How Creative Are You?

Teachers get into the profession for a variety of reasons.  Despite my awareness of this diversity, it always surprises me the number of professional educators who don't believe they (or many of their students) are or can be creative.  Part of my constant surprise hinges on my belief that teaching is itself a creative process.  Year after year, educators enter schools preparing to create a classroom environment, a school culture, lesson plans, student success - the list is truly exhaustive.  Teachers create.  Each new school day is an exercise in creativity.

Yet, people, particularly adults (and especially teachers), hesitate to say or think they are creative.  Through conversation, experience and research, I've learned that we all limit our understanding of creativity. An examination of the history of creativity as a study or field demonstrates the limited perspectives to which one can ascribe. The creative process has been seen as emanating from uniquely gifted "madmen", such as Van Gogh, Mozart, or Heath Ledger.  As a society, we've valued production over process, celebrating Thomas Edison's one patented light bulb, yet we ignore his unsuccessful attempts as equally creative endeavors.  Our society certainly doesn't value the work involved in "original" thought/product or variety of ideas (think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs).  From my observations, we think creativity just happens.  You either are or you aren't creative.       

Over time, researchers began thinking about creativity in broader terms and sought to redefine it psychologically and behaviorally.  Guilford's 1950 address to the American Psychological Association can be earmarked as a turning-point (and a launching pad) for the academic study of creativity.  Through this new psychological lens, the definition of creativity expanded to consider birth-order, mental health, intelligence, personality traits, and environment.    

More recently, neuroscientists are adding to our understanding of creativity.  As early as 1978 with Martindale and Hasenfus's work, neuroscientific studies are concluding that the construct of creativity is adaptable.  I believe this research creates a neurological imperative within the field and study of creativity. We can no longer discuss creativity and the creative process without including brain-based theory and processes.  Creativity happens in the brain, as a neurological process.  Much like breathing, walking, or playing a piano, creativity starts as an impulse in the brain.  What is most remarkable about the inner-working creative processes is that they occur across the entire brain.  Study after study demonstrates the complexity of brain function during creatively constructed tests and situations (Mashal, Faust, Hendler, & Jung-Beeman, 2007; Grabner, Fink, & Neubauer, 2007; Abraham & Windmann, 2007).

What neuroscience research suggests is that we can shape creativity as a mental process, cultivating and increasing it through labeling and practice.  Because our brains have an incredible degree of plasticity, for far longer in life than previously thought, we should conclude that creativity is for all of us.  We can all be creative, grow in our creativity, and teach others to be more creative.  So the question is not, "Are you creative?"  The question becomes, "How creative are you?"    

Jumping In

I believe all teachers can and should teach more creatively.

I believe all students can and should be taught how to think more creatively.

We should be pushing for creative thought, creative products, and creative culture in our schools from everyone.  This must look, feel, sound, and be wildly different everywhere.  For that is the beauty of creative thinking - the process, product, and culture must not be limited to our current conceptions of "what is."  While I am relatively new to the theoretical (and even practical) world of creative thinking, my soap-box is sturdy and permanent.  I speak strongly realizing that there are nay-sayers among educators whose preconceived and limited notions of creativity will make this blog a challenging read.  I sincerely hope you comment, nay-sayer.  The dialogue will benefit us all!

Back to the beginning:  mud pies.

My family started me down the road to developing my own creative thinking.  It started with simple play and imagination; making and selling mud pies in the front flower bed (thank you, dad, for looking away as you cringed), erecting forts and hide-outs under the trampoline and in the farthest corner of the backyard, and being sent outside to "play" despite my sneezing and whining.  I've been incredibly fortunate to have had some amazing teachers who continued to develop my creative thinking through independent reading assignments, pull-out classes, and extra-curricular activities (Odyssey of the Mind and Future Problem Solving).  All the while, I clasped onto this creative development because I believed that I could be more creative, funnier, wittier, more unique.  My growing-up was a support, not a hinderance, to these personal ideals.  I believe that we all hold this capacity for play, imagination, and the thinking process that accompanies it:  creativity.  For some of us, our environment and learning experiences nurtures this innate capacity.  For others, the environment destroys it.  Eventually, some children grow up to be adults to believe they can't play, be imaginative, or be creative.  That's a tragedy.

Before I lose some of you because of the whimsy of this blog so far, neuroscience research supports the supposition that creative thinking is a neurological process that can be enhanced through complex neural networks.  My own research with children in third through sixth grade proves that creativity scores on the Torrance Tests for Creative Thinking can be improved within 6 weeks of minimal (30 minutes or less) instruction in how to think creatively.  If you join me again in this blogging journey, I'll provide more details about both of these statements (both the brain-based and the research I've done).  

Fast forward:  "Blooms Revised" and the Common Core

There's more to say than I can write in one blog post, but the future of education must rely on the processes involved in creativity.  Many of those who adhere to Bloom's Hierarchy of Thinking have begun to revise it to emphasize the need for creation and a change in the idea of a linear/hierarchical production of thought.  Further, as we adopt the common core and the technology standards attached to it, creative production is an essential part.

Regardless of what you think about your own or other's capacity to be creative, creative thinking will be a part of education.  Hopefully, you and your school engage in the wonder and richness of this movement for you and your students' sakes.