As part of my research, I have been reading the book 'Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention' by Milhay Csikszentmihalyi, who is a professor and former chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago. It is a very good introduction to some of the key issues surrounding creativity, especially in understanding some of the personal characteristics and creative processes that distinguish people considered to have made a strong cultural impact in all aspects of life from the arts to sciences. You can hear him speak at this TED conference:
Although, the book is concerned with people who are extra-ordinary in their creative approach to solving problems or developing a discipline, I would strongly recommend it as a starting point to raising the issue of how creativity might be nurtured in an educational context.
I am attaching a short excerpt from my literature review for people to reflect on some of the issues his book raises, namely how do we celebrate personal creativity in education known as 'P-Type' creativity by Boden, and especially in subjects like science which depend on a core knowledge base and creativity manifests itself when one has acquired enough 'knowledge that can be applied and used to innovate.' Such subjects assume almost that creativity is outside of students capabilities until later on in life (Tom raised the point in an earlier post).
Excerpt:
Novelty
A common perception of creativity is that it involves some form of novel and extraordinary way of thinking that is confined to eccentric personalities and those labelled geniuses. Such a viewpoint can often isolate people from feeling that they possess the ability to be creative and hence they are unable to identify where creativity is situated in relation to their own thinking.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, an established professor and former chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago, has written extensively about the creativity and describes this type of person as “a person with varied interests and a quick mind, may be called creative in this sense. Unless they also contribute something of permanent significance, I refer to people of this sort as brilliant rather than creative.” Whereas, he refers to people “whose perceptions are fresh, whose judgements are insightful, who make important discoveries that only they know about” as being ‘personally creative’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.25).
Where Csikszentmihalyi makes a clear definition is in attributing value to the creative process to those that have in some way influenced or changed our culture, and this involves some kind of public and professional scrutiny. He refers to his ‘systems model’ in which there are three main parts that need satisfying: the ‘domain’, ‘field’ and ‘person’, respectively. The domain is essentially the subject area that exists “nested in what we usually call culture, or the symbolic knowledge shared by a particular society, or by humanity as a whole.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.28). The field is the group of experts and individuals that constitute a professional body and which verify the product or concept, and finally the ‘person’ who is attributed with the act of creation and establishes a new domain that informs the next generation.
By raising a question of quality and determining clear parameters, the creative process becomes easier to assess, although this kind of qualification makes it harder to develop within the school environment where pupils have limited knowledge and are often restricted to learning facts and applying established theories to their thinking. To focus exclusively on this definition of creativity would create a hierarchy that alienates many pupils from ever achieving a recognised level of creativity.
Sir Ken Robinson also refers to the importance of ‘value’ in determining creativity and defines it as being “the process of having original ideas that have value”#. However, Robinson is concerned with how we might nurture this kind creative thinking in an educational capacity, particularly in primary and secondary schools. He chooses not to attribute value to an idea or product that lies outside of the personal domain of understanding, but prefers to focus on how schools can nurture the talents of students and not “squander them.”
Despite the subjectivity of what we consider to be a ‘valuable’ creative contribution to society, it is now widely accepted that personal creativity is both important as a form of personal expression and establishing a sense of self-esteem in as much as it has an impact on one’s professional and economic success” (NACCE, 1999)
A common perception of creativity is that it involves some form of novel and extraordinary way of thinking that is confined to eccentric personalities and those labelled geniuses. Such a viewpoint can often isolate people from feeling that they possess the ability to be creative and hence they are unable to identify where creativity is situated in relation to their own thinking.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, an established professor and former chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago, has written extensively about the creativity and describes this type of person as “a person with varied interests and a quick mind, may be called creative in this sense. Unless they also contribute something of permanent significance, I refer to people of this sort as brilliant rather than creative.” Whereas, he refers to people “whose perceptions are fresh, whose judgements are insightful, who make important discoveries that only they know about” as being ‘personally creative’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.25).
Where Csikszentmihalyi makes a clear definition is in attributing value to the creative process to those that have in some way influenced or changed our culture, and this involves some kind of public and professional scrutiny. He refers to his ‘systems model’ in which there are three main parts that need satisfying: the ‘domain’, ‘field’ and ‘person’, respectively. The domain is essentially the subject area that exists “nested in what we usually call culture, or the symbolic knowledge shared by a particular society, or by humanity as a whole.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.28). The field is the group of experts and individuals that constitute a professional body and which verify the product or concept, and finally the ‘person’ who is attributed with the act of creation and establishes a new domain that informs the next generation.
By raising a question of quality and determining clear parameters, the creative process becomes easier to assess, although this kind of qualification makes it harder to develop within the school environment where pupils have limited knowledge and are often restricted to learning facts and applying established theories to their thinking. To focus exclusively on this definition of creativity would create a hierarchy that alienates many pupils from ever achieving a recognised level of creativity.
Sir Ken Robinson also refers to the importance of ‘value’ in determining creativity and defines it as being “the process of having original ideas that have value”#. However, Robinson is concerned with how we might nurture this kind creative thinking in an educational capacity, particularly in primary and secondary schools. He chooses not to attribute value to an idea or product that lies outside of the personal domain of understanding, but prefers to focus on how schools can nurture the talents of students and not “squander them.”
Despite the subjectivity of what we consider to be a ‘valuable’ creative contribution to society, it is now widely accepted that personal creativity is both important as a form of personal expression and establishing a sense of self-esteem in as much as it has an impact on one’s professional and economic success” (NACCE, 1999)
No comments:
Post a Comment