Undergraduate Creativity 1

Undergraduate Creativity at a Chinese University:

A U.S. Fulbright Study in Pedagogy

Carol A. Mullen, PhD

Professor, Educational Leadership

Virginia Tech

School of Education, VTCRC, Office #2014

Educational Leadership Program

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Email:

Cell: 336-944-3737

Fax: 540-231-7845

Paper presented at the International Journal of Arts & Sciences’ (IJAS) American Canadian Conference for Education, Toronto, June 5, 2017.

Notes.

File containing the PPT slides were also uploaded to the IJAS website.

This paper is partly derived from the presenter’s new book:

Mullen, C. A. (2017). Creativity and education in China: Paradox and possibilities for an era of accountability. New York: Routledge & Kappa Delta Pi.

Undergraduate Creativity at a Chinese University

A U.S. Fulbright Study in Pedagogy

Abstract

This is an active learning account of a pedagogical innovation that challenges programs to prioritize creativity and collaboration in the preparation of preservice teachers. The question guiding this inquiry in China was, Does innovative experiential curriculum lead to any display of creativity in the undergraduate classroom? The purpose was to gain insight into whether, with pedagogical guidance, candidates in one setting could embrace creativity, both individually and cooperatively. Within a government-controlled, low-income rural municipality, the 4-C Creativity Model informed four assignments: (1) personal experience of creativity essay (individual); (2) 3D paper poster of the 4-C Creativity Model (group); (3) postreflection report and presentation (group), and (4) summative course assessment (individual). The completed assignments constituted the data sources that were qualitatively analyzed to produce themes. Assessing the experience, the undergraduates valued the creativity model and collaborative group activities, anticipating transference of the learning to their future classrooms. Implications end this discussion.

Long Abstract on Program

Research Questions: Does China, at the forefront of enforced test-centric schooling in the world, display any creativity in teaching and learning? Is it even plausible that creativity in education could be thriving in a communist regime? Theories: Theories of aesthetics as applied to education guided the fieldwork, with distinctions made between types of creativity (e.g., personal, cultural). Methods: As part a U.S. Fulbright study of pedagogy in China, this paper focuses on a preservice education course taught by the author. Psychologists Kaufman and Beghetto’s typology—the 4-C Creativity Model—was adapted as an instructional strategy for creatively engaging 34 Chinese preservice teachers (undergraduate students). Document analysis was of these four assignments: (1) Personal Experience of Creativity Essay (individual); (2) 3D Paper Poster of the 4-C Creativity Model (group); (3) Post-reflection Report (group), and (4) Debate of a Major Problem in Education (group). Qualitative models were used for coding and interpreting the data (e.g., Charmaz, 2005). Findings: Applying the psychological model of creativity to their assignments, the students generated personal and cultural meanings. Assessing their learning experiences, they expressed strong value for this model and cooperative group-based projects, expecting to transfer their learning into future classrooms of their own. Significance: This research continues the discourse of the accountability debate in education where it has left off—creativity as a countercultural democratic project. Cultural–historical forces obstruct creativity’s development in China, constraining everyday innovation. But, as this preliminary research suggests, it was paradoxically expressed within a government-sponsored university culture.

“I’m not creative. I don’t have much creativity and it’s a born gift. The question is, can creativity be dug out?” wrote one Chinese preservice teacher in this account. Not long ago, such pedagogical interventions overseas would have been highly unusual in the teacher education literature. However, the importance of globalization—and its benefits and detriments within context-specific learning environments—are gaining traction at last. Still, “research on globalization in teacher education is in its early stages of development, characterized by wide ranging questions and concerns” (Brown, Lycke, Crumpler, Handsfield, & Lucey, 2014, p. 261).

At the forefront of enforced test-centric schooling around the globe, China’s culture and history are depicted as obstacles to creative development as well as everyday innovation (Li & Gerstl-Pepin, 2014; Zhao, 2012, 2014). China attracts strong criticism, from inside and outside the country, for negating creativity in favor of high test scores and teacher authority (Staats, 2011; Tucker, 2011). The narrowly conceived test-driven culture not only limits expansion of new courses but also perpetuates a conformist environment that impinges on creative endeavors (Author, 2017; Zhao, 2014). Because learning in China occurs within a rigid system of exams and accountability measures, an untested, widely espoused belief is that Chinese students have been automatized to the point of lacking creativity (e.g., Li & Gerstl-Pepin, 2014).

In this active learning (AL) case, I explore a pedagogical innovation that was enacted in China despite policy-driven, competitive globalization pressures that restrict curriculum to core content and traditional formats (Brown et al., 2014; Staats, 2011; Zhao, 2014). Within this broad problem space, as a White American female professor, a goal of my U.S. Fulbright Scholarship was to contribute to the emergent global discourse in teacher education. More practically, my purpose is to learn whether, with pedagogical guidance, preservice candidates might benefit from a new stimulus to their thought and action. I wondered if the undergraduates I was scheduled to teach within a government-controlled, low-income rural municipality in China could do creative work both individually and collaboratively.

I used theories of aesthetics amenable to educational learning to help with formulating the creative intervention. My umbrella strategy was to locate a theory that classified different types of creativity for which the preservice candidates could identify personal, professional, and cultural associations of some kind with each type. As will be discussed, I found an appropriate typology within Beghetto and Kaufman’s (2007) theoretical framework of creativity. This creativity construct involves personal meaning, problem solving, professional value, and cultural innovation. My attempt in the foreign environment would be to elicit expressions of open-mindedness and mental flexibility, beginning with each student’s recollection of a childhood experience of creativity.

To clarify, this pedagogical case that unfolded in a practical global setting is not a formal study of curriculum (as reported in Author, 2017). The AL approach taken is set within specific boundaries of place and population. Situating this classroom practice are two frames—AL and creativity—that offer theoretical support befitting this paper’s scope.

Creativity, Culture, and Active Learning

Before describing the theories undergirding this paper (in the next section), I situationally define the concepts of creativity, AL, and culture in regard to the particular case.

Creativity

Creativity includes making and producing original work, as well as transforming things into something new. Thoughtfully appraising knowledge can also be considered creative (Robinson, 2015), as can asking questions that have no single answer or solution (Eisner, 2001/ 2004). Open-ended, complex problems are handled—not just problems facilitated through direct instruction and testing. It is expected that preservice candidates will have engaged in project-based learning, cooperative group work, and real-world inquiry (Au, 2011). In new work roles, graduates think imaginatively, make things, and solve problems. However, coming up with new things, ideas, and artifacts can be a mysterious process that relies on open-mindedness and persistence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). There is no formula when it comes to creativity.

Culture

Asians are generally associated with having a collective orientation, unlike Westerners’ association with an individualistic orientation, at least according to cross-cultural findings (e.g., Sternberg, 2006). Another broad stroke, Chinese people are thought to attribute creativity to social influences and norms (e.g., conformity), unlike Westerners, whose attribution is to individuals and their attitudes (e.g., non-conforming inventors). In China’s collectivist culture, then, “a greater emphasis [is placed on] the needs and goals of the group, social norms and duty, shared beliefs, and cooperation with group members” (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991, p. 828).

It might seem obvious to use AL activities that capitalize on a collective orientation in Asia. However, in mainstream China’s high-stakes classroom setting, inservice teachers are expected to ensure students’ high scores on tests and unquestioning respect of authority (Lee & Pang, 2011). Low scores on entrance exams limit future possibilities for Chinese citizens, with such severe consequences as poor quality of life and even suicide (Zhao, 2014). Thus, a prevailing view of contemporary China is that its competitive mindset dominates the culture, in effect undermining its collectivist strengths (Staats, 2011; Zhang, 2014). China’s testing culture in the name of educational reform was a response to the Programme for International Student Assessment results, not global-mindedness, according to Sjøberg (2016).

Paradoxically, while China is seen as hindering creativity with the priorities of labor markets reflected in test-centric education systems (Staats, 2011; Zhao, 2014), it is also recognized as accrediting the collective with being creative (Sternberg, 2006). Thus, at least on some level, China’s collectivist tradition should make it amenable to cooperative groupings, but another constraint is that classes are teacher-centered and quite large (Starr, 2010). As Jensen (2009) explains, rural families often have fewer quality education opportunities, less access to services, and inadequate support for disabilities. Attracting quality teachers is difficult within high-poverty rural districts in China (Cheng, 2009).

Thus, it appears that in mainstream China, being able to teach a 21st-century curriculum that advances such global competencies as creativity and entrepreneurship is overshadowed. Classroom pedagogies must align with rote-based testing goals. Yet the World Economic Forum (2013) recognizes creativity as one of the major competencies for being globally literate.

AL

Various definitions exist for the term AL and its cousin, action learning. These ideas similarly emphasize inquiry, learning, and teamwork. Differentiating, action learning (not the subject herein) is a management theory that involves groups “working on real problems” that are “important” or “urgent,” with the help of a trained coach (Marquardt, 2011, p. v). Contrasting with action learning, AL is pedagogically driven, educationally focused, and classroom based. Foci are student engagement, skills-building, and higher-order thinking (Bean, 2011). AL is also context-dependent and enriched by teacher (or student) goals, subject-matter content, student population, grade level, learning strategies, and more (Creekmore & Deaton, 2015).

Active Learning and Creativity Frames

The innovation that unfolded in the Chinese preservice setting was informed by the process-based enrichment of the AL model and the 4-C Creativity Model—Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) validated psychology framework.

Active Learning (AL) Frame

AL offers an avenue for process-oriented pedagogy. Student engagement, activity, and reflection are all embedded dynamics: “Active learning is the process of having students engage in some activity that forces them to reflect upon ideas and how they are using those ideas” (Collins & O’Brien, 2011, p. 16). Within the AL activity-based environment, students are guided to assess their understandings and skills at handling concepts or problems in an area or discipline. Knowledge is attained by participating in a learning community’s “activities” that involve “gathering information, thinking and problem solving” (Collins & O’Brien, 2011, p. 16).

A big idea behind AL is that actively learning, regardless of the grade level and subject matter, is more beneficial than passively learning. Working in small groups often helps with learning and retention more than when the same content is presented traditionally, such as via lecture (Kurczek & Johnson, 2014). In group work, the learner deepens understanding through conversation, negotiation, and debate. Projects evolve within a disciplined but spontaneous setting wherein individuals and groups take responsibility for learning (Author, 2017). Importantly, Hong’s (2014) study involving 93 education students found that learning environments—deliberately shaped around the tenets of collaborative learning and shared knowledge building—can be highly effective because they are student centered. Collins and O’Brien (2011) add that collaborative projects facilitate greater satisfaction with school.

AL pedagogies are also known for supporting personal and professional development, as well as reflective and improved practice (Collins & O’Brien, 2011; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2006). King (2016) describes “teacher professional learning” not as a skills-based trade but rather as a “complex system” of “systems within systems made up of individual teachers” and “a myriad of situational factors” that further or restrict the “change in practice” (p. 574). Global settings have the potential to stretch the bounds of an AL environment and offer new outcomes.

Concerning inservice teachers, they are “the most important component of the learning process” for pupils, having ultimate responsibility “for creating an atmosphere conducive to student achievement” (Creekmore & Deaton, 2015, p. v). Yet it cannot be overstated that engagement of pupils at any grade level is critical. Johnson and colleagues’ (2006) influential higher education report (originated in the 1990s) shone a light on the growing popularity of AL in college classrooms. AL participatory strategies, primarily cooperative learning, “teach specific content and problem-solving skills” (Johnson et al., 2006, p. iv). Importantly, a meta-analysis of cooperative learning studies established that these skills “extend to multiple domains of the classroom and learning experience including social (e.g., establish a positive atmosphere, and build diversity in understanding), psychological (e.g., increase self-esteem and reduce anxiety), and academic (e.g., promote critical thinking)” (Kurczek & Johnson, 2014, p. A93).

Within the more advanced grades subjected to high-stakes testing, AL-oriented interactive classrooms connect engagement and achievement. In such environments, with younger and older students alike, teachers target processing ideas and information, identifying and resolving problems, and performing meaningful tasks. The pedagogical style, which is nondirective, gives students space to develop higher-order critical and creative skills while purposefully engaging their peers (Creekmore & Deaton, 2015; Johnson et al., 2006). College instructor Bean (2011) uses AL writing strategies across the curriculum and for all learning tasks so that students can develop their critical and creative capacities. A transformative outcome he identified is the ability of his classes to work with important ideas while discovering new ways of thinking, seeing, and being. Creekmore and Deaton (2015) also report uses of AL that feature collaborative learning, but with younger students using technology, including social media. The community of active peer feedback builds on how they socially relate outside of school.

Scholars of pedagogy try combinations of team-based or problem-based learning, group work or small-group exercises, case study analysis, and activity-based reflections and assessments. As will be revealed about the Chinese context, the curriculum, while formally designed, relied on interpretation, activity, and teamwork. This pedagogy was conceptually framed and problem based, as well as activity generated and reflective oriented, in keeping with the contextual, nonformulaic nature of AL (see Collins & O’Brien, 2011; Johnson et al., 2006).

Creativity Frame

Pedagogically adaptive creativity, at least in my approach to it, has multiple but intertwining originating sources of influence. According to two of the most influential philosophers of education and the arts—John Dewey (1934) and Elliott Eisner (2001/2004)—schools must recapture everyday creativity in curricular experiences. As such, Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) validated psychology framework—the 4-C Creativity Model—encompasses four levels of creativity:

  • “Mini-c” is novel and personally meaningful experiences.
  • “Little-c” is everyday problem-solving in any sphere of work and life.
  • “Pro-C” is a category belonging to creative professionals (not famous).
  • “Big-C” is creativity of great magnitude reserved for famous works. (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007, pp. 73–74)

Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) model in particular served as a source of influence for Beghetto and Kaufman (2007). For Csikszentmihalyi, the person is de-emphasized, with shaping forces (i.e., field and domain) that impact the creative capacities of individuals and their potential influence at the center. In this way, all of the synergies that impact someone’s success are exposed. The creative person is but one of the energetic forces at play within a complex web.

------

Insert Figure 1 about here

------

While these models are not polar opposites, as Figure 1 suggests, they offer different emphases with respect to the creativity of the individual and the milieu of shaping influences. Thus, evident in Beghetto and Kaufman’s (2007) explanation of this model, external forces (i.e., professions and cultures, Pro-C and Big-C, respectively) are still highly influential within this worldview. However, due credit is given to the seeds of generativity (i.e., Mini-c and Little-c), which are essential for formulating ideas, making gains, and experiencing breakthroughs.

Because societies bias “eminent creativity” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 1), like American researchers Kaufman and Beghetto, and Dewey and Eisner before them, I seek to raise awareness of creativity that is not about Big-C famous works. “Big-C” examples are Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press and Pablo Picasso’s Bull’s Head. Cultural icons, often exhibited in museums and art galleys, are removed from everyday creativity (Dewey, 1934). Rather, my subject of interest is the near-invisible, barely detectable preservice teacher’s Mini-c and Little-c creative learning. This is why these creativity types are emphasized more in this write-up.

Creative Pedagogic Methods

Here, I briefly describe the setting, participants, bicultural strategies, and data sources.

Rural China and Preservice Candidates

This teacher education program was offered in an agriculturally historic university that was geospatially isolated in a mountainous region of China. The undergraduate education majors (n = 34) taking the intensive one-credit generic course, Creativity and Accountability in Education, did not know any specifics until our first day so they could not prepare in advance.

The gender imbalance (female majority–male minority) of this class is typical of teacher preservice programs in China (Author, 2017), like the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Students, with varying competencies in English, were Han Chinese (90% of China’s population) (Wasserstrom, 2013). Like other such preservice programs in mainstream China, the ministry-set general education curriculum excluded liberal arts: “Mastery of an accepted body of knowledge, not the development of critical intellectual skills, is the goal of most of China’s university educators” (Starr, 2010, p. 271). Thus, the elective course was likely an accommodation satisfying the requirements of my visit.