QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL

Title

Creativity Across Disciplines and Cultures: The TCU

Institute for Inquiry, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (I3E)

Team Members

Harold Leeman – Physical Plant Administration Joddy Murray – AddRan College of Liberal Arts Andrew Schoolmaster – AddRan College of Liberal Arts James Scott – AddRan College of Liberal Arts Eric Simanek – College of Science and Engineering Raymond Smilor – Neeley School of Business Kathryn Cavins-Tull – Student Affairs

May 1, 2012

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 1

2. Topic Identification 2

3. Desired Student Learning Outcomes 5

4. Review of Literature 6

5. I3E Structure, Functions, and Action 9

6. Implementation Timeline 14

7. Resources 16

8. Assessment 17

9. Conclusion 18

10. References 22

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Process and Product 3 Figure 2 Organizational Chart 10 Figure 3 Student Learning Modules 12 Figure 4 Implementation Timeline 15 Figure 5 Rubric for Inquiry Skills 19 Figure 6 Rubric for Innovation Skills 20 Figure 7 Rubric for Entrepreneurship Skills 21

Appendices

Appendix A Proposed Budget Appendix B Budget Breakdown by Category Appendix C Creative-Campus Initiatives Appendix D Food for Thought Quotes Appendix E Research and Teaching Journals Appendix F Implementation Timeline

1. Executive Summary

To realize our true creative potential – in our organizations, in our schools and in our communities – we need to think differently about ourselves and to act differently towards each other.

We must learn to be creative. - Sir Ken Robinson1

-

Over the last decade, many stakeholders have urged U.S. colleges and universities to give more attention to the development of students’ creative abilities and problem-solving skills. A recent survey of global CEOs (Lingo and Tepper 2010) ranked creativity the most important factor for future success. In response, a number of private and public universities have developed interdisciplinary creative-campus initiatives, including the Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry at Ball State University, the d.school at Stanford University, and the University of Michigan ArtsEngine. To enhance our students’ creative capacities in ways that prepare them to thrive in a complex, uncertain world, we propose a four-pronged emphasis on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Taken together, these four complementary processes form an integrated model that is scalable, researchable, teachable, and transferable. To operationalize this creative-campus initiative, we propose the establishment of a TCU Institute for Inquiry, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (I3E). The I3E Institute would serve as a clearinghouse and catalyst for this interdisciplinary enterprise. Specifically, the Institute would:

• facilitate creativity-related improvements in curricula and co-curricular programs, • leverage existing creativity and interdisciplinary-oriented activities, • support faculty and student research, • strengthen TCU’s distinctive teacher-scholar and student-scholar ethos, • serve as a campus resource for faculty, students, and staff, and • enhance the creativity and problem-solving skills of students as they prepare to compete in a

world marked by rapid change, population growth, regional conflict, environmental disruptions, and the forces of globalization.

The I3E would employ a full-time director who would be responsible for daily operations, budget management, building collaborative partnerships across TCU and with the broader Fort Worth community, and leading fundraising and other efforts to secure external funding. Supporting the director would be two associate directors, an administrative assistant, and “creativity” fellows selected from students, staff, and faculty. The I3E would work to improve curricula and co-curricular programs through learning delivery modules addressing interdisciplinary/cross-cultural activities, existing courses/programs, new courses/programs, and student affairs/residential life. Of particular note, the Faculty Fellows Seminars would be modeled after a similar program at Ball State University. These interdisciplinary seminars would enable our students to have a high quality, immersive experience which could include exciting opportunities for research, applied learning, and service learning working with local businesses, governmental units, and non-governmental organizations. The I3E would be operational in June, 2013 with the hiring of a director and staff, and the first Faculty Fellows Seminar would be offered in FY2015. The assessment of the seminar and other programs and activities would commence in FY2015. As a quality enhancement initiative, the I3E Institute would align well with the TCU Cardinal Principles and Academic Master Plan, including the cultivation of new and stronger ties to the Fort Worth and North Texas communities. Above all, the new Institute would enable the University to better prepare its students to think and act as ethical leaders and responsible citizens in the global community by helping more students to discover and expand their creative potential. In short, this project has the potential to elevate TCU’s reputation as (T)he (C)reative (U)niversity. 1 For a series of thought-provoking quotes on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship, please refer to Appendix D.

1

2. Topic Identification

As educators, one of our greatest responsibilities is preparing students for the future. But how do we do that when we ourselves are unsure of what the future holds? While it is impossible to predict what lies ahead, recent history suggests that our future will be marked by complexity, uncertainty, rapid change, population growth, regional conflict, environmental disruptions, and the forces of globalization. Against this backdrop, what must our students learn and how should they be prepared to respond to unanticipated problems and capitalize on unforeseen opportunities? Over the last decade, both within and outside higher education, an increasing number of voices are emphasizing the need to strengthen the creative capacity and problem-solving abilities of our students. In 2001, Sir Ken Robinson published Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, which outlined why it is essential for all educational institutions to support the discovery and development of each student’s creative potential, how current approaches to education are failing miserably in this regard, and what can be done to promote creativity and innovation in schools, businesses and organizations. In 2006, the Association of American Colleges and Universities published a special issue of its journal Peer Review, entitled “The Creative Imperative.” Its seven articles addressed a range of topics from promoting the creative-campus and the importance of creativity and innovation in sustaining our national prosperity, to creativity research and its implications for higher education. In a 2010 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, entitled “The Creative Campus: Time for a “C” Change,” Lingo and Tepper argue for more creative-campus initiatives that nurture the creative and problem-solving skills of students. They go on to point out that CEOs of global corporations rank creativity as the most important factor for future success. More recently, Tepper and Kuh (2011, p.1) call for colleges and universities “to get more serious about cultivating creativity.” Along similar lines, in an article in American Scientist entitled “Learning and Teaching Strategies,” Hoffman and McGuire (2010) propose a new version of Bloom’s Taxonomy that places “creating” at the top of the pyramid. Improving the creative and problem-solving skills of students might also help address the issue of limited learning on campuses provocatively articulated in Arum and Roksa’s (2011) Academically Adrift. Across the U.S., a number of universities have responded to the creative-campus initiative by starting interdisciplinary creativity and innovation centers and programs (see Appendix C). Some prime examples include the Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry at Ball State University and the ArtsEngine Program at the University of Michigan. To prepare our students for life, work, and citizenship in a world whose economic, political, and ecological contours are virtually unknowable, we must couple the powerful forces of creativity and inquiry (Brew 2003, Healy 2005) with innovation (Ness 2012) and entrepreneurship (Morris, Kuratko, and Covin 2011, Neck and Green 2011). Inquiry helps students investigate the nature, causes, consequences, and solutions to human and natural phenomena. Inquiry is central to undergraduate research experiences and reinforces the distinctive TCU models of the teacher-scholar and student-scholar. Innovation and entrepreneurship are two related processes that greatly enhance students’ problem-solving skills. Entrepreneurship is about the pursuit of opportunity, the ability to leverage resources, and the talent to create economic and societal value. Entrepreneurial behavior, however, is not just about starting a business; it enables individuals to find innovative solutions to social, environmental, and economic problems. Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a powerful global force in addressing a range of issues from public health and combating HIV/AIDS to fighting hunger, environmental justice, and sanitation (Bornstein 2007). Two of the more

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - Albert Einstein -

2

popular examples are in Blake Mycoskie’s Start Something That Matters which tells the story of TOMS Shoes and Matt Damon’s work with water.org, a non-governmental organization dedicated to providing clean water. Creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship are not the domain of any discipline or college and can be at work in all corners of a university. An integrated model is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Integrated Model of Process and Product

First, it is important to note that we view each process as a distinct sub-system, capable of resulting in a product. This is an important point that will be more fully developed in the assessment portion of this proposal. Second, because they are processes we believe that each one is scalable, researchable, teachable, and transferable. By scalable, we mean the process can operate from the micro to the macro level. Each of the processes is a fruitful area of academic inquiry in its own right and therefore researchable. Third, we believe that these processes are teachable and that students can improve their performance in each, and many things can be done to improve one’s creative abilities. Fourth, these processes are transferable across disciplines and cultures and can be generalized to a number of applications. To infuse this integrated model into curricular and co-curricular programs and to operationalize a TCU creative-campus initiative, we propose the establishment of the Institute for Inquiry, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (I3E). We believe that the I3E will benefit TCU as a valuable asset and provide a number of important functions including, but not limited to:

• serving as a resource for the campus and facilitate interdisciplinary and cross-cultural learning, • promoting cooperation between Academic and Student Affairs, • allowing for the cross-pollenization of creative ideas, • crossing educational boundaries and help break down academic silos, • complementing existing programs and encouraging integration and departmental cooperation, • serving as a vehicle for building bridges to the broader community, including business and

industry, the public sector, and non-governmental organizations,

3

• contributing to strengthen the TCU teacher-scholar and student-scholar ethos, • supporting faculty and student research and providing resources to pursue creative ideas, and • building networks to access additional expertise.

The I3E aligns well with all of the TCU Cardinal Principles listed below:

1. Recruit and retain outstanding students, faculty and staff who can thrive intellectually, personally and professionally at TCU

2. Design a vibrant, strong and brave learning community that is characterized by outstanding teaching, high-quality research, exceptional creative activity, and distinctive curricular, co-curricular and residential programs

3. Enhance TCU's learning community by providing outstanding facilities and appropriate technology

4. Accelerate TCU's connections with the greater community: Fort Worth, Texas, the nation and the world

5. Couple wise financial stewardship with a well-planned entrepreneurial approach to academic opportunities

Our emphasis on I3E activities should help to recruit and retain high quality faculty, staff, and students by providing an institutional framework, resources, and programming for professional growth and development. Similarly, the Institute would play a role in ensuring a vibrant learning community at TCU. Its emphasis on creativity and creative learning would complement the development of high quality learning spaces and facilities and address the critical issue of improving student problem-solving skills. The entrepreneurial component, which would include both social and business perspectives, would be an excellent vehicle for connecting with the community at all scales of involvement. Moreover, I3E could prove useful in securing external funding to support research and be appealing to potential donors. One member of our team, Dr. James Scott, has received NSF support for his inquiry-based Democracy, Interdependence, and World Politics Summer Research Programs. The AddRan College of Liberal Arts has received a commitment of $100,000 to fund a Faculty Development and Creativity Fund. We believe that the I3E, with its ambitious plan (which will be described in greater detail later in the proposal), will be a catalyst for securing additional financial support from both donors and funding agencies. The I3E will also integrate within and contribute to these Academic Affairs Master Plan Enhancement Points:

Academic Enhancement Point

Enhancement Objective

1. TCU strongly affirms the Teacher-Scholar Model.

The Teacher-Scholar Model requires a culture with an expectation of excellence in (i) teaching and learning and (ii) creativity and research.

2. TCU will adopt a Student-Scholar Model based on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, with interdisciplinary courses as an increasing part of learning and discovery.

The Student-Scholar Model establishes a culture of high expectations for active student engagement, integrating academic and student life, with students increasingly focused on academic pursuits.

4

3. TCU will support a culture of premier research and creative activity enhancing the scholarly reputation of the faculty and the University.

TCU will support an active intellectual environment that leads to discovery and dissemination of leading edge thought and creative activity.

5. TCU will support a culture of innovation, engagement and emphasis on developing programs that anticipate and respond to major societal challenges facing the region, nation and world.

TCU has a responsibility to capitalize on the richness of the social and cultural communities in the North Texas region and beyond to promote learning, appreciation, and understanding of a global society, and to provide expertise in support of economic and social development and the creative arts.

A review of recent graduating senior surveys (Graduating Senior Survey Report 2006-2009) pointed to other areas where the proposed I3E could contribute. While the graduating senior respondents were very positive about their overall TCU experience, a number did express only a moderate degree of satisfaction of courses outside their major or minor. It may be possible that some of the “creative courses” outlined later in this document could be interesting as elective offerings. Survey results indicate that 25% of our graduating seniors plan to enroll in graduate or professional schools and courses, and programs emphasizing creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship should serve our students well whether they go to graduate or professional schools or enter the workforce. For these reasons, our proposal is creative, aligns well with future academic plans, and will contribute in a significant way to the long-term improvement of student learning and problem-solving capacity.

3. Desired Student Learning Outcomes

There are four student learning outcomes, one each focused on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Process definitions and student learning outcomes include: Creativity: 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. (Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow 2004)

Learning Outcome: Students will be able to identify a problem or creative challenge and demonstrate

the use of generative and evaluative processes to communicate or disseminate an original idea or perceptible product through a form of media.

Inquiry: The process of investigating the nature, causes, consequences, and solutions to

the problems and puzzles of social, political, economic, and natural phenomena. (Scott 2010)

Learning Outcome: Students will be able to design and carry out inquiry, formulating a research

question and method of inquiry, gathering and analyzing appropriate evidence, and drawing viable conclusions.

Innovation: The process of putting an original idea, technology, product or service into

practice. (Robinson 2011) Learning Outcome: Students will be able to develop goals and a plan addressing organizational,

administrative, technical, social, political, and financial factors influencing the adoption and diffusion of an innovation.

5

Entrepreneurship: The process of creating value by putting together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity. (Morris, Kuratko, and Schindehutte 2001)

Learning Outcome: Students will learn how to identify, assess, and act upon an opportunity. Our definitions and learning outcomes are focused on processes that are scalable, transferable, researchable, and teachable, can be applied in any environment or organization, across disciplines and cultures, and are capable of producing observable results. Framing our outcomes are five assumptions or “Creativity Cardinal Principles” relating to student learning and activities planned for the I3E.

• Every student is creative. • Every student has the capacity to produce knowledge through critical inquiry and original

research. • Every student is capable of innovative thinking. • Every student can contribute to improving the human condition through entrepreneurial

behavior. • Every learning experience inside and outside the classroom is energized when people from

different disciplines and cultures collaborate to address societal needs and opportunities. Parenthetically, we believe that every faculty and staff member has the same opportunity and capacity and can contribute to the long term improvement of learning across the TCU community.

4. Review of Literature Increasing importance has been placed on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship over the first part of the 21st century. This increase has resulted in a number of best-selling publications from authors such as Malcolm Gladwell (2000), Daniel Pink (2005), Thomas Friedman (2005, 2008), Sir Ken Robinson (2009, 2011), Richard Florida (2005), Jonah Lehrer (2012b), Michael Michalko (2011), and Keith Sawyer (2011, 2012). Similarly, academic and scientific research on these topics appears in a range of well-respected and established journals, including Creativity Research Journal, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Innovation Management, and the Journal of Creative Behavior. In addition, Thinking Skills and Creativity and the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship are two new interdisciplinary journals reflecting the growing body of scholarly work on these important topics (see Appendix E for a sample of related academic journals). For the purpose of this review, we will focus on teaching these core processes.

Teaching Creativity Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger (2011) offer a methodological approach to teaching creativity called Creative Problem Solving (CPS). The approach is built on a framework of three process components – understanding challenges, generating ideas, preparing for action, and one management component – planning your approach. Michalko (2001, 2011) emphasizes the development of creative thinking processes including conceptual blending, incubation, idea generation, and intentional and flexible thinking to increase a person’s capacity to be creative. Sawyer’s (2012) conceptualization identifies eight stages in the creative process: find problem, acquire knowledge, gather information, incubation, generate ideas, combine ideas, select best ideas, and externalize ideas. These approaches are primarily focused on exercises for the individual. Others have focused on teaching creativity in the classroom.

Whether it is considered from the viewpoint of its effects on society, or as one of the expressions of the human spirit, creativity stands out as an activity to be studied, cherished, cultivated.

- Silvano Arieti -

6

Beghetto and Kaufman (2010) published a collection of essays presenting practical advice for supporting and nurturing creativity in the classroom. Topics covered in this collection range from infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum, to broadening conceptions of creativity in the college classroom. One article by Robert Sternberg (2010), the current Provost at Oklahoma State University, asserts that students must be encouraged to create, invent, discover, imagine if…, suppose that…, and predict when teaching for creativity. He also points out that teaching for creativity is enabled in an environment that encourages risk-taking, tolerates ambiguity, builds student self-efficacy, helps students find themselves, and teaches the students the importance of delaying gratification. A third key point he makes is that faculty themselves need to be good creative role models. Tepper (2006, p.4) noted similar conditions for teaching creativity at the college level, “Creativity thrives on those campuses where there is abundant cross-cultural exchange and a great deal of “border” activity between disciplines, where collaborative work is commonplace, risk taking is rewarded, failure is expected, and the creative arts are pervasive and integrated into campus life.” Two strong conclusions that emerge from this brief review are that students can learn to increase their creative capacity, and college campuses can do much to facilitate and support this important form of personal and professional growth through creative-campus initiatives.

Teaching Inquiry Complementing creativity is the process of inquiry (Healey and Jenkins 2009), which helps students explore and investigate the nature, causes, consequences, and solutions to human and natural phenomena. Inquiry is central to undergraduate research experiences and reinforces the TCU model of the teacher-scholar and student-scholar. A key here is that linking teaching and research is a central mission of higher education (Blackmore and Cousin 2003, Boyd and Wesemann 2009). In a report by Jenkins, Healey, and Zetter (2007) published by The Higher Education Academy, UK, the focus was on disciplined-based research, inquiry, and teaching. Complementing this work is a model of undergraduate research and inquiry proposed by Healey (2005), which emphasized the student as an active participant focused on research content and research problems and processes. In both of these cases the research and inquiry process proceeded through a series of steps beginning with problem identification and articulation, to the review of literature, data collection, preparation, analysis, interpretation, and syntheses, to the dissemination of results in an appropriate medium. Recently, much attention on undergraduate research and inquiry has focused on inquiry-based instruction, where students play a more active role in their learning and develop experimental and analytical skills with faculty serving as mentors and facilitators (Barron et al. 1998, Brew 2003, and Huber 2006). This approach has been primarily used in the natural sciences, but is becoming increasingly more popular in the humanities and social sciences. Our goal would be for our students to take more responsibility for their learning and to improve their ability to solve increasingly complex real world problems. Engagement in inquiry, in and out of the classroom, facilitates student learning in ways that traditional approaches simply do not achieve. In particular, active involvement in inquiry-based learning helps students move from more passive, instructor-directed experiences to active, internally-motivated characteristics of scholars (Hu et al. 2008) capable of sustaining collaborative research and creative activities (Dehn 2012).

Teaching Innovation Innovation is defined by Robinson (2011) as the process of putting new ideas into practice. While there are a number of definitions for innovation, and in some cases creativity and innovation are

When people come together – particularly when people from different disciplines come together – the group can be highly intelligent, efficient, and innovative.

- Roberta Ness -

Research experiences enhance intellectual skills such as inquiry and analysis, reading and understanding primary literature, communication, and teamwork.

- David Lopatto -

7

used interchangeably, our integrated model recognizes it as a separate, but inter-related process that builds on creativity and inquiry. Ness (2012) presents an approach to helping students learn to be more innovative. The approach is broken down into two large components: understanding and overcoming barriers to innovation, and asking and answering questions through scientific thinking. Specifically, Ness discusses a number of techniques, including framing and reframing questions, building analogies, reverse thinking, and improving collaboration through multidisciplinary teamwork to improve innovative thinking and problem-solving. A second approach is covered under the broad umbrella of design thinking, which looks to improve student abilities by encouraging them to think more like designers. While there are a number of variations on the steps included in this approach, common features include understanding the problem and defining the problem in multiple ways, inquiry and observation, ideation, prototyping, iteration and refinement, and implementation. A number of steps are self-explanatory, but a couple warrant some elaboration. Ideation refers to generating as many “ideas” about the problem and possible approaches to the design challenge. Prototyping refers to developing testable models or products that can be easily modified through an iterative process culminating in a final design and/or product. This approach is central to student learning at the d.school at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University (Geer 2011). Here, multidisciplinary teams of students and faculty from engineering, medicine, business, law, the humanities, science, and education tackle problems ranging from product design and innovation to social issues, poverty, healthcare, and sanitation. A similar model of design thinking is also employed by IDEO, which is a leading innovation and design firm located in Palo Alto, California (Brown 2008).

Teaching Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is “the process of creating value by putting together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity” (Morris, Kuratko, and Schindhutte 2001). It has emerged as a powerful world-wide force impacting business, industry, social institutions, and public policy. Entrepreneurship is linked to innovation and creativity, and benefits from research and inquiry (DeCarolis and Saparito 2006). Entrepreneurship also has cross-cultural implications and requires a distinct form of leadership that sets it apart from other forms of behavioral leadership (Gupta, MacMillan, and Surie 2003). Because entrepreneurship is a process it can be learned and applied in any environment or organization (Kuratko 2005). Entrepreneurship is thus not about starting a business (although that may be one of its potential outcomes). Entrepreneurship is about:

• The pursuit of opportunity. This involves the application of one’s imagination, creative problem solving and the process of discovery. One may pursue opportunity in whatever career, discipline or organization one chooses. The entrepreneurial pursuit of opportunity is required in start-up enterprises, large corporations, non-profit ventures, government and even academia.

• The ability to leverage resources. The gifted entrepreneur is one who makes maximum use of minimal resources, who knows how to build and utilize networks, and who gets things done even in adverse circumstances.

• The talent to create value. Entrepreneurs, in whatever field they work, create value for themselves, for those with whom they work and for society in general. This value creation may take the form of artistic achievement, of scientific advancement or of business success.

An entrepreneurial mindset allows one not only to launch a business, but also to devise a cure for disease, write a novel, stage a play, or solve social problems. This is because entrepreneurship calls for breakthrough innovation and open inquiry in recognizing opportunity and addressing needs.

Peter Drucker (1985) makes the important connection between entrepreneurship and innovation in his classic work, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He points out, “Innovation is the specific instrument

Entrepreneurial firms play a crucial role in the innovations that lead to technological change and productivity growth.

- Donald F. Kuratko -

8

of entrepreneurship.” (p. 30). It is the means by which entrepreneurs, “exploit change as an opportunity.” (p. 19) He defined innovation in 1991 in a fax to Frances Hesselbein who was chairman of the board of the Drucker Foundation, as follows: “Innovation: change that creates a new dimension of performance.” This performance can be in any discipline or any endeavor.

A key learning outcome for entrepreneurship, which is tied to both entrepreneurship and innovation, is opportunity assessment. So, an important outcome would be for students to learn how to identify and assess an opportunity. This learning objective could include important components such as how to make creative connections (what Arthur Koestler called “bisociation” in his 1964 book, The Act of Creation), how to manage risk, ways to identify the needs of others, and tools, methods and models for determining the difference between an idea and an opportunity.

Entrepreneurship is a well-established discipline with more than 2,200 courses at over 1,600 schools (Kuratko 2005). Over the last few years, there have been efforts to improve interdisciplinary approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship for non-business majors, especially in science and engineering and the social sciences (Neck and Green 2011). I3E will help facilitate such pedagogy and curriculum and emphasize how entrepreneurship can be incorporated into programs beyond the Neeley School of Business.

5. I3E Structure, Functions, and Action

To realize a TCU creative-campus initiative, we propose the establishment of the Institute for Inquiry, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (I3E). This Institute will help implement our integrated model (Figure 1) and enable interdisciplinary and cross-cultural opportunities for improved student learning. A possible organizational chart for the I3E is presented in Figure 2. Leading the Institute would be a director reporting directly to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The director would be responsible for the daily operations of the unit, manage the budget and other personnel, oversee programming and activities, represent the Institute across the campus and community, and coordinate the selection and functions of a National Advisory Board. Efforts to secure external funding in support of the Institute and other fundraising efforts would also be the responsibility of the director. The National Advisory Board would assist with fundraising and fundraising activities, serve as a resource for possible outside collaborations and projects for student participants, and with other philanthropic initiatives. Two associate directors would work in support of Institute activities. As we currently envision these positions, one would primarily address the implementation of activities, programs, and grants focused on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The other would be more involved with pedagogy, including student learning, curriculum development and implementation, and assessment. The associate directors could function as associate deans continuing to teach in their discipline while receiving a stipend and release time from their normal teaching load. Ideally, the director and associate directors would have their faculty appointments in different disciplines, if not colleges. At this point, we would see a national search conducted for the director position (would be open to internal TCU candidates) with both associate directors coming from current TCU faculty. In support of the office operation would be a full-time administrative assistant. The remainder of the organizational chart consists of faculty, staff, and student fellows. While the numbers proposed are arbitrary at this point, we see the individuals as having an increased interest in I3E activities and participating in training and workshop opportunities to improve their expertise and capabilities. For example, a workshop on teaching creativity and problem-solving could be arranged to help faculty improve their knowledge in this area. The Faculty Fellows would also be selected to lead the I3E Faculty Fellows Seminar which will be further described below. We anticipate that the student fellows would have the opportunity to attend workshops and participate in Student Life programming. They would be drawn from student organizations such as Student Government Association, the residence halls, fraternity and sororities, and from majors across TCU colleges.

9

10

The third group of fellows would include TCU staff. We believe that including staff helps to improve the reach of our proposal across campus and would enable students to interact with staff in new and different ways. For example, some of TCU’s most creative people are working in Facilities and the Physical Plant on a range of projects from architecture, construction, and interior design to landscaping and maintenance. Another area of possible collaboration and student learning could be in the area of fundraising, philanthropy, and development working with staff from University Development. Other staff from the Mary Couts Burnett Library, Center for Instructional Services, Student Affairs, Technology Resources, the Koehler Center, and University Programs to name a few, would be encouraged to participate. Our goal is to have a wide reach and infuse I3E student learning opportunities into units not normally associated with instruction and curriculum. While our proposal is primarily focused on undergraduate education, we believe that graduate students could also benefit from proposed I3E programming and activities. In particular, there should be numerous opportunities for cooperation with the Graduate Enhancement Modules (GEMs) currently under development in the Office of Graduate Studies. The last component of our organizational chart involves departmental facilitators representing the academic departments across campus. These facilitators could serve as a point of contact and both provide and disseminate I3E information to and from their colleagues. I3E Learning Delivery Modules Figure 3 presents an overview of four categories of what we call the I3E Learning Delivery Modules. The Interdisciplinary/Cross-Cultural box on top lists a number of current activities and programs. What this shows is that there are a number of existing opportunities for immediate collaboration with the I3E. Here the objective would be to have I3E serve as a resource, collaborator, and facilitator to help achieve a higher level of synergy and cooperation. For example, the IdeaFactory, under the guidance of Dr. Eric Simanek, has already been very successful in enhancing student creativity and entrepreneurship in cooperation with the Neeley School of Business. Similarly, the Energy Institute has also partnered with the Neeley School of Business in educating land managers, the business of energy development, and promoting energy alternatives. In both cases, we believe that the I3E could be a valuable resource and further promote and support interdisciplinary initiatives across campus. The second box, Existing Courses/Programs, lists additional areas for collaboration that reflect a stronger disciplinary or college opportunity for I3E collaboration. Here the emphasis might be on infusing more creativity into an existing course. For example, starting in FY2013, the AddRan Creative Learning Grant will be available to provide financial support for AddRan faculty to devise new ways of cultivating students’ creativity via one or more of the following:

• Designing a new course (or overhauling two or more existing courses) • Offering new opportunities for student research and creative activity beyond the classroom • Instituting new co-curricular programs • Developing new initiatives (such as a web-based ‘creative teaching commons’) to enhance

creativity-minded teaching within or across departments AddRan College will be developing a new interdisciplinary courses tentatively entitled, “Creativity and Innovation in the Liberal Arts” during the Fall 2012 semester. The I3E would be well-positioned to cooperate with other departments/colleges that would wish to infuse creativity or other core processes (Figure 1) into existing coursework. The I3E could be a resource to support and enhance the existing Undergraduate Research and Creativity Festivals and undergraduate inquiry-based learning such as the Department of Political Science Distinction Program and the NSF sponsored Democracy Interdependence and World Politics Summer Research Program directed by Dr. James Scott. Another potential partner is the very successful Neeley Entrepreneurship Center directed by Mr. Brad Hancock. While the primary focus here has been within the School of Business, the potential to develop the

11

12

entrepreneurial skills of students across TCU is very promising. Of particular note, is the TCU/Coleman Faculty Fellows in Entrepreneurship program which reaches out to faculty from across campus, including faculty from the AddRan College of Liberal Arts, the College of Fine Arts, Science and Engineering, and the Harris College of Nursing and Health Sciences. The third box contains a series of new initiatives that would be sponsored by the I3E. The first is the I3E Faculty Fellows Seminar modeled after the Faculty Fellows program run by The Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry at Ball State University. This program, in existence since 2001, offers students the opportunity to enroll in an immersive learning course directed by a Faculty Fellow. The Faculty Fellows are selected after a vetting process that reviews their proposal for an immersive learning course limited to an enrollment of 15 students. Four such courses are offered a year. While the total number of students enrolling each year is small, the impact of the experience is profound based upon a conversation with Dr. Joseph Trimmer, the director of The Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry. Our preliminary proposal would be similar, with TCU faculty submitting proposals for such a course. Students would enroll for 9 hours with 6 contact class hours and 3 hours of “laboratory” experience a week. The course would be the only teaching responsibility for the Faculty Fellow with enrollment capped at 15. The home department would receive funding to cover one course with an adjunct. The Faculty Fellow would receive a $5,000 summer stipend to prepare the course and $1,000 for course preparation materials. The course would have a $6,000 budget for preparing final products, hiring consultants, purchasing materials, or other expenditures appropriate to completing the project. Four such courses would be offered each year with two running in the fall and spring semesters respectively. We anticipate that proposed courses would come from all corners of Academic Affairs with sufficient opportunity for collaboration and cooperation across campus. To give an idea of what such a course might look like, we proffer two examples:

1. Business Delegation Visit Preparation This would be an interdisciplinary course designed for a hypothetical situation where students are working for a firm that prepares delegations of business leaders and Chamber of Commerce officials for travel to foreign countries to develop business opportunities. The delegation would be comprised of 30 people visiting Brazil, Argentina, and Chile for a period of two weeks. The students would be responsible for all aspects of preparing delegations, ranging from language and culture, to business intelligence, exports and imports, amounts of foreign direct investment, logistical support, geography, and demographics. At the end of the course, the students would deliver the “preparation notebook” and conduct a training session for the visitors. This course would require student learning in creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship and be very interdisciplinary with cross-cultural overtones.

2. Urban Agriculture and Sustainability Currently, there are a number of active community gardens in Fort Worth and Tarrant County. The project would include an inventory of all and their characteristics, number of gardeners and types of crops, and what, if any, techniques were used. The project would bring the gardeners together to learn from each other and develop a plan and materials to promote this type of sustainable activity in urban environments. This project might also collaborate with the Tarrant Area Food Bank. Other proposed I3E activities include funding small Faculty, Staff, and Student Research Grants, an Opportunity Fund for matching grants and proposed development, and sponsoring creative activities such as an undergraduate creativity journal and special competitions which could be incorporated into the Undergraduate Research and Creativity Festivals. The Faculty Fellows Seminars would serve as excellent opportunities for service learning and developing working relations with organizations such as the City of Fort Worth, the Chamber of Commerce, Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Sundance Square, Inc., and a host of non-governmental agencies. The bottom box addresses Student Affairs/Residential Life Programs and activities and represents a good opportunity for partnering between Student and Academic Affairs. Student Affairs conducts a

13

number of activities ranging from cultural programming to new student orientation. The objective of I3E would be to work with Student Affairs to intentionally infuse various aspects of creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship into their programming. For example, a “creativity competition” among the various student organizations sponsored by Student Government Association could address a number of topics ranging from the best ways to promote student health to a social entrepreneurship competition with the proceeds going to a charity of the winning organization’s choice. Residential Life could be involved through residential programming or by developing lifestyle communities in the residence halls that could highlight the processes in our integrated model. What is particularly appealing about collaborating with Residential Life is that all students must live on campus during their first two years, which means that the potential to impact large numbers of TCU undergraduate students with the goals and objectives of I3E would be great and contribute to a very successful QEP. The learning module activities outlined above have a campus and/or regional orientation. We believe that the I3E also has the potential to expand the visibility of TCU onto a national stage. A number of prestigious schools (see Appendix C) have creative-campus initiatives, and I3E would position TCU to play a central role in the development and expansion of such approaches. Through I3E, TCU could become a resource and clearinghouse for information on creative-campus activities, curriculum, and programming. I3E thus offers an important opportunity to establish TCU’s reputation and role as a national “center of gravity” for creativity. To facilitate collaboration across a national network of universities and colleges, TCU could host a biennial conference that would bring faculty, students, and staff from around the U.S. together to share their experiences and discuss research and teaching on creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The recent lecture by Sir Ken Robinson, attended by 700 people, and the AddRan College-sponsored creativity workshops, which drew 100 participants from across campus and the Fort Worth community, are prime examples of what could be anticipated in the future. If we are creative as an institution, there are few limits to the potential impact we can have through the I3E. While all items in the boxes were not addressed, we believe that this demonstrates the potential of our QEP to impact large numbers of students, enhance cooperation between Student and Academic Affairs, include other units in the TCU community, infuse I3E processes and activities across the campus, and most importantly, impact long-term student learning in positive and far reaching ways. We also believe that if the activities, programming, and impact of the I3E is successful that consideration might be given to incorporating some elements into the TCU Core Curriculum.

6. Implementation Timeline The timeline for our proposal is divided into three sections and presented in Figure 4. A graphic representation of the timeline is included in Appendix F. Phase I Inventory and Preparation (FY2013)

The first section starts on June 1, 2012 with the announcement of which proposal has been selected as the QEP. During the period June 2012 to 2013, the focus would be on an inventory of programs, activities, curriculum, and individual courses relating to the objectives and plans of I3E. The homework phase would include building initial contacts with potential collaborators, educating the campus about I3E plans, and working with Student Life on the possibilities for co-curricular programming. During FY2013, an office location (permanent, if possible) should be identified, a job description for the director completed, and a search for the position initiated. Ideally, the director could be hired, associate directors selected, and the recruitment of the faculty, staff, and student fellows begun. The overall goal would be to have the core of the I3E in place so that when QEP funding becomes available on June 1, 2013 to support the unit, the necessary preparations would be complete. Some of the preliminary work could be completed using our team members along with a steering committee of faculty, staff, and students appointed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

14

*A graphic representation of the monthly activity timeline (tentative) over the five year implementation period is presented in Appendix F.

Figure 4 Implementation Time Line*

Phase I: Inventory and Preparation June 1, 2012 Selection of QEP Proposal Inventory I3E Related Activities Identify Office Space Job Description for Director Campus/Student Life Creative Activities Department/College I3E Activities Search for Director Selection of Associate Directors Recruit Faculty/Staff/Student Fellows Phase II: I3E Development and Operationalization June 1, 2013 QEP Funding Starts Director Starts Work Hire Administrative Assistant Office Move-in Select Faculty/Staff/Student Fellows Organizational Meeting for I3E Department/College Curriculum Development Develop I3E Seminar Guidelines Department/College I3E Activities/Workshops Campus/Student Life Creative Activities Commence Implementation of Curriculum and

New Courses Select National Advisory Board Award Faculty, Staff, and Student Fellows

Research Grants Website Design and Development Selection of First Cohort of I3E Seminar Faculty

Phase III: Program Implementation and Assessment June 1, 2014 First Cohort Prepares Seminars Department /College Curriculum Development Implementation of Curriculum Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Fall) Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Spring) Assessment of Curriculum Assessment of I3E Activities/Workshops Selection of Second Cohort of I3E Seminar

Faculty Assessment of First Cohort of I3E Seminars Campus/Student Life Creative Activities/Assessment Award Faculty, Staff, and Student Fellows

Research Grants Website Update

June 1, 2015 Second Cohort Prepares Seminars Implementation of Curriculum Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Fall) Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Spring) Assessment of Curriculum Assessment of I3E Activities/Workshops Selection of Third Cohort of I3E Seminar Faculty Assessment of Second Cohort of I3E Seminars Department/College/Institute of I3E Creative

Activities Campus/Student Life Creative Activities/Assessment Award Faculty, Staff, and Student Fellows

Research Grants Website Update June 1, 2016 Third Cohort Prepares Seminars Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Fall) Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Spring) Assessment of Curriculum Assessment of I3E Activities Workshops Selection of Fourth Cohort of I3E Seminar Faculty Assessment of Third Cohort of I3E Seminars Department/College/Institute of I3E Creative

Activities Campus/Student Life Creative Activities/Assessment Award Faculty, Staff, and Student Fellows

Research Grants Website Update June 1, 2017 Fourth Cohort Prepares Seminars Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Fall) Implementation of Two I3E Seminars (Spring) Assessment of Curriculum Assessment of I3E Activities Workshops Selection of Fifth Cohort of I3E Seminar Faculty Assessment of Fourth Cohort of I3E Seminars Department/College/Institute of I3E Creative

Activities Campus/Student Life Creative Activities/Assessment Award Faculty, Staff, and Student Fellows

Research Grants Website Update

15

Phase II Development and Operationalization (FY2014) The director would start work on June 1, 2013, hire an administrative assistant, and oversee the

office move-in if it had not already been completed. During the year, procedures and protocols should be developed for the selection and implementation of the Faculty Fellows Seminars. Later in 2013 would be the first request for proposals and subsequent selection of the first cohort of Faculty Fellows during the Spring 2014 semester. The recruitment of the National Advisory Board would commence. The I3E website development and design would be completed. Workshops for I3E activities, dealing with creative approaches to problem-solving would be available during the academic year and course development and some of the campus/Student Affairs creative activities could begin. The Opportunity Fund and Faculty and Student Research Grants would be operational.

Program Implementation and Assessment The first cohort of Faculty Fellows would prepare their courses during the summer of 2014 (FY2015) with two offered in the Fall semester of 2014 and two in the Spring semester of 2015. The second call for proposals for Faculty Fellows Seminars would go out in the Fall 2014 semester with the selection of the second cohort made during the Spring 2015 semester. At the end of the Spring 2015 semester, an assessment of the first cohort of Faculty Fellows Seminars would be conducted. Thereafter, the FY2016, 2017, and 2018 procedures for awarding grants, using the Opportunity Fund, selecting the Faculty Fellows Seminars, assessment and normal I3E operations would be routine and repeated through FY2918. At that time, the entire I3E should have an overall diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment to determine the feasibility and desirability of continuing the work of the I3E beyond FY2018.

7. Resources Personnel: Personnel needed for I3E would include a director, two associate directors, and an

administrative assistant. Each of these persons would start work at the beginning of FY2014. Space: I3E would require a suite of dedicated space including a reception area, five faculty offices, and

a conference room. The reception area would be the workspace for an administrative assistant. Three offices would be used by the director and associate directors. The two remaining offices would be used by the two faculty teaching the I3E Faculty Fellows Seminars each semester. Storage space for materials, a copier, and a printer would also be needed. The conference room should be able to accommodate 16 people (minimum) and have a white wall and AV package. Each office would be furnished following new construction standards and equipped with computers and software. Ideally, the suite would have a small teaching room that could serve as a laboratory workspace (including computer) for seminar projects.

Maintenance and Operation: I3E would have a dedicated maintenance and operation budget including

travel, telecommunications, supplies, and other account items to support its functions and office activities.

Faculty Fellows Seminars: The I3E Faculty Fellows Seminars would start in FY2015. During that

summer, the four faculty selected as the first cohort would begin preparing their seminar course. Each would receive a $5,000 summer stipend and $1,000 for course material or other items needed to prepare the class. During fall and spring semesters when the seminars are taught, the home department of the faculty members will receive $3,000 to cover an adjunct salary for course coverage. The last part of the Faculty Fellows Seminars budget is $6,000 for each seminar to cover the costs of producing the final projects and other expenses related to the conduct of the class. For example, the class might decide to hire a consultant to help with the preparation of the final project.

16

Opportunity Fund: The Opportunity Fund (FY2014) could serve as a source of financial support for matching funds needed in grant applications and start-up funding for larger projects, and in-kind funding to show institutional commitment when seeking philanthropic gifts from foundations and other non-governmental agencies.

Research Grants: The Research Grant (FY2014) would provide funding for small faculty, staff, and

student projects dealing with creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Creativity Activities: The Creativity Activities (FY2014) budget item could be used to support institutional

workshops, a speaker series that would bring at least two outside speakers to the TCU campus each year. Potential speakers could be past or current recipients of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation MacArthur “Genius” Fellows Awards. The fellows are awarded annually to a cross-selection of individuals who “show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work.” This budget item could also fund activities and projects programming and competitions across the academic colleges and Student Affairs.

An itemized breakdown for each budget item for FY2014 – 2018 is presented in Appendices A and B. The total requested for the I3E for the five-year period is $1,847,072. We believe that for a five-year period and a campus of 10,000 students to reach, this budget is appropriate and realistic to achieve the desired goal of significantly improving student creativity and problem-solving capacity.

8. Assessment Given the breadth and scope of the proposal, it would be very difficult, at this time, to provide a comprehensive description of the various types of assessments that would be needed to evaluate this project. The assessment of student learning would be the responsibility of the director and I3E staff. Our preliminary assessment of student learning outcomes focuses on the core processes of creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship and the completion of projects addressing one or a combination of these core processes. Creativity Assessment To assess the creative development of our students over their career at TCU, we propose that a sample of first-year and graduating seniors be administered a creativity assessment standardized test. This test re-test format would establish a baseline for creativity during their first year and then longitudinally determine how that creativity has increased over their undergraduate career. There are a variety of creativity tests. One, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, measures divergent thinking (Kaufman, Plucker, and Baer 2008, Sawyer 2012). It consists of a figured component, which is thinking creatively using pictures. The test employs three subtests: picture construction, picture completion, and lines/circles. The test also has a verbal component. What the test measures is originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration of ideas. A second test is the Urban and Jellen Test of Divergent Thinking – Drawing Completion. This test is based on the idea of picture completion, but goes beyond the measures in the Torrance Test. Other types of creativity tests focus on performance-based measures. Sternberg’s (2006) test of creative intelligence as described as part of the Rainbow Project, examines performance on tasks such as writing a poem or drawing a picture where the level of one’s creativity is reflected in the quality of their products. Another performance-based test is the Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile 1982, Kaufmann, Plucker, and Baer 2008), which can be used in rating creative projects and the creative process itself.

17

Based on this brief discussion, it is clear that there are a number of creativity tests, that they are complex, and involve a range of topics from sample size, validity, and reliability to scoring and judging. We propose that a consultant be retained as this form of assessment is formulated and implemented.2

In a 2008 report entitled, “How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning,” the Peter Hart Research Associates recommended that community-based projects and senior projects are most useful to employers in gauging the readiness of students for the workplace. Rubrics for assessing projects are presented in Figures 5, 6, and 7. If a student were to engage in multiple projects, collectively, these could be used to construct some form of portfolio which would also address the Peter Hart Research Associates recommendation that completed projects are good indicators of graduates’ preparation to succeed in the workplace.

A final form of assessment would address co-curricular learning, such as what is proposed in cooperation with Student Affairs and Residential Life. This assessment could include a quantitative part such as counting the number of students participating in the programs, activities, and competitions. It would also have a qualitative dimension to assess the quality of the experience and the impact it has had on student learning and problem-solving. Therefore, complementing creativity testing, which addresses both the process and products of creativity, would be the assessment of projects relating to research and critical inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

9. Conclusion

The proposed creative-campus initiative, built around the core processes of creativity, inquiry, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and the programming and activities of the I3E have the potential to:

• help TCU achieve its mission and vision and assist with implementation of Academic Master Plan,

• impact long-term student learning, improve their creative potential and problem-solving skills, and help prepare them for an uncertain world,

• facilitate cooperation between Student and Academic Affairs, • encourage collaboration with staff across the TCU community, • improve interdisciplinary and cross-cultural learning, and • build bridges to the Fort Worth and North Texas communities.

The proposed QEP project also has the potential for TCU to become (T)he (C)reative (U)niversity and achieve national recognition worthy of receiving a MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.

2 Dr. Magdalena Grohman is the Associate Director of the Center for Values in Medicine, Science and Technology, and Psychology at the University of Texas-Dallas in Richardson, Texas. She is an expert in creative thinking problem-solving, and the psychology of creativity with experience in administering creative tests. She would be a possible consultant for this phase of our assessment.

18

Figure 5 Rubric for Assessing Inquiry Skills

SKILL 1 2* 3 4** 5

Design a focused research question that addresses a clearly articulated and relevant problem

Research question poorly framed and articulated

Research question generally clear; adequate framing

Research question precisely and clearly framed and stated

Complete a literature review to frame the research question and develop explanation

Review is limited and poorly organized

Review is adequate and somewhat organized

Review is thorough and well-organized

Formulate focused hypotheses

Hypotheses are not present or ineffectively presented

Hypotheses are adequately presented

Hypotheses are clearly and effectively presented

Specify appropriate methods of testing hypotheses

Poorly developed research design/method of inquiry

Adequately developed research design/method of inquiry

Well-designed, clear research design/method of inquiry

Identify and gather appropriate data

Limited; reflects lack of understanding of appropriate sources and methods

Adequate; reflects basic understanding of appropriate sources and methods

Thorough; reflects clear understanding of appropriate sources and methods

Measure and evaluate results

Incomplete; reflects limited and inaccurate interpretation; unconvincing

Adequate; reflects some interpretation; generally accurate; somewhat convincing

Thorough; reflects extensive, accurate interpretation; convincing

* Exhibits most characteristics of “1” and some of “3” ** Exhibits most characteristics of “3” and some of “5”

19

Figure 6 Rubric for Assessing Innovation Skills

SKILL 1 2* 3 4** 5

Identify and articulate general principles of innovation and diversity as applied across methods, disciplines, and cultures

Lack of articulation; lack of application to different methods, disciplines, and/or cultures

Vague articulation; only one method, discipline, or culture identified

Principles are precisely and clearly articulated across several methods, disciplines, and cultures

Practice juxtaposing and blending of disparate concepts and products in order to create new ideas and products

No new ideas from the combination of at two disparate concepts; no new products produced

Incomplete juxtaposition of ideas; no specific, possible product imagined

Disparate concepts are well juxtaposed to create new perspective, idea, or product

Integrate experience with expertise in order to create new forms

Experience and expertise are unrelated; no new forms created

Experience or expertise are vaguely integrated, or one is emphasized over the other

Integration of experience and expertise are integrated to the extent of creating a new form

Practice and refine the ability to observe, and then observe as a means to foreground the relationships between ideas

No evidence of close observation; relationships between ideas are not privileged

Some evidence of close observations; relationships between ideas begin to be emphasized

Strong refinement of observations that stress the relationships between ideas

Synthesize unlike, disparate concepts as a way to create concrete images that make the seemingly impossible more plausible

No synthesis of unlike concepts; undeveloped movement from the impossible to the possible

Some synthesis of unlike concepts but no evidence of movement toward the possible

Strong synthesis of at least two disparate ideas; concrete images formed toward the possible from the impossible

Tolerate and choose to value ambiguity over certainty, complexity over simplicity, and the value of the imagination over received knowledge

No evidence of tolerance for ambiguity, complexity, and/or the imaginary

Some evidence of valuing ambiguity, but overwhelming evidence of received knowledge privileged over the imagined

Clearly articulated tolerance for ambiguity, complexity, and the imaginary

Demonstrate an appreciation for innovative expression and synthesis of new forms, ideas, and solutions to concrete problems

Choices reflect an attitude away from appreciation of expression, new ideas/forms, and solutions

Choices reflect an attitude that begins to appreciate expression, new forms/ideas, and solutions

Choices reflect an attitude that embraces the benefit of innovative expression, synthesis of new ideas/forms, and solutions to difficult problems

* Exhibits most characteristics of “1” and some of “3” ** Exhibits most characteristics of “3” and some of “5”

20

Figure 7 Rubric for Assessing Entrepreneurship Skills

SKILL 1 2* 3 4** 5

Recognize an opportunity by clearly identifying and stating a relevant need, desire or problem

Ignores or poorly presents a relevant need, desire or problem

Opportunity is generally clear and presented adequately

Clearly and effectively states a relevant need, desire or problem

Assess an opportunity by conducting an analysis of its viability

Analysis is incomplete, poorly organized and/or fails to identify compelling benefits

Analysis is adequate and identifies indicators of compelling benefits

Analysis is thorough, identifies key trends, and clearly documents compelling benefits

Leverage resources by identifying and evaluating human, technological and financial capabilities

Neglects to identify and/or poorly evaluates resources

Adequately identifies and evaluates resources

Provides a detailed description of available resources and presents a strong understanding of how to utilize them

Convey a compelling vision by identifying critical success factors

Lacks a core purpose and/or poorly identifies critical success factors

Shows an understanding of a core purpose and adequately identifies critical success factors

Clearly communicates a compelling core purpose and reflects a thorough understanding of critical success factors

Manage/mitigate risk by identifying and assessing weaknesses and threats

Fails to identify and/or poorly assesses weaknesses and threats

Shows an understanding of weaknesses and threats and adequately assesses them

Shows extensive understanding of weaknesses and threats and presents thorough assessment of them

Implement something novel or new by executing plan

Neglects to implement plan or poorly executes on something novel or new

Takes initial steps to implement plan & shows understanding of importance of implementation

Successfully implements something novel or new & demonstrates ability to execute plan effectively

* Exhibits most characteristics of “1” and some of “3” ** Exhibits most characteristics of “3” and some of “5” Note: These entrepreneurial competencies were identified in a multi-stage Delphi study conducted by Michael Morris at Oklahoma State University.

21

10. References 1. Amabile, T.M. 1982. “Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43: 997-1013.

2. Arum, Richard and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

3. Barron, B.J.S., D.L. Schwartz, N.J. Vey, A. Petrosino, L. Zech, and J.D. Bransford. 1998. “Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning.” The Journal of Learning Sciences. 7: 271-311.

4. Beghetto, Ronald A. and James C. Kaufman. 2010. Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom.

Cambridge University Press: NY.

5. Blackmore, P. and G. Cousin. 2003. “Linking Teaching and Research through Research-Based Learning.” Educational Developments. 4 (4), 24-7.

6. Bornstein, David. 2007. How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New

Ideas. Oxford University Press: NY.

7. Boyd, M. and J. Wesemann (eds.). 2009. “Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact.” Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC.

8. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. 2003. “Reinventing

Undergraduate Education: Three Years after the Boyer Report.” State University of New York at Stony Brook: Stony Brook, NY.

9. Brew, A. 2003. “Teaching and Research: New Relationships and their Implications for Inquiry-

Based Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research & Development. 22 (1), 3-18.

10. Bronson, Po and Ashley Merryman. 2010. “The Creativity Crisis.” The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html.

11. Brown, Tom. 2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review. June reprint R0806E. http://www.hbr.org.

12. Bruton, G, D. Ahlstrom, and H. Li. “Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship: Where Are We Now

and Where Do We Need to Move in the Future.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. May 2010. 421-440.

13. Chang, H. 2005. “Turning an Undergraduate Class into a Professional Research Community.”

Teaching in Higher Education. 10 (3), 387-94.

14. Clark, B. R. 1997. “The Modern Integration of Research Activities with Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Higher Education. 68 (3), 242-55.

15. De Carolis, D. and P. Saparito. 2006. “Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial Opportunities:

A Theoretical Framework.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. January. 41-56.

22

16. Dehn, Paula. 2012. “A Road Map to Initiating, Developing and Sustaining High Quality Faculty Undergraduate Collaborative Research and Creative Activities.” pgs 22-24. in Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research (COEUR). ed. Nancy Hensel. The Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, D.C.

17. Drucker, Peter F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper Collins: NY.

18. Fairweather, E. and B. Cramond. 2010. “Infusing Creative and Critical Thinking into the Curriculum Together.” pgs 113-141. in Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. eds. Ronald A. Beghetto and James C. Kaufman. Cambridge University Press: NY.

19. Florida, Richard. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. Routledge: NY. 20. Freidman, Thomas L. 2005. The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: NY.

21. Freidman, Thomas L. 2008. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: NY.

22. Geer, C.T. 2011. “Innovation 101.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB.

23. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.

Little Brown: NY.

24. Gupta, V, I. MacMillan, and G. Surie. 2004.“Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developing and Measuring a Cross-Cultural Construct.” Journal of Business Venturing. 19: 241-260.

25. Haring-Smith, Tori. 2006. “Creativity Research Review: Some Lessons for Higher Education.” Peer

Review. 8 (2): 23-27.

26. Hart, Peter D. 2008. “How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning.” A Survey of Employers Conducted on Behalf of: The Association of American Colleges and Universities. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.: Washington, D.C.

27. Healey, M. 2005. “Linking Research and Teaching: Exploring Disciplinary Spaces and the Role of

Inquiry-Based Learning.” pgs. 67-78. in Reshaping the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship, and Teaching. ed. R. Barnett. McGraw-Hill/Open University Press: NY.

28. Healey, M. and A. Jenkins. 2009. Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. The Higher

Education Academy: York, UK.

29. Hensel, Nancy (ed.). 2012. Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research. The Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, D.C.

30. Hoffman, R., and S.Y. McGuire. 2010. “Learning and Teaching Strategies.” American Scientist.

98: 378-382.

31. Hu, S., S. Scheuch, R. Schwartz, J. Gaston Gayles, and L. Shaoqing. 2008. “Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Engaging College Students in Research and Creative Activities.” ASHE Higher Education Report. 33 (4). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

32. Huber, M. T. 2006. “Disciplines, Pedagogy, and Inquiry-Based Learning about Teaching.” pgs. 69-

77. in Exploring Research-Based Teaching. ed. C. Kreber. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

33. Isaksen, Scott G., K. Brean Dorval, and D. J. Treffinger. 2011. Creative Approaches to Problem Solving: A Framework for Innovation and Change. Sage Publications: CA.

23

34. Jenkins, A., M. Healy, and R. Zetter. 2007. Linking Teaching and Research in Departments and

Disciplines. The Higher Education Academy: York, UK.

35. Kaufman, J. C., J. A. Plucker, and J. Baer. 2008. Essentials of Creativity Assessment. Wiley: NY.

36. Kelley, David. 2011. “Innovation 101.” The Wall Street Journal. October 17. http://online. wsj.com/article_email/SB100014240529702048313045765967033119827740-1/html.

37. Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The Act of Creation. MacMillan: NY.

38. Kuratko, D. 2005. “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and

Challenges.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. September. 577-597.

39. Lehrer, Jonah. 2012. “How to be Creative.” The Wall Street Journal. March 12. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370304577265632205015846.html.

40. Lehrer, Jonah. 2012b. Imagine: How Creativity Works. Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt: NY. 41. Lingo, Elizabeth Long and Steven J. Tepper. “The Creative Campus: Time for a “C” Change.” The

Chronicle of Higher Education. October 15, 2010. A28.

42. Lopatto, D. 2003. “The Essential Features of Undergraduate Research.” CUR Quarterly. 24, 139-42.

43. Michalko, M. 2011. Creative Thinkering: Putting Your Imagination to Work. New World Library:

CA.

44. Michalko, M. 2001. Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius. Ten Speed Press: CA. 45. Morris, Michael H., Donald F. Kuratko, and Jeffrey G. Covin. 2011. Corporate Entrepreneurship

and Innovation: Entrepreneurial Development within Organizations. 3rd Edition. South-Western: Mason, Ohio.

46. Morris, M., D. Kuratko, and M. Schindehutte. 2001. “Towards Integration: Understanding

Entrepreneurship through Frameworks.” Entrepreneurship and Innovation. February. 34-49.

47. Morris, M., D. Kuratko, M. Schindehutte, and A. Spivack. 2012. “Framing the Entrepreneurial Experience.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. January. 11-40.

48. Mycoskie, Blake. 2011. Start Something That Matters. Random House: NY.

49. Neck, H.N. and P.G. Green. 2011. “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.” Journal of Small Business Management. January. 49 (1): 55-70.

50. Ness, Roberta. 2012. Innovation Generation: How to Produce Creative and Useful Scientific

Ideas. Oxford University Press: NY.

51. Pink, Daniel. 2006. A Whole New Mind. Penguin Group: NY.

52. Plucker, Jonathan A., Ronald A. Beghetto, and Gayle T. Dow. 2004. “Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research.” Educational Psychologist. 39 (2): 83-96.

24

53. Ramsden, P. 2001. “Strategic Management of Teaching and Learning.” pgs. 1-10. in Improving Student Learning Strategically. ed. C. Rust. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University: Oxford.

54. Robinson, Ken. 2009. The Element. Penguin Books: NY.

55. Robinson, Ken. 2011. Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. 2nd Ed. Capstone Publishing: UK.

56. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2011. Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

57. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

58. Scott, James M. 2010. "Developing Student - Scholars: Approaches, Strategies and Suggestions

for Undergraduate Research Programs." Invited Lecture for the Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, Sept. 16, 2010.

59. Silvano, Arieti. 1976. Creativity: The Magic Synthesis. Basic Books: NY. 60. Sternberg, Robert J. 2004. “Teaching for Creativity.” pgs. 394-414. in Nurturing Creativity in the

Classroom. eds. R. A. Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman. Cambridge University Press: NY. 61. Sternberg, Robert J. 2004. “Teaching College Students that Creativity is a Decision.” Guidance

and Counseling. 19 (4).

62. Sternberg, Robert J. and The Rainbow Project Collaborators. 2006. “The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT Through Assessments of Analytical, Practical, and Creative Skills.” Intelligence. 34: 321-350.

63. Tepper, S. J. and G. D. Kuh. “Let’s Get Serious About Cultivating Creativity.” The Chronicle

Review. September 4, 2011.

64. Tepper, S. J. 2006. “Taking the Measure of the Creative Campus.” Peer Review. 8 (2): 4-7.

65. Wince-Smith, Deborah L. 2006. “The Creativity Imperative: A National Perspective.” Peer Review. 8 (2): 12-14.

25

Appendix C Creative-Campus Initiatives

Interdisciplinary Creativity/Innovation Programs and Centers

Rutgers University Center for Innovation Studies – promotes synergy among innovation-related research activities. Vanderbilt The Curb Center for Art Enterprise and Public Policy – seeks to identify and strengthen the public interest related to creative enterprise and expressive life. Ball State University Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry – each semester students and faculty explore the connections among the arts, humanities, science and technology, create a product to illustrate their collaborative research and interdisciplinary study, and present their product to the community in a public forum. University of Alabama Creative Campus – dedicated to building a collaborative environment where students can connect with each other, faculty, and their community in turning innovative ideas into action. University of Michigan ArtsEngine’s mission is to maximize the creative production of UM students, faculty, and staff by integrating the arts, architecture, and engineering, benefitting the individuals who exercise their creativity, informed by the cultures that are transformed by their work. As part of their program they offer a creative process course supported by the Multidisciplinary and Team Teaching Initiative. Stanford University The d.school is a hub for innovators at Stanford University bringing students and faculty from engineering, medicine, business, law, the humanities, science, and education to take on the world’s messy problems. The d.school uses a design thinking approach with a methodology for innovation that combines creative and analytical processes in a collaborative environment. The d.school is housed within the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. Emory University Creativity Lifestyle Community in residential life programs.

Appendix D Food for Thought Quotes

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

- Albert Einstein -

Whether it is considered from the viewpoint of its effects on society, or as one of the expressions of the human spirit, creativity stands out as an activity to be studied, cherished, cultivated.

- Silvano Arieti -

When people come together – particularly when people from different disciplines come together – the group can be highly intelligent, efficient, and innovative.

- Roberta Ness -

Creativity thrives on those campuses where there is abundant cross-cultural exchange and a great deal of “border” activity between disciplines, where collaborative work is commonplace, risk taking is rewarded, failure is expected, and creative arts are pervasive and integrated into campus life.

- Tepper -

Cross disciplinary teams are now essential to tackle the most critical problems confronted by business, academics, and society.

- Wince-Smith -

Creativity and innovation have become essential to generating the jobs that we will need in order to sustain our standard of living over the coming decades.

- Wince-Smith -

…engaged forms of learning, including involvement in research, are transformational experiences for undergraduate students.”

- Osborne and Karukstis -

Research experiences enhance intellectual skills such as inquiry and analysis, reading and understanding primary literature, communication, and teamwork.

- Lopatto -

Strategies promoting active learning are superior to passive learning (lectures) in promoting the development of student’s skills in thinking and writing.

- Bonwell and Eison -

…universities should treat learning as not yet wholly solved problems and hence always in research mode.

- Wilhelm von Humboldt on the future University of Berlin -

We require curricula that are transdisciplinary, that extend students to their limits, that develop skills of inquiry and research, and that are imbued with international perspectives.

- Ramsden -

Social entrepreneurship is not about a few extraordinary people saving the day for everyone else. At its deepest level, it is about revealing possibilities that are currently unseen and

releasing the capacity within each person to reshape a part of the world. - David Bornstein -

It’s not magic; it’s not mysterious; and it has nothing to do with genes. It’s a discipline and, like

any discipline, it can be learned. - Peter Drucker -

The core of entrepreneurship is about making meaning.

- Guy Kawasaki -

Entrepreneurs, driven by an intense commitment and determined perseverance, work very hard. They are optimists who see the cup half full rather than half empty. They strive for

integrity. They burn with the competitive desire to excel. They use failure as a tool for learning. They have enough confidence in themselves to believe they personally can make a major

difference in the final outcome of their ventures. - Don Kuratko -

If you can dream it, you can do it.

- Walt Disney -

The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do. - Apple “Think Different” commercial, 1997 -

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

- Albert Einstein -

Why is creativity even important? It is important because the world is changing at a far greater pace than it ever has before, and people need constantly to cope with novel kinds of tasks and

situations. - Robert J. Sternberg -

Entrepreneurial firms play a crucial role in the innovations that lead to technological change and

productivity growth. - Donald F. Kuratko -

To realize our true creative potential – in our organizations, in our schools and in our

communities – we need to think differently about ourselves and to act differently towards each other. We must learn to be creative.

- Sir Ken Robinson -

Appendix E Research and Teaching Journals

Creativity and Innovation Journal of Creative Behavior Thinking Skills and Creativity Creativity Research Journal Creativity and Innovation Management Inquiry Educational Development Higher Education Research and Development Teaching in Higher Education Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics Entrepreneurship/Social Entrepreneurship The Journal of Entrepreneurship Journal of Business Venturing Entrepreneurship, Theory, and Practice Journal of Business Research Journal of Social Entrepreneurship International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Appendix FImplementation Timeline

START UP

• Inve

ntory I3 E R

elated Activit

ies

• Identif

y Offic

e Space

• Job Descr

iption fo

r Dire

ctor

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities

• Department/C

ollege

I3 E Acti

vities

• Search

for D

irecto

r

• Selecti

on of Asso

ciate Dire

ctors

• Recruit F

aculty

/Student F

ellows

• Directo

r Star

ts W

ork

• Hire Administ

rative

Assista

nt

• Office M

ove-in

• Select

Facu

lty/S

tudent Fello

ws

• Organiza

tional M

eeting f

or Insti

tute for I3 E

• Department/C

ollege

Curricu

lum Development

• Develop I2 E S

eminar Guidelin

es

• Department/C

ollege

I3 E Acti

vities/W

orkshops

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities

• Implementatio

n of Curri

culum

• Select

National A

dvisory

Board

• Award Facu

lty, S

taff, and St

udent Fello

ws Research

Grants

• Websit

e Design and Deve

lopment

• Selecti

on of Firs

t Cohort

of I3 E S

eminar Fac

ulty

STEADY ST

ATE

• First

Cohort Prepares S

eminars

• Department/C

ollege

Curricu

lum Development

• Implementatio

n of Curri

culum

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Fa

ll)

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Sp

ring)

• Assessm

ent of C

urricu

lum

• Assessm

ent of I3 E A

ctivit

ies/Works

hops

• Selecti

on of Seco

nd Cohort of I

2 E Seminar F

aculty

• Assessm

ent of F

irst C

ohort of I

3 E Seminars

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities/A

ssessm

ent

• Award Facu

lty, S

taff, and St

udent Fello

ws Research

Grants

• Websit

e Update

• Seco

nd Cohort Prepares S

eminars

• Implementatio

n of Curri

culum

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Fa

ll)

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Sp

ring)

• Assessm

ent of C

urricu

lum

• Assessm

ent of I3 E A

ctivit

ies/Works

hops

• Selecti

on of Third

Cohort of I

3 E Seminar F

aculty

• Assessm

ent of S

econd Cohort

of I3 E S

eminars

• Department/C

ollege

/Insti

tute of I3 E C

reative

Activit

ies

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities/A

ssessm

ent

• Award Facu

lty, S

taff, and St

udent Fello

ws Research

Grants

• Websit

e Update

• Third Cohort

Prepares S

eminars

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Fa

ll)

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Sp

ring)

• Assessm

ent of C

urricu

lum

• Assessm

ent of I3 E A

ctivit

ies/Works

hops

• Selecti

on of Fourth

Cohort of I3

E Seminar F

aculty

• Assessm

ent of T

hird Cohort

of I3 E S

eminars

• Department/C

ollege

/Insti

tute of I3 E C

reative

Activit

ies

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities/A

ssessm

ent

• Award Facu

lty, S

taff, and St

udent Fello

ws Research

Grants

• Websit

e Update

• Fourth

Cohort Prepares S

eminars

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Fa

ll)

• Implementatio

n of Two I3 E S

eminars (Sp

ring)

• Assessm

ent of C

urricu

lum

• Assessm

ent of I3 E A

ctivit

ies/Works

hops

• Selecti

on of Fift

h Cohort of I

3 E Seminar F

aculty

• Assessm

ent of F

ourth Cohort

of I3 E S

eminars

• Department/C

ollege

/Insti

tute of I3 E C

reative

Activit

ies

• Campus/S

tudent Life

Creative Acti

vities/A

ssessm

ent

• Award Facu

lty, S

taff, and St

udent Fello

ws Research

Grants

• Websit

e UpdateBUDGET

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68JJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ

$339

,805

$3

54,1

60

$361

,664

$3

91,4

83

$399

,960