تربية الإبداع .. كتاب الإبداع وتربية

Chapter one

A - Nurturing creativity

In a 1958 letter to the Pacific Art Society, Gilford said that the growing appreciation of the need to raise the level of creative achievement among people had led to many educational endeavors. There is no doubt that many teachers have felt that something must be done in this regard. As art educators, you are in a unique place in this regard and you may feel that you have a responsibility that goes beyond simply contributing to the education of creative artists. The subject of art - among other school subjects - is unique in that students not only enjoy some freedom of creativity, but they are also expected to be creative. For those who are responsible for teaching the arts, there is a double question: First: Is it possible to develop creative habits through art lessons? Second: Is it possible to make such habits transferable so that they become effective and influential in other mental fields?

Gilford admits that he is not aware of what has been done regarding the development of creativity in art lessons. But he draws attention to what is happening outside the field of art and in the fields of science and various knowledge and says: The number of research has increased greatly and that there were nearly two thousand lessons of creativity that were given in various parts of the United States at that time (in 1958). And in universities, factories and government agencies. These lessons consisted of lectures on the nature of creativity and exercises on creative thinking and problem solving.

It was one of the methods that followed the previously mentioned (brain rain) sessions, which were designed by (Alex Osborne Osborn), in order to generate new ideas that are used especially in the media. Announced in advance. The atmosphere is usually so uncritical and so tolerant as to mention anything that comes to mind, and it is expected that one person's observations will stimulate the thoughts of others so that a greater and more prolific product will result from this than if the individuals themselves were to think alone. It must be recognized that accurate and detailed experiments have not been carried out on the importance of this method, but impressions about it indicate that it increases the production of ideas and trains participants in useful thinking habits.

But what is better than the lessons of creative thinking and the special methods that follow in it is the increasing interest in creativity and the occasional attention to it in the subjects, and there are many fields of education in which opportunities are available to push the student to creative thinking exercises. These fields include sciences, humanities, social studies and, of course, the arts. It is natural that some fields provide more opportunities for creative thinking than others, but in all of them the opportunities depend mainly on how to teach the subject and on the positions taken by the teacher. Understanding the nature of creative achievement in the light of abilities and other characteristics that contribute to it is of great help in choosing educational materials, the method of presenting these materials, and forming appropriate attitudes for the student.

We can say that the development of students' creativity depends mostly on the changing attitudes of both the teacher and the student. The strong respect for the textbook and targeting the student to memorize this book in order to succeed in the exam, which is keen on such information, results in the student knowing what the so-and-so scholar said about such-and-such a topic, but he becomes less prepared and able to deal with new problems, especially if the book falls short of that. . We do not, of course, want to underestimate the importance of the information. Obtaining information is not harmful in itself to creativity, given that the invention depends on previous information, but the position taken before the information is what often hinders creative thinking.

The same can be said about the modalities. The student may have an exaggerated respect for the sanctity of the modalities. How many of our students are punished because they deviate from the traditional methods used? How many of them are rewarded for their commitment to the usual methods. It is the duty of the teacher to encourage originality among his students and not to force them to follow the methods of the book.

Then how many obstacles are erected against the creative effort of the average student?

When we convince the student that he is incapable of creativity, he necessarily becomes so, and there seems to be a common opinion that the creative achievement is limited to a small group that God has bestowed on it. effort for creativity. But the scientific fact that recent research has reached indicates that distinguished creative people have the same abilities that we all have to some extent. Belief in this fact is worthy of prompting many to try creativity, not to be afraid of it, and to trust themselves with confidence that we assure will be fruitful.

The question we would like to ask here is: With the emphasis that arts education provides many opportunities to teach creative habits, can we develop such learned habits in the field of arts so that they affect creative achievement in other fields and in life in general? There is no doubt that this question is related to the well-known issue of transmission of training in educational psychology. You all know that psychologists at the beginning of this century stood against the idea of ​​transition and said that learning is specialized, but Guilford believes that the time has come to get rid of this exaggerated view, and he believes that learning is more generalizable than what some scholars have calculated. Yes, there are limits to the transfer of training, but there is a lot of transfer taking place.

Guilford believes that there are many indications of the amount and type of transition that depend largely on the method and style of learning, as well as on the similarity of the tasks between which the transition occurs. And if the similarity between the tasks is the only basis for the transfer, then learning the habits of creativity and its skills in art will not transfer to other fields such as science, for example. Therefore, it is the work of the teacher to link between art and other fields.

And it is unfortunate that the ordinary person in our time insists that art is something different from others and that it is an isolated field, and the truth is that art is to be seen as an aspect of life: and it seems that people have begun to believe in this that we have said and have begun to pay more attention to art. in various fields of life. This stimulates the educator in general and the teacher in particular to link between art and science and between art and life.

At the end of his speech, Gilford raises questions that he begins by saying that it is said that there are as many people on the face of the earth now as it was found on it from the dawn of history until now. Do we now have our share of creative geniuses? Or do we live on our inherited capital? Can we do something about this?

He says he is sure of one thing: If we can raise the level of creativity in the average person, even by a small percentage, the social results will be great.