AI for Creativity: How AI-Tools Can Foster Imagination, Serious Play and Design Thinking
Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will:
- understand the role of AI in enhancing creative processes
- appreciate the balance between AI and human creativity
- recognize the historical and conceptual perspectives on creativity
- evaluate practical applications and implications of AI in education
Introduction
“AI is a machine that thinks, understands languages, solves problems, diagnoses medical conditions, keeps cars on the highways, plays chess, and paints impressionistic imitations of van Gogh's paintings” (Fathoni, 2023, p.1).
For a decade, I have been immersed in the practice of design thinking. My workshops have engaged a broad spectrum of participants, from law and public administration faculty to students and teachers in public health and computer science, local government officials and judges, as well as numerous teacher candidates from different subject areas and countries. We confronted what are known as wicked problems: issues that are not merely complicated, but inherently complex. Over time, I've expanded my pedagogical toolkit to include playful and inventive methods like Lego Serious Play and the collaborative ethos of Makerspaces.
Over the years, I have conceptualized and facilitated hundreds of hours of creative activities. Imagine my surprise, when I asked ChatGPT to create a learning activity with LEGOs, and it turned out to be perfectly capable of outlining a convincing, executable plan within seconds. Generative AI emerging as a potential tool in the creative process prompts me to consider the balance of what might be gained against what could be lost. This chapter is a contemplation of that balance, looking at how AI can be integrated into creative pedagogies and what it means for the future of creativity in education.
Many experts consider the widespread proliferation of generative AI as impactful as the Internet itself. This is a change that I witnessed firsthand: When I started university in 1997 in Germany, the Internet was still a novelty. Internet access was becoming increasingly common, but the infrastructure was still under development. In my university, students waited patiently in line to use a computer in ‘the Internet Room’ for a few hours at a time. Services like email and basic web browsing were the primary uses. The modems for home Internet connections used existing telephone lines, enabling dial-up access at speeds that seem glacial by today's standards—initially 28.8 Kbps, later doubling to 56.6 Kbps.
It would have been unthinkable back then that I one day would work at a US university where my work would predominantly happen online and center on digital pedagogies. Even more futuristic would have been the idea of coming together for a weekly class with students on a campus in Bangladesh with guest speakers from South Africa, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the United States joining our virtual meeting space. And yet, here we are, writing an e-book book together, and experimenting with the next stage of technological innovation.
This chapter examines the role that generative AI could play in design thinking and the creative scenarios it might enable, considering both the enhancements it promises and the essence of creativity that we must strive to preserve. It does not merely offer lofty predictions but includes practical steps, tips, and tools that practitioners can try out.
What is Creativity?
Creativity is a multifaceted term. The first dichotomy of creativity is that it references both something we are and something we do. It is both a trait, as in 'someone is a creative person,' and an activity, as in 'let’s do something fun and creative.' It is generally accepted that people have different levels of aptitude for creativity. At the same time, creativity is seen as a basic human characteristic; it is part of who we are. In the latter sense, everyone is creative. In the former sense, we tend to single out high levels of spontaneity, ingenuity, or artistic expression.
According to Hayes (1989) creative is a word with many uses. Sometimes it is used to describe the potential of persons to produce creative works whether or not they have produced any work as yet. Sometimes it is used to describe everyday behaviors as, for example, when a nursery school curriculum is said to encourage creative activities, such as drawing or storytelling.
Götz (1981) called creativity a "happiness" term among educators, invariably held to be pleasant, exciting, and desirable: “It is readily identified with brilliant performances in the arts and the sciences, but it is also associated, especially in the primary grades, with almost any fresh perception, uncommon idea, or novel achievement”.
Kleiman (2008) characterized creativity as an elusive and complex notion that may evade definition, categorization, and compartmentalization. Puryear & Lamb (2020) observed that defining creativity remains an Achilles heel of creativity research. Similarly, Robinson (2008) pointed out that one factor that limits the capability to respond to educational needs is the lack of agreement about what the term creativity means.
Glăveanu (2018) described the artist, the inventor, and the craftsmen as paradigmatic positions for creativity. The three prototypical ways of defining creativity are: associating creativity with the arts and emphasizing self-expression, originality, and divergent thinking; connecting creativity with science and discovery and bringing to the fore its functional, problem-solving aspects; and advancing new metaphors for creativity, such as that of the craftsmen, ready to mix and match, to experiment and reflect on the role of tradition and habit in creativity.
It is important to distinguish between creativity in the sublime and in the everyday sense (Cropley, 2020). While creativity used to be reserved for acts of highest artistic expression, it moved towards more practical endeavors. “The modern definition of creativity has broadened from a focus on esthetics towards practical products in science, technology, or business, and away from creation of beauty towards overcoming competition.” This broader perspective acknowledges that creativity is not just about creating art or beauty, but also about problem-solving, innovation, and the development of new ideas or methods in various domains.
Creativity as Human Nature
The fact that humans display an inordinate capacity for creativity compared to other animals likely reflects the unique neurological organization of the human brain and selective evolutionary pressures (Zaidel, 2014). Caselli (2009) clarified that the neurobiological principles of creative behavior are the same from the least to the most creative among us. The author defined creativity as “the attempt to bridge the gap between what is and what should be”. It emerges from the interplay of five factors: motivation, perception, action, temperament, and social interaction. Creativity is typically driven by the perceived value or potential of an imagined idea compared to what currently exists. It requires not just the generation of ideas but also the ability to execute these ideas effectively. Furthermore, certain personality traits, such as patience and resilience, are crucial in continuing creative endeavors. The success of creative efforts is often evaluated based on societal standards and aesthetics.
“The reward value of what exists compared with an imagined possibility generates the motivational voltage that drives the creative effort. Action to attain the goal requires a dexterously executed plan, and dexterity levels are influenced by both practice effects and biologic biases. Temperament sustains the creative effort during periods of nonreward in anticipation of goal completion. Societal esthetics measure the success of creative efforts (Caselli, 2009).
Creativity should be understood not just as a singular ability or trait, but rather as a complex interplay of various elements. i.e., “as an aspect of thinking, as a personality constellation, and as an interaction in a specific environment between thinking, personal properties, motivation, and feelings” (Cropley, 2020). While some aspects of creativity may be inherent, others can be developed and honed over time. “Personal skill sets derived from nature and nurture vary between individuals and determine one's own creative phenotype”. (Caselli, 2009).
Creativity as a Socially Desirable Outcome
According to Cropley (2020), the necessary components of creativity are novelty, relevance, effectiveness, morality, and ethicality. Creativity as a social phenomenon is defined according to social norms and is facilitated or inhibited by social factors (Cropley, 2020). Similarly, Zaidel (2014) characterized creativity as the introduction of something new and positive for society that goes beyond the familiar and accepted: “Creativity is commonly thought of as a positive advance for society that transcends the status quo knowledge”. Sternberg & Lubart (1999) described creativity as the ability to produce work that is both novel and appropriate. According to Misra, Srivastava & Misra (2006) creativity challenges tradition, questions the status quo, and brings in change and innovation. Baccarani (2005) defined creativity as "an art, the art of finding new solutions to old and emerging problems." It may be a structured or a non-structured process; in either case intuition plays a major role. Divergent thinking is not considered enough to account for creative achievement. The new perspectives have to be interesting and worthwhile. Passing fancies, solutions judged by experts to be unrealistic, or antisocial and criminal pursuits are typically not considered creative (Smith, 2005). Discernment is thus a crucial part of creativity.
A Special Kind of Problem Solving Behavior
In my work as a design thinking facilitator, I see creativity as a skill that can be developed, stimulated, and practiced, similar to artistic expression, scientific reasoning, critical thinking or logical reasoning. Creativity generates original, appropriate, and useful products or responses, valuable to the task at hand. In this sense, it is “a special kind of problem solving behavior” (Simon, 1976). Baccarani (2005) provides a definition of creativity as "an art, the art of finding new solutions to old and emerging problems." It may be a structured or a non-structured process; in either case intuition plays a major role. Creativity is the ability to transcend, connect, and merge established concepts, rules, patterns, and relationships to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, and interpretations. It is the process of bringing something new into existence, an essential component in problem-solving. Simonton (2018) stated that creativity might just be defined as the addition (or sum) of originality, utility, and surprise.
Measuring Creativity
The measurement of creativity has been the subject of long debate and little consensus among the cohort of researchers from a variety of disciplines interested in the field (Fillis & Rentschler, 2006). However, as Cropley (2000) pointed out, raters can score the various kinds of test with substantial levels of agreement, while scores are internally stable to an acceptable degree. Cropley (2000) argues that creativity tests are useful in both research and education. Nevertheless, they are best thought of as measures of creative potential because creative achievement depends on additional factors such as technical skill and knowledge of a field.
Creativity tests measure specific cognitive processes such as thinking divergently, making associations, constructing and combining broad categories, or working on many ideas simultaneously. They also measure noncognitive aspects of creativity such as motivation (e.g., impulse expression, desire for novelty, risk‐taking), and facilitatory personal properties like flexibility, tolerance for independence, or positive attitudes to differentness (Cropley, 2000).
Divergent thinking tasks are among the most widely used tools to measure creativity. Divergent thinking research commonly administers many kinds of tasks and then combines the scores, such as by averaging or summing (Silva, 2011).
Alternative Uses Test (AUT)
The Alternative Uses Test (AUT) is a well-known method for assessing creativity, particularly divergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). It was developed by J.P. Guilford in the 1960s as part of his work on the structure of intellect.
Here's how the AUT works:
- Task Description: Participants are given a common object, such as a paperclip, brick, or pencil, and are asked to come up with as many uses for that object as possible within a given time frame (usually a few minutes).
- Scoring Criteria: The responses are evaluated based on several dimensions of creativity:
- Fluency: The number of different ideas generated.
- Originality: The uniqueness of the ideas, gauged by how rare or unusual they are compared to those of others.
- Flexibility: The variety of categories or conceptual themes that the ideas span. For example, using a paperclip as a tool, as an art material, or as part of a game would each represent different categories.
- Elaboration: The level of detail in the idea. For instance, simply stating "use a paperclip to reset a device" versus describing the process in detail.
Consequences Task
The "Consequences Task" is another tool used in creativity research, particularly to assess a person’s ability in envisioning complex, cascading outcomes from a single event. .
Here’s how the Consequences Task works:
- Task Overview: In the Consequences Task, participants are presented with a hypothetical scenario, often involving a novel or unusual event, and are asked to list as many possible consequences of that event as they can think of. The event should be open-ended enough to allow for a wide range of responses.
- Example Scenario: A typical prompt might be something like, "Imagine all cars suddenly disappeared. What would be the consequences?" Participants would then list as many outcomes as they can think of resulting from this scenario.
- Scoring Criteria: Responses in the Consequences Task are evaluated based on:
- Fluency: The number of different consequences generated.
- Originality: The uniqueness or rarity of the proposed consequences.
- Flexibility: The variety of areas or domains that the consequences cover (e.g., social, economic, environmental).
AI-Generated Output vs. Human Creativity
Perhaps unsurprisingly, generative AI tools score highly on creativity measures. Here are some recent examples of studies:
A study conducted by Koivisto & Grassini (2023) which involved 256 human participants and three AI chatbots (ChatGPT3, ChatGPT4, and Copy.Ai) compared the creativity of AI vs. humans using the Alternate Uses Task (AUT). The study found that, on average, AI chatbots, particularly ChatGPT4, outperformed humans in generating original and logical uses for everyday objects. However, the top-performing humans still surpassed the best chatbot results.
In an experiment at Wharton Business School (Girotra, Meincke, Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2023), MBA students from a 2021 class were tasked with generating 200 product ideas that would cost less than $50 and appeal to college students. This task was later replicated with ChatGPT, which was required to generate 100 ideas initially without additional context or examples, followed by another 100 ideas after being provided with examples of good product ideas. Notably, the ideas from the 2021 class predated the launch of ChatGPT, ensuring that the AI tool did not influence the students' ideas. To assess the quality of the AI-generated ideas in comparison to humans, a survey was conducted among college students to identify which product ideas they were most likely to buy. The survey revealed that 47% of ChatGPT-generated ideas were likely to be purchased, compared with 40% of the ideas produced by Wharton MBA students. The "seeded" ideas from ChatGPT, which were based on good product examples, had an even higher purchase probability of 49%.
In an experiment by Haase & Hanel (2023), 100 participants completed the Alternative Use Test (AUT) for five prompts (ball, fork, pants, tire, and toothbrush). To get responses from the six chatbots (Alpa.ai, Copy.ai, ChatGPT 3, ChatGPT 4, Studio, and YouChat), the researchers used the same prompt: "What can you do with [prompt]?". The results show that when chatbots are asked the same question as humans, they generate more ideas, which are, on average, as original as ideas generated by humans.
AI-tools are able to deliver 'originality, utility, and surprise' (cf. Simonton, 2018). Should we therefore give up on creativity in education and leave it to AI?
It is useful to remember that divergent thinking is only one aspect of creativity and to recall the complexity of our concept of creativity as a human characteristic. We marvel at creative expression because we are able to evaluate and recognize truly remarkable breakthroughs and the highest forms of artistic expression. Creative expression, spontaneous ingenuity in challenging situations, or genius advances in science and engineering are not the same as an impressively long list of things to do with ping-pong balls. That is not to say that AI cannot produce remarkable output, it is that cannot appreciate it.
The component of discernment is where AI falls short, because it is complex, not just complicated, and deeply intertwined with personal, societal, and cultural trajectories. The large language model has no feelings and no meaning attached to its output, no ability to be surprised, humored, amazed, or awed.
Example Prompt: Tell a Poem
Consider this example of prompting Google Bard to tell the poem "To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell.
https://g.co/bard/share/cd9f4b6a57ed
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side,
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain.
I would Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest.
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song.
Then worms shall try that long preserved
Redemption; this long-expected day;
And, spite of cormorant dew and frost,
Mature the blossom of the womb.
Then, my beloved, let us haste;
Let us not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, Lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk and pass our long love's day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side
Shouldst rubies find: I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, Lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time's wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song: then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust:
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
Starting with the passage ‘My echoing song: then worms shall try that long preserved virginity,’ the AI-version differs significantly from the original, so well-loved that is was included among the BBC list of 100 Britain’s favorite poems (Rhys-Jones, Griff, 1996).
What cogs in the machine are at work here? These reasons were given by the bot:
- ‘more in line with the safety guidelines’. The original is viewed as sexually suggestive.
- It ’works well with the overall theme of the poem’. The poem's message, according to Bard, is that we should not waste time on things that are fleeting.
- The original is ‘a more morbid and less uplifting way of looking at death’.
- To the bot, it comes down to ‘a matter of personal preference’.
Authenticity and the integrity of a work of art are not criteria that AI-tools can value, because they have no value outside the safety guidelines that are fed into the algorithm. It lacks tradition, culture, conviction, emotion and volition - the very things that spurn human creativity. While AI-tools can generate outputs of creative value, human beings can appreciate creativity.
Crowdsourcing
Share your own examples of prompts that resulted in AI-output that was bewildering, incorrect, biased, or otherwise flawed.
Creativity in Education
This section discusses three widely-used pedagogies, facilitation techniques and education movements that have an emphasis on creativity: Making, Serious Play, and Design Thinking. It presents the potential for incorporating AI in each pedagogy, and how AI-infused approaches align or clash with the desired pedagogical outcomes.
Making, LEGO serious play (LSP) and design thinking are distinct, yet connected creative approaches that center the virtue of tinkering, failing, iterating and developing new skills by venturing into unfamiliar terrain. There are many connections between serious play, making, and design thinking. For example, in many cases design thinking activities involve the use of LEGO bricks, and makerspaces oftentimes incorporate design thinking techniques to create low-fidelity prototypes. The shared potential for higher education is reframing campus as a space for students to be understood and grow intellectually instead of being perceived as ‘a factory of grades to give legitimacy for governments funding’ (Alayan, 2020).
Table 1 summarizes the three concepts, providing an overview of similarities and differences.
Concept | Definition | Origin | Uptake in Education | Characteristics |
Making | The act of creating, building, or tinkering with confidence. | DIY movement and Maker Faire phenomenon. | Adopted in schools, libraries, universities and community centers to promote hands-on, creative learning and metacognition (grit, persistence) | Inclusivity, creativity, hands-on learning, rapid prototyping, iteration. |
Design Thinking | A problem-solving approach involving empathy, creativity and rapid prototyping. | 1960s in design and engineering fields. | Integrated into curriculum and extracurricular activities to foster problem-solving and innovation. | Empathy, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, iteration, human-centered approach. |
LEGO Serious Play | A facilitation methodology using LEGO bricks for problem-solving. | Developed by LEGO in the 1990s. | Used as a tool to enhance creative thinking, problem-solving, well-being and teamwork among students. | Creativity, collaboration, engagement, hands-on learning, play for learning and innovation. |
Making
Makerspaces are collective places that facilitate design and prototyping for individuals and groups by offering access to technical equipment and material together with expertise, guidance and training. The shared workspace allows engineers, designers, scientists, students, and hobbyists to create, fabricate, tinker, and bring their ideas to life. Making encompasses traditional skills like crafting and knitting as well as modern skills like coding, programming, and robotics. Alongside the rise in popular interest of the maker movement, makerspaces are visibly on the rise in schools and universities, and are now a commonly found part of campus infrastructure.
As AI becomes increasingly prevalent across educational campuses, offering virtual and automated solutions, makerspaces stand as a vital counterbalance, emphasizing hands-on, tactile learning experiences. They serve as a reminder of the importance of physical creation and the value of manual skills, offering a tangible contrast to AI. The whole point of making is the process, whereas the appeal of AI lies in the output. In this way, makerspaces gain more relevance as spaces where learners can engage with shaping objects in the real world, fostering a deeper appreciation for tactile experiences and individual skills.
AI can support maker pedagogy by suggesting maker projects tailored to various age groups, estimating the time and materials required for each project, and offering creative alternatives when certain materials are unavailable. Additionally, AI can efficiently produce tutorials for complex tools, ensuring that learners of all skill levels can benefit from the makerspace environment.
LEGO Serious Play
Lego Serious Play (LSP) is an open source moderation method that uses Lego bricks to facilitate strategic planning, team building, problem solving, and creative expression. Participants work both as individuals and as a group to build simple models representing various concepts in response to a question posed by the facilitator. Robert Rasmussen describes serious play as ‘an intentional gathering of participants who want to use their imagination, agree that they are not directly producing a product or service, and agree to follow a special set of rules’ (Rasmussen Consulting, 2012).
Engaging with Lego Serious Play (LSP) is markedly different from interacting with AI, as LSP focuses on tactile, hands-on experiences and emphasizes the use of physical objects (Lego bricks) to spur imagination and collaboration. This method relies on the physical manipulation of bricks and direct, real-time human interaction. LSP's emphasis on physical creation and group collaboration contrasts with the often solitary and virtual nature of AI engagement.
However, AI tools can help facilitate LSP in several ways:
- AI can transcribe and analyze discussions and narratives shared during the workshop based on video recordings. This can help in capturing the context and stories associated with the Lego models, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the participants' thought processes and insights.
- AI can analyze photos taken during the workshop to catalog and interpret the Lego constructions. This includes recognizing shapes, colors, and possibly inferring themes or patterns from the models built by participants.
- AI can assist in organizing and summarizing the data collected during the workshop. This includes categorizing images, transcriptions, and participant feedback.
Interview with LSP Expert Anat Shabi
'You end up feeling a bit more positive about whatever's going on'
Stefanie Panke: For those who aren't familiar, can you briefly explain the main rules of Lego Serious Play?
Anat Shabi: It is a very playful method. You're bringing the joy, you're bringing the engagement. People are feeling more relaxed because you're playing, and the defensive part of the brain is dialed down. There are four key steps, and the first one is the build question. Lego Serious Play, is indeed serious play. So there's always, always, always a purpose. Otherwise, you're just building with Lego, which is fun. But you're not getting to the crux of what you're looking for. The skill for somebody who is facilitating and training with Lego is to design the right question. It needs to be simple enough so that the person on the other end can engage with the challenge.
The second is then the fun part, the creation part, the building part, because that's when you're really trying to move the person along from where they've started to an endpoint. Sometimes we are just stuck, but because you are building, you're creating, and because our brain is just so wonderful that it will always try and make sense of any patterns that you put in front of it, the thinking then starts to follow along. It's called Thinkering, actually, tinkering and thinking.
The next stage is sharing because, let's face it, up until now, whatever you've been thinking is totally in your head. We want to get it out. We want you to articulate it so that you can hear what it sounds like. That's when you get the connection. And that's when you get the other person asking you questions about what you created, which then stimulates even more thinking and even more insights, which is amazing.
And then the final piece is really just to take a few minutes to think about what on earth has just happened, because you will have moved, you will have changed or formed or imagined something new.
So that in a nutshell is what this process is about. It's really a wonderful way to creatively think, get unstuck, connect with other people. And just also change your mindset. So you end up feeling a bit more positive about whatever's going on.
'Playfulness is what gives everyone that psychological safety'
Stefanie Panke: What do you think Lego Serious Play methodologies have to offer for classroom settings? Can they enhance learning processes? Can they spark creativity in a typical K-12 or higher education setup?
Anat Shabi: Yeah, oh my goodness, I would love to see it in the classroom, and in fact, we have piloted a few things. But I think the main thing to say about Lego Serious Play is that it's not for every question. When the answer is yes or no, or when you don't need a collaborative approach, or you don't need to reflect on anything or examine anything, you don't need to spend time because it is a time investment to engage with this process.
It's very much a tool that builds on the theory of constructivism. So it's not so much about giving you new information. It's about building on what you already know, or maybe what you've already learned in the classroom. It's a great tool for gauging collaborative thinking in a group environment, particularly in situations where maybe you've got a classroom where some people are shy, some people are more reflective. This is a lovely way of having everybody involved because the other rule about Lego Serious Play, and you've seen this in your classroom, is that everybody gets to build, and then everybody gets to share. So everybody feels like they've had a voice, and everybody feels like they've been heard, and more so they've been understood.
'The human touch has to remain, otherwise, what's the point?'
Stefanie Panke: What are some emerging trends or future directions that you foresee at the interaction of creativity, education, and technology, especially considering generative AI?
Anat Shabi: I think humans are amazing to have come up with this tool. The way we use it has to be creative. It's a wonderful tool, a brilliant tool for imagining and diversifying different ways of looking at things. For example, one of the things I said about the Lego play method is that it does have to be simple, but it's not always simple when you've got a big question to ask. It's not always simple to cut it up into little steps so that people go on a journey. I think you can definitely use AI for that. You can use it to introduce more creativity. It's a great tool for helping us share information.
At the end of the day, though, you don't want to lose the element of connection. So how do we still connect with people? And how do we harness that amazing talent we have for interpreting things? So yes, we've got AI. But what is our twist on it? How are we going to interpret what we've come up with? How are we going to ensure that we are still being creative when looking at tools that are tactile?
Especially as we're moving online, how do we bring that element of touch to the forefront? Because we don't want to be looking at screens all the time. I think there are a lot of questions there, and I'm sure that many people in education are listening. Perhaps they're even designing or adapting some of their classes based on what the AI is coming up with. But at the end of the day, you're the one feeding the AI. You're the one posing the questions and analyzing and deciding what to do with the output. The human touch has to remain, otherwise, what's the point?
Stefanie Panke: On a practical note, could Lego series play, like building and presenting Lego models, be a more cheat-proof assessment option for educators?
Anat Shabi: Well, if students are asked to create something, it brings a joyful element. Engaging them in the process of thinking with a creative tool like Lego series play could be effective. If they prepare a model or drawing and narrate their story, it could be a great exercise. This approach might be cheat-proof since it requires personal input and storytelling. I think the engagement is really high, not just for the person building, but also for the other person. Because, imagine you're presented with a visual, and you have no idea what it means. You're relying on the other person to narrate it for you, and I think that then builds curiosity for you. So you've got a closer bond, if you like, being built between the students, but also between the students and the lecturer, which is always great.
'Serious play helps you to be totally present in the moment'
Stefanie Panke: You use Lego series play to explore mental health and emotional well-being. I noticed on LinkedIn that you engaged in a lot of volunteer work in this space. Can you tell me a little bit more about what you did and what you learned in the process?
Anat Shabi: Sure, I didn't realize my LinkedIn activities were so closely followed! During the pandemic, I ran sessions that people said made them feel better. In 2023, I was happy to bring workshops focusing on mental health. The joy and presence in the moment these activities bring are beneficial. It's not about severe mental health issues but helping people cope with stress and pressure through a self-help method. Serious play helps you to be totally present in the moment, and that means that any distractions or any thoughts that are going on for you completely dial down.
Interview with LSP Expert Alison James
Stefanie Panke: Can you describe the two specific resources on LEGO and LSP in higher education – the two case study collections you worked on with Chrissi Nerantzi.
Alison James: Yes. Absolutely. [...] So the two collections that you’re referring to are things that I’ve co-produced with Professor Chrissi Nerantzi at Leeds University. Chrissi is an absolute champion of open-source academic resources. She’s also an experienced LEGO® Serious Play facilitator, a digital educator, and she and I met quite a few years ago when we were two LEGO® Serious Play facilitators at the same conference. It was really unusual that two of us were there, and I instantly emailed her on arriving and said ‘we haven’t met, we need to meet’. And we’ve worked together ever since. In the two collections, we were looking at how people are using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® and other LEGO-based approaches.
LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® is a very specific methodology where you have to abide by certain principles, follow certain paths, although it then does allow you lots of flexibility. It’s not something you can rush. It’s a deep thinking tool. Having said that, there are loads of wonderful things you can do as an educator with LEGO® bricks in 2 minutes, 5 minutes with a handful of bricks or thousands of bricks, whatever, that have nothing to do with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. So what we wanted to do with our two collections was recognize and document that span of practice.
The first one, LEGO® for University Learning , came out in 2019, and what we wanted to do was to introduce people who weren’t familiar with it to the principles of the method, the history of the method and point to a lot of resources around its use in higher education. We wanted to give some illustrations because sometimes people just need a bit of a leg up, a few ideas, a few simple activities to get them going to think about how they could use this where they are. And so that’s what we provided in that book. There’s an introduction to the method, a section with lots of prompts. We ended up with about 16 case studies, using LEGO® in all kinds of ways.
It was so popular, we thought we should do another volume. A couple of years went by, and Chrissi said to me, why don’t we do another one this time about remote learning, what do we do when we can’t be in a room together. And so we did. When we put out a call, we were expecting people to be very narrow and just say, this is how I’m using it in the pandemic. In fact, we ended up getting a real span of case studies. Some of them were really rooted in the pandemic, in remote learning, and some of them sort of mixed it all up, and some of them actually had nothing to do with it at all:
LEGO® for university learning: Online, offline and elsewhere
Stefanie Panke: Can you explain what makes building with bricks particularly powerful?
Alison James:There are so many things I want to say in response to that question. I think, if we approach it conversely, some people might say, “Oh, but you know, they’re really rigid. They don’t bend. What am I supposed to do with that?” And well, everything has its limitations. What is one of the beauties of LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®, I think, is that once you can click bricks together, you can do it. It’s not like having to mold putty or clay or draw a picture or sew something. There is a very low threshold to be able to participate.
In a face-to-face workshop, we always go around checking, making sure that people can put the bricks together, they’re not having any problems. We also remind people that the whole point of what they’re doing is not making something pretty or some kind of feat of engineering, it’s just being able to attach bricks to make meaning.
I think it’s very inclusive because everybody can do it. So I think that’s perhaps one of the basic things that makes LEGO® a really good medium for this sort of thing. And you know, I’ve worked with all sorts of stuff. I’ve worked with Play-Doh, pipe cleaners, pens, collage, and there’ll be lots of people who love all of that stuff and feel really comfortable, and equally there’ll be some people who, even if they’ve come to it with a really open mind and open heart, it’s after they’ve glued a couple of bits of paper on their collage they just think, “Oh my god, a toddler could have done better than that.” You don’t get that with LEGO® Serious Play.
I don’t think there’s any wrong material, unless of course it’s toxic or harmful, but it’s just when it comes to LEGO®, it’s recognizable, it’s very sturdy, everybody for the most part can fasten it together.
If you do occasionally have people who struggle with the bricks, then there’s no reason why somebody can’t help them with that fastening.
The other thing you do find with LEGO®, which can be either a plus or a minus, is that a lot of people have a real love affair with LEGO®, especially if they came to it as a child. But that is an additional thing, you can’t rely on that for people who’ve never seen or used LEGO®.
There might be practical considerations why LEGO® is a good material to use, but sometimes there’s the additional affective dimension that comes into play.
Stefanie Panke: One thing that I found in playful, creative, design thinking type settings is that oftentimes people come in and say, “I can’t do this, I’m not a creative person.” And in some of the best workshops, they leave saying, “Oh, that is not true. I am highly creative, and I just always censored my own ideas too early.” Is that an experience you have had?
Alison James: Yes, absolutely. People often start very self-deprecating, saying, “I’m not very creative,” or “My model isn’t as good as the person next to them,” or they’ll say things like, “We work a lot with metaphor, and my model isn’t very metaphorical,” then they’ll explain their model, and it’s clear it’s filled with metaphor, absolutely brilliant. It’s about reminding them that the point isn’t to make something aesthetically pleasing but to create a medium to express themselves.
One thing we work a lot on when training facilitators is how to manage someone feeling, “Oh, my model’s not as good as John’s,” or “I’m not as creative as Brenda.” It’s about fostering a supportive environment. The nice thing is, as people start to build, they spark ideas off each other.
You do move people on from being wary, resistant, a bit suspicious, to actually being surprised by how good it was. And you move people from thinking, “I’m pointless. I’m just not creative. I’m not very good at this,” to “I can do it,” just like you say. And I think those are two really important aspects of any learning experience, whatever you’re using.
Stefanie Panke: You have looked at LEGO and play during the COVID pandemic, which was a big disruptor to education globally. We are currently experiencing another big disruptor. With the current generative AI capabilities, a lot of university professors and school teachers are taking a deep breath, looking at their assessments and assignments, and may have a moment of panic. I would love to hear your thoughts on what role creativity can play in alleviating some of the issues that we will see in rethinking and recalibrating assessments and assignments in higher education, as well as how generative AI might negatively or positively impact people’s creative abilities and skills.
Alison James: Those are massive questions, and I will do my best to respond to them. I’ve been intrigued by watching the incredible rapid emergence of generative AI and the kinds of questions that it’s raising. I’ve started attending some events and talks where people are presenting the work they’re doing with generative AI in different academic disciplines. I largely made myself do it because my knee-jerk reaction was a negative one, based on not knowing enough.
Everybody’s having to create policies around the use of generative AI. There was a lot of terrified scaremongering around, and then suddenly there seems to be a tide turn. AI has been around for years anyway; this is just the latest development. We have got to embrace it. It’s like not letting your students bring their mobile phones into the lecture theater; all students brought their mobile phones into the lecture theater. We all had to adapt to that.
It made me think of my academic career, having to sit on academic misconduct panels, creating policies around assessment, spotting plagiarism. If a danger of generative AI is that somebody can’t be bothered to write their own essay, that is a 21st-century extension of the essay mill. People who don’t want to do the work have always been around. One, as far as I understand, generative AI tools are not critically reflective. They draw together information from multiple sources, but they do not have the level of human discernment. This is a big support for teachers to work with them positively to make students critically reflective about generative AI.
Reassessing assessment is not new; we’ve been reassessing assessment for the last 20-30 years. This is just really heightening and bringing into focus that things really do have to change. There are increasingly projects and studies being conducted that showcase what people are doing with generative AI. We can’t fight the river; the river is going to take you. So how can you flow with the river so that you stay alive and so does the integrity of your academic experience?
I was playing around with an AI drawing tool the other day. Maybe I just picked up the wrong one, but what it came out with was a lot of ordinary poster art. Every time there is a disruptor, we appraise what it means for what we’re doing right now. We did it with the internet. Books are dead, paper. But it hasn’t gone away, and surprise, we’re still using pencil and paper and we’re still reading books but we have adapted our repertoire of engagement with our world to use all these different resources.
There is another aspect I’d like to throw into the mix concerning generative AI: I don’t know about you, but I have spent a significant portion of my working life in front of a screen. While I’ve obviously engaged in various activities, a lot of my time has been consumed by emails, document production, online meetings, the pandemic, writing articles, examining PhDs, and writing books. Essentially, so much of my life is screen-based, and I do not wish to spend my entire life on a screen. I’m looking for tools that can diversify this engagement without a massive print bill. Considering this, will generative AI make this aspect of my life easier or harder? I genuinely have no idea. But it’s certainly something to consider, isn’t it?
Design Thinking
Design thinking is a practice and mindset that can be helpful to educators when addressing wicked problems. The term wicked problems was coined in the 1970s by planners who realized that the problems they were addressing were beyond complex: They combined a high level of uncertainty and risk with intense disagreement and conflicting objectives among stakeholders and, as a result, had no ideal intervention that would address the issue (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Design thinking offers an approach to these problems that integrates information across systems and across perspectives. While the concept of design thinking within the academic dialogue of design has been under discussion for more than 30 years, its recent adoption as an innovation method has lead to its popularity in various disciplines (Wigley and Straker, 2017).
AI can support design thinking facilitators in creating workshop activities by offering personalized activity recommendations based on specific goals, participant profiles, and past workshop outcomes. It can use data-driven insights to suggest the most effective methods and tools for ideation, prototyping, and feedback sessions. Furthermore, AI can be extremely useful in generating and customizing handouts, prompts, and other materials for design thinking workshops.
Practical Prompts for Facilitators and Educators
This section offers practical advice for teaching and facilitation. It includes prompts for creating diverse personas, ideas for innovative teaching methods, suggestions for using visual metaphors in instruction, and ways to integrate AI for idea generation.
Personas
Personas are fictional characters created to represent different user types within a targeted demographic, attitude, or behavior set. They are used in design teams to communicate user needs.
Text generative AI tools can produce persona biographies within seconds, based on demographic or professional information, or even at random.
Using AI image generators allows design teams to create profile pictures of their personas to create realistic, immersive scenarios. An easy-to-use tool is the website https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/.
Visual Metaphors
Generative AI image tools allow facilitators to create strong visual metaphors to explain an idea. Likewise, participants can use AI to communicate their ideas with unusual and surprising visualizations.
Explain it with.... LEGOs, Post-Its, Joghurt cups, marbles...
Using AI to generate lesson plans with hands-on activities is a great way to facilitate creativity in teaching and learning settings. AI will suggest the materials based on the lesson's objectives and tailor the complexity and nature of the activities to the age and skill level of the students. This approach encourages creativity, problem-solving, and hands-on learning, making abstract concepts more tangible and understandable.
Ideation Station
AI can serve as an ideation partner, as in the following example:
Pretend we are doing a crazy eight activity. Generate 8 ideas for teaching writing skills with AI tools.
ChatGPT
Sure, let's brainstorm eight innovative ideas for teaching writing skills using AI tools:
- Interactive Story Building: Utilize AI to create an interactive story-building platform where students can start a story, and the AI suggests multiple plot directions. Students can then select an option and continue writing, learning about narrative structure and creative thinking.
Virtual Writing Assistant: Develop a virtual writing assistant powered by AI. This tool can offer real-time feedback on grammar, style, and coherence, helping students improve their writing skills dynamically as they write. - Customized Writing Challenges: Use AI to design personalized writing challenges based on each student's skill level and interests. For instance, the AI can analyze previous writings of a student and suggest topics or styles they haven't explored yet.
- AI-Powered Writing Workshops: Host virtual writing workshops where an AI moderator provides prompts, guides discussions, and gives feedback. This can encourage peer learning and expose students to diverse writing styles and perspectives.
- Genre Exploration Tool: Create a tool that helps students explore different writing genres. For example, the AI can provide templates or examples of various genres (like mystery, sci-fi, poetry) and guide students in writing their own pieces in these styles.
- Historical Writing Simulator: Design an AI tool that simulates writing in different historical periods or cultures. Students could learn how language and writing styles have evolved over time and how cultural contexts influence writing.
- Language Skill Enhancement Games: Implement AI-driven language games focused on enhancing vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. These engaging, interactive games can help improve students' writing skills in a fun and interactive way.
- Collaborative Writing Platform: Develop a platform where students can collaboratively write stories or essays with AI. The AI could suggest plot developments, character arcs, or even different perspectives on a topic, encouraging teamwork and creative thinking.
Conclusions
This chapter makes the case for human creativity, and, at the same time, recognizes the ability of AI to lead to higher levels of creativity among educators and learners. Whether you are keen on using AI-tools or wary of the consequences, it allows you to question your assumptions, and invites you to engage in playful exploration as well as critical evaluation - two steps that are crucial in any design thinking endeavor. As Anat Shabi puts it: "At the end of the day, you're the one feeding the AI. You're the one posing the questions and analyzing and deciding what to do with the output. The human touch has to remain, otherwise, what's the point?"
Crowdsourcing
Reflecting on your own use of AI-tools, what do you think: Do you maintain a human touch by analyzing and deciding what to do with the output, or is AI sometimes taking over your creativity and feeding you?
References
Baccarani, C. (2005). What do you Think Creativity is and Where can We Find it?. International Journal of Quality Innovation, 6(2), 90-104.
Caselli, R. J. (2009). Creativity: An organizational schema. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 22(3), 143-154.
Cropley (2020). Definitions of Creativity. Encyclopedia of Creativity.
Cropley, A. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72 - 79.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, New York, 39, 1-16.
Fathoni, A. F. C. A. (2023). Leveraging Generative AI Solutions in Art and Design Education: Bridging Sustainable Creativity and Fostering Academic Integrity for Innovative Society. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 426, 01102). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601102
Fillis, I., Rentschler, R. (2006). Creativity, Measurement and Myth. In: Creative Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502338_5
Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 8-26.
Girotra, K., Meincke, L., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2023). Ideas are dimes a dozen: Large language models for idea generation in innovation. Available at SSRN 4526071.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Educating which creativity?. Thinking skills and creativity, 27, 25-32.
Götz, I. L. (1981). On defining creativity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39(3), 297-301.
Haase, J., & Hanel, P. H. P. (2023). Artificial muses: Generative artificial intelligence chatbots have risen to human-level creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100066
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 135-145). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in education and teaching international, 45(3), 209-217.
Koivisto, M., Grassini, S. Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task. Sci Rep 13, 13601 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3
Lebuda, I., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2017). Me, myself, I, and creativity: Self-concepts of eminent creators. In The Creative Self (pp. 137-152). Academic Press.
Misra, G., Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, I. (2006). Culture and facets of creativity. The international handbook of creativity, 421-455.
Puryear, J. S., & Lamb, K. N. (2020). Defining creativity: How far have we come since Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow?. Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 206-214.
Rhys-Jones, Griff, ed. (1996), The Nation's Favourite Poems, BBC Books.
Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don't we also need to define what is not creative?. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80-90.
Smith, G. J. (2005). How should creativity be defined?. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2-3), 293-295.
Sternberg, R. J. (2017). Whence creativity?. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 289-292.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity, 1(3-15).
Zaidel, D. W. (2014). Creativity, brain, and art: biological and neurological considerations. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 389.
Asian University for Women (AUW) / Web Science Program
This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.
Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/ai_in_education/ai_for_creativity_how_aitools_can_foster_imagination_serious_play_and_design_thinking__.