1

EDUCATION AND CREATIVITY: CHALK AND CHEESE?

AN ANALYSIS OF THE KEY DEBATES IN THEORY, POLICY

AND PRACTICE

Joshua Harsant

The dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the regulations for the BA Honours Degree in Education Studies

and Sociology.

Oxford Brookes University, 2014

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first and foremost like to dedicate this dissertation to my friend, housemate and

creative academic, Katrina Rose, who sadly and suddenly passed away in January

2014. Katrina, I miss you… this is for you.

I would also like to dedicate this work to our eminent Secretary of State, Michael Gove,

and the coalition government for their passion for, interest in and commitment to

creative and arts education…!

I would like to thank the staff team at Artswork, a charity of which I am a trustee. Their

expertise, knowledge and signposting have proved invaluable.

More formally, I would like to thank Jon Reid, Barry Gransden and Nick Swarbrick at

Oxford Brookes University for inspiring me to consider, ponder and research this topic.

Finally, I would like to thank Rachel Payne, my supervisor, for her support, help and

guidance in producing this dissertation. Her knowledge, signposting and passion for

arts and creative education were second-to-none.

3

ABSTRACT

This paper starts with a discussion of the conceptual difficulties around defining,

understanding and assessing creativity and subsequently refines this discussion within

the context of education. It directly addresses some of the key limitations to the

manifestation of creativity specifically in schools and examines key areas of debate in

educational policy and practice, pointing to increasing and, in some cases, renewed in

the creativity in education agenda. These areas include: the curriculum, the arts and

external (that is, out-of-school) partnerships. This paper ultimately argues – and

concludes – that there is a place for creativity in education and there is evidence of

good creative practice.

Key findings include:

• Creativity can be assessed, though criteria are difficult to determine.

• Creativity is understood in a number of ways, but is cultivatable.

• Creativity exists beyond subject-domains, particularly beyond ‘the arts’.

• Creativity relies on pedagogical practices to enable expression.

Keywords: creativity, education, pedagogy, learning, policy

Front cover image: word cloud for this dissertation – the larger the word, the more often it appears in this paper.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Figures 5

Preface 6

1. Introduction 8

1.1. Influence and position 9

1.2. Narrative themes and research aims 9

2. Approaching creativity as a concept 10

2.1. Defining creativity 10

2.2. Disentangling terminology 13

2.3. Creative learning 14

2.4. Creativity and assessment 17

2.5. Why is creativity important in education? 21

2.6. Limitations of creativity in education 23

2.7. Conclusion 25

3. Approaching creativity in policy and practice 27

3.1. Creative Britain 27

3.2. Introducing creativity in education 28

3.3. Creativity and the curriculum 32

3.4. Creativity and the arts 35

3.5. Documenting creativity in policy and practice 36

3.6. Creativity beyond the classroom 41

3.7. Conclusion 45

4. Conclusion 47

4.1 A word on the post-2010 landscape 49

6. References 51

5. Appendices 61

5

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Torrance’s (1969) process of creativity 11

Figure 2: Key terms as a process of creativity 13

6

PREFACE

In March last year, I attended an interview for a job at a youth education charity. I was

asked one particular interview question, to which I responded fairly confidently. The

reaction I received I was not expecting:

Interviewer: Describe one or two of your strongest skills.

Me: I’m creative.

They looked surprised.

Interviewer: Oh? In what way?

Me: I’m creative in my methodology; I think about fresh and new approaches to

make activities as engaging, fun and personalised as possible.

They looked puzzled.

Interviewer: Oh, so you don’t play an instrument or have any theatre training?

Me: No.

They looked even more perplexed.

Interviewer: Oh right, ok. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

Me: I always bring, for example, art materials, a video camera, an iPad and a

rhyming dictionary to my workshops, giving the participants there a chance to

engage with the topic in a way that isn’t a formal table discussion.

Interviewer: I see. I suppose that is creative.

The interview quickly moved to the next question.

7

What I found particularly interesting in this exchange was not the misunderstanding of

creativity; but rather the view that in order to be creative, you need to have learned a

specific, artistic skill through which it can manifest.

Walking back through the labyrinth of office furniture, the culture of this organisation

really became clear. Every member of staff was in suit and tie, there was not one

colourful poster on a wall and every desk was awashed with paperwork. There was no

buzz, no energy. It was the graveyard for creativity.

In the end, I wasn’t offered the job. They felt I wasn’t right for the role. Perhaps I was

too creative for them. I suspect I probably wouldn’t have fitted in to the organisation

anyway. It’s like that old saying; we’d have gone together like chalk and cheese.

8

1. INTRODUCTION

Creativity in education is a particularly present issue. Increasing amounts of research

points to an increasing significance and potentially prominent role of creativity in and

across education. Politically, there is increasing discourse and complexity around what

we should understand by creativity and how we should operationalise it in educational

contexts.

On May 21st 2013, an audience member of Question Time (BBC, 2013) asked the

following question to the panel, on which sat Michael Gove, Secretary of State for

Education:

Will the proposed changes to the National Curriculum stifle creativity and hinder

the development of critical thinking?

To which Gove responded that creativity “depends on mastering certain skills and

acquiring a body of knowledge before being able to give expression to what's in you,”

indicating yet another approach to creativity for those in policy-making positions.

There is a clear difference in the rhetoric around creativity and its value between the

previous and current governments; which makes the discussion and analysis of

creativity in policy and practice particularly interesting, as chapter three will

demonstrate. The mere lack of publications directly relating to creativity by the

incumbent government arguably speaks volumes.

9

1.1. Influence and position

Two key influences on this paper are the works of Sir Ken Robinson and of Professor

Anna Craft, who have written extensively on creativity and education – which will

become evident from the frequency their respective works have been cited.

This paper maintains a degree of loyalty to the positions both scholars adopt: that

creativity and education should be held in equal status and value; that creativity is

fundamentally a good thing for education; and that there remains some tensions in the

operationalisation of creativity in educational contexts.

1.2. Narrative themes and research aims

The literature that narrates the discourse around creativity in education can be broadly

divided into two thematic areas: theory and practice – a division this paper has

mirrored. Chapter two broadly deals with approaching creativity as a theory and as a

distinctive concept and chapter three contextualises notions and developments of

creativity in educational policy and practice, drawing on historical and current works.

This paper aims to address the debates around theoretical and practical dimensions of

creativity and its role in education. It fundamentally argues that creativity is not subject-

or domain-specific; that creativity can be and is present in all areas in and out of the

taught curriculum; and, that now more than ever creativity should be awarded a more

significant role by both educators and policy makers.

The big question this paper aims to discuss is:

Education and Creativity:

Do they really go together like chalk and cheese?

10

2. APPROACHING CREATIVITY AS A CONCEPT

This chapter begins by exploring creativity as a theoretical concept, before

examining the theoretical discourse around ‘creative learning’ and the

assessment of creativity. It then considers theoretical limitations of

operationalising creativity in the context of education.

2.1. DEFINING CREATIVITY

Definitions – and attempts at definitions – of creativity have been offered throughout

history and across literature by scholars, educators, policy makers and creative

professionals. The trouble with defining it is that “the concept is ethereal and elusive”

(Fisher, 2004:7), thereby inhibiting the promotion of a universally accepted definition

(Treffinger, et al, 2002).

Contextual application also provides an additional level of complexity. No single

domain, field or discipline is able to claim a monopoly on creativity; it manifests in

multiple of them, demanding different knowledge and understanding. For example:

“In science and mathematics, the most fundamental outcome of creative

intellectual effort is important new knowledge… In engineering, and in

technology-based industry, creativity yields technological inventions…”

(Mitchell, et al, 2003: 18).

Though multiple and sometimes contradictory definitions of creativity exist, there are

some common themes that emerge:

1. It is a process, a way of functioning – not a single state of being;

2. Originality – not existing before;

3. Creation – something is made, fashioned or developed;

4. Productive – there is an outcome.

11

Central to historic debates of creativity was the work of Torrance (1969: 4), who

described creativity as a process:

He posits that this process comprises of the contribution of both original ideas and a

different point of view; as well as “breaking out of the mould”, recombining ideas or

recognising new relationships among them (ibid: 4). In his paper, Simon (2001: 208)

concluded “we judge thought to be creative when it produces something that is both

novel and interesting or valuable”. Similarly, Starko (2004: 6) writes: “to be considered

creative, a product or idea must be original or novel to the individual creator”.

One of the significant distinctions made by postulators of creativity is that between

notions of high creativity and everyday creativity.

2.1.1. High Creativity

High – sometimes extraordinary – creativity is the notion that creativity only exists in

exceptionally talented individuals, that results in a fundamental change in knowledge,

understanding and/or world perspective (Kleiman, 2005); and is paralleled with

Identify problems or

gaps in knowledge

Form ideas or hypotheses

Test and modify said

hypotheses

Communicate the results

Figure 1: Torrance’s (1969) process of creativity

12

characteristics such as innovation, excellence and recognition in the respective field

(Craft, 2001a: 46; Craft 2001b).

Creativity researchers Feldman, Cziksentmihalyi and Gardner (1994: 1) understand

‘high creativity’ as:

“…the achievement of something remarkable and new, something which

transforms and changes a field of endeavour in a significant way.”

Einstein, Freud and Picasso, for example, are widely considered as ‘high creators’.

2.1.2. Everyday Creativity

Comparatively, the notion of everyday creativity advocates that creativity and creative

thought is inherent to all human life and in all areas of human activity. This is a

perspective adopted by a number of commentators (Livingston, 2010; Robinson, 2011;

2006; Kleiman, 2005; Runco, 2003; NACCCE, 1999).

The term democratic creativity was first coined in the 1999 National Advisory

Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) report, arguing that all

people are capable of achieving creativity:

“Creativity is possible in all areas of human activity, including the arts, sciences,

at work at play and in all other areas of daily life. All people have creative

abilities and we all have them differently” (ibid, 1999: 6).

The dominant discourse around creativity in education in the UK – and across Europe

(Ferrari, et al., 2009) – is that creativity is a skill that every student has the ability and

capacity to embody.

Craft (2001a) describes notions of everyday creativity as ‘little c Creativity’ (LCC),

arguing that LCC can be fostered, that children can be initiated into it and that it

13

involves a degree of innovation and development. Fundamentally, LCC focuses on the

“resourcefulness and agency of ordinary people, rather than the extraordinary

contributions of the few…” (ibid: 49).

2.2. DISENTANGLING TERMINOLOGY

Debates about creativity often feature two other terms: imagination and innovation.

Commentators have argued that imagination acts as a prerequisite to creativity and

creativity precedes innovation (Robinson, 2011; Samli, 2011; Craft, 2005; NACCCE,

1999). These terms might therefore be understood to be a process:

2.2.1. Imagination

Einstein famously professed, “Imagination is more important than knowledge”,

suggesting the limited nature of knowledge, against the limitless world of imagination.

The term itself finds its roots in the Latin word imaginari meaning picture to oneself.

Robinson (2011: 141) describes it as “the source of our creativity… the ability to bring

to mind things that are not present to our senses… we can step out of the here and

now”.

The NACCCE (1999: 29) describe creativity itself as applied imagination, suggesting

imagination is a pre-requisite for creative thought and activity. Creativity might therefore

be understood as the public expression of imagination (Wheeler-Brownlee, 1985; cited

in Fryer, 1996) or “putting your imagination to work” (Robinson, 2009).

Imagination Creativity Innovation

Figure 2: Key terms as a process of creativity

14

2.2.2. Innovation

Robinson (2011: 142) defines innovation as putting creativity into practice, or applied

creativity. Distinct from applied imagination, which essentially acts as a stimulus for

creativity, it might also be understood as “the implementation of new ideas to create

something of value, proven through its uptake in the marketplace” (Craft, 2005: 20),

suggesting that there is a degree of economic or social value involved. Indeed in the

world of business, innovation has become a sexy buzzword – every business aspires

to be innovative. Cox (2005: 381), in his review of creativity in business (discussed

further in part two), defines innovation as “the successful exploitation of new ideas. It is

the process that carries them through to new products, new services, new ways of

running the business or even new ways of doing business”.

2.3. CREATIVE LEARNING

As a child, I was encouraged to use and pursue my imagination. A box could become a

castle, a car, a spaceship. When I arrived at school, the box became only a box. I was

required to consider the measurements of the box, what the box was made from,

where it came from, how it was made. Imagination and creativity are superseded by a

requirement to know ‘real things.’

“I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it.

Or rather, we get educated out if it” – Robinson (2006)

2.3.1. Understanding creative learning

The NACCCE (1999) report, though accounting for the role of teachers in creativity in

education, does not articulate a definition of creative learning. Distinct from learning,

creative learning specifically is an active process, whereby engagement in a task

results in new knowledge being developed for the individual (Fautley and Savage,

2007: 13).

15

Jeffrey (2006: 10) identifies creative learning to mean a combination of “being

innovative, experimental and inventive” and “engage[d] in aspects of knowledge

enquiry”. He articulates that it “enables children to ‘take over’ the subject matter and to

‘take it in’” (Jeffrey, 2001: 8).

Fautley and Savage (2007: 55) adopt a more pragmatic stance on creative learning,

identifying four elements that educators should consider:

1. Divergent thinking – developing imagination;

2. Experiential learning – developing and accumulating experiences;

3. Motivation – fostering an on-task mentality;

4. Enjoying – having fun.

Lucas (2001: 40) also identifies a fairly comprehensive list of the ways in which

educators might encourage creativity in learners, by fashioning a learner-centred

approach. Examples might include: encouraging active learning, engaging multiple

learning styles and stimulating social as well as personal or private learning. By

becoming actively engaged in their learning, students are able to put their creative

ideas and thoughts into practice and see the value of their work: they become

innovative.

2.3.2. The psychology of creative learning

There is much discussion about the psychological role of creativity in relation to the

developing child’s mind, as well as in the ways in which children learn. There are

broadly two theories of learning – constructivist and behaviourist.

16

2.3.2.1. Constructivist learning theory

Constructivism posits that learning is an active process, through which individuals

construct meanings for themselves. In this sense, it is probably the closest theory of

learning we can ally with creativity (Craft, 2005: 61).

Vygotsky, a leading proponent of social constructivist theory, claims that all human

beings are creative by nature of being human (Lindqvist, 2003). He suggests – as

others have – that creativity is developed from imagination; and that creativity, though

seen as of equal importance to imagination, is a higher psychological function

(Spencer, et al, 2012: 36-37; Runco & Pritzker, 1999: 695).

Vygotsky argues that children can acquire creative capacities through interaction with

adults, who he sees as being creatively richer than children. He further believes that

creative thinking in children could be enhanced through effective and appropriate

teaching, if it is modelled on his earlier notion of the Zone of Proximal Development

(ibid) - the developmental stage between what a child can achieve without assistance

and what they can achieve with assistance (Fautley and Savage, 2007: 42-43).

Remnants of Vygotsky’s theory can be seen in the underpinnings of discourse today;

that teachers play a crucial role in supporting students to develop their creative

capacities and that every individual has such capacities (NACCCE, 1999; Craft, 2001a;

2005; Boden, 2001).

2.3.2.2. Behaviourist learning theory

Behaviourism, a theoretical approach that suggests we learn through imitation and

changes in behaviour, offers an alternative approach, positioning learning and creativity

as being quite distinct from one another. Craft (2005: 53) articulates this distinction in

17

terms of conditioning – that, learning is seen as occurring through conditioning, where

creativity is concerned with “breaking out of conditioned responses”.

Fautley and Savage (2007: 7-8) in their discussion of behaviourism cite an extended

quotation from behaviourist B.F. Skinner, who likens writing a poem – an activity he

sees as creative – to the contribution a mother makes to her baby. He concludes, “the

act of composition is no more an act of creation that having the bits and pieces

composed” (Skinner, 1972: 350-355, quoted in Fautley and Savage, op cit).

2.3.3. Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is about the multi-dimensionality of the process of thought, the

knowing how, as well as the knowing what, and the capacity to generate outcomes,

show imagination and judge the value of a product (Fisher, 2004: 161). Edward De

Bono, famous for his Six Thinking Hats framework for creative thinking, argued in a

2011 interview that creative thinking should be a subject in the curriculum in its own

right (section 3.3 will offer a more comprehensive discussion about creativity in the

curriculum) to enable the successful development and exploration of creative skills

(Creative Innovation Global, 2011).

2.4. CREATIVITY AND ASSESSMENT

There is much debate about whether creativity should be assessed. Indeed, decisions

about what is taught comprise of more than just the content; assessment plays a

significant part.

2.4.1. What do we mean by assessment?

Assessment is more than standardised ‘in-silence’ testing in examination halls, where

there is systematic measurement and the outcomes are extensively moderated.

Testing in this sense is ‘done to’ students to demonstrate their knowledge and

18

competence in a given field (Spencer, et al, 2012: 15). In the same breath, as I have

argued elsewhere (Harsant, 2010) there is no requirement for a student to demonstrate

creativity; they are simply required to write what will tick the boxes. There is an

emphasis on conformity.

There is, of course, a place for standardised testing, as Ken Robinson (2013)

humorously articulates:

“If I go for a medical examination, I want some standardized tests… I want to

know what my cholesterol level is compared to everybody else's on a standard

scale. I don't want to be told on some scale my doctor invented in the car.”

At its simplest, there are two purposes or forms of assessment – formative and

summative. Where the latter ultimately provides certification of achievement at the end

of a course, the former is designed to support learning to improve understanding and

practice (Boud and Falchikov, 2006: 401). The NACCCE (1999: 108) identify a third

purpose of assessment: diagnostic – to analyse a pupils’ prior capabilities and

aptitudes. In assessing creativity, both formative and summative assessment would

need to be considered; though in practice, national assessment favours the latter.

2.4.2. Assessing Creativity

Assessing creativity enables us to understand the value of it. There has been much

discourse and recognition around the importance of creativity in education, but the

tracking and measuring of creative development is not held in the same regard: there is

no requirement for schools to assess the creativity of its students.

One of the challenges is assessing creative development itself, which is more difficult

than testing knowledge. As the previous section indicated, school assessment is

usually concerned with the outcome or end result. The added complexity in assessing

19

creativity is in the judgement of originality and value; and depends on a clear sense of

the criteria that constitute them (NACCCE, 1999: 109).

2.4.2.1. Assessment Criteria

Notions of measuring and assessing creativity according to predetermined criteria –

much like a mark scheme against which an exam is measured – have been difficult;

evident by the little research and literature. Plucker and Makel (2010) identify a number

of categories into which tests for creativity fall, including psychometric, behaviour or

personality, activity or experience checklists and the assessment of creative products.

Historically, in the field of psychometrics, tests of creativity were regularly used.

Torrance (1984; cited in Kim, 2009) developed a five-scale test of individual creative

thinking; these were:

1. Fluency – the total number of ‘useable’ ideas generated;

2. Originality – the generation of ideas that are unusual or statistically rare;

3. Elaboration – the ability to develop and detail an idea;

4. Abstractness of titles – the degree beyond labelling of what already exists;

5. Resistance to premature closure – the degree of open-mindedness.

There have been some attempts, too, to identify specific criteria, against which

creativity can be measured. Fryer (1996: 16) reports that teachers preferred judging the

creativity of students’ work based on how ‘imaginative’ and ‘original’ it is.

One of the challenges here, however, stems from a lack of clarity and operational

understanding of imagination and originality – in what sense and to what extent does a

product have each of these characteristics in order to be deemed creative? Fryer

(1996) questions the appropriateness of applying such assessment criteria to pupils’

20

creativity, arguing that the expectation that young people achieve all of the criteria

above would not exist.

In a review of theoretical and research literature, Besemer and Treffinger (1981; cited

in Fryer, 1996) identified over 125 separate criteria for measuring and assessing

creativity. They categorise these criteria into three:

1. Novelty – relating to: the ‘newness’ of the product; the capacity of a product to

inspire the production of additional creative products; and the product’s ability to

transform or radically shift an approach.

2. Resolution – the extent to which a product meets the needs of a situation; it

would be judged for adequacy, appropriateness, usefulness and value.

3. Elaboration and synthesis – the extent to which a product combines dissimilar

elements to create a coherent whole; it would include criteria such as

complexity, expressiveness or completeness.

Jackson and Messick (1965; cited in Taylor, 2009: 18; and in Fryer, 1996) included

‘novelty’ as a criterion in characterising a product as creative. They argue that ‘novelty’

– defined as unusualness – is a necessary prerequisite for any product to be deemed

creative. Jackson and Messick’s (ibid.) four categories – in which we can see remnants

of and similarities to Besemer and Treffinger’s (op cit.) three groups – are:

1. Novelty;

2. Transformation;

3. Condensation; and

4. Appropriateness.

In contrast to the more complex assessment criteria outlined above, Hocevar (1981:

459) merely argues for a simple creative activity checklist to measure creativity is “one

of the most reliable indicators.” Though the significant limitation, again, stems from

21

clarity of understanding: that is, what do we understand creative activity to be, in order

to compile a checklist to measure them?

2.4.3. Assessment: what can we conclude?

The nature of creativity makes it particularly difficult to establish a specific way to

assess it according to a given set of criteria. There is however a number of relevant

criteria that we might use to determine creative activity and, more importantly, its value.

Notions of originality or novelty find a central place in the debate. Both the NACCCE

(1999) and others (Spencer, et al, 2012; Fautley and Savage, 2007; Joubert, 2001)

argue for a greater emphasis on formative assessment, which would promote creative

teaching and learning. There is arguably a further set of challenges, such as: who

should assess creativity, how should they assess it, and what are the benefits for the

individual being assessed?

This section sought to provide an introduction to the assessment of creativity in

education, to maintain linearity with the aims of this dissertation. This particular area

could, as Spencer, et al (2012) and Treffinger, et al (2002) demonstrate with their

extensive papers, be interrogated further and explored in depth that this dissertation is

unable to facilitate.

2.5. WHY IS CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION IMPORTANT?

This question can broadly be argued from four angles: political-economic, social,

educational and individual.

Political-economic discourse highlights the exponential rate at which the world is

moving, changing and transforming. Creativity is often described as an essential skill

and asset in an individual’s ability to cope and adapt to this changing world (Robinson,

2011; Banaji, et al, 2006; NACCCE, 1999). The QCA (2004: 9) articulate that:

22

“Pupils who are creative will be prepared for a rapidly changing world, where

they may have to adapt to several careers in a lifetime. [Employers] need

creative people”.

According to a global IBM (2010) survey of more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers

(CEOs) across 33 industries worldwide, CEOs believed that creativity was the most

crucial factor for future success and was identified as the top leadership competency.

The study posits that changes in global economics, accelerated industry transformation

and rapidly evolving customer identities can be overcome by creativity.

With political discourse focussed on the economic value of creativity in preparing for

the future, Banaji, et al, (2006) make a case for creativity and its social value. They

argue that understanding individual creativity as being linked to social structures

emphasises the social inclusion of communities and individuals and invokes

educational and economic concerns to form the foundation for policy. In this sense,

creativity becomes a mechanism for social cohesion and is as a result ultimately good

for society.

Creativity is therefore about people; ergo individual creativity is central the debate.

Creative people are generally seen to be flexible, unorthodox, curious, questioning and

able to draw parities and connections (Fisher, et al, 2008; Cropley, 2001) – often highly

desirable characteristics in individuals. Such people, however, can find it hard to both

describe themselves as creative and explain it, perhaps owing to stereotypical

understandings of creative people and ‘the arts’ (see section 3.4). The same challenge

can also be found in schools.

Turning to education, if we understand creativity as a transferable skill (see section

3.3), creativity would find a central place in the school curriculum. The QCA’s (2004)

Creativity: Find it, Promote it (see section 3.5) – which shares many of the same

23

arguments as the NACCCE (1999) report – states three principle reasons as to why

creativity is such an important, transferable skill:

1. Creativity improves pupils’ self esteem, motivation and achievement;

2. Creativity prepares pupils for life; and

3. Creativity enriches pupils’ lives.

Much of the discourse situates creativity in education as fundamentally important – a

view that underpins the premise of this paper. Emphasis tends to be on the benefits in

the future, rather than in ‘the now’. Fisher (2008: 11) writes that:

“The focus of education must be on creating people who are capable of thinking

and doing new things, not simply repeating what past generations have done…”

Craft and Jeffrey (2001: 11) summarise that “creativity is good for the economy, good

for the individual, good for society and good for education.”

2.6. LIMITATIONS OF CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION

Though much discourse advocates creativity in education being a good thing, Anna

Craft (2003; 2005) argues extensively of numerous limitations to educational support

for creativity.

First, the complexity of defining the term creativity and in clearly distinguishing between

it, imagination and innovation is something that proves to be a significant barrier to

adopting creativity in education. She highlights the “slippage” – a lack of rigid or

universal understanding – in language makes creativity difficult to pin down in

educational contexts; and argues there is a lack of clarity around notions of creative

pedagogy (Lin, 2011). Creativity can be misinterpreted as disobedient and disruptive

behaviours, which poses further challenge to pedagogical practice (Lucas, 2001; Scott,

1999).

24

An additional limitation is the conflict and tension in policy and practice, owing to the

“tightening of control around both curriculum and pedagogy” (Craft, 2003: 118). Whilst

creativity is encouraged in much of the political rhetoric, the methods, subjects and

techniques through which teachers could achieve such a state are increasingly

constraining. In such an environment, creative working for some teachers has become

a “tool for personal and institutional survival” (Craft, 2003: 118).

Craft (ibid; 2005) further argues that the application of creativity is hindered by the

discontinuities in the curriculum itself. She underlines the differences in conceptions of

creativity in the early years curriculum and in the National Curriculum – that the former

grounds creativity in a specific set of domains (the ‘arts’) and the latter considers

creativity as a cross curricular, transferable skill. As a result, therefore, of a disjointed

set of understandings, support for the development of creativity in children is inevitably

difficult. She argues that policy work around Creative Partnerships (section 3.6) should

be advanced to address these different conceptions of creativity in the curriculum.

A third limitation is the design and organisation the curriculum itself. Though creativity

is often associated with the arts (section 3.2), opportunities for enhancing the creativity

of learners can exist across the curriculum (Craft, 2003; 2005). Craft (ibid) and others

(e.g. Bolden, 2012; Walker and Gleaves, 2012) highlight unique opportunities for

learners to be creative in subjects not traditionally assumed to be so, like Maths and

ICT. Lucas (2001) argues that schools should create the conditions under which

creativity in every subject is encouraged and able to flourish. The QCA (2004) make

the case for exactly this: finding and promoting creativity in a non-subject specific

model across the curriculum.

The final of Craft’s (2003) limitations is the difficulties that come with a centrally

controlled pedagogy; that is, a teaching and learning agenda that is controlled by a

25

fundamentally politically driven central government. This centralised control can

prevent more creative methodologies from being employed and implemented in

educational environments. Strategies emerge in a policy climate which “appears to

treat teachers like technicians rather than artists” (Craft, 2003: 120; Craft, 2005: 77).

2.7. CONCLUSION

Chapter two supports the conclusion that creativity is:

§ Difficult to define;

§ Difficult to assess; and,

§ Difficult to operationalize as something concrete;

§ But important.

The theoretical discourse demonstrates the elusive character of creativity and the

challenges in applying it as a concept. There have been a number of notable attempts

to address these challenges; but there has yet to be complete agreement among

scholars about the ways in which we do define, assess and operationalize creativity.

One of the important distinctions in this area of study is between ideas of imagination,

creativity and innovation: that the former is essentially the pre-requisite of the

subsequent latter. Creativity therefore is the product of imaginative activity and is one

of the factors that cultivate innovation.

Though much of the discourse suggests creativity is a positive and important factor,

particularly in education and in preparing young people for the future, there are a

number of challenges that might hinder the adoption of creativity in educational

environments. Craft (2003, 2005) identifies a number of these challenges, including: a

common understanding of the definitions of terminology; a tension between school

autonomy and central control of pedagogy; and the composition and nature of the

curriculum itself.

26

This chapter sought to highlight some of the conceptual and theoretical standpoints

and challenges in the discourse of creativity and in the context of education. The next

chapter will investigate contemporary educational policy and practice around creativity,

using the theoretical ground already covered as a foundation. It will owe particular

focus to the curriculum, policy documents and partnerships for creative education.

27

3. APPROACHING CREATIVITY IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

This chapter explores creativity in UK policy and practice, prior to 2010 General

Election. It briefly explores the political and economic backdrop to creativity in

education, before turning explicitly to how creativity is defined in educational

contexts. It examines key education policy documents that seek to support the

development of creativity and explore how creativity is brought to life across the

education landscape.

3.1. CREATIVE BRITAIN

“Creativity is at the heart of British culture – a defining feature of our national

identity.” - Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown (DCMS, 2008: 1)

Creativity in political discourse has historically found itself in the domain of business,

economics and enterprise. The view is that the future success and prosperity of the

economy will depend on the “economic imperative” (Banaji, et al, 2006) of creativity

and innovation. In 2005, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown

commissioned two reviews of creativity in business: Creativity, Design and Business

Performance (DTI, 2005) and The Cox Review of Creativity in Business (Cox, 2005).

The angle taken in both are not dissimilar – that, fundamentally, creativity is of vital

importance to the economy. In the same year, then-Creative Industries Minister, James

Purnell, made the case for “Making Britain the World’s Creative Hub”. He posed the

question, “what more we can do to nurture young creative talent?” and argued for “a

clear set of assumptions which will help to inform the basis of our future policy on

creativity” (Roberts, 2006).

28

3.1.1. The creative industries

Originally called the culture industries prior to the 1997 Labour government, the

creative industries are widely acknowledged as world leading (Cox, 2005: 10). The

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS, 2001: 5) describe – and understand

– creative industries as those which “have their origin in individual creativity, skill and

talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation

and exploitation of intellectual property".

Contributing £71.4bn a year in added value to the UK economy and accounting for

5.6% of all UK jobs (DCMS, 2014), the creative industries unquestionably play an

influential role in the development of creativity in education. Creative Britain (DCMS,

2008) set out the government's unparalleled commitment to support the creative

industries, particularly in the role they play in enabling the creative talent of children

and young people to flourish. Section 3.6 will discuss two of the commitments this

document outlines: Creative Partnerships and Find Your Talent.

In recent educational developments, the creative industries have been particularly

vocal and active, for example in their opposition to the English Baccalaureate

(Montgomery, 2013) (see section 4.1).

3.2. INTRODUCING CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION

3.2.1. Defining creativity in education

The fluidity and uncertainty that surrounds creativity is unsurprisingly reflected in

education. Teachers, school leaders and pupils have long faced a dilemma about what

creativity really means and what it might look like in schools (Craft, 2005; House of

Commons, 2007; Zimmerman, 2009; Turner, 2013).

29

The NACCCE (1999) report, All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, was

one of the first reports to offer the UK government a conceptual definition of creativity:

“…imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both

original and of value” (ibid, 1999: 29).

It characterises creativity as a four stage process: thinking or behaving imaginatively;

ensuring this imaginative activity is purposeful; that processes should generate

something original; and the outcome of the process must be of value in relation to the

intended objective (NACCCE, 1999: 29).

In its definition, the NACCCE foreground the relationship between creativity and

imagination: that imagination is a prerequisite to creativity. Though, it appears to

suggest that the process of exploration and preparation – “imaginative activity” – is only

valuable if it contributes to the final product or outcome. In this respect, the NACCCE

discourse is set apart from those which might be seen to encourage a view of creativity

as simply play or fantasy (Banaji, et al, 2006: 25).

The report positions the foundations of creativity in knowledge and the command of

ideas; an idea that we can see reflected in Gove’s understanding of creativity (see

chapter 1). It states, fairly unambiguously, that:

“Creativity is not simply a matter of letting go. Serious creative achievement

relies on knowledge, control of materials and command of ideas.” (NACCCE

1999: 6).

Furthermore, Banaji, et al (2006) argue:

“While it may appear that the rhetoric used in the NACCCE report supports

‘democratic’ notions of creativity, and encourages an appreciation of cultural

difference, many of its promises about the benefits of creative education betray

30

elements of more elitist and romantic notions of artistic endeavour, and the

traditional artistic practices and forms associated with them” (ibid: 29).

3.2.2. Making the case

Notions of creativity in education date back to ‘The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice

and Provision’ (Robinson, 1982). The report argued that unprecedented challenges in

society were built on patterns of employment, the relationship between education and

society, and the nature of cultural change in the UK. Its premise was that the arts

fundamentally have a place in the curriculum, at which creativity should be at its centre.

It argued, “the development of creativity needs a sound base in knowledge and skill,

but also teaching methods with are flexible and open ended, so that it can emerge and

flourish” (Robinson, 1982: 35). The report also stresses the need to cultivate

relationships between education and the world of creative arts – a core principle we

can see in the later developed Creative Partnerships programme (see section 3.6)

3.2.3. Looking to the Future

All Our Futures (NACCCE, 1999) was asked to make recommendations on

“… the creative and cultural development of young people through formal and

informal education: to take stock of current provision and to make proposals for

principles, policies and practice” (NACCCE, 1999:4).

Led by Ken Robinson, one of the UK’s “home-grown creativity gurus” (Schlesinger,

2006: 382), the report sought to “identify the obstacles that were preventing the

flourishing of creativity in education and to propose action to the government to remedy

the situation” (Joubert, 2001: 17). It highlighted the importance of creativity in

education, but also in the context of the economic, technological and social challenges

facing education today, as Robinson (1982) has argued previously.

31

Craft and Jeffrey (2001: 4) suggest that the commissioning of the NACCCE report may

merely have been an attempt by government to publicise its support of creativity at a

time when teaching and learning approaches in schools were focussed on technical

implementation, rather than creative methodologies. Indeed the report emerged

following the publication of Excellence in Schools (DfEE, 1997), which emphasised the

urgent need to unlock young people’s potential, upon which the economy and social

cohesion depended.

The authors of the report place a large emphasis on the role of teachers in supporting

students to develop creative capacities. They distinguish between the notions of

teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. The former is characterised by the

imaginative approaches employed by teachers to make learning both more interesting

and more effective; the latter is defined as “forms of teaching that are intended to

develop young people's own creative thinking or behaviour” (NACCCE, 1999: 89).

Where teaching creatively situates focus on teachers’ practice, the idea of teaching for

creativity posits a major consequence for teachers and learners: a sense of learner

agency and empowerment (Craft and Jeffrey, 2001: 5; Craft 2005: 42; Lin, 2011).

These two notions proposed by the NACCCE (1999), coupled with ‘creative learning’

(section 2.3) form the creative pedagogy (Lin, 2011).

Under the premise of teaching for creativity, teachers are seen to be facilitators of

learning, creating a space for learners to develop their creative abilities; a notion

fiercely opposed by the highly controversial The Three Wise Men Report, which

advocates quite the opposite: direct teaching (Alexander, et al, 1992). The idea of

teachers as facilitators is something Fryer (1996) also discusses. The 2004 National

Curriculum teachers’ handbook, it states that the secondary curriculum “should enable

pupils to think creatively and critically” and that teachers should “give [pupils] the

opportunity to become creative” (DfEE and QCA, 2004: 11).

32

The discourse of All Our Futures (NACCCE, 1999) positions creativity as an essential

capacity for overcoming the complexities and challenges in 21st century living, as well

as a range of employment opportunities beyond those in ‘creative industries’. It has

been considered to be a highly influential report and is used as a primary point of

reference in many of the government’s succeeding guidance on creativity in education

including setting the context for Creative Partnerships, Creativity: Find it, Promote it,

and Nurturing Creativity in Young People (see section 3.5).

3.3. CREATIVITY AND THE CURRICULUM

In England and Wales, the Plowden Report (1960) was the first government-

commissioned review to consider creativity in education. The report identifies the

“multi-dimensional character [of creativity] and [its ability to] operate in many different

spheres” (Plowden, 1967, 2: 439). It considered creativity in relation to child-centered

pedagogy and the arts, which as Fleming (2008: 26-27) discusses, is also the centre of

much criticism. The report highlights an increasing interest in the assessment of

creativity (section 2.4), leading to claims that it is possible to measure and distinguish

creative thought processes from conventional tests of intelligence (Plowden, 1967, 2:

439).

The report suggested that a child’s creativity lies at the heart of teaching and learning

in early school (primary) education. Ideas about supporting children’s imaginations is a

thread that runs throughout Plowden’s’ narrative. In discussing the diversity of physical

environments for learning, for example, the report suggests that a child’s “imagination

seizes on particular facets of objects and leads them to invent as well as to create”

(Plowden, 1967, 1: 193).

33

3.3.1. Creativity and the National Curriculum

In 1989, the first National Curriculum in the UK was established and the Plowden report

and its conception of creativity were left behind. The new statutory curriculum

comprised of three core subjects – mathematics, English and science and seven

foundation subjects – history, geography, technology, music, art and physical

education (HM government, 1988: 2).

In its first publication, the curriculum neither mentioned nor recognised creativity or

provision for creative education in schools: an issue to which the NACCCE (1999)

dedicate a whole chapter of their report. Focus was on the acquisition of knowledge

and retention of fact and how these are assessed. Subsequent revisions to the

curriculum in 1990, 1994, 1996 and 1997, which saw the introduction of Standard

Assessment Tests (SATs), attainment targets and the A* grade (House of Commons,

2009), reinforced this.

In the 2004 National Curriculum Handbook for Teachers (DfES and QCA, 2004),

creativity becomes explicit (see Appendix A for a breakdown across the curriculum).

History, Geography, Modern Foreign Languages and Citizenship however lack explicit

mention of creativity; though, the QCA assert:

“Creative thinking and behaviour can be promoted in all National Curriculum

subjects…” (QCA, 2004: 9).

It is important in this discussion to acknowledge this subject-dominated nature of

schools, perpetuated by the curriculum – as Craft (2003; 2005) has argued. The

emphasis is on the subjects that comprise it, rather than on the development of skills

for thinking and learning (Spencer, et al, 2012: 69). This becomes most apparent in

nationally measured summative assessment – usually examinations – that is taken in

specific subjects.

34

Cachia and Ferrari (2010: 11) report that though teachers felt creativity could be

applied to all subjects, they appeared “less convinced about the applicability of

creativity, as may be noted from the lower percentage agreement to the statement that

creativity is not restricted to visual arts, music, drama and artistic performance.”

3.3.2. Creativity as a cross-curricular skill

Understanding creativity as a cross-curricular skill would arguably begin to overcome

some of the challenges in operationalizing creativity in schools and through the subject-

oriented curriculum.

In 2008, a new statutory secondary curriculum was introduced, placing “greater

emphasis on pupils’ understanding of the concepts, ideas and processes of subjects,

on cross-curricular themes and on pupils’ development of life skills” (House of

Commons, 2009: 13). This increased emphasis demonstrates considerable potential to

support the development of students’ creativity and creative ability. Creativity and

critical thinking found a place in the non-statutory cross-curricular dimensions (see

Appendix B).

Craft (2005: 35) suggests that identifying creativity as a skill may be oversimplifying

what is actually a fairly complex notion; for in order to be creative, we “must necessarily

presuppose an understanding of the domain”. From this standpoint, to manifest as a

skill, creativity must necessarily be routed in subject domains.

Notions of creativity as a cross-curricular skill are coupled with the idea of it being

transferable. It has been argued (Craft, 2003; 2005; Lucas, 2001) that all subjects in

the curriculum are inherently conducive to supporting the creative development of

students; allowing for creative skill to be cultivated as one that is transferable. The

expression of creativity however would be different across domains: musical creativity

35

would be expressed in different ways from mathematical creativity (Craft, 2005: 36),

though the fundamentals of creativity would remain the same.

We might also interrogate the relationship between creativity as a skill and the ability in

particular subjects; that is, whether or not ‘being creative’ makes a difference. Baran, et

al (2011), for example, in their study, reported there to be no relationship between

creativity and the mathematical ability in six-year old children; suggesting creativity was

not a determiner of mathematical ability.

3.4. CREATIVITY AND THE ARTS

There is a wide misconception that creativity is confined to ‘the arts’ (music, art, dance

and drama) – as the preface to this paper exemplifies. Though, this is not necessarily

unfounded. Banaji, et al, (2006:26) contend that the NACCCE report demonstrates an

“overwhelming visual emphasis on drama, dance and art projects”. Whilst addressing

the dynamic relationships between creativity and all curricular subjects, the report

views the arts as “essential elements of creative…education” (NACCCE, 1999:41).

Turner (2013:32) found there to be “general agreement” among students in years 5

through 11 of subjects identified as being creative. These were: Art, Music, Design and

Technology (DT) and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Science and

maths were not considered to be creative.

Interestingly, in contrast, Adobe (2012) found that among their sample of college

graduates and full time employees, science and maths were regarded as relatively high

in terms of the contribution they make to the development of creative thinking skills.

Though the government articulate an understanding of creativity to be something

everyone has the capacity to develop – there remains a clear hierarchy of subjects in

schools (Robinson, 2006). The arts subjects, compulsory to the end of Key Stage 3,

are positioned at the bottom of the curriculum, whilst maths, English and science,

36

compulsory to the end of Key Stage 4, are positioned at the top. Despite the ambition

of the revised statutory curriculum (QCA, 2007) to raise the status of the arts subjects

and ergo position them equally (see Appendix C for a diagrammatic representation),

schools continue to position subjects hierarchically, owing perhaps to a perceived idea

of their importance in relation to league tables.

Creativity’s alignment with the arts however is historical, as Fleming (2008) discusses

at length. Indeed, high achievement in the arts – typically judged on an end product – is

often understood to be the result of creativity. Arts subjects by definition “give children

the scope to express themselves with freedom originality, often without words” (Liptai,

2004: 133). The 2008 Art and Design curriculum (QCA, 2007: 18) defines creativity –

and is the only subject curriculum to do so. The document also addresses Fryer’s

(1996) critique of the measurement of originality (section 2.4 / see Appendix D).

The relationship between the arts and creativity has changed since its inception. There

is an increasing departure from the view that creative activity only exists within the arts;

to a view that creativity exists across the curriculum. Fleming (2008: 55) writes in his

conclusion that there have been – and are “changing approaches, differences of

opinion and often conflicting views of aims and priorities [about arts in education and

creativity]. That is exactly how it should be.”

3.5. DOCUMENTING CREATIVITY IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

As creativity crept up the educational agenda, policy-makers published a number of

guidance documents and reports for developing creative practices in schools. Appendix

E presents a table summarising some of the key publications and policy areas on

creativity in education policy and practice in England.

With such an impossibly vast area to cover, this section will look at three of these

publications: Creativity: Find It, Promote It, a government-coordinate publication;

37

Nurturing Creativity, an independent review; and Learning: Creative Approaches

that Raise Standards, a report on a survey by the school inspectorate. These

publications, in directly relating to the aims of this paper, highlight the practical role of

creativity in education, drawing on the theoretical foundations of the NACCCE (1999)

and argue for a cross-curricular understanding of it.

3.5.1. Creativity: Find it, Promote it - 2004

Following the review of the National Curriculum in 2000 and a three-year research

project, Creativity: find it, promote it (QCA, 2004) was published. The document

explicitly addresses key stages one through three, providing an example of how

creativity could be made functional in schools, inside the parameters set by the

National Curriculum. In many ways, it seeks to promote creativity as being at the centre

of the curriculum itself.

The document identifies a number of broad, observable behaviours that are deemed

‘creative’ and can be found across the curriculum, clearly built upon the democratic

definition described in All Our Futures (NACCCE, 1999) and on Craft’s (2001a) notion

of ‘little c creativity’:

§ Questioning and challenging;

§ Making inventive connections and identifying relationships;

§ Envisaging what might be;

§ Exploring ideas and fresh approaches, keeping options open;

§ Reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes.

Aimed at teaching professionals, the document directs focus at teaching creatively and

how teachers can promote an environment in which creativity can flourish. In a number

of ways, the report neglects to seriously consider the contribution and significance of

the pupils’ talents and creative abilities – evident in frequency of the pronoun ‘you’, that

38

the role of the teacher is imperative in spotting and cultivating the conditions under

which creativity can thrive.

This is particularly obvious in chapters three and four, which outline a number of

operational actions that schools can do to harness, support and promote creativity in

their students.

What is particularly obvious in the QCA (2004) document, illustrating the aims and

underpinning principles of this paper, is the statement that creativity is both good and

accessible to all students; that it can find a place in every curricular area; and that it

relies on the teacher for it to flourish. In these ways, too, we can see remnants of a

number of theories and debates discussed in chapter two, particularly discussions

around creativity, the curriculum and pedagogy.

3.5.2. Nurturing Creativity - 2006

Nurturing Creativity is an independent review of creativity in schools, authored by Paul

Roberts, with a particular focus on career pathways into creative industries. It develops

a broad framework for considering how to “provide catalysts for creativity across the

range of young people’s experiences” (Roberts, 2006: 12).

The report builds on the QCA’s (2004) work on creativity and similarly employs the

NACCCE (1999) definition. Furthermore, it builds on and advances some of the

discussions initiated in All Our Futures (ibid.); developing teachers as creative

practitioners, the development of partnerships between creative and teaching

professionals, for instance.

The review – the fundamentality of which is a proposal that a child’s creative journey

should start in early years education and develop alongside the child, with the support

of creative practitioners – proposes an eight-element framework, which brings together

39

areas across education, children’s services and industry to create a comprehensive

offer to young people (see Appendix F).

This review is markedly different to the QCA (2004) document: it was written to “inform

future policy” (Roberts, 2006: 1), ergo demonstrating its potential for influencing real

change in legislation and policy. Furthermore, focus is afforded to the multiple

stakeholders in creativity in education, rather than just specifically teachers – including

policy-makers, creative practitioners and, importantly, children and young people – and

the roles they play in bringing the creativity in education agenda into fruition. In this

respect, it highlights the capacity of creativity to extend beyond the curriculum as well

as the benefits this can bring to learners – a premise underpropping this paper.

3.5.2.1. The government’s response

The government response to Roberts’ (2006) review reaffirms the NACCCE (1999)

definition of creativity, arguing, as others have, that being clear on what the term

means is significant in understanding how creativity works and how it should be

supported. It highlights what more the government can do in supporting children and

young people’s creative development; making some clear commitments to developing

the eight areas Roberts (2006) proposes. The response explicitly contextualises

creativity in the government’s flagship framework for children and young people, Every

Child Matters, highlighting creativity can be a “powerful contributing factor to achieving

each of the five outcomes” (DCMS and DfES, 2006: 5).

One of the notable missing elements of the government response is the surprising lack

of emphasis placed on cultural experiences, the role of museums and galleries, for

example. Though they are recognised in terms of the contributions they are making to

wider government programme; Creative Partnerships, for example (see section 3.6).

40

3.5.3. Learning: creative approaches that raise standards - 2010

Following Roberts’ (2006) review and recommendations, creativity became

incorporated into the Ofsted subject surveys from 2007-8. In 2010, Ofsted published

‘Learning: creative approaches that raise standards’. The survey – first to be published

with the included creativity measure – evaluates how 44 schools across England used

creative approaches to teaching and learning to encourage pupils to question, be

imaginative and reflect on the effect of ideas and actions (Ofsted, 2010: 4).

This document arguably exemplifies ways in which creativity is operationalized in

schools; which has been markedly absent from preceding publications, where

discussion has been largely conceptual and idealistic of creativity in educational

environments. The report boldly states that:

“In schools with good teaching, there is not a conflict between the National

Curriculum, national standards in core subjects and creative approaches to

learning” (Ofsted, 2010: 5).

This particular document carries some additional authority and influence because of its

author: Ofsted, the school inspectorate and regulator. It might therefore be interpreted

as a document of best practice or a checklist of activities that Ofsted attribute to

schools performing well in terms of the creative development of their pupils. The report

highlights that:

“All the schools selected for the survey had been judged good or outstanding in

their most recent inspection…” (ibid, 2010: 1).

Interestingly, despite the increasingly widespread view that creativity exists well beyond

the arts (section 3.4), the Ofsted (2010) report draws on a significant number of

creative activities that find there foundations in arts-based environments and scenarios:

41

for example, it describes a number of performances (ibid: 10, 11, 13) and drama

activities (ibid: 17, 18, 19). It further makes a series of recommendations for all schools,

including: a more balanced approach to curriculum planning to include creative

learning; providing continuing professional development (CPD) to staff to develop

creative pedagogical practice; and to develop partnerships to develop pupils’ creative

capacities.

The report demonstrates some concrete examples of creativity in practice across the

curriculum, highlighting that Craft’s (2003; 2005) limitations can be overcome in

practice, resulting in positive outcomes for learners. In this respect, Ofsted’s (2010)

report aligns clearly with the aims and premises advanced by this paper.

3.6. CREATIVITY BEYOND THE CLASSROOM

3.6.1. Creative Partnerships

In 2002, the Labour government launched Creative Partnerships. The programme

sought to facilitate and broker relationships between creative practitioners, such as

artists, musicians and architects, and schools to

“…unlock the creativity and raise the aspirations and achievements of children

and young people” (Creative Partnerships, 2013).

Creative Partnerships were established to transform teaching and learning in schools,

support Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and provide training for staff already working in

schools, focusing on the cultivation of creative teaching methods and enabling teaching

staff to work with creative professionals (House of Commons, 2007: 9). The discourse

of Creative Partnerships positions creative practitioners as being particularly adroit at

stimulating creativity skills in others, by being creative themselves (Pringle, 2008).

42

Though the programme is reported to have worked with over 1 million children, through

more than 8000 projects in 36 of England’s most deprived communities during its 9-

year existence (Creative Partnerships, 2013), its implementation has come with

difficulties.

Pringle (2008) argues that consideration should be given to how creative practitioners

are embedded into the broader curriculum, rather than the one-off intervention the

Creative Partnerships programme facilitates. She posits that creative practitioners are

perceived as “limited outsider interventions” (Pringle, 2008: 47, quoting Addison and

Burgess, 2006: 92). Indeed, in an early evaluation of the programme, challenges in

establishing and sustaining these broader, cross-curricular arrangements – particularly

in secondary schools – were reported (Doherty and Harland, 2002; McLellan, et al,

2012).

Research by the National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) has repeatedly

indicated that Creative Partnerships have had a significant impact on both students and

teaching staff, showing a positive correlation between participation in Creative

Partnerships activities and improvements in attainment at Key Stages 3 and 4 (Sharp,

et al, 2006; Eames, et al, 2006; Kendall, et al, 2008a; Cooper, et al, 2011). The

programme had arguably achieved what it was designed to achieve: the most common

outcomes of the Creative Partnerships for young people were creativity, personal

development and communication (Sharp, et al, 2006). Research has also pointed to

significantly better attendance at schools that delivered Creative Partnership activities;

improving the longer the school is part of the programme (Kendall, et al, 2008b).

Safford and O’Sullivan (2007) found that the programme facilitated greater discussion

at home between parent and child, enabling parents to gauge a greater understanding

of both what their child is doing and why it is enjoyable. Indeed, parental involvement in

43

children’s education has a significant effect on educational engagement and

achievement (Department of Children, Schools and Families, 2008).

Ofsted (2006) commended the programme for its effectiveness in schools. It reported

that pupils benefitted from the experience of working alongside creative practitioners,

helping them to develop personal and social skills, encourage risk-taking and had a

positive effect on their literacy, numeracy and ICT aptitudes (Ofsted, 2006; House of

Commons, 2007: 11). In his review, Roberts (2006) he concluded that there was a

diverse array of creativity work, with strong support by creative programmes, projects

and the creative industry.

Ofsted (2006) noted that skills and aptitudes developed in Creative Partnerships’

activities were not necessarily being transferred across into other curriculum areas,

indicating that students were “often unclear” about how to apply these creative skills

independently.

Despite the successes of the Creative Partnerships programme, which for every £1

invested delivers £15.30 worth of benefits (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2010: 3), the

government announced the withdrawal of its funding in the 2010 Spending Review.

Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey has defended the decision, arguing,

“…headteachers have to use what is available to them creatively in a period of

reduced finances. It will also be up to local cultural organisations to get

involved” (Thorpe, 2011).

44

3.6.2. Find Your Talent

In 2008, the government rolled out a new initiative: Find Your Talent. The scheme,

managed by Creativity, Culture and Education – who also coordinated the Creative

Partnerships programme – was established to “find out what it would take to provide

high quality cultural experiences for all children and young people, regardless of age or

ability” (Find Your Talent, 2014).

The 10 pilot projects sought to offer children and young people regular involvement

with arts and culture, which included the opportunity to undertake work experience in

creative industries, both in and out of school time. Though, like the Creative

Partnerships programme, Find Your Talent was curtailed in 2010 as a result of

government spending cuts.

The projects, however, were seen to be a real success, enabling thousands of children

and young people to access cultural and creative experiences. Like Creative

Partnerships, the projects also bought educational and creative professionals together

(Find Your Talent, 2014).

Though post-programme evaluations did not take place, early evaluative research

(DCMS and DfE, 2011: 28) suggested the programme was proving beneficial to the

children and young people who took part:

§ [Children and young people] reported that [the activities] offered something new

and more focused for them

§ They produced creative outputs that involved effective team working

§ There was evidence of improved confidence among participants

§ There were also examples of practical skills and knowledge development

45

3.6.3. Building on the legacy

In 2012, Arts Council England (ACE) commissioned a network of ten ‘bridge

organisations’ to facilitate the connection of children, young people and schools to arts

and culture, tasked with building on the legacy built by Creative Partnerships and Find

Your Talent (Arts Council England, 2014).

Evidence suggests creative and cultural opportunities are still valued by schools. In an

intelligence report commissioned by Artswork, the national youth arts development

agency and ACE Bridge organisation for South East England, schools reported that

they felt arts and cultural activities

“…empower children and young people, to build self-esteem, to foster

creativity… and to help recognise individual talents” (Artswork, 2013:15).

The creativity projects discussed here foreground the role of creative industries in

supporting schools to develop the way in which they understand and operationalise

creativity beyond the parameters of subjects in the curriculum. They highlight some of

the benefits to adopting creative practices in education and what effects these have on

the children and young people in educational contexts.

3.8. CONCLUSION

This chapter sought to explore the policy and practice that consumes creativity and

bring to light some of the evidence that it does exist in our education system. It is clear

that much of contemporary discourse finds its foundations in the NACCCE (1999)

report. So, we come full circle.

There have been clear attempts to adopt creative practices in education and

particularly in pedagogical approaches; as well as a noticeable change in discourse

around creativity in schools. From the 1989 curriculum in which creativity was largely

46

marginalised and rejected child-centered pedagogy, to the 2007 curriculum where

creativity is foregrounded as a skill across all subjects.

We, too, have advanced from the notion that creativity is confined to ‘the arts’, to the

broader conception of creativity being something we can see in all areas of education

and the curriculum, and indeed partnerships outside of schools altogether;

government-published documents and independent reviews have evidenced such

understandings.

Furthermore, with schools becoming considerably more ‘e-enabled’ (Becta, 2009: 18)

and with new technologies being introduced into the classroom, technology is exposing

new ways to express creativity in educational contexts, demonstrating vast creative

potential (Loveless, 2002: 2). In recent years, blogs, wikis, YouTube and photo sharing

have begun to facilitate opportunities for students to creatively engage with

technologies and media (Davis and Merchant, 2009). Marsh and Bearne (2008), for

example, found that levels of engagement from students, as well as their capacity and

motivation to engage in creative activities with technologies, can positively impact

attainment. On creativity and technology, Tillander (2011: 40) writes:

“Technology processes, tools, and interfaces rekindle an interest in creativity

and its expression, as exemplified by the many online activities that are

engaging creative innovation”

Creativity is evidently still evolving, is picking up momentum and is arguably far more

prominent in and across the educational landscape; though challenges still remain, as

Craft (2003; 2005) identifies.

47

4. CONCLUSION

“It is perhaps unlikely that the term creativity will be ‘erased’ any time soon.”

– Nelson (2010: 70).

Concluding a debate about creativity in education is much like playing darts with

spaghetti – no matter how hard you try, you’ll never get a full and confident grasp of it,

nor a bullseye conclusion. Indeed, one of the fundamental limitations of this paper is

simply: that there is a vast amount of literature that could have discussed. This paper

sought to journey through theory into the practice of creativity in education, highlighting

some of the key debates and challenges.

KEY FINDINGS

1. Creativity is understood in a number of ways, but is cultivatable.

We can define creativity in two distinct ways – high and everyday; where the former is

found only in exceptionally gifted individuals, and the latter is found in everyone. It is

this latter definition that underpins prevailing discourse in creativity in education. There

are evident further challenges in exploring creativity in terms of imagination and

innovation.

By harnessing and encouraging creative learning, students become fully engaged in

multiple learning styles and become active learners. In supporting creative learning

through specific creative pedagogical approaches, creativity can be nurtured. Equally,

creativity is something everyone as the capacity to develop.

2. Creativity can be assessed, though criteria are difficult to determine.

Though assessing and recording creativity is particularly difficult – especially in

determining criteria against which it is measure –, it can be done and can be useful,

48

particularly formative assessment as a way of harnessing and supporting the creative

process, as well as the product or outcome. For the assessment of creativity to be

successful, it needs to be considered in situ. Originality and novelty are widely

understood to be the principle factors in creative activity.

3. Creativity exists beyond subject-domains, particularly beyond ‘the arts’.

After a significant number of advances, the curriculum now embodies creativity across

all subjects. Notions of confinement to the arts still exist in everyday discourse, but in

education and schools these ideas are marginalised. Creativity is promoted as a cross-

curricular skill that all students should have the opportunity to develop in all subjects

they study, perhaps through the increasing use of educational technologies.

Outside the classroom, Creative Partnerships have demonstrated how significant an

impact external partnerships with the creative and cultural industries have on the

development of creative and creative thinking skills in children and young people.

4. Creativity relies on pedagogical practices to enable expression.

Policy and practice highlights the role of pedagogy in the expression of creativity: that

teachers are pivotal in facilitating it. Furthermore, there is wide understanding that for

individuals to be creative, they need to find a foundation in subject knowledge on which

to build. This subject knowledge fundamentally is developed through pedagogical

practice; demonstrably a large influence on creativity.

-

This paper has presented the theoretical and practical dimensions to creativity in

education, arguing that it is not subject- or domain-specific; that it is present in all areas

of the curriculum; and, that it should be afforded a more significant understanding,

appreciation and recognition by both educators and policy makers.

49

Indeed whilst the relationship between education and creativity still is arguably

strained, there is a great deal of potential and evidence to suggest they are compatible

and equally that they aren’t as dissimilar as chalk and cheese.

4.1. A WORD ON THE POST-2010 LANDSCAPE

In May 2010, the UK government changed hands. Michael Gove, the new Secretary of

State for Education, wasted no time in announcing his intentions for the department.

Indeed the role and nature of creativity in education today has demonstrated potential

to change given the reforms in education we have already seen from the coalition to

date.

In September 2010, the new Department for Education introduced the English

Baccalaureate (the ‘EBacc’), which measured the percentage of students in a school

who achieved grades A*-C in six core GCSE subjects: English, mathematics, science,

a language and history or geography (DfE, 2013a).

Even in its infancy, the qualification received much criticism from those in the creative

industry and arts sector for its exclusion of cultural and arts subjects – music, art and

drama, for example – from the qualification (Higgins, 2012). Truss (2012) reported that

since the introduction of the EBacc, entries in design and technology, art and design

music and drama saw a decline compared to the previous year.

4.1.1. Another curriculum review: a renewed opportunity for creativity?

On 20 January 2011, Gove announced a review of the National Curriculum in England

(DfE, 2011). This new slimmed-down curriculum promised to create space for teachers

to plan what they want to do, foregrounding the opportunity for creative learning and

activities to ignite pupils’ interest. With provision for teachers to take greater control

over what is taught and how it is taught, some commentators argue that creativity will

50

not suffer (Dunford, 2010). The revised aims of the National Curriculum now explicitly

include the term ‘creativity’ (DfE, 2013b).

The new National Curriculum has great potential to pave the way for a highly creative

approach to teaching and learning; particularly given the new freedoms schools have.

As yet, no discussion, reports or evidence has surfaced as to the current state of

creativity in education; and, looking at the government’s priorities in education, it would

be safe to assume there may not be any. It may be the simple case of: only time will

tell.

Total word count: 10,905

51

REFERENCES

Adobe. (2012). Creativity and Education – why it matters? Available online: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201211/110712AdobeEducationCreativityStudy.html. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Alexander, R., Rose, J., and Woodhead, C. (1992). Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools. London: Department of Education and Science. Available online: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/threewisemen/threewisemen.html. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Arts Council England. (2014). Bridge Organisations. Available at: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/our-priorities-2011-15/children-and-young-people/bridge-organisations/. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Artswork. (2013). South East Bridge Schools’ Intelligence Report: 2013. Southampton: Artswork. Available online: http://artswork.org.uk/schools-intelligence-2013. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Banaji, S., and Burn, A. (2006). The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature. London: Arts Council England. Available online: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/rhetorics-of-creativity-2nd-edition-87.pdf. (Accessed 19 March 2014).

Baran, G., Erdagon, S. and Çakmak, A. (2011). A Study on the Relationship between Six-Year-Old Children’s Creativity and Mathematical Ability. International Education Studies, 4(1), pp.105-111. Available online: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

BBC. (2013). Question Time: 21/03/2013. Available online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rgszs/Question_Time_21_03_2013/. Accessed (21 March 2014).

Becta. (2009). Harnessing Technology review: The role of technology in education and skills. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1422/1/becta_2009_htreview_report.pdf. (Accessed 20 October 2013).

Boden, M. A. (2003). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Bolden, D. (2012). Creativity in Mathematics. In: Newton, L. Creativity for a New Curriculum: 5-11. Abingdon: Routledge, ch3, pp.36-47.

Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), pp. 399–413. Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 19 March 2014).

52

Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., and Punie, Y. (2010). Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching Final Report on the Study on Creativity and Innovation in Education in the EU Member States. Seville, Spain: European Commission. Available online: http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1300702480_jrc62370_learning_teaching_2010.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Cooper,L., Benton,T. and Sharp, C. (2011). The Impact of Creative Partnerships on Attainment and Attendance in 2008-9 and 2009-10. Slough: NFER. Available online: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPAB01/CPAB01.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Copley, A. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: a guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.

Cox, G. (2005). Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's Strengths. London: HM Treasury. Available online: http://grips.proinno-europe.eu/knowledge_base/dl/349/orig_doc_file/. (Accessed 26 March 2014).

Craft, A. (2001a). In: Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. (eds.) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, ch.3, pp.45-61.

Craft, A. (2001b). An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Available online: http://issuu.com/gfbertini/docs/an_analysis_of_research_and_literature_on_creativi. (Accessed 26 March 2014).

Craft, A. (2003) ‘The Limits to Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator’. In: British Journal of Educational Studies. 51(2). pp.113-127. Academic Search Complete [Online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 25 October 2012).

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge.

Craft, A., and Jeffrey B. (2001). In: Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. (eds.) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, pp.1-16.

Creative Innovation Global. (2011). Edward De Bono talks about Creativity & Education at Creative Innovation 2011. [Video]. Available online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYDbHjWF2Q0. (Accessed 24 March 2014).

Creative Partnerships. (2013). About Creative Partnerships. Available online: http://www.creative-partnerships.com/about-creative-partnerships/. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Davies, J. and Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0 for Schools: Learning and Social Participation. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport). (2001). Creative Industries Mapping Documents 2001. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Available online:

53

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-mapping-documents-2001. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport). (2008). Creative Britain: New Talents for the New Economy. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Available online: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/CEPFeb2008.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport). (2014). Creative Industries Economic Estimates. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271008/Creative_Industries_Economic_Estimates_-_January_2014.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DCMS and DfE (Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education). (2011). Evaluation of find your talent - overview report. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182401/DFE-RR089.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DCMS and DfES (Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education and Skills). (2006). government response to Paul Roberts’ Report on nurturing creativity in young people. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education and Skills.

DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2008). The Impact of Parental Involvement on Children’s Education. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Available online: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-Parental_Involvement.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DfE (Department for Education). (2011). National curriculum review launched. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-curriculum-review-launched. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DfE (Department for Education). (2013a). The English Baccalaureate. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/qualifications/englishbac/a0075975/the-english-baccalaureate. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DfE (Department for Education). (2013b). The National Curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244221/SECONDARY_national_curriculum3.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

54

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). (1997). White Paper: Excellence in Schools. Available online: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/wp1997/excellence-in-schools.html. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

DfEE and QCA (Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) (2004). The National Curriculum: a handbook for primary teachers in England. London: Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Available online: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/QCA-04-1374.pdf. (Accessed 19 November 2012).

Doherty, P., & Harland, J. (2001). Partnerships for Creativity: An evaluation of implementation. Slough, UK: National

DTI (Department for Trade and Industry). (2005). Creativity, Design and Business Performance. London: Department for Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file13654.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Dunford, J. (2010). Open the cage and let your creativity take flight: it is time to become curriculum planners again. Times Educational Supplement (TES) [Online]. Available at: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6064862. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Eames, A., Benton, T., Sharp, C. and Kendall, L. (2006). The Impact of Creative Partnerships on the Attainment of Young People. Slough: NFER. Available online: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPS03/CPS03.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Fautley, M., and Savage, J. (2007). Creativity in Secondary Education. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Feldman, D.H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching: Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States (ICEAC). Seville, Spain: European Commission. Available online: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf. (Accessed 26 March 2014).

Find Your Talent. (2014). About Find Your Talent. Available at: http://www.findyourtalent.org/about. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Fisher, R. (2004). What is creativity? In: Fisher, R., and Williams, M. (eds.) Unlocking Creativity: Teaching Across the Curriculum. Abingdon: David Fulton, ch.1, pp.6-20.

Fleming, M. (2008). Arts in education and creativity: a review of the literature. London: Creative Partnerships. Available online: http://artiseducation.co.uk/media/92283/arts-education-creativity-91.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Foundation for Educational Research.

55

Fryer, M. (1996). Creative Teaching and Learning. London: Paul Chapman.

Harsant, J. (2010). Exams time – remember you are your own captain’. getReading [online]. Available online: http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/exams-time--remember-you-4225574. (Accessed 21 March 2014.)

Higgins, C. (2013). Arts leaders voice deep concerns over lack of cultural subjects in Ebacc. The Guardian [Online], 2 November 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/02/arts-leaders-concerns-ebacc-schools. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

HM government. (1988). Education Reform Act 1988. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Available online: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/pdfs/ukpga_19880040_en.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

House of Commons. (2007). Creative Partnerships and the Curriculum. London: The Stationery Office Limited. [Online]. Available online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeduski/1034/1034.pdf. (Accessed 18 November 2012).

House of Commons. (2007). Creative Partnerships and the Curriculum. London: The Stationery Office Limited. [Online]. Available online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeduski/1034/1034.pdf. (Accessed 18 November 2012).

House of Commons. (2009). National Curriculum: Fourth Report of Session 2008–09, Volume 1. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Available online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/344/344i.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

IBM. (2010). IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity Selected as Most Crucial Factor for Future Success. Available online: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Jeffrey, B. (2001). Primary pupils' perspectives and creative learning. Encyclopaedia, 5(9), pp.133–152. Open University [Online]. Available online: http://oro.open.ac.uk/12174/1/Primary_Pupils'_Perspectives_and_Creative_Learning.pdf. (Accessed 18 November 2012).

Jeffrey, R. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: towards a common discourse and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3) pp. 399–414. Academic Search Complete [Online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 18 November 2012).

Joubert, M. M. (2001). The Art of Creative Teaching: NACCCE and Beyond. In: Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., and Leibling, M. Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, ch.1, pp.17-34.

56

Kendall, L., Morrison, J., Sharp C. and Yeshanew T. (2008b). The Impact of Creative Partnerships on Pupil Behaviour. London: Creativity, Culture and Education. Available online: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPW01/CPW01.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Kendall, L., Morrison, J., Yeshanew, T. and Sharp, C. (2008a). The Longer-Term Impact of Creative Partnerships on the Attainment of Young People: Results from 2005 and 2006. Final Report. London: Creativity, Culture and Education. Available online: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPY01/CPY01.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Kim, K. H. (2009). The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness: Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance. In: Shavinina, L. V. (ed.) International Handbook on Giftedness, Volume 1. Quebec, Canada: Springer, ch.27, pp.571-584.

Kleiman, P. (2005) ‘Beyond the Tingle Factor: creativity and assessment in higher education’. Paper presented at the ESRC Creativity Seminar, University of Strathclyde, 7th October 2005. Available online: http://www3.wooster.edu/teagle/docs/Beyond%20the%20Tingle%20Factor.pdf. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Lin, Y. S. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education - A Conceptual Framework of Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), pp.149-155. Scientific Research [Online]. Available online: http://www.scirp.org. (Accessed 19 November 2012).

Lindqvist, G. (2003). 'Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity', Creativity Research Journal, 15(2), pp.245-251. Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 9 October 2013).

Liptai, S. (2004). Creativity in music and art. In: Fisher, R., and Williams, M. (eds.) Unlocking Creativity: Teaching Across the Curriculum. Abingdon: David Fulton, ch.10, pp.133-149.

Livingston, L. (2010). Teaching Creativity in Higher Education. In: Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), pp.59–62. Academic Search Complete [Online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 9 October 2013).

Loveless, A. M. (2002). Literature Review in Creativity, New Technologies and Learning. Bristol: FutureLab. Available at: http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Creativity_Review.pdf. (Accessed 5 December 2013).

Lucas, B. (2001). Creative Teaching, Teaching Creativity and Creative Learning. In: Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., and Leibling, M. (eds.) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum, ch. 2, pp.35-44.

Marsh, J. and Bearne, E. (2008) Moving Literacy On: Evaluation of the BFI Training Project for Lead Practitioners on Moving Image Education. Leicester, UKLA. Available at: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-education-moving-literacy-on-2013-04.pdf. (Accessed 5 December 2013).

57

McLellan, R., Galton, M., Steward, S. and Page, C. (2012). The impact of creative initiatives on wellbeing: a literature review. Newcastle: Creativity, Culture and Education. Available online: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/CCE-Literature-Review-Wellbeing-and-Creativity.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Mitchell, W. J., Inouye, A. S., Blumenthal, M. S. (eds.) (2003). Beyond Productivity: Information, Technology, Innovation, and Creativity. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Montgomery, A. (2013). Creative industries keep up attack on government education policy. Available at: http://www.designweek.co.uk/analysis/creative-industries-keep-up-attack-on-government-education-policy/3035906.article. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

NACCCE (National Committee on Creative and Cultural Education). (1999). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. Available online: http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf. (Accessed 25 October 2012).

Nelson, C., 2010. The invention of creativity: The emergence of a discourse. Cultural Studies Review, 16 (2), 49-74. Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Ofsted. (2006). Creative Partnerships: initiative and impact. London: Ofsted. Available online: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/surveys-and-good-practice/c/Creative%20Partnerships%20initiative%20and%20impact%20%28PDF%20format%29.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Ofsted. (2010). Learning: Creative approaches that raise standards. Manchester: Ofsted. Available online: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/learning-creative-approaches-raise-standards. (Accessed 27 March 2014). Plowden, B. (1967). Children and their Primary Schools. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Available online: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/plowden/. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Plucker, J.A., and Makel, M.C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch.3, pp. 48-73.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2010). The Costs and Benefits of Creative Partnerships. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Available online: http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/PWC-report-the-costs-and-benefits-of-creative-partnerships.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Pringle, E. (2008). Artists’ perspectives on art practice and pedagogy. In: Sefton-Green, J. (ed.). Creative Learning. London: Creative Partnerships, Arts Council England, ch.3, pp.41-50.

QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (2007). The National Curriculum: Statutory requirements for key stages 3 and 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum

58

Authority. Available online: http://www.teachfind.com/qcda/national-curriculum-statutory-requirements-key-stages-3-and-4-september-2008-pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (2011). Cross-Curriculum Dimensions: a planning guide for schools. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Available online: http://www.teachfind.com/qcda/cross-curriculum-dimensions-planning-guide-schools-pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

QCA. (2004). Creativity: Find it, Promote it. London: QCA. Available online: http://www.literacyshed.com/uploads/1/2/5/7/12572836/1847211003.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Roberts, P. (2006). Nurturing Creativity in Young People: A report to government to inform future policy. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education and Skills.

Robinson, K. (1982). The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice and Provision. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Robinson, K. (2006). Ken Robinson: How Skills Kill Creativity. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Robinson, K. (2009). The Element. London: Penguin Books.

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our Minds: Learning to be Creative. West Sussex: Capstone.

Robinson, K. (2013). Ken Robinson: How to escape education's death valley. [Video]. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for Creative Potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), p.317. Academic Search Complete [Online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 18 November 2012).

Runco, M. A., and Pritzker, S. R. (1999). Encyclopaedia of Creativity. Vol 1. London: Academic Press.

Safford, K. and O'Sullivan, O. (2007). Their learning becomes your journey: Parents respond to children’s work in creative partnerships. UK: Centre for Literacy in Primary education. Available online: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=their-learning-becomes-your-journey-dec-2007&site=45. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Samli, A. C. (2011). From Imagination to Innovation: New Product Development for Quality of Life. New York: Springer.

59

Schlesinger, P. (2007). Creativity: from discourse to doctrine? Screen, 48 (3), pp.377-387. Oxford Journals [Online]. Available online: http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/3/377.extract. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Scott, C. (1999). Teachers' Biases Toward Creative Children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), p321. Academic Search Complete [Online]. Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 17 November 2012).

Sharp, C., Pye, D., Blackmore, J., Brown, E., Eames, A., Easton, C., Filmer-Sankey, C., Tabary, A., Whitby, K., Wilson, R. and Benton, T. (2006). National Evaluation of Creative Partnerships. Final Report. London: Creative Partnerships. Available online: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/CPS01/CPS01.pdf. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Simon, H. A. (2001). Creativity in the Arts and the Sciences. The Kenyon Review, 23(2), pp.203-220. JSTOR [Online]. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/. (Accessed 10 October 2013).

Spencer, E., Lucas, B., and Claxton, G. (2012). Progression in Creativity – developing new forms of assessment: a literature review. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Creativity, Culture and Education.

Starko, A. J. (2004). Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. (3rd ed). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Taylor, I. A. (2009). A Retrospective View of Creativity Investigation. In: Taylor, I. A., and Getzels, J. W. (eds.). Perspectives in Creativity. New Jersey, USA: Transaction.

Thorpe, V. (2011). Cultural figures and teachers denounce the abolition of arts in schools project. The Guardian [Online], 9 January 2011. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jan/09/creative-partnerships-funding-cut. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Tillander, M. (2011). Creativity, Technology, Art, and Pedagogical Practices. Art Education, 64(1), pp.40-46. Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creativity. What Research Says to the Teacher. Retrieved from ERIC database. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED078435.pdf. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Storrs, Connecticut: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Available online: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm02170/rm02170.pdf. (Accessed 21 March 2014).

Truss, E. (2012). GCSE Education - Holding answer to the House of Commons, 12 September. Available at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-10-15d.120591.h#g120591.q0. (Accessed 27 March 2014).

60

Turner, S. 2013. "Teachers' and pupils' perceptions of creativity across different key stages." Research In Education no. 89: 23-40. Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed October 12, 2013).

Walker, C., and Gleaves, A. (2012). Exploring creativity within ICT: Concepts, Themes and Practices. In: Newton, L. Creativity for a New Curriculum: 5-11. Abingdon: Routledge, ch7, pp.94-107.

Zimmerman E. (2010). Creativity and Art Education: A Personal journey in Four Acts. Art Education September 2010, 63(5), pp.84-92. . Education Research Complete [online]. Available online: http://web.ebscohost.com. (Accessed 19 March 2014).

61

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Creativity in subject descriptions of the National Curriculum

Appendix B – Creativity as a cross-curricular dimension

Appendix C – The QCA’s big picture diagram of the National Curriculum

Appendix D – Snippets from the 2008 Art and Design Curriculum

Appendix E – Summary of policy and documentation that look at creativity in education

Appendix F – Roberts’ (2006) eight-element framework

62

APPENDIX A

National Curriculum (DfES and QCA, 2004) subject descriptions, explicitly highlighting creativity:

English “enables them to express themselves creatively and imaginatively…” (p.45).

“Mathematics is a creative discipline. It can stimulate moments of pleasure and wonder when a pupil solves a problem for the first time, discovers a more elegant solution to that problem, or suddenly sees hidden connections…” (p.151).

Science “spurs…critical and creative thought” (p.182).

Design and Technology “calls for pupils to become autonomous and creative problem solvers, as individuals and members of a team.” (p.83).

“Pupils use ICT tools to find, explore, analyse, exchange and present information responsibly, creatively and with discrimination” (p.143).

“Art and Design stimulates creativity and imagination” (p.166).

Music “increases self-discipline and creativity” (p.171).

“Physical Education provides opportunities for pupils to be creative…” (p.174).

63

APPENDIX B

Creativity in the cross-curricular dimensions, outlined by the QCA (2011):

“[Creativity and critical thinking] enables young people to engage with the world around them in critical and creative ways and to take part in imaginative and purposeful activity across the entire curriculum. Creativity and critical thinking can unlock young people’s potential, leading to personal fulfilment, as well as contributing to the artistic, scientific or technological achievements that help shape and influence wider society” (QCA, 2011: 20).

64

APPENDIX C

The big picture of the 2008 curriculum (QCA, 2007)

65

APPENDIX D

Definitions of creativity in the 2008 Art and Design curriculum (QCA, 2007):

“Creativity:

§ Producing imaginative images, artefacts and other outcomes that are both original and of value;

§ Exploring and experimenting with ideas, materials, tools and techniques; § Taking risks and learning from mistakes.”

“Creativity: Pupils show creativity when they play with ideas and generate different approaches, responding to purposeful tasks in imaginative and personal ways to produce original images and artefacts. Originality can be defined in relation to pupils’ own previous work, the work of their peer group, or what others have produced in a range of historical contexts.”

“Originality can be defined in relation to pupils’ own previous work, the work of their peer group, or what others have produced in a range of historical contexts.”

66

APPENDIX E

Table summarising publications and policy areas relating to creativity in education:

Creativity, business and the economy

Creativity, Design and Business Performance (DTI, 2005) Cox Review of Creativity in Business (Cox, 2005) Creative Britain (DCMS, 2008)

Creativity as a framework Nurturing Creativity (Roberts, 2006) government Response to Paul Roberts’ Report on Nurturing Creativity in Young People (DCMS and DfES, 2006)

Creative and culture/cultural education

All Our Futures (NACCCE, 1999) Creative Partnerships (2002) Find Your Talent (2008) Cultural Education in England (Henley, 2012)

Creativity and the arts/arts education

The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice and Provision (Robinson, 1982) Music Education in England (Henley, 2011)

Creativity and pedagogy Creativity: Find It, Promote It (QCA, 2004)

Creativity in educational practice

Expecting the Unexpected (Ofsted, 2003) Learning: Creative Approaches that Raise Standards (Ofsted, 2010)

67

APPENDIX F

Summary of Roberts’ (2006) eight-element framework:

§ Creative Portfolios – a personal portfolio to incorporate formal and informal learning, enabling personalised learning and progression routes into creative industries;

§ The Early Years – foregrounding creativity as an aptitude in early years education;

§ Extended Schools – establishing strong connections between Extended Schools, setting explicitly expectations for creative activities that would fall within their remit;

§ Building Schools for the Future – creating spaces that support creativity and to take the school into the community;

§ Leading creative learning – establishing a new connection between sectors and preparing trainee teachers to be creatively adept;

§ Practitioner partnerships – developing capacities between schools and creative practitioners for training and accreditation;

§ Pathways to Creative Industries – improving pathways to the creative industries through careers advice, training and education partnerships; and

§ Frameworks of regulation and support – heightening the attention given to creativity in school assessment, including in Ofsted inspections.