Do graphic design students become more creative during their academic course? by Daniel Apt

Do graphic

design students

become more

creative during

their academic course? Daniel Apt BA Design for Graphic Communication 2014 London College of Communication

Contents

1. Introduction ———————— 4

5. Results ——————————— 14

— 1.1 Aims — 1.2 Relevance — 1.3 Audience

— 5.1 Results

2. Creativity ————————--— 6

6. Conclusions ————————- 16

— 2.1 Definitions — 2.2 Methods of Measurement —— 2.2.1 Newness & Quantity —— 2.2.2 Value —— 2.2.3 Associations

— 6.1 Conclusions

3. Experiment ————————- 9

7. Sources ——————————— 18

3.1 Big Creativity Questionnaire — — 3.2 Examinees — 3.3 Assessment —— 3.3.1 Assessment of BCQ —— 3.3.2 Assessment of NDT —— 3.3.3 Assessment of CAT —— 3.3.4 Assessment of RAT — 3.4 Experiment Shortcoming

— 7.1 Biography — 7.2 Figures

4. Teaching —————————— 12

8. Appendix —————————— 20

— 4.1 Interview with Darren Raven

— A. Big Creativity Questionnaire — B. Interview with Darren Raven

Intro duction

This report would not be able to exist without the formidable help of: Krzysztof Apt, Joanna Choukeir, Karl Foster, Chris May, Darren Raven, and Robin Whitty. Thank you.

1.1 Aims This design report aims to answer the following question “Do graphic design students become more creative during their academic course?” The said report will do so by defining creativity, devising a method of measuring creativity, and lastly measuring graphic design students’ creativity, in comparison with a control group. Also a conversation will be conducted with a course leader of a graphic design course, to understand how education teaches creativity. This report aims to deliver specific and objective results, which can subsequently be used for further academic research. The results might explain whether students’ creativity is positively affected by following a creative course.

1.2 Relevance It will not come as a surprise that creativity is of uttermost importance within the creative field—the whole field is named after it. Through this report I hope to come to an understanding what creativity is, and how one can recognise and measure this in an objective manner. Consequently, through understanding creativity, creative practitioners—like myself—will come to an understanding of the field they operate in, and subsequently come to a better understanding of the role they can play within society. In a recent report of Darren Raven et al. (2013) design employers were asked which soft-skill attributes led to a higher employability of a graduate. Creativity was the most chosen attribute. Not only is creativity sought after by employers, it was also sought after both by students and lecturers. All three stakeholders—employers, lecturers, and students—placed the ‘creativity’ attribute in their top six of chosen attributes. Creativity is useful in both creative and non-creative industries: Peter Ueberroth, who organised the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games, was asked how he had generated the new ideas needed to make the games a success. He had learnt the necessary idea generation skills from Edward de Bono—who is considered an expert on the subject of creativity-on-demand—and through these skills Ueberroth turned the Olympic Games into a huge success (de Bono, 1995, p.12). If

creativity is a skill that can affect events on the scale of the Olympic Games, then it is a subject not to be underestimated. Lastly, the creative sector in the UK is an extremely large and affluent business sector. Indeed, as mentioned in (Bakhshi, 2013) Peter Higgs and Alan Freeman from the Queensland University of Technology found that the UK’s creative economy employs almost 2.5million people. This accounts for 10% of GDP, which according to them puts it ahead of financial services, advanced manufacturing and construction.

1.3 Audience Even though the subject is specific, the results of this report may serve a large audience: Prospective design students can discover which courses will make them more creative. Employers can discover where the most creative students come from. Educators can discover how well they do in comparison with other courses. Design organisations (e.g., the Design Council) can expand their knowledge on this subject—and act accordingly if necessary.

Creativity

2.1 Definitions Defining creativity is a challenge by itself, and a daunting task, as well. E. Paul Torrance—an American psychologist best known for his research on creativity—has the following to say about the matter: “Creativity defies precise definition. This conclusion does not bother me at all. In fact, I am quite happy with it. Creativity is almost infinite. It involves every sense— sight, smell, hearing, feeling, taste, and even perhaps the extrasensory. Much of it is unseen, nonverbal, and unconscious. Therefore, even if we had a precise conception of creativity, I am certain we would have difficulty putting it into words.” (Torrance, 1988, p.43) A challenge it will be, but for any academic progress to be made on this subject, an approximate definition is necessary. The following selection of citations reveals the difficulty: “Over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products” (Mumford, 2003, p.110) “Creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value.” (Robinson, 2010) “Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one...What counts is whether the novelty he or she produces is accepted for inclusion in the domain.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009, p.28) “Creativity is generating new ideas and concepts, or making connections between ideas where none previously existed.” (SmartStorming, n.d.) “Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others.” (Franken, 1993) “Creative genius operates similarly to Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. According to Darwin, nature creates many possibilities through blind “trial and error” and then lets the process of natural selection decide which species survive. In nature, 95 percent of new species fail and die within a short period of time. Genius is analogous to biological evolution in that it requires the unpredictable generation of a

large quantity of alternatives and conjectures. From this quantity of alternatives and conjectures, the genius retains the best ideas for further development and communication.” (Michalko, 2001, p.81) We see that these citations cover several criteria, newness, value, quantity, and associations: Newness is demonstrated due to all citations covering the subject of creating (and synonyms like producing) as well as novelty. Many of the citations also include the proposition that creativity requires the outcomes to be of value or useful. Also when an outcome becomes accepted by society one can presume that the outcome is of value, otherwise it would not be put to use. This is most clearly demonstrated in the citations of Csikszentmihalyi, Franken, and Robinson. The citations do not cover the production of merely one outcome as creative. All citations cover the production of multiple outcomes, as such quantity is of importance. The necessity for quantity is clearly demonstrated in Michalko’s definition. Lastly the ability to create associations is essential for creativity. Many citations cover that one “transforms an existing domain into a new one” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009) or the process of “making connections between ideas” (SmartStorming, n.d.). The ability to see alternatives is based on the ability to create associations (de Bono, 1992).

2.2 Methods of measurement One would like to measure creativity for a number of reasons. These are: •

To advance knowledge regarding the nature of creativity thereby overcoming myths and misconceptions. • To discover the various ways in which people exhibit their creative behaviour. • To discover the characteristics of creative products. • To develop an understanding of the environmental factors that facilitate or impede the development of creative potential. (Iowa State University — Industrial Design, 2012) To measure creativity one must measure and assess its multiple criteria: newness, value, quantity, and relationships. Many other researchers have concentrated on understanding the nature of creativity and of the

creative person. These researchers have not hurriedly devised a creativity test to market for common use. (Calvin W. Taylor, 1962) To effectively measure creativity one must use a combination of existing research methods.

2.2.1 Newness & Quantity Two methods, Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task (GAUT) (Guilford, 1967) and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1962), measure an individual’s divergent thinking capabilities. Opposite to convergent thinking, divergent thinking is the ability to “see lots of possible answers to a question, to see lots of ways to interpret a question.” (Robinson, 2010) This is very much in line with de Bono’s definition for lateral thinking, which “is directly concerned with changing concepts and perceptions”, in this case of answers and questions. (de Bono, 1992, p.54) Divergent thinking is not the same as creativity, but it “is an essential capacity for creativity.” (Robinson, 2010) It therefore is worth exploring and measuring.

The CAT works in the following manner, as explained by Baer and McKool (2009): 1. Subjects are asked to create something (e.g., a poem, a short story, a collage, a composition, an experimental design). 2. Experts in the domain in question are then asked to evaluate the creativity of the things they have made. This is a very demanding research method, as assembling a group of experts is essential for this research method to work. The CAQ is a more accessible research method. It is a new self-report measure of creative achievement, which measures creative achievement across 10 fields of creativity. Not only is it objective and empirically valid, it is easy to administer and score as well. (Carson et al., 2005)

TTCT presents examinees with a figure and asks them to complete the drawings. See Figure 1.

The examinee’s creative value is measured through his or her creative achievements. The more one has achieved, the better that individual will score on the CAQ. Certain achievements lead to a better score than others. For example “My work has been critiqued in national publications.” scores better than “I have taken lessons in this area.” To be able to claim that one has been successful in one of these high-scoring achievements one must have been recognized by the public.

Both tests use the Guilford Measures (Guilford, 1967), that is,

2.2.3 Associations

• • • •

Creating associations is an essential criterion for creativity. This is demonstrated by the earlier citations of Csikszentmihalyi and SmartStorming. Creativity changes or transforms an existing domain into a novel one. And this process is facilitated through the ability to make connections between ideas, where none existed before. The ability to create and organize associations will influence the chance and speed of realising a creative solution. (Iowa State University — Industrial Design, 2012)

GAUT asks examinees to list as many possible uses for an object, e.g.: What can you do with a paperclip?

Fluency: how many responses Flexibility: how many types of responses Originality: the unusualness of the responses Elaboration: the detail of the responses

Peter Nilsson (2011) proposed an adaptation of the GAUT and TTCT. It asks examinees to draw for two minutes in a set of circles. It will hereby be referred to as the Nilsson Divergence Test (NDT). See Figures 2 and 3.

2.2.2 Value Value can be recognised by experts or by the public. Creative-value research methods are the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) (Amabile, 1982), and the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) (Carson et al., 2005). The former uses experts, the latter the general public.

The Remote Associates Test (RAT) (Mednick & Andrews, 1967) measures an examinee’s creative potential through measuring his or her ability to create (remote) associations: “The test, which is an operational statement of the definition, consists of 30 three-word items such as: surprise, line, and birthday. The subject is required to respond with a single word, which is related to all three of the stimulus words. Thus, the answer to the above item is party.” (Mednick & Andrews, 1967)

Figure 1: An example of the TTCT test.

Figure 2: The NDT in use.

Figure 3: Guilford Measures applied to NDT.

Experiment This way

3.1 Big Creativity Questionnaire

3.3.1 Assessment of BCQ

To be able to answer this report’s main research question “Do graphic design students become more creative during the length of their academic course.” one would ideally like to follow students’ progression through their course. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, this report did not have the necessary timespan to achieve this. Consequently an alternative experiment was devised.

Each section of the BCQ uses its official assessment criteria, as defined by their original creators. The total score of the BCQ is simply the sum of each section’s score.

The experiment will measure students’ creativity, using several methods: • • •

Nillson’s Nillson Divergence Test. Mednick & Andrews’ Remote Associates Test. Carson et al.’s Creative Achievement Questionnaire.

Two examiners, Daniel Apt and Blythe de Gruchy, have each graded the BCQ. Any spotted errors were corrected with agreement from the other examiner. Double or group marking occurs for significant projects at University of the Arts London. This way they followed the following recommendation of the University of the Arts London: “All assessments for the final major project and/ or dissertation unit of your course will be double or group marked.” To properly understand how the BCQ has been assessed, the following guidelines have been followed for each subtest.

These tests were compiled in to a new test: the Big Creativity Questionnaire (BCQ). To examine the BCQ please see Appendix Item A.

3.2 Examinees

3.3.2 Assessment of NDT

The BCQ was presented to six years of students at two Universities, to a total of 223 participants: three years of creative courses, three years of non-creative courses*. The latter functioned as a control group.

Points were awarded across all four Guilford Measures: Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration. For Fluency the examinee was awarded as many points as outcomes he or she produced. For Flexibility the examinee was awarded as many points as type of outcomes he or she produced. Originality is more complex to measure; 1 point was awarded for an outcome which only occurred in 5% of examinee’s responses. 2 points were are awarded for an outcome which only occurred in 1% of examinee’s responses. Elaboration points were awarded for the examinee’s amount of detail used in the outcomes. A ‘grade’ was given on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being given for the least amount of detail and 10 for the most.

• •

•

• • •

First Year Graphic Media Design at London College of Communication (42 participants). Second Year Design for Graphic Communication at London College of Communication (17 participants). Third Year Design for Graphic Communication at London College of Communication (13 participants). Foundation Science and Engineering at Queen Mary University (54 participants). First Year Mathematics at Queen Mary University (42 participants). Third Year Mathematics at Queen Mary University (55 participants).

* This report of course does not imply that subjects like Engineering or Mathematics are not creative. The subject of Mathematical Creativity (Haylock, 1987) does exist. This identification is merely used for the subsequent analysis.

3.3.3 Assessment of CAQ

3.4 Experiment Shortcomings

The assessment of the CAQ is most clearly defined by the creators themselves: Each checkmarked item receives the number of points represented by the question number adjacent to the checkmark.

Each individual student / examinee has gone through different experiences. Since each participant is unique, his or her results are not entirely comparable. There is a huge number of variables one will not be able to eliminate, for example their nationality, prior education, family background, etc.

If an item is marked by an asterisk, multiply the number of times the item has been achieved by the number of the question to determine points for that item. Sum the total number of points within each domain to determine the domain score. Sum all ten domain scores to determine the total CAQ score. (Carson et al., 2005, p.50)

3.3.4 Assessment of RAT The RAT section of the BCQ consisted of 12 threeword items. These three-word items were divided equally over the four categories Very Easy, Easy, Medium, and Hard. For succesfuly answering a Very Easy task, the examinee was awarded 1 point, for Easy 2, for Medium 3, and for Hard 4. These tasks were categorised by Molaison on the Remote Associates Test website (Molaison, 2012).

An example might clarify this point. Third year students could hypothetically be more creative than their first year colleagues. This might be due to the fact that thirdyear students have more academic experience than their first-year colleagues, but this could just as well be caused by being taught by an exceptionally good tutor whom the other students did not have access to. Another shortcoming was the limited amount of creative students—52 creative students to 151 non-creative students—, who have been examined for this project. A larger research group would have been preferable. Lastly, the BCQ is merely a summation of the examinee’s performance on the NDT, CAQ, and RAT research methods. Certain methods award more points, such as the NDT. Although the results of the BCQ can be interesting, it is important to analyse the candidate’s performance on each specific test, as well.

Teaching

4.1 Interview with Darren Raven To understand design education and its views on creativity I consulted an expert. Darren Raven was an apt choice: with over 12 years UK, FE, HE and Post Graduate teaching and leadership experience. He has also been awarded numerous times as a teacher, in particular the National Teaching Fellowship by The Higher Education Company. For the interview please consult Appendix B. Raven defines two forms of creativity: “there is individual creativity which is concerned with individuals learning about things and forming ideas etc. on their own, and there is a collective, social creativity concerned with groups of people creating things together.” (Raven, 2013) He agrees with Sir Ken Robinson’s definition of creativity as “having original ideas that have value” (Robinson, 2010), but notes that the definition of ‘value’ depends on its context. Creativity can be taught through demonstrating “processes for creating situations in which creativity is more likely to occur” (Raven, 2013) and which can be harnessed. These situations can be thinking processes and group activities. This teaching can also occur through participation in “activities and techniques that facilitate non-sequitor, playful and unexpected outcomes.” (Raven, 2013) Additionally one can use creative activities and frameworks to guide students away from convergent thinking. Many of Edward de Bono’s frameworks can be put to good use here, for example: the Six Thinking Hats (de Bono, 1992, p.313) or the Stepping-Stone Provocations (de Bono, 1992, p.317) As with all forms of knowledge “one can’t impart ‘creativity’”. Instead one can develop a setting of activities and challenges which “lead people to stretch and develop their ‘creative muscles.’” (Raven, 2013) Through this students can learn kinaesthetically how to be creative.

To be able to assess creativity Raven believes that “creative outcomes usually have some kind of positive impact.” (Raven, 2013) They enable the user(s) to do—in the broadest sense—something better than before. Just as ‘value’, ‘better’ is a very context specific and subjective word. To assess creativity one can watch and review someone’s process, but this “seldom happens within design education.” (Raven, 2013) The striking analogy was drawn: “It is a bit like how a driving test written exam compares to how one actually drives.” (Raven, 2013) When asked how a first-year design student differs from a final-year design student Raven hypothesised that a first year design student may be unintentionally more creative than a final year student, but he or she would not be capable to realise in what manner they were more creative. Through teaching, final year students would be more capable to repeat the process of “generating creative ideas or producing creative work”(Raven, 2013), as they have reflected more on their working process. A final year student will understand more about design and the creative process, and as a result will have progressed through the increasing complex stages of Bigg’s SOLO taxonomy (Atherton, 2013), and the nine positions of Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development (Rapaport, 2013). Only through “experience … can this [understanding of the creative process] become functioning knowledge which is tacit and built-sin.” (Raven, 2013)

Results Figure 4: Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance on the BCQ.

Figure 6: The division of male and female participants across all courses.

Figure 5: BCQ Performance sorted by age.

Figure 7: Performance on the CAT test6

5.1 Results All the results refer to the following courses by the corresponding symbols: • LCC 1: First Year Graphic Media Design at London College of Communication. • LCC 2: Second Year Design for Graphic Communication at London College of Communication. • LCC 3: Third Year Design for Graphic Communication at London College of Communication. • QMU 1: Foundation Science and Engineering at Queen Mary University. • QMU 2: First Year Mathematics at Queen Mary University. • QMU 3: Third Year Mathematics at Queen Mary University. Many of the findings were evidenced across both universities and courses. As demonstrated in figure 4, the more an examinee had progressed through his or her academic career, the better he or she scored on the BCQ test. One could hypothesise that this is caused by the age and not academic progress. Through sorting the results by age, as illustrated in Figure 5, one realises this is not the case. The findings also do not support the hypothesis that “creativity scores have consistently inched downward” (Bronson, 2010) with the progression of age. Another insight is the fact that students at the London College of Communication scored better on the BCQ than students at Queen Mary University. A first year LCC student was more creative than a third year QMU student. One could hypothesise that female participants are more creative, and due to LCC1, 2, and 3 having more female students in comparison with their QMU counterparts (see Figure 6), this would cause LCC to score better. When separating the results by gender one discovers there is no significant ‘gap’ between male and female examinees: on average female participants score 37.68 and male participants score 39.60. Therefore this hypothesis has been proved non-valid. The reason a first year LCC student is more creative than a third year QMU student can be explained by means of the following two arguments:

Firstly, a prospective student with a creative aptitude will decide to pursuit an academic study that suits his skill set. If a prospective student does not excel on a creative level, he or she will decide to pursuit an academic study which suits his or hers other talents, e.g., logic or mathematics. Secondly, to gain entrance to a creative course one often goes through a rigorous selection procedure, involving interviews and portfolio showcases. For a candidate to be successful one would need to show creative talent or potential. For a non-creative course these skills would not be essential. The two just mentioned arguments might explain why first year students at LCC scored better on the BCQ than third year students at QMU. An interesting discovery is the ‘value-dip’ or the ‘achievement-dip’ as demonstrated in Figure 7. Performance on the CAQ dips down both for QMU 2 and LCC 2. No easy explanation can be found for this. Hereby the following hypothesis will be introduced: QMU 1 and LCC 1 students were under the impression that they had achieved a lot creatively. Therefore they filled in the CAQ test too confidently. Over the duration of their course they have come to realise that they have not achieved as much as they initially thought. This adjustment to reality is demonstrated in the ‘value-dip.’ For a future report it might be worth researching whether this ‘value-dip’ was merely by chance, or whether it occurs for multiple courses. If the ‘value-dip’ was not coincidental it is important to understand what causes this ‘value-dip’ and if the introduced hypothesis is valid.

Conclu sion

6.1 Conclusions Through the usage of the BCQ insightful findings have been made. At both universities, students’ creativity increased over the duration of their academic course. The creativity of London College of Communication student was greater than that of students at Queen Mary University. One can conclude that the creative tasks and frameworks mentioned by Raven are effective. Another interesting discovery is the ‘value-dip’, where students scored lower on the CAQ in the second year of their studies. More research must be conducted to discover if this was merely by chance, and if this is not coincidental what causes this. The methods used in this report can be used for more studies; especially within the realm of Creative Education, to discover which courses have the largest ‘creative growth’ amongst their students. To conclude, this report sought to discover if graphic design students become more creative during their course. The answer: yes.

Sources

6.1 Bibliography de Bono, E., 1992. Serious Creativity. 1st ed. New York: HarperCol-

sensual Assessment Technique. [Online] Available at: http://users.

lins Publishers.

rider.edu/~baer/BaerMcKool.pdf [Accessed 25 November 2013].

de Bono, E., 1995. Serious Creativity. The Journal for Quality and

Carson, S., Peterson, J.B. & Higgins, D.M., 2005. Reliability, Validity,

Participation, 18(5), p.12.

and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire.

Bakhshi, H., 2013. Why creativity needs economists and economists

Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), p.37–50.

need creativity. [Online] Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/

Mednick, M.T. & Andrews, F.M., 1967. Creative Thinking and Level

blog/why-creativity-needs-economists-and-economists-need-creati-

of Intelligence. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(4).

vity [Accessed 5 November 2013].

University of the Arts London, n.d. My Assessment. [Online] Avail-

Michalko, M., 2001. Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative

able at: http://www.arts.ac.uk/assessment/index.html [Accessed 14

Genius. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

January 2014].

Raven, D. et al., 2013. What Makes a Resilient Designer? [Online]

Haylock, D.W., 1987. A framework for assessing mathematical cre-

Available at: http://www.academia.edu/3825404/What_Makes_a_

ativity in school chilren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1),

Resilient_Designer [Accessed 1 October 2013].

p.59–74.

Raven, D. 2013. Interview [Conducted by Daniel Apt, See Appendix B]

Atherton, J.S., 2013. Learning and Teaching; SOLO taxonomy. [On-

Torrance, E.P., 1988. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psy-

line] Available at: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/

chological Perspectives. CUP Archive ed. Cambridge: Cambridge

solo.htm [Accessed 14 January 2014].

University Press.

Rapaport, W.J., 2013. William Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual and

Mumford, M.D., 2003. Where have we been, where are we going?

Ethical Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.cse.buffalo.

Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15,

edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html [Accessed 14 January 2014].

pp.107-20.

Bronson, P., 2010. The Creativity Crisis. [Online] Available at: http://

Robinson, S.K., 2010. Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Paradigms. [On-

www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665 [Accessed 15 January

line] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCbdS4h-

2014].

Sa0s [Accessed 12 January 2014]. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2009. Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. London: HarperCollins.

6.2 Figures

SmartStorming, n.d. Can Creativity Be Taught? Part One: Asking the right question. [Online] Available at: http://smartstorming.com/can-

Figure 1: Sourced from Anonymous, 2013 How creative are you?

creativity-be-taught-part-one-asking-the-right-question [Accessed

[Online] Available at: http://provensal.com/lbb/how-creative-are-

12 January 2014].

you/ [Accessed 28 November 2013]

Franken, R.E., 1993. Human Motivation. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Figures 2 and 3: Sourced from Nillson, P., 2011. Four Ways to

Iowa State University — Industrial Design, 2012. Creativity Meas-

Measure Creativity. [Online] Available at: http://www.senseandsen-

ures. [Online] Iowa State University — Industrial Design Available

sation.com/2012/03/assessing-creativity.html [Accessed 26 Octo-

at: http://industrial.design.iastate.edu/232/files/2011/12/Creativit-

ber 2013].

yMeasures.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Guilford, J.P., 1967. Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1(1), p.3–14. Torrance, E.P., 1962. Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Nillson, P., 2011. Four Ways to Measure Creativity. [Online] Available at: http://www.senseandsensation.com/2012/03/assessing-creativity.html [Accessed 26 October 2013]. Oxford Dictionaries, n.d. relationship — Oxford Dictionaries. [Online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ english/relationship?q=relationship [Accessed 13 January 2014]. Calvin W. Taylor, J.L.H., 1962. Development and Application of Tests of Creativity. Review of Educational Research, 32(1). Amabile, T.M., 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (43), p.997–1013. Baer, J. & McKool, S.S., 2009. Assessing Creativity Using the Con-

Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 were created by Apt, D.

Appendix

The Big Creativity Questionnaire Gender Is English your native language? Age Course + Course Year

• Male • Female • Prefer not to disclose • Yes • No ________________________________________ ________________________________________

This questionnaire comes in three parts. The pages are double-sided. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

Two minutes Five minutes Five minutes

Turn page when instructed to do so.

Item A

Part. 1

Use the circles as a prompt for drawing. Draw for two minutes. (The first three are examples)

Part 2. I. Place a check mark beside the areas in which you feel you have more talent, ability, or training than the average person. __ visual arts (painting, sculpture) __ music __ dance __ individual sports (tennis, golf) __ team sports __ architectural design __ entrepreneurial ventures __ creative writing __ humor __ inventions __ scientific inquiry __ theater and film __ culinary arts II. Place a check mark beside sentences that apply to you. Next to sentences with an asterisk (*), write the number of times this sentence applies to you. A. Visual Arts (painting, sculpture) __ 0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area. (Skip to Music). __1. I have taken lessons in this area. __2. People have commented on my talent in this area. __3. I have won a prize or prizes at a juried art show. __4. I have had a showing of my work in a gallery. __5. I have sold a piece of my work. __6. My work has been critiqued in local publications. *__7. My work has been critiqued in national publications. B. Music __0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Dance). __1. I play one or more musical instruments proficiently. __2. I have played with a recognized orchestra or band. __3. I have composed an original piece of music. __4. My musical talent has been critiqued in a local publication. __5. My composition has been recorded. __6. Recordings of my composition have been sold publicly. *__7. My compositions have been critiqued in a national publication. C. Dance __0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Architecture) __1. I have danced with a recognized dance company. __2. I have choreographed an original dance number. __3. My choreography has been performed publicly. __4. My dance abilities have been critiqued in a local publication. __5. I have choreographed dance professionally. __6. My choreography has been recognized by a local publication. *__7. My choreography has been recognized by a national publication. D. Architectural Design __0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Writing). __1. I have designed an original structure. __2. A structure designed by me has been constructed. __3. I have sold an original architectural design. __4. A structure that I have designed and sold has been built professionally. __5. My architectural design has won an award or awards. __ 6. My architectural design has been recognized in a local publication. *__7. My architectural design has been recognized in a national publication.

E. Creative Writing __0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Humour). __1. I have written an original short work (poem or short story). __2. My work has won an award or prize. __3. I have written an original long work (epic, novel, or play). __4. I have sold my work to a publisher. __5. My work has been printed and sold publicly. __6. My work has been reviewed in local publications. *__7. My work has been reviewed in national publications. F. Humour __0. I do not have recognized talent in this area (Skip to Inventions). __1. People have often commented on my original sense of humour. __2. I have created jokes that are now regularly repeated by others. __3. I have written jokes for other people. __ 4. I have written a joke or cartoon that has been published. __5. I have worked as a professional comedian. __6. I have worked as a professional comedy writer. __7. My humour has been recognized in a national publication. G. Inventions __0. I do not have recognized talent in this area. __1. I regularly find novel uses for household objects. __2. I have sketched out an invention and worked on its design flaws. __3. I have created original software for a computer. __4. I have built a prototype of one of my designed inventions. __5. I have sold one of my inventions to people I know. *__6. I have received a patent for one of my inventions. *__7. I have sold one of my inventions to a manufacturing firm. H. Scientific Discovery __0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field (Skip to Theatre __1. I often think about ways that scientific problems could be solved. __2. I have won a prize at a science fair or other local competition. __3. I have received a scholarship based on my work in science or medicine. __4. I have been author or coauthor of a study published in a scientific journal. *__5. I have won a national prize in the field of science or medicine. *__6. I have received a grant to pursue my work in science or medicine. __7. My work has been cited by other scientists in national publications. I. Theatre and Film __0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field. __1. I have performed in theatre or film. __2. My acting abilities have been recognized in a local publication. __3. I have directed or produced a theatre or film production. __4. I have won an award or prize for acting in theatre or film. __5. I have been paid to act in theatre or film. __6. I have been paid to direct a theatre or film production. *__7. My theatrical work has been recognized in a national publication. J. Culinary Arts __0. I do not have training or experience in this field. __1. I often experiment with recipes. __2. My recipes have been published in a local cookbook. __3. My recipes have been used in restaurants or other public venues. __4. I have been asked to prepare food for celebrities or dignitaries. __5. My recipes have won a prize or award. __6. I have received a degree in culinary arts. *__7. My recipes have been published nationally. K. Please list other creative achievements not mentioned above. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Part. 3 Find a fourth word which is related to all three. Examples

Linking word

I. II. III.

Set Glass Dash

Program Rush Happy

Cable Happy Stick

Television Hour Slap

1. 2. 3.

Very Easy Cottage Rocking Shelf

Swiss Wheel Worm

Cake High End

_______________ _______________ _______________

4. 5. 6.

Easy Print Safety Gold

Berry Cushion Stool

Bird Point Tender

_______________ _______________ _______________

7. 8. 9.

Medium Horse Dress Light

Human Dial Birthday

Drag Flower Stick

_______________ _______________ _______________

10. 11. 12.

Hard Stick Cross Chamber

Maker Rain Mask

Point Tie Natural

_______________ _______________ _______________

Item B. Interview with Darren Raven Conducted on the 16th of December, 2013. Via email correspondence. - What is creativity? Are there different types? I guess there’s individual creativity which is where individuals learn about things and form ideas etc on their own and there’s collective, social creativity where groups of people create things together. Sir Ken Robinson (famous Ted Talk) defines creativity as the process of having original ideas that have value. I pretty much agree with that. What ‘value’ is depends on context however. - How does one teach creativity? How much is “teachable”? You can teach, or rather, show people processes for creating situations where creativity is more likely to occur and be harnessed. Thinking processes, group activities etc. You can ask people to participate with activities and techniques that facilitate non-sequitor, playful and unexpected outcomes. You can use Edward de Bono style activities and frameworks to lead people away from logical, linear thinking. As with all knowledge, you can’t impart ‘creativity’ however, only help create an environment full of challenges and activities that lead people to stretch and develop their creative muscles. It’s up to them to learn how to be creative. I think you ‘let’, ‘encourage’ and ‘challenge’ people to be creative rather than teaching it. It depends on your definition of teaching I guess. - How do you assess creativity? I believe creative outcomes usually have some kind of positive impact. They ‘do’ something (in the broadest sense of ‘do’) better than before. That doesn’t necessarily mean quicker or cheaper. And better is a very subjective and context specific word too. You can assess the impact. You could watch and review how someone goes about something rather than just looking at the outcome. This seldom happens within design education but could be worth looking into. Kind of like how a driving test reviews how you actually drive. Again, defining ‘assess’ is key here. Defining the specific value is useful.

- On a creative level, how does a first-year design student differ from a final-year design student? A first year design student may be unintentionally more creative than a final year student but they may not be able to repeat or know how they are being more creative. They may be more fearful of mistakes and they may believe that there are ‘right’ answers or ways to undertake something. They may be very concerned with getting a good grade and nothing kills creativity more than thinking about how it will be judged. A final year student (you would hope) would have reflected more on their working process and how they think so they may be more able to repeat the process of generating creative ideas or producing creative work. Hopefully a design student in their development will grow to realise that there are no ‘right’ answers, that tutors are guides, not teachers, and degree courses are just places where you get to share the experience of learning how you are as a creative practitioner. I suggest you look at these links regards education theory that explains how people develop: Bigg’s SOLO taxonomy http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/solo.htm and Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development http://www.cse. buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html A first year student may be able to grasp the basics of what helps them to be creative, this is called declarative knowledge. But only through experience, that comes from doing things again and again, can this become functioning knowledge. Tacit and inbuilt. - If there are differences, what do you think causes these differences? Experience. People, if they reflect, learn best through experience.

iamapt.com