Posted on

Creativity Is Learning

One of the most famous psychologist and epistemologist of all times, Jean Piaget, developed the material for one of his most noted books in an unusual way. The subjects of his book, “The Origins of Intelligence in Children” were his own three children, whom he observed from infancy to about 2 years of age, over a period of several years. Piaget made detailed recordings several times a day, of at least one of his children, constantly for 3,000 days!

The result of these detailed observations led him to his theory of learning, providing the underpinnings of the constructivist theory of learning in more recent times. Piaget explained learning in terms of schemas (basic units of knowledge) and the process of adaptation. When a new information comes along, it can either be assimilated into an existing schema but if not, it triggers the process of accommodation where new schemas and organization takes place. A process of equilibrium in a child occurs when most new information can be incorporated through assimilation.

It is easy to see how Piaget’s theories tie into the constructivist model of learning. The fundamental tenet of constructivism is that learning is a meaning-making process and “each learner individually (and socially) constructs meaning as he or she learns.” From a pedagogical perspective, constructivism implies putting the learner in the center of the learning process, providing them with experiences and opportunities to construct meaning for themselves. As Prof. Hein further explains, “The crucial action of constructing meaning is mental: it happens in the mind. Physical actions, hands-on experience may be necessary for learning, especially for children, but it is not sufficient; we need to provide activities which engage the mind as well as the hands.”

Piaget’s concept of schema is intimately tied to the associative nature of our brain. Daniel Kahneman, illustrates the concept of ideas and how they are related to each other in our brain. He is uses the analogy of nodes in a network, where each node is an idea and the vast network is our associative memory. He explains, “There are different types of links: causes are lined to their effects (virus -> cold); things to their properties (lime -> green); things to the categories to which they belong (banana -> fruit).” When an idea is invoked, it brings to mind other connected ideas in turn. For instance, if you hear the word “Strawberry”, you might then think of a smoothie if the link between strawberry and smoothie happens to be  particularly strong in your brain.

Learning something new in the associative model implies creating new nodes and relationships, between ideas. Psychologists have found that human associative learning results from conscious reasoning efforts. In their expanded model, propositions connect ideas and “learning is not separate from other cognitive processes of attention, memory, and reasoning, but is the consequence of the operation of these processes working in concert. There is, therefore, no automatic mechanism that forms links between mental representations. Humans learn the causal structure of their environment as a consequence of reasoning about the events they observe.”

In essence, both Piaget’s model (and constructivism by extension) and associative learning provide similar definitions of what learning means –  the building of ideas and relationships that are continually updated to incorporate new information. But how does this relate to Creativity?

Creativity is coming up with ideas (or building products) that are both novel and useful. Looking through the lens of learning, novelty implies that the existing structures (ideas and relationships) aren’t enough to represent the new idea, and some form of accommodation is needed to incorporate the creative idea. So, the process of creative thinking forces the learner to expand his existing structures, thereby improving his ability to assimilate future new information.

In other words, creativity isn’t just about making new things – it is learning in itself.

 

Posted on

Building Creativity Through Integrative Learning

Integrative learning, or the concept of combining multiple subjects or educational strategies, is not new. In the early 1800s, Johann Herbart, a German philosopher, psychologist and educator believed that only large units of subject matter are able to arouse curiosity and keep a young mind engaged in deep learning. Even when teaching a particular subject, he proposed teachers support the learning by correlating with and integrating other subject areas.

While his ideas gained ground in the US and other countries, social and economical changes in the early twentieth century led to a different pedagogical approach of teaching subjects independently of each other. Professors Mathison and Freeman write, “Industrial efficiency studies and scientific thinking characterized by objective, quantifiable measurement has led to the assumption “that complex tasks become more manageable (i.e. easier) once broken down into their so-called basic parts”” This approach of simplification-by-isolation soon became the predominant approach in teaching.

However, interest in integrative learning is rising once again in response to the more complex educational challenges of the 21st century. Professor Julie Klein, lists the three catalysts that are driving the trend back towards integrative learning. The first is “knowledge explosion” that over the last few decades has resulted in new areas of specialties like machine learning that didn’t exist before. The second is the complexity of problems we face today that require pulling solutions from multiple domains. Finally, the focus on educational reform is linking the two concepts with complementary pedagogies.

Our project based learning modules use an integrative and interdisciplinary approach to make for a more wholesome educational experience. Here are three things we typically do in each module:

Integration with Arts

Integrating arts into the regular curriculum has been found to improve test scores and reduce the academic achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students. In most of our sessions we typically use theater and improv exercises as warm-up games. Some of the improv games build the same cognitive thinking patterns that underlie creative thinking, which is likely why improv artists come up with more (and better) product design ideas than professional product designers.

Interdisciplinary

Our projects also integrate multiple subject areas like science and humanities. In our latest module, Imaginary Worlds, students are diving deeper into topics like natural and man-made habitats (architecture and geography), social hierarchy and norms (anthropology and anthrozoology) and mathematical symbols and operations (mathematics), as they work towards developing their own fantasy worlds.

Blended Learning

While students use the online platform during the module, they never spend the entire lesson on the computer. Each lesson also incorporates group activities or discussions, time for each student to think and work independently and also collaborate in groups.

 

We find that using the above approaches gives us a more well-rounded and engaging approach to teaching different concepts, including areas in STEM that some students find intimidating.

 

Posted on

This Is Your Brain On Creativity

Scientists have always been interested in how the brain works and how specific parts of the brain aid in specific tasks or behaviors. One of the earliest people in this domain, Franz Gall, developed his keen interest of observing his classmates’ skull sizes and features into the field of Phrenology. While phrenology is now debunked as pseudoscience, advances in brain scanning technologies have led to a much improved understanding of the brain, and the birth of cognitive neuroscience.

Recent work by cognitive neuroscientists in the field of creative thinking has shown that some of our earlier beliefs about the right and left parts of the brain are not exactly correct.

In one study, researchers split participants in high creative group and a low creative group based on their performance in the Creative Functioning Test. They then gave the two groups tasks for fluency (FAS – list as many words starting with the letters ‘F’, ‘A’ or ‘S’) and divergent thinking (DT – list as many uses of a brick). They found that the high creatives used prefrontal regions on both hemispheres on the brick task compared to the low creatives who mostly used regions in the left hemisphere.  

In another study, researchers gave the Unusual Uses task from the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to two groups – one that scored in the 99th percentile on the TTCT and the other that scored 50th percentile. The 99th percentile group showed elevated activation of both the right and left hemispheres during the task (although the activation was higher for the right hemisphere).

So one key takeaway from these and other studies is that creative problem solving recruits both sides of the brain. As psychologist, Keith Sawyer concludes, “there is no evidence for the popular belief that creativity is located in the right hemisphere of the brain. Many regions of the brain, in both hemispheres, are active during creative tasks.”

One reason that both hemispheres show activation during divergent thinking (DT) is that semantic memory is primarily stored in left hemisphere. However, these semantic memory traces most likely include primary associations. So when a user thinks of different uses for a brick, the first set of responses come from these primary associations and which lead to more common responses. To come up with more original ideas, secondary associations need to be tapped and these are more likely to be in the right hemisphere. Given this theory, the classic brainstorming advice of going past the initial set of ideas to get to more original ideas makes more sense. Once the initial set of ideas that use primary associations are exhausted, the second wave of ideas start recruiting structures from the right hemisphere more.   

A better way to think about creative cognition is not in terms of the left-brain right-brain dichotomy, but as distributed networks in the brain that span both hemispheres.

Professor Scott Barry Kaufman lists three large scale networks that play a crucial part in creative cognition:

    • The Executive Network: The Executive Network gets involved in tasks that require focused attention, that place demands on working memory, like solving a tricky math problem.
    • The Imagination Network: The Imagination Network, also known as the Default network, is associated with spontaneous and self-generated thought that includes mind wandering and social cognition.
    • The Salience Network: The Salience Network monitors both external stimuli and internal stream of thought, and flexibly switches between the two as needed.

 

Advances made in cognitive neuroscience are helping us understand how the cooperation between these three networks leads to more creative thought. It has now become evident that the right side of our brain isn’t just an intuitive center – it plays a critical role in creative and complex problem solving!

Posted on

Imaginary Worlds and Creative Giftedness

As a little boy, Satoshi Tajiri loved the outdoors and was especially fascinated with insects. His interest in collecting and observing different insects in his hometown of Machida near Tokyo, earned him the title of “Dr. Bug” among his friends. He spent several hours everyday finding new insects, and understanding their world and unique behaviors. In his own words, “They fascinated me. For one thing, they kind of moved funny. They were odd. Every time I found a new insect, it was mysterious to me. And the more I searched for insects, the more I found.”

His fascination with insects and his interest in video games led Satoshi to create a world of pocket monsters, which eventually became Pokémon, one of the most lucrative game concepts.

Creating imaginary worlds, or paracosms, is not unusual among children and are an indication of creative giftedness. Famous examples of paracosms include the fantasy kingdoms of Gondal, Angria and Gaaldine created by the Emily, Anne, Charlotte and Branwell Bronte. The Bronte sisters went on to be accomplished novelists and poets. Compared to the typical imaginary play, paracosms are much more complex and elaborate requiring a sustained interest over several months or years. The Bronte family actively engaged with their fantasy worlds for several years and frequently revisited them in adulthood.

Michele Root-Bernstein, creativity scholar who studies paracosms, found that the prevalence of creating fantasy worlds in childhood were significant higher among recipients of MacArthur genius awards, a group that is known for their creative contributions among and across disciplines. She believes that the creativity involved in creating paracosms prepares children for bigger creative achievements in adulthood. The kinds of skills required in building fantasy worlds, like imagining, empathizing, modeling, problem solving and rule-breaking are exactly the kinds of skills needed for high creative accomplishments. As she explains, “childhood worldplay does appear to provide an early apprenticeship in absorption and persistence, discovery, synthesis, and modeling.”

Beyond problem solving and creativity, such imaginative play has also been found to have other psychological benefits. Creating imaginary worlds has been found to build a sense of self among children and also provide a sense of control and order.

These creative and psychological benefits come largely from a child’s ability to create their world, as opposed to simply participating in existing virtual worlds like in some video games. Dr. Bernstein suggests encouraging children to expand and elaborate on the virtual worlds they encounter through games.

“While these pursuits in and of themselves stimulate imaginative participation in invented worlds, the child’s part in that invention remains largely a passive or, at any rate, a reactive one. The child consumes a world imagined by others and does not construct or create her own. Unless she furthers the play experience in book or video game by adding to it some imaginative construction that is under her full creative control, she is not engaged in the creative behaviors and processes of imaginary world invention.”

The long lasting benefits of imaginary worldplay prompted us to create a project-based learning program where students get to experiment with paracosms. In this program, elementary aged students will create imaginary worlds, with real and fictional characteristics and then dive deeper in to specific aspects. Over several weeks, we will  study ancient civilizations, modern laws and customs, animal societies and other topics to help students refine their own fantasy worlds, and at the same time build a deeper appreciation for worlds that already exist.

We hope that the program not just helps students learn topics from school curriculum but also provides a stimulating playground to build their own creative potential.

Posted on

Designing Products to Build Intrinsic Motivation

In a recent study researchers wanted to explore the relationship between rewards and motivation in the context of education. In order to understand the impact of gamified elements on student motivation and learning, they designed a long-term study for students enrolled in a semester long course. Students were divided into two groups – a gamified group that used a reward system aligned with the learning goals, and the control group that received the same instruction but without any gamified elements. They looked at student grades at the end of the course along with student surveys, and confirmed what some educators had always suspected.

The researchers found that the non-gamified group not only did better at the end of the semester exam, they also reported higher levels of motivation and satisfaction at the end of the class! As the researchers explain, “The results suggest that at best, our combination of leaderboards, badges, and competition mechanics do not improve educational outcomes and at worst can harm motivation, satisfaction, and empowerment. Further, in decreasing intrinsic motivation, it can affect students’ final exam scores.”

While typical gaming elements like points and badges can lead to increased engagement in the short term, it is now believed that the initial appeal is due to a novelty effect, and that engagement and motivation decline as the novelty wears off. And this effect is more pronounced for younger age groups, where novelty and interest declines faster.

Educational products routinely employ rewards like badges and scores to get initial interest and traction among users, however, as research is now pointing out, these elements have negative long term consequences as they promote extrinsic motivation instead of building intrinsic motivation among students.

So,  how can we design educational products that focus on building students’ intrinsic motivation?

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, professors of Psychology, have studied motivation for several decades and developed the Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation. According to their theory, three innate psychological needs play a role in motivation – competence, autonomy and relatedness. The main premise behind their theory is that humans have an inherent tendency to learn, have agency in their development and connect to others. Their theory has been widely used in many contexts, including gamification.

Based on the underlying theory of self determination, here are some high level product approaches that can be used in lieu of rewards to build the right kind of motivation:

Exploration

Creating a playful environment that leads to self-directed exploration ties to the underlying need for autonomy and competence. Games or products should allow for the freedom to fail, by allowing users to recover from mistakes without penalty. Games should also provide a freedom of choice, where users can decide what they want to work on or what skill to develop.

Feedback

In a classroom, feedback can be slow and constrained as teachers can only provide feedback one at a time. Games where feedback can be immediate can have a positive impact on the need for competency. Feedback messages that are actionable (guide the student in the right direction) and focus on growth mindset have been found to be effective.

Collaboration

A typical classroom environment fosters competition among students instead of collaboration, which in turn reduces intrinsic motivation. Elements like leaderboards have the same effect due to social comparison. A better way would be to design products that allow meaningful collaboration among students, and tap into the need for relatedness. Social cues that signal working together have been found to boost intrinsic motivation.  

 

Intrinsic motivation has been found to link positively to learning outcomes as well as personal wellbeing. Introducing the right kind of gamified elements into product elements can boost intrinsic motivation among students, but it involves walking away from more traditional elements in games like badges and points.