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?"
