Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j o ur na l ho me pag e: h t tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

The feasibility of enhancement of knowledge andself-confidence in creativity: A pilot study of a three-hourSCAMPER workshop on secondary students�

Jelena C.Y. Poon ∗, Apple C.Y. Au, Toby M.Y. Tong, Sing LauCenter for Child Development, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 November 2013Received in revised form 16 May 2014Accepted 26 June 2014Available online 15 July 2014

Keywords:CreativityShort-term trainingSCAMPER

a b s t r a c t

This article presents the design and implementation of a three-hour creative thinkingworkshop as a framework for practitioners to design their own short creativity programs.The workshop incorporated several components known to facilitate creative thinking: anencouraging environment, opportunities for exploration and presentation, psychologicalsafety, content knowledge, and creative thinking skills. The SCAMPER techniques wereintroduced to 74 senior secondary students. Feedback from students indicates satisfactionwith the workshop and enjoyment of creativity-enhancing workshop components. Stu-dents’ comments on their favorite workshop stages and stages in need of improvementshed light on how the workshop can be improved. The experience of running this work-shop provides practical information on designing short-term creativity programs and canhopefully inspire practitioners to promote creative thinking when long-term training is notpossible.

© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Recent years have seen increased interest and emphasis in creative education in various countries around the world(Craft, 2006; Lin, 2011; Shaheen, 2010; Smears, Cronin, & Walsh, 2011) as educators recognized the importance of nurturingstudents’ creativity (Craft, 2006; Laius & Rannikmäe, 2011). Some have even suggested creativity as a survival skill requiredfor the 21st century (Craft, 2006). Indeed, being creative is beneficial to individuals as well as to society as a whole. At theindividual level, people need to be creative in order to solve problems encountered at work and in everyday life (Sternberg& Lubart, 1996). As Sir Ken Robinson explained in an interview (Azzam, 2009), the world has become more unpredictablethan ever with many pressing problems to be solved. For a person to cope with uncertainty and to meet the demands of theconstantly changing and increasingly complex world, the utilization of one’s creativity is required (Gardner, 1999; Shaheen,2010; Smears et al., 2011). To the society at large, creativity also brings numerous benefits in the forms of “new scientificfindings, new movements in art, new inventions, and new social programs” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996, p. 678). Moreover,being creative as a society can lead to economic achievement and help the society stay competitive (Shaheen, 2010). Giventhe many advantages of being creative, it comes as no surprise that practitioners have become interested in promoting

creative thinking in education.

The problem, however, is that despite recognizing the need for creative education, teachers may not know how toincorporate creative education into their classrooms while still making sure they have enough time to prepare students for

� We would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.∗ Corresponding author at: Center for Child Development, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Tel.: +852 3411 7249;

fax: +852 2337 8902.E-mail address: jcypoon@hkbu.edu.hk (J.C.Y. Poon).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.0061871-1871/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

tpwrrcriapr

ebaeTic

1

4es

ewtstt

1

ge

1

euS1

1

efswa(

J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40 33

ests and assessments (Longo, 2010). This paper hopes to help these practitioners who have limited time but still want to helpromote creative thinking in their students. In this paper, the design and implementation of a three-hour creative thinkingorkshop for senior secondary students is described. The workshop used the SCAMPER creative thinking techniques, which

epresents a group of nine techniques: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, magnify, put to other uses, eliminate or minify,everse, and rearrange (Michalko, 1991). While the SCAMPER techniques were taught in this workshop, it is believed that thehoice of creative thinking techniques does not matter; the presentation of creative thinking techniques plays more crucialoles in the learning of creative thinking skills. Thus, factors known to facilitate creative thinking, which were incorporatednto the workshop, are also discussed in this paper. Finally, student comments about the workshop were analyzed to identifyreas of improvement. Given the scarce amount of literature describing the design and implementation of short creativityrograms, it is hoped that this workshop will shed light on how creative workshops can be run in limited time with fewesources and encourage practitioners to promote creative thinking even in face of limitations.

Before details of the workshop are discussed, it is worthy to mention to practitioners that creativity can be taught. Mostducators and psychologists think that all individuals possess some degree of creativeness, and their creative potential cane enhanced. Everyone is born with a natural creative ability (Esquivel, 1995; Guilford, 1950; Lin, 2011). Actually, childrenre “naturally creative, open to experience, and tend to be attracted by novel things” (Lin, 2011, p. 151). However, if thenvironment around them is unsupportive of creative expression, their creative tendency may reduce over time (Lin, 2011).his environmental influence is one of the reasons why the degree of creativeness and frequency of creative acts amongndividuals vary (Guilford, 1950). Still, there is hope for everyone to reach their creative potential. Because the process ofreative thinking involves ordinary cognitive processes, every person has the ability to learn to be creative (Simonton, 2000).

. Workshop implementation

The workshop lasted for three hours and involved 74 senior secondary school students (ages 14–17 years; 29 boys and5 girls). The workshop was part of a 10-month self-development youth program, and its purpose was to have young peoplexperience the creative thinking process and generate new ideas when collaborating with others, as well as to increasetudents’ awareness of their creative potential.

A team of 11 adults was recruited on a voluntary basis to form a workshop committee. One of them acted as the speaker;ight of them assumed the role of group leaders for the facilitation of activities, and two assumed supportive roles to help theorkshop run smoothly. All members of the committee had prior experiences in running creativity programs. To familiarize

hemselves with the SCAMPER techniques and the overview of the workshop, they all had attended a two-hour trainingession before the workshop, during which they tried out the workshop activities and gave comments for modification ofhe workshop design and activity arrangement. The SCAMPER workshop consisted of five stages, which were to facilitatehe establishment of different goals to be discussed in the Analysis of Workshop Components section.

.1. Stage 1: Group formation (5 min)

As soon as the students arrived at the venue, they were placed into eight groups, with 9–10 students per group. Eachroup was guided by a leader and was further divided into two sub-groups (i.e., four to five students per sub-group) forasier management of group activities and discussion.

.2. Stage 2: Inspiring games (15 min)

Before the SCAMPER activities, the speaker played three games with the students with the intention to create a playfulnvironment and illustrate a principle of creative thinking, “By changing your perspective, you expand your possibilitiesntil you see something that you were unable to see before” (Michalko, 1991, p. xi), as well as the fundamentals of theCAMPER techniques, “Everything new is just an addition or modification to something that already existed” (Michalko,991, p. 71) and “The best way to get a good idea is to get as many ideas as you can” (Michalko, 1991, p. xx).

.3. Stage 3: Story tour (40 min)

The committee set up eight story corners and invited the groups to take turns to learn the stories. The stories werexcerpted from the book Thinkertoys by Michalko (1991) to show students how the SCAMPER techniques have helped tooster innovation and how eight people had used a particular SCAMPER technique to create ideas and breakthroughs. Some

tories had been revised to fit the workshop objectives. In each story corner, students learnt the story and were then askedhat new ideas the characters came up with and what questions asked by the characters led to their invention. This activity

imed to show students that many innovations are the results of asking the right SCAMPER questions at the right timeMichalko, 1991).

34 J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40

1.4. Stage 4: SCAMPER lecture (60 min)

Eight SCAMPER techniques were introduced to the students with daily examples, videos, anecdotes, stories, and games.The selected techniques included substitute, combine, adapt, modify, magnify, put to other uses, eliminate, and rearrange.The speaker gave precise instructions on how to ask questions of each technique and also explanation on why each techniqueworks. To check if students understood the illustration, they were asked to think which SCAMPER technique was used byeach character from the story tour. Students who gave correct answers were given small rewards.

1.5. Stage 5: Practical challenge and presentation (60 min)

The students were then engaged in a practical challenge. Sixteen daily life scenarios had been prepared, and each sub-group was given four scenarios (see Appendix A for sample scenarios). Students were instructed to read the descriptions,identify the problems, and select one to work on. Each sub-group was then given two product cards and one set of SCAMPERtechnique cards. On each product card was the name of an existing product, such as a flowerpot. Each set of SCAMPER cardspresented brief explanations of the techniques and checklists of idea-spurring questions. Each sub-group was instructed toask SCAMPER questions among themselves so as to generate a wide variety of ideas to reshape or modify the products tosolve the chosen problem.

When students finished their discussion, they would present their products to three other sub-groups. Their product wasevaluated by their fellow students using a rubric with the following criteria: skillfulness (i.e., did the group effectively usethe SCAMPER skills?), feasibility (i.e., can this creative product be used in a large scale and be widely accepted?), originality(i.e., is the idea original?), effectiveness (i.e., can this product effectively solve the problem?), and presentation (i.e., is thecreation presented clearly?).

2. Analysis of workshop components

The workshop was actually carefully designed based on a previously conducted literature review that had identifiedfactors favorable for the enhancement of creative thinking. These factors were subsequently put into four main categories:an encouraging environment, opportunities for exploration and presentation, psychological safety, and resources. Effortswere made to incorporate these factors into the workshop, and practitioners are recommended to take the factors into con-sideration when planning creativity programs. For a visual illustration of the categorization of the factors and the workshopstages into which the factors are incorporated, please refer to Fig. 1.

2.1. Encouraging environment

2.1.1. Message of creativity being valuedPractitioners need to make students aware that creativity is desired. If students realize that the benefits of acting creatively

outweigh those of behaving in familiar ways, they will probably choose to act more creatively, so the contextual factors in theenvironment need to communicate to students the advantages of being creative (Ford, 1996). When people think creativityis valued, “they should be more willing to experiment with new ideas, more open to communicating and seeking inputfrom others about new ideas, and overall behave in ways that will lead to creative outcomes” (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).Role-modeling creativity is an effective way to show students that creativity is desired, and students can actually learn tobe creative by observing the role model (Sternberg, 2010). Another method is to simply ask for creativity to be exhibited(Sternberg, 2006).

In the present workshop, the value of creativity was stressed continuously; students were constantly encouraged andreminded to be creative. Various methods, including explanation of techniques, videos, examples, anecdotes, and gameswere used to encourage the use of creative thinking skills and to demonstrate the usefulness of creativity in daily life. Thestory tour and the practical challenge were specifically designed for students to experience how creativity can be used tosolve problems and create new inventions. In addition, the speaker, group leaders, as well as characters of stories in thestory tour served as role models to encourage the use of creative thinking skills.

2.1.2. Presence of intrinsic motivationPractitioners are recommended to make an effort to increase their students’ intrinsic motivation, motivation that aims

to please one’s own desires as opposed to achieving external purposes, because this type of motivation is beneficial tocreative production (Amabile, 1983; Baer & Garrett, 2010; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). Because people tend to be mostcreative when they do what they enjoy doing, practitioners should encourage students to engage in activities they love to do(Cramond & Connell, 2009). Apart from matching the task to people’s interests, manipulating the environment by making the

task fun and interesting also increases intrinsic motivation and thereby creativity (Amabile, 1983). Setting goals also havepositive effects on a person’s intrinsic motivation. Students can better understand their task and regulate their performanceaccordingly when a goal has been stated. As a result, they pay more attention to and put more effort into the task. Theyalso spend more time working on the task and are motivated to explore various ways to attain the goal (Shalley & Gilson,

J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40 35

Encour aging Environ ment

Message of Creativit y Bein g Valued Throughout the works hop

Presence of Intrinsic Motivat ion Throughout the works hop

Minimization of Extrinsic Motivation Throughout the works hop

Opportunitie s for Exploration and

Presentati on

Freedom Stage 5: Pr acti cal ch allen ge and presentat ion

Presentatio n of Ideas Stage 5: Pr acti cal ch allen ge and presentat ion

Resources

Content Knowled ge Stage 3: St ory to ur Stage 4: Lecture

Stage 5: Pr acti cal ch allen ge and presentat ion

Creative Thinkin g Skills Stage 3: St ory to ur Stage 4: Lecture

Stage 5: Pr acti cal ch allen ge and presentat ion

Collab oratio n Stage 3: St ory to ur

Stage 5: Pr acti cal challen ge and presentat ion

Psych ologic al Safety

Mini mum Fe ar of Being Ostracized Throughout the works hop

Feedback in Co nstructive Manner Stage 5: Pr acti cal ch allen ge and presentat ion

FactorsCateg ori es

2(

what

Fig. 1. Categorization of the 10 creativity-promoting factors and the corresponding workshop stages.

004). Therefore, one strategy to promote creative thinking is to establish a creativity goal and ask students to be creativeCramond & Connell, 2009; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

All components of the workshop, particularly the story tour and the practical challenge which were interactive in nature,ere designed to make learning the techniques fun. To further increase enjoyment of the workshop, the speaker talked in aumorous manner and told relevant jokes periodically. Examples and anecdotes during the lecture, stories in the story tour,

nd scenarios in the practical challenge were also relevant to students’ daily life to increase students’ interest in creativehinking. Finally, the method of promoting the use of creative thinking skills through the establishment of a creativity goal

36 J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40

was used in the practical challenge. A rubric emphasizing originality and effectiveness was presented to each group prior tothe start of the activity so students knew beforehand their products should ideally be original and effective.

2.1.3. Minimization of extrinsic motivationIt is worth noting that seemingly positive external factors can be harmful by causing an overjustification effect. Introducing

extrinsic motivation, motivation driven by external means such as rewards, when a person’s original intrinsic motivation toperform the task is already high can lower this person’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988).Therefore, practitioners should aim at minimizing extrinsic motivation.

Although the use of prizes should be minimized according to the literature, it was decided that prizes be given to studentswho answered questions related to the story tour correctly. The prizes were all related to the content of the stories; forexample, a student received a hot dog after answering a question about the hot-dog-creation story. The purpose of doingso was to retain students’ attention and trigger their interest in creative thinking. Furthermore, the prizes given, such as apencil, a file, and bags of potato chips, were of small financial value.

2.2. Opportunities for exploration and presentation

2.2.1. FreedomPractitioners can help promote creativity by enhancing their students’ sense of psychological freedom. Having a sense

of psychological freedom allows a person to view things more openly, and being open to experience is favorable becausethis quality enables an individual to tolerate contradictory information and realize relationships among concepts, both ofwhich are beneficial for creative development (Rogers, 1961). Therefore, practitioners can let students choose what theywant to work on (Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Hennessey & Amabile, 1988), minimize limits and rules, and give studentsopportunities to freely explore their ideas (Cramond & Connell, 2009).

The practical challenge of the present workshop was specifically designed with the intention to allow for application ofthe SCAMPER techniques and free exploration of ideas. Students could decide on which one of the four practical challengescenarios to work on, and no restrictions were made on the kind of practical challenge product to be created. Also, ampletime was given for the completion of the practical challenge.

2.2.2. Presentation of ideasBecause creative ideas often challenge the status quo, they may be viewed skeptically by other people. Hence, it is

beneficial that students learn how to persuade others and how to explain the value of their work (Sternberg, 2010). Thus,opportunities to present ideas should be included in a creative thinking workshop.

In the present workshop, an opportunity was given to students to practice their persuasion skills. Each group had topresent their practical challenge product to three other groups.

2.3. Psychological safety

2.3.1. Minimum fear of being ostracizedIt is important that practitioners create a psychologically safe environment free of external constraints so that students

do not fear being punished, looked down on, or ostracized when expressing their opinions (Cramond & Connell, 2009;Rogers, 1961). All ideas should be valued (Rogers, 1961). Competition should be reduced (Fairweather & Cramond, 2010),and students should be informed that there can be more than one solution so long as the ideas are creative (Cramond &Connell, 2009).

To ease students’ fear of being ostracized for their creative ideas, the value of creativity was stressed throughout theworkshop, and all ideas were welcome. Although group leaders were present, they did not judge the students’ ideas duringthe practical challenge; instead, they were there to encourage students to exercise their creative potential. Students werealso encouraged to brainstorm many ideas to solve the challenge and were instructed to present their products to othergroups in creative ways. Finally, competition was not arranged.

2.3.2. Feedback in constructive mannerPractitioners should be careful when giving feedback. Sometimes, positive feedback can actually do harm since it sets

a high standard for the next task. The initial success may cause students to choose to produce mundane work that wouldguarantee success instead of being creative (Cramond & Connell, 2009). Rather than giving positive feedback, the key topromoting creativity in subsequent tasks is to provide constructive feedback. In this way, students will expect to get con-structive feedback the next time they work on a task. If they think evaluation of their work will provide constructive feedback

to help them improve, their intrinsic motivation and creativity will increase. On the contrary, if punitive feedback is expected,students’ intrinsic motivation and creativity will suffer (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

In the present workshop, during the presentation of practical challenge products, groups were to rate the products ofother groups using a rubric that was designed to ensure feedback be given in a constructive manner.

2

2

ana

ls

2

csa22HP

ibieet1ttee

2

po2s

s

3

tfisae

3

tthu

•

J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40 37

.4. Resources

.4.1. Content knowledgeContent knowledge is essential to creative thinking (Amabile, 1983; Baer & Garrett, 2010). A greater number of knowledge

nd skills means more possible combinations of ideas and options for creating novel things (Amabile, 1983). This appliesot only to knowledge within a specific domain; acquiring content knowledge in other areas is also beneficial because thebility to synthesize knowledge from various fields can lead to creative and novel ideas (Sternberg, 2010).

To ensure all students had sufficient content knowledge to participate in the workshop activities, examples used in theecture were common marketing strategies. It was also decided that scenarios used in the practical challenge be relevant totudents’ daily life so as to make sure students would have enough content knowledge to participate in creative thinking.

.4.2. Creative thinking skillsAlthough content knowledge is necessary, it alone is not sufficient for creative performance without the facilitation of

reative thinking skills. A person can have a lot of fine technical skills and factual knowledge, but without creative thinkingkills, the best she can produce is an excellent piece of work, not a creative one (Amabile, 1983; Guilford, 1950). In general,ny skills that can help with the generation of multiple ideas are considered creative thinking skills (Perry-Smith & Shalley,003). Practitioners may be pleased to know that various creative thinking techniques have already been developed (Lin,011; Torrance, 1972). The Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2000), Six Thinkingats (de Bono, 1999), SCAMPER (Eberle, 1990), Synectics (Gordon, 1961), Osborn’s brainstorming (Michalko, 1999), Futureroblem Solving Process (Future Problem Solving Program, 1994), and Mind Mapping (Buzan, 1995) are a few examples.

The present workshop introduced SCAMPER, a set of techniques that encourage combination of different ideas. SCAMPERs an acronym created by Bob Eberle and represents a group of nine techniques originating from a list of questions developedy Alex Osborn. Each letter refers to one or two thinking skills concerning the manipulation of existing, known information

n ways that will generate new ideas to solve problems: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, magnify, put to other uses,liminate or minify, reverse, and rearrange. These techniques are used by asking oneself how one can change what alreadyxists into something different (Michalko, 1991). The SCAMPER techniques have been shown to be effective creative thinkingools (Rule, Baldwin, & Schell, 2009) and were recommended to be used to promote creative thinking in students (Glenn,997; Majid, Tan, & Soh, 2003; Park & Seung, 2008). The workshop chose to introduce SCAMPER because it was believedhat these techniques could be mastered by the senior secondary school participants in a short period of time. The SCAMPERechniques had also been applied in the business sector (Michalko, 1991), which fitted the needs of the students as they maynter the job market upon graduation. Practitioners interested in learning more about teaching the SCAMPER techniques inducational settings can refer to Rule et al.’s (2009) study on a small group of primary students.

.4.3. CollaborationA way to compensate for insufficient content knowledge and creative thinking skills is to put people into groups. Because

eople have varying amount of content knowledge and creative thinking skills, this arrangement can expand the total numberf content knowledge and creative thinking skills and therefore foster creative thinking (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001; Paulus,000; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). In addition, interaction among group members often leads toharing of different and uncommon perspectives (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

To encourage collaboration among students during the workshop, they were put into groups, and activities including thetory tour and the practical challenge were arranged to be completed as groups.

. Workshop evaluation

To evaluate the workshop, an evaluation questionnaire was given to students. All students (N = 74) completed the ques-ionnaire voluntarily. The questionnaire was developed based on the workshop design. It consisted of 12 items, with therst seven items quantitative in nature, covering students’ perceptions of the creative thinking learning activities and work-hop environment. The next four items were open-ended questions asking for qualitative feedback, and an additional itemsked for additional comments. Students were to respond on whether their knowledge about creativity and confidence inxercising creative thinking had changed after the workshop. They were also asked how they felt about the workshop.

.1. Students’ opinions on their change in knowledge and confidence

Responses to the question “Are there any changes in your knowledge about creativity after the workshop?” indicatehat most students felt they had gained more in-depth knowledge about creativity, such as its fundamentals. Some thoughthat they had obtained practical skills in executing creative thinking, such as how to think in different perspectives and

ow to think creatively using the SCAMPER techniques. The following are some of the students’ responses in terms of theirnderstanding and use of creative thinking.

“I have a deeper understanding of creativity.”

38 J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40

Table 1Student response rate of individual items on the evaluative questionnaire.

Aspect % of students

Very satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory

Speaker explanation 44.59 48.65 6.76 0 0Leader guidance and assistance 35.14 55.41 9.46 0 0Venue arrangement 28.38 58.11 13.51 0 0Content practicality 37.84 47.30 13.51 1.35 0

Content attractiveness 29.73 51.35 16.22 2.70 0Time allocation 17.57 52.70 27.03 2.70 0Overall organization 27.03 58.11 14.86 0 0

• “I’ve learnt the fundamentals of creativity, like creativity can be nurtured.”• “I’ve learnt to think in various different angles.”• “I’ve learnt a creative thinking skill, SCAMPER.”• “Every aspect of my creative understanding has improved.”• “I was a boring person lacking creative understanding but have changed after the workshop.”

Moreover, some students agreed that their confidence in bringing out their creative side had improved after the workshop.Responses to “Are there any changes in your confidence in expressing your creativity after the workshop?” include:

• “My confidence in bringing out my creativity has increased.”• “This has increased my confidence in expressing my creativity.”• “[My confidence] has increased! I’ve always been creative.”

This last response is interesting as it shows some students might possess the knowledge but do not have the confidenceto try out their creative potential.

3.2. Ranking of the workshop stages

Students were also asked “Which stage of the workshop do you like most?” Analysis revealed that the practical challengeranked first, followed by the story tour, and the introductory lecture of the SCAMPER technique ranked third. Reasonsstudents gave for enjoying the practical challenge included its value in enhancing knowledge about creative thinking, itsfunction in inspiring new ways to view things, the availability of four real life scenarios to choose from, the practicality ofthe group product invention challenge, effective exchange of thoughts during the group discussion, and sincere sharing ofcreative products during the group presentation. Students who enjoyed the story tour the most thought the activity wasfun, and they liked the interaction involved in the activity. Finally, reasons students gave for listing the introductory lectureof the SCAMPER techniques as their favorite were its value in enriching their knowledge about the SCAMPER techniquesand the charisma of the speaker. Such positive feedback might be due to the favorable components incorporated into theworkshop.

3.3. Overall satisfaction

The student response rates of the questionnaire were analyzed. The response rates of the first seven items are listedin Table 1. Most of the students responded that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the speaker’s explanation(93.24% = 44.59% + 48.65%), the guidance and assistance by group leaders (90.55% = 35.14% + 55.41%), the venue arrange-ment (86.49% = 28.38% + 58.11%), the practicality of the workshop content (85.14% = 37.84% + 47.30%), the attractiveness ofthe workshop content (81.08% = 29.73% + 51.35%), and the time allocation (70.27% = 17.57% + 52.70%). In sum, most of themfound the workshop very satisfactory or satisfactory (85.14% = 27.03% + 58.11%). On the other end, no or very few students(ranging from 0% to 2.70%) showed dissatisfaction towards any aspects of the workshop.

3.4. Suggestions for improvement

When asked “Which stage of the workshop has to be improved?”, some students suggested shortening the introductorylecture and allowing more time for the practical challenge and other interactive activities.

4. Discussion and conclusion

Students’ feedback gathered at the end of the workshop provides valuable insight into the effectiveness of the workshopand serve as a reminder of what to watch out for in implementing a more positive, attractive, and creativity-enhancingworkshop. Students’ self-perceived increases in both knowledge about creativity and self-efficacy in exhibiting their creative

ae2at

atlatTmtimTsc

ifmStctatcnf

ss(rop

nfetoceh

A

A

t2wi

b

J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40 39

bilities are evident in their responses to the open-ended questions of the questionnaire. It has been shown that gaining self-fficacy and believing in one’s creative ability helps with continued expression of creative thinking in the future (Sternberg,010), so the effects of the workshop are quite encouraging. Moreover, most students were satisfied with the workshoprrangement. It is worthy to note that all students completed the questionnaire. In other words, their willingness to fill outhe questionnaire to provide their opinions is another indication of their satisfaction with the workshop.

In general, students enjoyed the creativity-enhancing elements incorporated in the workshop. Some workshop activitiesnd arrangement appeared to be particularly helpful, according to students’ feedback. Students’ satisfaction with the attrac-iveness and practicability of the content, the expressiveness of the speaker, and the guidance and assistance provided byeaders show that efforts to incorporate these resources into the workshop were successful. Their comments about having

better understanding of creativity and positive feedback regarding the arrangement of group discussions further reiteratehis point. Additionally, students also commented on the ample opportunities to explore ideas available in the workshop.hey loved having the freedom to select the task they wanted to work on and the chance to present their creative ideas, andany enjoyed the practical challenge for the opportunity to explore ideas and exercise their creative potential. Moreover,

he environment of the workshop was encouraging and psychologically safe such that most students expressed an increasen their confidence in exhibiting their creative side. Although motivation was not directly mentioned in students’ evaluation,

any of them enjoyed the activities aimed at making the experience fun such as the story tour and the practical challenge.he overall workshop satisfaction also reflects students’ probable increased enthusiasm towards creativity during the work-hop. Finally, students’ satisfactory rating of the practicability of the workshop content may imply a better chance of thereativity techniques being applied in the students’ daily lives in the future.

In addition to evaluating the workshop, students’ open-ended feedback also provides information for future workshopmprovement. Many students liked the interactive activities and would like to see more of these activities incorporated intouture programs. As interactive activities can foster exchange of ideas among students and possibly enhance their intrinsic

otivation, both of which are beneficial to creative thinking (Amabile, 1983; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001; Paulus, 2000; Perry-mith & Shalley, 2003; Shalley & Gilson, 2004), this suggestion is worth considering. A closer look at students’ responses tohe question regarding their confidence in exercising their creative potential after the workshop reveals that more emphasisan be put to increase students’ self-efficacy. Some students considered themselves creative even before the workshop, buthey found their confidence in using their creative potential had increased due to participation in the workshop. Perhapsll these students need are more opportunities for them to try out their creative thinking skills. Also, helping them to learno believe in their creative ability may be more beneficial than learning more creative thinking techniques. After all, higherreative self-efficacy is related to one’s perseverance in exhibiting creativity in the future (Sternberg, 2010). Of course, theeeds of those who possess less creative thinking skills should also be considered. Therefore, future programs should look

or a balance between teaching creative thinking skills and enhancing creative self-efficacy.In future workshops, additional creativity-enhancing elements can also be incorporated. For example, a balance between

timulating activities and reflective tasks is beneficial to creative thinking; areas and time for active activities are needed totimulate creative ideas, while quiet time and space should also be provided for students to modify and evaluate their ideasCramond & Connell, 2009; Fairweather & Cramond, 2010). Hence, future workshops can consider arranging more time foreflective tasks. Another factor worth considering is including activities which can help prepare students to persevere in facef difficulties. Because creative ideas and work are not always accepted, people who are creative will face obstacles at someoint. It is thus important to prepare students for these difficulties and encourage them to persevere (Sternberg, 2010).

By the end of the workshop, students’ perceived knowledge about creativity and self-efficacy in showing their creativeature appeared to have been enhanced, and most students were satisfied with the workshop. This information is helpful

or practitioners who hope to enhance their students’ creative thinking skills. Ideally, three hours is not enough for creativeducation, but realistically, practitioners may have so many topics to cover that three hours is all they have. When long-erm creativity training is not possible, the implementation of a short program can be a start. After all, having some kindf training is better than not having any. The workshop reported here is meant to serve as a framework for future shortreativity programs to be built upon. Modifications will have to be made according to students’ needs. This will hopefullyncourage others to implement a variety of short-term creativity training programs, for creativity is too important a skill toave.

This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.ll correspondence should be forwarded to Jelena C. Y. Poon.

ppendix A. Sample of practical challenge scenarios

Popcorn is Louisa’s and her friends’ must-have snack while watching movies. Each time they go to the cinema, they sharehe biggest bowl of popcorn. Sometimes, they go to the movies in a group of six and have to pass the bowl along the row0–30 times, which is quite disturbing. Louisa always asks herself, “Is there any way that I can share popcorn with my friends

hen watching movies without passing the bowl all the time?” Can you think of any creative inventions to help Louisa? It

s time to practice your SCAMPER techniques!John loves hiking alone. He always carries a backpack when he goes hiking. But it is so hot in the summer! If John carries a

ackpack, his back gets sweaty very quickly, but if he does not carry a backpack, how does he bring his water bottle, camera,

40 J.C.Y. Poon et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 14 (2014) 32–40

snacks, etc.? John always asks himself, “Is there any way that I can carry a backpack without having to deal with a sweatyback?” Can you think of any creative inventions to help John? It is time to practice your SCAMPER techniques!

Carol and her classmates love to discuss their homework at cafes. Carol does not like coffee from Cafe X but loves coffeefrom Cafe Y. But all her classmates are fans of Cafe X and always suggest meeting there. Carol always asks herself, “Is thereany way that I can drink coffee from Cafe Y in Cafe X?” Can you think of any creative inventions to help Carol? It is time topractice your SCAMPER techniques!

Mike loves playing video games. Every Saturday, since he does not have to go to work, he buys two big buckets of friedchicken and plays video game all day long. But he finds that his joystick gets dirty and greasy every time. Mike always askshimself, “Is there any way that I can eat fried chicken while playing video games without making the joystick dirty?” Canyou think of any creative inventions to help Mike? It is time to practice your SCAMPER techniques!

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualizatio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? A conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In R. A. Beghetto, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity

in the classroom Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Buzan, T. (1995). The mind map book. London: England: BBC Books.Craft, A. (2006). Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 337–350.Cramond, B., & Connell, E. (2009). Nurturing creative thinking. In F. A. Karnes, & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press.de Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. London, England: Penguin Books.Eberle, B. (1990). Scamper: Games for imagination development. Cheltenham, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 185–202.Fairweather, E., & Cramond, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum together. In R. A. Beghetto, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing

creativity in the classroom Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.Future Problem Solving Program. (1994). Problem solving across the curriculum. Ann Arbor, MI: Future Problem Solving Program.Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.Glenn, R. E. (1997). SCAMPER for student creativity. The Education Digest, 62(6), 67–68.Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York, NY: Harper.Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13,

285–294.Laius, A., & Rannikmäe, M. (2011). Impact on student change in scientific creativity and socio-scientific reasoning skills from teacher collaboration and

gains from professional in-service. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10, 127–137.Lin, Y.-S. (2011). Fostering creativity through education – A conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2, 149–155.Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. The Clearing House, 83,

54–57.Majid, D. A., Tan, A.-G., & Soh, K.-C. (2003). Enhancing children’s creativity: An exploratory study on using the internet and SCAMPER as creative writing

tools. The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 13(2), 67–81.Michalko, M. (1991). Thinkertoys: A handbook of business creativity. Berkeley. CA: Ten Speed Press.Park, S., & Seung, E. (2008). Creativity in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 75(6), 45–48.Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237–262.Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review,

28, 89–106.Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin.Rule, A. C., Baldwin, S., & Schell, R. (2009). Trick-or-treat candy-getters and hornet scare devices: Second graders make creative inventions related to animal

adaptations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 149–168.Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1, 166–169.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, 33–53.Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158.Smears, E., Cronin, S., & Walsh, B. (2011). A risky business: Creative learning in education. Tean Journal, 2(1).Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87–98.

Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 67–688.Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143.Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (2000). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Waco. TX: Prufrock Press.