I believe that any traits that graduates need should be taught before they leave the university. There are too many graduates who are leaving universities without these basic skills that are needed for them to function in the working world. On the other hand, I wonder if creativity is something that can be taught?

Interesting question, my question back to you is: Suppose creativity should be a quality for all university graduates, how do you intend to measure it so that employers can judge between the creative potential between two people? Amabile's consensual assessment technique - which is not feasible on a large scale. Or Torrence testing? How will you measure something that is so widely accepted as difficult to measure?

Hi Mardene and Mathew,

Thanks for your comments. Both very well considered perspectives and pertinent questions at the heart of the debate.

Mardene - universities are increasingly identifying graduate qualities so that university graduates leave with basic skills to function such as the ability to communicate, work in teams, be ethical, apply knowledge etc. And they require curriculum committees to explicitly articulate how each course addresses these graduate qualities. See an example from one university: http://www.flinders.edu.au/graduate-qualities/

Regarding the issue about whether creativity can be taught, there is growing literature on the shift in creativity from a trait of individuals (an artistic one that they are born with) to one that is more collaborative, purposeful, embedded in teams and can be taught. See the work by McWilliam for this: McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable pedogogical practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 56, 633-643. The focus has now shifted from whether creativity can be taught to how it can be taught.

There is also work on how creativity can be taught by placing students in creative work environments and allowing them to contribute to the development and commercialisation of new products and services. See:

http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_15_1_1_11.pdf

Mathew, thanks for your question. That lies at the crux of the issue - what is creativity and how can we measure it. Building on the work of McWilliam, I conducted a study on what employers and students understand by creativity. Both groups saw creativity as purposeful, team-based, learnable, teachable, assessable, and generally applicable across disciplinary boundaries. This is in contrast to more traditional views of creativity as a mysterious, inaccessible process or set of traits innate to individuals, as predominantly relevant to the visual and performing arts, and as a process of generating novel ideas rather than developing these ideas into valued products or solutions. It will be published in a forthcoming paper: Perceptions of creativity in university-industry partnerships: A pedagogical approach, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management.

While it does explore what creativity means to students and employers using qualitative research, more research is needed in a more quantitative sence to translate these factors into quantitative measures. I hope to work on this area in the future and I welcome collaborators in this space.

I believe it's crucial that creativity be taught at all educational levels. In Sir Ken Robinson's 2006 TED talk, he argues that creativity is conditioned OUT of students in traditional educational systems. I've been teaching a cross-disciplinary course in creativity for three years, following a faculty development leave to design the class. A major component of the class is helping students overcome the cultural conditioning that has made them afraid of being wrong--because if you can't take risks, you can't be creative--and if you're afraid of being wrong, you won't take risks.

I totally agree with you Giselle that creativity is often absent from list of graduate qualities and one of the reason according to me that now a days students pursue graduation mostly for earning and not for learning. This causes degradation in their thinking skills and real life implementation of their knowledge and their knowledge remains theoretical for ever.

So, creativity must be a graduate quality for all university graduates so that they can apply their knowledge and skills in practical life. Indeed every university should provide a course named creativity and also give some credit to it.

Regards,

Nitish

I think the answer is "YES". Because it is logically necessary that a university graduate must be a creative person. This is rather becoming more important within the 21st century environment. Therefore, during the classes they attended, we must train them on how to become a creative person. Thanks.

I teach architecture and design, and often despair at the staggering lack of 'creativity' in students and graduates in a course which i would have thought MUST teach, or at the very least attempt to explore what creativity means in a range of environments.

Unfortunately, 'novelty' is commonly understood to be creativity, and this accepted novelty further prevents exploration of what creativity is. Personally I maintain that creativity is, first of all, identifying and articulating the problem (an important but under valued step), secondly, solving the problem (base-line creativity) but it is then being able to solve the problem again, in a different way, by generating a different outcome that STILL SOLVES. The diversity of solutions that an individual can generate in a certain period of time is a pretty good indicator of their creative ability - solving the problem whilst controlling the nature of the outcome.

I feel that there is a tendency to dodge this important question in favour of rewarding novelty, at least in architecture, yet an ability to SOLVE is the single most important trait a student must exhibit upon graduation. Novelty has no intrinsic value.

I think that Creativity absolutely MUST be a graduate attribute, although to some degree course dependent, and I would insist that it is teachable and learnable, and indeed a very good gauge of a students aptitude to the subject - an ability to synthesise (and solve creatively) indicates a solid grasp of the subject area.

A prerequisite however is the definition of 'creative', as discussed in paragraph two, above. This will probably vary slightly from course to course.

Dear Geoff, I totally agree on your points. In addition to most of the points raised by all, we also noticed that a creative graduate is generally an innnovative person too. Thus a graduate with a strong innnovative and creative criteria will be more preferred by potential employer. Thanks.

Perhaps I am sadly mistaken-- correct me if I am-- but I have always felt that creativity is an inborn trait, not communicable through education or environment. Creativity means a potential for activity of bringing into existence something that was not there before. Few, I think, can perform this legerdemain.

As I read somewhere else, 'there as no such thing as something totally new, only the subjectivity of the person creating it.' I think this meant that creativity is about the application of an individual's idiosyncratic state of being at any point in time. So to some exten, I agree with Nelson, BUT I would add that inborn is not enough, I would suggest that it is the outcpme a a person's trait plus their trajectory through life. BUT I may also disagree that it can't be improved with certain teachings or learnings. Eg the understanding that self critique or self censorship of ideas is a behaviour that can get in the way o f creativity, so unlearning self censorship in the early stages of creation may be useful. I can think of other ways that learning might help creativity.

PS there is also the vexed question of what we mean by creativity.

Dear Giselle, my immediate answer or comment is YES. Creative graduates should be the number one criteria when an employer want to appoint an employee. However, there should be a leverage method to fully use the teaching method and the evaluation method as how to mark an A or B graduate with regard to creative and creativity. Thanks.

Mark, I will agree with you that creativity can be tamed and disciplined, but I also think that creativity can´t be created. It is either there ab initio or not.

By creativity, I mean the potentiality for bringing into existence something that was not there before. Creativity is poíesis. But I know that in marketing there are other concepts of what is called "innovation."

Creativity is for sure somehting we want from our students but we would be awfully mistaken by ensuring them that the world is moving because of creative ideas all the time. What I think is that students should be capable of develoing creative solutions which go beyond existing answers to challenges or questions. but creative solutions should always be matche against what is feasible to do, what are major opponents against a creative solution, why do creative solutions fail or at least make students aware that it takes longer time for creative solutions to be applied and diffused. there is a paradigm almost inherent in the word 'creativity' - it's being assumed that creative solutions are successful. still this is not the case, creative responses are usually the first which are considered not feasible, not practical etc. now for students it's important to learn these differences and to build a mindset in them which drives their creativity but which also remembers them to stick to the environment and to see the limits of their creative solutions. one could call that 'creativity portfolio management'

Thanks Giselle for your good question: Should creativity be a graduate quality for all university graduates? My answer is "yes," but the level of creativity depends on the need of academic disciplines, or the requirements of professional fields. Although the definition of creativity varies, it generally denotes a different (other than traditional approaches), alternative way to think, plan, and do something. Because you highlight the "graduate quality," graduate students deserve to be qualified by some higher standards than non-graduate ones, creativity is one of the good criteria. Otherwise, why we need a graduate institutions or need to cultivate them for the advancement of learning. But I would suggest that be careful to avoid using the term creativity inordinately without necessary prerequisites/premises and appropriate definitions.

No doubt Creativity is emerging as important requisite in changing scenario. But that cannot be the only criteria for the graduate, since education is more for widening the vision and application of knowledge can be additional feature that inculcates the creativity among the graduate. Therefore approach of University should be over knowledge and development of application orientation can definitely help in creativity among the graduates.

I teach an undergraduate course at the University of Hawaii System on Creative Thinking - and if there is one thing I have learned it is that we need it at ALL levels of education. It is not something you can learn in graduate school, in a one-off class. It takes time to cultivate and practice - it is more like an aptitude, way of approaching things. Can people be taught to be "creative"? that depends on what you really mean by creative (don't want to get into that here) - but from my experience, people can be taught to be MORE creative in their thinking than they currently are (and that is good enough!) - there are skills and ways of thinking that can expose and break down habitual patterns that hold us back - and well designed classes on creative thinking, design, innovation, experimentation etc... all encourage this sense of curious exploration that is the hallmark of creative thinking

I Agree With Vijaykumar Wani

I think that from the point of view of modern education, all students possess a certain level of creativity, and the teacher must stimulate their creativity. The traditional teacher reads, while the skilled teacher stimulates and inspires.

I think that in order to graduate a creative student, the university should pay attention to qualitative teaching methods that focus on the uniqueness of education and the display of students' talents.

Creativity motivates students to learn. When students are focused on a creative goal, they become more absorbed in their learning and more driven to acquire the skills they need to accomplish it. So creativity should be a graduate quality for all university graduates.