ArticlePDF Available

Facilitating creative thinking in the classroom: Investigating the effects of plants and the colour green on visual and verbal creativity

Authors:

Abstract

We report upon a study concerned with the effect of exposure to live plants, views to nature and the colour green upon visual and verbal creativity. The study reported in this paper was undertaken with 108 business students at a British University who were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. The control group were placed in a classroom with no plants present and blinds drawn to block view to natural settings, the first experimental group were placed in a classroom with no plants present, blinds drawn to block views to nature but completed the creativity tasks on green paper. The second experimental group were placed in the same room as the other groups, but were surrounded by live plants and had views to nature through the large classroom windows. All participants completed two creativity tasks; a visual creativity task and a verbal creativity task. Visual creativity was assessed using a modified version of Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique (. Amabile, 1982). Verbal creative was assessed using a modified scoring method of Guilford's alternative uses task developed by Silvia et al. (2008). Findings indicate that access to natural views, plants and the colour green increase visual creativity, but have no impact on verbal creativity in classroom settings. The results suggest that creativity is domain specific and any practical measures taken to enhance creativity need to be aligned with the target domain.
Facilitating creative thinking in the classroom: Investigating
the effects of plants and the colour green on visual and verbal
creativity
Sylvie Studente a, Nina Seppala b, Noemi Sadowska a
a) Regent’s University London, United Kingdom
b) University of Lincoln, United Kingdom
Abstract
We report upon a study concerned with the effect of exposure to live plants, views to nature and the
colour green upon visual and verbal creativity. The study reported in this paper was undertaken with
108 business students at a British University who were randomly allocated to one of the three
conditions. The control group were placed in a classroom with no plants present and blinds drawn to
block view to natural settings, the first experimental group were placed in a classroom with no plants
present, blinds drawn to block views to nature but completed the creativity tasks on green paper. The
second experimental group were placed in the same room as the other groups, but were surrounded
by live plants and had views to nature through the large classroom windows. All participants
completed two creativity tasks; a visual creativity task and a verbal creativity task. Visual creativity
was assessed using a modified version of Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile,
1982). Verbal creative was assessed using a modified scoring method of Guilford’s alternative uses
task developed by Silvia et al. (2008). Findings indicate that access to natural views, plants and the
colour green increase visual creativity, but have no impact on verbal creativity in classroom settings.
The results suggest that creativity is domain specific and any practical measures taken to enhance
creativity need to be aligned with the target domain.
Keywords: Creativity Learning Nature
1. Introduction
The research area of enhancing creativity in educational settings is an area of growing interest (i.e.
Fasko, 2000; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987;
Guilford, 1967; Pithers & Soden, 2000). Creativity research has identified a number of environmental,
situational and personal factors which affect an individual’s ability to be creative (i.e. Mumford, 2003;
Runco, 2004; Simonton, 2003). This paper reports upon a study which examines the effects of plants
and the colour green upon visual and verbal creativity. Previous research has identified that creative
thinking can be enhanced by situating individuals in natural settings (Atchley, Strayer, & Atchley,
2012; Atchley et al., 2012; Shibata & Suzuki, 2002) and that exposure to the colour green can also
enhance creative performance (Lichtenfeld, Elliot, Maier, & Pekrun, 2012). However, research into
these areas has been sparse and to date has not been linked to the possible beneficial effects to be
garnered in the classroom. Others (e.g. Friedman & Forster, 2010) have looked at the impact of colour
in expanding or constricting cognitive functions. We build on this research and expand it by studying
the impact of exposure to nature and the colour green on creativity and, more specifically, the
outcomes of creative functions.
Creativity is widely defined as a behaviour or product that is both novel and useful (Sternberg &
Lubart, 1991). Studies in the area of creativity research have acknowledged that creativity is a field of
research which is divided into four parts; the person, the product, press or the creative process
(Rhodes, 1961; Boden, 2004; Csikzentmihalyi, 1996). This widely accepted framework denotes that
creativity can be viewed from one or more of these four perspectives (Runco, 2011; Simonton, 2003).
In this paper we report upon a study with a core focus on ‘creative products’. In this context, creative
products are understood as responses to an open-ended problem. Our focus is upon investigating
conditions which are conducive or prohibitive for creative thinking in the classroom with regard to
views to nature, plants and the colour green.
2. Background motivation
2.1. Towards an understanding of creativity
Although no universal definition of creativity exists due to its inherently subjective nature, a widely
accepted definition is that creativity involves: “the ability to produce work that is both novel and
appropriate” (Sternberg, 1998). Traditionally, creativity was viewed as a phenomena attributed to
gifted individuals. A more contemporary and widely accepted perspec-tive is that creativity is
possessed by all (Weisberg, 1993). It is also understood that creativity does not exist in isolation, but
rather is influenced by individual differences and environmental factors (Amabile, 1996).
The ability to be creative is often perceived as involving divergent thinking as opposed to convergent
thinking, the lat-ter concerning itself with predictable, logical cognitive operations (De Bono, 1967). It
is owing to this reason that divergent thinking and the ability to view situations in a new and novel
way are strongly associated with creativity. Divergent thinking is associated with producing several
solutions to an open ended problem (Guildford, 1967). As well as classifications of dif-ferent ways of
thinking involved in creativity, differing categories of creativity have also been identified as verbal
creativity and visual creativity (i.e. Dau-Gaspar, 2013; Zhu, Zhang & Qiu, 2013; Zadeh, Sook-Lei, &
Dandekar, 2012). The term ‘Visual Creativity’ is often defined as the production of novel and useful
visual forms such as; drawing, painting and photography (Dake, 1991). The term ‘Visual Creativity’ is
often used synonymously with the term ‘Figural Creativity’ (Hetrick, Lilly, & Merrifield, 1968;
Dziedziewicz et al., 2013). ‘Verbal Creativity’ is defined as the production of novel and useful
responses in verbal forms such as written and spoken words (Torrance, 1962). A number of studies
have been conducted to investi-gate the similarities and differences between visual and verbal
classifications of creativity (i.e. Ulger, 2015; Petsche, 1996; Kozhevnikov et al., 2013). Whilst some
scholars have reported a significant correlation between visual and verbal creativ-ity (Ulger, 2015;
Hota, 2003), others have reported that no correlation was found (Saw DeMers, 1986; Roskos-
Ewoldsen, Intons-Peterson, & Anderson; Palmiero, Nakatani, Raver, Belardinelli, & vanLeeuwen,
2010).
2.2. Creativity and education
The research area of enhancing creativity in educational settings is an area of growing interest (i.e.
Fasko, 2000; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Hennessey & Amabile, 1987;
Guilford, 1967; Pithers & Soden, 2000; Runco, 2008; Shaheen, 2010). Research in this area has
explored a number of facets from teaching creative thinking techniques in the classroom (i.e.
Torrance, 1962), developing cognitive tools for creative thinking (i.e. Wissink, 2001; Candy &
Edmonds, 2000), designing learning environments conducive to creativity (Piirto, 2005; Hennessey,
2004; Waugh, 2003) to the assessment of creative thinking (i.e. Runco, 1989; Torrance, 1971).
Although approaches towards creative education differ in focus, they all acknowledge that a student’s
creativity can be stimulated by providing assignments which involve both convergent and divergent
thinking (Karnes et al., 1961; Davis & Rimm, 1985). In addition, research also suggests that providing
students with insight problems within which they are required to brainstorm uses of everyday objects
in unusual ways can assist with facilitating problem restructuring which in turn facilitates the creative
process (Jacobs & Dominowski, 1981; Martinsen, 1995).
Creativity research has identified a number of environmental, situational and personal factors which
affect an individual’s ability to be creative (i.e. Mumford, 2003; Runco, 2004; Simonton, 2003).
Runco & Johnson, 2002 state that in terms of education, the creative development of students is
largely dependent upon the environment in which they exist. Extending upon this point we seek to
investigate the effect of plants and the colour green upon creative thinking. Prior research into these
areas is discussed below.
2.3. Psychological and physiological effects of plants and natural settings
There is a growing body of research exploring the effects of views to nature and the inclusion of plants
and greenery on people (i.e. Shibata & Suzuki, 2004). Research in the area reports that access to the
natural environment has both physical and psychological benefits (Grinde & Patil, 2009) such as;
promoting health and recovery (Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 2001; Kaplan, 2001), promoting well-
being in the work place (Heerwagen & Orians 1986; Shibata & Suzuki, 2001), reduction of tension and
stress (Ulrich et al., 1991), and increased attention and focus (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001). Atchley
et al. (2012) report that creative thinking can be improved through situating individuals in natural
settings. Atchley et al. attribute this to exposure to natural stimuli such as greenery which is low-
arousing and emotionally positive.
Shibata & Suzuki, 2002 report similar findings from a study within which participants performed
better on creative tasks when situated in rooms decorated with foliage such as plants than those
without. Shibata & Suzuki conclude that nature provides a source of inspiration and stimulation for
creativity. Similar findings are also reported by Hesselink et al.(2004) whose study identified an
enhancement of creative task performance by participants situated in rooms with foliage compared to
those situated in rooms without.
These positive effects of plants on task performance may be attributed to by the relaxing connotations
of views to nature and plants (Williams & Cary, 2002; Ulrich, Lunden, & Etinge, 1993). In regard to
creativity literature, a number of scholars emphasise that creative thinking is impaired under stressful
conditions (Talbot, Cooper, & Barrow, 1992; Farr & Ford, 1990; Amabile, 1983), and that creative
ideas arise when an individual is in a state of relaxation (Claxton, 1998; Lehrer, 2012; Kaplan, 2012).
This may also explain the positive effects of plants upon creativity. However, these findings have yet to
be linked to education in terms of benefits for classroom learning.
2.4. The colour green and creativity
Scholars have reported there exists little research conducted into the psychological effects of colour
(Fehrman & Fehrman, 2004; Whitfeild & Wiltshire, 1990), except for that relating to colour
preferences (i.e. Franklin et al., 2010; Hurlbert & Ling, 2007). There are however researchers who
have demonstrated that the colour red can be perceived as a cue for danger (Elliot & Maier, 2007). In
contrast, the colour blue is associated with peace and tranquillity and has been shown to increase
creativity (Mehta and Zhu (2009). For example, when participants were asked to design new
children’s toys after being shown pictures of different toy parts, the participants were more creative
when the parts had been coloured blue rather than red (ibid.). Friedman & Forster, 2010 argued that
this is because colours can tune the scope of attention by signalling the nature of the situation as a
threatening or a calm situation.
Contemporary research has suggested that similarly to the colour blue, the colour green has a positive
influence on creativity. An example arises from a study conducted by Lichtenfeld et al., 2012 who
report that a brief glimpse of the colour green prior to completing a task enhances creative
performance. Research has identified that physiological responses to the colour green include a feeling
of calmness, peace and positive emotions (Clarke & Costall, 2008) and this is attributed to the colour’s
strong associations with nature (Hutchings, 2004; Wierzbicka, 1990). Aside from the study by
Lichenfeld et al., there exists little research into the relationship between the colour green and
enhanced creative thinking, but based on the earlier research on the positive impact of colour blue on
creativity because of its association with tranquillity, it can be predicted that the colour green also
enhances creativity.
The research reported in this paper seeks to extend upon previous studies relating the effects of
exposure to live plants and the colour green on creative thinking. To date, research into these areas
has been sparse and has not been applied to educational settings. This study will investigate the effects
of exposure to live plants and the colour green on visual and verbal classifications of creativity in
educational settings.
3. Research aims and objectives
The purpose of this research is to investigate whether exposure to live plants and the colour green has
a positive impact upon visual and verbal creative thinking in classroom settings. The hypotheses to be
investigated through this study are as follows:
3.1. Hypotheses
(H1) Students who are exposed to live plants and views to nature in the classroom will demonstrate a
higher level of creativity on given tasks than those who are not.
(H2) Students who complete given tasks on green paper will demonstrate a higher level of creativity
than those completing tasks on generic white paper.
4. Methods
4.1. Participants and procedure
108 business students from a British University participated in the study. Each participant was
randomly assigned to one of the control or experimental groups. Participants within the control group
were seated in a classroom with no plants present and blinds drawn to block views to natural settings.
Participants allocated to experimental group one were placed in a classroom surrounded by live plants
and blinds were opened providing a view to a green area. Participants allocated to experimental group
two were placed in a classroom with no plants present and blinds drawn to block views to nature, but
were provided with the creativity tasks on green paper. These groupings and participant numbers are
summarised in Table 1.
The participants were used to blinds being closed and opened regularly for adjusting room
temperatures and preventing sun from creating reflections on computer screens; only few of the
rooms in the old Victorian building have air-conditioning.
A visual and a verbal creativity task was completed uniformly by participants across conditions. The
tasks used are explained below.
4.2. Data collection protocols
4.2.1. Verbal creativity test
Verbal creativity was measured using the Alternative Uses Task (GAUT) proposed by Guildford as a
method of measuring various criteria of creativity, such as fluency, flexibility, and originality
(Guildford, 1967). GUAT is a standard test which is used to measure divergent thinking in verbal
creativity. The test requires participants to list uncommon uses for everyday objects and is widely used
in the area of creativity research (i.e. Chermahini, Hickendorff, & Hommel, 2012; Lewis & Lovatt,
2013; Pretz & Link, 2008). GUAT measures the fluency of participants in idea generation, across both
speed and number of ideas. In other words, participants who could generate a greater number of ideas
in a given period of time would have an advantage in creative efforts.
Participants were instructed to “Name all of the uses you can think of for a brick”. It is noteworthy to
state that this task is not a measure of performance as such, but of specific problem-solving ability.
Simonton (1998) believed that the greater the rate of idea generation, the larger the pool of items to
work with and the greater production of originality. There is, however, a positive relationship between
the amount of time individuals spend on idea generation and originality (Christensen, Guilford, &
Wilson, 1957; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976). Participants were given two minutes to complete this
task.
4.2.2. Visual creativity test
After completing the verbal task, visual creativity was measured by asking the participants to complete
the ‘30 Circles Test’ devised by McKim (1980). Participants were provided with a sheet of paper
containing 30 circles and instructed to incorporate the circles into a drawing and to use as many of the
circles as possible in three minutes. Participants in the control and experimental groups followed this
process uniformly.
5. Results analysis
5.1. Verbal creativity results
Results from the verbal creativity task were evaluated using a modified scoring method of Guilford’s
standard criteria developed by Silvia et al. (2008). Three criteria were used to assess verbal creativity;
uncommon, remote and clever. The scoring of participant’s responses was conducted by three
independent evaluators. The scoring was performed on a scale of 1 to 5, where the value of 5
represented the highest level of creativity. An intra-class correlation analysis was used to assess the
consistency of creativity scorings across the three evaluators. The co-efficient of 0.089 (single
measures) and .226 (average measures) (p = .02) signalled from slight to fair agreement across the
evaluators, which is acceptable for evaluating subjective topics such as creativity outputs (Landis &
Koch, 1977). The consistency of evaluations based on the three criteria (uncommon, remote, clever)
was also acceptable with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81. Further analysis based on a between-items ANOVA
test showed that there was a significant effect when the three criteria were used to analyse the
creativity outputs (F = 109.74, p < 0.00).
As can be seen in Table 2, the results of a one-way ANOVA analysis suggest that there was a significant
effect when the control group was compared to the green paper condition. The overall value for
creativity was lower in the green paper condition (1.59) than in the control group (1.73) (F = 4.387, p =
.04). Creativity was therefore judged to be lower in the green paper group than in the control group.
There was no significant effect when the control group was compared to the plant group. The results
of the ANOVA analysis were consistent across the three criteria used to measure verbal creativity,
except for ‘cleverness’ which varied little across the different conditions. The results suggest, in
contrast to our hypothesis, that exposure to plants and the colour green do not increase creativity for
verbal tasks. In fact, verbal creativity can be higher in normal conditions.
5.2. Visual creativity results
Results from the visual creativity task were assessed using a modified version of the consensual
assessment technique established by Amabile (1982). This involved the three evaluators
independently rating the drawings according to eight dimensions. This technique was selected, due to
its focus on evaluating creative products. In using the technique we followed the four procedural
requirements outlined by Hennessey et al. (2011). These requirements are as follows; evaluators
should be experienced in using the technique. Secondly, evaluators must make their evaluations
independently. They must not be trained to agree with each another; and are not to be given criteria
for judging creativity; and must not confer in their assessments. Thirdly, evaluators should be
instructed to rate products relative to one another. Finally, each judge should view the products in a
different random order. The evaluators who participated in the evaluations had previously used the
consensual assessment technique (where all evaluations were made independently), following
instructions to rate the drawings as relative to one another, whilst given the drawings in a different
random order. An important aspect of this technique is that evaluators should make their assessment
independently using their own subjective definition of creativity (Amabile, 1982; Baer & McKool,
2009; Kaufman, Lee, Baer & Lee; Hickey, 2001).
In this technique, interjudge reliability is regarded as an equivalent to construct validity, i.e. if
evaluators independently agree that a product is creative, it is accepted as such. The technique is
reported to offer a more authentic method towards assessing creative products than factoral
approaches and is a widely accepted method for assessing creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991;
Hennessey, 1994). In our study, the rating between the three evaluators was consistent with an intra-
class correlation co-efficient of 0.425 (single measures) and 0.689 (average measures) (Landis &
Koch, 1977).
As expected, levels of creativity differed between the control and experimental groups. Evaluations
were made on a scale of 1 to 5 where the value of 5 represented the highest level of creativity.
Creativity scores were higher in the plants condition than in the control group. In the plants condition,
creativity was evaluated on average at the level of 2.13 points against 1.78 points in the control group
where plants were not present (p = 0.01). As expected, exposure to the colour green increased
creativity and was evaluated at 2.05 points (p = 0.05). There was no statistically relevant difference
between the plants and green paper conditions (p = 0.57). The scores for visual creativity are
summarized in Table 3. The results are presented for each judge separately as well as across judges.
6. Discussion
Previous research has suggested that environmental factors have an impact on creativity (Runco &
Johnson, 2002). Schol-ars have attributed these positive effects to the relaxing connotations of views
to nature and plants. However, research into these areas has been sparce and has not been previously
applied to educational settings. A number of studies have demon-strated that views to nature and
exposure to the colour green have a positive effect on the ability to think creatively (Atchley et al.,
2012; Lichtenfeld et al., 2012; Shibata & Suzuki, 2002). The results of our research support the
previous findings in that they demonstrate a positive connection between nature and visual creativity.
However, our study findings do not support earlier findings on the positive impact of nature on other
forms of creativity. Shibata & Suzuki, 2002 reported in their study that indoor plants enhanced
creativity measured through a word association task which resembled the alternative uses task used in
the present study to measure verbal creativity. Even though Shibata & Suzuki’s study applied only to
women, it is contradictory to our results and suggests that environmental manipulation needs to be
precise in order to produce the targeted effect. The quality of access to nature, the creativity task, the
measurement of creativity and other factors can have an effect on the overall impact.
A possible explanation for the differences in results between visual and verbal creativity tasks can be
found in the domain of cognitive science. Research in this area suggests that there are significant
differences in the cognitive processing of visual and verbal information (Mayer & Masser, 2003), and
that individuals may have a preference for visual or verbal processing (Childers, Houston, & Heckler,
1985). Furthermore, research suggests that visual and verbal information is processed in two distinct
channels in the brain (Paivio, 1971). Verbal information is processed in the left hemisphere which
specialises in rational, analytical and convergent thinking, whereas, the right hemisphere is often
associated with creativity and divergent thinking (Runco, 2014; Vartanian & Goel, 2005).
Additionally, studies in the area of neuroscience report that the right hemisphere of the brain is
concerned with the processing of visual information and the left with verbal (Kramer, Rosenberg, &
Thompason-Schill, 2009), and that creative thinking often involves bilateral processing (Aziz-Zadeh,
Liew, Dandekar, 2012). This suggests that the verbal task may not have been best matched with
creative thinking, although it is noteworthy to state that Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task is a widely
used measure of creative thinking. Our outcome is congruent with previous studies which have
reported dissociation between visual and verbal creativity (i.e. Shaw & DeMers, 1986; Roskos-
Ewoldsen et al., 1993).
Another explanation may arise in differences in the evaluator’s subjective definitions of creativity in
assessing the verbal creativity task. Amabile (1996) acknowledges that in some instances it can be
problematic for experts in their fields, to agree on the level of creativity expressed in creative products.
Furthermore, this outcome might also be explained by the domain specificity of creativity. Previous
research suggests that creativity consists of both domain specific and general skills and talents (i.e.
Amabile, 1983; Baer, 2010). For example, an individual might be artistically creative, but not in
everyday chores. Our results indicate that access to nature has a positive impact on the domain of
visual creativity, but not on verbal creativity as operationalised in the alternative uses task. Our
findings are similar to Baer (1996) research which reported that when creativity training is targeted at
a specific domain, creativity improves only in this domain, not others. This is substantiated by a
number of scholars who also report that creativity is dependent on domain-specific skills (Palmiero et
al., 2010; Silvia et al., 2009). More empirical research is needed to establish the domain categories.
The tests used in our research come close to two of the seven general thematic areas identified by
Kraufman, Cole & Baer, 2009, which are; artistic/visual area and problem solving area, and provide
support to the overall argument that creativity is domain specific.
7. Conclusions
In this study, we have extended upon previous research by demonstrating that the influence of
environmental factors is not uniform for different forms of creativity. The results have clear practical
implications in demonstrating that classroom features can enhance creativity among students. The
visual creativity of students can be increased by incorporating plants in classrooms or ensuring that
classrooms are designed with views to nature. When access to nature is difficult to arrange, using
green coloured paper in classroom tasks can have a similar effect on creativity. It is also possible that
these environmental features have a positive impact on other domains of creativity, but this impact
needs to be investigated in further studies.
Acknowledgement
We extend acknowledgement to Filia Garivaldis, Isidora Kourti (Regent’s University London) and
Chia-Yu Kou (University College London) for their assistance with the creativity evaluations.
References
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview
Press’ Boulder.
Amabile, T. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag; New York.
Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 9971013. Atchley, R., Strayer, D., & Atchley, P. (2012).
Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLOS
One, 7 (Issue 2).
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liew, S., & Dandekar, F. (2012). Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 475480.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), In the cambridge
handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment. In C. Schreiner
(Ed.), Handbook of assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Hershey,
Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent thinking training. Journal of Creative Behaviour,
3, 183187.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Fort
Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.
Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2000). Creativity enhancement with emerging technologies.
Communications of the ACM Special Issue on Personalization Systems, 43(8), 63–65.
Chermahini, S., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version
of the remote associates task: An item-response theory approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7,
177186.
Childers, T., Houston, M., & Heckler, S. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus
verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125134.
Christensen, P., Guilford, J., & Wilson, R. (1957). Relations of creative responses to working time and
instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 8288.
Clarke, T., & Costall, A. (2008). The emotional connotations of colour: A qualitative investigation.
Colour Research and Application, 33, 406410.
Claxton (1998) Hare Brain Tortoise Mind: Why Intelligence Increases When you Think Less. London.
Fourth Estate Limited.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
HarperCollins.
Dake. (1991). The visual definition of visual creativity. Journal of Visual Literacy, 1, 99118.
Dau-Gaspar, O. (2013). Verbal and figural creativity in contemporary high-school students. Procedia
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 78, 662–666.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). (295.013) Developing 4 to 6 year old
children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 85–95.
De Bono, E. (1967). New think: the use of lateral thinking in the generation of new ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16, 250254.
Farr, J., & Ford, C. (1990). Human hypothalamus-pituatary-adrenal axis responses to acute
psychological stress in laboratory settings. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 36, 91–96.
Fasko, D. (2000). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 317327.
Feldhusen, J., & Goh, B. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory,
research and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231247.
Fehrman, K., & Fehrman, C. (2004). Colour: the secret influence. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Franklin, A., Bevis, L., Ying, Y., & Hulbert, A. (2010). Biological componenets of colour preference in
infancy. Developmental Science, 13, 346354. Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2010). Implicit affective
cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 875893.
Getzels, J., & Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding
in art. New York: John Wiley.
Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-
being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 23322343.
Guilford, J. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1, 3–14.
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1986). Adaptations to windowlessness: A study of the use of visual
decor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and Behavior, 18, 623–639.
Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Creativity, classrooms, culture, and communication. In John Houtz (Ed.),
Review of the educational psychology of creativity (49) (pp. 761–763). Contemporary Psychology: APA
Review of Books.
Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship
between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 193–208.
Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (1987). Creativity and Learning. Washington DC: NEA Professional
Library.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2011). Consensual Assessment. In M. A. Runco, &
S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (vol. 1) (Second Edition, vol. 1, pp. 253260). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Hesselink, J, Duijn, B, Bergen, S, Hooff, M & Cornelissen, E. (2004) Plants enhance productivity in
the case of creative work. [online]. Available from:
http://www.landscapeontario.com/attach/1301596822.
Hetrick, S., Lilly, R., & Merrifield, P. (1968). Figural creativity, intelligence, and personality in
children. Multivariate Behvioural Research, Vol 3(2)
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the
creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234
244.
Hota, A. (2003). Creativity-Cultural Perspective. Discovery Publishing House.
Hurlbert, A., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differences in colour preference. Current
Biology, 17, 623625.
Hutchings, J. (2004). Colour in folklore and tradition. Colour Research and Application, 29, 57–66.
Jacobs, M., & Dominowski, R. (1981). Learning to solve insight problems. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 17, 171174.
Kaplan, M. (2012) Why great ideas emerge when you aren’t trying. Nature: Interational Wekly Journal
of Science. [online]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-ideas-come-when-you-
aren-t-trying-1.10678.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and
Behavior, 33, 507542.
Karnes, M., McCoy, G., Zehrback, R., Wollersheim, J., Clarizio, H., Costin, L., & Stanley, L. (1961).
Factors associated with under achievement and overachievement of intellectually gifted children.
Community Unit Schools: Champaign IL.
Kaufman, J., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual
assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 96106.
Kramer, D., Rosenberg, L., & Thompason-Schill, S. (2009). The neural correlates of visual and verbal
cognitive styles. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(12), 3792–3798.
Kraufman, J., Cole, J., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for self-
reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 43, 119132.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kozhevnikov, M., Yu, C., & Blazhenkova, O. (2013). Creativity, visualisation abilities
and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 196209.
Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: how creativity works. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing.
Lewis, C., & Lovatt, P. (2013). Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation and
divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9(9), 4658. Lichtenfeld, S., Elliot, A., Maier, M., &
Pekrun, R. (2012). Fertile green: green facilitates creative performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 784–797.
Martinsen, O. (1995). Cognitive styles and experience in solving insight problems: Replication and
extension. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 291298. Mayer, R., & Masser, L. (2003). The Facets of
visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style and learning preference. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833846.
McKim, R. (1980) Experiences in Visual Thinking. Monterey; Brooks/Cole.
Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. (2009). Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances.
Science, 323, 12261229.
Mumford, M. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock of creativity research.
Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107120.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Palmiero, M., Nakatani, C., Raver, D., Belardinelli, M., & vanLeeuwen, C. (2010). Abilities within and
across visual and verbal domains: How specific is their influence on creativity? Creativity research
Journal, 2(4), 369377.
Petsche, H. (1996). Approaches to verbal, visual and musical creativity by EEG coherence analysis.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 145159. Piirto, J. (2005). The creative process in poets.
In J. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity in domains: faces of the muse. (pp 120). Parsippany, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pithers, R., & Soden, R. (2000). Creative thinking in education. Educational Research, 43(3), 237
249.
Pretz, J., & Link, J. (2008). The creative task generator: A tool for generation of customized web-
based creativity tasks. Behaviour Research Methods, 40(4), 11291133.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305310.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Intons-Peterson, M., & Anderson, R. (1993). Imagery, creativity and discovery:
a cognitive perspective. Elsevier,
Runco, M. (2014). Creativity: theories and themes: research, development and practice. Elsiver.
Runco, M. (2008). Creativity and Education. New Horizons in Education, Vol 56(No 1).
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657687.
Runco, M. A. (1989). Parent’s and teacher’s ratings of the creativity of children. Journal of Social
Behaviour and Personality, 4, 7383.
Runco, M., & Johnson, D. (2002). Parent’s and teachers implicit theories of creativity: A cross-cultural
perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3), 427438.
Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, Vol 1(No. 3), 166–169.
Shaw, G., & DeMers, S. (1986). The relationship of imagery to originality, flexibility and fluency in
creative thinking. Journal of Mental Imagery, 10(1), 6574. Shibata, S., & Suzuki, N. (2004). Effects of
an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45,
373381. Shibata, S., & Suzuki, N. (2002). Effects of foliage plant on task performance and mood.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(3), 265272.
Shibata, S., & Suzuki, N. (2001). Effects of indoor foliage plants on subject’s recovery from mental
fatigue. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 385396. Silvia, P., Kaufman, J., & Pretz, J. (2009).
Is creativity domain specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-
descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 139148.
Silvia, P., Winterstein, B., Willse, J., Barona, C., Cram, J., Hess, K., & Richard, C. (2008). Assessing
creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring
methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 2(2), 6885.
Simonton, D. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of
product, person and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Donald Campbell’s model of the creative process: Creativity as blind variation
and selective retention. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 153158.
Sternberg, R. (1998). The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 608–614.
Talbot, R., Cooper, C., & Barrow, S. (1992). Creativity and stress. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 1(4), 183193.
Taylor, A., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, C. (2001). Coping With ADD: the surprising connection to green play
settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(Number 1), 5477.
Torrance, E. P. (1971). Technical manual for the creative motivation scale. Report. Georgia studies of
creative behaviour. In University of Georgia. Torrance, E. (1962). Testing and creative talent.
Educational Leadership, 20, 710.
Ulger, K. (2015). The structure of creative thinking: visual and verbal areas. Creativity Research
Journal, 27(1), 102106.
Ulrich, R. S., Lunden, O., & Etinge, J. L. (1993). Effects of exposure to nature and abstract pictures on
patients recovery from heart surgery. Psychophysiology, 1(7).
Ulrich, R., Simons, B., Losito, E., Fiorito, M., Miles, M., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during
exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201230.
Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2005). Task constraints modulate activation in right ventral lareral
prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 27, 927–933.
Waugh, A. (2003) Thinking and Creating. [online]. Available from:
http://www.nesta.org.uk/ignite/downloads/ignite seminar.pdf.
Weisberg, R. (1993). Creativity: beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.
Whitfeild, T., & Wiltshire, T. (1990). Colour psychology: a critical review. Genetic, Social and General
Psychology Monographs, 116, 385411.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). The meaning of colour terms: Semantics, culture and cognition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 99150.
Williams, K., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection.
Environment and Behaviour, 34(2), 257274. Wissink, G. (2001). Creativity and cognition: a study
within the framework of cognitive science, artificial intelligence and the dynamical system theory.
Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam: Doctoral Dissertation.
Zadeh, L., Sook-Lei, L., & Dandekar, F. (2012). Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss021
Zhu, F., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, J. (2013). Relating inter-individual differences in verb creative thinking to
cerebal structures: An optimal voxel-based morphometry study. PLoS One,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079272
... More recently, environmental psychology research has found some support for the notion that exposure to nature can enhance cognitive ability in executive attention and alertness measures, but the evidence is mixed (Atchley et al., 2012;Berman et al., 2008;Ohly et al., 2016;Stevenson et al., 2018). Novel research within this area has demonstrated that nature can also positively affect creativity (Studente et al., 2016;Williams et al., 2018). ...
... However, participants did not generate significantly higher rates of responses that were judged truly 'novel' and 'useful' in the nature-view condition, i.e. it did not affect the quality of the output, i.e. not leading to more functional creative inventions. Aligned with the present study, Studente et al. (2016) observed that greenery did not enhance verbal creativity outputs in participants (N = 108) when using the GAUT task. However, participants performed significantly better on tasks requiring visual creativity (i.e., 30 circles task) within the biophilic room (Studente et al., 2016). ...
... Aligned with the present study, Studente et al. (2016) observed that greenery did not enhance verbal creativity outputs in participants (N = 108) when using the GAUT task. However, participants performed significantly better on tasks requiring visual creativity (i.e., 30 circles task) within the biophilic room (Studente et al., 2016). Therefore, there may be differences in the processing of verbal versus visual information. ...
Article
A body of environmental psychology research has demonstrated that the inclusion of natural elements within the built environment, known as biophilic design, can result in improvements in cognition and affect. The current study used two experimental within-subjects studies and virtual reality to examine the impact of window views of nature on affect and cognitive functioning. The first experiment compared the effect of office environments, with either no window or a window view of nature (i.e., trees, blue sky), on performance in commonly used cognitive tasks measuring tonic alertness (i.e. sustained attention), cognitive flexibility, and creativity. The second experiment extended the range of measures, assessing effects of the window with nature-views on phasic alertness, executive attention (i.e. working memory), and self-reported affect. The second study further introduced an additional condition that contained a window with shutters, which allowed for daylight infiltration, while blocking the view of nature. Paired samples t-test analysis revealed that the nature-view condition had a significant positive effect on creative fluency (i.e. quantity of output) but not on the quality of creative responses. Moreover, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance indicated that nature-views significantly enhanced positive affect and reduced negative affect. In contrast, no significant effect of the environment was observed for tonic and phasic alertness, and executive attention (i.e. working memory). These results indicate that affect, and specific cognitive processes, are restored by incorporating biophilic elements into architectural design.
... • Seeing shades of green, even very briefly, has been tied to enhanced creative performance (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012;Studente et al., 2016). • Colours that are relatively unsaturated but light have been linked to viewer energy levels and moods consistent with creative performance (i.e., the positive, slightly energized moods described earlier in this document) (Valdez and Mehrabian, 1994;Martens, 2011). ...
... Looking at wood grain reduces human stress levels (Fell, 2010) and along with the use of other natural materials such as stone, has been tied to more creative thinking when compared to situations in which natural materials are absent (McCoy and Evans, 2002;Enso, 2020). • Researchers report that performance on creative tasks has been positively affected by the presence of green leafy plants (e.g., Shibata and Suzuki, 2002;Studente et al., 2016;Hall and Knuth, 2019;Hahn et al., 2021). • Having views of nature through windows has been tied to more creative thinking than when nature views are absent by McCoy and Evans (2002), Ceylan et al. (2008), Ceylan (2011), Loder and, and Van Rompay and Joi (2016). ...
... All of the data collected do not align with those of previous studies, however. There are several potential reasons for this: • Previous studies have generally only investigated one aspect of the environment and its relationship to creative thinking (with some notable exceptions such as Studente et al., 2016) while the effects of multiple factors were probed in this study. • The sample size was relatively small. ...
... • Seeing shades of green, even very briefly, has been tied to enhanced creative performance (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012;Studente et al., 2016). • Colours that are relatively unsaturated but light have been linked to viewer energy levels and moods consistent with creative performance (i.e., the positive, slightly energized moods described earlier in this document) (Valdez and Mehrabian, 1994;Martens, 2011). ...
... Looking at wood grain reduces human stress levels (Fell, 2010) and along with the use of other natural materials such as stone, has been tied to more creative thinking when compared to situations in which natural materials are absent (McCoy and Evans, 2002;Enso, 2020). • Researchers report that performance on creative tasks has been positively affected by the presence of green leafy plants (e.g., Shibata and Suzuki, 2002;Studente et al., 2016;Hall and Knuth, 2019;Hahn et al., 2021). • Having views of nature through windows has been tied to more creative thinking than when nature views are absent by McCoy and Evans (2002), Ceylan et al. (2008), Ceylan (2011), Loder and, and Van Rompay and Joi (2016). ...
... All of the data collected do not align with those of previous studies, however. There are several potential reasons for this: • Previous studies have generally only investigated one aspect of the environment and its relationship to creative thinking (with some notable exceptions such as Studente et al., 2016) while the effects of multiple factors were probed in this study. • The sample size was relatively small. ...
... Exploring the degree of naturalness in urban green spaces would help us understand the effect on creative thinking and to understand the benefits of restorativeness. Past research has shown that natural environments, or environments with natural elements, enhance creative performance more than urban environments (4)(5)(6)(7). Dealing with the daily work process and preparing and understanding new work problems could consume our directed attention, leading to attention fatigue. Exposure to environments with restorative characteristics (i.e., being away, fascination, extent, compatibility) compared with artificial environments can promote recovery from attention fatigue (1). ...
... During a creative incubation period, nature walks foster calmness and spiritual rejuvenation, providing opportunities to rest and review problematic issues in a new light (11). Numerous studies have discussed the relationship between creativity and natural environments, including actual nature experience (4,28), indoor plants, natural window views or natural environmental images (3,6,8,26,29), natural environments experienced through immersive virtual devices (30), and even quick design practice in an actual outdoor natural environment (7). All the above studies found that creativity improves in natural settings or the presence of natural elements. ...
... In addition, the study analyzed the effect on the overall creativity score in different degrees of perceived naturalness. Table 4 shows that there is a significant effect on the total normalized score on creativity and perceived naturalness [F Overall, subjects viewing environments with high-perceived naturalness outperformed those viewing low-perceived naturalness environments in terms of creative performance scores, consistent with previous studies (6,7,26,30). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated the effects of different natural environments on attention restoration and creativity. To compare the restorative benefits based on the degrees of perceived naturalness in urban areas, this study categorized environments into three types of perceived naturalness and tested the effect on one's creativity. The urban campus was selected as the study site, representing high-, medium-, and low-perceived naturalness photosets downloaded from Google Street Map images as experimental stimuli. The study invited 100 subjects to take the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA), which measures creative thinking by viewing the onscreen photosets of the experimental stimuli. In addition, this study asked participants to complete the Perceived Restoration Scale (PRS) questionnaires. The results showed that high- and medium-perceived naturalness in the urban-campus site was superior to low-perceived naturalness in creative performance. In addition, there were significant differences in elaboration and flexibility for different degrees of perceived naturalness. Various degrees of perceived naturalness showed a substantial correlation between PRS scores and ATTA scores. The attention restoration benefits of high- and medium-naturalness environments improve creativity. Our study indicates that viewing natural environments stimulates curiosity and fosters flexibility and imagination, highly natural environments distract our minds from work, and the benefits of attention restoration can improve the uniqueness and diversity of creative ideas. This study provides a reference for creative environmental design and supports further understanding of nature's health and creativity benefits in urban areas.
... • Accent Lights: Users were able to control the amount of preplaced accent lights that were integrated into the environment (e.g. spotlights on the wall in concert hall, ceiling lights and led ceiling in studio) and choose their color between red, green, and blue (following the work of [41] and [77]). Figure 6: A visualisation of the study procedure. ...
... Prosedur penelitian dilakukan dengan cara kerja metode penelitian preexperimental design dengan one grup prestest-posttest design (Karabulut & Kesli Dollar, 2016;Kristanto, 2018;Strobel et al., 2017;Studente et al., 2016;Yakut & Aydın, 2017). Penggunaan Pre-Experimental Deisgn sebagai metode mempertimbangkan bahwa pengembilan sampelnya tidak dipilih secara random atau acak sehingga dalam proses tersebut tidak terdapat variabel kontrol (Kristanto, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Tujuan pada penulisan artikel ini untuk memaparkan model pembelajaran problem solving melalui daring terhadap kecerdasan intrapersonal siswa menengah. Penelitian kuantitatif ini menggunakan metode Pre-Experimental Design dengan one grup prestest-posttest design. Teknik pengumpulan data menggunakan wawancara, angket dan test performasi. Hasil pada penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa model problem solving pada pembelajaran daring di kelas VII E SMPN 2 Cimahi berpengaruh terhadap kecerdasan intrapersonal siswa, hal ini dapat dilihat dari nilai angket pretest dan postest yang terdapat nilai kenaikan yang signifikan melalui uji paired sampel t-test yang menunjukan nilai sig (2-tailed) bernilai 0,000 < 0,05 artinya “Ha diterima dan Ho ditolak”, maka dapat disimpulkan baha melalui model problem solving pada pembelajaran tari secara daring dapat meningkatkan kecerdasan intrapersonal siswa. Penelitian diharapkan dapat berimplikasi sebagai sumber referensi model pembelajaran problem solving secara daring untuk meningkatkan kecerdasan intrapersonal.
Chapter
Do experiences with nature—from wilderness backpacking, to plants in a preschool, to a wetland lesson on frogs, promote learning? Until recently, claims outstripped evidence on this question. But the field has matured, not only substantiating previously unwarranted claims but also deepening our understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning. Hundreds of studies now bear on this question, and converging evidence strongly suggests that experiences of nature boost academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. This brief integrative review summarizes recent advances and the current state of our understanding. The research on personal development and environmental stewardship is compelling although not quantitative. Report after report—from independent observers as well as participants themselves—indicate shifts in perseverance, problem solving, critical thinking, leadership, teamwork, and resilience after time in nature. Similarly, over fifty studies point to nature playing a key role in the development of pro-environmental behavior, particularly by fostering an emotional connection to nature. In academic contexts, nature-based instruction outperforms traditional instruction. The evidence here is particularly strong, including experimental evidence; evidence across a wide range of samples and instructional approaches; outcomes such as standardized test scores and graduation rates; and evidence for specific explanatory mechanisms and ‘active ingredients’. Nature may promote learning by improving learners’ attention, levels of stress, self-discipline, interest and enjoyment in learning, and physical activity and fitness. Nature also appears to provide a calmer, quieter, safer context for learning; a warmer, more cooperative context for learning; and a combination of “loose parts” and autonomy that fosters developmentally beneficial forms of play. It is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning—particularly for students not effectively reached by traditional instruction.
Chapter
Full-text available
In a Danish context regular (weekly or biweekly) education outside the classroom (EOtC), school-based outdoor learning or learning outside the classroom (LOtC) is called udeskole and aims to enhance both health and education. The purpose of this chapter is to present two Danish research projects; the Søndermark School and TEACHOUT studies. It highlights the impact and potentials of physical activity (PA) in primary school based on results from pupils (grade 3–6 grade—year 9–12), taught weekly outside the classroom and school buildings. The chapter summarises how teaching in nature, green areas or using cultural institutions like museums, factories, cemeteries etc. has an impact on PA levels. The Søndermark School study in Copenhagen investigated whether udeskole in urban nature or cultural institutions helps to increase children’s PA in four classes. 44 girls and 40 boys (grade 4–6) participated in this study, where the PA was measured for seven consecutive days. For all 84 pupils, the average PA was significantly higher on udeskole days compared to traditional school days without PE lessons. The average PA levels among boys were significantly higher than among girls in all mentioned settings, except on days with PE lessons, where both sexes’ PA levels were equal. As part of the TEACHOUT research project, PA of 663 children was measured 24 h a day for 9–10 consecutive days. Udeskole classes were compared with control classes, i.e. their parallel classes, from 12 schools located in different parts of Denmark, in a quasi-experimental design. A gender comparison was made on a weekly basis, i.e. days with more than 150 min of udeskole were compared with traditional school days and days with physical education (PE) classes. Measured over a whole week, boys having udeskole were more physically active than boys in control classes and girls in both settings. No difference was found between girls in udeskole and the comparison classes during a week, but girls on udeskole days were associated with a greater proportion of PA at light intensity than on traditional school days and days with PE lessons. In general, the children were far less sedentary during udeskole compared to traditional classroom teaching.
Article
Full-text available
To understand the school’s role in society and its works, it became essential to reevaluate its functions and importance for society after the aggressive attack of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, a new educational space design represents a powerful and required tool for stimulating creativity and increasing concentration, motivation, and assimilation of knowledge for future generations. The article will use appreciative inquiry as a method that works with perspective ideas readings doted by high positive human sensitivity. It also represents a powerful tool for the students’ opinions about the teaching spaces and environments. To improve the performance of educational institutions and schools, considering the sustainability concepts and biophilic designs has become an urgent necessity within the Scandinavian countries and in the world in general. The scientific research and theoretical analysis within the biophilic theory have been conducted to see how the designer can integrate the nature components holistically in the educational environment based on spatial, visual, and ecological integration concepts. The study aims to develop knowledge about applying biophilia as a phenomenon in educational institutes of Scandinavia where the students among others are the main decision-maker. The article’s main finding is that students dream of free open teaching spaces integrated with nature, where the biophilic theory frameworks are suitable to form this sustainable model that enables educational institutions and schools to improve their performance within different stages of the study.
Book
Creativity is of rising interest to scholars and laypeople alike. Creativity in the arts, however, is very different from creativity in science, business, sports, cooking, or teaching. This book brings together top experts in the field from around the world to discuss creativity across many different domains. Each chapter includes clear definitions, intriguing research, potential measures, and suggestions for development or future directions. After a broad discussion of creativity across different domains, subsequent chapters look deeper into those individual domains (traditional arts, sciences, business, newer domains, and everyday life) to explore how creativity varies when expressed in different ways. Ultimately, the book offers a future-looking perspective integrating the different variations of creativity across domains.
Book
How is it possible to think new thoughts? What is creativity and can science explain it? When The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms was first published, Margaret A. Boden's bold and provocative exploration of creativity broke new ground. Boden uses examples such as jazz improvisation, chess, story writing, physics, and the music of Mozart, together with computing models from the field of artificial intelligence to uncover the nature of human creativity in the arts, science and everyday life. The Second Edition of The Creative Mind has been updated to include recent developments in artificial intelligence, with a new preface, introduction and conclusion by the author. It is an essential work for anyone interested in the creativity of the human mind.
Chapter
Creativity research has moved from an almost exclusive emphasis on the creative person towards a more balanced inquiry that centers on both individual difference issues and questions about the nature of creative products and the conditions that facilitate their creation. Over 30 years of research show that product creativity can be reliably and validly assessed based on the consensus of experts. The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) proposes that independent raters familiar with a product domain, persons who have not conferred with one another or received special training, are best able to decide whether one product is more creative than another. Although product creativity may be difficult to characterize, it is something that people can recognize and agree upon when they see it.