Creative pedagogy: a case for teachers’ creative learning being at the centre

While educators in many parts of the world grapple with what creativity means in practice, discussions about creative pedagogy usually include the elements of creative teaching, teaching for creativity and creative learning. This article stems from a research project that occurred at a Preparatory to Year 9 school in Australia where we worked with staff to explore their understandings of creativity and creative learning in the Arts. We found that while students’ creative learning is a fundamental element in a creative pedagogy framework, the notion of creative learning of teachers is largely overlooked in discourses of teachers’ professional learning. Given the important role teachers play in student learning, we argue that teachers need to be informed not only about how to teach creatively and for creativity, but also how to consider possibilities and understand things in new ways, thereby making a case that a teacher’s own creative learning is crucial.     

Negotiating identity between career and family roles: A study of international graduate students’ wives in the US

This paper is based on a long-term ethnography of an adult creative writing class situated in a major urban art gallery in the United Kingdom. It takes the claims of one group of older adults—that creative writing made them ‘feel younger’—as the starting point for exploring this connection further. It places these claims broadly within theories of learning in later life that advocate creative expression and reminiscence as important practices for educators of older adults. However, the main analysis employs anthropological theories of creativity and ageing in order to question the cultural assumptions about creativity and the period of older age informing theory and practice. The paper argues that the value of creative writing for the individuals studied lies both in the fact that it is a relational (rather than individual) process and a means of being in the present. These findings contradict traditional conceptions about creativity as future-oriented and older people as retrospective; they also raise questions about narratives of empowerment, individual agency and the importance of ‘reminiscence’ in some of the literature on older adult learning.     

Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education

At a time when early years educators feel under increasing pressure from the government to adopt more formal approaches to learning, this article sets out to reaffirm the importance of developing each child's creative capacity to the full. The point is made that through the application of creative capacity a vital dimension of human intelligence is demonstrated. It is argued that creative growth is too often hampered by misunderstandings that continue to distort the relationship between creativity and education. Issues that are vital to the development of understanding about the nature of creativity are made explicit and the conditions most likely to promote creative thought and action are identified. In the interest of clarity the term ‘early years’ will be applied to children between the ages of three and eight in diverse educational settings.     

On Creativity: A brainstorming session

The article problematizes in aphoristic condensation the heterogeneous concepts of creativity in philosophy, psychology and sociology and outlines their paradoxes. Creativity in these concepts is tied to the human potential to bring into being something new and to the capacity of drawing differences. In its contingency, creativity is ambivalent to a high degree—at one and the same time a desirable resource and a threatening potential. So on the one hand, creativity is meant to be mobilized and set free; on the other hand, it is meant to be controlled and reined in. The imperative of being creative is nowadays connected to the mobilization of the entrepreneurial self. Entrepreneurial action demands permanent innovation—and consequently ceaseless creative exertion. Everybody not only has to be simply creative, but more creative than the others.     

The Uses and Misuses of Evaluation

Current research indicates that creativity in teaching can and should be enhanced in order to promote student learning. This article begins by stressing the importance of creativity in education and the ways in which creative teaching benefits students. Next, it addresses key points for better understanding classroom creativity by identifying common barriers that counteract or hinder teacher creativity. After identifying the characteristics of teachers who are considered creative educators, this article concludes with general recommendations, as well as specific strategies, for increasing the level of creative teaching in today's classrooms.     

Monitoring Creativity at an Aggregate Level: a proposal for Europe

There is little doubt as to the importance of creativity for both economic and social progress and of the need for educational systems to enhance and nurture it. However, are educational systems promoting creativity? The general feeling is that it is, in fact, being ‘killed’ in schools. The educational systems were designed for a different type of economy that valued a different set of skills. They were not designed for the so-called knowledge-based society that requires highly creative individuals, ready to be lifelong learners and to apply their knowledge and skills in a variety of settings and forms. This article maintains that a first step for the promotion of creativity, in education in particular and in society in general, is to advance in its understanding and measurement. Within the context of the Open Method of Coordination and in order to develop knowledge-based policies in education and training, it is necessary to assess if educational systems are providing students with adequate tools, including the capacity to be creative. But can creativity be measured? This article presents an overview of the creativity field with special focus on measurement issues. In the last 50 years, the field of creativity has grown. It has become embedded in urban planning, management, economics and psychology amongst other fields. Such a variety of approaches has contributed to the enrichment of the phenomenon of creativity, but also to its vagueness. The article concludes with some implications of creativity measurement for human capital development.     

Art and Design Blogs: a Socially‐Wise Approach to Creativity

Many images of the ‘artist’ or ‘designer’ pervade the media and popular consciousness. Contemporary images of the artist and creativity that focus solely on the individual offer a very narrow depiction of the varying ways creativity occurs for artists and designers. These images do not capture the variety of creative processes and myriad ways artists and designers work. Young creatives in particular are choosing to work with a social approach to creativity. An example of this approach is the world of blogging, a form of social media where young creatives have a very active voice. This article explores how creative bloggers, that is, artists, designers and makers who blog about their practice, use a social approach to foster creativity with a sense of community, environmental and ethical awareness, a value framework that is in opposition to the market‐driven notion of liberal individualism. Is there a way to include participation in the broader art and design blogging world as part of art and design education? What can we learn from such a social approach to learning in higher education art and design programmes? This article explores these questions and shares findings of an ethnographic approach to an analysis of art and design blogs. In doing so it argues for a socially‐wise approach to creativity in art and design education as a means of promoting values other than those usually connected to the market.     

Liminality in education: generating a creative space of encounter and dialogue between teachers and students within educational structures

ABSTRACT

The dominant results-driven/performance-oriented culture and the pressures of performativity in education have meant that the promotion of creativity has been narrow in scope and the translation into practice less apparent than the rhetoric would suggest. Creativity can survive even in times of standardisation, but it is more likely to be confined to interstitial zones. Interstitial zones are in-between social spaces outside the formal teaching zones in which creativity may give voice to those students whose voice is not always heard in the formal teaching context.

Often, creativity is equated exclusively to substantial creative outputs and, as a result, teachers who are not sensitised to creativity in a broader sense may underestimate their own creative ability and the positive impact this might have on the relationship with their students. A shift in teacher education that results in a more meaningful appreciation of both the nature of creativity and its benefits is therefore required. A developmental approach which starts with teacher cultivation of creative sensibility is essential to achieve greater infusion of creativity. The paper posits that teachers who resist rigid social structures and engage in critical pedagogy are also more likely to be receptive to creativity and its the pastoral potential in education.     

Counter-conduct in creative university research: deliberations on freedom

This article describes how a political assemblage currently at work in higher education is re-articulating academic subjectivities. This assemblage draws together entrepreneurial and humanist concepts of creativity into an intellectual resource that can change national economies. Academics are urged to use their creativity to counteract the narrowing funding base of the university. The article first introduces a history of the concept of creativity and explains how governmental agendas for creative industry and creativity in education emerged. Second, it describes a practice-based research project that grapples with the difficulties of knowledge transfer between the ‘creative’ and ‘social science’ academic disciplines. This raises questions about creative knowledge and reveals some ethical tensions in the performance of academic research. The research project is then positioned as a ‘counter-conduct’, used to short-circuit the procedures implemented for the conduct of creative research in the creative, entrepreneurial university.     

Nurturing Creativity in Education

Across continents, creativity is a priority for education and is central to the discourse on 21^st century learning. In this article, we explore how a greater focus on ‘everyday creativity’ in schools changes the dynamics of teaching and learning. We look briefly at the main concepts in the literature on creativity in education. We then focus on examples from the Centre for Creative Education's creative partnerships, which bring together educators, learners and creative professionals. This is followed by a discussion on how teachers assess learners’ creative dispositions, as well as the quality of creative processes and products. We conclude with recommendations for school-level strategies and policy and research to support learner and teacher creativity.     

The changing face of creativity in Australian education

Traditional ties between “arts” education (that is, discipline-based arts subjects and activities in schools) and an emergent notion of “creativity” in educational discourses and policy documents are loosening, with implications for both. While creativity seems to be on the ascendant, the arts may not be as fortunate; creative skills and capacities are emerging as a central focus of twenty-first century learning, while the arts continue to fight for room in an overcrowded curriculum. In this article, we examine some policy-level shifts in focus towards creativity and its conflation with innovation, and its trickle-down effects in secondary and tertiary learning environments. Central to this analysis is the diffuse and often contentious constructions of discourses of creativity, and its inability to be clearly and consistently defined or measured in the education sector. The need to quantify creativity and its presence in schools is on the rise, and this article tracks its implications for teacher education, policy development and curriculum and pedagogical evolution in the twenty-first century.     

Envisioning the Future: Working toward Sustainability in Fine Art Education

Fine art education provides students with opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills to respond creatively to their experience of society and culture. Fostering creative ways of knowing, thinking and doing requires studio learning conditions that promote the exploration of embodied perceptions, material sensibilities and conceptual ideas that are provisional, socially constructed and ever changing. Traditionally, art schools provided these conditions unchallenged because they were autonomous. Since the 1980s, however, art schools have been integrated into the academy, and face increasing pressure to meet the institutional demands of being in a university. Some argue this changed status means the academy, with its research and pedagogic traditions, is actually straitjacketing creativity. Furthermore, contemporary art practice has changed as artists are increasingly experimenting with interdisciplinary modes of working. This article discusses a two‐year major change initiative, undertaken within an urban Australian art school, designed to respond to this complex set of changed circumstances. It considers ways to address institutional compliance and viability demands while maintaining deeply held values about how to foster creativity in undergraduate students. The outcome is a new organising structure and renewed curriculum for the largest programme offering in the school: the fine art undergraduate degree. Educational renewal is conceptualised as a creative process and the approach to change is thus adapted from creative research methodologies. By treating pedagogy and curriculum design as a creative process, this change initiative, rather than straitjacketing creativity, has re‐envisioned an epistemological framework for undergraduate fine art that will sustain creativity education into the future.     

Improving learner outcomes in lifelong education: formal pedagogies in non‐formal learning contexts?

This article explores how far research findings about successful pedagogies in formal post‐school education might be used in non‐formal learning contexts – settings where learning may not lead to formal qualifications. It does this by examining a learner outcomes model adapted from a synthesis of research into retention. The article first introduces the model. It then explores this model to identify pedagogy suitable for formal education. Next it asks whether this pedagogy may also be appropriate for use in four non‐formal learning contexts: community development; adult literacy; workplace learning; and personal interest learning. While it gives a qualified ‘yes’ to the question, it acknowledges some shortcomings in the pedagogy for non‐formal adult learning. Finally, the article attempts to address shortcomings by integrating a critical dimension into the model, suggesting that learner outcomes in formal education could also benefit from the inclusion of this critical dimension.     

Demystifying Creativity: What Creativity Isn’t and Is?

To understand creativity is to recognize and develop the creative potential within oneself and others. This article examines what creativity is not and then what creativity is. First, the six leading misconceptions about creativity are discussed: Creativity belongs solely to the arts; creativity is quickly recognizable; innovators always work alone; mental illness enhances creativity; creativity is a divine flash of inspiration; and newness is a prerequisite to creativity. Then, using the research-based CATs model, what creativity is and how creativity develops into innovation are discussed: (a) cultivate creative climates; (b) nurture creative attitudes; and (c) develop creative thinking skills. Creativity does not come from nature but from nurture, and developing gifted children’s creativity should be the goal of parenting and education.     

Fostering Creativity: A Multiple Intelligences Approach to Designing Learning in Undergraduate Fine Art

Curriculum and pedagogy in undergraduate fine art can promote an approach to learning creativity that is more about being an artist than knowing about art. Lecturers can provide a road map for developing particular dispositions, in relation to student ideas and perceptions, to foster personalised creativity. This requires that lecturers have an ability to harness the range of learning approaches and interests that students bring to their studio learning environments. One way of doing this is to construct learning activities in ways that engage students' multiple intelligences so they may acquire deeper understandings of their own creative processes. Fostering this kind of creative think tank is artistry of an educational kind. In this article we explore such a creative think tank by examining a particular lecturer's pedagogical approach. We discuss how and why this lecturer designs activities in a way that draws on multiple intelligences to stimulate learning and foster creativity. Using narratives, we analyse this particular curriculum through the lens of multiple intelligence theory and explore how the pedagogical approach develops the whole person. We found that by attending to relationships and focusing on a plurality of intellect this particular curriculum and pedagogy promotes transformative learning in students studying fine art.     

Design Pedagogy for an Unknown Future: A View from the Expanding Field of Design Scholarship and Professional Practice

This article draws on current research investigating the notion of design for an unknown future. It reflects on recent thinking about the role of creativity in design practice and discusses implications for the development and assessment of creativity in the design studio. It begins with a review of literature on the issues and challenges associated with the assessment of creativity in design education. It then discusses and distinguishes three significant assessment models in design and creative arts education and emphasises the importance of opening debate on notions of creativity within the discipline. Following this, the article examines recent developments in the way that creativity is being practised, driven, fostered and implemented in contemporary design practice, and argues that these recent developments must feature in current scholarship about the development and assessment of creativity in design education. The article recommends areas for future research that pay close attention to developments in the rapidly expanding field of design practice.     

After Six Decades of Systematic Study of Creativity: What Do Teachers Need to Know About What It Is and How It Is Measured?

With creativity now being emphasized in schools, it is important for teachers to understand what it is and how it is measured. This review of the literature is an attempt to make sense of the many definitions and measures of creativity. As a result, this comprehensive review shows that most definitions agree that there are at least two criteria to judge whether a person or a product is creative or not, originality and usefulness. Organized according to Rhodes’s 3 P conceptualization of creativity—person, process, product, and press—more than 40 assessments used in creativity research were reviewed. Familiarity with the definitions, views of, and measurement of creativity can help teachers recognize and foster creativity in their students.     

Creative leadership: a new category or more of the same?

New categories of leadership are continually being invented. Because the ways we think are productive of the ways in which we act, it is important to hold these rhetorical innovations to account. This paper focuses on the latest of these categories – creative leadership. Mobilising a Foucauldian notion of ‘discourse’ I deconstruct the notion of creative leadership as it has recently been represented in five published texts. I suggest that the interpretation on offer has a determinist view of the future, ignores the history of debates about creativity, offers creativity as a generic skill and underestimates what it is that teachers and leaders might need to do in order to work creatively. I show that the notion of creative leadership on offer is strongly connected with that of creative learning, and put the ‘recipe’ offered by one set of texts into conversation with a body of empirical evidence about what is happening in schools that aim to promote creative learning. I argue that what is evident from the dialogue between the texts and the empirical studies is that it is pedagogical leadership that is absent but is actually most required, embedded in leadership/management principles and practices that promote social justice.     

Structured creative processes in learning playwriting: invoking imaginative pedagogies

The concept of the ‘creative’ in creative writing has a vexed history. This article explores the myths surrounding creativity and how they have influenced the way teachers have approached playwriting pedagogy. It reports on research into the teaching and learning experiences of students and teachers in secondary schools, focusing on the participants’ understanding of creativity and the impact this had on the pedagogical process. The research found that a counterproductive idealist view of creativity persists in classrooms: the teachers and students were operating on a conception of creativity and creative practice that reflected a belief in a mystical and unknowable creative process. This article explores the experiences of creativity through systems theory and argues that this approach can inform teaching and learning for creative processes and products. The article concludes that the teaching and learning practices were unnecessarily tentative and that knowledge of creativity theory would improve the students’ development of both playwriting proficiency as well as creativity-relevant skills. It suggests that demystifying the creative process should result in greater student proficiency and improved teaching and learning experiences for teachers and students.