Indonesian students scored low on the 2022 PISA creative thinking test, yet the real problem may lie deeper than performance: it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what creativity is. Too often equated with artistic talent, creativity is wrongly seen as a luxury skill reserved for artists and designers, rather than a cognitive capacity essential across all disciplines. This essay challenges that notion, unpacking creativity not as an artistic flair, but as a flexible, trainable way of thinking that thrives on problem-solving, iteration, and imagination. From global testing frameworks to classroom practices, it reveals how education must evolve to treat creativity not as an elective, but as a foundational literacy for the 21st century.

This is an essay for a book chapter published by Prasetiya Mulya University.

---

Indonesian students are not creative.

At least, that is the conclusion one might draw based on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The PISA study was conducted in 2022, involving 15-year-old students from 81 affiliated countries around the globe, and the results were recently published in 2024 (OECD, 2024c).

As a lecturer in the Product Design Innovation programme responsible for fostering students’ creativity, this essay explores the study’s findings further and examines their relevance to teaching creativity in higher education, particularly within the scope of STEM. This is because many misconceptions persist to this day. One such misconception is the belief that creative ability is only necessary for creative professionals—artists, designers, writers, directors, and the like—leading to the notion that there is no urgency to teach it to all students without exception. Furthermore, many people still claim they are not creative simply because they cannot draw or lack musical talent.

This illustrates the public’s confusion between the definitions of creativity and art, which may well be the root cause behind the ineffective creativity education in Indonesia. Suppose creativity is only understood as the ability to produce artworks, not as a creative mindset that can be applied across various fields of work, then it is reasonable that students are more often directed to master other skills that are deemed as more applicable to their scholarly field.

MEASURING CREATIVITY

After twenty years of assessing students’ logical reasoning skills worldwide, PISA innovated to measure creativity in 2022. This decision was likely driven by the growing recognition of creativity as a core cognitive skill crucial for both current and future jobs, as emphasised by research from consultancy firms and organisations such as McKinsey (Dondi et al., 2021) and the World Economic Forum (Di Battista et al., 2023). Key desirable skills like imagination, adaptability, broad perspectives, openness, and the ability to integrate multidisciplinary knowledge can be fostered through strong creative abilities. At its core, these skills highlight one of the key traits of creative individuals: flexibility in both cognition and action. Given this trend, it is time for our methods of measuring intelligence to advance as well.

The PISA evaluation involved 690,000 secondary school students and used 16 unique questions, which will be discussed in the following subsection. From Indonesia, 13,439 students from 410 schools participated in the online test (OECD, 2024c). Unfortunately, the results were far from encouraging. While Indonesia has long lagged behind in mathematics and literacy, it still ranked sixth from the bottom in terms of creative abilities, scoring only one point above Palestine, which remains in a state of conflict. Out of a maximum score of 60 and an overall mean score of 33, Indonesia scored only 19. Meanwhile, the three countries with the lowest scores were Albania (13), the Philippines (14), and Uzbekistan (14).

At the same time, the countries with the highest mean scores were not the US, the UK, or other European nations, but rather Asian countries, specifically Singapore (41) and South Korea (38). Interestingly, both Singapore and South Korea excelled in creativity as well as mathematics, a pattern that was also observed in other high-scoring countries. This suggests that there are a few top-performing countries with significant gaps between these two abilities (OECD, 2024a). So, is this method of measurement genuinely effective and representative?

Before the 20th century, the term creativity was often linked to an innate ability to receive divine inspiration. This definition sharply distinguished the few who were blessed with the power to create from the rest of society (Wiradarmo, 2023). The current discourse on creativity began with psychologist J. P. Guilford, who published an article in the American Journal of Psychology highlighting the lack of academic research on the topic (Guilford, 1950). According to him, something can be deemed creative if it exhibits original novelty and appropriateness, irrespective of how the idea originated. In other words, true creativity must be capable of generating unique ideas, even within constraints (Boden, 1993), where constraints may refer to guidelines, resources, time, or other factors. Today, creativity is a choice.

Guilford (1954) introduced the unusual/alternative uses test as a method for evaluating creativity. In this test, participants are asked to write as many possible uses for everyday objects, such as a toothpick or a brick. The more unusual and numerous the responses, the better. When attempting this task, the first five functions usually tend to be conventional, aligned with the designer’s or manufacturer’s intention. As one reaches the tenth or twentieth idea and pushes oneself to keep writing, truly creative answers will start to emerge.

Decades later, Beaty et al. (2018) demonstrated the effectiveness of Guilford-style tests by observing participants in an fMRI machine. One of the test items involved a sock. While previous tests had asked participants to list as many answers as possible, Beaty et al. prompted them to devise just one function as creatively as possible. Apparently, the study revealed distinct brain activity patterns between uncreative responses, such as “worn as a layer under shoes,” and creative ones, like “material for a Barbie dress” or “a warmer for hatching eggs.” This finding confirms that creativity is a skill that can be cultivated, just like any other skill.

Another psychologist who played a major role in the study of creativity was E. P. Torrance. While Guilford focused on pragmatic functions, Torrance (1974) utilised words and shapes as boundaries to evaluate participants’ flexibility in thinking. For instance, participants were tasked with creating a new image by combining several shapes already printed on paper, such as triangles, wavy lines, clusters of dots, and other geometric forms, into a single cohesive image. The task didn’t end there; participants also had to explain the meaning of their image in a one-paragraph story.

In addition to the visual version, Torrance’s test could also be administered with a focus on verbal ability. In this task, participants were asked to create as many sentences as possible using three unrelated words, such as rain, station, and summer. For example: “I thought rain in summer was strange, but this morning I saw a downpour of frogs that damaged the station’s roof.” One can see that the challenge arises from the fact that rain and summer typically contrast, making them difficult to combine in a single sentence. Could the word order be changed? Certainly, there were no rules prohibiting it.

For psychologists like Sarnoff Mednick, creativity was seen as the ability to understand abstract information and transform it into something more concrete. Much like the colours on a palette become meaningful only when applied to canvas as a painting, this ability is akin to finding the end of a tangled thread so it can be used. One popular test is the Remote Association Test (Mednick, 1962). In this test, participants must identify a pattern among three words. For instance, given the words aid, rubber, and wagon, the expected answer is band, which links all three.

Naturally, these approaches form the foundation of the tests used by PISA. To evaluate creative expression, students were asked to generate ideas based on specific prompts. The originality element, which is an essential criterion for creativity, was judged relatively by considering the overall pool of responses (Guilford, 1950; OECD, 2024b). When identifying patterns while adhering to constraints, it was clear that answers needed to be meaningful and remain within the context of the question.

One application of this concept can be seen in the 2983 question. An orange book cover with the number 2983 written on it appears on the screen. The task is for participants to interpret the numerical stimulus into a story synopsis. They are given only five minutes to write freely and a maximum of eight sentences to describe their creative idea.

Although it may seem simple, in my experience as a lecturer, this is far from easy. For instance, in the Basic Visual Arts module, students are assigned a three-dimensional composition task to create aesthetically pleasing forms using basic materials such as straws, matches, or ice cream sticks. In this task, no two responses can be the same, meaning no similar shapes are allowed, and students often require multiple rounds of feedback to arrive at an original idea. In another case, students in the Creative & Design Thinking module tend to become overly focused on asking questions when assigned creative tasks, spending most of their time fearing mistakes instead of exploring possible solutions. Both behaviours are understandable, especially considering that for years, Indonesian students have typically been taught to find the one right answer, and being different is seen as wrong. This mindset may be deeply ingrained, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth keeping.

On the other hand, is creativity only about coming up with quirky ideas like the ones in question 2983? Is the kind of creativity measured in these tests the same as the creativity that produces masterpieces of art?

BIC-C, LITTLE-C, MINI-C, PRO-C

Creativity is a broad term with a wide range of meanings. Runco & Bahleda (1986) attempted to distinguish between artistic creativity and everyday creativity, but the classification theory that gained more popularity and was adopted by PISA uses the terms Big-C and little-c to refer to these two types of creativity (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi, 2013; Simonton, 2013).

Generally speaking, Big-C represents the form of creativity most commonly recognised, such as when we admire the works of renowned artists, musicians, or directors. Big-C embodies that “wow” kind of creativity, closely associated with exceptional artistic abilities or even radical technological innovations. Unfortunately, this perception tends to portray creativity as a gift possessed only by certain individuals, almost like a myth, which makes it seem difficult to define or measure, and certainly impossible to replicate with machines (Wiradarmo, 2023).

On the other hand, there is everyday creativity, or little-c, which is more easily replicable and can be practised by anyone in various situations. For instance, without being a professional chef, simply creating a delicious meal from leftover ingredients in the fridge already demonstrates creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). We wouldn’t find it strange, would we, to describe a housewife with a limited budget who successfully plans a week’s worth of delicious and nutritious meals as creative? Indeed, that is another valid form of creativity.

Although these two types of creativity are the most commonly discussed, Beghetto & Kaufman (2007) also introduced the concept of mini-c creativity in their research. This concept highlights creativity pursued for personal enjoyment, irrespective of the outcome. For instance, not everyone with a great voice aspires to become a professional singer; some may prefer karaoke or simply enjoy recording song covers. Mini-c creativity also encompasses intrinsic traits, such as a love for trying new things or adopting a “beginner’s mind” approach to fully absorb information without assumptions. These individuals love to learn and can derive lessons from even the smallest experiences. In practice, research on creativity often emphasises little-c and mini-c types, with participants not restricted to those in creative professions (Runco, 2004).

Even so, the existence of a learning curve to reach Big-C prompted Kaufman & Beghetto (2009) to revise their theory, initially categorising creativity into three types, by adding a new category: Pro-C creativity. It can take decades for an individual’s creative abilities to be formally recognised and considered masterful. Pro-C refers to professionals who use creativity as their primary resource. These are creative workers. These individuals are clearly experts in their fields, even if they have not yet achieved the accomplishments that would place them in the Big-C category.

From this, it becomes even clearer that it is inaccurate for someone to claim they are not creative simply because they cannot draw—a common excuse found in design schools. Playing the piano, dancing contemporary routines, and sketching animated characters are indeed valuable forms of practice. However, creativity extends beyond technical skill; it also involves generating original ideas or concepts. For instance, in the earlier cases mentioned, an individual can be considered above average in creativity if they have successfully composed new music, choreographed original dance sequences, or created new characters without copying existing ones, not merely at the level of improvisation, but at the level of transformation. Therefore, the PISA test does not ask students to draw as expected when assessing Big-C or Pro-C creativity. Instead, they are asked to create a collage using existing images (OECD, 2024d). This is something that everyone can do.

The arts and culture education provided from primary to secondary school is often delivered with the assumption that students will pursue Pro-C paths, resulting in a strong emphasis on motor skills. However, when students are asked to create something based on clear instructions or to replicate examples as closely as possible, there is little room for the ideation processes needed to cultivate little-c and mini-c creativity. Yet, these are precisely the types of creativity assessed by PISA. Moreover, PISA does not focus solely on creative expression, as in previous tests. It also emphasises problem-solving and idea generation grounded in real-world scenarios. In other words, creativity in thinking.

CREATIVE THINKING

In recent decades, there has been a surge in training focused on design thinking. This designerly way of thinking is thought to help generate added value and enhance innovation in both entrepreneurship and STEM fields (Wiradarmo, 2024). The same trend can be observed at Prasetiya Mulya University, where many assignments are project-based.

The strength of design thinking lies in its empathise or discover stage, which involves deeply understanding a problem by gathering as much information as possible, and in the combination of divergent and convergent thinking, as illustrated in the double diamond method (Design Council, 2024). The first diamond focuses on the problem, while the second focuses on the solution. Creative thinking itself is part of the divergent phase, where the quantity and uniqueness of ideas are key concerns.

Another creative technique that can be used in problem-solving is the six thinking hats (De Bono, 1985). This method helps evaluate ideas through six different hats: white for facts, black for a sceptical perspective, yellow for an optimistic perspective, red for emotional viewpoints, blue for technical and managerial perspectives, and green for a creative outlook. By rotating through each hat and adopting various viewpoints, ideas can be assessed more thoroughly. This ensures that no perspective is overlooked or overemphasised.

Although these methods heavily rely on imagination, they are excellent for stimulating creativity. In fact, questions that involve elements of imagination can be classified as higher-order questions. Below is an illustration from Torrance & Golf (1990) that uses a forest ecosystem theme to distinguish levels of learning:

1. How can we tell the age of a tree that has been cut down?
2. What are the differences and similarities between a tree and a river?
3. If forests worldwide were completely deforested, how would life in the present and future change?

We can observe that questions 1 and 2 emphasise recall and comprehension, while a hypothetical question 3 encourages students to imagine, experiment, and articulate their thoughts. This type of question is considered more challenging, as it is not easy to translate our thoughts into words that others can comprehend. Regardless of whether the answer is right or wrong, which is often relative in such cases, what matters most is the strength of the argument. The same principle applies in the PISA test. The questions posed emphasise creativity in solving social and scientific problems, aligned with that level 3 thinking (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), as well as the perseverance of participants in completing the entire test (Newell et al., 1962).

In the library accessibility question, students were asked to respond to an image of a library and describe three ideas to improve accessibility for wheelchair users, all within just five minutes. Once again, we see an emphasis on quantity, as three ideas were explicitly requested. This is not only to assess quick thinking but also to evaluate the diversity of strategies offered (Guilford, 1956; OECD, 2024b). Ideally, the three ideas would fall into different categories, such as architectural modifications, the provision of assistive technology, and assistance from library staff. Even ideas like an online delivery service were accepted, as there was no restriction stating that the solution must be a physical product or located within the library itself. In fact, such a response would score well on flexibility, as it deviates from conventional answers. Of course, this kind of score would not be achieved without the student being willing to take risks.

While the previous question focused on a social issue, the save the river question centred on a scientific one. The scenario described a lab team investigating a river and discovering a decline in the frog population. Ultimately, participants were asked to propose two hypotheses regarding this situation. One idea had already been mentioned: pollution from factories and farms, so students needed to suggest alternative causes. If they proposed an internal biological change, such as disease infection, they could achieve a higher score by offering a completely different hypothesis, such as the emergence of a new predator. In the design thinking process, generating as many ideas as possible occurs during the develop phase, aimed at avoiding fixation on a single idea or becoming too attached to the first one that comes to mind.

Therefore, in the realm of applied science, including innovation and the formulation of new theories, creativity is crucial (Moravcsik, 1981). This can be fostered by assigning tasks that require imaginative approaches to their solutions, such as case studies without predetermined answers. In project-based assignments, what is evaluated is not only an understanding of the material but also its contextual application, and at a more advanced level, the ability to transcend existing theories.

In these situations, multidisciplinary collaboration is often necessary, as solving problems requires expertise from different fields. However, Nickerson (1998) argued that the challenge of tackling problems outside one’s comfort zone can actually further enhance creativity.

An example of this can be seen in a collaborative project between students of Product Design Innovation and Computer System Engineering, where they were tasked with creating an arcade game promoting positive habits, such as sorting waste. Both groups had to learn topics that were initially unfamiliar to them, then negotiate between user-friendly design requirements and the technical capabilities of the machine. Projects like this need to be implemented more often so that students become accustomed to making “small innovations” before being expected to produce revolutionary breakthroughs, just as we cannot expect Big-C or Pro-C creativity to develop overnight (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007).

However, not all ideas must begin from scratch. The rapid spread of ideas through the internet has made pure originality nearly impossible. Every creation is inevitably inspired by something that came before, and innovation is often a refinement of previous products. Therefore, in the PISA test, students are also asked to respond to answers selected by the test developers (OECD, 2024b; 2024d). Below are examples of ideas from the two aforementioned questions that must be modified and/or improved:

1. install a ramp so wheelchair users can access books on every shelf level;
2. collect river water samples near the factory and farm, then conduct chemical testing.

The concept emphasised in these layered questions is iteration, which means the ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an idea provided by the test developers (Cropley, 2006) as well as the ability to enhance the initial idea without losing its essence (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1999). Much like the Torrance test (1974), where participants are asked to combine three to five shape variations into a single coherent image, working within constraints is far more challenging than drawing freely on a blank sheet of paper. In other words, creativity is much broader than self-expression through artistic works.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREATIVE EDUCATION

Of course, this essay does not intend to discredit artistic skills. It is true that learning to draw, dance, or play music can help sharpen creativity. However, those are not the only ways. In fact, by understanding its definition, creativity can be applied to any subject. Expensive tools are not necessary; paper, a writing utensil, and imagination will do.

In essence, the task of an educator is to provide the balance between constraints and freedom. The former is delivered through questions or assignment prompts that serve as stimuli. The latter is achieved through encouraging as broad and numerous a range of solutions as possible. Any idea deserves appreciation, so no one feels afraid to express something that may seem wild or impossible.

As part of the creative industries cluster, such methods are routinely applied in design. Interestingly, when discussing this with lecturers from engineering and science backgrounds, some only began to grasp the integral role of design and creativity as the missing link that can strengthen the foundation of scientific thinking. It appears that even at the higher education level, many still do not recognise creativity outside the context of art.

That is why public literacy regarding this issue must be improved continuously, particularly for parents and educators. Just as children cannot suddenly excel at arithmetic, creativity is not a magical potential that can be mastered without practice and intentional integration into the curriculum. This argument is open to debate: in my view, students’ creativity reflects their teachers’ creativity. The educator is the one who designs the task. Educators themselves must receive proper training, especially since our education system has long neglected the enhancement of creativity.

The results of the PISA test can serve as a foundation for evaluation. They can help advance efforts to enhance Indonesian students’ abilities. In fact, there were outliers in the study: five per cent of respondents in Indonesia—over 30,000 individuals—performed exceptionally well. This indicates that some students possess remarkable potential. However, their scores have yet to elevate the national mean.

The world is changing rapidly and constantly. The careers that students aspire to today may no longer exist by the time they graduate. However, many new professions are also emerging. These are roles we could never have imagined before. It is no surprise that in such an era of uncertainty, high flexibility, which is one of the key aspects of creativity, will be crucial. With this, no matter the challenge, no matter how unfamiliar the terrain or the tools, they will be able to find ways to turn the situation around. A limitation is not an absurdity, but a golden opportunity. If there is no path, then what?

---

HOW TO CITE

Wiradarmo, A. A. (2024). Kreativitas bukan seni: Salah kaprah pola pikir kreatif dalam pendidikan. In Teropong dunia STEM perguruan tinggi: Jelajah metode pembelajaran hingga kajian usaha (pp. 84-101). Prasetiya Mulya Publishing.

Wiradarmo, A. A. (2024). Creativity is not art: The misconception of creative thinking in education. In A telescope into the world of STEM at the university: Exploring teaching methods to industry studies (pp. 84-101). Prasetiya Mulya Publishing. [Translated from Indonesian]

---

REFERENCES

1. Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5), 1087-1092.
2. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for” mini-c” creativity. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 1(2), 73.
3. Beghetto, R. A. &  Plucker, J. (2006). The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here”?”. In Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. Cambridge University Press.
4. Boden, M. (1994). Creativity and computers. In Artificial Intelligence and creativity: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3-26). Springer Netherlands.
5. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43.
6. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity research journal, 18(3), 391-404.
7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Collins.
8. De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Penguin Books.
9. Design Council. (2024) The double diamond. Design Council. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/
10. Di Battista, A., Grayling, S., Hasselaar, E., Leopold, T., Li, R., Rayner, M., & Zahidi, S. (2023, May). Future of jobs report 2023. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www. weforum. org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023
11. Dondi, M., Klier, J., Panier, F., & Schubert, J. (2021). Defining the skills citizens will need in the future world of work. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/defining-the-skills-citizens-will-need-in-the-future-world-of-work#/
12. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454,
13. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological bulletin, 53(4), 267.
14. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
15. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.
16. Moravcsik, M. J. (1981). Creativity in science education. Science Education, 65(2), 221-27.
17. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking. Atherton Press.
18. Nickerson, R. (1998). Enhancing Creativity. In Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392 – 430). Cambridge University Press.
19. OECD. (2024a). New PISA results on creative thinking: Can students think outside the box? in PISA in Focus, 125. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b3a46696-en
20. OECD. (2024b). PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en
21. OECD. (2024c). PISA 2022 Results (Volume III:) Creative Minds, Creative Schools Factsheets Indonesia. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/countrynote_Vol_III_IDN.pdf
22. OECD. (2024d). Thinking outside the box: The PISA 2022 creative thinking assessment. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/thinking-outside-the-box
23. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
24. Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 93–98.
25. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge-building organizations. In Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289). Guilford.
26. Simonton, D. K. (2013). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69-83). Edward Elgar Publishing. 
27. Torrance E. P. (1974). Norms-technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service.
28. Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1990). Fostering academic creativity in gifted students. ERIC Clearinghouse.
29. Wiradarmo, A. A. (2023). GAI: Seniman tanpa kreativitas dan identitas. In Kecerdasan buatan arah dan eksplorasinya (pp. 80-97). Prasetiya Mulya Publishing.
30. Wiradarmo, A. A. (2024). Sejarah dan evaluasi design thinking sebagai metodologi penelitian desain produk [Working paper]. Jurnal Desain Indonesia.