Creativity has been
described as ‘a state of mind in which all our intelligences are working
together’…involving ‘seeing, thinking and innovating’ (Craft, 2000, p.38) and
as ‘imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both
original and of value’ (NACCCE, 1999, p.29).
As contributors within education, we need to be
able to appreciate as well as influence the idea that creativity has an
essentially important ‘role to play in education’ and recognise that many can
contribute to it, both ‘personally and professionally’ (Grainger & Barnes,
2006, p. 1). A few weeks back, various students and I took part in two separate
creativity workshops in our local woods where we were joined by Springwood and
Lisvane primary school. We were learning about ‘authentic learning’ and how it
can help encourage creativity. Authentic learning is experimental learning,
which enables children to experience different settings and situations,
allowing them to reflect on ‘real world’ experiences (Curtin University, 2015).
We
organised a few activities that would enhance the children’s imagination and
creative thinking with the help of their current surrounding environment.
Resnick states that all children are ‘born with a natural impulse to explore
and experiment, so we need to help them develop it further’ (Chowns, 2003),
Displaying that we should encourage and enhance this idea through their
education, furthermore, their everyday life.
We
performed an activity where the primary students had to use their imaginations
and think about what the trees in the woods where. For example, one of the
children said that they could be heroic soldiers that tragically passed on,
however they transformed into tall trees to remain remembered. As Jeffrey and
Woods (2003, p. 3) once said, the physical environment is one that effectively
promotes and supports creativity as it likely to "celebrate achievement
and individuality" (Jeffrey and Woods, 2003, p.3). They declare that not
only does the environment help with means of stimulation, but is also ‘a
valuable teaching resource’ (Jeffery and Woods, 2003).
Additionally, it is always useful to be able to differentiate and
distinguish between high creativity and commonplace, ordinary creativity,
between ‘Big C’ and ‘Little c’ (Duffy 2006, p.17). ‘Big C’ creativity (which
has been seen in some of Gardner’s (1993) studies of highly creative
individuals, such as Picasso, Einstein and Freud) is seen as innovating, being
able to grasp an excellence for something in a particular field and not being
afraid to challenge past ideas with new ones. While on the other hand ‘little
c’ creativity is more of a ‘process of conscious invention and describes the
resourcefulness of ordinary people rather than extraordinary contributors’
(Duffy, 2006, p.17), demonstrating that individuals have their own personality
traits and experiences with creativity, nonetheless, it can continually be
stimulated throughout life.
Saying this, 'In a world dominated by
technological innovations, creativity is a critical component; human skills and
people’s powers of creativity and imagination are key resources in a knowledge
driven economy' (Robinson, 2001). In Ken Robinson’s (2006) talk on creativity
he discusses that in the workforce, being wrong is seen as a weakness, 'they
are not prepared to be wrong’. They stigmatize mistakes, therefore nowadays;
throughout the national education system faults are also being seen ‘as the
worst thing you can make’, resulting in children and young people running away
from their ‘creative capacities’ in education (Robinson, 2006).
He makes a grand statement upon how all
education systems have the same ‘hierarchy of subjects’. At the top being
mathematics and languages, and the arts, being placed least interest at the
bottom of the spectrum (Robinson, 2006). Due to these outcomes he strongly
believes that public education is available to us, mainly to be able to educate
our children of today and prepare them for future living and the economy. How
our education system is ‘predicted on the idea of academic ability’, rather
than creativity. (Robinson, 2006).
Lastly, there was no public
education before the 19th century as ‘they all came into being to
meet the needs of industrialism’ meaning that the hierarchy is established from
tow ideas:
1)
The most valuable subjects
for work are at the top of the spectrum, e.g. doing mathematics everyday of the
week, but only having music once a week as ‘you’re not going to be a musician’
(Robinson, 2006)
2)
Academic ability. It really
has come to ‘dominate our views on intelligence’. Every system has its fixed
syllabus. As a consequence, those students with wonderful and creative minds
are not appreciated, but rather stigmatized (Robinson, 2006).
In conclusion, as society is constantly changing and evolving, ‘the ability to
live with uncertainty and deal with complexity is essential’, displaying that
governments are becoming appropriately involved to promote creativity (Grainger
& Barnes, 2006). With the help of creativity, young
people will develop the kind of skills that will assist them in this rapidly
‘changing and uncertain world’ (Grainger & Barnes, 2006), in addition to
helping improve motivation, enthusiasm, self-confidence and success (Grainger &
Barnes,2006). This will certainly create a positive impact on primary
education.
Reference List:
Craft, A.
(2000) ‘Creativity Across the Primary
Curriculum: Framing and Developing
Practice’, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Chowns, J.
(2003). ‘Toy Story. Fairfax Digital’.
Availabe at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027320836.html?from=storyrhs
(Accessed on 1 November 2017)
Curtin
University (2015) ‘Authentic Learning’.
Available at: https://clt.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/student_centred/authentic.cfm
(Accessed on 1 November 2017)
Duffy, B (2006) ‘Supporting
creativity and imagination in the early years’. 2nd Edn.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Gardner, H.
(1993). ‘Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences’ (10 anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Grainger, T.
and Barnes, J. (2006) ‘Creativity in the
Primary Curriculum’ in J. Arthur, T.
Grainger and D. Wray. (eds.) Learning to Teach in the Primary School London:
Grainger and D. Wray. (eds.) Learning to Teach in the Primary School London:
Routledge.pp.209-225.
Jeffrey,
B. and Woods, P. (2003) ‘The Creative
School: A Framework for Success, Quality and Effectiveness’, London:
Routledge, Falmer
NACCCE (1999)
‘All Our Futures, the report of the
National Advisory Committee on
Creative and Cultural education’, London:
DfEE/DCMS
OFSTED
(2003) ‘Expecting the Unexpected’.
Available at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/ (Accessed on 29 October 2017)
Robinson.
K. (2001) ‘Out of Our Minds Capstone’:
London
Robinson,
K. (2006) ‘Do schools kill creativity?’
Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity/transcript#t-666408
(Accessed on 2 November 2017)
Hello Maddy, this creativity blog was extremely interesting as I have passionate beliefs conforming to Robinson's (2006) outlook of creativity being a critical component in primary education. Despite, this the same hierarchy of subjects being taught in education, with almost identical across education systems, often ranking the arts as least important (Robinson, 2006). However, in Wales the newly designed curriculum established by Donaldson (2015) does incorporate 4 main purposes which have a focus on creativity. However, there still remains an existing focus on three cross-curricular subjects which drive the curriculum, these include literacy, numeracy and digital competency (Donaldson, 2015). Therefore, do you still conform to Grainger and Barnes's (2006) idea of governments having appropriate involvement with the curriculum promoting creativity? (Grainger and Barnes, 2006) Although, our education system is still reliant on the concept of academic ability (Robinson, 2006).
ReplyDeleteHi Chrystal, Thanks for the question. I very much agree and support the views of Robinson (2006) and his beliefs on the lack of creativity in primary education. Saying this, I also agree with the new curriculum design that is being implemented by Donaldson (2015) as he is passionate in achieving a world - class education for children and young people in Wales. He himself conducted a fundamental review on the 'Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements for the Foundation Phase to Key Stage 4' and saw what needed to be taking into consideration. I believe that the Government nor a panel who call themselves 'experts' should have any involvement on what goes on within the curriculum. I believe this due to that fact that the government are not present to see the growth and development of children and what works for them as a whole. Teachers, even parents should have a large portion of input when it comes to the curriculum as undoubtedly, any changes to the curriculum should have the children prospects in mind (Lawson et al., 2007).
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. Equally, I conform to the ideology of teachers, parents and members of the wider community having a heavy involvement in the curriculum's design (Lawson et al, 2007). This would mean involvement from individuals who care and have the best prospects for children in mind (Lawson et al, 2007) oppose to political inflicted adaptations formed from the government. Therefore, for an educational system to operate best, positioning children at the central focus, politics and education must not be combined (Bartlett and Burton, 2016). However, further discussions on Donaldson's (2015) curriculum developments are available to look at in this recently published article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38855531
ReplyDelete