Can creativity be taught?

One thing we hear over and over again is that we should be teaching creativity in schools. We also often assume that certain people are just more creative than others. What is the evidence for this? A new paper (Miravete, Tricot 2024) examined fifty years of research.

This paper asks a basic question: are some people simply born more creative, regardless of the subject or field and if so, what does this mean for education? this idea, known as the "domain-general hypothesis", suggests that a person with a high level of general creativity could excel in any creative task they pursue. The article questions whether we should be testing for this general creative ability, if we should teach it and whether "general creativity" is even a thing.

To test this, researchers studied how participants complete creative tasks in various domains like writing, visual arts, or problem-solving. The general creative type or "domain-general hypothesis" would be supported if participants consistently demonstrated above-average creativity across all these domains. However, this review found several limitations:

Firstly, studies rarely measured participants’ existing knowledge in the tested domains, meaning their success could be attributed to pre-existing specific knowledge rather than a general creative ability. For example, someone who performs well on a creative writing task might already have a strong vocabulary and knowledge of writing techniques. Their success might be attributed to this existing knowledge rather than a general creative ability.

Secondly, the creative tasks were often designed by experimenters and not representative of real-life creative challenges, meaning you cant really generalize the findings. In other words, a student who excels at coming up with creative uses for a paperclip in a lab setting might not necessarily demonstrate the same level of creativity when designing a website or solving a complex problem in their science class.

We often confuse function with functioning (this is important!) Some creativity studies incorrectly conclude that creativity is domain-general because the same cognitive functions like working memory are involved in creative tasks across different domains. However, the article argues that while the function (the cognitive process itself) might be general, its functioning (how effectively it operates) is domain-specific. For example, the effectiveness of working memory depends on the specific knowledge and skills someone has in the domain they're working in. So although the basic cognitive mechanisms like working memory are used in various creative tasks, their effectiveness is influenced by the level of expertise and familiarity someone has within that specific field.

The authors write:

"To say it differently, these two cognitive functions seem to use knowledge and their effectiveness seems to depend on the quantity and quality of this knowledge they handle or control. On the contrary, the domain-specific hypothesis explains why these two functions specifically function: depending on the task, they use certain knowledge rather than others; thus, their performance is highly dependent on the amount and relevance of this specific knowledge they use [..] Some neuroscientific studies give the impression that creativity is domain-general only because they arbitrarily and implicitly confer a certain legitimacy on the following proposition (the mechanist domain general hypothesis): if the neural mechanisms involved in creative tasks are domain-general,then creativity is domain-general.

Example: a novice composer with limited knowledge of music theory and compositional techniques might struggle to hold and manipulate complex musical ideas in their working memory. They might quickly forget melodic fragments or struggle to even see how different musical ideas could fit together. Their working memory, while functional, is not operating effectively in this domain due to a lack of domain-specific knowledge. In contrast, an expert composer with extensive knowledge of music theory, harmony, and counterpoint would have a much greater capacity to hold and manipulate complex musical ideas in their working memory. They could effortlessly recall melodic themes, experiment with different harmonic progressions, and envision intricate musical structures.

This enhanced effectiveness of working memory stems from their deep understanding of musical principles and years of practice, which have essentially trained their working memory to perform within the domain of music composition. (I learned this the hard way when I was a musician in my youth thinking that I could be creative by just "being creative".)

So what does all this mean for education?

1. Specific knowledge is crucial: Teachers should focus on equipping students with the specific knowledge and skills required for creativity within individual subject areas. So while general creative thinking skills are important, students need a strong foundation in the content of each subject to be creative. In other words, the more you know about a specific subject area, the more likely you are to be also to be creative in it.
2. Rethink psychometric tests: Using tests to identify "generally creative" students can be misleading because these tests often use artificial tasks that don't represent real-world creativity. A high score on a creativity test doesn't guarantee that a student will be equally creative in a specific academic subject. So the idea that some people are more creative than others is probably true but probably less true than we think.
3. Prioritize real-world application: Teachers should create opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to authentic, creative problem-solving tasks. The authors repeatedly criticize the reliance on artificial creative tasks in research, arguing that they lack the complexity and real-world relevance necessary to meaningfully assess or cultivate creativity. For example, instead of asking students to find unusual uses for a paperclip, a task could challenge them to design a cost-effective and sustainable solution to a local waste management problem and giving them as much knowledge about the issue.

Fascinating paper. It basically says that it's premature to endorse teaching general creative skills into school curricula or a selection of students based on a presumed “creative profile”. If there is a general creative skill it probably looks more like established metacognitive strategies. Instead, the authors suggest that focusing on teaching specific knowledge that can enhance creativity in a particular domain might be a more effective approach.

Miravete, S., Tricot, A. Are Some People Generally More Creative Than Others? A Systematic Review of Fifty Years’ Research. Educ Psychol Rev 36, 99 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09926-6