 and welcome to another episode of The Creative Life, a collaborative production between the American Creativity Association Austin Global and Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Darlene Boyd, and joining me today from Los Angeles, California, are guests, University of Southern California Professor Dr. Sandra Kaplan and Purdue University Professor Dr. Julian Nyberg. They join me to discuss formulas to ignite innovation, problem solving and creativity in education and the urgent need to align creativity with future societal demands. Welcome to both of you, Sandy and Julia. It's my pleasure to have you with us today and hopefully we'll get a pretty good message out there. When Julia, when you were talking about proposing what we might talk about on the show, you took me back to thinking about the condition when Sandy, when I was working with you, things seemed to be pretty good for the advocacy for creative productive thinking in the classroom and outside of the classroom and in life in general, but something's taking a turn. And Julia, let's start with you. What do you think happened since this was your idea? I think the education paradigm has radically shifted since artificial intelligence hit the scene in November of 2022. And what we have in our classrooms is this idea that we're not only equipping our students with digital literacy, but we're also equipping them with a literacy that addresses artificial intelligence and the integration of artificial intelligence in knowledge acquisition, but also the production of content. And with the production of content and a new literacy that has entered our pedagogical discourse in our classrooms today, I think that we have this idea that it's not conscious enough to read and write using our standard literacies and digital literacies, but we also have to be in a space where we are producing creative output that is requiring us to not only learn, but also unlearn and relearn. And so we're placing our students in this environment where they're having to unlearn and relearn using a new toolset that all of us are being equipped with. Sandy, does that make sense to you? Yes, it does. But I think there's some other variables that do make sense to me as well, and that is that I think what's happened is the idea that standardization or measurement of what is success has somehow obliterated some of the issues related to being creative. And so we're looking at test scores that talk about how well you know something, not the many and varied ways you can use something. So that's one issue. The other issue is that I'm not sure that we have spent enough time helping our students understand at any grade level it's a dead leg to develop an appreciation for the art of creativity. So much of what they've experienced are really a consequence of creative endeavor. So while the students say, oh, look at this, look at this, I've got a new game, and they don't realize that that new game is really a consequence of somebody practicing the skills of creative thinking to really develop that game. So that appreciation for creativity is really kind of busy. And then the last thing I think is important is the fact that we've misunderstood that creativity doesn't need any one kind of learning situation. Children are creative before they even get to school. We just seem to take it away from them rather than enhance it. So those are three variables unconcerned. I think they're very important variables and I really think our viewers will appreciate hearing them listed in the manner that you presented them to us. Sandi, when I learned you'd be available to join us today, I was thinking back, and we usually start our show first of all by letting our viewers know that our guests generally take us through the processes behind creativity, the creative process, or they take us through their real-life creativity. And you two are both the icons of creativity in many ways to me. But as I was thinking with enthusiasm that you'd both be joining us, Sandi, I was thinking of something we were somewhere many years ago, very informally. And on the show, we usually always am reminded that we need to clarify the concept of creativity so that our viewers can understand in what direction we're going. And someone had asked you, and you did an off-the-cuff, they asked you how you would define creativity. And I don't know if you remember this little casual definition, but I use it all the time, and it means a lot to me. And you define creativity at that point, and it's probably a restaurant conversation where you said, well, we look at something and we break that something down into its parts, and then we reconceptualize it into a new thing. And at that time, so many people in the discussion were thinking that with creativity, you have to experience that aha moment. But your definition was a little more sophisticated to be it also very practical. And that it doesn't, we always, we don't always have that aha moment. But if we know that we're going to take something, it doesn't always have to be a totally brand new idea. But it does seem to be a new idea because it's different after you put those parts together in maybe a different way. One of the things I think about, and I certainly, Julia, can add to this, is the work that Everly did years and years ago when he identified the scamper techniques, the skills of creative thinking, and I don't want to go through all of it, but just think about this. His conversation about and his work in relationship to creativity said that creativity is being able to add something to something that's already existing. It doesn't have to be the formulation of a whole new. It's what can you add to it, bringing purposes for a new insight. He also said that creativity is the ability to look at what happens if it gets smaller, what happens if it gets larger, the minimization or the maximization of something. And then one more, that creativity is really the ability to be able to understand how we combine things in order to be able to get something new. And I thought about this and I thought, you know, this is what young children do. As I watch in the preschool work that I'm doing currently, students do this naturally. They put these together and go, ooh, are they taking for part and say, oh, wow, look what happened? What can we do to make creativity a more natural consequence or behavior rather than an artificial type of lesson that sometimes is produced in a school-age study? What can we do, Julia? You talked about unlearning. That was an interesting way of stating that we usually lock in on learning and not unlearning all the time. So help us out a bit here. Well, I think the reason why I started by anchoring the conversation in examining the tools that we currently have to work with in the classroom is because a huge component of creativity is our environmental factors and being open to new experiences. So by being open to new experiences, we also have to engage in this new toolset that we have to equip students with. And that is the literacy skills associated with artificial intelligence and embracing the ambiguity in that type of product production, that type of innovation that we currently have to work with. And I think if I was a classroom teacher and stepping into the classroom this fall, I would be most interested in linking both inductive and deductive reasoning in my instruction. And deductive reasoning is the strategy that I would use where I would have my students develop ideas from something very general to something specific. And inductive reason is the opposite, where I'm having my students take something specific and then further generalize it. And I think the reason why those are so important in relationship to creativity is the fact that this process of being able to generate ideas and innovate both inductively and deductively is important because we're able to, I think both of those are able to play an essential role in not only the process of problem-solving and critical thinking, but also to creative output with the new tools that we have available for our students to use, not only today, but also for those jobs that we don't know we're preparing them for yet in the future. You just referenced critical thinking, and that raises another question for both of you. It often comes up in some of our conversations in previous shows when we talk about entrepreneurship and innovation, and that is, do you think one can think critically without thinking creatively and can one think creatively without thinking critically? And I know we've talked about that before. I think I'll hand in hand. I mean, in order to really be innovative in order to be able to redesign something or to really look at how you're going to add to it or substitute one thing for another, you need to be critical. You know, is this going to work? How is it going to work? You have to make judgments about, you know, what ambiguity you're going to face and what logic you need to make sure that it will be something that's useful. But I think there's another part of this, and that is that I think one of the things that we're talking a lot about is the idea that we need to reconstitute the concept of play and to be placeful. You need the attitudinal reference in order to be creative. You need to be willing to see that it doesn't have to be the right answer. There are many barrier and possibilities. You need to be in the ability to kind of deal with ambiguity and you need to be able to really be patient to see how things emerge. So how do we develop more of an excitement about being playful? And I'm talking about being playful with ideas, not just with, you know, things. Well, how do we really help individuals understand that that playfulness is really one of the stimuli that really does, in fact, excite? Critical and freed. Juliet, in your work, I know that you reference collaborative thinking and risk-taking. But while celebrating mistakes as opportunities and Sandy's talking about being playful and Juliet, could you talk a little bit about the mistake, the concept of tolerating mistakes and the outcomes from that process? Well, I think that circles back to the conversation that Sandra Kaplan contributed regarding our measures that we currently have in the education system for accountability. Our measures of academic achievement are based on the premise that there is something right and there is something wrong. What does that teach our students about the concept of mistakes and play? If I'm playing in science, for example, if I'm generating new ideas, if I'm innovating in science, if I'm being creative in science, does that necessarily mean that I'm going to generate a right answer the first time? We think about devices like our smartphones sitting near us right now. The development of the smartphone was a process that had a lot of mistakes along the way. For example, if you think of Steve Jobs and the development of the Newton, does anyone remember the Newton? Probably not. If you look at the initial specs for the noon, it was exactly like the iPhone today. It just wasn't adopted because the infrastructure wasn't there yet. So now we're equipping our students to produce to the innovators to be creative thinkers in this environment where the infrastructure has changed. And because the infrastructure has changed, I think that we need to rethink creativity in relationship to our interaction with our children and students. Sandy, how do you suggest that we might rethink our creativity? I think that one of the things that we really need to look at is the idea that creativity has both formal and informal elements to it. So there are wonderful creative things that are part of my surroundings here that somebody has developed and I have privileged to be able to have in my home. But there are other things that are creative that we don't give a lot of respect to or a lot of credence to. The idea that somebody comes up with a new recipe of doing something that is traditional and maybe adds just another little flavor to it. That we need to look at creativity in its small as well as in its larger context. And we need to look at it as a way of thinking, not just a way of producing so that we can talk about the fact that in our interaction with each other, I could come up with a new idea but it may not go any further than just our conversation and that we can appreciate the idea of creativity as a way of interaction, not just a way of production. And then one other thing that I want to say and it really supports what Julia was saying in terms of schooling. That is I worry about the fact that to have the opportunity for creativity you need to be in the environment where the people that are teaching you instruct you, working with you also value the same thing and that's creativity. That you don't have to fight quote-unquote the idea of coming up with a new or an original idea with somebody saying well actually proud to come up with that and deleting it. We need more teachers, we need more parents who are receptive to the many and possible responders to an idea, to a question, to a problem, to a situation. I think in terms of your commentary regarding creativity associated with production I think we also need to value creativity as a form of production and incorporate creativity into our accountability system within education. I think if creativity and innovation was valued as a means of production and not a standardized test being the means of production we would have a different degree of that informal creativity that you speak of. But one other thing I'd like to just add to that and that is that it's not my idea that it goes back to Prybel and Rousseau and Locke and others who said that if you just look at students young people, they are creative. Why is it the older they get the more creativity they lose? And so what are we doing to really excite an appreciation for creativity? How come we're not spending more time sending our children to museums to see the creative production of others? I think it's something on television. We don't just look at the storyline. Look at the creative aspects that came into developing the story. So we need to develop more of an appetite for what creativity is now it's all around. And I think that's what we need to unlearn. Oh, understandably now. You're both advocates of the importance of knowing how to ask a question. You're commentary just now. And I think so many of us don't think through the questioning that we might be having. Then there was a question you just asked, like, why aren't we doing something? Why aren't we asking more questions? Why don't we have more interaction? Well, because just what we said earlier, everyone's on their phone and we really do need some time out from that. I'd also like to address the idea of problem solving and clearly it seems that it's very, it would be near impossible to find a creative process that didn't take us to a problem or some discussion with problem solving. And I suspect you would agree with me that often the correct problem is not the one that's brought forth to solve. Or there's not that vision to look at the consequences of solving a particular problem. And we see so much of that with a discussion of climate change and some of the recommendations that just running into a situation and thinking that we have identified the problem and it's such as not the case. What are your thoughts on that? I think that certainly, you know, Julie could add to this. I think that one of the problems is that we don't venture into problem solving because we think we need to have a tremendous amount of information to be a problem solver. When I think of the work of Trustee Ger and others, as you well know, Darlie, have taught us that you need to have the questions to ask. You don't need to walk into problem solving with the answer. You need to walk in with the question. And I think we kind of in some ways diminish the value of questioning, as you mentioned earlier and really look at, you know, let's get the answer, let's get the answer rather than let's travel the road of many and varied questions. And maybe the answer will come up. But in the process, there'll be many kind of ways in which we can at least understand the problem better by the questions that we ask. I think we probably, I think you two might agree with me that we're sometimes irritated when we are working with, and this is more often outside of education more in the business world where you'll hear someone say, let's just brainstorm and they think they've gone through a very creative, productive method when in fact brainstorming is just one of the steps in getting through the process. And not to say that there is an ignorance, but there is, I don't think, and probably ourselves included, we've not done enough to really communicate what's necessary when we're working with groups, when we're even in a church situation with a pastoral group and trying to solve whatever the scheduling kinds of things. So even taking it outside of the educational area. Before we do run out of time, I'd like both of you to talk a little bit about what you think are the barriers that are in our way to really promoting the idea of creativity, bringing it back to its paramount days in the educational settings. And we did talk, we have talked a little bit of the barriers, but what do you think are the major barriers that really get in our way right now? Well, I think that both Julie and I concur that standardized testing and looking for the right answer is when. But I am concerned about the fact that we haven't developed a real sincere appreciation for creativity. I am concerned that we haven't looked backwards to see that throughout time. What we enjoy today is the consequences that people's creative expression yesterday and that we're not giving enough credence to the fact that it's creativity that got us to where we are today. We make an assumption without giving, I think, tribute to the creative process. And I think one other thing that we've mixed up, and this is, I take full responsibility for this comment, that we've mixed up creativity and economic gain and they don't necessarily go together. That you could be very creative with the pleasure of being a creator, not necessarily for the economic gain it might derive. Hmm, very true, very true. Julia? I think one of the biggest barriers in the education system is the fact that we have compartmentalized and separated academic disciplines. If we enter the classroom or the learning space within interdisciplinary lens where we're looking for the connections between and across and within content areas, that we would produce a much more creative student population who was willing to engage in informal creativity and create for the pleasure of creating because once you engage in interdisciplarity in the education system, then you have the ability for students to make connections between things that are unconventional, that may not be obvious to the adult teachers sitting in the room. And I think that is perhaps one of the largest and easiest barriers that we could tackle as parents and educators. Well, I agree. How many schools and universities play a role in cultivating a generation of innovators? Which professor would like to take that? I think it's a real dilemma because one of the things that universities are trying to produce are people to go into the field and have the prerequisite understanding and skill they need to be part of the field that they're going to enter. The other part of it is how do we produce people to go into the field who are change agents who do understand that while you need a certain basic understanding for the field, you also have the tenacity, the skill to be able to really see where you can push and shove to make differences. So it's an interesting balance. And I think all universities try to produce people who can do a combination of teachers. And to know the academic understandings, the skills that are necessary, and to have the understanding of the importance of using those in new and different ways to improve whenever that field might be. What's so interesting about the K-12 on university space is that it often provides the template or the expected environment for learning for all other fields. So I could be working for AT&T and I could be providing training for all of my telephone operators at AT&T, providing that training and that experience that those individuals have in training is often from the experiences that the trainer had at the university or in the K-12 setting. So it's really up to the K-12 and university setting to reconceptualize what schooling looks like. Because the experience that individuals have in their own classroom often informs how they teach others, whether that be formally or informally. So if we start giving students different experiences in regards to our expectations for informal and formal creativity, utilizing things like inductive and deductive reasoning to generate creative solutions or generate questions associated with the environment that we're interacting with, that would in theory have a, I think, domino effect across all types of learning experiences. I think you would both agree that there are a number of package programs out there for the creative process. And I think it's important that we be selective and some of my favorite programs are those that clearly take us from the creative to the critical and back and return us so that we are doing a technique such as brainstorming and then our next step is going to be bringing us back into the creative process, thinking very critically. And as you referenced, Julia, throughout our conversation this afternoon, you've been referencing deductive and inductive reasoning. So yes, those models that do take us inductively and deductively as we are leading us to solve a problem of some sort, whether it be a lofty problem or a made-up one for demonstration. So I think that's important for us to also remember. And then also to remember that you can't be creative about nothing. You can't turn to someone and say be creative. You need some context or something of some sort that the process matches. So any concluding remarks before we depart for the session? Yes, I'd like more individuals, broke children and adults to walk around the world with maybe well, the world. A pen and maybe a piece of paper and to list all the things that they see that have been a consequence of creative endeavor. I think that we've lost track of how much we are immersed in other people's creativity and the results of their creativity. I think we need to develop a greater respect and appreciation for the fact that much of what I experienced is the consequence that somebody else has created. What a simple meaningful exercise. That's a beautiful exercise not just for children but for adults as well. I can think about that myself as I move around in different places. Julia? And on that list you could look at each of those items and think to yourself has this item been developed as the result of a part-to-whole relationship or a whole-to-part relationship. What is the connection between part-to-whole or whole-to-part in relationship to this creative item? And how can I begin in my mind to deconstruct that in connection to that creative evidence that you find in your world? Beautiful framework for us to conclude with just lovely. Thank you both for joining us this afternoon and I look forward to speaking with you again and hopefully having you return time to time so our viewers can enjoy the wealth of your wisdom. And with that you have been watching The Creative Life on Think Tech Hawaii with guests Dr. Sandra Kaplan and Dr. Julia Diber as we discussed just empowering minds and infusing innovation and creativity in educational and real-life experiences for students of all ages. Join us in two weeks for another episode of The Creative Life until then mahalo and aloha. Check out our website thinktechawaii.com mahalo