Influence of Creativity on Modern Education - Research Paper Example

? Influence of Creativity on Modern Education Creativity pertains to the phenomenon by which something novel is created, something that has subjective value, such as a painting, a literary work or musical composition, an invention, a solution, etc. It also refers to the motivation or impulse behind the act of creation; it is scientifically perceived to be linked with cognition and intelligence. The range of creativity is believed to traverse across multitudes of academic disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, theology, linguistics, technology, economics, etc. Creativity alone is considered a tree branched with general intelligence, neurological and mental processes, mental health, and the relationship between creative ability, and personality type (Dunkel 209-216). Science has bestowed the phenomenon of creativity with many definitions and approaches. However, targeted investigation has been focused on what makes some people more cognitive or creative than others. To this end, it is generally defined to be reliant on the Four Ps: Process, Person, Place and Product. ‘Process’ is defined to be the techniques and thought mechanism exercised for creative thinking. ‘Person’ is defined to be the intellectual habits, such as expertise, exploratory nature, and autonomy. ‘Place’ is considered to be the environment, circumstances, and resources that let creativity flourish. ‘Product’ is considered to be the execution of thoughts into the production of something of value, of note (Amabile 98). If creativity is looked upon in ancient backgrounds, it was not recognized by the renowned scholars such as Plato. It is known to have gained substance in the early Renaissance era, when creativity was attributed to God by Christians and Jews of that time who quoted verses from their holy books in arguments and scholarly discourse. It later became popular after the arrival of Darwinism and was promoted in the early 20th century by mathematicians such as Henri Poincare and Hermann von Helmholtz (Cropley 111). This popular rise caused scientists to separately study the subject of creativity, devise theories and techniques, and later associate creativity with education. However, the renewed interest and debate on current education curriculum, and the need for its amelioration are primarily owing to the launch of the “Sputnik 1,” by the Soviet Union in 1957. The supposed failure of engineers and scientists from the USA and other Western Countries was ascribed to their deficiency in creativity, which led to the founding of National Defense Education Act in the USA (Craft, Jeffrey, and Leibling). Incorporating creativity in education is foreseen to address many problems. It is presaged to bear benefits that will enable the present and the future generations to cope with the uncertain future, and the fast changing world. In addition, the most dominant of all benefits are economic benefits. The function of creativity in economy is considered vital for countries aiming to achieve greater economic stability, increased employment, and competitive edge in the world market. Therefore, the assimilation of creativity in education is considered imperative and indispensable, given the pace at which technology and competition are evolving. It is considered a fundamental skill for future generations to thrive in the New World. As a consequence, fostering creativity in children through education is called the production of ‘human capital,’ as Adam Smith states that the ‘wealth of nations’ is dependent on the ‘human capital’ of today and tomorrow (Craft 58). Although formal education is also imperative, it has been criticized repeatedly by theorists for restricting creativity and free thinking, and producing stereotypes and conformists. As a result, the ‘narrow’ scope of education institutions has come under question and has been blamed for manufacturing ‘robots.’ The pressing psychological impact on students to meet requirements of academic curriculum, the pressure on institutions to meet curriculum requirements, pass monitoring and inspections, compounded with the ‘narrow’ vision of education institutions has led to the widespread feeling that creativity and free-thinking have ceased to subsist, and that this is promoting the culture of ‘another brick in the wall.’ The aforementioned issues have been ascribed to the fact that these are undermining economic progress and preventing the creation of a ‘creative society.’ Perhaps, one of the reasons why current educations systems are regarded as constraints or barriers to achieving a creative society is that teaching concentrates on acquisition or procurement of knowledge, and given the fact that it cannot be certainly known what knowledge will be needed in the future, renders current education systems useless or at least insufficient (Lytton 56). Emerging educationists suggest that if countries need an economic replenishment through creativity, they need to produce an ‘educated and creative workforce,’ which pre-dominantly requires amelioration of current education systems; but this is also an ever-changing concept which is leading to a complete reconstruction of academic thought in regard to education systems. In summary, a need for a complete over-haul of the existent education system is felt by students, parents, and educationists alike. As a result, changes in education policies and agendas in many developed countries have been observed in the recent years. In the form of an initiatory step, fostering of creativity is being encouraged from elementary schools, as this will not only teach creativity to a small group of children but to whole masses; also, scientific studies have shown that primary and secondary education are the building blocks of a child’s cognitive abilities; therefore, if creativity is taught in the early stages of development, it will ensure creative continuity and longevity. Hence, primary education is now described as a child’s joy in discovery, creative writing, and art, solving problems, music, developing self-confidence, and maturing through the early years of life. As a consequence of this, creative activities have been integrated into the formal curriculum of kindergarten students through arts, movie, drama, music, poetry, math and science activities, and games which would hone reading and writing skills of the students. Educationists like Patricia Price firmly believe that promotion of creativity is only fruitful when done in the early years of children; if done otherwise, the attempted efforts are futile and mainly unsuccessful. She is of the view that young children are already creative, and if creativity is nurtured further, remarkable results could be achieved. However, education theorists like Mark A. Runco argue that education should nurture two types of thinking: critical thinking and creative thinking. They believe critical thinking is good, but creative thinking is even better. They denounce current teaching practices and state that teachers should not experiment with their students but should rely on tried and proven theories of education. In addition, not all techniques that have been found consistent with data are applicable to the classroom. Moreover, many theories of creativity are not fit for education. Runco also argues that the research being conducted on creative education is insufficient and incomplete and that it is only addressing the superficial matters and not penetrating deeply through the skin of the issues and concerns. Many of the devised theories cannot be applied in the case of every student as some of those techniques and practices may not suit the individual. Many theories on education are seemingly really interesting, but they fail to provide insight or information on the process or the person. This is primarily because the data does not contain information of students or children, but of famous creators and high achievers; this renders the theories without substance as they can only be applied to a fraction of a population and not to the masses. As a consequence, such theories should not be used in education. This is because theories, for instance performance theories, do not address potential nor about individuals who have potential but are not in a position to produce anything substantial or significant. Similarly, the same argument could be placed against theories on creativity that define it in terms of speaking or persuasion. Such theories that fail to fully encompass all horizons can mislead educators and practitioners. This argument seems to be vague and hollow, but it is by no means objective and rhetorical. It is evidenced and likely that there are more theories on creativity that concentrate on products than those which concentrate on potential. This, in turn, is harmful to education since productivity can be measured or quantified; for example, Picasso completed more than 20000 works on art. Since such data is tangible, hence, it makes the product approach scientific and reliable. Sadly, such biased theories have become a part of the current education system, and what is more harmful is that such theories are still supported by many education theorists. This flaw can be observed in the approach that portfolios and the number of achievements are used to choose students for more privileged or gifted programs in education institutions. This is also worth noting at this point that however commonplace those achievements are, the number of achievements possess a powerful effect on education institutions. This flawed perception and practice in education institutions could, perhaps, be attributed to the current trend in regard to accountability. This too is bolstered with objective information, i.e. productivity and products; this, in turn, gives rise to a hierarchy in education society which establishes one individual higher than the other on the grounds of flawed approach and theories. This begets a surprising discovery that there is also productivity bias. Productivity bias is simply the same as art bias, in which parents or educators compare creative talent with artistic potential. However, there is no disagreement with the fact that arts are a form of creativity, but creativity could also be in the form of other disciplines. If this approach is practiced and creativity only considered occurring in arts, individuals who are not talented or creative in arts are considered uncreative altogether. This is known as the ‘Art Bias.’ As a result, same approach or theories could be applied to students who are more contributive in class and are more manifestly skilled at expressing solutions, ideas, and stories. As a consequence, those students who are not as proficient in one discipline as the other students, a social and education hierarchy is inevitably formed. This approach is ignorant of the fact that such students could be more creative and intelligent but are somehow failing to open their gates of creativity. Therefore, educators should not practice both the art and productivity bias; rather, they should attempt to recognize potential and nurture it (Price 88). Theories on creativity should be devised so as to address every individual and consider each individual capable of creativity and intelligence; also, theories should not focus on how to teach students to become creative but rather how creative ability is recognized, nurtured, expanded and channeled. However, on the flip side, there are also theories that fully recognize potential; for example, the theory that defines creativity as the ability to reflect true interpretation of experience. Such theories teach that each individual has the ability to produce true interpretations, and if it is an interpretation laced with ingenuity and originality, it is considered “creative.” That is how creativity ought to be defined, as both original and useful. However, there may be no tangible product to establish its validity, but what is imperative is to define creativity in a way that it becomes independent of the flaws such as tangibility and accountability (Sarsani 77). The techniques that are being used now for promoting and fostering creativity in students are the following: 1. A teacher of Applied Music Theory in Milford High School routinely gives students to make music, ringtones or soundtracks applying everything that they have learnt in class. This project has no strict deadlines, and the students can take as much time as they want, but the project has to be submitted by the students. This promotes creativity and teaches students to abide by their responsibilities. 2. Some educators have started practices that provide students rigorous hands-on experimentation, discussions on social and personal problems, problem solving and collaborative work. They encourage students to question, explore new ideas, and pursue their personal interests apart from formal education. This practice could also be seen at Google Inc., where the employees are given an hour or two among their office hours to pursue their own personal goals while in office. As a result, many of the new features on Gmail and Google’s other services are actually created by its employees. This serves as a remarkable example of promoting creativity not in school but at work also. 3. Students at education institutions are taught fluency, visualization, flexibility, expressiveness, imagination, and openness (Runco 96-104). 4. Two techniques that have become in particular quite famous among educators for teaching creativity are “Incubation Model of Teaching” and “Creative Problem Solving.” CPS is a technique to make creative process more profound by arranging the creative approaches for improving productivity, problem-solving, and effectiveness. It uses such techniques as creative-role-playing and brainstorming. It also makes use of convergent thinking and divergent thinking tools. 5. At Stanford University, every year there is a week-long competition held which is called the ‘Entrepreneur Week.’ In the competition students are given inadequate resources such as rubber-bands, $20, etc., for starting a small business for the competition, and the team with the best business plan wins the competition. This is also an example of promotion of creativity which gives students hands-on experience. Similarly, the Stanford Design School teaches a variety of techniques for engendering creativity. 6. The Creative Classroom Project was a collaboration between Disney Worldwide Outreach and Project Zero which worked on ways to help teachers understand creativity and assimilate in the formal curriculum of the students (Shaheen 166-169). Many countries have realized the importance of creativity in education, as a result of which many have made it their national agenda. For instance, in Canada, creativity is considered an essential component of learning. Countries like Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Sweden, UK, etc., have taken concrete steps for making creativity in education an essential part of their education system. Identifying, understanding and fostering the creative potential is imperative in education for making future generations better able to solve personal and academic problems and challenges, to find innovative breakthroughs, and to be better equipped for success in an ever-changing world. Works Cited Amabile, Teresa. Growing Up Creative: Nurturing a Lifetime of Creativity. New York: Crown, 1989. Print. Craft, Anna, Bob Jeffrey, and Mike Leibling. Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, 2001. Web. 9 April 2013. Craft, Anna. An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 2001. Print. Cropley, A J. Creativity in Education & Learning: A Guide for Teachers and Educators. London: Kogan Page, 2001. Print. Dunkel, Harold B. "Creativity and Education." Educational Theory. 11.4 (1961): 209-216. Print. Lytton, Hugh. Creativity and Education. New York: Schocken Books, 1972. Print. Price, Patricia. Creative Education: Integrating the Arts into the Curriculum for Use with Pre-Kin Children. Bloomington, Ind: AuthorHouse, 2005. Print. Runco, Mark A. “Creativity and Education.” New Horizons in Education, 56.1 (2008): 96-104 Sarsani, Mahender Reddy. Creativity in Education. New Delhi. Sarup and Sons. 2001. Print. Shaheen, Robina. “Creativity and Education.” Journal of Creative Education, 1.3 (2010): 166-169. Print. Read More