Creativity should be cultivated in higher education to tackle the increasingly complex healthcare problems; however, despite this need for novelty, students collaborating in groups to solve a complex problem often seek consensus around low-novelty ideas. This study aims to explore the challenges higher education student groups face while evaluating and improving creative ideas, and to identify teaching activities that overcome these challenges. A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 14 teachers from the “innovation project” at Radboud university medical center in Netherlands. The results show that student groups face challenges in balancing the goals of novelty and usefulness in their search for creative ideas, often selecting either novel ideas that are infeasible or ineffective, or useful ideas that already exist. Furthermore, teachers also identified problematic group dynamics as a challenge in the idea evaluation process. To overcome these challenges, teachers reported using cognitive, affective, metacognitive, and socio-communicative teaching activities. In conclusion, higher education students may not develop their most creative ideas even when creative solutions are required. This study highlights the importance of teaching higher education students to skilfully manage the twin goals of novelty and usefulness in their search for creative solutions, while also dealing with group dynamics.
KeywordsCreativityTeacher Professional DevelopmentIdea EvaluationProblem SolvingMedical Higher Education
Badwan, B., Bothara, R., Latijnhouwers, M., Smithies, A., & Sandards, J. (2018). The Importance of Design Thinking in Medical Education. Medical Teachers, 40 , 425-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1399203
Bain, O., & Cummings, W. (2021). Higher Education in the Era of Knowledge Economy. In T. Aarrevaara, M. Finkelstein, G. A. Jones, & J. Jung (Eds.), Universities in the Kno w ledge Society: The Nexus of National Systems of Innovation and Higher (Vol. 22, pp. 33-47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76579-8_3
Bearman, M. (2019). Focus on Methodology: Eliciting Rich Data: A Practical Approach to Writing Semi-Structured Interview Schedules. Focus on Health Professional Education, 20 , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v20i3.387
Belio, I. A. M., & Urtuzuastegul, A. C. (2013). Creative Behavior of the University: An Exploratory Study in the Faculty of Dentistry at the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. https://issuu.com/didaktica/docs/articulo_revista_ctes2013_comportam
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research. Sage Publishing.
Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative Research: Qualitative Interviews in Medical Research. BMG, 311, 251-253. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251
Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making Group Brainstorming More Effective: Recommendations from an Associative Memory Perspective. Current Directions in Ps y chological Science, 11, 208-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00202
Byrne, C. L., Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). The Effects of Forecasting on Creative Problem Solving: An Experimental Study. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481482
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualit a tive Analysis . SAGE Publications.
Cottrell, N. (1972). Social Facilitation. Experimental Social Psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cropley, A. (2018). The Creativity-Facilitating Teacher Index: Early Thinking, and Some Recent Reflections. In K. Soh (Ed.), Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior: Measur e ment and Research (pp. 1-15). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813234161_0001
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.018
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fredagsvik, M. S. (2023). The Challenge of Supporting Creativity in Problem-Solving Projects in Science: A Study of Teachers’ Conversational Practices with Students. R e search in Science & Technological Education, 41, 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1898359
Frederiksen, M. H., & Knudsen, M. P. (2017). From Creative Ideas to Innovation Performance: The Role of Assessment Criteria. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12204
Glaveanu, V. P., Ness, I. J., & Rasmussen, L. J. T. (2021). Creative Success in Collaboration: A Sociocultural Perspective. In A. S. McKay, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Creative Success in Teams (pp. 19-32). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819993-0.00002-3
Gonzalez, C. M., Grochowalski, J. H., Garba, R. J., Bonner, S., & Marantz, P. R. (2021). Validity Evidence for a Novel Instrument Assessing Medical Student Attitudes toward Instruction in Implicit Bias Recognition and Management. BMC Medical Education, 21, Article No. 205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02640-9
Horton, J., Macve, R., & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative Research: Experiences in Using Semi-Structured Interviews. In The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research (pp. 339-357). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043972-3/50022-0
Johnson, B. R., & D’Lauro, C. J. (2018). After Brainstorming, Groups Select an Early Generated Idea as Their Best Idea. Small Group Research, 49, 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417720285
Keith, M. G., Freier, L. M., Childers, M., Ponce-Pore, I., & Brooks, S. (2023). What Makes an Idea Risky? The Relations between Perceptions of Idea Novelty, Usefulness, and Risk. The Journ al of Creative Behavior, 58 , 6-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.621
Kupers, E., & van Dijk, M. (2020). Creativity in Interaction: The Dynamics of Teacher-Student Interactions during a Musical Composition Task. Thin king Skills and Cre a tivity, 36, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100648
Lechler, R. (2017). Diversity, Creativity, and Flexibility Will Be Needed from the Next Generation of Medical Scientists. The Lancet, 389 , S1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30199-X
Litchfield, R. C., Gilson, L. L., & Gilson, P. W. (2015). Defining Creative Ideas: Toward a More Nuanced Approach. Group & Organiz ation Management, 40, 238-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115574945
Liu, F., Qu, S., Fan, Y., Chen, F., Hu, Z., & He, B. (2023). Scientific Creativity and Innovation Ability and Its Determinants among Medical Postgraduate Students in Fujian Province of China, a Cross Sectional Study. BMC Medical Education, 23 , Article No. 444. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04408-9
Liu, H.-Y., & Wang, I.-T. (2019). Creative Teaching Behaviors of Health Care School Teachers in Taiwan Region: Mediating and Moderating Effects. BMC Medical Edu-cation, 19, Article No. 186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1641-8
Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Thinking inside the Box: Educating Leaders to Manage Constraints. In Handbook of Research on Creative Pro b lem-Solving Skill Development in Higher Education (pp. 25-50). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative Data Analysis (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The Bias against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611421018
Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluating Creative Ideas: Processes, Standards, and Context. I nquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 22, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20022213
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Ten Haven, A., Pragt, E., Luijk, S. J., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van Mook, W. N. K. A. (2022). Creativity: A Viable and Valuable Competency in Medicine? A Qualitative Exploratory Study. Med ical Teacher, 44, 1158-1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2072278
Vaaland, T. I., & Ishengoma, E. (2016). University-Industry Linkages in Developing Countries: Perceived Effect on Innovation. Educatio n Training, 58, 1014-1040. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2015-0067
van Broekhoven, K. (2023). The Evaluation and Selection of Creative Ideas in Educational Settings: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Creativity Research Journal . https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2253403
van Broekhoven, K., Belfi, B., & Borghans, L. (2022). Instructing Children to Construct Ideas into Products Alters Children’s Creative Idea Selection in a Randomized Field Experiment. PLOS O NE, 17, e0271621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271621
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and Friction between Learning and Teaching. Learnin g and Instruction, 9, 257-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
Vermunt, J. D., Ilie, S., & Vignoles, A. (2018). Building the Foundations for Measuring Learning Gain in Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework and Measurement Instrument. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3, 266-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1484672
Watling, C. J., & Lingard, L. (2012). Grounded Theory in Medical Education Research: AMEE Guide No. 70. Medica l Teacher, 34, 850-861. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439
World Economic Forum WEF (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020 . World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report, 1163. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020/digest
Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea Production in Nominal and Virtual Groups: Does Computer-Mediated Communication Improve Group Brainstorming? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200032003