The development of a model of creative space and its potential for transfer from non-formal to formal education

International Review of Education volume 62, pages771–790(2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Creativity has been emerging as a key concept in educational policies since the mid-1990s, with many Western countries restructuring their education systems to embrace innovative approaches likely to stimulate creative and critical thinking. But despite current intentions of putting more emphasis on creativity in education policies worldwide, there is still a relative dearth of viable models which capture the complexity of creativity and the conditions for its successful infusion into formal school environments. The push for creativity is in direct conflict with the results-driven/competitive performance-oriented culture which continues to dominate formal education systems. The authors of this article argue that incorporating creativity into mainstream education is a complex task and is best tackled by taking a systematic and multifaceted approach. They present a multidimensional model designed to help educators in tackling the challenges of the promotion of creativity. Their model encompasses three distinct yet interrelated dimensions of a creative space – physical, social-emotional and critical. The authors use the metaphor of space to refer to the interplay of the three identified dimensions. Drawing on confluence approaches to the theorisation of creativity, this paper exemplifies the development of a model before the background of a growing trend of systems theories. The aim of the model is to be helpful in systematising creativity by offering parameters – derived from the evaluation of an example offered by a non-formal educational environment – for the development of creative environments within mainstream secondary schools.

Résumé

Conception d’un modèle d’espace créatif et son transfert potentiel de l’éducation non formelle à l’enseignement formel – La créativité est devenue depuis le milieu des années 1990 un concept central dans les politiques éducatives, et de nombreux pays occidentaux ont restructuré leurs systèmes éducatifs pour adopter des approches innovantes susceptibles de stimuler la pensée créative et critique. Mais malgré l’intention actuelle au niveau mondial de mettre davantage l’accent sur la créativité dans les politiques éducatives, il persiste un manque relatif de modèles viables, qui saisissent la complexité de la créativité et les conditions nécessaires à son introduction efficace dans les environnements scolaires formels. La stimulation de la créativité est en conflit direct avec la culture axée sur le résultat, la compétition et le rendement qui domine encore les systèmes éducatifs formels. Les auteures constatent qu’intégrer la créativité dans l’enseignement conventionnel est une tâche complexe que l’on abordera au mieux au moyen d’une approche systématique et multiforme. Elles présentent un modèle pluridimensionnel censé aider les éducateurs à relever les défis propres à la promotion de la créativité. Ce modèle comporte trois dimensions distinctes mais imbriquées de l’espace créatif: matérielle, socio-émotionnelle et critique. Les auteures utilisent la métaphore de l’espace pour se référer à l’interaction des trois dimensions identifiées. S’inspirant d’approches confluentes de la théorisation de la créativité, le présent article illustre la conception d’un modèle dans le contexte d’une tendance croissante aux théories des systèmes. Ce modèle a pour but d’aider à systématiser la créativité au moyen de paramètres – tirés de l’évaluation d’un exemple proposé par un environnement éducatif non formel – en vue de développer des environnements créatifs au sein des établissements secondaires classiques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Ireland, second-level education is provided by three different types of post-primary schools. That is, secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools. Second-level education consists of a three-year junior cycle followed by a two-year or three-year senior cycle depending on whether an optional Transition Year is taken following the Junior Certificate examination. Students usually begin the junior cycle at age 12. The senior cycle caters for students in the 15- to 18-year age group.

  2. 2.

    A confluence approach regards creative thinking or creativity as being formed by a convergence of several tributary (or confluent) factors.

  3. 3.

    Roddy Doyle is an award-winning Irish writer of novels, plays and screenplays who writes for adults and for children. His homepage is http://www.roddydoyle.ie/ [accessed 4 October 2016].

  4. 4.

    For more information about the Fighting Words centre, see http://www.fightingwords.ie/ [accessed 29 September 2016].

  5. 5.

    At the time of our study, there were 41 volunteers out of a selection of over 500.

  6. 6.

    Affordances are possibilities of action.

References

  1. Addison, N., Burgess, L., Steers, J., & Trowell, J. (2010). Understanding art education: Engaging reflexively with practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Archer, L., Maylor, U., Osgood, J., & Read, B. (2005). Final report: An exploration of the attitudinal, social and cultural factors impacting year 10 students performance, Institute for Policy Studies in Education. Retrieved 5 June 2014 from http://www.londonwest.org/images/IPSE_Report.pdf.

  3. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative competencies of children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bocconi, S., Kampylis P. G., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, European Commission. Retrieved 27 September 2015 from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=5181.

  6. Burgess, L., & Addison, N. (2007). Conditions for learning: Partnerships for engaging secondary pupils with contemporary arts. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(2), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burnard, P., & White, J. (2008). Creativity and performativity: Counterpoints in British and Australian education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Kearney, C., Punie, Y., Van Den Berghe, W., & Wastiau, P. (2009). Creativity in schools in Europe: A survey of teachers. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 28 September 2016 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55645_Creativity%20Survey%20Brochure.pdf.

  9. Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2011). Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces. Educational Research, 53(3), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Craft, A. (2001a). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in Education (pp. 45–61). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Craft, A. (2001b). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Report prepared for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Retrieved 28 September 2016 from http://www.creativetallis.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287089/creativity_in_education_report.pdf.

  12. Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Craft, A. (2010). Possibility thinking and wise creativity: Educational futures in England? In R. Bhegetto & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 289–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility: Thinking in the early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cumming, R. (2007). Language play in the classroom: Encouraging children’s intuitive creativity with words through poetry. Literacy, 41(2), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., & Duigby, R. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Day-Sclater, S. (2003). The arts and narrative research—art as inquiry: An epilogue. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 621–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Jonge, J., Spoor, E., Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Van den Tooren, M. (2012). “Take a break?!” Off-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(3), 321–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dillon, P., Craft, A., Best, P., Rigby, A., & Simms, K. (2007). Turning Peases West inside out: Flexible educational environments for developing possibilities and pedagogies. Sunderland, UK: Creative Partnerships Durham.

  22. Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Etling, A. (1993). What is nonformal education? Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(4), 72–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ewing, R. (2011). The arts and Australian education: Realising potential. Australian Education Review 58. Camberwell, Victoria: Acer Press. Retrieved 28 September 2016 from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER-58.pdf.

  25. Feldman, D. H., & Benjamin, A. C. (2006). Creativity and education: An American Retrospective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. Gkolia, C., Brudndett, 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.

  28. Glãveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guildford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Halsey, K., Jones, M., & Lord, P. (2006). What works in stimulating creativity among socially exclude young people. Slough, Berks.: National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Retrieved 8 August 2014 from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/NES01/NES01.pdf.

  31. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Holaday, L. (1997). Writing students need coaches, not judges. In S. Tchudi (Ed.), Alternatives to grading students’ writing (pp. 35–46). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).

  33. Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2007). Performative roles of materiality for collective creativity. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition (pp. 73–82). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

  34. Jankowska, M., & Atlay, M. (2008). Use of creative space in enhancing students’ engagement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jeffrey, B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: Towards a common discourse and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jindal-Snape, D., Baird, L., & Miller, K. (2011). A longitudinal study to investigate the effectiveness of the Guitar Hero project in supporting transition from P7-S1. Report for LTS [Learning and Teaching Scotland]. Dundee: University of Dundee.

  37. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. Retrieved 30 September 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228345133_Beyond_Big_and_Little_The_Four_C_Model_of_Creativity.

  38. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. (2010). Theories of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lin, Y. (2011). Fostering creativity through education: A conceptual framework of creative pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Loi, D., & Dillon, P. (2006). Adaptive educational environments as creative spaces. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lorenzi, F., & White, I. (2013). Evaluation of the fighting words creative writing model. December. Dublin: Center for Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment, Dublin City University (CREA DCU). Retrieved 29 September from http://www.fightingwords.ie/sites/default/files/Full-Report.pdf.

  42. McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Miller, D. J., Hudson, A., Miller, A., & Shimi, J. (2010). Nintendogs project. Report for LTS [Learning and Teaching Scotland]. Dundee: University of Dundee.

  44. NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education) (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Report to the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. London: National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.

  45. NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). (2012). A framework for junior cycle. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 44(4), 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Romi, S., & Schmida, M. (2009). Non-formal education: A major educational force in the postmodern era. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(2), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sagan, O. (2008). Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: Emotional exchange in creative learning spaces. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(3), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Seltzer, K., & Bentley, T. (1999). The creative age: Knowledge and skills for the new economy. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1(3), 166–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Srivastava, A., & Thomson, S. B. (2009). Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration & Governance, 4(2), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Starke, K. (2012). Encouraging creativity in children. Education Digest, 78(4), 57–59.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Suh, T., Jung, J. C., & Smith, B. L. (2012). Learning creativity in the client-agency relationship. The Learning Organization, 19(5), 428–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 6(2), 114–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Troman, G., Jeffrey, B., & Raggl, A. (2007). Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures. Journal of Educational Policy, 22(5), 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Note Chism, N. (2002). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 2.1–2.12). Washington, DC: Educause. Retrieved 28 September 2016 from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102b.pdf.

  59. Vecchi, V. (2010). Art and creativity in Reggio Emilia: Exploring the role and the potential of ateliers in early childhood education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Warner, S. A., & Myers, K. L. (2009). The creative classroom: The role of space and place toward facilitating creativity. Technology Teacher, 69(4), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wegerif, R. (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wild, C. (2011). Making creative spaces: The art and design classroom as a site of performativity. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 30(3), 423–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zimmerman, E. (2014). Building places and spaces for creativity in a STEAM framework. Ubiquity: The Journal of Literature, Literacy and the Arts, Research Strand, 1(1), 138–148.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Human Development, Institute of Education, Dublin City University (DCU), Dublin 9, Ireland

    Irene White

  2. School of Policy and Practice, Institute of Education, Dublin City University (DCU), Dublin 9, Ireland

    Francesca Lorenzi

Authors
  1. Irene White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Lorenzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene White.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

White, I., Lorenzi, F. The development of a model of creative space and its potential for transfer from non-formal to formal education. Int Rev Educ 62, 771–790 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9603-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • creative space
  • multidimensional model
  • non-formal education
  • formal education
  • confluence approach
  • systems theories
  • framework analysis