Exploring parents views on their roles in their childrens creativity development - Dissertation Example

?Exploring Parents’ Views on Their Roles in Their Children’s Creativity Development A Dissertation Proposal by Luwombo Mumvadi Introduction In today’s world, creativity is a quality that is becoming of great demand (Periperl, 2002). In response to this, the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) has advocated the incorporation of creativity in the curriculum of schools, knowing its significance in children’s growth and development (NACCCE, 1999) and its value in helping them develop the necessary skills for their future. NACCCE claims that when children are exposed to environments where teachers’ creative abilities are engaged, these children are likely to develop creative abilities themselves (Jeffrey & Craft, 2001). In view of this, provision of environments or opportunities for creativity development also extends to the home setting. This paper intends to explore parental views on their children’s creativity development in both school and home settings. Literature Review Malaguzzi (1998), prominent educator and founder of the Reggio Emilia Approach in education, most appropriately expressed: Creativity seems to emerge from multiple experiences, coupled with a well-supported development of personal resources, including a sense of freedom to venture beyond the known. Creativity seems to express itself though cognitive, affective and imaginative processes (p. 76). Some other accepted definitions of Creativity are as follows: the ability to see things in new ways; boundary breaking and going beyond the information given; thinking unconventionally; making something unique or original; and combining unrelated things into something new (Schirrmacher, 1988). Torrance (1965), a proponent in creativity research, defines creativity as the “process of sensing problems or gaps in information, forming ideas or hypotheses and communicating the results.” Schirrmacher (1988) explains that creativity may be explained in terms of product, process, skill set of personality traits or set of environmental conditions. As a product, it is viewed as a new invention, creation or thought, like the works of creative geniuses such as Mozart, Plato, Galileo, Newton and Einstein, among others. In this explanation, creativity seems to be elitist difficult to achieve for ordinary people (Schirrmacher, 1988). As a process, creativity is more inclusive, as coming up with a product is not a requirement and everyone can do creative processing that includes “thinking, speaking, playing, writing, dancing, singing, playing a musical instrument, experimenting with objects, transforming materials and manipulating ideas and objects.” (Schirrmacher, 1988). Engaging in the creative process brings a feeling of fulfillment to the person even if the creative expression does not result in a product. Creative individuals are identified by a set of personality traits. Researchers on creativity have come up with their own lists basing from their own research. Torrance (1962) has identified seven indicators of creativity as follows: curiosity, flexibility, sensitivity to problems, redefinition, self-feeling, originality and insight. Originally, these indicators were given to identify highly creative children. However, upon further analysis, such indicators likewise describe highly creative adults. Johnson (1972) has compiled a number of research in the field of creativity, and has come up with the main dimensions of creative achievement as intellectual leadership; sensitivity to problems; originality, ingenuity, unusualness; usefulness, appropriateness; and breadth. In terms of explaining creativity developing from a set of environmental conditions, it may be concluded that the greater one’s background of experiences with people, places, objects and life, in general, the greater the scope of possibilities to draw from in the expression of creativity. On the other hand, if one is naive and is not exposed to a variety of life experiences, his creative thinking may be limited to the small environment familiar to him (Schirrmacher, 1988). The kind of support the environment gives a person also reflects in the level of creativity he may develop. Torrance (1965) has found that a non-punitive classroom environment that focuses on the development and evaluation of understandings while nurturing independent thought and exploration tends to enhance idea generation. The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) posits that creativity requires a “balance of skills, knowledge and understanding in order for children to experiment they further outline that imaginative activity is fashioned to produce outcomes which are both original and of value” (Compton, 2007; Craft, 2006). Creativity is a manifestation of movement towards self – actualisation (Maslow, 1968). In its 2000 report entitled All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, the NACCCE advocated schools’ need to emphasize more creative and cultural matters in the curriculum. Specifically, teachers need to encourage children’s active use of their imagination and search for innovative outcomes. NACCCE also recommended that Art and Design, Music and Physical Education now have the same assessment structure as the more academic subjects prescribed by the National Curriculum. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is another agency that promotes creativity as an integral part of all curricular subjects. It has identified some characteristics and behaviors manifested by creative students as: “questioning and challenging conventions and assumptions; making inventive connections and associating things that are not usually related; envisaging what might be: imagining — seeing things in the mind’s eye; trying alternatives and fresh approaches, keeping options open; and reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes” (SEED, 2006, no. 11) Children are naturally creative, as they do not have as much inhibitions in their creative expression. Research suggests that the child reaches a peak of creative functioning during the early childhood years, usually around four to four and a half years of age. (Torrance, 1965). It is followed by a sharp drop when the child begins elementary school, perhaps due to school demands of conformity, accountability and academics. Smith and Carlsson (1985) found out that creativity re-emerges as cognitive skills develop to meet those school demands and peaks at age ten or eleven, and then begins to decline again at the onset of puberty. With this in mind, it is important to stress creative development in the preschool and early elementary years, and the most effective avenues for this is the various art forms – visual arts, dance, music, drama, prose and poetry (Honig, 2000). It can also be encouraged incidentally by a teacher who is creative herself. Experts agree that children learn best through exploration, hands-on experiences, and purposeful play. Young children develop concepts deductively through first hand experiences (Brewer, 2001). They learn skills and acquire deeper understanding of concepts when these are embedded in personally and socially relevant activities. Young children build knowledge as they interact with the world around them by combining new data with previous knowledge and perceptions, to clarify or modify current understandings that they later utilize in absorbing new ideas (Hunt, 1961). They construct, adjust, and expand their concepts over time as they organize a variety of experiences and make connections among them (Kostelnik & Howe, 1991). There have been numerous studies on creativity development in children (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004; Woods & Jeffrey, 1996; Craft, 2002, among others). Most studies highlighted the role of schools in enhancing children’s development. However, before schools can even attempt to encourage further creativity in children, the students are assumed to have already formed a certain amount of creativity as influenced by their families (Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000). A three-pronged model of creative family environment was developed by Wright and Wright (1986) which includes firstly, respect for the child, secondly, stimulation of independence and lastly, provision of an enriched learning environment. Showing respect for the child entails listening to his voice in decision-making sessions. Consulting and explaining family situations to the child make him feel valued and accepted as an equal member of the family. Creative children usually come from families who engage in a great deal of parental explanation of family decisions and inclusion of the children in the establishment of rules (Baldwin, 1949; MacKinnon, 1961). Stimulating children’s independence allows children the freedom and psychological safety to go on their own to explore, experiment and make decisions (Harrington, Block & Block, 1987; MacKinnon, 1961). It also allows children to freely express their feelings no matter if they are good or bad (Domino, 1969). Children are also encouraged to take risks with new and unfamiliar ideas (Freeman, 1985). Valuing children’s play and providing them with creative and flexible role models enriches their learning environments (Walberg, Rasher & Parkenson, 1979); Wright, 1987). Schools should support parents in facilitating their children’s creativity development from the home. However, it is not as easy as it seems. Teachers may be hesitant to provide suggestions to parents on helping their children to be more creative because teachers assume parents are more interested in how their children fare academically (Kemple & Nissenberg, 2000). On their side, parents may find it easier to work with their young children to enhance traditional academic skills related to writing, letters and numbers, but may be challenged in implementing creative thinking activities (Wright, 1987). Research Question This study attempts to fill the gap in the literature regarding parental perspectives on their role in their children’s creativity development and how they encourage it. Mainly, it purports to answer the following research question: “How do parents view their role in their children’s creativity development?” Specifically, this study aims to find out: What are parents’ views on how their children’s school curriculum develops creativity? What do parents do to encourage their children’s creativity? Study Design Straus and Corbin (1990) wrote that any phenomenon with limited information can still be better understood by using qualitative research methods. Qualitative methods are useful in unearthing new insights or perspectives on phenomena that are already much studied. It is possible to acquire more depth of information than what has surfaced so far, which may otherwise be difficult to explain quantitatively (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Robson, 2002). Winter (2000) argues that with qualitative research, there may be no hypothesis or standardized or accepted tests involved. The participants’ answers to the questions posed by the researcher are enough. As long as they are truthful in their answers then they may be considered valid (Butt, 1992). “In the case of the human sciences it is the congruence of our text of understanding with the lived reality of persons (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990 pp. 97-98). This means that validity would depend on how well we represent the perceptions, feelings, thinking, experience of persons, the breadth, depth and interrelations of issues, concerns and themes (Butt, 1992). This particular research will adhere to Heron’s (1988) more formal view of validity in human research which is the cross-referencing the participants’ sharing of their personal experiences with the research derived from literature. Focus group interviews show a vivid picture of participants’ perspectives and they are considered the experts on the topic (Milena, Dainora & Alin, 2008). The interview gives participants the opportunity to express their own point of view regarding certain situations (Cohen et al., 2000). This would include their personal feelings, opinions, experiences and interpretations (Milena, Dainora & Alin, 2008). It is useful to collect data which may not be accessible through observation or questionnaires (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight, 2006). In focus group interviews, the interviewees should be made to feel confident, relaxed and encouraged to express their deepest thoughts about the subject being studied. The interviews will be recorded and transcribed in verbatim for qualitative analysis. Bowen’s (2005) analysis of interview transcripts identified patterns in the data by means of thematic codes. This means there will be themes in the interview data that may surface, examples of which are trait preferences when seeking their mates, how these traits have helped in the relationship, etc. Patton (1980) explains “Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). Bowen’s analysis of data entailed studying the patterns that emerge, making logical associations with the interview questions and reference to the review of literature. He details the process of deriving his research findings as thus: “At successive stages, themes moved from a low level of abstraction to become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evidence provided by the data. These emerging themes together with a substantive-formal theory of “development-focused collaboration” became the major findings of my study.” This research will adopt the same analysis. Participants Eight to fifteen (8-15) parents of school-aged children within the researcher’s community will be recruited as participants in this study. Their consent will first be sought by giving them a letter to explain the purpose of the study and the need for their participation in the study. The schedule and venue for the focus group interview will be indicated in the letter. Should there be any issues with scheduling, the researcher will take care of organizing it so that all the consenting participants will be available to attend. Methodology Two focus group interviews will be conducted with the parents who consented to be participants in this study. The researcher believes that focus group interviews are appropriate methods to use for this study since it will encourage a sharing of insights with immediate feedback from the rest of the group while the interviewer will facilitate a free-flowing discussion. Participants will be assured of anonymity and confidentiality of information in their participation. Such interviews are guided by a set of questions that aim to act as springboards to more elaborate discussions. These questions are as follows: Focus Group Interview Questions: 1. How do you define creativity? 2. What do you think its role in education is? 3. What do you consider to be creative about yourself? 4. How do you encourage your children to be creative if you do? 5. Why are your children creative? 6. What do you think of your children’s school curriculum's in terms of its contribution to children's creative development? 7. If you had it your way, how would you suggest they incorporate creativity development in the curriculum? 8. How do you view your role in your children’s creativity development? 9. Give suggestions on how you can help develop their creativity. The focus group interviews will be recorded and transcribed in verbatim. Data will be analyzed using thematic analysis which looks for patterns emerging from the data such as predominant thoughts, emotions and opinions commonly shared by the respondents regarding children’s creativity development. Limitations The scope of this research is limited to the views of the participants recruited for the study. It will be reliant on the insights and opinions of the participants which will be reported in a subjective manner. However, despite the small number of participants, a strength may be viewed in the opportunity to get more and deeper perspectives of the interviewees who are undergoing similar experiences. Parents have their own issues in helping their children develop creativity. It is this uniqueness of subjective experience that the study wants to unravel and explore and eventually report as true and real psychological experiences of parents doing their best to optimize their children’s potentials. This study will not claim that the data gathered will be representative of the views of the general population of parents of school children, however, it will contribute information to the literature on Creativity development, Parenting, Education and Child Development based on the data gathered. Ethical Considerations This study aims to comply to ethical standards and considerations in conducting research with human participants. The necessary forms will be completed, as well as necessary permissions, sought, in relation to the recruitment of participants as well as the conduct of the interviews. Confidentiality of information will be ensured so that the trust of the participants is established. Participation is non-obligatory and participants may withdraw anytime they feel like it. References Baldwin, A. (1949). The effects of home environment on nursery school behaviour. Child Development, 20, 49-61. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006). How to research (3rd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press. Bowen, G.A. (2005). “Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned”, The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 2 June 2005 208-222. Retrieved on April 8, 2011 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/bowen.pdf Brewer, JA. (2001). Introduction to early childhood education preschool through primary grades, 4th ed. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Butt, R. (1992). On Being Personal About the Collective. A paper presented at A.E.R.A., San Francisco, April 20-24, 1992. Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and early years education. London, Continuum. Domino, G. (1969). Maternal personality correlates of son’s creativity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33, 180-183. Freeman, J. (1985). The early years: Preparation for creative thinking. Gifted Education International, 3(2), 100-104. Harrington, D.M., Block, J.W. & Block, J. (1987) Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’ theory of creative environments: Child rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52, 851-856. Heron, J (1988) Validity in Cooperative Inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed). Human Inquiry in Action. (pp. 40-59) Honig, A.S. (2000) “Promoting Creativity in Young Children.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Board of Advisors for Scholastic, Inc. (New York, NY: May 19, 2000). Jeffrey, B. & Craft, A (2001) The universalization of creativity, in; A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds) Creativity in Education. Continuum, London. Jeffrey, B. & Craft, A. (2004) Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1 Johnson , D.M.(1972) Systemic Introduction to the Psychology of Thinking New York : Harper and Row. Kemple, K. M. and Nissenberg, S.A (2000) Nurturing Creativity in Early Childhood Education: Families Are Part of It, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1 Kostelnik, M. ed., Howe, D., et al. (1991) Teaching young children using themes. New Jersey: Good Year Books. MacKinnon, D. (1961). The nature and nurture of creative potential. American Psychologist, 17, 484-495. Malaguzzi, L. (1998) in Edwards, C., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. [Eds] The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach –AdvancedReflections. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Company Milena, Z. R., Dainora, G. & Alin, S (2008) Qualitative Research Methods: A Comparison Between Focus-Group And In-Depth Interview. Annals Of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 2008, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p1279-1283 National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) All our futures: creativity, culture and education. London, DfEE. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Periperl, M.A. (2002) Career creativity: Explorations in the Remaking of Work. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Schirrmacher, R. (1988) Art and creative development for young children N.Y.: Delmar Publishers, Inc. SEED (2006) Promoting Creativity in Education: Overview of Key National Policy Developments Across the UK. Retrieved on January 21, 2010 from http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/hmiepcie.html Smith, G., & Carlsson, I. (1985). Creativity in middle and late school years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 329–343. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of the qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Torrance, E.P. (1962) Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Torrance, E.P. (1965) Rewarding creative behavior. N.J.: Prentice Hall. Walberg, H., Rasher, S. & Parkenson, J. (1979) Childhood and eminence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 225-231 Winter, G. (2000) “A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research”, The Qualitative Report, Volume 4, Numbers 3 & 4, March, 2000. Retrieved on April 8, 2011 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html Woods, P. & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments: The art of creative teaching in primary school. Buckingham, Open University Press. Wright, C. (1987) Nurturing creative potential: An interactive model for home and school. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 12 (1), 31-38. Wright, C. & Wright, S. (1986) A conceptual framework for examining the family’s influence on creativity. Family Perspective, 20, 127-136. Read More