For our second student-led class, we will be talking about the theme of individual creativity. I think the students are going to talk about mind mapping. They assigned a TED Talk by the creator of mind mapping, Tony Buzan called "The Power of a Mind to Map".
I think my favorite part of the video is when he talks about how a baby experiences a piece of paper. A baby would experiment with it, crumpling and pulling on it, bang it on the table, and then maybe take a bite out of it before moving on to the next experiment. I love that Buzan then says babies are all scientists because they are testing everything.
He goes on to talk about a young child - I think he says three to five years old - who is outside after a rain storm and sees a puddle. Buzan says the child forms a series of hypotheses and then tests them. This is where I differ from Buzan. I don't think the child forms a hypothesis at all. I think the child says, "I wonder what would happen if I throw a rock in the puddle" or "I wonder what would happen if I jump in the puddle." I don't think the child forms a testable hypothesis such as, "If I throw this big rock in the puddle, it will make a splash 20 cm in height." I think childish experimentation is more about the wonder than it is about formulating testable hypotheses. We might impose the testable hypothesis after the fact, but I think most of the time, it's just playfulness. The idea that we have to have a testable hypothesis actually dampens creativity in my opinion. The scientific method is very powerful for verification of observable phenomena, but I don't think it is powerful for idea generation - which is what I think creativity is about.
Part of the reason I am drawn to qualitative research, and in particular a more grounded theory approach, is the idea that you can go into a social situation with an open ended question - what is going on here? Then gradually build a theory of what is going on as you observe.
The students assigned an article about creativity as well. I like the definition of creativity that the article uses: "the capability to create something novel, unique, and value-adding." I agree with that definition. The article argues there are three components to creativity: 1) personality, 2) mastery, and 3) courage. I saw 1 and 3 as too similar in this article. The authors argue that you have to be willing to be different and to resist social pressure in both sections. I do agree with these assertions. In my experience, if you have a new idea, you often have to overcome skepticism and inertia. People don't like change. It takes effort to think about new ways of doing things. The necessity of mastery is an interesting idea. I wonder if mastery would not cut both ways. I think you need to know the essentials of a field in order to innovate, but I don't know if mastery is required - but that depends on how you define mastery. I wonder if mastery wouldn't lock you in to how things have always been done.
The students assigned an article about creativity as well. I like the definition of creativity that the article uses: "the capability to create something novel, unique, and value-adding." I agree with that definition. The article argues there are three components to creativity: 1) personality, 2) mastery, and 3) courage. I saw 1 and 3 as too similar in this article. The authors argue that you have to be willing to be different and to resist social pressure in both sections. I do agree with these assertions. In my experience, if you have a new idea, you often have to overcome skepticism and inertia. People don't like change. It takes effort to think about new ways of doing things. The necessity of mastery is an interesting idea. I wonder if mastery would not cut both ways. I think you need to know the essentials of a field in order to innovate, but I don't know if mastery is required - but that depends on how you define mastery. I wonder if mastery wouldn't lock you in to how things have always been done.
I am looking forward to seeing what they have in store for us!
No comments:
Post a Comment