Can creativity be taught or learned?
How can our education system foster creativity in young people?
In this essay, I will briefly examine creativity and its interpretations and associations.
I will consider whether it is possible for creativity to be taught and learned, focussing on
both supporting and opposing arguments. I will then consider to what extent it is possible
for our education system to foster creativity, again regarding both sides of the argument,
and how fostering this creativity is possible.
The interpretation of creativity is subjective, based on the individual’s perception.
For example, one person may regard a piece of contemporary modern art from the
minimalist era to be the height of creativity, whereas another individual may perceive the
same piece as simply an object. This dynamic and diverse difference in interpretation is
based on a variety of things: the open-mindedness of the individual, their education
(provided by the government, parents, and the individual themselves), their upbringing,
their own creative talents. For example, a person who works as an application software
developer for smart phones may not perceive the technology they produce as creative, but
the person who sells the software, and perceives themselves to have no creative skill, may
think otherwise. Creativity is associated with a variety of things, such as new and original
ideas, for example, the iPhone when it was released, and things that are developed from
something established but executed in a new way, such as the iPod nano being developed
from the existing iPod classic. It is also associated with things where different elements have
been brought together to create something new, things that are surprising, things that have
clear originality.
It is debatable whether creativity should be defined as a ‘skill’, which implies a
certain level of honing and practice, or a ‘talent’, which implies an innate ability and
aptitude. The former, presumably, can be taught, whereas the latter is simply either
possessed by an individual or it isn’t. So can creativity be taught? Even before education
systems were introduced into society, people were teaching and passing knowledge to
others (else we wouldn’t survive), presumably including creative skills: apprentices of
painters, sculptors and architects would have been taught by a scholar, i.e. a teacher. In one
sense, the very basics of creativity are taught to us as infants and small children: an orator or
singer could not create a speech or song without being taught how to talk; a writer could not
pen a novel or screenplay without being taught the alphabet, and a choreographer could not
create an interpretative dance without being taught how to walk. Children do not just
suddenly know these things: they have to be taught them, how to use them correctly, and
how to adapt them. So in that sense, creativity in its most basic sense is able to be taught.
Sir Ken Robinson is an internationally recognised leader in the development of
creativity, innovation and human resources. In his book Out of Our Minds: learning to be
creative, he suggests that everyone has creative capabilities but often do not know what
they are (Robinson, 2001, p. 3). He also goes on to explain how one misconception is that
‘creativity only happens in particular sorts of activities, and especially the arts’ (Robinson,
2001, p. 113). He argues instead that creativity is ‘a function of intelligence that takes many
forms’ and is possible ‘wherever human intelligence is actively engaged’ (Robinson, 2001, p.
111 - 113). He categorically states, and firmly supports throughout the book, that ‘creativity
is not a special quality confined to special people and it can be taught’ (Robinson, 2001, p.
114). He presents a strong argument supporting the notion that creativity can be taught
(and in turn learned). However, this theory is unfalsifiable, in that in cannot be proved nor
disproved. So for example, Robinson would argue that an individual who appears to have no
creative talent in fact does, but has not discovered through which medium they are able to
demonstrate this talent. One cannot prove whether this individual does have creative talent
if it is never demonstrated, nor cannot it be disproved simply because there is no supporting
evidence for it.
Opposing Robinson’s argument is the notion that creativity cannot be taught or
learned, but only inspired, encouraged and fostered in a positive environment. For example,
a trip to an art gallery or concert could inspire an individual with artistic or musical creative
talent to produce a piece of their own, whereas an individual with no (apparent) creative
talent would not necessarily be inspired. It has also been suggested that the environment in
which creativity is fostered can influence the outcome. For example an artistically creative
child is more likely to be able to exercise their ‘creative muscle’ in an art lesson with the
materials, reference books and an art teacher at hand (to encourage and inspire) as opposed
to an artistically creative child who does not have these facilities. The idea that creativity
cannot be taught or learned comes from the idea that only certain people are creative, and
since you are either creative or not, ‘creativity obviously can’t be taught’ (Robinson, 2001, p.
114).
During the early fifteenth century, Florence, Italy, was the home of an ‘artistic,
humanistic, technological and scientific flowering known as the Renaissance’ (Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 2002), and marked an era of broad cultural and creative achievement.
Innovations were made not only in art and literature, but mathematics, architecture and
medicine. It could be argued that it was the environment at the time that inspired people
like Botticelli, Lorenzo Ghiberti and Donatello to produce creative pieces. For example, the
country was enjoying financial prosperity down to funding from the powerful de Medici
family, who made the decision to make the city beautiful and distinctive. This money,
support and encouragement lead to advancements in knowledge of a variety of fields, which
in turn lead to new creative techniques. An example here would be Donatello’s pioneering
of schiacciato, which used perspective to give the illusion of spatial depth, and later
Brunelleschi’s development of systems of linear perspective and proportion (Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 2002). So perhaps the artists and architects that pioneered these creative
techniques resulting in the production of highly regarded creative things were only able to
do so due to the environment they were in at the time: financially prosperous, motivated to
create, being scrutinized by the de Medici to do so.
It can be said that schools today are drawing inspiration from this, and attempting to
foster a creative environment in which children to work. Traditionally, schools focus on more
‘academic’ subjects than ‘creative’ ones. In the Middle Ages in Europe, education was largely
provided by the Church (Robinson, 2001, p. 74) and before that, 2000 BC in China and the
Middle East, education was developed for children that was ‘based on the kind of training
provided for the priesthood’ (Claxton, 2008, p. 50). This model of teaching and learning,
Claxton notes, based on the ‘unquestionable authority of a few high-status initiates, has
echoed down through the ages’ (Claxton, 2008, p. 50). But the education systems of today
undoubtedly offer a broader and richer variety of teaching, including ‘creative’ subjects such
as art, where children are encouraged to express themselves and are introduced to a variety
of techniques and mediums through which to do so; media studies, where children are
introduced to an analytical and critical way of thinking, as well as encouraging them to
produce their own work; English and drama, which encourage children to produce pieces of
creative writing, as well as express themselves. A report published in 2009 by the charity
Creativity, Culture and Education claimed that ‘creativity boost[s] exam results and
attendance’ (Baker, 2009). The report looks at a programme called Creative Partnerships,
which ‘fosters collaborative partnerships between schools and creative professionals’ and
had ‘engaged almost one million school students and 90,000 teachers’ (Baker, 2009). This
supports the notion that education systems are attempting to foster a positive environment
for creativity, although this is obviously not applicable to every school, and presumably not
everyone who has the power to implement such a scheme would be willing to do so,
perhaps if they have old-fashioned values regarding a school’s curriculum.
Steiner schools are a perfect example of an education system that does not focus
purely on academia, but ‘gives priority to educating the "whole child", with a strong
emphasis on creativity’ (Jeffreys, 2004) as well as their ‘emotional, academic, physical and
spiritual needs’ (BBC, 2010). The twenty three schools in the UK are independently funded,
which perhaps shows that the government is not doing as much as it could to ‘encourage
diversity and innovation’ (Jeffreys, 2004). The schools’ curriculum features activities such as
gardening, learning foreign languages from an early age, and eurhythmy, a form of coordinated movement which is practised by all students. Although the schools prepare
children to be able to take GCSE’s and A levels, examinations and tests are not required to
be taken, which is an advantage for children with dyslexia who find it difficult to read, write
and concentrate. The fact that the Steiner Waldorf School Fellowship in the UK has been
‘campaigning for decades for public funding for some of its schools’ (Jeffreys, 2004) shows
that although there are education systems out there that do foster a positive environment
for creativity, the UK government are only just beginning to see their benefits and consider
funding them. Currently only one Steiner school in the UK is state-funded.
So how do the Steiner schools offer an education system that fosters creativity?
Reading, writing and arithmetic are introduced at a later stage, based on the thought that
the children are more mature, and so enables them to learn the basics effortlessly. All pupils
will study all subjects in big classes, and will sing, play musical instruments and read music
daily. From the age of seven to fourteen, a child will have the same teacher, which ‘gives a
real sense of security and continuity’ (Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, 2011). Children
are also taught how to prepare, illustrate and bind their own notebooks, as well as writing
and drawing their own accounts of lessons. This is not to say, however, that creativity is not
fostered in state-schools. Activities like student plays, short story competitions, creative
writing, technology and art lessons all enable pupils ato demonstrate creativity, although
perhaps to not the same extent as those pupils being educated at a Steiner school.
BBC journalist Mike Baker suggests that Ken Robinson’s widely acclaimed report All
Our Futures, published in 1999, which highlighted the importance of creativity being able to
be taught, did not dominate governmental education policy because ‘it came out just at a
time when the new Labour government was investing its energy in boosting standards in the
"three Rs"’ (Baker, 2009), the ‘R’s’ being reading, writing and arithmetic. Baker goes on to
suggest that the lack of response was perhaps down to the head teachers not wanting to risk
their schools slipping down the league tables, which are based on a school’s success in
formal tests and examinations, not on indicators that reflects pupil’s creativity. Robinson
notes that ‘one of the most fundamental problems is the very process that’s meant to
develop our natural abilities – education’ (Robinson, 2001, p. 3). He explains how education
and work treat ‘being wrong’ as a terrible thing, and so children are less likely to attempt
being creative as there always looms the possibility they will be laughed at, or told they are
‘wrong’ (by teachers and other pupils). Robinson suggests that a more suitable method
would be to not teach creativity (although he does believe this is possible), but to encourage
creativity to develop. He believes that ‘current approaches to education and training are
hampered by ideas of intelligence and creativity that have wasted untold talent and ability’
(Robinson, 2001, p. 4) and that ‘education is dominated by the ideology of academicism’
(Robinson, 2001, p. 84).
To conclude, I believe that creativity can be encouraged and inspired, though I
believe it can definitely be taught as well, based on the evidence outlined above. I think that
Ken Robinson has the most straight-forward, sensible and realistic approach, and I feel it is a
poor decision on the government’s behalf to not consider research such as his 1999 report
entitled All Our Futures. I also think that Steiner schools’ education system is perfect for
fostering creativity, and I do not think they should be independently funded. However, I do
think that generally state schools are not as academically-focussed as they used to be,
although some old-fashioned values do prevent some ‘creative’s subjects and ideas from
being implemented fully.
Bibliography
Baker, M. (2009). Benefits of creative classrooms. [Online].
Available at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8064306.stm> [accessed 14th February 2011].
BBC, (2010). Lancaster Steiner school’s Free School status bid. [Online]. Available from
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-11652979> [accessed 15th February 2011].
Claxton, G. (2008). What’s the point of school? Oxford: Oneworld Publications. P. 50.
Jeffreys, B. (2004). Steiner schools ‘could help all’. [Online]. Available at
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4633601.stm> [accessed 14th February 2011].
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of Our Minds: Learning to be creative. West Sussex: Capstone Published
Limited. Pp. 2-114.
Steiner Waldorf School’s Fellowship, (2011). A different style of education. [Online]. Available from
<http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/differences.html> [accessed 19th February 2011].
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2002) Florence and Central Italy, 1400–1600 A.D (from Heilbrunn
Timeline of Art History) [Online].
Available at <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=08&region=eustc> [accessed 16th
February 2011].