Interface Between Theory And Practice In Reflecting On Creative Teaching And Learning - Essay Example

?A Critical analysis of the interface between theory and practice in reflecting on creative teaching and learning Introduction Although teaching is meant to be creative, there are concerns that teaching has increasingly emerged as a prescribed function that operates to stifle teaching creativity (Sawyer 2004, p. 12). Even so, there has been a call for a relaxation of the dominant prescriptive and policy saturated teaching and learning agenda (Jeffrey 2006, p. 399). Theory and experience both demonstrate that creativity in teaching and learning is becoming more significant for progress and congruence in the knowledge society of the 21st century (Ferrari, Cachia and Punie 2009, p. iii). Be that as it may, the interface between the theory and practice relative to creative teaching and learning covet an uneasy co-existence. Sawyer (2011) informs that although creativity or improvisation is a necessary criteria for effective teaching and learning, prescriptive teaching as dictated by a statutory directed curriculum and the focus on public testing outcomes has given way to a culture of “less creative teaching and learning” (p. 2). This essay examines the theoretical basis of creativity in teaching and learning and demonstrates how these theories can be put to practice. The first part of this essay critically analyses theories of creative teaching and learning and the second part will reflect on the experiences and observations of the author during creative week. Theoretical Perspectives on Creative Teaching and Learning Definition of Creative Teaching and Learning The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) acknowledges that the term creativity can be misleading as it can mean different things to different people. This is particularly so, since creativity is generally associated with art. This is misleading because creativity can be equally valid to science, mathematics, politics, business, technology and all aspects of our daily lives (NACCCE 1999, p. 28). Creativity in teaching and learning means providing equal opportunities for all to make the most out of their specific “strengths and abilities” (NACCCE 1999, p. 29). Creativity is thus “imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are original and of value” ( NACCCE 1999, p. 30). In this regard, creativity in teaching and learning is characterized by four factors. First it involves “thinking or behaving imaginatively” (NACCCE 1999, p. 30). Secondly, the imaginative thinking and behaving must have a purpose in that it must be directed at achieving goals or objectives. Thirdly, in thinking, acting and achieving, there must be some originality involved. Finally, the results must have some value to the goals or objectives (NACCCE 1999, p. 30). Creative teaching is thus defined as: Teachers using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting, exciting and effective (NACCE 1990 p. 6). The emphasis appears to be on engagement in terms of making learning more interesting. Perceptions are that students who are engaged are more likely to retain what they are being taught (Willms 2003, p. 3). It is therefore possible to argue, that by definition, creativity in teaching and learning is method for engaging students and therefore improving outcomes for individual learners. Theories of Creative Teaching and Learning Theories of creative teaching and learning embrace the twin concepts of teaching for creativity and teaching creatively. Teaching for creativity focuses on the “learner orientation” of teaching and teaching creatively focuses on the “teacher orientation” of creativity teaching (Cremin 2009, p. 36). Cremin (2009) explains that creative teaching thus makes “learning more interesting and effective” (p. 36). Teachers also identify “children’s creative strengths” and foster “their creativity” (Cremin 2009, p. 36). Creative teaching practices are more effective when students find purpose in the lesson through practical exercises or through mental or personal associations (Abbs 2002). In other words, teaching should involve mental engagement and it is believed that creative teaching fosters emotional engagement. Creative teaching therefore helps students to identify purpose which in turn fosters a flow which is a key trait for creativity in individuals (Csikszentmihalyi 2002). In this regard, de Bono’s (1982) thinking hats is instructive. De Bono (1982) emphasizes thinking skills that help young students to associate and empathize with one another in groups. Specifically, de Bono’s (1982) Six Thinking Hat’s, each of which are coded by colours, reflect different thinking. White represents gathering of information; red reflects feelings and instinctive responses; black reflects negativity; yellow reflects positivity; green reflects innovation and creativity; and blue reflects planning and organization (De Bono 1982). Young students in groups are asked to resolve problems by reference the colour coded system. By taking this approach the student is familiarized with his or her own thought process while resolving and analysing problems. They also become aware of how emotions can stifle rational thinking and it helps them to understand how others feel about the issue so that they reach a resolution as a group (De Bono 1982). De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats methods therefore foster critical and creative thinking for problem solving. Complimenting this approach is De Bono’s (1982) mind mapping teaching and learning technique. This approach is a method of brainstorming which provides for exploratory learning and thus fosters creativity and innovation. It encourages a demonstration of how raw content for mapping can be established (De Bono 1982). As will be demonstrated in the second half of this essay, De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats and mind mapping theories featured prominently in creative week. In order to adopt De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats and mind mapping strategies some degree of flexibility in teaching and learning is required. As Grainger et al (2004) points out, creative teaching also means being flexible (Grainger et al 2004). The DfES (2003) also agree that flexible pace is good for ensuring that students have the opportunity to participate and it permits spontaneity which provides ample opportunities for students to be creative and to achieve. Flexibility also provides teaches with an opportunity to observe individual and group engagement with the learning experience and therefore allows for making the appropriate adjustments to learning tasks and preferences (Cremin 2009). Melendez and Beck (2010) argue that today’s classrooms are more multicultural than at any other time in our history. Therefore teaching and learning must always be viewed as a cultural experience (Bettlestone 1998). This also forms the conceptual basis for adopting De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats and mind mapping theories. Since creativity is the “special ability to see things in unusual or unconventional ways” it is well suited to teaching and learning (Melendez and Beck 2010, p. 318). Multicultural classrooms will obviously be consumed by unconventional attitudes and perceptions and is thus an ideal environment for encouraging creativity. Using creativity in such an environment will promote an openness and flexibility that fosters “growth and development” particularly where the students are “encouraged to find alternative ways to approach realities” (Melendez and Beck 2010, p. 318). Thus De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats and mind mapping theories provides a method by which teaching and learning is conducted in open and flexible environments. Students are able to not only share and connect in terms of sharing information, but also in terms of understanding not only their own feelings and thoughts, but the thoughts and feelings of others. Young children are instinctively imaginative and curious and teaching and learning should be focused on encouraging the creativity that comes with those instincts rather than stifling it. By encouraging this natural instinct, children are more likely to develop into “innovative, creative thinkers of the future” (Compton, Johnston, Taylor and Nahmad-Williams 2010, p. 2). In other words classroom practices should make room for children to explore in a variety of ways, namely; role playing, contact with technology, teaching aids, practical exercises, collaboration with peers and any number of exercises that require direct participation and exploration. Exploration corresponds with Claxton’s (2000) tortoise mind theory. Claxton’s (2000) tortoise mind is similar to what psychologists refer to as intuition. The tortoise mind arises when the individual requires a creative resolution to an unclear problem. The tortoise mind meditates and ponders playfully. When we focus too narrowly on fixed solutions, the tortoise mind is suppressed and so too is creativity (Claxton 2000). As will be demonstrated in the second half of this essay, Claxton’s tortoise mind theory was also used during creative week as a method for facilitating critical and creative thinking skills. It therefore follows that creativity is stifled when instructions follow rigid strictures and students are expected to learn in exactly the same way. Creativity in teaching and learning recognizes the merits of differentiation. The learning theories of Piaget 1958 and Vygostky 1978 inform that children in the same age group do not automatically have the same mental capacities (Cited in Bettlestone 1998). When teachers are not creative, they tend to follow rigid teaching practices that do not recognize the different learning preferences and mental readiness of all the students and move from lesson to the next so that some students are in danger of falling behind. Informed by Piaget and Vygostky’s theories of learning, creative week employed methods by which attention was focused on students who need extra help and students who needed greater challenges. Thus teaching and learning often requires what Vygostky (1978/1998) refers to as scaffolding which recognizes the zone of proximal development in which there is a response to the gap between what the young student is able to do alone and how learning can be fostered by helping the student with aid (cited in Bettlestone 1998). This method of differentiation (scaffolding) was necessary during creative week to accommodate different learning readiness of the children. The DfES (2004) reports that changes pursuant to the Children Act 2004 which emphasises the welfare of children, commands that schools provide more opportunities so that students receive “guidance more tailored” to their needs and that is “relevant in today’s world” (para 3.9). Thus there is a recognition that differentiation is quite often necessary. Both teacher and learner will have be creative pursuant to Claxton’s theory of the tortoise mind. In other words, teachers will have use intuition in deploying differentiation techniques to ensure that all students reach their full potential. The teacher’s own creative teaching and planning together with the ability to discern when or how to intervene and to guide students farther along in their own thinking and curiosity can produce higher standards and meet national goals for ensuring all children reach their full potential (Fisher and Williams 2004). Creative teaching, permits “electic methods” that will more likely ensure that all students are engaged “regardless of cultural and linguistic background or ability” (Vang 2010, p. 18). It therefore follows that creative teaching and teaching for creativity, not only permits the flexibility required for taking account of and accommodating students with different mental readiness but different learning styles that occur as a result of cultural, ethnic and class backgrounds. Thus creative teachers are aware that learning occurs in a cultural context (Bruner cited in Bettlestone, 1998). Coggins and Campbell (2008) conducted a review of the literature and report that research findings dating back thirty years and onward in education trends in the in the US, demonstrate that approximately one third of Black American students, students from other minority groups such as Latin Americans and native Americans, and students from poor families and neighbourhoods, typically perform more poorly in school than White American students (p. 46). More recently, Frederickson and Petrides (2004) conducted a study that demonstrated that students of ethnic minority and students with low socio-economic status performed more poorly in school that White students and students of a higher socio-economic background (p. 144). Clearly, the achievement gap cannot be a mere coincidence. Students of lower socio-economic status and students of colour and other ethnic groups are less likely to be engaged when the curriculum focuses on teaching students as if they all have the same learning style and learning ability. Creative teaching takes account of these differences, identifies them and conducts intervention and differentiation when appropriate. Moreover, students are given a voice and are able to become involved in the classroom. As a result, detachment and disinterest are minimized. Creative Teaching in Practice During Creative Week, the Lesson Plan had Ghana as its theme and took the position that learning occurs in a cultural context and therefore the Lesson Plan was designed to take account of the different learning styles, preferences and abilities of all students. De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats and mind mapping theories also featured prominently in addressing thinking creatively, critically and in collaboration with others. Moreover, the creative teaching and learning technique that took account of where the student was in terms of his or her learning, rather than where we expected them to be. This approach was informed by Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories of learning. During the creative week it was discovered that some children were over-challenged while others were under-challenged. D & T provided the primary focus since it permitted “wicked” and “open tasks” (Barlex cited by Fisher and Williams 2004). These exercises were conducted for three hours in two lessons. Essentially, the idea was to take an integrated approach pursuant to the Lesson Plan. Key skills were contextualized. The Lesson Plan therefore was not prescriptive in that it was not subject specific and permitted a natural approach to learning. The key focus was De Bono’s (1982) mind mapping and thinking hats’ theories of teaching and learning. A learning framework was also constructed around Vygostky’s (cited in Bettlestone 1998) scaffolding theories. The Lesson Plan took into account the fact that children may not have experienced tip-taps. Some will have some experience in terms of volume and capacity while others may perceive that life in Africa is no different from life in Lancaster. The Lesson Plan also considered that is also likely that children for the most part have difficulty conceptualizing life outside of England. Therefore the Lesson Plan was designed to permit the children to experience a different culture by taking a hands-on, immersive approach. Drawing on the report by DfES (2004) the Lesson Plan proceeded on the basis that children are not required to have knowledge of specific NC links. However is it important that they gain an understanding of the links implicit in knowledge and transferrable skills (DfES 2004). Links were established with subjects such as Math, Geography and English. The links are unambiguous and obvious. This is substantiated by the findings published in A Curriculum for Excellence (2006) which reflects that learning requires space to expand beyond the boundaries of individual subjects. Drawing on Heilman’s (2005) argument that creative thinkers are typically risk-takers, the Lesson Plan was modelled accordingly. Thus students were required to use new resources in a new environment which encapsulated exploration of materials and ideas. This approach was successful as the children manifested confidence and freedom in attempting to achieve outcomes with individual originality. Scaffolding was necessary in order to pattern the required skills (see Vygostky cited in Bettlestone 1998). Differentiation/scaffolding occurred by virtue of providing additional assistance for children who appeared to be having difficulty with the calculating exercises relative to the capacity of each tip-tap in mls. Children who were having no difficulty at all were assigned more difficult calculations such as filing the container with 2500 mls of water. The idea was to ensure that both struggling and accomplished students are engaged and attached. The differentiation was calculated to ensure that all students were learning, regardless of mental readiness and abilities (Gardner 1983). Assessments were designed to take place by virtue of questioning students about the design, difficulties and issues and how they responded to these factors. Assessment was used to make decisions by reference to outcome. Key creative questions were: has the group constructed a working tip-tap fit for purpose? Can the group calculate measurements accurately? Creative questioning was entirely important and was designed around a series of different questions and questioning styles. By taking this approach, the students were at liberty to answer creatively/originally. Considering that visual stimuli was important for helping children understand the purpose of the lesson as a part of the scaffolding process a video from the cowflies website was shown (see Warfield 1973). As a part of the scaffolding process, the video also permitted students to view concrete examples of different designs. Teaching and learning activities included discussions about life in an African village. We discussed the difficulties associated with a lack of water and difficulties associated with sanitation. The students were permitted to explore by virtue of a mind-mapping activity which focused on hand-washing. They explored questions such as why hand-washing was necessary, the items you need for hand-washing, how you would make those items, where you would keep it and what name you might give to it. This approach is similar to the technique and outcome espoused by De Bono’s (1982) white hat thinking approach. Since the creative week was not long enough to teach the children to work with all six of De Bono’s (1982) thinking hats colour codes, we settled on the three that would be more relevant to the teaching and learning objectives for the week. Thus we settled on the white, black and red thinking hats. The white thinking hat was introduced first. The white thinking hat permitted students to focus on the positive element in that they were able to identify what they already knew about the subject. The black thinking hat was introduced next and it was used for problem solving activities. The red thinking hat was introduced last and it was used to encouraged students to reflect on what how they felt about what they had learned. Corresponding with the mind-mapping activity, the Lesson Plan expected to play a video in which a girl from Ghana describes how she makes a tip-tap. However, we were unable to play the video because of technical difficulties. We improvised pursuant to Sawyer’s (2011) theory of creative teaching and learning by departing from prescriptive teaching and the students were able to determine for themselves how they would make their own tip-tap. The Lesson Plan required that the children convene in groups following the video and devise a plan for constructing their own tip-taps. Essentially, the children were able to be original without the influence of the video. Thus the creative teaching approach was akin to DeBono’s (1982) Black Thinking Hat concept. The thinking hats exercise was very successful particularly since it was complimented by scaffolding so that all children were engaged. Based on the satisfactory outcome, I would definitely use the thinking hats approach in the future. The main activity took a hands-on approach. Children were organized in their groups to enhance their designs on large sheets of paper. Following this exercise the children reconvened in groups and explained their designs to other children through questions and comments by the teacher and other students. An incubation stage was also involved in that the children had a night away from the lesson before engaging in this exercise. Claxton (2000) cautions that children need time to come up with their own designs. What follows is an illumination stage (Claxton 2000). While this approach appears to have worked, it is not always practical to break from a lesson to permit an incubation stage. However, wherever practical I would certainly break to allow an incubation stage to ensure illumination. As a plenary stage, the children were instructed to inspect each tip-tap and to identify which tip-tap they thought was best and why. This was followed by an informal gathering on the carpet where the children conducted another mind-mapping activity relative to what they learned they needed to successfully construct their tip-taps, what they did not need and any other thoughts and ideas. Essentially, this was the verification stage which allows students to determine if the product fit the purpose (Claxton 2000). By collaborating with one another, the students were able to come up with ideas. As Heilman (2005) suggests creativity is facilitated by divergent and convergent thinking. Conclusion Having put the creative teaching and teaching for creativity in practice pursuant to the Lesson Plan, I was able to learn first-hand that improvising does in fact engage students. Creative teaching and teaching for creativity accommodated space and time to allow for differentiated teaching so that all students, those requiring intervention and those requiring greater challenges were accommodated. Bibliography Abbs, P. (2002). Against the Flow. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Bettlestone, F. (1998) Creative Children, Imaginative Teaching, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Claxton, G. (2000) Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind. New York, NY: The Echo Press. Coggns, P. and Campbell, S. D. “Using Cultural Competence to Close the Achievement Gap.” Journal of Pan African Studies, 2(4) (June 2008):44-59. Cremin, T. (2009). “Creative Teachers and Creative Teaching.” Cited in Wilson, A. (Ed.). Creativity in Primary Education. 2nd Edition. Exeter, UK: Learning Matters. Crompton, A.; Johnston, J.; Taylor, K. and Nahmen-Williams, L. (2010). Creative Development. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Cziksentimihalyi, M. (2002). Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness. London, UK: Rider. De Bono, E., (1982) Thinking Course, London, UK: British Broadcasting Corporation. Department for Education and Skills. (2003). Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for Primary Schools. Nottingham: DfES Publications. DfES. (2004). “Every Child Matters: Change for Children.” HM Government. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/e/every%20child%20matters%20change%20for%20children.pdf (Retrieved 30 July 2011). Ferrari, A.; Cachia, R. and Punie, Y. (2009). “Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching.” Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 1-64. Fisher, R., Williams, M., (2004) Unlocking Creativity: Teaching across the curriculum. Oxon, UK: David Fulton Publishers. Frederickson, N. and Petrides, K.V. “Ethnic, Gender, and Socio-Economic Group Differences in Academic Performance and Secondary School Selection: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2) (2nd Quarter 2008): 144-151. Grainger, T.; Barnes, J. and Scoffman, S. (2004). “A Creative Cocktail: Creative Teaching in Initial Teacher Education.” Journal of Education and Teaching, Vol. 38(3): 243-253. Heilman, K. M., (2005) Creativity and the Brain. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Jeffrey, B. (2006). “Creative Teaching and Learning: Towards a Common Discourse and Practice.” Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 36(3): 399-414. Melendez, W. and Beck, V. (2010). Teaching Young Children I Multicultural Classrooms: Issues, Concepts and Strategies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). “All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education.” Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.1-243. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 33(2): 12-20. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vang, C. T. (2010). An Educational Psychology of Methods in Multicultural Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Willms, J. D. “Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation”. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (April 2003): 1-84. Read More