The lastest PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) ranking, showed that the UK is fairly average in its scores (although ranked 11th in Science) throughout the 34 participating countries and has been stagnant for the past few years. This animation gives an interesting overview of the assessment process behind the PISA rankings are made and it is important to understand the impact that these have on how government's shape educational policy. PISA looks at the correlation between what is learnt at school and then applied in contexts outside of school. The following statement is made in the PISA 2009 Assessment Framework:
PISA 2009 covers the domains of reading, mathematics and science not merely in terms of
whether students can reproduce specific subject matter knowledge, but also whether they can extrapolate from what they have learned and apply their knowledge in novel situations
There is no mention of creativity, possibly because it is difficult to quantify and compare easily, but I can't help thinking that it needs to be more explicit in the types of intelligences it aims to measure, especially since it is focused on very traditional academic concepts of intelligence with respects to reading, maths and science. It would be interesting to know how they might measure according to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences:
This video documents Ken Robinson's most recent conference in the UK, when he examines how the government's current plans for the future of education are retrograde and will only exasperate current problems and miss out on the opportunity to make serious changes that develop pupils interest in learning and prepare them for the future:
As part of my research, I have been reading the book 'Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention' by Milhay Csikszentmihalyi, who is a professor and former chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago. It is a very good introduction to some of the key issues surrounding creativity, especially in understanding some of the personal characteristics and creative processes that distinguish people considered to have made a strong cultural impact in all aspects of life from the arts to sciences. You can hear him speak at this TED conference:
Although, the book is concerned with people who are extra-ordinary in their creative approach to solving problems or developing a discipline, I would strongly recommend it as a starting point to raising the issue of how creativity might be nurtured in an educational context.
I am attaching a short excerpt from my literature review for people to reflect on some of the issues his book raises, namely how do we celebrate personal creativity in education known as 'P-Type' creativity by Boden, and especially in subjects like science which depend on a core knowledge base and creativity manifests itself when one has acquired enough 'knowledge that can be applied and used to innovate.' Such subjects assume almost that creativity is outside of students capabilities until later on in life (Tom raised the point in an earlier post).
Excerpt:
Novelty A common perception of creativity is that it involves some form of novel and extraordinary way of thinking that is confined to eccentric personalities and those labelled geniuses. Such a viewpoint can often isolate people from feeling that they possess the ability to be creative and hence they are unable to identify where creativity is situated in relation to their own thinking.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, an established professor and former chairman of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago, has written extensively about the creativity and describes this type of person as “a person with varied interests and a quick mind, may be called creative in this sense. Unless they also contribute something of permanent significance, I refer to people of this sort as brilliant rather than creative.” Whereas, he refers to people “whose perceptions are fresh, whose judgements are insightful, who make important discoveries that only they know about” as being ‘personally creative’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.25).
Where Csikszentmihalyi makes a clear definition is in attributing value to the creative process to those that have in some way influenced or changed our culture, and this involves some kind of public and professional scrutiny. He refers to his ‘systems model’ in which there are three main parts that need satisfying: the ‘domain’, ‘field’ and ‘person’, respectively. The domain is essentially the subject area that exists “nested in what we usually call culture, or the symbolic knowledge shared by a particular society, or by humanity as a whole.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.28). The field is the group of experts and individuals that constitute a professional body and which verify the product or concept, and finally the ‘person’ who is attributed with the act of creation and establishes a new domain that informs the next generation.
By raising a question of quality and determining clear parameters, the creative process becomes easier to assess, although this kind of qualification makes it harder to develop within the school environment where pupils have limited knowledge and are often restricted to learning facts and applying established theories to their thinking. To focus exclusively on this definition of creativity would create a hierarchy that alienates many pupils from ever achieving a recognised level of creativity.
Sir Ken Robinson also refers to the importance of ‘value’ in determining creativity and defines it as being “the process of having original ideas that have value”#. However, Robinson is concerned with how we might nurture this kind creative thinking in an educational capacity, particularly in primary and secondary schools. He chooses not to attribute value to an idea or product that lies outside of the personal domain of understanding, but prefers to focus on how schools can nurture the talents of students and not “squander them.”
Despite the subjectivity of what we consider to be a ‘valuable’ creative contribution to society, it is now widely accepted that personal creativity is both important as a form of personal expression and establishing a sense of self-esteem in as much as it has an impact on one’s professional and economic success” (NACCE, 1999)
Prior to our forum next week, I thought it might be interesting if members considered how creativity and innovation can be nurtured in the STEM subjects since we are having a presentation by Tom Wood and Pete Lowe. This video is a response by Sir Ken Robinson to a Twitter comment:
Does focusing on science and math give students necessary skills and mindsets for innovation? -@reemalmasri
I like the way that Robinson is able to articulate the importance of creativity beyond purely the arts. Below are some of my selected quotes:
"Innovations are driven not only by scientists but also by artists, musicians, philosophers.... and economies depend upon a multiplicity of talents"
"...need to focus on the holistic nature of culture and economic development"
"... it is important that we don't focus on the STEM subjects exclusively as they are part of a matrix of educational disciplines that make education effective"
Creativity is not often discussed at school in the context of economic development and usually only within the context of the creative industries. However, the creative thinking process is behind every business with products and ideas having to have be designed/created - it is therefore it is a very transferable skill that economic prosperity relies upon. Nonetheless, it also raises the issue of whether we should primarily value education as being preparation for economic well-being? However, we also have a duty to young people's cultural, social, spiritual and personal well-being so it is a matter of understanding how best to balance the curriculum/learning environment.
This 4-day thinking project began as a borough wide Literacy project from the LINCCS group (Camden based, now defunkt) in 2010 and the only input we had was the slightly cryptic statement: "Linking Words, Linking Places". I discussed this with my Year 4's - some of whom had already begun to develop more lateral thinking skills. We agreed not to respond literally to the brief - the work that followed aimed to take advantage of the broadness of the remit.
In a single week, through four 60-90 minute lessons we:
Established that we could interpret 'Linking Places' as subjective memories - places in time
Shared stories and memories and the language that we associate with them
Explored language - and how words signify 'things'
Developed and recorded a formal response to the brief
After the first session I realised that although we were supposed to be rehearsing some work for performance, by far the most fascinating aspect was the process. When I presented unusual linguistic ideas - e.g. George Perec's book A Void - children were not only showing a surprising depth of understanding but they were all highly stimulated and engaged - at different levels they were exploring, and becoming curious about language itself, in isolation and in its typical context. The video came about by accident - although I do use video frequently. I asked the children if they wanted to perform their pieces live or show a video 'journey' . They chose the latter; although the final 4 minutes is essentially what we would have performed live. I would like to do more work in which creativity is central to learning...curriculum permitting.
You may or may not be familiar with this presentation by Ken Robinson, a professor that specialises in creativity and innovation, but he raises some very interesting points about how creativity is essential for preparing young people for the future.
Alternatively, you can see the presentation through this excellent animation:
This is a short video about the World Creativity Forum in which students from Thomas Tallis school in Greenwich presented details of their international exchange with schools in Oklahoma using Web 2.0 technology to exchange views about creativity. Perhaps this is the type of forum that we should be aiming to get our students contributing towards or setting something up within Haringey on a smaller scale.
