Creative Education
2012. Vol.3, No.7, 1281-1290
Published Online November 2012 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1281
Construction of a Creative Instructional Design Model Using
Blended, Project-Based Learning for College Students
Shi-Jer Lou1, Chih-C hao Chung2, Wei-Yuan Dzan3, Ru-Chu Shih4*
1Graduate Institute of Vocational and Technological Education, National Pingtung
University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan
2Department of Industrial Technology Education, National K a o hs i u ng No rmal University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
3Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, National Kaohsiung Marine University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
4Department of Modern Languages, National Pi ngtung University of Science and Techno logy,
Pingtung, Taiwan
Email: *
Received August 4th, 2012; revised September 6th, 2012; accepted September 20th, 2012
The purpose of this study was to construct a blended, project-based learning creative instructional design
model for university students that responds to the demands of the digital age, enhances student learning
achievements in creativity, and cultivates student creative ability in independent thinking and innovation.
This study organizes and analyzes blended learning, project-based learning, and the literature on creativity
to summarize creative instructional design indicators for blended project-based learning, and it uses the
fuzzy Delphi method for expert questionnaire analysis to filter the indicators most suited to university
students. This study proposes that the four dimensions of creative instructional design are the following: 1)
creative character traits; 2) ability in the creative process; 3) innovative product design, and 4) an instruc-
tional environment for creativity, with a total of 23 design indicators. Based on the results of the expert
questionnaire analysis and evaluation mechanisms, the levels of importance and primary consideration
indicators of the design indicators are established. The results show that incorporation of creative instruc-
tional design in blended, project-based learning can sufficiently cover the content of the four dimensions
of creativity and that this approach gains the approval of most experts. This instructional design model
can be used as an indicator for creativity learning effect assessment of university students, as a basis for
creative instructional design by teachers, and as a reference for creativity curricular planning in university
engineering colleges. This model can effectively enhance student creativity learning effects and, in turn,
achieve the objective of an overall elevation of national competitiveness.
Keywords: Creative Instructional Design; Blended Learning; Project-Based Learning; Fuzzy Delphi
Research Background
Creativity is one of the key items for the elevation of interna-
tional competitiveness (Labuske & Streb, 2008). In the “2010-
2011 Global Competitiveness Report,” the World Economic
Forum (WEF) ranked Taiwan’s competitiveness as 13th in the
world in 2010 (Sala-i-Martin, Blanke, Hanouz, Geiger, & Mia,
2010). This ranking shows that economic development in Tai-
wan has advanced to an innovation-centered period, causing
Taiwan to receive higher assessment in the innovative factors
indicator. Thus, the education and promotion of creativity in
university technological education is a significant issue. How-
ever, Wu (2002) found that, when schools arrange for the
transmission of knowledge about creativity, they generally
convey such course content as “knowledge”, and generally do
not allow students to personally experience the creative process
and discovery (Wu, 2002). If students can actually experience
and sense creativity, it would provide a key to inspiring per-
sonal creativity. Treffinger et al. (1980) argued that creativity
could be enhanced through actual activities of creative thinking
and actions (Treffinger, County, Gifted, & Talented, 1980); if
creative thinking capabilities could be incorporated into courses,
students could form and develop creative ideas and increase
their imagination, allowing them to see problems from other
perspectives and to cultivate problem-solving ability (Maisuria,
2005). Project-based learning (PBL) advocates for the creation
of a learning context in which students can actively participate
and discuss, and it suggests the use of these contexts to inspire
student learning interests (Polman, 1998), using driving ques-
tions to elicit various learning activities. The problems posed
by the projects are challenging, and in the learning process,
students must propose and define questions, collect data, coop-
erate in learning, and create concrete achievements, all of
which inspire their creative thinking abilities. In addition, using
diverse instructional strategies has been proven to cultivate
student creativity (Michaela, 2001). With the development of
digital technology, instructional strategies and tools have chan-
ged, and creativity instruction must evolve with them. Among
these strategies, the instructional application of blended learn-
ing has received more attention. Because blended learning
combines online and face-to-face learning, it breaks through the
constraints of time and space, covering both face-to-face and
*Corresponding autho r.
collaborative learning and effectively realizing the advantages
of online learning (Akkoyunlu & Yılmaz-Soylu, 2008). If it can
be applied to creativity instruction, it should be quite feasible
and worthy of exploration.
To summarize, the importance of creativity and creativity in-
struction are known. This study hopes to incorporate the ad-
vantages of digital technology into blended, project-based lear-
ning in creative instructional design to effectively enhance stu-
dent learning effects in creativity. Accordingly, this study has
four research purposes:
1) Develop the dimensions and indicators for creativity as-
2) Explore the integration of blended, project-based learning
and creative instruction;
3) Establish the design indicators for blended, project-based
learning and creative instruction;
4) Construct a design model for blended, project-based learn-
ing and creative instruction.
Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to construct a blended project-
based learning creative instructional design model (henceforth
BPBLCID); thus, the literature on creativity assessment, blend-
ed learning, project-based learning, and creativity instruction
are organized and summarized as follows:
Creativity Assessment
Early creativity research tended to explore the correlation
between personal factors and creative behavior (Barron & Har-
ringtion, 1981). After Rhodes (1961) summarized the literature
defining creativity, he proposed the “4 ‘P’s of creativity,”
which are: 1) Person; 2) Process; 3) Products; and 4) the Place
or Press (Rhodes, 1961). This set of criteria means that the
development of creativity should occur within a supportive en-
vironment, using educational processes and methods to culti-
vate student character traits, and in turn it should produce crea-
tive products. In the 1980s, creativity research turned to the
exploration of external factors, such as using social influence
processes to understand the expression of creativity (Amabile,
1996). Simonton (1988) proposed the “6 ‘P’s” theory, which
proposes that creativity is the interaction between the psycho-
logical processes of the creator’s character traits and the prod-
uct environment for creativity, occurring under an appropriate
degree of pressure to produce persuasive creative expressions
(Simonton, 1988). Gowan (1972) indicated that creativity is a
continuous process from cognition and rationality to the illu-
sory and irrational and should be viewed with an integrative at-
titude (Gowan, 1972).
This study uses the 6 Ps as the primary framework. However,
because the subjects of creative instructional design are univer-
sity students, “press” is thought to originate in the imposition of
the instructional environment, so both parameters are classified
as the same time. In addition, it is thought that students’ crea-
tive products should emphasize expression of their creative
abilities and should not be judged as merchandise. The BPB-
LCID includes 1) creativity character traits; 2) ability in the
creative process; 3) innovative design of products, and 4) in-
structional environment for creativity. We will henceforth refer
to this framework for creativity as “the 4 Ps”. Based on this
framework, complete BPBLCID design indicators are summa-
rized to enhance student learning effects in creativity. These
indicators are explained below.
Creativity Character Trait
Creativeness is an inclination of self-actualization and poten-
tial development (Rogers, 1959). The character inclinations of
creative behavior include adventurousness, accepting of chal-
lenge, curiosity, imagination, and independent autonomy. Bar-
ron and Harrington (1981) suggested that the traits of a creator
include autonomy, self-confidence, and tolerance of differences
between oneself and others (Barron & Harringtion, 1981). Lu-
bart and Sternberg (1995) argued that people with high creativ-
ity show perseverance when encountering obstacles, are willing
to take reasonable risks, are willing to grow, can tolerate un-
clear situations, can accept new experiences, and have self-
confidence (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995).
This study suggests that human values play an important role.
When an individual emphasizes new concepts, he would ex-
press better creativity. Furthermore, creators must be adventur-
ous and possess independent determination, their own views, a
personal style, high confidence, and perseverance. Thus, this
study summarizes the indicators of creativity character traits as
follows: 1) accepting of independent challenge; 2) proactivity;
3) originality; 4) high capability; 5) imagination; 6) seeking
knowledge; 7) adaptability; and 8) associative ability. We used
these indicators to develop the questionnaire to investigate the
concrete actions to be taken to cultivate the creativity character
trait in students.
Abilities in the Creative Process
Creation is the process of using creative thinking to solve
problems (Dewey, 1906). Wallas (1926) suggested that the
psychological process of creativity is divided into the prepara-
tion stage, the incubation stage, the clarification stage, and the
verification stage (Wallas, 1926). Thus, creative thinking is a
series of processes, including perceiving the problem, making
guesses and hypotheses about the problem, seeking answers,
proposing proof, and finally reporting the results. Treffinger,
Isaksen and Stead-Dorvad (2005) proposed that, to resolve
creative problems, one must first create opportunities, explore
facts, construct questions, develop resolutions, and establish
acceptance (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Stead-Dorval, 2005).
This study proposes that creation consists of the formation of
new hypotheses, followed by the modification or re-evaluation
of these hypotheses to solve problems. The ability to resolve
unknown questions is creativity. Thus, this study summarizes
the creative process indicators as follows: 1) the preparation
stage; 2) the incubation stage; 3) the clarification stage; and 4)
the verification stage. We used these indicators to develop the
questionnaire to investigate the concrete actions to be taken to
enhance student abilities in the creative process.
Innovative Design of Products
The results of creation must have uniqueness, quality, and
value (Gilchrist, 1972). Mayer (1999) suggested that there are
two characteristics in creative works: originality and usefulness
(Mayer, 1999). Thus, the created products should have original-
ity and clear objectives, while complementing and not causing
conflict with the objectives and needs of others (Gruber, 1988).
This study suggests that the innovative design of products by
students must conform to the demands of the topic, have value,
and apply new concepts to design unique products. Thus, this
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
study summarizes the indicators of innovative design of prod-
ucts as follows: 1) originality; 2) adaptability; and 3) efficacy.
These indicators are used to develop a questionnaire to ascer-
tain concrete directions for innovative product design by stu-
Instructional Environment for Creativity
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) claimed that environment has a de-
termining effect on creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1975). Many studies have also noted that it is benefi-
cial to encourage an environment that focuses on creativity
(Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Cropley and Fleith
proposed that it is beneficial to the cultivation of creative
thinking by students to encourage creative thought and explora-
tion in a learning environment (Cropley, 1997; Fleith, 2000).
This study focuses on the academic learning environment for
students, including the instructional methods provided by tea-
chers, the learning atmosphere created, and cooperative learn-
ing among peers. In light of this focus, the study refers to the
views and literature by Cropley, summarizing the indicators for
instructional environment for creativity as follows: 1) inde-
pendence; 2) cooperative discussion; 3) asking questions; 4)
flexible and open; 5) reward support; 6) assessment; 7) reflec-
tion on challenges; and 8) interest and motivation. These indi-
cators are used to develop a questionnaire to elicit the key
points for the creation of an instructional environment for crea-
tivity for students.
Blended Learning
Blended learning refers to the mixing of two or more types of
learning method or media tool. Blended learning combines
face-to-face instruction and online learning systems to seek the
optimal effects between the two as well as the most balanced
combination (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Thus, blended
learning can effectively integrate different conveyance models,
instructional models, and learning methods (Procter, 2003).
Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) argued that blended learning
environments can enrich education, store knowledge, act as a
personal proxy, save costs, and be easily modified (Osguthorpe
& Graham, 2003). Mortera-Gutierrez (2006) suggested that, in
the blended learning context, the combination of traditional in-
struction with information technology can create infinite possi-
bilities in education and reflect the richness of education (Mor-
tera-Gutiérrez, 2006).
This study uses blended learning to integrate different in-
structional methods and media, combining online learning and
face-to-face instruction to cope with individual differences
among students. The goal of this application is to create the
most suitable instructional strategies, learning environments,
and tools to conduct creativity instruction, so that students can
engage in efficient learning, in hopes of elevating student learn-
ing effects in creativity.
Project-Based Learning
The primary purposes of project-based learning (PBL) are to
enable students to use what they have learned and to integrate
the theory and practices learned by students. They can then
realize their imagination and creativity, converting their know-
ledge into abilities to cope with the challenges of life and work
(Hsiao, 1997). In PBL, students face a challenging task, and
their designs, problem-solving, decision-making, and research
allow them to autonomously conduct work related to the topic
during a period of time, completing a real product (Thomas,
2000). Boaler (2002) noted that, in project-based learning, stu-
dents are more responsible for autonomous learning and learn
more than from other instructional models (Boaler, 2002).
Thus, in the design of this study, students are the guides of
their own learning. They divide work and cooperate in tasks
ranging from data collection, reading, analysis and discussion
to the production of actual innovative products. They discuss
creative ideas and use project activities to learn creativity and
enhance student learning effects in creativity.
Creativity Instructi on and Plat form Integration
Creativity is extrinsically constructed and is a process unique
to human beings in its continued construction, deconstruction,
and reconstruction of thought (Gagne, Yekovich, & Yekovich,
1997); many studies have noted that personal potential for crea-
tivity can be used to construct and develop creativity through
practice (Zimmerman, 2006). By using diverse adaptable strate-
gies, it is possible to cultivate student creativity (Michaela,
2001); these strategies include the following: 1) give students
time to think creatively; 2) reward creative ideas; 3) encourage
adventure; 4) give permission make mistakes; 5) encourage
different opinions and diversity of ideas; 6) encourage explora-
tion of the environment; 7) doubt assumptions; 8) do not criti-
cize student creativity; 9) provide an environment for coopera-
tion; 10) provide a free and open environment.
This study uses the blended creative learning platform pro-
posed by Lou et al., (Lou, Chung, Chao, Tseng, & Shih, 2012),
engaging in overall consideration of the four dimensions of this
platform to establish effective connections between creativity
learning and blended learning platform functions: developmen-
tal purpose, system design, system mechanisms, and system
support, We then use the advantages of information technology
and diverse and flexible instructional strategies to enhance stu-
dent learning in creativity.
To summarize the literature review, this study finds that most
of the literature still focuses on the individual exploration and
assessment of the 4 Ps, carrying out creativity instruction based
on those principles; however, it is insufficient to use the 4 Ps to
conduct a complete instructional design. This study suggests
that there would be interactive effects between the actual in-
structional environment, personal traits, creative processes, and
innovative design of products, resulting in complex cross-in-
fluences. To truly understand creativity and in turn design a
model for creativity instruction, these factors should not be
considered singly. Thus, the construction of a model for crea-
tivity instruction that conforms to the demands of the digital
age and that can comprehensively consider creative content’s
potential to enhance student creative ability is a very important
issue and is the purpose this study.
Research Methods
The methodology and implementation flow of this study are
explained as follows:
1) Carry out literature review of blended learning, creativity
assessment, creativity instruction, and project-based learning, to
establish the dimensions and indicators of creativity assess-
2) Explore the correlation between blended learning method
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1283
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
number range, which is given three values, representing the
triangular fuzzy number of a certain linguistic variable. For
instance, (.4, .5, .6) can be used to represent the semantic value
of “slightly,” in which 0.5 is the value of maximum satisfaction
and .4 and .6 represent ranges acceptable to experts. No per-
sonal data are elicited in the questionnaire to conform to the
fuzzy Delphi method’s principle of anonymity.
and creativity instruction, conduct initial planning for the de-
sign of indicators in BPBLCID, and use this to develop an ex-
pert questionnaire on BPBLCID;
3) Use the fuzzy Delphi method for the expert questionnaire
4) Analyze and organize the results and suggestions of the
expert questionnaire surveys to ascertain BPBLCID indicators;
5) Conduct assessment of BPBLCID indicators; Research Subjects
6) Construct BPBLCID.
The planning dimensions of BPBLCID in this study are
broad, and would produce different views from different angles,
so when the subjects are selected, the consideration for select-
ing experts is based on their professional ability, their familiar-
ity with the research topic, and their level of authority. Regard-
ing expert selection, Dalkey and Helmer (1963) indicated that
the error for a population of at least 10 can be lowered to the
minimum and has the highest reliability. This study invites 10
experts for questionnaire surveys; the expert data are shown in
Table 1. Their fields of expertise are creativity assessment,
creativity instruction, innovative design of products, and blend-
ed learning, fully covering the range to be explored by this
study. Each has at least 7 years of instructional experience;
consequently, it can provide the most comprehensive and pro-
fessional suggestions for this study.
Fuzzy Delphi Method
The Fuzzy Delphi method evolved from the traditional Del-
phi method, an expert prediction method and type of group
decision-making (Noorderhaven, 1995). The traditional Delphi
method reveals the consensus value of expert opinions and is
based upon mean values. In fact, in expert consensus, there is
an unknown functional relationship. Klir and Folger (1988)
proposed the introduction of a normalized mean model into the
Delphi method, using the minimal value (a) and maximal value
(b) of the normalized means from the expert questionnaire as
the two end points of an expert consensus triangular fuzzy
function. A geometric function (m) represents the consensus of
expert groups on the influential factor. Finally, the researcher
determines the threshold value based on the research purpose to
select suitable evaluation factors. A diagrammatic representa-
tion of the method is shown in Figure 1. On the whole, com-
pared to the fuzzy Delphi method, the traditional Delphi
method has the following advantages: 1) it can save the time
and costs for investigation; 2) the individual opinions of experts
can be clearly shown without distortion; 3) the semantic struc-
ture of the prediction items can be clearly expressed; 4) it con-
siders the unavoidable fuzziness in the interview process; 5) it
possesses a facile computational process that can process multi-
level, multi-attribute, and multi-solution decision problems.
Thus, this study uses the fuzzy Delphi method to create a col-
lection of opinions and ideas and individual expert opinions,
integrating these data to obtain analytical results that conform
to the trends of the times and are close to the theme, forming
the main basis for the study in constructing a model for blended
creativity instruction.
Results and Discussion
To understand the level of importance of the indicators for
evaluation and modification of design indicators for blended
project-based learning creative instruction, the 23 indicator
results further use quartiles Q1, Q3 (which are .6657 and .7443,
respectively) to serve as the basis for delineating the level of
importance of creativity indicators. When Mean > Q3, it means
that the experts believe the indicator is “highly important”;
when Q3 > Mean > Q1, it means that the experts believe the
indicator is “important”. These two levels are considered pri-
mary indicators. When Q1 > Mean, it means that the experts
believe the indicator has “secondary importance”, and it is con-
sidered an indicator of secondary consideration.
a m b
)( xUn
Expert Questionnaire Content
This study uses a semi-closed questionnaire to collect exper-
topinion. Experts are asked to evaluate the constructed indica-
tors of BPBLCID from their research on and experiences with
creativity and to offer their subjective value judgments in the
form of scores. In addition, the experts and scholars are permit-
ted to add indicators to address insufficiencies in the original
indicators. The evaluation scale definition of the model con-
struction indicators in the questionnaire have 0 ~ 1 as the fuzzy Figure 1.
Triangular fuzzy number diagram.
Table 1.
Background data of experts and scholars.
Item Gender Professional field Number of years in
instruction Occupation Education Age
Type Male Female
assessment Creativity
design of
learning26 - 30
years 16 - 20
years 11 - 15
years 6 - 10
years ProfessorAssociate
professor Assistant
professor Doctorate Masters 50 - 59
40 - 49
Number 6 4 7 5 4 4 1 5 3 1 3 5 2 9 1 3 7
Analysis of Results of Fuzzy Delphi Method Expert
This study uses the fuzzy Delphi method to compute and
construct the item scores (m) and indicator means (M) for the
BPBLCID indicator items. The 4 Ps analysis results are ex-
plained below.
Analysis of the indicators for creativ i ty character traits
Table 2 shows that for creativity character traits, the “highly
important” rank indicators include five items: seeking knowl-
edge, associative, proactive, adaptable, and imaginative, with
scores of .8088, .7902, .7663, .7505 and .7476, respectively.
The “important” rank indicator is originality, with a score of
0.6829. Independent challenge and high capability are listed at
the rank of “secondary importance”, also with scores as high
as .6644 and .5537. This result suggests that most experts iden-
tify with the creativity character trait indicators summarized by
this study. The main points for integration into instructional
design include the following:
1) Encourage students to be flexible rather than rigid so that
they can flexibly cope with various situations. They should
have a high degree of tolerance for fuzzy and uncertain matters,
to break through the constraints of their thinking. Train students
to have unique insight and imagination, think from multiple
dimensions, and use new concepts to solve problems. Cultivate
students’ opinions, personal styles, and original ideas to en-
hance student ability in proposing unique and logical views. 2)
Enhance student curiosity and learning motivation, encouraging
them to actively pursue their interests to enhance acceptance for
new matters and experiences. Cultivate student ability in inte-
grating different ideas, making new connections among super-
ficially unrelated things or concepts. Guide students to set goals
for themselves in pursuit of self-affirmation and enthusiastic,
proactive attitudes, to encourage them to work hard at seeking
innovation and discoveries.
In summary, this study integrates expert opinions to ascertain
that the BPBLCID must be able to cultivate the following
character traits among university students: seeking knowledge,
associative ability, proactivity, adaptability, imagination, origi-
nality, accepting of independent challenge, and high capability.
Through the cultivation of creativity character traits, the BPB-
LCID should enhance learning effects in creativity of university
Analysis of indicators for ability in the creative process
Table 3 shows that, among indicators of ability in the crea-
tive process, indicators with “important” include the verifica-
tion stage and the clarification stage, with scores of .7930
and .7260, respectively. Indicators with “secondary impor-
tance” include the incubation stage and the preparation stage,
Table 2.
Analysis of creativity character traits.
Indicator Item
score (m)mean (M)Level of importanc e
Q1 = .6657
Q3 = .7443 Analytical results
Is highly curious, with strong learn ing motivation. .7986 .8088
1. Seeking knowledge Ca n actively explor e matters of interest, high ac ceptance for new
matters. .8190 highly important primary indicators
2. Associative ability Can make new connections among su p erficially unrelated ideas or
concepts. .8012 .7902highly im portant primary indicators
Has the ability to integrate different ideas. .7792
3. Proactivit y Has a high degre e of enthusiasm, strong motivation, and active
attitudes for advancement. .8190 .7663highly important primar y indicators
Can set one’s own objectiv es and pursu e self-affirmation. .7007
Have the motivation to create and work hard to seek innova tive
discoveries. .7792
4. Adaptability Can be flexible rather than rigid, can flexibly react to various
situations. .7986 .7505highly important primar y indicators
Have a high degree of tolerance for fuzzy and unc ertain matters. .6895
Can break through the constraints of their thinking and use new
concepts to solve problems. .7634
5. Imagination Thinks broadly and obse rves from different pe r sp ectives, has a high
degree of sensitivity. .7318 .7476highly important primar y indicators
Is able to produce unique insights, can propose multiple opinions. .7634
6. Originality Has individua l vi ews and pers on al style, does n ot follow precedents..6746 .6829important primary indi cators
Uses individual values and standards to evaluate matter s, has original
thoughts. .6281
Can po se unique and logical views toward dealing with problems ..7460
Can indepe ndently complete work and overcome obstacles. .6281 .6644secondary importance secondary indicators
7. Accepting of inde-
pendent challe nge Can bravel y accept new challenges. .7007
Has profess i onal knowledge, good at t hinking, can address complex
issues. .5973 .5537secondary importance secondary indicators
8. High capability Has a high degree of faith and pride in personal ability. .5101
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1285
Table 3.
Analysis of ability in the creative process.
Indicator Item
Fuzzy score
(m) Mean (M)Level of importance
Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443 Analytical results
Can implement new ideas . .7986 .7930Important
4. Verification stage Can conduct verification of the problem-solving metho d. .7818 Primary indicators
Can concre tely execute ideas, produce crea tive achievements..7986
Can provide solutions. .7986 .7260Important
3. Clarification stage Can evaluate effec tive solutions. .6863 Primary indicators
Can continuou sly modify possible solutions of a problem to
solve it. .7792
Can find the optimal sol u tion. .6398
Can think ab o ut and discover the nee ds o f a problem. .6012 .6553
2. Incubation stage Can consider p ossible solutions to problems. .6378 Secondary importance
Can seek suitable and feasible solutions to a problem. .7270
Listed as primary
indicator a fter
Can collect related data. .6520 .6360
1. Preparation stage Can integra t e related new and old knowl edge. .7294 Secondary importance
Can understand the facts of a problem. .5735
Can have s po ntaneous inspirations and ideas. .5889
Listed as primary
indicator a fter
with scores of .6553 and .6360, respectively. The scores are all
over .6360. This shows that most experts agree with the impor-
tance of indicators of ability in the creative process. The levels
of importance clearly show that experts believe that the eleva-
tion of student abilities in the verification and clarification
stages is more important than elevation of abilities in the incu-
bation and preparation stages. The main points in the design of
creative process instruction include:
1) Provide diverse channels so that students can collect data,
blending old and new knowledge as they analyze the facts of
the problem. Through platform group discussions, they can
consider possible solutions to arrive at the most suitable and
feasible ones.
2) Design practical activities for creativity, so that when stu-
dents face problems, they can propose solutions and evaluate
and modify them to find the optimal solution. They can then
implement concrete verification of solutions and execute their
ideas to create new works.
To summarize, this study integrates expert opinions to ascer-
tain that BPBLCID indicators must proceed from the initial
preparation stage, through the incubation and clarification
stages, to the verification stage with full consideration. There
should also be comprehensive design of curricular activities
that can cultivate abilities throughout the creative process based
on the indicators to enhance the creativity learning effects of
university students.
Analysis of indicators for innovative design of products
Table 4 shows that, among indicators for innovative design
of products, all have the rank of “important,” including effec-
tiveness, originality, and adaptability, with scores of .7029, .7016
and .6697, respectively. This shows that most experts agree
with the importance of indicators for innovative design of
products in this study. The main points of instructional design
1) To ensure that students can consider and apply new con-
cepts from various perspectives to break through the constraints
of their thinking and can use different materials to complete
projects, expressing unique ideas and imaginative insights.
2) To guide student projects toward value and usability, as
well as conformity to topical demands, to effectively execute
tasks and solve problems.
In sum, this study integrates expert opinions to ascertain that
the BPBLCID must clearly plan the main points for innovative
design of products. This implementation allows students to
clearly understand that innovative product design must be ef-
fective, original, and adaptable. The model is designed to pro-
duce clear objectives to enhance the learning effects of creativ-
ity in university students.
Indicator analysis for instructional environment for crea-
Table 5 shows that, among indicators for instructional envi-
ronment for creativity, the indicator ranked “highly important”
is asking questions, with a score of .7460. Indicators with the
rank of “important” include six items: interest and motivation,
reward support, reflection on challenges, flexible opening, as-
sessment, and independence, with scores of .7426, .7236,
.7072, .6878, .6826 and .6669, respectively. Cooperative dis-
cussion is an indicator with “secondary importance,” scoring as
high as .6166. This result shows that most experts affirm the
instructional environment indicators selected by this study. The
main points of instructional design include the following:
1) At the platform discussion area, use diverse techniques
and methods in asking questions to guide student thinking,
encouraging students to express diverse opinions and views,
while paying attention to student problems and suggestions.
This approach creates a diverse and variable learning environ-
ment. Furthermore, identify student strengths, abilities, and
interests in the learning process and accept their thoughts and
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
Table 4.
Analysis of innova t i v e d e s ig n o f p roducts.
Indicator Item
Fuzzy score
(m) Mean (M)Level of importance
Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443 Analytical results
Can meet the topical requirements. .8190 .7029 Important
1. Effectiveness Can e ffectively execute tasks or solve problems. .6520 Primary indicators
Has value. .6520
Has usability. .6885
2. Originality Can demonstrate uniqu e imaginat io n. .7159 .7016 Important
Is unique and lo gical. .7609 Primary indicators
Can reconnect and recombine concepts or ideas that others
cannot think of. .6281
3. Adaptability Obtains results after multidimensional thinking. .7294 .6697 Important
Can apply new concepts. .6499 Primary indicators
Can demonstrate one’s own abilities in analysis, comparison,
and determination. .6499
Can be flexible and use different m aterials for completion..7460
Can break thr ough the constraints of thinking. .5735
Table 5.
Analysis of instructional environment for creativity.
Indicator Item
Fuzzy score
(m) Mean (M) Level of importance
Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443
Emphasize student questions and suggestions. .7460 .7460
1. Asking
questions Encourage students to express opinions and diverse viewpoints. .7460 Highly important Primary
indicato rs
Use diverse techniques and methods for asking quest i ons to lead student thinking..7460
Identify student strengths, abilities, and interests in t he process of instruction..779 2 .7426 Important
2. Interest and
motivation Encourage st udents to keep trying to discover thei r o wn interests. .7294
indicato rs
Use diverse and variable methods to form the learning envir o nment. .7634
Use various strategies and methods to elicit student learning motivation. .6984
Give praise and affirmation for students’ creative products and behaviors. .6281 .7236 Important
3. Reward
support Respect and accept student views and feelings. .7634
indicato rs
When students encounter difficultie s, offer support a nd encouragement. .7792
Give students challengi n g problem s and tasks. .7135 .7072 Important
4. Reflection on
challenges Encourage students to take reasonable risks in the creative process. .7135
indicato rs
Encourage students to reflect and perceive that they are also creative in
instruction. .7294
Enhance student abilities and use this for continuous improvement and growth in
instruction. .6724
Form a free and open learning atmo sp here. .7634 .6878 Important
5. Flexibility and
openness Guide students in thinking from diverse perspec ti v es. .7318
indicato rs
Encourage students to freely ask questions, respe ct students’ individual
differences. .6281
Give studen t s the opportunity to choose and enc ou rage them to accept new
experiences. .6281
6. Assessment Conduct a ss essment using diverse evaluation methods. .6863 .6826 Important
Do not jump to conclusions about s tudent ideas. .7435
indicato rs
Expect that s t udents will evaluate themselves, and le t them underst and the
evaluation standards before evaluation. .5871
Incorporate creativity into homework assessme nt. .7135
7. Independence Encourage stude nts to learn independently and seek answers to problems or
difficulties on their own. .6895 .6669 Important
Encourage st udents to be autonomous when thinki ng about questions and not rely
on others. .6626
indicato rs
Encourage students to be fr eed from so cial constraints and to not follow ot h ers
blindly. .6485
Allow studen ts to cooperate, discuss, and share i n their learning in groups. .6378 .6166
8. Cooperative
discussion Permit students to coopera t e and jointly d i scuss in lear ning to solve problems..5954 Secondary importanceSecondary
indicato rs
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1287
feelings. When students encounter problems, the teacher should
give timely encouragement and support, offering praise and
affirmation for the creative products and behaviors of students.
2) Give students challenging problems and tasks so that stu-
dents can reflect and perceive that they are also creative. In the
creative process, students should be encouraged to take rea-
sonable risks. Additionally, guide them to think from a number
of different perspectives and encourage them to ask questions
freely in an open learning atmosphere. Assessment should be
conducted through diverse evaluation methods, incorporating
creativity into work assessment. Before assessment, students
should understand the standards for evaluation and they are also
expected to evaluate themselves. Encourage students to solve
problems by cooperating, discus s ing, and learning together.
In sum, this study integrates the opinions of experts and as-
certains that BPBLCID must create an environment in which
the following are encouraged: asking questions, developing
interest and motivation, rewarding support, reflecting on chal-
lenges, being flexible and open, assessing, acting independently,
and discussing cooperatively. Such an environment should
enhance the learning effects of university students in creativity.
Holistic Analysis of BPBLCID Indicators
In this study, a five-member evaluation team was formed (3
professors and 2 doctoral students) to evaluate and modify the
analytical results in 4.1 to ascertain the primary indicators and
secondary indicators. Table 6 shows that, after evaluating the
indicators for creativity character traits, 6 primary indicators
and 2 secondary indicators were established. Among the indi-
cators for the creative process, there are no indicators at the
“highly important” rank, while there are 2 at the “important”
and “secondary importance” ranks. After the analysis and dis-
cussion of this study, the indicators of ability in the creative
process appear to have temporal sequence relationships that are
continuous, with scores close to the Q1 value. Thus, after eva-
luation, these 4 indicators are listed as primary indicators. After
evaluating the indicators of innovative design of products, there
are 3 primary indicators. For indicators of an instructional en-
vironment for creativity, after evaluation, 7 are listed as pri-
mary indicators and 1 is listed as a secondary indicator.
After evaluation, the mean for the primary indicators for
creativity character trait was found to be the highest, at .7577,
followed by instructional environment for creativity, innovative
design of products, and ability in the creative process, with
means of .7081, .6914, and .6894, respectively. This result
shows that most experts believe that creativity is still produced
by the influence of character traits. Thus, experts believe that
the cultivation of creativity character traits should be the top
consideration. The second highest score was assigned to an
instructional environment for creativity, which shows that most
experts agree with the purpose of this study in constructing
BPBLCID, believing that purposeful instructional methods,
instructional atmosphere, and instructional environment can
enhance student creativity. Although the innovative design of
products and ability in the creative process received the lowest
scores, their means are still greater than .6894, which shows
that most experts agree that the process of innovative design
and production of actual products can enhance the creative
ability of students.
In sum, the BPBLCID indicators include 20 primary indica-
tors and 3 secondary indicators. The results of the mean calcu-
lations do not affect the original rankings, but they can increase
the differences among dimensions, indicating that BPBLCID
can restore expert assessment of the importance of the four
dimensions, accentuating the priority ranking among dimen-
sions. This assessment is done to ascertain the views of experts
to make the most appropriate distribution and usage of limited
instructional resources to enhance the effects of student learn-
ing on creativity. Analysis of the mean values shows that crea-
tive instructional design requires holistic consideration and
indicates that experts approve the instructional strategy of in-
corporating the 4 Ps into blended project-based learning as the
indicators for considering creative instructional design.
Blended Project-Based Learning Creativity
Instructional Design (BPBLCIDD) Model
As shown in Figure 2, the learning effects of creativity can
arise from 1) cultivation of creativity character traits; 2) abili-
ties in the creative process; 3) actual work on innovative design
of products; and 4) cultivation of an instructional environment
for creativity. Through expert questionnaire analyses in the
fuzzy Delphi method, BPBLCID indicators include 20 primary
indicators and 3 secondary indicators to fully cover the BPB-
LCID indicators and integrate the advantages of blended learn-
ing and project-based learning in the design of creativity in-
struction. With diverse blended learning, it is possible to effec-
tively integrate different instructional models and learning
methods to evince the richness of education and social interac-
tivity, which benefits the formation of an instructional envi-
ronment for creativity. In turn, this integration cultivates crea-
tivity character traits in students and elevates abilities in the
creative process. Through systematic design of question con-
texts in project-based learning, it is possible to form an open
instructional environment for problem solving and decision
making, giving students opportunities for autonomous learning
and the creation of innovative product design to strengthen their
abilities in the creative process. Through the innovative design
and manufacture of products, instruction can actively cultivate
good characteristics in the creative character of students, en-
hancing the effects of creativity instruction.
Table 6.
Chart of BPBLCID indicator analysis.
Distribution of indicators be fore evaluation Results of primary indicators a fter evaluation
Dimensions of B PBLCID indicators Highly important Im portantSecondary importan ceOverall meanNumber Mean and ranking
The creati vit y character trait 5 1 2 .7206 6 .7577 1
Ability in the creative process 0 2 2 .6895 4 .6895 4
Innovative design of products 0 3 0 .6914 3 .6914 3
Instructional environment for cr eativity1 6 1 .6967 7 .7081 2
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
Product innovative
character trait
Ability in the
creative pro cess
effects in
Figure 2.
Blended project-based creative learning instructional des i g n model.
Conclusion and Suggestions
The construction of blended project-based learning creative
instructional design model should conform to the demands of
the digital age. Based on the results of this study, the following
conclusions and suggestions are indicated:
1) BPBLCID indicators received the approval and agree-
ment of most experts
Most experts agree that BPBLCID must be able to cultivate
student characteristics—such as seeking knowledge, associative
ability, proactivity, adaptability, imagination, originality, accep-
ting of independent challenge, and high capability—to con-
struct an environment for creativity instruction that allows stu-
dents to ask questions, find interest and motivation, reward sup-
port, reflect on challenges, be flexible and open, assess them-
selves, and participate in independent and cooperative discus-
sion. From the preparation stage to the incubation stage, clari-
fication stage, and final verification stage, there is full consid-
eration and design of course activities to cultivate the abilities
students need for the creative process. These abilities allow
them to clearly understand that innovative design of products
must achieve effectiveness, originality, and adaptability and be
designed toward clear objectives to enhance the learning effects
of creativity in university students. In addition, these analytical
results can be used to understand the level of importance of the
indicators to serve as a reference for creative instructional de-
2) Evaluation mechanisms for creative instructional design
can help to ascertain primary indicators and secondary indi-
The evaluation mechanisms effectively compile expert opin-
ions and address the research topic. The evaluation mechanisms
further ascertain the views of the experts. The BPBLCID indi-
cators are divided into four dimensions, which include 20 pri-
mary indicators and 3 secondary indicators, allowing this study
to make the most suitable distribution of limited instructional
resources and serve as the primary basis for reference in in-
structional design.
3) Most experts express approval for the incorporation of
blended project-based learning into creativity instruction
The overall analysis of the 4 Ps of creativity shows that crea-
tivity character traits received the highest scores, followed by
an instructional environment for creativity, innovative design of
products, and ability in the creative process. Further analysis
shows that, even though the four dimensions received different
scores, they are very close, which shows that most experts be-
lieve that all four dimensions are highly important to creativity.
Thus, in this study, the incorporation of the 4 Ps of creativity
into blended learning and project-based learning as a considera-
tion indicator and instructional strategy of creative instructional
design is feasible and necessary.
4) BPBLCID sufficiently covers the 4 Ps of creativity
Use of the diverse instructional strategies of blended learning
and actual work activities of project-based learning can cover
all of the indicators of the 4 Ps of creativity, including 1) culti-
vation of creativity character traits; 2) elevation of abilities in
the creative process; 3) practical work in innovative product
design; and 4) the formation of an instructional environment for
creativity. Effective integration of the advantages of blended
learning and project-based learning in the design of creativity
instruction can result in construction of a blended project-based
learning creative instructional design model with the 4 Ps of
creativit y as the main framework.
1) Using BPBLCID indicators in student self-evaluation
and elevation of creativity
BPBLCID indicators received agreement from most experts
and scholars, completing the classification of important ranks.
This result demonstrates that the instructional design indicators
summarized by this study can help to cultivate student creativ-
ity. Thus, students can use the BPBLCID indicators compiled
in this study as a basis for self-assessment to understand the
current condition, strengths, and weaknesses of their own crea-
tivity learning; they can serve as an important reference for
developing self-creativity and elevating creativity learning ef-
2) Implementing BPBLCID indicators in course instruc-
tional design relating to creativity
BPBLCID indicators can be divided into primary indicators
and secondary indicators to ascertain the priority level of in-
structional design indicators. Teachers can use the priority ran-
king of instructional design indicators to implement instruc-
tional design, to make the most appropriate distribution of lim-
ited instructional resources and to serve as the primary consid-
eration when designing courses relating to crea t ivity.
3) Promote BPBLCID in curricula relating to creativity
Using the perspective of the 4 Ps of creativity in blended
project-based learning in creative instructional design is feasi-
ble and necessary. This study shows that BPBLCID can fully
cover the four dimensions of creativity. Therefore, schools can
promote BPBLCID to develop courses relating to creativity that
fully consider the 4 Ps of creativity, providing a comprehensive
curriculum on creativity to be selected and taken by students.
Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). Development of a scale on
learners’ views on blended learning and its implementation process.
The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 26-32.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1289
psychology of creativity”. Boulder: Westview Press.
Barron, F., & Harringtion, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psych ology, 32, 439-476.
Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and
reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom. The crea-
tivity Research Handbook, 83-114.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1975). Beyond boredom
and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the
Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458-
467. doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458
Dewey, J. (1906). The experimental theory of knowledge. Mind, 15, 293-
307. doi:10.1093/mind/XV.59.293
Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the
classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148-153.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1997). The cogni-
tive psychology of school learning. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman Inc.
Gilchrist, M. (1972). The psychology of creativity. Melbourne: Mel-
bourne University Press.
Gowan, J. C. (1972). Development of the creative individual. RR
Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work.
Creativity Research Journa l , 1, 27-51.
Hsiao, H. C. (1997). The improvement of creativity and productivity of
technical workers through partnership between university and indus-
try. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Creativity
Development in Technical Edu cation and Training, Taipei.
Klir, G. J., & Folger, T. A. (1988). Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and infor-
Labuske, K., & Streb, J. (2008). Technological creativity and cheap
labour? Explaining the growing international competitiveness of
German mechanical engineering before World War I. German Eco-
nomic Review, 9, 65-86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0475.2008.00422.x
Lou, S. J., Chung, C. C., Chao, L. C., Tseng, K. H., & Shih, R. S.
(2012). Construction of a blended TRIZ creative learning platform.
International Jour n a l o f Engineering Education, 2 8, 37-47.
Lubart, T., & Sternberg, R. (1995). Defying the crowd. Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Maisuria, A. (2005). The turbulent times of creativity in the National
Curriculum. Policy Futures in Education, 3, 141-152.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Michaela, D. (2001). Fostering creativity in business education: De-
veloping creative classroom environments to provide students with
critical workplace competencies. Journal of Education for Business,
77, 28-33. doi:10.1080/08832320109599667
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended
learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Jour-
nal on E Learning, 5, 313.
Noorderhaven, N. G. (1995). Strategic decision making. Wokingham:
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environ-
ments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 4, 227-233.
Polman, J. L. (1998). Activity structures for project-based teaching and
learning: Design and adaptation of cultural tools. Annual Meeting of
AERA, San Diego.
Procter, C. (2003). Blended learning in practice. Education in a chang-
ing environment. Salford: University of Salford.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan,
42, 305-310.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interper-
sonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework.
Psychology: A Stud y of a Science, 3, 184-256.
Sala-i-Martin, X., Blanke, J., Hanouz, M. D., Geiger, T., & Mia, I.
(2010). The global competitiveness index 2010-2011: Looking be-
yond the global economic crisis. The Global Competitiveness Report
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do
we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104,
251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.251
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating
creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Simon & Schuster
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning.
San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
Treffinger, D. J., County, V., Gifted, N. S. L. T. I. O. T., & Talented, T.
(1980). Encouraging creative learning for the gifted and talented: A
handbook of methods and techniques. Ventura County Superinten-
dent of Schools Office.
Treffinger, D. J., Isa ksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2005). Creative
problem solving: An introduction. Prufrock Pr.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Cape.
Wu, J. J. (2002). Enticing the crouching tiger and awakening the hidden
dragon: Recognizing and nurturing creativity in Chinese students.
Development and Practice of Creativity, Taipei.
Zimmerman, E. (2006). It takes effort and time to achieve new ways of
thinking: Creativity and art education. The International Journal of
Arts Education, 3, 74-87.
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .