A Longitudinal Analysis of Student Creativity Scripts

Abstract

In the present study we used bayesian latent growth modeling to asses the impact of a one-semester creativity course on the development of engineering students' creativity scripts. We compared a treatment (N = 52) and a control (N = 42) group with respect to individual differences in initial status and in rate of change. Results revealed that the development of creativity scripts followed a linear change over time, with the rate of change being higher for the treatment compared to the control group. Furthermore, substantial individual variability in the rate of creativity scripts gain across students was detected, where students with richer creativity scripts had a weaker rate of increase. The present exploratory effort lays the groundwork for further theoretical and empirical research on the effects of intervention programs for fostering creativity.

Studying creativity training programs: A methodological analysis

“…In the above definition, there are no restrictions on the duration of the whole program or each session, as current programs operate with time constraints ranging from hours to years (see, e.g., Birdi, ; Parnes & Noller, ; Scott et al, ). While the most typical programs seem to be 3–8 sessions, each 0.5–4 hours, spread over a period of 1–3 months, the definition is widely formulated so as to include other interesting designs such as when using mindful exercises (Ben‐Soussan, Berkovich‐Ohana, Piervincenzi, Glicksohn, & Carducci, ) and when considering creativity scripts (Zampetakis, Moustakis, Dewett, & Zampetakis, ). The crucial purpose of the definition is to make a clear distinction between studies of creativity training programs and any other pre/post studies where variations in creativity are measured as one of many factors (e.g., training planning methods; Osburn & Mumford, ).…”

Insights Into Three Frames of Creative Minds: Igniting Perspective Transformation Among First-Year University Students

“…Although a range of options exists for teaching creativity in higher education, numerous studies support the finding that creativity can be taught and developed in college students (Cheung et al, 2006; Clapham, 1997; Karpova et al, 2011; West, Tateishi, Wright, & Fonoimoana, 2012; Zampetakis et al, 2008). Some studies have demonstrated higher levels of creative thinking, measured by standardized thinking test scores and gathered after completing a series of creative activities (Karpova et al, 2011; West et al, 2012).…”

“…Finally, incorporating foundational knowledge and theories of creativity into creative learning experiences was beneficial for students in shaping their perspectives (Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009; Plucker & Dow, 2010). In addition, a case-based approach influenced positive attitudes and beliefs toward students’ own creative abilities (Zampetakis et al, 2008) when repeatedly exploring the creative process and actions of eminent creators. This approach helped students to frame their own personal creative attitudes.…”

“…Recently, the case for cultivating student creativity explicitly in higher education has increased (Byrge & Tang, 2015; Cheung et al, 2006; Karpova, Marcketti, & Barker, 2011; Miller & Dumford, 2016; Plucker & Dow, 2010; Zampetakis, Moustakis, Dewett, & Zampetakis, 2008). But relatively insufficient attention has been paid to the ways to do this effectively by understanding how learning can change students’ creative attitudes, perceptions, and self-beliefs about creativity (Petocz, Reid, & Taylor, 2009).…”

Functionalization of cotton fabrics with rutile TiO2 nanoparticles: Applications for superhydrophobic, UV-shielding and self-cleaning properties

“…It is known that wearing of common textiles provides insufficient protection against its effects [13,14]. Dermatological studies have proved that skin must be protected against UV radiation with wavelength range of 290-400 nm present in sun spec trum [15].…”