The creative training in the visual arts education

Accepted Manuscript Title: The creative training in the visual arts education Author: Kani ULGER PII: DOI: Reference:

S1871-1871(15)30033-X http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.007 TSC 326

To appear in:

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

22-3-2015 5-10-2015 26-10-2015

Please cite this article as: & ULGER, Kani., The creative training in the visual arts education.Thinking Skills and Creativity http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.007 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

The Creative Training in the Visual Arts Education Kani ULGER Cumhuriyet University, Postal Address, The Campus of Cumhuriyet University, the Department of Fine Arts Education of Education Faculty. TR-58140 Sivas, Turkey. Telephone and fax number +90 346 2191010 4737; +90 346 1224. E-mail address: [email protected]; ([email protected]).

HIGHLIGHTS • The openness to new experiences is one of the main gains of creative training

• Creative Strengths can be improved through practical inferences and applications in creative training • Creative training may increase of participants’ open-ended thinking besides the creative thinking. Abstract

1. Introduction 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 (closedended; 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 Gayle (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, 2004a). 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., 2004a). 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., 2004a). 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 (Ma, 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., 2004a). 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., 2004a). 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., 2004a). 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. (2004a) 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. (2004a) 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., 2004a). 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. (2004a) 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., 2004a). 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, Quintin, Saggar, Kienitz, Royalty, Hong, ….Allan, 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 & 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., 2004a; 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.

1.1 Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to extend the creative training through an original approach with the adaption of curriculum to determine whether the creative training had a significant effect on creative thinking and problem solving. For this purpose, an experimental group was compared with a control. Thus, I argue that individuals in creative training will have more creative thinking and problem solving outcomes than individuals in training based on traditional approaches in visual arts education. For that, it was implemented that the creative training to experimental group; whereas training based on traditional approaches was

implemented to control group. The hypotheses were such as follows: (a) The creativity training group's (experimental group) participants will have more effective creative thinking outcomes than the control group's participants who are trained based on traditional approaches. (b) The creativity training group's participants will have more effective problem solving outcomes than the control group's participants.

2. Method 2.1. Participants The university students (N = 26) participated in this study. Participants, who had the mean age of 20.65, were 11 female and 15 male in The Department of Visual Arts Education of a state university, Turkey during the autumn of 2014. The age range of the participants was from 18 to 25 years old with the majority (77%) falling into 18 and 21 year old range. Male were consistent of majority of the participants, with 58% male and 42% female. 11 students participated in experimental group. Experimental group students were following the third semester of visual arts education as second grade, five of them were female (M age = 19), and 6 were male (M age = 20.83). 15 students (six female, M age = 20.66, and 9 male, M age = 21.44) were in the control group who were in third grade following the fifth semester of visual arts education. Participants were demanded to complete Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) within 30 minutes except instructions and Problem Solving Inventory (PSI) less time than 30 minutes approximately as pretest and posttest.

2.2. Experimental Design Non-equivalent Group Design (NEGD) was used in this study because of the difficulty of random assignment of participants to experimental and control groups. Before the beginning of the experimental treatment, it was administered on participants Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking (TTCT) Figural-A and Problem Solving Inventory (PSI) as the pretests. After the pretests, the experimental group was received the creative training whereas control group was lectured by traditional approach for twelve weeks. Both group participants were administered again TTCT Figural-A and PSI after the treatment as the posttests.

2.3. Analysis of Data To examine the main hypotheses, (a) the students lectured through creative training would have more effective creative thinking and (b) problem solving outcomes, univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for each hypothesis. To determine the effects of the creative training on creative thinking and problem solving ANCOVA was conducted using the pretest of creative thinking and problem solving scores as the covariate, the group (training, control) as the independent variable and the posttest of creative thinking and problem solving scores as the dependent variables.

2.3.1. Present Creative Training According to Scott et al. (2004a) creative trainings are not only established on the wideranging practical comes in many structures, they also exhibit some distinctive differences in terms of methods, because there is no clear-cut definition for each type of training. However, the effectiveness of training programs may contain a similar technique as Brainstorming (Scott et al., 2004b). Conversely, it can be said that there is not possible one best creativity device, material or technique, the technique-aided creative process includes active components, cognitive processes, activities and idea-generation methods which one-hundredand-seventy-two idea-generation methods are related to the problem solving process (Smith, 1998). On the other hand, some traits can be accepted that they are critical for creative thinking improvement. As Prentice (2000) stated, the progress of the creativity in an

educational setting is necessary to involve learners’ own-learning in the process. Also, it was forwarded that openness to experience, open-ended tasks and unconventional thinking can be important trait of creativity (e.g. Runco, 2014). Thus, the openness to experience as unconventional thinking and the open - ended questions related with close learning environment of students gives opportunity to perform their own-learning. As a result, the nature of the present creative training was composed of the highlighted considerations in the related literature as wide-ranging practical exercises, techniques, materials and non-routine problems and open-ended questions with related the learning environment of students. The contents of present creative training program were designed by author considering the basics of creative training programs in related literature with the editing of visual arts education curriculum. One of the main bases of present creative training program was Brainstorming which is proposed by Alex Osborn (1963). Brainstorming, as a group activity, each member of the group is encouraged to put forward ideas on subject matter without any limitation, criticism and judgment allowing members to use their expertise concerning the subject, no matter how implausible. Quantity of ideas is vital rather than quality. Questions as subject matter are raised from the beginning of Brainstorming (e.g. Cropley, 2001; Runco, 2014). Also, it was supported the contents of present creative training program by Hierarchical method, problem finding, reflective thinking and open-ended activities. To this point, Cropley (2001) stated that Hierarchical method produces better quality solutions owing to involve stronger element of organization and structure. Present training program also contained some components such as materials and printed and non printed exercises for supporting the convergent-divergent thinking of students to experience of openness in the direction of thought and application. Also, open-ended problems as non-routine problems related with the real life as the main task was took place in the present training in accordance with the visual arts education curriculum. Accordingly, the contents of present creative

training included techniques of Brainstorming and Hierarchical. Also, the present training included the activities as open-ended tasks, open-ended questions and non-routine problems supported of individual’s own-learning. With this content, present creative training program could be assessed as a packaged creative training program. As the procedure, present creative training was consisted of two main parts. Each part includes a non-routine problem and two pre-activities. Hence, this program was presented in a particular order. Initially, open-ended activities as pre-activity were put into practice to provide the students to think openly. (These activities had been given as first and second steps of the parts of the present creative training which were presented under the title of “Process” of this paper) After that, in third step of first part of the creative training program, it was presented the non-routine problem as main activity of the training. Consequently, the first part of the training was ended by the solution of this non-routine problem. The second part of the creative training was put into practice in the same order, but contents of open-ended activities and non-routine problem were different from the activities and problems placed in the first part of the program (These non-routine problems of the parts of the training had been given under the title of “Process” of this paper).

2.3.2. Process The students took part in this study as a part of their coursework. The main purpose of the course was the "emblem design" which was one of the prominent course subjects in visual arts education curriculum. The contents of the course were to teach the preparation and design of the emblem. As a mark of the emblem, it was reminded that there was a main mission of it to introduce for something. Initially, it was to teach the elements of the emblem which involve of form, color, line and stain with showing on true emblems. Thus, the relation in between meaning and form of the emblem was lectured showing these elements on the true emblems.

It was reminded that this relation was indicator power of representation of the emblem. To this point, it was redirected to the attentions of the students for to look in closely in the forms of emblems as geometrical, symmetrical and asymmetrical ways. In the details, it was showed that there were some differences and similarities in the emblem designs as color, line, stain (elements), geometric, symmetric and asymmetric (form) regarding to message. It was indicated that both elements and forms in an emblem design are very important to introduce esthetically. From the point of activities, drawing techniques were also showed due to line is very important element for the emblem design. The colors were worked by the students on the paper with gouache technique. Additionally, the techniques of line and colors were also worked by students in computer graphic design programs. If it necessary, it was reminded that computer graphic design programs may be utilized by students as a tool. Via the samples of the emblems, it was showed the relationship between color and meaning of the emblems. After this preparation of the subject in the course, the art-work for each student was to do design of an emblem. The treatment was applied on the experimental and control groups as creative training and traditional approach respectively. Both groups were lectured by author as the relation of same subject areas in visual arts education curriculum for twelve weeks (72 lessons hours), during one semester. While the lessons were based on the creative training in the experimental group, those were based on applications, oral clarifications, critiques, and traditional redirections in the control group. The set of two non-routine problems were presented to experimental group, the topics of those were determined by considering participants’ learning environment. Part one, the first step was started by pre-open ended tasks. Students initially were given open instruction such as follows: “Think….” or “Imagine…” And then, students were asked to consider several alternative ways as they can improve their thoughts from out of the routine

related with the presented open task. As the connection with that, it was presented tasks to students for example such as “9-point problem” to explore different thinking ways out of traditional. Part one, the second step, as the main open ended task called as “We will paint our house” was implemented. This fictive open-ended task was consisted of painting a house in the direction of requests of parents' conflict upon colors. In this step, it was aimed to alternative combinations as in terms of color to provide openness in thinking within the direction of certain requests for solution of this conflict. Part one, the third step was the first non-routine problem activity as main part of the activity of the process. The redirections for these problems were as follows: “Work individually. Keep your mind that there is not unique solution or only one correct answer of these problems. Think freely, independently without fixed any idea”. The non-routine problem was as follow: “How might we design an emblem, representing esthetically of our individual characteristics with appropriate visual symbol for using it upon our personal closet in school or t-Shirt, bag or car, door?” In the beginning of this step, Brainstorming was implemented as the relation with the possible components of non-routine problem's solution. The question used in Brainstorming related to subject matter was as follows: -

“What kind of things might be in the design of the emblem that represents personal characteristics?”

Following, it was held Hierarchical technique to assess proposals obtained from Brainstorming. As Hierarchical technique the written down ideas obtained the Brainstorming are listed to select of better quality for possible solutions combining lower level classes into higher-up classes hierarchically. Hierarchical technique based on a hierarchical organization

of ideas as relational chains (e.g. Cropley, 2001). Through the using the Brainstorming and Hierarchical technique, students were provided to think in a variety of large spectrum about the subject matter regarding solution of non-routine problem. After that, it was returned to non-routine problem solving process. Open-ended questions about the real life concerning the subject matter were asked, if it is necessary, when students did not perform of thinking on new ideas related to the solution. For instance: What do you think about personal characteristics? What might be the personal characteristics of you? Which one of the personal characteristics of you might be dominant? It was followed by that “What might be the personal characteristics of you that introduce you to your friends?” It was also followed by another that " How might be represented the personal characteristics of you as visually?” After that stage, students started to work on possible solutions of presented problem. In the end of the first part of the training, the works of students as coursework were the emblem designs. For representation of dominant characteristic of each student as a solution of non-routine problems was personal emblem reflecting him/her personal characteristics in the shape of the emblem design. Part two, the first step was started pre-open ended tasks again. As open ended task, students were presented unclear an object to explore with their experience. By this task, it was wanted from students to execute many ideas through exploring the ‘object’. For the purpose of improving their ideas, the redirections were as follows: “Think individually! What this object looks like? Forecast and imagine as many as you can! ” The other redirection was that;: “Drawing individually what the object looks like?” And then, the last redirection was given; “Let us discuss what the object looks like?” Part two, the second step, as the other open ended task; it was given a large sheet of paper students to construct a definite form of object in the frame of instructions. This task was

aimed to construct an object in alternative combinations within the definite form of object. So, it would provide to students openness to their thoughts and their applications in many ways freely. Part two, the third step was the second non-routine problem activity as the other main part of the training activity of the process as follows: “How might we convert the consisting emblems of us into a trademark for representing a known trade sector?” The redirections for these problems were that; “Work individually! Keep your mind that there is not unique solution or only one correct answer of this problem.” “Think freely, independently without fixed any idea!” Brainstorming was implemented for the relation with the possible components of alternative solutions of this non-routine problem. Following, it was again held Hierarchical technique to assess proposals obtained from Brainstorming. And then, participants started to work on possible solutions of presented nonroutine problem. As a result, the tasks given to students were relevant to their learning educational environment or generating from their real life. Similarly, two main problem activities were chosen from the learning subjects of visual arts education curriculum through adaption in the form of non-routine problem. The students experienced four open-ended tasks and two nonroutine problems as total. Researcher, if it is necessary, asked many open-ended questions to responding for students to think alternatively during the solution processes. Additionally, throughout of the treatment, students were also asked to think alternatively. Overall the training activities, students were encouraged to experience different techniques, to be open to new ideas and think freely without any fixed idea. In the end of experimental training, author administered to both student groups (experimental and control) TTCT Figural-A, and PSI as posttest.

2.4. Measures 2.4.1. Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) The TTCT Figural is used to measure the creative thinking potential in children, adolescents, and adults from kindergarten to high school students (e.g. Torrance, 1966). The revised manual (1984) of TTCT – Figural scoring procedure was used in this study. The TTCT - Figural includes subscales scores in Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstractness of Titles (Titles), Resistance to Premature Closure (Closure) and Creative Strengths (Strengths) (Kim, 2011). The TTCT was adapted into the Turkish language and reliability, validity studies for Turkish version of the TTCT performed by Aslan (2001), who completed the statistical studies to verify the reliability, and validity: The data were collected in the large sample from elementary school students to university students (N = 922). The reliability of TTCT-figural indicated the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) r = .56 to.71. For convergent validity, significant results were found at level of p < .01 in item-total and itemremainder. For divergent validity, TTCT-figural was compared with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and Wonderlic Test and it was found significant correlations (p < .05) between TTCT and WAIS, Wonderlic Test. 2.4.2. Problem Solving Inventory (PSI) PSI was developed by Heppner and Petersen in 1982. PSI is Likert-type instrument designed to measure individual’s perception of his/her problem solving style. In PSI, it was revealed three factors as problem solving confidence (a), approach-avoidance style (b), and personal control (c) on problems. That is, lower scores in PSI indicate that individuals perceive themselves as effective problem solvers as more confident in problem solving, having more personal control over his/her problems and having a tendency to approach problems. In contrast to that, individuals with higher scores of PSI indicate to perceive themselves as ineffective problem solvers, lacking confidence and personal control on

problems avoiding problems. The responses to the items scored between one and six (Şahin, Şahin &Heppner, 1993). PSI is administered on adolescents and adults (Savaşır & Şahin, 1997). PSI was adapted into the Turkish language. The reliability and validity measures of the Turkish version of PSI were obtained by Şahin et al. (1993), who implemented Turkish version of PSI on Turkish university students (153 women and 71 men) in their ages of ranged from 19 to 21 years, with the mean age of 19.8 years. For the reliability analyses, it was found that the Turkish version of the PSI has satisfactory reliability; internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) revealed alpha coefficients of .88 for the total inventory. The inter-item correlations within the scales ranged between -.46 and .52. For the validity analyses, three types of analyses were conducted to obtain estimates of validity of the PSI in a Turkish samples : (a) correlations with BDI, (b) a discriminant analysis of the PSI items in identifying depressed and anxious students, and (c) a factor analysis to determine the factor structure of the PSI. Accordingly, (a) Pearson product-moment correlations revealed that the total PSI score was statistically significantly correlated with the BDI, r (222) = .33, p < .00, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Form (STAI-T), r (222) = .45, p < .00. (b) Discriminative validity of the PSI was initially explored by creating extreme groups on BDI, STAI-T, and PSI scores. A standard discriminant function analysis was performed using the 32 PSI items. (c) There was considerable overlap in the factor structure for PSI between the American and Turkish samples.

3. Results The ANCOVA analysis revealed the significant creative training effect on creative thinking F (1, 25) = 9.33, p = .006, η2 = .29, but it was not determined significant effect on problem solving F (1, 25) = 1.27, p = .27, η2 = .05. The unadjusted and adjusted means for creative thinking and problem solving can be seen in Table 1.

Participants in the creative training as experimental group enhanced significantly their creative thinking (adjusted M experimental = 15.40, SE = 1.16) according to control group participants (adjusted M control = 10.64, SE = .99) in the end of treatment. This result provides support for the main hypothesis (a) of this study. However, participants in the creative training did not differ significantly from the control group ones in terms of the problem solving (adjusted M experimental = 85.32, SE = 4.02; adjusted M control = 91.49, SE = 3.40). This result is not supporting for the other hypothesis (b) of the study. For each subscale, ANCOVA was conducted to determine the significant effect of creative training using the group (experimental, control) as independent variable, the posttest score of subscale as dependent variable, and the pretest score as covariate. The ANCOVA analysis revealed the significant effect of creative training on Titles F(1, 25) = 11.63, p = .002, η2 = .33, Elaboration F(1, 25) = 5.30, p = .03, η2 = .18, and Strengths F(1, 25) = 15.23, p = .001, η2 = .39, but it was not determined significant effect of creative training on Fluency F(1, 25) = 2.34, p = .14, η2 = .09, Originality F(1, 25) = 1.99, p = .17, η2 = .08, and Closure F(1, 25) = .77, p = .38, η2 = .03 (Table 2). The unadjusted and adjusted means for creative thinking subscales are presented in Table 3.

Groups Subscales Fluency Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest Originality Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest Elaboration Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest

Experimental

a

Controlb

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

17.72 23.72 22.22

6.58 10.62 2.17

14.06 16.66 17.76

6.78 6.35 1.85

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

7.45 12.18 12.03

3.50 6.27 1.49

7.06 9.13 9.24

3.86 4.80 1.28

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

14.36 13.63 12.83

2.06 2.65 .84

11.60 9.60 10.18

3.62 3.22 .71

Closure Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest Titles Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest Strengths Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest a N = 11, bN = 16

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

1.81 3.72 3.43

1.25 2.14 .46

1.33 2.66 2.88

1.23 1.87 .39

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

3.72 5.36 5.16

3.00 4.20 .81

2.80 1.33 1.48

3.50 1.39 .69

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

2.81 4.72 4.69

2.44 1.90 .48

2.53 2.20 2.22

1.84 1.37 .41

Although on the each subscale of creative thinking, higher means were obtained by participants in experimental group than control group ones, experimental group participants significantly more improved Elaboration, Titles and, Strengths of creative thinking subscales (adjusted M elaboration = 12.83, SE = .84; adjusted M titles = 5.16, SE = .81, adjusted M strengths = 4.69, SE = .48) than control group participants (adjusted M elaboration = 10.18, SE = .71; adjusted M titles = 1.48, SE = .69, adjusted M strengths = 2.22, SE = .41). For each factor of PSI, univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to detect the effect of creative training as independent variable for experimental and control groups. According to that, the posttest scores of PSI’ factors were taken as dependent variable. While the pretest scores of these factors were taken as covariate, the group (experimental, control) was used as independent variable. The ANCOVA analysis showed that the effect of creative training upon the factor of Confidence F(1, 25) = 1.47, p = .236, Approach-Avoidance F(1, 25) = .54, p = .469, and Control F(1, 25) = .93, p = .764 was insignificant (Table 4).

Thus, present creative training program had significant positive effects on overall creative thinking scores, and there were no significant effects on problem solving scores. The creative training program particularly had significant effects on the subscale of improved Elaboration, Titles, and Strengths of creative thinking, whereas there were no significant effects on the subscale of creative thinking as Fluency, Originality, and Closure. 4. Discussion The main hypothesis (a) of this study was supported that creativity training group's participants would have more effective creative thinking outcomes than the control group's ones. I found significant effect of creative training on students’ creative thinking. This result is supported by Clapham (1997) who found that there was a significant effect of creative training on creative thinking of the university students. This result is also supported, in terms of engineering students by Chen, Jiang, and Hsu (2005), and workers by Wang and Horng (2002). The effect size of present creative training on creative thinking of students found as . 289 (ɳ2). This effect size is not supported by Scott et al. (2004a), who analyzed that there was a large effect of creativity training on creative thinking of students based on 70 previous studies. According to meta-analysis (e.g. Ma, 2006) effect size of creative training programs were computed in the range of between .62 and .11. Hence, the effect size of present creative training can be characterized as medium. As the reason of the results concerning significant overall effect of creative training on the creative thinking, Urban (1995) stated that open structures of training and learning are highly important for creative education with the leading of encouragement of non-conformist behavior; problem solving and divergent thinking. As one of the open structures, it can be showed the Brainstorming technique is often used in creative training. Rietzschel , Nijstad & Stroebe (2014) reported that the brainstorming can encourage the production of creative ideas. As well the others as the open-ended questions, open-ended activities and non-routine

problems come respectively. To this point, non-routine problems related with the real life is very important owing to their structure tend to think openness for students. Hence, Davies, Jindal-Snape, Collier, Digby, Hay, and…… Howe (2013) reported that the use of real, exciting, and novel problems can encourage the creativity of students. Similarly, Giloi and du Toit (2013) emphasized that lecturers can choose learning outcomes as open-ended serially to encourage creativity of students. Accordingly, as Urban (1995) underlined, the open structures as non-routine problems seem significant differentiation point of the creative training apart from other educational approaches with the causing of creative thinking. Runco (2014) stated that openness can be especially important for creativity. Similarly, Florida (2014) referring to Carl Rogers’s view stated that if the individual is ‘open’ to all his experience, then one will expect a connection of his creativity due to the ‘openness’ is a vital factor of constructive of creativity. That is, the components of creative training regarding to open structures can be showed as the reason of influencing the creative thinking. This kind of these structures may be related to open-ended thinking which can be defined as to think as to be independent from any fixed ideas. Since it is difficult to be creative without being independent (e.g. Runco, 2014). Thus, ‘open ended thinking’ not only includes open structures as divergent thinking, openness, non-routine problem solving process, responds to open-ended questions, but also tend to accept easily instruction techniques as brainstorming. To this point, open ended thinking may be helpful for creative thinking. As related to the results of the main hypothesis in terms of subscales of creative thinking, there was also found significant difference in Titles, Strengths and Elaboration in favor of experimental group. This result is supported by the findings of previous studies with respect to Elaboration (e.g. Byrge & Tang, 2015; Clapham, 1997; Scott, et al., 2004a). However, this result is not consisted with the findings of Wang and Horng (2002), Basadur et al. (2000), Scott et al.(2004a) and Byrge & Tang (2015) with respect to Fluency and Originality.

Fluency produces the most available responses (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971; RoskosEwoldsen, Black & Mccown, 2008). Fluency scores in the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) are determined by counting the number of different drawings produced without duplication; it requires a simple quantity of unique answers (Torrance, 1965; Cropley, 2001). Accordingly, the using of brainstorming in creative training can be effective on the influence of Fluency scores when considering the brainstorming is used for effective idea generation. As mentioned above, the previous studies in which the brainstorming was mostly used in the creative training, support this idea. This result shows us that brainstorming can be an effective technique on serial idea generation for Fluency. However, as Byrge and Tang (2015) stated, the effect of creative training on Fluency, Originality, and Elaboration might not be the same. Present result supports this conclusion that the effect of creative training upon the different subscales of creative thinking skills as Fluency, Originality, and Elaboration could be different. Titles involve the abilities of abstract thinking, synthesis and organizational thinking process and for capturing the essence of the information according to Kim (2011) who found that Titles scores increased significantly in adults because abstract thinking develops with age. The meaning of the increase of the Titles scores indicates the development of individual's abstract thinking. Also, it was found that there is significant relationship between intelligence and TTCT subscale of Titles (Cho, Nijenhuis, van Viannen, Kim & Lee, 2010; Kim, 2011). Besides, TTCT Figural sub scores were analyzed by Kim (2006), who found that TTCT Figural form consists of two factors which are innovative as Fluency and Originality and adaptive as Elaboration and Titles. This is very meaningful in terms of the findings of present study in which Fluency and Originality were not found significant influence as innovative block. Due to Elaboration and Titles scores were found significantly different in present study; the other block might be the adaptive shaped by the creative training. This result

suggests that Hierarchical technique could be reason of this development of adaptive aspect of creative thinking. Because, hierarchical method is based on the idea that hierarchical organizations of ideas are sorted into classes on basis of common content (e.g. Cropley, 2001). That is, it can be said that this organizational thinking process synthesizing the ideas supports more adaptive aspect than being innovative aspect of creative thinking. Strengths are articulate storytelling, unusual visualization, movement and action, expressiveness of titles, synthesis of lines or circles, synthesis of incomplete figures, emotional expression, internal visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, colorfulness of imagery, richness of imagery and fantasy (Aslan & Puccio, 2006). Torrance (1966) pointed out that creativity is sensitive to problems; gaps; missing elements, deficiencies, and disharmonies. These traits listed respectively, can be said that they are relevant to some irregularities. “Strengths” as a subscale of creative thinking cannot be thought differently apart from Torrance’s approach. Accordingly, Strengths can be defined as the process to do regular of sensible irregularities. The open-ended questions, problems and activities point out some irregularities in creative training. Individuals see these irregularities and they try to engage with them due to be sensitive to these irregularities. So, individual can possess many opportunities to regulate the irregularities because openness to new experiences as a gain of creative training. Runco (2014) based on prominent researchers, stated that openness to experience involves a sensitivity to fantasy, feelings, imagination, aesthetics, ideas, action, curiosity and values. If one considers that the similarity of major traits of Strengths and openness are common, one can be easily inferred from that Strengths and openness interacts each other as being inevitably in creative training climate. This case can be cause of power of activating of the Strengths. To this point, the implementation of creative training may provide the opportunity for students to do practical inferences in visual arts education as different from other disciplines.

Creative training was conducted with various disciplines as psychology, business, journalism, sciences, pharmacy, arts students -who were consisted of %32 of the participants with science students- (e.g. Clapham, 1997), engineers (Basadur, et al., 2000) and workers(e.g. Wang & Horng, 2002). Consequently, these studies were not reported that there were found significant difference in Strengths. Peng, Cherng, Chen, and Lin (2013) found that there is indirect effect of the classroom aspiration structures on creativity. Visual arts classroom regarding practical applications represents students more opportunities through creative training. That is, visual arts classroom climate of creative training may encourage students to do practical inferences of their ideas through applications. Consequently, the Strengths might be influenced positively as tendency of students to do practical inferences of their ideas through applications in creative training implementation of visual arts education. According to present result, the Strengths could be assessed as tendency to think creatively through practical inferences. As known, there is a possibility of two-factor model on structure of the TTCT as innovative or adaptive. Kim (2006) investigated this model and found that the innovative factor is loaded by Fluency, Originality, and Closure, and the adaptive factor is as Elaboration, Titles, and Strengths, but adaptive factor model as Elaboration and Titles without Strengths fit better than those with Strengths. Kim (2006) indicated that Strengths might represent a separate factor between two-factor models on structure of the TTCT. Perhaps, under the light of present study' result, it can be said that Strengths might not be represented as separate factor between innovative or adaptive style of creative thinking as a block of Elaboration, Titles, and Strengths in adaptive. Elaboration is the ability to improve embellishment and add details to an idea, and accomplish the elaborate ideas of individual (e.g. Torrance, 1966; Lemon 2011; Aslan & Puccio, 2006). Scott et al. (2004a) stated that creativity training appeared to large effect on

various manifestations of divergent thinking in terms of Fluency (.67) and small effects with respect to Elaboration ( .54). However, Ma (2006) stated that the Originality had the largest effect size, but Elaboration had the smallest in Creative training program. Also, Wang and Horng (2002) found that there is significant effect of Creative Problem Solving training on Fluency and Originality. Accordingly, previous study findings are not comparable with this study’s findings in terms of Originality, Fluency and Elaboration. In accordance with the present results, Fluency and Originality were not found significant in this study, however, Elaboration was found in the level of p = .03 significant as smallest effect size (η2 = .18). Present result is also meaningful in terms of the finding obtained by Yoruk and Runco (2014) that Fluency is correlated with Originality, but it is not with Elaboration. Perhaps, there could be various reasons of present result with respect to Originality. Kim (2011) stated that originality is related with the talent of producing of unique and visual ideas. Shipton, Fay, West, Patterson, and, Birdi (2005) found that supportive learning climate enhances innovation. Considering the unique and visual ideas of individuals as originality are important to produce the innovation, given the learning climate can be shown as one of these reasons. On the other hand, Urban (1995) stated that the openness leads the possibilities of a specific application and elaboration from different perspectives towards creativity. Under the present result, it can be said that the openness as a main acquisition of creative training can lead the elaboration, but this openness alone may not be sufficient to produce unique and visual ideas as originality. The other hypothesis (b) of this study was not also supported that creativity training group's participants would have more effective problem solving outcomes than the control group's ones. I did not find significant effect of creative training on students’ problem solving. That is, it can be said that present creative training has insignificant effect on the students’ problem solving. This result is not supported, in terms of students (e.g. Clapham, 1997;

Puccio, et.al. 2006; Scott, et al., 2004a), engineers (Basadur, Graen,& Green,1982; Basadur, et al., 1986), managers (Basadur, et al., 2000), and business people (Fontenot, 1993). Also, this result is not supported by Simms and Ogilvie (2009) who found that individuals were given creative training achieved more holistic solutions. However, this result is supported as regarding to workers and adults participants by Wang and Horng (2002) and, Blissett and Megrath (1996) respectively. Basadur et al. (2000) stated that to increase the skill of fluency is translated directly into increased skills of solution ideas. Also, Strom and Strom (2002) explained that there is benefit in Brainstorming possible responses to problems. In present study, it was not found significant difference in Fluency that is supported with Brainstorming used in creative training programs as general acceptance. According to that, it is possible that the impact of Fluency might not be effective enough upon the problem solving process significantly in present study. In this direction, it can be said that fluency could be an important factor for increasing the solution ideas to the problems. However, this result is also important regarding of supporting of Feldhusen and Goh’s (1995) conclusion that students can be assessed by the effectiveness of novel solutions for maintaining openness. The openness is to be tolerant of a wide range of options (e.g. Runco, 2014). Broadly, the openness is the tolerance of ambiguity consisting the lacking of boundaries in concepts, beliefs, perceptions and it receives much conflicting information without forcing closure upon the situation (e.g. Florida, 2014). Considering creative thinking is skilled in extending and breaking the borders of the conflict conditions (Piawa, 2010), it is accepted that the openness is needed for the creativity, because the openness influences on creativity (Ryhammar & Smith, 1999). Also, openness to experience is highly associated with creative potential (Root-Bernstein, 2015; Runco, 2014). To this point, it is possible to improve the creative thinking in creative training during ambiguous (Bott, Quintin, Saggar,

Kienitz,..,& Allan, 2014). Therefore, Clinton and Hokanson (2012) stated that open-ended approaches address to generate levels of ambiguity. However, the levels of ambiguity can be a bit different from each other as aforementioned. For example, the openness may be an initial level of leading the creativity. On the other hand, it is also needed to maintain this ambiguity owing to find for novel solutions to problems. Whereas, according to Basadur (1994), people have difficulty to maintain the ambiguity due to they are traditionally taught to be logical and every problem has either one right answer or wrong. Therefore, it can be said that there is a negative effect of traditional education on non-routine problem solving process in terms of novel solution for non-routine problems. Runco (2014) stated that openness as open to experience can be gained by the creative training. Accordingly, present result show us that participants might be gained the openness by the creative training, but it may not be maintained this openness with keeping ambiguity during the training: Because, providing the openness is a bit different from maintaining the openness. As presented Table 2, Closure was not found significant in present study. According to Kim (2011) Closure is ability to be open-minded. It can be said that the openness can lead to creativity, but one might not expect a significant effect of the creativity upon non-routine problem solving process, if this openness is not maintained as open minded. Therefore, tolerance of ambiguity may be useful when working on problems (e.g. Runco, 2014), but it may not be enough to solve the problem significantly. Because of the non-routine problem solving process in the natural environment is a critical topic (e.g. Runco & Chand, 1994). This situation is also supported by the views on the uncertainty of relationship between creativity and problem solving. According to Runco (2014) creative performance is not always a solution to a problem, however, creativity sometimes is a form of problem solving, but sometimes is not. Perhaps, the uncertainty of relationship between creativity and problem

solving can be explained by the difference between openness and maintaining the openness as open minded. Clearly, openness involves creative, imaginative, independent, unconventional, accepting of diversity (Moss, McFarland, Ngu, & Kijowska, 2007), a sensitivity to fantasy, feelings, esthetics, ideas and it is characterized by an imagination when considering new ideas and sensations and feelings (e.g. Runco, 2014). Thus, as Runco (2014) referred to prominent researchers, inclination of openness to experience related creativity and it is strongly tied to the creativity. Hence, openness can be accepted one of the major characteristics of the creativity. Whereas, maintaining the openness may not be only these involving characteristics as new ideas and sensations and feelings, but also it might pursue these characteristics. This situation may need a bit of performance to maintain this openness as open-minded. Openminded is the tendency to contemplate new proof against a favored belief; to spend sufficient time on a problem (Haran, Ritov, & Mellers, 2013), and it is a tolerance for different approaches; a willingness to make mistakes (Kökdemir, 2003). To this point, tolerance of ambiguity may be not only basis of openness, but it may be also basis of open-minded through maintaining this tolerance to different approaches and even mistakes. Accordingly, it can be said that the construction of different hypotheses and the development of multiple assumptions with maintaining the tolerance of ambiguity are required by problem solving. Open-minded through staying close to the ambiguous may be not only active to optional situations as sensation of fantasy, feelings, and ideas like openness, but it also maintains this ambiguity to other aspects of life for thinking of new ideas. In this case, it can be said that open-minded is needed by problem solving process. As Cuivenor and Else (1997) stated, it is possible to use Brainstorming for generating ideas assisting to link such as openness to ideas in creative training. The meaning of that is that the

openness could be gained, at least, by creative training. However, if this openness is not transformed to open-minded, it cannot be expected the significant effect of creative training upon the problem solving. To this point, it is hard not to give rights to the Kaufmann’ (2003) statement. According to him, more research on the nature of problem sensitivity would bring new training implications for the aim of better positions to achieve novel solutions of novel tasks.

5. Implications and Limitations 5.1. Implications Ma (2006) stated that the implications of the creative training studies will be clearer for the construction of creativity theory when the effectiveness of key components of training is revealed. The implication of this study is the open ended thinking which is acquired by open structures as openness and open-minded through the Creative training. Also Byrge, and Tang (2015) put forward a question related to creative training: Do we need to introduce trainees to models if the purpose of the training is to become more creative? The response is yes, because each education discipline needs to have the creative training models in especially adapting to curriculum. Accordingly, the other implication is to prepare a Creative training program for visual arts education in the level of higher education. According to Beghetto and Kaufman (2014), the nearly all of creativity trainers cannot establish to connect between the academic curriculum' subject matter of the classroom and with the various strategies and techniques of Creative training. To this point, Byrge and Tang (2015) questioned on how to integrate the creative training into the curriculum? Because, this topic is very important in regard to meet the students with creative training. Hence, implication of this study is firstly to apply a creative training through shaped by curricula program of Visual arts education.

This study also presents new creative training program. According to Runco (1994) we need to build models to improve the creative thinking without the limitation of known applications; owing to the creative potential is not static (Bott et al., 2014). Hence, Puccio et al. (2004) referred to MacKinnon stated that there is no unique course for nurturing creativity. As a further implication of present creative training program, it was to present original approach in visual arts area.

5.2. Limitations In this study, students couldn't be randomly assigned into the two groups (intact groups) as sample of experimental and control. In this case, it would be hoped that the two groups are equivalent, but both groups might be nonequivalent. In terms of threats to internal validity, there could be some threats of this situation for present study as for many studies designed with multiple-group comparisons nonrandomly. When considering this situation, it can be said that there are some limitations of this study as the threats of history, maturation, testing, and mortality. The other limitation was small number of the participants (N = 11) in terms of experimental group. Hence, it is suggested that future research should be conducted with more participants. Despite these limitations, there were two vital features of this study: The first feature is to confirm the findings of the some previous study findings examining the effect of Creative training on Turkish university students first time. The other, this study was first to conducted to examine Creative training in the field of Visual arts education an experimental study.

6. Conclusion

The results of this study showed that creative thinking of participants could be improved by creative training. Although there are many types of creative training (in terms of possessing various contents), overall results of these creative training studies indicated that creative training programs improve creative thinking and problem solving. In contrast to that, in present study, the effect of creative training on problem solving of the participants was not significant. Basadur et al. (2000) stated that fluency is a very important factor for increasing skills of solution ideas in the application of creative training. As supported by Fontenot (1993) who found that creative training affected American business people trainees’ fluency and problem finding skills. However, it was not significant effect of creative training on Fluency in present study. Accordingly, it can be said that fluency is an important indicator to increase the ideas. Although the Brainstorming is useful technique to increase the ideas, the increased ideas produced by this technique in present study might not be to utilize for problem solving significantly. Because, according to Runco (2014), Brainstorming is not the best way to solve the problems. Thus, it is suggested that creative training researchers to conduct new techniques besides the Brainstorming to obtain the significant effect on problem solving. In present result, it was found significant subscale of TTCT’s Elaboration, Titles, and Strengths. Byrge and Tang (2015) stated that the impact of creative training on different kinds of creative ability as fluency, originality and elaboration might not be the same. Also, Kim (2006) found the TTCT Figural form consists of two factors as innovative (fluency originality) and adaptive (elaboration - titles). Accordingly, it can be concluded that the implementation of present creative training improved the adaptive creative thinking style of participants. The reason of this result, perhaps, it can be the Hierarchical technique used in present training owing to it provides synthesis and organize the proposals adaptively. Puccio, et al. (2004) indicated that large-scale results disguise different perceptions of the same course content by participants with different cognitive styles. In contrast to that, creative training as

specific learning approach may be an opportunity for participants to perceive differently through different cognitive style. This point could be a response to the question that it is unclear what leads to improve creativity in terms of components of creative training programs (Baer, 1994; Clapham, 1997). Thus, as Puccio et al. (2004) suggested, future research can be conducted to examine on whether the correlation of between course content and cognitive styles beyond reactions to the training experience. On the other hand, regarding to Originality and elaboration in contrary to previous study findings that Elaboration was found significant in present study, whereas Originality was not. Besides this, Strengths was also found significant in present study as different from previous studies. Hence, it can be concluded that the Elaboration and Strengths subscales of the creative thinking in present creative training might be gained by students in the making of the art-work process regarding to visual arts education as a different from other disciplines. Contrary to various contents of trainings, it can be said that the common point of them is the openness which leads to creativity through open-ended thinking as to be independent from any fixed idea. Such open structures, especially open-minded, may maintain the ambiguity. Sternberg (2003) stated that we need to accept uncertainty extend as much as necessary to be creative. Thus, it can be concluded that the open structures as openness, open-minded and open-ended thinking are the most important factors for improving of the creative thinking. Among them, it can be concluded that especially open-minded is vital for non-routine problem solving owing to it maintains the ambiguity for long time.

References Aslan, A.E., & Puccio, G. J. (2006) Developing and testing a Turkish version of torrance’s tests of creative thinking: A study of adults. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40,163-177.

Aslan, A. E. (2001) Torrance Yaratıcı Düşünce Testi’nin Türkçe versiyonu. (In Turkish). Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimler Dergisi,14, 19-40. Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not general trait: A multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-46. doi: 10.1080/10400419409534507 Basadur, M., Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1986) Training effects of attitudes toward divergent rhinking among manufacturing engineers, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 612-617. Batey, M. & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 132, 355429 doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430 Basadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. A. Runco (Eds.) Problem finding, problem solving and creativity (pp. 237-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000) Understanding How Creative Thinking Skills, Attitudes and Behaviors Work Together: A Causal Process Model, Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77-100. Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 41–70. doi:10.1016/00305073(82)90233-1 Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From defitional concensus to the introduction of a new heuristic frame work. Creativity Research Journal. 24, 55-65. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181. Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25, 53-69. doi:10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Blissett, S.E. & Mcgrath, R.E. (1996). The relationship between creativity and interpersonal problem – solving skills in adults. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 173 – 182. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00766.x Bott, N., Quintin, E-M., Saggar, M., Kienitz, E., Royalty, A., Hong, D…….Allan, L (2014). Creativity training enhances goal-directed attention and information processing, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 120 – 128. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.03.005 Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: Effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002 Chen, C., Jiang, B. C. & Hsu, K. (2005). An empirical study of industrial engineering and management curriculum reform in fostering students’ creativity, European Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 191-202. doi: 10.1080/03043790500087423 Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., van Viannen, A.E.M., Kim, H.B. & Lee, K.H. (2010) Relationship between diverse components of intelligence and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44,125-137. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01329.x Clapham, M. M. (1997) Ideational Skills Training: A Key Element in Creativity Training Programs, Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1001_4 Clinton, G.& Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the Design/Creativity Loops model, Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 111– 130. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9216-3 Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity. London: Kogan Page. Cuivenor, J., & Else, D. (1997). Fındıng occupatıonal ınjury solutıons: The ımpact of traınıng ın creatıve thınkıng, Safety Science, 25, 187-205.

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004 Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal. 8, 231-247, Doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0803_3 Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books: New York. Fontenot, N. A. (1993). Effects of Training in Creativity and Creative Problem Finding upon Business People. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 11-22. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1993.9712114 Giloi, S., du Toit, P. (2013). Current Approaches to the Assessment of Graphic Design in a Higher Education Context. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 32, 256-268. Guiford, J.P. & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Isbell, R. T. & Raines, S. C. (2003). Creativity and the arts with young children. Canada: Thomson. Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration, Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 188201. Kaufmann, G. (2003). What to Measure? A new look at the concept of creativity, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 235-251. doi:10.1080/00313830308604 Kaufmann, J. & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal. 24, 83-91. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.649237.

Kerr, B. & McKay, R. (2013). Searching for tomorrow’s innovators: Profiling creative adolescents. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 21-31. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752180 Kim, K. H. (2006). Is Creativity Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Creativity Research Journal, 18, 251-259. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_2 Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrase in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285-295. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805 Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik durumlarında karar verme ve problem çözme. [ The decision making and problem solving in the cases of the ambiguity]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University, Turkey. Lemon, G (2011). Diverse perspectives of creativity testing: Controversial issues when used for inclusion into gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 34, 742-772. doi:10.1177/0162353211417221 Loweless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2005). Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 3-13. doi: 10.1080/09585170050045173 Lubart, T.I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295-308. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334 07 Ma, Hsen-Hsing. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 435–446. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3 Moss, S.A., McFarland, J., Ngu, S., & Kijowska, A (2007). Maintaining an open mind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the

association between openness to experience and organizational commitment, Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 259–275. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.009 Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal. 15, 147-151. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403 Murdock, M. C. (2003). The Effects of Teaching Programmes Intended to Stimulate Creativity: a disciplinary view. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 339357. doi:10.1080/00313830308597 Osborn, A. (1963). Your creative power. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Peng, S-L., Cherng, B-L., Chen, H-C. & Lin, Y-Y. (2013). A model of contextual and personal motivations in creativity:How do the classroom goal structures influence creativity via self-determination motivations? Thinking Skills and Creativity 10, 50- 67. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.004 Piawa, C.Y. (2010). Building a test to assess creative and critical thinking simultaneouslY. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2( 2), 551-559. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.062 Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004) Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research, Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 Prentice, R. (2000). Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education. The Curriculum Journal, 11, 145-158. doi:10.1080/09585170050045173 Puccio, G. J., Firestien, R. L., Coyle, C. & Masucci, C. (2006). A Review of the Effectiveness of CPS Training: A Focus on Workplace Issues. Creatıvıty and Innovatıon Management, 15, 19-33. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00366.x

Puccio, G. J., Wheeler, R. A. & Cassandro, V. J. (2004). Reactions to creative problem solving training : Does cognitive style make a difference? Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 192 – 216. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01240.x Reiter – Palmon, R., Illies, M. Y., Cross, L. K., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2009) Creativity and domain specificity: The effect of task type on multiple indexes of creative problem – solving. Psychology of Esthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 3, 73-80. doi: 10.1037/a0013410 Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2014) Effects of Problem Scope and Creativity Instructions on Idea Generation and Selection, Creativity Research Journal, 26, 185-191. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901084 Root-Bernstein, R. (2015). Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., 16, 203–212. doi: 10.1007/s12564015-9362-0 Rose, L. H. & Linn, H. T. (1984). A meta –analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11-22. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00985.x Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S. R. & Mccown, S. M. (2008). Age-related Changes in Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 33-59. doi:10.1002/j.21626057.2008.tb01079.x Runco, M. A. & Chand, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Eds.) Problem finding, problem solving and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Runco, M. A. (1994). Conclusions concerning problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Eds.) Problem finding, problem solving and creativity (pp. 271-290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity. (Second Ed.) USA: Elsevier.

Ryhammar, L., & Smith, G. (1999). Creative and other personality functions as defined by percept-genetic techniques and their relation to organizational conditions. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 277-286. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_5 Sak, U. & Oz, O. (2010). The effectiveness of the Creative Reversal Act (CREACT) on students’ creative thinking, Thinking Skills and Creativity 5, 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.09.004 Savaşır, I. & Şahin, N. H. (1997). Bişlişsel davranışçı terapilerde değerlendirme: Sık kullanılan ölçekler. (in Turkish). Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yay. (9). Özyurt Mtb.; Ankara. Scott, Leritz & Mumford (2004a) The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 361–388. doi:10.1080/10400410409534549 Shipton, H., Fay, D., West, M. Patterson, M. & Birdi, K. (2005). Managing People to Promote Innovation. Creatıvıty and Innovatıon Management, 14, 118-128. doi: 10.1111/j.14678691.2005.00332.x Simms, S. & Ogilvie, dt. (2009). The Impact of Creativity Training on an Accounting Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 75-87. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9124-z Smith, G. F. (1998) Idea-Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active Ingredients. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 107–134. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00810.x Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative Thinking in the Classroom, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 325-338. doi:10.1080/00313830308595 Strom, R. D., & Strom, P.S. (2002). Changing the rules: Education for creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 183 – 200. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01063.x Şahin, N., Şahin N. H., & Heppner, P. P. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Problem Solving Inventory in a group of Turkish university students. Cognitve Therapy and Research, 17, 379-396, Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Norms-Technical Manual (Research Edition). NJ: Personnel Press, İnc. Torrance, E. P. (1965). Revarding creative behavior: experiments in classroom creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Torrance, E. P. and Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. NY: Dodd Mead & Company. Urban, K. K. (1995).Openness : A “Magic Formula” for an adequate development and promotion of giftedness and talents?! Gifted and Talented International, 10, 1519.Retrieved from http://www.world-gifted.org/Publications/GnTI-Journal Wang, C. V., & Horng, R. Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 35-45. doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00237 Wang, A. Y. (2012). Exploring the relationship of creative thinking to reading and writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 7, 38-47. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.09.001 Yoruk, S. & Runco, M. A. (2014). The neuroscience of divergent thinking. Activas Nervosa Superior, 56, 1-16. Zampetakis, L. A., Moustakis, V., Dewett, T. & Zampetakis, K. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of student creativity scripts. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 237-254. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01298.x

Table 1. Means and Adjusted Means for Creative Thinking and Problem Solving by the Groups

Groups Dependent Variables TTCT Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest PSI Pretest Unadjusted Posttest Adjusted Posttest a N = 11, bN = 16

Experimental

a

Controlb

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

11.83 15.89 15.40

4.29 5.24 1.16

9.89 10.28 10.64

3.81 3.06 .99

M (SD) M (SD) M (SE)

73.72 81.36 85.32

11.93 14.32 4.02

91.26 94.40 91.49

27.66 15.93 3.40

Table 2. Analyses of Covariance for Creative Thinking Subscales Subscales Fluency Originality Elaboration Closure Titles Strengths

MS 117.03 49.13 36.83 1.82 84.21 38.51

F (1, 25) 2.34 1.99 5.30 .77 11.63 15.23

P .14 .17 < .05 .38 < .01 < .01

Table 3. Analyses of Covariance for Creative Thinking Subscale Scores with Means and Adjusted Means by the Groups