Transcript Instructions for presentations

Creativity in Europe in the Early Years:
exploring the policy and research
literatures
Presentation based on Addendum 2.2. to the deliverable D2.2 Conceptual Framework http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Lead partners for the Addendum 2.2 Review of Creativity in Education
Open University, UK: Prof. Teresa Cremin; Prof. Anna Craft ;Dr Jim Clack
Also based on D3.2 Report on Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices
Lead partners for the deliverable
Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches
Creativity in Europe
• Argument that Europe needs to enhance its capacity for creativity and
innovation (EC, 2008a, 2008b)
• Creativity perceived as an ‘infinite source of innovation ‘ by the EC (EC,
2008c)
• European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009
• Creativity and innovation foregrounded in the EU 2020 policy goals for
Education and Training (EC, 2012)
• Creativity recognised as a valuable asset in the classroom for both
teaching and learning (e.g. Ferrari, Cachia and Punie 2009, EC)
Creativity and innovation
• Analysis of 119 contemporary research abstracts (Kahl, da Fonseca and
Witte, 2009) suggests the terms are used interchangeably by some
disciplines.
• Creativity is usually understood to be the construction of ideas or products
which are new and potentially useful (Amabile, 1988).
• Innovation is usually understood as the way in which ideas are brought to a
profitable conclusion (Craft, 2005).
• Craft (2008) asserts that though they overlap in relation to their
source/impetus, they are distinctive concepts since creativity may produce
results which have a variety of forms of impact, whilst the notion of
innovation implies impact in an economic context.
The focus of the paper
Drawing on the narrative review of creativity in the early years undertaken as
part of the CLS project’s Conceptual Framework, and the two phase analysis of
creativity in policy documentation, the paper seeks to address the following
questions:
(A) In what ways is creativity conceptualised in the policy documents of the
nine countries involved?
(B) What does the research literature reveal about creativity in practice in
Early Years settings, both with regard to teaching creatively and
teaching for creativity?
(C) What frameworks and methodologies are employed to research creativity
in Early Years settings?
Method
The paper, which focuses on creativity, draws on two approaches
• A thematic review of the international literature available on creativity in
the early years, this included research literature and policy documents
from each of the nine partner countries.
• An in-depth analysis from each country which was synthesised in order to
provide a picture of creativity in science and mathematics education in the
early years across Europe.
Thematic literature review
There were five stages during the process
• Establishment of search criteria and formulation of rubric templates
• Identification of literature for review by experts based on existing
knowledge
• Hand-searching of key journals by experts
• Systematic searching of the literature via electronic journals and
databases
• Synthesis of themes from the rubrics and writing of the review
Thematic research practice
literature review
Research rubrics provided information on six key features of the
review:
i) Author, publication date and journal reference;
ii) Country of origin;
iii) Sample size;
iv) Research question;
v) Methodological approach;
vi) Research methods and;
vii) Key findings.
Criteria for selection of
research practice /policy
literature
Research Practice
Policy
•
•
•
•
•
Articles published post-1990
Empirical and conceptual articles
published in peer-reviewed journals,
later expanded to include empirical
research published in books
Empirical or conceptual articles
focused on creativity in the context of
educational research
•
•
Documents published post 2000
Documents applicable to the relevant
age group (ages 3 to 8)
Statutory or guidance literature (as
opposed to, say, lesson planning
material)
Documents published by
government, departments of
education, curriculum authorities
and/or associated agencies (as
opposed to independent publishers)
Additional policy analysis:
National policy reviews
Comprehensive survey of a wide
range of aspects involving both
rating statements and providing
documentary evidence to support
these claims, such as direct quotes
from documents or references.
The questionnaire was constructed
on the basis of previous project
work, notably the Conceptual
Framework and the emergent List of
Factors which together provided the
key themes and areas of interest to
be explored.
Policy questionnaire included
analysis of:
• rationale and vision of the
curriculum,
• aims and objectives,
• curriculum content,
• learning activities,
• teacher role/location,
• classroom materials and
resources, classroom groupings,
• time for teaching and learning
• assessment.
A. How is early years creativity
framed in the policy of partner
countries?
A. How is early years
creativity framed in the
policy of partner countries?
The thematic review
i)
Conceptualising creativity
• Instrumental creativity whereby creativity as seen as a means of
increasing outcomes or providing future skills for industry
• Creativity as self-actualisation whereby creativity is seen as an integral
part of child-development
(Gibson, 2005)
A. How is early years
creativity framed in the
policy of partner countries?
The thematic review ii) Content analysis
Creativity
Innovation
Synonyms
All items
EU average
0.43
0.02
0.23
0.68
Belgium
0.75
0.0
0.79
1.25
Finland
0.59
0.0
0.31
0.90
France
0.05
0.0
0.64
0.69
Germany
0.41
0.0
0.38
0.79
Greece
0.39
0.0
0.20
0.59
Malta
0.48
0.11
0.07
0.66
Portugal
0.57
0.04
0.39
0.99
Romania
0.12
0.03
0.06
0.21
UK – England
1.00
0.03
0.10
1.14
UK – N. Ireland
1.32
0.25
0.15
1.72
UK – Scotland
0.37
0.0
0.03
0.40
UK – Wales
0.34
0.01
0.04
0.40
(Heilmann and Korte ,2010
Additional policy analysis:
Creativity in the
National policy reviews
Rationale, vision and aims of curricula
•
Affirmed that the curricula could be framed with one of the two conceptualisations of creativity –
self-actualisation or instrumental
•
Explicit reference in rationale : often as a cross-curricular theme or skill to be taught across the
various subjects or areas of learning. Greece, Malta and Northern Ireland.
•
Implicit reference in rationale: often in the form of particular skills identified as associated with
creativity, such as curiosity or exploration, or as ‘creative dispositions’ – the habits that are most
likely to foster creativity in the classroom, such as having or developing a sense of initiative,
imagination or problem posing/solving.
•
The aims : specific references to creativity were limited, with the emphasis more on references to
features of characteristics of teaching and learning that are associated with creativity rather than
with creativity itself. These included questioning, investigating and collaboration.
Creativity in the
National policy reviews
Teaching and learning in curricula
Brief mentions of creativity found in only three of the countries who discussed
creativity as
“develop[ing] pupils’ curiosity, creativity and critical thought” (France),
“develop[ing] creative potential to problems” (Germany),
“stimulat[ing] creative potential” (Romania).
In the guidance and discussion of the teachers’ role in children’s learning in
curricula, there was limited explicit reference to creativity.
Curriculum questionnaire found that ‘play’, ‘investigation’, ‘problem solving’,
‘exploration’ and ‘curiosity’ seem to be prevalent characteristics of creativity.
Creativity in the
National policy reviews
Creativity and assessment
• Little or no mention of creativity in relation to assessment.
• Surprising considering recent efforts to conceptualise the assessment of
creativity and the emphasis that creativity seems to have as an overarching
aim/objective of education in some countries.
• For countries that interpret creativity as a means of self-actualisation,
creativity is part of the development of the whole child, rather than isolated
and identifiable.
• In an instrumental vision of creativity, the notion of creativity is as a means
to an end, rather than a goal in and of itself.
• In both approaches we can see how the specific assessment of creativity may
be seen as an unnecessary activity in the process of teaching and learning.
B. What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
Exploratory contexts: time and space for play and immersion
Studies suggest open ended exploratory contexts foster creativity;
nearly all stress significant role of play
(Burnard et al., 2006; Bonawitz et al., 2011; Craft et al., 2012; Cremin et al., 2006; Einarsdottir, 2003; Fawcett and Hay, 2004; Jeffrey, 2004; Poddiakov, 2011)
Playful situations appear to prompt openness which teachers build upon, providing space and
time to explore environment / materials, encouraging problem solving/ problem finding activities and
actual and mental play (Cremin, et al, 2006; Joubert, 2001).
However, a study of pre-schoolers in a science museum revealed ‘two edged sword of pedagogy’ explicit instruction constrained exploratory play reducing potential for creativity (Bonawitz et al. 2011).
What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
Profiling learner agency and collaboration
Development of agency and ownership of learning is key to creativity in learning
(Craft et al, 2012; Cremin et al., 2006; Cremin, Barnes and Scoffham, 2009; Jeffrey, 2005; Woods and Jeffrey, 1996).
Whilst some research shows how teachers enable such agency and ownership through skilful pedagogy
(ibid) other research reveals tensions between structure and agency and impact of teachers’ pedagogic
practice and provision, which frames and may constrain creativity in learning (Craft et al., 2007).
Significance of dialogue and collaboration as well as the benefits of unstructured group discussion in
nurturing creativity in the very young (Craft et al, 2012; Chappell and Young, 2012).
The House of Little Scientists study shows children’s dialogues and collaborative engagement often display
creativity, fostering their task-management and enriching their scientific understanding. Through letting
the children experiment collaboratively with one another relatively free from constraints creativity
appeared to be nurtured (Kramer and Rabe-Kleberg, 2011).
What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
Making learning relevant
Relevance of teaching to learners, personally, socially and emotionally is seen to
be one of the vital aspects of creative teaching (Woods,1990; Woods and Jeffrey,1996) by:
Developing work contextualized by real life applications and involving partners beyond school (Cockett
and Cochrane, 2006; Fawcett and Hay, 2004).
Incorporating children’s prior-knowledge (Kramer and Rabe-Kleberg, 2011), connecting to their cultural, social
and linguistic assets, offering emotional space/encouragement (Craft, McConnon, Matthews, 2012; Woods, 2001).
Recognising power of narrative and dramatic story making by engaging children imaginatively thus
fostering their creativity (e.g. Bruner, 1986; Cremin et al., 2006; Egan, 1988; Paley, 2001; Sawyer, 2004a, 2004b).
Meaningfully relating to children’s lives, fostering connection making and metaphorical thinking
through metaphor, anecdote, visualisations and analogies (Heath and Wolf, 2004; Grainger et al., 2004; Woods, 1995).
What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
Posing questions and offering affirmation
The creative teacher frequently employs open ended questions,
finds problems and promotes speculation by modelling their own curiosity
(Blatchford et al, 2003; Chappell et al., 2008; Cremin et al., 2009, Craft et al., 2012).
But open ended questioning may be problematic for children with less experience of it (Harris, Williams, 2007) .
In arguing question-posing and responding is the driving feature of possibility thinking (Chappell et al, 2008)
highlight children’s leading questions, often possibility broad in nature. Such questions framed by
teachers questions can provide opportunities for play (Lloyd and Howe, 2003).
Positive affirmation of early years creativity through documentation of learning, reflection and feedback
is noted by many (Malaguzzi, 1993; Rinaldi, 2006) and may take diverse forms: drawing (Barnes, 2004; Heath and Wolf,
2005), writing (Armstrong, 2006), questioning assumptions, redefining problems and looking for what else might
be possible (Richhart, 2002; Craft, 2000).
What does the early years
practice research literature
reveal about creativity?
Teacher as collaborator: standing back and intervention
The pedagogic practice of closely observing children’s interests, needs and
direction of learning to build upon these nurtures creativity is critical to creativity
(Cremin et al., 2006; Fawcett and Hay, 2004; Rinaldi, 2006; Tobin, Hayashi and Zhang, 2011).
When the teacher works mainly in the background, children collaboratively create their own science
learning processes (Kramer and Rabe-Kleberg , 2011)
In the possibility thinking studies, teachers prioritised stopping and observing, and listening and
noticing the learner’s engagement; discursively positioning themselves as agents of possibilities;
‘what if’ agents’ (Cremin et al., 2006).
Other studies highlight that at times the teacher is more fully and playfully involved as a fellow
collaborator and provocateur (Bancroft et al., 2008; Craft et al. ,2012)
Yet there is scant research examining a more dialogical pedagogical model in the early years.
C. How has early years
creativity been investigated ?
How has early years
creativity been
investigated?
Wide range of fields including social psychology (Mumford, 2003), neuropsychology, (e.g. Fink et al 2007;
Howard-Jones, 2002, 2005), and education (e.g. Bancroft et al, 2008).
•
•
•
Ed research spans positivism and interpretivism: quantitative + qualitative methodologies
Scant early years creativity research undertaken in critical paradigm.
Some mixed methods, particularly by those interested in teachers’ attitudes to creativity
(Harkness and Portwood, 2007; Smith, 1996; Westby and Dawson, 1995).
•
•
More positivist research is undertaken in the United States and Far East yet there is
influential interpretivist work (e.g. Sawyer,2004; Paley, 2001).
European research has a much larger focus on interpretative approaches and
methodologies (Craft et al, 2006; Einsdotttir, 2008).
How has early years
creativity been
investigated?
Play
•
Focus and context of much research in positivist and interpretive paradigms with neuroscientists using
quantitative methods of pre- and post-assessments, and suggesting sustained periods of regular play in early
years settings increase creative thinking in young children (Howard-Jones et al, 2002, Garaigordobil and Berrueco, 2011)
•
From an interpretive perspective, many researchers also argue play is the context for early years creativity (Craft et
al., 2012, Cremin et al., 2006;Burnard et al2006; Chappell et al., 2008; Canning, 2010; Storli and Hagen,2010)
Children’s visual representations
•
Quantitative approaches have sought to find ways in which children’s drawings can be ‘tested’ or assessed e.g.
‘draw a man’ test developed in 1940s and used today (e.g. Uszynska, 1998) and ‘gestalt holistic assessment’ (Brewer, 1989;
Nelson et al., 1998). Such studies categorise children’s drawings on age-related or creativity scales.
•
Qualitative approaches include investigating children’s drawing as ‘intellectual play’ with underlying imaginative
and cognitive processes (Wood and Hall, 2011). Stevenson and Duncum (1998) also looked at this ‘intellectual play’
through children’s use of collage by identifying the symbolism and skills involved in collage-making.
Text-making
•
Children’s ‘text making’ in the early years, such as writing reports, instructions or narratives, has also been used
as a means of observing and developing creativity in children.
•
Longitudinal and ethnographic studies of children’s writing (eg Armstrong, 2008; Chapman, 1995; Pahl , 2007; Wollman-Bonilla,2000).
How has early years
creativity been
investigated?
Two distinct approaches
Creativity as focus of the research
eg TTCT and possibility thinking work, where the aim is to identify the features of creative activity
Identifiers of creativity as indicator or measurement tool
for other aspects of learning or child development
eg Pahl’s 2007 text-making studies, Canning’s 2010 work on outdoor play, where children’s creative outcomes/activity
are used as indicators of progress
Discussion 1
diversity and ‘little c’ creativity
There is considerable diversity in the ways in which countries ‘describe’, include and allude to
creativity in their early years policy documentation, with most literally not mentioning the term,
though several implicitly afford reference to features that are frequently associated it, such as
curiosity, exploration and problem solving.
Policy conceptualisations relate to ‘instrumentalist’ and self-actualisation approaches to
creativity (Gibson, 2005) and to educational values.
Strong emphasis and connection made in policy documents between creativity and play
suggests in many of the countries, creativity in early childhood is seen as located at the
‘everyday’ end of the spectrum.
It appears thus to be conceived, albeit often implicitly, as ‘little c’ or everyday creativity
(Beghetto and Plucker, 2006; Craft, 2003; Runco, 2003) not ‘big c’ or paradigm-changing
creativity (e.g. Gardner, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Simonton, 1994) or innovation.
Discussion 2
the significance of play
and particular skills
In relation to the practice research literature, the review indicates core features of creative
teaching and learning, including: provision of exploratory contexts which offer time and space for
play and immersion, profiling of learner agency, collaboration and relevance in learning as well as
question posing on the part of children and their teachers.
Both practice research and policy literatures note a significant role for play as a context for
creativity in early learning.
Regardless of degree of explicit attention to creativity in policy, investigations and problem
solving contexts are noted alongside associated skills and capabilities such as curiosity,
questioning and collaboration.
Concluding points
gaps identified
In sum, whilst nurturing creativity in early years settings in Europe is researched and
documented at the level of practice and is profiled in EU documents, it is not strongly
evident in national policy documents which seek to frame and guide the profession.
There is a substantial gap between European wide endorsement of creativity and
innovation (EC, 2008a, 2008, b, 2008c, 2012), its recognition in statute and/or curricula
guidance and implementation of such recommendations at national level.
The extent to which this influences professional practice is not known, though the
Creative Little Scientists teacher survey, and the empirical work in classrooms
commencing in 2013 will help to afford more nuanced insights in this regard.
Acknowledgements
Presentation based on Addendum 2.2. to the deliverable D2.2 Conceptual Framework
http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Lead partners for the Addendum 2.2 Review of Creativity in Education
Open University, UK: Prof. Teresa Cremin; Prof. Anna Craft; Dr Jim Clack
Also based on D3.2 Report on Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices
Lead partners for the deliverable
Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches
This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained
therein.
References
BANCROFT, S., FAWCETT, M. and HAY, P. 2008. Researching children researching the world. London, Trentham Books.
CANNING, N. 2010. The influence of the outdoor environment: Den-making in three different contexts. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 18(4), 555-566.
CHAPPELL, K., CRAFT, A., BURNARD, P., CREMIN, T. 2008. Question-posing and Question-responding: the heart of ‘Possibility Thinking’ in the early
years. Early Years, 28(3), 267-286.
CRAFT , A., McCONNON, L. and MATTHEWS, A 2012. Creativity and child-initiated play: fostering possibility thinking in four-year-olds. Thinking Skills
and Creativity 7(1), 48-61.
EC. (2008a). DECISION No 1350/2008/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2008 concerning the European
Year of Creativity and Innovation (2009),http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0115:0117:EN:PDF
EC. (2008b). Explanatory Memorandum proposal presented by the European Commission for the European Year of the Creativity and Innovation
2009. from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0159:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. (2008c). Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation. A Background Paper: Slovenian EU Council Presidency, Retrieved February
http://www.sac.smm.lt/images/12%20Vertimas%20SAC%20Creativity%20and%20innovation%20%20SI%20Presidency%20paper%20anglu%20k.pdf
EC (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
http://europa.eu/press_room/pdf/complet_en_barroso___007_-_europe_2020_-_en_version.pdf
GIBSON, H. (2005) What creativity isn't: The presumptions of instrumentalism and individual justifications for creativity in education British Journal
of Educational Studies 53(2) 148-167
LLOYD, B. and HOWE, N. 2003. Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
18(1), 22-41.
MUMFORD, M. 2003. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2), 107-120.
NELSON, P. L., MARTIN, S. S. and BALDWIN, V. G. 1998. Drawing skills and science concepts in young children: A study of relationships. Studies in Art
Education, 39(3), 262-269
PAHL, K. 2007. Creativity in events and practices: a lens for understanding children’s multimodal texts Literacy, 41(2), 81-87.
PALEY, V. G. 2001. In Mrs Tully’s room: A childcare portrait. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
PETERS, S. 1998. Playing games and learning mathematics: The results of two intervention studies International Journal of Early Years Education
6(1) 49-58.
SAWYER, R. K. 2004. Improvised lessons: Collaborative discussion in the constructivist classroom. Teaching Education, 15(2), 189-201.