TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

THE EXPLORATION OF INDICATORS OF IMAGINATION

Professor Dr. Chaoyun Liang
Department of Information Communication, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
iccylian@[Link]

Professor Dr. Chi-Cheng Chang

Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei, Taiwan
samchang@[Link]

Assistant Professor Dr. Yuhsuan Chang

College of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan,Taiwan
yuyuchang@[Link]

Research Assistant Li-Jhong Lin

Department of Information Communication, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
LCLin@[Link]

ABSTRACT
Although early studies in the fields of education and psychology appreciated the value of imagination, little work
has been done pertaining to indicators of imagination. This study synthesized early works on imagination done
between 1900 and 2011 to clarify its meaning and identify potential indicators. Then, two groups of samples
were collected and validated through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. There were
two dimensions and ten indicators of imagination that emerged during this inquiry. The first dimension is
“creative imagination,” which includes the indicators of intuition, sensibility, productivity, exploration, and
novelty. The second dimension is “reproductive imagination,” which includes the indicators of focusing,
effectiveness, transformation, crystallization, and dialectics. The two dimensions reveal not only distinct
differences that characterize their uniqueness, but also certain shared features. Some suggestions for future
studies are also proposed.
Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis, creative imagination, exploratory factor analysis, imagination,
reproductive imagination

INTRODUCTION
Imagination is the basis for cultivating creative thinking, and thus the driving force of innovation. Creativity-
related research has progressed for many years, but the understandings of imagination and its indicators still
remain unclear. So far, few studies have clearly discussed how imagination manifests itself, let alone developed
an evaluation tool for assessing imagination. Because of the potential applicability to the profession of
educational technology and various fields, some general concepts of imagination must be explained before
referring to them specifically with the indicators which might be observed or assessed.

IMAGINATION
The term imagination has its root in the Latin verb imaginary, meaning “to picture oneself”. This root indicates
that imagination belongs to an individual scope, and has a denotation of self-reflection, an examination of one’s
own feelings and thoughts. Imagination is thus viewed as “a creative faculty of the mind” or “a power of the
mind” (Perdue, 2003).

Imagination enables people to go beyond actual experience and construct alternative possibilities in which a
fragmented situation becomes a meaningful whole (Passmore, 1985). Finke (1990) claimed that individuals have
the potential to make creative discoveries through their imagery. It is possible to demonstrate this experimentally
for many types of creative discoveries. Reichling (1990) added that most of imagination is emotive content, with
a meaning which is apprehended intuitively. Therefore, imagination can be viewed as the basis for cultivating
creative thinking, and thus the driving force of innovation (Finke, 1996).

Vygotsky (2004) indicated that imagination is a function essential to human life as there are four ways that
connect imagination with reality. First, imagination is derived from a person’s experiences which, in turn, are
based on reality. Second, the final product of an individual’s imagination has a complex association with real
phenomenon. The third type of association between the functioning of imagination and reality is related to
emotion. Every emotion corresponds to specific images, and possesses a capacity to trigger impressions and
thoughts at a particular moment. Finally, imagination that has been externally embodied into a tangible form

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

366
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

becomes an object existing in reality.

The definition of imagination in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011) is as follows: “An act or power of
forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality;
creative ability; fanciful or empty assumption.” This concept of image synthesis is also mentioned in the
definition of imagination in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008): “Most directly, the faculty of reviving
or especially creating images in the mind’s eye. But more generally, the ability to create and rehearse possible
situations, to combine knowledge in unusual ways, or to invent thought experiments.” In this study,
“imagination” thus refers to “the process of transforming the inner imagery of students when they face a given
assignment.” Such images are usually developed from an individual’s memory of images and shaped into
something new.

IMAGINATION INDICATOR
Betts (1916) contended that the activities of human imagination can be classified into two different categories:
reproductive imagination and creative imagination. Reproductive imagination is the type of imagination people
use to reproduce in their minds either images described by others or images from their own experience which
lack the completeness and fidelity to make them true memories. In more advanced levels of development,
creative imagination emphasizes the attributes of initiation and originality. Creative imagination is the function
which is present in the great discoveries and achievements of humankind’s scientific, artistic, literary and
technological revolutions (Colello, 2007). From the related literature, nine indicators were compiled to assess
human imagination. These indicators are transformation, crystallization, effectiveness, elaboration, exploration,
intuition, novelty, productivity, and sensibility. The account of each indicator is presented as follows.

Transformation
Ribot (1906) held that the essential element of imagination in the intellectual sphere is the capacity of thinking
through analogies. The core principle behind analogy is transformation. Analogies occur not from thinking about
a singular object, but from connecting one object or one field to another. Vygotsky (1978) stressed that this
transformation enables children to learn how to control a situation through the use of symbols, “In play, thought
is separated from objects and action arises from ideas rather than from things: a piece of wood begins to be a doll
and a stick becomes a horse…” (p. 97). Imagination assists people in transferring a function from one object to
another that did not previously have such a function. This ability helps people in dealing with unpredictable
problems by using existing experiences. In addition, Beaney (2005) indicated that imaginative individuals are
usually those who make fruitful connections between apparently disparate ideas in different fields, and those
who project themselves into unusual situations. These works suggest that transformation is an indicator of
imagination which represents the ability to perform tasks by transforming knowledge across multiple fields of
study.

Crystallization
According to Aristotle, imagination bridges “images” and “ideas,” implying that rational thought takes place in
the form of images, and are stored and combined in one’s imagination (Perdue 2003). In Hegel’s theory of
mental activity, imagination connects “abstract properties” and “concrete universals” by law of association
(DeVries, 1988). Ribot (1906) indicates that imagination can be reduced to three forms: sketched, fixed, and
objectified. This demonstrates that no matter the form, imagination can facilitate people’s abstract ideas into
concrete subjects. Thomas (1997) discussed the theory of mental images and claimed that imagery arises from
the interpretative aspect of perception (‘seeing-as’). Vygotsky (2004) believed that imaginative activities are
crystallized in culture. He asserted that all objects of common life appear as a crystallization of the imagination.
In conclusion, crystallization emerges as another indicator of imagination which represents the ability of
individuals to express abstract ideas by using concrete examples.

Effectiveness
Every invention results from a particular human need, acting within its own sphere and for its own special
purpose. Under these circumstances, the aim of the invention is clear, and thus the imagination is influenced
directly by the constitution of end products and confined within certain constraints (Ribot, 1906). Imagination
thus could be examined by the inventions’ effectiveness. Betts (1916) supported these theories and added that
people are in danger of drifting into daydreams, unless their imagination is guided by some purpose. Reiner and
Gilbert (2000) further confirmed that imagination is goal-oriented, based on prior experiential imagery.
Folkmann (2010) also believed that a sharp focus in imagination will often be associated with a goal-oriented
process that is close to the given requirements as stated by the client. Therefore, the third indicator of
imagination is effectiveness which represents the ability of individuals to generate effective ideas to a desired
goal.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

367
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

Elaboration
During the beginning of imagination, an individual’s attention is spontaneous, natural, and effortless. As the
process continues, imagination becomes a long, detailed, and laborious personal moment. It is a time full of
painful and intermittent resumptions, especially in the higher levels of imagination where people intentionally
reunite images to make novel combinations (Ribot, 1906). Through acts of dissociation and association, an
inventor’s imaginative constructs are challenged, sorted out, broken up, corrected, narrowed, and united, until
they are adapted to a social consciousness. Reiner and Gilbert (2000) also indicated that people can ”zoom in and
out” to inspect particular imaginary situations, transfer objects, and predict paths of imaginary objects. Valett
(1983) contended that incubation is an important way to facilitate imagination. This is a time where
internalization of acquired knowledge and experience occurs whereby the ends of imagination would gradually
emerge and take shape. Similarly, Folkmann (2010) claimed that the process of focusing and defocusing is open
to ongoing reformulation. Due to the process’s functional position in the interface between the inner
consciousness and outer world, it lies in an area between clear and rational discourse and inaccessible mental
space. Thus, elaboration is the fourth indicator of imagination and is the ability of individuals to seek
improvement by formalizing ideas.

Exploration
Valett (1983) indicated that the mental process of imagination can be described by five stages of growth: sensory
exploration, egocentric speculation, personal experimentation, symbolic representation, and functional
verification. Valett continually illustrated that children explore the world through play, and then satisfy
themselves through exaggerations of their intuitive impressions. Thomas (1999) contended that the process of
controlled perceptual exploration takes individuals from a vague appreciation to a detailed understanding of
reality. Colello (2007) also asserted that imagination consists of the possibility of creation as a qualitative leap,
which allows one to explore, dare, and challenge institutional order, and thus overcome limits. In addition,
Folkmann (2010) claimed that imagination can be seen as a structure in consciousness that negotiates,
exchanges, and explores between the known and unknown (judged by the amount of presupposed knowledge).
Exploration is thus the fifth indicator of imagination and represents the ability of individuals to explore the
unknown.

Intuition
Ribot (1906) held that in an individual’s imagination, every intuition becomes concrete as a judgment and
equivalent to a conclusion, which leads to a foresight of the future. Reichling (1990) contended that intuition
could be defined as an immediate mode of knowing, knowledge gained directly as an insight, or a grasp of the
whole. Reichling further elaborated that the insight may occur as a leap from the known to the unknown in the
manner described by Dewey (1934): “When old and new jump together, like sparks when the poles are adjusted,
there is intuition” (p. 266). Reiner & Gilbert (2000) supported that intuition leads people to test various thoughts,
and possibly gain unexpected outcomes. Townsend (2003) anchored that the thrill of validation results in a more
harmonious interaction between imagination and intuition. If people utilize more intuitive representations, then
their imagination would last longer. All these works suggest that intuition is an important indicator of
imagination which represents the ability of individuals to generate immediate associations to a target.

Novelty
The Platonic philosophy associates imagination with novelty, creativity, and irrationality. Betts (1916) held that
imagination takes images from one’s past experience or those gleaned from the work of others, and puts them
together in new and original forms. Imagination is an inventive power which allows the ability to see old
characteristics in new relations, and thus build new constructions out of old components. Vygotsky (2004)
believed that although imagination builds using materials supplied by reality, but it would be productive from
using combinations of concepts that are more removed from reality. Beaney (2005) contended that someone who
is imaginative is good at creating new possibilities, and able to offer fresh perspectives on what is familiar. Note
that any new ideas or acts derived from an individual’s imagination should have positive social ends in order to
promote well-being, enrich the act of consumption, or stimulate confidence in social cohesion (KEA European
Affairs, 2009). Therefore, novelty can be perceived as another indicator of imagination which represents the
ability of individuals to create uncommon ideas.

Productivity
Ribot (1906) indicated that imagination corresponds to four particular sets of conditions: quantity of images;
quantity and intensity of images; quantity, intensity and duration of images; complete systematization.
According to Ribot, mental images could teem, break apart, and associate in various ways, but could still be
assessed in terms of quantity, intensity and duration. All these evolving conditions of imagination are related to
physical dimensions of imaginative productivity, continuity and fluency. Therefore, someone described as

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

368
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

imaginative might be able to come up with original ways of seeing or doing things in a short period (Beaney,
2005). Folkmann (2010) claimed that imagination relates to the start of the design process as either an overall
conception of the design as a whole, or a more experimental exploration for details. Both positions clearly state
the success criteria for the design task in terms of productivity. Productivity is thus another indicator of
imagination which represents the ability of individuals to generate numerous ideas.

Sensibility
All forms of creative imagination imply elements of feeling. Similarly, all emotional dispositions may influence
the creative imagination (Ribot, 1906). Because inventors strive to achieve their goals and overcome problems,
they will often experience painful struggles in thoughts, feelings, and emotions during creative activity. Ricoeur
(1978) suggested that these feelings are not merely inner states, but are really “interiorized thoughts” (p. 156).
Scheffler (1986) extends this notion and suggests that emotion without cognition is blind, while cognition
without emotion is vacuous. Reichling (1990) also confirmed that feeling, in terms of imagination, is assigned a
cognitive dimension. In addition, Vygotsky (2004) believed that the ability to control imagination comes with
the maturation of emotion. Gajdamaschko (2005) also stated that even if the construct of the imagination does
not correspond to reality, the feelings it evokes are real. Sensibility is thus concluded to be an indicator of
imagination which represents the ability for individuals to arouse feeling during the creating process.

METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The participants in the study consisted of two samples ranging from freshman to graduate students majoring in
Educational Technology from universities across different regions in Taiwan. Sample 1 (N=402) served as the
calibration sample for testing the most appropriate structure of the imagination scale using exploratory factor
analysis. Sample 2 (N=380) served as the validation sample using confirmatory factor analysis for testing the
established structure from the sample 1. The descriptive data for the samples used in the study are reported in
Table 1.

Table 1: Descriptive data of samples used in the study.

Profile Sample 1 for EFA (n = 402) Sample 2 for CFA (n = 380)
Gender
Male 152 (37.8%) 94 (24.7%)
Female 250 (62.2%) 286 (75.3%)
Year
Freshman 61 (15. 2%) 88 (23.2%)
Sophomore 116 (28.9%) 91 (24.0%)
Junior 89 (22.1%) 75 (19.7%)
Senior
Graduate 19 (4.7%) 62 (16.3%)
117 (29.1%) 64 (16.8%)
Note. EFA=Exploratory Factor Analysis; CFA=Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to ensure the quality of this study, the research team communicated the survey with instructors in the
target universities first, and then arranged similar assignments. The investigation process delivered in each
university followed the same procedure. Each participant received a cover page and questionnaire in a package.
On the cover page, all participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary and they could withdraw
from the study at any point in time without incurring any penalties. Students were guaranteed anonymity,
confidentiality, and the right to review the results of their responses. In the questionnaire, students were asked to
determine the level of agreement with each indicator of imagination. Data collection of each survey was
conducted by trained graduate assistants who were accompanied by the class instructor.

Instrumentation
The research team searched the Ovid PsycINFO、ISI and EBESCO databases for works from 1900 to the
present regarding the scales of imagination. Surprisingly, there were none available with established reliability
and validity. Therefore, the team decided to develop a scale of imagination to serve as a research tool. Based on
the literature review in the earlier section, nine indicators were summarized related to the construct of
imagination: transformation, crystallization, effectiveness, elaboration, exploration, intuition, novelty,
productivity, and sensibility. These nine indicators were then placed in the two general categories of creative and
reproductive imagination.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

369
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

The instrument scale of the present study is a nine-item questionnaire designed to evaluate one’s indicators of
imagination on a 5-point Liker-type scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). With regards to the
construct validity, three experienced experts in the related fields were invited to provide feedback on this scale
and also accepted content analysis offered by 10 acknowledged scholars. Moreover, the validity was assured by
pre-testing this scale with college students from related fields to examine its readability and flow. In the final
analysis, the values of internal consistency of creative and reproductive imagination were .777 and .659
respectively for sample 1 and .819 and .659 respectively for sample 2, showing that the developed scale had
appropriate reliability estimates.
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0 software. A number of data analysis procedures were conducted
including descriptive statistics (demographic data), exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis
with LISREL 8.80 with maximum likelihood methods. This study used the following indicators recommended
by Hu and Bentler (1999), Jöreskog and Sörbom (1996), and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) to assess goodness of
model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90-.95 indicating an acceptable fit),
Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; .05 or below indicating excellent fit, .05-.08 indicating an
acceptable fit), Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR; .05 or below indicating excellent fit, .05-.08
indicating an acceptable fit), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90-.95 indicating
an acceptable fit).

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

All nine indicators of imagination were examined for accuracy in data entry, missing values, normality of
distributions, and multivariate outliners. The absolute values for skewness and kurtosis were in the appropriate
range (below |2|), indicating a normal distribution of scores across all variables. Additionally, calculation of the
Mahalanobis distance statistics at the p <.01 significance level (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) indicated that none
of the cases were multivariate outliers. Furthermore, all the means located within 1.5 standard deviations, further
confirming the normal distribution of the data.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the sample 1 and the sample 2.

Categories Sample 1 Sample 2
Indicators (Items) M SD M SD
Creative Imagination 3.58 .56 3.61 .61
Exploration (I like to explore the unknown) 3.92 .69 3.91 .72
Intuition (I often come up with new ideas through my intuition) 3.78 .76 3.72 .76
Sensibility (I often help myself imagine through feelings) 3.70 .73 3.69 .78
Productivity (I constantly have ideas toward my designs) 3.27 .80 3.38 .83
Novelty (I often have uncommon ideas compared to others) 3.21 .78 3.34 .81
Reproductive Imagination 3.52 .60 3.48 .60
Effectiveness (I often complete my tasks by focusing on effective ideas) 3.57 .71 3.54 .71
Transformation (I think flexibly and can transfer ideas to multiple fields of tasks) 3.55 .76 3.49 .75
Crystallization (I am good at expressing abstract ideas by using concrete examples) 3.50 .81 3.46 .79
Elaboration (I improve my thoughts by focusing on formalizing ideas) 3.44 .82 3.42 .83

Exploratory Factor Analysis

A principal component analysis (PCA) with promax rotation was conducted to determine the structure of the
developed imagination scale. The number of factors to be extracted for this analysis was determined by using a
number of criteria: eigenvalues above 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960), examination of Cattell’s scree test (Cattell, 1966),
communality values greater than .30, and the total variance accounted for by each factor. Initial examination of
Cattell’s scree plot strongly suggested the possibility of two factors with a marked eigenvalue slope change after
two factors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .84, indicating that the sample had a
sufficient level of factorability.

Based on these criteria, the two-factor solutions (explained variables of 52.82%) with an oblique rotation
provided the best factor structure both conceptually and statically. Factor 1 included items related to intuition,
sensibility, productivity, exploration, and novelty, which explained 40.32% of the variance (eigenvalue 3.629),
and was named creative imagination. Factor 2 included items related to elaboration, effectiveness,
transformation, and crystallization, which explained 12.49% of the variance (eigenvalue 1.124), and was named
reproductive imagination.

The results of this study also showed that the values of internal consistency of creative imagination (from .659 to
.777) and reproductive imagination (from .659 to .819) were considered stable. The correlation coefficients
among different items within the same category (from .66 to .79) were higher than those between the different

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

370
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

categories (from .24 to .53) which mean that the discriminate validity between the identified two categories was
also acceptable (Brown, 2006).

Table 3: Results of exploratory factor analysis from sample 1.

PCA PCA with Rotation
Indicators
Factor 1 Factor 2 Com. Factor 1 Factor 2 Com.
Intuition .84 .615 .80 .497
Sensibility .75 .558 .72 .328
Productivity .72 .609 .63 .530
Exploration .64 .443 .51 .328
Novelty .61 .428 .44 .318
Elaboration .83 .602 .52 .228
Effectiveness .73 .574 .73 .462
Transformation .54 .573 .61 .535
Crystallization .48 .352 .30 .219
Note. Com= Communality values

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The research team next conducted a CFA to test the generalizability of that two factor solution using sample 2.
The values of the goodness-of-fit indices were satisfactory, indicating a good fit of the two-factor structure for
this sample. Moreover, in order to further test this structural model, a competing model strategy was used to
compare the proposed two-factor model against a single-factor model (a baseline model, Kline, 1998). The
superiority of the two-factor model over single-factor model was further evidenced by the significant chi-square
difference, ∆χ2(1) = 60.81, df = 1, p < .005 (See Table 4). Factor loading from the results of confirmatory factor
analysis of the sample 2 is reported in Figure 1.

Table 4: Results of confirmatory factor analysis from the sample 2

χ2 df SRMR RMSEA TLI CFI
Single-factor model 157.95 27 0.06 0.11 0.90 0.93
Two-factor model 97.14 26 0.05 0.08 0.95 0.96

Figure 1: Factor loading from the results of confirmatory factor analysis of the sample 2.

Although the validated results of this study were theoretically acceptable, both values of internal
consistency of reproductive imagination in two samples were below.7, and the explanation of the variance

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

371
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

of reproductive imagination was only 12.49%. Taking these potential drawbacks into account, the research
team initiated follow-up inquiries.

Follow-up Inquiries
This follow-up study used a combination of document analysis and in-depth interviews with selected scholars.
The document analysis focused on several well-known works regarding the principle of unity (Ribot, 1906), the
theory of flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1975), self-regulation theory (Vygotsky, 1978), processes of incubation and
internalization (Valett, 1983), metaphorical and paradoxical imagination (Reichling, 1990), and the structure of
focusing and defocusing (Folkmann, 2010).

In addition, a series of interviews with experts were conducted in October 2011. The team interviewed six
distinguished scholars representing five different universities and research institutions. The experts selected in
this follow-up study shared the common qualifications of having more than fifteen years of research in
psychology-related fields, and were part of the first groups of imagination research supported by the Taiwan’s
government. The issues discussed included criticisms about the preliminary studies of reproductive imagination
and additional insights regarding imagination indicators. The problems of “elaboration” indicator emerged in this
stage.

Taking the results of document analysis and the low factor loading (.39) in the confirmatory factor analysis into
account, the indicator of elaboration was further divided into two independent items: dialectics and focusing. A
quick review of these newly emerged indicators of imagination is summarized below.

Dialectics ─ Any imagination, especially the reproductive one, starts from an unstable form. During this period,
an individual’s attention is spontaneous, natural, and without effort. As imaging proceeds, the individual
experiences a laborious personal moment, a time in which imagination takes effort. Any inventor in that period
struggles with miserable turns, as described by Ribot (1906). Valett (1983) contended that incubation is an
important way to facilitate imagination. Incubation is a time where acquired knowledge and experience is
internalized such that the ends of imagination can be gradually shaped. DeVries (1988) also asserted that
imagination goes through a process of abstraction, analysis, and generalization. When discussing the final level
of imagination, Reichling (1990) indicates that intuition leaps for the unknown, while reason is continually
challenged to find an image that resolves the contradictions with which it is presented. Also, within their
imagination, people can ‘zoom in and out’ to inspect particular imaginary situations, transfer objects, and predict
paths of imaginary objects (Reiner & Gilbert, 2000). Therefore, dialectics can be viewed as an indicator of
imagination which represents the ability of individuals to seek improvement through analyzing ideas.

Focusing ─ Development of self-control is related to the ability to create and sustain an imaginative scenario
(Vygotsky, 1978). This may explain why many children enjoy role-playing games. According to
Csíkszentmihályi (1975), people are happiest when they are in flow—“a state of concentration or complete
absorption with the activity at hand and the situation”. He believed that being in a flow implies focused attention,
where people are completely immersed in what they are doing. Folkmann (2010) claimed that the process of
focusing is open to ongoing reformulation. Due to its functional position in the interface between the inner
consciousness and outer world, the focusing process lies in the span between clear and rational discourse and the
inaccessible mental space. Thus, the discussion of the structure of focusing and defocusing explains how
meaning is not just given but is developed as a result of the designer’s mental setting, and underlines that this
meaning contains definite as well as elusive elements. As a result, focusing is an additional indicator of
imagination which represents the capability of individuals to formalize ideas through focus.

DISCUSSIONS
The current study collected two groups of samples majoring in Educational Technology, and validated this data
with the methods of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed that there
were two dimensions and ten indicators of imagination that emerged during the research process. The first
dimension is “creative imagination” which is composed of five indicators: intuition, sensibility, productivity,
exploration, and novelty. The second dimension is “reproductive imagination” which comprises another five
indicators: focusing, effectiveness, transformation, crystallization, and dialectics. In this study, the two
dimensions reveal distinct validity, but still are co-related.

The indicators of imagination proposed by this study are characterized as follows:

1. Intuition: individuals are able to generate immediate associations to the target.
2. Sensibility: individuals are able to evoke feelings during the creation process.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

372
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

3. Productivity: individuals are able to productively generate ideas.

4. Exploration: individuals are able to explore the unknown.
5. Novelty: individuals are able to create uncommon ideas.
6. Focusing: individuals are able to formalize ideas through focus.
7. Effectiveness: individuals are able to generate effective ideas about the target.
8. Transformation: individuals are able to perform tasks by transforming what they have known across
multiple fields of knowledge.
9. Crystallization: individuals are able to express abstract ideas by using concrete examples.
10. Dialectics: individuals are able to seek improvement by logically analyzing ideas.

The authors’ wish is to identify potential indicators to assess imagination. This wish cannot be achieved by only
a couple of studies. In order to facilitate the wish to be reached, the authors invite all of the readers to test and
validate the indicators proposed in this study, by using the following items in a variety of fields and in different
circumstances.
z I often come up with new ideas through my intuition
z I often help myself imagine through personal emotions
z I constantly have ideas toward my designs
z I like to explore the unknown world
z I often have uncommon ideas compared to others
z I improve my thoughts by focusing on formalizing ideas
z I often complete my tasks by focusing on effective ideas
z I think flexibly and can transfer ideas to multiple fields of tasks
z I am good at expressing abstract ideas by using concrete examples
z I am good at seeking improvement by logically analyzing ideas

As educational technologists, we need imagination to construct activities, build system, and anticipate
conversations and actions that will bring learners’ inquiry to fulfillment, enabling their growth toward desirable
skills and understandings. As Goodyear and Retalis (2010) described, technology-enhanced learning involves
imagining how our learners learn, how they respond to a task, where they work, with whom, how, using what
resources, under what circumstance, and over what timescale. In addition to the indicators, some issues for the
future study are worthwhile for further exploration. The substance of creative and reproductive imagination can
be clarified, but there are many questions that can be asked. Could the indicators be grouped in absolutely
exclusive categories? What is the exact relationship between creative and reproductive imagination?

Though there have been an enormous number of studies done in the subject of creativity, more efforts need to be
put into the study of imagination. What is the relationship between imagination and creativity? What
environmental factors influence imagination stimulation? What psychological factors influence imagination
stimulation? What kinds of personalities influence imagination stimulation? How are these factors enabled? How
do these factors function? How do they function differently at the individual, team, and organizational levels?

In terms of talent development, what instructional methods and learning strategies should be proposed to
cultivate imagination? What are the differences in imagination cultivation between schools and industries? Are
there any differences among diverse fields? What is the relationship between imagination and professional
knowledge in different fields? What are the differences in terms of gender, academic standing, major, institution,
nationality, and culture? All of the issues raised above are meaningful not only for theoretical constructs, but for
practical applications in the field of Educational Technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The current study is part of the research projects (NSC98-2511-S-155-005-MY2) supported by Taiwan’s
National Science Council. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Dr. Hsu, Yu-Lin in Yuan Ze
University for her valuable contributions. Furthermore, the authors also would like to acknowledge the insightful
suggestions of anonymous TOJET reviewers.

REFERENCES
Beaney, M. (2005). Imagination and creativity. United Kingdom: Open University course AA308 Thought and
Experience: Themes in the Philosophy of Mind. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Betts, G. H. (1916). Imagination. The mind and its education. NY: D. Appleton and company.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-76.
Colello, S. M. G. (2007). Imagination in children’s writing: How high can fiction fly? Retrieved October 24,

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

373
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3

2011, [Link]
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeVries, W. A. (1988). Hegel’s theory of mental activity: An introduction to theoretical spirit. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. Retrieved August 18, 2011,
[Link]
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience (p. 267). NY: G. P. Putnam.
Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finke, R. A. (1996). Imagery, creativity, and emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 5(3), 381-93.
Folkmann, M. N. (2010, November 29-December 1). Enabling creativity. Imagination in design processes. Paper
presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity ICDC 2010, Kobe, Japan.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Gajdamaschko, N. (2005). Vygotsky on imagination: Why an understanding of the imagination is an important
issue for schoolteachers. Teaching Education, 16(1), 13-22.
Goodyear, P & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Lisrel8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20(2), 141-151.
KEA European Affairs (2009). The impact of culture on creativity. Bruxelles, Belgium: European Commission.
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics , London: Routledge.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011). Imagination. Retrieved July 30, 2011, [Link]
[Link]/dictionary/imagination
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008). Imagination. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Passmore, J. (1985). Recent philosophers: A supplement to a hundred years of philosophy. NY: Duckworth.
Perdue, K. (2003). Imagination. The Chicago school of media theory. Retrieved July 16, 2011, from
[Link]
Reichling, M. J. (1990). Images of imagination. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(4), 282-293.
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489-506.
Ribot, T. (1906). Essay on the creative imagination. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Ricoeur, P. (1978). The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 143-
159.
Scheffler, I. (1986). In praise of the cognitive emotions. In Inquiries: Philosophical studies of language, science,
and learning (pp. 347-352). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.) (pp. 57-87). New York: Harper
Collins.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Thomas, N. J. T. (1997). Imagery and the coherence of imagination: A critique of White. Journal of
Philosophical Research, 22, 95-127.
Thomas, N. J. T. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to
conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 207-245.
Townsend, D. (2003). Cohen on Kant’s aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Aesthetics, 43(1), 75-79.
Valett, R. E. (1983). Strategies for developing creative imagination and thinking skills. Retrieved June 28, 2011,
from [Link]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European
Psychology, 42(1), 7-97.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

374