How could creativity potentially impact on primary education?

In the process of defining creativity, Sharp (2004, p.5) proposes that theorists share similar views on the term 'creativity,' these include:

•  Imagination

•  Originality (the ability to think of ideas and products that are new and unusual)

• Productivity (the ability to generate a variety of different ideas through divergent thinking)

•  Problem Solving (application of knowledge and imagination to a given situation)

•  Producing an outcome of value or worth 

However, Koestler (1964) outlines that ‘creativity’ is an individual’s capacity of thematically linking, previously unconnected concepts. Whereas NACCCE (1999, p.30), expresses creativity as: “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value.” In Cardiff Metropolitan Universities, outdoor learning centre, I participated in a student led mindfulness and creative session with Springwood and Llanedeyrn Primary School. One of the activities involved children discovering objects in the forest and reinterpreting these objects to anything their imagination entailed. Taking it in turns, the children would present their objects and say, for example: “You might think this is a… but really it is a…” Also, saying “It is so quiet I can hear…” “It is so still I can see…” and finish these sentences proposing their inventive thoughts.

 

                             

Correspondingly, the primary school children’s poetry and storytelling ideas enabled them to embrace their natural surroundings and think about inventive responses to share with their peers. The concept of nature imposing on their creativity connected with Craft’s (2011) theory of imagination which originated from a marvellous foundation of inspiration. Craft’s (2011) belief developed from the roots of the universe and the setting of heavenly creation and establishment of the world. Furthermore, this influenced children to think about philosophical questions which were self-inflicted though the presence of nature (Craft, 2011). Amongst this kind of setting, children can cultivate collective principles based on human rights that are real and humane unlike doctrinal and inflicted by adults (Mizell, 2015). They questioned their life, their mind, and the world itself. Similarly, Maslow (1968, p. 90) states creativity involves peak experiences which is felt as a “self-validating, self-justifying moment which carries its own intrinsic value with it.”

However, Duffy (2006) declares that there are tensions amongst the incorporation of creativity in primary education. Teachers can construct limitations in classroom encounters as children feel creativity’s association remains with producing an item e.g. a painting (Duffy, 2006). Therefore, creativity is often restricted to being solitary correlated to the arts (e.g. music) which should not be the case imposed (Duffy, 2006). Consequently, creativity consists of stereotypical notions carrying the belief that specific individuals are naturally creative (Duffy, 2006). This has a disheartening effect on pupils in schooling encounters who feel they excel academically (Duffy, 2006). This reiterates that ‘Creativity’ is universally pigeonholed as an elusive somewhat supernatural quality; an attribute discovered in only rare and remarkable individuals (NACCCE, 1999). Comparatively, Pinker (1995) states that, ‘creativity’ exists in society as a distinctive human feature, dissimilar to language which is measured as something people learn (Pinker, 1995). 

Alternatively, it should be a creative process educating primary school children to read and write (Friere, 1985, p.79). Instead, it is common that teachers convert these practices, into a method of repetition but discard thinking about children’s emotions, invention or creativity (Friere, 1985). Countless teachers work bureaucratically in traditional styles of teaching, when they should adapt themselves and enhance artistic pedagogy (Friere, 1985). Moreover, unique styles of artistic pedagogy are likely to have a positive, long-term impact upon pupil’s engagement in lessons as emotions affect everyone’s ability to learn (Claxton, 2001). Hence, “…there is a strong need to understand the place of emotions in learning and to develop the ability to contain, manage and tolerate them” (Claxton, 2001, p.41).

Although, Vygotsky (1971, pp. 256-257), makes it clear that “the act of artistic creation cannot be taught.” Therefore, the teacher’s role should be to support pupils to “organise the conscious process in such a way that they generate subconscious processes” (Vygotsky, 1971, pp. 256-257). Hicks (2012), encapsulates how progressive educationalists dispute for the prominent role of creativity in education, due to the skills that pupils require in order to think more critically about the future. However, “neo-liberal ideas on education has been dramatic...modelled on the business world, taking on a technocratic and performance- driven view of teaching and learning” (Hicks, 2012, p.16).

Nevertheless, contemporary research investigating teachers and learners’ creativity emphasised the value of creative pedagogy (Woods 2002, Jeffrey 2003). This included both pupils and their teachers’ engagement in innovation, ownership, control and relevance (Woods 2002, Jeffrey 2003). Moreover, the crucial features highlighted by exceedingly creative professionals in primary classrooms included their curiosity, connection-making autonomy and uniqueness (Grainger, Barnes and Scoffham 2006) which was advocated as exploration in open-minded settings (Einarsdottir, 2003). Therefore “as children develop a sense of their own moral autonomy along with a robust moral empathy, they are capable of genuine moral understanding and respect for the rights of others, as well as themselves” (Mitzell, 2015, pp.327-328).

In conclusion, it is acknowledged that creativity is possible to implement in all areas of human activity in primary school encounters (NACCCE,1999). This includes not only the arts but science, problem solving at play, within pedagogy and voluminous aspects of daily life (NACCCE, 1999). Once creativity is established by individuals it can have an extremely positive or negative impact on pupil’s self-esteem and on overall accomplishment in school (NACCCE, 1999). Significantly, there is a divide amongst progressive educationalists (Hicks, 2012) and what Neoliberals believe in. Educationalists favor the necessity for creativity in education because in order for children to think optimistically, critically and creatively about their futures perspective these skills must be obtained (Hicks, 2012). 

Therefore, pupils must “explore both probable (likely) and preferable (desirable) futures for themselves, their school, their community and wider society” to have an influential effect on their learning experience (Hicks, 2012, p.45). In comparison, to neo-liberal’s measurable perspective that “economists tend to believe that there are no limits to growth” (Hicks, 2012, p.14) with their favored bureaucratically endorsed pedagogy (Friere,1966). Creativity in education is crucial when combining problem solving across the curriculum, however, it goes without saying that not all complications are in need to be solved through creative strategies (NACCCE,1999). Alternatively, they can be achieved routinely and through logic reasoning, in addition, creative philosophers solve present problems but also contemplate critically about ones we didn’t know we had (NACCCE, 1999). There remain tensions when defining creativity, for instance the limitations of creativity and imaginations being associated to the gifted few (Duffy, 2016). Nonetheless, creativity is crucial component to a child’s development in primary education, due to their emotional well-being, engagement and ability to learn to the best of their capabilities (Claxton, 2011).

Reference List

Claxton, G. (2001). Wise up. London: A&C Black.

Craft, A (2001) ‘Little c creativity’ in Craft, A. Jeffrey, B & Leibling, M (eds.) Creativity in education.  London: Continuum, pp.45-61.

Duffy, B (2006) Supporting creativity and imagination in the early years. 2^nd Edn. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Einarsdottir, J. 2003. ‘‘Principles Underlying the Work of Icelandic Preschool Teachers.’’ European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 11 (1): 3953. doi:10.1080/ 13502930385209051.

Freire, Paulo. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin. London Freire and Macedo (1987). Reading the Word and the World. Routledge. London.

Grainger, T., J. Barnes, and S. Scoffham. 2006. Creative Teaching for Tomorrow. Deal: Future Creative

Hicks, D. (2012). Sustainable schools, sustainable futures: A resource for teachers. Godalming: Worldwide Fund for Nature UK.

Jeffrey, B., and P. Woods. 2003. The Creative School: A Framework for Success, Quality and Effectiveness. London: Routledge Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203437223.

Koestler, A. (1964)  The act of creation.  London: Hutchinson & Co

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd Edition). New York: Van Nostrand.

Mizell, K. (2015). Philosophy for Children, Community of Inquiry, and Human Rights Education. Childhood & Philosophy, 11(22), 319-328.

N.A.C.C.C.E. (1999)  All our futures: creativity, culture and education. London: DfEE

Pinker, S. (1995) The Language Instinct, London: Penguin.

Sharp, C. (2004) Developing young children’s creativity: what can we learn from research? Topic (32) pp.5-12

Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen [Imagination and creativity in childhood]. Göteborg: Daidalos. (Original work published 1950).

Woods, P. 2002. ‘‘Teaching and Learning in the New Millenium.’’ In Developing Teachers and Teaching Practice: International Research Perspectives, edited by C. Sugrue and C. Day. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.