#1
Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354.
Summary
Glăveanu proposes a sociocultural theory of creativity that integrates individual cognition, social interaction, and material artifacts. He critiques reductive views of creativity—such as those that frame it solely as an internal cognitive process—and instead emphasizes distributed, collaborative, and culturally situated meaning-making. The article situates creativity within everyday practices, tools, and relationships and argues that novel ideas emerge from dynamic interactions among people, context, and culture.
Evaluation
This article offers a compelling reconceptualization of creativity by moving beyond individualistic and cognitive frameworks. Its strength lies in its multidimensional perspective, which integrates psychological, social, and material factors. However, because the theoretical model is broad and conceptual, it may be challenging to translate directly into assessment or instructional design without further operationalization. Still, the interdisciplinary synthesis and attention to context provide a strong foundation for applied research.
Reflection
This sociocultural perspective aligns with contemporary instructional models I use at DeVry, particularly Engageli and collaborative learning activities where creativity develops through dialogue, shared tasks, and tool-mediated problem solving (e.g., Excel labs, cybersecurity scenarios). The article strengthens my understanding of how learning environments, tools, and peer interactions shape student creativity—insight that will support my coursework at CMU, especially as I design more interactive online lessons.
#2
Glaveanu, V. P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E. P., Corazza, G. E., … & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 741–745.
Summary
This manifesto argues that creativity research must move away from narrow, individualistic perspectives and adopt socio-cultural frameworks that acknowledge the embeddedness of creativity in social, institutional, and cultural systems. The authors highlight limitations of traditional approaches and propose guiding principles for future research, including collaboration, inclusivity, contextual awareness, and interdisciplinary synthesis. The piece calls for research agendas that examine creativity as shared, relational, and culturally situated.
Evaluation
The manifesto is succinct but powerful, synthesizing diverse perspectives from leading creativity scholars. Its strength is its consensus-building nature and its clear articulation of shared principles for the field. However, the brevity of the article limits the depth of methodological guidance, leaving open questions about how the proposed principles can be operationalized in varied educational settings. Nonetheless, the collaborative authorship adds legitimacy, and the conceptual clarity offers strong direction for future work.
Reflection
The emphasis on shared, contextual creativity resonates with my teaching practice, especially in cybersecurity, Excel, and discussion-based courses where student learning is shaped by peer interaction, problem-based learning, and professional context. This article influences how I design assignments that encourage collective meaning-making rather than isolated work. It also reinforces key themes relevant to my DET studies, especially around designing learning environments that foster authentic creativity.
#3
DeSchryver, M., Henriksen, D., & Leahy, S. (2025). From friction to synergy: The complex interplay of human creativity and AI. Possibility Studies & Society. https://doi.org/10.xxxx
Summary
The authors examine how human creativity and artificial intelligence interact in both conflicting and complementary ways. They argue that AI can create “friction”—limiting originality or over-structuring tasks—but also “synergy” by extending human capabilities and enabling new forms of possibility thinking. The article emphasizes that creativity emerges when humans engage AI intentionally, reflectively, and with an awareness of AI’s constraints. It proposes a framework for understanding human–AI creative partnerships in education and professional practice.
Evaluation
A major strength of this article is its conceptual clarity around the dual nature of AI in creative work. The friction-versus-synergy framing provides a valuable lens for understanding the pedagogical implications of AI integration. The authors support their arguments with interdisciplinary theory, though more empirical examples would strengthen applicability. Nevertheless, the framework is highly relevant for educators navigating AI-supported learning environments.
Reflection
This directly informs my evolving role as an instructor using AI to support remote and asynchronous learners. The article reinforces the importance of guiding students to use AI as a tool for exploration rather than as a shortcut. It also aligns with my DET goals at CMU, particularly as I research how AI can scaffold instruction in Excel, cybersecurity scenarios, and data analysis for students who cannot attend live sessions. This piece helps me frame AI in my courses as a synergistic partner—when used purposefully.
#4
OECD. (2019). Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in PISA 2021 (Third Draft).
Summary
This framework outlines how PISA intends to assess creative thinking across participating countries, focusing on students’ ability to generate, evaluate, and refine ideas. The document provides assessment constructs, task types, scoring guidance, and rationales for including creativity as a core 21st-century competency. It positions creative thinking as essential for problem solving in academic, personal, and professional contexts.
Evaluation
The OECD framework provides robust assessment principles and standardized structures for measuring creative thinking internationally. Its strengths include clear constructs, detailed scoring rubrics, and alignment with global competency initiatives. Its limitation is that standardized assessments may oversimplify creativity and may not fully capture culturally embedded or collaborative aspects emphasized by socio-cultural theorists. Still, the framework offers valuable, practical structures for evaluating creative competencies at scale.
Reflection
This assessment framework challenges me to consider how creative thinking can be evaluated in my own courses—whether in cybersecurity problem solving, Excel modeling, or written analysis. It also supports my growing interest in designing assessments that capture students’ ability to generate and refine ideas. As I continue my DET coursework, this framework provides a foundation for building creativity-aligned evaluations within online learning environments.
Tony Kaczoroski 
Leave a comment