|
Even
a casual mulling over of the literature concerning the creative
personality makes one aware of the incompatibilities between the
concept of “creative growth” and concepts of “school
discipline”. Studies of
creative personalities in nearly all the fields thus far investigated
suggest the need for encouraging kid of behavior generally regarded as
disruptive of “good school discipline”. We should like to take
this opportunity to relate some of the research findings to problems
of discipline as experienced by the public school art teacher.
Torrance
(1960) recently compiled a checklist of the characteristics of the
creative personality o the basis of a large number of personality
studies of creative individuals.
Of the 84 characteristics included, many of the less desirable
characteristics are doubtless a function of the struggle through which
the creative person must go in order o maintain the creativity.
We do not know what would happen, if some of those obstacles
were removed. An effort was made, however, to differentiate between
the characteristics in this list, which seem essential to creativity
and those, which develop as a result of the way the creative person,
is treated. On the basis
of our present understanding of the nature of creative thinking,
Torrance judged the following to be essential:
always baffles by something, attracted to mysteries, attempts
difficult jobs (sometimes too difficult), constructive in criticism,
courageous, energetic, full of curiosity, independence in judgment,
independent in thinking, intuitive, persistent, becomes preoccupied
with a problem, questioning, receptive to external stimuli, receptive
to ideas of others, regresses occasionally, unwilling to accept
anything on mere say-so, and willing to take risks.
These
characteristics may be more clearly understood if we try to
conceptualize a non-creative personality type. Such a one might be described as seldom or never baffled by
anything, ignores the unfamiliar, is not interested in testing his
abilities against a problem or task, unimaginative in criticism,
avoids risks, over dependent upon peer values, relies only on
empirical evidence, not terribly concerned about problems or
questions, indifferent to the ideas of others, or willing to accept
the unquestioned opinions of others.
Inasmuch
as many of these characteristics are descriptive of extreme
personality types they may or may not be present in an individual as a
result of special environmental or social conditions, which alter
their expression or their appearance.
Interpretation of these characteristics may be modified by such
considerations as quality, direction, special aptitudes and the like.
A creative personality need not always be baffled by something
if, for example, a solution to a problem has suggested itself to him
and his energies are directed
toward realizing a solution. But
as soon as it’s realized he’s baffled about something else. This energy
itself would probably be channeled to the needs of the interest at
hand and would thereby be limited in its application in other areas or
directions. It is not at all inconceivable that a creative personality
would cease to exhibit a receptivity
to the ideas of others when he has tested them and found them to
be false or when he is absorbed in working out a solution on his own.
The creative personality may quite likely appear more
rigid—when occupied creatively---than the above characteristics
would suggest. Frequently
he must persist in working out a solution even though all others have
rejected it.
Coercion
or Encouragement as Means to Control
We
may also consider the possibilities that some of these characteristics
notably courage, energy, curiosity,
independence, persistence, preoccupation, regression, and more
than anything else an unwillingness to
accept anything on mere say-so are of the kind that make the usual
classroom situation difficult to handle when group discipline is
desirable.
The
methods commonly used to encourage and facilitate classroom discipline
are not methods, which encourage the creative personality type. From a
kind of arbitrary means of control there may build up pressures, which
do not find their expression along acceptable lines but result in
behavior which is aggressive and resentful and which may lead to
outright delinquent behavior. On
the other hand many measures employed to control a large class do
encourage, or at least, favor the individual who possesses the
qualities postulated above and which belong to the “pure”
non-creative type. For
the classroom teacher the dependent –prone student causes little
difficulty. The extreme
example of this type of student responds to the teacher’s direction
with meticulous care, wants to comply with directive, continually
checks the work in progress with the teacher and gives evidence of a
strong need of support, reassurance, and supervision. Discipline may
not be a problem in such a case but the drain on the teacher’s
energies and other resources is a serious problem.
One
incident recently reported by an industrial arts teacher recounts an
occurrence of cheating on the part of one of the students. The methods
employed by the student were clever, unusual and ingenious.
To have punished the student would not have solved this
student’s problems for the cause which motivated him to choose this
method of achieving success would have remained the same, but by
emphasizing the positive characteristics (ingenuity and originality)
evidenced in the student’s methods of cheating on problems which
involved mere reproduction identified the student as gifted.
The instructor then provided more difficult material, which
demanded that this student think out solutions to problems.
The result of this response on the part of the teacher was that
the formerly unproductive and undisciplined student created solutions
and solved problems related to this class, which could only be
rewarded by a superior grade. There
is little doubt that prolonged; enforced repression of the creative
desire may lead to actual personality breakdown.
It
is quite possible that many discipline problems will disappear, when
teachers learn to reward creative thinking appropriately.
Certainly we know of many dramatic cases in which this has been
true. Fort example, the
most creative class of fourth graders we have thus far encountered in
our research on creative thinking were also the most orderly and
well-disciplined. The
class was the largest in the school –40.
Thus far, it has been the only forth grade class to show
superiority over he hid grade classes in the same school on tests of
creative thinking. The
principal of the school nominated the teacher of the class as the most
creative teacher in the school and as the one who stimulated her
students to do the most creative thinking.
In the taking of tests of creative thinking and in
participating in an experiment they were spontaneous and lively, yet
controlled. The teacher would say one word and there would be complete
silence. That word was “Freeze!” Yet there was no sign that their
imaginations had been frozen.
Torrance
has suggested the following six principles as guides to rewarding
creative thinking in the classroom:
1)
Treat questions with respect. Remember that the most important
reward to the curious, inquiring child is to find the answer to his
question.
2)
Treat imaginative, unusual ideas with respect.
3)
Show pupils that their ideas have value.
4)
Give opportunities for practice or experimentation without
evaluation.
5)
Encourage and evaluate self-initiated learning.
6)
Tie in evaluations with causes and consequences.
Dependence
Proneness and Creativity
Some
creative students prefer to be left alone; they initiate very few
contacts with the teacher; and their need for adult approval is more
easily submerged in their task orientation. In a structured school
environment this, too, may cause disciplinary problems. Research by
Flanders (1959) suggests that dependent-prone or compliant students
are more sensitive to the behavior of the teacher and that they may;
learn more subject matter or at least be aware of the teacher’s
attitude toward subject matter than others.
This would occur when their need for supervision is satisfied.
This suggests that our schools do, in fact, encourage the
creative type but tend to favor the moderately dependent and
non-creative type.
There
is a possibility that scores on dependent-proneness tests will be related to measures o creativity.
Dependent-prone students may be expected to try to make responses that
they think the teacher wants. This,
as can be quickly realized, facilitates class control. A consistent small correlation between I.Q. and
dependence-proneness (Flanders 1959) supports other findings about
highly intelligent but low creative” students (Getzels and Jackson,
1958; Torrance, 1959). It
seems possible that students who score low on dependence-proneness
will have a stronger tendency toward creativity and, at the same time,
be les restricted by teacher influence.
This may pose problems of group control.
Such
findings continue to underline the problem of discipline and the
related, but definitely more important, or view of the function of the
teacher.
Characteristic
of Creativity and the Art Teacher
If we
attempt to describe the ideal art teacher we must first arrive at an
acceptable definition of the art we teach and a definition of the role
of the teacher. It is, by this time, a truism to state that art is
unlike any other “subject” taught in the public schools.
Nevertheless, this must be stated and accepted—if only
temporarily—if the following relationships are to be understood.
The
history of art teaches us that modes of expression, subject matter of
interest and media employed change. An unbiased understanding of historical facts precludes the
teacher of art – even the elementary school teacher – from
organizing the subject matter of art exclusively around any one of the
many artistic traditions to which we are heir.
This does not mean that the teacher should be devoid of
personal preference, but it does mean that there can be little
objective support brought to sustain the position to teach as absolute
values, the values of the 17th century or Renaissance
epochs. Such a decision is in fundamental error when it fails to take
into account the purposes to which the art of the carious epochs was
put, why such art developed or how this art was viewed by the people
of the time.
What
this does mean is that art has served different purposes at different
historical epochs and the only defensible position any art teacher in
the public schools can take is to accept the fact that art is a
personal-cultural expression of the people who create it.
In this situation the function of the teacher as defined by
evidence from art history is in line with the concept of the teacher
as a leader, a person who “brings out”, aids in the child’s
self-discovery and development. There
are few teachers of art—or any other subject – who would
categorically deny that they teach human beings as opposed o subject
matter. The degree of
emphasis an individual may choose on the extreme ends of the subject
–student dichotomy is not our concern at this time. It is sufficient
for our present purposes if we recognize that there is a student to
learn and to think.
Implementation
of Findings of Creativity Studies
In
light of the findings discussed in the first part of this paper the
above discussion suggests certain problems of implementation. A review
of the characteristics o the creative personality type and a review of
those qualities in art as revealed through studies in the history of
art suggests o us some startling similarities. The creative
personality type is characterized by energy, independence, intuition,
persistence and the like. A
study of the history of art reveals characteristics of is which are
similar; change, pre-occupation, experimentation and also a
fascination for the mysterious. To
the extent that these observed similarities are accurate we can say
that artistic expression is an archetype of creative expression!
If this is true, the art teacher, as defined above, has no
choice but to take the current findings in the area of creativity very
seriously. And the art teacher’s support of continued interest and
research in this field could be of value to themselves in securing
those teaching conditions, which promise the optimum development of
the creative personality type. In
short the psychologist’s interest in the creativity type is an
unexpected and may be a welcome source of support for the public
school art program.
As
indicated above, the characteristics of the creative person are not of
the kind, which make the problem of class discipline easier. It is the
non-creative, dependent-probe student who makes the teaching of a
large number of students easier by not introducing material or
questions, which tend to disrupt a systematic class plan.
It has been f8nd that most teachers prefer the high I. Q. to
the highly creative (Getzels & Jackson, 1958; Torrance, 1959).
Idealistically, what right has a teacher—with all the wonder
this occupation implies—to restict by artificial and coercive means
a goodly portion of our students- who show evidence of being
productive and capable achievement equal to those who have been
identified as intellectually gifted (Torrance, 1959).
The
teacher, however, who responds favorably to a “creative inquiry”
by the intelligent, curious, persistent, an energetic pupil runs the
risk of loosing class order. The teacher who responds unfavorably to
such behavior generally employs a mechanism of control, which results
in the discouragement of the creative person.
Such discouragement may be reflected in other characteristics
of the creative type, which have been noted by researchers.
Some of those may be revealing to the sensitive teacher
and may suggest areas where additional thought may be productive.
A few of these are: outwardly
bashful, discontented, introversive, reserved and visionary. Others,
perhaps, indicative of another kind of response to an unfavorable
teacher reaction would include: altruism,
non-conforming, radical, self-confident, tenacious and not popular.
If we
accept as valid the results of tests of creative thinking in the early
school years, it is certainly true that highly creative children
create many behavior problems in most classrooms. Their classmates
nominate them with high frequency as the ones who have the most ideas
for being naughty and the silliest ideas (Torrance, 1959a). From small
group experiments designed to study peer pressures on highly creative
children, it is quite clear that many highly creative children bring
many of their woes upon themselves.
It
seems obvious that a major problem of the teacher is to help the
highly creative child become less obnoxious without sacrificing his
creativity. The following paraphrasing of Stein’s (1956) suggestions
concerning the social role of the creative industrial researcher has
been offered as one approach: “Help the creative child maintain his
assertiveness without being hostile or domineering. He should be aware
of his superiors, peers, and subordinates s persons. He may work alone
but he must not be withdrawn or uncommunicative.
He must “know his place” without being timid, submissive,
or acquiescent and “must speak his mind” without being domineering
as he tries to gain a point, he can be subtle but not cunning or
manipulative. In all relationships he must be sincere, honest,
purposeful and diplomatic. In
the intellectual area, he must learn to be broad without spreading
himself too thin, deep without being “bookish” or “too
scientific” and “sharp” without being over critical.
The
above characteristics do ask a lot of a child---it also asks more of
the teacher. Not only
does it suggest that he teacher possess, to some degree, these same
qualities but it implies that she must possess them to a greater or at
least a more flexible extent than the students. The frequent breaches
of acceptable conduct, which will undoubtedly occur before a student
learns to maintain his assertiveness without being hostile, before he
can be subtle or sharp without being overcritical will undoubtedly, be
legion. During this
interim period how will the teacher be able to cope with the
intricacies of leadership in the realm
of student development?
In a
less than ideal school situation—which may be said to characterize
our present system – there are positive first steps, which can be
taken by the teacher on behalf of the creative student.
Torrance (1959) suggests that the teacher learn to value
creative thinking and to create an environment, which places value on
creative activity so that the highly creative student does not have to
exist as a deviate in the shadow of his more socially successful
peers. He further
suggests that the teacher develop tolerance of new ideas and to lead
students to test systematically each new idea. Because the creative
child often manifests behaviors, which tend to alienate him from his
peers and teachers, it is suggested that skills be taught to help the
creative person to avoid peer sanctions.
Major counseling problems presented by the highly creative
student are likely to center around his isolation an estrangement from
his peers and teachers as a result of his divergent values and
attitudes.
Creativity
and Philosophy of Art Education
Because
the teacher’s job is so complex these questions deserve thoughtful
consideration. We may ask
ourselves this question: What reserve of energy is there in the person
of the teacher, which has not already been tapped?
What opportunity is there for the teacher to make use of he
spare time in the quiet contemplation of the personalities and the
special needs of her children? In
many systems where the art teacher may meet hundreds of different
pupils in the course of a week, what technique can be devised which
can be employed so that these hundreds can get their share of
thoughtful attention they deserve?
At this time we do not wish to try to answer those important
and complex questions. Merely
to raise them at this time seems to be enough.
The
subject matter of art at all levels pf public education has been
frequently attacked and perhaps no more bitterly than by people in the
profession of art instruction. Some
(Edward Warder Rannells of the University of Kentucky) have stated
that art is not something that can be taken for granted in art
education and there is evidence that as art educators we do just that.
Art that is not art as an artist knows it is explored.
Art at the secondary school level should be taught as a
creative adventure; it should be art that sensitizes and awakens the
individual to the value that is in it, and in the student.
A very pertinent question is:
unless the teacher is an artist is an artist-teacher how can he
embody art in himself?
On
the other end of the continuum of attitudes is the one that would hold
that the training of professional artists is not the function of then
public school. This attitude
questions a to whether it is desirable to have an “artist-teacher”
who “loves his art more than the students” and is unfamiliar with
the “needs and developmental characteristics” of his students to
conduct art classes in public schools and colleges. Many art teachers
and administrators maintain that the professionally interested artist is ineffectual in the classroom and
actually harm students because he is “more interested in art than in
child development. We believe it to be also that enthusiasm for the
subject is going to inhibit effective teaching.
It is doubtful that these critics have had the opportunity to
observe the subject matter and personality achievements of students in
high schools and colleges when they have been exposed to a teacher who
knows both his field and the child.
They probably have not observed the disintegration of
motivation and accomplishment that ensures in classes conducted by
instructors who know
more than they understand.
There
have been studies (Torrance, 1959b) which have indicated that
teachers’ unvoiced attitudes influence the behavior of the student.
These unfavorable attitudes are sensed
by the student and alter his responses in spite of conscious
effort on the part of the teacher to present an attitude that is
favorable toward the subject matter.
It can only be guessed what effect a teacher who is not
sympathetic to the creative process may have on the creative student.
In
conclusion, we would like to question the current idea which suggests
hat it is not the function of the public school teacher to encourage
students toward a professional career in the arts.
There is the hidden idea that it is wrong or, at least,
undesirable to encourage students who have the interest, desire and
potential to pursue this field. College administrators who are
concerned about placing their students in teaching positions have been
known to instruct their art staffs to “play down” the art
department because the state offers few openings in art. Few, however,
question the desirability of encouraging apt students in the sciences
to pursue their interests. If
we adopt a less biased view –a view which could be said to be more
educationally objective—we would recognize that , aside from out own
personal, professional and creative abilities, the real job of the
teacher is to lead the student to a realization of his own abilities
and a development of his interests which may likely include the arts.
Such a view implies that what the student needs for his own
development should be provided him as regularly, consistently and
effectively as possible. This
concern is especially meaningful when it is noted that highly creative
adolescents tend to choose the more unconventional and rare
occupations (Getsels and Jackson, 1960).
Conclusion
Although
we have centered this discussion on creativeness in art, the important
principle that we should consider –if we truly wish to encourage
creative thinking—embrace creativity generally.
The conditions under which creative solutions in mathematics,
art, science, poetry, or music have occurred are remarkably similar
(Torrance, 1959; Patrick 1955: Rossman 1931). Samuel Taylor Coleridge
recounts how he dreamed of a creative solution, which he later, while
fully conscious, conceptualized. Poetry, Wordworth tell us, takes the
origin room emotion recollected in tranquility. Jean Cocteau indicates
that he believes that inspiration is the result of a profound
indolence and maintains that it would be inexact to accuse an artist
of pride when he declares that his work requires “somnambulism”.
He too recounts that: “after I slept poorly. I woke with a
start and witnessed, as from a seat in a theatre, three acts which
brought to life an epoch and characters about which I had no
documentary information and which I regarded moreover as forbidden.”
These
statements are insistent in their emphasis on the role of the
unconscious or preconscious in the development of a creative product.
It does not seem inconsistent that scientifically conducted
researches into the nature of creativity have arrived at a list of
personality traits many of which would seem to be concomitant with the
above accounts of the creative experience.
It
is quite obvious that he creative person is not likely to be dependent
upon the direction of the teacher and that the manner in which he
maintains his independence of thought and judgment may not contribute
to a well-disciplined classroom. We have raised the question of
control in the light of the alternatives and have suggested that
encouragement may be a more effective measure of control than
punishment and that it certainly would be educationally more
defensible. The art
teacher, perhaps more than any other, has evidence to be found within
the discipline of art to support the recent research findings in the
area of creativity and might profit from these findings by working for
those conditions which encourage creative growth.
Implementing the findings of researches into the creative
personality may likely involve serious re-evaluation of many current
practices, a re-statement of our goals and objectives at all levels of
public education, including teacher-training institutions.
References
Flanders,N.A.,
J.P. Anderson and E.J. Amidon. Measuring dependence proneness in the
classroom. (Research memorandum
BER-60-6.) Minneapolis: Bureau of Educational search, University of
Minnesota, 1960.
Getzels,J.W.
and P.W. Jackson. The meaning of “giftedness”—An examination of
an expanding concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 1958, 40,75-77.
Getzels,J.W.
and P.W. Jackson. He highly intelligent and the highly creative
adolescent: A summary of some research findings. In C.W. Taylor (ed) The third (1959) University of Utah research conference on the
identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1959.
Patrick,
Catherine. What is creative thinking? New
York: Philosophical Library, 1955
Rossman,J.
The psychology of the inventor. Washington,
D.C.: Inventor Publishing Company., 1931.
Stein,
M.I. A transactional approach to creativity.
N C.W. Taylor (Ed.)
The
first (1955) University of Utah research conference on the
identification of creative scientific talent. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956.
Torrance,
E.P. Current research on the nature of creative talent. J. teacher education., 1960, 12, 97-102.
Torrance,
E.P. The measurement and development of the creative thinking
abilities. In Year book of education. London:
Evans Brothers, Ltd., 1961.
| 