Creativity in educational contexts

The last subsections explored creativity according to various approaches and dimensions. I now concentrate on the study of the phenomenon as applied to the field of education. I first describe the place of creativity in the current educational policies and practices, and then look at the pedagogical strategies which can foster learners’ creativity.

1.4.1. Setting the context: policies and practices

Life in the 21^st century is featured by a decreasing level of certitude. Indeed, social, economic and global changes make it difficult to predict what the future might hold (Beghetto, 2010). Furthermore, due to different social factors, the roles and relationships among individuals are shifting fast, which requires them to make sense of their experiences and to make choices about their own life (Craft, 2005).

In addition, the globalization of the economic activity increased the competitiveness of markets, raising the need to empower the level of educational achievement of their potential labour forces (Craft, 2005). Furthermore, the development of more and more sophisticated technologies brings out shorter product development cycles, which accelerates the pace of innovation and change (Sawyer, 2012).

27

Creativity as a new trend in educational policies

In this landscape, students need to be better equipped, so that they can face the more and more complex and ill-defined nature of life (Beghetto, 2010). To the author, establishing a common curricular goal of developing creative competences is seen as a way to prepare them. As a result, the development of students’ creative potential has become a core aspect in policy initiatives around the world. As highlighted by Craft (2005), “education is being reconstructed and re-conceptualized, to encompass creativity in its curriculum and its pedagogy” (p. 10).

Formal educational systems do not support creativity

Despite of this context background, creativity is not always valued in schools (Ferrari, Cachia, &

Punie, 2009a). Rather, Sir Ken Robinson (2006) claims that schools actually kill creativity. Indeed, creativity requires time, interaction, suspension of judgment, and risk-taking; however, such approaches do not fit with the institutional principles of traditional schools (Ferrari et al., 2009b).

Furthermore, as argued by the educationalists Teresa Cremin and Jonathan Barnes (2010), schools sometimes let routines, subject boundaries and decontextualized knowledge dominate, to the detriment of pleasure and excitement related to learning; such practices considerably reduce students’

capacities for curiosity, inquiry and creativity.

Beghetto (2010) highlights different barriers to creativity in the classroom. I describe some of them in the next paragraphs, in the light of other studies.

Convergent teaching practices

Formal education is characterized by the transmission of factual bits of information (Beghetto, 2010).

Such teaching methodologies tend to look for answers that are known before the question is posed, so students do not need to investigate the issue by themselves (Ferrari, et al., 2009b). As a result, learners act as recipient of knowledge.

Furthermore, there are increased pressures on teachers to conform to externally imposed standards (Beghetto, 2010). As a result, they tend to give priority to relevance and attempt to avoid mistakes.

They prefer standard answers to unique ones, and regard unexpected students’ ideas as disruptive.

Such practices dismiss originality and prevent students from taking risks and developing potential creative ideas (Ferrari, et al., 2009b).

Problematic attitudes and beliefs about creativity

Teachers generally equate creativity with originality, non-conformity and impulsivity (Beghetto, 2010). The author highlights a paradox of desirability, through which teachers prefer conforming and considerate characteristics in students, rather than personality traits associated with creativity, such as self-confidence, ambition and passion. Furthermore, the author highlights the “Big-C bias”, through which teachers tend to believe that creativity is at the most eminent levels and does not apply to education (Beghetto, 2010, p. 455).

28 Motivational messages of the classroom

Teachers often use common motivational strategies which can hinder students’ creativity (Beghetto, 2010). Indeed, if rewards and competition can have a positive impact on students’ results, the excessive use of extrinsic motivators, as well as the comparison to others, can put pressures on them and weaken their abilities for creative expression (Amabile, 1996).

Creativity can be taught

In spite of the lack of creative practices in the current education system, there is a consensus, among the research community, that creativity is amenable to teaching (Amabile, 1996; Craft, 2001;

Esquivel, 1995; Lin, 2011). Indeed, current research considers creativity as a developmental construct and a lifelong process (Craft, 2001; Esquivel, 1995; Lin, 2011). As argued by the educational researcher Yu-Sien Lin (2011), “nurturing creativity through education is to support the individual’s development in creative qualities to face everyday problem, to support their need for self-actualization, as well as enhance their capacities for future success” (p. 151).

When looking at recent literature related to creativity in education, it is possible to highlight three clear directions, i.e. (a) an inclusive perspective according to which all individuals can be creative; (b) a focus on everyday creativity, which gives importance to students’ personal processes; and (c) the belief that creativity can be developed in all school subjects.

Towards an inclusive perspective

Traditional literature often regards creativity as the preserve of geniuses and people gifted with unusual talents (Loveless, 2002; NACCCE, 1999). However, the scope has moved from this exclusive view towards a democratic perspective, to which all individuals have a creative potential (Loveless, 2002), from early childhood and onward (Craft, 2005). Runco and Pagnani (2011) express this vision as follows:

It is vital that we recognize that creativity can be found both in the people whose paintings are displayed in museums and also in our family members, friends, neighbours, and in our own lives (p. 64).

Within the field of education, this democratic perspective is growing, and argues that all children have a creative potential which can be encouraged or inhibited according to the kind of training received (Ferrari et al., 2009b). As expressed by NACCCE (1999), “all people are capable of creative achievement in some area of activity, provided the conditions are right and they have acquired the relevant knowledge and skills” (p. 29).

Towards a domain-wide approach

Many people assume that creativity is primarily expressed in the arts, e.g. music, dance and literature (NACCCE, 1999). However, this “art bias” (Runco & Pagnani, 2011, p. 64) leads to underestimating the potential of creativity in other areas of everyday life, such as science and technology (Ferrari et al., 2009b; NACCCE, 1999).

29 Recently, the shift has moved towards a domain-wide approach, to which creativity concerns different knowledge domains and school subjects (Loveless, 2002). For example, the educationalist Saturnino de la Torre (2006a) argues that creativity in education cannot limit its scope to music, arts or body language disciplines. Instead, it should also apply to other disciplines, such as language and sciences.

Craft (2005) also highlighted the need and possibility to enhance creativity in different curricular areas. The author provided some practical examples of creative practices in several subjects, such as the use of collaboration strategies in physical education and problem solving methodologies in mathematics.

Towards everyday creativity

Small levels of creativity (i.e. little-c and middle-c) are particularly suitable for the field of education (Ferrari et al., 2009b). Indeed, they give advantage to learners’ new and personally meaningful insight, and encourage all students to achieve their full potential in their everyday domains (Ferrari and al., 2009b; Runco, 2003). In addition, creativity, as applied to learning, requires a process-oriented approach, rather than a product approach (Ferrari and al., 2009b). Indeed, learning consists of a process. Furthermore, when looking at creativity in terms of products, children (i.e. students) have few chances of being considered creative when compared to adults (Runco, 2003).

In this dissertation, I adopted a democratic perspective of creativity. Indeed, I consider that creativity is present in each person and can be involved in all fields. This conception is resumed by NACCCE (1999) as follows:

One which recognizes the potential for creative achievement in all fields of human activity; and the capacity for such achievements in the many and not the few (p. 30).

Furthermore, I consider the importance of little-c and middle-c creativity, which are particularly useful in educational settings. This position is further stated in Chapter 3 of this dissertation.

The role of teachers in creative education

The increasing importance given to creativity in educational research, policy and practices (Craft, 2005) puts teachers as key-players for bringing creative practices into the mainstream curriculum (Beghetto, 2010). Indeed, “no matter how good policies are, they rely on teachers to implement them in classrooms” (Ferrari et al., 2009a, p. 360). Hence, teachers play an important role in fostering students' creativity (Esquivel, 1995). They should accompany them in the process of knowledge building, by adopting roles of facilitator and fellow collaborator (Sawyer, 2012).

However, as mentioned by Sawyer (2012), different institutional pressures prevent teachers from adopting creativity-fostering behaviours. Indeed, they have to cover a large amount of material, and prepare students for standardized pedagogical objectives or assessment procedures which do not consider creativity. This constraint to follow an overloaded curriculum, in a culture of accountability, can limit teachers’ opportunities for creative practices (Cremin & Barnes, 2010).

Consequently, Ferrari et al. (2009b) highlight contradictions among educational policies, and outline a gap between policies and practices. Furthermore, the authors argue that schools need support in

30 order to implement policies for creativity in education. Indeed, these initiatives raise little discussions on guidelines for adopting creative teaching practices (Lin, 2011).

The need has emerged for teachers and educators to have models and tools aimed to develop a language for understanding and promoting learners’ creativity, and to find ways to relate the curriculum to creativity in their specific areas of knowledge. My research aimed to fulfil these need, and focused on the role of teachers for enhancing creativity in education. The next section explores the conditions which are necessary to promote creative teaching and learning practices.

1.4.2. Creative pedagogies

Literature on creativity in education distinguishes two particular foci, i.e. teaching for creativity and teaching creatively (Craft, 2005; Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; NACCCE, 1999; Lin, 2011). As mentioned by NACCCE (1999), the former refers to teaching practices which aim to develop students’ creative thinking and behaviours. In contrast, the latter takes a teacher orientation. It consists of using imaginative approaches which can make learning more interesting, exciting and effective. Indeed,

“teachers can be highly creative in developing materials and approaches that foster children’s interests and motivate their learning” (p. 89).

Teaching for creativity

NACCCE (1999) identifies three tasks which are required in order to teach for creativity. The first one is to encourage young people to believe in their creative potential by giving them the confidence to try. Moreover, it is important to encourage pupils to take risks, as well as to be enterprising and persistent when facing adversity and failure. The second task consists of helping young people to discover their own creative strengths and abilities. Finally, teaching for creativity aims to assist students in understanding what is involved in being creative and help them become more sensitive to their own creative processes. In addition, Jeffrey and Craft (2004) highlight a fourth task, i.e. the inclusion of learners in decisions about what knowledge needs to be investigated, how to investigate it and how to evaluate the learning processes. In this learner inclusive approach, teachers and learners engage in a collaborative approach.

In addition, to NACCCE (1999), teaching for creativity aims to encourage students’ autonomy (i.e. a feeling of ownership and control over the ideas that are offered to them), authenticity in initiatives and responses (deciding for themselves on the basis of their own judgment), as well as their openness to new, unusual ideas, and to different approaches, respect for each other and fulfilment (i.e. feeling of satisfaction, involvement and enjoyment).

Finally, as mentioned by Craft (2005), teaching for creativity requires educators to be creative themselves, by adopting an ethos and a culture which consider creativity. The next paragraphs centre on this aspect.

31

Teaching creatively

The NACCCE report defines creative teaching as “using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting and effective” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 89). There is a wide range of research dedicated to creative teaching practices. As described below, many of them attempt to identify teachers’ personal qualities.

De la Torre (2006b) highlights different traits of creative teachers, such as confidence, a positive mind and an aptitude to value the positive in others, openness to learn from the environment and from mistakes, as well as a belief in happiness as an educational goal. Furthermore, the author outlines the different roles of creative teachers, including the creation of learning situations relevant to students’

characteristics, the establishment of relationships between already acquired and new knowledge, the contribution to the creation of a positive self-esteem, and the development of critical thinking. The author brings out creative teachers’ collaboration spirit, social awareness, aptitude to participate in innovative projects, and defence of values such as tolerance, peace, solidarity and cooperation. In addition, de la Torre (2009) and de la Torre and Violant (2003) add that creative teachers have flexible attitudes towards people, decisions and events, and are open to changes.

By reviewing educational literature, Cremin (2009) identifies various features of personality characteristics of creative teachers, including confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, commitment, openness to emotions, a sense of the self as a creative being, and secure knowledge about the subject.

Creative teachers are also comfortable with risk-taking, and are likely to perceive failure as a learning opportunity. They have a humanist approach and a strong moral investment in their work. Finally, the author highlights a combination of childlike play and exploration with adult-like self-awareness.

In addition, Cremin and Barnes (2010) add some features to this list, such as a clear set of personal values, the willingness to be intuitive and introspective, a belief in human rights and equality, a desire for clarity, and respect for others.

While exploring the relationships between teaching for creativity and teaching creatively, Jeffrey and Craft (2004), based on ethnographic data of an infant school, noted that the two approaches are closely related. Indeed, to them, “teaching for creativity involves teaching creatively. Young people’s creative abilities are most likely to be developed in an atmosphere in which the teacher’s creative abilities are properly engaged” (p. 103). Hence, in spite of their different foci, the two approaches are deeply interconnected (Lin, 2011). Also, as mentioned by Craft (2005):

This distinction has been useful in highlighting the importance of teaching for creativity, but in making the distinction there is a danger that a new dichotomy becomes institutionalised in educational discourse, similar to those in the past such as formal and informal teaching or instruction and discovery learning (p. 42).

As a result, in the context of my study, I decided to merge both approaches, and to apprehend, more broadly, creative pedagogies, i.e. teaching strategies which foster students’ creativity.

32

A set of key-characteristics of creative pedagogies

Literature highlights a wide range of practices which can enhance teaching for creativity and/or teaching creatively. However, they often result in long lists of characteristics which sometimes overlap.

Among recent research, I extracted the most important ones, and organized them into different categories. As a result, I obtained a set of key-characteristics of creative pedagogical practices, i.e.

teaching practices which enhance students’ creativity.

a) Promoting learner-centred methodologies

Creative pedagogies place learners above the curriculum and employ person-centred teaching practices (Cremin & Barnes, 2010; de la Torre, 1993). To do so, they connect to students’ life and interests, in order to make learning relevant and meaningful to their immediate needs and interests (Amabile, 1989). Hence, learning is personalized, individualized and match students’ functioning and needs (Ferrari et al., 2009b; Runco, 2003). Furthermore, as mentioned in a survey conducted by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 2010), creative teaching strategies promote inclusiveness, ensuring that content and methods are accessible and relevant to all students.

b) Allowing for self-learning

Creative pedagogies place students as protagonists and active participants in the classroom (de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre & Violant, 2003). They offer them opportunities to choose their own ways to solve problems (Sawyer, 2012), as well as encourage their ownership, autonomy and independence, so that they learn and think for themselves, not for the teacher (Amabile, 1989; Cremin & Barnes, 2010; Ferrari et al., 2009b; Robinson, 2001). In this context, students are no longer considered as receivers of information. Instead, they develop knowledge, understanding and skills through first-hand, practical experiences (Ofsted, 2010). Learning results in a stimulating, conscious process (de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre & Violant, 2003). As mentioned by de la Torre (1993), creative practices enable to build knowledge with the active involvement of students, from its planning until its internalization.

Hence, to Ferrari et al. (2009b), creative pedagogies relate to constructivist approaches. Indeed, the authors highlight democratic practices, to which everyone has a say, and learners have an active role in the production and negotiation of meaning (Craft, 2005; de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre & Violant, 2003; Runco, 2003; Sawyer, 2012). In this context, teachers pass the decision making and the responsibility for learning back to students (Cremin, Burnard & Craft, 2006; Ferrari et al., 2009b).

Hence, they stand back and become coaches (Amabile, 1989), facilitators and fellow collaborators, accompanying students in a process of knowledge building (de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre & Violant, 2003; Sawyer, 2011). Hence, they guide learners without over-directing them (Ofsted, 2010).

c) Helping to make connections

De la Torre (2006a) outlines the problematic of knowledge fragmentation in today’s schools, i.e.

teachers teach and evaluate their disciplines as islands, isolated from other areas of knowledge. At the contrary, creative pedagogies should facilitate the interrelation between different areas of knowledge, and the understanding of each element of knowledge as part of a wider context.

33 In addition, creative pedagogies make emotional connections and help students find relevance in their work, by using metaphors, analogy and personal anecdotes (Cremin & Barnes, 2010). Furthermore, connections can be made by opening the doors of the schools to outside influences and the wider community (Cremin, Barnes, & Scoffham, 2009).

Hence, creative pedagogies help students making connections, seeing relationships, building on previous understanding (Ferrari et al., 2009b), imagining other viewpoints and adopting different perspectives (Sawyer, 2012), as well as placing knowledge in a wider context (Cremin & Barnes, 2010). As a result, students can transfer learning and make connections between different domains, think across disciplines, as well as apply knowledge to new topics or contexts (Ferrari et al., 2009b;

Sawyer, 2012). As mentioned by Ferrari et al. (2009a), creating a bridge between different domains promotes a holistic approach to knowledge.

d) Providing exploration and discovery

Creative pedagogies accept ambiguity, uncertainty and the unknown (Cremin & Barnes, 2010). They provide freedom, leave time and space for experimentation, spontaneity, and meaning negotiation (Cremin et al., 2006; Ofsted, 2010; Sawyer, 2012).

These open-ended, unstructured, exploratory contexts directly relate to the concepts of play and immersion (Cremin et al., 2006). In such contexts, students envisage what might be, explore ideas, keep options open, as well as reflect critically on ideas, actions, and outcomes (Ofsted, 2010).

e) Promoting engagement

Creative pedagogies promote students’ intrinsic motivation, which fosters pleasant and effective learning processes (Amabile, 1989; de la Torre, 1993; Ferrari et al., 2009b; Runco, 2007; Sternberg

& Lubart, 1999). Indeed, creative practices offer opportunities for engagement, fun, enjoyment and immersion (Cremin et al., 2006; Ferrari et al., 2009b; Sawyer, 2012). They make contents attractive so students can spend time learning without being bothered (de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre &

Violant, 2003)

To do so, they call for students’ interests and passions, involve them in imaginative experiences, affectively and physically, by building emotionally significant links to their life. They also challenge them, engage all their senses, use humour and surprise, and present activities in exciting or unusual contexts (Cremin & Barnes, 2010; Sawyer, 2012). As mentioned by Ferrari et al. (2009b), games can have positive impacts on students’ motivation and engagement in learning processes.

f) Providing a safe and trustful environment which encourages risk-taking behaviours

Creative pedagogies provide positive, safe, non-judgemental and comfortable environments, in which all students are supported, accepted, rewarded and can freely discuss their problems (Amabile, 1989;

Cremin & Barnes, 2010; Runco, 2007). Such contexts are similar to family environments (de la Torre, 2006a), in the sense that they encourage interaction, open communication and the building of trusting relationships (Ferrari et al., 2009b). Furthermore, they facilitate laughter, well-being, and a relaxed, rewarding climate (de la Torre, 2009; de la Torre & Violant, 2003). This climate is

34 characterised by an absence of fear and acceptance of new ideas and suggestions. Finally, creative

34 characterised by an absence of fear and acceptance of new ideas and suggestions. Finally, creative