No description available.

The purpose of the study was to explore the concepts of creativity, and instruction in creative thinking in the era defined by an emerging knowledge economy that emphasizes the importance of innovative human capital in school settings. This study contained two parts. The first three chapters tackled the concepts of creativity and thinking. Chapter one explained the justification for the research and the methodology used. Chapter two explored various concepts of creativity, including 4ps, problem solving, and system approaches, and it also outlined the development of historical research and approaches, dating from the year that interest in creativity research was revived by Guilford (1950). Chapter three dealt with the concept of creative thinking and its instruction. This chapter also introduced the idea of creative thinking in the context of recent research on connections between the brain¡¦s hemispheres to explain the controversy between creative and critical thinking. The following part, which consisted of another three chapters dealt with the instruction of creative thinking. Chapter four introduced certain instructional models including CPS, Six Thinking Hats, and CoRT. Chapter five elaborated on related principles and strategies regarding brainstorming, lateral thinking, and playfulness. And finally, chapter six laid out a summary and suggestions. This study focused on balancing knowing ¡§what¡¨ and ¡§how¡¨ with attempts to explore concepts of creativity and instructional models as well as strategies of creative thinking. The goal is to equip teachers with theoretical knowledge and practical know-how to set the stage for giving full play to creative thinking in future curriculum and instruction design. It is also hoped that continued study into other aspects of creativity can validate, broaden, refine and enrich the theory of creativity, and its practice, as revealed in the present study.

Thesis (M.A.T.)--University of Texas at El Paso, 2008. / Title from title screen. Vita. CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

This study presents an operational definition of creativity within the contexts of business, school and community. A design for the strategic management of creativity is developed. Suggestions are made for programs to increase effectiveness in the use of creative skills. Creativity has been viewed in the past as something that happens rather than deliberate activity directed to specific goals. Numerous studies have failed to find a significant relationship between measurements of creative skills and intelligence as delimited by IQ tests and other measures of performance. Creativity can be distinguished as a category, process and quality of intelligence, and both can be defined in qualitative and theoretical terms. Models are constructed in the study to classify creativity. The components of the creative act can be tracked. A model sets parameters and categories for investigations to permit variation of content in a relatively stable sequence of steps. The sequence can be extracted as a method to process ideas from any discourse.

No description available.

As we move further into the 21st century there are few processes that are more important for us to understand than the creative process. The aim of this thesis is to assist in deepening that understanding. To achieve this a review of the literature is first undertaken. Combining the many different streams of research from the literature results in the development of a four-stage model of the creative thinking process. The four stages are problem definition, idea generation, internal evaluation, and idea expression. While a large range of factors influence the various stages in this model, two factors are identified for further analysis as their effect on creativity is unclear. These two factors are domain-specific knowledge and creative thinking techniques. The first of these factors relates to the first stage of the creative thinking process (problem definition), specifically the extent to which informational cues prime domain specific knowledge that then sets the starting point for the creative combination process. The second factor relates to stage two of the model (idea generation), and the proposition by some researchers and practitioners that creative output can be significantly improved through the use of techniques. While the semantics of these techniques differ, fundamentally all techniques encourage the use of divergent thinking by providing remote associative cues as the basis for idea generation. These creative thinking techniques appear to result in the opening of unusual memory categories to be used in the creative combination process. These two potential influences on the creative outcomes of individuals: 1) domain specific knowledge, and 2) creative thinking techniques, form the basis for an experimental design. Qualitative and quantitative research is undertaken at two of the world's leading advertising agencies, and with two student samples, to identify how creative thinking techniques and domain-specific knowledge, when primed, influence creative outcomes. In order to measure these effects a creative thinking measurement instrument is developed. Results found that both domain-specific knowledge and creative thinking techniques are key influences on creative outcomes. More importantly, results also found interaction effects that significantly extend our current understanding of the effects of both primed domain-specific knowledge and creativity techniques on different sample populations. Importantly, it is found that there is no 'one size fits all' for the use of creative thinking techniques, and to be effectively applied, creative thinking techniques must be developed based upon the respondent's current domain and technique expertise. Moreover, the influence of existing domain-specific knowledge on individual creativity is also dependent upon how that information is primed and the respondent's knowledge of cognitive thinking strategies.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether creativity can be nurtured in an experiential learning environment at the college level. The study investigated how well process-based creativity models and construct-based creativity models reflected creative behavior in an experiential and team-based learning environment. The research design included field observations, focus group interviews, student questionnaires, and portfolio assessments. Study participants were selected students from Texas A&M University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Findings indicated that both process-based and construct-based creativity models are good indicators of creative behavior. Torrance’s creativity dimensions that emerged among students included problem awareness, ability to produce and consider many alternatives, ability to put ideas into context, ability to use humor, kinesthetic responsiveness, and ability to break through boundaries. Treffinger’s creativity dimensions included sensitivity to problems, tolerance of congruity, fluency, good research and management skills, cognition, memory, analysis, application, openness to experience, confidence, independence in inquiry, willingness to respond, and readiness for transformations. Dacey’s constructs included sensitivity to problems, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, openness, independence of judgment, self guidance, and playfulness. Jackson and Messick’s constructs included analysis, intuition, openness, and reflection. Study findings also indicated that all steps of the Osborn and Parnes processbased creativity model were fully utilized in the experiential and team-based learning environment. As part of the effort to seek models of teaching and learning that encourage students to be more creative while solving complex problems in the world of agriculture, findings of this study can be used to determine how creativity can be fostered through experiential and team-based learning.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation identified and addressed four of the unresolved issues pertaining to the proposition that nonabsolute/ relativistic (N/R) thinking is one of the possible unifying commonalities underlying the selected models of postformal reasoning, namely Problem Finding, Dialectical Reasoning, Relativistic Operations and Reflective Judgment. A total of 254 participants aged 10 to 48 and attending Grade 5 to doctoral studies were involved. Each participant was administered eight tests in pencil-and-paper format to measure eight different constructs of thinking. Different specific hypotheses were evaluated through different statistical approaches. The four identified issues were addressed as follows: Firstly, nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking was reconceptualized and operationally defined as a multidimensional and multilevel construct. Two dimensions were proposed: the basic form and the epistemic view. Within the basic form dimension, two levels were proposed: the formal and the postformal forms. Secondly, a battery of three tests was specifically designed by Arlin and the author to measure the different dimensions and levels of nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking. Thirdly, strong empirical evidence was obtained supporting the general hypothesis that nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking is a possible unifying commonality underlying the four selected postformal models. Within the construct of nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking, two dimensions, the basic form and the epistemic view, can be differentiated as hypothesized. Fourthly, empirical evidence was also obtained supporting the general hypothesis that nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking is an instance of both formal and postformal reasoning. Specifically within the basic form dimension, two qualitatively different forms, the formal and the postformal, can be differentiated as hypothesized. Findings also suggested that the development of a nonabsolute epistemic view might play a crucial role in the development of the postformal form. Therefore, the emergence of the postformal form can be explained by a paradigm shift from an absolute to a nonabsolute epistemic view. Performances in the tests of the postformal form and of the epistemic view in combination were found to be good predictors of performances in the selected postformal tests. Significant implications of the findings are that nonabsolute/ relativistic thinking represents a form of metamorphosis from closed-system to open-system thinking and it might serve as a potential springboard in the development of higher order thinking.