Last year several websites posted articles about the
research of David B. Hay and co-researchers (Darren Williams, Daniel Stahl,
Richard Wingate) who published a paper investigating the drawing styles of undergraduates,
trainee scientists, and leading neuroscience researchers when making drawings
of neurons. The following image shows the three sets of drawings.
The upper
line was produced by undergraduate students and shows a close adherence to
textbook diagrams whilst the mid line was produced by PhD students and postdoctoral researchers more familiar
with neurons under the microscope. The lower line of drawings was produced by
expert neuroscientists and shows the greatest variety of approaches to the
task.
The
research of Hay et al claims that:
“The analysis strongly
suggests that a willingness/ability to hybridize extant brain cell knowledge
with imaginative conjecture grounded by experience of experimental plausibility
gives rise to drawings that are recognized as being ‘expert signatures’ by all
classes of participants.”
In other
words there was general agreement that the drawings of expert neuroscientists
were more “creative,” and on the back of this conclusion various visualization techniques
were employed to encourage undergraduate students to be more inventive with
their visualisations of neurons. Apparently at the end of this process the
drawings of the undergraduates were indistinguishable from the drawings of the
experts.
The ability
to visualize ideas on paper (and increasingly on screen) is a valuable means of
stimulating theories, testing hypotheses and communicating ideas. It is also an
important tool in science education - and education in general in fact -
because it allows concepts to be digested quickly and efficiently thus
optimizing learning and often making it more enjoyable in the process. I’m sure
I wasn’t the only child to have wished that physics, biology and chemistry
could have involved a lot more drawing and visualization. But what is often
missed in the drive towards optimal learning is the value of lateral approaches
to concept generation. Students are often treated as inert vessels that need to
be crammed full of facts and it is assumed that once these facts have been
assimilated that other more lateral skills will emerge of their own accord – or
more worryingly - that such skills are superfluous to the advancement of
science.
Clearly the
work of Hay et al intends to counter such narrow-mindedness and for this reason
it should be applauded. Nonetheless, I have several reservations about the way
that the study interprets the theory and practice and drawing and the
conclusions it makes about creativity in both educational and expert settings.
Different
kinds of drawing serve different kinds of purposes and it is vital to
understand that these differences have nothing to do with ‘expert signatures.’
When undergraduate students draw neurons the reference material they are given tends
to be diagrammatic - usually diagrams in which certain details have been exaggerated
in order to make them more informative for a wide variety of applications. When
these students draw a neuron they are expected to copy the diagram. Strictly
speaking, when a student copies a diagram they produce a predominantly matching representation of the
predominantly symbolizing illustration. So, what they end up with - and
few people ever acknowledge this subtle but obvious fact - is a drawing that
represents two things simultaneously: a neuron and a diagram of a neuron. And in either case the strategy of representation
is significantly different.
When a PhD
student or postdoctoral researcher draws a neuron seen under a microscope they
are most likely seeking to produce an image that closely resembles what they see. Even if they are asked to draw a neuron from
memory, they are likely to attempt this form of simulating representation. Equally, if their branch of research
isn’t concerned with observing neurons under a lens, then it is likely that
their drawings will be more like those of an expert neuroscientist, as several
of the drawings confirm.
When an
expert neuroscientist draws a neuron they are clearly not interested in simulating
what neurons look-like. They are probably more interested in how neurons
function and their drawings tend to be more schematic because they intend to symbolise what they believe to be salient
neuronal processes.
So, when Hay
et al ask undergraduate students to experiment with alternative methods of
representing neurons they are encouraging different ways of thinking about the
features and functions of neurons. This is good. But when they assume that
expert drawings are more “creative” they make an important error that is easily
exemplified. When a doctor scrawls a prescription, even if it is perfectly
legible to the pharmacist, this is no evidence of creative flair and we are
right not to seek to encourage aspiring doctors to develop similarly
idiosyncratic writing styles. Where information is concerned the style of communication
is completely irrelevant. What matters is the purpose.
If
experimentation with different forms of representation leads to insights then
it is obviously important to exploit this practice. But if the representations
produced are uninformative, or worse still if they lead to bad medicine, then there
is little point in promoting them, no matter how creative they are claimed to
be.
0 comments:
Post a Comment