Problem summary

Creativity is not regarded as the core characteristic of learning design, or learning designers. This contrasts sharply with most design disciplines, where creativity is regarded as the defining characteristic; as one of the principles around which the discipline is organised. Established practices of instructional design de-prioritise creativity in favour of rational, logical thought, and structured processes.

The design of effective learning experiences has always required creativity. Yet it is more important than ever in today’s environment.

Discussion

The discipline of instructional design, as widely practised in large organisations, originated in specific conditions: the US military required structured, standardised training of very large numbers of personnel. Behaviourist philosophies provided solid, easily applicable foundations on which to base “the science of learning”, and Instructional Systems Design (ISD) methodology provided a solid underpinning process.

US-originated beliefs and methods have been so influential because many of the software tools used to develop and deploy e-learning originate from the US, because American companies are some of the largest buyers of e-learning, and quite straightforwardly, American organisations “did it first”, so established how things could be done – particularly the use of internet-technologies.

Instructional systems design (and its associated philosophies, processes and technologies) makes certain assumptions that are untypical of design disciplines. In particular it prioritises rationality and structure and de-prioritises creativity and exploration. It more closely resembles engineering than design, with its emphasis on comprehensive requirements known at the outset. It assumes that there is a relatively small number of “correct” responses to a learning problem.

In researching the content for this site, it became clear that the over-reliance on structured processes and rational thought has led to a situation where many in the industry – including learning designers:

• do not understand what creativity is; (here’s a short definition)
• are not clear where creativity fits in the process; this includes learning designers themselves who do not regard what they do as fundamentally a creative process;
• regard creativity as the “icing on the cake”; as something that is “nice to have if we can afford it”;
• feel insecure, and even challenged by creativity, as it may seem unprofessional, disorganised and risky;
• assume, as learning design is regarded as an exact science, that there is “one best answer” to the learning problems people face.

Recommendations

It would be hopelessly ambitious to try to provide guidance on how to legitimise creativity in one short essay. The recommendations shown here represent the priorities that arose from talking to a number of designers from a range of disciplines. The intention is that each of the items in the following list should be expanded into a full pattern, and that the list itself should grow.

• Think flexibly. A learning designer must adopt quite distinct modes of thinking at different points in the design process. Sometimes they will need to be highly analytical and “convergent”; other times they will need to be diffuse and “divergent”. The designer’s skill lies in recognising this and moving fluently from one mode to another, so that the two modes complement each other.
  
• Play with ideas. Being creative often involves generating ideas and playing with them. There are many sources of information about techniques for generating ideas. However, the key factor is often not the techniques themselves, but the spirit in which they are used.
• Present ideas persuasively. As learning design shifts from an engineering model to a genuine design model, learning designers will need to learn the arts of creative persuasion. An engineering mindset assumes that solutions can be objectively assessed, whereas a design mindset assumes that there are many solutions that may require subjective approval. Presenting facts and objective evidence may be less effective than well argued personal viewpoints.
• Motivate intrinsically. Various researchers have shown that intrinsic motivation – motivation that comes from the task itself, rather than from external reward – cultivates creativity. External rewards can actually reduce creativity, by distracting the person from the task in hand. What this comes down to is usually very simple: matching people to tasks they enjoy, even where these may be challenging.
• Collaborate creatively. Research – and common sense – suggests that working with others who have differing viewpoints can spark creativity. But this is rarely straightforward. Sometimes, working with others can result in conflict, as different viewpoints clash and misunderstandings arise. Avoiding opposing viewpoints can result in unoriginal “group-think”. The key appears to lie in developing shared goals and common mental models.
• Manage openly. Developing and sustaining a creative culture is all about developing an environment in which creativity can flourish. It can be a particularly demanding challenge where the culture of an organisation, or indeed a profession, has not valued creativity highly. Here is a brief overview of developing a creative culture.