Anna Craft

Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships

The distinction and relationship between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity identified in the report from the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999), is examined by focusing on empirical research from an early years school, known for its creative approach. The examination uses four characteristics of creativity and pedagogy identified by Peter Woods (1990): relevance, ownership, control and innovation, to show the interdependence of the NACCCE distinctions. We conclude that although the NACCCE distinction between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity has been useful as an analytical tool, it may, at the same time, have dichotomised an integrated practice and we suggest that a more useful distinction for the study of creative pedagogies would be the relationship between teaching creatively and creative learning.

The Limits To Creativity In Education: Dilemmas For The Educator

Since the end of the 1990s, creativity has become a growing area of interest once more within education and wider society. In England creativity is now named within the school curriculum and in the curriculum for children aged 3–5. There are numerous government and other initiatives to foster individual and collective creativity, some of this through partnership activity bringing together the arts, technology, science and the social sciences.  As far as education is concerned, this growth in emphasis and value placed on encouraging creativity can be seen as being in stark contrast with the government policy prevalent from the late 1980s onward. One of the underpinning themes and justifications for this re-kindling of interest in fostering creativity is that the individual and collective empowerment which is fostered by the development of creative skill is seen to be a good thing at the social and economic level in particular (Craft, 2002). These justifications have been discussed elsewhere (Jeffrey and Craft, 2001).  But an important question to ask is, how desirable are the cultural norms of continual change and innovation in Western society?  This paper examines some possible social, environmental, cultural and ethical limits to creativity, in the context of educating for creativity (NACCCE, 1999). It argues that the notion of creativity may be value- and culture-specific and that this poses the so-called liberal educator with various dilemmas of principle and pedagogy, which are explored.

Fostering creativity with wisdom

Over the past five years, creativity has become a focus of attention for policy‐makers in education. However, the increased interest in creativity has occurred as if without reference to any value framework. This article suggests that in fact an invisible underpinning value framework has been provided by western individualism, in turn both supporting and driven by the globalized capitalist marketplace. What could this mean for nurturing creativity with wisdom in schools? Working from the stance that wisdom involves making thoughtful, well‐informed and appropriate judgments leading to sound courses of action with regard to the consequences, this paper discusses some significant objections to a market‐driven model of creativity in education, discusses a possible framework for understanding creativity in a way which emphasizes responsibility as well as rights to expression and proposes wisdom as a necessary element of pedagogy.

Documenting 'possibility thinking': a journey of collaborative enquiry

Drawing on existing work in the area of creativity and early years education, this paper maps the process of an exploratory study which sought to identify what characterizes ‘possibility thinking’ as an aspect of creativity in young children’s learning. With the aim of developing a framework for identifying ‘possibility thinking’ in the contexts of three early years settings, the authors explore key tenets of a model for conceptualizing (and rethinking) ‘possibility thinking’ and attempt to reconcile some of the methodological challenges inherent in documenting this aspect of creativity in early years contexts. With the co‐participation of five early years teachers as researchers, three university‐based researchers worked collaboratively, in a funnel‐like process, over the three‐phase development of the project. With the emphasis on mapping the developing conceptualizations of ‘possibility thinking’ and the appropriateness of multimodal methods in naturalistic enquiry, the research team explicates and argues the need for sharing methodological approaches in researching young children’s thinking. The data arising from this research provide powerful insights into the characteristics of ‘possibility thinking’ which most successfully promote creativity, and the authors conclude with a consideration of the implications for future research, practice and practitioner research in early years contexts.

Creative development in the early years: some implications of policy for practice

ABSTRACT This article focuses on the identifying of ‘creative development’ as a desirable early years learning outcome by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA, 1997). The article begins with a rationale for the inclusion of ‘creativity’ in the curriculum of young children in a post‐modern world at the turn of the century. It then goes on to look at the way in which ‘creative development’ is characterized by SCAA as a desirable learning outcome, and to unpick some of the messages which its inclusion in the curriculum may signify. There are several challenges posed by this part of the early years curriculum, which are then explored. Finally it proposes a framework for interpreting and translating it into practice.

Question-Posing and Question-Responding: The Heart of "Possibility Thinking" in the Early Years.

Drawing on research that sought to explore the characteristics of ‘Possibility Thinking’ as central to creativity in young childrens learning, this paper considers question‐posing and question‐responding as the driving features of ‘Possibility Thinking’ (PT). This qualitative study employed micro‐event analysis of peer and pupil–teacher interaction. Events were sampled from two early years settings in England, one a Reception classroom (4‐ to 5‐year olds) and the other a Year 2 classroom (6‐ to 7‐year olds). This article arises out of the second stage of an ongoing research programme (2004–2007) involving the children and practitioners in these settings. This phase considers the dimensions of question‐posing and the categories of question‐responding and their interrelationship within PT. Three dimensions of questioning were identified as characteristic of PT. These included: (i) question framing, reflecting the purpose inherent within questions for adults and children (including leading, service and follow‐through questions); (ii) question degree: manifestation of the degree of possibility inherent in childrens questions (including possibility narrow, possibility moderate, possibility broad); (iii) question modality, manifestation of the modality inherent in childrens questions (including verbal and non‐verbal forms). The fine‐grained data analysis offers insight into how children engage in PT to meet specific needs in responding to creative tasks and activities and reveals the crucial role that question‐posing and question‐responding play in creative learning. It also provides more detail about the nature of young childrens thinking, made visible through question‐posing and responding in engaging playful contexts.

Creative learning conversations: producing living dialogic spaces

Background: ‘Creative learning conversations’, are methodological devices developed in two co-participative qualitative research projects exploring creativity and educational futures at the University of Exeter in England. Sources of evidence: Framed by Critical Theory, the projects, one on dance education partnership, the other on student voice and transformation, sought to open space between creativity and performativity to initiate emancipatory educational change. This was undertaken over the course of five years in English primary and secondary schools, prioritising humanising, wise creativity. Purpose: This paper re-analyses data and methodological processes to characterise and theorise creative learning conversations in terms of social spatiality and dialogue. The characteristics are: partiality, emancipation, working from the ‘bottom up’, participation, debate and difference, openness to action, and embodied and verbalised idea exchange. Main argument: This re-analysis theoretically adapts Bronfenbrenners ecological model (The ecology of human development; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) to situate layered engagement. Utilising Lefebvres conceptualisation of lived space (The production of space; Wiley-Blackwell, 1991) and Bakhtins work (Problems of Dostoevskys poetics; ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson; Minneapolis: University of Michigan Press, 1984) on open-ended dialogue, the paper theorises creative learning conversations as producing living dialogic spaces. Conclusions: Creative learning conversations are a way of contributing to change, which moves us towards an education future fit for the twenty-first century. From a living dialogic space perspective, a creative learning conversation is the ongoing process without forced closure of those in the roles of university academic, teachers, artists, students co-participatively researching and developing knowledge of their ‘lived space’ together. Given traditional lethargy in the educational system as a whole commitment to changing education for better futures demands active involvement in living dialogic space, where our humanity both emerges from and guides our shared learning.

Childhood in a Digital Age: Creative Challenges for Educational Futures.

The early 21st century is characterised by rapid change. Commentators note how permeating digital technologies engage increasing numbers of children, young people and adults as consumers and also producers. In the shifting technological landscape, childhood and youth are changing. Connectivity around the clock, with a parallel existence in virtual space, is seamlessly integrated with actual lives. Young people are skilful collaborators, navigating digital gaming and social networking with ease, capably generating and manipulating content, experimenting virtually with versions of their ‘social face’. They are implicit, inherent and immersed consumers. They are digital possibility thinkers posing ‘what if?’ questions and engaging in ‘as if’ activity. This paper seeks to theorise such possibility thinking in a digital, marketized age, using two competing discourses: young people as vulnerable and at risk; or alternatively as capable and potent. The former perspective imbues anxiety about the digital revolution; the latter embraces it as exciting and enabling. As education providers seek to re-imagine themselves, neither is sufficient. Local and global challenge and change urgently demand our creative potential and wisdom, recognising three further key characteristics of changing childhood and youth: pluralities, playfulness, and participation. Drawing from work with schools, the paper argues for co-creating with students, education futures through dialogue to nurture the 4 p’s: plurality, playfulness, participation and possibilities.

Learners Reconceptualising Education: Widening Participation through Creative Engagement?.

Engaging imaginatively with how education is manifested is necessary for providers both in higher education and in preceding contexts and phases. Fostering dispositions for creativity in dynamic engagement and the consideration of pedagogy, curriculum, inclusion, policy and the management of change, requires innovative provision to span school, home, work and higher education learning. Reporting on Aspire Pilot, a National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts‐funded initiative at The Open University, which sought to foster creativity of 11–18 year olds in considering future learning systems, this paper offers the beginning of a theoretical frame for considering learning, learners and systems in the Knowledge Age prioritising learner agency. Discussing findings, the paper explores implications for approaches facilitating widening participation in higher education.

Neuro-linguistic Programming and learning theory

This article explores relationships between Neuro-linguistic Programming - a growing school of thought and practice - and established learning theory, drawing a distinction between models, strategies and theories. Some evaluative comments are made about the coherence of Neuro-linguistic Programming as it currently stands, both in terms of its internal consistency, and in relation to established learning theories. In relation to its internal structure, questions are asked as to how far copying an experts behaviour can really lead a learner to becoming an expert, and about the lack of attention within the theory given to the domain of application. Two other important areas are examined: the dissonance between the claim that Neuro-linguistic Programming caters to individuality in learning while also proposing a view that learning is best done experientially; and a specific aspect of the theory, named the ‘logical levels’, asking whether learners are really as predictable and as subject to cause/effect as this theory would suggest. Finally,the epistemological basis of Neurolinguistic Programming is questioned. It is argued that, though Neuro-linguistic Programming has begun to make an impact in education, it remains a set of strategies rather than a theory or a model, and these internal inconsistencies need to be addressed if it is to have a place among the dominant learning theories of our age.