Development of Creativity-Based Learning Model.
The Committee of the National Curriculum Reformation 2013.
Ministry of Education.
Research Centre for Creativity, JS future classroom, Thailand
The ministry of education of Thailand has launched an education reform through a massive review of the education system since 1999. Until now, most of the teachers still taught with the traditional method. The method [teacher-controlled and subject-based learning] has a limitation for improving students’ essential skills for the new workspace.
This research sets out to develop the new learning model: Creativity-Based Learning (CBL), which is one of the student-centered approaches.
In the creativity-based Learning process, students learn how to create, redefine and analyze the problem. They also learn how to transfer knowledge into practice and acquire creative thinking skills and communication skills.
The model was constructed by using the mixed methodology.
The study consists of 3 phases:
The development of tools and a draft model using the Phenomenography.
The Verification of the model using the Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design and the consensual assessment.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the CBL model by the “modified TTCT” developed from Torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT)
The results of the study revealed as follows:
Creativity-based learning Model consists of 8 processes :
1 Inspiration by the facilitator and multimedia.
2 Self-study: students will learn to search collect organize and develop the data for the creative solution.
3 one to one teaching.
4 individual problem solving
5 game-based learning.
6 team project.
7 creative presentation
8 Informal assessments and multidimensional assessment Tools.
The Evaluation effectiveness of this model shows that the students with CBL experiences can improve their learning skill, creative thinking skill, communication skill, collaboration skill, and time management skill.
There has been a remarkable shift in economies from manufacturing to information technology and knowledge services. Mitchell (1993), explains the major global changes which will continue into the 21 st century that the”accelerating rate of change on a global scale”, pointing to the rate of change of human invention, the speed of generation of new knowledge, population growth and the evolution and speed of human transportation (Fryer, 1996). He argues that the speed of the new knowledge is now too fast so that most of the things that students are currently learning will be useless by the time they grow up.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills insists that the traditional learning method (subject-based learning) has a limitation for improving students’ essential skills for the new workspace.
Education reform is needed for all Nations because it’s closely tied to a nation’s economic and political developments
To meet this challenge schools must be transformed in the ways that will enable students to acquire creative thinking, flexible problem solving, collaboration and innovative skills. Some authors (Carroll, 2007; Burmack, 2002; Riddle, 2009; Frey & Fisher, 2008; Elkins, 2007; Trilling & Fidel, 2009) and organizations (Partnership for 21st Century Learning; National Science Foundation, Educational Testing Services, NCREL, Metiri Group, etc.) argues that 21st Century Learning Skills is critical for accomplishing the necessary transformation.
In order to suit society’s needs, it is not enough for schools and colleges to produce graduates who can only work within the restricted framework of solving textbook problems.
Graduated students are expected to work in complicated and dynamic society so the new learning model should be reformed to create a classroom in which students are challenged to think creatively about subjects by discovering, understanding, analyzing and applying knowledge in new situations.
The rationale for this study was to innovate the new learning model that enables creative thinking skill and suitable for Thai students: CBL.
Design of the Study
The development of creativity-based learning model consists of 3 phases as follows :
Phase 1 design CBL draft model and set up CBL model
The problem-based learning[PBL]and the creativity theories were used in the design of the CBL draft model
PBL was employed in CBL’s draft model because ;
PBL can improve students’ attitudes toward learning. Thus, as a pedagogical technique, problem‑based learning promotes the kinds of active learning that many educators advocate (Barr & Tagg, 1995) and students who acquired knowledge in the context of solving problems have been shown to be more likely to use it spontaneously to solve new problems than individuals who acquire the same information under more traditional methods of learning facts and concepts through lectures (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989)
PBL students perceived that they developed stronger thinking and problem‑solving skills, effective communication skills, and a sense of personal responsibility than did students who received lectures (Lieux, 1996).
PBL students tend to give high ratings for their training whereas students in traditional programs are more likely to describe their training as boring and irrelevant (de Vries, Schmidt, & de Graaff, 1989; Schmidt, Dauphinee, & Patel, 1987).
PBL students were more likely to use textbooks and other books and informal discussion with peers than did non‑PBL students, who were more likely to rely on lecture notes thus the PBL is the learning approach that helps the student build up their learning skill(Blumberg and Michael 1992).
There have been many studies on divergent thinking and creativity (e.g., Cropley, 1992; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Guilford, 1950, 1956, 1970, 1988; Lubart, 1994; Osborn, 1953; Runco, 1991; Sternberg & Davidson, 1995; Torrance, 1986; Treffinger, 1994). but only the following creativity theories were used to form CBL’s draft model ;
Guilford (1956, 1959, 1960, 1986) considered creative thinking as involving divergent thinking, which emphasizes fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.
Guilford, however, noted that creative thinking is not the same as divergent thinking, because creativity requires sensitivity to problems as well as redefinition abilities, which include transformations of thought, reinterpretations, and freedom from functional fixedness in driving unique solutions.
Torrance (1966, p. 6) Defined creativity as a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating them.
Nickerson  : present a summary of the various creativity techniques
Establishing purpose and intention
Building basic skills
Encouraging acquisitions of domain-specific knowledge
Stimulating and rewarding curiosity and exploration
Building motivation, especially internal motivation
Encouraging confidence and a willingness to take risks
Focusing on mastery and self-competition
Promoting supportable beliefs about creativity
Providing opportunities for choice and discovery
Developing self-management (metacognitive skills)
Teaching techniques and strategies for facilitating creative performance
Dr Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at Work Research Group at Manchester Business School has suggested that the creative profile can be explained by four primary creativity traits with narrow facets within each
(i) “Idea Generation” (Fluency, Originality, Incubation, and Illumination)
(ii) “Personality” (Curiosity and Tolerance for Ambiguity)
(iii) “Motivation” (Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Achievement)
(iv) “Confidence” (Producing, Sharing, and Implementing)
Taylor & Williams (I966) argue that school experiences should involve students more positively in the whole process of education – in questioning, listening, discussing, thinking and being actively and deeply involved in practical working with a wide variety of materials. This is achieved through a personal relationship based on trust and respect between teacher and student.
Phenomenography research methodology and a case study approach were selected for developing tools and a CBL model.
Case studies provide opportunities to study complex actions and interactions within a particular research setting.
A case study approach was selected because it is impossible to separate the context of the study variables, as, in this study, the case study represents the best approach (Merriam, 1998).
The case study is designed to explore the process and environment that affect creative thinking skills in high school students.
Research by Amabile (1986) strongly indicates that given the right circumstances, certain strategies can improve creative behavior and thus performance. Csikszentmihalyi (1988) argued that a ‘congenial’ environment within the social system of classrooms is essential for learning creativity.
The variation(s) in processes and environments that emerged from this action research was used to redesign of CBL model.
The Verification of CBL model was developed by using the pretest-posttest Control Group Design. The participants consisted of 40 high school students in Chang Mai Thailand, were selected randomly and divided into two groups of learning method; group A as an experimental group and group B as a control group for the sessions.
The measured dependent variables in this study were the creative thinking skill and the independent variables were the mode of teaching.
Group A was assigned to learn physics in 21 hours ( 7 weeks) by the CBL approach.
Group B , as a control group, learns by the traditional learning approach in the same subject.
The instrument used to determine the dependent variables were the pre-test and post-test of the Creative Thinking test develop from Guilford (1956, 1959, 1960, 1986) creative thinking Theory.
A control group in this study was assigned for proof that a change in the dependent variable was caused by the effect of the independent variable.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the CBL model by the “modified TTCT” developed from Torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT)
The participants in this phase consist of 20 elementary school students, 20 high school students, and 20 university students,
All groups were assigned to attain CBL classroom in 21 hours ( 7 weeks).
And evaluated creative thinking skill by using the pretest-posttest with “modified TTCT”
The results of the study revealed that 8 processes are effective for enhancing creativity thinking skill in participants;
1.Inspiration by the facilitator( teacher)
2. Self-study: students learn to search collect organize and develop data for their creative solutions.
3. one to one teaching and peer learning. Giving students opportunities for a more collective learning experience that is interactive both between students and teacher and among students.
4.individual problem solving
5. game-based learning: apply the principles of game design to the learning process information given to users about their performance i.e.
Points Levels Badges Bonuses and leaderboards
6. Team project: working to solve the problem or project together in small group.
7. creative presentation
Creativity cannot be only developed through the learning processes but also be developed by the appropriate context. there are 9 learning environments that enhancing creative thinking in participants.
1. Activities or problems that focus on students’ thinking skill make more engaging and enjoyable for students because thinking is rare in schools, the curriculum does not encourage it.
2. Activities or problems that focus on students’ curiosity motivated students
to find out, express their own ideas and get their own solutions
.Each and every subject have its own way of developing creativity depend on
the activities and problems designed by the teacher.
3. Questioning technique by a teacher to promote learning and stimulate thinking.
4.Collaborative learning environments by reducing competition in classroom:
Most of the students support creativity for others.
Students became motivated to engage in more productive and creative learning opportunities and were successful as a result of collegiality, not competition.
5. Working in small groups.
All groups are expected to helping each other to find out the solutions,
according to many studies have demonstrated that group interactions such as brainstorming, can enhance creativity (Paulus and Nijstad, 2003 blue right-pointing triangle; Scott et al., 2004 blue right-pointing triangle)
6. Applying block scheduling for longer studying period; 90-minute class is recommended.
7. Applying an open discussion in the classroom.
Improvement of student participation in classroom by devoting time to shaping the environment fostering creativity.
8. Applying assessment effectively and to ensure that all learners receive constructive feedback on their progress in creative thinking skill.
9. Applying reinforce Positive behaviours
Teachers can strengthen engagement by recognising and positively reinforcing positive actions should help students develop confidence in their own creative ideas by let them express their creativity in different ways.
Conclusion and discussions
Creativity is quickly becoming the very essential skill in recent years but
In the traditional teaching model, students are passive and their creativity is not encouraged.
Most of the teachers today are being asked to support creative thinking for their classroom and a lot of educators try to research on a new learning model that fostering creative thinking skill.
The creative thinking could not be taught, but it can be brought out from the learning and teaching in any subjects as teachers using the new learning approaches to make learning more interesting, engaging, exciting and effective.
In this research CBL: creative-based learning model is a proven learning model that supports the development of students’ creative thinking skill.
CBL consists of processes and contexts which teacher could apply them as pedagogical process and strategies to their classroom but no study is entirely conclusive.
The limitations of this research are that the results may not always apply across all age groups and different subject areas so there is a need to make more research on CBL and more investigations in CBL’s effectiveness on creative thinking skill in any domains.
It is clear that further research would be helpful, especially in these topics:
The attitude of students and teachers and its effect on the outcome of the creativity-based learning model.
The effects of creativity on the physical environment.
The effect of providing time and other activity on creativity in CBL model.
The effective of CBL in any specific subject on developing students’ creative thinking skill
I would like to thank to the Ministry of education in Thailand and all of the teachers who gave of their time and effort to collect data for this study.
Arlin, P. K. (1999). The wise teacher: A developmental model of teaching. Theory into Practice.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change.
Barron, Frank (1988), “Putting Creativity to Work,” in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, ed. Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,76–98.
Brown, R.T. (1989). Creativity…what are we to measure? In J.A. Glover, R.R
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123–150. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, P. R. (1992).
Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 6–23). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. Inter- national Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463–482.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Creativity research and the classroom: From pitfalls to potential. In A. G. Tan (Ed.),
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: fostering creativity. New Jersey, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chen, L. (2008). Theories and practices of teaching for creative thinking. Taipei: Psychological publishing.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Derry, S. J., Levin, J. R., Osana, H. P., Jones, M. S., & Peterson, M. (2000). Fostering students’ statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 747–773.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psychologist.
Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviours that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02212493
Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: an American retrospective. Cambridge
Finke, Ronald A., Thomas B. Ward, and Steven M. Smith (1992),Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Foster, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). A review of reviews: Structure and function in reviews of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 24(5), 609–628.
Fryer, M. (1996). Creative teaching and learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Fryer, M. (2003). Creativity across the curriculum: A review and analysis of programmes designed to developcreativity. London, UK: Qualifications & Curriculum Authority.
Ghiselin, B. (1985). The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267– 293.
Guilford, J. P. (1970). Traits of creativity. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review.
Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). The development of self-directed learning strategies in problem-based learning.
Huang, M.: Contextual Factors in Knowledge Networks That Influence Creativity. In: An Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in context, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning as a guide for learners and teachers. Cambridge, MA: Adult Education Company.
Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61.
Kelly, Janice R. and Steven P. Karau (1993), “Entrainment ofCreativity in Small Groups,” Small Group Research, 24 (2),179–98.
Lee, H. J., & Cho, Y. S. (2007). Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation. Journal of Educational Research, 101(2), 113–124.
Lindner, R. W., & Harris, B. (1993). Self-regulated learning: Its assessment and instructional implications. Educational Research Quarterly, 16(2), 29–37.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem- solving (pp. 290–323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning in higher education: Lessons from the literature. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(1), 4–9.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49–69.
Ministry of Education. (2003). White paper on creative education – establishing a Republic of Creativity (R. O.C) for Taiwan. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Runco, Mark A. and Shawn Okuda Sakamoto (1999), “Experimental
Studies of Creativity,” in Handbook of Creativity, ed.
Ryan, M. R., & Guardia, J. G. L. (1999). Achievement motivation within a
pressured society: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn and the politics
of school reform. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 11, 45–85.
Ronning, and C.R. Reynolds (Eds.) Handbook of creativity. New York: Plenum Press.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spendlove, D., & Wyse, D. (2008). Creative learning: Definition and barriers. In A. Craft, T. Cremin, & P.
Sawyer R. K. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Res. J. 2004;16:361–388.
Sternberg, Robert J. and Todd I. Lubart (1996), “Investing in Creativity,”American Psychologist, 51 (7), 677–88.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688.
Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–317.
Tan, O. S. (2000a). Intelligence enhancement and cognitive coaching in problem- based learning. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Symposium, Singapore.
Tan, O. S. (2000b). Thinking skills, creativity and problem-based learning. In O. S. Tan, P. Little, S. Y. Hee & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Educational innovation across disciplines. Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem-based Learning.
Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning.
Tighe, E., Picariello, M. L., & Amabile, T. M. (2003). Environmental influences on motivation and creativity in the classroom.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. US: The Lund Press.
Torrance, E. Paul (1966), Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:“Creative Problem Solving: An Overview,” in Problem Finding,Problem Solving, and Creativity, ed. Mark A. Runco,Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 223–36.
Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms and technical manual. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P., & Presbury, J. (1984). The criteria of success used in 242 recent experimental studies of creativity. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 9, 238–243.
Torrance, E. P. (1986). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative problem solver’s guidebook. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable Moments: The art of creative teaching in primary schools.Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wu, J. J. (2004). Recognizing and nurturing creativity in Chinese students. In S. Lau, A. N. N., Hui, & G. Y. C.
Yeh, Y. C. (2006). Creativity teaching – Past, present, and future. Taipei: Psychological publishing.
To approve a single suggestion, mouse over it and click “✔”
Click the bubble to approve all of its suggestions.