The meaning of creativity is an issue. If you mean the more general 'creation of thoughts, solutions, ideas to meet a challenge', then it is just a normal human trait that schooling tends to block. To 'teach' creativity requires us to shift away from the didactic in early schooling and to value the experimental. Schooling should be perceived as teaching 'tools' to make sense of and interact with the world and society. If we could attain this view of schooling, then teaching creativity becomes a process of expanding the problem solving toolkit, possibly best done through a coaching and/or mentoring model in a PBL approach. Please note that I am not saying that schooling destroys ALL creativity. Many students retain creativity but do not display it much in a school setting because they believe that it isn't valued.

The meaning of creativity is an issue. If you mean the more general 'creation of thoughts, solutions, ideas to meet a challenge', then it is just a normal human trait that schooling tends to block. To 'teach' creativity requires us to shift away from the didactic in early schooling and to value the experimental. Schooling should be perceived as teaching 'tools' to make sense of and interact with the world and society. If we could attain this view of schooling, then teaching creativity becomes a process of expanding the problem solving toolkit, possibly best done through a coaching and/or mentoring model in a PBL approach. Please note that I am not saying that schooling destroys ALL creativity. Many students retain creativity but do not display it much in a school setting because they believe that it isn't valued.

Mark has a great point. To a certain extent, creativity is innate but it can be developed to a great extent. Nature vs Nurture. Teachers' pedagogical practices can be a platform to enhance students' creativity skills.

I agreed with Malini that creativity is innate to a certain extent but it can be developed if the teacher takes the role of a facilitator of learning. Teachers need to read very wide across content to be able to assist their learners in developing their creativity. Also teachers need to relate with their peers as well as seniors to pick up a lot of pedagogical practices to enhance students creativity skills.

Furthermore, teachers need to reflect on their practices and see where they are missing it or where they are making a mark, otherwise repeated mistakes is inevitable.

Findings revealed that highly creative adolescents were- happy go-lucky, venturesome, sensitive, suspicious, imaginative, socially aware, experimenting, self-sufficient, controlled and tense.

http://ijpe.co.in/content/study-creative-thinking-among-senior-secondary-school-students-relation-their-personality

Krishnan,

Many thanks for your response. However I am interested in research findings that  indicate that creativity of students can be enhanced by teaching strategies.

Best wishes,

Yaacov.

A teacher can boost the creative talent found in a child by support in the form of appraisal, gifts, awards, providing resource room and library etc. Whether creativity is innate or acquired may b an issue of debate, but there is no controversy to accept it as a human nature.

Best wishes,

Shankhadeep.

I would recommend work by Anna Craft on creativity conceptualized as possibility thinking and then the research by Burnard and Cremin related to the strategies teachers can use to encourage possibility thinking in the classroom. Key references:

Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., Dragovic, T., & Chappell, K. (2013). Possibility thinking: culminative studies of an evidence-based concept driving creativity?. Education 3-13, 41(5), 538-556.

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Psychology Press.

If you boost one aspect of your teaching to improve student's creativity but at the cost of time and effort toward standardized testing then you (or your school) would be penalized. 

I feel that creativity is to a large extent innate.  However, I believe that nurture plays a key role.  We may consider a plant that has the will to grow but without water it perishes.  Well, creativity is similar.  Teachers must see themselves as facilitators indeed and be willing to teach outside the set curriculum in order to awaken the students' world of creativity. In some cases, I support the Montessori School philosophy where every child is able to learn at his/her pace and in a personal space of selected interest.

Hi Yaacov

You raise two interesting questions: (1) can one educate towards the enhancement of creativity among elementary and secondary school students?   (2)  If creativity is an acquired ability, what can teachers do to enhance the creativity of their students?

I am convinced, like Laudan, Wittgenstein, and many others, that the increase of the conceptual clarity of a theory, research, question, or concept through careful clarifications and specifications of meaning is.one of the most important ways in which science progresses [see, for example, Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth (p. 50). Berkeley: University of California Press, and Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (p. 232e) (G. E. M. Ascombe, Trans.) (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall]

As creativity is a complex phenomenon, the meaning of creativity is, as Mark Gould notes, a big issue. Suffice it to say that there are several definitions of creativity. For example, creativity is generally understood as (a) an act of bringing about new and imaginative ideas into reality; (b) an ability to perceive the world in a new way or manner; and (c) a capacity to find hidden patterns, to establish links between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and to generate new solutions. It is generally assumed that creativity involves two psychological processes: to have new ideas and then act on them. In this vein, one is only, for example, a creative poet when one writes/publishes his/her poems. As Wittgenstein (1958) once cogently remarked “inner processes are in need of outer or external criteria” 

 As I see it, creativity is, above all, divergent thinking and acting. Let me substantiate my idea through a telling example. It is said that Karl F. Gauss (1977-1855) left his primary school teacher highly perplex when, at the age of 8 years, he gave a creative answer to the following problem his primary school teacher had written shortly before on the blackboard: “ What is the sum of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8?” All of a sudden, and apparently without having time enough to perform the respective operation of adding, Gauss replied that the result of the arithmetical operation at hand was 36. “Why is this so?” -- The teacher asked again. She became more perplex when Gauss replied that this was so because 4 X 9 = 36. “I cannot understand” -- The teacher replied and went on:  “Why did you perform an operation of multiplication instead of an addition operation?”  “I did that -- Gauss replied -- because I easily realized that 1+ 8 = 9; “2 +7 = 9; 3 + 6 = 9; and 4 + 5 = 9. Hence, 4 X 9 = 36”. Even if it were given by a non-expert adult in mathematics, we would certainly say that Gauss’ answer and way of thinking was highly creative and is a clear example of divergent thinking.

As I see it, the concept of creativity has given rise, among others, to three common misunderstandings. First, it is often said that creativity is an innate ability, or, in other words, “a given of nature” that some people have and others do not possess. Even though we need an intact brain in order to be creative and innovators, creativity goes well beyond our genes, molecules and the like, and it can be fostered and promoted. This means that we should not look at nature and nurture, the individual and the social, and the like, as dichotomous realities. Suffice it to say that, for example, one is more entitled to win a Nobel Prize when we live, say, in a scientific atmosphere where there are several Nobel laureates than in an uncultivated social environment. Second, creativity is not a “nothing-or-all phenomenon, that is, there are degrees and degrees of creativity, and even ordinary people can exhibit at times some creative activities. Finally, contrary to what is often assumed, creativity generally requires hard work, not simply inspiration. It is alleged that A. Einstein once remarked that it is only in dictionaries that the word “success” (and creativity) appears first than the word “work” (and even hard work). I think that the majority, if not all scientists, consider, for example, that Jean Piaget was a highly creative developmental psychologist. However, it is alleged that Piaget [see Bringuier, J. (1980). Conversations with Jean Piaget. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press] was so engaged with his scientific interests (e.g., to know how new forms of thinking and intelligence emerge, evolve, and attain full maturity with development and how these forms of thinking/knowing become necessary once constructed) that he only went to the cinema three times in all his life, and promised himself, when he was about 18-years-old, to write about 12 pages every day during his scientific carrier. As far as Piaget’s creative acts and thoughts are concerned, it is worth mentioning that, when he was asked to say how people come up with new, creative ideas, Piaget gave quite an informal, albeit original, response. More precisely, Piaget said that if one wants to be creative, then: (1) one should avoid reading all that was previously published on the matter where one wants to be creative. If this were not the case, one risks spending all of his/her  available time and, even so, not having time enough to read all that was already written on that matter wherein one wants to be creative. (2) One should read a lot about all that is somehow related to the field wherein one wishes to be original and creative. Parenthetically, Piaget was an expert in psychology but also, in biology, epistemology, philosophy, logic, and the like. (3) One should have, so to say, a conceptual "enemy". Mine, Piaget went on, is logical positivism.  In other words, if we want to get ahead and be creative, we need, so to say, to have a theory or even a metatheory. Needless to say, what new scientific ideas and theories are greatly depends upon our conception of science. Gaston Bachelard, Karl Popper, John Laudan, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos, just to cite five examples, have different, may be complimentary, conceptions of science. I think that if we are a professor at our university, then we can profit a lot from knowing this Piaget’s creative answer such that we can enhance or foster our students’ creative acts and thoughts.

Given that creativity is not innate, teachers can do a lot to enhance the creativity of their pupils/students.  Many books, chapters and papers are devoted to this issue.  Because of this, my response to your questions is more based on my scientifically grounded convictions than on the reading of any particular book, chapter, paper, and the like. Before going on, a caveat is in order at this point. There are many educators, who inspired by the French educator and philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), think that the child’s creativity stops once s/he enters school.  Romantic as this idea may be, it relies on a myth. Suffice it to say that (a) creative figures, such as I. Newton, G. Galileo, F. Bacon, L. Beethoven. I. Kant, C. Darwin, R., K. Gauss, and J. Piaget, were highly cultivated in terms of educational level and cultural background; (b) the Wild Child, a French film by director F. Truffaut tells the  true story of a child who spent the first eleven or twelve years of his life with little or no human contact. As a result, he was not capable of writing, speaking, and even walking; and (3) only education, not ignorance, can save countries, societies, and even individuals from possible collapse, be it violent or gradual. Of course, education is costly, but it is far less costly than its alternative, ignorance. Thus, to think that schools hinder the child’s creativity deifies our imagination. It is the opposite that it is generally the case.

In what follows I provide you with some (informal) suggestions which can help teachers to foster their pupils’/students´ creativity. Though informal, such suggestions are based on scientific research. Their order is not operative.

(1) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creativity -- why not say creative acts and thoughts instead of creativity? --when they do not commit what I call the education-fundamental error. They commit this error when they espouse the idea that pupils have not to be rewarded or praised for doing what they should do (e.g., to perform well at school) but should always be reprehended or even punished for any misdeed or incorrect answer to a given  problem. The more teachers reprehend their students for any misdeed and incorrect answer, the less these students are likely to be creative and innovative individuals.

 (2) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creativity when they are, so to speak, attentive teachers to all of their pupils’ behaviors, namely those related to intellectual, moral and aesthetic matters or issues. Note that the true, the good, and the beautiful are universal categories, regardless of how they are understood at different places and times. Among other things, when teachers are attentive teachers they are, for example, very careful about their pupils’ sense of autonomy – pupils whoever should be respected as individuals – and intimacy – pupils  are entitled to establish close relations with others. Contrary to what seems to be case, the psychological senses of autonomy and intimacy are deeply intertwined. Suffice it to say that if one is capable of establishing close relationships with others – intimacy -- then the others consider him/her as a partner who is entitled to have respect and esteem from others – autonomy. Needless to say, a relatively well developed sense of autonomy and intimacy goes well with a happy and healthy life. There is mounting evidence that shows that when children and adolescents consult a clinical psychologist they often say, for example, that their parents/teachers want to have a total control over all of their behaviors, attitudes, and the like – i.e., parents and teachers do not recognize children’s and adolescents’ sense of autonomy or identity -- or/and that their parents/teachers do not know almost nothing about their concerns, problems, and so forth  --  i.e.,  parents or teachers do not take into account children’s and adolescents’ sense of intimacy.

(3) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creative acts and thoughts, when they make everything that they can do so as to foster their pupils’ sense of competence, efficacy, esteem, control over events, and the like. Beside children’s and adolescents’ sense of autonomy and intimacy, those senses are, so to say, important psychological senses, something that we could call, so to speak,  psychological vacines. There is no drug that generates and fosters such senses. This means that they greatly depend, for example, in teachers’ style of teaching. In terms of styles of teaching, there is mounting evidence that shows that, in sharp contrast with the conservative goal of traditional education, which is to inculcate and transmit to pupils the existing knowledge and values from one generation to another, the active methods or methods that are neither entirely teacher-centered nor entirely student-centered but rather appeal to an interaction between a teacher/mentor organizing classroom situations and involving students in experimentation [See Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman Publishers] are suitable teaching methods for the appearance of creative, autonomous, and critical individuals, not individuals who are oriented to an uncritical acceptance of dogmas, established truths, or truths imposed on them from outside. There is also evidence that shows that the above mentioned active methods give rise to an internal, not external, locus of control (see, for this respect, J. Rotter’s work), and a high self-efficacy (see, for this respect, A. Bandura’s ideas on self-efficacy). Findings have shown and that an internal locus of control and a high self-efficacy are positively associated with children’s and adolescents’ intellectual achievement and creative performances. It suffices to say that, for instance, teachers/professors foster their pupils’/students’ internal locus of control whenever they show them that pupils/students are greatly responsible for their academic achievement and success.

 4) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creativity when they confront them, as it were, with problems rather than exercises. For example, if a teacher obliges a pupil to write several times a word the student had written in a wrong way, then the pupil is being confronted, say, with an exercise, not a problem. Exercises of this type are boring and do not foster pupils’ creative acts and thoughts. A problem is at issue when a teacher, for example, asks an 8-year-old child to explain why a drop of water on a table disappears some minutes later. Piagetian developmental tasks, for example, are clear examples of oriented-problem tasks, not oriented-exercise tasks. It is more than natural to think that problems, rather than exercises, are of help to foster pupils’ creative thinking and acting. 

(5) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creative thinking and acting when they not appeal to what Hoffman [See, Hoffman, M. (1970). Moral development. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 2. pp. 261-360). New York: Wiley] called power assertion (p. 285). When power assertion is the case, teachers/parents try to control their pupils’/children’s undesirable behaviors by appealing to their physical power or control over certain resources such as toes, extra-curricular activities, and the like (e.g., “if you do that -- do not attain good marks -- I will be unavailable to teach you how to solve some intellectual problems”)-

(6) Teachers foster their pupils’ creativity when they not appeal either to what Hoffman called withdrawal of love, a kind of blackmail in that teachers (and parents) try to control children’s undesirable behaviors by threatening them with unpleasant psychological consequences, such as, “if you do that -- do not attain good marks – then I will have a cold social relation with you. Thus, in the withdrawal of love strategy, teachers (and parents) give a direct, albeit not physical, expression of their disapproval of children’s misdeeds or undesirable acts. 

(7) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creative thinking and acting whenever then they appeal to what Hoffman called inductive or explanatory practices. Contrary to power assertion and withdrawal of love strategies of socialization and teaching, in inductive or explanatory practices teachers/parents try to get the pupil’s or the student’s adherence by explaining to him/her the negative effects of his/her misdeeds and undesirable acts on others (e.g.,” if you do not help your needy colleagues and peers, they will be sad and unhappy.”).

(7) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creativity when they teach them according to, say, an authoritative, not authoritarian or permissive teaching (see, for this respect, D.Baumrind’s work on parenting styles and, to some extent, teaching styles). An authoritative teacher is demanding but warmth; an authoritarian teacher is demanding, but cold; and a permissive teacher is guided, so to say, by the slogan “laissez faire, lesser aller, laissez passer; let’s it go"). It has been found that, contrary to authoritative teaching, authoritarian or permissive teaching is at odds with pupils’ or students’ innovative ideas and behaviors.     

(7) If teachers want their pupils’/students’ to be creators, innovators, autonomous, and capable of divergent thinking/acting, then they should not be, as it were, in a hurry. As creative acts and thoughts are complex phenomena, they often take much time to appear and develop. It has been found, for example, that a certain goal (e.g., to put forth a new theory) is generally more easily achieved when its attainment is seen in terms of small steps and sub-goals (e.g., to run several experiments aimed at falsifying the main propositions of such theory; Bandura’s work on social and cognitive-social learning testifies on the behalf of this idea). It is also alleged that Charles Buffon (1707-1788) once remarked that genius (and creativity) is nothing but a great aptitude for patience. In other words, when one finds out something interesting and innovative without (apparently) searching for it, one generally searched for it for a long time without finding it out.

(8) Teachers enhance their pupils’ creative thoughts and acts when they pay some attention to the way their pupils are generally dressed. Human beings whoever are beautiful in themselves even when they seem ugly. Even so, the more they are dressed up, the more beautiful they appear. There is mounting evidence that shows that a beautiful/handsome child or pupil attracts more attention, for example, from his/her peers, and interacts more easily with them. There is also abundant evidence that shows that individuals can achieve their inventions and intellectual constructions only to the extent that they are involved in collective interactions and that individuals would not come to organize their intellectual operations in a coherent and creative whole if they did not engage in thought exchanges and cooperation with others [See, for this respect, Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York; Grossman Publishers. As noted,  the true, the good, and the beautiful are universal categories, regardless of how they are seen at different places and times. This means that the more a pupil is developed in cognitive, moral and aesthetical terms, the more s/he is likely to interact with others, be inventive and creative, and look for the unknown. To look for the unknown is perhaps what best describes individuals who are intrinsically motivated and, hence, inclined to be creative, inventive, and the like (see, for this respect, E. Deci theory of self-determination).

(9) Teachers enhance the creativity of their pupils/students whenever, for example, they organize their classrooms and learning situations more in terms of person-oriented environments than in terms of position-oriented contexts. Person-oriented teachers, classrooms, schools or families value persons in themselves, not because of their socio-economic status or position, gender, ethnicity, and the like. Contrary to position-oriented environments, person-oriented atmospheres are not, as it were, conventional settings. Needless to say, non-conventional settings are to creativity, autonomy, and divergent thinking as conventional settings are to conformity, heteronomy and convergent thinking. So, the more teachers teach their pupils/students according to a person-oriented perspective, the more they are likely to enhance their pupils’ or students’ creativity, autonomy and divergent thinking.

(10) Teachers foster the creativity of their pupils/students when they look at education (i.e., teaching/learning) as a scientifically-oriented process in a double sense. That is, the teachers should know well their area of specialization and expertise, but also be knowledgeable of the details of their pupils’ psychological development. If the former is the case, it is likely that teachers are good, or even excellent teachers because they know what they are supposed to know. As a result, their pupils can profit a lot from their teachers’ lessons and classrooms organization. A knowledgeable pupil is more liked to become a creative individual than, say, an ignorant pupil. If teachers are well versed in the details of their pupils’ psychological development, they do not risk teaching to their pupils material that is much above or below their cognitive abilities, and hence material that is well-tuned to pupil’s cognitive capacities. Note that when pupils learn material that is well-tuned to their intellectual capacities, they tend to become more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated (see, for this respect, E.Deci’s theory of self-determination). Needless to say, intrinsically motivated pupils have more intellectual curiosity and a tendency for being creative and innovators than their extrinsically motivated counterparts. 

(12) Teachers foster the creativity of their pupils/students when they look at education as a process oriented to their pupils’ moral and intellectual autonomy. When this is the case, the goal of intellectual education is to develop intelligence and creativity rather than to promote rote learning, and to give rise to inventors rather than to conformist people, and the goal of moral education is to develop an autonomous morality, a morality oriented to equality, cooperation, and mutual respect, not a heteronomous morality, a morality based on obedience, coercion, and unilateral respect [see, for this respect, Piaget’s (1932) seminal book on the moral development of the child]. Needless to say, rote learning, obedience, coercion, and the like, are at complete variance with pupils’ intrinsic motivation and creativity. Note also that when teachers look at education as a process oriented to their pupils’ moral and intellectual autonomy, the teacher  is more a mentor and organizer of learning situations, someone who helps students to actively rediscover or reconstruct every truth to be learned, than a simple transmitter of knowledge. In this vein, one might say that to actively rediscover or reconstruct every truth to be learned implies creativity on the part of the child/pupil/student.

 13) Teachers enhance their pupils’/students’ creative acts and thoughts when they conceive of education as an interactionist and bidirectional process. Among other things, this means that such teachers consider that (a) education is as a result of a continuous interaction between what Piaget called assimilation -- to incorporate the unknown into one’s existing cognitive structures or forms of knowing -- and accommodation --  to enrich these structures as they accommodate to the novelties coming from outside;  (b) pupils learn (and develop) as they interact with their physical and social environments; (c) teachers are not there, say, to only teach in that, as mentioned earlier, they are more mentors and organizers of learning situations than simple transmitters of previous knowledge to their pupils/students; and (d)  pupils are not there, say, to only learn in that a given leaning is only significant when  pupils/students actively rediscover or reconstruct all that is taught to them. As mentioned above, to actively rediscover or reconstruct every truth to be learned implies creativity on the part of the child/pupil/student. When teachers conceive the process of education as an interactionist and bidirectional process they distance from the traditional conception of education in which the main role of teachers it to simply transmit to their pupils/students the existing knowledge, and the main role of pupils is to memorize rather than understand what is taught to them. Needless to say, “conservative education” is to conformity and rote learning as “progressive education” is to creativity, reconstruction, and reinvention.

 (14). Teachers enhance their pupils’/students’ creative acts and thoughts when they conceive of education as a constructivist process. Piaget’s ideas that (a) a truth learned is only a half-truth because to understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery; (b) the most appropriate methods to use in schools are the active methods, for they give broad scope to spontaneous research on the part of the pupil/student and require that every new truth to be learned is rediscovered or at least reconstructed by the students, not simply imparted to them; and (c) the main goal of education is to give rise to inventors and creators, not to conformist individuals, are clear expressions of a constructivist conception of education. Some authors think that in a constructivist conception of education the teacher has no role in students’ education and their success depends on leaving them entirely free to work or play as they will. This is simply wrong because in a constructivist view of education what is desirable is that the teacher ceases to be a lecturer and is instead a mentor stimulating the students’ initiative and research. When this is the case, a context is set for pupils’ creative acts and thoughts. In other words, when a teacher “teaches” from a constructivist framework, s/he sets the stage for his/her pupils’ to be creative, not conformist, pupils.  

 (15) All that said, pupils’ development and creativity  requires, at least, an appropriate system or context (see, for this respect, U. Bronfenbrenner’s ideas on  microsystems, macro-systems, chronosystems, and the like), their actions and coordination of actions upon objects, and their interactions and coordination of interactions with their peers, colleagues and even other individuals (see, for this respect, J. Piaget’s oeuvre on cognitive and moral development), and their emotional links to, for example, their parents, or any other caregivers (see, for this respect, J, Bowlby’s work on attachment). Thus, it seems that context, action and love are a necessary, albeit no sufficient, condition for pupils’ creative activities to appear and develop. This means that the more teachers (and parents) are aware of the role of such triplet in their pupils’ (children’s) creative acting and thinking, the more they are in a good position to enhance their pupils’ and children’s creativity.  

  16) I could make this list a longer list. Be that as it may, I hope that the list I presented helps you answering the interesting questions you raise.

 (17) A final caveat in now in order. As seen, creativity, be it intellectual, moral, or aesthetical, is a complex phenomenon and process. To address its enhancement in children, adolescent, pupils, or students is not an easy task. Because of this, when teachers make efforts to educate towards the enhancement of creativity among elementary and secondary school students, they could not follow, so to speak, a shortcut, but rather to follow a demanding track. In this respect it is worth mentioned that it is said that Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), king of Macedonia, once asked his tutor, the Greek geometer Menaechmus (380- 320 BC), to teach him a shortcut to mastery of geometry. Menaechmus is alleged to have replied that for traveling through Alexander’s country there were royal roads and roads for common citizens, but in geometry there is only one road, and this (difficult) road is the same for all [see, for instance, Heath, T. (1921). A history of Greek mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press]. There are certainly several ways of educating towards the enhancement of creativity among elementary and secondary school students. No way will be a good way if teachers appeal to a shortcut, not to a demanding track. When this is the case teachers may be lost in the interim and do not accomplish their purported goals.

Best regards.

Building creativity is an art and creative experience, they should always be a choice, do not let disabilities or differences be a barrier to participation and scaffold 

https://stream.virtuallabschool.org/creative/3309/3309-480.mp4

I have a customer who is a woman and an aerospace engineer.  As such she is a rare commodity and she takes every opportunity to give presentations to school classes to promote STEM, especially for young girls who may need a role model.

She described an interesting phenomenon: When she gives a difficult engineering challenge to kindergarten or early first grade classes (move the heavy teacher's desk or get cookies on a high shelf) younger students can solve it.  Students in second grade or later cannot.  Something happens in early education to squelch the student's ability to solve complex or difficult problems.  I believe that this is the socialization and educational training that teaches children to adhere to social norms and to follow orders and instructions; something that is not "unlearned" until much later in life, if at all.

Since music, sports and art are difficult to "test" and it is hard to apply such tested ratings toward politicized numbers and school ratings they tend to be ignored or de-emphisized in many cirricului (sp.?), but these skills teach the spatial auditory and intuitive abilities that are otherwise difficult to communicate.  As our youth gravitate toward communication via texting the facial recognition and body language skills that we depend on to evaluate sincerity and honesty deteriorate our communication skills and even our ability to evaluate political candidates, recognize dishonest sales persons or to function as jurors in our legal systems.

It is difficult to teach creativity, but it is not hard to teach the components of creative abilities; our predecessors did it regularly with their (my) well-rounded educations.

Dear Orlando,

Your detailed and erudite response to my question on creativity gave me much to think about. I think that you have creatively dealt with a complicated issue in an unorthordox and original way that can perhaps open up novel thinking directions for teachers who feel that it is important to enhance children's creative acts. I will study your response more deeply and thoroughly and see what I can adopt for my needs in the study of creativity. I feel that you have suggested a new direction, not usually used by teachers and for this I thank you as well as congratulate you.

Best wishes,

Yaacov.

In our project we are looking at the enhancement of creativity amongst school students (and their teachers).  You might take a look at the project website to see if there is anything useful for your work:

http://www.mc2-project.eu/

Dear Keith,

Many thanks for the referal to your project website. I will certainly look at it and see exactly what it is that you are doing in the project  to enhance creativity.

Best wishes,

Yaacov.

The problem is that one can not teach creativity. It is not a equation or a historical fact, that can be learned by routine, as there is no algorithm for creativity.

The only way one can gain -- a would like to avoid using learning in this case -- a creative thinking is by 'stealing' it from the one consider to have it. Very few teacher have such qualities and time to pursue it within the realm of school.

More, the reason is not only school, but rather the working place which cuts down very fast any form of creativity, except gossip. Employ are reliable if they do what is expected from them, and do not daydream about different way to perform a task -- which are, most of the time, outside the scope of the company or considered to expensive. This forms parents which stop being creative and/or, worse, stop to acknowledge creativity.

Children have to deal, thus, with a wonderful and inspiring capacity in a environment which in general does not know how to deal with it, praise it in the media but cut it down at work, and parents which are to tired to care about it.

Can I suggest the  book I have written entitled 'Teaching Creativity: Multi Mode transitional Practices', a book  primarily for teachers in secondary and tertiary education. There is also a paper by Filimowicz and Tzankova at Fraser university entitled Discursivity and Creativity: Implementing Pigrum’s Multi-Mode Transitional Practices in Upper Division Creative Production Courses  2014.  However, I am in disagreement with their emphasis on Discursivity, something I explain in a paper I will present next week at Valentia University and which when it is published I will make available on researchgate. At present the paper is one of my projects on researchgate where you can read the abstract.

Dear Derek,

Many thanks for reference to your book as well as to the Fililmovicz and Tzankova paper on creativity. I will certainly study the issues addressed in both as well as the differences you pointed out.

Best wishes,

Yaacov.

Yes and No, depending on how you define your goal.

1. Using the most stringent definition, that creativity means generating rational idea or an innovative artifact that nobody could have ever think of, out of the blue? No.

2. Modify an existing artifact to suit better use in new context. Yes.

3. Apply an existing artifact or idea to new situations. Yes.

4, Make totally new use of old ideas. Yes.

5. Amalgamate different old ideas into a new artifact or complex application. Yes.

6.

7. .... maybe you could add further ....

The book I have written based on expert practices in art, architecture and writing encompasses the points 2 to 5 of the interesting  answer provided by Pak Hoi Isaac Tse. In other words it is a book about creativity not beset by what the great Harold Bloom has called the anxiety of influence (I highly recommend Bloom's book entitled 'The Anxiety of Influence'  and all his other books to anyone interested in creativity in literature that has applications relevant to other arts and fields of creative activity). Unlike Pak Hoi Isaac Tse, and following Elkin's I (see 'Why Art Cannot Be Taught') I do not believe that creativity, at least in the arts, is rational. I believe creativity has its source in what Donald Winnicott termed 'potential Space that is generated in our early experience by transitional object use. In this space we mediate between the inner and outer world in a way that resembles play (see Winnicott's Playing and Reality). To cut a very long story short creativity, while it is not rational, is based on practices that avoid premature closure, involve the cognitive insecurity of a provisional approach to ideas, of a doing and undoing that involves a complex interweaving of the irrational with an element of rational discourse.

You may want to check out Bill Lucas, Guy Claxton and Ellen Spencer, PROGRESSION IN STUDENT CREATIVITY IN SCHOOL: FIRST STEPS TOWARDS NEW FORMS

OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS, OECD Education Working Paper No. 86, 2013