The word ‘creative’ is now a currency so overused that it is in danger of devaluation. So when the word ‘creative’ is combined with the word ‘materials’ it is surely worth asking a few questions. In what respects can materials be considered creative? Is there a fundamental contradiction embodied in this phrase? Could it be that materials cannot in themselves be creative at all? It is in this spirit that I will try to deconstruct the notion of materials and creativity, and to clarify just what we might mean by ‘creative materials’.

So What Might We Mean by ‘Creative Materials’?

So why should we be sceptical about claims that materials are in some sense creative?

By definition, materials are put together by one group of people (authors, publishers, ministries, teachers) for use by another group of people (learners, teachers, etc.). This presupposes that those who make the materials already know what will be suitable for those unknown people who will use them. In other words, they already know that input A will lead to outcome B. If this is the case, the result of using the materials is predetermined. So how can it be considered creative? (As we shall see below, a core feature of creativity is innovation and unexpectedness.)

A further presupposition is that the materials will work equally well with class X as with class Y, or with learner C as with learner D. If this is the case, then we are seeking conformity rather than the spontaneity and freshness of unpredictable response, which also characterise creativity.

There is a further key consideration. When we speak of ‘creative materials’, do we mean that the creativity is somehow inherent in the ingenious way the materials have been devised? That is, does the creativity lie in the input? Or do we mean that the materials somehow produce a creative reaction or response from learners? That is, the materials produce creative outcomes?