A NEW Definition of Creativity

  • Punya Mishra
  • Danah Henriksen
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology book series (BRIEFSECT)


In this chapter we provide a new definition of creativity and the creative process, and then utilize this definition to develop a rubric to evaluate creative output. First, we argue that creative products (be they artifacts or ideas) are not just new or interesting; they are also useful, and they have a certain aesthetic sensibility which is connected to and evaluated within specific contexts—the whole! Thus, creative artifacts are Novel, Effective, and Whole (NEW). We then utilize this NEW definition to describe the construction of a contextual, flexible rubric for evaluating creative products and provide examples of how it has been used to evaluate open-ended creative projects in an online course. We believe that this rubric can be of great use to educators as they seek to engage their students in creative, open-ended, projects and assignments.


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education, 51(1), 173–188.Google Scholar
  4. Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products – Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in education & learning. Bodmin, Cornwall: Routledge Farmer.Google Scholar
  7. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2005). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. In National AAAE Research Conference (pp. 199–211).Google Scholar
  9. Henriksen, D., Mehta, R., & Mishra, P. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: Toward a new framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 455–478.Google Scholar
  10. Marksberry, M. L. (1963). Foundations of creativity. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March 24–28). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. (Conference Presentation).Google Scholar
  12. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: On being in-disciplined. TechTrends, 56(6), 18–21.Google Scholar
  13. Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  15. 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(2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized: a model of giftedness. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 255–264). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Terry, L., Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2013). Mapping trans-disciplinary creativity: A multidimensional research study. Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Society of Information Technology in Teacher Education, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  22. Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AECT 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Punya Mishra
    • 1
  • Danah Henriksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations