Why we need creativity in the classroom and what is getting in the way.
Experts suggest we are in for some radical shifting. In his book “A Whole New Mind”, Daniel Pink argues: “We are moving from an economy and society built on logical, linear and computer like capabilities of the Information Age to… (one)…built on the inventive, empathic, big-picture capabilities of… the Conceptual Age” (Pink, 2005, p 1-2). This new age emphasizes the 21st century skills: collaboration, communication, creativity and critical thinking; that in addition to mastery of knowledge and understanding subject objectives, will be pertinent to success. Schools are being challenged to rethink what they do in classrooms; to revise how they teach, how students learn and what they learn about. We are being asked to awaken the entrepreneur in our students. Among countries, competition has become fierce to make the necessary changes. Like the race to the moon in 1969, countries are now racing each other to teach creativity with the goal of coming out on top of the entrepreneurial food chain. Yet despite pressure, ten years passing since the authorship of Pink’s book, and half a century since J.P Guilford challenged the APA association to study creativity in order to help identify children with creative potential, (Feldman and Benjamin, 2006) the integration of creativity in North American education remains a challenging and unfulfilled goal. What will be the catalyst to get us going?
It seems our over emphasis on standardized testing has killed the creativity right out of schools
(if they were ever creative places to begin with.). Sir Ken Robinson went viral with his 2006 Ted talks:
“ How Schools Kill Creativity”, where he indicated that schools by their design teach
creativity out of our children. Sir Robinson’s soliloquy is further supported when we consider scientific evidence
from Kyung Hee Kim that purports our youngest children are losing the creative edge:
“Since(1990) creativity scores have consistently inched
downward…it’s very clear, and the decrease is very significant...
It is the scores of younger children in America--
from kindergarten through sixth grade—for whom the
decline is “most serious.” (Newsweek , p2 )
One could argue that there are issues with the testing used to score the results. Are psychometric tests actually measuring creativity? Are schools to blame for the decline in scores? There are many opposing viewpoints on this, which leads me to what I believe is the underlying obstacle to educational transformation. Despite knowing that we urgently need to inject creativity into our classrooms, we have not been successful because we cannot come up with a conclusive understanding of what exactly creativity is. How do we implement what we cannot define? In addition, the concept of creativity when currently practiced in our schools is laden with stereotypes and myths. Read up on it you might suggest? Well, the data being gathered on creativity is extensive and requires a great deal of effort to get one’s head around and scholarly research is growing rapidly. Creativity is being investigated from behavioral, personality, biological, clinical, cognitive, historical, organizational, psychometric, evolutionary, cultural and domain perspectives to name several. (Runco, 2004) Furthermore, ” Creativity theory and research in the US today is not directly concerned with education, making the challenges for those who are involved in schools especially daunting” (Feldman & Benjamin 2006, 331). To make matters more complicated, there seems little overlap between one area of research and another ” investigators in one subfield often seem unaware of advances in another” (Hennessey & Amabile, 2009, 569]
How then do we determine a starting point from this information overload? There are several characteristics about this elusive creativity concept that scholars seem to agree upon. Here are some that I could find. Creativity is a complex phenomenon. According to researchers Beghetto and Kaufman, creativity can be viewed as major or minor, (big C, little c, mini c, pro C) meaning while we are all creative, people use it at different levels and to different capacities. Some people contribute creatively to society as a whole (Big C) and some develop creative solutions to deal with everyday situations (mini c) and variations in between. (Hennessey & Amabile, 2009) Creativity can be understood as domain specific; there are specific ways to be creative in math vs. poetry, and also as domain general; creative thinking can transfer from one field to be applied to other areas of knowledge and application. Holistically, theories of creativity are currently understood from a variation of perspectives: the four P’S (now 6); Person, Process, Press, Product or focus on a combination of these (P’s) variables. (Runco, 2004) Contemporary research has presented the field with complicated theoretical approaches called systems approaches; where the study of the phenomena of creativity is understood as occurring in the dynamic relationship between all of these components. Models vary in how many elements they include. Researchers also agree that there are concrete methods and strategies that can be used for optimizing these variables to nurture creativity although each has their preferred tools and strategies.
“Teaching for creative as well as analytical and practical thinking is...superior. It enables children to capitalize on their strengths and to correct or to compensate for their weaknesses, it allows children to encode material in a variety of interesting ways” (Sternberg, 2006, 94).
With this in mind, I would argue that we shouldn’t wait for a better understanding of the phenomena of creativity before we begin to implement practices that encourage it in the classroom. We know there are marked benefits; creativity facilitates problem solving, adaptability and self-expression. It has been found that when you teach students using a combination of analytical, creative and practical approaches, performance is consistently higher than when compared to control groups using traditional methods even when a traditional standard multiple choice testing model was used to gather evidence. “Teaching for creative as well as analytical and practical thinking is still superior. It enables children to capitalize on their strengths and to correct or to compensate for their weaknesses, it allows children to encode material in a variety of interesting ways” (Sternberg, 2006, 94). So, if we cannot directly identify what creativity is, we can still work to encourage it. What is called for is “ a framework that emphasizes interactions among person, domain and field..(to)… focus curriculum and larger scale transformation …”(Feldman and Benjamin 330, 2006). Such a framework has already been developed and put together by Yu-Sien Lin.
In this model there are 3 interacting components that relate directly to the classroom: teaching for creativity, creative teaching and creative learning. The model presupposes that creativity can be developed thorough education and that all humans have the potential to be creative, Lin purports that we have the ability to nurture creativity in the classroom through the interrelationship of these 3 components
(if they were ever creative places to begin with.). Sir Ken Robinson went viral with his 2006 Ted talks:
“ How Schools Kill Creativity”, where he indicated that schools by their design teach
creativity out of our children. Sir Robinson’s soliloquy is further supported when we consider scientific evidence
from Kyung Hee Kim that purports our youngest children are losing the creative edge:
“Since(1990) creativity scores have consistently inched
downward…it’s very clear, and the decrease is very significant...
It is the scores of younger children in America--
from kindergarten through sixth grade—for whom the
decline is “most serious.” (Newsweek , p2 )
One could argue that there are issues with the testing used to score the results. Are psychometric tests actually measuring creativity? Are schools to blame for the decline in scores? There are many opposing viewpoints on this, which leads me to what I believe is the underlying obstacle to educational transformation. Despite knowing that we urgently need to inject creativity into our classrooms, we have not been successful because we cannot come up with a conclusive understanding of what exactly creativity is. How do we implement what we cannot define? In addition, the concept of creativity when currently practiced in our schools is laden with stereotypes and myths. Read up on it you might suggest? Well, the data being gathered on creativity is extensive and requires a great deal of effort to get one’s head around and scholarly research is growing rapidly. Creativity is being investigated from behavioral, personality, biological, clinical, cognitive, historical, organizational, psychometric, evolutionary, cultural and domain perspectives to name several. (Runco, 2004) Furthermore, ” Creativity theory and research in the US today is not directly concerned with education, making the challenges for those who are involved in schools especially daunting” (Feldman & Benjamin 2006, 331). To make matters more complicated, there seems little overlap between one area of research and another ” investigators in one subfield often seem unaware of advances in another” (Hennessey & Amabile, 2009, 569]
How then do we determine a starting point from this information overload? There are several characteristics about this elusive creativity concept that scholars seem to agree upon. Here are some that I could find. Creativity is a complex phenomenon. According to researchers Beghetto and Kaufman, creativity can be viewed as major or minor, (big C, little c, mini c, pro C) meaning while we are all creative, people use it at different levels and to different capacities. Some people contribute creatively to society as a whole (Big C) and some develop creative solutions to deal with everyday situations (mini c) and variations in between. (Hennessey & Amabile, 2009) Creativity can be understood as domain specific; there are specific ways to be creative in math vs. poetry, and also as domain general; creative thinking can transfer from one field to be applied to other areas of knowledge and application. Holistically, theories of creativity are currently understood from a variation of perspectives: the four P’S (now 6); Person, Process, Press, Product or focus on a combination of these (P’s) variables. (Runco, 2004) Contemporary research has presented the field with complicated theoretical approaches called systems approaches; where the study of the phenomena of creativity is understood as occurring in the dynamic relationship between all of these components. Models vary in how many elements they include. Researchers also agree that there are concrete methods and strategies that can be used for optimizing these variables to nurture creativity although each has their preferred tools and strategies.
“Teaching for creative as well as analytical and practical thinking is...superior. It enables children to capitalize on their strengths and to correct or to compensate for their weaknesses, it allows children to encode material in a variety of interesting ways” (Sternberg, 2006, 94).
With this in mind, I would argue that we shouldn’t wait for a better understanding of the phenomena of creativity before we begin to implement practices that encourage it in the classroom. We know there are marked benefits; creativity facilitates problem solving, adaptability and self-expression. It has been found that when you teach students using a combination of analytical, creative and practical approaches, performance is consistently higher than when compared to control groups using traditional methods even when a traditional standard multiple choice testing model was used to gather evidence. “Teaching for creative as well as analytical and practical thinking is still superior. It enables children to capitalize on their strengths and to correct or to compensate for their weaknesses, it allows children to encode material in a variety of interesting ways” (Sternberg, 2006, 94). So, if we cannot directly identify what creativity is, we can still work to encourage it. What is called for is “ a framework that emphasizes interactions among person, domain and field..(to)… focus curriculum and larger scale transformation …”(Feldman and Benjamin 330, 2006). Such a framework has already been developed and put together by Yu-Sien Lin.
In this model there are 3 interacting components that relate directly to the classroom: teaching for creativity, creative teaching and creative learning. The model presupposes that creativity can be developed thorough education and that all humans have the potential to be creative, Lin purports that we have the ability to nurture creativity in the classroom through the interrelationship of these 3 components
Creative teaching and teaching for creativity may sound similar but, they are quite different in practice. The former focuses on the methods a teacher uses to inspire learning; creating a fun, supportive environment that promotes students developing multiple solutions to problems. It also encompasses the teachers’ mindset around creativity; is she or he creative? What do they believe about creativity? “Teachers themselves are potential models for students and their expectations may be very influential” (Runco, 2004, p671) It has been discovered that as students got older, their attitudes around creativity become more similar with those of their teachers (Hennesey & Amabile, 2009). In order for creative teaching to be optimally primed, it would be reasonable to suggest that teachers would need in service training to help them develop classroom practice conducive to supporting the climate. They would need to move away from inflexible schedules, copy work, templates, intense competition, a focus on neatness, and dare I say, making disparaging comments to move towards encouraging exploration of imagining and visioning, allowing for free time and regularly recognizing performance. Psychological safety has also been identified as an important contributor to the creative climate and teachers set the tone for this. Teachers would also need to provide for ample resources to promote and inspire learning. (Runco, 2004). Becoming well versed in “creativity killers” would be an important focus for teacher training as well as possibly screening teachers for creativity or having them develop it in themselves.
Teaching for creativity involves teaching students strategies and tools to develop the thinking skills in the creative Process. Creative Problem Solving would be an example of what this looks like. It is process focused, and involves strategies of learning to learn. This element is where schools would have the opportunity to move from “allowing” creativity to “developing” creativity in the classroom by teaching students CPS and other processes deliberately. (Hennesey & Amabile, 2010, p586) These skills are readily available and not difficult to learn, but once again training becomes important.
The third element, creative learning refers to how a student learns; is the student learning by authority; being told what to learn, or autonomy; having choice and input into learning? (Lin, 2011) What mindset does the student bring? Is their motivation intrinsic? Does the student readily explore, inquire, manipulate and play? Lin describes this conceptual framework as improvisational and interdependent. As you might imagine, the teacher has an effect on the motivation and potentially the mindset of the child even though the child is in charge of expressing these important components to creative learning. Again, a shift in one area will inevitably lead to changes and transformation in others.
Teaching for creativity involves teaching students strategies and tools to develop the thinking skills in the creative Process. Creative Problem Solving would be an example of what this looks like. It is process focused, and involves strategies of learning to learn. This element is where schools would have the opportunity to move from “allowing” creativity to “developing” creativity in the classroom by teaching students CPS and other processes deliberately. (Hennesey & Amabile, 2010, p586) These skills are readily available and not difficult to learn, but once again training becomes important.
The third element, creative learning refers to how a student learns; is the student learning by authority; being told what to learn, or autonomy; having choice and input into learning? (Lin, 2011) What mindset does the student bring? Is their motivation intrinsic? Does the student readily explore, inquire, manipulate and play? Lin describes this conceptual framework as improvisational and interdependent. As you might imagine, the teacher has an effect on the motivation and potentially the mindset of the child even though the child is in charge of expressing these important components to creative learning. Again, a shift in one area will inevitably lead to changes and transformation in others.
Addtional to this model, one should consider the physical place where the learning and teaching is taking place. The spaces we create can dictate the kinds of behaviors that occur. There are according to Ewan McIntosh, (an international expert on learning and technology) seven different types of spaces in both a physical and virtual manifestation that are important to consider. One is a private space, something we all need; these space opportunities need to be considered for our classes and schools. Two is group spaces; these are places where people can collaborate. Three is a publishing space, a place to display your work and ideas. Four is a performing space, where you can share or act out ideas. Five is a participation space, spaces that are set up to direct and encourage particular activities and participation from individuals, like a community garden. Six is called a data space, a place one can go to research and find information. The last space is called a watching space, a place where we can sit back and observe or become mindful or things around us. “Space is the stage on which we play out our lives. If you want to be creative, you need to build physical habitats that unlock your imagination” (Seelig, 2012, p.102)
What kind of spaces do we want our schools to be? What kind of behaviors, mindset, attitudes and interactions must we foster to develop creative, innovative, cooperative future leaders and builders of tomorrow? Creativity research is providing educators with a plethora of possibilities around teaching, learning and environments that provide teachers with viable actions. It is time we get started and see how one change will affect the next. I'm excited to get started, I hope you'll join me.
a neat course I'd like to take: http://www.csu.edu.au/handbook/subjects/INF536.html
What kind of spaces do we want our schools to be? What kind of behaviors, mindset, attitudes and interactions must we foster to develop creative, innovative, cooperative future leaders and builders of tomorrow? Creativity research is providing educators with a plethora of possibilities around teaching, learning and environments that provide teachers with viable actions. It is time we get started and see how one change will affect the next. I'm excited to get started, I hope you'll join me.
a neat course I'd like to take: http://www.csu.edu.au/handbook/subjects/INF536.html