Comparative Impact of Arts Integration on Student Creativity Across Curricula

Thesis Abstract

This study investigates how integrating the arts into diverse curricula influences student creativity, addressing the persistent concern that disciplinary silos limit creative expression and problem-solving abilities in secondary and tertiary education. The problem centers on insufficient empirical evidence comparing cross-curricular arts integration effects across humanities, sciences, and social sciences, and how these effects vary by instructional context, student demographics, and assessment practices. The aim is to determine the relative impact of arts-infused pedagogy on creativity, defined as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, across curricula, and to identify mediating and contextual factors that enhance or hinder creative outcomes. Specific objectives are (a) to compare creativity trajectories over a 12-week intervention among students in humanities, STEM, and social science streams; (b) to examine the differential impact of teacher professional development in arts integration on student creativity; (c) to explore how classroom affordances, assessment strategies, and collaborative learning mediate effects; (d) to test the applicability of Torrance’s and Amabile’s creativity constructs within cross-curricular contexts; and (e) to generate practical guidelines for scalable arts-integrated practices. A mixed-methods design will be employed, combining a quasi-experimental framework with sequential explanatory data collection. The population comprises 2,400 senior secondary students and 120 teachers from ten schools implementing a standardized arts-integration program over one academic term. A multi-stage sampling approach will select 600 students (200 per curriculum strand humanities, science, social science) and 60 teachers (6 per school). Quantitative data will be collected using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (figural and verbal forms) administered at baseline and post-intervention, alongside curriculum-mapped creativity rubrics and student attitude scales. Additionally, a 360-degree classroom observation protocol will capture art-infused instructional practices. Reliability will be established through Cronbach’s alpha for scales and inter-rater reliability for rubrics. Qualitative data will be gathered through semi-structured interviews with 30 teachers and 60 students, as well as 20 focus groups with learners, analyzed thematically to illuminate contextual mechanisms. Data analysis will proceed in two stages quantitatively, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) will compare post-test creativity scores across curricula while controlling for baseline creativity, SES, and prior achievement, with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to account for nesting within classes and schools; qualitatively, thematic analysis will identify recurring patterns related to instructional strategies, collaboration, and assessment practices. A structural model will be specified to test mediation effects of collaborative learning and assessment alignment on creativity outcomes, using path analysis. Expected findings include statistically significant gains in creativity indicators for all groups, with the largest effects in classrooms employing integrated arts projects that align with real-world problems and iterative feedback. STEM cohorts are anticipated to show notable improvements in divergent thinking when arts integration emphasizes visualization, modeling, and narrative framing; humanities cohorts are expected to benefit from arts-enabled inquiry and performance-based assessments; social sciences cohorts may exhibit enhanced synthesis and critical reflection through cross-disciplinary art-science projects. The study will reveal managerial and pedagogical conditions that optimize creativity gains, such as sustained teacher professional development, collaborative planning time, and rubrics that reward process as well as product. The study contributes to knowledge by providing robust cross-curricular evidence on the efficacy of arts integration, clarifying how context and pedagogy mediate creativity, and offering theoretically grounded confirmation or refinement of Amabile’s componential theory of creativity and Torrance’s thinking skills in contemporary classrooms. Practical implications include a scalable framework for implementing arts-infused curricula, professional development modules, and assessment instruments capable of capturing creativity across disciplines. The conclusions will advocate for policy support for interdisciplinary curricula, investment in teacher collaboration time, and explicit scaffolding to foster creative thinking as a core educational outcome. Recommendations emphasize iterative design-based implementation, context-sensitive adaptation of arts integration, and ongoing evaluation using mixed-methods indicators to sustain creativity-enhancing practices across curricula.