Small Shifts, Big Gains: Rethinking Creativity in the Age of Accountability

Timothy Hinchman

doi:10.17309/jltm.2025.6.2.02

Authors

Timothy Hinchman Georgia Southern University https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9316-6438

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17309/jltm.2025.6.2.02

Keywords:

Generation Z pre-service teachers, creativity, designed constraints, C-BMN framework, educator preparation

Abstract

Objectives. This study explored the impact of intentionally designed constraints on the creativity of Generation Z pre-service teachers (GZ-PSTs) enrolled in a public educator preparation program (EPP). Grounded in Stokes’ (2009) Constraint-Based Model of Novelty (C-BMN), the research investigated whether input (“use what you got”) and output (“this is what it looks like”) constraints could enhance creative problem-solving, particularly in the context of captioning a visual prompt.

Materials and Methods. A nonequivalent posttest-only quasi-experimental design was used with a convenience sample of 39 GZ-PSTs, randomly assigned to one of three conditions: input constraint, output constraint, or constraint-free (control). All participants completed the same creative task—captioning a cartoon image. Captions were evaluated using the validated NEW rubric (Henriksen et al., 2015), which measures novelty, effectiveness, wholeness, and total creativity score (TCS). Two trained faculty raters independently scored the responses. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s (1964) post hoc analyses were used to test differences between groups, and inter-rater reliability was confirmed via Cohen’s kappa.

Results. Statistically significant differences were found across all creativity dimensions, with the constraint-free group scoring the lowest (TCS M = 5.54) and the output constraint group scoring highest (TCS M = 12.27). Effect sizes were moderate to large. These findings support the premise that designed constraints—when thoughtfully implemented—can scaffold creative thinking in pre-service teachers.

Conclusions. The study highlights the value of integrating constraint-based strategies in educator preparation, especially for Generation Z learners who have experienced highly structured, test-driven K–12 environments. Embedding such strategies may empower pre-service teachers to think creatively within standardized curricular frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Timothy Hinchman, Georgia Southern University

College of Education, Department of Elementary and Special Education,
1332 Southern Dr, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA
thinchman@georgiasouthern.edu

References

Wei̇ck, N., & Shaughnessy, M. (2024). Standardized testing and effective instruction : Teacher perceptions on how high stakes testing affects instructional practive. International Journal of Educational Spectrum. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1358791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1358791

Fodor, M., & Jaeckel, K. (2018). What does it take to have a successful career through the eyes of generation Z-based on the results of a primary qualitative research. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, 4(1), 1-7.

Fraser, M., & Hawley, M. (2023). The pernicious predictability of state-mandated tests of academic achievement in the United States. Education Sciences, 14(2), 129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020129

Nicholas, & Arlene, J. (2020). Preferred Learning Methods of Generation Z. https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=fac_staff_pub

Stokes, P. D. (2009). Using constraints to create novelty: A case study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 174-180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014970 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014970

Roskes, M. (2015). Constraints that help or hinder creative performance: A motivational approach. Creativity & Innovation Management, 24(2), 197-206. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12086 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12086

Tromp, C., & Baer, J. (2022). Creativity from Constraints: Theory and Applications to Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101184

Hinchman, T. (2022). Closed Captioned: Designed Constraints Impact on Millennial Preservice Teachers’ Creativity. In Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Diversity and Equity in a Virtual World (pp. 185-212). IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8028-8.ch011

Hinchman, T., Taylor, C. D., Lange, E. J., & Meachum, M.(2023). Purposeful Practice: Constraints and Temperament Impact on Physical Performance of Collegiate Division II Soccer Athletes. Sport Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2023.4.3.10-15

McLaughlin, V., & Berlinghoff, D. (2022). Designing EPPs Aligned with CEC’s 2020 Initial Practice-Based K-12 Standards. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 2(3), 6-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33043/JOSEP.2.3.6-18

Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity From constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Stokes, P. D. (2001). Variations on Guilford’s creative abilities. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 277-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_05

Stokes, P. D. (2014). Thinking inside the box: Creativity, constraints, and the colossal portraits of Chuck Close. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4), 276-289. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.52 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.52

Damadzic, A., Winchester, C., Medeiros, K., & Griffith, J. (2022). [Re]thinking outside the box: A meta‐analysis of constraints and creative performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2655 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2655

Hatchuel, A., & Chen, M. K. (2017). Creativity under strong constraints: The hidden influence of design models. European Review, 25(2), 194-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798716000557

Haught-Tromp, C. (2017). The green eggs and ham hypothesis: How constraints facilitate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity & the Arts, 11(1), 10-17. doi:10.1037%2Faca0000061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000061

Stokes, P. D. (2013). The effects of constraints in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 4(2), 25-31. Retrieved from https://jmetc.columbia.edu/

Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551-585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613517600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613517600

Cromwell, J. R. (2024). How combinations of constraint affect creativity: A new typology of creative problem solving in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 14(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231202031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231202031

Adrian, K., & Sahrani, R. (2021). Relationship Between Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and Problematic Smartphone Use (PSU) in Generation Z with Stress as a Moderator. International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021), Jakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.152

Göloglu Demir, C., & Kaplan Keles, Ö. (2021). The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on the Teaching and Learning Processes of Mathematics. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(2), 119-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021269677

Erenli, K. (2016). Generation I (mmersion)–how to meet learner expectations of tomorrow. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 9(1), 19-25. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/173486/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v9i1.5241

Hosek, A. M., & Titsworth, S. (2016). Scripting knowledge and experiences for millennial students. Communication Education, 65(3), 357-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1177844 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1177844

Miller, A. C., & Mills, B. (2019). ‘If They Don’t Care, I Don’t Care’: Millennial and Generation Z Students and the Impact of Faculty Caring. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(4), 78-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i4.24167

Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E., & Johnson, L. R. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design. New York: Pearson Education.

Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: Toward a NEW framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 455-478. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/151574/

Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808

IBM Corp. (2024). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 29.0.2.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Tan, A. J. Y., Davies, J. L., Nicolson, R. I., & Karaminis, T. (2023). Learning critical thinking skills online: Can precision teaching help? Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 1275–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y

Taylor, A. (2019). There Is No ‘E’ in ‘Constraints’: Teaching Creativity in Higher Education Screen Production. The Palgrave Handbook of Screen Production. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21744-0_31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21744-0_31