The Influence of Institutional Experiences on the Development of Creative Thinking in Arts Alumn

To establish a new experiential paradigm centered on cultivating creativity requires nothing less than an institutional intervention' (Livingston, 2010, p. 59).Indeed, as creativity is increasingly cited as an important skill for the 21st-century economy (Tepper & Kuh, 2011), more attention needs to be paid to creativity in educational settings. As one example of a heightened focus on enhancing creativity in the classroom, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (www.aacu.org) has recently added creative thinking as an essential learning outcome for higher education, hoping to encourage progress in its development. In this time of economic instability, perhaps one of the greatest weapons we have is creativity and innovation (McWilliam & Haukka, 2008). Since the Arts can be a key component in fostering creativity, exploring factors that contribute to the development of this skill is critical to understanding how educational institutions can best serve students in the Arts.Conceptualizations of CreativityBefore one can dive into the study of creativity, it is important to note that, even on the most basic level, there has been controversy concerning the very definition of creativity (Davis, 2004). While there has been a foundational agreement that creative products must adhere to the requirements of novelty and appropriateness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012), much debate has existed concerning the quality and quantity of these products. Additionally, some have even supported placing restrictions on determining who should be classified as creative (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2010; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). This controversy over whether eminence and wide recognition (as in the case of world-renowned scientists or artists) is needed for an individual to be categorized as creative has been called the "big C/little c" conceptualization of creativity (Davis, 2004). "Big C" creativity is that which is demonstrated by individuals who are well known and eminent in their domain while "little c" creativity is that which is demonstrated through everyday problem solving by relatively ordinary people (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Further conflicts have existed in terms of the manifestation of creativity. Some have asserted that an individual's creativity has been most apparent only within certain domains-such as art, music, architecture, science, or mathematics (Baer, 1994)-while others have claimed that creativity is more generalized and can be observed across multiple areas (Plucker, 1998). These debates are of relevance to this study. As we are concerned with a broader population rather than just those few who have achieved eminence in their domain, we focus on the "little c" conceptualization of creativity. Additionally, as we are concerned with a range of domains that fall within "the Arts"-including visual arts and design, architecture, music performance, and dance and choreography, to name just a few-it is also essential to use a more domain-general understanding of the construct.Because so much research has been available, it is useful to organize ideas about creativity according to four different-but not mutually exclusive-conceptualizations. An alliterative structure that is frequently employed in the study of creativity is known as the Four Ps: Person, Process, Product, and Press (Davis, 2004). The person component refers to investigations of the personality attributes and behavioral characteristics that are associated with creative individuals while the process component refers to the various cognitive processes that are involved in creative performance. The product component centers on the evaluation of products that are deemed creative and attempts to identify more specific aspects that give the products their creative classification. Finally, the press component focuses on the impact that an individual's environment can have on creative functioning. It is important to emphasize that these Four P's are not considered to be separate types of creativity but, instead, as potential lenses through which researchers can design, explore, and interpret investigations of creativity. …