Creativity for Architectural Education

discussion31 Sledge-Creativity2

Creativity for Architectural Education

Now that the instructor has introduced the topic during class….What is your reaction to
the reading on the field of Creativity Studies? Do you agree with the assertations the
author makes? What is your take-away? Did you understand what the “Innovation
Economy” was prior to this reading… and how important creativity is now in the
business world? Do you think it is relevant to Interior Architecture here at Sac State?
How do you feel about collaborating on creative/design work in school? Can you give
an example of how YOU might apply this knowledge? What connections do you see
between Creativity Studies and the lectures on “American Design” in class so
far? What other related topics do you wish to discuss with the class?

Excerpt From Dr. Sledge’s Dissertation: “Multidisciplinary collaboration, dialogue, and
creative efforts across the environmental design disciplines are needed to resolve
problems that architects face today such as dwindling resources, accumulating waste,
obsolescing technologies, and stagnating job opportunities. Because the pace of
innovation is accelerating, a wide array of contributors such as designers, researchers,
manufacturers, contractors, investors, marketers, and distributors are needed to realize
new ideas as new products. Hence, multidisciplinary approaches in design education are
needed now more than ever to encourage and support innovation. Further, an economy
built on innovation is generating new opportunities for designers to create
collectively. According to a new report from the World Economic Forum representing
millions of employees in professional roles, it is clear that creativity at professional work is
going to be one of the most important and in-demand skills in the next 5 years. This
comes from a new Forum report, The Future of Jobs (Links to an external site.), which
took input from an extensive survey of CHROs and other senior talent and strategy
executives from a total of 371 leading global employers, representing more than 13
million employees. The report asked chief human resources and strategy officers from
leading global employers what the current economic and technological shifts mean,
specifically for employment, skills and recruitment across industries and
geographies. They said creativity is going to be the third most important skill overall, as
shown in Table 1.1. Note that creativity was ranked 10th just six years ago.”

Table 1.1. World Economic Forum Ranks Creativity as Third Most In-Demand Skill of 2020

Note. Table retrieved from
(https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2016/09/leaders-agree-creativity-
will-3rd-important-work- skill-2020/ (Links to an external site.))
Sledge-Creativity

Collaboration,Dialogue, and Creativity 68

architectural education instruction. Based upon the findings, architectural education can employ

dialogue to foster collaboration and agency to tackle systems-level problems. Lastly, combining

dialogue with collaborative design can become a means to address persistent diversity/inclusion

problems (Anthony, 2002; Lehtomäki et al., 2019) in architectural education as well.

Summary of Literature Review on Dialogue for Architectural Education

Scholars have made a compelling argument for the inclusion of dialogue in higher

education to improve communication, enhance understanding, and foster learning. Researchers

have highlighted the generative potential of dialogue to achieve collective intelligence, enable

collaboration, and address environmental responsibility. Empirical research has shown that

dialogue can be transformational in higher education and a necessary skill for community

stakeholder engagement in public architecture. In response, this literature review has highlighted

the omission of dialogue from the repertoire of pedagogies required in accredited architecture

degree programs. It has also revealed the need to better define dialogue terminology, define

what dialogue is, and what it means in the context of architectural education. The review of

literature was broad, but effective in revealing the potential of dialogue for architectural design.

Stream 3: Creativity for Architectural Education

“Creativity is a term that often is used in education, but rarely defined” (Beghetto, 2005,

p. 255). The review of literature on creativity in architectural education begins with a working

definition of creativity to establish common understanding. For this dissertation and literature

review specifically, the definition of creativity aligns with Beghetto (2005), “Creativity involves

a combination of uniqueness and usefulness. Creativity is the interaction among aptitude,

process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is

both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (p. 255). The conceptual framework of

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 69

this study focused on collaborative co-creativity and directed the literature review on creativity

for architectural education, to a “Problem Solving and Expertise” theoretical framework.

To begin, a sense of balance must be maintained when reviewing creativity scholarship

because research has shown creativity is affected by factors beyond ability, education, and

current understanding. For example, (Zenasni et al., 2008) conducted an empirical study that

identified four interrelated factors: the creative person, product, press, and process that affect

creative achievement. Hence, the researchers showed that creativity does not operate in a

vacuum but “it is widely believed that creativity depends on the presence of several factors that

interact with each other such as individual’s knowledge, personality traits, cognitive style, and

motivation” (Mahmoud et al., 2020, p. 181). And although “divergent thinking” has been shown

in the (TTCT) Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966) to be the most correlated

attribute to creative ability, questions have been raised recently on the application of the TTCT in

architectural design (Potur, 016; Hamza & Hassan, 2016). The researcher notes that the TTCT

measures Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstraction of titles, and Resistance to Premature

Closure, which overlap with the RDCA utilized in this study. This third literature stream is not

exhaustive but focused; it situates architecture within “Creativity Studies,” and explores

creativity theories most aligned with architectural education.

Theorizing Creativity in a Problem Solving and Expertise Framework

According to Kozbelt, Beghetto, and Runco (2010), “creative solutions to ill-defined

problems result from a rational process, which relies on general cognitive processes and domain

expertise [of] person, process, & product” (p. 28). This framework has often been used in

architectural education parlance because there are as many different solutions as there are

designers. Indeed, each student aspires to generate a different solution from peers, as a badge of

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 70

honor. Unfortunately, students often view being different as being better in both architectural

school and practice (Tzonis, 2014b). The first edition of the Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity provides insight on creative problem solving in architectural education:

Problem solving has usually been studied in puzzle-problems… but its principles also

apply to ill-defined problems, which are more relevant to creativity. Such problems, like

writing a symphony or designing a house [emphasis added], have goals and operators that

are not pre-specified and that admit multiple “good enough” solutions, rather than one

“correct” answer. (Kozbelt et al., 2010, p. 33).

Hence, architectural design is regarded to be an ill-defined problem with innumerable potential

solutions, and the expectation of architectural design education is not that the students will find

“the solution,” but a “good solution” in the “Problem Solving and Expertise” framework.

Yet, this is not as straightforward as it might seem. Like other design professions,

architecture is a purposeful act undertaken on behalf of clients, and creative expression in

architecture depends upon innate ability and domain-specific training. To explore the construct

of creativity for architectural education more closely, four additional canonical theories from the

discipline of Creativity Studies are proposed for architectural design education: (a) “Four C

Model of Creativity” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), (b) “Investment Theory of Creativity”

(Sternberg & Lubart, 1991), (c) “Four Stages of the Creative Process” (Wallas, 1926), and (d)

“Wicked Problems” theory (Sawyer, 2012; Rittel & Weber, 1973).

The Four C Model of Creativity Theory for Architectural Education

First, in their essay, “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity,” authors

Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) define creativity in orders of magnitude: mini-c, little-c, Pro-C,

and Big-C creativity (see Figure 2.5). First, Mini-c creativity is personally meaningful creative

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 71

expression in a particular sociocultural context to construct personal knowledge; all humans have

this, not only children with whom it is often associated. Second, Little-c creativity, or everyday

creativity, is exhibited by all humans with expressions that are recognized and appreciated by

others. Third, Pro-C creativity is an accomplished level of creativity usually within a specific

domain, including commercial artists and designers, professional musicians, and architects.

Pro-C creatives may achieve fame, but the last category is reserved for the rarest class,

Big-C creativity. This fifth level is recognized as eminent, legendary, genius, and unfortunately

usually recognized posthumously because it is dependent upon the judgment of experts who

cannot fully appreciate this level of creative contribution due to limitations of their zeitgeist. As

examples, Big-C creatives regarded as geniuses in Pennsylvania while still alive were architects

Frank Furness, Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn, and Robert Venturi (Sledge, 2019, p. 106).

Figure 2.5

Graphic Representation of The Four C Model of Creativity Theory

Note. The hypotenuse varies according to the velocity an individual progresses through the creative

stages and the height of achievement. Children exhibit “Mini-c” creativity, adults continue to develop to

possess “Little-c” creativity, and “Pro-C” creatives are creative professionally, such as architects. “Big-C”

creatives pull the domain forward ahead of their zeitgeist. Few people defy the crowd to reach the

zenith of creative achievement and genius. Creativity is a human trait, but no statistically significant

correlation has been found between creativity, gender, or ethnicity (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 72

The Investment Theory of Creativity for Architectural Education

The second theory from Creativity Studies that applies to architectural education is the

“Investment Theory of Creativity” by Sternberg and Lubart (1991). This theory conceives the

creative effort as an investment that the inventor capitalizes later, i.e., buying low and selling

high, like a skillful investor. It also recognizes that creative people often undervalue their ideas,

and like undervalued stocks, the public often rejects both. Indeed, it is well known that many

artists only become famous after death, long after the “investment” the inventor can reap the

rewards. To combat this outcome, the Investment Theory of Creativity proposes six interrelated

resources that must be cultivated: motivation and self-esteem, Knowledge specific to the domain,

thinking styles adapted to the task and resources at hand, intellectual ability to redefine problems,

personality traits conducive to creativity, and the environment or context of the creator.

The Investment Theory should encourage design students to “invest” their time, talent,

and education to build a “portfolio” of attributes, skills, and contacts to prepare for lucrative

future opportunities. Also, architecture schools usually require many notoriously exhausting

sleepless nights in architectural design studios as a rite of passage. These “all-nighters” could be

recast as long-term investments, making the “sacrifice” palpable in the short-term. This theory

also suggests that the development of personality traits, skills, knowledge, inner-drive, and

immediate context should be “managed” for good grades in architecture school, and “invested”

for monetary rewards in the profession of architecture after graduation, as shown in Figure 2.6.

Creative students must invest in themselves, their creativity, their career, and defy the crowd

although it entails risk and ambiguity. Students who are highly creative also run the risk of

displeasing their professor or supervisor, and experience diminished creative self-efficacy after

their investments are rejected (Beghetto, 2016; Kaufman &Sternberg, 2019; Sternberg, 2006).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 73

The Investment Theory also relates to architectural education through a sociocultural

framework proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1988) as a systems theory of creativity. There are

three components of this systems theory that relate to architectural education. First, the creative

domain is the architecture school context in which investors learn the craft, skills, and knowledge

required to invest. Second, the up-and-coming investors (architecture students) push the domain

(the body of knowledge taught in architectural education) forward to evolve through innovation.

Third, architecture professors act as gatekeepers who are experts in the domain knowledge and

judge the worth of new designs. Thus, creativity is a balance of established architecture

professionals who already made a considerable investment to amass great knowledge (wealth),

and the young new investors (students) who are trying to achieve what their mentors have, all in

the space of the domain (the body of knowledge commonly known as architecture. “The mutual

interplay among the components in the systems model echoes interactions between organisms

and environments in biological evolution, which produce meaningful novelty and change”

(Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019, p. 123).

Figure 2.6

Graphic Representation of the Investment Theory of Creativity

INVESTMENTS:
Motivation Knowledge Thinking Styles Intellectual Skills Personality Traits Contextual Impact
Intrinsic Informal Legislative Redefine Problems Risk-Taking Discouraging
Extrinsic Formal Executive Divergent Thinking Tolerance of Ambiguity Supportive
Esteem Domain Judicial Imagination/Insight Resistance to Premature Closure Zeitgeist

PRODUCTS OF CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT

Note. Figure adapted from the work of (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 74

The Four Stages of the Creative Process Theory for Architectural Education

Third, determination and strategic effort must not be discounted for creativity according

to Wallas (1926) “Four Stages of the Creative Process”: preparation, incubation, illumination,

and verification. First, the creative process includes all effort that goes into the design process

before the “design” begins. The “preparation” stage in architectural education could consist of

creativity-enhancing exercises such as “Thinkertoys” (Michalko, 2006) and prior design classes.

Second, it takes time to conceive ideas that are workable in architectural design and there is no

set rule for how long the “incubation” stage will last for everyone or every time. Brainstorming

can be used in this stage to discover questions and ponder ideas. Third, the “illumination” stage

is the “ah-ha” moment that is too-often overhyped as the miraculous gift of a creative genius

working alone. The last stage is skillfully bringing a creative effort to satisfactory closure with

“verification” through convergent thinking. A constructed building is a powerful example of

verification in architectural design in the Four Stages of the Creative Process.

Hence, according to Wallas (1926), creativity is an ephemeral yet strategic undertaking

that develops over four stages of cognition to achieve closure in nuanced creative achievements.

The Four Stages of the Creative Process is well suited to architectural education (Gungor &

Yorgancioglu, 2019; Mahmoud et al., 2020) because it opens the mind to new questions and

ideas, generates dissimilar categories of ideas, iteratively develops a design, and cogently

whittles down disparate possibilities to reach an effective resolution. Although this theory is

well known in Creativity Studies, it is often not taught in architecture schools explicitly,

including the significance of “flexibility” as the ability to generate many different categories of

creative ideas (see Table 4.11 for significance to this study). Included in the “incubation” stage

of the creative process by Wallas (1926), “flexibility” is part of creativity and architectural

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 75

design also (see Figure 2.7). The Four Stages Model aligns with the architectural design process.

Figure 2.7

Graphic Representation of the Four Stages of the Creative Process Theory

Note. Aligning the Four Stages of Creative Process (Wallas, 1926) with the Hierarchy of Collaboration

Strategies for Architectural Education conceived in this study (see Figure 4.7) can help students make

informed decisions about which model of collaboration is best suited for the task at hand in design.

The Theory of Wicked Problems for Architectural Education

Fourth, architectural design falls within the theoretical framework of “wicked problems”

(Lawson, 2005; Mahmoud et al., 2020; Sawyer, 2012; Rittel & Weber, 1973). Architectural

design is considered to be an “ill-defined problem” because there is no singular definition, no

single correct answer; and it has as many solutions as creators. The challenges and opportunities

presented by clients in professional practice or by professors in architectural education are as

varied as the clients and professors that present them. Architectural design is an ill-structured

problem because there is no single path to answer problems and no fixed formula. Problems that

are both ill-defined and ill-structured are “wicked problems” (Sawyer, 2012, p.90).

A wicked problem is a complex social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible

to solve for at least four reasons: (1) incomplete or contradictory knowledge hampers problem

solving, (2) the number of people and opinions involved is large and variable, (3) the solution

entails a large economic burden, and (4) the problem is by nature interconnected with other

problems (Sawyer, 1995). Yet, creativity thrives in wicked problems (Elia & Margherita, 2018)

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 76

because they necessitate divergent thinking, resistance to premature closure, tolerance of

ambiguity, flexibility, and originality- attributes of creative people (Reisman et al., 2016). Each

designer approaches problems differently (Kowaltowski et al., 2010), especially when faced with

ill-structured problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The level of “wickedness” redefines problems

all the way through resolution, and the impossibility of achieving validity through testing.

Hence, the theory of “wicked problems” is applicable to architectural education (Lawson,

2005), and could help students understand how a work of architecture is conceived and realized

in the built environment. Design is a fluid process that necessarily resists rigidity to negotiate

competing requirements, interests, and creativity. “The Wicked Problems Theory” is applicable

to architectural education (see Figure 2.8) as a group endeavor. Kaufman and Sternberg, (2010)

state, “Creativity is seen as a system that involves people, objects, institutions, and has its own

specific temporal dynamic”(p. 738). Wicked problems in architecture can foster collaboration.

Figure 2.8

Graphic Representation of the Wicked Problems Theory

Note. The Theory of “Wicked Problems” illustrates why some problems are ill-conceived, ill-defined, ill-

structured, and may remain ill-resolved as well (Kowaltowski, 2010). Architectural education should use

heuristics for “meaning-making” and taming the difficult “wickedness” of tricky design problems.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 77

Observations on Creativity for Architectural Education

It is useful to briefly review a few representative essays by architectural educators on

creativity for context. The review begins by blending three essays, “Creativity real and imagined

in architectural education” (Tzonis, 2014b), “Creativity and knowledge in architectural

education” (Danaci, 2015), and “A new paradigm for design studio education” (Wang, 2010).

Tzonis captures the mystery surrounding architectural design in his opening sentence, “Of all

aspects of architecture what mystifies most the layman is the power of architects as “creators,”

their apparent capability to invent, conceive, and construct “out of nothing” unprecedented

daring forms” (Tzonis, 2014b, p. 331). He traces the history of the architecture profession in an

abbreviated manner that situates the Eurocentric, educated, wealthy, White, male, architect as a

creator divinely inspired by “God” and not to be questioned, a Big-C creative genius.

To cultivate this “magic act” in the 19th century when MIT opened the first school of

architecture in America in 1865 (Sledge, 2019, p. 104), architects worked in isolation behind

closed doors in highly selective design ateliers with others in the gentry. Clients were cultivated

to be thankful to receive creative inspirations while the architects obsessed over aesthetics and

forced solutions to complex problems into watercolor renderings. Pattern books were used to

generate “creative” architectural designs in vogue, which was a well-guarded secret. Thankfully,

those halcyon days of copying the published designs of “starchitects” and passing it on as “the

current cult of creativity as an elite process” (Tzonis, 2014b, p. 333), are long gone.

Tzonis continues by tracing a line from Classical, Neoclassical, and Victorian eras to how

publications became loathe to criticize the creative works of architects. He argues this led to the

myth of the “starchitect” that lingers today (p. 332). These so-called mythical star-architects like

“Howard Roark” (Rand, 1971) are rare, Big-C creatives who usually require little formal

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 78

Education, perpetuating “the myth of the lone creative genius” (Singh & Fleming, 2010).

Next, (Danaci, 2015) extends Tzonis’ criticism of architectural education, “One of the

most important problems in architectural education is that students do not have the ability to

transfer theoretical knowledge into practice. [They have] difficulties about creating their own

design ideas due to their habit of learning by rote…” (Danaci, 2015, p. 1309). From here,

Danaci traces a line to creativity studies with, “Architectural education should give students

cognitive development, and the ability to use it in the creative process. Generally, creative

thinking is believed to occur within a good knowledge hardware. The result of the design can be

more successful if you provide the knowledge when the student needs it” (p. 1311). Finally,

Wang (2010) proclaims in his first sentence, “There is a feeling among many design educators

today that, the discipline has reached a crisis in its development, and that, change is needed

immediately in the way that design educators articulate their epistemology and their

methodology” (p. 173). Wang’s proclamation reflects the origins of architectural education.

Further, scholars of architectural education (Danaci, 2015; Fisher, 2012; Tzonis, 2014b;

Wang, 2010) acknowledge the need to restructure architectural education to enhance creativity

instruction. The literature review on creativity theories has identified diverse scholars to build a

convincing case for including Creativity Studies in architectural education. Accredited programs

have been charged with preparing students to become Pro-C creative professionals. Even the

NAAB has recognized the urgent need for leadership and change. This literature review seeks to

understand the role Creativity Studies could play in architectural education to enhance student

design projects. Wang (2010) explains the problem, “Design is focused on subjective creativity,

but the positivist university paradigm is focused on objective rationality. In order for design

education to become more rigorous- and more academically respectable- it must either become

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 79

more rational, or it must embrace a new paradigm that values creative experience” (p. 173). This

review argues the later: architectural education must become part of the emerging innovation

economy by using the NAAB’s “substantive change” to Program Criteria as a catalyst for more

collaborative learning, collaborative dialogue, collaborative design, and collaborative creativity.

Conjectures on Creativity for Architectural Education

Architecture students surely possess “everyday” Little-C creativity and most achieve Pro-

C creativity as well. This level of creative achievement usually occurs after about 10 years of

training and incubation (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5), long after students graduate from

architecture school. The framework of “Problem Solving and Expertise” helps clarify what the

goals of creativity instruction in accredited architecture programs should be, and how to better

prepare students for the emerging innovation economy. Further, remembering that creativity is

originality and effectiveness, imagination and usefulness combined (Sternberg, 2006) can

help professors and students express and evaluate creativity in architectural education

In response, this literature review on creativity in architectural education raises questions.

Should Creativity Studies be focused in elective courses empowering students to express mini-c

creativity as personal flights of fancy? Should it be training that helps students develop little-c

creativity in their “everyday” lives? How will formally including “Creativity Studies” in the

curriculum of accredited architectural programs be achieved? Who will teach it with pedagogies

created for architectural design education? What might be the implications and unintended

consequences of incorporating this field of study in all architectural programs, both accredited

and unaccredited? And finally, will the inclusion of Creativity Studies produce tangible

improvements in architecture students’ design projects, and realized buildings? With these

questions serving as a backdrop, this study now turns to review literature on creativity applied to

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 80

assessing and applying creativity in architectural education. The researcher conjectures through

this literature review that integrating Creativity Studies into both the undergraduate and graduate

curricula could be transformational for architectural education, and the profession as well.

Assessing Creativity for Architectural Education

An “exploratory interview research” study, Methods that may stimulate creativity and

their use in architectural education by Kowaltowski et al. (2010) concluded that most design

instructors try to stimulate and enhance creativity in architectural education with various tools,

achieving mixed, uneven, and often ambiguous results. The researchers’ goal was “to ascertain

if design instructors explicitly structure their design pedagogy to enable the enhancement of

creativity and what tools are used for that purpose” (p. 464). The literature review of this study

uncovered 250 creativity-enhancing methods! Titles of the 20 most promising that may

stimulate creativity the best (Clegg & Birch, 2007) are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3

Creativity-Enhancing Exercises for Architectural Education

1. Assumption busting
2. CATWOE
3. Cause-effect diagram
4. Crawford slip method
5. Delphi method
6. Force-field analysis
7. Gallery
8. Input-output
9. Morphological analysis
10. NAF (Novelty, attractiveness, & functionality)
11. Other people’s viewpoints
12. PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act)
13. QFD
14. Random Stimuli
15. Relational Words
16. SCAMPER
17. Six sigma (DMAIC and DMADV)
18. Six thinking hats
19. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats)
20. Synectics

Note. List compiled by Kowaltowski et al. (2010, pp. 460-461) for architectural education instruction.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 81

Creativity enhancing exercises were studied through interviews and surveys. Structured

interviews with design instructors (n = 43) were held for data saturation from 14 architecture

schools globally: Brazil, Asia, Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America. The same

criteria were applied to each of the 20 methods studied. A protocol based on Hershberger’s

eight-value structure of evaluating architecture was used as a guide for consistency in analyzing

human, environmental, cultural, technological, economic, aesthetic, and safety (Hershberger,

1999). Participants were asked to rank each method for creativity and Chi-square test and P-

values were calculated from the data. It must be noted that interviews were only conducted in

English regardless of the native tongue of the participants- a weakness of this study.

To study the creativity-enhancing methods selected from the literature review, interviews

were used for further the analysis. The interviews revealed that the following six methods were

judged most effective in student design projects, listed in order from most to least at stimulating

creativity: (a) analogy, (b) metaphor, (c) brainstorming, (d) attribute list, (e) mind map, and (f)

Biomimicry (The researchers noted that interviewees criticized Biomimicry as the most difficult

for students to master without parody of nature.) The interviews also revealed that none of the 43

professors interviewed had used (TRIZ) “Theory of inventive problem solving” that codifies

principles to make the creative process more predictable by generating matrixes of 40 criteria

(Kowaltowski et al., 2010). According to the researchers, TRIZ is commonly used in mechanical

engineering, but it is not well known by design instructors, perhaps because it has not been

translated to architectural problems. The researchers appear to contradict themselves by

advocating for the inclusion of TRIZ to stimulate creativity in architecture students on one hand,

and arguing against it on the other stating, “for different domains the stimulus for adequate

solutions is distinct as well. In engineering design, for instance, the adequate structuring of

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 82

problems and first-principal exploration are important parts of the creative process” (p. 457).

The responses of participants when asked to suggest other methods that may stimulate

creativity in design students are equally informative. The sample (n=43) consistently named

three additional methods used to effectively simulate creativity in students, (a) design charrettes,

(b) conceptual models, and (c) three-dimensional simulations in group design efforts. Related to

collaborative design, participants singled out design charrettes for fostering “group discussions

[that] permit students to think beyond their own work. The exchange of ideas can help design

development mutually. Learning from others is valued as a stimulus to the divergent thought

process” (Kowaltowski et al., 2010. P. 473; van der Lugt, 2005).

A grounded theory of “Six basic teaching methods” for teaching in design studio settings

emerged from the findings of this extensive multinational research. The researchers concluded

that the use of “SCAMPER” (Eberle, 1996) and other heuristic “Thinkertoys” (Leahy et al.,

2019; Michalko, 2006) should be included as learning tools that aid creative problem solving in

architectural design studio instruction. The three authors close their article with a call for more

research on pedagogies that stimulate ‘creativity as a driving force for educational changes” (p.

474). To dismiss this study over the unevenness of the results would be a mistake; Kowaltowski

et al., (2010) offer several contributions to Creativity Studies for architectural education.

The literature review on “Assessing Creativity for Architectural Education” continues

with an impressive multiyear ethnographic study, “Fostering creative performance in art and

design education via self-regulated learning” by Greene et al. (2019). The researchers studied

how to stimulate creativity in higher education programs by examining pedagogical practices in

schools of art and design and self-regulated learning (SRL). Self-regulated learning is defined as

the cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral processes people enact to

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 83

systematically reach their learning goals. The three researchers conducted the qualitative study

with interviews of design studio professors, and 17 observations of 15 art and design studio

classes at one university. The sample (n =38) had an average of 14 years of design teaching

experience. The researchers began each open-ended interview with the question, “How do you

teach students to be creative?” A dialogue developed organically in grounded theory

methodology and structured interviews were transcribed and coded to identify 45 themes

(Charmaz, 2006). Interviews continued well after data saturation was reached, and another

sample was used to corroborate the original findings of this study.

The emergent themes of this study related to a belief about pedagogy or an aspect of

design studio teaching practice (Greene et al., 2019, p. 135). Further analysis included additional

structured interviews with 22 art and design professors at different schools were conducted as a

discriminant sample (Creswell & Poth, 2018) to validate the emergent themes. Likert-type scale

questions triangulated and confirmed the original data from the interviews. Next, a second set of

analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted independently using the constant comparative

method of analysis, and then the researchers met to generate a final list of 12 themes together.

Grounded theory methodology revealed 12 emergent themes: (a) the need to cultivate

ambiguity, (b) open-endedness, (c) focus on process rather than product, (d) risk-taking, (e)

guiding not directing, (f) metacognitive monitoring, (g) professorial soft control, (h) reflection,

(i) adaptation, (j) elaboration, (k) actively fostering creativity, and (l) developing self-regulated

learning. These findings align with others in this literature review (Kowaltowski et al., 2010. P.

473; van der Lugt, 2005). The findings of this study also call attention to four themes and

distinct teaching methods shown to be effective at enhancing creativity: (a) scaffolding exercises

and student ability, (b) reflection after completing tasks, (c) tracking individual learning in class

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 84

journals, and (d) the need for professors to minimize their own aesthetic tastes to avoid

detracting from each student’s work and development (Greene et al., 2019, p. 139). The authors

close by identifying a research gap on SRL for design instruction, its contributing role to Pro-C

creative performance, and the need to extend creativity research out of the design studio and into

professional, Pro-C creative practice (p. 144). Linking architectural education and professional

architectural practice together through research is a sensible goal worthy of pursuit.

Another mixed-methods study on creativity assessments also developed pedagogical

tools in the design studio space. “Analysis of the creativity development and assessment of

architectural design education: A case study of basic design studio’ (Gungor & Yorgancioglu,

2019) utilized grades awarded from design juries as quantitative data, and observations with

reflections as the qualitative data. Grades from critics from inside the school and those given by

invited critics were compared to arrive at numerical rankings for six design projects assigned in a

14-week term. The sample of beginning level students was large (n=80) with perhaps only two

professors and tutors guiding the process. Findings were convincingly communicated with clear

descriptions for each of the six projects, accompanied with tables, charts and photographs.

The study focused on (a) learning by doing, (b) incorporating formative assessments in

all design assignments improved student projects through structured feedback, (c) the process of

design was evaluated as well as the products, and (d) grades included peer-to-peer evaluations

blended with professor to student evaluations for a more inclusive approach. Thus, the method

of awarding grades aligned with the (CAT) “consensual assessment technique” (Amabile, 1982)

to maintaining transparency and fairness. The researchers concluded that the projects assigned

as collaborative learning opportunities should be graded collaboratively as well, thereby

enhancing accountability, transparency, and fairness in grading creative work. The researchers

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 85

developed new assessment criteria in conjunction with (CRL) Center for Real-World Learning:

(collaborative, disciplined, imaginative, inquisitive, and persistent) to develop a “heuristic

wheel” that expands the way student design projects are evaluated.

In addition to a thorough literature review and insights on collaborative design education,

the researchers produced findings and a matching assessment tool for student design projects.

The researchers (Gungor & Yorgancioglu, 2019) developed a five-sided model of creativity to

assess student work: inquisitive, imaginative, disciplined, cooperative, and persistent. Other

assessment considerations of architecture students included: imaginative solutions, making

connections, peer-to-peer learning, intrinsic motivation, and open-mindedness. The authors cite

the “Four Creativity Models of Creativity” (Wallas, 1926) as a theoretical framework for the

study. Interestingly, a sense of humor with the professor was believed to enhance learning and

design creativity. Perhaps a weakness however was the reliance on grades from students,

professors, and guest critics as quantitative data analysis, obtained from different groups but

analyzed the same way and combined in the same sample. The researchers close by concluding,

“the collaborative learning approach magnifies learning possibilities and takes account of the

creativity that exists before and after design courses” (Gungor & Yorgancioglu, 2019).

The review of literature on “Assessing Creativity for Architectural Education” closes

with the article, “Development, Use and Implications of Diagnostic Creativity Assessment App,

RDCA – Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment” by Reisman et al., (2016). This

publication describes the research from Drexel University School of Education that produced the

RDCA and how to interpret the “test” results. The article explains how the self-report instrument

functions as a heuristic and enhances creative self-efficacy. The (RDCA) Reisman Diagnostic

Creativity Assessment consists of 40 statements presented in multiple-choice Likert-type format

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 86

designed to produce a creativity profile composed of 11 factors correlated to creativity. These

factors or attributes can be strengthened with exercises included in the article. The RDCA can

be taken completely online for free in about 10 minutes, and participants can instantly access

their scores. The authors discuss Chronbach’s alphas for the instrument’s reliability and validity

relative to the (TTCT) Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966).

A potential weakness of this article may be that although it is written in straightforward

and accessible manner, it still may be too complex for participants to comprehend and use as a

heuristic, if that was intended. However, Reisman et al. (2016) strike a balance- writing for

participants that might wish to use the publication as a handout on the one hand, and writing for

inclusion in the peer-reviewed, Creativity Research Journal on the other.

There are many strengths to this publication. The first is how the concise length

works well as a handout that can be shared with participants to transparently demystify how the

instrument works and how it can be used as a heuristic. Another strength is the level of detail on

what, why, and how the RDCA measures relative to abilities, termed creativity factors. A third is

the explanation of implications and context for each of the 11 creativity factor-attributes in the

RDCA. The inclusion of a general explanation of Creativity Studies is especially valuable when

the instrument is designed to be as self-explanatory to participants as possible. Introducing

exercises shown beneficial to enhancing creative ability and self-efficacy is also a strength for an

article that aims to help participants become more “aware of creativity, and their perception of

their own creative strengths and weaknesses on the creativity factors tapped by the self-

assessment… and aiding teachers to identify creative strengths in their pupils and implementing

creative pedagogy” (Reisman et al., 2016, p. 185). The RDCA is used in this dissertation for

quantitative data collection and analysis of participant’s’ self-perceptions of originality, fluency,

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 87

flexibility, elaboration, tolerance of ambiguity, resistance to premature closure, divergent

thinking, convergent thinking, risk taking, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation.

Applying Creativity for Architectural Education

The review of literature on creativity in architectural education closes with articles from

architectural journals and published in conference proceedings on creativity. The first article,

“Reinventing the wheel: A tool for design quality evaluation in architecture” (Eilouti, 2020),

tested an assessment tool created for design studio projects. The second publication, “PACH:

Playing architectural creativity heuristics” (Sledge, 2020) provided a detailed examination of

heuristics to propose a suite of pedagogical tools for architectural design studio instruction. The

last article, “Enhancing creativity and independent learning of architectural technology students

through the use of a real-life design competition module” (Bibbings et al., 2018) investigated

collaborative creativity through design competitions. All three publications by architectural

design professors aimed to foster dialogue in the design studio space, develop architecture

students’ creative design ability, and enhance students’ creative self-efficacy. This review on

creativity closes with an article that eschewed methodological constraints to convey the wonder

of creative architecture.

In the first article Eilouti (2020) developed a research method consisting of four parts:

explorative, generative, experimental, and analytical. The researcher conducted an exploratory

literature review to identify a scholarship gap and generate a list of terms, definitions and

matrices to visually represent evaluation criteria and understand emerging relationships. The

literature review resulted in useful findings on seven types of evaluations commonly used in

architectural education: (a) formative, (b) operative, (c) summative, (d) reoccurring one-on-one

critique, (e) peer-evaluation, (f) online evaluation, and (g) anonymous review. Eilouti described

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 88

one of the most promising findings, “Three main factors indicate creativity- novelty of design

shape, the elaboration characteristics that are associated with the geometry and figure/ground

relations, and the compositional factors including rhythm, repetition, harmony, unity, order, and

occurrence of design elements” (Eilouti, 2020, p. 153). From this list, the researcher developed

the (DQE) Design Quality Evaluation Wheel – a tightly focused way of assessing creativity in

architecture but useful when supplemented by other criteria. Unfortunately, the link between

creativity and formal compositional order was not analyzed after the experiment ended.

With the intention of appealing to architecture students and professors, Eilouti developed

a graphic wheel diagram that would appeal to designers’ visual-spatial intelligence (Kaufman &

Beghetto, 2009) and matched with a rubric for evaluating student design projects. The DQE is a

Likert-type pie chart wheel that was tested in an architecture design jury to gather empirical data

on its efficacy. The sample consisted of 15 female students in their fifth, and final year of a

Bachelor of Architecture degree program in Saudi Arabia and included their professors as well.

The DQE was tested in two sessions and the scores awarded by students was compared to scores

awarded by professors in the design jury. The exact sample size used to generate the statistical

analysis and compare scores was not evident, calling the validity of the study into question. The

author states the DQE assesses architecture design projects based on six criteria: function, form,

context, performance, concept, and skills. The findings of this study confirm that architectural

design is difficult to evaluate, even for “experts” in the domain.

Using an inventive methodology, participants were asked to evaluate ten buildings with a

conventional rectangular rubric chart, and ten using the circular DQE. Both evaluation types

produced scores with no statistically significant difference between each participant group-

students and professors, but there was less difference between the scores using the DQE. In

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 89

other words, students and teachers seemed to agree more using the DQE to evaluate creativity of

constructed buildings. Eilouti concluded this finding supports the belief that rubrics reduce

evaluation discrepancies, and the tool impacts the evaluation score.

There may be weaknesses in this publication on creativity in architectural education.

First, the small sample size is a limitation- how many professors participated was not apparent.

Second, identification and description of the ten buildings evaluated was not given. Third, why

only female students were included in the sample was not explained. And finally, because no

seminal works of creativity scholarship were included in the references to establish a theoretical

framework, it is unclear if the DQE actually evaluates creativity directly. The study aimed to

help make evaluation of creativity in architectural designs explicit- a worthy goal, but without

providing a definition of creativity in the manuscript, the conclusions are suspect. The study

warrants development beyond the small convenience sample. The goal of assessing creativity in

architectural design based upon formal composition is provocative and problematic.

In the second publication developed for architectural design studio instruction, Sledge

(2020) proposes a yet to be tested suite of heuristics, PACH: Playing architectural creativity

heuristics to remind students that playfulness and openness enhances creativity. The title signals

the focus is on playing with heuristics to enhance creativity in architectural design education.

The title is a playfully clever acronym: PACH- “multitalented, creative with leadership”

(URBANDICTIONARY.COM) makes a tongue-in-cheek reference to the spirit of creativity.

PACH is a pedagogical suite of tools designed to enhance creative ability creative self-

efficacy among students learning collaboratively in architecture design studio. The first part

consists of cards intended to be used for sketching, notetaking, and jury review on one side, and

“post-it-notes” on the other. The second part consists of a card game to be played in the design

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 90

studio space as a heuristic to help students learn how to assess, critique, evaluate, and even

“grade” designs in five “card suits” based on five interrelated factors in the rubric: concept

(creativity & human dimension), form (3-D resolution & composition), context (site design &

zeitgeist), function (circulation & organization), performance (building systems & social

systems), and skills (divergent & convergent thinking). The third part of PACH is a reflective

journal designed to coordinate with the first two parts for flexibility as a set of learning tools. All

parts integrate the Heuristic Method of Teaching (Poyla, 1945) and SCAMPER (Eberle, 1996).

Although the PACH pedagogy remains untested, the article’s strength is in the depth of

the literature review on how heuristics apply to architectural education and foster creative self-

efficacy. Sledge (2020) states, “PACH is a heuristic to stimulate creativity and enable

architecture students to learn something for themselves in a process of experimentation and

intrinsic motivation that builds self-confidence” (p. 146). The article’s 11 figures illustrate how

the main components of the heuristic work together for students engaged in dialogue during a

design review or sitting in pods playing the card game in an Active Learning Classroom/studio.

Sledge situates PACH as a heuristic tool for collaboration, dialogue, and creativity:

Architecture students, professors, and guest instructors can utilize heuristics to develop

creativity and the design studio into a “container” for collectively shared meaning

(Bohm, 1996; Isaacs, 1993) with on-going dialogue throughout an entire class….

Heuristics are needed in architectural education for transparency, consistency, equity,

and directed learning among students engaging in collaborative dialogue. (p.146)

The article culminates with recommendations for how PACH can extend into the digital space

for asynchronous play, foster more collaborative learning, and develop into an online learning

platform. The integration of creativity pedagogies with current technologies is a pressing need.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 91

Finally, the researcher notes that it is admirable for a peer-reviewed journal on creativity

to publish as-yet-untested research, based on the strength of the literature review. Yet the

theoretical foundation, novel ideas, and invention of tailored pedagogical tools for enhancing

creativity are noteworthy. “Heuristic games can serve as a playful way to learn and help students

build their creative self-efficacy through self-discovery” (Sledge, 2020, p. 146). The PACH

pedagogy aims to remind architecture students that the wonder of creativity is it creates wonder,

learning to play is playing to learn, and collaborating to learn is learning how to collaborate.

The next publication in this literature review merges creativity with the other research

streams this dissertation aims to address- dialogue and collaboration. “Enhancing creativity and

independent learning of architectural technology students through the use of a real-life design

competition module” (Bibbings et al., 2018) is a project-based research study. The research

began with a literature review on creativity that also touched upon collaboration and dialogue:

Architectural education tends to be project based, with simulated real-life projects….

Working on projects collaboratively can improve students’ learning and Active

involvement in learning helps the student to develop the skills of self-learning while at

the same time contributing to a deeper, longer lasting knowledge of the theoretical

material…. Currently universities are abuzz with a call for more interdisciplinary,

multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary work. Many administrators in architecture are

jumping on the bandwagon…. External involvement produced by real life projects offer

work of value to the client/user group with the process “more dialogic and inclusive than

the traditional studio projects, allowing and embracing alternative voices in the studio

environment” (Sara, 2006). (Bibbings et al., 2018, p. 378)

The research project consisted of the design of a “Live project” though a design competition that

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 92

encompassed a real site, client, technical criteria, and program. The experiment lasted 11 weeks

to coincide with the timescale of the semester, and the design problem was matched to the time

allotted, skill level of the students, and a design problem that a real client needed addressed. The

competition was optional, but the entire design studio class choose to participate. The researcher

used direct observation and a reflective dialogue with participants as methods of data collection.

There were eight noteworthy findings relating collaboration and creativity, listed below:

1. Higher frequency of reviews than normally scheduled resulted in more engagement from

students, and more creativity and innovation demonstrated in the final projects.

2. It was critical to maintain reliable online communication between students, and between

professors and students as well to extend the collaboration beyond the class period.

3. Students realized that bonding was essential before achieving collaboration as a social

relationship and working model.

4. Student participants conveyed that their creative self-efficacy improved in the supportive

atmosphere of collaboration.

5. When presented with a choice, students often choose to collaborate in teams.

6. This module enabled students to gain insight into collaborative processes, both with each

other as well as others in the design team very early in their professional education.

7. Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration broadened the students’ understanding of real-

life design processes and working with real clients and other stakeholders.

8. Students realized that they each had their own unique strengths soon after forming teams,

as they started to dialogue with other groups to compete and collaborate at the same time,

helping each other learn. Competitions and design charrettes can be opportunities to

promote collaboration and energize peer-to-peer learning in design school programs.

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 93

Summary of Literature Review on Creativity for Architectural Education

The literature review of creativity for architectural education has identified problems that

need to be addressed, as well as promising new developments. Creativity is a major concern in

the multidisciplinary innovation economy, and architecture needs pedagogies to effectively train

students how to understand, enhance, and apply their creativity collaboratively and effectively to

reflect the changes in the profession leading the change in the NAAB requirements. There is a

need for common terminology on what creativity means for architectural design and education,

as well as more understanding of the historical and theoretical lineage of creativity. Thankfully,

there are creativity-enhancing techniques that can strengthen the distinct attributes creative

students need to design in the innovation economy, but professors must dispel the myth of the

lone creative genius to help improve the problematic racial relations within architecture schools.

Finally, the scholars included in this literature stream agree that creativity is a growing

expectation across industries, and the need to train students how to collaborate in teams to foster

innovation is growing as well. Yet, there is no consensus on how to best meet these challenges.

Note that this review did not focus on creative ability testing, such as the TTCT, because the

individuals in this population are expected to demonstrate significant creative ability as a

prerequisite for admittance into accredited architectural degree programs. Still, scholars agree

that methodologies, models, tools, and techniques for creativity must expand with heuristics,

rubrics, assessments, scaffolding, group projects, Live projects, ACL, VDS, ICT, IDS, design

dialogues, collaboration models, and a plethora of other novel instruments for 21st century

education. As expected, the quality of research is uneven and there are gaps in knowledge, but

one place to start addressing these deficiencies is with the RDCA- a self-assessment diagnostic

that generates data and interpretations to initiate dialogue., and another is with a change in the

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 94

curriculum to reconceive architecture education as a “container” for creativity studies instruction.

Summary

Scholars agree that the existing curriculums and pedagogies within architecture design

schools need to be examined and updated to prepare students for the rapidly evolving innovation

economy. Until expertise is built within architectural education on collaborative design, it is

unlikely that accredited architecture programs will change fast enough to prepare students for the

future. This literature review reveals there has been a long-standing consensus and call from

noted architectural scholars admonishing substantive changes in architectural education to

embrace collaboration to better align with professional practice. Although the profession of

architecture requires teamwork if not full collaboration to construct a building in the modern era,

architectural education lags behind.

Research shows that architecture students need to learn how to collaborate effectively to

redefine complex, disconnected environmental problems as interconnected creative solutions

early in their careers. The NAAB requirement for more training in collaboration confirms this

trend in the profession as well. Still, more data is needed to determine whether collaborating to

learn in school, is analogous to learning to collaborate in professional practice. The gap in

scholarship and training on the construct of creativity in architectural education is profound, and

resistance to implementing new methodologies of teaching is a long-standing problem.

The literature review shows that collaboration is neither fully understood nor confidently,

or effectively implemented. Yet, the economy is becoming more multidisciplinary, and

architects must be prepared for a new focus on innovation within environmental design. An

educational model that continues to treat every student as a future “starchitect” Big-C creative

genius fails to prepare enough Pro-C architects capable of collectively solving environmental

Collaboration, Dialogue, and Creativity 95

problems. The literature review on collaboration, dialogue, and creativity for architectural

education reveals the need for holistic changes. The move towards collaborative design

instruction in all accredited architectural education programs: Bachelor of Architecture, Master

of Architecture, and Doctor of Architecture, will be more than meeting the NAAB requirements;

it will bring about a paradigm shift in architectural education.

The wisdom of prolific author Warren G. Bennis provides closure to the literature review,

“There are two ways of being creative; one can sing and dance, or one can create an environment

in which singers and dancers flourish; none of us is as smart as all of us” (Bennis, 1997).

Figure 2.9

The Salk Institute as Bricolage

Note. Photograph of The Salk Institute, in La Jolla, California by the researcher facing the Pacific Ocean.

Realized by Louis Kahn and Dr. Jonas Salk in 1965, it is an example of a bricolage-collaboration, and one

of the best examples of “The Sublime” ever built. According to the Museum of Modern Art exhibition

publication, May 11, 1966 (moma.org), “The Salk Center is an example of what can occur when great

clients and architects come together [as bricoleurs]” Vincent Scully, Yale University historian.