Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors

Abstract

The importance of fostering student creativity in higher education has been widely recognized, due to the need for preparing young people for the uncertain and complex world of work, which requires individuals to be able to use their creative abilities. Despite this recognition, the encouragement of creativity in higher education has been a challenge for faculty. Although there is agreement that college students should be creative, college faculty are generally not familiar with learning and teaching environments that promote creativity. Furthermore, many factors impact creativity expression in higher education institutions, such as students' resistance, organizational structure of universities, faculty attributes and pedagogical practices. This article addresses various challenges to creativity blooming in higher education, as well as some factors that facilitate its nurturance in this type of educational setting.

Full text

ISSN 1413-389X Trends in Psychology / Temas em Psicologia – Junho 2017, Vol. 25, nº 2, 553-561
DOI: 10.9788/TP2017.2-09
Creativity in Higher Education:
Challenges and Facilitating Factors
Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar1
Denise de Souza Fleith
Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
Nielsen Pereira
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
Abstract
The importance of fostering student creativity in higher education has been widely recognized, due
to the need for preparing young people for the uncertain and complex world of work, which requires
individuals to be able to use their creative abilities. Despite this recognition, the encouragement of
creativity in higher education has been a challenge for faculty. Although there is agreement that college
students should be creative, college faculty are generally not familiar with learning and teaching
environments that promote creativity. Furthermore, many factors impact creativity expression in higher
education institutions, such as students’ resistance, organizational structure of universities, faculty
attributes and pedagogical practices. This article addresses various challenges to creativity blooming in
higher education, as well as some factors that facilitate its nurturance in this type of educational setting.
Keywords: Creativity, higher education, faculty, students, pedagogical practices.
Criatividade na Educação Superior:
Desafi os e Fatores Facilitadores
Resumo
A importância de se estimular a criatividade de estudantes da educação superior tem sido amplamente
reconhecida devido à necessidade de preparar os jovens para o mundo incerto e complexo do trabalho, que
requer dos indivíduos habilidade para utilizar suas capacidades criativas. Apesar desse reconhecimento, o
incentivo à criatividade na educação superior tem se constituído um desafi o para os professores. Embora
haja consenso de que os estudantes universitários sejam criativos, os professores, em geral, não estão
familiarizados com ambientes de ensino-aprendizagem promotores da criatividade. Além disso, muitos
fatores impactam a expressão criativa em instituições de ensino superior, tais como resistência dos
estudantes, estrutura organizacional das universidades, atributos dos professores e práticas pedagógicas.
Este artigo discute vários desafi os ao fl orescimento da criatividade na educação superior, bem como
alguns fatores que facilitam seu desenvolvimento nesse tipo de contexto educativo.
Palavras-chave: Criatividade, educação superior, professores, estudantes, práticas pedagógicas.
1 Mailing address: Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Psicologia, Campus Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, DF, Brazil
70910-900. Phone: (61) 3107-6888. E-mail: eunices.alencar@gmail.com

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., Pereira, N.
554
La Creatividad in la Educación Superior:
Desafíos y Factores Facilitadores
Resumen
La importancia de fomentar la creatividad de los estudiantes en la educación superior ha sido amplia-
mente reconocida, debido a la necesidad de preparar a los jóvenes para el mundo incierto y complejo
del trabajo, que requiere que los individuos sean capaces de utilizar sus capacidades creativas. A pesar
de este reconocimiento, el fomento de la creatividad en la educación superior ha sido un desafío para el
profesorado. Aunque hay acuerdo en que los estudiantes universitarios deben ser creativos, los profe-
sores universitarios, en general, no están familiarizados con los entornos de aprendizaje y enseñanza que
promueven la creatividad. Además, muchos factores afectan la expresión creativa en las instituciones de
educación superior, por ejemplo la resistencia de los estudiantes, la estructura organizativa de las uni-
versidades, los atributos de los profesores y prácticas pedagógicas. Este artículo aborda varios desafíos
para el fl orescimiento de la creatividad en la educación superior, así como algunos factores que facilitan
su desarollo en este tipo de entorno educativo.
Palabras clave: Creatividad, educación superior, profesores, estudiantes, prácticas pedagógicas.
The importance of creativity has been
increasingly recognized by scholars and pro-
fessionals from various fi elds (e.g., Davis,
2004; Robinson, 2013). Research on creativity
development reminds us that, in contemporary
society, those who do not make use of their
ability to create are at risk of failure in one or
more facets of life (Bresnahan, 2013; Crainer &
Dearlove, 2014; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010).
Csikszentmihalyi (2007) highlights that, while in
the Renaissance creativity could be a luxury for
some, at present, it is a necessity for our survival.
Creativity helps individuals to take better
advantage of opportunities and to respond more
productively to the challenges and diffi culties in
their personal and professional lives. Creative
behaviors also contribute to the quality of life,
as their expression is usually accompanied by
feelings of satisfaction and pleasure, which are
fundamental elements of emotional welfare and
mental health (Alencar, 2007; De Breu, Baas, &
Nijstad, 2012; Pannells & Claxton, 2008; Runco,
2004).
Creativity is also of foremost importance
in the business world, being an essential factor
for innovation and the consequent success of or-
ganizations (Bruno-Faria, Vargas, & Martínez,
2013). Creativity has been regarded as a critical
element for the survival of many corporations,
due to the challenges generated by globaliza-
tion, increasing competition, and rapid pace of
change. This scenario forces organizations to
innovate more quickly, which requires more
effi cient use of human resources, including the
employees’ creativity.
The relevance of creativity to society is
also unquestionable. As pointed out by Smith-
Bingham (2007), the future prosperity of coun-
tries increasingly depends on their ability to in-
novate, transform ideas into new products and
services, develop new technologies and forms of
production, introduce products and services in
new markets and, in the global context, address
the numerous challenges in the areas of health,
education, and work. Similarly, Lubart (2007)
stresses that, “in respect to the capital issues,
such as those of the social or planetarium equi-
librium, the need of new approaches and solu-
tions becomes increasingly urgent” (p. 8).
The awareness of the relevance of creati-
vity has led governments of several countries to
create educational initiatives with the purpose
of promoting a debate and an implementation of
educational policies aimed at the development
of students’ creative abilities. According to
Cheung, Roskams, and Fisher (2006), for
example, providing opportunities for creativity
training has become a crucial part of university

Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors. 555
education in Hong Kong, in line with the Hong
Kong Government’s expectation that higher
education must promote fl exible, creative,
and critical students. Smith-Bingham (2007)
discusses the renewed interest in creativity in
Great Britain, describing projects and initiatives
in that direction and some challenges that those
responsible for the production of public policy
have come across to make creativity a political
priority. Recommendations for promoting
creativity in university curricula have been made
by governments of countries such as China and
Japan, as well as by American and European
business leaders (Strom & Strom, 2002).
To justify the importance of fostering
creativity in higher education, Jackson (2006)
stated that if “the purpose of higher education is
to help students develop their potential as fully
as possible at this level, then enabling students
to be creative should be an explicit part of their
higher education experience” (p. 1). Jackson
also emphasizes that higher education needs to
take into account the important role of creativity
in the process of preparing young people for the
uncertain and complex world of work, which
requires employees to be able to make use of
their creative abilities. Jackson (2006), as well
as Alencar and Fleith (2010), Jackson, Oliver,
Shaw, and Wisdom (2007), and Romo (2012), call
attention to the essential role of creativity in the
knowledge society. For these reasons, university
faculty should promote conditions, including
strategies, approaches, methods, and instruction
addressing the development of students’ creative
ability. This was one of the factors that led the
European University Association to carry out the
project Creativity in Higher Education, with the
participation of representatives from forty-two
higher-education institutions from 21 different
countries (i.e., two institutions per country), who
were invited to participate in the project. The
purpose of this project was to analyze conditions
that could promote or inhibit creativity at the
university setting, with a focus on various topics,
such as innovation in teaching and learning, and
structure and leadership of higher education
institutions (European University Association,
2007).
Challenges to Creativity Blooming
in Higher Education
Despite the recognition of the benefi ts of
creativity for individuals and their personal
achievement as well as for society, with the ex-
ception of isolated initiatives in some countries,
the development of creativity is not a priority in
education. Creative abilities are often repressed
not only in elementary and secondary education
(Alencar, 2007; Bermejo, Ruiz, Prieto, Ferrán-
diz, & Sainz, 2015; Pfeiffer & Wechsler, 2013;
Renzulli, 2005; Runco, 2004), but also in higher
education (Alencar & Fleith, 2010; Cropley,
2005; Gibson, 2010; Hosseini, 2011; Nakano
& Wechsler, 2006; Wechsler & Nakano, 2011).
Empirical evidence suggests that the creativity
of the individual declines with increasing years
of formal education, with various authors un-
derscoring limited opportunities and even the
discouragement and punishment of the expres-
sion of creativity in higher education (Alencar &
Fleith, 2009; Castanho, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi,
2007; Wechsler, 2001, 2002). Cropley (2005),
for example, concluded that Australian univer-
sities, have not provided the necessary training
for students to master effective strategies to face
new situations, to cope with rapid change, and to
deal with unpredictable problems, since 75% of
all recent graduates, regardless of their discipline
of study, were being considered by employers
who deemed them as unsuitable for employ-
ment, due to defi ciencies in creativity, problem
solving, and critical and independent thinking.
Along the same line, Gilson (2008) refers to an
article published in The Economist, in which it is
pointed out that “the biggest challenge facing or-
ganizations today is not fi nding or hiring cheap
workers, but rather hiring individuals with brain-
power (both natural and trained) and especially
the ability to think creatively” (p. 304). These
examples suggest that creativity has often been
neglected in educational systems.
The lack of attention to the development
of creative abilities of college students has
been discussed by several authors, such as
Alencar and Fleith (2009), Castanho (2000),
Csikszentmihalyi (2007), Jackson (2006,

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., Pereira, N.
556
2007), Jackson et al. (2007) and Wechsler
(2001). According to Jackson et al. (2007), the
importance of creativity in teaching and learning
processes has been widely underestimated in
the context of higher education, since higher
education institutions tend to give more value to
critical thinking. Such point of view is in line with
Fryer (2007), who also signaled that creativity
did not get the necessary recognition, being
undervalued in a large number of disciplines
taught in universities in England. Castanho
(2000) also observed lack of interest in promoting
creativity in university courses, underscoring
that in Brazilian universities creativity receives
little to no attention. Likewise, Hosseini (2011)
discussed the tendency of university faculty
in Iran to rely on educational practices that
reduce student motivation and creativity. The
attitudes and resistance of faculty and students;
organizational elements of structural, cultural
and procedural nature; time and other resources;
and government policies were considered as
potential barriers to the fl ourishing of creativity
in higher education by Jackson (2006). Jackson
points out that, although students are often
expected to be creative, creativity is rarely
included in the syllabi of higher education
courses as an explicit learning objective. In
addition, Jackson calls attention to the limited
knowledge of creative approaches to teaching
by many university faculty, who are also
unfamiliar with the literature on how to foster
creativity in educational settings. Furthermore,
the dominance of convergent teaching practices
with emphasis on the transmission of knowledge
prevails, as Csikszentmihalyi (2007) points out:
Schools teach how to answer, not to question.
They teach isolated disciplines that, as the
years pass, become more and more diffi cult
to integrate. Reference to the present, let
alone to the future, is lacking in most school
curricula which are dominated... by a concern
with transmitting past knowledge. (p. xix)
Obstacles to the promotion of creativity
in higher education were investigated by Fryer
(2007), Alencar and Fleith (2010), and Lima
and Alencar (2014). Fryer (2007), analyzed the
answers of 90 teachers to an email questionnaire
and noted that excessive work load, not enough
time to prepare lessons, large class sizes,
insuffi cient time for contact with students, and
inadequate resources were factors considered
by the participants of the study as elements that
restrict the expression of creativity in higher
education. Alencar and Fleith (2010) examined
university instructors’ perceptions of obstacles
to the development and expression of student
creativity in their classrooms. Three-hundred
and thirty-eight university instructors completed
a checklist of obstacles to the promotion of
creativity in the classroom. Results revealed
that student-related factors, such as students
with learning diffi culties, lack of interest in
the content taught, and number of students in
the classroom, followed by few opportunities
to discuss and exchange ideas with colleagues
about instructional strategies, and high number
of disciplines and other activities under their
responsibility, limiting the time of preparation
for teaching, were among the most frequent
obstacles. Lima and Alencar (2014) examined
factors that hinder the promotion of the creative
expression in graduate courses according to 15
professors who were interviewed about their
pedagogical practices and factors that restrict
the development and expression of graduate
students’ creativity. The impediment factors
most frequently pointed out were related to:
(a) the students (internalization of a culture of
conformity and of knowledge reproduction;
fear of making mistakes; conformity; resistance
to innovating teaching procedures; fear of
expressing new ideas); (b) the professors
(lack of time and excessive workload; lack of
knowledge on creativity and how to nurture
it in the students; fear of innovating; lack of
incentive by the university system); and (c) the
higher education institution (omission in relation
to creativity; requirement of a heavy workload;
bureaucracy).
One factor that has been discussed in the
literature to explain the limited use of strategies
to cultivate creativity in the higher education
classrooms is instructors’ own previous schooling
experiences. Beghetto (2010) highlights that this
prior experience as a student has a profound

Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors. 557
infl uence on the beliefs, knowledge, and instruc-
tional practices of teaching. The tendency is
to reproduce in the classroom the pedagogical
practices teachers experienced as a student. In
the same line, Martínez (2002) observed that
creativity and how to foster it in the students are
rarely included in academic projects and teacher
education curricula. This is in agreement with
results obtained by Lima and Alencar (2014)
and Oliveira and Alencar (2014) in studies
conducted with university professors. These
professors, when asked if creativity had been
a theme addressed in their previous schooling,
all responded negatively, although some of the
professors interviewed by Oliveira and Alencar
(2014) informed that they were encouraged to
express their creativity.
With regard to creativity measures in higher
education, the Inventory of Teachers’ Practices
for Creativity in Higher Education (Alencar &
Fleith, 2014) was especially designed to assess
the extent to which teaching practices are foster-
ing creativity at the university level based on stu-
dents’ perception. The instrument measures four
factors associated with the classroom climate for
creativity: Incentive to New Ideas, Climate for
Expression of Ideas, Assessment and Teaching
Methodology, and Interest for Student’s Learn-
ing. Reliability estimates for the four factors
range from .85 to .91. This instrument may be
used as a tool for research as well as for evalua-
tion of teaching behaviors and strategies imple-
mented in the classroom, offering to professors
feedback of their pedagogical practice as per-
ceived by students. Alencar and Fleith (2004)
asked college students from public and private
institutions to evaluate the extent to which their
professors presented behaviors in the classroom
which fostered students’ creative development
and expression. The Assessment and Teaching
Methodology was the factor with the lowest av-
erage. Female students evaluated their profes-
sors more favorably in the factors Incentive to
New Ideas and Interest for Students’ Learning,
comparing to male students.
Ribeiro and Fleith (2007) conducted an
investigation involving 1,396 university stu-
dents. Advanced semesters students evaluated
their professors’ practices in relation to creativi-
ty more positively comparing to the students from
the fi rst semesters. Differences among private
and public university students’ perceptions of
their professors’ practices were also observed
in the factors Incentive to New Ideas and
Assessment and Teaching Methodology, being
the private university students’ perception more
favorable.
Creativity in Higher Education:
Facilitating Factors
To facilitate the nurturing of creativity in
higher education, it is necessary the promotion
of an institutional culture that gives greater
value to creativity and its expression, not being
restricted to traditional forms of academic
development. In this sense, Wisdom (2007)
discusses the need for a cultural change in higher
education, including as one of its elements “to
help teachers understand and enhance their own
creativity and to recognize this as an integral
part of their professionalism” (p. 183), as well as
ensuring an institutional climate that encourages
refl ection and the personal development of both
teachers and students.
Due to the important role of instructors in
the development of students’ creative potential,
creativity should be a topic widely addressed in
teacher professional development, to prepare
teachers to recognize and develop students’ cre-
ative abilities. It is also necessary for teachers
to have access to information about pedagogi-
cal practices that can be used in the classroom
to develop students’ creativity as well as about
the various factors that may infl uence creative
expression.
To help university faculty establish condi-
tions for the fl ourishing of creativity in higher
education classrooms, Wisdom (2007) suggests,
among others, the following strategies:
• Having suffi cient time and space in the cur-
riculum to allow students to develop their
creativity.
• Having suffi ciently varied and diverse
working situations to enable all students to
be creative.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., Pereira, N.
558
• Allowing students the freedom to work in
new and interesting ways.
• Challenging students with real, demanding
and exciting work.
• Designing assessment that allows for out-
comes that are not narrowly pre-determined.
• Fostering a departmental climate that encou-
rages refl ection and personal development
for both staff and students.
• Continuing academic debate within the dis-
cipline, and dialogue with the various stake-
holders, about the nature of the subject and
the role of creativity within it. (p. 193)
Other recommendations for promoting
creativity outlined by authors, such as Alencar
and Fleith, (2009), Cropley (2005, 2006), Fleith
(2007), Martínez (2002), McCluskey (2013),
and Wechsler (2001) are:
• Taking into account the students’ previous
knowledge.
• Reserving time for dialogue, listening to
students with respect.
• Helping the students to get rid of emotional
blocks, like fear of making mistakes and the
fear of being criticized.
• Encouraging students to pursue topics that
interest them most.
• Diversifying the teaching strategies used in
the classroom.
• Exposing students only to constructive
criticism.
• Encouraging students to express new ideas.
• Asking provocative questions.
• Maintaining a positive relationship with
students.
• Promoting a psychologically safe environ-
ment, in which students are not afraid to ex-
pose themselves.
• Understanding individual differences con-
cerning behaviors and problem solving
skills.
Of particular importance is to facilitate the
development of teachers’ creativity during their
own schooling process, especially during the
years of teacher professional preparation. This
should not be done by including one discipline
on creativity in teacher preparation curricula,
but through a truly creative teaching and learn-
ing environment, in which the future teachers
experience as students, what they can do later
as teachers; and where they fi nd ways for the
expressing of their creative potential (Martínez,
2002; Romo & Sanz, 2000).
Concluding Remarks
There are many challenges faced by higher
education professors and students. One of them,
which is discussed in this paper, concerns
the need for the promotion of a pro-creativity
culture, which stimulates the fl ourishing of
creativity among teachers and students. This
is especially relevant given that the prevailing
models of teacher professional preparation
are still deeply ingrained in a culture where
educational opportunities for creative expression
are still very limited. There are few opportunities
for teachers to refl ect, take part in dialogue, and
discuss their pedagogical practices. Promoting
classroom environments that ensure active
learning and encourage students to make use
of creativity in conjunction with other skills
is one of the challenges for many university
instructors. Additionally, programs for
continued professional development for higher
education faculty are virtually non-existent in
many countries.
We hope this paper will contribute
by drawing attention to the importance of
creativity in higher education. This is a call for
research focusing on: (a) university students’
and professors’ perceptions of the classroom
climate for creativity; (b) the identifi cation
of educational practices that favor and inhibit
students’ creative expression; and (c) the impact
of the implementation of creative teaching
methods on students’ achievement, creativity,
self-concept, and motivation to learn. The
contemporary world scenario is characterized
by much turbulence, uncertainty, and instability,
which requires educators to have the role of
catalysts of students’ creative potential. Although
some professors are aware of the importance of
creativity, much work needs to be done to ensure
a higher education culture that supports and
encourages creativity.

Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors. 559
References
Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2007). O papel da escola no
desenvolvimento do talento criativo [The role of
school in the development of the creative talent].
In D. S. Fleith & E. M. L. S. Alencar (Eds.),
Desenvolvimento de talentos e altas habilidades
[Developing talents and high ability] (pp. 151-
162). Porto Alegre, RS: ArtMed.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2004). Creativity
in university courses: Perceptions of professors
and students. Gifted and Talented International,
19(1), 24-28.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2009). Cria-
tividade. Múltiplas perspectivas [Creativity.
Multiple perspectives]. Brasília, DF: Editora da
Universidade de Brasília.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2010). Criativi-
dade na educação superior: Fatores inibidores
[Creativity in higher education: Inhibiting fac-
tors]. Avaliação, 15(2), 201-206. doi:10.1590/
S1414-40772010000200011
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2014). Inventory
of teaching practices for creativity in higher
education. In E. M. L. S. Alencar, M. F. Bruno-
Faria, & D. S. Fleith (Eds.), Theory and practice
of creativity measurement (pp. 51-64). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom.
In J. C. K. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447-
463). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bermejo, R., Ruiz, M. J., Prieto, M. D., Ferrándiz,
C., & Sainz, M. (2015). Ensino do pensamen-
to científi co-criativo em estudantes do ensino
médio [Teaching creative-scientifi c thinking in
high school students]. In M. F. Morais, L. C. Mi-
randa, & S. M. Wechsler (Eds.), Criatividade.
Aplicações práticas em contextos internacionais
[Creativity. Practical applications in internation-
al contexts] (pp. 109-136). São Paulo, SP: Vetor.
Bresnahan, T. F. (2013). Entrepreneurial creativity.
In A. Robinson (Ed.), Exceptional creativity
in science and technology (pp. 163-189). West
Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Bruno-Faria, M. F., Vargas, E. R., & Martínez, A.
M. (Eds.). (2013). Criatividade e inovação nas
organizações. Desafi os para a competitividade
[Creativity and innovation in organizations.
Challenges for competitiveness]. São Paulo, SP:
Atlas.
Castanho, M. E. L. M. (2000). A criatividade na sala
de aula universitária [Creativity in the university
classroom]. In I. P. A. Veiga & M. E. L. M. Cas-
tanho (Eds.), Pedagogia universitária. A aula
em foco [University pedagogy. Focusing the
classroom] (pp. 75-89). Campinas, SP: Papirus.
Cheung, C., Roskams, T, & Fisher, D. (2006). En-
hancement of creativity through a semester course
in university. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
40(1), 1-26. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.
tb01264.x
Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (2014). Future thinkers.
New thinking on leadership, strategy, and inno-
vation for the twenty-fi rst century. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cropley, A. J. (2005). Creativity in education &
learning. London: Routledge.
Cropley, A. J. (2006). Creativity: A social ap-
proach. Roeper Review, 28(3), 125-130.
doi:10.1080/02783190609554351
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Developing creativity.
In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wis-
dom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher edu-
cation (pp. xviii-xx). London: Routledge.
Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
De Breu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A.
(2012). The emotive roots of creativity: Basic
and applied issues on affect and motivation. In
M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
creativity (pp. 217-240). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
European University Association. (2007). Report of
the EUA Creativity Project 2006-2007. Brus-
sels: Author.
Fleith, D. S. (2007). Como desenvolver a criatividade
no contexto educacional [How to develop
creativity in the educational context]. In
Serviço Social da Indústria (Ed.), Criatividade
[Creativity]. Brasília, DF: Serviço Social da
Indústria.
Fryer, M. (2007). Facilitating creativity in higher
education: A brief account of National Teaching
Fellows’ views. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver,
M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing
creativity in higher education (pp. 74-88).
London: Routledge.

Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., Pereira, N.
560
Gibson, R. (2010). The ‘art’ of creative teaching:
Implications for higher education. Teaching
in Higher Education, 15(5), 607-613. doi:
10.1080/13562517.2010.493349
Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: A review of
the practical outcomes associated with creativity
at the individual, group, and organizational lev-
els. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational creativity (pp. 303-322). New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hosseini, A. (2011). University student’s evalua-
tion of creative education in universities and
their impact on their learning. Procedia - So-
cial and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 1806-1812.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.007
Jackson, N. (2006). Creativity in higher education.
Creating tipping points for cultural change.
SCEPTrE Scholarly Paper, 3(1), 1-25.
Jackson, N. (2007). Imagining a different world. In
N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom
(Eds.), Developing creativity in higher educa-
tion (pp. 1-19). London: Routledge.
Jackson, N., Oliver, M., Shaw, M., & Wisdom, J.
(Eds.). (2007). Developing creativity in higher
education. London: Routledge.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Preface.
In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. xiii-xv).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lima, V. B. F., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2014).
Criatividade em programas de pós-graduação
em educação: Práticas pedagógicas e fatores
inibidores [Creativity in graduate programs in
education: Pedagogical practices and inhibiting
factors]. Revista Psico USF, 19(1), 61-72.
doi:10.1590/S1413-82712014000100007
Lubart, T. (2007). Psicologia da criatividade
[Psychology of creativity]. Porto Alegre, RS:
ArtMed.
Martínez, A. M. (2002). A criatividade na escola:
Três direções de trabalho [Creativity in school:
Three work directions]. Linhas Críticas, 8(15),
189-206.
McCluskey, K. W. (2013). Thoughts about tone,
educational leadership, and building creative
climates in our schools (2nd ed.). Ulm, Germany:
ICIE.
Nakano, T., & Wechsler, S. M. (2006). O percurso
da criatividade fi gural do ensino médio ao en-
sino superior [The route of creativity from high
school to higher education]. Boletim de Psicolo-
gia, 56(125), 205-219.
Oliveira, Z. M. F., & Alencar M. L. S. (2014).
Criatividade na pós-graduação stricto sensu:
Uma presença possível e necessária [Creativity
in graduate courses: A possible and necessary
presence]. Revista de Educação Pública, 23(52),
53-75.
Pannells, T. C., & Claxton, A. F. (2008). Happiness,
creative ideation, and locus of control. Creativ-
ity Research Journal, 20(1), 67-71.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Wechsler, S. M. (2013). Youth
leadership: A proposal for identifying and
developing creativity and giftedness. Estudos
de Psicologia (Campinas), 30(2), 219-229.
doi:10.1590/S0103-166X2013000200008
Renzulli, J. (2005). Neglecting creativity. Education
Week, 24, 31-32, 40.
Ribeiro, R. A., & Fleith, D. S. (2007). O estímulo
à criatividade em cursos de licenciatura [The
incentive to creativity in training teachers’
courses]. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 17(38), 413-
416. doi:10.1590/S0103-863X2007000300010
Robinson, A. (Ed). (2013). Exceptional creativity in
science and technology. West Conshohoken,
PA: Templeton Press.
Romo, M. (2012). Psicología de la creatividad
[Psychology of creativity]. Barcelona, España:
Paidós.
Romo, M., & Sanz, S. (2000). Primer encuentro es-
tatal de docents e investigadores universitarios
en creatividad [First state meeting of university
professors and researchers in creativity]. Arte,
Individuo y Sociedad, 12(1), 343-347.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review
of Psychology, 55(1), 657-687. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Smith-Bingham, R. (2007). Public policy, innovation
and the need for creativity. In N. Jackson,
M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.),
Developing creativity in higher education (pp.
10-18). London: Routledge.
Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2002). Changing the
rules: Education for creative thinking. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(3), 183-200.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01063.x
Wechsler, S. M. (2001). A educação criativa: Possi-
bilidades para descobertas [Creative education:

Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors. 561
Possibilities for discoveries]. In S. Castanho
& M. E. Castanho (Eds.), Temas e textos em
metodologias do ensino superior [Themes and
topics in higher education methodologies] (pp.
165-170). Campinas, SP: Papirus.
Wechsler, S. M. (2002). Criatividade e desempenho
escolar: Uma síntese necessária [Creativity and
school achievement: A necessary sinthesis].
Linhas Críticas, 8(15), 179-188.
Wechsler, S. M., & Nakano, T. C. (Eds.). (2011).
Criatividade no ensino superior: Uma perspec-
tiva internacional [Creativity in the higher edu-
cation: An international perspective]. São Paulo,
SP: Vetor.
Wisdom, J. (2007). Developing higher education
teachers to teach creatively. In N. Jackson, M.
Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Develop-
ing creativity in higher education (pp. 183-196).
London: Routledge.
Recebido: 12/01/2016
1ª revisão: 29/03/2016
Aceite fi nal: 31/03/2016