This article presents an experimental study on how the learning of creativity can be facilitated. The author of this article is Knut Boge, a Don at the Akershus University of Applied Sciences in Norway. The author’s main areas of research include service innovations, facility management, and entrepreneurship. This article begins by exploring the concept of creativity and its manifestation in various learning fields. According to the author, it is important for credible research to assess whether creativity is a natural or acquired skill. The proposals that are contained in this paper relate to an ongoing academic debate on the concept of creativity. Some scholars are of the opinion that creativity is a natural talent that can only be enhanced but not learned. On the other hand, another school of thought is of the view that creativity is a skill that can be acquired and sharpened. Boge’s paper is a research study on a group of students in their quest to ‘learn’ how to be creative. This essay is a critical review of Boge’s journal article including its merits, demerits, and the factors that make it stand out.
The central premise in this article is an important subject with respect to the acquisition of skills. According to the author, a student’s ability to ‘reproduce’ knowledge has often been prioritized over the need to think creatively. Moreover, there is an outstanding issue that involves coming up with an effective method of teaching creativity. For example, some cited sources in this article forward the argument that creativity is a phenomenon that can be taught to all individuals as opposed to it being a natural skill that is possessed by only a few. All these arguments are important to the research on skill acquisition. Furthermore, in the 21st Century, creativity is the single most important skill among workers. In the digital era, individuals have ample tools to enable them to maximize their creative input in different fields. This article is relevant because it seeks to provide an answer to a problem that is related to various practical fields.
The article’s organization exhibits unusual brevity for a research study, but it still manages to be succinct. For instance, the article’s introduction presents in brief details the two sides of the argument concerning the nature of creativity. After the introduction, the article covers the experiment’s methodology. Although this article’s sequence is rare, it is hard to point out any information that has been left out in the paper. For example, the preamble of the paper’s methodology can be found in the introduction where the author talks about Norwegian Innovation Camps.
Consequently, the readers do not have any problems when they are trying to connect the article’s methodology with the author’s thesis. The concept of brevity in this paper also applies to other sections, including ‘results’ and ‘discussion’. The author’s approach is suspicious at first, but it turns out to be an effective method of conveying information. Within the article’s three brief pages, the author is able to stamp his authority on the subject of creativity in a convincing manner. Other authors should consider employing this uncommon approach in their works. The practice of adding an excess filler material to academic articles is a withstanding tradition, which should be reviewed by authors.
Although the article’s methodology is well laid out, it raises a few questions in relation to its effectiveness. The methodology that is employed in this article involves a questionnaire that is formulated through the pretesting of samples. The researchers came up with the questionnaire in 2010 and then proceeded to collect data in the next two years. The formulation of the questionnaire is too simplistic and it lacks the attention to detail that is found in the other aspects of this study. For example, it would be fair to assume that the study lacks a core element of the proposed hypothesis. For example, the final questionnaire is based on random answers that were given out by random test subjects. It would have been more effective if the final questionnaire incorporated both random and pre-set aspects. This approach would have ensured continuity in respect to the author’s creativity.
The most outstanding concept of the paper is its research findings. According to these findings, many of “the students who participated in 2010, 2011, and 2012 camps developed creative, and in some instances even innovative concepts for problems that they were not familiar with” (Boge, 2012, p. 15). These findings confirm that creativity is an acquired concept. Furthermore, this conclusion opens up avenues for future research on creativity. There have been several studies on creativity, but what makes Boge’s article stand out is that it incorporates the essence of team building. Creativity through cooperation is slightly different from other forms of creativity. However, it is not clear if this research is relevant to people who like to work alone. The conclusions of this study make it clear that the camp environment is the main contributing factor when learning creativity, as hypothesized by the author. This angle of focus accommodates more research studies on how creativity can be acquired from peers as opposed to educators.
The title of this article promises readers ‘outside the box solutions’ when it comes to creativity. However, it is clear that the article only proposes one viable solution for learning creativity. This solution fails to achieve the threshold of outside the box thinking because it details a process that is common within learning and innovative solutions. For instance, group discussions in classroom settings have been used for decades, and their aim is to improve creativity. The same concept has also been utilized in innovation teams within boardrooms across the world. Therefore, the author cannot solidify his claims that he is providing outside the box solutions when it comes to learning creativity. For example, the aptly cited method, “six thinking hats” solution is a good example of outside the box thinking (Boge, 2012). When it is analyzed critically, the author’s solution does not pass the ‘unique’ test.
This article is a simplistic take on the subject of creative learning. The article is brief in nature but the author is able to cover all the basic elements of this subject. In its current form, the article is palatable to readers from all walks of life but it might not appeal to readers who are more sophisticated. One of the article’s strong points is its relevance because it espouses the nature of creativity. Nevertheless, the article fails to give a revolutionary solution to the problems of creativity and learning.
Reference
Boge, K. (2012). How to facilitate the learning of creativity: Thinking. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 26(6), 14-16.