Mum I Got an A in Creative Thinking

Look into a school curriculm, and most of the time you'll find one of its objectives to be to "think creatively." Many if not all the schools emphasize creativity alongside other educational values. It seems fair enough on paper, at least. After all, the 21st century needs to be different from the previous decades of methodical learning and the learning of three R's; it is an era meant for genius breakthroughs and fascinating revolutions, boggling discoveries and thinking-out-of-the-box-moments. All of this, schools and education boards proudly assume, will be achieved through "creative thinking." Sir Ken Robinson seems to support this notion as well. People are being restricted by the lack of creativity within education, and even if they are born with any creativity, they grow out of it. Rather, he says, they are educated out of it.

Sir Robinson speaks very well indeed, and in an entertaining manner too - not unlike what I want to emulate. It is also true that creativity is important, especially in the modern society, where mere knowledge and memorization aren't going to get a person anywhere by themselves. Analysis and ideas are also needed, things that creativity often provides. But Sir Robinson's speech leads to some questions that must be answered before overassuming the importance of creativity. What is creativity, and can it be taught? In relation to standardized tests and memorization of facts, is creativity more important? What really is needed for students? Despite Sir Robinson's witty rhetorics, there are several points that he must rethink before claiming for more creativity within the current education system.

First, what exactly is creativity? Although Sir Robinson gives various characteristics of creativity witn his speech - thinking from different perspectives and through different methods - he never does give the precise definition of this term, despite its frequent appearance. He tries to exemplify it for the audience: ADHD might call for medication in the eyes of some people, but it can be uncovered to discover a genius dancer. In these ways - these different methods of thinking, these different forms of expression - creativity unleashes its power to reveal a genius in everyone. I wonder if that means that a student who flys paper airplanes in class is a creative genius and not a disturbance, as he "thinks through" such methods and will excel in aviation, physics, and other related subjected later on in life. But this is also controversial. Most people would claim the latter; I suppose that Sir Robinson will assure us of the powers of creativity. But Sir Robinson assumes that the audience will understand, for after all, the word "creativity" does sound very reassuring and positive. You can never define creativity, because it's good in a different way for everyone. It's not definite, but it's good, and that's what matters.

Perhaps. I don't want to go into psychological/philosophical/linguistic matters about the contemplations of creativity, and I'm sure Sir Robinson didn't want to either, with his allotment of twenty minutes of speech. But even when we give in to the fact that creativity cannot be exactly defined, but is characterized by its novelty and differentation, problems still arise when we try to bring creativity into education systems. This is a result of the vague definition. If creativity cannot be defined, but is unique for every person and has millions of open endings, then how can it be taught? It's true that people have a variety of skills and ways of perception: one person might be a dancer, another may be a scientist, and yet another might be a fashion designer. Yet how will these people be endorsed in their various quests for creativity under one system of education? We can't possibly fit mathematics, language arts, dance, theatre, engineering, and soccer into one curriculm for the possibility of students finding their respective fields of genius. In reality this is simply impossible.

Another problem with attributing creativity wholly to education is the fact that there is no way to measure creativity, especially if it's meant to be unique to each person. Education needs some kind of standards - often in the form of grades - not to decrease creativity or discourage students, but to give at least a approximate picture of the students' performance. If a student gets an F in a particular subject, it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean that he or she is stupid; it signifies that the student needs problems that the teacher needs to attend to. Through such standards and measurements of education, students let teachers and parents know certain weaknesses and strengths, thus bringing up efficiency of education to at least some extent. Discouragement from making mistakes or errors, as Sir Robinson has complained about in his speech, is a connotation that does need to be fixed. Yet it is not wholly the problem of standardized tests and criteria themselves; they are needed to some extent in education. But creativity offers no space whatsoever for such benefits. How can we exactly get an A for creative thinking?

Not only that, but creativity isn't the single most important factor in education. Creativity only reaches its maximum efficiency and potential when the students have a certain level of background knowledge and logic to support it. If a writing teacher gives his or her students Shakespeare and tells them to "get creative," they simply can't until they have some knowledge of Old English and historic background. This knowledge and the abhorred "memorization of facts" are the basic building blocks that lead up and enhance creativity. Take the example of WordSmart, or the importance of building a good vocabulary. Students (in fact ourselves) may complain about having to memorize WordSmart - who needs to memorize words, really, when we have access to dictionary almost all the time, anyway? - but it's true that this basic knowledge is needed to progress to further advancements, such as writing essays and papers. It is when students know certain lexicon and their particular differences that they are able to fully express themselves: A student who describes a negative outburst as "angry" and another who describes the same as "acerbic and pessimistic" are certainly different. It's the same with creativity. A student who is innately skilled in writing fantasy novels, for instance, still needs to perfect his or her grammar and vocabulary. Even when the "dull" courses are not directly related to skills of creativity, they still have some indirect effect. A child who is gifted in art might earn a deeper insight by learning history or reading particular literature. Like this, all creativity needs some basis - basis that is given by the regular subjects that are provided in today's curriculm.

So what is it that students need? Creativity to the maximum is impossible and irresponsible. A sudden switch to creativity is also not recommended. Korea shows this clearly: despite its quick concentration on the growth of creativity (reflected in the sudden increase in "activities" and "group discussions"), it isn't showing much efficiency due to the lack of gradual buildup. (Tell students in public schools to debate or do something creative, and many of them sit unimpressed. Some of them go on the Internet to find "answers" to creativity - thus resulting in many of the schools relapsing back into the traditional rote-memorization education so "characteristic" of Korea.)

Yet some emphasis on creativity is needed. It is not the educational curriculm that needs to be fixed, but the social and educational connotations. It needs to be said that one needs to know the right facts, yes, but that it isn't stupid to misunderstand them or think in different ways. It needs to be said that the "Ivy-university / lawyer / doctor way" isn't the only way. Considering that education is usually related to jobs, the connotation that "elite" jobs are not the "best" or the "happiest" jobs is also needed. (This is where I think the social connotations of jobs is somewhat better in Japan, where even the traditionally lowly held jobs are also respected, as long as the person performs them with the responsibility of a master. - 匠人) But mostly, encouragement and accesibility to various fields is crucial. When students are educated in basic fields through the education system, yet encouraged to go further and build upon them, that is true creativity. Now, if anybody comes up with a creative way to fulfill this in reality, I'll give them full marks for it - an A in Creative Thinking, so to speak.