In a recent opinion piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education, linked here, entitled “Getting Creative About Creativity Studies,” John Calhoun, Yale Law School student and education policy fellow at the Connecticut Policy Institute, explained why he is opposed to courses and programs in creative thinking. Calhoun says toward the end of his essay, “Teaching creative thinking has its place, but it should not be a stand-alone subject. Teachers and college deans should embed critical thinking in every college course. Instead of discussing in the abstract what it is like to think creatively, teachers should help students practice how to manipulate concrete facts and ideas in creative ways.” Earlier in his essay, Calhoun explains that in order to be creative, one must know his/her field, as well as other areas of study, and part of the manner in which creativity emerges results from seeing the connection between concepts and areas that others may not notice.
As an educator, I wholeheartedly agree with Calhoun. Teaching creative thinking as an isolated subject reminds me all too much of courses long ago in critical thinking as if that were also a distinct field that could be de-coupled from the topic we were studying at the time. To think critically or creatively requires grappling with ideas or topics in their actual context rather than attempting to divorce the process of analytical thought from the subject being analyzed. In the same way that we cannot teach what we don’t know, we cannot re-conceptualize something if it has not first been learned it in its initial setting--seeing something in a new way requires first seeing it as it was originally.
Breaking down a concept first demands knowing that idea in and out, understanding the various elements that led to the development of that notion, and comprehending what produced that thought in the first place. It is only when students fully understand an idea that they can begin to deconstruct its meaning and look for its connection to, or its isolation from, other concepts.
So often, thinking creatively stems from thinking analogically and discovering a connection below the surface that eluded others looking at the same information. I am reminded of the dreaded analogy section on the old SAT. Perhaps what made that component of the test so difficult for many was not knowing the terms or ideas with which we were supposed to see connections. If we did not understand “a” or “b,” how were we to know how each was related to “c”?
The moments of inspiration in our lives can come only after we have absorbed information, had time to digest it, and then had the luxury to approach it in an entirely new and different manner. While we may follow a process or series of steps in thinking creatively, that has common elements no matter what we are studying, we simply cannot apply that process if we are not comfortable with our knowledge in those fields. Albert Einstein could not have devised his theory of relativity without already having a profound understanding of physics, and Isadora Duncan would have been unable to re-invent dance if she had not first known the fundamentals of that art form.
Early in my teaching career, I would designate those days in class when students worked individually or in groups on papers and project as “work days” to signify how they differed from those days when I would present information or we would have discussions. After a while, I learned how wrong headed my approach was when students would ask if we were having a “work day.” Did that mean that on the other days they did not have to work? Having classes in creative or critical thinking not only deserves those processes, it also shortchanges the work that students are doing in all of their classes. Every class should be a course in creativity. The great and creative chemist Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors the prepared mind”; let’s help our students ready themselves so they can be in the right frame of mind when creativity strikes.
