Play through music can also transform a classroom into a positive learning environment where children can thrive emotionally, socially, and academically. Music fosters creativity and enhances literacy skills. Children’s language and literacy development are enhanced through music. With the use of repeated songs, chants, and rhymes throughout the day in the classroom, concepts about print become more meaningful and conventions of print are learned in context (Paquette & Rieg, 2008, p. 228). Hallam (2010) states that when children are active in music, their brains’ encoding of linguistics and sounds is sharpened. The use of music in the classroom provides effective experiences for children to develop listening skills. Music activates literacy and language learning in two ways: first, it supports children development of spoken language as well as their receptive language; second, listening to music supports children’s development of phonemic awareness because they are able to distinguish different sounds and phonemes as they listen to various types of songs, chants, and rhymes (Parlakia and Lerner, 2008).
main topic of the module. A mix of PowerPoint, videos and dialogue are used to explain the key concepts. The rationale to use a mix of formats is to address the feedback from the pilot to make it more play and fun. It also addresses my desire, expressed in Section One, to develop following creativity skills as part of this project as: Highlight the Essence, Let Humor Flow and Use it, Visualize it Richly and Colorfully and Put Your Ideas in Context (Torrance & Safter, 1990; Burnett & Figliotti, 2015). Depending on the time available and the main objective of the course, the time allocated to each module and the execution of it might vary. For example, in a full day course more time is allocated to each of the different module to allow more in-depth discussion. An impression of the PowerPoint deck of the different modules can be found in Appendix G. Examples of the courses based on the modules can found in Appendix D and Appendix E.
The Hong Kong scenario: hindrances and promotion of creativity One possible hindrance of Hong Kong children’s creativeness has been asso- ciated with their schooling experiences. Wong (2008) pointed out that the unde- sirable creative level of Hong Kong children could be attributed to both curricu- lum design and teachers’ pedagogical strategies that children experience. A cramped curriculum and a serious lack of opportunities to explore and expe- rience, to provoke divergent thinking and new ideas, to interact with physical materials and space, and to explore and express themselves freely, were some of the reasons provided by the various stakeholders of preschool education in Hong Kong (Wong, 2008). In particular, freedom for exploration (Collado, 1999, in Wong, 2008) and chances for improvised expression of ideas (Sawyer, 1997) are beneficial for creativity, yet lacking in Hong Kong children’s schooling expe- riences. Meanwhile, children’s creativity level is believed to be associated with teachers’ competence. Research found that Hong Kong preschool teachers lack creative pedagogies to promote learners’ creative ideas (Forrester & Hui, 2007; Wong, 2008). Furthermore, Wong (2008) reported that teachers strongly asso- ciated art, music and self-initiated physical activities with creativity, which they were not particularly good at. On the other hand, these domains of learning were not really the core ones in most Hong Kong preschools’ curricula. As Csikzent- mihalyi’s System Theory argues, in the teaching and learning scenarios in pre- school education, the experts in the system are the teachers in the field who could curtail or boost children’s creativity via the pedagogies they adopt (Forre- ster & Hui, 2007). More recently, Chien & Hui (2010) also suggested that kin- dergarten teachers’ perception of creativity is linked to their creative teaching and children’s creative learning.
A more complicated picture emerges from the study of patients with lesions of the frontal lobe (FL) as both advantages (e.g., better insight in problem solving associated with dorsolateral prefrontal damage; better overcoming of knowledge constraints associated with frontopolar and orbitofrontal damage) and disadvantages (e.g., reduced originality associated with lateral and medial prefrontal damage; reduced practicality in creative imagery associated with lateral prefrontal damage) have been reported in select aspects of creative cognition as a function of select types of FL insufficiencies (Abraham et al., 2012; Reverberi et al., 2005; Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2011). The ideas of Boot et al. (2017) appear to have a particular relevance when considering the manifestation of both enhanced and impoverished creative performance in relation to the frontal lobe and the basal ganglia as they make a case for frontostriatal brain networks in orchestrating processes relevant to flexibility (neither low nor high but moderate striatal dopamine) and persistence (neither low nor high but moderate prefrontal dopamine) in creativity (Boot, Baas, van Gaal, Cools, & De Dreu, 2017).
Having studied the childhoods of highly creative people for decades, Claremont Graduate University’s Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and University of Northern Iowa’s Gary G. Gute found highly creative adults tended to grow up in families embodying opposites. Parents encouraged uniqueness, yet provided stability. They were highly responsive to kids’ needs, yet challenged kids to develop skills. This resulted in a sort of adaptability: in times of anxiousness, clear rules could reduce chaos—yet when kids were bored, they could seek change, too. In the space between anxiety and boredom was where creativity flourished.
experience of difference bears on similarity and constancy, variance bears on in-variance (and vice versa). These mutual dependencies are both logical (grammatical) and epistemological relations of necessity. Pattern analysis and the theory of variation (e.g. visual, acoustic, etc.) depend on a proper grasp of these terms of analysis, but the variant, the token that embodies or executes the variance (e.g. a musical phrase transposed from F-major to D-Major) is also essential in creativity analysis as a reflective screen: The D-major token is differentiated from the predecessor, F-major, and serves both within the transpositional relation and viewed from the outside (i.e., in analysis and via meta-reflection) as a ‘screen’ that ‘reflects’ the variance. The unfolding of a series, a sequential pattern, then allows and invites one to notice variety and variation (e.g. of a theme) and exhibits this dual nature of every reflective screen. For research in the medium of itself (i.e., the medium itself) a cognitive command over these reflective processes is quintessential.
innovation teams (including those in the food sector; Nel Mostert) and Nuria Masnou who works for the Alicia Foundation, an institution set up by Ferran Adria aiming to promote cooking and creativity skills in both chefs and the general public. These two presentations took the form of practical workshops. An additional workshop was led by Sowden, exploring measures of creativity. In addition to invited presentations, a number of papers received from those researching creativity in the context of culinary arts. The final session comprised a workshop to identify themes arising from the event, which might be developed further into research themes (a summary of these is given in Section 3). Presentations have been made available to all delegates (with permission). An additional (last minute) presentation was given by ‘Dovetailed’, a company using 3D printing technology to ‘print’ fruits from droplets of gels.
The principles of CPS have been attributed to the pioneering work of Alex Osborn who developed the approach as an aid to the understanding the different phases of creative problem-solving (Isaksen and Dorval 1993). The Osborn-Parnes CPS model is a modification of Osborn's CPS approach, comprising three major stages:1) exploring the challenge; 2) generating ideas; and 3)preparing for action, and six steps within those stages: 1) objective finding; 2) fact finding; 3) problem finding; 4) generating ideas; 5) solution finding; and 6) acceptance finding (Creative Education Foundation 2010). This model is depicted as a cycle, recognising the need for flexibility and that creativity tends to function in a more cyclical than linear pattern. Variations of the model have been used across a range of disciplinary fields and for various purposes including the development of educational materials (Torrance 1978), to facilitate inclusive education (Giangreco et al. 1994), and as a framework to support the marketing curriculum (Titus 2000). Amabile’s (1996) componential framework of creativity incorporates a similar CPS approach, but in this approach, the components of the creative performance (domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes and task motivation) that impact on the individual’s creative performance are also considered. All CPS approaches acknowledge the iterative nature of the problem solving process and the need for both divergent thinking (particularly during the early stages of the cycle) and convergent thinking as ideas are further refined.
How are computers typically perceived in co-creativity scenarios? And how does this affect how we evaluate computational creativity research systems that use co- creativity? Recent research within computational cre- ativity considers how to attribute creativity to computa- tional agents within co-creative scenarios. Human eval- uation forms a key part of such attribution or evalua- tion of creative contribution. The use of human opin- ion to evaluate computational creativity, however, runs the risk of being distorted by conscious or subconscious bias. The case study in this paper shows people are sig- nificantly less confident at evaluating the creativity of a whole co-creative system involving computational and human participants, compared to the (already tricky) task of evaluating individual creative agents in isolation. To progress co-creativity research, we should combine the use of co-creative computational models with the findings of computational creativity evaluation research into what contributes to software creativity.
This year we opted into what’s called the SCAN network, but it’s part of Rocky Mountain Schools, and SCAN stands for Short Cycle Assessment Network and basically, instead of taking the district interim test, which are just paper and pencil fill in the bubble, we write our own assessments and analyze our own data and move from there. We still have to take the district’s last assessment at the end of the year, but until then because of opting out of their cycle of assessments, it really gave me the freedom to change my scope and sequence. Our principal decided to do it because last year the interim test was just awful. It was terribly written. We’re just a small school and staffing is really tight, and it was hard to even follow all of their protocols because we didn’t have an adult that could walk around and check out tests to everybody… just stuff like that. It was so hard for us. And really, we decided, that’s not what we’re about. We’re not about teaching to that assessment. That is, in our eyes, kind of worthless because it didn’t follow the curriculum that we think we should be teaching anyway. And so, this year, because I’m writing my own assessments and doing my own benchmark testing, I’ve planned out my year to flow with kind of more developmentally how I think math should go for these kids.
But does the gift for the discipline always in- fer also gift at being creative in that discipline? This question is hard to answer. We have never seen a master who was not creative in her/his discipline, at least in some period(s) of her/his life. But it seems that something else is needed in addition. Creativity is only one of the many types of cognitive processes, and it seems that people are not equally talented in the various types. Although without much evidence, we suggest that the creative person needs to be double-gifted: once for the discipline and once for creativity. And this only works at a reasona- bly high level of knowledge. A novice, regard- less of her/his talent, will almost certainly come up with creative ideas that are simply wrong. The advanced beginner’s creative ideas will, almost always, be trivial to the master – or wrong. Moreover even at expert level, the ideas are unlikely to be “great”; it is still often either “OK, so what” for the master or “wrong”. And even if the germ of the idea is a germ of a great idea, the expert can rarely pitch it in a way that it would be well received. Usually these ideas are further elaborated only when the expert reaches the master level and becomes able to see the full picture.
A distinct advantage of city-regions is their ability to produce, attract and retain those workers who play the lead role in knowledge-intensive production and innovation – those who provide the ideas, know-how, creativity and imagination so crucial to economic success. Because value creation in many sectors of the economy rests increasingly on intangible assets, the locational constraints of earlier eras – for example, access to natural harbours or proximity to raw materials and cheap energy sources – no longer exert the same pull they once did. Instead, what matters most now are those attributes and characteristics of particular places that make them attractive to potentially mobile, much sought-after talent.
One explanation for these slumps has pointed to changes related to cognitive development, suggesting that during periods of development when children are more conventional and literal, they are also more likely to be rigid and inflexible in their thinking, which is believed to inhibit creativity (Garner, 1982). However, other studies have found opposing results that indicate contrasting slumps (e.g., ages 7 and 12) as well as peaks (e.g., ages 10 and 16) suggesting that slumps in performance on creativity measures are not simply a function of cognitive development (Claxton, Pannells, & Rhoads, 2005; Smith & Carlsson, 1990). Instead, these researchers suggest that social and cultural expectations within a child’s environment might lead to creativity slumps and peaks at different ages. For example, if a child’s culture has a higher expectation for children to follow rules at certain ages, this might lead children to become more rule- bound and rigid with the consequence of decreased creativity. Runco (1999) also points out the individual differences within these studies – even within Torrence’s classic study – a large proportion of children showed steady, linear increases in performance on
However, it should be clear from the above discussion that studies of creativity training have been dominated by educational contexts, whether at school or college / University level. Investigations in organizational contexts have been relatively and unfortunately rare. For example, out of the 70 studies included in the Scott et al. (2004) meta-analysis, only three were conducted in occupational as opposed to academic settings. Furthermore, an early study by Rickards (1975) failed to find a notable impact of training in brainstorming techniques on managers’ generation of ideas. More successful is Basadur, Graen and Green’s (1982) study of creative problem-solving training for engineers, where improvements in problem finding and problem solving were produced. However, the emphasis in that study was on the generation of ideas and did not examine the extent to which the ideas were put into practice. Taking a broader focus, Rickards and De Cock (1994) described the evaluation of the creativity training program run by their business school. It was found that the workshops improved participants’ attitudes towards creativity and over half the respondents mentioned the training had a subsequent impact on their work. Wang and Horng (2002) conducted a long-term evaluation of creative problem solving training for R&D personnel and found that certain aspects of creative ability and work performance improved after training. Puccio et al., (2006) provided a useful narrative review of CPS training effectiveness conducted in the workplace. They concluded that positive impacts had been demonstrated in terms of participant attitudes (e.g. preference for active divergent thinking), behaviour (e.g. generating more original solutions to problems and better accuracy in evaluating ideas) and give a number of useful examples of organizational impact.
Looking at the first study it is interesting to see that only 18 words appear in both lists. The list of the independent researchers only came short eight words which were in fact in Jordanous’ (2012) list and given by participants. Also, none of these words was given more than one time. This speaks for the drastic reduction of Jordanous’ (2012) list as not much and no great associations were “missed”. If literature studies do indeed give a good picture of the creativity concept, one would expect greater overlap between 650 words from Jordaneous (2012) and 58 unique answers in the first study. Additionally, more than half of the word associated with creativity in the second study coming from the human list indicate strongly that literature studies do not give a complete picture when it comes to concepts in people’s minds.
A neurocognitive model of brain processes that would bridge the gap between psychological and neural level of description is urgently needed to make progress in creativity research. It should link low-level and higher-level cognitive processes, and allow for analysis of relations between mental objects, showing how neurodynamical processes are manifested in inner experience at the psychological level. This seems to be a very difficult venture as the language of neuroscience and the language of psychology are quite different. Some experts believe that the gap between mind and body is so huge that it can never be solved (see for example  and the discussion following this paper). A fruitful way to look at this problem  is to start with the neurodynamical description of brain processes and look for approximations to the evolution of brain states in low-dimensional space where each dimension may be related to inner experience. Similar approach has been quite successful in elucidation of movement patterns, where large brain areas act in a cooperative way to produce simple movements of fingers or limbs ; description of brain processes behind movement control can then be done in low-dimensional spaces. This idea has been used to model category learning in experimental psychology, showing why counter- intuitive answers may be given in some situations . On the surface many contradictory psychological explanations for such experiments may be invented, but they all are based on wrong understanding of causes that are responsible for brain decisions in such situations.
They had sex when he reached codeine. Colm had been seeing Lou for counselling once a week at the re-hab centre. She came down every step with him, telling him about the man he would be on hard ground. About his creativity – he'd take up guitar again, write songs. He could volunteer at the centre. They'd help him with benefits. Twelve years on heroin and he could still come back to life, Every word she said was like a hand-rail glinting in a black stairwell. They'd been for a walk in the park – to talk about his future, Lou said, in the free air – it would help him feel positive. There were chestnut trees either side of the path, families, mothers with buggies. They bought ice-cream from the van near the play-ground. She wanted to see his flat, make suggestions. When he let her in, the walls made sense. He felt the right size. She kissed him.
Stein (1953) stated that the extent to which a work is creative may depend on the nature of the problem, the experience that exists in the field and the characteristics of the creative person and those of the individuals with whom the person is communicating. This statement might be the important factor to address the lack of differences in creativity found in the WA participants. All WA participants took part in an alternate uses task, before participating in the word association task. This might have caused them indirectly to give ‘comparable’ associations amongst each other, in such a way that the items reached a similar level of creativity in the eyes of the survey participants. This so-called priming effect, in which exposure to a stimulus can influence the reaction to another stimulus, might have caused this. According to Loersch & Payne (2011) priming may not cause direct effect, instead it can alter the accessibility of mental content like creative thinking. Because the survey participants did not engaged in a creativity study before, this might be the reason that the associations might have appeared indifferent from each other.