Creativity in the era of AI: a new frontier for education

Business Recorder

5 days ago

'Do Schools Kill Creativity? a famous TED Talk by Sir Ken Robinson, is one worth listening to again and again. In his talk, he compellingly argues how academic institutions may unintentionally suppress the creative instincts of young minds. As members of an academic institute, we often reflect on how prevailing practices in schools and colleges can negatively influence young minds.
The intense focus on achieving a high-grade point average (GPA) frequently discourages students from nurturing their creative thinking and abilities. Creative thinking is a precious gift of the human mind. Children are naturally imaginative, curious, and eager to explore. Yet, only a few manage to hold onto that curiosity as they grow, while most lose it under the influence of societal expectations and academic pressures.
Today, in a world shaped by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and countless tools designed to simplify our tasks, a burning question arises: how is this technology influencing our ability to think creatively?
As academia begins to embrace this new wave of technology, debates are surfacing about its influence on students' creative abilities. While tech companies promote AI tools as powerful enablers of creativity, skeptics raise strong concerns about their potential to dull the creative edge of young minds. Because these tools offer a quick way to learn concepts, complete assessments, and draft reports, students are not bothered about the possible long or short term impacts of AI on their creative thinking. To them, AI is a powerful, Swiss-knife-like instrument that handles much of their workload in an instant. These AI tools are appealing and versatile, often helping them finish homework so they can enjoy more leisure time with their mobile phones.
With the widespread availability of AI tools, we've found ourselves frequently discussing how these technologies might impact students' cognitive abilities. While we lack concrete evidence for now, we often reflect on the noticeable shifts in their habits and learning routines.
One day, we decided to involve young engineering students of our class in an experiment. It was not a classical experiment with lots of apparatus but a simple one using a photo of a single Lego block.
The moment we asked them to write as many uses of this single block as they could, the room suddenly filled with excitement. They never thought about it earlier. We gave them about three to four minutes to write down the uses. We also asked them to work individually without discussing among themselves.
The results were compelling. To analyze them, we turned to the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), focusing on two key dimensions: 'Fluency' and 'Originality.' Fluency refers to the number of distinct ideas generated, while originality reflects how novel or unique those ideas are. The average number of ideas for the use of a single block of Lego by the students came to be 4.4. Meanwhile, we calculated the average originality score of the ideas to be 3.1. A total of 39 students participated in the experiment.
We graded students to be high performers if they scored above average in either dimension. Among them, 3 females and 5 males (around 20%) demonstrated both high fluency and high originality. 1 female and 3 males (approximately 10%) showed high fluency but low originality. A group of 1 female and 4 males (about 13%) exhibited low fluency but high originality.
The remaining 5 females and 17 males (roughly 57%) scored low in both dimensions. We were expecting to have more students in the high performers group, but instead we got the opposite. These students were in the final year of their engineering studies. As we observed their responses, Sir Ken Robinson's words came rushing back. Has academia played a role in stifling the creative thinking of these bright young minds? The question hit us suddenly.
Following the initial activity, we asked students to explore the uses of a Lego block using any generative AI tool of their choice. They noted the AI-generated ideas on paper and were also instructed to provide the name of the tool used, along with the prompts they entered.
ChatGPT emerged as the most popular tool. We then assessed the AI-generated responses using the same TTCT criteria: fluency and originality. The average fluency score rose to 8.8, while the originality score was 3.4, only slightly above the students' average of 3.1. These findings align with research by the Harvard Business School team (Jacqueline N. Lane and colleagues), which highlights AI's strength in generating a high volume of ideas due to its foundation in large language models (LLMs) trained on vast datasets.
However, since originality is measured by the practicality and novelty of ideas, the narrow margin in scores suggests that human creativity is still very much competitive. While we acknowledge the potential for bias in our assessment of originality, the results overall showed AI slightly outperforming humans in generating varied uses for the Lego block.
Humans are naturally creative, while AI models are trained to mimic creativity. Companies are working tirelessly to refine these models as AI products flood the market. Machines are learning at a remarkable pace, but human creative thinking must be continually nurtured through intentional mental engagement to address real-world challenges.
With the widespread and frequent use of AI tools, there's a growing risk of overdependence. What if the belief that AI is superior and quicker in solving problems becomes deeply ingrained in younger generations? The outcome could be troubling: complete reliance on AI with little effort invested in cultivating their own creative abilities.
As academicians, we must ensure that students see AI as a collaborative partner, one that enhances, rather than replaces, their ability for divergent thinking. They should experience both types of learning environments: one where they work creatively without AI, and another where they leverage AI in problem-solving tasks.
Beyond making them AI literate, we have to guide them in avoiding total dependence on this technology. Striking this balance is no easy task; it demands deliberate and sustained effort. Reflecting on Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talk, we believe that academic discourse should move beyond asking whether AI kills creativity. Instead, it should focus on how academia can responsibly harness AI while nurturing human imagination. The larger, more pressing question is: Are we academicians ready to take on this responsibility?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025