![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
The title question and two subsequent questions are considered in the context of rational creativity. A-rational creativity is not considered.
Q. Can creativity be taught?
A. It depends on what is meant by ‘creativity’ and ‘taught’ in what context.
Q1. Is teaching either creativity or critical thinking inimical to the practice of the other?
A1. Not necessarily, each is required for the success of the other and both are required for successful living.
Q2. Are Australian schools and universities a good place to learn critical thinking and creativity?
A2. Yes, when teachers teach with sensitivity to the actual needs of students; No, if accountability standards are applied narrowly through testing and ranking to inhibit the practice and reward of critical thinking and creativity in the classroom; and Perhaps Yes, if new creativity tests are devised to help teachers create classrooms that encourage and reward creativity across the curriculum.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge Brian Mooney’s prompting me to venture into areas about which I previously knew nothing. I appreciate the reviewers’ careful and helpful comments that improved the final version of this paper given originally at the Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia in Newcastle 2017.
Notes
1 My efforts to assess creativity have thus far been limited largely to the rational-thinking view of creativity. Little attention has been given to assessment of the creativity that (is) … outside the province of reason (Torrance, Citation1988).
This article shares the same limitation.
2 It may be that the other participants have a more significant role. Duchamp (Citation1957) claimed, ‘The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act’.
3 Brady (Citation2007, p. 12) quotes molecular biologist Elizabeth Blackburn, one attracted to the field because it was ‘fair’ – in which logic and empirical reasoning would always be rewarded, but when asked how she solved an algebraic equation ‘I had intuited the process but could not articulate how I had gotten from A to B. At that moment, I was aware that I was able to intuit things in a certain way. I didn’t consciously set about problem solving but responded to the problem with a creative processing I couldn’t fully access logically’.
4 Of course, if innovation refers to design and not object then it is all old wine in old bottles (I also bottled wine by hand).
5 The inventor was, however, encouraged in his efforts by the reflection that that which is hidden and unknown, and cannot be discovered by scientific research, will most likely be discovered by accident, if at all, by the man who applies himself most perserveringly to the subject, and is most observing of everything relating thereto (Goodyear, Gum Elastic, 1855, p. 101 quoted in Jewkes, Sawyers, and Stillerman, Citation1958, pp. 49–50).
6 Always allowing that many audiences see as well as hear what is produced. Some may feel the product but, depending upon whether cooking is a creative art, few regard taste or smell as of central importance. Could it be that being an appreciative audience ‘seeing as’ involves more than passive pattern recognition? If so, are there circumstances in which some of the active elements of appreciation may usefully described as creativity? Further, could those creative elements be usefully regarded as essential to the appreciation and, therefore, existence of creative arts? In what ways are the creative responses of the appreciative audience of significance to the creativity of others not in the performing arts?
7 Bartlett (Citation1958) used the terms ‘thinking within closed systems’ and ‘adventurous thinking’.
8 The application of logic to the problems we meet in ordinary life … takes more than skill in logical reasoning to handle them – indeed, it takes imagination, sensitivity, persistence, concentration, the ability to obtain and connect such relevant information. But without some skill in logic, the task is hopeless (Beardsley, Citation1975, p. 4/5). … reasoning is a constructive and creative activity that leads us to new knowledge (Scriven, Citation1976, p. 35)
9 See also Dewey (1944). Democracy and Education, New York, Free Press, p. 172.
10 Often in response to surveys of employer expectation such as cited by Rothman (Citation2017, p. 20) that rated creativity (24%) as 16th out of 19 attributes with leadership (80%) and entrepreneurial skills/risk taker (19%) as top and bottom. Critical thinking was not on the list.
11 The toxicity consists of letting facts and content become concretised … without enabling the disequilibrium of uncertainty, surprise, joy, push systems into a higher, or different level of post conventional thinking. It is a refusal to allow children to adjust their schemata for themselves (Haynes, Citation2007, p. 10).
12 Our testing culture may be making us smarter but at the expense of the wisdom and creativity we’ll need to flourish in our world (Sternberg, Citation2017, p. 66).
13 Current moves in Australia to replace reflective practice with the key notions of teaching as a ‘clinical practice’. … [that] require extensive professional development for teachers who have not had clinical training and want to practice clinically within school settings, especially in psychometric testing procedures (Bowles et al., Citation2016, pp. 21–2) are indicative of schools as toxic institutions.
14 Goal 4[of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals], which commits to quality education for all, is intentionally not limited to foundation knowledge and skills such as literacy, mathematics and science, but places strong emphasis on learning to live together sustainably…..This has inspired the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the global yardstick for educational success, to include global competence in its metrics for quality, equity and effectiveness in education (Schleicher, A. OECD, Citation2018).
15 See, for example, Spencer, Lucas, and Claxton (Citation2012). In Spring 2011, Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) commissioned the Centre for Real-World Learning (CRL) at The University of Winchester to undertake research to establish the viability of creating an assessment framework for tracking the development of young people’s creativity in schools. After reviewing the literature on creativity and its assessment, and consulting expert practitioners, CRL created a framework for developing creativity in schools, and derived an assessment tool to trial in schools.
This tool comprised of 5 habits and 15 sub-habits of creativity:
1. Inquisitive (wondering and questioning, exploring and investigating, challenging assumptions)
2. Persistent (sticking with difficulty, daring to be different, tolerating uncertainty)
3. Imaginative (playing with possibilities, making connections, using intuition)
4. Collaborative (sharing the product, giving and sharing feedback, cooperating appropriately)
5. Disciplined (developing techniques, reflecting critically, crafting and improving)
Through two separate field trials the research suggested that the framework was sufficiently distinct from existing approaches to creativity to be useful and that from a teacher point of view, the framework was both rigorous and plausible.
The principal findings were that:
1. The concept of an assessment framework for creativity in schools is valid and relevant. There was a strong sense among teachers that our framework encompassed a learnable set of dispositions. There are strong grounds for now seeking to develop a more sophisticated prototype, of use to teachers and learners, to track the development of creativity in schools.
2. The framework should initially focus on the 5–14 age range, although some practitioners may find it useful with younger and older pupils.
3. The evidence suggests that the primary use of any assessment framework will be formative, supporting pupils to harness more of their creativity and helping teachers more effectively to cultivate creative dispositions in the young people they teach.
16 See for example Soon He Hwang (Citation2017).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Bruce Haynes
Bruce Haynes is a University Fellow, School of Creative Arts and Humanities, Charles Darwin University; Fellow of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia; Fellow of the Philosophy of Education Society; Life Member of the History Teachers Association of Western Australia.