A Journey of Discovery: Is Creative Thinking Taught in an Art ...

A Journey of Discovery: Is Creative Thinking Taught in an
Art Classsroom
Linda Speranza, MIL Fellow 2006
Art, Mesa Community College
Abstract
My initial Maricopa Institute for Learning (MIL) project proposal was to study
the ability of art students to transfer the creative thinking process to other subjects or
areas of learning in their college coursework. Because the proposal’s scope proved too
large for the time frame of the MIL project, I pared it down to the administration and
scoring of creativity tests taken by students in three different art classes. Using both
pre-learning and post-learning testing instruments, I originally had hoped to record any
creative growth among the students and to determine whether students in entry level
studio art classes were being taught to think more creatively.
Testing Instrument
In my research on creativity testing, I found there are two creativity-testing instruments
in wide use today for measuring changes in students’ ability to think creatively:
the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), and the Guilford test.
I chose to use the TTCT, which was developed by Paul Torrance (1975), a preeminent
researcher in the field of creativity. My primary reasons were that the TTCT:
• is easy to use,
• is affordable,
• is backed by a database of testing results compiled over thirty years, and
• can be applied to different age groups.
The TTCT breaks down the creative process into four primary functions and ten
associated traits that support the creative act. The four primary areas are:
• Fluency — the ability to devise alternative solutions to a project;
• Originality — the ability to produce solutions that are out of the ordinary;
• Elaboration — the ability to take an idea and develop that idea in greater depth;
and
• to premature closure — the ability to resist the first solution to a problem and
continue searching for alternatives that could produce a solution that is more
effective or appropriate.
Definition of Creativity
Defining creativity is not an easy task. Different researchers of creativity have
different definitions. Some are quite formal, and some are quite loose. Torrance chooses
to define factors that are part of a creative personality. His definition is based on
examples:
Creativity is digging deeper; Creativity is looking twice; Creativity is crossing
out mistakes; Creativity is talking/listening to a cat; Creativity is getting out of deep
water… Creativity is wanting to know; Creativity is having a ball…. Creativity is
shaking hands with the future. (Torrance, 1975, p. 3)

A Journey of Discovery: Is Creative Thinking Taught in an Art Classroom
Colin Martindale (1999) states that “A creative thought is one that is both original
and appropriate for the situation in which it occurs. It would seem that creative
production always consists of the novel combinations of preexisting mental elements”
(p.137).
Creativity and the Learning Process
For my project, I needed to find out: How such experts in the creative process felt
that the learning of creativity occurred, and what mental processes allowed a person to
produce a creative realization.
In Martindale’s (1999) observations on the biological basis of creativity, I found
insight into students who struggle, who seem to be frozen in place when it comes to
creating an original piece.
Martindale, (1999) draws upon the work of E. Kris (1952), another important
researcher in the field of creativity who believe that the mind two processing states, the
primary and secondary process states. The primary state is the dream state, or reverie;
it is free-associative and analogical. The secondary state is the waking; it is logical and
reality oriented. Kris posits that creative inspiration requires regression to the primary
state, while creative elaboration requires involvement of the secondary process. “But
because some people are “stuck” on one point of the primary/secondary continuum,
they are unable to generate creative ideas” (Martindale, 1999, p. 138). As an example of a
creative person at work, Martindale (1999) draws on the work of Arthur Schopenhauer
(1969). Schopenhauer notes,” A great poet…is a man who, in his waking state, is able to
do what the rest of us do in our dreams” (p. 138).
His description fits what my years of classroom art teaching have brought me to
believe: some students may be “stuck” in a place that isn’t creative; at the same time,
they may be just as stuck in a creative place and/or be unable to elaborate on their
ideas. It is my contention that, with guidance and support, students can become
“unstuck” or “less stuck” and acquire a degree of flexibility on the primary/secondary
continuum that enables them to find or generate creative ideas. To paraphrase Torrance
(1975), learning to be creative is learning to resist the urge for premature closure. I have
seen such changes in students. Sometimes they occur in a flash; at other times, they
occur slowly and are gradually built into their awareness.
In his writings, Torrance (1975) details exercises that he believes can help build an
individual’s ability to develop this resistance to premature closure; i.e., that will allow
him/her to remain open and willing to look elsewhere on the primary/secondary
continuum (although he never uses that phrase). Upon learning this, I found further
confirmation that training can make it possible to improve an individual’s ability to
think creatively. In addition, the exercises seemed to “connect the dots” between my
ideas and the tests that Torrance had devised.
Creativity Training — Is It Possible?
I next tried to uncover information about training students to think creatively. If
there was established precedent for believing that the act of creativity could be fostered
in a person, it would help me to interpret my results.
In their reports on creativity studies in English-speaking countries, J. Baer and J.C.
Kaufman (2002) observe:

Transforming Practice Through Reflective Scholarship, Volume II
Two meta-analyses of creativity-training research suggest that many such [creativity
training] programs are effective. Torrance reviewed 142 creativity training research
studies and reported that approximately three quarters of the training programs had
been successful… These studies have all used divergent thinking test scores [such as the
TTCT] as their criterion for success. There have also been studies using success in the
real world problem-solving situations to demonstrate the effectiveness of CPS [creative
problem solving] training. (p.17)
Revised Project Goal and Implementation
The new focus of my project became simply to determine whether studio art classes
teach students to think more creatively.
My first experience using the testing instrument in an academic setting was in a class
comprising my most advanced students, all of whom I have known for a year or more.
I chose to do so because, while I had studied the scoring of the testing instrument, I
was not formally trained in its scoring. So working with advanced students provided me
with a trial-run opportunity; i.e., an opportunity to administer and score the tests to see
if my interpretation of the results was accurate and correlated with assessments based on
my observation of those students in class. After the trial run and scoring of those tests,
I was greatly relieved that the results not only “felt” right to me; but when I explained
what the scores were and how they were to be interpreted, my students agreed that
they were being accurately assessed.
The Testing
The formal testing subjects fell into three groups:
• Beginning students — Those taking a beginning level or Introduction to Art
class,
• Advanced students — Those taking a higher level Introduction to Art Anatomy
class (at the community college level, our most accomplished students), and
• Ceramics students — Those taking an Introduction to Ceramics class,
comprising students with varying degrees of exposure to ceramics and other
forms of studio art.
The tests were administered to students in the three classes as pre- and post-tests,
and comparisons between the pre- and post-test results were made to determine
whether students thought more creatively after completing a semester of an art class.
The advanced student group was to be my control. Although their test results were of
personal interest to me, they were, for many reasons, not useful for this project.
From answers to the pre-test questions, it was clear that the ceramics students
possessed a more sophisticated background than the beginning and advanced art
students. The advanced students were a self-selected group, which was very much
focused on the ability to draw and create a piece of art. Analyzing the results of their
tests turned out to be an informative part of my study, not so much because of their
direct contribution to the goal of my research, but because of the insight I gained into
skill areas in which many students are deficient.
Scoring and Interpretation
In the spring semester of the project, I attended a Carnegie Academy for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) workshop in Chicago to present and

A Journey of Discovery: Is Creative Thinking Taught in an Art Classroom
discuss my findings format that provided me with feedback and interaction with a
cohort of professional educators also working on SOTL issues. The workshop took
place at a fortuitous point in my project. I was wrapping up my test results and trying to
figure out what I could determine from them.
The weekend was of great value to me, but one observation a fellow participant
made was especially helpful. It was pointed out to me that, as an art teacher, I was
worried about whether my students were developing creatively and acquiring skills that
could be transferred to other educational situations. However, if I could document that
they were acquiring the skills TTCT tests for, I would be able to produce evidence that
they were acquiring valuable life skills, even if someone chose not to define those skills
as creativity.
On that note, I realized that I was becoming far too involved in technicalities and
missing the proverbial forest for the trees. The more appropriate question was: Did my
testing produce scores indicating students developed fluency, originality, elaboration,
resistance to premature closure, and increased written and spoken communication.
Results
The beginning students started with a strong liberal arts background and already had
many of the skills that the test measured. However, those skills were mainly in the verbal
sectors of the test; the same students had minor to moderate difficulty with the visual
sectors of the test.
The beginning students were particularly frustrating for me because they did not
appear to take the post-test seriously. In the second part, it was clear to me that most of
the students were restless; all they wanted to do was to finish the test and get on with
their hands-on their ceramics projects. As an aside, when I was at the workshop I found
out that this was a common problem everyone had encountered. The only way many
researchers have found to solve it was to tie grades to the testing. If I had been able to
test more accurately, I might have found growth in this section. In the advanced class,
the pre- and post-testing showed no perceivable change in scores. Students’ post-test
levels of visual acuity were just as high as they were in the pre-test.
Although the advanced students were not part of my final analysis, I nevertheless
wanted to gain as much insight into some of the other problems that had been
occurring at their class level; such as poor verbal skills, which did not increase from
pre- to post-testing. My results clearly showed that verbal skill development needs
greater attention.
The main focus of my testing was to be on the beginning students, who turned out
to show the greatest level of improvement. For some of them, the improvement might
even be described as remarkable. They confirmed for me that our teaching methods and
their effect on our students’ ability to think creatively justify further work with TTCT.
At the present time, my teaching load prevents me from conducting further testing.
I did not collect release statements that were thorough enough to permit me to use
information about my tested students in more than a general manner. Thus, I will
need to train further and come to a deeper understanding of the Maricopa County
Community College District Internal Review Board in order to continue my project.

Transforming Practice Through Reflective Scholarship, Volume II
Conclusion
My MIL journey has had a profound impact on my teaching methods. It has given
me the ability to more consciously guide my students in the development of their
creativity. It has also reinforced my interest in gaining a greater understanding of how
the creative process occurs. The most important part of my MIL journey has been the
process of discovering more effective ways to apply what I have learned.
References
Martindale, Colin. (1999) Biological bases of creativity. In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.), The
Handbook of Creativity. (pp. 137-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. & Kaufman, J.C. (2002). Creativity research in English speaking countries. In J.C.
Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg. (Ed.), The International Handbook of Creativity (pp.
10-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, Jonathan A., & Rensulli, Joseph S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of
human creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Handbook of Creativity. (pp. 35-60).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. Paul (1975). The Search for Satori & Creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.