Creative teaching and learning in Europe: promoting a new paradigm

Abstract

The tides of globalization and the unsteady surges and distortions in the evolution of the European Union are causing identities and cultures to be in a state of flux. Education is used by politicians as a major lever for political and social change through micro‐management, but it is a crude tool. There can, however, be opportunities within educational experience for individual learners to gain strong, reflexive, multiple identities and multiple citizenship through the engagement of their creative energies. It has been argued that the twenty‐first century needs a new kind of creativity characterized by unselfishness, caring and compassion—still involving monetary wealth, but resulting in a healthy planet and healthy people. Creativity and its economically derived relation, innovation, have become ‘buzz words’ of our times. They are often misconstrued, misunderstood and plainly misused within educational conversations. The small‐scale pan‐European research study upon which this article is founded discovered that more emphasis needs to be placed on creative leadership, empowering teachers and learners, reducing pupils' fear of school, balancing teaching approaches, and ensuring that the curriculum and assessment are responsive to the needs of individual learners. These factors are key to building strong educational provision that harnesses the creative potential of learners, teachers and other stakeholders, values what it is to be human and creates a foundation upon which to build strong, morally based, consistent, participative democracies.

Reframing ‘the problem’: students from low socio-economic status backgrounds transitioning to university

“…Government and university management emphasis upon graduate skills and, in particular, upon the value of critical thinking, is supported by a range of writers who propose that it is central to learning and to the core role of higher education, as well as having a crucial importance for society more generally (Lederer, 2007;Davies, 2006;Facione, Facione and Giancarlo, 2000;Beyer, 1987). In this context, it is no surprise to find that there exists a considerable body of literature on defining and quantifying critical thinking.…”

The roles and development needs of teachers to promote creativity: A systematic review of literature

“…For example, from a study of four one-week-long, in-service development courses for teachers, Davies (2006) found that teaching for creativity was associated with teachers taking a 'long-term view' of a learner's potential, a willingness to wait for results and the confidence to act intuitively at times. From questionnaire data and a series of interviews with teachers (n = 65) and children (n = 390) in primary schools, Grainger et al (2005) conclude that, while all effective teachers reward originality, those who teach for creativity depend on it to enhance their own wellbeing and that of their pupils; they see the development of creativity and originality as the distinguishing mark of their teaching.…”

“…Education systems in many countries aim to develop pupils' creativity (Craft 2005;Davies 2006;Stables 2009), which is seen as important for economic growth through its contribution to a knowledge economy. It is not always easy to tell what is meant by 'creativity' in such education policies; the term has multiple definitions (e.g.…”

Development of the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking

“…Moreover, developing critical thinking skills can also enhance the ability to draw sound conclusions and make informed decisions (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). By developing graduates with critical thinking skills, universities can enhance innovation in the workplace and society (Davies, 2006;Snyder, 2003). However, many students struggle to understand critical thinking, lack confidence in its application, are unsure how they can develop critical thinking skills and struggle to demonstrate them in their assessments.…”