Hi All,
This past week in PSY327 we had Dr. Greenberg and Dr. RohrKemper come to our class and discuss creativity! I must say--I was impressed with both of their enthusiasm throughout the discussion. However, I was surprised how little they previously philosophized over the concept of creativity. From Dr. Greenbergs comments it seemed apparent that he considered creativity as a product based entity. But throughout the talk he mentioned how looking at creativity as a process was appealing to him. Dr. RohrKemper seemed to think more deeply about creativity, likely because of the nature of his work.
This discussion perfectly illustrates how the actual philosophy and science of creativity can be included in a variety of fields. I feel that studying the process of creativity in isolation would immensely benefit students of a given field. I would love to follow up with our two speakers and see if their new outlook on the creative process has benefited their work or altered the way they approach teaching their classes.
Questions: Would you prefer if a professor taught creativity in the context of their subject? If so, how much of a course should be dedicated to this? Should a student be graded on their creative product?
Until my next post,
Ryan
I personally find professors who are considered more creative and think outside of the box allows me to remember the information better. I sometimes feel that the professors who lecture over and over again with the same material can become somewhat boring and repetitive. Professors who use hands on examples and creative tactics will allow the students to remember the information. I think that if a student is given a creative project they should be graded on their effort and their baseline to their finished project. I think that creativity is a hard thing to grade since they can not be standardized.
ReplyDelete