Creativity in the Design Curriculum

This paper presents the results of empirical research from a university class for design students in creative problem solving. A small group of students received training in creativity and are compared with a larger group of design students who did not. Measured creativity of the treatment group significantly increased, apparently as a result of the class. This paper argues that creativity may require specific training to develop; at the very least, training is valuable in developing creativity in early design students. The nature of creativity and the structure of the class are described, followed by an outline of the research methodology and the use of the verbal Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Within our understanding of visual literacy, the way we invent new ideas – creativity – is highly revered; visual professions such as graphic design, painting, and architecture all note the value of creativity and seek to encourage its development. We expect a connection between visual capabilities and creativity, and that raises the question: Does creativity spring from work in the visual fields? While creativity is applied without conscious attention at a multitude of scales, from buildings to jewelry, it also may require specific attention in our educational programs, including those in design. Improving creativity can be done in a number of ways and by a number of methods. There is a wide variety of books and techniques to help develop one’s creativity, but most research indicates that creativity as a human trait is not summarizable into a simple technique, trick, or method, and that the trait of creativity is complex and comparable to analytical thinking (Martin, 2007). Short term gains in creativity are possible through the use of various methods, but true development of creative skill occurs through extended effort