Creativity and Education

by Arthur J Cropley

Earlier approaches to the study of intellectual ability in schools -partly as a result of the influence of Binet and Terman in popularising the idea of intelligence - treated it as mainly a matter of efficient acquisition of socially relevant and valued information (successful learning of facts), rapid and accurate recall of this upon demand (well organised and fast memory) and clever application of the most appropriate elements of the already known in life (recognition of the familiar in new situations, application of logic, familiarity with the "right" way of doing things). Despite its limitations, this approach has proved very useful in predicting many aspects of school and life performance, and it quickly came to dominate educational and psychological thinking. However, about 50 years ago a sequence of events was set in motion that altered thinking about ability at that time, and is still continuing today.

In a famous address to the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1949, Guilford called for more emphasis on branching out, generating alternatives and making unusual associations, which he called "divergent thinking". No doubt partly because of the title Guilford gave his paper ("Creativity") divergent thinking was quickly equated with creativity, and interest focused on creativity versus intelligence, as though the two were antagonistic. It seemed to critics that educational institutions were concentrating on the former to the near exclusion of the latter, and the call went up for schools to redress the imbalance and foster creativity.

A few years later, in 1957, the engineers of the then Soviet Union launched the first artificial earth satellite and the so-called "Sputnik shock" led to concern in the United States that, although the nation's educational system was producing large numbers of graduates, most of these were trained simply to apply the already known in conventional ways. The perceived need was for people capable of inventiveness and originality. The post-Guilford educational discussion of the need for more emphasis on creativity was already in progress, and the two streams of thought merged in the idea that creativity should be fostered in the classroom in order to promote national security. Ironically, the initial legislation emphasising creativity in schools in the United States was the National Defense Education Act. Creative people came to be seen as a vital national resource ("human capital" approach) needed by wealthy countries in the struggle for military and, more recently, industrial and trade superiority, and by less wealthy nations for modernisation, democracy, equality and the like. This linking of creativity, national welfare and education led to a massive world-wide surge of interest in the topic of school and creativity.

The desire of some educators to emphasise creativity in the classroom initially aroused controversy and opposition. It was argued among other things that creativity is by its very nature mysterious and unknowable and thus incapable of being promoted or fostered by mere mortals. A second argument was that, since creativity was assumed to be a special property found in only a few individuals, its promotion would lead to élitism. Finally there was fear that fostering creativity would lead to the forcing of children who would become victims of creativity fanaticism among teachers and parents. At a more everyday level, many teachers and parents were uneasy about emphasising creativity in school because this might mean encouraging unruly, disobedient, careless, imprecise, or just plain naughty behaviour. Others saw the call for creativity in the classroom as meaning that basic skills and standards or even fundamental principles such as correct-incorrect would be abandoned, while yet others argued that "teaching" creativity would simply broaden conformist behaviour by encouraging all children to behave in officially approved, standardised "creative" ways.

These undesirable goals cannot be the aim of efforts to foster creativity in the classroom. Most educational researchers and theorists interested in promoting creativity reject the élitist view and concentrate on aspects of creativity that they believe are present at least as potentials in everybody. The need to foster creativity is then seen as deriving from the responsibility of schools to foster the fullest development of all positive aspects of the personality of all children, even where this means acknowledging, accepting and even increasing diversity of abilities and talents. Although this idea offends those who define educational equality as equality of outcomes, something that can only be achieved by imposing uniformity, it involves a humanistic goal that has been given great prominence in educational philosophy for many hundreds of years.

A cornerstone of modern thinking about creativity in schools is that it assumes that appropriate learning conditions can promote at least some elements of creativity in all children. The central focus of creativity in the classroom is thus not production of an elite group of geniuses, and it is not necessary for teachers interested in fostering creativity to set their sights on achieving scientific, technological, literary, artistic or other revolutions. Of course research has shown that teachers can make a contribution in this direction by sowing the seeds: They have sometimes played a key role in the emergence even years later of widely acclaimed creative talents. Nonetheless, teachers need not regard this intimidating goal as defining their primary responsibility when they attempt to foster creativity in the classroom.

Probably the dominant characteristic of modern life is that it is subject to unprecedented rapid change. At the level of the individual it is evident that knowledge and skills have ever diminishing half lives (the period of time within which 50 per cent of what a person knows or can do will become obsolete). The knowledge and skills needed in the future may not even be known at the time a person attends school or university. As a result, schools cannot limit themselves to the transmission of set contents, techniques and values, since these will soon be useless or even detrimental to living a full life. Schools must also promote flexibility, openness for the new, the ability to adapt, and courage in the face of the unexpected. These properties will probably continue to be important throughout each person's lifetime, whereas specific skills and knowledge rapidly become obsolete. Thus, fostering creativity can be seen as part of the preparation of children to engage in a process of lifelong flexibility and adaptation rather than of clinging to the already obsolescent. Creativity has also been shown to help people cope with the challenges of life and resulting personal stresses and strains, i.e., to improve mental health. The fostering of creativity in the classroom is thus part of educational efforts aimed at the development of individuals capable of maximising their own self-fulfilment.

It is also important to note that fostering creativity is not inconsistent with traditional school goals such as acquisition of knowledge and skills. Empirical studies have shown a connection between creativity and school grades-creativity seems to supplement conventional intelligence in promoting good performance. Where the criterion of achievement emphasises production of novelty, creativity is a better predictor of adult achievement than intelligence.

Turning to teaching methods, it has been shown that learning activities that emphasise branching out, finding out, or inventing - such as discovery learning, learning under play-like conditions and learning with the help of fantasy - can be more effective than traditional methods such as face-to-face lecturing or rote learning. Teaching and learning methods that emphasise creativity can also have strongly beneficial effects on pupils' motivation, as well as on their attitudes to school and their self-image. This has been known since early research showed forty years ago that children taught physics by "inquiry methods" - in which teachers confine themselves to answering "Yes," or "No" to questions posed by pupils - acquired as much knowledge as those taught by conventional methods and were significantly more curious about science. More recent studies have also shown greater motivation to learn, as well as increased intrinsic motivation among children taught by "creative" methods.

Surveys have shown that in theory at least teachers overwhelmingly support creativity as something that should be fostered in the classroom. However, in actual classroom practice they often frown upon traits associated with creativity or even actively dislike characteristics such as boldness, desire for novelty or originality. From almost the beginning of relevant research it has been shown that teachers in different countries prefer courteousness, punctuality, obedience and receptiveness to their ideas. In the area of thinking, high skill in memorisation and accurate recall are often preferred to critical thinking or independent decision-making. Even in Grade 2 (i.e., at a level where it might be expected that a certain amount of divergence would be tolerated) children who scored highest on tests of creativity were the ones most often in trouble with teachers. Of course, teachers cannot be expected to accept undisciplined, disruptive, defiant, ignorant, aggressive, or humiliating behaviour. Punctuality, obedience and consideration for others on the one hand, or good memory, speed and accuracy on the other are obviously important characteristics both for school and for life itself. However, when such properties are overemphasised and discovering, branching out, speculating, experimenting, or innovating rejected, it can be said that teaching has become excessively one-sided.

Research has shown the importance for the emergence of creativity of a "congenial environment" and appropriate "social support factors". The classroom is, of course, one of the most important environments in which children spend time. Some teachers are particularly good at organising this environment in a way that promotes students' creativity. They provide a model of creative behaviour, reinforce such behaviour when pupils display it, protect creative pupils from conformity pressure applied by their peers and the system, and establish a classroom climate that permits alternative solutions, tolerates constructive errors, encourages effective surprise and does not isolate non-conformers. Research on teachers rated as particularly successful with gifted children has made a direct link between giftedness and creativity: These teachers, among other things, emphasised "creative production", showed "flexibility", accepted "alternative suggestions", encouraged "expression of ideas", and tolerated "humour". They were themselves creative and had stronger personal contacts with their students. Many relatively standardised procedures for fostering creativity exist, including packages containing games, training in idea getting, techniques for creative problem-solving, and activities aimed at fostering personal properties needed for creativity such as courage, self-confidence and communication skills, as well as self-image, aspirations for a creative career, and the like.

Despite this, enthusiasm for educational reform in the name of creativity cannot be allowed to run wild. Among the problems of this kind are: presenting speculations, conjectures and hypotheses as established facts; confusing correlations with causal relationships; making unjustified sweeping generalizations that are either not unequivocally supported by research or are even contradicted by some findings; drawing unwarranted conclusions about the implications of research findings for practice; failing to understand the factors that inhibit conversion of admirable recommendations into practice. The danger is that of proclaiming incompletely digested research findings as containing a universal panacea that can be applied in a set way in any and all situations, without bothering to take account of the individuals involved, the special characteristics of the situation, or the personal or structural factors facilitating or impeding implementation of good practice. A substantial danger is that some teachers will confuse mere non-conformity, lack of inhibition, unbridled fantasy, or high verbal fluency with creativity. These may be frequent companions of creativity or even part of the complex package of factors leading to creativity, but without a robust link to reality they lack effectiveness and lead merely to "pseudo-creativity" or at best "quasi-creativity".