Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Education Foundation.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Harper Collins Publishers.
Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education, 51(1), 173–188.
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.
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.
Cropley, A. J. (2003). Creativity in education & learning. Bodmin, Cornwall: Routledge Farmer.
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.
Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2005). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. In National AAAE Research Conference (pp. 199–211).
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.
Marksberry, M. L. (1963). Foundations of creativity. New York: Harper & Row.
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).
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.
Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–635.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
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.
Robinson, K. (2003). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41–45.
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This chapter is edited and derived from the following article, which originally appeared in the journal TechTrends (with permission from the publisher and editor). With thanks and credit to the Deep-Play Research Group and authors as noted:
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & The Deep-Play Research Group (2013). A NEW approach to defining and measuring creativity. TechTrends 57(5), 5–13.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 AECT
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D. (2018). A NEW Definition of Creativity. In: Creativity, Technology & Education: Exploring their Convergence. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70274-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70275-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)