Advertisement

The University Curricula and Creativity. A Point of View

  • C. Samoila
  • D. UrsutiuEmail author
Conference paper
  • 20 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1135)

Abstract

Our Research has shown that in universities there is no unified strategy to support intellectual processes related to creativity. Since 1998, Teresa Amabile stressed the link between the work environment and creativity. Her research meant “workplace creativity”. We wondered whether the principles of work underlined by the Amabile cannot apply to the organization called the University and if so, what are the particularities to be taken into account so that the university system becomes a kind of antechamber of preparation of graduates with these “finished” and “awakened” qualities for the entry into the creative environment offered by the organizations of the economic environment. For the curriculum, reformed in terms of the support of the creativity, are listed some design principles (the main ones) that are the catalyst for creativity. It’s about Fluency, Originality, Flexibility and Elaboration. The Analysis in the paper also assumed a parallel look of instructionism with profound learning. The Bottom line is that the instructionism practiced on a large scale today only accidentally leads to creativity. There are considerations regarding the binomial “partwhole” and the way his approach can annihilations or encourage creativity. It is brought as an argument for the reform of the Science of Complexity which gives us the ability to redesign the curriculum “learning by discovery” and “learning by direct implications in experimental projects”.

Keywords

Creativity Fluency Originality Flexibility Elaboration Instructionism 

References

  1. 1.
    Amabile, T.M.: Componential theory of creativity. In: Kessler, E.H. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Sage Publications, London (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M.: Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manage. J. 1154–1184 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
  3. 3.
    Hennessey, B.A., Watson, M.W.: The defragmentation of creativity: future directions with an emphasis on educational applications. In: Corazza, G.E., Agnoli, S. (eds.) Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Springer, Singapore (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-618-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sternberg, R.J.: Wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized: a model of giftedness. In: Balchin, T., Hymer, B., Matthews, D.J. (eds.) The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education, pp. 255–264. Routledge, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sternberg, R.J.: Creativity as a habit. In: Tan, A.-G. (ed.) Creativity: A Handbook for Teachers, pp. 3–25. World Scientific, Singapore (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogoff, B., Matsuov, E., White, C.: Models of teaching and learning: participation in a community of learners. In: Olsen, D.R., Torrance, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Education and Human Development — New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling, pp. 388–414. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sternberg, R.J.: Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999). 450 pages. ISBN 0521576040, 9780521576048Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Li, Q.: Moral creativity and creative morality. In: Moran, S., Cropley, D., Kaufman, J.C. (eds.) The Ethics of Creativity, pp. 75–91. Palmgrave Macmillan, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plucker, J., Beghetto, R., Dow, G.: Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ. Psychol. 39, 83–96 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeffrey, B., Craft, A.: Creative teaching and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Paper Given at the British Educational Research Association Special Interest Group in Creativity in Education Conference, Milton Keynes (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Advisory Committee for Creative and Cultural Education-NACCCE. All our futures: creativity, culture, education, May 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osborn, F.A.: Applied Imagination; Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. Scribner, New York (1953). OCoLC-608160449Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cropley, D.H.: Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 9(2), 161–171 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoever, I.J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P., Barkema, H.G.: Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J. Appl. Psychol. 97(5), 982–996 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159. Epub 9 July 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transylvania University of BrasovBrașovRomania
  2. 2.Romanian Academy of Technical SciencesBucharestRomania
  3. 3.Romanian Academy of ScientistsBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations