Examining models of Ceativity

31/03/2011

Today I read a great article about creativity and technology (Schniederman, Creating creativity, user interfaces for supporting innovation). Has a fantastic overview of theories of creative thinking.
The theory that I found most interesting (and which the article promotes) is the 'genex' theory.
It says that creative thinking has 4 (not necessarily linear) parts:
— Collect: learn from previous works stored in libraries, the Web, etc.
— Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle, and late stages
— Create: explore, compose, and evaluate possible solutions
— Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the libraries
This is especially neat because, unlike many of the other theories, it considers the social aspect of creativity.
The article also discusses three ‘schools’ of creative thought:
Inspriationalists – who emphasise the ‘ahha!’ moment. They use tools such as brain-storming, free association, and new experiences to inspire creativity. They consider that most of their time will be spent on the hard work of generating ideas to inspire creativity, in order to reach that one moment of inspiration. They are especially concerned with finding solutions to problems.
Structuralists – who emphasise the need for research and prior knowledge before creative thought can occur. They use a highly methodical approach to examine any new ideas and compare them to existing ideas, and then refine over and over.
Situationalists – who consider creativity to be contextual, and embedded in cultures of practice. They make a distinction between ‘original thought’ and ‘creative work’. They note that there are ‘gatekeepers’ within any culture of practice, who must acknowledge and distribute an idea before it can be considered a creative work. These people may be curators, publishers, librarians, the Nobel prize committee, etc.
What does this mean for my practise?
I have taken 4 things away from reading this article:

• Creativity is grounded in research. It does not stem from nowhere. In a classroom this means research and teaching is required on a topic before a creative process can take place.
• Creativity uses processes and tools to generate ideas. These tools must be taught. Ideas do not stem from nothing. This is probably the part that I have emphasised the most in my own teaching.
• Creativity is purposeful. The tools of creative thought are just one part of the creative process. While they should be taught, they are a means to an end. That end may be ‘to play an enjoyable game’ or ‘to find a cure for cancer’. This relates well to the idea of learning objectives in lesson planning.
• Creativity benefits from social interaction. This means getting experts in to discuss work, encouraging group work and sharing of ideas, and most of all creating a safe learning environment in which critiquing of work is desirable and constructive.
• There is a difference between original thought and creative work. This fits in with the need for high expectations in the classroom, something I have been struggling with. This is about getting children to refine their work until it is something desirable for distribution. In order to do this, I need to believe that children have the ability to produce work that others will wish to have access to, to identify areas in which children will be able to contribute in a real world sense, and to scaffold children to the point of distribution.

Where to now?
To be honest, I’m not quite sure. But I think that this has really reinforced to me the importance of lesson planning and learning objectives. I’ll keep you posted on how and what I implement in light of this learning!