A Hot Dog, a Taco, and a Parachute Walk into a Conference

By Donna Jones, Kennesaw State University (Djones76@kennesaw.edu)

As an artist and art educator, generating ideas feels natural to me. Creativity is the easy part of my work. I have quietly carried the belief that creativity is easy for years. I did not question it when I walked into the SoTL Commons Conference. I arrived as an emerging SoTL scholar and first-time workshop presenter, excited and nervous that our session was one of only ten 90-minute workshops at the conference. Holding that much space felt significant. I was presenting with my mentors, Diana Gregory, Jonathan Fisher, Jennifer Dalton, and Danielle N. Gray-Singh, scholars I deeply admire. Their presence steadied me, yet it heightened my internal pressure. I wanted to contribute meaningfully and demonstrate that I belong in the Grand Challenges (GC) conversation, particularly GC1, which calls us to cultivate and study critical and creative thinking in higher education through research that is rigorous, impactful, public, and positioned to leverage learning across contexts.

GC1 was the foundation for my portion of the workshop. My contribution was a structured artmaking experience where I invited attendees to construct a lotus fold sketchbook using intentionally ambiguous instructions: “hotdog fold,” “taco fold,” “parachute.” I resisted clarifying.

I wanted them to feel uncertainty and reason through it.

I wanted critical and creative thinking to operate together.

Watching the attendees fold paper, I felt exposed. Would the ambiguity frustrate them? Would it seem trivial? Despite my worry, everyone assembled their sketchbook. Because of time constraints, the books were partially preassembled. At first, I considered that a logistical compromise. Now I see it as a pedagogical insight. The partially constructed book acted as a scaffold. It offered a visible endpoint. Participants could tolerate ambiguity because structure was present. The lotus fold made thinking visible. Constraint did not diminish creativity; it deepened it. I watched participants test folds, revise errors, and make decisions in real time. Reflection unfolded in action. Critical and creative thinking processes were intertwined within the same gestures. In miniature, paper and folds revealed these processes that often remain hidden. The activity was small, but it aimed to surface transferable habits of mind that ripple outward across disciplines.

The moments that unsettled me came later in conversations. Faculty from other disciplines described their feelings about creativity different than me. Many felt confident analyzing and evaluating, but hesitant when asked to imagine or generate. Analytical thinking felt safer. I felt a tightening in my chest as I listened. I have taken creative fluency for granted. What feels natural to me may feel risky to others. That realization required pedagogical empathy. If GC1 calls us to cultivate both critical and creative thinking across higher education, then I must attend to design and experience with awareness that vulnerability accompanies generative work. Lauren Scharff, whom I met at the conference, emphasizes intentionally designing for transferable thinking (Scharff et al., 2017). Transfer requires more than well-structured tasks; it requires understanding how learners perceive risk, uncertainty, and competence. The lotus fold clarified that structure and constraint can stimulate creative depth, but also revealed that entry points into creativity must be scaffolded differently across disciplines.

As an Assistant Professor of Art Education at Kennesaw State University, I leave this workshop experience with more humility than certainty. Weaving critical and creative thinking across disciplines requires listening closely to how others experience thinking itself, as well as acknowledging the emotions that are likely to occur as they struggle and grow. My growth through this workshop experience was layered and revealed both my struggle and growth: moments of feeling small, pride, and gratitude. Writing this mirrors the lotus fold activity as I navigate ambiguity within structure. I am clearer now about how my identity as an artist shapes my assumptions and how SoTL invites me to examine them publicly. I began believing creativity was the easy part, and now see what feels easy is often what feels familiar. Moving forward, I foresee myself engaging in a more intentional inquiry into how structured creative constraints foster transferable thinking across disciplines.

Like the lotus fold itself, my thinking continues to unfold.

References

Scharff, L., Draeger, J., Verpoorten, D., Devlin, M., Dvorakova, L., Lodge, J. & Smith, S. (2017). Exploring Metacognition as Support for Learning Transfer. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, Vol 5, No. 1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/5.1.6