Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

From STEM to STEAM: How to Monitor Creativity

Cathérine Conradty & Franz X. Bogner

To cite this article: Cathérine Conradty & Franz X. Bogner (2018) From STEM to
STEAM: How to Monitor Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 30:3, 233-240, DOI:
10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195

Copyright © The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 18 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5266

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 30(3), 233–240, 2018
Copyright © The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
ISSN: 1040-0419 print/1532-6934 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195

From STEM to STEAM: How to Monitor Creativity

Cathérine Conradty and Franz X. Bogner
University of Bayreuth

Creativity is a broad and complex construct, difficult to define and to quantify, assumed to introduce
new impulses into science education (STEM), and leading to better acceptance of science by
adolescents. Therefore, increasing efforts are being undertaken to integrate traditional creativity
(Arts), in modifying STEM to STEAM. Consequently, a valid way of empirically quantifying of
creativity of adolescents is needed. In this study, part of a European initiative (CREATIONS), an 8-
item Likert-scale questionnaire quantifying individual creativity was administered to a sample of
2,713 students, aged 11–19 (M ± SD = 15.71 ± 2.24; 54.7% females), revealing two subscales: one,
labelled Act, covering conscious and trainable cognitive processes; the second, named Flow,
contained items describing elements of flow experiences, a mental state of creativity. Analyses
indicated that there were no gender differences and that younger students’ creativity scores were
higher than those of older students. Recommendations for implementation in STEAM lessons are
discussed.

Creativity is a broad and complex construct, difficult to define
and to quantify. Unlike other complex variables such as person-
ality or attitudes, research into creativity quantifying is still
disputed. Although personality has been measured since the
1940s (Parish, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1965), and attitudes in
general since the 1930s (Likert, 1932; Thurstone, 1928), and
enviromental attitudes in specific (Blaikie, 1991; Bogner &
Wiseman, 1999; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Although
Spearman (1904) and Hargreaves (1927) started the first move,
it took much longer to appropriately capture its construct psy-
chometrically. Anderson (1964) defined, “Creativity is crossing
out mistakes” (in Torrance, 1995, p. 147). The definition of
creativity as a process of sensitizing for problems, closing gaps
in knowledge, searching for solutions and communicating
results (Torrance, 1966) is based on the recognition that “sensi-
tivity to problems seems to be essential in getting the creative
thinking process in motion” (Guilford, in Torrance, 1995, p. 69).
Discussions of creativity remain ambiguous or even con-
tradictory (e.g., Amabile, 2012; Runco, 2004; Sternberg &
Correspondence should be sent to Cathérine Conradty, Z-MNU (Centre
of Maths and Science Education), University of Bayreuth, University
Campus, NW1, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany. E-mail: catherine.conrad-
ty@uni-bayreuth.de
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-
commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.
Lubart, 1996). A comprehensive definition could focus on the
ability to generate novel and useful ideas (Mumford, 2003).
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) subsumed creativity within a trian-
gular system of individual, domain, and appreciative envir-
onments. Guilford (1950) derived his understanding of
creativity from a structural model of intelligence, defining
creativity as any new, unprecedented, and effective method
of solving problems. Similarly, creativity seems to be a
combination of talent, knowledge, ability, intrinsic motiva-
tion, and personality traits, additionally supported by envir-
onmental conditions (Holm-Hadulla, 2010). From a
psychological point of view, fluid thinking and association,
as well as the ability to change perspectives, are important.
Readiness for an open mind and preparedness for meaningful
processing of ideas are also to be considered. Several meth-
ods may foster creative thinking, for example concept map-
ping, mind mapping, or brainstorming (Gordon, 1961; Novak
& Gowin, 1984; Osborn in Merrotsy, 2017). Of particular
interest is the effect of problem-solving tasks on creativity
(Ma, 2009), maybe because the need to solve problems might
have been the evolutionary trigger for the development of
(human) creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
Neuronal research has regarded creativity either as the
result of right brain hemisphere processes or of interhemi-
spheric interactions (Kowatari et al., 2009). Meanwhile,
more complex neuronal locations have been discussed
(e.g., Carlsson, Wendt, & Risberg, 2000; Chávez-Eakle,
Graff-Guerrero, García-Reyna, Vaugier, & Cruz-Fuentes,
2007; Shah et al., 2013). As human creativity may have
234 C. CONRADTY AND F. X. BOGNER
its foundation in the combination of previously unconnected
mental representations, creative thinking is regarded as a
matter of combining neural patterns (Thagard & Stewart,
2011). Creativity seems rooted in normative cognitive pro-
cesses and neuronal representations apparently measurable
by neuronal imaging techniques. Several studies have
demonstrated a new and promising way to investigate
aspects of creative thinking using neuroscientific methods
(Thagard & Stewart, 2011; Tyan, Liao, Shen, Lin, & Weng,
2017). Particular brain areas have been identified with crea-
tivity. Aberg, Doell, and Schwartz (2016), for instance, have
described the right brain hemisphere as specifically contri-
buting to creativity and dopamine-related activities as a
determinant of human creativity.
Recent evidence has demonstrated neurophysiologically
determined gender differences regarding rewarding (Volf &
Tarasova, 2013). Tyan et al. (2017) reported gender differ-
ences in communication between brain areas: Brains of
male teenagers seem to involve better intrahemispheric
communication, brains of female teenagers for interhemi-
spheric communication. The male network organization is
more local, more segregated, and more similar to small-
world networks. These findings are in line with the differ-
ences in divergent and convergent thinking and might indi-
cate a neuronal difference in this gender-specific ability
(Shen, Liu, Shi, & Yuan, 2015).
Gender differences in creativity studies still seem ambig-
uous. Besançon and Lubart (2008) reported diverse studies
supporting the hypothesis that women are considered more
creative (e.g., Ülger & Morsünbül, 2016); others claim the
same for men (e.g., Shin, Jung, Choe, & Han, 2002) or even
deny that there are differences (e.g., Besançon & Lubart,
2008). Knowledge about differences in neurological struc-
tures might provide a deeper insight into the nature of
creativity, the emergence and importance of creativity, moti-
vation, and personality development (Lau & Cheung, 2010).
Human creativity is regarded as providing an important
evolutionary advantage (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Cultural
aspects, too, may provoke gender differences in the devel-
opment of creativity (Sternberg, 2006; Torrance, 1966),
which brings education into play (Vosylis, Kaniusonyte, &
Raiziene, 2016; Wechsler, 2006).
Creative processes often involve a special state of con-
sciousness called flow, characterized by complete absorption
in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In this mental state,
a person performing an activity becomes fully immersed in
a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoy-
ment. Flow is perceived as resulting in high intrinsic moti-
vation scores, particularly at young ages. Unfortunately, the
ability to flow tends to vanish, probably replaced by knowl-
edge-based, logical sense-making patterns
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A one-sided education based on
verbalizing and on testable knowledge may even accelerate
this shift.
Behaviors that promote or inhibit creative potential stem
from social backgrounds, working climates, and education
experiences. Perfectionism may cause strict target orientation
and problem-solving rituals to prevent mistakes, maybe lead-
ing to fear, disappointment, failure, and mistakes (Grant,
Grant, & Gallate, 2012). A helpful error management culture,
with no blame for failure, may help to avoid such problems.
Other factors can be both supporters and blockers of creativ-
ity: Social distance inhibits creativity (Sosa, 2011). Strong
team spirit might promote self-censorship or prevent present-
ing new ideas to avoid being different. Another cultural
disadvantage might originate in the separation of work and
play: Playful testing can encourage the development of some-
thing new (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Guilford (1950), a pio-
neer of research into creativity, focused on two aspects: (a)
How can the creative promise of children be discovered? (b)
How can the development of creative personalities be pro-
moted? As this study monitors individual creativity, a self-
reported questionnaire was applied to answer three questions:
(a) Are the factors of the questionnaire consistent with earlier
published ones? (b) Are there gender differences? (c) Are
there age-dependent differences in creativity?
METHOD
Participants and survey
A sample of 2,713 students (aged 11–19 years, M ± SD:
15.71 ± 2.24; 54.7% girls) from six EU countries (United
Kingdom, Greece, Sweden, Malta, Italy, Germany) com-
pleted the questionnaire, originally consisting of 10 items
(Cognitive Processes Associated with Creativity, CPAC;
Miller & Dumford, 2016). Responses were assessed using
a 4-point Likert scale from ranging from never (1) to very
often (4). All items are listed in Table 1. A master version
was translated into the national languages and retranslated
for control purposes. Compared to the original questionnaire
the you in personal statements was replaced by an I did…, as
the focus was on self-reported personal behavior.
Only complete questionnaires were included in the analysis.
An exploratory factor analysis with subsequent oblique rotation
yielded two factors. To assess the adequacy of the sample, the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test (Kaiser, 1970) and Bartlett’s
test of sphericity were applied. Two of the 10 original items were
dropped due to cross loadings or low loadings. A subsequent
factor analysis, the KMO test = 0.869 and Cronbach’s alpha =
.77 were adequate. Similarly, the Kaiser–Guttman criterion sug-
gested two factors (Kaiser, 1960).
Based on the central limit theorem, a normal distribu-
tion of the data was assumed and differences between
factors using a paired sample t-test were used. Gender
differences were examined using an independent sample
t-test. As the objectives were not directional, a two-tailed
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 235

TABLE 1
Exploratory factor analysis with CPAC after rotation (valid N = 2113)

Components

Pattern Matrixa Pilot Factor Analysis 10 Final Factor Analysis 8

1 2 1 2

CPAC 04 I joined together dissimilar concepts to create a novel idea. ,749 ,726
CPAC 05 I incorporated a previously used solution in a new way. ,729 ,717
CPAC 06 I made a connection between a current problem or task and a related situation. ,680 ,682
CPAC 07 I imagined a potential solution to explore its usefulness. ,621 ,656
CPAC 03 I looked at a problem or task from a different angle to find a solution. ,621 ,640
CPAC 01 I tried to generate as many ideas as possible when approaching a task. ,496 ,266 / /
CPAC 02 I asked other people to help generate potential solutions to a problem. ,217 / /
CPAC 09 I lost track of time when intensely working. ,823 ,792
CPAC 10 I felt that work was automatic and effortless during an enjoyable task. ,723 ,742
CPAC 08 I was fully immersed in my work on a problem or task. ,646 ,704

Extraction method: Main component analysis.

Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalization.
a. The rotation is converged into 5 iterations.
Factor 1 eigenvalue explains 37,07% variance;
Factor 2 eigenvalue explained 13,75% variance
Total eigenvalue explained 50,82%
Table shows factor loadings >±0.2, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.767.

level of significance was chosen the for Spearman correla-
tion between subscales of CPAC, with a corresponding
95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
After dropping of two items, exploratory principal axes factor
analysis with oblique rotation yielded two factors on the basis
of eigenvalues > 1.0, explaining 50,82% of the total variance.
The scree-plot and the component plot in rotated space
(Figure 1) supported a two-factor solution. All items loaded
higher than 0.4, the KMO value of 0.869 indicated distinct and
reliable factors (Kaiser, 1970). The values of the measure of
adequacy of the anti-image matrix were above .80. The Bartlett
test showed correlations between items as significantly differ-
ent from zero (p < .001). The pattern matrices of all items and
of the reduced set as well are shown in Table 1. The
Cronbachs’ alpha when an item was deleted ranged between
.736 and .755. The biggest improvement caused item02 with a
Cronbach alpha = .781, supporting dropping it. Item01 was
dropped due to cross-loading.
A subsequent repeated factor analysis confirmed the two-
factor model with 8 items based on Kaiser–Guttman criter-
ion (Kaiser, 1970). The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 indicated
an acceptable overall reliability (Lienert & Raatz, 1998).
The exploratory factor analysis yielded two oblique fac-
tors (KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.869 and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Chi2 = 3832,946, df = 45, p <
0.0001). The component plot in rotated space (Figure 1)
showed the two factors of the CPAC. The two factors
explained 50,9%.
Although the analysis supported Miller and Dumford (2016),
new labels were used: For component 1, primarily named
deliberate, the label act was used, as all the cognitive processes
mentioned are conscious and active. For the second component,
primarily labelled intuitive processes, flow was used, because all
items were typical elements of a flow experience
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 2015). The latter was even used for
the subscale of the long version questionnaire (Miller, 2014).
There were no correlations with gender (Table 2;
Figure 2). Age, however, correlated negatively with self-
reported creativity with a correlation coefficient of –.14;
(p < 001, N = 2142; Figure 3). This correlation nevertheless
seems substantially meaningless, only significant because of
a very large sample size, as the two variables have had less
than 2% common variance. Consequently, in Table 2 only
the correlation of .38 was regarded with substantive impor-
tance—and even .38 means there is only 14% common
variance.
Discussion
Two factors were sufficient to summarize creativity, as
originally measured by the CPAC. Miller and Dumford
(2016) labelled their factors deliberate and intuitive, but
for component 1 the label act was used, as the mentioned
cognitive processes were conscious and active operations
236 C. CONRADTY AND F. X. BOGNER

FIGURE 1 Component plot in rotated space with remaining CPAC 8 items indicating 2 factors (Act = Item03-07, Flow = Item08-10).

TABLE 2
Correlation of subscales with gender and age. Spearman-Rho

Spearman-Rho Deliberate Flow Gender Age

Deliberate Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .380** −.026 −.128**

Sig. (2-tailed) . <.001 .231 <.001
N 2136 2136 2136 2136
Flow Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .021 −.133**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .329 <.001
N 2136 2136 2136
Gender Correlation Coefficient 1.000 −.001
Sig. (2-tailed) . .952
N 2706 2706
Age Correlation Coefficient 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .
N 2706

** The correlation was significant (2-sided) at the 0.01 level.

that could be trained and taught. For component 2, the label
flow was used because all items were typical elements of a
flow experience. Even Miller (2014) named this set of items
flow in the long version of the questionnaire. The Flow
factor might help to measure an important element of stu-
dents’ experiences at school.
Creativity is understood as a process of sensitization for
problems or gaps in knowledge, searching for solutions and
even contribute to a Deeper Learning (Chow, 2010). So far,
art education has seen itself as a lawyer of creativity at
schools (Brodbeck, 1999). Creative people report discovery
processes as a most enjoyable experience, bridging

FIGURE 2 Gender differences in the two subscales of the CPAC: There
is no gender effect.* Act is calculated without item01 and item02
creativity and science as closely related fields
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2015). In contrast, subjects associated
with negative perceptions learning difficulties especially
when STEM is focusing on such as STEM might be a result
of subject issues and self-efficacy differences were under-
valued (Conradty & Bogner, 2016; Epstein & Fischer, 2017;
Schumm & Bogner, 2016). STEM curricula may benefit
from the integration of arts and/or creative aspects, thus
encouraging creative solutions (Henriksen, 2014). STEAM
(STEM & Arts) may help to develop critical thinking also in
real-world problems and what is more, to help to make
learning science easier. STEAM may improve its image
and support motivation. Creativity is not a domain exclusive
to art, but a mental ability required for all spheres of life and
(perhaps especially) for scientific research. Studying its
effects on creative thinking skills should be of special inter-
est in science education, even across multiple disciplines
within higher education (Miller & Dumford, 2016). Art
might be an archetype of creativity but it is only one product
of creativity among many: “Creativity is neither reserved to
the genius [as assumed in arts], nor can creativity be pro-
duced technically” (Brodbeck, 1999). STEAM might help to
transfer enthusiasm and support individual self-efficacy
from art to STEM and in this way to close a creativity gap
(Runco, 2017). Some researchers request an overlap of
creativity, thinking, and intelligence. Several methods,
developed to foster, teach, or train creativity, point to the
learnability of creativity (Bono De, 1990; Vester, 2007).
Educators could promote both creativity and intrinsic moti-
vation, by teaching students to solve problems that have no
well-defined solutions. Popular approaches are synectics, to
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 237
FIGURE 3 Age differences according to the two subscales of the CPAC:
significant decline of perceived creativity with age, particularly with regard
to subscale FLOW.
develop creative capacity (Gordon, 1961); brainstorming,
“using the brain to storm a problem” (Osborn, 1963, cited in
Merrotsy 2017), reducing self-censorship, mind mapping/
concept mapping, used in combination with brainstorming
(Novak & Cañas, 2006; Novak & Gowin, 1984), and the six
thinking hats, to use and coordinate parallel thinking pro-
cesses more effectively (Bono De, 1999). All these methods
are respected variations based on the five phases model of
creativity: preparation, incubation, eureka effect, evaluation,
elaboration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
Brodbeck (1999) regarded creativity techniques as inef-
fective, because otherwise in his argumentation they would
be used by profit-maximizing companies more frequently as
an economic resource. He rejects both the irrational belief in
the simple givenness of genius, and the technocratic con-
ceptions of feasibility of creativity but emphasized creativity
as a mind-set. The potential for creativity is directed at an
early stage by rules—which can be meaningful
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Adolescents forget to play with
thoughts, and forget the pleasure of seeing, discovering, and
listening (Brodbeck, 1999). As a result, adults accumulate a
lack of creative thinking abilities. Learning environments
following the theories of constructivism expanded with
more open learning environments, where a learner can fol-
low his/her own conceptions may be a guideline for curri-
cula integrating creativity. The degree of autonomy and
support were understood to be climate dimensions that are
effective predictors of creative performance (Hunter, Bedell,
& Mumford, 2007). Creativity can be aroused and even
238 C. CONRADTY AND F. X. BOGNER
trained to preserve the ability for creative (flow) through
exercise to age (Bono De, 1990; Ma, 2009).
Studies of the factors that make some people more crea-
tive than others have postulated the four Ps—process, pro-
duct, person, and press—with press considered as
environmental press also known as place as the socialcul-
tural environment in which creativity flourishes (Rhodes,
1961). Place and person as an educational setting may
promote the process of creativity with an appropriate degree
of autonomy, access to resources, and the role of the teacher
as a gatekeeping tutor. Many school systems are accused of
contributing to the premature deterioration of creativity by
concentrating too much on knowledge acquisition
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Robinson & Azzam, 2009).
Anderson (1964) felt that “creativity is crossing out mis-
takes” (cited in Torrance, 1995, p. 147). This underlines that
creativity cannot only help with problem solving, but also
with identifying problems where others have failed to do so
(Robinson & Azzam, 2009). For example, creativity was
successfully applied to teach additional skills, such has
peacebuilding skills with brain writing, a creative technique
similar to brainstorming (Olugbenga, 2016). Both creativity
and the focused skill were developed and especially under-
privileged pupils benefited. Current curricula emphasize the
importance of promoting students’ “desire” (motivation)
beyond to traditional transfer of “knowledge” (cognition)
and “ability” (competence orientation; e.g., Lehrplan PLUS,
ISB 2017).
It is well documented that creativity and intrinsic motivation
are mutually dependent (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Jesus De,
Rus, Lens, & Imaginário, 2013; Runco, 2014). Amabile and
Tighe (1993) described creativity as driven by intrinsic motiva-
tion. Even at a neuronal level, a link with motivation was found
with dopamine-related activities as a determinant of human
creativity (Aberg et al., 2016). This is a promising starting
point for research into fostering school motivation (Aberg
et al., 2016), as creativity may support intrinsic motivation in
(science) classes. Furthermore, recent evidence has found neu-
rophysiological gender differences (Abraham, 2016; Tyan et al.,
2017). From a scientific point of view, this gap might be seen as
chance to analyze and understand processes of creativity. As
sociodemographic factors play a role in gender differences in
creative thinking (Matud, Rodríguez, & Grande, 2007), the
importance of supporting both genders appropriately must be
recognized. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) even postulated that not
gender, but a traditional gender differentiating (discriminating)
education of boys and girls determines how they develop. This
cultural discrimination might explain the varying results of
international studies about gender differences in creativity.
With a deeper understanding of what creativity is and its
implications for culture and economy in the 21st century,
methods of teaching and educating children need to change.
A promising approach is the promotion of motivation and
creativity. Especially in the development of the STEM sub-
jects to STEAM, promising results have already been
reported. Especially with respect to flow, the presented ques-
tionnaire might suffice for educational settings; and act com-
prises teachable cognitive processes to promote creativity.
The instrument may successfully measure both the learning
effect of creativity skills and emotional factors that contribute
to enjoyment in learning. According to Batey and Hughes
(2017) cognitive ability measures rarely relate to self-percep-
tions of creativity, but with openness to experience and vary
relative to the type of self-perception (trait, process, product),
the domain of the self-perception (e.g., arts vs. science), or
culture. Thus, the implemented modified questionnaire with
act and flow as constructs might provide an appropriate
psychometric tool to monitor educational settings promoting
creativity. As creativity offers clear benefits for individuals
and society as a whole (Runco, 2004), today the consensus
between creativity experts is that the most urgent next step is
to integrate the numerous findings into a coherent theoretical
framework. The fact that creative thinking is based on nor-
mative cognitive processes emphasizes the need for a close
collaboration between cognition domain experts and educa-
tional instructors to build a common neurocognitive frame-
work of creative thinking (Kröger, 2015). The importance of
creativity in learning, productivity, and mental health cannot
be ignored.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the European HORIZON-2020
framework labelled CREATIONS: Developing an Engaging
Science Classroom (Grant Agreement No.665917). We
would like to thank all students and teachers who supported
this study.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the European HORIZON-2020
framework labelled CREATIONS: Developing an Engaging
Science Classroom; [Grant Agreement No.665917].
REFERENCES
Aberg, K. C., Doell, K. C., & Schwartz, S. (2016). The “creative right brain”
revisited: Individual creativity and associative priming in the right hemisphere
relate to hemispheric asymmetries in reward brain function. Cerebral Cortex
(New York, N.Y.: 1991), Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/cercor/
bhw288
Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological
and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609–
618. doi:10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Social psychology of creativity. New York, NY:
Springer.
Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of Creativity. In J.
Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.

Anderson, C. (1964). Creativity is… unpublished manuscript. Berkeley.
Batey, M., & Hughes, D. J. (2017). Individual difference correlates of self-
perceptions of creativity. In M. Karwowski & J. Kaufman (Eds.), The
creative self (pp. 185–218). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of
creative competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environ-
ments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 381–389.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009
Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social
research. Quality and Quantity, 25(2), 115–136. doi:10.1007/BF00145701
Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (1999). Toward measuring adolescent
environmental perception. European Psychologist, 4(3), 139–151.
doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.3.139
Bono De, E. (1990). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. (1. Perennial
library ed.) New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Bono De, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. (1st Back Bay pbk. ed., rev. and
updated.) Boston, MA: Back Bay Books.
Brodbeck, K.-H. (1999). Entscheidung zur Kreativität. (2nd Ed.).
Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Carlsson, I., Wendt, P. E., & Risberg, J. (2000). On the neurobiology of creativity.
Differences in frontal activity between high and low creative subjects.
Neuropsychologia, 38(6), 873–885. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00128-1
Chávez-Eakle, R. A., Graff-Guerrero, A., García-Reyna, J.-C., Vaugier, V.,
& Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2007). Cerebral blood flow associated with creative
performance: A comparative study. NeuroImage, 38(3), 519–528.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.059
Chow, B. (2010). The quest for ‘deeper learning’: commentary: Rigorous
and deeper learning. Education Week, 30(6), 22–24. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/06/06chow_ep.h30.html?qs=
the+quest+for+deeper+learning
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. (2016). Hypertext or textbook: Effects on
motivation and gain in knowledge. Education Sciences, 6(3), 29.
doi:10.3390/educsci6030029
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. The Jossey-
Bass behavioral science series. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view
of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity:
Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of dis-
covery and invention. New York, NY: Harper.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. (25. anniver-
sary ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). Flow und Kreativität: Wie Sie Ihre Grenzen
überwinden und das Unmögliche schaffen (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental
Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and preliminary results.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19. doi:10.1080/
00958964.1978.10801875
Epstein, N., & Fischer, M. R. (2017). Academic career intentions in the life
sciences: Can research self-efficacy beliefs explain low numbers of
aspiring physician and female scientists? PloS One, 12(9), e0184543.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184543
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity.
New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Grant, A., Grant, G., & Gallate, J. (2012). Who killed creativity? – And how
we can get it back? Seven essential strategies to make yourself, your
team and your organisation more innovative. Milton, Qld: Jossey-Bass.
Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?
docID=10538669
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.
doi:10.1037/h0063487
Hargreaves, H. L. (1927). The” faculty” of imagination: An enquiry con-
cerning the existence of a general” faculty,” or group factor of imagina-
tion. British Journal of Psychology, 18(1).
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 239
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM
teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2). doi:10.5642/
steam.20140102.15
Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2010). Kreativität: Konzept und Lebensstil. (3. Aufl.)
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for
creativity. A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1),
69–90. doi:10.1080/10400410709336883
ISB (2017). LehrplanPlus 2017. München, Germany: ISB State Institute for
School Quality and Educational Research (Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität
und Bildungsforschung). https://www.lehrplanplus.bayern.de/schulart/
realschule
Jesus De, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic
motivation and creativity related to product. A Meta-analysis of the
studies published between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25
(1), 80–84. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752235
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor
analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.
doi:10.1177/001316446002000116
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4),
401–415. doi:10.1007/BF02291817
Kowatari, Y., Lee, S. H., Yamamura, H., Nagamori, Y., Levy, P., Yamane,
S., & Yamamoto, M. (2009). Neural networks involved in artistic crea-
tivity. Human Brain Mapping, 30(5), 1678–1690. doi:10.1002/hbm.
v30:5
Kröger, S. (2015). Neural correlates of creative thinking: Conceptual
expansion processing: Dissertation to obtain the academic degree
Doctor rerum naturalium. Gießen, Germany.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental trends of creativity: What
twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity
Research Journal, 22(3), 329–336. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503543
Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Aufl.,
Studienausg). Grundlagen Psychologie. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Retrieved from http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&
ean=9783621278454
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of
Psychology, 22(140), 55.
Ma, -H.-H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity. A
meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 30–42. doi:10.1080/
10400410802633400
Matud, M. P., Rodríguez, C., & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in
creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137–
1147. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.006
Merrotsy, Peter (2017). Pedagogy for creative problem solving. London,
New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Miller, A. L. (2014). A self-report measure of cognitive processes asso-
ciated with creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 203–218.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901088
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2016). Creative cognitive processes in
higher education. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(4), 282–293.
doi:10.1002/jocb.2016.50.issue-4
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking
stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 107–
120. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
10400419.2003.9651403
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps
and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools
2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine
Cognition, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge,
Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469
Olugbenga, A. R. (2016). Interaction effects of personality and gender on brain
writing creativity and emotional intelligence in fostering peacebuilding
240 C. CONRADTY AND F. X. BOGNER
skills among nigerian adolescents. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 21(07), 1–12. doi:10.9790/0837-2107050112
Parish, L., Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1965). The Eysenck
personality inventory. British Journal of Educational Studies, 14(1),
140. doi:10.2307/3119050
Rhodes, J. M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7),
306–307. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
Robinson, K., & Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? Educational
Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.
Runco, M. A., Acar, S., Cayirdag, N. (2017). A closer look at the creativity gap
and why students are less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 24, 242–249. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.003
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–
687. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, develop-
ment, and practice (2 ed.). London, Great Britain: Academic Press.
Schumm, M. F., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Measuring adolescent science
motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 434–449.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1147659
Shah, C., Erhard, K., Ortheil, H.-J., Kaza, E., Kessler, C., & Lotze, M.
(2013). Neural correlates of creative writing: An fMRI study. Human
Brain Mapping, 34(5), 1088–1101. doi:10.1002/hbm.v34.5
Shen, W., Liu, C., Shi, C., & Yuan, Y. (2015). Gender differences in
creative thinking. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(8), 1380.
doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01380
Shin, J.-E., Jung, H.-C., Choe, S.-U., & Han, K.-S. (2002). Are boys more
creative than girls? Based on the scientific creativity of gifted students.
Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 23(4), 324–333. Retrieved
from http://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/ArticleFullRecord.jsp?cn=
JGGHBA_2002_v23n4_324
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of
tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0519
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and
measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–292.
doi:10.2307/1412107
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 18(1), 87–98. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677
Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity
through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1),
1–33. doi:10.1111/cogs.2011.35.issue-1
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of
Sociology, 33(4), 529–554. doi:10.1086/214483
Torrance, E. P. (1966). The torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-tech-
nical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms A and B-figural tests,
forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub (Creativity
research).
Tyan, Y.-S., Liao, J.-R., Shen, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-C., & Weng, J.-C. (2017).
Gender differences in the structural connectome of the teenage brain
revealed by generalized q-sampling MRI. NeuroImage. Clinical, 15,
376–382. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.05.014
Ülger, K., & Morsünbül, Ü. (2016). The differences in creative thinking:
The comparison of male and female students. Online Journal of
Counseling & Education, 5(4), 1–12.
Vester, F. (2007). Denken, Lernen, Vergessen: Was geht in unserem Kopf
vor, wie lernt das Gehirn, und wann lässt es uns im Stich? (32 Ed.).
dtv dtv Wissen: Vol. 33045. München, Germany: Dt. Taschenbuch-
Verlag.
Volf, N. V., & Tarasova, I. B. (2013). The influence of reward on
the performance of verbal creative tasks: Behavioral and EEG
effects. Human Physiology, 39(3), 302–308. doi:10.1134/
S0362119713020187
Vosylis, R., Kaniusonyte, G., & Raiziene, S. (2016). What does it mean to
be an adult? Perceptions of adulthood among Lithuanian Emerging
Adults. In R. Sukauskiene (Ed.), Emerging adulthood in an European
context. (pp. 54–78). London, Great Britain: Taylor & Francis.
Wechsler, S. (2006). Validity of the torrance tests of creative thinking to the
Brazilian culture. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 15–25.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_3