Having a working mental model to develop creativity

Maybe creativity is a pretty difficult thing to define. There are plenty of definitions, this one from Brittanica seemed as good as any:

"creativity, the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form."

I have argued the case for creativity in many different ways (for example, here), although best of all you can get a copy of Professor O'Connor's paper here. In this paper Peter and the team provide the research basis for the wellbeing and academic benefits (amongst other things) of creativity.

I can't help thinking however that it may be slightly more problematic to gain general acceptance of a universal definition of creativity. Maybe defining 'creativity' may be as difficult as the Dr Who scriptwriters put it with the Doctor trying to explain the concept of time:

From our experience at Hornby High School, I certainly think that reaching some sort of loosely agreed paradigm, or conceptual framework, is useful, maybe essential, if we are to make sure that we continue to strengthen and embed creativity in all that we do. We began that journey in 2017 by setting a very ambitious vision for our kura "he puna auaha a centre of creative excellence". At least that said what we want to be, although it is still (I think) a work in progress to develop universal understanding of what that looks like within our kura.

In  response to my recent thinking about artificial intelligence and creativity (prompted by a quick dip into ChatGPT), Professor Peter O'Connor of the University of Auckland said this:

"If we looked at the eleven dimensions I’d say that it misses a number of things central to truly creative behaviour.  It is risk free if not averse, simply a tool for synthesising.  Its convergent rather than divergent and it merely solves problems not poses them"

Peter is referring to the 11 dimensions used in the Creative Schools Index identified as being important to the development of creativity.  

 

Source: https://creativeschoolsinitiative.org/creativity/

The index generates a summary of student perceptions about the creativity of their school experience. Here is the Hornby High School report for our Year 7 & 8 students.

Where are the gaps? What could we do better? How could we do it better? I guess you could say that the CSI is our 'theory of change', although I don't mean that in a strictly academic sense (I suspect i don't truly understand what it is in a strictly academic sense).

And then for Hornby High School, as a part of the Manaiakalani kaupapa, we have our 'Learn Create Share' pedagogy, placing creativity at the centre of 'how we cause learning'. Within this kaupapa we define the 'create' component like this:

Thanks to the work of Angela Taylor, our Uru Mānuka Education Programme Leader, for this slide

Here's the thing: in schools, if we have an intellectual framework, a mental model, that helps us to 'define', to 'understand', what we are trying to achieve, to tell us what creativity looks like. If you prefer,  we need a 'mental model' to tell us what behaviours contribute to creativity, then we are much more likely to achieve it.

At Hornby High School we are fortunate to have two complementary paradigms or frameworks within which to understand and frame our work in developing creativity. This is hugely helpful in building our individual and collective understanding of the mahi that we need to do. Each paradigm may appeal tom different teacher personalities, different world views. Some of us need quite specific detail, others of us are happier being given the general view of what something looks like, and then being allowed to get on with it.