Some studies have analyzed whether creativity means different things for specialists from different disciplinary fields (Jackson and Shaw, 2006; Fryer, 2006;Craft et al, 2007).In higher education, it has been argued that the primary cultural domains are the disciplinary or subject fields. Jackson and Shaw (2006) taking account of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1997) conceptions of creativity as being socially and culturally constructed explored whether being creative meant different things in different disciplinary contexts and also where creativity constituted part of the curriculum. They used two approaches. One was to use 18 QAA Subject Benchmarking Statements to identify both explicit and indirect aspects of students’ learning that might be associated with creative thinking and behaviours. The second approach consisted of conducting email surveys in four disciplinary fields (Earth and Environmental Sciences, History, Engineering and Social Work). Over 60 academics and field-based practitioners participated in these surveys. The core questions were:
What does it mean to be creative in your subject?
What is it about your subject that stimulates/encourages teaches and students to be creative?
How do higher education teachers in your field help/enable students to be creative?
How do teachers in your field recognise and assess creativity?
What are the barriers to creativity?
Is creativity valued in your disciplinary field?
Findings from a preliminary review of the 18 subject benchmark statements, considering that the benchmark statements represented the views of the field on what was valued in students’ learning. It appeared that for academics, who teach different subjects, creativity did not have a central place to shaped curricula, teaching, learning or assessment. Only seven subjects (Art and Design; Medicine; Geography; Dance; Drama and Performance;
Engineering; Nursing; Business and Management) made any explicit mention of ‘creativity’
per se as a desirable feature of curricula in their discipline (Jackson & Shaw, 2006). Five of the subject groups (Nursing; Business and management; Dance, Drama and Performance;
Engineering; Social Work) referred to creativity or creative outcomes in their benchmark assessment criteria for defining standards and only one subject (Dance, Drama and Performance) considered creativity as an underlying principle of education and student development. Despite this, the pilot surveys suggested that there was a general
acceptance that creativity was widely recognised in disciplinary contexts (Jackson & Shaw, 2006). While the authors demonstrated that being creative meant specific things in particular disciplines, they identified patterns of meanings that included:
Originality, as represented by creating something new, which is useful, recognised and incorporated into the culture of the discipline (Jackson & Shaw, 2006, p. 95).
Imagination, which represented people working in a disciplinary field using imagination to find solutions and unknown possibilities when engaged in disciplinary thinking and
practice. Imagination as a thinking process acts a source of personal inspiration, it stimulates curiosity and sustains motivation, it generates ideas from which creative solutions are selected and facilitates interpretations in situations, which cannot be understood by fact or observations alone (Jackson & Shaw, 2006, p.96).
Finding and making sense of complex problems was raised by academics in all disciplines as an area where creativity was used and necessary in working with problems that were new, challenging, and complex.
Thinking out of the box and transferring ways of thinking, and methodologies from different disciplines were perceived as being required in order to find solutions and to generate ideas. The blending and intelligent use of these different sources of knowledge and methodologies to solve particular problems is potentially another source of creativity (Jackson and Shaw, 2006, p.100).
Communication of ideas was perceived as part of the creative process. Academic
practitioners from different disciplines may be creative in the way that they communicate with people outside their disciplines
Overall, although there was a general acceptance of the relevance of creativity in different disciplinary contexts, creativity did not have a central place in most curricula, teaching, learning or assessment. Generally, creativity from the view of those working in different discipline contexts was conceptualised as related to originality, imagination, finding and making sense of complex problems, thinking out of the box, and communicating ideas.
In a study with National Teaching Fellows (NTF), Fryer (2006) indicated that more than half of the participants believed that creativity was different in different cultures: “there is no evidence that ethnicity has a bearing on creative ability, but there is evidence of some cultural differences in how creativity is perceived and expressed” (Fryer, 2006, p.79). In the questionnaire, NTFs were asked to describe creativity in terms of their own discipline.
Fryer (2006) argues that most of the answers could apply to any discipline. Responses included those conceptualizing creativity as relating to:
-New theories, original work, seeing new applications for existing mathematics (maths).
-Originality: developing, producing, manufacturing; bringing about ideas and design solutions in different, unusual ways; to critically analyse, reflect and apply and develop ideas and attitudes (design history).
-Finding new ways of engaging with students; tapping into unconventional ways of assessing student learning (neuroscience).
In a study in primary and secondary education, Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., and Chappell, K. (2007), explored eight music teachers’ views about creativity and creative teaching and learning. Teachers’ emphasized the importance of understanding each
learner as an individual, supporting a child’s artistic voice and the ability to critique and review. Teachers valued collaboration and experimentation for discovery in small children, but in older children teachers valued more individual work and experimentation structured by subject knowledge. These opinions underlined a particular approach to creativity from the context of music teaching.
To summarize, when studying conceptions of creativity it is important to take into account the differences that may emerge in different contexts and from different populations.
Research has explored differences between female and male teachers and those teaching different subjects. The research has also been undertaken in different cultures, although typically these have been developed Western societies. To date there has been no reported research from Mexico. To enhance creativity in Mexico, it is important to understand the patterns of thought and shared meanings or interpretations that held by students and teachers which will support the development of creativity in higher
educational contexts as it is not appropriate to assume that findings from other countries can be generalized to the Mexican context.
To conclude, as Raina (2004) affirms: “We, the people interested in creativity, consider variety as an expression of human creativity and we have to equally respect diversity and richness of environments, as they influence the understanding of creativity across cultures” (p. 26).
3.4 What kind of teaching is required to promote the development of creativity?
The current research was concerned with the way Mexican students’ creativity could be enhanced through teaching in higher education. The main focus was not the teaching of creativity per-se but how to characterize a teaching-learning process that might facilitate the development of students’ creativity throughout the curriculum. It is commonly asserted that teaching is inherently creative since teachers face a variety of circumstances depending on the specific students they are teaching, their interests, their skill levels, and their motivation. Teachers need to respond to those circumstances based on their
experience, knowledge, skills and attitudes. This may include their creative problem solving skills. Teachers may also put their creative skills into practice when designing sessions or
planning a course. However, teachers also face organizational pressures to respond to standardization, assessment and accountability issues. Teachers can respond to this pressure through adopting a lecturing approach to their teaching.
Researchers looking to define the characteristics of teaching which may promote creativity have made a distinction between creative teaching or teaching creatively and teaching for creativity (Craft, 2004; NACCCE, 1999).