Creative Fitness: A Framework for the Explicit Teaching of Creative Skills in Secondary Education
Guy Stimson, BCS, MCS, Teach
guycalaf@mac.com
www.stimsoned.com

Abstract
This pedagogical framework presents "Creative Fitness" as a model for the explicit teaching and structured development of creative skills in secondary education. Drawing from cognitive science, educational theory, and creativity research, the framework conceptualises creativity as a multifaceted capability that, like physical fitness, can be intentionally practiced across defined domains. The document introduces eleven Creative Modal Domains, each supported by theoretical rationale, task-based application, and implications for teaching practice.

1. Introduction
In contemporary educational discourse, creativity is widely acknowledged as a critical capability for learners navigating increasingly complex, digital, and interdisciplinary futures (OECD, 2019). However, despite curriculum frameworks like the Australian Curriculum General Capabilities embedding creativity as a cross-disciplinary skill, its instruction remains inconsistent and underdeveloped (Lucas, Claxton, & Spencer, 2013; Sawyer, 2012). Particularly in high-achieving academic environments, creative thinking is often deprioritised in favour of content mastery and measurable performance.

This framework proposes "Creative Fitness" as a response: a structured, repeatable, and research-informed model for the explicit teaching of creative skills. Inspired by the ten domains of physical fitness (Glassman, 2002), Creative Fitness conceptualises creativity as trainable across eleven modal domains. It aligns with educational research supporting domain-relevant skill development, dispositional learning, and formative assessment of process over product (Amabile, 1996; Ritchhart, 2015).

2. Theoretical Foundations
Creativity has traditionally been associated with the arts or with exceptional individuals. Yet the work of Amabile (1996), Craft (2005), and Beghetto and Kaufman (2009) challenges this narrow view, proposing instead that creativity is comprised of teachable components: domain knowledge, cognitive strategies, and motivational conditions.

The Four-C Model (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) introduces a continuum from personal (mini-c) to professional (Pro-c) creativity, reinforcing the notion that everyday creativity is both valid and instructional. Lucas et al. (2013) similarly outline creative dispositions such as inquisitiveness, imagination, persistence, collaboration, and discipline, which can be integrated into classroom routines.

This framework is also influenced by the concept of disciplined improvisation (Sawyer, 2012), which views creativity as emerging within structured environments that allow flexibility and iterative thinking. Teaching creativity, therefore, involves both constraint and freedom, routine and novelty.

3. The Eleven Creative Modal Domains
The Creative Fitness model identifies eleven interdependent domains. Each domain is described below, with theoretical justification, a sample task, and pedagogical intent.

3.1 Fluency
Definition: The ability to generate multiple ideas or solutions rapidly.
Justification: Divergent thinking, as measured in the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974), is foundational to creative cognition.
Task Example: Students list 20 alternative uses for a paperclip in under three minutes.
Pedagogical Intent: To normalise ideational risk-taking and reduce self-censorship.

3.2 Originality
Definition: The capacity to generate ideas that are novel or statistically infrequent.
Justification: Originality is a core criterion in creativity assessment (Runco & Jaeger, 2012).
Task Example: Design a lamp that functions without light.
Pedagogical Intent: To encourage lateral thinking and challenge assumptions.

3.3 Flexibility
Definition: The ability to shift perspectives or move across conceptual categories.
Justification: Flexibility supports adaptive problem solving and transfer across contexts (Craft, 2005).
Task Example: Redesign a lunchbox inspired by a rainforest, a symphony, and a political protest.
Pedagogical Intent: To develop cognitive adaptability and associative reasoning.

3.4 Elaboration
Definition: The ability to expand on an idea by adding detail, refinement, or complexity.
Justification: Elaboration is essential in moving from idea to implementation (Amabile, 1996).
Task Example: Start with a basic sketch of a chair, then iteratively add five design layers (e.g., material, texture, narrative, symbolism, user need).
Pedagogical Intent: To build design stamina and develop iterative thinking.

3.5 Resilience
Definition: The capacity to persist through ambiguity, failure, or iterative challenge.
Justification: Creative risk entails vulnerability; resilience supports sustained creative engagement (Duckworth et al., 2007).
Task Example: Rework a previously "failed" project by remixing it into a new form.
Pedagogical Intent: To foster growth mindset and risk tolerance.

3.6 Risk-Taking
Definition: The willingness to explore uncertain, unconventional, or emotionally exposed ideas.
Justification: Risk-taking is critical to creative innovation and expression (Sawyer, 2012).
Task Example: Create a deliberately "bad" advertisement and justify its design logic.
Pedagogical Intent: To decouple creativity from perfection and explore subjectivity.

3.7 Collaboration
Definition: The ability to co-construct ideas and build meaning with others.
Justification: Social constructivist theories emphasise the role of dialogue and shared meaning-making in learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Task Example: Silent group drawing, where each participant contributes to a shared piece without verbal communication.
Pedagogical Intent: To explore nonverbal collaboration and collective authorship.

3.8 Reflection
Definition: The metacognitive process of evaluating one’s creative decisions and learning.
Justification: Reflection builds awareness of process and supports transfer (Ritchhart et al., 2011).
Task Example: Record a 1-minute voiceover explaining the evolution of a design decision.
Pedagogical Intent: To cultivate metacognitive control and iterative improvement.

3.9 Discipline
Definition: The commitment to sustained practice, craft refinement, and follow-through.
Justification: Creativity requires long-term investment, not just momentary insight (Perkins, 1990).
Task Example: Improve the same piece by 1% each day over five lessons.
Pedagogical Intent: To build creative endurance and attention to detail.

3.10 Empathy
Definition: The ability to design with awareness of others’ experiences, perspectives, and needs.
Justification: Empathy underpins human-centred design and ethical creative practice (Brown, 2009).
Task Example: Create a product for a fictional persona with specific accessibility needs.
Pedagogical Intent: To centre user experience in the creative process.

3.11 Creative Speed
Definition: The capacity to generate and execute ideas rapidly under constraint.
Justification: Speed supports intuitive cognition and agile thinking (Seelig, 2012).
Task Example: Design a logo in under 30 seconds using only geometric shapes.
Pedagogical Intent: To reduce overthinking and encourage creative flow.

4. Implementation Model
Tasks targeting each domain are embedded weekly in class as warm-ups or provocations. Students submit responses to a digital Creative Fitness portfolio and include brief reflections. Tasks are low-stakes, exploratory, and framed around process. Formative feedback is given using domain language.

Teachers model the domain focus through think-alouds, exemplars, and peer dialogue. Over time, students build domain fluency and transfer creative behaviours into larger projects.

5. Conclusion
Creative Fitness offers a structured, research-aligned approach to creativity instruction in secondary settings. By explicitly naming and practicing the diverse components of creative thinking, educators can empower students to take creative risks, build process awareness, and develop confidence in their capacity to generate original work.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 73–93). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking creates new alternatives for business and society. Harvard Business Press.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Routledge.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.
Glassman, G. (2002). What is fitness? CrossFit Journal, 10, 1–11.
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.
Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in creativity: Developing new forms of assessment. OECD.
OECD. (2019). OECD learning compass 2030: A series of concept notes. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Perkins, D. N. (1990). The thinking classroom. Addison-Wesley.
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Seelig, T. (2012). inGenius: A crash course on creativity. HarperOne.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing Service.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.