University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 1

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: AN
INNOVATION STUDY

by

William Pierros

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

Copyright 2018 William Pierros
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 2

DEDICATION
To my mother, Betty Pierros, who encouraged my own creativity at a very young age and made
me a lifelong learner
To my father, Andre Pierros, who taught me the importance of both process and learning
To my children, Katherine Alexandra Pierros and Andrew William Pierros. May your creativity
be limitless, your courage fierce, and your curiosity infectious. Open doors, look for the light.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Karen Lawson for her patience, support and grace through this program. I
could not have finished this dissertation and doctoral program without her years of
encouragement.

I would like to express deep, heartfelt thanks to my dissertation committee, Dr. Tracy Tambascia
(Chair), Dr. Cathy Krop, and Dr. Mark Robison, for their guidance, patience, support, humor,
and camaraderie.

Cohort 5 has a special place in these acknowledgements. Without their support, humor,
friendship, and love, I would not have finished this program. They are wonderful, amazingly
talented professionals, and it is a great privilege and honor to call them colleagues and friends.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 10
Importance of Addressing the Problem 12
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Performance Status/Need 12
Description of Stakeholder Groups 14
Stakeholder Performance Goals 15
Purpose of Project and Questions 16
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 16
Organization of the Study 17
Definitions 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Defining Creativity and Innovation 18
Current Trends in Creativity and Innovation 18
Constraints on Creativity and Innovation in Education 20
Global Trends in Education 20
National, State, and Local Trends in Education 22
Need for Innovative Programs 23
Teaching Creativity and Innovation 23
Creativity and Innovation in Post-Secondary Education 24
Creativity and Innovation in the Job Market 25
University Curriculum Reform 26
Curricular Reform 29
Curricular Reform and Support for Creativity and Innovation at University X 31
Faculty Knowledge Assets 32
Assumed Motivation Assets 33
Assumed Organizational Assets 34
Conclusion 34
Chapter Three: Methodology 36
Assumed Assets 37
Preliminary Screening Data and Critical Observations 39
Knowledge and Skills 39
Organization 40
Population 40
Data Collection 41
Trustworthiness of Data 42
Role of the Investigator 42
Limitations and Delimitations 42

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 5

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 44
Participating Stakeholders 44
Data Collection Methodology 45
Results and Findings for Knowledge Assets 45
Understanding Best Practices 46
Constructing Scope and Sequence 48
Locating Resources 50
Creative and Innovative Practices 52
Summary of Knowledge Related Findings 54
Results and Findings for Motivational Assets 54
Valuing Teaching Creativity 55
Prioritizing Creative Practices 57
Time Needed for Curriculum 60
Feeling Confident 61
Interest in Creativity 63
Results and Findings for Organizational Assets 65
Organizational Ability 65
University Mission and Core Values 67
Benefit 68
Welcoming Creativity Curriculum 70
Summary of Organizational Findings 72
Conclusion 73
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluations 74
Validated Assets 74
Recommended Solutions 76
Strategies and Action Steps 78
Resource Requirements 81
Timeline for Implementation 82
Implementation Constraints and Challenges 83
Evaluation Plan 84
Intervention 1: Train Selected Faculty 86
Intervention 2: Provide time to Develop Curriculum 87
Intervention 3: Prioritize the Initiative 88
Conclusion 88
References 90
Appendix A: Survey 104
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 107

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission and Stakeholder Goals 13
Table 2: Stakeholder Performance Goals 15
Table 3: Examples of Transformational Change in Interdisciplinary Initiatives (Holley, 2007) 29
Table 4: Assumed Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Assets 37
Table 5: Knowledge Assets Validation Table 46
Table 6: Encountered Scholarship on Creativity and Innovation 52
Table 7: Assumed Motivational Assets, Validation Table 54
Table 8: Interview Results: Valuing Creativity and Innovation in Higher Education 59
Table 9: Interview Results: Innovative Ideas Developed in the Past 62
Table 10: Interview Results: Value of Creativity and Innovation in Higher Education 64
Table 11: Assumed Organizational Assets Validation Table 65
Table 12: Interview Results: Ability of University to Offer a Program in Creativity and
Innovation 66
Table 13: Interview Results: Alignment of departments 68
Table 14: Interview Results: Envisioning a University Plan 70
Table 15: Interview Results: University Support 71
Table 16: Assumed Knowledge Assets 74
Table 17: Assumed Motivation Assets 74
Table 18: Assumed Organization Assets 75
Table 19: Recommended Solutions 76
Table 20: Interventions and Corresponding Levels 1-4 85

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008). 37
Figure 2. Survey results: Working knowledge of creativity. 47
Figure 3. Survey results: Awareness of best practices. 47
Figure 4. Survey results: Operationalizing creativity and innovation in curricula. 49
Figure 5. Survey results: Ability to develop a scope and sequence of curriculum. 49
Figure 6. Survey results: Ability to find scholarship of creativity and innovation. 51
Figure 7. Survey results: I think of ways to be creative at work. 52
Figure 8. Survey results: Thinking of ways to be creative at work. 55
Figure 9. Survey question: Creativity at work. 58
Figure 10. Survey results: Value in teaching creativity and innovation to undergraduates. 58
Figure 11. Survey results: Worth the time to develop curriculum. 60
Figure 12. Survey results: Confidence faculty could develop curriculum. 62
Figure 13. Survey results: Interest in creativity and innovation. 64
Figure 14. Survey results: Belief the university can offer a program. 66
Figure 15. Survey results: Alignment of university core values and mission. 67
Figure 16. Survey results: The university will benefit. 69
Figure 17. Survey results: The university values innovation and creativity. 70
Figure 18. Survey results: Administrative support. 71

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 8

ABSTRACT
This study examined the viability of developing an undergraduate program in creativity
and innovation at a liberal arts university in the Midwestern United States. The methodological
framework used was a qualitative analysis in which data were collected through survey and
interviews of eight faculty members at the university. These faculty members met specific
criteria that indicated the possibility of their eventual involvement in the formation of such a
curriculum. Using Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework as a model to examine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps to develop a model for improvement, findings
indicated that the faculty members interviewed and surveyed possessed the knowledge and
motivational resources to develop a curriculum for undergraduates in creativity and innovation.
However, they may be hindered by various organizational constraints. Solutions based on the
data collected and analyzed seek to bridge gaps between current practices at the university and
what may be required to create and implement a creativity and innovation curriculum. The study
also offers insights which may be transferable to other universities.
Keywords: creativity, innovation, undergraduate, curriculum,

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The system of higher education in the United States is being reconsidered as
demographic, institutional, economic and technological shifts change the way scholars think
about the impact and value of an undergraduate education (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Terenzini &
Pascarella, 1998). There is evidence that the jobs of the future will require not just different
training, but, perhaps, a different approach to work and problem solving as the United States
moves to a knowledge-based economy (Antonelli & Fassio, 2016). Implicit in this transition is
the need for a population prepared to learn, problem solve, and innovate in ways that are
different from the past (Antonelli & Fassio, 2016; Carr, 2010; Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009;
Yeo, 2010). However, creative thinking has declined in the United States since the 1990s among
all ages (Baer, 2003; Bronson & Merryman, 2010; Geist & Hohn, 2009; Kim & Pierce, 2013;
Sarsani, 2006). Before that time, there was a steady increase over decades (Bronson &
Merryman, 2010; Kim & Pierce, 2013). Concomitant with this decline, students enrolled in
colleges and universities are learning less and held to lower academic standards across the board
(Arum & Roksa, 2011; Bronson & Merryman, 2010; Feldman & Benjamin, 2006; Jones, 2002;
Kim, 2011).
Creative thinking is the process we use to develop ideas that are unique, useful, and
worthy of further explanation (University of Michigan, 2018), and the workplace demands
workers who exhibit creative problem-solving skills to solve today’s complex and challenging
problems (Carr, 2010). The problem this dissertation addressed is a current lack of structured
coursework that equips students to solve problems, think creatively across disciplines, and
initiate new projects or initiatives creatively at the undergraduate level in an increasingly
technologically influenced and rapidly changing society (Bass, 2012; Clark, 1996). There is
significant scholarly support for the importance of teaching innovation and creativity at the
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 10

undergraduate level over a traditional curriculum (Clapham, 2003; Daly, Mosyjowski, & Seifert,
2014; Driver, 2001; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; McIntyre, Hite, & Rickard, 2003; Starko,
2013). These programs promote lifelong learning, which is essential for a societal shift to an
information society, managing competing influences of specialization, increasing
internationalization through globalization, the explosion of knowledge and technology, changing
demands of the workplace, and the emergence of new occupations and careers (Arum & Roksa,
2011; Bresciani, 2006; Candy, Crebert, & O’leary, 1994; Clanchy & Ballard, 1995; Des
Marchais, Bureau, Dumais, & Pigeon, 1992; Erikson, 2002; Gaff & Ratcliff, 1997; Hubball &
Burt, 2004; Hubball & Poole, 2004; Kanpol, 1995; McParland, Noble, & Livingston, 2004;
Richlin & Cox, 2004).
Background of the Problem
Despite years of national debate about the effectiveness of schools and universities in
preparing this nation’s young people for learning and work in the 21
st
century, much of what
happens in the classrooms remains similar to what took place in the last century. While
computers and technology are now present in educational institutions of all levels, the focus of
classrooms continues to be traditional content led by an instructor. This model persists despite
evidence that other approaches to teaching and learning are effective as well. Several studies
show that creative and innovative pedagogical programs increase learning. Specifically, Cropley
and Cropley (2014) found that teaching creativity as a discipline, with concomitant counseling,
produced tangible and practical improvements in creativity. Similarly, Clapham (2003) found
creativity can be taught to undergraduates with success, and such benefits include enhanced
learning, cognitive benefits, and cross disciplinary success (Amabile, 1988; Gloor, 2006; Hass,
Weisberg, & Choi, 2010; Lovitts, 2005; Weisberg & Hass, 2007). Programs with innovative
content that promote cross-disciplinary courses increase understanding of specialized fields
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 11

within varying disciplines, promote teamwork, and encourage effective communication across
subdisciplines (Parsell, Spalding, & Bligh, 1998). Further, multiple, creative learning methods
enhance undergraduate learning over traditional methods (McClellan, 2013). The benefits of
programs that teach students to be creative and innovative thinkers also better prepare students
for independent research at the graduate level by bridging the gap between mere “course takers”
and independent research (Lovitts, 2005). Programs that emphasize creativity and innovation
offer various benefits, including perseverance, increased levels of success, and benefits that
transcend traditional methods (Cropley & Cropley, 2014; Karnes et al., 1961; Torrance, 1981;
McClellan, 2013). In addition to teaching content related to creativity and innovation, such
teaching methods also have a positive effect on educational performance. For example, multiple,
creative learning methods enhance undergraduate learning over traditional methods (McClellan,
2013).
In addition to pedagogical benefits in the undergraduate curriculum and success in further
study, programs that focus on innovation and creativity promote success in the future careers of
undergraduates and provide benefits to society. Specifically, creativity is crucial to the process of
organizational innovation, innovative programs, and the development of new networks that
propel “ordinary people to extraordinary success” (Amabile, 1988; Gloor, 2006). In short, these
programs equip students for success in the workplace and society (Clark, 1996; Bass, 2012).
Further support for the importance of teaching innovation and creativity at the
undergraduate level is found in the research of Candy et al. (1994), who found that these
programs promote consistent, unprompted exploration of new information resulting in lifelong
learning, which is essential for post-tertiary success.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 12

Importance of Addressing the Problem
There are several significant ramifications to not teaching creativity and innovation.
Chief among these is the need to create an environment that enables students to transition from
the university environment to the workplace, as undergraduate students have difficulty in this
transition (LeMaistre & Pare, 2004). Several studies have found that undergraduates are poorly
prepared for the workplace in academic disciplines such as education, computer science, health
professions, and others (Adams, Tashchian, & Shore, 1999; Gandin, 2006; Dawson, Newsshan,
& Fernley, 1997; Hebert & Worthy, 2001; Jones, 2002). Many undergraduates enter the
workplace with flawed thinking about solving problems, and there is often a lack of
transcontextual transfer of critical thinking skills (Halpern, 1998). In short, there is support that
innovative, creative, and critical thinking are lacking among college and university graduates,
even as such programs can help them become better students, more effective workers, help fill
the needs of the global workforce, grow economies, and provide innovative solutions to complex
problems.
Organizational Context and Mission
University X is an independent Christian, liberal arts university located in a suburban
campus near Chicago. The university has 1509 undergraduates and 3729 graduate students. In
the undergraduate population, 57% are female, 43% are male, and 57%, 27%, 9%, and 3%
White, Hispanic, African American, and Asian students, respectively. Established in 1860,
University X offers graduate and undergraduate degrees and employs over 150 faculty members.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
Although University X develops servant leaders exceptionally well, the institution does
not provide a distinctive, innovative environment for the exploration of creativity or discovery.
Since these are major components of the institution’s mission statement, and no intentional
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 13

undergraduate programs currently exist for their implementation, University X is falling short of
the very mission it purports to fulfill. Additionally, the structure, curriculum, and nature of the
undergraduate program has changed very little over the last 50 years. Although new programs
have been added, the focus, scope and sequence of the undergraduate structure remains largely
unchanged.
In the past two years, University X has placed significant value on innovation. The
university created a department of interdisciplinary studies, which directly reports to a newly
formed vice president for innovation. Developing curriculum in the areas of creativity and
innovation will help fulfill the mission of University X, whose stated vision includes to serve “all
who seek to develop their full individual potential through a distinctive, innovative and dynamic
environment of exploration, creativity and discovery.” Within the stated mission, one of the core
values of the university includes that “our community demonstrates the accord between our
beliefs and practices.” A curricular program that emphasizes innovation and creativity not only
explicitly matches the vision of the university, but the corollary core value provides the rationale
and impetus to fulfill its vision and bring it to fruition. Therefore, since innovation and creativity
are mission-driven goals, the “accord between beliefs and practices” core value mandates the
development of programs in creativity and innovation to fulfill the stated vision.
Table 1
Organizational Mission and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission

University X aspires to be the destination university for all who seek to develop their full
individual potential through a distinctive, innovative and dynamic environment of exploration,
creativity and discovery for leading lives of servant-minded leadership.

Organizational Goal

By September 1, 2020, University X will establish a comprehensive undergraduate curriculum
for creativity and innovation.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 14

Stakeholder Group 1
Faculty

Stakeholder Group 2
Administration

Stakeholder Group 3
Students

By July 15, 2020 faculty will
complete a review and
implement a plan for
curricular reform based on
creativity and innovation

By July 1, 2019 the University
Administration will approve
the formation of a faculty
committee to study and plan a
curriculum for undergraduates
based on creativity and
innovation

By January 1, 2020, Students
will provide input and
feedback regarding a
curricular plan focused on
creativity and innovation

Description of Stakeholder Groups
In this study, students, faculty, and the university’s administrators are key stakeholders
who will influence the formation of an undergraduate program that emphasizes creativity and
innovation. A united effort among all of these stakeholders is required to facilitate this reform.
However, due to the organizational structure of the university, faculty form new curricula and
make curricular decisions. The faculty serve in the primary role for developing plans of study
and a scope and sequence of curriculum. Therefore, a select group of faculty served as the
primary stakeholders in this study. These faculty members were chosen for this study from the
approximately 70 faculty members who teach undergraduates at University X based on four
criteria. First, these faculty members had all participated in creative or innovative projects
previously. Second, they had all taught a class that included a component of creativity or
innovation. Third, they were all full-time faculty with at least one year of experience at the
university. Fourth, they were likely participants in the formation of a creativity and innovation
undergraduate curriculum at University X. As subject matter experts, these faculty members are
well-equipped and leveraged within the university structure to provide curricular input and have
knowledge of structure, scope, and sequence needs regarding new programs through the
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 15

department of innovation and to create such initiatives. The following table shows each
stakeholder and their corresponding interest, impact, and support.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 2
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Stakeholder Interest in Project Assessment of Impact/
Importance
Obtaining Support
or Reducing
Obstacles
Undergraduate
Students
Enhance instruction
and promote creativity
and innovation
awareness and
training.
To measure student
progress and facilitate
long-term career goals.
Develop clear
rationale for the
importance and
critical need for
creativity/innovation
post-graduation.
Faculty Develop opportunities
for cross disciplinary
teaching and
curriculum
Participation and
involvement in the
initiative, measuring
efficacy and satisfaction.
Develop rationale and
promote the need for
unique,
interdisciplinary
efforts to encourage
long-term student
success.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 16

Table 2, continued
Stakeholder Interest in Project Assessment of Impact/
Importance
Obtaining Support
or Reducing
Obstacles
University
administrators,
including the
dean of college
of arts and
sciences
The interest and desire
already exist among
senior management.
Assessment of
importance will be
measured by continued
support of the initiative
including training and
funding.
No obstacles, since
there is existing
support.
Senior
leadership, VP of
academics, VP
of innovation
The interest and desire
already exist among
senior management.
Assessment of
importance will be
measured by continued
support of the initiative
including training,
funding, and prioritizing.
No obstacles exist
since there is existing
support.

Purpose of Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to develop a plan for a comprehensive curricular reform
for undergraduate students focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets
needed to successfully integrate content related to creativity and innovation into the existing
curriculum at University X. As such, two questions guided this study:
1. What are the underlying knowledge, motivation, and organization assets for faculty in
developing an effective plan for including innovation and creativity in the curriculum at
the undergraduate level?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions to address the asset
needs in the organization?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Two qualitative methods of data collection, interviews and surveys, were utilized to study
the feasibility and necessity of implementing an undergraduate curricular plan focused on
creativity and innovation. This study involved select faculty to understand their knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets in the successful development and implementation of this
new curriculum.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 17

Organization of the Study
In addition to this chapter, four subsequent chapters are used as the organizational
framework for this study. Chapter One provides principles and concepts related to creativity and
innovation using the framework of an innovation study process to form a new curricular plan
based on creativity and innovation. Chapter Two provides a review of current and relevant
literature associated with the scope of the study. Chapter Three develops the assumed
stakeholder assets and methodology regarding participants, methods of data collection, and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the collected data and subsequent results are analyzed and assessed.
Chapter Five provides recommendations and findings related to undergraduate curricular reform
in the area of creativity and innovation.
Definitions
Creativity: The production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of
individuals working together (Amabile, 1988).
Innovation: The successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization
(Amabile, 1988).
Curriculum: Learning experiences. content, objectives and courses in school and non-
school settings (Hyun, 2006).
Curricular reform: The process of making changes to the curriculum with the intent of
making learning and teaching more effective (Lattuca & Stark, 1994)
Shared governance: Cooperation in the process of policymaking and macro level
decision making within higher education (Tierney & Lechuga, 2004)
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The lack of creativity and innovation in university classrooms is a significant issue due to
the demand and demonstrated need for changes to the workforce in a knowledge-based economy.
Teaching creativity and innovation can fulfill this need by equipping students for success in the
workplace and society (Bass, 2012; Clark, 1996). The teaching of innovation and creativity at the
undergraduate level through intentional programs promotes consistent, unprompted exploration
of new information resulting in lifelong learning, which is essential for post-tertiary success
(Candy et al., 1994). The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational assets among select faculty who met the criteria for this study at University X.
In this chapter, definitions, trends, need, reform, and assumptions regarding creativity and
innovation will be addressed as a review of existing literature and its pertinence to the topic and
study are considered.
Defining Creativity and Innovation
Quite often, definitions of innovation and creativity are conflated. Creativity is about
unleashing the potential of the mind to conceive new ideas and is very difficult to measure.
Meanwhile, innovation is about introducing change to relatively stable systems and is quite
easily measurable (Marshall, 2013). Put simply, creativity is about coming up with the big idea
while innovation is about executing that idea (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2010). Creativity is
inherently theoretical while innovation is demonstrably practical.
Current Trends in Creativity and Innovation
Creativity and innovation are considered useful in technology, business, leadership, and
the workplace (Amabile, 1988; Ekvall, 1996; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Luecke & Katz, 2003;
Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Alves, Marques, Saur, & Marques, 2007; McLean, 2005; Robinson
& Stern, 1998; West, 2002). Increasingly, these disciplines and sectors have begun to explore
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 19

and implement research on the value and utility of creativity and innovation. A recent article in
Forbes magazine identified several trends necessary for digital transformation in the future
(Newman, 2017. Among these, adaptability is considered more vital than ever. The importance
of rapid innovation is significant because of a constantly changing business landscape that allows
for innovation to flourish and where collaboration and ideas move across department sectors and
disciplines more easily (Newman, 2016). A recent poll of 1500 chief executive officers across
various business sectors identified creativity as the number one leadership competency of the
future (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). Gerald Puccio, chairman of The International Center for
Studies in Creativity at Buffalo State College, which has offered courses in creativity since 1967
states, “The reality is that to survive in a fast-changing world you need to be creative. That is
why you were seeing more attention to creativity at universities, the marketplace is demanding
it” (Pappano, 2014, p.1).
Creativity and innovation studies have become, in recent years, a topic of worthy
exploration across disciplines and business sectors. For example, the word “creative” was the
most used word in LinkedIn profiles for the last two years (Pappano, 2014). Leadership studies
have also emphasized the importance of creativity and innovation in business. Implications for
the link between creativity and innovation and leadership are ubiquitous, with a proliferation of
scholarship and popular books published in the fields of business and leadership, in part because
those individuals with high creative self-efficacy have more confidence about their future and
ability to succeed (Bronson & Merryman, 2010; Runco, 2004). Creativity and innovation are
viewed as modern essential traits for businesses leaders and organizations across sectors.
Creativity and innovation are, by their very nature, multidisciplinary. Bonnie Cramond,
director of the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development at the University of
Georgia, wrote, “The new people who will be creative will stand the juxtaposition of two or
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 20

more fields…when ideas from different fields collide fresh ones are generated” (Pappano, 2014,
p. 1). Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen (2011) extol the benefits of a wide variety of knowledge,
skills, and cross-disciplines. One characteristic of an effective, innovative leader in business is
deep knowledge in one area and broad knowledge across various disciplines, sectors, and
specialties, described as a “T” shaped model (Dyer et al., 2011). Top technology companies
increasingly hire candidates from backgrounds other than technology because they desire
individuals with innovative potential who can think creatively and solve complex problems. This
has direct implications for how colleges and universities prepare their students with skills to
succeed and compete in an ever changing and increasingly globalized, complex, and rapidly
advancing technological workplace.
Constraints on Creativity and Innovation in Education
While the importance of innovation and creativity in technology, business, and the
workplace is well documented, encouraged, and preferred, there is little emphasis on creativity
and innovation in education (Feldman & Benjamin, 2006). Global, national, and local education
trends are moving toward more standardized and uniform curricula. However, the importance
and value of creativity and innovation are often overlooked in favor of traditional, standardized
curricula at national and state levels (Brown, Lauder, & Ashton, 2010).
Global Trends in Education
One major global trend in education is the increasing provenance of standardization
across countries and continents (Brown et al., 2010; Meyer & Benavot, 2013). The Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international organization whose
mission is to promote the growth of global markets, created the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA). This worldwide study by the OECD member nations and others
evaluate 15-year-old school pupils’ scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 21

reading. PISA has risen to strategic prominence in international educational policy through its
use of a test that attempts to measure educational performance of students across countries and
cultures using a single test (Meyer & Benavot, 2013). Some view PISA as a step toward
transparency in education while increasing labor markets and fostering competitiveness, but
critics doubt the test’s reliability (Bracey, 2004, 2009; Dohn, 2007; Prais, 2003). PISA advances
a new form of global educational standardization and governance where state sovereignty is
increasingly influenced by large-scale international institutions (Meyer & Benavot, 2013). This
emphasis on global standardization and testing leaves little room for curriculum focused on
creativity and innovation (Ferrari et al., 2009). This shift from state and local control of
education to control from economic market forces and global society is a relatively new and
emerging trend in international education policy (Bourdieu, 1998). The ramifications and
influence of this standardization and of international education exhibits a trend toward global
uniformity where public education transforms into an international bureaucratic organization
influenced by efficiency, calculability, and control and is ruled by what is quantifiable and
testable (Apple, 2005; Power, 2000).
A similar consolidation and standardization of global education occurred with the advent
of the Bologna Process in 1999 and its 50 signatory countries. Like the PISA initiative, the
Bologna Process is an attempt to standardize higher education curricula among signatory
countries. At its core, the motivation is economic in that alignment enhances competitiveness
and reduces costs. Critics view this intra-state educational push to uniformity as unduly
economically utilitarian. Moreover, critics have expressed a clash of values and standards across
the countries involved (Pechar, 2012). As international education trends portend increasing
standardization that transcend borders, the United States has experienced a similar trend in
education policy on the domestic front.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 22

National, State, and Local Trends in Education
Educational policy in the United States has moved to increased nationalization and
standardization from local and state control since the 1960s (Robelen, 2005). In 1965, as part of
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
was passed and gave the federal government a clear role in improving educational quality for
disadvantaged students. Since then, the federal role in education policy has expanded, most
recently through President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Policy (NCLB) and followed by
Common Core during the Obama administration.
Under NCLB, testing in reading and math of students in grades 3 through 8 was
compulsory and required states to bring all students to proficiency level by the 2013-2014
academic term. Schools were held accountable for adequate yearly progress and were sanctioned
if they did not make that progress. Additionally, NCLB required states to ensure their teachers
were highly qualified and set standards for teacher education and training. NCLB set student
outcomes for educational performance with penalties to schools for noncompliance.
Common Core is an attempt to standardize curriculum nationally so students in different
states learn similar topics to prepare them for post-high school education or the workforce
(National Governors Association, 2010). Sponsored by the National Governors Association and
the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Common Core initiative tests student proficiency
in English and math to ensure the learning of a national standardized and uniform common core
curriculum (National Governors Association, 2010). Policies such as NCLB and Common Core
offer students limited exposure to creativity and innovative thinking. Standardization limits and
restricts access to curricula that include creative thinking. Students enter freshman year in
college emerging from secondary schools with prescriptive standards that offer little background
in creative or innovative thinking (Ferrari et al., 2009). The standardization of college curriculum
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 23

also offers little room for variance, creativity, or innovative exploration once they arrive (Ferrari
et al., 2009).
Need for Innovative Programs
Curricular reform that includes and expands programs in creativity and innovation is
important for five main reasons: creativity as a teachable skill, student success, enhanced
learning, cognitive benefits, cross-disciplinary benefits, and career success. These are
justification for programs that emphasize creative and innovative thinking, provide various
benefits for the learner, and predict professional promise. The research in these areas shows a
need for such programs.
Teaching Creativity and Innovation
Several studies show that creativity can be taught effectively (Bull & Davis, 1982;
Guilford, 1985; Renzulli, 1992; Runco & Chand, 1995). Furthermore, creativity that leads to
innovative thinking can be taught to undergraduates with success (Clapham, 2003; Cropley &
Cropley, 2000; DeHaan, 2011; McWilliam, 2007). Specifically, creativity training can improve
ideational innovation; can have positive effects on divergent thinking, test scores, and project
performance; and has been shown to improve project performance (Clapham, 2003).
Additionally, creativity training can improve mental health and increase learning (Conti,
Amabile, & Pollack, 1995; Cropley, 1990; Hickson & Housley, 1997). Teaching creativity also
has long-term benefits for learning (Basadur, Graen, & Green, 1982). Contrary to the historic
notion that creativity is inborn, the perspective that creativity and innovation are not only
desirable but obtainable increasingly gains traction in the professional world and in higher
education. As Pappano (2014) noted, “Once considered the product of genius or divine
inspiration, creativity — the ability to spot problems and devise smart solutions — is being
recast as a prized and teachable skill” (p. 1). Creativity is no longer considered a talent with
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 24

which one is born; rather it is seen as an acquirable trait with significant educational and
professional benefits. In short, teaching creativity and innovative thinking is effective and yields
numerous benefits for students (Runco, 1999).
Teaching creativity and innovative thinking is important for student success. When taught
to undergraduates, creativity and innovative thinking manifests enhanced learning, cognitive
benefits, and cross-disciplinary success (Gloor, 2006; Hass, 2013; Hass et al., 2010; Lovitts,
2005;). Additionally, long-term goal achievement is positively influenced by teaching these
subjects to undergraduates (Glover, 1980; Hass et al., 2010; McInerney & Fink, 2003).
Perseverance, increased levels of success and benefits that transcend traditional educational
methods have been found in programs that emphasize creativity and innovation (Cropley &
Cropley, 2014; Karnes et al., 1961; McClellan, 2013; Torrance, 1981). Although the value of
teaching creativity and innovation to undergraduates is well documented, the value and scope of
such instruction in college extends beyond the undergraduate classroom.
Creativity and Innovation in Post-Secondary Education
When creativity thrives on campuses, multi-disciplinarity, cross-discipline learning,
collaborative work, rewarded risk taking, expected failure, and the creative arts are integrated
and pervasive (Tepper, 2006). Some universities, such as the University of Alabama, have
formed task forces on creativity. Columbia University and the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill have instituted the position of arts czar while others have created new
organizationally cross-cutting centers and institutes at places such as Vanderbilt University and
the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign (Tepper, 2006). The State University of New York
at Stony Brook and Ball State University have adopted courses, fellowships, or learning
experiences specifically designed to explore creativity and innovation. Public universities such as
Wichita State, University of Utah, University of Iowa, and private universities such as Cornell,
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 25

Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and others have opened or are planning to open large-scale
high tech buildings, or innovation campuses for the purpose of generating innovation and
creative thinking on their respective campuses (Lange, 2016). Such wide-ranging and large-scale
organizational and structural development, albeit limited, shows that creativity and innovation
have merit and value as well as emerge as a growing trend to meet the demands of the workplace
and the global marketplace (Lange, 2016).
Creativity and Innovation in the Job Market
The job market requires creativity and innovation. Several studies show that creative
thinking skills are required and desirable among employers (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014;
Burroughs, Dahl, Moreau, Chattopadhyay, & Gorn, 2011; Carr, Halliday, King, Liedtka, &
Lockwood, 2010; Carr & Tomasco, 2010). Teaching these topics at the undergraduate level
fosters leadership success (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001; Reiter-Palmon, & Illies, 2004).
Additionally, there is evidence that creativity and innovative thinking enhance problem-solving
skills among undergraduates, which, in the workplace, are necessary and valued skills (Candy et
al., 1994; Cropley & Cropley, 2000; Duch et al., 2001).
As noted previously, the world has changed dramatically since the advent of the modern
university system through scientific, technological and industrial progress, even as employers are
asking colleges and universities to equip students for a rapidly changing and increasingly global
workplace. Furthermore, what is currently prized in business and professional circles is the
ability to adapt, solve problems and think critically and originally, and the academy has begun to
value teaching to these skills though in a very limited and exploratory way (Jacobs, 2017; Smith
& McCann, 2001; Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, & Mulder, 2009).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 26

University Curriculum Reform
Undergraduate curricula are influenced by social, political, economic, organizational,
cultural and individual factors, and exist in various stages of development and reform (Green &
Kreuter, 1999; Wiles, Bondi & Sowell, 2002). Reform involves various institutional levels
including administrators, curriculum development committee members, instructors, and students
(Green & Kreuter, 1999; Wiles et al., 2002). Although reform may look different in various
programs and institutions, it is often driven by learning-centered reforms (Baird, 1996; Bresciani,
2006; Clanchy & Ballard, 1995; Erickson, 2002; Hubball & Poole, 2004; Hubball & Burt, 2004;
Kanpol, 1995; Richlin & Cox, 2004).
Learning-centered reforms in undergraduate programs are part of a larger process of
institutional curricula and educational reform in higher education (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Hubball
& Burt, 2004; Kupperschmidt & Burns, 1997; Parekh, 2007; Schneider & Schoenberg, 1999).
Hubball and Gold (2007) describe the process of learning-centered curricular reform in this way:
The underlying assumptions about learning-centered curricula are that representative
students, faculty, and stakeholders in the broader context are active participants in the
curricular reform process; that academic units are at different stages of curricular reform
and will implement reform of curricula in diverse ways; that learning-centered curricula
focus on contextually bound learning outcomes and integration of diverse pedagogies;
and that learning outcomes focus on higher-order and integrated abilities about what
students are expected to know and be able to do (demonstrating, for instance, critical
thinking, responsible use of ethical principles, effective research, communication and
problem-solving skills) in the context of a field of study, and are designed to be
assessable, transferable, and relevant to students’ lives as workers and citizens in a
diverse world. (p. 9)
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 27

Hubbal and Gold (2007) identified the various stakeholders and processes of curricular
reform and explained the outcomes such as critical thinking, communication and problem-
solving skills. They also added the intentional outcomes of assessability, transferability, and
relevance to students’ lives which included the ultimate purpose of living “as citizens and
workers in a diverse world” (p. 9). This is indicative of the process of curricular reform in higher
education. Ultimately, curriculum reform has the end goal of student improvement and practical
success in the workplace and in life. To this end, undergraduate curriculum reform is a practical
and functional endeavor. On a practical level, curriculum reform looks quite like reform in other
stages of educational practice addressing both the content, scope, and schedule of a course
through a content outline which provides assignments to be completed during the duration of the
semester or quarter. In a broader sense, there is an attention to the scope and sequence across an
academic discipline to ensure that the necessary topics, subjects, and skills are addressed and
completed. This is done to ensure that students who take courses in a particular academic
department are exposed to the necessary knowledge in that discipline prior to graduation. In a
much broader sense, curricular reform can also be designed and implemented to cut across
academic disciplines.
The traditional model of higher education treats individual academic disciplines as
freestanding units with the knowledge aligned specifically to those fields of study or departments
(Rudolph, 1997). If there are connections to be made across these disciplines, it is up to the
student to make them with little or no instructional intentionality. In academic research, the
exclusivity of individual academic disciplines has been referred to as silos because of their
exclusive and self-contained nature (Campbell, Heriot, & Finney, 2006; Dymond et al., 2015).
Academic disciplines are often specifically bounded by research with little opportunity, desire, or
reward among experts for cross-cutting explorations of other subjects, multidisciplinarity, or
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 28

otherwise integrative study. The thrust of traditional higher education pedagogy is to expose
students to various silos by requiring them to take courses in several disciplines before they
graduate while majoring in a subject. Students obtain both broad exposure to various disciplines
and deep knowledge of one particular content area (Rudolph, 1977). This traditional model has
exposed students to various individual disciplines while fostering a depth and breadth of
knowledge. However, critics have argued the traditional model is inadequate for preparing
contemporary students for the demands that await them post-graduation (Arum & Roksa, 2011;
Des Marchais et al., 1992; Gaff & Ratcliff, 1997; McParland et al., 2004).
One purpose of undergraduate curriculum reform is to encourage interaction, learning,
and research across disciplines (Klein, 1990; Newell, Wentworth, & Sebberson, 2001). In
response to increased demand for interdisciplinary programs that value innovation and creative
solutions within the undergraduate curricula, institutions have undertaken creative and
transformative change efforts (Clark, 1998; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Kogan, 2000). Institutions of
higher education are increasingly asked to prioritize collaborative, interdisciplinary knowledge
(National Science Foundation, 2004; Pfirman, Collins, Lowes, & Michaels, 2005; Rhoten, 2003).
Consequently, the traditional model of discipline-specific curricula is less desirable as the norm
in higher education even as broad-based educational trends steer universities toward uniformity
and standardization (Holley, 2009). This impetus for change is driven on individual college and
university campuses. Additionally, change is driven by federal funding agencies in the United
States that include support and funding for large-scale research programs, innovative curricula,
and undergraduate training (Holley, 2009). A 2004 call for proposals from the National Science
Foundation noted this necessity for change: “current research is often characterized by
integrative interdisciplinary approaches…the goal is to build a well-educated and skilled
workforce for these cutting-edge interdisciplinary areas that are primed to drive economic
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 29

growth in coming decades” (National Science Foundation, 2004, p. 4). Innovative approaches to
undergraduate curricular reform are generated from individual colleges and universities from the
bottom up, yet also from the top down, as federal agencies and employers demand students
equipped with skills to succeed in the current and future professional marketplace.
Curricular Reform
In a 2009 study, Holley collected data from 21 research universities in the United States
and adapted a framework of transformative change. In this framework, change occurs over time
and brings important shifts in the way an institution views itself, even as the institutional work is
conducted through shifts in institutional culture and interdisciplinary endeavors. In the study,
Holley (2007) offered examples of transformative change and interdisciplinary initiatives
shown in Table 3. This list of change strategies includes senior administrative support,
collaborative leadership, flexible vision, faculty and staff development, and visible action as
successful agents of change.
Table 3
Examples of Transformational Change in Interdisciplinary Initiatives (Holley, 2007)
Change Strategy Definition Examples
Senior administrative
support
Leaders provide necessary
resources; shape institutional
priorities; focus attention on
important issues; maintain
priority of initiatives
Interdisciplinary initiatives included
as part of campus master and strategic
plans; interdisciplinary rhetoric as
part of institutional language; funding
in support for interdisciplinary
research projects and faculty
collaboration
Collaborative
leadership
Collaboration empowers
multiple groups with
decision-making authority;
multiple groups are deeply
involved in initiative;
multiple individuals help
shape new mental models of
change
Institutions work with groups internal
and external to the campus; such
work is associated with institutional
history and tradition; funding and
support for faculty leadership in
interdisciplinary projects
Flexible vision Flexible vision provides
clear direction for the
Institutions develop framework for
interdisciplinary opportunities,
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 30

institution, yet is adaptable
and opportunistic; leaders
initially set direction that
responds to external and
internal opportunities
including curriculum, physical space,
and research centers
Faculty/ staff
development
Development offers the
opportunity for stakeholders
to learn needed skills related
to change initiative; the
organization invests resources
in individual learning
Cluster hires seek interdisciplinary
faculty groups; funding and support
for interdisciplinary research
collaboration and teaching
Visible action Institutions make the long-
term effort visible by
highlighting progress; leaders
set achievable short-term
goals and ways to evidence
progress
Institutions prioritize the construction
of interdisciplinary buildings on
campus; well-publicized efforts for
interdisciplinary conferences and
speakers

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 31

Curricular Reform and Support for Creativity and Innovation at University X
Each of Holley’s (2007) five criteria for change are evident at University X. The
university has senior administrative support to create an undergraduate curriculum that supports
the teaching and exploration of creativity and innovation. There is a newly formed department of
innovation headed by a senior vice president for innovation. Collaborative leadership at
University X involves multiple groups with various levels of decision-making authority such as
faculty, staff, the dean of the college of arts and sciences, the vice president for academics, and
the vice president for innovation. The university, while providing clear direction for the
institution through its mission statement and strategic initiatives, allows for new ideas and
innovative curricula to be formed and implemented under the auspices of the vice president for
innovation. Additionally, a newly formed interdisciplinary academic department was developed
to serve as a kind of laboratory for new initiatives and ideas that might emerge from senior
leadership, mid-level leadership, or faculty members. This is evidence of a flexibility of vision
that is adaptable and responsive to opportunities and initiatives. Additionally, faculty and staff
are encouraged to seek out new avenues for professional development concerning various
potential initiatives under consideration. Finally, University X prioritizes the formation and
planning for new initiatives through allocating space, resources, and marketing support.
The workplace, emerging trends in higher education reform, federal initiatives, and the
specific university itself support the formation of such a curriculum to train and equip students to
succeed in their undergraduate course of study and in the rapidly changing, increasingly complex
world that awaits them after graduation.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 32

Incorporating Creativity and Innovation into the University Curriculum
In order to understand how creativity and innovation may be incorporated into existing
curriculum, existing assets regarding knowledge, motivation, and organization are examined.
Faculty Knowledge Assets
Factual knowledge assumptions. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) and Rueda (2011)
define factual knowledge as those items which are basic, foundational, and contextual to the
discipline. In considering the factual knowledge of the main stakeholders involved, the faculty
committee, several considerations arise. The faculty committee must know the best practices of
curriculum design, all components of a design blueprint, the best practices for teaching creativity
and innovation, definitions of creativity and innovation, and how to identify relevant content.
Conceptual knowledge assumptions. Conceptual knowledge is the “classifications,
principles, generalizations, theories” and models that are pertinent to a particular area of study or
a specific discipline (Rueda, 2011, p. 28). Conceptual knowledge assumptions of the faculty
stakeholders include knowledge of the extant literature on creativity and innovation and
knowledge of construction and implementation of a scope and sequence for the curriculum.
Procedural knowledge assumptions. Procedural knowledge is the how to component of
knowledge (Rueda, 2011). In the area of procedural knowledge, it is expected faculty know how
to research literature, how to create a scope and sequence of curriculum, how to effectively
embed creativity into existing curriculum, and how to construct a coherent curriculum across
disciplines.
Metacognitive knowledge assumptions. Metacognitive knowledge focuses on strategic
behaviors and problem solving and is characterized by self-awareness. It allows individuals to
“know when and why to do something” (Rueda, 2011, p. 28). In the area of metacognitive
knowledge, assumptions will focus on the faculty committee’s ability to reflect on their own
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 33

ability to work outside their area of expertise and discipline and determine the appropriateness of
their work as it aligns with the purposes of curricular reform. Additionally, they will need to
consider the needs and political climate of the university and faculty, as well as mission and
resource realities as they shape the content.
Assumed Motivation Assets
Motivation refers to the internal, psychological process that gets individuals going, keeps
individuals moving and helps individuals accomplish things (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Three
aspects of motivated performance in the workplace include active choice, when the intention to
pursue a goal is replaced by action; persistence, continuing in the face of distractions; and mental
effort, when people work smarter and develop novel solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
motivation analysis framework is based on expectancy outcome, self-efficacy, and attribution
which hold that motivation, learning, and performance are enhanced if the person values the task,
have positive expectations for success, and when participants attribute successes or failures to
effort rather than ability, respectively (Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Also
included in assumed motivation needs are goals—that learning, motivation and performance will
be enhanced if participants have clear, current and challenging goals; and affect, that enhancing
positive emotions and reducing negative emotions enhances learning, motivation and
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003; Clark, 1999). Therefore, this select group of
faculty should demonstrate task value by valuing the task; demonstrate expectancy outcome self-
efficacy and affect by anticipating success and feeling positive about the outcomes; demonstrate
attribution and goal orientation by believing effort will accomplish the goal; and demonstrate
affect by feeling positive about the process and reduce negative emotions performance (Clark,
1999; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). It is assumed that the faculty involved need to value
the overall mission of curricular reform, to value working cooperatively together, to value
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 34

analyzing relevant information related to forming a program, to value developing plan a for
implementation, to value working cooperatively together, to value creating a curriculum for
creativity innovation, to encourage goal setting in a challenging manner, and to enhance positive
emotions that enhances learning, motivation and performance.
Assumed Organizational Assets
Regarding organizational assets, the organization must provide faculty incentives for
participation, to respond to faculty proposals in a timely manner, to work efficiently for in all
aspects of this initiative.
Assumed cultural assets. The faculty need to be part of a culture that aligns with the
following: The organization supports the initiative at all levels of administration, prioritizes the
initiative at the administrative level, and encourages and prioritizes time for faculty to work on
the initiative. There is a culture of cooperation and general collegiality among faculty. In general,
the administration supports reform, seeks faculty input in decision-making, and is willing to
consider new approaches to difficult problems.
These assumed factors are predictive based on prior knowledge of the organization. The
study will determine if indeed they are relevant. The methodology and format of the study is
critical in determining their relevance to the organization.
Conclusion
In sum, the purpose of this study is to examine the viability of developing a plan for a
comprehensive curricular reform for undergraduate students that will focus on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational assets needed to successfully integrate creativity and innovation
into the existing curriculum at University X. Chapter Two presented the related and relevant
literature pertaining to this study and the key stakeholder group’s knowledge, motivation, and
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 35

organizational assets using the gap analysis approach developed by Clark and Estes (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Chapter Three will present the study’s methodological approach in detail.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 36

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
assets needed by faculty stakeholders to develop a plan for including creativity and innovation in
the undergraduate curriculum at University X.
This chapter begins with a list of assumed assets of performance gaps and progresses to
focus on actual or validated assets. In the gap analysis framework, the key stakeholders involved
in this study were members of a select faculty committee who have the primary role of
developing plans of study and a scope and sequence of curriculum and tasked with curriculum
reform. This study is guided by the following questions:
1. What are the underlying knowledge, motivation, and organization assets for faculty in
developing an effective plan for including innovation and creativity in the curriculum at
the undergraduate level?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions to address the asset
needs in the organization?
Methodological Framework
To investigate the faculty committee’s potential challenges and address potential
solutions, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model served as a framework to identify gaps of
knowledge, motivation, and organization among performance levels within University X. This
process began with developing a set of presumed assets for investigation. These presumed assets
in identifying performance gaps were developed through scholarly literature and personal
knowledge. Surveys, interviews, and literature reviews were used to validate these assets. For the
study, an innovation model was adapted from Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework which includes
developing initiative to solve the challenge of a performance gap. This analysis process is shown
below.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 37

Figure 1. The gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Assumed Assets
Assumed assets on performance are gained from four sources: related literature, learning,
motivation and organizational theory, and preliminary scanning. Assumed assets from related
literature and theory were discussed in Chapter Two. Assumed assets from preliminary scanning
of the organization are discussed below. Table 4 provides a summary of all assumed assets
gained from survey and interview sources.
Table 4
Assumed Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Assets
Survey Interview
Assumed Knowledge Assets

X X
Faculty stakeholder group must
understand the best practices of
creativity and innovation
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must
understand how to construct a scope
and sequence of curriculum
X X

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 38

Table 4, continued
Survey Interview
Assumed Knowledge Assets

X X
Faculty stakeholder group must understand where to find
resources on creativity and innovation
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must manifest creative and
innovative practices in the classroom currently
X X

Assumed Motivational Assets

X X
Faculty stakeholder group must value teaching creativity and
innovation to undergraduates
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must prioritize creative and
innovative practices
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must value time developing new
curriculum
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must feel confident faulty can
develop new curriculum
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must show interest in learning more
about creativity and innovation
X X

Assumed Organizational Assets X X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university can offer
programs in creativity and innovation
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university mission
and core values are consistent with the formation of a
creativity and innovation curriculum
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe an undergraduate
program in creativity and innovation will benefit the university
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe a program in creativity
and innovation will benefit the university
X X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university would
welcome and support programs in undergraduate creativity and
innovation
X X

If an asset is validated, the stakeholder group already possess those qualities, which
makes the organization successful. If an asset is not validated, there is a perceived gap which
must be addressed with a recommended solution. For instance, the faculty in the study may not
know the best practices of curriculum design, how to design a blueprint for scope and sequencing
curriculum and all its components, the definitions of creativity and innovation, how to research
literature, how to construct coherent curriculum, or how to self-reflect on their ability to work
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 39

outside their own area of expertise. Regarding motivational assets, the faculty stakeholder group
may not value the mission of curricular reform or working cooperatively with other faculty and
may not be willing to analyze relevant information related to forming the program. The faculty
stakeholder group would need to be confident in creating a curriculum for creativity and
innovation and in their ability to collect data and resources to develop the program, analyze
relevant information, and develop a plan for implementation.
Preliminary Screening Data and Critical Observations
Identified assets of the organization came through informal conversations and
observations while developing the study. What is listed below is based on preliminary
knowledge of the organization from first-hand observation. Some potential barriers may include
a lack of content or planning knowledge, the desire to form a plan for innovation and creativity,
or the organizational awareness to develop such a plan.
Knowledge and Skills
Among the various skills and content knowledge required of the stakeholders, the faculty
committee to develop this project, there are several areas of necessity. First, the faculty must
have a basic understanding of literature regarding creativity and innovative practices. Since this
focus of curricular study is outside their main area of expertise, there may be significant
knowledge deficits. Additionally, faculty should know how to develop and formulate a scope and
sequence of curriculum and instruction grounded in the creativity and innovation literature.
However, these primary stakeholders possess curricular expertise in their own area of focus
which is used to develop lesson plans and sequential learning programs, yet, perhaps, not in the
area of creativity and innovation. The faculty members may not possess the content or planning
skills related to this specific type of initiative.
Motivation
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 40

The motivational issues involved with this group of stakeholders vary widely. In past
projects and initiatives, their levels of motivation have been mixed. When an initiative was
proposed to them by the administration, they were less likely to engage in its completion and
success than if it was generated by the individuals themselves. These self-generated initiatives
have found great success across disciplines and departments within the university. Thus, the
potential for success and implementation of new initiatives such as this has a record of proven
success. What was unclear was the level of motivation in these two very specific areas of
creativity and innovation which was measured and quantified through this study.
Organization
Generally, the organization is supportive of new initiatives and has a department devoted
exclusively to innovation to cut across disciplines and colleges in order to facilitate initiatives
which may benefit the university. Many of these projects are initiated by the graduate school.
Thus, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues in the college of arts and sciences
were untested prior to this study. There is considerable support among senior administration
officials within the college of arts and sciences to create and promote new programs in
conjunction with the department of innovation and the department of interdisciplinary studies.
However, two potential barriers are organizational awareness that such a department exists and
that this department has the ability and willingness to create innovative programs based on
faculty input.
Population
Since full-time faculty members are the primary drivers of new curricula at this
university, a select and representative group of eight faculty members was chosen for this study
according to four basic criteria which distinguished them from the list of approximately 70 full-
time faculty members who teach undergraduates. These faculty members had all participated in
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 41

creative or innovative projects previously. They had all taught a class that included a component
of creativity or innovation. They were all full-time faculty with at least one year of experience at
the university, and they were likely to be involved in the formation of a creativity and innovation
undergraduate curriculum at University X. Participation in this study was voluntary.
Data Collection
Permission was sought and approved by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board. Eight faculty members in the college of arts and sciences were
surveyed and interviewed based on the likelihood of their potential for creating and
implementing a curriculum in creativity and innovation for undergraduates at some point in the
future. One factor in determining participant selection was a past history of developing new
curricular initiatives at University X. Experience in developing curricular initiatives shows that
these faculty have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational awareness and potential to
create curricular reform based on creativity and innovation. Online surveys and individual
interviews were utilized to collect data from the participants. Additionally, their knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors were examined through surveys and interviews for the
purpose of verifying the data by using these different approaches to ensure trustworthiness and
validity. Online surveys, which took approximately 20 minutes to complete, were administered
to participants to assess their knowledge, motivation and organizational aspects.
Interviews were conducted in various locations on and off campus at the beginning of the
data collection process. A series of 15 questions were asked of each participant. The questions
were written in English. Table 4 shows the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and
the methods of data collection.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 42

Trustworthiness of Data
To ensure validity of the data collected, surveys and interviews addressed the key
assumed needs, issues, and assets. By triangulating the data in this manner and obtaining data
from these various proven methods of qualitative research, accurate and reliable data were
examined and reliably reviewed. Additionally, anonymous surveys insured confidentiality and
interviews were recorded and transcribed without personal, identifying information. Interviews
were transcribed by a third-party transcription service.
Role of the Investigator
As a faculty member of the college of arts and sciences at University X, the author of the
study proposed, initiated, and completed the analysis to investigate and address problems within
the organization’s performance. Because the author is a faculty member at University X,
potential conflicts were ameliorated by ensuring confidentiality and anonymity and by gaining
the approval of the institutional review boards at both the University of Southern California and
University X. Prior to data collection, the author made it clear to all participants that he would be
performing this analysis as an investigator, independent of any personal involvement or agenda
other than serving in an objective, problem-solving capacity as an independent researcher. As
such, the survey and interview questions and supporting documentation were reviewed by a
dissertation committee chair and dissertation committee, in addition to the author, to ensure
validity.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study included the fact that only a small group of faculty members
were chosen and may not represent the entire faculty, the organization, or those who may
actually form the scope and sequence of curriculum. This study was also limited by social
desirability bias, the honesty and biases of participants’ responding in a manner they believe
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 43

desirable to the researcher. Thus, the possibility exists that said views may not reflect their actual
experience. Both survey and interview responses may have been affected in this way. The study
was also limited by the interpretation of the interview and survey questions as intended by the
participants. Since the survey was conducted online, that participants may have employed a
proxy to answer questions is a possibility. One significant limitation of the specific setting of
University X, its mission, goals, and values, and chosen participants, is that information gleaned
may not be generalizable to other universities and contexts. Nonetheless, other universities may
benefit from the gap analysis process to enhance organizational and outcome-based improvement
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, by focusing on only one stakeholder group’s data, their experience and
responses may or may not have exhibited characteristics of other stakeholders. For the purposes
of this study, which was focused on faculty stakeholders exclusively, the experiences of other
stakeholders were not pertinent.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 44

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to present the data collected for this study and discuss
findings. Interviews were conducted with eight individuals who teach at University X, and
survey results from the same subjects were tabulated using data analysis software. The data in
both the interviews and the surveys were used to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational aspects of creating an undergraduate curriculum for creativity and innovation at
University X. Once compiled, the data from surveys and interviews were compared to the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization assets described in the previous chapter. If a
particular assumed asset was identified or discussed by the participant in the survey or interview,
it was validated. If a particular assumed asset was not identified or discussed the surveys and
interviews, it was not validated. In doing so, potential gaps were identified.
Chapter Four is organized using the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
framework and includes the following subsections: description of the participating stakeholders
and data collection methodology, knowledge results and findings, motivational results and
findings, and organizational results and findings. Each of these sections includes whether the
proposed assumed assets were validated. The chapter concludes with a summary delineating
assets which were validated and serves as the basis for transition to Chapter Five, in which
potential solutions are explored.
Participating Stakeholders
Eight faculty members were chosen for this study according to four basic criteria which
distinguished them from the list of approximately 70 full-time faculty members who teach
undergraduates. First, they had all previously participated in creative or innovative projects.
Second, all had taught a class that included a component of creativity or innovation. Third, they
were all full-time faculty with at least one year of experience at the university. Fourth, they were
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 45

likely to be involved in the formation of a creativity and innovation undergraduate curriculum at
the university. The faculty rank for the subjects ranged from assistant professor to full professor
and their employment at the university ranged from 3 years to over 20. Half of the participants
were male and half were female. They represented five distinct disciplines and departments from
across the university. These eight individuals each completed an entire interview. Surveys were
sent to all participants, and seven responses were completed, which yielded a response rate of
87.5%.
Data Collection Methodology
Data collection began on December 21, 2017, ended on January 10, 2018, and included
both interviews and the surveys. The researcher interviewed each of the participants once during
this time. Participants were invited to complete an online survey utilizing data collection
software. Responses and statistics were compiled using the software in an Excel spreadsheet.
Each participant was personally interviewed by the researcher. Each interview was recorded after
consent was obtained from each participant. The interviews were then transcribed by a third-
party transcription service. The transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and coded by the
researcher.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Assets
This section discusses findings from interviews and survey focusing on the knowledge
domain. The assumed knowledge assets include understanding the basic practices of creativity
and innovation, constructing a scope and sequence of curriculum, the ability to find resources on
creativity and innovation, valuing the time needed to develop new curriculum, feeling confident
in said curricular development, and an interest in learning more about creativity and innovation.
All four assumed knowledge assets were validated through both survey and interview data.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 46

Table 5
Knowledge Assets Validation Table
Validated Not Validated
Assumed Knowledge Assets

Faculty stakeholder group must understand the best
practices of creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must understand how to
construct a scope and sequence of curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must understand where to find
resources on creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must manifest creative and
innovative practices in the classroom currently
X

Understanding Best Practices
Best practices of creativity and innovation were evaluated through two survey questions
and one interview question.
Survey. The first assumed asset that the faculty stakeholder group must understand the
best practices of creativity and innovation was validated through two survey items: (a) “I have a
working knowledge of what creativity and innovation are as they relate to curriculum reform in
higher education” and (b) “I am aware of the best practices in the disciplines of creativity and
innovation.” For the first statement, six participants marked agree and one marked strongly agree
while none marked disagree or strongly disagree. For the second survey item, three marked
disagree and four marked agree. None responded that they strongly disagreed.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 47

Figure 2. Survey results: Working knowledge of creativity.

Figure 3. Survey results: Awareness of best practices.
Interview. In the interview, all but one participant seemed to have a grasp of the best
practices in creativity and innovation, as three of the interviewees were able to identify specific
authors in the field of creativity and/or innovation. Additionally, every interviewee was able to
respond to the question, “Do you have some creative or innovative ideas about undergraduate
program reform and if so can you tell me about them?” All participants answered in the
affirmative. The responses included student-centered learning, cross-disciplinary work, faculty
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 48

collaboration, creation of new curricula, and multiculturalism. Regarding student-centered
learning and multiculturalism, one participant said,
I do a lot of work in sociology…and I create assignments where students create an
assignment on a particular issue they’re interested in. For example, I created a course
design where students look at issues of race, for example, in the city of [name omitted].
Regarding student-centered learning, another participant mentioned the role of professor
as one, “being there as a guide but not really leading it [the class instruction]” and “there’s even
more creative things than that going on, and I think that could be pretty exciting.” Every
participant identified ways that they have seen creativity and innovation incorporated within their
specific discipline. Some of these various disciplines, departments, and courses included the
honors program, sociology, gender, criminal justice, art, philosophy, music, the freshman
experience course and others. Responses to the interview questions and, to a greater extent, the
survey, showed that participants understood the best practices of creativity and innovation and
were well aware of innovative and creative and integrative pedagogical methods. Therefore, this
assumed asset was validated.
Constructing Scope and Sequence
The second assumed asset was that the faculty stakeholder group must understand how to
construct scope and sequence of curriculum.
Survey. Two survey items measured this assumed cause: (a) “I am able to operationalize
creativity and innovation in reforming university curricula” and (b) “I am able to develop a scope
and sequence of curriculum.” For the first item, six participants marked agree and one marked
disagree. None strongly disagreed or strongly agreed.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 49

Figure 4. Survey results: Operationalizing creativity and innovation in curricula.
Results were more robust for the second question in the affirmative, with five marking
agree and one strongly agree, yielding 28.57% strongly agree and 71.43% agree. None
responded that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 5. Survey results: Ability to develop a scope and sequence of curriculum.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 50

Interview. In the response to the interview question asking about ways they have seen
creativity and innovation incorporated within their specific discipline, every participant was able
to list examples within her or his area of expertise, though some had more robust examples than
others. For instance, one participant said, “For history, a lot of innovation is…a more student-
centered approach. I think that’s the most innovative. History is still pretty traditional though.”
Another participant who teaches women’s and gender studies noted that she works comfortably
with “multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, intentionally so. It started with the fields of
philosophy, history, political science, education and some literature and expanded beyond that.”
She acknowledged that she has used pedagogical principles like “teaching to transgress,”
“integrating the student’s ability to produce knowledge,” and “standpoint theory.” Others
mentioned exposure and incorporation of “a lot of alternative education theory” and “critical
theory” from outside their discipline, which they incorporated into their own curriculum
development. The data suggest that the participants understand the process of curriculum
creation and have experience and exposure to ideas and methods outside their respective
disciplines which they incorporate in their classes. Therefore, this assumed asset of constructing
a scope and sequence of curriculum was validated.
Locating Resources
The third assumed asset was that the faculty stakeholder group must understand where to
find resources on creativity and innovation.
Survey. The following survey item was presented: “I know where to find scholarship on
creativity and innovation.” Five participants marked agree and two marked strongly agree.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 51

Figure 6. Survey results: Ability to find scholarship of creativity and innovation.
Interview. For the interview question asking for description of scholarship on the topics
of creativity and innovation that participants have encountered, all but one indicated having read
scholarship on these topics. The single outlier responded, “yeah, I don’t know anything about
that” while others mentioned previous graduate work in which had to “think about a concept and
how to move it through to action” and “create a portfolio.” Another participant mentioned
creative “work in psychology and social linguistics” and “discourse analysis” which were outside
their particular discipline. A history professor mentioned creative scholarship from the
subdiscipline of historical pop culture, which he used to incorporate the film Star Wars into a
particular lesson. Some of the specific authors named were Neville Goddard on creativity and
Carol Dweck on a growth mindset.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 52

Table 6
Encountered Scholarship on Creativity and Innovation
Interview Question Yes No
Have you encountered scholarship on the topics of creativity and
innovation?
7 1

Because subjects indicated they had found and used scholarship on creativity and
innovation and all but one were able to provide specific examples, the responses in the
interviews and survey validated this assumed asset.
Creative and Innovative Practices
Creative and innovative practices in the classroom through assumed assets were
evaluated through one survey question and one interview question.
Survey. The fourth assumed asset that the faculty stakeholder group must manifest
creative and innovative practices was evaluated using the following survey item: “I think about
ways to be creative at work.” For this item, all participants marked agree or strongly agree with
tallies of three and four, respectively. None responded that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 7. Survey results: I think of ways to be creative at work.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 53

Interview. In the interview, this assumed cause was measured by the following interview
question: “Do you incorporate creativity and innovation in your classroom? If so how?” Every
faculty member interviewed had created interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary lessons in the past
and all provided an example of how they currently use creativity and innovation currently. They
included unique curriculum plans, experiential learning, service learning projects, field trips,
international travel, role playing exercises, and student-centered learning. Some participants used
a “flipped classroom” instructional method, incorporating online aspects. Other participants
reported that they take students to locations such as a homeless shelter, museums, and countries
such as Italy and France, using practices that differ from traditional classroom lecture and
instruction. One professor developed a decision-making simulation for students by recreating
historical events from World War II. Another showed students “an awful 1978 Star Wars holiday
special” in order to teach critical thinking. This professor noted, “all of a sudden they were
interested in exploring what in the heck TV was like in the 1970s. Then, we went with that.” One
professor of English described innovation in his class this way:
It’s super important to understand why Tennessee Williams is not just a really good
playwright, but he was also doing things that were incredibly innovative. In my methods
class, what I try to do is I try to find my space between allowing students to both
understand that they’re going to be teachers and that they’re also still students. So, I try
to, the constant meta-moment of being both in and outside. So, I’m constantly telling
them ‘this is why am doing this’ and then also kind of gauging and making sure they’re
aware of that. It’s an interesting tightrope.
In sum, the faculty selected for this study had a wide range of creative and innovative
examples and methods from their teaching experience which they developed and implemented.
Therefore, this assumed asset of incorporating creative and innovative practices was validated.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 54

Summary of Knowledge Related Findings
Despite mixed results on specific awareness of content and practices regarding creativity
and innovation, all participants use creativity and innovation in their current classrooms. Their
ability to find resources and incorporate them in their work is very strong. The variety of
methods and means of innovative practices is significant. Additionally, data from interviews and
the survey validated all the assumed knowledge assets. The validation of all four assumed assets
shows significant knowledge of creativity and innovation on the part of these particular faculty
stakeholders.
Results and Findings for Motivational Assets
This section discusses findings from interviews and survey focusing on the motivation
domain. Among the assumed motivational assets were the need for faculty to value teaching
creativity and innovation to undergraduates, the need to prioritize creative and innovative
practices, the need to value time developing new curriculum, the need to feel confident that
faculty can develop new curriculum, and the need to show interest in learning more about
creativity and innovation. All five assumed motivational assets were validated through both the
survey and interviews. Table 7 shows the validated motivational assets.
Table 7
Assumed Motivational Assets, Validation Table
Assumed Motivational Assets

Survey
Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must value teaching creativity
and innovation to undergraduates
X
Faculty stakeholder group must prioritize creative and
innovative practices
X
Faculty stakeholder group must value time developing
new curriculum
X

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 55

Table 7, continued
Assumed Motivational Assets

Survey
Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must feel confident that faculty
can develop new curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must show interest in learning
more about creativity and innovation
X

Valuing Teaching Creativity
Survey. The first assumed motivational cause, that the faculty stakeholder group must
value teaching creativity and innovation to undergraduates, was assessed through the survey item
“I think about ways to be creative at work.” Of the seven responses to the question, four reported
that they strongly agreed with the statement while three indicated that they agreed. None
responded that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 8. Survey results: Thinking of ways to be creative at work.
Interview. In the interviews, this first assumed motivational asset was evaluated by
asking two questions, each relating to the first motivational asset: “Would you like to see a plan
emphasizing creativity and innovation at the undergraduate level? If so, what might it look like”
and “If there was an initiative to develop a creativity and innovation program at the
undergraduate level to what extent might you be involved?” In response to these questions,
participants generally stated that they would. Although some expressed reservations concerning
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 56

financial incentives, heavy workload, and organizational constraints, all generally answered in
the affirmative. One example of this was the following response: “you need leadership from
people, a committee or an individual, and then you’d have to give them time or space… and that
just would probably get nowhere.” This response suggests, at least for this participant, that the
desire to see the initiative succeed is not without skepticism. In general, responses regarding
involvement ranged from ones such as, “Yes, I am 100% interested” to “No, but some aspects I
could see getting excited about.” One professor responded with the following positive response:
I think it’s something that’s really valuable. But it’s something that if we plant the seeds,
I don’t think were necessarily going to see the immediacy of what it is. You have to be
comfortable being planters of the creativity because that’s going to flower 5, 10 years
down the road or even sooner.
Another participant said,
I would love to because I think that’s what higher ed is supposed to do, right? I think,
unfortunately, all the time, like, we just have to think to the end of the event or project,
and there’s not that long-term planning, which has to really happen.
Responses such as these show the willingness of the faculty to become involved and how they
think about its long-term importance and organizational realities.
Others, while voicing their desire to be involved, raised concerns and questions regarding
organizational issues and constraints regarding cross disciplinary initiatives pertaining to
students: “I would love to be involved in it, but student schedules are pretty locked in the first
year, and that doesn’t allow for a lot of movement and mobility. I think that restricts the students
a lot.” This refers to the departmental silo phenomenon mentioned in Chapter Two and is an
example of barriers that exist in the organization regarding the potential formation of new
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 57

initiatives (Holley, 2009; Klein, 1990; Newell et al., 2001). Although one participant would like
to be involved in this initiative, s/he also mentioned organizational constraints:
I would be really nervous about doing it here because I feel like based on what I know
about how I’ve experienced things, it takes a bit longer than it should, it’s harder than it
should be to make the case. Because it’s about finances, it’s about like how do we want
our students to challenge. So, I don’t know that we could really put in like all our
intellect. And I think it would end up being something kind of parochial.
Given the participant responses, misgivings were not for lack of intrinsic motivation, but
due to sources outside of their control. Particularly notable in the responses were significant
organizational constraints. However, despite these concerns, the assumed asset of valuing
creativity and innovation was validated through interview and survey data.
Prioritizing Creative Practices
Survey. The second assumed motivational cause, the faculty stakeholder group must
prioritize creative and innovative practices, was measured through responses to two survey
items: (a) “I think about ways to be creative at work” and (b) “There is value in teaching a
curriculum involving creativity and innovation to undergraduates.” For the first question, 4 of
the participants answered strongly agree, while 3 answered agree.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 58

Figure 9. Survey question: Creativity at work.
The second question regarding value in teaching creativity and innovation to
undergraduates yielded six responses of strongly agree and one agree. No participants responded
that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 10. Survey results: Value in teaching creativity and innovation to undergraduates.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 59

Interviews. In the interviews, the asset of prioritizing creative practices was evaluated by
asking the questions, “Do you value creativity and innovation in higher education? If so, what
kind of value do you place on these topics?”
Table 8
Interview Results: Valuing Creativity and Innovation in Higher Education
Yes No
Do you value creativity and innovation in higher education? 8 0

All participants valued creativity and innovation in higher education. For example, one
participant said, “I value it greatly. I’m 100% as long as there’s buy-in.” Another said, “I
definitely value it.” One participant considered it a “high priority” and another related that “it
should be in the top five things that universities should do.” Another participant conveyed value
in allowing students to take initiative:
There’s a sense of personal satisfaction when you see students doing something that
you’ve never thought of before. And again, I think for me the only way to get at student
creativity is give them a chance, give them some freedom, you know? You know, when
students take the initiative and they do things that you consider to be something that
you’ve never expected them to do, then that’s, at least as far as the teaching side of the
profession, that’s the most satisfying.
Given these interview responses and the survey results, the assumed asset of valuing
creative practices was validated.
For the same assumed asset, interview participants were asked how they feel when they
hear of creativity and innovation in the teaching of undergraduate students. Of the eight
participants, only two indicated any negative feelings, with one responding with a single word,
“exhausted” and another saying, “here today, gone tomorrow.” Positive responses were much
more common on the whole, even among those such as the previously quoted participant. Other
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 60

examples of these positive responses include “excited,” “positive,” “I love it,” “I like it I feel that
is what makes it a vibrant place” and “it’s kind of exciting.” Even those who expressed
negativity were able to express other positive aspects of creativity and innovation in the teaching
of undergraduates.
Time Needed for Curriculum
Survey. The third assumed motivational asset, that the faculty stakeholder group must
value time developing new curriculum, was measured via the survey item, “It is worth my time
and the improvement of the undergraduate curriculum to develop a program in creativity and
innovation.” For this item, 57% indicated they strongly agreed with the statement and 43%
agreed. None responded that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 11. Survey results: Worth the time to develop curriculum.
Interview. For this assumed asset, the interview question was “If there was an initiative
to develop a creativity and innovation program at the undergraduate level, to what extent might
you be involved?” In response to this question the interviewees stated that they would be
involved generally. Although some expressed reservations concerning financial incentives,
heavy workload, and organizational constraints, all generally answered in the affirmative
regarding their own motivation. Responses range from ones such as “I think so” to “I don’t
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 61

know. I would probably be the least interested if it were involving some kind of curricular
change. Having gone through all this curriculum stuff for years and years it gets very weary.”
This last quote was a particular outlier amidst more positive ones listed below. Another
participant mentioned enthusiasm but, again, noted organizational constraints: “I think if
someone proposed the idea, there would be a lot of excitement about it. I think the university
would be willing to do it. I think there’d be roadblocks.” Another mentioned,
I would be really nervous about doing it here because I feel like based on what I know
about how I’ve experienced things, it takes a bit longer than it should, it’s harder than it
should be to make the case. Because it’s about finances, it’s about like how do we want
our students to change. So, I don’t know that we could really put in like all our intellect.
And I think it would end up being something kind of parochial.
Given the participants’ responses, misgivings were not issues of personal motivation, but
of sources outside of their control. Particularly notable in their responses were significant
organizational constraints. Thus, the assumed asset of willingness to devote time to the initiative
was validated. Participants were personally willing to devote time and energy to the initiative of
curricular change despite often concomitant doubts about organizational constraints.
Feeling Confident
Survey. The fourth assumed motivational asset, that the faculty stakeholder must feel
confident in developing new curriculum, was assessed by asking the survey item, “I feel faculty
could develop an effective program in creativity and innovation if they were asked to do so.” On
this question there was a wider range of responses, with two participants strongly agreeing with
the statement, three agreeing, and one disagreeing.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 62

Figure 12. Survey results: Confidence faculty could develop curriculum.
Interview. The fourth assumed motivational influence was assessed with this interview
question: “Can you tell me about some innovative curricular ideas you’ve developed either
within your classroom or other curricular initiatives at the university with which you’ve been
involved?” Every interviewee affirmed that they have both developed innovative curricular ideas
and been involved in new curricular initiatives at the university.
Table 9
Interview Results: Innovative Ideas Developed in the Past
Yes No
Can you tell me about some innovative curricular ideas you’ve
developed either within your classroom or other curricular initiatives at
the university with which you’ve been involved?
8 0

Some of the curricular initiatives mentioned were the freshman experience course, the
formation of the women’s and gender studies program, several new certificate programs, online
class offerings, the development of a freshman writing program, and communications and theater
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 63

initiatives. One example of a creative, in-class curriculum idea was evidenced by the following
quote:
I remember in the course, we covered an article, and this author, she coded rap music and
she created themes. So, I had them read the article and then they took the themes and they
chose any song they wanted. Because what I wanted them to understand is that these
same themes come out of all genres of music about crime and about criminality. So that
was something they did, and they had a lot of fun with it.
Other participants mentioned incorporating current events, distinguishing truth from
biased opinion by reading news articles, and using drama, arts and other initiatives to enhance
the classroom experience for their students and creatively engage their learning. One
communications professor gave this example:
Like in a lot of my classes, we talk about like the media. We look at different things.
Aspects of how we get what we get so students can become more aware. What is
objectivity? What is framing the news? So, when we get to the Internet section, I have
them develop their own websites using a template and that way they know they don’t
have to be just consumers, but they can be producers.
The data from the survey and interview questions shows that this assumed asset, faculty
feel confident in developing such a curriculum, was validated.
Interest in Creativity
Survey. The fifth assumed motivational asset, the faculty stakeholder group must show
interest in learning more about creativity and innovation, was evaluated by this survey item: “I
want to learn more about creativity and innovation and how to implement it in the curriculum.”
Three strongly agreed, three agreed, and one disagreed.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 64

Figure 13. Survey results: Interest in creativity and innovation.
Interview. For the final assumed motivational asset, the following interview question
was asked: Do you value creativity and innovation in higher education? If so what kind of value
to place on these topics? The interviewees all responded in the affirmative to this question.
Table 10
Interview Results: Value of Creativity and Innovation in Higher Education
Yes No
Do you value creativity and innovation in higher education? 8 0

They all valued creativity and innovation in higher education. Some of the participants
said, “I value it greatly. I’m 100% as long as there’s buy-in” another said, “I definitely value it”.
One interviewee considered it a “high priority” and another related that “…it should be in the top
five things that universities should do.” As with the survey question, the interview question for
this assumed asset received no negative comments.
Summary of Motivation Findings
In sum, the results of the interviews and surveys show mixed levels of motivation among
faculty to develop an undergraduate program in creativity and innovation. Several of the negative
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 65

sentiments expressed, as in the motivation section, were of an organizational nature which shall
be addressed in the next section.
Results and Findings for Organizational Assets
This section discusses findings from interviews and surveys focusing on the
organizational domain. The assumed organizational assets include that the university must offer
programs in creativity and innovation, that the University X’s mission and core values are
consistent with the formation of a creativity and innovation curriculum, that an undergraduate
program in creativity and innovation will benefit University X, that a program in creativity and
innovation will benefit the university, and that University X would welcome and support
programs in undergraduate creativity and innovation. Two assumed organizational assets were
validated and three were not validated.
Table 11
Assumed Organizational Assets Validation Table
Assumed Organizational Assets Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university
can offer programs in creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university
mission and core values are consistent with the
formation of a creativity and innovation curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe an
undergraduate program in creativity and innovation will
benefit the university
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe a program in
creativity and innovation will benefit the university
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university
would welcome and support programs in undergraduate
creativity and innovation
X

Organizational Ability
Survey. To validate the first assumed organizational influence, the faculty stakeholder
group must believe the university can offer programs in innovation, the survey item presented
was “I believe that the university can offer an undergraduate curriculum that includes creativity
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 66

and innovation.” Of the seven participants, five agreed and two strongly agreed. None responded
that they disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Figure 14. Survey results: Belief the university can offer a program.
Interview. For the first assumed organizational asset, the interview data were mixed.
Two interviewees responded in the affirmative, four responded no, and two responded that they
did not know.
Table 12
Interview Results: Ability of University to Offer a Program in Creativity and Innovation
Yes No I don’t know
Could you envision University X forming a plan
for creativity and innovation at the undergraduate
level?
2 4 2

One individual responded that s/he could see the college of arts and sciences creating
such a program, but not the university in general. Three participants discussed the willingness of
the university to create such a program in theory but did not think it would come to fruition. For
instance, one participant said, “if they don’t feel like they have the expertise to truly do it, I think
we need to call and somebody. We need to hire somebody, a consultant.” Half of the
participants said that it could not happen without financial resources allocated to the project. For
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 67

instance, one participant said, “I couldn’t envision this university wanting to do something like
that. I think the problem would be that to really do it, you have to put resources behind it.”
Because of the doubts expressed in the survey and interviews, this asset was not validated.
University Mission and Core Values
Survey. For the second assumed organizational asset, the faculty stakeholder group must
believe the university mission and core values are consistent with the formation of a creativity
and innovation curriculum, the survey asked if they agreed that “A plan to incorporate creativity
and innovation aligns with the university’s mission and core values.” Of the seven respondents,
five agreed and two strongly agreed.

Figure 15. Survey results: Alignment of university core values and mission.
Survey. For the second assumed motivation asset, five participants replied, “not aligned”
to the question “Can you tell me a little bit about the department of innovation and the
department of interdisciplinary studies, what they do and if they are consistent with the mission
and values of the university?”

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 68

Table 13
Interview Results: Alignment of departments
Yes No
Departments of innovation and multidisciplinary studies aligned with
the mission and values of the university
3 5

Interview. Specifically, some of the responses were “I don’t know anything about that,”
“I don’t know, to me they’re a black box” and “I’m not entirely certain.” There was neither an
awareness of the workings of these two departments nor a feeling that their mission and values
coincided with the mission and values of the university. One English professor responded, “Well
of course I can’t speak fully from experience, from my discussion with faculty at the graduate
level, there doesn’t seem to be an emphasis on being aligned with our values so to speak. So, it
seems to me to be a big disconnect.” Although the subjects of this study agreed that there was
alignment between the university mission, vision, and core values, and creativity and innovation,
the selected faculty members for this study did not think the specific departments of innovation
and multidisciplinary studies were aligned with the broader mission of the university. In short, it
appears that an organizational disconnect exists at the department level, specifically in the
departments of innovation and multidisciplinary studies, which may not be aligned sufficiently
with the mission, vision and core values of the broader university. Participants did indicate that
such a program in creativity and innovation aligns with the broader university. Therefore, the
assumed asset of believing this curricular initiative was aligned with university values was not
validated.
Benefit
Survey. For the third assumed organizational influence, that the faculty stakeholder
group must believe that the undergraduate program and creativity and innovation will benefit the
university, the participants were asked to respond to the statement “The university will benefit if
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 69

it emphasizes creativity and innovation at the undergraduate level.” All participants either agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement. Specifically, five agreed and two strongly agreed. None
responded that they disagreed or strongly disagreed

Figure 16. Survey results: The university will benefit.
Interview. For assumed asset three, interviewees were asked about the willingness of the
university to create a program in creativity and innovation. In response to this question, one
participant indicated yes, six responded no, and one responded that they did not know. In
response to this question, one participant said,
I think the question is difficult because the ground level, I think, faculty are hungry for
innovation. But at the administrative level and its hierarchy at times they can be
extremely disconnected from reality. I don’t really think they’re open to innovation.
Another participant said,
I don’t know. I don’t know if they can do that. I think, unfortunately, there’s not a lot of
leadership. I feel like it’s more responsive. You have to prove that it [a new idea] is
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 70

functioning or it’s working. There’s not a whole lot of startup to do stuff like that
unfortunately. I think that makes it really challenging because the tires people out very
quickly.
Generally, the participants agreed that such an initiative would benefit the university but
saw many barriers to its implementation organizationally.
Table 14
Interview Results: Envisioning a University Plan
Yes No I don’t know
Could you envision University X forming a plan for
creativity and innovation at the undergraduate level?
1 6 1

For the fourth assumed organizational influence, faculty stakeholder group must believe a
program in creativity and innovation will benefit the university, the following statement was
posed: “The university values innovation and creativity.” Of the seven participants, four
disagreed with this statement and three agreed.

Figure 17. Survey results: The university values innovation and creativity.
Welcoming Creativity Curriculum
For the fifth and final assumed organizational influence, the faculty stakeholder group
must believe the university welcomes and supports programs in undergraduate creativity and
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 71

innovation, participants were asked to respond to the following statement: “The administration
would welcome and support programs in undergraduate creativity and innovation.” Of the seven
participants, four agreed and three disagreed.

Figure 18. Survey results: Administrative support.
Survey. Regarding the final organizational assumed influence, in the interview,
participants expressed negativity about the organization’s ability to provide such programming.
Specifically, two responded yes, four responded no, and one replied that s/he did not know.
Table 15
Interview Results: University Support
Yes No I don’t know
Do you think the university would be supportive of the teaching
of creativity and innovation at the undergraduate level?
2 4 2

Interview. One interviewee responded,
Somebody has to come up with an idea, and that person has to come up with an idea
because they’re either passionate about what they do, because they know it’s going to
bring them financial rewards or status, and sometimes that’s not the best person to come
forward. I don’t know. Unfortunately, I just think that there’s no direction and there’s
very little leadership, and, if there’s no money, there can’t be either of those two.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 72

Similarly, another professor responded in this way:
I don’t know because there are certainly people who I could see proposing it, and people
would support it, but then I think other very traditionally defined leadership would
oppose it, so I think it could get tough there. I think if the right people suggested then it
could get a push forward.
Regarding the viability and support of such a program, another participant said, “I just
don’t feel like…I don’t think…that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t. It just isn’t realistic.”
Summary of Organizational Findings
In sum, the data gathered from interviews and survey concerning organizational assumed
assets show a clear lack of support in the organization among the participants of this study. Five
of the five assumed assets were not validated. Additionally, organizational concerns were evident
in the interview portions of the knowledge and motivation sections. This shows a lack of trust
and belief in the organization’s capacity to offer such programs on the part of key faculty
stakeholders. A consistent theme running through the research in this section is a lack of
confidence in the organization to follow through or provide funding for initiatives such as this.
Organizational constraints are evident.
Even though faculty respondents had the knowledge and motivation assets needed for this
curricular initiative, participants reported a lack of administrative support and a potential
unwillingness to support faculty with time, financial resources, and further training to
accomplish this initiative. From the survey and interviews conducted, it appears that faculty see
many organizational constraints such as a lack of mission, vision, and value alignment at the
department level. Although they have verbal support, administrative actions in support of their
initiatives is lacking. Also evident is a lack of follow through on the part of the administration to
allow sufficient, necessary conditions to create, facilitate, and incubate curricular change.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 73

Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter presented and analyzed data from the study regarding assumed
assets for knowledge, motivation, and organization. All five knowledge assumed assets were
validated, all five motivational assets were validated, and none of the five organizational assets
were validated. Of the research presented in this chapter, the organizational section is the clear
outlier in that none of these assets were validated. Throughout the surveys and interviews, lack
of trust in the institution to support new initiatives through funding or by other means is evident.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the participants have not been sufficiently encouraged or
supported in their past efforts and interactions with the administration for creative and innovative
projects. There appears to be little confidence in the administration’s organizational ability and
willingness to carry out such a curricular initiative. A lack of perceived leadership is also evident
in the data, indicating low confidence in the administration. Additionally, organizational
constraints may have had an impact on the individual motivation of participants to engage in new
initiatives. The issues at the organizational level must be addressed going forward and are
presented in the next chapter. Based on these results, solutions, strategies, implementations and
evaluations are presented in Chapter Five.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 74

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to offer proposed solutions based on results discussed in
Chapter Four. The chapter addresses which assumed assets were validated and which were not in
order to propose solutions, strategies, and resources required; suggest a timeline for
implementation; and consider implementation constraints and challenges.
Validated Assets
If an asset was validated, the stakeholder group already possess those qualities, which
makes the organization successful. If an asset was not validated, there is a gap which must be
addressed with a recommended solution. The summary validation tables for each of the assumed
knowledge motivational and organizational assets follows:
Table 16
Assumed Knowledge Assets
Assumed Knowledge Assets Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must understand the best practices of
creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must understand how to construct a
scope and sequence of curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must understand where to find
resources on creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must manifest creative and innovative
practices in the classroom currently
X

Table 17
Assumed Motivation Assets
Assumed Motivational Assets Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must value teaching creativity and
innovation to undergraduates
X
Faculty stakeholder group must prioritize creative and
innovative practices
X
Faculty stakeholder group must value time developing new
curriculum
X

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 75

Table 17, continued
Assumed Motivational Assets Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must feel confident faulty can
develop new curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must show interest in learning more
about creativity and innovation
X

Table 18
Assumed Organization Assets
Assumed Organizational Assets Validated Not Validated
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university can offer
programs in creativity and innovation
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university mission
and core values are consistent with the formation of a creativity
and innovation curriculum
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe an undergraduate
program in creativity and innovation will benefit the university
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe a program in creativity
and innovation will benefit the university
X
Faculty stakeholder group must believe the university would
welcome and support programs in undergraduate creativity and
innovation
X

As these tables show, all of the assumed knowledge assets were validated. All of the
assumed motivational assets were validated, and none of the five assumed organizational assets
were validated. These five include that the faculty stakeholder group must believe the university
can offer programs in creativity and innovation; that they must believe the university mission,
vision and core values are consistent with the formation of a creativity and innovation
curriculum; that they must believe an undergraduate program in creativity and innovation will
benefit the university; that they must believe a program in creativity and innovation will benefit
the university; and they must believe the university would welcome and support programs in
undergraduate creativity and innovation.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process model was used to identify the
organizational assets and gaps in current performance through interviews and surveys. Data
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 76

presented in Chapter Four showed that five assumed knowledge assets, five assumed motivation
assets, and five assumed organization assets were validated. The types of validated assets along
with corresponding category are presented in Tables 19 through 21. In the gap analysis model,
solutions must address all non-validated assets. Thus, recommendations and proposed solutions
are suggested for all assets not validated. Table 12 below shows solutions based on the results of
this study.
Table 19
Recommended Solutions
Recommended Solutions
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Assets Participants have a
solid knowledge base
to access scholarship
on creativity and
innovation
Participants value,
prioritize, and show
interest in creative and
innovative practices and
curriculum
Participants believe the
university can offer
programs and creativity
and innovation that are
aligned with mission and
core values of the
university. They need to
believe creating an
undergraduate curriculum
in creativity and innovation
well benefit the university
and the university would
welcome such a program.
Solutions Solution 1: Continue
to encourage
knowledge about
creativity and
innovation among
faculty members and
specifically targeted
training for curriculum
implementation
Solution 2: Continue to
value and encourage
motivation among faculty
stakeholders by providing
incentives and time for
curriculum development.
Solution 3: Convince and
support faculty, and the
university at large, that the
university prioritizes
curriculum in creativity
and innovation at the
undergraduate level and
provide incentives for
participation in developing
curriculum.

Recommended Solutions
Although faculty surveyed in this study generally have solid knowledge of creativity and
innovation in curriculum development, they would benefit from training to help them develop an
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 77

undergraduate curriculum in creativity and innovation. In the surveys and interviews,
participants were not generally aware of scholarship specifically on creativity and innovation.
Because of this perceived deficit, the participants would benefit from exposure to best practices
in the field. Faculty stakeholders would also benefit from specialized training by attending a
conference on creativity and innovation either locally or nationally to expose them to the best
practices in these fields. Furthermore, faculty stakeholders will benefit from having an outside
consulting team visit the university from another institution that has successfully implemented
such a program, or a site visit to such a university, to train, instruct, and answer questions about
scope, sequence and methods of curriculum development in creativity and innovation. This two-
fold approach is based on research that shows creativity and innovation are useful skills for
future employees in a rapidly changing professional landscape and that collaboration such as this
allows creativity and innovation to flourish (Amabile, 1988; Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Alves
et al., 2007; Robinson & Stern, 1998; McLean, 2005; Ekvall, 1996; Jung et al., 2003; Luecke &
Katz, 2003; Newman, 2017 West, 2002)
Once faculty have been trained and advised by attending professional development in this
area, the faculty committee should be given time to develop such a curriculum over the course of
an academic year along with academic course releases from their existing course load for fall and
spring semesters. This will lighten their teaching loads and decrease their professional
responsibilities in order to allow them time to focus on this initiative. Additionally, faculty
stakeholders should receive an exemption from committee work, either in the College of arts and
sciences or the university at large, which can provide further time for investigation,
collaboration, and team building, countering the individualistic and specialized norm of
professors working exclusively within their departments or silos (Campbell et al., 2006; Dymond
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 78

et al., 2015). This can better enable them to focus on this initiative and develop transformational,
interdisciplinary change (Holley, 2009.
Finally, data and results from this study show that all key stakeholders, administration,
select faculty, students and staff at University X will benefit from a university-wide media
campaign to instruct, explain, and highlight the importance of creativity and innovation
generally, and this initiative, specifically. In this way, the university can address three of the
assumed organizational assets that were not validated in this study, namely issues of
organizational value and support for this initiative. This campaign will more closely align the
university’s mission and core values, which already include innovation and creativity, and
explain how a creativity and innovation -based curriculum for undergraduates fits within the
larger scope of the mission and goals of the university. Secondly, such a campaign can show
faculty in the university at large the value and benefit of creating an undergraduate program in
innovation. By touting its benefits through print, online, and face-to-face communication, the
university can convince all stakeholders of its relevance and importance. Thirdly, this can further
convince the key stakeholder group, university faculty in charge of curriculum development, that
the university values, welcomes and supports their work in developing curriculum in creativity
and innovation at the undergraduate level further reinforcing its critical importance to the
university community. Both of these strategies are examples of visible action and flexible vision
consistent with transformational change in interdisciplinary initiatives (Holley, 2007)
Strategies and Action Steps
The strategies and action steps needed to implement the solutions suggested consists of
four main actions. The dean of the college of arts and sciences and the vice president for
academics should ask the faculty who met the criteria for this study to serve as the curriculum
development committee. This committee will then convene and decide on its member
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 79

participation, leadership, and strategic goals for developing the undergraduate curriculum within
the parameters of this plan. This first strategy is based on research that facilitates meaningful
change in higher education (Bull & Davis, 1982; Guilford, 1985; Hubbal & Gold, 2007; Renzuli,
1992; Runco & Chand, 1995).
The dean of the college of arts and sciences and the vice president for academics should
provide members of this faculty committee professional development opportunities in order to
increase motivation and address the organizational constraints identified in this study. Following
participation in this academic conference, members of this committee, in conjunction with the
dean of the college of arts and sciences, shall gather to discuss lessons learned and areas for
future study and perhaps future training. This strategy is grounded in research which emphasizes
collaboration and a learning-centered curriculum in higher education. (Baird, 1996; Bresciani,
2006; Clanchy & Ballard, 1995; Cox & Richlin, 2004; Erickson, 2002; Holley, 2009; Hubball &
Burt, 2004; Hubball & Poole, 2004; Kanpol, 1995).
Following this professional development experience, an outside consulting company shall
be engaged and meet with the faculty committee and decide on action plans as well as scope and
sequence of curriculum. One faculty member from this committee shall be designated project
manager in order to ensure a timely completion of benchmarks which the committee and the
consulting group will develop. This strategy is based on research that collaboration across
academic disciplines and learning from outside one’s specialization has value and pedagogical
benefits (Holley, 2009; Klein, 1990; Newell et al., 2001).
The vice president for academics and the dean of arts and sciences, in collaboration with
the president’s academic cabinet, will develop a plan for a university-wide information campaign
and marketing strategy to convince administrators, university faculty, staff, and students of the
importance and relevance of creativity and innovation in the life and structure of the university.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 80

During the year proceeding the new curriculum’s implementation, members of the university
community will preview the work, even as they are primed and prepared for this new initiative.
This strategy is based on research that deals with how effective change happens in higher
education and that change often occurs in response to demand from outside the university (Clark,
1998; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Holley, 2009; Kogan, 2000).
These four action steps, in various ways, provide the elements of senior administrative
support, collaborative leadership, flexible vision, faculty/staff development, and visible action
consistent with Holley’s (2007) examples of transformational change in interdisciplinary
initiatives. Additionally, these four action steps address the organizational findings presented in
Chapter Four related to the perception of a lack of administrative support. Each of the four
actions show demonstrable administrative support not only for this initiative, but for the faculty
involved in this transformational, curricular initiative.
The marketing department will design, implement, and include print and online media
regarding the importance of creativity and innovation for future career success and its scholarly,
professional and personal benefits. Deans and department chairs across the university will
encourage university faculty to include modules within existing curriculum that emphasize,
support, and experiment with creative and innovative approaches to teaching and learning in
preparation for the university-wide initiative. The president’s administrative cabinet in
collaboration with the university president shall discuss and decide the best methods for the
university president to engage in this initiative through speech, writing, and action. In short, in
the year prior to the implementation of the curriculum plan, attempts will be made through
messaging and participation to create and encourage a culture of creativity and innovation on
campus at all levels and among all stakeholders. As the wider faculty are experimenting with
innovative practices and creative learning techniques, the faculty committee dedicated to
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 81

curriculum development will continue to work throughout the academic year and formally and
informally communicate with other faculty to acquire ideas, strategies, and best practices of what
has been piloted in the classroom.
Resource Requirements
Resources for developing an undergraduate curriculum in creativity and innovation are
necessary. Professional development funds must be allocated to provide the faculty committee
the necessary exposure and instruction in the best practices of creativity and innovation by
attending at least one conference dedicated to creativity and innovation. Ideally, this will be a
conference which is completely outside their discipline and multidisciplinary in nature. Topics
covered may include design thinking, creative pedagogical strategies in higher education, various
pedagogical approaches from other countries, and exposure to resources in creative and
innovative thinking and learning.
Resource requirements will also include the allocation of financial resources to provide
course releases for faculty on the planning committee in order to provide time for faculty to
devote to curriculum development. Teaching load reduction for the faculty committee will allow
those on the committee to maintain full-time teaching status yet teach only one or two classes
while developing the curriculum over the course of two semesters. This solution has a dual
benefit. The reduced classroom teaching time will allow time for faculty to develop the
curriculum. Additionally, by only teaching one or two classes, faculty members will have the
opportunity and time to test ideas learned in the formation of this curriculum. Furthermore,
faculty will have the additional benefit of added time to test ideas within his or her own
classroom throughout the course of the academic year.
Other resource requirements may include additional printing resources and postage to
deliver the message throughout the university at large and perhaps retaining a professional
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 82

marketing firm if necessary to guide the campaign of communication to ensure its timely and
effective implementation. Another expense will be providing professional development for
administrators who may not value or understand the importance of teaching creativity and
innovation at the undergraduate level. The university administration will also send a small team
of select faculty on the curriculum committee and administrators to visit another university of
similar size which has incorporated such a curricular initiative successfully.
Timeline for Implementation
The timeline for implementation is as follows:
• By July 1, 2019 the university administration will ask for volunteers to serve on the
faculty committee for curriculum development and creation.
• By August 15, 2019, this faculty committee will convene, appoint a chair, and outline a
schedule of events and benchmarks for the creation and completion of the curriculum by
July 1, 2020.
• By September 1 2019, the committee members will begin their own personal self-study
of creativity and innovation pursuing related topics of relevance and interest.
• By September 30, 2019 the faculty committee will meet with outside consultants to
develop a plan for the curriculum.
• By November 30, 2019, some members of the faculty committee, and perhaps members
of the university administration, will attend a subject related professional development
conference focused on creativity and innovation.
• By January 15, 2020 the committee shall begin curriculum planning in earnest, utilizing
what was learned through site visits, consultant meetings and their own self-study of best
practices in creativity, innovation in higher education.
• By July 1, 2020, the curriculum planning will be completed.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 83

• On August 15 2020, a university-wide campaign focused on creativity and innovation
begins.
• In January 2021, the registrar, administration and department chairs schedule class
offerings that include classes related to creativity and innovation.
• Finally, in the semester that begins August 2021, classes in the new curriculum are
offered and the curriculum is fully implemented into the schedule and offerings of the
university.
Implementation Constraints and Challenges
There are several possible implementation constraints and challenges exist, mostly
having to do with finances or motivation. It is also possible that acceptance of the university-
wide initiative will be mixed. Specifically, the administration may not be willing to fund
initiatives at all levels for all purposes including professional development, course releases, load
reductions, and engaging an outside consulting company. The surveys and interviews in this
study found that the select faculty are motivated and accepting of the idea in theory, although
they believe organizational constraints will prevent its implementation. If the organizational
constraints are removed, faculty may have different perspectives on implementation procedures
or the extent to which such changes should be made. Additionally, faculty on the curriculum
committee may differ among themselves regarding best practices, implementation, priorities, and
curricular development. Another limitation may be that because several other initiatives have
been tried with mixed results, stakeholders at all levels may consider this just another idea
without real guidance purpose or value. It should be noted that the select faculty for this study
and the administration do value the creation of such a program in theory. However, various
stakeholders may not agree on the level of its importance, its comprehensive approach, or the
opportunity cost of not pursuing other valued initiatives.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 84

Evaluation Plan
To measure effectiveness and ensure the success of the previously stated proposed
solutions, an evaluation plan is essential. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) describe a four-part
process that measures policy and procedural interventions to determine their effectiveness. These
include reaction, learning, behavior, and impact. Level 1 measures satisfaction and engagement
with the intervention proposed. Level 2 assesses learning, commitment, and confidence
regarding the proposed policy intervention. Level 3 measures behavior change and application of
learning and Level 4 assesses overall impact (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Table 13 shows
each of the three interventions proposed and Levels 1 through 4 assessments.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 85

Table 20
Interventions and Corresponding Levels 1-4
Intervention
proposed
Assessment of
satisfaction and
engagement with
intervention
(Level 1)
Reaction
Assessment of
learning,
commitment,
confidence
(Level 2) Learning
Assessment of
behavior change,
application of
learning
(Level 3) Behavior
Assessment of
impact

(Level 4) Impact
1. Train
selected
faculty to
develop
undergraduate
program in
curriculum
and
innovation
• Administer
satisfaction
survey at the
end of each
month from
beginning of
curriculum
writing to
completion
• Monitor
attendance and
progress toward
stated goals
• Observe a
curriculum
meeting and
informally ask
participants
about
satisfaction and
engagement
• Final program
survey assessing
confidence and
commitment to the
change
• Ask selected
faculty to write up
a “lessons learned”
narrative about
professional
development
conference, site
visit to exemplar
institution, and
meetings
• Survey
participants prior
to the beginning
of curriculum
writing phase
• Observe progress
toward curriculum
creation and
quality of
curriculum by
sending rough
draft to hired
consultant for
review and
feedback
• Completed,
research-based
scope and
sequence of
curriculum based
on best practices
complete with
content guides for
classes
• Monitor student
final assessments
in classes offered
for evidence of
learning and
satisfaction

2. Give
selected
faculty
committee
time and
incentives to
develop
undergraduate
curriculum
• Monitor
participation
rates,
satisfaction,
and numbers of
meetings
through in
formal
interview with
faculty
committee
project
manager
• Survey of
participants
midway through
curriculum writing
to determine if
adequate and
timely progress is
made. Also, to
include information
on
information/conten
t gleaned from
training
• Monitor progress
and obtain
feedback from
faculty committee
chairperson to
assess progression
toward timeline for
completion
• Ask
administration for
list of related
course releases for
each member on
the faculty
committee
• Monitor progress
of faculty
committee
through informal
check-ins to
determine if
faculty have
enough time to
complete the
initiative midway
through process.
• Review faculty
final load forms
for evidence of
course releases
• Review quality of
completed
curriculum with
surveys from
faculty,
administration,
and consultant
Table 20, continued
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 86

Intervention
proposed
Assessment of
satisfaction and
engagement with
intervention
(Level 1)
Reaction
Assessment of
learning,
commitment,
confidence
(Level 2) Learning
Assessment of
behavior change,
application of
learning
(Level 3) Behavior
Assessment of
impact

(Level 4) Impact
3. Prioritize
the initiative
across the
College of
Arts and
Sciences and
the University
• Administer
survey
measuring
satisfaction to
all stakeholders
including
faculty
administration
staff and
students before
and after
initiative roll out
• Survey asking all
stakeholders about
their knowledge,
participation, and
enthusiasm of the
initiative.
• Survey asking
faculty,
administration,
staff and students
about the scope and
impact of the
initiative
• Survey asking
faculty,
administration,
staff and students
about the scope and
impact of the
initiative
• Document analysis
of marketing
publications
distributed to
students, faculty
and staff

Intervention 1: Train Selected Faculty
In order to measure Level 1, satisfaction, for the first proposed intervention, which is
training select faculty to develop a undergraduate program in curriculum and innovation,
satisfaction will be measured in three ways: (a) by administering a survey to the faculty
committee to measure satisfaction at the end of each month from the beginning of the curriculum
writing to its completion, (b) by informally monitoring attendance in curriculum meetings and
progress towards goals with the faculty committee, and (c) By observing curriculum meetings
and informally asking participants about their respective levels of satisfaction and engagement.
For Level 2, learning assessment, learning, commitment and confidence will be measured
by asking selected faculty to write a lessons-learned narrative about professional development
conference site visits, and consultant meetings.
For Level 3, behavior change, a survey will be administered to faculty participants at the
beginning of the curriculum writing phase and the quality of the curriculum will be assessed by
the dean of the college of arts and sciences.
Finally, for Level 4, impact, the selected faculty group will complete a research-based
scope and sequence of curriculum based on best practices, complete with class prospectuses for
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 87

new classes. Additionally, student final assessments for the classes offered will be administered
and monitored for evidence of learning and satisfaction among the students.
Intervention 2: Provide time to Develop Curriculum
For the second intervention, give the selected faculty committee time and incentives to
develop an undergraduate curriculum, satisfaction will be measured by monitoring attendance at
curriculum writing sessions and through an informal interview with the faculty committee
chairperson managing the project.
Level 2, learning assessment, will be measured in two ways: (a) by a survey of faculty
committee members midway through the curriculum writing process to determine if adequate
and timely progress is made which will include information on content gleaned from the training,
and (b) progress will be monitored and feedback obtained from faculty committee project
manager to assess progress toward timeline for completion.
Level 3, behavior, will be assessed in two ways: (a) by obtaining a list of related course
releases for each member on the faculty committee and (b) by monitoring the progress of the
faculty committee through informal check-ins to determine if they have enough time to complete
the initiative midway through the process.
Level 4, impact, will be measured by reviewing faculty final load forms for evidence of
course releases and by reviewing quality of completed curriculum with surveys from the faculty,
administration, and the hired consultant.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 88

Intervention 3: Prioritize the Initiative
The final intervention, prioritizing initiative across the college of arts and sciences and
the university, will be measured according to the four levels as well. Level 1, satisfaction, will be
measured by administering satisfaction surveys to all stakeholders during the initiative roll out
phase. Level 2, learning assessment, will be measured by surveying all stakeholders about their
knowledge, participation, and enthusiasm regarding the initiative. Level 3, behavior, will be
measured by surveying faculty, administration, staff, and students about the scope and impact of
the initiative. Finally, Level 4, impact, will be measured by surveying faculty, administration,
staff, and students about the scope and impact of the initiative through a document analysis of
marketing publications distributed throughout the university about this initiative.
Conclusion
In conclusion, using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, this study analyzed the
potential for creating an undergraduate curriculum in creativity and innovation at University X.
Various elements were examined through interviews and surveys to a select group of faculty who
met specific criteria, and, while the selected group exhibited high levels of knowledge and
motivation, organizational constraints and limitations were evident. University X has great
potential, talent, awareness, and capacity to align its undergraduate curriculum with its stated
mission and goals. University X can prioritize an undergraduate curriculum in creativity and
innovation, which is explicitly stated in its mission and core values. By doing so, University X
can help equip, train, and prepare undergraduates for a changing workplace that demands
creativity, innovation, and adaptability. What is more, lessons learned from this study can help
similar institutions consider modernizing curricula. This is essential in a knowledge economy if
institutions of higher education are to remain relevant and effective by training the next
generation of creative innovators in the 21
st
century.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 89

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 90

References
Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (1999). Frequency, recall and usefulness of
undergraduate ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 3(3), 241-253.
Alves, J., Marques, M. J., Saur, I., & Marques, P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through
multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 16(1), 27-34.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman Publishing.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
Antonelli, C., & Fassio, C. (2016), The role of external knowledge(s) in the introduction of
product and process innovations. R&D Manage, 46, 979–991. doi:10.1111/radm.12159
Apple, M. W. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1‐2), 11-
29.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baer, J. (2003). The impact of the core knowledge curriculum on creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 15(2-3), 297-300.
Baird, M. I. (1996). Justice for youth: The betrayal of childhood in the United States. JL &
Pol'y, 5, 177.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 91

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate
education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26.
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects
on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research
organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70.
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. Educause
Review, 47(2), 23-33.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bracey, G. W. (2004). International comparisons: Less than meets the eye. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(6), 477.
Bracey, G. W. (2009). PISA: Not leaning hard on US economy. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 450-
451.
Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A
compilation of institutional good practices. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek, July 10 (2010)
Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2010). The global auction: The broken promises of
education, jobs, and incomes. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Bull, K. S., & Davis, G. A. (1982). Inventory for appraising adult creativity. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1-8.
Burroughs, J. E., Dahl, D. W., Moreau, C. P., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G. J. (2011).
Facilitating and rewarding creativity during new product development. Journal of
Marketing, 75(4), 53-67.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 92

Campbell, N. D., Heriot, K. C., & Finney, R. Z. (2006). In defense of silos: An argument against
the integrative undergraduate business curriculum. Journal of Management
Education, 30(2), 316-332.
Candy, P. C., Crebert, G., & O'leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through
undergraduate education (Vol. 28). Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Carr, A., & Tomasco, S. (2010). The most important leadership quality for CEOs?
Creativity. Fast Company, 5, 1-5.
Carr, D. (2010). The philosophy of education and educational theory. The SAGE handbook of
philosophy of education, 37-53.
Carr, S. D., Halliday, A., King, A. C., Liedtka, J., & Lockwood, T. (2010). The influence of
design thinking in business: Some preliminary observations. Design Management
Review, 21(3), 58-63.
Clanchy, J., & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic skills in the context of higher education. Higher
Education Research and Development, 14(2), 155-166.
Clapham, M. M. (2003). The development of innovative ideas through creativity training.In The
International Handbook on Innovation. Shavinina, L. (Ed.) (pp. 366-376). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher
education research. Higher Education, 32(4), 417-430.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of
Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. Elsevier Science Regional Sales, 665
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 (paperback: ISBN-0-08-0433545;
hardcover: ISBN-0-08-0433421,
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 93

Clark, C. (1999). Inclusive education and schools as organizations. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 3(1), 37-51.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press..
Conti, R., Amabile, T. M., & Pollack, S. (1995). Enhancing intrinsic motivation, learning, and
creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 1107-1116.
Cropley, A. J. (1990). Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research
Journal, 3(3), 167-178.
Cropley, A. J. (Ed.). (2014). Towards a system of lifelong education: Some practical
considerations (Vol. 7). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.
High Ability Sstudies, 11(2), 207-219.
Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Seifert, C. M. (2014). Teaching creativity in engineering
courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417-449.
Dawson, R. J., Newsham, R. W., & Fernley, B. W. (1997). Bringing the real world' of software
engineering to university undergraduate courses. IEE Proceedings-Software Engineering,
144(5), 287-290.
DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334(6062), 1499-1500.
Des Marchais, J. E., Bureau, M. A., Dumais, B., & Pigeon, G. (1992). From traditional to
problem‐based learning: A case report of complete curriculum reform. Medical
Education, 26(3), 190-199.
Dohn, N. B. (2007). Knowledge and skills for PISA—Assessing the assessment. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 41(1), 1-16.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 94

Driver, M. (2001). Fostering creativity in business education: Developing creative classroom
environments to provide students with critical workplace competencies. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(1), 28-33.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). Why problem-based learning. The power of
problem-based learning, (pp. 3-11). Stylus: Sterling, VA.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Dymond, R., Boyle, K., Beliveau, Y. J., Goss, R. C., Kumar, R., & Wiseman, E. (2015).
Development of an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Program in Real Estate: Breaking
Down University Silos. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 18(2), 141-162.
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. J. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher
education, Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123.
Erikson, T. (2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging venture's most important asset and
competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 275-290.
Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An American
retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 319-336.
Ferrari, Anusca & Cachia, Romina & Punie, Yves. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in
Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and
Supporting Innovative Teaching Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T
in the EU Member States (ICEAC).
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 95

Gaff, J. G., & Ratcliff, J. L. (1997). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A
comprehensive guide to the purposes, structures, practices, and change. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gandin, L. A. (2006). Creating real alternatives to neoliberal policies in education. The subaltern
speak, 217-242. New Yor, NY: Routledge.
Geist, E., & Hohn, J. (2009). Encouraging creativity in the face of administrative convenience:
How our schools discourage divergent thinking. Education 130, 141-150,
Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative innovation
networks. Oxford University Press.
Glover, J. A. (1980). A creativity-training workshop: Short-term, long-term, and transfer
effects. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136(1), 3-16.
Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2010). The other side of innovation: Solving the execution
challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Green, L., & Kreuter, M. (1999). The precede–proceed model. Health promotion planning: An
educational approach (3rd ed). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Guilford, J. P. (1985). The structure-of-intellect model. Handbook of intelligence. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449.
Hass, R. W. (2013). Historiometry as extension of the consensual assessment technique: A
comment on Kaufman and Baer (2012). Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 356-360.
Hass, R. W., Weisberg, R. W., & Choi, J. (2010). Quantitative case-studies in musical
composition: The development of creativity in popular-songwriting teams. Psychology of
Music, 38(4), 463-479.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 96

Hebert, E., & Worthy, T. (2001). Does the first year of teaching have to be a bad one? A case
study of success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 897-911.
Hickson, J., & Housley, W. (1997). Creativity in later life. Educational Gerontology: An
International Quarterly, 23(6), 539-547.
Holley, K. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary strategies as transformative change in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 331-344.
Hubball, H., & Gold, N. (2007). The scholarship of curriculum practice and undergraduate
program reform: Integrating theory into practice. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2007(112), 5-14.
Hubball, H., & Poole, G. D. (2004). Learning-centered education to meet the diverse needs and
circumstances of university faculty through an 8-month programme on teaching and
learning in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 8, 11-24.
Hubball, H., & Burt, H. (2004). An integrated approach to developing and implementing
learning‐centered curricula. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 51-
65.
Hyun, E. (2006). Transforming instruction into pedagogy through curriculum
negotiation. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(1), 136-164.
Jacobs, D. (2017). Banish your inner critic: Silence the voice of self-doubt to unleash your
creativity and do your best work. Coral Gables, FL: Mango Media.
Jones, E. A. (2002). Transforming the curriculum: Preparing students for a changing world.
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 97

Kanpol, B. (1995). Outcome-based education and democratic commitment: Hopes and
possibilities. Educational Policy, 9(4), 359-374.
Karnes, M. B., McCoy, G. F., Zehrbach, R. R., Wollersheim, J. P., Clarizio, H. F., Costin, L., &
Stanley, L. S. (1961). Factors associated with underachievement and overachievement of
intellectually gifted children. Exceptional Children, 28(4), 167-175.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295.
Kim, K. H., & Pierce, R. A. (2013). Torrance’s innovator meter and the decline of creativity in
America. In The routledge international handbook of innovation education, Shavinina, L.
(Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.153-167.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. & Kirkpatrick J.L. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: CA. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detriot, MI: Wayne state
university press.
Kogan, M. (2000). Higher education communities and academic identity. Higher Education
Quarterly, 54(3), 207-216.
Kupperschmidt, B. R., & Burns, P. (1997). Curriculum revision isn't just change: It's
transition! Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(2), 90-98.
Lange, A. (2016, August 4). The innovation campus: Building better ideas. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/education/edlife/innovation-
campus-entrepreneurship-engineering-arts.html
Le Maistre, C., & Paré, A. (2004). Learning in two communities: The challenge for universities
and workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 44-52.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 98

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course‐taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the
transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-154.
Luecke, R., & Katz, R. (2003). Harvard business essentials: Managing creativity and
innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Marshall, K. (2013). Puppetry in dementia care: Connecting through creativity and joy.
Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity
and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
McClellan, Timothy (2013) Creative learning approaches for undergraduate self-
development. University of Southampton, Southampton Education School, Doctoral
Thesis, 345pp
McInerney, M. J., & Fink, L. D. (2003). Team-based learning enhances long-term retention and
critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Microbiology
Education, 4, 3.
McIntyre, F. S., Hite, R. E., & Rickard, M. K. (2003). Individual characteristics and creativity in
the marketing classroom: Exploratory insights. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2),
143-149.
McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review
of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226-246.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 99

McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem‐based
learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical
Education, 38(8), 859-867.
McWilliam, Erica L. (2007) Is Creativity Teachable? Conceptualising the Creativity/Pedagogy
Relationship in Higher Education. In 30th HERDSA Annual Conference : Enhancing
Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, 8-11 July 2007, Adelaide.
Meyer, H. D., & Benavot, A. (Eds.). (2013, May). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of
global educational governance. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books Ltd.
National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, D.C.:
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers.
National Science Foundation. (2004). Interdisciplinary training for undergraduates in biological
and mathematical sciences: Program solicitation. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04546/nsf04546.htm
Newell, W. H., Wentworth, J., & Sebberson, D. (2001). A theory of interdisciplinary
studies. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 19(1), 1-25.
Newman, D. (2017, September 26). Top 10 trends for digital transformation in 2018. Forbes.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2017/09/26/top-10-trends-
for-digital-transformation-in-2018/#1a26690d293a
Pappano, L. (2014, February 8). Learning to think outside the box: Creativity becomes an
academic discipline. The New York Times, pp. 1-8.
Parekh, B. Fighting the War on Dogma, Canadian Association of University Teachers Bulletin,
54, 1, January 2007.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 100

Parikh, S., Murali, M. P., Dhar, M. S., Sequeira, M. L., Com, M., & Edu-Tech, B. S. (2007
December 27) Creativity and innovation can be jumpstarted in all. Paper presented at
31
st
Indian Scocial Science Congress: Mumbai, India.
Parsell, G., Spalding, R., & Bligh, J. (1998). Shared goals, shared learning: Eevaluation of a
multiprofessional course for undergraduate students. Medical Education, 32(3), 304-311.
Pechar H. (2012) The Decline of an Academic Oligarchy. The Bologna Process and ‘Humboldt’s
Last Warriors’. In: Curaj A., Scott P., Vlasceanu L., Wilson L. (eds) European Higher
Education at the Crossroads. Springer, Dordrecht
Pfirman, S. L., Collins, J. P., Lowes, S., & Michaels, A. F. (2005). Collaborative efforts:
Promoting interdisciplinary scholars. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(23), B15.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pintrich, R. P., & Shunk, H. D. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research, and
applications (pp. 117-119). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Power, C. N. (2000). Global trends in education. International Education Journal, 1(3), 152-163.
Prais, S. J. (2003). Cautions on OECD's recent educational survey (PISA). Oxford Review of
Education, 29(2), 139-163.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership
from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the
pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 170-182.
Rhoten, D. (2003). A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for
interdisciplinary collaboration. [PDF file] Retrived from http://ssrc-
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 101

cdn1.s3.amazonaws.com/crmuploads/new_publication_3/%7B91820A2E-B970-DE11-
BD80-001CC477EC70%7D.pdf
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching
and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2004(97), 127-135.
Robelen, E. (2005). 40 years after ESEA, federal role in schools is broader than ever. Education
Week, 24(31), 1-42.
Robinson, A., & Stern, S. (1998). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement
actually happen. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum. A history of the american undergraduate course of study since
1636. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Runco, M. (2004). Personal creativity and culture. In S. Lau,, A. Hui & G. Ng (Eds.), Creativity:
When east meets west (pp. 9-21). Beijing, China: World Scientific.
Runco, M. A. (1999). A longitudinal study of exceptional giftedness and creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 12(2), 161-164.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(3), 243-267.
Sarsani, M. R. (2006). Creativity in schools. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
Schneider, C. G. & Shoenberg, R. (1999). Habits hard to break: How persistent features of
campus life frustrate curricular reform. Change, March/April, 30–35.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 102

Smith, B. L., & McCann, J. (2001). Reinventing ourselves: Interdisciplinary Education,
collaborative learning, and experimentation in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning
in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology
Review, 21(4), 365-378.
Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action.

Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Routledge.
Tepper, S. (2006). Taking the measure of the creative campus. Peer Review, 8(2), 4-7.
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century:
Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.
Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. M. (2004). Restructuring shared governance in higher education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the Creativity of Elementary School Children (1958-80)—and
the Teacher Who" Made a Difference." Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55-62.
University of Michigan (2018). Critical and creative thinking. Retrived from
http://umich.edu/~elements/probsolv/strategy/crit-n-creat.htm
Weisberg, R. W., & Hass, R. (2007). Commentaries: We are all partly right: Comment on
Simonton. Creativity Research Journal, 19(4), 345-360.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
Wiles, J., Bondi, J., & Sowell, E. J. (2002). Foundations of curriculum and instruction. Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 103

Yeo, B. J. K. (2010). Driving the knowledge economy: Explaining the impact of regional
innovation capacity on economic performance. Contemporary Management
Research, 6(1), 71-86.
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 104

Appendix A
Survey

Knowledge

1. I have a working knowledge of what creativity and innovation are as they relate to
curriculum reform in higher education.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. I am able to operationalize creativity and innovation in reforming university curricula

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. I am aware of best practices in the disciplines of creativity and innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. I am able to develop a scope and sequence of curriculum.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. I know where to find scholarship on creativity on innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. I think about ways to be creative and innovative at work.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Motivation

7. There is value in teaching a curriculum involving creativity and innovation to
undergraduates.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

8. I personally believe that creativity and innovation are important in an undergraduate
curriculum.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

9. I prioritize curriculum and assignments that include creativity and innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 105

10. It is worth my time and the improvement the undergraduate curriculum to develop a
program in creativity and innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

11. I feel that the faculty could develop an effective program in curriculum and innovation if
they were asked to do so.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

12. I want to learn more about creativity and innovation and how to implement in the
curriculum.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Organization

13. I believe that the university can offer an undergraduate curriculum that includes
creativity and innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

14. A plan to incorporate creativity and innovation aligns with the University’s mission and
core values.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

15. The University will benefit if it emphasizes creativity and innovation at the
undergraduate level

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

16. The university values innovation and creativity.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 106

17. The administration would welcome and support programs in undergraduate creativity and
innovation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1. How could the current curriculum be improved to include classes, learning modules, or a
curriculum that focus on creativity and innovation?

2. What are some ways that the university can produce students who are creative and
innovative?

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 107

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Knowledge

1. Can you tell me about some interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary lessons you’ve created
in the past?

2. Do you have some creative or innovative ideas about undergraduate program reform? If
so, can you tell me about them?
3. What are some ways you’ve seen creativity and innovation incorporated within your
specific discipline?
4. Have you encountered scholarship on the topics of creativity and innovation? If so, could
you tell me what you’ve found?
5. Do you incorporate creativity and innovation in your classroom? If so how?
Motivation
6. If there was an initiative to develop a creativity and innovation program at the
undergraduate level to what extent might you be involved?
7. Would you like to see a plan emphasizing creativity and innovation at the undergraduate
level? If so, what might it look like?
8. Do you actively seek out creative or innovative ideas to use in your classroom? If so,
where do you look for such ideas, and could you provide some examples?
9. Do you value creativity and innovation in higher education? If so, what kind of value do
you place on these topics?
10. Can you tell me about some innovative curricular ideas you’ve developed either within
your classroom or other curricular initiatives at the university with whih you’ve been
involved?
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 108

11. How do you feel when you hear of creative or innovative ideas in the teaching of
undergraduate students?
Organization
12. Could you envision University X forming a plan for creativity and innovation at the
undergraduate level? If so, what might this look like?
13. Can you tell me a little bit about the Department of Innovation and the Department of
Interdisciplinary Studies and what they do and if they are consistent with the mission and
values of the university?
14. Can you talk a little bit about the ability and willingness for University X to create a
program in creativity and innovation and how this might benefit the university?
15. Do you think the university would be supportive of the teaching of creativity and
innovation at the undergraduate level?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the viability of developing an undergraduate program in creativity and innovation at a liberal arts university in the Midwestern United States. The methodological framework used was a qualitative analysis in which data were collected through survey and interviews of eight faculty members at the university. These faculty members met specific criteria that indicated the possibility of their eventual involvement in the formation of such a curriculum. Using Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework as a model to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps to develop a model for improvement, findings indicated that the faculty members interviewed and surveyed possessed the knowledge and motivational resources to develop a curriculum for undergraduates in creativity and innovation. However, they may be hindered by various organizational constraints. Solutions based on the data collected and analyzed seek to bridge gaps between current practices at the university and what may be required to create and implement a creativity and innovation curriculum. The study also offers insights which may be transferable to other universities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Increasing the number of petroleum engineering students in the United Arab Emirates: an improvement model

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Girls in STEM: the underrepresented trajectory in Tennessee: an innovation study

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

Creating a faith-integrated Bachelor of Science nursing program: an innovation model

PDF

Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at public research universities: a gap analysis

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Leading the country in TVET: Don Bosco Technical Vocational Education and Training Center

PDF

Chinese students’ preparedness for university studies in the United States

PDF

Culturally responsive leadership in American K-12 education: a gap analysis of a large urban district

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Pierros, William Andrew (author)

Core Title Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 12/11/2018

Defense Date 12/11/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag creativity,curriculum,Higher education,innovation,international education,OAI-PMH Harvest,undergraduate

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Krop, Cathy Sloane (committee member), Robison, Mark Power (committee member)

Creator Email pierros@usc.edu,willpierros@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-111952

Unique identifier UC11676803

Identifier etd-PierrosWil-7006.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-111952 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PierrosWil-7006.pdf

Dmrecord 111952

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Pierros, William Andrew

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA