Texas Speech Communication Journal

Teaching Creativity

The question inherent in the parenthesis in the title is the following: Can one only teach the basic rules and conventions of film? production, or is it also possible to teach how to become a creative filmmaker (and maybe in the process “create” another Orson Welles)? In other words, can one teach creativity? And, on a more personal note: could I teach creativity?

In order to answer these questions I took a closer look at what exactly creativity is. I did what my students would have done: I googled “creativity.” Interestingly--and maybe obviously--it is not so easy to find a concise, short definition of creativity. Wikipedia, nowadays the source of all fast knowledge, tells me that there are sixty different definitions of creativity. Why? Because: “Creativity is the ability to solve problems that are worth solving. It is the ability to create knowledge. Creativity is subject-specific: it is the meta-knowledge of how to solve a specific class of problems. So there is no such thing as ‘raw’, undifferentiated creativity.” (http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/tcs_glossary)

It is worth paying attention to the second part of this quote: there is “no such thing as raw creativity,” but creativity is subject-dependent and subject-specific. As educators teaching various subjects, we see different versions of creativity (or its lack) in our teaching practice. Consequently, we have to approach “teaching (creativity)” in different ways. But my hope is that we could support each other with reflections about our own teaching methods so each of us may adapt our findings to fit our respective academic fields and individual teaching practices.

Scholars of learning draw a useful distinction between “the creative person, the creative product, the creative process, and the creative 'press' or environment.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity) This distinction seems helpful in the classroom. I need to establish a “creative environment” in order to enable in the students’ imaginations the birth of “creative processes” that will conclude in “creative products.” My students thus will become “creative persons.” First and foremost I am interested in inducing a creative process in the students. If I can do that, I know that I may help inspire someone to become a creative person.

Since teaching, like learning, is a very personal activity, let me start on a personal note based on my experience and memories outside of the classroom. When I try to uncover the roots of creativity in myself, I realize that I need to look back a good few years when I had the chance to observe my parents, my teachers, or my friends in situations in which they chose a creative approach or solution to a problem. I remember my father amazing me with his unexpected moves in chess, my friend scoring a wonderful goal in soccer, my classmate solving a complicated math problem. From these observations I learned the most important lesson: that creative approaches do exist. I also remember my mother preparing wonderful dishes out of basically nothing when food (such as milk, butter, oil, bread, meat, and so on) could not be found in the stores of Communist Romania. I remember a brave lawyer getting my friends out of trouble with witty arguments when they sang something they shouldn’t have and were arrested by the Securitate, the oppressive secret police of Romania in the 1980s. These experiences showed me that creativity is often connected to motivation, pressure, and expectations. But I still needed to pair up this empirically observed certainty with an inner psychological one, with the certainty of self-confidence that I myself could be creative in a variety of situations. I remember my self-confidence ebbing and flowing depending on the feedback I received from my teachers. I realize now that my self-confidence not only depended on the feedback but also grew exponentially with learning more about the subject matter I was preoccupied with. Certainly, self-confidence without knowing the rules, conventions, tricks of the trade, and so on would have been foolishness. But immersion into the subject, prodded with a good measure of positive feedback and self-confidence, has lead to creative approaches.

How can I translate these experiences from my personal and professional past into practice in the classroom? It seems obvious that I must recreate for my students the same positive experiences that I have enjoyed in the past. In order to do that, I have to demonstrate to my students, first, that creativity is indeed possible. I use very basic techniques. For example, I simply think aloud and try to spontaneously invent and examine potential approaches to the problems we discuss. I also discuss creative solutions that students themselves have developed in various projects. The latter has the advantage of also exerting subtle peer pressure. Finally, I bring attention to the works of past and present professionals in the field. I like to recount for my students one of my favorite stories about the two-time Oscar-winning cinematographer Sven Nykvist who worked with film directors such as Ingmar Bergman, and Woody Allen. It is well known that the cinematographer’s role is--among others—to tell the electric crew how to light a scene during the shooting of the film, which lights to use, where to place them, and so on. Usually a cinematographer sets up a number of lights of various sizes and then adjusts them, adding some and removing others until the desired look is achieved. Nykvist had a great sense for figuring out how to light a scene economically yet very functionally and—at the same time, as the Academy Awards prove--beautifully. The story about Nykvist goes like this: He comes to the set, walks and looks around, and everyone is waiting. A few minutes pass. He walks around a little more and looks around a little more and everyone is still waiting for him. This goes on for twenty minutes. Finally he points: “Put the light here.” Instead of the usual subtractive approach of turning on many lights and cutting back on those not needed, Nykvist used a minimalist, yet very imaginative additive approach because he had the vision to do it. I like this story because one has the feel of observing “creativity in action.” It also sheds light on other factors to be considered when talking about creativity, such as the need for time, and pressure and expectations from the work environment to consistently perform on a high professional level.

Specific examples can only go so far, however. I also need to nurture self-confidence in my students, to make them aware that they are capable of creativity, as well. Today’s students appear very self-confident, but this facade is brittle and may crumble under the smallest pressure. Students are not used to criticism, and they easily run out of steam and become disengaged in the classroom. So my criticism must not be only “constructive” but also very gentle. Unfortunately, film production is one of those subject matters in which the devil is in the details. In order for students to achieve a professional skill level, I must point out their smallest mistakes. This makes it almost impossible to be “gentle,” since even a gentle taking apart of every detail in a short video must feel like torture to some students. The key here is to balance the “critical” comments with a lot of positive, self-esteem building feedback. We all know that the assessment of projects in the classroom and grading the final cuts are crucial for motivating the students; both have to be part of a systematic approach that also includes a nurturing, supportive role played by the teacher throughout the semester. I use the words “play a role” intentionally, because this is one of the times when teaching is really close to acting. I, the instructor take on the role of a “teacher” before every class. I am always ready to give positive encouragement, to exude a “positive vibe” even if I, the person, am tired and frustrated and occasionally feel that my encouragements are useless. This may sound cynical, but it is not. I only want to emphasize the need for a certain consistency of attitude on the part of the instructor in the classroom, which can be achieved only through techniques that are very close to those used by professional actors.

These techniques should all foster creativity, or more precisely, creative thinking. But again, what is creativity? Here finally is my personal, New-Age definition: Creativity means learning rules intellectually and applying them emotionally. It means learning rules with our intellect and applying them while thinking “full body,” involving not only our learned knowledge about the subject but also our emotions and instincts, our gut reactions, as well. Creativity could lie somewhere in between following the rules and completely disregarding them. What about using rules creatively without breaching them? The reason creativity is so hard to define is precisely because it could flourish inside and outside the boundaries of the previously established system of rules and conventions. Certainly, these rules and conventions must be learned first. And teaching the basics in any field has its own set of specific problems.

A short film that my students are usually working on is extremely complex. One has to consider, not in any particular order, composition, camera movement, shot sizes, lighting, editing, sound, music and sound effects, location, acting, etc. My goals as a teacher certainly do not pertain only to creativity: I need to teach the rules of the game, the complexities of film production mentioned above, including but not limited to what is a good composition, what are the various shot sizes and types (pan, Long Shot, Close Up, and so on), how to light a scene or how to use available lighting, how to record good location sound, how to use rhythm and pacing functionally in editing, etc. As thinking can’t happen without being expressed at least partially in language--the knowledge of language being the sine qua non of thinking--creativity in film production can’t happen without certain knowledge of the field, the rules and conventions of filmmaking. (Filmmaking has many conventions that are called “rules:” e.g. the rule of the third, the 180-degree rule, and so on. But these are not strict rules, as in science. They are merely conventions and guidelines that can be and frequently are violated. Great “violations” of these rules are great examples of creativity in the history of film.)

Thus enabling creativity has to go hand in hand with teaching the language of film. Creativity can’t even exist if basic knowledge is lacking. Creative approaches may increase exponentially only with the increase in knowledge of the field. As with all other subject matters, filmmaking has its own set of specific problems. Today’s society is very visual media savvy, or at least it thinks it is. In reality this emphasis on visual communication doesn’t correlate with our general knowledge about creating and constructing this type of media. People uploading to You Tube can’t necessarily make good films, much the same way and much for the same reasons as people sending text messages or writing blogs can’t necessarily write good poetry or short fiction. Just as knowing how to use a word processing program does not make one a good writer, knowing how to use a point-and-shoot video camera and a non-linear editing software does not make one a filmmaker. In general, we use these media-producing technologies (cell phones, computers, Internet, video) on a very basic level, where the message is not the media but exactly the opposite: the message is connected to the media in a very superficial way; it could be stripped from the media and could be reproduced in any other form without losing much of its meaning. It is quite a challenge to teach film production and editing to students who think they already know how to do it by default, just because they live in the here-and-now, just because they are computer savvy and have a camera and they use You Tube. Each semester a student accuses me that I grade his or her projects too harshly because I don’t like their “style.” Each semester I try to convince that same student that there is a difference between an awkward, messy, and uninformed use of the video camera that proves the lack of basic knowledge of the field and a creative use of the same camera that goes beyond the established conventions and rules of filmmaking. One is unprofessional and results in bad movies, the other is professional and creative and results in great films.

Still, that student does raise a valid question: how am I able to recognize the signs of creativity in my students work? This sounds easier than it is. There are so many things that a student as a one-person production crew, or a group of students has to concentrate on, that mistakes are easily made. Furthermore, there are a host of other aspects of media production that one can’t control that will affect the end result considerably (available lighting, unwanted location noise, background that changes the composition, etc.) The author’s intention becomes crucial for my own ability to evaluate student work. The British National Advisory Committee published a particularly helpful definition in this context: “First, they [the characteristics of creativity] always involve thinking or behaving imaginatively. Second, overall this imaginative activity is purposeful: that is, it is directed to achieving an objective. Third, these processes must generate something original. Fourth, the outcome must be of value in relation to the objective.” (http://www.ncaction.org.uk/creativity/whatis.htm) I like this definition because it applies to film production. As an educator who has to evaluate the work, I will have to decide if the students “thought or behaved imaginatively,” if certain elements and aspects used in a short video were intentional or not, purposeful or not, or whether they were very simply a mistake or a matter of chance, etc. Finally, if these were a matter of chance, or mistakes were made during some production procedure, did the students recognize the “outcome as value in relation to the objective”? How could I differentiate whether a student learned the rules and decided to disregard them, or just was unable to use them? There are endless possibilities and variations, just as there are various levels of creativity. I have to be open to new ideas, styles, and approaches; accept them and try to evaluate them with certain objectivity even if I don’t personally like them. Yet, I can’t get out of my skin. I may not be able to always recognize creativity or accept something as a creative solution in student work. Some creative students may reinvent the wheel. This may seem old and clichéd to me, still I should recognize it as a creative process. And I know (and I hope that I know it right) that a lot of times I do.

Recognizing creativity is certainly only one part of the educator’s job. One has to foster it, as well, by creating an environment where creativity could flourish. While I was thinking about my own teaching I found a website where other teachers and instructors talked about their own concerns in this matter. (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources) These interviews have helped me collect and sharpen my ideas about issues, such as how to manage time, which teaching methods to adapt, how to motivate students, and how to stimulate their collaboration.

All good work, and especially good creative work, needs time; we all know this from personal experience. A course in film production needs to have a number of projects that are built around certain aspects of the field (sound, composition and lighting, editing, and so on) to cover all that is necessary at this level. But how many projects can fit into a semester? This depends on the next question: what is the optimal timeframe for a project? There are some students who always complain about lack of time. But there is a difference between time to get to the particular project among other assignments of other classes and time to work on this particular project. I realized that if I give a later deadline, students usually still spend the same amount of time on the project, they simply start later. The question thus is how to make them work longer on the same project. Breaking the project up into smaller segments and having multiple deadlines is micromanaging them and may suppress their creative engagement. This is an important facet of teaching that needs to be continuously reevaluated depending on the specific circumstances.

But time management issues can’t be solved solely inside the classroom. A class can only be successful if it fits into the larger curriculum of a student who should not be suffocated by assignment overload in other classes. Ideally we should sit down with our colleagues and figure out a more integrated curriculum, first by learning a little more about what and how others teach (at least) in our department, and then trying to streamline our classes so that projects, large readings, and other assignments don’t compete with each other.

One of the recurring motifs in the literature about teaching methods is the idea of limiting teacher involvement in order to move the emphasis from knowledge transfer (from teacher to student) to knowledge acquisition by the student. The idea sounds great. The question is how to maximize learning, since that becomes exclusively student dependent. What about lazy students or students who have overloaded schedules and millions of assignments in other classes? They are not going to learn enough in my class, since they experience the least amount of pressure here. Freedom for students to find their own subject matter in a Public Service Announcement (PSA), for example, must be balanced with guidelines that keep the students on task. I know from experience that students usually get unnerved without any guidance, not the least because they need to know what the expectations are. So guidelines or rules are recommended. In short, the problem has to be defined first. Limitations in fact may start the flow of creative juices.

The same is true about motivation. Usually, grades drive students’ motivation. But real-world experiences, such as creating projects for non-profits outside of school, can have an additional motivating effect. Each semester one of the projects my students have to produce is a “real-world” PSA for a local non-profit or cause. This project has additional benefits. It may provide students with an important piece for their portfolio that they can use later, and—through the interaction they have with professionals—they may become better prepared for the challenges of the workplace.

The benefits of group work are sometimes overestimated. Group work may be very helpful in knowledge building and in socializing the students into a professional framework. But the group has to be of perfect consistency in order to foster creativity; otherwise it may also stifle the members’ ability to live up to their creative potential. Stronger personalities may overwhelm others; students may be too polite or not challenged enough to participate effectively; and so on. Group work should engage advanced students whose knowledge base and the self-confidence enables them to communicate effectively and to actively participate.

Do all these techniques have a positive result? Certainly, I have seen creative solutions proposed by students. I have seen that--given the room and the opportunity to experiment on their own--some students might and others definitely will develop creative approaches to the subject matter. Sometimes, after a few average projects, suddenly I may observe a creative leap into new territory resulting in very creative projects. Other times I see students develop continuously and do increasingly interesting, complex, and innovative projects. Certainly, there are students who are much sharper and more talented than others, and their progress is easily recognizable. But the question remains: is that due to my teaching methods or to their natural ability? Are these students simply “creative persons” in all of their endeavors? Would they be creative without me in the classroom? Am I the enabler of student creativity? Is this question important at all? Just as there are naturally talented individuals, I also have to acknowledge that there will always be students who will never develop a creative approach, at least not in my classroom. Does that mean that I am failing as an instructor, since I can’t “teach” creativity to all? These are hard questions for all instructors.

Teaching creativity is not a goal in itself. Creativity—as I pointed out--doesn’t even exist in itself. It is subject specific, and as such it can be understood as a meta-language of specific subjects. It materializes only as an application of and in a specific subject matter and only if it is understood and appreciated by the community. Creativity doesn’t exist without this understanding and appreciation. In this sense creativity enables communication in any endeavor. For a student (or a professional) it may also be an act of communicating with oneself, an act that opens up the road to self-knowledge. Not because it is necessarily a self-exploratory act, but because self-esteem, self-knowledge, and the knowledge of all that is outside of the self are so intertwined. In this sense, teaching creativity may be teaching self-knowledge. At the same time, as a communicative act, creativity is part of communication at large, which in turn can be viewed as the infrastructure that civil society is built on. As in a dictatorial regime creativity and communication could be subversive--proofs of this are my memories from my youth--open and clear communication is the sine qua non of democracy. In this larger sense teaching creativity is teaching democracy. This may be the most important reason why we, as educators, shouldn’t give up on trying to “teach creativity.”

Abstract

Teaching Creativity

In this issue

About TSCJ Online