Krishen (2022) proposed a new model, the contagious motivation and creative experience model (CMCEM), as a way to look at the interaction of five different theories and perspectives and the effect of that interaction on a student’s overall course experience. Included in the synthesis of these factors were the context-dependent fixation hypothesis, transformational teaching, the strength of weak ties (emphasis by Krishen, 2022), contagious motivation, and constructivist learning. Context-dependent fixation stymies creativity when an individual is so focused on the negative, they are unable to solve problems. The hypothesis suggests that by changing the context, individuals can become “unstuck” and move forward. Krishen described transformational teaching as that which generates perceived project uniqueness (PPU) for students, and went on to explain that when transformational teachers provide training and opportunities for students to experience creative divergent thinking, PPU increases. As a result, motivation is enhanced (contagious motivation) and novelty (creativity) increases during group work. Next, Krishen (2022) reports that constructivist theory is best leveraged during group work when projects have no known solution. When the problem to be solved is novel, creativity and innovation are required to create a solution, which in turn enhances motivation and engagement. Finally, the strength of ties perspective implies that when members of a group are less well known to each other, and when those group members are open to new experiences, there is an overall positive impact on the students’ motivation and course experience. Krishen (2022) found that the relationship between creative divergent thinking and student motivation emphasizes the importance of transformational teaching, because it is transformational teaching that results in enhanced perceptions of project novelty, which has great impact on student motivation.

The author (Kirshen, 2022) created the CMCEM model by modifying the previous work of another researcher. In the expanded new model, Kirshen added five new variables. In the paper, the author described the new model in detail, devoting an entire section to the description for each of the five new variables. In each section, the author also made connections both to the previous section and the one coming up. The model was extremely complex, which resulted in ten hypotheses. Perhaps this is the norm for testing a new model, but that is a lot. The study was conducted in a marketing class. Students responded to a survey, and then worked in self selected teams. (How does this support the strength of ties perspective? Wouldn’t students tend to choose team members they already now?) In the culminating project students brought in a favorite magazine advertisement to class. “Each team team wrote a paper with data analysis and a literature review designed to understand consumer perceptions of their favorite advertisement and brand” (Kirshen 2022, p 44). With only this brief review of the project to go by, it doesn’t seem as though this project checked any of the boxes that the author outlined in her preliminary discussions. Is this transformational teaching? A novel project? Where is the creative divergent thinking? Perhaps a lot of data was gathered using the survey; however, if the author was testing the model shouldn’t it be a model in place? So while I see utility in using this model to analyze a course or classroom experience, I don’t see the study as having actually proved its reliability or validity.

There are a lot of interesting ideas encompassed by the model that Krishen (2022) proposes. She has connected a diverse array of what I consider good teaching practice in a way that does make sense. However, the model is huge. Of course, that may just be a result of the ecosystem in which education exists. (So many variables, so little time.) At the very least, if I were testing this model, I would perhaps test two very different course structures for comparison sake. In terms of my own research, I quite like the idea that creativity can, indeed, be taught, and that in so doing, intrinsic motivation and engagement is the result. I keep coming back to this idea: How can creativity (of course, there would first have to be a definition) be taught? And how can it then be used to ensure that opportunities in a blended learning situation are leveraging the creative process, and not just taking advantage of superior button clicking? And if the creative process can be leveraged in this way, how will that affect teacher and student motivation to stay engaged? Actually, in Erhel and Jamet’s 2013 study of the impact of instructions on digital game-based learning outcomes, they make a valid point. Using education technology isn’t just about how to use it, just like reading isn’t just about how to decode the little black symbols on the page. It is the structure of framing the introduction to the digital activity that has the capacity to enable students to think about and use the tool in creative ways. Technology today is like the textbook of yesterday. Old hat and ho hum. So it is then up to the transformational teacher to require students to use technology to solve problems that have no known solution, and in the implementation of the project, preface technology use with strategies to teach and enhance the creative process (maybe through divergent thinking, maybe something else) in order to move all stakeholders from apathy and burnout into exciting new territory, into a contagion of creativity and motivation.  My next first step needs to be a solid definition of creativity. Then perhaps I forge a path to a decent research question. Perhaps then my research research question will reveal itself.

References

Erhel, S. & Jamet, E. (2013). The effects of goal-oriented instructions in digital game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 1744–1757. 

Krishen, A. S. (2022). Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way: Synthesizing Creativity, Contagious Motivation, and Unique Projects Into the Course Experience. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(1), 41–53.