Evidence Based Practice and School Improvement - Literature review Example

Evidence based practice and school improvement Review of Literature pertaining to people in support of using creative literacy strategies to raise educational standards in UK primary schools Course Institution Name May 30, 2009 Literature Review Following on from the Hadow reports in the early part of the last century, which rejected the abstract study of formal grammar and emphasised the importance of imaginative play amongst other things, Bridget’s Plowden report (1967) was another significant publication that is “centrally representative of the progressive aspiration of ‘child-centred education’” (Wyse, 2001: 9). It therefore represented the views of the progressive movement, and its psychological basis was to an extent entrenched in Piagetian theory. The report advocated the policy of putting the child at the centre of education by recommending individualised learning, a flexible curriculum, and learning by discovery. The authors suggested that ‘constructive learning’ take place in the classroom, and the school should be tasked to “build on and strengthen children’s intrinsic interest in learning and lead them to learn for themselves...” (Gillard, 2004) The importance of play was also emphasised as well as the need to evaluate the child’s progress. The creative child-centred tradition can actually be traced back to the Enlightenment period (Doddington, 2007: 4) so the concept of allowing children to thrive in practical and creative ways is a revivalist one. Following the Plowden report, in later years of the Thatcher government, education reform acts “sought to turn the public education service into a market-place” (Gillard, 2004) by imposing the sterile subject-based National Curriculum and regime of testing and publishing league tables. New Labour more or less only continued this practice. Thus, there has been a swing away from putting the child at the heart of the educational process. However, there are also several efforts to bring creativity back into our schools as well as a renewed focus on the development of creative literacy in particular, which this review will survey. Philip Pullman for example, “has been campaigning to get creativity back into the school curriculum” (Gillard, 2004). The reason for these efforts is that original and imaginative thinking are essential qualities that can appropriately nurtured through creative schooling. One of the outcomes of The Literacy Task Force established in 1996 was the introduction of the literacy hour in primary schools, which has been in effect for a decade now. In 1997, the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) was devised and then introduced a year later during the UK’s National Year of Reading. These attempts however are generally perceived as dulling the spirit and creating a lack in enjoyment (Palmer, 2003). The situation can only be described as a ‘patch’ in a system that fundamentally inhibits the flourishing of creativity in children. The renewed Primary Framework (Literacy Trust, 2009) has not brought about any significant changes towards making the curriculum more creative. Despite these measures to improve literacy in primary schools, a 2005 Commons education select committee inquiry found that an ‘unacceptably high’ number of children were leaving primary schools to enter secondary schools with poor levels of literacy (de Waal, 2005). The conflict in the government’s strategy can be seen in its advocating all schools to “be creative and innovative in how they teach” yet also by clinging on to over testing and demands for children to meet their attainment targets. “…creative teaching and doing well in the SATs are not mutually exlusive” (ibid) because you cannot equally prioritise both. It is important to note that literacy liberates creativity as “without fundamental basic skills, creativity is trapped and cannot flourish” (ibid). But the apathy in the way in which such schemes as the NLS, literacy hour and SATs are promoted is due precisely to detachment from creativity. A group of leading authors believe this is only “turning children off reading” after their books were being used “as texts for language and comprehension exercises, rather than simply enjoyed” (Katbamna, 2005). This systematic treatment of decoding the words and analysing the sounds is contrary to the very purpose of literature (Doddington, 2007: 107) that encourages absorption and curiosity. In a recent book, Promoting Reading For Pleasure in Primary Schools (Lockwood, 2009: 3), it is noted that the skill of reading is necessary to “climb the rungs of the school curriculum, or to unlock the doors of knowledge in other subjects..,” Moreover, putting power in readers’ hands, instead of reading being imposed upon them, is a reader-oriented approach that can promote social and moral improvement. A Reading for Change report concluded that reading motivation and cognitive skills “are mutually reinforcing” and therefore schools must address both simultaneously (OECD, 2002). That is, evidence showed the importance of developing the ‘will’ to read because both qualities ‘feed’ each other. Other lobbyists include Quentin Blake, Alison Prince and Michael Rosen who blame the NLS due to its “narrow focus on genre characteristics, word and sentence level features, and decontextualised extracts from books” (Ashley, 2005: 5). In short, since the early 1990s, schooling has become “entirely official and therefore entirely concerned with statistics, not children…” (Sedgwick, 2001). Creative writing is a process of self-discovery, which is its most important aspect (Sedgwick, 2001: 211). Plowden considered spoken language to have “a central role in learning” (Plowden 1967: S9) and pointed out, “The development of language is, therefore, central to the educational process” (Plowden 1967: S54). In developing creative literacy, fiction is central, and drama and story telling need to be encouraged (Wyse, 2001: 9) The concept of child-centered education or individualism is also apparent in the works of Dewey (1959), Montessori (1972) and others, whilst it has often been criticised on grounds of “the dangers of an exclusive and unrealistic emphasis upon the child” (Kwon, 2002) by the likes of Galton (1987) who saw the notion as too ‘romantic’, and Kogan (1987) who questioned the very existence of natural intellectual curiosity in children. As for free play, Friedrich Frobel was an early proponent who allowed it in his kindergarten so that children’s creativity could unfold and blossom (New World Encyclopedia, 2006). The traditional British nursery makes play an integral part of its curriculum, and it is a central ideal in Scandinavian countries (Einarsdottir, 2006) too. Many scientists now agree that play is “a central part of neurological growth and development” (edu-cyberpg, 1997). Creativity is a natural characteristic of humans but developed and utilised to a differing extent. Children especially revel in creative teaching environments. Being at a learning age, they “see the world in a fresh and vivid way” (HMIE, 2006). Their responses are clearly more enthusiastic than when engaged in dull activities. Is it reasonable therefore that our education system should oppose the nurturing of this quality and adopt a teaching approach that is at odds with our natural inclination? This research concerns a ‘what is it where has it come from type scenario’ involving the making of giant paper mache eggs and having them land in the school playground. This scenario aims to utilize an innovate approach to foster inquisitiveness in children and lead them on to read more about whatever comes to their mind, anything from large bird eggs to the laws of gravity. The point however is that the scenario is more likely to trigger motivation and create enthusiasm. Such scenario planning represents “a natural bridge between mind and world” and is designed to aid “better thinking and reflection” (Andresen, 2008). This is also more likely to form the basis for lifelong learning than non-creative approaches. Creativity is a useful quality for innovations to be possible in the world of work too if the government prefers to see it that way. Regardless, “an interaction of considerable knowledge and skill with a willingness to innovate and experiment” (HMIE, 2006) as the intended experiment is, is conducive to developing higher levels of creativity. The renewed focus on creativity is supported by a number of organizations in the UK such as Creative Partnerships and the National College for School Leadership. In the US, the creative curriculum approach is a feature of the widely used Head Start programs. The Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) now also appreciates the role of creativity and established the Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, which sought “to enable teachers to find and promote creativity in classrooms with children” (Grainger). References Andresen, Bent B. (2008) Scenario planning and learning technologies: The foundation of lifelong learning. Learning to Live in the Knowledge Society. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 281. Ashley et al. (2005) Quoted in Lockwood (2009). DCSF. (2006) Primary Framework: Literacy. http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/primaryframework/literacy/ [May 30, 2009]. De Waal, Anastasia and Cowen, Nicholas. (2005) Ready to Read? Available at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/readytoread.pdf. Doddington, Christine and Hilton, Mary. (2007) Child-Centred Education: Reviving the Creative Tradition. Sage Publications Ltd. Edu-cyberpg. (1997) Fun Learning Games – Research shows that learning with laughter and play helps avoid burn out. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/Play.asp [May 31, 2009]. Einarsdottir, Johanna and Wagner, Judith T. (2006) Nordic childhoods and early education: philosophy, research, policy, and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. IAP publications. Galton, Maurice. (1987). Change and continuity in the primary school: The research evidence. Oxford Review of Education. Vol. 13(1), 81-94. EJ 350 049. Qutoed in Kwon (2002). Gillard, D. (2004). The Plowden Report. The encyclopaedia of informal education. www.infed.org/schooling/plowden_report.htm [May 31, 2009]. Grainger, Teresa. (n.d.) Examining Possibility Thinking In Action In Early Years Settings. http://dev.papers.ierg.net/papers/Grainger_130.pdf [May 31, 2009]. HMIE. (2006) Emerging Good Practice in Promoting Creativity: A report by HMIE. Sep. 2006. http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/hmieegpipc.html [May 30, 2009]. Katbamna, Mira. (2005) True crime: Sats are killing our stories. The Guardian, Tue. 8 Nov. 2005. Kogan, Maurice. (1987). The Plowden report: Twenty years on. Oxford Review of Education. Vol. 13(1), 13-22. EJ 350 043. Quoted in Kwon (2002). Kwon, Young-Ihm. (2002) Changing Curriculum for Early Childhood Education in England. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 2002. Literacy Trust. (2009) The National Literacy Strategy (England). http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Policy/strat.html [May 31, 2009]. Lockwood, Dr Michael. (2009) Promoting Reading for Pleasure in the Primary School. Sage Publications Ltd. Mallett, Margaret. (2007) The primary English encyclopedia: the heart of the curriculum. Third edition. Routledge. New World Encyclopedia. (2006) Frobel, Friedrich Wilhelm August. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Friedrich_Wilhelm_August_Fröbel [May 31, 2009]. Palmer, Sue and Corbett, Pie. (2003) Literacy: What Works? Nelson Thomes. QCA. (2005) National Curriculum: Creativity. http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/learning-across-the-curriculum/creativity/index.aspx [May 31, 2009]. Sedgwick, Fred. (2001) Teaching literacy: a creative approach. Continuum International Publishing Group. Times Educational Supplement. http://www.tes.co.uk/ Wilkinson, Andrew. (1987) Aspects of Communication and the Plowden Report. Oxford Review of Education. Vol. 13, No. 1. Wyse, Dominic and Jones, Russell. (2001) Teaching English, language, and literacy. Routledge. Read More