Paper Presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Universitycollegedublin

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, UniversityCollegeDublin, 7-10 September 2005

Abstract

In September 2002 at an international conference in Soweto, South Africa, the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama called on South African educational institutions to take the lead in instilling values in society (2002). Supported by keynote speaker, Kobus Neethling, it was argued that the 21st century needs a new kind of creativity characterised by unselfishness, caring and compassion. Still involving monetary wealth, but resulting in a healthy planet and healthy people (2002). The Lisbon Strategy agreed in Lisbon, Portugal in March 2000 committed Europe to becoming a world leader by 2010 in terms of economy, educational systems and social welfare, demanding of course ‘rampant creativity and innovation’ (Buster, 2004).

Creativity has become a ‘buzz-word’ of our times, is often misconstrued, misunderstood and plainly misused. Following the organisation of a series of European funded, Comenius 2.1 courses (European Union, 2005a) linked to the promotion of creative approaches to teaching and learning, a small-scale research study was conducted on how to improve creativity in European schools. The findings from this work were triangulated with the 2003 Comenius 1 evaluation report published by the Commission. The Author was involved in the production of this report (European Union, 2005b).

This paper explores how creative potential can be promoted and harnessed through building relationships in schools, managing risk and building learning cultures through developing appropriate values, for example in accordance with De Lors ‘Four Pillars of Knowledge’ (1996)

Globalization and its impact.

For the first time in history, knowledge is becoming the primary outcome of economic production. It is a core resource for commercial and non-commercial organisations and an emblem of employability and / or democratic citizenship. The DEMOS report (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999), identifies four clear trends that are driven by the impact of information and communication technologies and economic globalisation represented by the openness and fluidity of markets and production across international boundaries, which in turn impacts directly upon the social and cultural values we absorb and construct, these are:

• that the ‘weightless economy’ based on human resources, information and networks have become very influential sources of productivity and competitiveness;
• that workers need to continue to develop the skills to manage themselves in increasingly unstable organisational environments;
• that more ‘horizontal’ organisational structures within and between organisations are taking the place of ‘vertical’ structures;
• that new patterns of exclusion are emerging amongst those who are not willing or able to develop marketable knowledge.

The global nature of our knowledge therefore, is causing immense changes to what and how we know. The change, in a memorable phrase of Giddens (1990), is conceptualised as “waves of social transformation crushing across virtually the whole of the Earth’s surface” in parallel with a dis-embedding of the social system.

A consequence of this is that some ‘included’ members of society feel growing intemationalisation, whilst others feel the need to protect their national identity in ways that reflect growing insecurity and disempowerment. Theirs upgrades a concept of identity based on ethnic or nationalistic considerations. Global systems of production and exchange have led to a re-ordering and compression of time and space. Work is carried out in a local area yet decisions are made far from the particular context. At the same time, some companies are making their organisations more responsive to local needs: thinking globally but acting locally. More reflective organisations take this further by trying to engage employees in a more participative organisation.

This decentring could be seen, as potentially leading to a dislocation of the self. If part of our identity is formed by a culture in flux then it could cause dissonance. On the other hand, it could open up greater possibilities for a re-articulation of ourselves and a possible gaining of multiple identity or multiple citizenship. This sets the scene for ‘visionary leadership’ that can build new cultures that will be inclusive, fair and just, that can enable participants to build strong reflexive identities. This cannot happen without a creative approach to furthering educational provision.

The political context for education in Europe

Changes in technology set the pace and drive the social, economic and cultural changes, which are reflected in the personal and social values, attitudes and behaviour created. The ambitious plans of the EU for education and training were linked to the 2000 Lisbon Agreement that stated that:

‘The Union must become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (reported in Buster, 2004).

To achieve this ambitious goal, Heads of States and Government asked for “not only a radical transformation of the European economy, but also a challenging programme for the modernisation of social welfare and education systems.” In 2002, they went on to say that by 2010, Europe should be the world leader in terms of the quality of its education and training systems.

Searching the world-wide-web for evidence of creative work in education taking place in Europe (October 2004) was sobering:

Google search: ‘Creativity, Europe’

475 hits achieved of which the top 3 were:

1. Times Forum] How to Build Cultural Communication - Korea Times,South Korea;
2. Taiwan to help train Mongolian business elites;
3. SolidWorks Software Opens New Doors to Design Creativity, Faster ...in Mongolian business elites.

Google search: ‘Creativity, Europe, Education’

59 hits achieved of which the top 3 were:

1.Infinity intends to make timeless music - Jamaica Observer,Jamaica;

2.Full text: Gordon Brown at the CBI - Guardian,UK;

3.Speech by PM Sharon the opening of the Telecom 2004 Exhibition - Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Israel

In each case, a very small number of hits by comparison with what is normally achieved for many topics. Needless to say, the lack of progress with meeting Lisbon agreed targets is in keeping with a perceived political malaise at the heart of Europe in 2005, illustrated by the refusal of a number of European countries in 2004 / 2005 to follow the lead of their politicians and endorse a new European constitution. The UK Government has responding by setting out a ‘Science and Innovation Investment Framework’ for 2004 to 2014 (HM Treasury, 2004) by trying to engage more deeply: businesses and their associated science base; universities, and by promoting innovation directly in companies. Producing a strong supply of engineers, scientists, technologists and more educated decision-makers in policy formation requires higher quality teaching and learning in every school, college and university that is broadly based.

The challenges of change

To change the pervading culture and practices means promoting creativity and innovation through enterprise and re-generation to institutionalise ‘new values’ that are futuristically orientated. The Google searches can be taken as an indicator of the lack of real focus on European creativity in educational spheres to make the Lisbon Agenda happen. A country that has already changed remarkably is South Africa. In September 2002,

The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, called on South African education institutions to take the lead in instilling values in society (2002).

The Dalai Lama emphasised that over and above the developments of human intellectual property, educational institutions should also take a proactive role in nurturing the positive human elements of compassion and ethics.
In a keynote address at this conference,

Kobus Neethling argued that the 21st Century needed a new kind of creativity for the sake of the peoples of the world and our environment (2002).

Kobus made an interesting distinction between 20th Century creativity and 21st Century creativity. He argued that 20th Century creativity had a self-centred focus, creating wealth on the one hand, and poverty, starvation and environmental damage on the other. 21st Century creativity needs to be ‘strategic creativity’ characterised by unselfishness, caring and compassion. This would still involve monetary wealth, but result in a healthy planet and healthy people. Education must lead this new revolution.

Creativity has become a ‘buzz-word’ of our times, is often misconstrued, misunderstood and plainly misused. This paper explores how creative potential can be promoted and harnessed through building relationships in schools, managing risk and building learning cultures through developing appropriate values, for example in accordance with the De Lors et. al. ‘Four Pillars of Knowledge’ report (1996), proposed as a future blueprint for European education:

• Learning to know, by having a broad overview of things and the skills to work in depth on selected fields; learning to learn and thereby benefit from the opportunities to learn throughout life;

• Learning to do, by acquiring vocational skills and the competencies to work in different situations and to work in teams;

• Learning to live together, and appreciating other cultures and people, respecting pluralism, peace and managing conflict;

• Learning to be, so as to better develop one’s own personality, acting with autonomy, judgement and personal responsibility.

Creativity: its personal, social and cultural ramifications

The nature of creativity and the conditions required for its nurture continue to be viewed as problematic. Feldman (1995)recognised that, to be creative, individuals have to believe that they can change the world and add to its knowledge themselves. Similarly, McKeller, (1957) believes that the essence of creativity consists of an individual striving to do better than did his / her predecessors. However, this individual element must be set within supportive social frameworks if there is at least to be an opportunity for people to realise their creative potential. For Csikzentmihayli (1997):

Socialization not only shapes behaviour, it also moulds consciousness to the expectations and aspirations of the culture, so that we feel shame when others observe our failings, and guilt when we feel that we have let others down (p. 77).

It comes as no surprise, then, to learn that Csikzentmihalyi (in Feldman, 1995) believes that:

‘…focusing on the individual alone when studying creativity is like studying how an apple tree produces its fruit by only looking at the tree and ignoring the sun and the soil.’ (p. 147) .

It is through culture that we judge the qualities associated with creativity. Evidence for creative qualities in individuals can be sought by:

• identifying their distinctive characteristics (abilities, patterns of conduct, declared needs, motivations observed, etc), together with the frequency and nature of the creative acts for which they are responsible;
• collecting the opinions of those that make decisions, choices and judgments about the merits of the work of individuals, groups and institutions working within a domain.

Craft (2005) suggests that are different perspectives on creativity reflecting differences in socio-cultural circumstances. For example, western culture values more heavily the role and achievements of the individual contrasting with the east, where the social group stands predominantly. She suggests that often values about creativity are muddled and that as educators we need to consider how to promote creativity wisely, that is to be mindful of the range of positive and negative possibilities of creative action and to make links to the moral and ethical domains. But what is wise action? Claxton (2005) suggests it occurs when:

‘people lose self-referenced motivations …and that wise intuitions may emerge from a rich, experiential database of complex, value-ridden situations, and of both personal and vicarious observations of more or less successful ways of resolving them’(pg. 9).

Creative acts in educational settings

The values developed in school-based learning will continue to be vitally important as part of a participative democracy to generate the readiness in young people to cope with a world where learning and knowledge is at the heart of the matter. Creativity belies simple definition and measurement but if we wish to promote creative work, there are many agencies that act as stakeholders in its identification. Creative acts can involve:

• using imagination, often to make unusual connections or see unusual relationships between objects, ideas or situations;
• having targets and reasons for working which are capable of resulting in new purposes being discovered;
• being comparatively original in relation to the work of a small closed community, such as peers or family, or uniquely original in comparison with those working historically or currently in a field or discipline;
• judging value, which demands critical evaluation and reflection, standing back and gaining an overview position (Department for Education & Employment, 1999).

Creativity in teaching and learning is elusive and rarely prioritised. When it is prioritised, its nature is not defined or closely considered and often conflated with problem solving. Bloom (1956, p. 33), postulates that, in fields of knowledge that are changing, knowledge should be presented as a transitory medium that enables users to solve relevant problems. It should not be presented as absolute truth. We continually need to be mindful of some traditional but fundamental questions about our approaches to teaching and learning whilst thinking about the role of creativity:

Nature of knowledge

• Do we know what a well-educated person should know?
• There is confusion between the nature of knowledge and the nature of information. What is their relationship and how does this affect the way we view and build educational curricula?

Nature of learning

• The human brain works best in a highly stimulating, low threat environment. How do we maximise its potential?
• Learning is a social activity. To what extent is the potential being realised in schools?
• Learning is a cultural activity. To what extent is the potential of the individualised being realised in schools?

Curriculum philosophies

• Are the current curriculum models in use able to satisfy the needs of a knowledge-based society at the local and global levels? We know that organizations such as DEMOS and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) suggest not and other proposals have been made (Seltzer & Bentley; 1999; Royal Society of Arts, 2000);
• How should we incorporate moral and ethical dimensions into the educational provision.

Developing creative climates and cultures in European schools

Between 2001 and 2003, four, one-week long in-service development courses were run by the University of Reading, funded through the European Union, Comenius 2.1 scheme (European Union, 2005a). They offered in-service training opportunities to teachers, school managers and teacher trainers in the locations of Krakow, Poland; Norberg, Sweden; Drammen, Norway and Ancona, Italy. Pre-course information encouraged potential participants who were interested in facilitating and leading change in their schools in line with a set of values that put the generation and release of creative social and cultural capital uppermost. The courses were concerned with ‘Learning to Learn: building structures for developing educational autonomy and creativity’. Participants worked at schools and colleges ranging from pre-school, to tertiary and higher education including special schools. They attended from eleven different European countries and represented a diverse range of subject backgrounds.

Post-course developments in creativity at course members’ home institutions were followed-up one year after completion of the course, through the delivery of a three-part, small-scale research study. This involved 1) a questionnaire to all attendees (78 issued, 24 completed); 2) a second questionnaire or telephone interview (8 respondents were selected; each completed); 3) the collection of case study material describing activities and approaches in the respondents home institutions as indicators of creative endeavour.

Research context:

Figure 1 illustrates the balance of respondents between different phases and types of educational provision.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the comparative response rate across the 11 countries surveyed.

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows the broad distribution of respondents’ subject backgrounds. It was refreshing that teachers with so many different subject interests were sufficiently interested to attend the courses and contribute to the research phase.

Figure 3

Learning Context:

Indications of the constraints under which the different schools operate are included in the next two figures. In Figure 4, perceptions of the comparative degrees of control exercised by different educational stakeholders are shown. In Figure 5, respondents’ perceptions of the main purposes of assessment are shown, although in many instances, the results of students’ achievements are used to measure the success of teachers’ performance.

Figure 4

From Figure 4, variations can clearly be seen across the European countries in the amount of perceived control the different stakeholders have. In the main however, with the exception of Luxembourg, control is shared between educators, administrators and politicians acting through particularly national and local agencies. The headteacher and teachers between them exert between 22% and 45% of the control over the curriculum whilst Government exerts between 20% and 100% control in the case of Luxembourg. With the exceptions of Malta, Cyprus and Greece, universities have lost their influence more or less completely

Figure 5

Figure 5 summarises the purposes of assessment and shows clearly that students’ needs are ranked first whilst Government and indeed Employers rank much lower. Some hypotheses are raised by these responses: