Walking the Creativity Tightrope: Teaching students to be appropriately radical
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity has a significant place in visual arts education (Bastos & Zimmerman, 2015; Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Kinsella, 2018; Sawyer, 2017; Stone, 2015; Ulger, 2019; Veon, 2014) but an understanding of creativity leads to the recognition that for something to be deemed creative, it must be both novel and appropriate in context (Amabile, 2018; Cropley, 2016; Goetz Zwirn & Vande Zande, 2015; Kaufman & Baer, 2012; Plucker, 2018). While the ‘in context’ addition to the concept of appropriate, creates more space for visual artists, the constraints of appropriateness remain. For a visual arts and design instructor, this creates tension. How do I encourage students to be creative and push boundaries, yet also teach them to be mindful of the constraints? This paper discusses observations in undergraduate design education studio classes wherein students learn to use process and thumbnail sketches to push their concepts beyond predictable and into the radical or novel realm. A modified design thinking process provides the structure that allows students to feel confident about exploring ideas. Ongoing feedback from peers and instructor serves to both push and reign in ideas when revisions are valuable. The process requires diligence and practice. It also requires that students work to break free from either/or thinking and view their work on a continuum. Reflecting on relevant methods for encouraging students to accept the value of novel ideas that also acknowledge the viewer is worthwhile. Encouraging students to recognize that creativity is enhanced through process while also engendering an understanding of the nature of creativity is valuable and can lead to the generation of radical ideas that have merit due not only to their novelty but also to their ‘appropriateness.’
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".