And in all cases, they’re developing instructional materials in a situation that they’ve never been in before because it all is COVID impact impacted and so they’re, they’re showing real creativity and how they’re doing it because there’s there hasn’t been any books for them to follow.
Theme 4: challenges of explicitly integrating creativity in core ID courses
Sample interview excerpts:
-
1.
I would think that if you ask most people, oh, would you like to be more creative? They’re not going to tell you? No, I think most people are going to say, Yeah, right. But how do you get there? Right? I mean, some people are naturally creative. But does that mean that we, we can’t develop this skill? I don’t want to think that I think we can help people be more creative. And so it’s a matter of what does that look like? What would that look like if we were trying to target that skill if we were trying to do this across the program?
-
2.
I think there’s a lot of, I don’t know, I don’t want to say stigma, but it’s like, there are some sort of perception about creativity, I feel like that is considered is the kind of like attitudes, right. So, no, it’s considered so subjective, that I don’t think it’s thrown out a lot in education had other cognitive or cognitive based knowledge or skill acquisition. So I feel like a lot of times, you know, when we say the word creativity or attitude, you know, people tend to use it as a take it as, Oh, it’s something that can’t be objectively measured, you know, because it’s so subjective. And then it’s not, not considered as easy to measure. It’s not as easy to teach.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cuesta-Hincapie, C., Cheng, Z. & Exter, M. Are we teaching novice instructional designers to be creative? A qualitative case study. Instr Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09656-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09656-2