Creativity in recent educational discourse in England

Abstract

This paper offers an analysis of creativity in educational discourse in England over the Labour government's three terms in office. It traces the changing definitions and uses of the term in relation to agendas about raising standards in schools, promoting the arts and cultural education, and developing entrepreneurialism. In particular, it offers an analysis of the ways that these changing definitions influenced the Creative Partnerships programme, a national initiative to encourage schools in England to work in partnership with the creative sector.

Creativity in language learning and teaching: Translingual practices and transcultural identities

“…Most language educators would agree that language education should have something to do with 'creativity', whether that means that their teaching should be more creative, that they should use more 'creative texts' to teach with, or that they should inspire students to use language more 'creatively'. This consensus is no doubt the result of decades of promotion of the idea of 'creativity' from educational theorists (Pope, 2005;Sawyer et al, 2003), government bodies (Hall, 2010;Shaheen, 2010; UK Department of Education, 2014), professional organizations (National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996), and business leaders (Amabile & Khaire, 2008;World Economic Forum, 2016). What is often missing from these discussions of creativity and language learning, however, is a theoretically informed debate about what it really means to be a creative language user.…”

Reshaping home–school connections in the digital age: Challenges for teachers and parents

“…Studies of creative teaching and learning have consistently identified a range of key characteristics of creative and innovative learning environments: Flexibility and plurality : provision of a wide range of resources and spaces with possibilities to work beyond the classroom, access to and experimentation with new media or technologies; provision of relevant pedagogies; open ended, iterative planning (Addison et al., 2010; Craft, 2011, 2012; Craft et al., 2014; Davies, 2011; Davies et al., 2013; Jeffrey, 2006; Sharp et al., 2008; Troman and Jeffrey, 2010). Foregrounding agency: authentic tasks, children given control and supported to take risks; teachers balancing structure and freedom; challenge based or open-ended learning, mutually respectful and supportive relationships with teachers; regular dialogue with teachers, peers, parents (Craft, 2012; Cremin et al., 2006; Davies et al., 2013; Hall, 2010). Collaboration: involvement of parents in planning and resourcing; low adult to child ratio collaborative learning with peers; high teacher expectations, co-construction between and with children; adaptation to individual learning needs (Davies et al., 2013; Gandini et al., 2005).…”

“…Foregrounding agency: authentic tasks, children given control and supported to take risks; teachers balancing structure and freedom; challenge based or open-ended learning, mutually respectful and supportive relationships with teachers; regular dialogue with teachers, peers, parents (Craft, 2012; Cremin et al., 2006; Davies et al., 2013; Hall, 2010).…”

Creativity in Education: Teaching for Creativity Development

“…It has been suggested there is a crisis in creativity thinking, with a decrease in creativity thinking scores (Kim, 2011), suggesting a need for creativity in education. There has been much discourse over creativity in educational institutions internationally (Hall, 2010;Wise & Ferrara, 2015). Sternberg, 1996, Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2003 discuss the nature of creativity and its importance in intelligence.…”