Difference in time influencing creativity performance between design and management majors

  • Sy-Chyi Wang
  • Kyle L. Peck
  • Jin-Yuan Chern


This study is aimed to obtain a better understanding of difference in time of day as a factor influencing creativity performance between design and management programs students. Two hundred and ninety-seven college students, consisting of 154 design majors and 143 management majors at a university, participated in this study. Two idea generation tasks adapted from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking verbal tests were used to collect data on their creativity performance across school time intervals. The results show that the distributions of creativity performance across school time intervals reveal statistically significant differences in the fluency and originality measures between the two disciplines. Further, for the design majors, statistically significant differences are found in the fluency, originality, and elaboration measures of creativity; for the management majors, no difference is found for any of the creativity measures. That is, time of school day is a concern in creativity performance for the design students but not a significant factor for their counterparts. It is suggested that the timing issue should be taken into account when we try to assess the instructional and learning performance of creativity-related courses. An open mind and awareness of program differences are expected. More alternatives to improve time-constrains in traditional in-class learning and instruction are also suggested at the end, to create a more individualized and flexible learning environment for creativity.


Art education Creativity Creativity development Higher education Learning style Learning performance 


  1. Amabile, T. M., Dejong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggers, J. L. (1980). Body rhythms, the school day, and academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 49, 45–47.Google Scholar
  3. Borland, J. H. (1988). Cognitive controls, cognitive styles, and divergent production in gifted preadolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 57–82.Google Scholar
  4. Boston. (2000). Measuring the impact of workplace flexibility: Findings from the National Work/Life Measurement Project. Executive Summary, Boston College Center for Work and Family. from Retrieved 2 March 2008.
  5. Brewster, C., Mayne, L., Tregaskis, O. (1997). Flexible working in Europe. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Workers on Flexible and Shift Schedules in 2004 Summary. From Retrieved 2 March 2008.
  7. Callan, R. J. (1997–1998). Giving students the (right) time of day. Educational Leadership, 55, 84–87.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, D. G., Sugioka, H. L., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (1999). Supportive classroom environments for creativity in higher education. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 277–293.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, R., & Colbert, J. (2001). Grounding the teaching of design in creativity. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 56, 4–24.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, Z. T. (1987). Effects of time-of-day of instruction of beginning reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 138–140.Google Scholar
  13. Dunn, R. (1998). Timing is everything. Momentum, 29, 23–25.Google Scholar
  14. Fleming, E. S., & Weintraub, S. (1962). Attitudinal rigidity as a measure of creativity in gifted children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folkard, S. (1979). Time of day and level of processing. Memory and Cognition, 7, 247–252.Google Scholar
  16. Folkard, S., & Monk, T. H. (1978). Time of day processing strategy in free recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gate, A. I. (1916). Variations in efficiency during the day, together with practice effect, sex difference, and correlations. University of California Publications in Psychology, 2, 1–156.Google Scholar
  18. Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Haensly, P. A., & Roberts, N. M. (1983). The professional productive process and its implications for gifted studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johns, G. A., & Morse, L. W. (1997). Divergent thinking as a function of time and prompting to “be creative” in undergraduates. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 156–165.Google Scholar
  21. Johns, G. A., Morse, L. W., & Morse, D. T. (2001). An analysis of early vs. later responses on a divergent production task across three time press conditions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 65–72.Google Scholar
  22. Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(3), 263–266.Google Scholar
  23. Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social research (2nd ed.). USA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Kellogg, R. T. (1986). Writing method and productivity of science and engineering faculty. Research in Higher Education, 25, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1998). The creativity classification system: An assessment theory. Roeper Review, 21, 20.Google Scholar
  26. La Greca, A. M. (1980). Can children remember to be creative? An interview study of children’s thinking processes. Child Development, 51, 572–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lieberman, J. N. (1965). Playfulness and divergent thinking: Investigation of their relationship at the kindergarten level. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107, 219–224.Google Scholar
  28. Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayo Clinic. (1995). Circadian rhythms: These 24-hour cycles keep you on schedule. Mayo Clinic Health Letter 13, March. Rochester, MN: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.Google Scholar
  30. Mohan, M. (1971). Interaction of physical environment with creativity and intelligence. Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Quoted in Torrance, E.P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Morton, L. L., & Kershner, J. R. (1985). Time of day effects upon children’s memory and analogical reasoning. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 31, 26–34.Google Scholar
  32. Oldach, M. (1995). Creativity for graphic designers. Cincinnati, Ohio: North Light Books.Google Scholar
  33. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piirto, J. (1995). Deeper, wider, broader: The pyramid of talent development in the context of the giftedness construct. Educational Forum, 59(4), 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piirto, J. (1999). A survey of psychological studies in creativity. In C. A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sajjadi-Bathgi, H. (1984). Effects of time press and imagery control on creativity in the production of verbal originality and creative analogies. Dissertation Abstracts International..Google Scholar
  37. Shallcross, D. J. (1981). Teaching creative behavior: How to teach creativity to children of all ages. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Shaughnessy, M. F. (1991). The supportive educational environment for creativity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 360 080).Google Scholar
  39. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its implications for development. Human Development, 34, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide (Verbal Test, Form A). Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wallas, G. (1926). The arts of thought. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  43. Wang, S. C. & Chern, J. Y. (2005). Creativity and routine schedule: A comparative study of design and administration college students, Proceedings of the International Design Congress—IASDR 2005, 1–4 November 1–4 2005.Google Scholar
  44. Weisberg, P. S., & Springer, K. J. (1961) Environmental factors in creative function: A study of gifted children. Archives of General Psychiatry (Chicago), 5, 554–564.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Educational Technology, Department of E-learning Design and ManagementNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan
  2. 2.Associate Dean Office for Outreach, Technology, and International ProgramsPenn State University College of EducationUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Care AdministrationChang Jung UniversityTainan CountyTaiwan

Personalised recommendations