Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anchoring the Creative Process Within a Self-Regulated Learning Framework: Inspiring Assessment Methods and Future Research

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Creativity supports the advancement of all disciplines, providing both individual and societal benefits. Most individuals can demonstrate and improve their creativity; therefore, understanding the creative process is of particular interest to facilitate deliberate development of creative thinkers. Despite copious research of the creative process, the work tends to be fragmented without a unified, general theoretical foundation. Historically, creative process research has examined the steps that creative people use, while overlooking how people learn these steps and the mechanisms behind the process. This paper proposes to situate the creative process within broader theoretical framework of self-regulated learning (SRL). This merger emphasizes that the creative process can be learned and that creative process strategies may inspire general learning strategies. Further, the SRL framework provides an organizational structure that illuminates gaps in current research and provides inspiration for new measurement techniques. Current assessment methods are often unable to determine how people regulate themselves throughout the creative process, specifically how internal psychological processes, external behaviors, and explicit strategies influence the creative process; however, SRL measurement techniques, like SRL microanalysis interviews, may provide an opportunity to identify intervention casual mechanisms, extend experimental studies, provide consistent variables to compare across disciplines and studies, and help practitioners assess students’ creative process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, O. A., & van den Ende, J. (2016). Knowledge distance, cognitive-search processes, and creativity: the making of winning solutions in science contests. Psychological Science, 27(5), 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616634665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184 http://doi.org/d6zp45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., & Moos, D. C. (2007). The effect of a human agent's external regulation upon college students' hypermedia learning. Metacognition & Learning, 2(3), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9014-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity. Creativity Research Journal., 11, 173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2016a). Creative learning: a fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2016b). Creative openings in the social interactions of teaching. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 3(2), 261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedek, M., Mühlmann, C., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Assessment of divergent thinking by means of the subjective top-scoring method: effects of the number of top-ideas and time-on-task on reliability and validity. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity & The Arts, 7(4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: the science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Botella, M., Lubart, T., Glaveanu, V., Guillou, K., & De Biasi, P. M. (2014). The creativity maze: exploring creativity in screenplay writing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity & the Arts, 8(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadle, C. R. (2015). A completion mindset: bridging the gap between creative thinking and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callan, G. L., & Cleary, T. J. (2017) Multi-dimensional assessment of self-regulated learning with middle school math students. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000198

  • Carson, P. P., & Carson, K. D. (1993). Managing creativity enhancement through goal-setting and feedback. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb01385.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, F. (2014). The effects of exercising self-control on creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J. (2006). The development and validation of the Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory—Self-Report. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J. (2011). Emergence of self-regulated learning microanalysis: historical overview, essential features, and implications for research and practice. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 329–345). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Callan, G. L. (2014). Student self-regulated learning in an urban high school: Predictive validity and relations between teacher ratings and student self-reports. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(4), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913507653.

  • Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education Research International, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/428639.

  • Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Sandars, J. (2011). Self-regulatory skills and clinical performance: a pilot study. Medical Teacher, 33, 368–374. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.577464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, T. S., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Creative days: a daily diary study of emotion, personality, and everyday creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, R., Amabile, T. M., & Pollack, S. (1995). The positive impact of creative activity: effects of creative task engagement and motivational focus on college students' learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 1107–1116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1988). Creativity and problem finding. In F. G. Farley & R. W. Heperud (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 91–106). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. W., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 656–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211435795.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vet, A. J., & De Dreu, C. W. (2007). The influence of articulation, self-monitoring ability, and sensitivity to others on creativity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.386.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiBenedetto, M. K., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2010). Differences in self-regulatory processes among students studying science: a microanalytic investigation. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 5, 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., & Loughlin, S. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: evidence from domain specificity in creative training. Creativity Research Journal., 16, 389–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, S. B., Chang, Y., Chen, H., Hsiung, H., Tseng, C., & Chang, J. (2016). The effect of tabletop role-playing games on the creative potential and emotional creativity of Taiwanese college students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A., & Gallate, J. (2009). The incubation effect: hatching a solution? Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayena-Tawil, F., Kozbelt, A., & Sitaras, L. (2011). Think global, act local: a protocol analysis comparison of artists' and nonartists' cognitions, metacognitions, and evaluations while drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, P. C., Simão, A. V., & da Silva, A. L. (2015). Does training in how to regulate one's learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9121-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: theory, research and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L. (2003). Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajda, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Karwowski, M. (2017a). Exploring creative learning in the classroom: a multi-method approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 250–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017b). Creativity and academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: the Five A's framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X173421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 291–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haught-Tromp, C. (2017). The Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis: how constraints facilitate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaken, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Creative approaches to problem solving ((2nd ed.) ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

  • Jamieson-Noel, D., & Winne, P. H. (2003). Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students' studying and achievement. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17(4), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1024//1010-0652.17.34.159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, Y. & Ko, Y. (2017). Sources of scientific creativity: participant observation of a public research institute in Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0052-5.

  • Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: the search for mechanism. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 257–293). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Szumski, G., & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2017). From moment-to-moment to day-to-day: experience sampling and diary investigations in adults' everyday creativity. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity & The Arts, 11(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski, M., & Soszynski, M. (2008). How to develop creative imagination?: assumptions, aims, and effectiveness of Role Play Training in Creativity (RPTC). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2016). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: a 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: a microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBoutillier, N., & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: a meta-analytic review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebuda, I., Zabelina, D. L., & Karwowski, M. (2016). Mind full of ideas: a meta-analysis of mindfulness-creativity link. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802447023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 435–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, M., & Van Oystaeyen, F. (2016). A measurable model of the creative process in the context of a learning process. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(1), 180–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, M., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: a grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madjar, N., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Multiple tasks' and multiple goals' effect on creativity: forced incubation or just a distraction? Journal of Management, 34(4), 786–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318611.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, E. J., Denisi, A. S., & Shaw, J. B. (1979). Use of PAQ for establishing the job component validity of tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.1.51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: a handbook of creative-thinking techniques (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mijares-Colmenares, B. E., Masten, W. G., & Underwood, J. R. (1988). Effects of the SCAMPER technique on anxiety and creative thinking in intellectually gifted students. Psychological Reports, 63, 495–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mijares-Colmenares, B. E., Masten, W. G., & Underwood, J. R. (1993). Effects of trait anxiety and the SCAMPER technique on creative thinking of intellectually gifted students. Psychological Reports, 72, 907–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. L. (2014). A self-report measure of cognitive processes associated with creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. D., Martinez, Y. J., Shumka, E., & Baker, H. (2014). Multiple informant agreement of child, parent, and teacher ratings of child anxiety within community samples. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 59, 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morias, M., deJesus, S. N., Azevedo, I., & Viseu, J. N. (2015). Intervention program on adolescent’s creativity representations and academic motivation. Paidéia, 25(62), 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: examining relations in the context of mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 177–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: a systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Liu. (2009). Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an indicative instruction "to be creative" and a more elaborate heuristic instruction on Chinese student creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 3(2), 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2014). Ready, set, create: what instructing people to "be creative" reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity & The Arts, 8(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York, NY: Schribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). What we know about creativity. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21(1), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollick, M. F., & Kumar, V. K. (1997). Creativity styles of supervising managers. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(4), 260–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poon, J. C., Au, A. Y., Tong, T. Y., & Lau, S. (2014). The feasibility of enhancement of knowledge and self-confidence in creativity: a pilot study of a three-hour SCAMPER workshop on secondary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randi, J., & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. I, pp. 1163–1221). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2/3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of self-perceptions of creativity: is it a useful criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (1997). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Behavior assessment system for children (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: Pearson Assessments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2001). Sparks of genius: the 13 thinking tools of the world's most creative people. New York, NY: First Mariner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryser, G. R., & McConnell, K. (2004). Scales for identifying gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: explaining creativity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlee, R. P., & Harich, K. R. (2014). Teaching creativity to business students: how well are we doing? Journal of Education for Business, 89(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.781987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: how well can people identify their most creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity & The Arts, 2(3), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2004). Self-awareness, self-evaluation, and creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1009–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1992). Self-evaluation and creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanggaard, L., & Beghetto, R. A. (2015). Ideational pathways: toward a new approach for studying the life of ideas. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 2(2), 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (1993). The future problem solving program: an investigation of effects on problem-solving ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 382–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terman, L., & Oden, M. (1959). Genetic studies of genius. Vol. V. The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thys, E., Sabbe, B., & De Hert, M. (2014). The assessment of creativity in creativity/psychopathology research—a systematic review. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 19(4), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2013.877384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking. Norms-technical manual. Research edition. Verbal tests, forms A and B. Figural test, forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 524–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00060-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D., & Hocking, I. (2014). Thinking hats and good men: structured techniques in a problem construction task. Thinking Skills And Creativity, 14, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.07.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Horng, R. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2005) A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 559–565.

  • Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 279–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–568). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zampetakis, L. A., Bouranta, N., & Moustakis, V. S. (2010). On the relationship between individual creativity and time management. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.80.3.284.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, Teachers College, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, 47306, USA

    Lisa DaVia Rubenstein, Gregory L. Callan & Lisa M. Ridgley

Authors
  1. Lisa DaVia Rubenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory L. Callan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa M. Ridgley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa DaVia Rubenstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rubenstein, L.D., Callan, G.L. & Ridgley, L.M. Anchoring the Creative Process Within a Self-Regulated Learning Framework: Inspiring Assessment Methods and Future Research. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 921–945 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9431-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9431-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation