Chad KWONG, Ling CHE, Lily LEI
In 1961, Mel Rhodes pioneered the concept of creativity in four viewpoints: person, process, product, and press. "Creativity" has since expanded to include Eysenck’s (1995) use of correlates of personality to suggest a theory of creativity and Torrance’s (1965) definition of creativity as the process of becoming sensitive to problems, searching for solutions, testing and retesting, and communicating results. More recently, Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) proposed a Four C model of creativity: big-C (eminent accomplishments), little-c (everyday innovation), mini-c (transformative learning), and pro-c (professional expertise). Educational leaders can aim to develop little-c as a key competency and core skill (as heralded by PISA), where everyday creativity can be achieved through practice and honed through classroom activities (OECD, 2021).
Research aimed at tackling challenges and discovering effective ways of cultivating creativity spans three broad areas: “teaching and learning of creativity, psycho-educational correlates of creativity, and the cognitive/affective processes influencing creativity” (Hernandez-Torrano & Ibrayeva, 2020, p.1). Educating creativity can be steered in multi-faceted ways towards interdisciplinary connections between different subjects/fields (Glaveanu, 2018). In addition, understanding how creativity is culturally construed supports creativity-cultivators to adopt culturally-responsive pedagogies that engage students’ creativity in sustainable and adaptive ways.
Whilst embraced in theory, however, creativity development faces several challenges in practice: time constraints due to overloaded curriculum; standardised tests; and inadequate training and resources for its assessment. Educational policies and practices can therefore invest in creativity-fostering, curricular-specific materials and technology and re-examine assessments to further align creativity as a learning goal. Professional development that focuses on practice-based professional learning and collaborative planning allows in-service teachers to cultivate their own self-responsibility and beliefs, which can in turn facilitate the nurturing of students’ creative capacities (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018).
Below are some relevant and timely internet resources and scholarly contributions that raise issues, considerations, and challenges as we strive to enrich our understanding of creativity in education.
Highly-Cited Academic Articles (Based on analysed results from Web of Science)
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education - A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569.
Articles Published in/about the Region
Chen, C. W. J., & Lo, K. M. J. (2019). From teacher-designer to student-researcher: A study of attitude change regarding creativity in STEAM education by using makey makey as a platform for human-centred design instrument. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 75–91.
Huang, X. H., Lin, C. H., Sun, M. Y., & Xu, P. (2021). What drives teaching for creativity? Dynamic componential modelling of the school environment, teacher enthusiasm, and metacognition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103491.
Siu, K. W. M., & Wong, Y, L. (2014). Fostering creativity from an emotional perspective: Do teachers recognise and handle students’ emotions? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 105-121.
Kempston, T. (2021). Professional development programme: Developing students’ creativity and new literacy skills through language arts elective modules. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.
Liu, H. Y., Wang, I. T., Huang, D. H., Hsu, D. Y., & Han, H. M. (2019). Nurturing and enhancing creativity of nursing students in Taiwan: A quasi‐experimental study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 799-814.
References in this site to any specific resources and tools are for the information and convenience of the public only. They do not constitute ownership or endorsement by ALiTE of any of the opinions offered by any corporation or organisation or individual.