Does creativity require background knowledge? It depends...
When I first started to learn about what passes for the ‘science of learning’ in some educational discourse, I was particularly confused by what I read about creativity. I’ve seen it repeated in many blog posts and books that creativity is not possible without extensive background knowledge - and therefore children need to be taught lots of background knowledge by direct instruction between they are able or allowed to be creative. Just tell them what you need them to know, and then get them to repeat it, goes the dogma. They can’t be creative yet.
I couldn’t work out how anyone who had spent any time with young children would repeat this theory. For young children are endlessly creative and innovative, often with very little background knowledge. They explore things in novel ways, often creating havoc as they do so. When it comes to creative solutions to a problem, they often come up with more ideas than the adults around them.
I had a look at the research, and realised that there are different types of creativity. What is sometimes called ‘Big-C creativity’ does indeed need expert levels of background knowledge. It’s the type of creativity which composers demonstrate when they write a symphony, or physicists when they suggest a new theory. Ground-breaking and original innovation. It is about producing something, perhaps a work of art or novel research.
Most of us, however, never reach the heights of Big-C creativity. We never do anything which is ground-breaking in the eyes of the world. However, we do engage in ‘little-C creativity’ – creativity which is novel for us, but not for the rest of the world. For this level of creativity, expert level background knowledge is not necessary. When a child mixes paint for the first time and discovers that yellow and blue make green, they are making a genuine discovery. It’s just one that the rest of the world has already made. When they write a sentence or a story, it can be novel and creative for them, even if in the eyes of the world their accomplishment is not original.
With little-C creativity, there may be no end product. That isn’t necessarily the point. Process is as important as outcome.
In fact, in some cases too much background knowledge can stifle little-C creativity. Research shows that if we tell children in advance what a toy can do, they won’t explore it and discover its other functions.
Little-C creativity is an integral part of how children learn. They try things out and puts things together in new ways. They make guesses and test them out. They increase their knowledge as they do so. If we stifle this, in the belief that it’s more efficient to tell them the answers because they cannot yet be creative, we don’t know what the result will be on their later creativity and capacity for learning. It seems likely that it won't be positive.
For great and original innovators did not start out directly with big-C creativity. They spent years being little-C creative first, trying things out, practicing the skills they need, and producing things which had little value in the eyes of the world, but were novel and original for them. They honed their skills and developed their background knowledge at the same time. They mixed the paint and made a mess
That is how humans learn. Creativity is integral to learning.
Thanks for sharing this article. I work with children running community workshops and also home educate my children, and can confirm that children are endless innovative and creative. This partly comes from a willingness to make mistakes. Unfortunately, I often see this creativity and willingness to make mistakes disappear as children progress through mainstream education, which penalises mistakes and experimentation. What you describe as big-C creativity wouldn't be possible without little-c creativity. However, this type of little-c creative exploration is not only not prioritised, but activity discouraged throughout mainstream schooling. Both forms of creativity requires a willingness to make 'mistakes'. If you spend years filling children with all the knowledge, judging, grading and penalising them for getting it wrong, when they come out the other end and you deem them ready to be creative, they will have no idea how to think for themselves and fulfill that promised big-C creativity.
I agree, there is the kind of creativity that leads to learning and the kind of creativity that can be taught. As a big-C creativity teacher (a lecturer in creative writing), I find first years have to do a lot of unlearning. What is foundational to their knowledge about creativity is child’s play, and often the ways they read and write and use language in their down time. This is because big-C creativity is all about making a mess, small stakes experimenting, willingness to iterate and develop, to manipulate tools. Yes they need to read and learn about literature in all its forms (if only to resist what’s come before). But also they need to learn to see the literary potential in gossip, game play, and daily life. Most of my students won’t be published authors, but instead they’ll use little c creativity in their daily work. I’ve seen them use comics to talk about customer journeys, or their understanding of character to be more compassionate lawyers, or their knowledge of the ‘felt gaps’ in the unsaid of poetry or impressionist fiction to listen to silences in the clinical space. But some do go on to be novelists and poets, to win awards. Mostly with the students who come to me with a great intellectual appetite and an innate ability the most important part of my job is inputs - what to read, watch, listen to, play. And how to create a space of nonjudgmental curiosity about what emerges in the creative act. I feel like it’s the same people who’ve been taught big-c creativity before they’ve accomplished open ended play who might turn to chat-gpt to write their stories for them. The challenge is to teach and value process (including honouring and appreciating mistakes and mess) over product.