Creativity for Architectural Education
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.