Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 153–179 | Cite as

Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and STEAM education: An international study

  • Anne Harris
  • Leon R. de Bruin
Article

Abstract

How creativity in education is applied by teachers to secondary school contexts is dependent on how the term ‘creativity’ is grounded, politicised, and practised. This paper reports on an international study of secondary schools in Australia, USA, Canada, and Singapore investigating how creativity is understood, negotiated, valued and manifested in secondary schools, focusing on teacher and student understandings, actions, benefits and impediments to creative and critical thinking. Participant reflections revealed inter-, trans- and cross-disciplinary learning shaped by teacher collaboration, dialogue and classroom organization that fosters critical and creative thinking. Implications are made for the ways practicing teachers develop and foster creativity via pedagogical approaches that enhance connectivity and interdisciplinarity of teaching practices between domains of learning. An education-based Creativity Index through which administrators and teachers can gauge, assess and implement creative skills, capacities, pedagogic practices and assessment of creativity within secondary schools is posited. Implications for STEM/STEAM education and centralizing creative capacities in teaching, learning, and educational change are offered.

Keywords

Secondary schools creativity Teacher training STEAM education Creativity Index for schools 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by an Australian Research Council DECRA Grant (#DE140100421) entitled The Creative Turn: An Australia-wide Study of Creativity and Innovation in Secondary Schools (2014–2016) and expanded to encompass its international comparative data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2007). The challenges of cross-disciplinary research. Social Epistemology, 21(4), 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACARA. (2017). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. Government of Australia. Retrieved November, 2017, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/senior-secondary-curriculum/.
  3. Alexander, R. (2004). Dialogic teaching. Dialogos: York.Google Scholar
  4. Alves, J., Marques, M. J., Saur, I., & Marques, P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amabile, T. M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.Google Scholar
  6. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘the social psychology of creativity’. Boulder, CO: Westville Press.Google Scholar
  7. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Averil, J. R., Chon, K. K., & Hahn, D. W. (2001). Emotions and creativity, East and West. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. In M. Holquist (Ed.), trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  10. Banaji, S., & Burn, A. (2007). Creativity through a rhetorical lens: Implications for schooling, literacy and media education. Literacy, 41(2), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Burgess, L., & Addison, N. (2007). Conditions for learning: Partnerships for engaging secondary pupils with contemporary art. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnard, P. (2011). Creativity, pedagogic partnerships, and the improvisatory space of teaching. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 51–72). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cachia, R. & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in Europe. Seville: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. European Commission. ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC59232.pd.
  15. Catterall, J. S. (2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art: The effects of education in the visual and performing arts on the achievements and values of young adults. Los Angeles, CA: Imagination Group.Google Scholar
  16. Chang, C. C. (2014). An IPA-embedded model for evaluating creativity curricula. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81–110). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Cheng, C. C. (2014). Creative climate, creativity capabilities, and new product creativity in the internet communication space. In E. Shiu (Ed.), Creativity research: An inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research handbook (pp. 207–230). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Cho, N., Oh, E., Kwon, J. Kim, H., Chi, E., Hong, W. (2011). A study on the improvement of secondary school education to bring up students’ creative talents. KICE Research report. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  20. Chrysostomou, S. (2004). Interdisciplinary approaches in the new curriculum in Greece: A focus on music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(5), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Cooke, C., Davies, R., Gray, D., & Trowsdale, J. (2017). Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21st learning: How can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education? British Educational Research Association. www.steamresearch.wordpress.com.
  22. Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). Innovation and creativity: Inquiry into innovation and creativity: Workforce for the new economy. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra: Govt Printers.Google Scholar
  23. Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational researcher, 22(2), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and early years education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Craft, A. (2008). Tensions in creativity and education: Enter wisdom and trusteeship? In A. Craft, H. Gardner, G. Claxton, et al. (Eds.), Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship. Exploring the role of education (pp. 16–34). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  28. Craft, A., Cremin, T. & Burnard, P. (Eds.) (2008). Possibility thinking and creative learning. In Creative learning and how we document it (pp. 3–11). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  29. Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogies of possibility thinking. International Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  31. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Foreword: Developing creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. xviii–xx). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Bruin, L. R. (2015). Theory and practice in idea generation and creativity in Jazz improvisation. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 91–115.Google Scholar
  34. de Bruin, L. R. (2016). Expert voices in learning improvisation: shaping regulation processes through experiential influence. Music Education Research, 19(4), 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. de Bruin, L. R., & Harris, A. (2017). Fostering Creative Ecologies in Australasian Schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education42(9), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dillon, P. (2008). A pedagogy of connection and boundary crossing: Methodological and epistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Downing, D., Jones, P., Lord, M., Martin, K., & Springate, I. (2007). Study of creative partnerships' local sharing of  practice and learning. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.544.2703&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  38. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/962/EC. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF.
  40. Ewing, R. (2011). The arts and Australian education: Realising the potential. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER-58.pdf.
  41. Fillis, I., & McAuley, A. (2000). Modeling and measuring creativity at the interface. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(2), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Florida, R. L. (2003). The rise of the creative class: How its transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. FNAE. (2016). Finnish National Agency for Education. National Reforms in School Education. Retrieved November, 2017, from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:National_Reforms_in_School_Education.
  44. Gagné, F. (1999). Nature or nurture? A re-examination of Sloboda and Howe’s (1991) interview study on talent development in music. Psychology of Music, 27(1), 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gagné, F., & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Analyzing musical prodigiousness using Gagné’s Integrative Model of Talent Development. In G. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, education, musicology, and ethnomusicology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–114). London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C. (Eds.). (2005). In the spirit of the studio: Learning from the Atelier of Reggio Emilia. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  48. Garner, R. (2007). Schools ‘must do more for creativity’. The Independent, 31(October), 12.Google Scholar
  49. Gkolia, C., Brundett, M., & Switzer, J. (2009). An education action zone at work: Primary teacher perceptions of the efficacy of a creative learning and collaborative leadership project. Education 3–13, 37(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
  50. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grainger, T., Gooch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2005). Creativity and writing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Greek Pedagogical Institute (GPI). (2003). A Cross-thematic curriculum framework for compulsory education (DEPPS). Translated from the Official Gazette, B (303/13-03-03) and B (304/13-03-03) by members of the GPI main staff and teachers seconded to the GPI. http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/index_eng.php.
  53. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hall, C., Thomson, P., & Russell, L. (2007). Teaching like an artist: The pedagogic identities and practices of artists in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Harris, A. (2014). The creative turn: Toward a new aesthetic imaginary. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Harris, A. (2016). Creativity and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Harris, A. (2017). Creative ecologies: Fostering creativity in secondary schools. Final Report.Google Scholar
  58. Harris, A., & Ammerman, M. (2016). The changing face of creativity in Australian education. Teaching Education, 27(1), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Heilmann, G., & Korte, W. B. (2010). The role of creativity and innovation in school curricula in the EU27: A content analysis of curricula documents. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://www.pim.com.mt/pubs/JRC_curricula.pdf.
  60. Holley, K. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary strategies as transformative change in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 331–344.Google Scholar
  61. Howkins, J. (2010). Creative ecologies: Where thinking is a proper job. St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  62. Jeffrey, B. (Ed.). (2006). Creative learning practices: European experiences. London: Tufnell.Google Scholar
  63. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  64. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leong, S. (2010). Creativity and assessment in Chinese arts education: Perspectives of Hong Kong students. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lin, C. Y., & Cho, S. (2011). Predicting creative problem-solving in math from a dynamic system model of creative problem-solving ability. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2012). Progression in creativity: Developing new forms of assessment. Background paper for the OECD conference ‘Educating for Innovative Societies’. Retrieved November, 2017, from https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/50153675.pdf.
  68. Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. OECD Education Working Papers. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/progression-in-student-creativity-in-school_5k4dp59msdwk-en.
  69. Massumi, B. (2008). The thinking-feeling of what happens. A semblance of a conversation. Inflexion, 1.1 How is Research Creation? Retrieved November, 2017, from http://inflexions.org/n1_The-Thinking-Feeling-of-What-Happens-by-Brian-Massumi.pdf.
  70. Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2014). Democratic dialogic education for and from authorial agency. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. MCEECDYA (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs). (2008). The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
  72. McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2007). Understanding creativity: A survey of ‘creative’ academic teachers. Canberra: The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  73. Moran, J. (2002). Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moran, S. (2009). Creativity in school. In K. Littleton, C. Woods, & J. K. Staarman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology: New perspectives on learning and teaching. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  75. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative thought. Creative Research Journal, 4, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nicolescu, B. (1997). The transdisciplinary evolution of learning. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://www.learndev.org/dl/nicolescu_f.pdf.
  77. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2013). Public knowledge cultures. Knowledge Cultures, 1(2), 34–46.Google Scholar
  78. Pothoulaki, J., MacDonald, R., & Flowers, P. (2012). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of an improvisational music therapy program for cancer patients. Journal of Music Therapy, 49(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Robson, C. (2002). The analysis of qualitative data. In C. Robson (Ed.), Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (pp. 455–499). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  80. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rutland, M., & Barlex, D. (2008). Perspectives on pupil creativity in design and technology in the lower secondary curriculum in England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Spelt, J. H. E., Biemans, J. A. H., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tan, A. G. (2014). Creativity in cross-disciplinary research. In E. Shiu (Ed.), Creativity research: An interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research handbook (pp. 68–85). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thomson, P., & Sanders, E. (2010). Creativity and whole school change: An investigation of English headteacher practices. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  89. Troman, G., Jeffrey, B., & Raggl, A. (2007). Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures. Journal of Education Policy, 22(5), 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vong, K. I. (2008). Developing creativity and promoting social harmony: The relationship between government, school and parents’ perceptions of children’s creativity in Macao-SAR in China. Early Years, 28(2), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Williamson, P. K. (2011). The creative problem solving skills of arts and science students—The two cultures debate revisited. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 6(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations