Additional thoughts on ‘The Limits of Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator’ by Anna Craft
‘The Limits of Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator’, Anna Craft
Rhetorical questions… The problem with rhetorical questions is that they have an obvious answer, to which the person asking the question is trying to lead the person, to whom he or she is talking. These questions are insulting to the reader, and an easy way for a writer to garner a larger word count. Craft uses a number of these questions, which she then answers with no commitment to either side. This is supposed to be an academic paper, but academic does not mean not presenting a position. There is no reason to remain wishy-washy on the subject. Rather than question the validity of teaching creativity, Craft should come out and state that it shouldn’t be done. She would be right – as far as society is concerned, but not necessarily for the reasons that she thinks.
Craft asks, “Is it, for example, possible to foster creativity in physical education, mathematics, information and communications technology and English, equally?” (p. 119) She immediately answers with an “I would argue” that it is, but others could argue against it. This effectively renders this entire question moot. Her own personal statement using “would” weakens her position so much as to make it almost neutral. While this may be what she was going for, the real effect it has is making her entire paper seem like it is working toward a word count rather than provide any meaningful information.
Growing assumption that creativity is fulfilling.
Creativity studies are now focused on “ordinary” creativity. “Ordinary” as opposed to “extraordinary.” It seems like this might be one of those notions where everyone wins. Everyone is creative. Everyone has talents. Everyone is special.
Terminology is a challenge because the words are poorly understood. The snarky side of me wants to say, “Get a dictionary.”
“Boiling down an ‘essence’ of creativity”? Efficient creativity?
Craft writes that it is not always clear “what the distinction between play and creativity is.” This distinction doesn’t matter. Play is the way that children learn. Creatively is how children play.
Craft explores the possibility that creativity when combined with the market economy is a bad idea. The environment cannot sustain continuous production of new goods on a permanent basis (p.121).
Craft also explores the idea of people using creativity for evil and destruction. Like any other tool, this is a distinct possibility.
Are ordinary and extraordinary creativity on a spectrum, and if education stimulates creativity in children will it actually increase the number of extraordinary creativity moments? Craft says that it seems like it would but that the assumption should be tested even if it does seem sound (p.122).
On p. 124, Craft cites an NACCCE report that “acknowledged teaching for creativity may or may not involve creative teaching.” This is just dumb. If a teacher, leader, does not model the behavior that he or she wants, the children, employees, those that look up to the person for guidance, will not be creative (Chen, 2007). It is like a parent that tells a child not to smoke but still smokes a pack a day. The child will probably grow up to be a smoker.
Rhetorical questions… The problem with rhetorical questions is that they have an obvious answer, to which the person asking the question is trying to lead the person, to whom he or she is talking. These questions are insulting to the reader, and an easy way for a writer to garner a larger word count. Craft uses a number of these questions, which she then answers with no commitment to either side. This is supposed to be an academic paper, but academic does not mean not presenting a position. There is no reason to remain wishy-washy on the subject. Rather than question the validity of teaching creativity, Craft should come out and state that it shouldn’t be done. She would be right – as far as society is concerned, but not necessarily for the reasons that she thinks.
Craft asks, “Is it, for example, possible to foster creativity in physical education, mathematics, information and communications technology and English, equally?” (p. 119) She immediately answers with an “I would argue” that it is, but others could argue against it. This effectively renders this entire question moot. Her own personal statement using “would” weakens her position so much as to make it almost neutral. While this may be what she was going for, the real effect it has is making her entire paper seem like it is working toward a word count rather than provide any meaningful information.
Growing assumption that creativity is fulfilling.
Creativity studies are now focused on “ordinary” creativity. “Ordinary” as opposed to “extraordinary.” It seems like this might be one of those notions where everyone wins. Everyone is creative. Everyone has talents. Everyone is special.
Terminology is a challenge because the words are poorly understood. The snarky side of me wants to say, “Get a dictionary.”
“Boiling down an ‘essence’ of creativity”? Efficient creativity?
Craft writes that it is not always clear “what the distinction between play and creativity is.” This distinction doesn’t matter. Play is the way that children learn. Creatively is how children play.
Craft explores the possibility that creativity when combined with the market economy is a bad idea. The environment cannot sustain continuous production of new goods on a permanent basis (p.121).
Craft also explores the idea of people using creativity for evil and destruction. Like any other tool, this is a distinct possibility.
Are ordinary and extraordinary creativity on a spectrum, and if education stimulates creativity in children will it actually increase the number of extraordinary creativity moments? Craft says that it seems like it would but that the assumption should be tested even if it does seem sound (p.122).
On p. 124, Craft cites an NACCCE report that “acknowledged teaching for creativity may or may not involve creative teaching.” This is just dumb. If a teacher, leader, does not model the behavior that he or she wants, the children, employees, those that look up to the person for guidance, will not be creative (Chen, 2007). It is like a parent that tells a child not to smoke but still smokes a pack a day. The child will probably grow up to be a smoker.