Click here to load reader
Upload
dangkien
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Creativity and creative pedagogies: Exploring challenges, possibilities and potential
Teresa Cremin
Internationally, the first decade of the 21st century was characterised by considerable
growth in creativity research (e.g. Einarsdottir, 2003; Cremin, Burnard and Craft, 2006;
Beghetto and Kaufman 2007; Mirzaie, Hamidi and Anaraki, 2009; Chappell, 2007; Sawyer,
2010). While some researchers focused upon conceptual challenges (e.g. Beghetto and
Kaufman, 2007; Lin, 2011; Megalakaki, Craft and Cremin, 2012), others documented and
examined classroom practices; both those of teachers (e.g. Jeffrey and Woods, 2009; Craft,
Cremin, Hay and Clack, 2014) and of visiting subject specialists, often artists (e.g. Galton,
2010; Hall and Thomson, 2005). Empirical studies in this area, with an observational eye on
classroom practices, have tended to pay attention to both teacher and learner orientations,
to ‘creative teaching’ and ‘teaching for creativity’, thus encompassing Dezuanni and
Jetnikoff‘s (2011:265) assertion that creative pedagogies involve ‘imaginative and innovative
arrangement of curricula and teaching strategies in school classrooms’ to develop the
creativity of the young.
However whilst recognition of the role and nature of creativity, and interest in creative
pedagogical practice has grown, tensions persist at several levels, particularly in
accountability cultures where international comparisons such as the Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) frame and shape policy, practice and curricula. These ongoing large scale
surveys are seen as key reference points for policy makers across the world; students’
performance in them (in reading, mathematics and science in PISA for example) is
increasingly seen as a measure of individual country’s comparative success on a worldwide
scale. Yet neither encompasses attention to children’s lived experience of learning or
creativity within or beyond school. A focus on learners and their creative potential, and on
teachers and their innovative pedagogic practice, is absent. A focus on arguably narrow
notions of attainment dominates.
This book, based on a Special Issue of Education 3-13 which was planned with Anna Craft
before her untimely death, responds to this performative context (Ball, 1998) and draws
together the work of a number of eminent scholars of creativity and creative pedagogies. It
offers diverse perspectives from Colombia, Denmark, England, France, Poland, Hong Kong,
and the USA and highlights differences as well as similarities across cultural contexts.
Individually and collectively, the authors, framed by their own stances on creativity, reveal
both the complexities and the possibilities of creativity and creative pedagogies. Their work
indicates, that as the Australian researchers Harris and Lemon (2012:426) observe:
In diverse contexts, including at-risk learners, elite schools, community arts
interventions, in public pedagogies, or national level discourses about twenty-first
century learners, creative approaches to learning seems a topic that concerns almost
everyone.
Despite such interest, dilemmas exist and research reveals that discrepancies abound and
there is little consensual agreement about terms. The underpinning concept of creativity
remains complex, elusive and differently understood and instantiated. Banaji, Burn and
Buckingham (2010) question whether creativity in education is a globalised or culturally
specific phenomenon, where the balance between individual and collaborative creativity
lies, and whether it should be conceptualised as cognitive, play-based, ubiquitous, or
democratic. In addition multiple policy differences exist; in some countries curriculum policy
documents the term is liberally peppered throughout, often as an empty epithet, whereas in
others it remains noticeably absent. In terms of conceptualisations, the English scholar
Boden (2001) posits the notion of personal creativity, this is aligned with Craft’s (2001)
framing of ‘little-c creativity’ - the democratic life-wide creativity of the everyday. Boden
(2001) contrasts her notion of personal creativity with the idea of historical creativity which
is more aligned with ‘Big-C creativity’, evidenced for example by innovators such Einstein
and Picasso. Nonetheless, all such conceptualisations involve working imaginatively and
encompass the processes of exploration, combination and transformation (Boden, 2004),
although unlike personal creativity, historical creativity is recognised as domain changing
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The American scholars Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) additionally
distinguish between ‘mini-c creativity’ (personal meaning-making) and what they view as
‘little-c creativity’ (everyday creativity shared with others). They also conceptualise
professional creativity (‘pro-c creativity’), and suggest this reflects the construction of
professional knowledge and understanding.
Research indicates that teachers as well as researchers have differing conceptions of
creativity (e.g. Dawson et al, 1999) and that this has consequences for their classroom
practice. They may feel socially obliged to claim to value creativity in the classroom even if
they do not (e.g. Runco and Johnson, 2002) and may return to a default mode of utilising a
more traditional transmissive style in order to retain order (e.g. Besançon and Lubart, 2008).
Additionally, there is reserach evidence to suggest they may be unaware that their
pedagogic practice actually inhibits creativity (e.g. Dawson et al., 1999). Thus in relation to
creative pedagogical practice, difficulties as well as potential can be identified in both
theorising and defining creative pedagogies.
One such difficulty relates to the dogged persistence of myths about creativity. It is widely
posited that creativity is an ability that people are born with or without and as such it is
presumed it is impossible to develop. As research has unequivocally shown however, this is
unfounded (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Nickerson, 1999). Another prevailing myth is that creativity
is the preserve of the arts or arts education, yet as still others have demonstrated, and this
book exemplifies, it can be applied to many domains (e.g. van Oers, 2010; Mirzaie, Hamidi
and Anaraki, 2009). Sternberg (2010:394) argues that in essence creativity is a novel
response - a habit - and like any other habit it can be encouraged and discouraged. He
suggests that in order to promote this habit of responding to problems in novel and
divergent ways: opportunities, encouragement and rewards are needed.
In educational contexts with high stakes testing systems and over-reliance on curriculum
controls, opportunities to practice the critical habit of creativity are inevitably constrained.
Limited encouragement is given to teachers (or younger learners) to adopt a creative
mindset and few rewards are offered for being creative in school. Working in western
cultures of performativity (Ball, 1998), teachers are subject to extensive accountability
measures, for example through imposed specifications of the knowledge to be ‘delivered’,
scripted instruction materials and ongoing inspections. This not only changes curriculum
content but alters how learning takes place and what is recognised and valued as learning in
schools. Practitioners, positioned as passive recipients of the prescribed agenda appear at
times to have had their hands tied, their voices quietened and their professional autonomy
constrained. The performative pressures of assessment and accountability have been
shown to adversely affect students’ experience of schooling (e.g. Assaf, 2008; Dooley, 2005)
and as many claim (e.g. Claxton and Lucas, 2015; Robinson, 2015), this fails to prepare the
young for the uncertainties of life, for the unknown world of tomorrow. Indeed, as Mottram
and Hall (2009:109) assert, the language of schooling has predominantly focused upon
‘oversimplified, easily measurable notions of attainment’ which, these scholars claim, has
had a homogenising effect, prompting children and their development to be discussed
‘according to levels and descriptors’, rather than as children, and as unique and potentially
creative learners (opcit). The relentless quest for higher standards may well serve to foster
professional and pupil mindsets characterised more by compliance and conformity than
curiosity and creativity.
The downward pressure of assessment threatens not only to undermine teaching
creatively ,which the National Advisory Committee for Creative and Cultural education
(NACCCE, 1990) in England saw as teacher oriented, but also teaching for creativity, which
the committee defined as learner oriented. Nonetheless there is evidence internationally
that despite the odds, ( and perhaps in response to the prescribed agenda ) creative
pedagogues, working against the grain, exercise the ‘power to innovate’ (Lance, 2006).
Many proactively seek ways to shape the curriculum responsively, appropriating national
policies in their own contexts and showing professional commitment and imagination in the
process (e.g. Comber and Kamler, 2011; Craft, McConnon and Matthews, 2012; Craft,
Cremin, Hay and Clack, 2014; Cremin, Barnes and Scoffham, 2009; Poddiakov, 2011; Hetland
and Winner, 2011; Woods and Jeffrey, 2009). The Creative Partnerships initiative in England
for example increased the attention paid by researchers, policy makers and practitioners to
creativity and creative pedagogic practice in primary phase schooling (e.g. QCA, 2005;
Galton, 2010; Bragg, Manchester and Faulkner, 2009; Thomson and Hall, 2007). This work
implicitly challenges the primarily neo-liberal rationale for creativity in education which
focuses on economic benefits, and instead asserts the value of creativity for self-
actualisation, whereby it is seen as an integral part of child development (Gibson, 2005).
Perhaps such creative practitioners recognise creativity as a ‘central source of meaning’
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) in their own lives and seek to expand their repertoires of
pedagogical practice in order to nurture younger learners’ creativity. As Robinson (2015)
asserts, developing learner creativity should be a core element of schooling:
Being creative is at the heart of being human and of all cultural progress.... The
answer now is not to suppress our creativity but to cultivate it more seriously and
with a greater sense of purpose. As the challenges that face students become more
complex, it’s essential that schools help them all to develop their unique capabilities
for creative thought and action. (Robinson, 2015:137)
In a systematic review of environments and conditions that enhance creativity in children
and young people (undertaken for Learning and Teaching Scotland) , Davies et al., (2011)
note that flexibility in the physical and the pedagogical environment is significant, alongside
diverse resources; working beyond the classroom, (e.g. outdoors and in museums); and
partnerships with outside agencies. In relation to the pedagogical environment, common
characteristics they identified included: teachers balancing freedom and structure, and
using playful/ games-based approaches which, the review suggests, help children exercise
control over their learning and offer ownership of activities. In addition, the researchers
identified strong evidence of mutual respect between staff and children, the modelling of
creative attitudes on the part of adults, high expectations and considerable dialogue and
collaborative work. Resisting the pressure to conform, it appears that the creative
practitioners in the 200 plus studies reviewed by Davies et al., (2011), took risks and
encouraged the young people to do likewise. Teachers involved students as co-participants,
offered work of personal significance and ensured there was time and space to experiment
– together. They also modelled creativity and took part as learners in the classroom;
experimenting with resources, engaging in problem-solving, taking up different roles, and
generating and critiquing their ideas. As teachers they were self-evidently exercising the
habit of creativity.
By being flexible, acting spontaneously and responding imaginatively to children’s interests
and questions, it is argued that such creative teachers temper the planned with the lived
(Cremin, 2015). In order to encourage learner creativity, it appears creative practitioners
leave space for uncertainty and the unknown, and build on unexpected contributions or
enquiries, fostering learner autonomy in the process. As Sawyer (2011) argues, creative
teaching and learning is fundamentally collaborative and improvisational, he also observes
that:
creative learning is more likely to occur when the rigid division between teacher and
student is somewhat relaxed, creating an environment where teachers and students
jointly construct the improvisational flow of the classroom. (Sawyer, 2011: 15)
Recognising and exercising one’s personal creativity appears to be an important part of
creative teachers’ professional and personal meaning-making (Prentice, 2000;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Craft, Gardner and Claxton, 2008). Those who play with new ideas
and ways of teaching, who are curious and reflective are, it appears, most likely to foster
student creativity (Tanggaard 2011). Recognition of the development of creativity and
originality, it has been argued, is the distinguishing mark of creative pedagogues (Cremin,
Barnes and Scoffham, 2009). In this study, which involved the observation of highly creative
UK professionals working with pupils from early primary through to the end of secondary
schooling, the creative teacher was defined as ‘one who is aware of, and values, the human
attribute of creativity in themselves and seeks to promote it in others’ (Cremin, 2014: 44).
Such creative teachers, these researchers argued, have a creative state of mind which is
actively exercised and developed in practice through the core features of creative practice
(see Figure 1). The researchers posit that creative teachers model, demonstrate and foster a
questioning stance, the making of connections, show a marked degree of autonomy and
ownership, and in the process value and nurture originality and the generation/evaluation
of ideas (Cremin et al., 2009). This work affirms earlier studies that highlighted creative
pedagogy was characterised by four components: children and their teachers being engaged
in innovation, ownership, control and relevance (Jeffrey, 2003; Woods, 2002). Critically
however, the more recent work which spanned across the age phases and was not just
undertaken in the primary years, highlighted that creative teachers actively seek to develop
the creative dispositions and habits of mind of their students (Cremin et al., 2009).
Figure 1. A model of creative practice and a creative state of mind (Cremin et al, 2009)
Myriad other educators, such as Claxton and Lucas (2015), Littleton and Mercer (2013), Craft
et al., (2012) and Robinson (2015) affirm that creativity is both enabled and constrained by
the kind of curriculum on offer and by the pedagogic practice employed. As Robinson (2015)
argues we are social beings and learn from the company we keep, and as creativity is
socially mediated, teachers need to ensure students learn both in groups and as groups, and
need to join them in this co-constructive endeavour in order to enhance the creativity of
younger learners. In schools with pedagogies which foster creativity, co-participative, co-
constructive approaches are often in evidence, (Craft, Cremin, Hay, and Clack, , 2014), such
approaches are resonant with the construction of ‘creative learning conversations’
(Chappell and Craft, 2011), which use differences as a starting point for transformational
change. They foreground collaboration within classes, within the staff team, and between
staff, children, parents and other adults engaged in supporting learning.
Connecting to this key theme of collaboration and co-construction, Vlad Glaveanu in the
first chapter of the book, reflects upon an ongoing conversation about creativity and
creative pedagogy with his Danish colleague Lene Tanggaard and Zayda Sierra from
Colombia. These authors consider the two cultural settings, highlighting areas of
commonality as well as difference and discuss the paradigmatic foundations of creativity in
education and in schooling (labelled here as ‘He, I and We’) which they perceive frame much
of the debates. They explore the resonances and consequences of these paradigms and,
linking to the work of Lin (2011), note for example that the ‘We’ paradigm relates to
creative pedagogies that focus upon the relationship between teachers and students;
between teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Nonetheless, their North- South
deliberations cause them to question whether this paradigm in education is genuinely
inclusive, and whether difference and diversity are sufficiently foregrounded in such an
approach. This opening chapter lays down a gauntlet and challenges us to re-examine what
we have come to recognise as creative and valuable, who we recognise as creative, and,
significantly whose creativity we legitimise and encourage.
In the following chapter Baptiste Barbot, Maud Besançon and Todd Lubart, researchers from
the USA and France also assert that the construct of creativity is neither sufficiently nor
consensually understood and that methodological barriers to accurately measuring
creativity further constrain the development of students’ creative learning. Focusing on
creative potential, they examine the critical issues of ‘nature’, ‘measure’, and ‘nurture’,
arguing that this potentiality relies not only on a set of domain-general, domain-specific,
and task relevant resources, but also on the ability to transform one’s potential in a way
which is recognised as creative in the given context. These researchers highlight that
creative potential is not “fixed”; it develops and evolves over time and across different
settings in response to ‘natural’ and targeted interventions. In arguing for more accurate
assessment of creative potential in order to nurture or ‘train’ a child’s creativity and
evaluate the impact of educational contexts, they describe an ‘Evaluation of Potential
Creativity’ (EPoC; Lubart et al., 2011;2013). This instrument aims to offer a comprehensive
multidimensional evaluation of a child’s creative potential which can be used to develop
tailored programmes of support for learners. It affords a needs-based, formative way
forward, one which, as Barbot and her colleagues acknowledge, will also be influenced by
classroom ethos and teachers’ attitudes toward creativity.
Imagination is the focus of the next chapter. In this Dorota Dziedziewicz and Maciej
Karwowski both of whom work in Poland argue that it is important to analyse creative visual
imagination both as a cognitive process and typologically so that different types of creative
imagination are revealed. They commence with a brief but intriguing historical review of
studies of imagination, and then share a new theoretical model of visual creative
imagination which foregrounds three elements: vividness, originality, and transformative
ability. These elements whilst described in earlier theories are newly combined here and
analysed in a profile way. Vividness, originality, and transformative ability are thus posited
as the key characteristics for the effective functioning of imagination and the consequences
for assessment and developing imagination are considered. Their model is used as a matrix
for describing and evaluating various training programmes, including several fictionally
based programmes which seek to develop children’s creative imagination. Detailed
explanation of the imaginative training programme ‘Eureka’ for 5-9 year olds is given. This
aims to activate and stimulate development of creative imaging abilities as well as ‘release
the passion to create’. Dziedziewicz and Karwowski posit that in any activities designed to
stimulate children’s creative imagination, the aim should be to balance imagery, originality,
and transformativeness. They consider however that in developing the last feature, teachers
may need particular support. This may well be the case, since internationally, the concept of
the imagination, alongside that of creativity remains somewhat elusive> Yet in England in
the influential Cambridge Primary Review,(the largest review of primary education for over
40 years), ‘exciting the imagination’ was innovatively proposed as one of 12 core aims for
primary education. As the final report noted:
To excite children’s imagination in order that they can advance beyond present
understanding, extend the boundaries of their lives, contemplate worlds possible as
well as actual, understand cause and consequence, develop the capacity for
empathy, and reflect on and regulate their behaviour; to explore and test language,
ideas and arguments in every activity and form of thought … We assert the need to
emphasise the intrinsic value of exciting children’s imagination. To experience the
delights – and pains – of imagining, and of entering into the imaginative worlds of
others, is to become a more rounded and capable person.
(Alexander, 2010:199)
Augmenting the underlying argument that fostering creativity and the imagination is
possible through deploying creative pedagogies and tailored support, Anna Hui and her
colleagues from Hong Kong next consider how creativity in education in Asian societies is
positioned within educational policy and specific domains of knowledge.They reveal that in
Hong Kong, despite the fact that creativity is promoted at all levels of education, tensions
and challenges exist in transforming this formal policy requirement, into informal playful
learning opportunities. They report on two empirical studies both of which sought to enrich
creativity in young people: these focus upon infusing creative arts in the early childhood
curriculum, and employing creative drama in subjects such as Chinese, English, and General
Studies with young people aged 4-16. It is clear playfulness is a critical feature in the
pedagogies employed, the playfulness and creative self-efficacy of teachers as well as
students. In both studies, pre- and post-tests were employed to assess various aspects of
children’s creative thinking and potential, with the results tending to endorse the team’s
hypothesis that playfulness and arts-enriched learning can enhance creative performance.
Hui and her colleagues highlight in particular the potency of drama as a medium for
enriching teachers’ personal creativity and their capacity to teach for creativity, linking this
to the body of work on possibility thinking in the UK , that shift from ‘what is’ to what might
be’(Craft, 2002; Craft et al., 2012).This work has recently revealed that narrative plays a
foundational role in children’s possibility thinking, and that reciprocal relationships exist
between questioning, imagination and narrative, layered between children and adults
(Cremin et al., 2013).
Moving from a focus on arts based pedagogy to that of science; the following chapter draws
upon the EU project Creative Little Scientists. This three year study (2011-2014) which
encompassed partners from Greece, Romania, Germany, Finland, France, Belgium, Portugal
and the UK, explored the potential for creativity in the mathematics and science education
of 3-8 year olds. Whilst the project encompassed literature reviews, comparative studies of
policies and of teachers’ views, as well as case studies of classroom practice, the team
(Teresa Cremin, Esme Glauert, Anna Craft, Ashley Compton, and the project lead Fani
Stylianidou) focus here on pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based science and
creativity based approaches in early years. These, identified in the project’s conceptual
framework and in the later fieldwork in 48 sites, were documented as including: play and
exploration, motivation and affect, dialogue and collaboration, problem solving and agency,
questioning and curiosity, reflection and reasoning, and teacher scaffolding and
involvement. The team argue a dynamic relationship exists between inquiry-based and
creative based approaches to teaching and learning. Extracts from case studies in Belgium,
Germany and Northern Ireland seek to show that early years inquiry-based science
approaches link to the problem-finding/ problem solving approach developed by those who
teach creatively and teach for creativity. The chapter also highlights the often unrecognised
potential for creativity in exploratory science contexts across Europe and looks to the follow
up study Creativity in Early Years Science Education, (funded by Erasmus Plus) to respond to
this context.
The following chapter by Pat Thomson and Christine Hall also draws upon a single project:
the not insubstantial Signature Pedagogies project situated in England and funded by the
organisation Creativity, Culture and Education following the demise of Creative Partnerships
(2003-2011). Connecting to their earlier work documenting artists working with schools
under the Creative Partnerships initiative, (Hall and Thomson, 2005,2007), these reserachers
argue here that the creative pedagogies used by artists were in some way distinct, reflecting
their own ‘handwritten signature’. In this chapter they examine an aspect of the wider
project, namely the way in which artists approached the issue of inclusion, seen here as
catering for diversity and difference and changing the learning opportunities on offer as a
consequence. They focus on the work of a number of story-makers in nursery settings and
primary schools, and reveal the markedly democratic and participatory practices that the
artists adopted. These encompass a potent trio of beliefs: every child is capable of having
ideas; every child can contribute vitally to discussions; and every child is essential to a
collective ‘performance’. Although the snapshots from the children’s work with the artists
offer multi-layered evidence of these beliefs in action, it is, as Thomson and Hall
acknowledge, no simple matter for teachers to emulate artists’ alternative pedagogical
practices. Teachers are positioned differently; to some extent their hands are tied. However,
some of the research studies noted earlier in the introduction suggest that creative teachers
can exercise professional agency and find their own ways forward, and that many also seek
to be inclusive, recognising children as unique individuals and creative thinkers.
The final chapter in the book retains a focus on artists working alongside teachers. In this,
Maurice Galton draws on case studies of schools from a project in England concerning the
impact of Creative Partnerships (CP) on student wellbeing (McLellan, Galton, Stewart &
Page, 2012). In order to foreground the impact of artists on primary teachers’ thinking and
pedagogic practice, he uses the cases to explore differences in the ways teachers in Creative
Partnerships and non CP schools implemented the curriculum and interacted with their
pupils. The differences are telling, as are the features in common shared by all three
Creative Partnerships schools. Galton suggests the latter include the existence of positive
collaborative working relationships between teachers and Creative Partnerships
practitioners who planned together and regularly discussed children’s learning. The CP
school teachers appeared to want to learn from their artist partners, and, through working
alongside them, and engaging in reflective review-like discussions, gained confidence as
creative professionals who seemed more prepared to take risks. Galton also notes that
through this working partnership, the pedagogic focus shifted from learning outcomes to
learning processes and that as a consequence, thinking skills, emotional literacy,
communication skills, problem solving and collaboration were afforded attention in the
Creative Partnerships schools. Lastly he observes that the assessment of outcomes in these
schools foregrounded collaboration and joint products (such as exhibitions and
performances), rather than individual ones. Thus, he argues the opportunity to work for
extended periods with artists in schools can impact upon professional practice despite the
incessant pressures of the performativity culture.
Taken together the seven chapters in this book challenge researchers and practitioners to
re-examine what we recognise internationally as creativity and imagination in education,
particularly in our different cultural contexts, to re-consider how we assess/measure these
capacities and to reflect upon the ways in which we seek to foster them. Several highlight
the collaborative nature of creativity and the need to support children’s ability to work
constructively with others. In offering hope as well as challenge, the authors show that
creativity and creative pedagogies are not only of interest to all educators, but are central to
exploring and developing the purpose and value of education for tomorrow. The authors
also afford some degree of optimism that teachers can, and that some do, teach creatively
and assert their agency, confront their practice and risk transforming this in order to
develop the habit of creativity in their students. In this respect, McWilliam (2008) argues
that creative educators are neither the ‘sage on the stage’ nor the ‘guide on the side’, but
are more appropriately described as ‘meddlers in the middle’; educators positioned in the
midst of the learners. Such educators she suggests set aside time for problem solving
activities in which they too are involved, and prioritise experimentation, improvisation, risk-
taking, co-learning and critical collaboration. For creative pedagogues a sense of adventure
and autonomy attends the experimentation involved in making curricular changes and
‘going with the flow’, building on the children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992),
passions and interests. Whilst this is not without tension, recognising their responsibilities to
the young, creative pedagogues seek, often in partnership with others, to create a balance
between structure and improvisation and, to borrow Anna Craft’s (2002) term, they work at
‘possibility thinking’ their ways forward. A habit worth forming.
References
Alexander, R (ed) (2010) Children, their World, their education: final report and
recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review London: Routledge
Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context, Boulder, CO: Westview
Assaf, L.C. (2008) The professional identity of a reading teacher: responding to high stakes
assessment Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 14 (3):239-252.
Ball, S. (1998). Performativity and fragmentation in the education economy. Australian
Educational Researcher 27(2): 1–23.
Banaji, S., Burn, A. and Buckingham, D. (2010) The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the
Literature, London, Arts Council England
Beghetto, R. A. (2007) Does creativity have a place in the classroom? Prospective teachers’
response preferences Thinking Skills and Creativity 2,1-9.
Beghetto, R. A. and Kaufman, J. C. (2007) Toward a broader conception of creativity.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12: 73-79.
Besancon, M and Lubart,T. ( 2008) Differences in the development of creative
competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments Learning and individual
differences 18. 381-389.
Boden, M. A. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and mechanisms (second ed.). London:
Routledge.
Boden, M. (2001) Creativity and knowledge in A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Liebling (eds)
Creativity in Education, London: Continuum
Bragg, S., Manchester, H., and Faulkner, D.(2009). Youth voice in the work of Creative
Partnerships. Milton Keynes: OU
Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2011) “Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces?” Educational Research, 53(3): 363–385.
Chappell, K. (2007). The Dilemmas of Teaching for Creativity: Insights from Expert Specialist
Dance Teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 pp39-56.
Claxton, G. and Lucas, B. (2015) Educating Ruby: what our children really need to learn Crown House: Carmarthen.
Comber. B. and Kamler, B. (2011) Redesigning school spaces: creating possibilities for
learning in In J. Sefton Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, and L. Bresler The Routledge
International Handbook of Creative Learning. London: Routledge. pp 253-263.
Craft, A. (2001) Little c creativity In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in
education pp. 45–61. London: Continuum.
Craft, A., and Chappell, K. 2009. “Fostering possibility through co-researching creative
movement with 7-11 year olds”. In S. Blenkinsop, (Ed) The imagination in education.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Craft, A. Cremin, T. Hay , P. Clack, J. (2014) Creative Primary Schools: developing and
maintaining pedagogy for creativity Ethnography and Education 9(1):16-34.
Craft, A. McConnon, L. and Matthews, A. (2012). Creativity and child-initiated play. Journal
of Thinking Skills and Creativity 71: 48-61.
Cremin, T., Craft, A. and Burnard, P.(2006) Pedagogy and Possibility Thinking in the Early Years, Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2): 108-119
Cremin, T., Barnes, J. and Scoffham, S. (2009) Creative Teaching for Tomorrow: Fostering a
Creative State of Mind, Deal, Future Creative.
Cremin, T. (2015) Creative Teaching and Creative Teachers in Wilson, A. (ed) (3rd edition)
Creativity in Primary Education (pp. 33-44) Exeter: Learning Matters.
Cremin (2014) Creative Teaching and Creative Teachers in Wilson, A. (ed) (2nd edition)
Creativity in Primary Education, Exeter: Learning Matters.
Cremin, T., Chappell, K., and Craft, A. (2013) Reciprocity between narrative, questioning and
imagination in the early and primary years: examining the role of narrative in possibility
thinking Thinking Skills and Creativity 9:136-151
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness. London:
Rider.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997) Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. NY: Harper
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., Howe, A.( 2013). Creative
environments for learning in schools Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1), 80-91.
Dawson, V.L.D., Andrea, T., Affinito, R. and Westby, E.L.(1999) predicting creative
behaviour: a re-examination of the divergence between traditional and teacher defined
concepts of creativity Creativity Research Journal 12, 57-66.
Dezuanni, M.and Jetnikoff, A. (2011) Creative pedagogies and the contemporary school
classroom in J. Sefton Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, and L. Bresler The Routledge
International Handbook of Creative Learning. London: Routledge. pp 264-272
Dooley, C.M. (2005) One teacher’s resistance to the pressures of test mentality, Language,
Arts, 82(3): 177-185.
Einarsdottir, J. (2003). Principles underlying the work of Icelandic preschool teachers.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1): 39-53.
Galton, M. 2008. The pedagogy of creative practitioners in schools. Faculty of Education,
Cambridge University, for Creative Partnerships.
Galton, M. (2010) Going with the flow or back to normal? The impact of creative
practitioners in schools and classrooms Research Papers in Education 25(4): 355-375.
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
Hall, C. and P. Thomson (2007). Creative partnerships? Cultural policy and inclusive arts
practices in one primary school. British Educational Research Journal 33(3): 315-29
Hall, C. and Thomson, P. (2005) ‘Creative tensions? creativity and basics skills in recent educational policy’, English In Education, 39(3), pp. 5-18.
Harris, A. and Lemon, A. (2012) Bodies that shatter: creativity, culture and the new
pedagogical imaginary, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20:3, 413-433
Hetland. L and Winner, E. (2011)The relationship between creativity and studio thinking in J.
Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones and L. Bresler, The Routledge International Handbook of
Creative Learning . Pp.226-233. London: Routledge.
Jeffrey, B. (2003). Creative learning and student perspectives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. http://opencreativity.open.ac.uk.
Jeffrey, B. and Woods, P. (2009) Creative Learning in the Primary School, London:Routledge.
Kaufman, J. C. and Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: the four c model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 131: 1-12.
Lance, A. (2006): Power to innovate? A study of how primary practitioners are
negotiating the modernisation agenda, Ethnography and Education, 1(3): 333-344
Lin, Y-S. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education: A Conceptual Framework of
Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education 2(3):149-155
Littleton, K. and Mercer, N. (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work ,London: Routledge
Lubart, T. I., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du potentiel créatif (EPoC). Paris: Editions Hogrefe France.
Lubart, T. I., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement.
International Journal of Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41-51.
McLellan, R., Galton, M., Steward, S., & Page, C. (2012). The Impact of Creative Partnerships
on the Wellbeing of Children and Young People. London: Creativity, Culture and Education.
McWilliam, E . (2008) Unlearning how to teach Innovations in Education and Teaching
International 45(3): 263-269.
Megalakaki, O, Craft, A. and Cremin, T. (2012) The nature of creativity: cognitive and
confluence perspectives Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 10 (3), 1035-1056.
Special Issue on Education for Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Mirzaie, R. A., Hamidi, F., and Anaraki, A. (2009). A study on the effect of science activities
on fostering creativity in preschool children. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3):81-90
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. and Gonzalez, N. (1992) ‘Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’, Theory into Practice, 31, pp. 132-141.
Mottram, M. and Hall, C. (2009) ‘Diversions and diversity: Does the personalisation agenda
offer real opportunities for taking children’s home literacies seriously?’ English in Education,
43(2): 98-112.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). (NACCCE) All Our Futures. London: DfEE.
Nickerson, R.S. (1999) Enhancing creativity in R.J. Sternberg Handbook of human creativity
Delhi: Oxford University Press pp.392-430.
Poddiakov, N. (2011). Searching, experimenting and the heuristic structure of a preschool
child's experience. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1), 55-63.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). 2005. Creativity: Find it, promote It!
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Prentice, R. (2000) Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education.
Curriculum Journal 11 (2):145 –158.
Robinson, K. and Aronica, L. (2015) Creative Schools: revolutionizing Education from the
ground up London: Allen lane.
Runco, M and Johnson, D.J. (2002) Parents and teachers implicit theories of children’s
creativity: a cross cultural perspective Creativity Research Journal 14, 427-438.
Sawyer, K. (2011) (ed) Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching New York,
Cambridge university press.
Sawyer, K. (2010) Learning for Creativity in. R. A. Beghetto, and J.C. Kaufman Nurturing
Creativity in the Classroom pp 394-414 Cambridge, Cambridge University press
Sternberg, R. (2010) Teaching for Creativity in R.A. Beghetto, and J.C. Kaufman Nurturing
Creativity in the Classroom pp 394-414 Cambridge, Cambridge University press.
van Oers, B. (2010). Emergent mathematical thinking in the context of play. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 74(1), 23-37.
Woods, P.( 2002) Teaching and Learning in the New Millenium.’In Developing Teachers and
Teaching Practice: International Research Perspectives, edited by C. Sugrue and C. Day.
London and New York: Routledge Falmer