The creative training in the visual arts education

The term of creativity in modern times related to the engaging of psychological and educational began with Guilford who made the cognitive basis of creativity important separation between convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Although ‘convergent thinking’ is adjusted towards obtaining the single best answer to a given question (closed-ended; well-defined problems), ‘divergent thinking’ involves processes like changeable perspective, transforming, or producing multiple answers to questions (open-ended; ill-defined problems) from the available information and thus supports production of novelty (Cropley, 2001, Runco, 2014). Therefore, definitions of creativity referring to divergent thinking contain fluency, flexibility and originality as Guilford’s attention (Roskos-Ewoldsen, Black, & Mccown, 2008), and many definitions of creativity refer to the core concept of ‘novelty’ (Torrance, 1966), with utility which are generally accepted as new and useful (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Batey, 2012, Mumford, 2003). Also, Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) emphasized on the importance of the ‘novel’ and ‘useful’ traits derived from analysis of the creativity literature about definitions of the creativity. To this point, Runco and Chand (1994) stated that novelty is an essential aspect of creativity.

However, prominent authors in the field of creativity also pointed out the importance of solution process of problem in terms of providing creativity beside the new and useful. Torrance (1966) stated that “sensitivity to problems” involves in creativity as one of certain process. Guilford in 1967 proposed a model of problem solving that focused on creative production. Also, Poincaré and Wallas reminded us that creative process starts with the problem and its identification (Lubart, 2001). Hence, the many definitions of creativity also focused on two basis elements as novelty and appropriateness to problem (Kaufmann & Baer, 2012), because creative people usually approach problems in novel ways (Sternberg, 2012). Reiter-Palmon, Illies, Cross, Buboltz, and Nimps (2009) found that creativity is affected by the problem solving. Also, major recent researches revealed that creative abilities are crucial in solving complex, individual, social and macro problems in education (Wang, 2012). Hence, scholars see the problem solving as a main aspect of creativity with using techniques based on the heuristics which allow individuals to apply available capability effectively (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). The problems, mentioned above, are open-ended; ill-defined problems predominantly providing the more places of novelty; permitting divergent thinking (e.g. Runco, 2014). Hence, it was impossible for program makers to ignore the fact of the problem solving for creative trainings owing to be accepted the important role of problem solving in the creativity. As Basadur (1994) emphasized, the problem as an important mediating factor in training to increase creativity led to creative output with problem solving performance. Therefore, problem solving process is included in the creative training programs unavoidably. Thus, the content of the creative training is an integrated, programmatic, set of training interventions as theoretical obtained from theories of lateral thinking, productive thinking and creative problem solving (CPS). Other contents of creative training are free techniques; brainstorming or metaphor generation. Accordingly, in terms of technique, much creative training based on general models as brainstorming technique enhancing creativity with little modification for domain and population differences. Others include modify techniques for specific training (Scott et al., 2004).

Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, and Doares (1991) indicated that the creative problem solving process differs from the standard noncreative process owing to creative problem solving involves non-routine problems more than routine problem solving. In routine problem solving process, individuals tend to satisfy involving mostly convergent thinking with the implementing of previously procedures as ready-made solutions. In contrast, individuals must produce new and different solutions with involving divergent and convergent thinking in creative operation (e.g. Lubart, 2001). Although, the creativity training programs differ regarding to domain, models, and theoretical assumptions, many creativity trainings have a common basis as divergent thinking or multiple alternative solutions instead of the one correct solution (Scott et al., 2004). Thus, it can be said that the ‘non routine problem’ solving processes involve more creative thinking than routine problem solving processes because non-routine problem has not certain answer or solution previously.

The most widespread investigation of the effect of creativity was the creative studies that were carried out in 1970s (Puccio, Wheeler, & Cassandro, 2004). Today, trade companies, business, industry, government, armed services, science, arts, education and large organizations believe that creative thinking is necessary of being globally competitive and able to develop new technology (Cropley, 2001; Isbell & Raines, 2003; Prentice, 2000, Runco, 2014). Even, many companies have responded to these growing needs by offering creativity training to their employees (e.g. Isbell & Raines, 2003).

Creative training program is experienced for definite time and a group of person. These programs have the essential principles and concepts regarding a specific area and content with the design of the instructional activities under the guidance of a trainer who determines the learning approach or lecture (Murdock, 2003). Creativity Training programs as a combination of techniques were invented as Computer-aided creativity training program, Purdue Creative Thinking Program, New Directions in Creativity Program, Khatena’s Training Method, Osborn–Parnes Creative Problem Solving (CPS) program (Hsen-Hsing, 2006). It can be also added Synectics, TRIZ, and Six Thinking Hats to these programs (Puccio, Firestien, Coyle, & Masucci, 2006).

The best known creativity training was process-based program developed by Parnes and his colleagues as CPS program which includes creative problem solving, problem-solving processes, problem finding, information, idea, solution, and acceptance under three processes, idea generation, problem understanding, and action planning under the term of both convergent and divergent process (Scott et al., 2004). With the use of these processes, in CPS model creative thinking can be intentionally applied to solve of open-ended problems through Brainstorming. Although, many tools are used in association with the different steps, primarily Brainstorming is used for effective idea generation in CPS. Studies related to the effect of CPS can be broadly sorted into three categories as the influence on attitudes, behavior and groups (Puccio et al., 2006).

In the design of training, it was suggested by scholars that the divergent thinking tasks as judged through open-ended examines are scored for originality, fluency and elaboration providing to creative problem solving and creative performance (Scott et al., 2004). The classification of Creativity Training programs could include 12 categories as Brainstorming, Incubation, Attitude training, Simple ideation training, Idea checklist/SCAMPER, Catalog, Part improving, Morphological synthesis, Synectics, Forced relation. Creativity training could also include 172 techniques as the content or instructional methods which have been applied to improve the divergent thinking abilities for large occupations (Scott et al., 2004). For example, creative training programs’ content can be identified as exercises or activities, non-print and print those are packaged for guided use. A large number of ‘packaged’ creativity training materials are real instrument guiding evaluation data to promote their usefulness. Most Packaged creativity training have either a process focus as forms of informativeness designing to achieve an outcome or a person focus as forms of activities to develop individual performance with curriculum (e.g. Murdock, 2003).

The effectiveness of creative training was performed by Scott et al. (2004) calculating their mean effect sizes of a standard training package or technique implemented in previous studies. They did not report the different effect size of a standard creative training package or technique. This is vital regarding to learning approaches, programs and activities in order to lecture for teacher in education in terms of flourishing, encouraging creativity (Loweless, Burton, & Turvey, 2005; Wang, 2012). Hence, as Scott et al. (2004) stated, creativity training was invested and implemented for occupations ranging from marketing, business management, and educational administration to medicine and engineering in many forms.

On the other hand, Prentice (e.g. 2000) stated that curriculum is not helpful for teachers to focus on possibilities of increasing creativity for learners to be actively. Researchers supported that creativity can be motivated in course of learning activities (e.g. Wang, 2012). Also, creativity is often hoped for benefits of improved education as well (e.g. Cropley, 2001). In this manner, it was concluded that schools must lay the groundwork to children to deal with complex problems and solve them in creative ways (e.g. Isbell & Raines, 2003). Perhaps, depending on that approach, teaching models were transformed into improved educational methods today. Thus, teaching approaches have been moved from predominantly teacher directed practice to a teacher and students interactional system with the discovery learning as a fundamental part of the process (e.g. Isbell & Raines, 2003). This transformation is an opportunity for creative thinking development of students due to many creativity training approaches support the teacher and students interactional system as open-ended, divergent thinking activities, brainstorming, creative problem solving and discovery learning. Hence, it can be said that it is important to be extended to the implementations of the creative training towards various education disciplines.

The overall techniques and activities in creative training show themselves in the aspect of the openness to new experiences. Researchers explained that ‘openness to new experiences’ is significant for creative thinking (e.g. Wang, 2012) and the openness is correlated with measurements of creativity (Kerr & McKay, 2013) due to open-ended tasks allow divergent thinking (e.g. Runco, 2014). Therefore, open forms of teaching and learning are extremely significant for creative education (Urban, 1995). For that, activities must be ‘open-ended’ to encourage creativity of students giving them rational control upon deciding of how they will move towards the product instead of giving a telling on what the product should be (e.g. Isbell & Raines, 2003). As suggested by scholars, divergent thinking tasks through open-ended examinations provide for creative problem solving and creative performance in the design of creative training (Scott et al., 2004). For reacting potential of creative thinking, creativity training approaches need to include non-routine problems, particularly in terms of solving process. As Feldhusen and Goh (1995) concluded, enhancing creative thinking of students in training programs are possible with the learning to seek new ideas and recognizing novel approaches. Additionally, Runco (2014) stated that openness to new experience as characteristic might be significant for creativity. He added that everyone possess capacity to be creative whereas not everyone realizes that capacity because only unconventional thinking may develop creativity.

Open-ended questions should not be forgotten because they invite a great number of diversity of responses for divergent thinking (Torrance & Myers, 1970; Runco, 2014). Scott et al. (2004) reported that creativity training has the largest effect sizes employing divergent thinking (.75) and problem solving (.84) criteria in the analysis of previous studies because training techniques as providing heuristics, or strategies, novel solution, ill-defined problems and some techniques such as checklists and feature comparisons have a reasonably powerful effect on performance.

Accordingly, it can be said that problem solving is one of the most effective learning ways in creative training to improve creative thinking. Further, specific techniques can be learnt and applied in many various ways in order to get creative thinking as Brainstorming, Hierarchical and Creative Problem Solving (e.g. Cropley, 2001), but it must be noticed that the ‘real world’ domains as practice exercises was related to effect size positively using problem solving criteria (Scott et al., 2004). For that, there are some approaches applied by teacher in classroom. The teacher can ask divergent thinking, open-ended questions that not require a simple ‘yes/no’ responses (e.g. Cropley, 2001; Isbell & Raines, 2003). Teacher can be a model for creative behaviors to his/her students (e.g. Cropley, 2001; Isbell & Raines, 2003; Runco, 2014) and she/he provides opportunities for students to practice creative thinking (e.g. Runco, 2014) as open forms of teaching–learning which are free work, discovery learning, project-oriented learning (e.g. Urban, 1995). Teacher also respects student’s efforts in these activities (e.g. Runco, 2014).

The creative thinking can be improved by training programs (Bott et al., 2014; Byrge & Tang, 2015; Puccio et al., 2004; Rose & Linn, 1984). Studies show us that creativity can be developed by way of interventions, approaches and techniques which have significant effects on creative performance, divergent thinking and problem solving (Sak & Oz, 2010). In contrast to that Zampetakis, Moustakis, Dewett, and Zampetakis (2008) reported that there are some ambiguities on the intervention creative training programs in terms of positive and negative effect upon creative thinking development.

So far, Creative training was conducted with psychology, business, journalism, sciences, pharmacy, arts students, engineers and workers to determine the effect of it on the creative thinking and problem solving (Basadur, Graen, & Scandura, 1986; Clapham, 1997, Wang and Horng, 2002). However, researchers recommended that creative training studies need to be extended as much as different disciplines. For instance, Murdock (2003) emphasized that we need many studies in wide range of different disciplines and including different countries for more information about creativity programs and materials for supporting to teach creativity in higher education. Basadur, Runco, and Vega (2000) suggested that it would be major main subject to assess opportunities for extending creative training researches with the different samples and different tasks and measurements. Also, it was underlined that future training programs should be put into practice for whole semester (e.g. Byrge & Tang, 2015) including more variations in exercises (Scott et al., 2004, Cropley, 2001). In regards to other aspect of the literature, it is observed that many studies were performed related the creative training, but there was less so for the implementation of creative training adapted to curriculum of education discipline as learning approach. As researchers suggest, it is necessary to implement creative training programs in different educational disciplines, tasks, samples and countries within whole semester to determine the effect of the creative training on creative thinking.

Accordingly, present study was designed to extend the recent studies on the creative training. Thus present creative training was put into practice in different country apart from the previous studies’ disciplines and samples during one semester to determine the effect of creative training on the creative thinking and the problem solving with original approach including more exercises and tasks. Hence, this study was first to examine the effect of creative training on the creative thinking and problem solving of students in visual arts higher education during one semester through adapting to curriculum.

The visual arts education cannot produce the new, novel and original thoughts or products unless possessing of flexible environment just like the creative thinking. Hence, it can be said that the visual Arts Education as an educational discipline is more appropriate to test the effect of the creative training in terms of learning environment. Further, visual arts and creativity cannot be built upon absolute certainties owing to originate from their nature nurturing from the same source in terms of ambiguity. These characteristics may be also vital to produce the novelty through thinking for both the visual arts education and creativity.