Journal of Creative Behavior最新文献

Understanding and supporting pre-service teachers' creativity in collaborative instructional design has gained increasing attention. To design novel and effective learning experiences or activities for students, they need to build empathy with students, that is, understanding students' learning needs. This study aimed to (1) explore the patterns of design cognition in empathy-scaffolded pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design, and (2) investigate the differences in patterns of design cognition caused by two empathy interventions. Two classes, comprising 64 pre-service teachers, were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (that used structured empathy strategy) or the control condition (that used unstructured empathy strategy). The pre-service teachers worked in groups of 3–4 members to perform design tasks. Their group discourses were audio-recorded and coded; an epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to analyze the coded data to reveal the design cognitive processes and patterns. The ENA results revealed that empathy was cyclical and intertwined with defining problem and ideation (including generating ideas, building on ideas, elaborating and selecting ideas). Group discussions concentrated more on ideation than empathy. The comparison between the two interventions showed significant difference in design cognition. The experimental groups' discourses exhibited stronger co-occurrences between empathy and ideation, between defining the problem and generating new ideas, and between building on ideas and elaborating ideas. In contrast, the control groups' discourses were less focused on empathy, they concentrated more on the ideation processes. Regarding product creativity, there was no differences in terms of usefulness and novelty across the two conditions. This study can deepen understanding of the complexity and dynamic nature of pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design.

In the PISA 2022 creative thinking test, students provide a response to a prompt, which is then coded by human raters as no credit, partial credit, or full credit. Like many large-scale educational testing frameworks, PISA uses the generalized partial credit model (GPCM) as a response model for these ordinal ratings. In this paper, we show that the instructions given to the raters violate some assumptions of the GPCM as it is used: Raters are instructed to rate according to steps that involve multiple attributes (appropriateness and diversity/originality), with a different (set of) attribute(s) necessary to pass the different thresholds of the scoring scale. Instead of the GPCM, we propose multidimensional generalized item response tree models that allow us to account for the sequential nature of the ratings and to disentangle the attributes measured from the original scores. We discuss advantages, limitations, as well as recommendations for future research.

Access to data from the 2022 PISA creative thinking assessment (PISA CT) provides a unique opportunity to advance our understanding of gender differences in creativity. However, in addition to the general theoretical and methodological considerations discussed elsewhere in this special issue, there are several matters specific to gender differences in creativity that should be considered when interpreting the results of the PISA CT. First, the overall creative thinking index on the PISA CT may not provide much value to understanding gender differences in creativity, as differences may be domain and task specific. Second, gender differences in careless responding may bias results for gender differences in PISA CT scores, as effort is associated with enhanced creative performance. Third, the restricted age range of PISA participants may limit the generalizability of results, as the developmental dynamics of gender differences in creativity suggest that the size and direction of gender differences in creative performance may change during this stage of adolescence. Each of these issues, as well as potential solutions and directions for future research using PISA CT scores to examine gender differences in creativity, are discussed.

Creativity tests, like creativity itself, vary widely in their structure and use. These differences include instructions, test duration, environments, prompt and response modalities, and the structure of test items. A key factor is task structure, referring to the specificity of the number of responses requested for a given prompt. Classic creativity assessments often use divergent thinking tasks, which allow for multiple responses. In contrast, other measures, such as insight tasks or the Remote Associates Test, require a single correct answer. This distinction suggests that a creativity test's correlates could depend on its placement along the convergent–divergent continuum. The PISA Creative Thinking assessment leans toward the divergent end, as none of its items require a single correct answer. However, it differs from traditional divergent thinking tests by not explicitly instructing participants to generate as many responses as possible. Instead, PISA items allow varying numbers of responses—some requiring one, others two or three. This variation reflects different levels of divergence, with one-response items being more convergent than three-response items. We argue that this difference in task structure should be considered when examining the relationship between PISA creativity scores and factors like academic achievement and socioeconomic status.

This paper considers the inclusion of creative thinking as an innovative domain within the OECD's PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) and offers a series of reflections on the opportunities and limitations that follow from this. Although this recognition of the importance of creative thinking represents a step forward, the current assessment framework poses inherent risks of standardization. It is argued that a more nuanced and culturally sensitive approach is needed to move beyond a homogenized view of creativity and ensure that assessment fosters rather than limits the creative process. We also highlight how the definition of creative thinking is influenced by factors such as language and cultural values and ideas, all of which must be carefully considered when analyzing the results of these international assessments to preserve the richness of diverse approaches and paradigms. The paper concludes by suggesting the need for alternative, more flexible and multidimensional frameworks that not only enable the assessment of creative thinking but also promote students' all-round development and help to shape more inclusive educational policies that respect cultural diversity and foster creativity in all its forms.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), AI creativity has demonstrated significant potential for application across various fields. This study aims to explore the multidimensional characteristics of AI creativity from the audience's perspective and to develop a corresponding measurement scale. Specifically, Study 1 utilized open-ended interviews with audiences of AI-generated creative products and grounded theory-based data coding to construct a theoretical framework of AI creativity perception. This framework encompasses four core dimensions: originality, depth, credibility, and attractiveness. In Study 2, an exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to develop a scale with high reliability and validity for measuring AI creativity perception, providing empirical support for the multidimensional framework. To further validate the scale's criterion-related validity, Study 3 examined the effect of AI involvement disclosure on creativity perception. The results reveal that audiences hold biases against AI; although AI is perceived to have a significant advantage in enhancing the originality of creative products, it is viewed as less capable in terms of depth, credibility, and attractiveness. This research offers insights into the future development and iteration of AI creativity.