Get creative, Yo

I saw a chart on Facebook a while back. It showed a decreasing trend in creativity in children from the beginning of their education all the way up to the end of high school. This was based on the Torrance creativity tests. While I was looking for the aforementioned picture (I never did find it), I came across this nicely written post called the "Creativity Crisis" by Po Bronson.

Part of me was tempted to go on a literature review for the correlations with/mechanisms behind the decades long decline in creativity and then the trend through childhood education itself. I decided instead of getting bogged down in the vicious circle that is looking for valid information that I may as well just give my opinion, which is the main reason for my blog.

As was said in the post I linked, the emphasis on standardised tests and rote learning are correlated with the fall in creativity. But I think that there are subtle nuances there. Specifically I was thinking about the way school exercises were approached when I was there.

In mathematics and sciences, what we are taught in class is reinforced by working on problems oriented around the principles. That's all well and good for internalising a specific skill, but the disadvantage is that it becomes very easy for children (I mean "me") to fixate on how the problem is solved as opposed to what the result is. We (I mean "I") can become conditioned to expect all the tools to solve a problem being clearly lined-up and colour-coded in front of us (I mean... you get the idea). It reminds me a bit of the adage from Maslow:

"[...] if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail [...]"

Although, I would contend it is a bit more insidious than that; it's more a case of: "I was only told I could use the hammer." It's something that trips me up often in work, at least more often than I would like. I have tunnelvision solving problems... what tools to use and what is possible. What I'm trying to do these days is consider what is the desired outcome and not fixate on a path that I thought would lead me to it.

I think what could be an interesting idea for teachers to employ when teaching is only doing 50% of the exercises explicitly using the prescribed method and the other 50% letting the kids go nuts, i.e. solving the problems whatever way they can. It has a couple of benefits (I think):

1. There's cross-pollination; they are more likely to remember the thing they learned earlier and not discard them at the end of course section 
2. They get into the habit of looking at the problem and sizing up what could work to solve it based on the pros and cons of different techniques
3. They build-up a personalized repertoire of techniques for solving problems
4. They won't shoehorn a technique into a problem just because it worked for other problems in the vicinity
5. They'll be more adaptable when a technique doesn't work

Added bonuses, based on successes borne of their own initiative, they could become more confident and more likely to be assertive when faced with challenges - at least that is what my gut tells me; I only have a doctorate in chemical engineering, not psychology... :/

Maybe I'm completely of the mark, but it sounds reasonable enough to me.

There's a nice parable that infers the things I just opined. Part of me feels a bit raw that I haven't offered something novel. But, there's a very rewarding rush to arrive at an answer on your own, that isn't diminished by discovering the answer existed already. I think kids should get used to that feeling. 

Make them problem-solving junkies!¹

****

¹Not to be confused with junkies that solve problems... Ah English... your ambiguity is easy pickings for some classic jokes. And hilarious example of one at that, if I might add.ⁱ

ⁱI may.