Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Creativity
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yjoc

Mindset and the desire for feedback during creative tasks ✩

Kristy Doss a,∗, Lisa Bloom b
a
Western Carolina University, 4 Conger Drive, Hendersonville, NC 28739, United States
b
Western Carolina University, 203 Killian Building, Killian Lane, Cullowhee, NC 28723, (828) 226-6742, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Key words: This mixed-methods research study sought to understand participant behaviors through a lens of mindset behav-
Creativity iors and to understand the accuracy of mindset self-assessments to actual performance during creative endeavors.
Constructive feedback During a makerspace period that took place for one hour over four days, sixty-two children were asked to create
Makerspace
a product from a set of materials they were provided. They chose whether to work individually, with a partner,
Growth mindset
or in a small group. After each session, participants were asked whether they wanted feedback on their product.
Researchers observed the participants while working in the makerspace for behaviors that were characteristic of
a fixed or growth mindset, such as whether participants chose to receive feedback, whether they used feedback
to improve their product, and how participants reacted to frustrations and failed attempts. Participants also re-
ceived a mindset rating from instructors who worked with them over the course of the week on a Problem or
Project-Based Learning experience. Scores were correlated with two mindset assessments participants completed
at the beginning of the week, one adapted from Dweck (2006) and the MAP (Mindset Assessment Profile). The
researcher scores of participants’ mindset and teacher scores of participants’ mindsets demonstrated a strong
correlation. The two self-assessments used in the study did not show a strong correlation with performance as ob-
served in the makerspace or in the classroom completing PBL-based classroom activities. Seven learning profiles
emerged from the data based on participant attitudes (optimistic, approval-seeking, rule-breaking, perfectionis-
tic) and behaviors (flexibility, playfulness, commitment to task). The mindset profiles may prove beneficial as
educators develop activities to address mindsets in their classrooms, especially in the context of creative activities
and projects.

Mindset and the desire for feedback during creative tasks
Several factors influence creative performance including personality
and work environment. Self-efficacy, creative identity, creative mind-
set, and metacognition play a role in the decision to complete tasks or
not complete creative tasks (Hass, Katz-Buonincontro & Reiter-Palmon,
2016; Hu, Wang, Yi & Runco, 2018; Karwowski & Kaufman, 2017).
Karwowski (2014) coined the term creative mindset to describe an indi-
vidual’s belief about his or her own ability to enhance creative abilities.
A mindset is a way of thinking about the learning process (C. S. Dweck,
2006). People with growth mindsets believe that traits such as intel-
ligence and creativity are malleable while people with fixed mindsets
believe they are basically unchangeable. Children and adults who have
growth mindsets focus more on learning than letter grades or test scores.
According to the research (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007;
Good, Aronson & Inzlicht, 2003), adolescents who approach learning
with a growth mindset are more motivated, more likely to seek and use
feedback, and outperform their peers.
Having a growth mindset involves demonstrating characteristics
such as believing talents and intelligence can be improved through hard
work, accepting mistakes or setbacks, and welcoming feedback. Individ-
uals embrace and overcome challenges such as those individuals face
during the creative problem-solving process (Zhao, Zhang, Heng & Qi,
2021). Having a growth mindset plays an important role with motiva-
tion to complete creative activities (Karwowski, 2014) and can improve
creative self-efficacy (Hass et al., 2016). In addition, a growth mindset
enables an individual to persevere after having a negative performance
(Beghetto & Dilley, 2016).
Research has shown that children and youth can be greatly influ-
enced in the mindset they adopt (C. S. Dweck, 2006). Individuals with
a fixed mindset believe failure defines who they are and feel threatened
by other’s successes (C. S. Dweck, 2006). Those who identify as having
a fixed mindset believe that intelligence and talent cannot be changed,
and effort is fruitless. These individuals may avoid challenges, attempt
to hide flaws, ignore, or avoid feedback, and view feedback as personal
criticism.

✩
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Creativity Conference at Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon, USA.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kkdoss@wcu.edu (K. Doss).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100047
Received 22 September 2022; Received in revised form 19 December 2022; Accepted 14 February 2023
2713-3745/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Creativity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
K. Doss and L. Bloom
The influence of external evaluation on creativity is inconclusive.
A variety of factors influence the role of feedback on creative perfor-
mance including when the feedback is offered during the creative pro-
cess, the form and nature of the feedback, and individual perception of
the need for feedback. Beghetto (2007) described the benefits of cueing
or providing feedback to learners in order to help them understand the
constraints of a creative task. Evaluators can provide feedback in a va-
riety of forms such as controlling feedback aimed to modify behaviors
versus informational feedback given to provide information but not to
control behavior (Zhou, 1998). Controlling feedback can have a nega-
tive impact on creativity at an individual level (Shalley & Gilson, 2004;
Zhou & Oldham, 2001). Hu et al. (2018) assessed feedback offered in a
variety of forms: positive controlling, negative controlling, positive in-
formation and negative informational. They found informational feed-
back improved creativity while controlling feedback such as: "You did
very poorly. This should not have happened. Remember, you should not
repeat the poor performance, or we can’t use your data." diminished cre-
ativity. Participants in this study demonstrated greater creativity when
receiving negative feedback as opposed to positive feedback (Hu et al.,
2018).
Individuals may seek out feedback or it might be provided during a
task. With the potential of receiving negative feedback, individuals may
try to avoid the feedback or regard the feedback as unwelcome (Kohli &
Jaworski, 1994). An individual’s sense of autonomy may decrease, in-
fluencing creative performance and motivation (Deci, Koestner & Ryan,
1999).
Faith in an endeavor and positive feedback by experts in the field
can strengthen personal identity and self-efficacy and facilitate creative
achievements (Bandura, 1997; Lebula & Csikszentmihalyi, 2017). How-
ever, individuals who are highly sensitive to feedback will not receive
the same benefits (Sordia & Martskvishvili, 2022). Beghetto and Dil-
ley (2016) suggest the importance of teaching individuals how to re-
ceive and use honest and supportive feedback to improve creative per-
formance and overall creative potential. This research study continues
the line of inquiry about the influence of feedback during creative tasks
by investigating students’ desire or lack of desire for constructive criti-
cism. Researchers sought to understand if students’ behaviors and their
use of feedback during creative tasks aligned with their scores on mind-
set self-assessments.
Method
Participants
Sixty-two children aged 7–14 enrolled in Rocket to Creativity par-
ticipated in this study. Children who attend Rocket to Creativity are
enrolled by their parents. There are no criteria for enrolling in the pro-
gram other than being within the required age range. Participants who
attend RTC pay a 149.00 fee which covers materials and lunch. Schol-
arships are available for participants of low-income families. Upon IRB
approval, all parents were asked to consent to their child’s participa-
tion in the study. There was a 100% return rate for permission forms.
For the purpose of the research, theme groups were combined to make
a total of four groups of 15–17 participants each. Participants worked
on the task individually, with a partner, or in small teams of three to
four participants. During data analysis, two participants were dropped
from the study due to problems with confirming scores on one of the
self-assessments. Boxes were checked with multiple “x” marks in a hap-
hazard manner, demonstrating that the individual did not understand
the directions for taking the assessment.
Design
This study used a mixed-method research design. In mixed methods
research, both quantitative and qualitative data are collected, analyzed,
2
Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047
and integrated to provide an understanding and corroboration of re-
search results (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). A mixed meth-
ods approach was chosen for purposes of complementarity (Greene,
2007), which seeks a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon
using specific methods for different parts of the process.
During a one-week creativity camp, participants completed two self-
assessments designed to gage mindsets (fixed versus growth). Teachers
facilitating Problem or Project-Based Learning (PBL) tasks with the par-
ticipants throughout the week gave a rating of 1–10 based on a mind-
set scale. Participants also engaged in a makerspace challenge facili-
tated by the researchers. In addition to completing the mindset rat-
ing, researchers observed participants’ behaviors during the makerspace
setting. They gave participants optional feedback, documented partici-
pants’ preference for feedback or no feedback, and offered a rating of
the completed product.
Setting
This study took place during Rocket to Creativity (RTC), a yearly
summer program sponsored by a university in a rural area of Western
North Carolina. RTC entails a week-long day camp experience for chil-
dren aged 7–14 and serves as a field experience for teachers seeking
licensure in gifted education. During the week, children are grouped in
theme-based areas self-selected from an interest inventory. There are 4
to 8 participants per group for a total of eleven groups. During the week,
each group is immersed in a theme-related problem or project chosen
by the children on the first day. Themes include topics such as con-
ducting archaeology digs, investigating fake news, exploring electron-
ics, robotics, and coding, leading crime scene investigations, creating
Rube Goldberg machines, and inspiring others to change the world.
During the week-long day camp, children participate in a mak-
erspace session for an hour each day. The makerspace is conducted in
a large conference room with twenty workstations which consist of two
tables and six chairs. Children were organized into four groups meeting
throughout the day with approximately 15 participants attending each
session. This was organized to allow groups to be spread out throughout
the room, for sound quality as each group was videotaped during each
session to capture group discussions and actions. Each group received a
box of materials that remained on the tables for the entire week.
Procedures
One the first day of RTC, all participants completed the two mindset
self-assessments in the PBL groups with teacher facilitators. The follow-
ing assessments were used:
1. Mindset Quiz - Adapted from: C. S. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset:
The new psychology of success. New York: Random House Inc.
https://advising.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/341/2020/07/
MINDSET-Quiz.pdf
2. Mindset Assessment Profile - Mindset Works ® EducatorKit
https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/
Domain/173/MindsetAssessmentProfile.pdf
Over the course of the week, participants participated in creative
activities designed to promote divergent thinking and problem-solving
skills. They developed questions to explore, brainstormed topics, com-
pleted research, worked with experts in the field of interest, and de-
signed products to share with family members on the final day. At the
end of the week, teachers were asked to give a rating for each participant
in their group and offer commentary to support the score.
In the makerspace setting, participants were challenged with creat-
ing a product that could be marketed to peers and adults. Participants
worked individually or in small groups for an hour a day to create their
product. Each group received the same supplies that included products
such as cardboard tubes, spaghetti noodles, marshmallows, magic mark-
ers, tape, binder clips, scissors, construction paper, small metal squares,
K. Doss and L. Bloom
and rubber bands. All groups had access to hot glue guns, and each group
was allowed to bring in one additional item to use in constructing their
final products.
The following instructions were given on the first day of the project
and reiterated at the beginning of each working session: Over the course
of the next four days, you are given the challenge of creating a product
that you could sell. This product needs to have a purpose (such as a
rollercoaster for a pet hamster or a container to organize supplies). You
can create whatever you want as long as it can be useful for other par-
ticipants or adults. You will have four sessions to complete this product.
Each session will last an hour. The supplies you see before you will re-
main on your table over the course of the week. You can add one item
from home to the products. At the end of the week, you can enter your
final product into a competition to see who has created the most mar-
ketable item. During the sessions, we will be offering suggestions for
improvement. You will also be asked questions about the creative pro-
cess such as How did you come up with this idea? Are you struggling with
anything? What are your plans for tomorrow? Let us know if you have any
questions.
At the end of each daily session, participants were given the oppor-
tunity to receive constructive feedback and receive a score of 1–10 on
a scale of completeness and marketability of the product. Constructive
feedback involved specific ideas to improve the products such as: This
area looks like something could slip through it. I wonder how you could fix
that? or This part is a bit wobbly. I wonder how you could make it stur-
dier? Researchers kept anecdotal notes as they watched the groups and
documented which participants requested feedback and a score. The re-
searchers videotaped all makerspace sessions.
Data collection
Dweck self-assessment
Results of the mindset assessments were calculated for each partici-
pant. The self-assessment adapted from C. S. Dweck (2006) consists of
10 questions with a 4-point Likert-scale rating (strongly agree, agree,
disagree, strongly disagree) and places participants into four categories
based on the overall score of 0–30.
SCORE CHART
22–30 = Strong Growth Mindset
17–21 = Growth with some Fixed ideas
11–16 = Fixed with some growth ideas
0–10 = Strong fixed mindset
Mindset assessment profile
For the second self-assessment, MAP (Mindset Assessment Profile),
scores range from 8-48 with results in 10 categories: 8–12 points (F5),
13–16 points (F4). 17–20 points (F3), 21–24 points (F2), 25–28 points
(F1), 29–32 points (G1), 33–36 points (G2), 37–40 points (G3), 41–44
points (G4), and 45–48 points (G5). The following comments in Table
One explain usual beliefs of people in each category.
Instructor rating / score
Participants worked throughout the week on a Problem or Project
with an instructor. Instructors assessed overall growth mindset using a
scale of 1–10 based on the following list of characteristics. In addition,
instructors provided comments about each participant’s performance.
Characteristics of a Fixed Mindset:
• Believes intelligence and talent are fixed.
• Believes effort is fruitless.
• Believes failures define who they are.
3
Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047
• Hides flaws.
• Avoids challenges.
• Ignores and/or avoids feedback.
• Views feedback as personal criticism.
• Feels threatened by others’ successes.
Characteristics of a Growth Mindset:
• Believes intelligence and talents can be developed.
• Believes effort is the path to mastery.
• Believes mistakes are part of learning.
• Views failures as an opportunity.
• Believes failures are temporary.
• Embraces challenges.
• Welcomes feedback.
• Views other’s success as inspirational.
Researcher rating / score
Researchers reviewed anecdotal notes and analyzed video-taped ses-
sions to assess behaviors and comments associated with challenging mo-
ments, failed attempts, and persistence in completing the tasks. They
rated participants on a scale of 1–10. They specifically looked for the
following behaviors:
• Appreciation for critique or suggestions for improvement.
• Encouraging others to persevere with tasks.
• Positive approach when frustrated with a setback.
• Working through problems.
• Responding to and using feedback.
• Continuing to improve the product over the course of the week.
• Belief that they could continue to improve the product.
Observations
Researchers observed and took anecdotal notes regarding partici-
pants’ behaviors during the makerspace setting. In addition, a video
recorder was placed at each table to capture participant interactions
when researchers were not present.
Results
Quantitative results
Scores on mindset assessments were calculated. The mindset scores
were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficient for potential rela-
tionships in several ways. Mindset assessments were compared to the
teacher and to the researchers’ scores. The teacher and researcher scores
of mindset behaviors and attitudes were correlated with each other to
determine reliability.
Adapted C. S. Dweck (2006) self-assessment results
Scores on the assessment ranged from 14 to 29. Seven participants
(11.67%) fell into the range of Fixed with Some Growth Ideas, twenty
participants (33.33%) Growth with Some Fixed Ideas, and thirty-three
(55%) in the Strong Growth Mindset category.
MAP results
Participants scored between 23 and 46 points. One (1.67%) scored
an F2, Seven (11.67%) scored an F1, Fifteen (25%) scored a G1, Nine-
teen (31.67%) scored a G2, Eleven (18.33%) scored a G3, Four (6.67%)
scored G4, and Three (5%) scored G5.
K. Doss and L. Bloom
Teacher rating / score
Participants scored between 2 and 10 points. Nine (15%) scored a 2,
Six (10%) scored a 3, Two (3.33%) scored a 4, Eight (13.33%) scored a
5, Four (6.67%) scored a 6, Ten (16.67%) scored a 7, Seven (11.67%)
scored an 8, Eleven (18.33%) scored a 9, and Three (5%) scored a 10.
Researcher rating / score
Participants scored between 0 and 10 points. One (1.67%) scored a
0, Four (6.67%) scored a 2, Four (6.67) scored a 3, Three (5%) scored
a 4, Eleven (18.33%) scored a 5, Four (6.67%) scored a 6, Three (5%)
scored a 7, Five (8.33%) scored an 8, Nineteen (31.67%) scored a 9, and
Six (10%) scored a 10.
The researcher scores of participants’ mindset and teacher scores of
participants’ mindsets demonstrated a strong correlation, r(59) = 0.82,
p = .00001. Observations of student behaviors were consistent across
settings.
The student self-assessment Dweck Score demonstrated a slight re-
lationship with the teacher observations over the course of the week,
r(59) = 0.34, p = .008. The Dweck Score with researcher score
demonstrated a relationship useful for making a limited prediction,
r(59) = 0.40, p = .102.
The MAP assessment with teacher score, r(59) = 0.11, p = .404., and
the MAP score with researcher score, r(59) = 0.21, p = .102, proved not
to be statistically significant. We conclude that there is not a significant
linear correlation between the Map assessment and observed student
behaviors.
Qualitative results
Researchers reviewed anecdotal notes and videotapes to understand
participants’ behaviors during the time in the makerspace. Researchers
analyzed videos to assess conversations and behaviors throughout the
week, noted when participants stopped working on products, and evalu-
ated final products. They organized their notes and coded information in
a recursive fashion in order to identify the themes that emerged. These
developed into seven different profiles of behaviors demonstrated by
the participants. Qualitative data from videos, field notes and observa-
tions were used to corroborate researcher mindset scores. Seven profiles
emerged from the data:
1. Flexible, Goal-Oriented, Persistent, Optimistic, Humorous, Realistic
about Final Product – 34 children (56.67%)
2. Feedback-Driven, Excessive Approval-Seeking – 2 children (3.33%)
3. Opinionated, Self-Driven, Rule-Breaking – 3 children (5%)
4. Independent, Non-Feedback Seeking – 7 children (11.67%)
5. Early-Bailers, Project Does Not Meet Personal Vision, Appearance
(Smart/Successful) Matters – 6 children (10%)
6. Low Self-Esteem, Not Able to Generate Ideas, Lack of Playfulness –
5 children (8.33%)
7. Underachieving, Rejects Premise of the Project – 3 children (5%)
Profile one
Flexible, Goal-Oriented, Persistent, Optimistic, Humorous, Realistic
about Final Product
34 children (56.67%)
In this group, participants demonstrated flexibility with the limited
materials. They were able to determine a plan that allowed for improve-
ments to be made over the course of the week such as a Rube Golberg
machine that used a marble moving through different maze-like fea-
tures, a dragon that a rubber ball would roll through from mouth to
tail, toys that could launch items such a piece of foam, dolls with dif-
ferent features, pet toys for dogs and cats, and a solar cooking device
for making items such as spaghetti noodles. Not all participants in this
4
Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047
category chose to work as a whole group, but those who did not worked
on products that were similar in nature. For example, members in one
group all worked on making dolls, each delving into a different per-
sonality for the doll or components that moved. All participants in this
profile determined a goal by the end of the first day of the project or the
start of the second day.
Although these participants requested feedback on a daily basis, they
did not ask for this as the facilitators moved from group to group. When
receiving feedback, they listened to the suggestions and offered thought-
ful responses. The group creating the maze worked to address the feed-
back about the stability of the walls of the maze. They agreed that they
were not sturdy and came back to the makerspace with a plan of action
the next day. The daily scores did not influence their motivation in a
negative way. They were eager to look at the materials provided to see
what changes they could make to modify their products.
There was a sense of playfulness with the groups. They laughed at
mistakes and found humor in their failures. One group abandoned the
idea they started on the first day because they thought they had a final
product that was complete. After receiving feedback and a score, they
appeared a bit surprised. They rebounded easily, though, and launched
a new idea for creating a multi-dynamic toy. The group created a com-
mercial to promote their product. On the final day, these participants
presented their final products to their parents with enthusiasm and pride
in what they had accomplished
Participants worked as a team to brainstorm ideas and problem-solve
together. The participants working on the Rube Golberg machine ques-
tioned possible solutions, asking each other questions such as, “What if
there were holes here? We could try that. We could use a coffee filter or
something. Oh, I know what we could try.”
Profile two
Feedback-Driven, Excessive Approval-Seeking
2 children (3.33%)
Participants in this profile worked on products throughout the week.
They sought out the facilitators to request feedback throughout the daily
work sessions regardless of the knowledge that the facilitators would be
offering feedback at the end of each session. After making small changes,
one of the participants in this profile would ask if the change looked
like what the facilitator intended. After explaining that the participant
should make that choice, the child would work on the product for an-
other short amount of time and then return once again to seek out ap-
proval.
Participants in this profile repeatedly asked what they should do
next. Although open to feedback and committed to improving their
products, these participants sought direction and approval from the fa-
cilitator. Teachers working with these individuals also discussed how
the participants performed similarly during Project-based learning ac-
tivities. One teacher said, “Without his partner, I’m not sure if he would
have finished his robot project. He was willing to work under her di-
rection but was hesitant to try new things without her prompting and
continued refocusing.”
Profile three
Opinionated, Self-Driven, Rule-Breaking
3 children (5%)
Participants in this profile followed a personal vision for their work
in the makerspace. One participant wanted to create a brand of odd-
flavored ice creams. Even though the rules for the makerspace were
to only use the products that were offered at each table, she persisted
throughout the week to create her ice cream ideas and brought in sam-
ples for participants to try on the final day of presentations. She enjoyed
brainstorming unique names for her ice cream and discussing advertis-
ing techniques she could potentially use in the future. Although she was
K. Doss and L. Bloom
open to feedback, she did not actually use any of the ideas that directed
her back to complying to the overall rules for the makerspace.
Other participants in this profile followed the procedures for using
only the items provided but did not use feedback even though they re-
quested it and listened patiently as it was given. There was a bit of sar-
casm or dark humor in the comments they directed to the cameras while
being videotaped. One comment made to a partner with a smile on her
face: Teamwork isn’t helpful, unless someone is doing all the work for
you.
Profile four
Independent, Non-Feedback Seeking
7 children (11.67%)
Participants in this profile did not request feedback at the end of each
daily session. They worked on products throughout the week typically
in an individual manner, not collaborating with others at their tables.
All participants continued to tinker and build in order to improve their
products.
One girl designed a marshmallow shooter. The final product did not
actually launch the marshmallow, but she explained how it was sup-
posed to work. The teacher working with her throughout the week said,
“She focused on creating what was in her own mind. She did not want
to take any feedback from me. She did discuss with her partner different
ideas, but their two projects were made separately and combined on the
last day.”
Another participant in this profile was a bit argumentative with the
others at her table and was easily discouraged with setbacks. She worked
on creating a doll in the makerspace. It was later disclosed that there
were family problems that may have influenced her behavior during
this experience. Two boys who did team together worked diligently
on their product, a miniature drive-in movie theater, made several im-
provements to their idea, but were not interested in facilitator input.
One group of girls explained on the last day that they did not want
feedback throughout the week because they felt like it was a form of
nagging and that they knew what they wanted to complete. They worked
on building a robot for their project.
Profile five
Early-Bailers, Project Does Not Meet Personal Vision, Appearance
(Smart/Successful) Matters
6 children (10%)
Participants in this profile all worked in teams to complete their
projects. One group built a cyborg, another designed a jet and land-
ing area, and the third group designed a slingshot. Comments made by
these individuals focused on trying to make things perfect, lacking time
to complete the tasks, and describing how the materials were not ad-
equate. Their motivation and focus on their work shifted dramatically
once a decision was made to abandon the project. These individuals
criticized other group members who continued to modify the products.
Two of the boys in this profile demonstrated natural leadership abil-
ities, guiding their peers in the initial conception of the product and in
initial design stages, but they stopped working at the end of day two af-
ter receiving feedback. They blamed others in their groups for setbacks
and were disappointed in the quality of their products explaining that
the materials given were not adequate. When parents came to see the
products on the final day, it was noted that these two boys were broth-
ers.
Profile six
Low Self-Esteem, Not Able to Generate Ideas, Lack of Playfulness
5 children (8.33%)
Participants in this profile did not actually complete any of their
project ideas. There was little engagement in play. Comments made by
5
Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047
these individuals were that they did not like what they were making,
wishing for different products like double-sided tape, requesting that the
facilitator decide what they should do, and crumpling up or destroying
things they started so that they needed to start from scratch the next
day. A majority of these participants did not want feedback at the end
of each session, but they did want help while the facilitators moved from
group to group throughout the sessions. Those who requested feedback
were not able to transfer the suggestions into steps for improving their
products. Their attitudes were that of helplessness, feeling anxious, or
being overwhelmed. They did not reject the experience of being in the
makerspace; they simply were not able to work through creating a final
product.
Profile seven
Underachieving, Rejects Premise of the Project
3 children (5%)
Three participants did not complete projects or contribute to their
groups in a meaningful way during the makerspace experience. One
participant was actively destructive and argumentative with his group
members. The other two were not destructive, but they did not help to
design components or modify products. Children in this profile spent
time arguing with others and were more engaged with watching what
other groups were creating. One parent discussed that the child was
having a difficult week with issues at home.
Discussion
The teacher and researcher scores demonstrated a strong correla-
tion. What the teachers observed in the classroom while participants
completed Problem or Project-Based Learning projects appeared similar
to the behaviors exhibited in the makerspace setting. These behaviors
included seeking out feedback and using the feedback to modify prod-
ucts or projects, how participants interacted with partners or in small
teams, how they dealt with challenges or setbacks, and persevering to
complete their goals or intentions.
The assessments did not show a relationship between how the par-
ticipants assessed themselves on the continuum of mindsets and the ob-
served behavior of the teachers and researchers. Participants tended to
score themselves much higher on the assessments as compared to what
the teacher and research observed during the creative activities. Two is-
sues show the potential for influencing problems with assessments cor-
relating with performance. One is that the participants may have re-
ceived prior instruction on growth mindset in the past and potentially
perceived what the correct answer should be for demonstrating a growth
mindset. Have our participants been coached to answer in the “right”
way?
The other issue was within the design of the self-assessments. Al-
though there is the potential for children to score in the fixed mindset
categories, the questions – never or almost never may be too constrictive
in nature. Both leave little room for participants to score within the fixed
mindset categories. The participants scored between 25 and 46 points
on the MAP Assessment with one participant in the F2 category and no
participants falling into the F3, F4, or F5 categories.
Seven mindset profiles emerged as the researchers analyzed the films
and through observations throughout the week. These profiles reflect
a variety of attitudes observed during the makerspace including op-
timistic, approval-seeking, rule-breaking, and perfectionistic. Students
chose to receive or reject the opportunity for feedback. Behaviors ob-
served fell along a continuum in terms of flexibility, playfulness, and
commitment to task.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Several factors could have influenced the results of this study. Group
dynamics must be taken into consideration. Participants in the mak-
K. Doss and L. Bloom
Fig. 1. Adapted Dweck Assessment Results.
erspace setting sat at tables with up to three other participants. They
received the option to work individually or as a team. The influence of
group members could play a beneficial role in the experience or could
be detrimental to the design process.
The makerspace project took place within the context of a week-
long camp that emphasizes creative problem-solving. This environment
could influence the attitudes of the participants, especially for partic-
Fig. 2. Mindset Assessment Profile Scores.
Fig. 3. Teacher Rating Scores.
6
Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047
ipants who have attended the camp in prior years. Along with partic-
ipants having these prior experiences, participants who have received
instruction in developing a growth mindset or in creating projects in
a makerspace may have developed a more realistic understanding of
working with a limited number of supplies. They may also be better
prepared to improvise using different tools or products.
Factors, such as dealing with trauma at home could influence how
the participants behaved during the makerspace and with the teacher
throughout the week. A negative approach or attitude might reflect a
child struggling with emotions about family dynamics and not show
how the individual typically reacts during the creative problem-solving
process. It would be beneficial to watch participants completing activi-
ties in a variety of contexts at different points of time in order to see if
behaviors were consistent across time and settings.
In future studies, researchers could include a creative assessment
similar to the one used by Hu et al. (2018) of final products to see which
individuals demonstrated strong creative abilities in overall creativity,
likeability of product, appropriateness to topic/task, and originality. Us-
ing an assessment tool with words about creativity and the creative pro-
cess instead of intelligence such as Karwowski’s creative mindset items
could provide different results Hass et al., 2016). The feedback process
was created to be neutral, neither positive or negative in nature. Future
studies could investigate the reasons for why individuals make choices
in relationship to past experiences with feedback, parental feedback,
and creative self-efficacy (Figs. 1–4, Table 1).
K. Doss and L. Bloom Journal of Creativity 33 (2023) 100047

Fig. 4. Researcher Rating Scores.

Table 1
Mindset Assessment Profile Categories.

Profile Categories Descriptive Comments

F5 and F4 You strongly believe that your intelligence is fixed—it doesn’t change much. If you
can’t perform perfectly, you would rather not do something. You think smart people
don’t have to work hard.
F3 and F2 You lean toward thinking that your intelligence doesn’t change much. You prefer
not to make mistakes if you can help it and you also don’t really like to put in a lot
of work. You may think that learning should be easy.
F1 and G1 You are unsure about whether you can change your intelligence. You care about
your performance, and you also want to learn, but you don’t really want to work too
hard for it.
G3 and G2 You believe that your intelligence is something that you can increase. You care
about learning and you’re willing to work hard. You do want to do well, but you
think it’s more important to learn than to always perform well.
G5 and G4 You really feel sure that you can increase your intelligence by learning, and you like
a challenge. You believe that the best way to learn is to work hard, and you don’t
mind making mistakes while you do it.

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about sup-
porting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29(4), 265–270.
10.1080/02783190709554421.
Beghetto, R. A., & Dilley, A. E. (2016). Creative aspirations or pipe dreams? toward un-
derstanding creative mortification in children and adolescents: Creative aspirations or
pipe dreams? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(151), 85–95.
10.1002/cad.20150.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an in-
tervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments ex-
amining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125(6), 627–668. 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House Inc.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). John Wiley & Sons.
Hass, R. W., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Disentangling creative
mindsets from creative self-efficacy and creative identity: Do people hold fixed and
growth theories of creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4),
436–446. 10.1037/aca0000081.
Hu, W., Wang, X., Yi, L. Y. X., & Runco, M. A. (2018). Creative self-efficacy as moderator of
the influence of evaluation on artistic creativity. The International Journal of Creativity
& Problem Solving, 28(2), 39–55.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112–133.
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psy-
chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. 10.1037/a0034898.
Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy,
mindset, and identity. Elsevier Science & Technology.
Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1994). The influence of coworker feedback on salespeople. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 58(4), 82–94. 10.1177/002224299405800407.
Lebula, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2017). Me, myself, I, and creativity: Self-concept of
eminent creators. In M. Karwowski, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self: Effect of
beliefs, self efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 137–154). Academic Press.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),
33–53. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.
Sordia, N., & Martskvishvili, K. (2022). Creative self and fear of rejection: The role of
feedback-related individual characteristics in creativity. Journal of Individual Differ-
ences, 43(3), 115–123. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000365.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement ori-
entation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(2), 261–276. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261.
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected
developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 35(3), 151–167. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x.
Zhao, H., Zhang, J., Heng, S., & Qi, C. (2021). Team growth mindset and team scien-
tific creativity of college studentss: The role of team achievement goal orientation
and leader behavioral feedback. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, Article 100957.
10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100957.